Speech sounds can be broadly categorized by the source and direction of airflow. Three sources of airflow have been identified as being used in human language: pulmonic (airflow originating in the lungs), glottalic
(airflow originating from the glottis or vocal folds), and lingual or
velaric (airflow originating from the closure of the tongue and the roof of
the mouth). Airflow can also be egressive (flowing outwards) or ingressive
(flowing inwards) (Eklund, 236-245). This article is concerned with
pulmonic ingressive speech, which is cross-linguistically rare in phoneme
inventories but much more common as a speech modality, modifying normal
speech patterns to communicate extra information.
The most extensive study of pulmonic ingressive speech to date is that of
Robert Eklund. His paper describes pulmonic ingressive phonation and speech
from many angles and “covers widely different areas, such as zoology,
physiology, acoustics, pathology, anthropology, ventriloquism, shamanism,
musicology, general linguistics, paralinguistics, phonetics, and
sociolinguistics” (236). Many languages are covered in his article,
including Arabic, Austrian, Danish, Finnish, French, Frisian, Gaelic,
German, Icelandic, Japanese, Latvian, Mongolian, Norwegian, Russian,
Swedish, as well as in English in areas influenced by those languages.
Eklund concludes that “ingressive speech is reported in far more countries
and languages than perhaps would be expected given the wide-spread opinion
that ingressive speech is a characteristic of mainly Scandinavian
languages” (278-79).
There has been little research on pulmonic ingressive speech in Icelandic.
Eklund refers to Francis Joseph Peters’s doctoral dissertation, in which
Peters mentions that “Icelandic students at the University of Trondheim
have been observed to use the JA [yes] form ingressive when speaking
English and Norwegian” (41).
Peters’s scholarship is the first to connect ingressive speech in the North
Atlantic/Baltic area to migration in that he observes ingressive
conversations in Ireland, Norway, and Maine and proposes that the influence
of Scandinavian immigrants may have fostered and/or maintained ingressive
articulations in pockets of the US. Eklund also refers to Louis A.
Pitschmann’s article, who comments that “close observation has shown that
the ingressive articulation occurs in German and the Scandinavian languages
most frequently with the affirmative particle ja [yes] and
occasionally with the negatives nej, nei, [no] etc.; only
in Icelandic is it used to articulate full sentences” (154).
He elaborates on his point, arguing:
Among the Scandinavian languages, it is Icelandic in which speakers employ
the ingressive air-stream in speech production most frequently … As in
Scandinavia and Germany, the ingressive affirmative, ja, [yes] can
be observed in Iceland among both men and women, but … most particularly
among women. Moreover, Icelanders also use the ingressive air-stream when
speaking English (157).
Sandra Clarke and Gunnel Melchers develop his hypothesis further, claiming that ingressive speech patterns dispersed in two waves, first across Northern Europe through Viking settlements and later across the Atlantic when Northern Europeans emigrated to North America (55).
They call this area with ingressive pulmonic speech the North Atlantic/Baltic Zone.
We certainly do not contradict that pulmonic ingressive speech exists in Icelandic. The aim of our study was to study the reported use of ingressive speech by Icelanders in both Iceland and North America. Specifically, we designed a survey in order to explore three hypotheses while also seeking to learn more in general about the use of ingressive speech in both localities. Our hypotheses included: 1) pulmonic ingressive speech is used primarily by women; 2) it is on the wane; and 3) it hardly exists in North-American Icelandic.
This paper begins with a description of our methodology. We then provide
participant demographic information. Next, we discuss the survey results
for both closed and open-ended questions. In the discussion section that
follows, we examine survey findings in relation to our three hypotheses.
In this section, we also compare participants’ reports of ingressive speech
use in Icelandic with previous scholarship on ingressive speech in the
North Atlantic/Baltic Zone. The paper concludes with suggestions for
further research.
In order to test our hypotheses, we conducted a survey. We wrote 24
questions, some of which were open-ended and allowed respondents to be as
detailed about their thoughts and experiences as they wished. Any question
could be skipped, which meant that not every respondent answered every
question in the survey.
We relied on colleagues and friends in Iceland and the Department of
Icelandic at the University of Manitoba for the distribution of the survey.
The survey was launched on 15 May 2022. It was provided online through the
survey software Qualtrics. A copy of the survey is included in the
appendix. When on 17 July 2022 we ended the collection of data, we had
received 130 responses. More than half the surveys (70) were removed from
the study because very few questions had been answered. Of the 60 completed
surveys included in the dataset, a further six were discarded due to a
complete lack of data on ingressive speech. Some respondents, for example,
did not understand the term ingressive speech (in Icelandic innsog)
and those were thus deemed unreliable as to whether or not they had
heard or used ingressive speech. Others completed the demographics portion
but had no connection with the Icelandic language based on their responses,
and these surveys were also discarded. Discounting those surveys that were
incomplete, our sample size eventually was 54, with 25 of the completed surveys from Iceland (23 from Iceland and two from those who grew up in Iceland who currently live in Denmark) and 29 from North America (24 from Canada and five from the United States).
We recognize, of course, that there is a caveat to a survey of this kind
and – by extension – our study and conclusions. Although we reached out to
as many people as we possibly could via organizations and word of mouth, we
were probably able to contact primarily academics in Iceland and people in
North America who are connected to and active within Icelandic heritage
groups and organizations.
Participants in the study were asked where they grew up and where they
currently lived. We decided to use where participants currently lived – in
Iceland or in North America – as a basis of comparison for our results. Of
the 54 respondents in the study, 25 (46%) lived in Iceland – with two
living in Denmark whom we include in the “Iceland” sample – and 29 (54%)
lived in North America (with five of those participants living in the US).
Tables 1 and 2 provide demographic details about the Iceland and North
American groups.
Table 1: Age, gender, and education.
Population
group
|
Age |
Gender |
Education |
|
18-30 |
30-40 |
40-50 |
50-60 |
70–80 |
80+ |
M |
F |
Other |
HS |
Trade |
Uni |
| Icelandic |
4 |
2 |
9 |
8 |
2 |
0 |
8 |
17 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
24 |
| North America |
1 |
2 |
5 |
9 |
7 |
5 |
6 |
21 |
2 |
6 |
3 |
19 |
| Totals |
5 |
4 |
14 |
17 |
9 |
5 |
14 |
38 |
2 |
7 |
3 |
43 |
Throughout the rest of this study, the age groups have been broken into two percentage groups, age 50 and below (-50) and age 50 and above (50+).
Table 2: Living situation.
