Communication strategies in the area

of the Hanseatic League:

The approach by semi-communication*

KURT BRAUNMÜllER

Abstract

This paper deals with various forms of bi- and multilingualism in

Scandinavia during the era of the Hanseatic League from about 1200

to 1550. It is argued that one of the main ways to come into

(unmediated) contact was semi-communication, i.e., a special way to

communicate by means of one's own native language considering the

genetically related neighbouring languages as mutually intelligible

linguistic varieties or dialects. Special emphasis is paid to the

pragmatic and semiotic preconditions for semi-communication. The

paper conc1udes with an outline of the main characteristics of

language contact processes in so-called 'face-to-face' trading situa­

tions.

1. The linguistic situation

There are at least four different ways of communicating when two languages
come into contact with each other:
(1) The dominant section ofthe speakers involved in contact are in a position
to establish their own language as the one and only official language within
this hemisphere of influence. The inferior language may, however, survive as
a diglossically restricted vernacular or dialectal variety or perhaps only as a
substratum in the lexicon of the victorious language.
(2) The people, especially in a trading situation, make use of a third
language, a lingua franca or a pidgin. This strategy has mostly been applied
when a third neutrallanguage has already existed, such as was the case for
Latin in the Middle Ages in Europe, or generally, when the communicative
needs were not too high. Then, it was sufficient to have a 'compromise
language', based on elementary structures of both languages in contacL The

MuLtilingua 16-4 (1997),365-373 0167-8507/97/0016-0365

© Waller de Gruyler, Berlin

- - -~---
366 K. Braunmüller Communicatiol

result of such a linguistic compromise is then a common pidgin or pidginized out to be closest to t
language. favourable consequence
(3) Another way is to try to become bilingual. This means for both sections Becoming bilingual
that they attempt to learn each other's language as completely and quickly as contact process, but is r;
they are able to. it seems desirable to h
(4) In some cases, it might be sufficient just to understand what the others one's native standard I
say without trying to achieve an active command of the respective language. prestigious foreign langt
When this process continues, there is a fair chance of becoming a passive century or perhaps Engl
bilingual. This strategy works, however, only when the languages involved that time was such a lan,
are genetica11y rather elosely related and when all participants in language upper classes, merchante
contact see an obvious advantage in keeping their own language and in also a11 economic and (
learning correspondency rules as well as some lexical variants, at least for mediated and adapted b)
the moment. Later on, they may decide to become active bilinguals, to Trading contacts diffl
continue in this way, or just to take over some loans which have proved to single-minded: the only
faciliate interlingual communication. and to establish firm ce
When studying the various situations of the Middle Low German­ future. Taking the fact 0
Scandinavian contacts, it turned out that three of the four types of language the German-Scandinavi
contact mentioned above indeed have existed and played their roles at vernacular variant, some
different times of contact. elose genetic relationsh
The first case can, however, be exeluded. There is no evidence that Middle basis for understanding
Low German was ever in so strong a position in Scandinavia as to have (near) coincidences (an
threatened the Scandinavian languages seriously at any time. This facilitated a direct unde:
observation has much to do with the fact that the Hanseatic League never mother tongues. This
obtained any real political infIuence in a territory outside their horne towns in parallel to the so-calle(
northern Germany. The Hansa, even the mighty federation of Hanseatic participant uses his/he
towns in the late Middle Ages, was in fact a rather loose community of meeting an other Scan
merchants with strong common economical interests but nothing beyond understood, not only b
that. coincidences, but also (
Latin, the universal European lingua franca throughout the Middle Ages, common Scandinavian
played an important role in a11 Hanseatic business contacts. It was the motivated dimensions i
language of the office books up until the late Middle Ages, and it has day correspond with tl
therefore to be taken for granted that each Hanseatic merchant was able to participants in the BaI
handle his business with at least abasie know ledge of Latin, especially Hansa (in the Middle A
concerning trading and book-keeping. In the fourteenth and fifteenth
centuries, when the Low German economic and political expansion (to north­
eastern Europe) was at its height, the communicative need for a wide-spread 2. Semi-communicati<
standardized written language became more and more obvious. As late as
that time, Latin was replaced by Low German. The North Low Saxon dialect The term 'semi-comml
of Lübeck, the place of the Hansa meetings, acquired finally this status of a although its meaning
written standard language, without, however, being able to unify the practice (cf. Börestam
hemisphere of the Hanseatic trading area linguistically. In this way, the coined this term, did n<
Hansa gave rise to a linguistic norm, which at the same time actua11y turned
 Communication strategies in the area ofthe Hanseatic League 367

