After the 1917 reforms, what was needed was a fresh analysis of the language situation on which to build a theory of language planning; and rather than focusing on what could be considered Norwegian versus Danish, it should concentrate instead on bridging the major sociolinguistic divide between popular local dialects and upper-middle-class speech. Doing this would involve defining the popular local dialects – understood as a single linguistic entity – as constituting the foundation on which not only Landsmål but also Riksmål should be based. It would also be necessary to identify the dialect forms that could be used to span the linguistic gap between the two standards.

In the aftermath of the 1917 reforms, there were once again heated debates in Parliament and in society at large about which spoken language varieties were to be used in schools. In addition, around the year 1930, Parliament decided to change the name of the city of Trondhjem to its medieval appellation, Nidaros (see further below). This triggered a fierce struggle both locally and nationally. In the end, the medieval name proposal was withdrawn and the change in spelling to Trondheim was agreed upon (Lockertsen 2007). These two conflicts convinced the Labour Party leaders that it was necessary to actively take steps to solve the language question once and for all (cf. Bernsen 1975; Rogne 1998).