Population
group
|
Where respondents
grew up
|
Respondents’ current
living environment
|
Raised in
multigenerational home
|
Living in
multigenerational home
|
|
Urban |
Suburb |
Rural |
Urban |
Suburb |
Rural |
Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
| Icelandic |
16 |
6 |
3 |
23 |
1 |
1 |
7 |
18 |
2 |
23 |
| North America |
7 |
1 |
20 |
15 |
2 |
12 |
10 |
19 |
5 |
24 |
| Totals |
23 |
7 |
23 |
38 |
3 |
13 |
17 |
27 |
7 |
47 |
It should be noted that there were a few
changes in the country of residence when participants reported where they
currently lived at the time of the survey. For example, 23 (92%)
participants lived in Iceland and two (8%) participants lived on Bornholm
and in Copenhagen, Denmark. Furthermore, many participants reported
Reykjavík as their current residence with 18 total (72%). Thus, our data
set is derived from a mostly urban community often located in and around
Reykjavík. In the North American group, 25 (86%) respondents grew up in
Canada. Three (10%) grew up in the US, and one (3%) grew up in Iceland. In
contrast to the Iceland group, most of the North American participants
answered that they grew up in “rural” locations.
Moreover, we asked respondents if they were raised in a multigenerational
home or were currently living in a multigenerational home, because we
wanted to find out if pulmonic ingressive speech had perhaps been used and
transmitted from an older generation to a younger generation due to
cohabitation. Of the participants from Iceland, seven (28%) people were
raised in multigenerational homes. However, none of them lived in
multigenerational homes at the time of the survey. The ten participants
(34%) from North America who reported growing up in multigenerational homes
were all Canadians.
Next, respondents were asked about their experiences hearing Icelandic
growing up as well as if they currently used Icelandic in their everyday
lives. Four demographic variables often correlate with respondents’
linguistic conservatism – speakers’ gender, speakers who live in the same
place where they grew up (non-mobile), older speakers, and speakers who
live in rural areas. The breakdown of our respondents according to these
variables are represented in Table 3, in which respondents are sorted by
gender. Male, female, and “none” sufficed as gender categories, as no
respondents self-identified as transgender or nonbinary. In addition, we
asked how urbanized their current places of residence were (rural,
suburban, or urban), and whether or not they had moved from where they were
raised.
Table 3. Conservative linguistics variables and sample.
|
Four variables
|
Iceland |
North America |
|
Gender
|
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female |
None |
|
Age
|
-50 |
50+ |
-50 |
50+ |
-50 |
50+ |
-50 |
50+ |
-50 |
50+ |
|
Non-mobile, live where they grew up
|
1 | 2 |
1 | 5 |
0 | 1 |
1 | 8 |
0 | 1 |
|
Mobile, moved from where they grew up
|
1 | 4 |
3 | 8 |
1 | 3 |
0 | 10 |
0 | 1 |
|
Now live in rural areas
|
0 | 0 |
0 | 1 |
1 | 0 |
1 | 6 |
0 | 1 |
|
Now live in suburban areas
|
1 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
0 | 0 |
0 | 2 |
0 | 0 |
|
Now live in urban areas
|
1 | 6 |
4 | 12 |
1 | 4 |
0 | 7 |
0 | 1 |
Not surprisingly, answers to Questions 9-12 show that Icelanders have
memories of Icelandic being used while growing up, and they use Icelandic
in their everyday lives. As evident from Table 4, the only exception is a
respondent raised in the US but now living in Iceland, who did not hear
Icelandic growing up. In contrast, only five (14%) of 29 respondents from
North America still use Icelandic in their daily lives. Three respondents
were from Canada, one was from the US, and one originally from Iceland. The
others have only recollections of the language.
Table 4. Use of Icelandic.
| Q 9 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
25 |
8 |
17 |
6 |
19 |
5 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
| Percent of variable |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
100% |
17% |
33% |
14% |
0% |
33% |
15% |
In answer to Question 10 about their memories of people speaking Icelandic
in their everyday lives, most respondents answered in the affirmative. As
Table 5 shows, 24 (96%) participants currently living in Iceland and
Denmark answered “yes.”
Table 5: Memories of people using Icelandic.
| Q 10 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
24 |
8 |
16 |
5 |
19 |
27 |
6 |
19 |
2 |
3 |
24 |
| Percent of variable |
96% |
100% |
94% |
83% |
100% |
93% |
100% |
90% |
100% |
100% |
92% |
The only participant who answered “no” was a woman, age -50, who lived in
Iceland at the time of the survey but grew up in the US.
Answers to Question 11 (Do you use ingressive speech (innsog) when speaking
Icelandic?) are shown in Table 6, which provides information about those
who answered “yes” to this question. The table indicates that the
affirmative percentage responses to ingressive speech usage in the North
American group is slightly lower than in the Icelandic group.
Table 6: Personal use of ingressive speech in the present.
| Q 11 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
16 |
4 |
12 |
6 |
10 |
12 |
3 |
7 |
2 |
0 |
12 |
| Percent of variable |
64% |
67% |
71% |
100% |
53% |
41% |
50% |
33% |
100% |
0% |
100% |
In response to Question 12 (Have you used ingressive speech (innsog) in the
past when speaking Icelandic?), the majority of respondents in the
Icelandic sample reported in the affirmative as Table 7 shows.
Table 7: Personal use of ingressive speech in the past.
| Q 12 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
18 |
6 |
12 |
6 |
12 |
15 |
4 |
9 |
2 |
1 |
14 |
| Percent of variable |
72% |
75% |
71% |
100% |
63% |
52% |
67% |
43% |
100% |
33% |
54% |
The percentage is similar among men and women in Iceland. It is
interesting that a higher percentage of “yes” answers came from lower age
ranges. A smaller percentage of respondents in the North American sample
answered “yes” to this question than those in the Iceland sample. However,
one of those affirmative answers in the North American sample was from a
man who was raised in Iceland. Therefore, we consider the that affirmative
answers of the male and female North American to be similar.
Table 8 provides answers to Question 13 (Have you recently heard someone
using ingressive speech (innsog) when speaking Icelandic?).