)n pidgin or pidginized out to be closest to the Scandinavian languages and dialects with aIl
favourable consequences for Iinguistic contacts and loans.
leans for both seetions Becoming bilingual has never been a starting point for any Ianguage
Ilpletely and quickly as contact process, but is rather the result of a speciallinguistic situation where
it seems desirable to have an active command of at least two languages:
rstand what the others one's native standard language (plus a local dialect) and a more or less
le respective language. prestigious foreign language, such a French in the seventeenth and eighteenth
Df becoming a passive century or perhaps English nowadays. There is no doubt that Low German at
helanguagesinvolved that time was such a language in Scandinavia, as weIl as in the Baltic, for the
articipants in language upper classes, merchants and some craftsmen. Not only new technologies but
own language and in also aIl economic and culturaI achievements came from the south, mainly
al variants, at least for mediated and adapted by the merchants of the Hansa.
e active bilinguals, to Trading contacts differ from other forms of linguistic contacts by being
which have proved to single-minded: the only thing that really counts is to seIl as much as possible
and to establish firm contacts for expanding these trading relations in the
vliddle Low Gerrnan­ future. Taking the fact of being economicaIly effective as a starting point for
four types of language the Gerrnan-Scandinavian contacts, either Latin (probably in a simplified
played their roles at vernacular variant, sometimes called 'Kitchen Latin') or the utilization of the
elose genetic relationship between these languages could have served as a
10 evidence that Middle basis for understanding each other. Numerous morphological and lexical
:candinavia as to have (near) coincidences (among others an almost identical numerical system!)
y at any time. This facilitated a direct understanding of each other by means of their respective
lanseatic League never mother tongues. This medieval linguistic situation can thus be seen as
ide their horne towns in parallel to the so-called inter-Scandinavian communication of today: each
lderation of Hanseatic participant uses his/her own language, vernacular or even dialect when
:r [oose community of meeting an other Scandinavian. He/she can be sure of being fairly weIl
,ts but nothing beyond understood, not only because of some more or less perspicuous linguistic
coincidences, but also on the basis of feeling themselves to be members of a
~hout the Middle Ages, common Scandinavian community. These historically and pragmatically
s contacts. It was the motivated dimensions in inter-Scandinavian contact situations of the present
,ddle Ages, and it has day correspond with the economic aims and vital interests of all trading
; merchant was able to participants in the Baltic area and in western Norway at the time of the
ge of Latin, especially Hansa (in the Middle Ages and later).
Weenth and fifteenth
cal expansion (to north­
need for a wide-spread 2. Semi-communication: A theoretical outline
)re obvious. As late as
frth Low Saxon dialect The term 'semi-communication' has until now never been properly defined,
[ finally this status of a although its meaning is evident for all Scandinavians, at least in daily
~ng able to unify the practice (cf. Börestam Uhlmann 1994). Unfortunately, Einar Haugen, who
Fally. In this way, the coined this term, did not give a precise Iinguistic definition at all:
me time actually turned
368 K. Braunmüller
Communication s

