1.1. Role play and code-switching

Children start engaging in role play during or at the end of their third year of life (Fein Reference Fein1981; Nicolopoulou Reference Nicolopoulou, Smith and Roopnarine2018), and its linguistic reflexes develop around the same time (Söderbergh Reference Söderbergh1980). What these linguistic reflexes are varies individually and culturally, and they range from paralinguistic features, such as alteration in pitch or voice quality (Auwärter Reference Auwärter, Corsaro and Jürgen1986; Vedeler Reference Vedeler1987; Andersen Reference Andersen2014 [1990]; Ervin-Tripp Reference Ervin-Tripp and Barbara1991), to code-switching between different languages in bilingual populations (Halmari & Smith Reference Halmari and Smith1994; Green-Väntinen Reference Green-Väntinen1996; Guldal Reference Guldal1997; Cromdal & Aronsson Reference Cromdal and Aronsson2000; García-Sánchez Reference Garca-Sánchez2010; Kleemann Reference Kleemann2013). With the exception of the dialect area of the capital city Oslo, children growing up in Norway are reported by the layman to code-switch in their RPR to something resembling the Oslo dialect or Standard East Norwegian.

This can be traced back at least several decades in anecdotal reports (Høigård Reference Høigård1999). ^{Footnote 3} The phenomenon has been reported on in passing in the literature (e.g. Venås Reference Venås and Magnhild1983; Åm Reference Åm1989; Mæhlum Reference Mæhlum1992; Allern Reference Allern1995; Bugge et al. Reference Bugge, Selås and Gujord2017), and in conversation analytical or sociolinguistic studies of code-switching in role play in a Norwegian setting (Larson Reference Larson1985; Guldal Reference Guldal1997; Kleemann Reference Kleemann2013). The structural features of the RPR of Norwegian children have not been studied, with the exception of an MA dissertation (Eliassen Reference Eliassen1998) that we will return to below.

Norwegian children’s use of standard variants in their RPR lies at the crossroads of macro- and micro-social processes. On the one hand, the form of the RPR should be expected to be subject to fluctuations due to negotiation and children’s agency in the specific play constellations: The RPR is used to mark or index the role characters in play, and it should vary along with changes in choices of roles and play frame. On the other hand, it appears to be a part of an established children’s culture or folklore: ^{Footnote 4} RPR with SEN features has been reported from several parts of Norway (Larson Reference Larson1985; Mæhlum Reference Mæhlum1992; Bjørlykke Reference Bjørlykke1996; Guldal Reference Guldal1997; Eliassen Reference Eliassen1998; Kleemann Reference Kleemann2013). Most Norwegian children can thus be said to possess a certain bidialectal competence.

The motivation behind this kind of code-switching has often been attributed to children’s need to signal ‘otherhood’ in the literature (Bjørlykke Reference Bjørlykke1996; Høigård Reference Høigård1999), i.e. to index the child’s role personae as distinct from the child’s every-day persona(e). ^{Footnote 5} Much of child socialisation happens reciprocally between peers (Harris Reference Harris1995), in activities such as imaginary play (Aronsson Reference Aronsson2011; Goodwin & Kyratzis Reference Goodwin and Kyratzis2011), and we can assume that this also holds for the codes used in role play. It is negotiated within the micro-social setting of the play itself. Indeed, Kleemann (Reference Kleemann2015:193) reports that children adapt the code they use in role play to the (assumed) linguistic competence (in Norwegian/Saami) and/or preference of their playmates. But if the structuring of RPR only happened within the micro-social setting, we would not expect the same directionality towards SEN across children and regions. Rather, the peer groups should have converged on a set of forms that may vary depending on combinations of children and instantiation of role play, and which could have been drawn from any variety/language in their repertoire.

We can also assume that features of RPR are transferred across age groups, through siblings and older children in the kindergarten, much in the same way as other parts of children’s culture are, such as nursery rhymes and games (e.g. hopscotch). ^{Footnote 6} In summary, there seem to be two possible forces driving normalisation of the RPR, one macro-social and one micro-social. On the one hand, the fact that the phenomenon has been reported repeatedly over such a long time and so geographically spread out within Norway may be an indication of a variety existing as part of (a national) children’s culture. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that child socialisation happens reciprocally in interaction.

1.2. Role play and language acquisition

A relevant question regarding RPR is its status in relation to the child’s native dialect (see Eide & Åfarli (this issue) and their discussion of register specific syntax). Linguistic change and development, in the individual and/or the language society, involves some kind of variation (Bailey Reference Bailey1973; Hickman et al. Reference Hickman, Veneziano and Jisa2018). As a linguistic variable transitions from one variant (A) to another (B), it happens incrementally, resulting in a period in which both variants are used alongside each other (AB) at various ratios. To the extent there is an age dependent development in the Norwegian RPR in the individual, it can be expected that its linguistic variables develop in the same way, on top of the register’s inherent variability mentioned above. One can then ask whether the ‘varieties’ – RPR and the child’s native dialect – exist as separate linguistic subsystems or ‘languages’ within the individual, and, if so, at which point in time during the incremental separation the split(s) occur(s). Does every instance of variability include multiple grammars, as in the strongest interpretation of the universal bilingualism hypothesis (Roeper Reference Roeper1999), or are separate linguistic subsystems limited to where the differences lie in language competence and not performance only, in the traditional sense of the dichotomy (Chomsky Reference Chomsky1965)?

