THE GROUPING OF GERMANIC DIALECTS

This traditional family tree for

Germanic languages (Stammbaum) is
first proposed by August Schleicher in
1860s. Though its longevity, it has also
received many criticism and objections

existence of a proto-language
one would call West-Germanic is
doubtful

initial tripartite split of ProtoGermanic is questionable.

also there are implications of

using any family tree-model
An individual linguistic feature
can be found in two or more
languages for a number of reasons.
1.

2.
3.
4.
5.

The languages may have

retained an archaic feature
from a proto-language where other languages might have had replaced that
feature
The languages may have chosen one feature among the options readily available in
their proto-language (these options are called doublets though the number dont
have to be two) while other language chose another option
the languages may have developed the feature independently and the feature may
be coincidental (this phenomenon is also called convergence which is a caveat that
not all shared innovations point to relatedness)
the languages may have developed the feature semi-independently but in line with
structural similarities between them (sometimes called a drift)
the languages may have developed the feature when the people speaking them
formed a single speech community, albeit with some dialect variation

seas help or hinder common development of language. Recall the problem of how to
interpret the similarities between Old Frisian and Old English.
They also disagree on the weight one should give to phonological, grammatical, or
lexical similarities. We will consider each of these linguistic levels in turn. We will use figure
below in the discussion of the weight of shared word order features.

Virtually
all
20th
century
scholars
recognize that the Stammbaum seriously
distorts the ways languages and dialects
relate to each other. There is no
geographical
component,
thus
denying the possibility of a common
development in two dialects after
they have been relegated to separate
branches by some change found in
one but not the other. Kuhn accuses
and Robinson agrees with the fact that
some scholars allowing the Stammbaum
as
a way of influencing their evolution of the
data. Another point of
discussion while grouping of Germanic
languages, weighting one should give to archaeological evidence. (Recall the emptying of
Frisia in the fourth century AD)
Scholars disagree about probing value of shared features derived from several of these
sources (in point 1) and which sources account for particular features (does a given
similarity belong to point 3, 4 or 5?) They even discuss upon such as whether intervening
Shared
retentions
and
shared
innovations. Shared innovations allow us
to hypothesize which languages are more
closely related than which other languages.
Shared retentions are less useful, but
they may explain why we find features
shared by languages that in many other
respects seem to be only distantly related
(points 1 and 2). This is a caveat that
sharing features is not enough to warrant
postulating a close relationship these
features
may
be
retentions
rather
innovations.

QUESTIONS
POINT 4: Would you
interpret this as another
case of convergence or
as a meaningful shared
innovation (i.e. a shared
innovation that points to
a set of languages being
closely related)?
POINT 5: is it a further
reference
to
shared
retentions or can it be
interpreted as language
(or dialect) contact?

The following figure represents what is essentially the same tree from before
(Stammbaum) but constructed with binary splits. Mark it up with the features from the
table that appear to be shared innovations and note any problems:
ProtoGermanic

North/Wes
t

Gothic

West

Continent
al

Low

OLF

Similarities Within West Germanic

Coast

OHG

English

Frisian

OS

Similarities Between Gothic and Old Norse

On and Gothic show shared features that others do not follow in rows 8, 10, 12, 18, 26, 27, 30
and 31. There were also a number of common features we have not discussed.
Ernst Schwarz lists 25 points of similarity between Gothic and ON including ones cited above.
He proposes that the first basic split in Germanic languages was one between North and South
(hence with Gothic and the other East Germ. languages belonging to North Germ.). According to
Schwarz the elements shared byON and Gothic were jointly developed before Goths departed for
south in the 1st century BC. Some elements that Gothic might have with North & West Germ from
much later is because of sothern influence on the north in 6 th century AD.
Kuhn attacks Schwarzs theory, rejecting early affinity between Gothic and ON, especially one
established as early as that. He grants Gothic and pre-ON clustered around Baltic Sea at a later
date and shown beginnings of a common language community. His corollary idea that the
languages remained relatively undifferentiated until a later data, is supported by runic inscriptions
showing uniform languages.
Kuhn rejects

19 of Schwarz 25 common features since they are just retention

1 because it only involves deletion of a single item

All our features apart from 8, can be seen as common retention (type 2)

Only 8 represents a common innovation, this shared feature is the centrepiece of

Gothonordic hypothesis
Kuhn says most of the true innovations are not found in the entire ON but only in the east. ON
shows sharpening even in the west but we find no evidence in runic inscriptions until the age of
vikings, long after with possible connection with the Goths. Kuhn thinks that these innovations
reflects a nascent speech community of Goths linked by trade to eastern Norse dialects between
their leave from Sweden but before their departure to southeast.
However, there are many scholars disagreeing with Kuhn and especially not treating the
shared retentions as worthless evidence. The current consensus is that, there are significant
points of similarity between two languages. The spectre of Stammbaum may have been causing
scholars to take strong positions on the linking of Gothic and ON.

