Skip to main content

Why wasn’t English replaced by French during the Norman Conquest?

War is an annihilator, the winner seeps out everything, including people. But how did English survive the Norman Conquest?  There are actually two very general and hugely complex questions involved here, not one:

(1) What were the specific sociolinguistic conditions in medieval Britain that allowed the maintenance of English?
(2) Why do languages become replaced by other languages in the first place?

Let's start with question number two, and then the answer to number one will become clearer. So, Why do some languages replace other languages?

Languages, like economic systems, are self-organizing systems in the sense that properties of the system arise independently of any directing authority.  At no point in history of English has any government had to tell English speakers:  "mark plural nouns with an -s suffix". That just happened on its own as the outcome of the breakdown of a much more complicated inflectional system of Old English.  Likewise, people's choices to use particular languages, and indeed varieties of the same language, arise because of countless decisions on their part based on preexisting conditions around them, as individuals.  Speakers in some sense use language as a kind of communicative currency, the value or utility of which varies depending on many independent and interdependent factors, including at least the following seven in roughly decreasing value:

1. Numerical demographics:  how many people are already using a particular kind of speech?  English, Spanish, Hindi and Mandarin are all languages that have huge numbers of speakers (200m+), and so there will always be some kind of 'market' for people speaking their languages.

2. Cost-benefit analysis:  is the language useful to create the kind of life one wants or needs to lead? Some languages are spoken by people with access to particular technologies or particular kinds of advantageous economic systems.  German today has far fewer speakers than either Hindi or Bengali, but there are more people in Europe, America and East Asia actively trying to learn German than Hindi or Bengali.  For most people, the cost of learning Hindi is too high despite its higher overall speaker-base.

3. Presence or absence of competing languages:  is there already another language that can achieve the same goals? Until the early modern period, when governments and societies began to invest in their own languages, all scholastic infrastructure was couched in Latin, and so that language had no serious competitors in Europe as a language of science and technology.

4. Geospatial distribution of languages:  how wide spread is a language used? At around 800m speakers, Mandarin has almost double English's 450m speakers, but almost all those speakers are found exclusively in China, while the infrastructure and speakers of English are found almost everywhere now.

5. What domains of language is a given language used for: languages are used for specific purposes and sometimes speakers of one language use another for a specific purpose, and thereby in effect lose one domain for their own.  Again, English today is used in Europe by Dutch people speaking to Italians, Germans or Swedes or even other Dutch people.  One famous German linguist of my acquaintance once told me that he feels uncomfortable talking about linguistics in German, his native language, because he simply never does it -- the fact that he has little experience doing so means to start now would involve considerable effort on his part.

6. Prestige or symbolic value of a language:  like peacocks with their tails, people use language as a symbolic way to make nonlinguistic statements about their worth or value as an individual, and as a community.  It comes in two varieties:
  • internal prestige: how a particular language community values (or not) its own language both as a medium of communication and as a source of identity;
  • external prestige: how people outside the language community value (or not) that language community's language.
(7) [Marginally, and relevant only for adults:]  how closely related is one language to another? Someone who learns Spanish, French and Italian is much less impressive than someone who learns Mohawk, Hebrew and Hausa, because the latter languages have almost no lexicon in common, while the former have most of their lexicon in common, not to mention grammatical differences or similarities.

Now, what was the sociolinguistic environment of early medieval Britain?

When the Normans defeated the Saxons at Hastings in 1066, they arrived in a country that had already effectively witnessed a wholesale linguistic replacement:  that of the Celtic-speaking Britons some five or six centuries before. English had also recently sustained rather intense conflict with Scandinavians of various types and some but not all of these invaders had come to settle permanently in the Danelaw.  Let's tally up what the new Norman aristocracy faced:

(1) The Normans came in the tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, when they secured power for themselves. The indigenous English by comparison probably numbered at least two and a half if not three million people. Even if you double or triple the highest estimate of William's soldiers at Hastings, around 12k, and assume that additional bureaucrats followed in their wake, the number of Norman French speakers in England was still totally dwarfed by the indigenous population.

