Northwest Germanic

Northwest Germanic is a proposed grouping of the Germanic languages, representing the current consensus among Germanic historical linguists.Cfr.:

34, 110 = Haugen 1976, 110. 35, 8 = Haugen 1982, 8. It does not challenge the late 19th-century tri-partite division of the Germanic dialects into North Germanic, West Germanic and East Germanic, but proposes additionally that North and West Germanic (i.e. all surviving Germanic languages today) remained as a subgroup after the southward migration of the East Germanic tribes, only splitting into North and West Germanic later. Whether this subgroup constituted a unified proto-language, or simply represents a group of dialects that remained in contact and close geographical proximity, is a matter of debate, but the formulation of Ringe and Taylor probably enjoys widespread support:

History and terminology

Kuhn (1955)

Though not yet using the term "Northwest Germanic", this grouping was proposed by Hans Kuhn in 1955/56 as an alternative to the older view of a Gotho-Nordic versus West Germanic division. Instead, Kuhn used the term ′Spätgemeingermanisch′ (Late Common Germanic):

(The older view was represented by mid 20th-century proposals to assume the existence by 250 BC of five general groups to be distinguishable: North Germanic in Southern Scandinavia excluding Jutland; North Sea Germanic along the middle Rhine and Jutland; Rhine-Weser Germanic; Elbe Germanic; and East Germanic.Moulton/Buccini 2017: 'By roughly 250 bce they [the Germanic people] had spread south, and five general groups are distinguishable: North Germanic in southern Scandinavia, excluding Jutland; North Sea Germanic, along the North Sea and in Jutland; Rhine-Weser Germanic, along the middle Rhine and Weser; Elbe Germanic, along the middle Elbe; and East Germanic, between the middle Oder and the Vistula rivers.' (This was, though not mentioned by Moulton and Buccini, the theory of Friedrich Maurer [Nordgermanen und Alemannen. Studien zur germanischen und frühdeutschen Sprachgeschichte, Stammes- und Volkskunde, Hünenburg, Straßburg, 19421, 19432]. Cfr. the critical evaluation by Elmar Seebold, Alemannisch und Nordgermanisch: Kriterien und Grundlagen für eine Sprachgeschichtliche Beurteilung and Hans Frede Nielsen. Friedrich Maurer and the Dialectal Links of Upper German to Nordic], both in: Peter Naumann et al. [ed.], Alemannien und der Norden. Internationales Symposium vom 18. - 20. Oktober 2001 in Zürich, de Gruyter: Berlin / New York, 2004, p. 1 ff., 12 ff.) . The Northwest Germanic theory challenges these proposals, since it is strongly tied to runic inscriptions dated from AD 200 onwards.)

Antonsen (1965)

Some years after Kuhn, Elmer H. Antonsen in 1965 proposed the term 'Northwest Germanic':

Later Antonsen restricted his these that Northwest Germanic is the predecessor of all the West and North Germanic Languages to these that it is only the predecessor of all the Ingvaeonic (i.e., North Sea Germanic) and North Germanic Languages:

Dating Most scholarsCfr. e.g.: 'Die Verbindung [des Nordgermanischen] mit dem Got[ischen] brach früh, schon im 2. Jh., ab' (Andersson 2006, 559; translation: 'The connection [of North Germanic] to Gothic ceased early—as early as the 2nd century'). 'Nach der Abwanderung der Goten an das Schwarze Meer beginnt die erste faßbare Teilung der germ[anischen] Sprache Gestalt anzunehmen – man kann jetzt von einem, ostgerm[anischen]' Zweig gegenüber dem, Rest-Kontinuum' reden.' (Seebold 2006, 533; translation: 'Following the migration of the Goths to the Black Sea, the first discernible division of the Germanic language began to take shape—one can now speak of an "East Germanic" branch in contrast to the "Rest-Kontinuum" [remaining continuum <of Northwestgermanic dialects>.') Haugen 1976, 109 ('the break between NGmc and WGmc is actually later than that between NGmc and EGmc.') and illustration on page 110 / Haugen 1982, 8 (illustration): '(1st cent.?)' (regarding the break between East Germanic on the one hand and North ancd West Germanic on the other hand). Stiles 2013, 8: 'The standard view these days is that the Proto-Germanic stage was ended by the departure of the Goths (East Germanic), after which the remaining dialects, which had not yet developed into North and West Germanic, stayed in contact for a period, undergoing shared innovations. This stage is known as North-West-Germanic.' agree that East Germanic broke up from the rest of the languages in the 2nd or 1st centuries BC.Cfr. Moulton/Buccini 2017: 'The first major linguistic division that developed in Germanic was between East Germanic and Northwest Germanic. It can be dated roughly to the 1st–3rd centuries ce.' The Runic Inscriptions (being written from the 2nd century) may mean that the north and West broke up in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The Migration Period started around the 4th and 5th centuries; an event which probably help diversify the Northwest Germanic (maybe even the West Germanic) languages even more.Cfr. for different views: Antonsen 1975, 27: 'NwG continues on until approximately 550' / Antonson 2002, 34: 'From approximately A.D. 500, it is possible to detect developments in the language of the runic inscriptions that are purely Scandinavian in character.' Nielsen 2000, 289, 291 (illustrations): North-Westgermanic (100 - 200); Early Runic (200 - 500) on the one hand and Westgermanic (200 - 400) on the other hand. 'The fragmentation of Northwest Germanic can be dated roughly to the period of the 3rd–6th centuries with the development of three major dialect divisions: in Scandinavia, North Germanic; in Jutland and the northwest of Germany, North Sea Germanic; and in central Germany, South Germanic. A number of linguistic developments from this period are shared by North Sea Germanic and South Germanic (but not by North Germanic), and the term West Germanic is used in recognition of the strong affinities between these two groups.' (Moulton/Buccini 2017) The date by which such a grouping must have dissolved—in that innovations ceased to be shared—is also contentious, though it seems unlikely to have persisted after 500 AD, by which time the Anglo-Saxons had migrated to England and the Elbe Germanic tribes had settled in Southern Germany.Cfr:

3 = Erich Hoffmann, Historische Zeugnisse zur Däneneinwanderung im 6. Jahrhundert, in: Marold/Zimmermann 1995.