Danes, Norwegians, and Swedes expect to be understood by fellow Scandinavians

tjugo '20' cannot The s
when they use their own languages. At times, however, they are disappointed in their
expectations; and the region as a whole offers many examples of what we may call and Danish begyndelse 'b
serni-communication, the trickle of messages through a rather high level of 'code example. These exampli
noise'. (Haugen 1966: 281) preconditions mentioned ab
In other words, Scandinavians normally expect to understand each other In arecent comprehen
directly, but practical evidence shows quite often that some information is theoretical conditions and
most relevant decoding
missing and has to be retrieved from general linguistic redundancy rules or
between speakers of Middl~
just from the textual or situational embedding of an utterance. This special
kind of understanding may be called semi-communication. It has, however, or Swedish; cf. Braunmüllel
nothing to do with imperfect or deficient communication, but rather with My argumentation is bas
special formal deviances between two linguistically related codes wbich do between the linguistic sitl
not coincide in every instance and may thus cause some perceptional contact situation in the area
difficulties. Let me summarize this in
Since this situation has not been described satisfactorily in terms of its (1) You have to concenl
theoretical and conceptual status, there is a need for a precise and utterance, e.g., nouns (
linguistically valid definition for both (a) the pragmatic and (b) the semiotic but also in all foJlowin
preconditions for tbis kind of communication. communication have tu
The pragmatic preconditions for serni-communication are: (2) You suppose that tbe
(1) to be willing to understand each other without making use of a third
equivalent to the word
language; trust in the genetic relai
neighbouring language
(2) to be flexible enough not to expect total phonological, morphological and
lexical identity but to be satisfied with linguistic sirnilarity; and hyperlinguistic system
(3) to consider common (historical, political or economic) interests more expect, for example, tl
important than diverging factors, e.g., differences in linguistic expression, or declarative sentence.
the burden of learning a foreign language. (3) You will ignore grarru
Among the serniotic preconditions for semi-communication are the ability markers, which are alie
to: Middle Low German
(1) recognize partial similarities in linguistic expression; function the so-called I
(2) 'Gestaltwahrnehmung' ('perception of shape'); and forms]) might have. So<
(3) seek out the relevant interlingual correspondency rules and other marker (as weIl as m~
equivalency relations between the languages involved. pretation of an utterance
(4) Finally, he/she would
One of the main semiotic preconditions for semicommunication is that a
basic theorem within communication theory, the overlapping and iiltersection patterns in the other
of the linguistic codes of the speaker and the hearer, is replaced by the much equivalent to tbeir own I
weaker condition of sirnilarity, and no longer of identity. In other words, the If you apply these genera
hearer must be able to recognize parts of utterances as equivalent to bis own processes between Middle LI
linguistic code, although they differ more or less heavily on the phonological may take the following interli
and/or morphological level. To give an example: the correspondence (a) Nominatives always oe
between West Scandinavian stgin and East Scandinavian stgn can still be They show no inflec
explained in terms of Weinreich 's diasystematical description of a language unmarked. Old Swed. fi
system (cf. Weinreich 1954), but examples like Danish tyve and Swedish water 'water', but also
between the first and
 Communication strategies in the area ofthe Hanseatic League 369

od by fellow Scandinavians tjugo '20' cannot. The same applies for Middle Low German ambeghinne
hey are disappointed in their and Danish begyndelse 'beginning', which admittedly is a very complicated
Imples of what we may call
a rather high level of 'code example. These examples can only be understood correctly if the
preconditions mentioned above have previously been accepted on both sides.
In arecent comprehensive investigation on semicommunication, its
to understand each other theoretical conditions and application in practice, I described some of the
that some information is most relevant decoding strategies in respect to the linguistic situation
Iistic redundancy rules or between speakers of Middle Low German and Scandinavian (mainly Danish
an utterance. This special or Swedish; cf. Braunmüller 1995: 48-56).
nication. It has, however, My argumentation is based on the presupposition of a strict parallelism
lOication, but rather with between the linguistic situation in Scandinavia today and the language
ly related codes which do contact situation in the area of the Hanseatic League in the Middle Ages.
:ause some perceptional Let me summarize this in the following four maxims:
(1) You have to concentrate on the most meaningful elements in an
isfactorily in terms of its
utterance, e.g., nouns or verbs. It goes without saying that in this case,
need for a precise and
but also in all following instances, the semiotic preconditions for serni­
natic and (b) the semiotic
communication have to be observed.
(2) You suppose that the word order in the other language is totally
ation are:
equivalent to the word order of your own language. That means, you
,ut making use of a third
trust in the genetic relationship between your own dialect and (here) the
neighbouring language, because both seem to be roofed by a cornmon
ogical, morphological and
hyperlinguistic system. As a consequence of this presupposition, you
rIilarity; and
expect, for example, the finite verb to be in the second position in a
economic) interests more
dec1arative sentence.
In linguistic expression, or

