Whose lexicon is it, anyway?

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 12^th 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.