In second language (L2) acquisition, such an incremental development does not spring to mind. In the normal turn of events of L2 acquisition, equivalent variants (of e.g. lexemes and morphemes) of the L1 and L2 are not used alongside each other, and the claim of separate subsystems becomes immediately reasonable. However, as studies in cross linguistic transfer have shown us, this is obviously not the case for all parts of the linguistic system, and states in which two variants of underlying structures – in the case of structural transfer – or phonological systems – in the case of learner accents – exist alongside each other probably exist (see Eide & Åfarli (this issue) and their discussion of interlanguages). Thus, although one can not refer to RPR as an L2 in the present case, there are clear similarities, especially in that it is a variant that is acquired in addition to the L1 or native dialect.

If we look away for a second from the structural properties of the different varieties in question to view it from a functional perspective, it is clear that whatever linguistic material is used to index role play has to be cognitively ‘indexed’ as belonging to a specific register: For RPR to be able to mark ‘otherhood’, the child must be able to identify linguistic features as belonging to RPR or the native dialect, consciously or otherwise. This cognitive indexing of variants into functional subsystems is a clear indicator that the child’s native dialect and the child’s RPR are two separate subsystems within the child’s competence in language, at least functionally. The qualitative ways in which this differs from traditional bilingualism and bi(dia)lectalism is a field of study worthy of further investigation, that I hope this paper can contribute to.

1.3. Linguistic background

In the context of Norway and Norwegian, the term ‘Standard East Norwegian’ deserves further discussion. Although Norwegian has two codified written standards (Nynorsk and Bokmål), these are officially seldom spoken outside of theatre stages and national news broadcasting (Vikør Reference Vikør1993), and as opposed to many other parts of Europe, there is a high acceptance of regional speech variation in all parts of society (Vikør Reference Vikør1993; Kerswill Reference Kerswill1994). The diglossic situation often found elsewhere, where speakers code-switch to a standard in certain (formal) situations is not the norm in Norway. Despite this, there are examples of dialect levelling in the direction of SEN, together with regionalisation (Mæhlum Reference Mæhlum2009, Røyneland Reference Røyneland2009, see also Lundquist et al. this issue for examples in the Tromsø dialect). For these reasons, among others, it is a matter of debate whether Norwegian has a standard spoken variety at all (Jahr & Mæhlum Reference Jahr and Mæhlum2009; Bull Reference Bull2009), and, if so, which one(s) should be regarded as (the) standard (see e.g. Sandøy Reference Bull2009). A reason for considering Standard East Norwegian the standard spoken variety is that the varieties spoken by socioculturally prestigious groups in the Oslo area strongly resemble the Bokmål written standard, and that this is conceived as a norm ideal (Mæhlum Reference Mæhlum2009). In any event, the term ‘Standard East Norwegian’ will be used here (short SEN), and Bokmål orthography and the pronunciation of SEN given in Vanvik (Reference Vanvik1985) ^{Footnote 7} will function as a proxy.

Although the choice of the term ‘Standard East Norwegian’ does not in itself represent a stance in the aforementioned debate of whether Norwegian has a spoken standard variety, surely, the use of SEN variants in role play across generations and locations could be used as an argument in that discussion. However, the input source(s) of the RPR is pro tem unknown, and so is the target variety for children’s RPR. The choice of SEN as a term, with the proxies mentioned above, is first and foremost pragmatic: It is a spoken variety – as opposed to for instance the written Bokmål standard – and it does not encompass the variation found in South Eastern Norwegian dialects, and even the Oslo dialect. It is used purely as a scaffold for describing the RPR and its variation and development, informed by previous literature, and the RPR, may – but crucially does not need to – be equal to SEN (see also endnote 2).

This paper investigates both free and bound morphemes in the children’s role play register, and to what extent they coincide with the SEN variety. In order to do this, it is first necessary to determine how SEN differs from the children’s local dialect. The study is situated in Tromsø, a city with approximately 76,000 inhabitants located in Northern Norway. The Tromsø dialect has features share with speakers in other Northern Norwegian towns, such as Bodø, Harstad, and Narvik (Bull Reference Bull and Ernst Håkon1990; Nesse & Sollid Reference Nesse and Sollid2010). The differences between SEN and the traditional Tromsø dialect (TTD) as reported in the literature (Iversen Reference Iversen1918; Bull Reference Bull and Ernst Håkon1990) are summarised in Tables 1 for pronouns and possessives, and 2 for nominal morphology. ^{Footnote 8} As with SEN, TTD is not meant as an accurate description of a variety encompassing its variation, but is used as a point of reference: In conjunct, SEN and TTD are meant to outline the space of variation within which we expect the the children’s output to take place.