(3) You will ignore grammatical categories, represented by inflectional

Imunication are the ability
Middle Low German would have been unable to find out which
~ession;
); and
Dndency rules and other
involved.
~communication is that a
erlapping and iiltersection
[
r, is replaced by the much
entity. In other words, the
~s as equivalent to his own
~avily on the phonological
Je: the correspondence
tlinavian stgn can still be
description of a language
anish tyve and Swedish
markers, which are alien to your own dialect. Thus a native speaker of
function the so-called enc1itic definite article (-in(n), -it [nom. sing.
forms]) might have. Soon helshe would have found that this inflectional
marker (as weIl as many others) did not greatly impede the inter­
pretation of an utterance.
(4) FinaIly, he/she would have interpreted the prosody and intonation
patterns in the other language as being equal or at least Jargely
equivalent to their own dialect.
If you apply these general decoding strategies on the language contact
processes between Middle Low German and a candinavian language, you
may take the following interlinguistic rules of thumb for granted:
(a) Nominatives always occupy the first place in dec1arative sentences.
They show no inflectional endings, they are morphologically
unmarked. Old Swed. fisker 'fish' will thus be seen parallel to MLG
water 'water', but also to MLG möllerlmölner 'miller'. The analogy
between the first and last example rnight have caused misunder­
370 K. Braunmüller Communication

standings because Old Swed. jisker 'fish' has a so-called 'false friend' (b) the presence of di

in MLG vischer 'fisherman'. The probability of being seriously mis­ inflectional fonns

understood would have been low because of other disambiguating there is always a

factors. syntactic construcf

(b) Datives and accusatives, if still existing, were interpreted on the basis though it may be de

of a rigorous interpretation of word order which says that indirect

objects precede direct objects. That means that potential divergencies in
inflectional morphology could be neglected without running the risk of 3. Tbe maiD characterist
missing the meaning of the whole sentence. of the Hanseatic Lea
(c) Genitives were very often transparently and uniformly marked by the
inflectional morpheme {-s}. Parametrical divergency could eventually The following observati9
and easily be discovered. Though preposed genitives were the marked linguistic situation between
case in Middle Low German, they are still part of the language system ( 1) It is assumed that lingl
and can thus be interpreted correctly by all speakers of Middle Low (in the modern sense ofthe
German (cf. Braunmüller 1993: 246-247) many varieties and dialects
(d) Many verbs, and especially modal verbs, resembled each other to a high or equivalent expression 1
extent. Further, the inflectional preterite markers in the contact area neighbouring languageldial\
{-te; -de, -dhe, -te, -the; -ta, -tha, - pa ... } were very perspicuous and (2) The lack of standardizir!
would not have caused serious decoding problems in either direction. creative, i.e., no written nor
(e) Adjective inflection had widely disappeared and no longer played any from taking over loans into
role when analysing noun phrases. written communication pla;
(f) The common genetic features in respect to (1) the indefinite article, (2) to the fourteenth century. F
the numerals and (3) most of the personal pronouns were so obvious authority which could hav(
that they could serve as links and as not hindrances between the normative use of language ~
languages involved. invented for vernaculars. Mi
interferences compared to C
In an earlier paper (cf. Braunmüller 1989: 18-24), I have shown that the (3) Semi-communication,
phonotactic differences between Old Scandinavian dialects and Middle Low situations. Besides the prag
German are quite marginal. If divergencies actually occur, then the tioned, talking directly to 01
functional load of that consonantal cluster is either low or can be replaced by you can ask about what YOt
related clusters in the learner's language. Generally it can be said that only utterance, which did not get
onset clusters are of any relevance for interlinguistic processes. Coda and which always was reading a
interlude phenomena can either be disregarded or consided as parts of a more foreign, but somehow reli
global morphological recognition process, the 'Gestaltwahrnehmung' (cf. communication depends he
Lorenz 1959 in general). historical way of writing.
A comparison between the inflectional structure systems of Middle Low (4) Trading in the twelfth, t
German and the Scandinavian languages has shown (Braunmüller 1995: 56­ merchant himself had to t
68) that the following two factors determined the morphology and syntax of hearing different language~
the languages of the Hansa area decisively: fairs where he used to stay j
(a) Obvious genetic relations together with a parallel typological drift in many dialects and varieties
the same direction, i.e., the reduction of inflectional morphology and and grew accommodated t
the establishment of fixed word order patterns; and result was great linguist
 Communication strategies in the area ofthe Hanseatic League 371