Table 8: Recently heard use of ingressive speech.
| Q 13 |
Iceland |
North America |
| |
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
20 |
6 |
14 |
5 |
17 |
12 |
1 |
10 |
1 |
1 |
11 |
Percent of
variable |
80% |
75% |
82% |
83% |
89% |
41% |
17% |
48% |
50% |
33% |
42% |
Respondents also provided information about whom they had heard using
ingressive speech. The results are presented in Tables 9 and 10:
Table 9: People heard using ingressive speech in Iceland.
| Q 14 |
Iceland |
|
Elderly
men
(grand-
parent
age) |
Elderly
women
(grand-
parent
age) |
Older
men
(parent
age) |
Older
women
(parent
age) |
Men
your
age |
Women
your
age |
Younger
adult
men |
Younger
adult
women |
Young
boys |
Young
girls |
| All |
6 (24%) |
10 (40%) |
7 (28%) |
15 (60%) |
9 (36%) |
17 (68%) |
5 (20%) |
10 (40%) |
4 (16%) |
7 (28%) |
| M |
2 (25%) |
3 (38%) |
3 (38%) |
4 (50%) |
3 (38%) |
6 (75%) |
2 (25%) |
3 (38%) |
1 (13%) |
2 (25%) |
| F |
4 (24%) |
7 (41%) |
4 (24%) |
17 (64%) |
6 (35%) |
11 (65%) |
3 (18%) |
7 (41%) |
3 (18%) |
5 (29%) |
| -50 |
2 (25%) |
3 (50%) |
3 (50%) |
5 (83%) |
3 (50%) |
4 (67%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
| 50+ |
4 (21%) |
7 (37%) |
4 (21%) |
10 (52%) |
6 (32%) |
13 (68%) |
4 (21%) |
9 (47%) |
4 (21%) |
6 (31%) |
Table 10: People heard using ingressive speech in North America.
| Q 14 |
North America |
|
Elderly
men
(grand-
parent
age) |
Elderly
women
(grand-
parent
age) |
Older
men
(parent
age) |
Older
women
(parent
age) |
Men
your
age |
Women
your
age |
Younger
adult
men |
Younger
adult
women |
Young
boys |
Young
girls |
| All |
4 (14%) |
7 (24%) |
8 (27%) |
11 (38%) |
4 (14%) |
6 (21%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
1 (3%) |
| M |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
| F |
2 (10%) |
6 (29%) |
7 (33%) |
10 (48%) |
3 (14%) |
4 (19%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| None |
1 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| -50 |
0 (0%) |
1 (33%) |
1 (33%) |
1 (33%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| 50+ |
4 (15%) |
6 (23%) |
7 (27%) |
10 (38%) |
4 (15%) |
6 (23%) |
1 (4%) |
1 (4%) |
1 (4%) |
1 (4%) |
The majority of participants in Iceland and North America responded “yes”
to Question 15 (Have you heard someone using ingressive speech (innsog) in
the past (not recently) when speaking Icelandic?). Table 11 shows the
results from both the Icelandic and North American participants.
Table 11: Heard ingressive speech in the past.
| Q 15 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
20 |
8 |
12 |
5 |
15 |
24 |
4 |
18 |
2 |
2 |
22 |
Percent
of variable |
80% |
100% |
71% |
83% |
79% |
83% |
67% |
86% |
100% |
67% |
85% |
Moreover, participants were asked from whom they had heard ingressive
speech in the past. The results are presented in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 12: Iceland. Whom did you hear ingressive speech (innsog) from?
| Q 16 |
Iceland |
|
Elderly
men
(grand-
parent
age) |
Elderly
women
(grand-
parent
age) |
Older
men
(parent
age) |
Older
women
(parent
age) |
Men
your
age |
Women
your
age |
Younger
adult
men |
Younger
adult
women |
Young
boys |
Young
girls |
| All |
7 (28%) |
12 (48%) |
7 (28%) |
16 (64%) |
9 (36%) |
16 (64%) |
4 (16%) |
8 (28%) |
5 (25%) |
7 (29%) |
| M |
2 (25%) |
4 (50%) |
3 (38%) |
6 (75%) |
4 (50%) |
6 (75%) |
1 (13%) |
3 (38%) |
1 (13%) |
2 (25%) |
| F |
5 (29%) |
8 (47%) |
4 (23%) |
10 (60%) |
5 (29%) |
10 (59%) |
3 (18%) |
5 (29%) |
4 (24%) |
5 (29%) |
| -50 |
3 (50%) |
3 (50%) |
3 (50%) |
6 (100%) |
4 (67%) |
5 (83%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
| 50+ |
4 (21%) |
9 (47%) |
4 (21%) |
10 (52%) |
5 (26%) |
11 (59%) |
3 (16%) |
7 (37%) |
4 (21%) |
6 (32%) |
Table 13: North America. Whom did you hear ingressive
speech (innsog) from?
| Q 16 |
North America |
|
Elderly
men
(grand-
parent
age) |
Elderly
women
(grand-
parent
age) |
Older
men
(parent
age) |
Older
women
(parent
age) |
Men
your
age |
Women
your
age |
Younger
adult
men |
Younger
adult
women |
Young
boys |
Young
girls |
| All |
10 (34%) |
15 (52%) |
14 (48%) |
16 (55%) |
6 (21%) |
9 (31%) |
2 (7%) |
2 (7%) |
2 (7%) |
2 (7%) |
| M |
3 (50%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (33%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (17%) |
| F |
6 (29%) |
12 (41%) |
10 (34%) |
13 (62%) |
4 (19%) |
7 (33%) |
1 (5%) |
1 (5%) |
1 (5%) |
1 (5%) |
| None |
0 (0%) |
1 (50%) |
2 (100%) |
1 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| -50 |
1 (33%) |
1 (33%) |
1 (33%) |
1 (33%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
| 50+ |
9 (35%) |
14 (54%) |
13 (50%) |
12 (46%) |
6 (23%) |
9 (35%) |
2 (8%) |
2 (8%) |
2 (8%) |
2 (8%) |
Question 17 asked: “In your experience do some groups of people tend to use
ingressive speech (innsog) more than others?” Table 14 shows the results
for both the Iceland and North America groups.
Table 14: Some using ingressive speech more than others?
| Q 17 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
F |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
F |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Number |
16 |
5 |
11 |
6 |
10 |
14 |
1 |
12 |
1 |
2 |
12 |
Percent
of
variable |
64% |
63% |
65% |
100% |
53% |
48% |
17% |
57% |
50% |
67% |
46% |
Respondents who answered “yes” to Question 17 were asked to elaborate in an
open-ended response in Question 18. Fifteen (60%) respondents in the
Iceland group elaborated. Among these, 11 (73% of those responding) claimed
that females use ingressive speech most often. However, four (27%) stated
that both males and females use ingressive speech. Regarding age, four
(27%) participants claimed that ingressive speech was more prevalent in an
older generation (50+). In contrast, two respondents (8%) were of the
opinion that youth use ingressive speech, writing in “young people” and
“girls.” Finally, one respondent (4%) wrote that “gay people” use
ingressive speech, which might be worth further study.
Additionally, respondents were asked in Question 18 to describe the
circumstances under which people use ingressive speech. One respondent
claimed that it is part of “excited speech,” and another wrote that it is
used to indicate “surprise or support.” Finally, one female respondent,
age -50, provided a description of how ingressive speech was used by her
mother and her mother’s friends:
Perhaps not specific groups [use ingressive speech] but on special
occasion. My mother, gossiping on the phone or meeting up with friends and
talking specifically about something in relation to other people they were
slightly shocked about and could hardly say it out loud.
