An
article by Rolf
Berndt discusses the Norman Conquests’ linguistic effect on both the
conquerors
and the conquered. It's easy (and not uncommon) to blame Modern English
entirely on the French (and I know I do from time to time, out of sheer
spite), but such a claim does not hold up as part of any serious
argument. Berndt's view is that there is no proof that
French replaced or in any way succeeded English as the main language of
England
after 1066, or even in the following centuries. He arrives at the
conclusion
that there was never even a chance for this to happen, and that French
speakers
rather took up English, by necessity or for convenience, to successfully
communicate with the massive indigenous population.
You can start off by looking at
the nonlinguistic effects of the Conquest to better understand the social situation in
England. Berndt argues that the Conquest did not lead to mass immigration from
France, and was nothing like the earlier conquests of the Anglo-Saxons and the
Vikings. While many lords, clergymen and craftsmen of different kinds most
likely came to settle in England after 1066, the Normans never outnumbered the
English (certainly never constituting more than 10% of the population).
The effects were maybe least noticeable
among the peasants, where Norman settlers were most likely “absorbed” by
English speech and custom within a few generations. There is also good cause to
believe that many more urban areas remained English, while some were
particularly favoured by the Normans and attracted more merchants and workers
from the continent. The change was also apparent in the clergy; communities in
English monasteries were soon joined by Norman and otherwise French monks, but
Englishmen do not seem to have been excluded by the newcomers. Rather, in most
monasteries, English and French co-existed peacefully.
The Norman Conquest brought feudal lords,
who were the largest group of the upper classes. These did not replace all
Anglo-Saxon thanes – the lesser lords of England seem to have been “ethnically
mixed”, making room for both Normans and English. This, however, does not seem
to have held true for the aristocracy and higher clergy. Most greater English
lords were killed or driven away from their lands, and the rulers seem to have
been almost solely French. These individuals were comparatively few but very
wealthy.
But what about the linguistic aspect?
After the Conquest, England was a bilingual realm (with Latin as an additional
common language among scholars). Berndt refutes the claim that French was ever
going to become a dominant language, or even that very many inhabitants of
England became bilingual. The peasantry kept using Old English as their main
language, and Norman immigrants would most likely eventually marry English people
and leave little trace of continental origin in their descendants. In the
cities, it also seems plausible that French artisans and merchants picked up
English relatively quickly. Berndt concludes that almost all who lived in
cities would speak English as their native tongue in the late 12th
century. No contemporary chronicler gives us reason to believe otherwise. The
lower, secular clergy probably did not learn French, and may not even have been
very proficient in Latin. In the monasteries, however, monks kept arriving from
all over France and French was very likely preserved by many as a first
language. There is proof that both English and French were spoken, and that
neither was regarded inferior to the other, and it is also likely that many
foreign clergymen would eventually learn the languages of the natives to be
able to understand and preach to them. The upper clergy were probably
predominantly French-speaking, but there are examples of individuals who were
proficient in English, Latin and French.
Originally, feudal lords seem to have spoken
different languages. Without giving up their native language, they would soon
embrace English speech and intermarry with the English. Even most English
nobility seem eventually to have possessed knowledge of French; possibly, it
was learnt as a mark of distinction.
Finally, the rulers of the realm seem to
have been almost entirely French-speaking. If they wished, they also seem to
have been capable of moving exclusively in French-speaking circles. However,
many of them must eventually have come into contact with non-speakers of French
and it seems natural that they picked up some English after a long stay in
England.
Berndt concludes by reinforcing that there
is no evidence French ever became a dominant language in England after 1066;
immigrants of almost all social strata would eventually assimilate and acquaint
themselves with English rather than trying to force French upon the population.
In the end, the language of the conquered was the one that prevailed, and
within a few centuries French was again a foreign language – though its lexicon
was certainly leaving a mark on English.