alled 'false friend' (b) the presence of dialectal, 'poetic' or otherwise stylistically marked
ing seriously rnis­ inflectional forms and word order patterns. This fact guarantees that
~r disambiguating there is always a good chance of meeting a morphological form or
syntactic construction which is still weH known at least passively,
lreted on the basis though it may be deviant, archaic or obsolete in some way or other.
says that indirect
iaI divergencies in
running the risk of 3. The main characteristics of the language contact processes in the area
of the Hanseatic League
~Iy marked by the
V could eventually The following observations form the basis for our view of this specific
, were the marked linguistic situation between geneticaHy related languages:
e Ianguage system (1) It is assumed that linguistic diasystems and not standardized languages
rs of Middle Low (in the modern sense of the term) met at that time. Each diasystem consists of
many varieties and dialects which generally give rise to more than one form
ach other to a high or equivalent expression when the speaker (or hearer) is exposed to the
I the contact area neighbouring language/dialecl.
y perspicuous and (2) The lack of standardizing processes enabled speakers to be linguistically
either direction. creative, i.e., no written norm or other normative restrictions prevented them
longer played any from taking over loans into their own dialectllanguage. This fits the fact that
written communication played an inferior role in everyday life in the twelfth
iefinite article, (2) to the fourteenth century. Further, there was - on both sides - no linguistic
, were so obvious authority which could have prevented influence by language contacl. The
nces between the normative use of language and the cultivation of languages had not yet been
invented for vernaculars. Medieval Latin is characterized by severe linguistic
interferences compared to Classical Latin norms.
ve shown that the (3) Semi-communication, as defined above, works best in face-to-face
sand Middle Low situations. Besides the pragmatic and semiotic preconditions already men­
occur, then the tioned, talking directly to one another improves understanding considerably:
:an be replaced by you can ask about what you did not understand, you may reformulate your
I be said that only utterance, which did not get the expected response, and so on. Even reading,
lcesses. Coda and which always was reading aloud at that time, facilitated the understanding of
as parts of a more foreign, but somehow related, texts. In contrast to this, modern semi­
ahrnehmung' (cf. communication depends heavily on written language and its etymologicaV
historical way of writing.
ns of MiddIe Low (4) Trading in the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth century meant that the
hmüller 1995: 56­ merchant himself had to travel around through (here: northern) Europe,
ogy and syntax of hearing different languages and dialects at the various market places and
fairs where he used to stay for a long time. Thus he became acquainted with
poIogical drift in many dialects and varieties of his own language, while he was exposed to
orphology and and grew accommodated to foreign (maybe related) languages, too. The
result was great linguistic flexibility and a considerable ability to
372 K. Braunmüller Communication

aeeommodate to new linguistie situations, which generally were interactional st

multidialectal in medieval towns and trading plaees. In this way, a Hanseatie Swedes]. Upps

Braunmüller, Kurt

merehant gradually beeame a passive multilingual. Futhermore, sueeessful 1989[1993] Voraussetzunge

trading would undoubtedly have improved his aetive eommand of other die skandinavis
dialeets and foreign languages. In other words, his motivation for aeting Christensen (eds
sueeessfully direetly eorresponded with his linguistie abilities, both aetive Symposiums 'Ni
and passive. Berlin: Schrnidt,
(5) The eontaet between the members of the Hanseatie League and 1993), NiederdeIl
137-160.
Seandinavia was polyeentrie. There were many trading piaces and espeeially 1993 Syntaktische Di
coastal towns where the trading and language eontaet took plaee. Linguistie anhand mitteln.
aeeommodation would have taken mueh longer if the impact of Middle Low Braunmüller , K. j
German only eame via large towns or one important trading plaee. Sprachen I. Heide
1995 Semikomrnuruk~
(6) In a multilingual and multidialeetal soeiety (cf. Cherubim 1987 and his
die Verständigun
deseription of the linguistie situation in Braunsehweig), it was quite normal Niederdeutsch un:
for people to beeome (at least passively) bi- or multilinguals. If one of the 70.
languages in eontaet has a high social prestige, a diglossie distribution of the Braunmüller, Kurt and Willy Dien
linguistic varieties will be the result sooner or later. Besides Latin, Middle 1993 Niederdeutsch u~
(Sprachgeschichte'
Low German was the only prestigious language in Seandinavia at that time. Braunmüller, Kurt (00.)
Therefore it was quite natural not only to borrow teehnieal terms and new 1995 Niederdeutsch ur.
prestigious words in general, but also word-formation elements whieh eould (Sprachgeschichte
make one's own language rieher and more flexible. Purism had not yet been Cherubim, Dieter
invented and loans from a related language eould hardly be prevented. The 1987 Mehrsprachigkeit j
und Hermann Bote
linguistie gap between Middle Low German and the Seandinavian languages
Braunschweiger
existed in theory but hardly in praetiee. Sinee the Hanseatic merchants eame Harrassowitz, 97-1
'without an army and a navy', they, i.e., their goods and new produets from Haugen, Einar
the more advaneed south, were very welcome. Why should they keep their 1966 Semicommunicatic
genetieally and typologieally related terms, linguistie eonstruetions and their 280---297.
Lorenz, Konrad
literature out of the Seandinavian languages?
1959 Gestaltwahrnehmu
Über tierisches t
University 0/ Hamburg Verhaltens/ehre. G,
Weinreich, Uriel
1954 Is a structural dialeI
Notes