118 = Elias Wessén, De nordiska språken, AWE/Geber, Stockholm 197911. 18 = Beck 1998. 62 = Wolfgang Laur, Sprachen, Schriften, 'Nationalitäten' in Haithabu und Schleswig. In: Klaus Düwel et al. (ed.), Von Thorsberg nach Schleswig. Sprache und Schriftlichkeit eines Grenzgebietes im Wandel eines Jahrtausends, de Gruyter, Berlin / New York 20001, 20012, 61 - 76.

Shared innovations The evidence for Northwest Germanic is constituted by a range of common linguistic innovations in phonology, morphology, word formation and lexis in North and West Germanic, though in fact there is considerable debate about which innovations are significant. An additional problem is that Gothic, which provides almost the sole evidence of the East Germanic dialects, is attested much earlier than the other Germanic languages, with the exception of a few runic inscriptions. This means that direct comparisons between Gothic and the other Germanic languages are not necessarily good evidence for subgroupings, since the distance in time must also be taken into account.

The following shared innovations, which must have taken place in Proto–Northwest Germanic, can be noted:Nielsen 2000, 289 mentions the following four features of 'North Germanic / West Germanic': ē1 > ā, [o] > /o/, -ō > -u and -ai, -au > -ē, -ō. Stiles (2013, 8 f.) distinguishes between six 'North-West-Germanic innovations' and three 'features, lacking in Gothic, that occur in all the North and West Germanic languages, although their implementation differs in detail' (9). The latter three are: '"a-umlaut"' 'creation of * ēy2 and development of class 7 verbs' 'the compound demonstrative THIS'. Lowering of stressed *ē to *ā. Raising of word-final *-ō to *-ū. Shortening of word-final *-ī and *-ū to *-i and *-u. Loss of *w between a consonant and unstressed *u. Unstressed *ai > *ē and *au > *ō. Unstressed *am > *um. Unstressed *er > *ar (if not already of Proto-Germanic date). *u/*ū > *i/*ī in the second-person pronouns 'the development of absolute final bimoric long *-ō# > -u# (the change in quality being contingent upon the fact that there was no short o-vowel)'.

Many common innovations are of post-Proto-Northwest Germanic date, however. These could have spread through an already differentiated dialect continuum, or have been present in latent form and solidified only in the individual dialects. In Norse, final *-aiz > -ar in the genitive singular of i-stems. Germanic a-mutation: stressed *u > *o before a non-close vowel, unless followed by a nasal and consonant. The West Germanic dialects differ in the outcome, with northern ones preserving *u while southern ones often have *o. The Proto-West Germanic situation thus cannot have been uniform, let alone the Proto-Northwest Germanic one. Rhotacism: *z > *r. This change postdated the West Germanic loss of word-final *-z, and there are minor differences in the development of *z in West Germanic as well. The replacement of reduplication with ablaut in the 7th class of strong verbs. This may have begun in the common history of North and West Germanic, but was not completed by the time of the split.

Alternative groupings

Postulated common innovations in North Germanic and Gothic, which therefore challenge the Northwest Germanic hypothesis, include: Proto-Germanic , > , (e.g. Gothic triggwa, ON tryggva, OHG triuwe, "loyalty", see Holtzmann's Law)

A minority opinion is able to harmonize these two hypotheses by denying the genetic reality of both Northwest Germanic and Gotho-Nordic, seeing them rather as mere cover terms indicating close areal contacts. (Such areal contacts would have been quite strong among the early Germanic languages, given their close geographic position over a long period of time.) Under such an assumption, an early close relationship between Nordic and Gothic dialects does not exclude a later similar relationship between remaining North and West Germanic groups, once the Gothic migration had started in the 2nd or 3rd century.

There are also common innovations in Old High German and Gothic, which would appear to challenge both the Northwest Germanic and the Gotho-Nordic groupings. However, these are standardly taken to be the result of late areal contacts, based the cultural contacts across the Alps in the 5th and 6th centuries, reflected in the Christian loanwords from Gothic into Old High German.

Notes

Sources Thorsten Andersson: Nordgermanische Sprachen. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. Vol. 21. de Gruyter, Berlin / New York, 20022, 289–306. Thorsten Andersson: Urnordische Sprache. In: ibid. Vol. 31. 20062, 559–562. Elmer H. Antonsen: A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions. Niemeyer, Tübingen 1975. Elmer H. Antonsen: On Defining Stages in Prehistoric Germanic, in: Language Vol. 41, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1965), pp. 19 – 36 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/411849).

Heinrich Beck: Die germanischen Sprachen der Völkerwanderungszeit, in: Werner Besch / Anne Betten / Oskar Reichmann / Stefan Sonderegger (ed.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science. Vol 2.1), de Gruyter: Berlin / New York, 19982, 979 - 993. Frederik Hartmann: Germanic Phylogeny. 282p., ISBN 978-0-19-887273-3, Oxford University Press, 2023. Einar Haugen: The Scandinavian Languages. An Introduction to their History. Faber & Faber, London 1976. Einar Haugen: Scandinavian language structures. A comparative historical survey, Niemeyer, Tübingen, 1982