Ten (34%) North American participants provided experiences similar to those
reported by the Iceland group in response to Question 18. Five (50% of
those responding) respondents wrote that they associated ingressive speech
with older people. Similarly, six (60%) wrote that females used ingressive
speech more often than males. In contrast, however, one respondent argued
that it is more prevalent among young people than older people. Another
participant wrote that “subordinates more than bosses” use ingressive
speech. Finally, three (30%) respondents claimed that people with an
Icelandic background (i.e., those born in Iceland) and “Icelanders more
than Canadians” use ingressive speech more often than others. One female
participant in the 80+ year-old category gave details about hearing
Icelandic and ingressive speech while growing up in Canada:
Those whom I heard as a child were my grandmother’s sisters or friends. I
don’t remember hearing it used by any elderly male. It probably was in the
Icelandic form of “yes” [já], or in jæja [well], as my grandmother
chatted with someone...
Answers to Question 19 (When or under which circumstances do people use
ingressive speech (innsog)?) revealed that a majority of participants in
both Iceland and North America perceived of ingressive speech as positive
reinforcement in conversation. Participants could select multiple answers
from the list shown in Table 15, which provides the results for both
Iceland and North America with percentages for each variable per
geographical zone.
Table 15: Circumstances under which people use ingressive speech.
| Q 19 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
W |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
W |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| To be sympathetic |
10
40% |
2
25% |
8
47% |
2
33% |
8
47% |
7
24% |
1
17% |
6
29% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
7
27% |
| To be unsympathetic |
1
4% |
0
0% |
1
6% |
1
17% |
0
0% |
1
3% |
1
17% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
4% |
| To be affirmative |
10
40% |
6
75% |
4
24% |
3
50% |
7
37% |
13
45% |
2
33% |
10
48% |
1
50% |
1
33% |
12
46% |
| To be contradictory |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
3
10% |
1
17% |
2
10% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
3
12% |
To acknowledge what the
other speaker is saying |
12
48% |
6
75% |
6
35% |
3
50% |
9
53% |
14
48% |
0
0% |
12
57% |
2
100% |
1
33% |
13
50% |
To dismiss what the other
speaker is saying |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
3% |
0
0% |
1
5% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
4% |
To keep conversation
flowing |
7
28% |
3
38% |
4
24% |
4
67% |
3
18% |
12
41% |
2
33% |
10
48% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
12
46% |
To avoid interruption in
conversation |
3
12% |
1
13% |
2
12% |
2
33% |
1
5% |
7
24% |
3
50% |
4
19% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
7
27% |
To interrupt the
conversation |
1
4% |
1
13% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
5% |
1
3% |
0
0% |
1
5% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
4% |
To indicate engagement in
conversation |
7
28% |
4
50% |
3
18% |
2
33% |
5
26% |
11
38% |
1
17% |
10
48% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
11
42% |
| To indicate surprise |
11
44% |
3
38% |
8
47% |
2
33% |
9
47% |
10
34% |
1
17% |
8
38% |
1
50% |
0
0% |
10
38% |
| To indicate lack of surprise |
1
4% |
0
0% |
1
6% |
0
0% |
1
5% |
1
3% |
0
0% |
1
5% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
1
4% |
| Uncertain |
4
16% |
1
13% |
3
18% |
1
17% |
3
16% |
5
17% |
0
0% |
4
19% |
1
50% |
1
33% |
4
15% |
Not listed (please
elaborate) |
4
16% |
2
25% |
2
12% |
1
17% |
2
11% |
2
7% |
1
17% |
1
5% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
2
8% |
Most of the respondents from Iceland clearly perceived ingressive speech as
a positive aspect of conversations. The four respondents, who selected
that the answer was not listed, elaborated. One commented that ingressive
speech could be used “ironically.” Another noted that it could be
used “to be judgmental.” The last two respondents suggested that ingressive
speech was used in conversations “to express mild outrage” or “when
excited/passionate having much to say.”
Question 20 asked if respondents had heard ingressive speech in connection
with certain words or phrases and requested them to check all that applied
from the list shown in Table 16.
Table 16: Words and phrases connected with ingressive speech.
| Q 20 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
All |
M |
W |
-50 |
50+ |
All |
M |
W |
None |
-50 |
50+ |
| Já [yes] |
23
92% |
8
100% |
15
88% |
6
100% |
17
89% |
19
66% |
2
33% |
16
76% |
1
50% |
2
67% |
17
65% |
| Jú [yes] |
17
68% |
7
88% |
10
59% |
6
100% |
11
58% |
16
55% |
3
50% |
13
62% |
0
0% |
1
33% |
15
58% |
| Nei [no] |
16
64% |
7
88% |
9
53% |
5
83% |
11
58% |
14
48% |
2
33% |
12
57% |
0
0% |
2
67% |
12
46% |
Longer segment
of speech |
20
80% |
8
100% |
12
71% |
6
100% |
14
74% |
6
20% |
2
33% |
4
19% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
6
23% |
| Uncertain |
2
8% |
0
0% |
2
12% |
0
0% |
2
11% |
3
10% |
0
0% |
2
10% |
1
50% |
0
0% |
3
12% |
Not listed (please
elaborate) |
2
8% |
0
0% |
2
12% |
0
0% |
2
11% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
0
0% |
Two participants in the Iceland group commented and added the following
phrases or words as examples: “Veit það ekki” [I don’t know], “guð!
jiii" [god! ugh], and suchlike. In addition, two respondents noted that
they were uncertain of how ingressive speech was used, and two others
claimed that the answer was “not listed”. In contrast to the Iceland group,
only very few respondents in the North American group had heard ingressive
speech used in a longer segment of speech.
Questions 21-24 were open-ended and allowed respondents to describe more
fully their perceptions of the use of ingressive speech. In the
following, we discuss first the Icelandic group and next the North American
group. Question 21 asked participants to note what particular ingressive
speech users came to mind. Seventeen (68%) of the Iceland group provided
answers to this question. The results are shown in Table 17.
Table 17: Particular users of ingressive speech (Iceland).
Q 21 (a)
Ingressive speech
users
|
Iceland |
|
All |
W |
M |
-50 |
50+ |
| Myself |
3 (18%) |
2 (18%) |
1 (17%) |
2 (40%) |
1 (8%) |
| Particular women I know |
7 (41%) |
4 (36%) |
3 (50%) |
2 (40%) |
1 (8%) |
| Particular men I know |
1 (6%) |
1 (9%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
| Women in general |
3 (18%) |
3 (27%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (20%) |
2 (17%) |
| Common for everyone |
2 (12%) |
1 (9%) |
1 (17%) |
1 (20%) |
1 (8%) |
| Children |
2 (12%) |
1 (9%) |
1 (17%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (17%) |
| Mostly women, sometimes men |
2 (12%) |
1 (9%) |
1 (17%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (17%) |
| My friends |
3 (18%) |
3 (27%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (25%) |
Many respondents reported that women were the predominant users of
ingressive speech. Some provided details about particular women known to
them. For example, a male 50+ wrote of an elderly woman:
My childhood friend’s mother was an expert in ingressive speech, ending
other peoples’ sentences by echoing the last syllable using ingressive
speech. She was a housewife, had seven children. An extremely nice and
agreeable person.
