You are on page 1of 387

Globalization and the Future of German

Globalization and the Future of German


With a Select Bibliography

Edited by

Andreas Gardt Bernd Hppauf

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin New York

Mouton de Gruyter (formerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin.

We gratefully acknowledge a printing subsidy from the Faculty of Arts and Science at New York University.

Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Globalization and the future of German / edited by Andreas Gardt, Bernd Hppauf. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 3-11-017918-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. German language 21st century. 2. German language in the United States. 3. Language and languages Study and teaching United States. I. Gardt, Andreas, 1954 II. Hppauf, Bernd. PF3088.G56 2004 4301.910905dc22 2004011660

ISBN 3-11-017918-0
Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de. Copyright 2004 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Cover design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin. Printed in Germany.

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Globalization Threats and Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bernd Hppauf 1 3

Globalization and Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 The Past, Present, and Future of World English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 David Crystal English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Robert Phillipson Global English A New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture? . . . 65 Hans Joachim Meyer English Rules the World. What Will Become of German? . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Rudolf Hoberg Language Policies in East and West. National Language Policies as a Response to the Pressures of Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Petra Braselmann The Impact of English on the Vocabulary and Grammatical Structure of German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 German as an Endangered Language? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Peter Eisenberg Does Denglish Dedifferentiate our Perceptions of Nature? The View of a Nature Lover and Language Fighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .139 Hermann H. Dieter

vi

Contents

Internationalizing Science and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .155 German as an International Language of the Sciences Recent Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 Ulrich Ammon The Future of German and Other Non-English Languages for Academic Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Konrad Ehlich Language and Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe . . . . . . . 187 Wolfgang Thierse Language and National Identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Andreas Gardt Yiddish and German: An On-Again, Off-Again Relationship and Some of the More Important Factors Determining the Future of Yiddish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 Joshua A. Fishman The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language: Many Ways of Speaking German; Many Ways of Being American . . . . 229 David L. Valuska and William W. Donner German in the USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Language Policies of the Goethe-Institut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Nikky Keilholz-Rhle, Stephan Nobbe, and Uwe Rau The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA . . . . . . . . 253 John Lalande II Self-Inflicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping . . . . . . 265 Robert C. Reimer Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 Helene Zimmer-Loew German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293 Peter Wagener

Contents

vii

Language and the Creative Mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305 The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization: Semiotic Implications of Anglicisms in German . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307 Prisca Augustyn Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture . . . . . . . . . . . . 319 Yasemir Yildiz Globalization: A Look at the Positive Side . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 John M. Grandin

Select Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373

Preface

It seems justified to say that in Europe language has never before been the subject of heated, or even public, debate, as was the case in the decades around the year 2000. It had by this time become obvious that English was now the dominant language world-wide. The implications, as well as possible responses to the continuing rise of English differ greatly between languages and nations. It is no surprise that the language debate was particularly heated in Europe since European languages are losing their traditional position and societies are concerned about the reduction of their national language to a small language. The situation of German is paradigmatic. In public debate and academic publications the question was raised whether German was among the dying languages, with a future reduced to the private sphere or folklore. Some commentators denied this possibility while others were seriously afraid of the future, and yet others considered it an inevitable implication of the tendency towards a global village that will only be possible if English is used as the language of communication all over the world. Whichever side one takes in this debate, it is obvious that linguistic changes cannot be discussed in terms of linguistic concepts only, since they are inextricably intertwined with social, political and economic tendencies. The year 2001 was declared the European Year of Languages. It gave rise to many conferences, lectures and hearings considered worthy of media coverage. Official publications of the EU made an attempt to demonstrate the bright future of Europes linguistic diversity. However, not every one agreed. In contrast to the celebration of languages, critical voices pointed out that the positive presentation of the diversity of European languages was little more than a deception. Presenting English as one of the many languages spoken in Europe, equal to Greek or Finnish, was seen by many commentators as an ill-conceived attempt to cover up the real situation. The European Year of Languages was meant to boost positive attitudes and foster a love of Europes colorful plurality through a glowing image of its linguistic diversity. The contrary seems to have been achieved. Skepticism and even deep pessimism in relation to the future of European languages ensued. The debate was particularly intensive in Germany. After two years of preparation, a conference addressing the topic of the future of European languages with a specific focus on German as a paradig-

Preface

matic example was held in 2002 at New York University. New York seemed an ideal place for a re-examination of these issues. It is the power center of the drive towards English as a global language and, at the same time, it is distanced both geographically and mentally from the sites of political debate in Europe. The intention was to use this distance to create a different framework and to re-adjust the debate by defining the issues in a different way. It was hoped that the focus on the effects of globalization rather than on the fear of domination would lead to a reconstitution of the terms of the debate and liberate it from the sterile perspective of confrontation that perceives languages as being engaged in a struggle for survival. This volume contains revised contributions to the conference, expanded by six solicited essays. A guiding principle that the editors adopted was to reflect the broad spectrum of the debate that is not limited to academic positions. Language policy is a field where scholarly research and public interest intersect and it is no surprise that not every argument used in this debate stands up to closer academic scrutiny, particularly where assumptions about the nature of language are made. This has become evident in German speaking countries in the debate about foreign words and phrases. This is the major concern of language societies which have contributed to the intense public debate in recent years. Language is a public good and controversy over its current state and future development is a legitimate aspect of public discourse, open to all groups of society. The decision to publish this volume in English rather than in German gave rise to strong criticism and warrants a brief explanatory comment. The book is addressed to a target group that can be called international readership. In the past ten years a large number of books on the language question have been published in German. Yet, the relationship between questions of language and globalization has been neglected. Furthermore, the European language debate is all but unknown in English speaking countries and the specific situation of German is even less well known. Publication in English, it is reasonable to assume, will lead the book to reach a new readership unfamiliar with the issues elaborated on in this anthology. The editors responded to the concern expressed about the problem of linguistic diversity by including abstracts of all essays in German. The first chapter deals with the general effects that globalization has on language. Globalization manifests itself in the increased use of English as a second language world-wide, in the corresponding decrease of importance of other languages in second language acquisition and in the increasing presence of English in everyday life in non-English speaking societies. The question is raised whether this will lead to an ideal community of uninhibited communi-