(2) It is undeniable that pre-Conquest English aristocrats now had very good reasons to become fluent in French to maintain and add to their power base (though many lost their lands anyway).  The vast majority of the peasantry (95% of the population) however never had any such need:  the people they interacted with were not the nobles, but the people who oversaw the nobles' lands, who continued to be primarily English speaking. Sociolinguistically speaking, England was not entirely unlike the exploitative colonies of 19th-20th century Africa that Salikoko Mufwene has spent decades describing in which an interface class of overseers ran the government for the elites. In this case, many upper elites didn't even spend much time in England, choosing rather to pursue petty feuds in France.

(3) In most of Britain outside Wales and Scotland (which were at that point not under the English crown anyway), there were essentially no alternatives to speaking English:  every community, from top to bottom, was English-speaking.  This is even true in the Danelaw, where the Scandinavians had largely assimilated to the local population giving us words like skirt, sky, and the pronoun they.

(4) Since England was almost uniformly English-speaking, there were no pockets of other spoken languages that could possibly have competed with English until the Normans arrived. (Cornish is an exception that proves the rule.) Although English had dialects and diversity within it, from the perspective of the man on the street making a choice about English or French, it was a monolith.

(5) English before the Conquest was one of the few vernacular languages in Europe that actually had a fairly vibrant literary culture:  Anglo-Saxon kings were mostly literate, and some of them like King Alfred the Great actually made translations of Latin classics into Old English.  This was not true of most languages on the continent. After the conquest, English more or less completely lost its status as a chancellery language to French, but French was instead still competing with Latin as an alternative language in the domain of high literature.

(6) In the 11th century, French did not have the immense internal or external prestige that it was to acquire in later centuries.  Indeed, French did not even become the official language of France until 1539, when King Francis I made it the official language of the court. (Just think about that fact for a second.) As such, it is not surprising that the English, especially among the illiterate peasantry, would probably have seen the use of Norman French as the language of occupation rather than of a self-evidently superior conqueror.  French probably had high external prestige in comparison to English's not inconsiderable (but by no means high) internal prestige.

(7)  Lastly, although French is an Indo-European language like English, it was nowhere near as similar lexically or grammatically as the Norse spoken in the Danelaw -- and that Norse soon disappeared.  This criterion is in any event relevant only for adults trying to learn French, since children can acquire any human language with ease.

Summary:  in most respects, the fate of French was sealed at its arrival:  it simply did not have enough traits, whether demographically, economically or otherwise, in its favor to do more than influence the lexicon of English. It is doubtful that French had a significant effect on English grammar, since Old English was well on its way to losing case-inflections already.

You have reached the end of the Article. Please share it if you think it deserves. Have a good day! 


  1. Your analysis is interesting, but for my part, it seems to me that you are only applying it to the last linguistic episode, which is certainly fundamental, but which overshadows the previous ones.

    Why was Brittonic not replaced by Latin during the Roman conquest?

    Why were the Britto-roman and the Brittonic not replaced by the Old Saxon after the Germanic incursions?

    All of his previous questions and yours are surely answered by the indisputable fact that English is a composite language that is difficult to relate simply to a single linguistic family.

    To take a concrete example based on the text of about 1440 words constituting your article, a superficial analysis, which should therefore be further developed, shows that it contains 586 different words among which the conjugated forms of the same verb or the plural forms of the same noun can be removed.

    At the end of the count, we notice that out of the 534 different words arbitrarily retained, 266 are of Germanic origin and 268 are of Latin origin, or about half for each group. To go a little further, 142 words of Germanic origin and 205 words of Latin origin have only one occurrence in the text under consideration (on the other hand, it is normal to note among other examples, 75 times the article "THE" or 55 times the preposition "OF").

    These facts are very surprising for a language that is considered Germanic?

    As it happens, your initial analysis probably answers much of this question. Indeed, it is right to apply the same factors to each stratum of language development that has eventually shaped the English we know today.