A female, age -50, wrote:
An older woman from the West Fjords. She uses it so intensely, when she’s
speaking about something important and doesn’t want to stop talking [that]
she will continue her speech with innsog instead of stopping to breathe.
Another female, age -50, offered comments about females using ingressive
speech when shocked:
I use it myself quite often when I say “Já” [yes] in conversations but
mainly when I am quite surprised, for example when I say “Ha?” [What?] or
“Guð minn góður” [Oh my God]. Sometimes me and my friends use it mockingly
as well, imitating a specific type of woman. The type of woman would be
middle aged – elderly talking about something we find innocent but that
type of woman would be shocked by – if that makes sense.
Finally, participants gave details on wide-spread use. For example, a woman
50+ wrote:
A male colleague of mine, who is in his eighties, comes to mind because I
think he uses ingressive speech more than other men. The fact that I
immediately think of him might also mean that I hear men seldom use innsog,
or less frequently than I hear women doing the same thing.
The aforementioned responses to Question 21 not only describe ingressive
speech users, but also indicate the circumstances under which ingressive
speech was used. The main themes in their comments are shown in Table 18.
Table 18: Why do some speakers use ingressive speech (Iceland)?
| Q 21(a) |
Iceland |
|
Used when
deeply
immersed in
conversation;
can express
surprise, shock,
or engagement |
A way of
breathing and
speaking at the
same time and to
continue talking |
Repeating what is
spoken to the
speaker at the
end of sentences |
Used with
animated
storytelling |
Used in women’s
gossip and
conversation |
| All |
3 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| M |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| W |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
| -50 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| 50+ |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
The responses show that ingressive speech is typically used when a person
is deeply immersed in a conversation or when a person is engaged in
animated storytelling. They also suggest that it is likely prevalent in
women’s conversations. One male participant, age 50+, mentioned some of
these instances and noted that ingressive speech can be used in tandem with
egressive speech:
I associate this phenomenon primarily with women although I think I may
also have heard men use it. My impression is that this occurs mostly when
the speaker is excited or passionate or deeply engaged in a conversation,
has a lot to say, and keeps talking while inhaling. I can think of several
women of different ages that I recall doing this. Children also do this
under similar circumstances, especially with an affirmative “já” or “jú”
[yes].
In contrast to the Icelandic group, the North American respondents’
answers revealed that they have recollections mostly of elderly family
members using ingressive speech. Fourteen (48%) of the 29 participants
provided a response to this question.
As shown in Table 19, most North Americans provided details about one or
more older family members within a generation older than their own who used
ingressive speech.
Table 19: Particular users of ingressive speech (North America)?
Q 21 (b)
Ingressive
speech users |
North America |
|
All (14) |
M (1) |
W (12) |
None (1) |
-50 (1) |
50+ (13) |
Elderly people
age 60+ who
heard ingressive
speech growing
up/fluent in
Icelandic
|
2 (14%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (17%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (15%) |
Great-
grandparents |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
Grandparents
and/or their
friends |
6 (45%) |
0 (0%) |
6 (50%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (100%) |
5 (38%) |
Parents and their
siblings |
4 (28%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (33%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (31%) |
| Icelandic family |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Those with
Icelandic
background |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
Icelandic
professor |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Nova Scotian
spouse of child |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
| Mostly women |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
| Myself |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
One respondent, a female age 50+, commented: “Amma [Grandma] and
Afi [Grandpa], aunts and uncles, Icelandic Professor, parents ...
Icelandic family and others while I was growing up.” Another, a female age
50+, provided insight into the transfer of ingressive speech into English
in Canada, claiming that users of ingressive speech are:
Many elderly people (aged 80 and up) and others in my age group (60-70s)
who heard innsog when they were growing up. I used it without thinking
while I am speaking English, mainly in the affirmative sense.
Yet another respondent, a female age 50+, described how ingressive speech
may have transferred into English in prior generations prior and associates
it with comic storytelling:
Long, engaged discussion about contestable subjects where innsog is used in
all its aspects of meaning as listed above. It is like an extra expressive
dimension of speech. And one other element unlisted above - humour. My
uncles, especially, typically used innsog both in Icelandic and English to
signal an upcoming joke, or just the punchline. Both of them adapted it to
English as part of their storytelling mode.
Other North American respondents provided insight into when ingressive
speech was used within conversation. One respondent, a female age 50+,
suggested that it is used by “women who are in casual conversation and
especially if a comment is coming to a conclusion.” Another respondent, a
male age 50+, drew attention to the phrase “guð minn góður” [Oh my God],
which was not listed in the survey.
Similar responses were found in the answers to Question 22 (Do you have any
associations with the use of ingressive speech [innsog]?) In the Iceland
group, 13 (52%) respondents answered the question. One male participant,
age 50+, wrote: “I think ingressive speech can be rather inelegant.” Two
female respondents, age -50, commented on the circumstances in which it is
used: “A mild one [association] with women sharing their experiences and
supporting each other.” One of these two females also noted that it is used
in private discussions while reiterating her comment in her answer to
Question 20:
I doubt it would have been used in a larger group. It’s more like a part of
a more private talk between 2-4 people. If I use it or people around my
age, I think it would be done more like a joke to pretend that you are
really shocked about something (usually related to behaviour of other
people) or trying to gossip.
Two participants suggested more types of conversations in which innsog is
used. A female respondent, age 50+, listed “humor, ironical,” and a male,
age 50+, mentioned “surprise or slander.” Finally, a female, age 50+,
responded that she occasionally used ingressive speech and provided some
phrases, such as “já, ég held það” [Yes, I think so] and “ég held
ekki” [I don’t think so].
In the North American group, eight (26%) respondents provided comments.
One female, age 50+, mentioned “Icelandic Association of Manitoba” as a
specific organization. Another female, also age 50+, mentioned extended
family networks in Canada that maintain(ed) Icelandic. A third female, age
50+, remembered ingressive speech while “listening to conversations among
my mother and her sisters-in-laws (my aunts).” In addition, a female, age
50+, commented that one of her friends had visited Iceland to search for
her roots and explained to her that she had heard ingressive speech.
Finally, three respondents reflected on their own usage of ingressive
speech. Two women, age 50+, commented “I do sometimes use it (but seldom)”
and “Maybe when I try to speak Icelandic.” The third, a female -50,
suggested a limited range for ingressive speech, writing “only really used
with já or nei [yes or no].”