Similarities Between Old Norse and West Germanic

The features ON shares with all of the WG dialects are 1, 2, 3, 9, 11, 12, 21 and 25. On the
whole, scholars do not deny the existence of these shared characteristics. They do disagree about
their age and their importance on setting up the Germanic family tree. Still, its clear that the
characteristics shared by North and West Germ.:

range widely in both phonology and grammar,

affect a large part of the lexicon,

attest to a long period of contact btw speakers of the languages.

Kuhn believes

a period of common development and linguistic uniformity lasting through the 5 th century

Great migrations in 5th century (esp. Angles and Saxons to Britain) causing the break
between North and West Germanic

then NorthGmc. undergoing rapid series of changes differing greatly from southern dialects

within the NGmc. the developments were uniform for several centuries though eventually
diverging into western and eastern
West Germanic does not show the same uniformity and consistency found or assumed in
other sub-groups we have been talking about such as NorthGmc and EastGmc. The assumption
of uniformity in West Gmc. shows major problems.
There are enormous differences between some languages assigned to this group. Some of
these differences sometimes go back to a point preceding the split between North and West.
Nonetheless, there are features that West Gmc. languages share with each other but not with
either North or West Gmc., like 10, 12, 18, 26, 27, 30 and 31.
Most modern scholars tend not to postulate anything like a unitary West Gmc. lang. at all; they
see almost from the beginning of the split between North and West, a threefold division of West
Germanic into

Ingvaeonic

Istvaeonic

Irminonic (or called as North Sea Gmc., Weser-Rhine Gmc., Elbe Gmc.)

Features of the Ingvaeonic Languages

Ingvaeonic usually understood as a subgroup of West Gmc. including OE and OF but it has a
wider application.

A number of languages show ingvaeonic features though they are not ingv.

OE and OF may sometimes fail to show a feature commonly called ingv.

worse, ON showing a number of ingv. features. though not being a West Gmc. lang. at all
OF and OE alone share items 1, 4, 5 (though OF has a in addition to for older ai), 14, and
15. Frisian shows item 6 (development from au to ) which is considered to be a genuine ingv.
development.
OF, OE and OS share items 13 (also found in ON in a restricted way), 24 (though recall that
reflexive pro. is borrowed in OLF), 28 (with some backsliding in OS, also t-less form in ON) and 29.
OE and OS share feature 19.
OE, OF, OS and OLF share features 20 and 23.
The fact that Ingvaeonic was ever a unified subgroup of Germanic seems very doubtful. Even
English and Frisian, the center languages of the cluster, seem to have carried out independently a
number of innovation that are supposedly characterize with this group while going different paths
in other aspects.

Similarities Between Old High German and Old Low Franconian

We have noted the similarities of OLF and ingvaeonic languages but of course, in a great many
ways OLF is closer to OHG as shown by rows 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 28 and 29.
It is this middle position between Ingvaeonic and Irminonic dialects that characterizes
Istvaeonic dialects, though they have some distinctive characteristics of their own.

Similarities Between Old High German and Gothic

German dialectologist Ferdinand Wrede has observed formation of a wedge between two
dialect regions in Germany, by areas without nasal loss and unitary plural verb ending. He was

familiar with such wedges due to his works; they were a visible path left behind a language
phenomena spreading from southeast and leaving the out-of-way southwest and far northern
dialects.
However, in this case Wrede had observed that the characteristics found in these unaffected
relic areas were ingvaeonic! So he hypothesized that almost all West Germ. languages had these
ingvaeonic characteristics that were overrun by a flood of non-ingvaeonic characteristics from
southeast. These were from Goths. Note in this regard, rows 13, 20, 23, 24, 28 and 29.
This hypothesis however have soon diminished. Wrede couldnt find relic areas that had
escaped this Gothicization except the two cases he examined. Even worse, these two main

cases of his argument (nasal loss and unitary plural endings) were relatively recent developments
as it was found out. Though, this is not to deny Gothic and OHG has interacted and shared
languages characteristics.