    If I may risk a contribution, I would say that the question asked at the outset could be confusing: "Why was English not replaced by French during the Norman conquest?”

    In fact, by English, you shouldn't have understood Old Saxon.

    At the time of the Norman conquest, it is more than likely that the language spoken by the villagers and peasants of England, already had little to do with the old Saxon buried in the ancient manuscripts of the Saxon nobility, precisely for the reasons you mention in the first part.

    There is really no objective reason why the 1066 peasants' lexicon has not already been composed of 50% of words of British-Latin origin.

    The over-coating applied by the Franco-Norman was only a reminder to definitively establish this vocabulary in all layers of medieval society.

    The classic error of analysis that must no longer be made today is to consider that the texts of the rare manuscripts that have survived to date constitute irrefutable proof of the variety of the language actually spoken by the majority of the population of the period in question.

    The influences absorbed by the original languages spoken in Great Britain (and elsewhere) since the Neolithic period have been multiple. All these influences have left more or less detectable traces in the resulting language spoken today. Unfortunately, only three types of contributions can be easily analysed, the Celtic substratum and the two superstrata Latin and Germanic.

    All these contributions have imposed continuous constraints, both on the lexicon but also on the syntax, phonology and prosody of a constantly evolving language that has given today's English.

    Franco-Norman could in no way replace the English of 1066. It would have needed the means of a modern state (schools, media, etc.) to do so.

    Moreover, I am not as assertive as you are about the non-existence of different languages in England in 1066. At least in the north-west in Cumbria and the west well before reaching Wales or Cornwall, there were still pockets of documented speakers of Brittonic languages.

    Finally, to conclude, it is certain that English could in no way be uniform from south to north of England, this is not even the case today.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What can you do with a degree in linguistics?

People so often assume that a linguist's job is to learn as many languages as possible, when in actuality it is not anything near that. So, let us put an end to this erroneous assumption once and for all. 
Linguists do not engage in learning languages, linguists engage in studying how language works. And when I say language, I mean human language, an umbrella term that subsumes all languages spoken by humans, including pidgins, creoles, and sign languages. Thanks to linguists the world is a better place now, many daunting problems that existed for centuries have been solved because now we have a better understanding of language and language-related issues. in this article, you will see, in full-length, the contributions of linguists to the modern world. And you are going to see that it's a disgrace to confine a linguist's job to just learning languages. 
Let me just give you some examples before we break things down in more detail. A linguist's job could involve explo…

What linguists know that other people don't.

Studying languages is a privilege. When you analyze language and everyday speech you start to realize that there is an astonishing amount of wonder in this system that we take for granted. Linguists questioned the obvious, which is language, and got answers that forever changed mankind’s understanding of Language and human nature. In this article, you will see what linguists know that is not so evident to other people. So let's see what we've got. We all speak one language. One of the main discoveries of modern linguistics is that it made us aware that all the languages we speak are similar in astonishing respects; they manifest the same pattern, follow the same rules, they are learnt in exactly the same way, and that all the differences are only superficial. So, in a sense we all speak the same language. This was captured by Chomsky in an excellent metaphor in an excellent book of his titled Language and Mind in which he says that if a Martian scientist, somebody with a diffe…

8 books everyone into linguistics should read.

When you want to decide on what to read in language and linguistics, it is never easy to pick a reading list; there is just so many books out there under the label of linguistics, especially that publications in linguistics have been growing like wild fire in the last couple of decades. So with your limited time and the unlimited number of books, it is always wise to make some research beforehand on what exactly you want to read. There is a lot to choose from, and the best book will depend on what you are specifically interested in. This is why we, at The Language Nerds, compiled a list of linguistics books that will entertain the novice and the expert alike. Here are some places to start: 

1.The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker

This is a book for the general science readers, it is very accessible whether you have a background in linguistics or not. It is considered by many as a landmark in linguistics. It is a great introduction and primer to some of the more basic problems and que…