In Question 23, participants were asked if they had perceived a change in
ingressive speech usage over time. Sixteen (64%) of 25 participants in the
Iceland group provided an answer. Table 20 summarizes the type of responses
and provides percentages for each variable.
Table 20: Changes in ingressive speech over time (Iceland).
| Q 23 |
Iceland |
|
All (16) |
M (6) |
W (10) |
-50 (3) |
50+ (13) |
| Decreasing |
7 (43%) |
2 (33%) |
5 (50%) |
2 (67%) |
5 (38%) |
| Stable |
4 (25%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (20%) |
1 (33%) |
3 (23%) |
| Increasing |
1 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (8%) |
| Uncertain |
4 (25%) |
2 (33%) |
2 (20%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (31%) |
The table shows that most respondents are of the opinion that the use of
ingressive speech has decreased over time, though a slight minority stated
that it is stable or increasing. One male, age 50+, suggested that
urbanization might be a factor in its decline:
I hear less of ingressive speech nowadays, I think, than I did in
childhood. I grew up in the countryside, partly. Perhaps it was used more
there than in the city of Reykjavík nowadays.
Two participants reiterated that ingressive speech is used only under
special circumstances and that, accordingly, it would be difficult to track
a decline. One female, age 50+, wrote:
I think it may have decreased, i.e. that younger people use it less than my
generation and people older than me. But then it is possible that I don't
have many conversations with younger people of that kind that would elicit
innsog.
The other, a male, age 50+, argued that it had always been occasionally
used and likely under certain circumstances: “No, I don’t think so. I hear
it occasionally, not very often; I think it has always been like that.”
Finally, a woman, age 50+, suggested that unconscious use of ingressive
speech may prevent the acknowledgement of personal use of ingressive
speech: “I think it has not changed that much. Younger people tend to make
fun of it as if they would never do it, but they still do it
unconsciously.”
In contrast, North American responses showed that participants believed
that ingressive speech has decreased over time. Seventeen (60%)
participants provided responses to this open-ended question. Table 21 shows
the results with percentages for each variable.
Table 21: Changes in ingressive speech over time (North America).
| Q 23 |
North America |
|
All (17) |
M (1) |
W (15) |
None (1) |
-50 (0) |
50+ (17) |
| Decreasing |
8 (50%) |
1 (100%) |
7 (47%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
8 (47%) |
| No or stable |
1 (6%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (6%) |
Need more
interactions to know |
4 (25%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (27%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (24%) |
| Uncertain |
5 (31%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (20%) |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (24%) |
Two participants elaborated on their statements. One, a female, age 50+,
commented:
Mostly elderly people in Canada might use innsog and not as much as before.
Younger people don’t even joke about it as we used to do. I can’t make
much of an assessment about its use in Iceland.
The other, a female, age 50+, noted that “those raised in Canada do not
use it.” In addition, four (25%) respondents reported that they had very
little interaction with North American Icelandic and could not surmise what
had changed regarding use of ingressive speech. A female participant, age
50+, wrote: “I can’t answer this, having been away from Gimli since I was
17.” Another female, age 50+, claimed that there had been no change.
In the last question (Question 24), participants were asked if they had
further comments about ingressive speech that they would like to make.
Seven (28%) in the Iceland group provided substantive responses, and ten
(34%) of the North American group had comments. Table 22 provides these
survey responses for both the Iceland and North America groups by theme.
Table 22: Final comments on ingressive speech arranged by theme.
| Q 24 |
Iceland |
North America |
|
Unconscious of when self or others use it
|
2 |
2 |
|
It transfers into English
|
1 |
2 |
|
(Women’s) speech that is comic
|
2 |
1 |
|
(Women’s) speech that is sexualized
|
1 |
0 |
|
(Women’s) speech indicating lack of education
|
1 |
0 |
|
No term for innsog in North America
|
0 |
2 |
|
A lack due to the decline in fluency in Icelandic
|
0 |
2 |
|
Spoken in limited geographical zones in Canada
|
0 |
1 |
|
Used with private or informal speech
|
1 |
0 |
|
Used for insertions during a lull in conversation
|
0 |
1 |
Four participants in the Iceland group claimed that they were not
conscious of when they used ingressive speech or heard it in conversation.
One respondent wrote: “I have to say I might not be the best judge because
I don’t think I always notice it when people use it.” Three comments
further reiterated scholars’ findings that ingressive speech easily
transfers into English. One respondent from the North American group wrote:
“It is used with English speech by people of Icelandic background and is
often not a conscious decision to speak in this way.” Moreover, respondents
commented on females as the primary users of ingressive speech. One
Icelandic respondent suggested that there might be a stereotype:
I think innsog is usually seen as a symptom of a lack of education and
theatrical or dramatical exaggeration, more feminine, and generally rather
derided, which makes it fun to use, especially when speaking with educated
males.
Another associated it with female sexualized speech:
I lived in the UK for several years and was told by one or two Englishmen
(who heard me speak Icelandic with a compatriot) that they found ingressive
speech sexy. I have never thought of it that way!
Generally, the comments from the North American group were inconclusive,
evidently because some of the respondents were unfamiliar with the term
ingressive speech (innsog). One respondent wrote:
…if you thought we were going to get reasonable answers from ordinary
Icelandic speakers in North America, I think you are mistaken. My mother,
aunt and uncle would not know what you were talking about re innsog. I had
to google it many times to even begin to figure out what it is. And I had
to say já [yes] several times to figure out if I used it when I talk to my
mother in my few Icelandic words.
Two females (50+) suggested that there was a lack of ingressive speech due
to a decline in Icelandic fluency in North America. One of the two
highlighted nexuses where North American Icelandic was spoken:
There aren’t any Icelandic speakers in Edmonton any more except a couple of
recent immigrant families. There were speakers when I first moved here,
they were older than me, having moved from New Iceland, or the settlements
in Southwest Manitoba, or central Saskatchewan, Vatnabyggd.
Our first hypothesis – that ingressive speech in Icelandic is used
primarily by women – is somewhat confirmed by participants’ responses to
our survey, yet our results are not completely consistent with most
findings targeting communities in the North Atlantic/Baltic Zone. For
example, in their study of ingressive speech in Finnish and Danish, Auli
Hakulinen, Tine Larsen, and Jakob Steensig found that it was used mostly,
though not exclusively, by women (104). Marianne Stølen, too, reported
that significantly more women used Danish affirmative “ja” [yes] with
ingressive articulation (1994, 673; 1995, 222-23). In addition, Sandra
Clarke and Gunnar Melchers demonstrated that in both Sweden and
Newfoundland women used ingressive particles with higher frequency than men
(63). Five other studies in the North Atlantic/Baltic Zone shared and
confirmed their findings. Sandra Clarke and Gunnel Melchers even argue that the spread of ingressive speech in Viking settlements likely happened through women (9, 64).Therefore, there is a likelihood that women are the primary speakers of ingressive speech in Iceland.