* For further information on tbis topic in general, cf. Braunmüller and Diercks (1993) and
Braunmüller (1995).

References

Börestam Uhlmann, Ulla

1994 Skandinaver samtalar. Sprakliga och interaktionella strategier i samtal mellan
danskar, norrmän och svenskar [Scandinavian conversations. Linguistic and

hieh generally were
n this way, a Hanseatic
Futhennore, suceessful
ive eommand of other
motivation for acting
ie abilities, both active
lanseatie League and
19 plaees and especially
't took place. Linguistic
, impact of Middle Low
fading place.
Cherubim 1987 and his
ig), it was quite normal
tilinguals. If one of the
.ossie distribution of the
. Besides Latin, Middle
.eandinavia at that time.
~ehnieal terms and new
n elements which cou1d
Purism had not yet been
ardly be prevented. The
Seandinavian languages
mseatie merchants carne
and new produets from
I should they keep their
; eonstruetions and their
University of Hamburg
lüller and Dierck (1993) and
e/Ia strategier i samta/ mellan
conversations. Linguistic and
Communication strategies in the area ofthe Hanseatic League 373
interactional strategies in conversation between Danes, Norwegians and
Swedes]. Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell.
Braunmüller, Kurt
1989[1993] Voraussetzungen für die ÜbemalJrne mittelniederdeutscher Sprachstrukturen in
die skandinavischen Sprachen. In Hyldgaard-Jensen, K., V. Winge and B.
Christensen (eds.), Niederdeutsch in Slwndinavien ll. Akten des 2. nordischen
Symposiums 'Niederdeutsch in Slwndinavien' in Ko penhagen, 18-20 Mai 1987.
Berlin: Schrnidt, 9-29 . Reprinted in Braunrnüller, Kurt and Willy Diercks (eds.
1993), Niederdeutsch und die slwndinavischen Sprachen 1. Heidelberg: Winter,
137-160.
1993 Syntaktische Divergenzen und Transferenzen. Ein struktureller Vergleich
anhand mittelniederdeutscher und altskandinavischer Volksbücher. In
Braunrnüller, K. and W. Diercks (oos.), Niederdeutsch und die slwndinavischen
Sprachen I. Heidelberg: Winter, 231-270.
1995 Sernikornmunikation und semiotische Strategien. Bausteine zu einem Modell für
die Verständigung im Norden zur Zeit der Hanse. In Braunmüller, K. (ed.),
Niederdeutsch und die slwndinavischen Sprachen ll. Heidelberg: Winter, 35­
70.
Braunrnüller, Kurt and Willy Diercks (oos.)
1993 Niederdeutsch und die slwndinavischen Sprachen 1. Heidelberg: Winter
(Sprachgeschichte 3).
Braunrnüller, Kurt (00.)
1995 Niederdeutsch und die slwndinavischen Sprachen 11. Heidelberg: Winter
(Sprachgeschichte 4).
Cherubim, Dieter
1987 Mehrsprachigkeit in der Stadt der frühen Neuzeit. Am Beispiel Braunschweigs
und Hermann Botes. In Schöttker, D. and W. Wunderlich (oos.), Herman Bote.
Braunschweiger Autor zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit. Wiesbaden:
Harras owitz, 97-118.
Haugen, Einar
1966 Semicommunication: the language gap in Scandinavia. Sociological1nquiry 36,
280-297.
Lorenz, Konrad
1959 Gestaltwahrnehmung als Quelle wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis. In Lorenz, K.,
Ober tierisches und menschliches Verhalten. Aus dem Werdegang der
Verhaltens/ehre. Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Vol. 2. Munich: Piper, 255-300.
Weinreich, Uriel
1954 Is a structural dialectology possible? Word 10, 388-400.