Íslenzk tunga - 01.01.1961, Side 113

ICELANDIC DIALECTOLOGY: METHODS AND RESULTS
109
Second, the different ‘dialects’, as a rule, enjoy the same social
reputation; they are all considered equally ‘good’ or ‘correct’. There
is therefore no contrast between a standard language and substandard
or local forms of the language, in the sense in which these terms may
be applied to most other European languages. There is only one
exception of importance to this. The confusion of i and e, and of u
and ö, is considered ‘vulgar’, an attitude which is reflected in the
names given to this dialect feature, jlámœli ‘slack-jawed speech’ or
hljóðvilla ‘sound mistake’ vs. réttmœli ‘correct speech’.
For these two reasons—the predominance of mixed areas, and the
absence of a standard vs. substandard gradation—I think it may
easily give rise to misunderstandings to use the term ‘dialect’ for Ice-
landic. Instead, I have elsewhere used the more neutral, less tradition-
tinged term ‘variety’.99
The second question concerns the widespread reluctance of Ice-
landers to recognize the existence of Icelandic dialects, generally pro-
claimed by foreign scholars. Is this purely a misplaced, misunder-
stood patriotism on the part of the Icelanders? In part possibly, but
there are also other circumstances to be taken into consideration.
First, a foreign scholar, e. g. from one of the Scandinavian
countries, travelling in Iceland, will note the main differences, e. g.,
between the North and the South. He will then infer—perhaps uncon-
sciously—on the analogy of the conditions in his home country, that
the features in question are universal, or almost so, in their respective
areas, and that the transitions from one to the other are relatively
sharp; in other words, on a brief acquaintance, he will not become
aware of the paramount importance of the transitional areas.
Second, the functional aspect of the geographic variants has never
been taken into consideration. It is well known that an outside
observer of a language, whether he be layman or specialist, will tend
to interpret the data in terms of his own acquired system. To take
99 “The Vowel System of Icelandic ...,” pp. 305f. For a similar replacement
of ‘dialect’ by ‘variety’, see U. Weinreich, “Is a Structnral Dialectology Possi-
hle?” Word X (1954), p. 389.