In contrast to these findings, our analysis of Questions 11 and 12 suggests
that reported use of ingressive speech is similar across genders in the
Iceland group – with 67% of males and 70% of females claiming that they
used it in the present and 75% of males and 71% of females claiming that
they used it in the past. In addition, the North American group had a
higher percentage of males (50%) reporting that they used it in the present
than females (33%) reported. Furthermore, 67% of males and 43% of females
in the North American group claimed that they used ingressive speech in the
past. However, it should be noted that one male participant in this group
grew up in Iceland. If we consider these reports without including him, the
numbers appear more similar, with 33% of males and females claiming to
still use ingressive speech in the present and 50% of males and 43% of
females claiming to have used it in the past. In conclusion, both males and
females reported using ingressive speech to roughly the same degree in both
the Iceland and North American survey groups.
Women, however, were often identified by survey respondents as the primary
ingressive speech users in closed and open-ended questions that asked for
memories of heard speech or whether there were certain users of ingressive
speech. For example, in Questions 14 and 16 (shown in Tables 9, 10, 12, and
13), females were perceived as more frequent users of ingressive speech
than males, especially in Iceland. The exception was in the children’s age
category in the past where participants reported hearing ingressive speech
equally for boys and girls. Similarly, reports of heard ingressive speech
in the present for the North American sample vaguely favored females in the
present and past, except in the age categories that were younger-than-self.
Moreover, in answer to Question 17 and Question 18 (Table 14), a larger
percentage of Icelanders reported that females were ingressive speech users
and provided specific examples. However, there was no definite sway toward
females in the North American group in answer to these questions.
Accordingly, there may be some kind of communal knowledge or a belief that
ingressive speech is a women’s conversational tool more often than for men.
For this reason, it is possible that participants highlighted experiences
with female speakers. Furthermore, most of our participants were women and
may be reporting on themselves and their female social networks. It is
possible that men also use ingressive speech in conversation but that this
was downplayed in survey responses. It should be noted here that some
scholars argue that men demonstrate a non-verbal counterpart to ingressive
speech in the North Atlantic/Baltic Zone. Peters argues that men in Norway
used an inaudible ingressive that matched women’s voiced articulation in a
similar body language (81). Sundkvist claims that men used voiceless
ingressives in the Shetland Islands (192). And Sundkvist and Gao suggest
that men pucker their lips as supportive listeners in the Orkney Islands
(10). In light of this, an observational study of males and females might
have great potential for further understanding of ingressive speech in
Icelandic.
Our second hypothesis is that ingressive speech is on the wane in Iceland
and the Icelandic communities in North America. Several studies of the use
of ingressive speech in other languages conclude that it is diminishing.
In their examination of Newfoundland, Clarke and Melchers argue that “in
some areas of the ‘North Atlantic/Baltic Zone’ ingressive use appears to be
declining among younger and more urban or urbanized speakers” (61). Peter
Sundkvist, who studied the Shetland Islands, notes that ingressive speech
is used primarily by elderly people and claims that its use is declining
(200-1). In their study of residents born in the Orkney Islands between
1905-1910, Sundkvist and Man Gao also provide hearsay that ingressive
speech is in drastic decline (11). Thom’s work on Scottish shows that 69%
of study participants were of the opinion that elderly people are the
primary users of ingressive speech, which suggests a decline in that
language as well (31). Finally, Peters’s study of Vinalhaven, Maine,
describes some informants who moved away from Vinalhaven for college or
became fishermen after high school and stopped using ingressive speech
(191). Accordingly, he argues that the decline in ingressive speech use
might be associated with their change of residence or professional life
(188-94). In contrast, Pitschmann documents how ingressive particles may
have spread from Germany to young women in Austria, which indicates that
ingressive speech can potentially spread from one population to another
through youth or even experience a resurgence in subsequent generations
(154-55).
The responses to our survey reveal only a minute decline in the use of
ingressive speech as perceived by the respondents in the Iceland group with
64% of participants reporting using ingressive speech in the present versus
72% reporting using ingressive speech in the past (Questions 11 and 12).
However, 80% of the Iceland group claimed they had heard ingressive speech
in the present and past, suggesting no decline (Questions 13 and 15). It is
difficult to discern a felt decline when examining the age distribution of
those participants who had heard ingressive speech both recently and in the
past. In addition, in responses to open-ended Question 23, 43% were of the
opinion that ingressive speech was decreasing compared with 56% who
believed it was stable or increasing or who were uncertain.
The North American group’s results on decline in usage were difficult to
interpret. Participants’ reports suggest a small decline in their own use
with 41% reporting using ingressive speech in the present and 52% reporting
they used ingressive speech in the past (Question 11 and 12). However,
reports of heard speech in the present and past showed a decline in this
community, with 83% claiming to have heard ingressive speech in the past
and only 43% claiming to have heard it at the time of the survey.
Furthermore, answers to Questions 14 and 16 show that respondents rarely
heard ingressive speech in younger-than-self categories in the past and
present. Accordingly, the use of ingressive speech may have been more
prevalent in older generations in North America.
Our third hypothesis—that ingressive speech is almost non-existent in North
American Icelandic—was not confirmed by the respondents. For example,
Questions 11 and 13 show that 41% of the North American group claimed that
they used ingressive speech themselves and had heard it in the present.
Community networks, key localities, and interactions with people in Iceland
may play pivotal roles in the continuation of ingressive speech in the
North American immigrant communities. In addition, North American Icelandic
remains inclusive of a range of ingressive articulations as shown by
answers to Question 20 and some of the open-ended questions.
With regard to the situations in which ingressive speech is used in
Icelandic, many of our findings confirm the research of other scholars. One
is that ingressive speech is often considered an affirming or sympathetic
contribution to a conversation. Clarke and Melchers (67); Eklund (280);
Hakulinen (52); Kobayashi (78-80, 83-84); Hakulinen, Larsen, and Steensig
(112); Peters (3-4, 99); Pitschmann (156-58); Stølen (1994,
672-73, 675); Stølen (1995, 221-22); and Thom (84) all arrived at similar
conclusions in their studies. For instance, Clarke and Melchers found
examples of short phrases in their study of ingressive speech in Swedish
and are of the opinion that these are likely response formulae (54).
Sundkvist and Gao found an ingressive “I know” in the Orkney Islands (9).