Table 1. Personal and indefinite pronouns and possessive determiners in TTD and SEN (the gloss indicates possessee (p.-ee) and possessor (p.-or) marking, where relevant)

Starting with the pronouns, there is a great deal of variation in the pronominal systems across Norwegian dialects (Sjekkeland Reference Sjekkeland2005: 106–108). Although about half of the pronouns have the same form in TTD and SEN, and are excluded from the overview in Table 1, ^{Footnote 9} there are still a number of pronouns that differ between the varieties, some of which merit further discussion:

First, there is a parallelism in the pronouns I, ME, YOU.SG (i.e. non-subject), and REFL, ^{Footnote 10} in that the TTD variants end in a long, open [æ:] ([æ:], [mæ:], [dæ:], and [sæ:], respectively), whereas the SEN variants end in a diphtong [æi] ([jæi], [mæi], [dæi], and [sæi], respectively). Second, the use of number/gender and case marking is unevenly distributed between the varieties. For instance, TTD, but not SEN, has syncretism in SHE/HER, ^{Footnote 11} THEY/THEM, ^{Footnote 12} and the number/gender agreement in OUR. ^{Footnote 13}

Finally, two indefinite pronouns or determiners, SOMETHING and SOME, have been included in the analysis. ^{Footnote 14}

There are two differences between the two variants of the present tense form of copular ‘be’ (orthographically er, henceforth BE). First, the SEN variant has a word final /r/, which is absent in TTD. Second, there is a difference in vowel quality between the two, where SEN has a saliently more open vowel ([æ:ɾ]), than the TTD variant ([e:]). Since word final /r/s in SEN often are elided in certain contexts (i.a. before labial and velar consonants), in addition to the fact that /r/ is a consonant mastered late by Norwegian children (Tetzchner, Stephen von et al. Reference Tetzchner, Feilberg, Hagtvet, Martinsen, Mjaavatn, Simonsen and Smith1993: 114), for every case, the vowel quality is the main diagnostic to determine the variant used in this study.

Lastly, nominal inflection (given in Table 2) differs in the two varieties both in the form of the form of the inflectional suffixes, but also in that TTD has different declension classes for masculine and feminine also in plural forms for the non-umlauted paradigms (m:-an, f:-en, versus SEN f/m:-ene).

Table 2. Nominal inflection (inflected for definiteness ((in)definite) and number (singular/plural))

1.4. Previous findings

Although previous research has labeled the variety used as RPR as ‘East Norwegian’ (e.g. Mæhlum Reference Mæhlum1992; Bugge et al. Reference Bugge, Selås and Gujord2017), ‘Standard’ (e.g. Guldal Reference Guldal1997), ‘Bokmål’ (name of written standard), ‘West-side Oslo dialect’, or ‘Southerner’ (Kleemann Reference Kleemann2015, my translation), the specific grammatical or phonological features this pertains to are seldom and scarcely discussed. In the cases where the form of the variety is mentioned, pronouns (Guldal Reference Guldal1997) and intonation (Kleemann Reference Kleemann2015) are recurring features. In describing RPR Kleemann (Reference Kleemann2015) also mentions, without specifying, lexical and inflectional differences, (over)use of the SEN HER variant henne, also in subject position, and the use of the SEN BE variant er (cf. Section 1.3).

As mentioned above, Eliassen (Reference Eliassen1998) is the only study in which the focus is primarily on the structural properties of the variety used in Norwegian children’s role play register. Based on recordings of spontaneous speech from four children from Meløy in Northern Norway, a rural island almost 400 km – or a ten hour drive – south of Tromsø, Eliassen gives a qualitative overview of the differences between the language used in role utterances and the language used in directing/planning in four different domains: lexicon, morphology, phonology and intonation/prosody (p. 52). At all levels she finds variation. No feature is used consistently in the standard variant, and the rate at which the standard variant is used varies across feature and child. Beginning with the pronouns, all children used the SEN variants of I, ME, YOU.SG, and REFL (to the extent the variables were attested in the material), whereas the SEN variant of SHE and YOU.PL were only attested in two and one of the children respectively, and to a lesser extent than the four other pronouns. In addition, she attested the hybrid form æi of the variable I.

In verb morphology, Eliassen (Reference Eliassen1998) found instances of suffixed (SEN) variants of strong verbs in all four children. In addition, the children tended to use the long, standard variant of other morphemes as well, instead of the short local version with apocope (a more pronounced dialect feature in southern parts of Northern Norway, and not relevant for the present data). Lastly, of the morphological features, standard versions of plural inflection of nouns were also attested from all children.

Similar to the Tromsø dialect, the Meløy dialect traditionally also has palatalisation of traditional alveolars/dentals and has undergone ‘lowering’ (cf. endnote 12). Children ‘reversed’ these sound changes in their role utterances, producing alveolars/dentals and more closed vowels instead.

Eliassen (Reference Eliassen1998) gives a good first overview of Northern Norwegian Children’s RPR. The present study will expand on Eliassen’s findings, both by increasing the amount of data and by adding the longitudinal dimension. This makes it possible not only to revisit Eliassen’s qualitative findings, but add quantitative and developmental investigations, looking at the actual ratios between SEN and TTD variants in the most frequent variables and across time.