Thom argues that women are prevalent users of longer speech segments in
Scotland, and that longer speech segments are also common in the Faroe
Islands (32, 37-38). Furthermore, Hakulinen, Larsen, and Steensig attest
to longer ingressive speech segments in Finnish (105). This
is in contrast to the study conducted by Pitchman, who claims that “only in
Icelandic is it [ingressive speech] used to articulate full sentences”
(156). Some of our respondents argued that ingressive speech was part of
intimate, informal conversations between friends and family members. These
findings, too, are echoed in Clarke and Melchers (54, 62, 66-67), Hakulinen
(52, 62-63), Kobayashi (58), and Thom (35). Sundkvist, however, claims that
ingressive articulations can be found in any context in the Shetland
Islands (196). Similarly, Hakulinen, Larsen, and Steensig argue that it
can occur in both private and public discourse in Danish and Finnish
(103-4).
In addition, our respondents mentioned that ingressive speech is sometimes
used in women’s conversations and gossip. Thom’s study of Scottish also
associates the use of ingressive articulations with gossip (35). In
Coates’s opinion, women are socialized into private discourse where gossip
occurs and that providing support for one another may take precedence over
informative talk (202). Stølen is of a similar opinion and argues that
ingressive “ja” [yes] in Danish builds a “cooperative framework in
conversations” for women and supports female bonding (1995, 224), and
Kobayashi is of the opinion that women use ingressive particles more often
than men because they are more concerned with politeness (77-78).
Finally, some of our respondents commented on instances of ingressive
insertion in conversations. One survey participant noted the use of
ingressive speech to end a person’s sentence. Hakulinen (52-56), Hakulinen,
Larsen, and Steensig (112), Kobayashi (84), and Peters (5) all note the use
of this use of ingressive response given by the listener, when the speaker
concludes a topic or his/her speaking turn.
Not particularly noted by our respondents but worth mentioning is that some
scholars argue that ingressive speakers may continue to speak on excitedly
while using ingressives. This phenomenon is described by Peters in his
study of speakers in Norway, which suggests that without ingressives from
others, speakers sometimes generate their own ingressive listening devices
in self-affirmation or reflection while continuing their speaking turn
(83-85). Insertions of ingressive utterances into lulls in conversation has
been discussed by Hakulinen (55-56, 62-63), who points out that
ingressives are inserted when conversations stall or ebb in Finnish. Also,
Kobayashi notes that when there is a long pause and at other turn-taking
junctures ingressives might be used in Norwegian (81, 88).
The similarity in the percentages of males and females who claimed they
were ingressive speech users in the past and present in both Iceland and
North America suggests that our first hypothesis—that females use pulmonic
ingressive speech more than men—does not hold. It should be noted, however,
that some participants noted that they heard females using ingressive
speech slightly more often in Iceland and among older generations in North
America. Accordingly, the results for this first hypothesis are unclear and
somewhat inconsistent with findings from other studies in the North
Atlantic/Baltic Zone. Further research with a larger sample might clarify
the answer to this research question. Moreover, ingressive speech does not
appear to be on the wane in Iceland, but seems to be declining in North
America. Therefore, survey data confirmed the second hypothesis for North
America. Our third hypothesis – that it does not exist in North
America—does not hold and may be irrelevant.
-
1. Where did you grow up?: Country [Free Response]; Town/City [Free
Response]; Is this location rural, suburban, or urban? [Free Response]
-
2. Where do you currently live?: Country[Free Response]; Town/City [Free
Response]; Is this location rural, suburban, or urban? [Free Response]
-
3. What is your age?: 18-30; 30-40; 40-50;
50-60; 60-70; 70-80; 80+
-
4a. What is your current gender? (Check all that apply): Man; Non-binary;
Woman; Not listed, please specify; Prefer not to answer
-
4b. Are you transgender / do you identify as part of the transgender
community?: Yes; No; It's complicated / other; Prefer not to answer
-
5. Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation? (Check
all that apply): Asexual; Bisexual; Heterosexual/Straight; Gay; Lesbian;
Queer; Not listed, please specify; Prefer not to answer
-
6. Were you raised in a multigenerational home?: Yes; No
-
7. Do you live in a multigenerational home?:
Yes; No
-
8. What is your highest level of completed
education?: Primary school; High school; Trade school; University
-
9. Do you use Icelandic in your everyday life?: Yes; No
-
10. Do you have memories of people using Icelandic in your everyday life?:
Yes; No
-
11. Do you use ingressive speech (innsog) when speaking
Icelandic?: Yes; No
-
12. Have you used ingressive speech (innsog) in the past when
speaking Icelandic?: Yes; No
-
13. Have you recently heard someone using ingressive speech (innsog)
when speaking Icelandic?: Yes; No
-
14. Whom did you hear ingressive speech (innsog) from? (Check all
that apply): Elderly men (grandparents’ generation and up); Elderly women
(grandparent’s generation and up); Older men (parents’ generation); Older
women (parent’s generation); Men of your age; Women of your age; Younger
adult men; Younger adult women; Young boys; Young girls
-
15. Have you heard someone using ingressive speech (innsog) in the
past (not recently) when speaking Icelandic?: Yes; No
-
16. Whom did you hear ingressive speech (innsog) from? (Check all
that apply): Elderly men (grandparents’ generation and up); Elderly women
(grandparent’s generation and up); Older men (parents’ generation); Older
women (parent’s generation); Men of your age; Women of your age; Younger
adult men; Younger adult women; Young boys; Young girls
-
17. In your experience do some groups of people tend to use ingressive
speech (innsog) more than others?: Yes; No
-
18. Please elaborate. [Free Response;
displayed if respondent answered Yes to 17]
19. When or under which circumstances do people use ingressive speech (innsog)?
(Check all that apply): To be sympathetic; To be unsympathetic; To be
affirmative; To be contradictory; To acknowledge what the other speaker is
saying; To dismiss what the other speaker is saying; To keep conversation
flowing; To avoid interruption in conversation; To interrupt the
conversation; To indicate engagement in conversation; To indicate surprise;
To indicate lack of surprise; Uncertain; Not listed (please elaborate)
-
20. Have you heard ingressive speech (innsog) connected with the
following words or phrases? (Check all that apply): Já; Jú; Nei; A longer
segment of speech, such as part of a sentence or a whole sentence;
Uncertain; Not listed (please elaborate)
-
21. Do any particular users of ingressive speech (innsog) come to
mind? Without using names please provide details about them. [Free
Response]
-
22. Do you have any associations with the use of ingressive speech (innsog)?
[Free Response]
-
23. In your view, has the use of ingressive
speech (innsog) changed over time? (e.g., has it increased,
decreased, changed meaning, have different groups of people changed their
usage of it, etc?) [Free Response]
-
24. Do you have any further comments that you
would like to share with us, either about the survey itself or ingressive
speech (innsog) in Icelandic? [Free Response]
Acknowledgements:
We wish to thank Laura Moquin and Heather Mayo for help
with putting together the survey. Heather Mayo was also of assistance in
terms of finding secondary reading materials on pulmonic ingressive speech
and digested much of the demographic information from the respondents.