Preface

xi

cation where English as the new lingua franca enables individuals and groups to participate in an increasingly global market of information, entertainment and material goods, or, alternatively, whether (American) English is becoming a new means of expanding cultural and economic hegemony. Where linguistic diversity is seen as linked to cultural diversity, the dominance of English as the language of globalization is often held responsible for erasing cultural differences and creating a uniform and faceless world. For those who regard this as a genuine threat the question of language policy and strategies for supporting the various national languages is inevitable. The second chapter focuses on the impact of English on the vocabulary and grammatical structure of German. What is at stake is less the replacement of one language by another, but the growing presence of English words and phrases in German. This controversy has gained considerable public appeal in the past years, involving the print and electronic media and has provided language societies with a specific and popular agenda. The third chapter is concerned with the linguistic consequences of the internationalization of science and technology. It is their specialist languages that make the impact of English most obvious. Not only individual words and phrases are incorporated, but whole areas of communication have shifted to English. For many scientists, publishing in English has become common practice and they regard linguistic diversity in their professional sphere as a hindrance for efficient communication. In their attempt to keep their educational programs internationally attractive, universities in German speaking countries have begun offering entire degree programs in English. From early on and, as a result of the political conditions, with renewed urgency since the late 18th century, language played a major role in the construction of cultural and political identity in Germany, both of individuals and of societies as a whole. The fourth chapter deals with various aspects of this question, addressing German in the context of a multilingual Europe and America. Using the examples of Yiddish and Pennsylvania German, contributions deal with historical traditions of defining identity through language and also address current developments. The increasing international importance of English has had obvious consequences for the international standing of German (and French, Italian, Russian etc.) as a second language. The situation of German in schools, universities and other institutions of learning and study in Europe has been the subject of comprehensive research in recent years. However, not much has been published on the presence of German in America, Australia and Canada. Chapter five therefore concentrates on the role German plays in education and the public life in the United States.

xii

Preface

The departure point of the final chapter is the question of possible responses to the perceived threat posed by globalization. The contributions reflect the complexity of these relations by placing emphasis on productive and innovative responses to the challenge to the future of German as a world language. There are areas of knowledge and experience, these essays suggest, that continue to make German attractive. They must be identified and actively pursued in promoting the language. Also, new hybrid forms of German resulting from close contact between German and the languages of immigrants, primarily from Turkey, could well lead to a revitalization of the productive power of the spoken and written language. There is hope, it seems, that an endangered love of language could be revitalized through a newly open and self-confident attitude. Many were involved in the preparation of this volume. We would like to acknowledge, in particular, contributions by Kathrin DiPaola (NYU), Katharina Schaumann (Universitt Kassel), Peter Bews (Universitt Heidelberg) and Dr. Ursula Kleinhenz, Dr. Anke Beck, and Frank Benno Junghanns. We are grateful for support from the Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache that covered the cost of the simultaneous translation of the papers presented at the conference. Without the financial support from the Deutsche Akademische Austauschdienst, the Alexander-von-Humboldt-Stiftung, the Austrian Cultural Forum, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the Robert Bosch Stiftung the conference would not have been possible. Andreas Gardt, Kassel Bernd Hppauf, New York

Introduction

Globalization Threats and Opportunities Bernd Hppauf

Zusammenfassung
Die unaufhrlich wachsende Bedeutung von Englisch als der Kommunikations- und Geschftssprache der EU sowie als Sprache des Tourismus, der Wissenschaft, der Unterhaltungsindustrie und vieler weiterer Bereiche auf der Welt hat in den letzten Jahren zu intensiven Diskussionen in der ffentlichkeit sowie in akademischen Disziplinen, vor allem der Linguistik, gefhrt. Der Sammelband knpft an diese Diskussionen an, definiert jedoch den Rahmen der Betrachtung auf andere Weise; er fhrt in die vorwiegend durch die Bedingungen der EU und die Perspektive der Nationalstaaten bestimmte Debatte den Begriff der Globalisierung ein. Die Beitrge diskutieren die Frage, wie sich die Folgen der Hegemonie des Englischen als der Sprache der Globalisierung fr die Stellung der Sprachen Europas in der Gegenwart und voraussehbaren Zukunft verstehen lassen, am Beispiel von Deutsch im Alltag und in Institutionen der Ausbildung Europas und Amerikas. Es besteht weitgehende bereinstimmung, dass sich die Stellung von Deutsch, und nicht allein von Deutsch, in der Gegenwart grundlegend ndert. Diese Vernderung wir in einigen Beitrgen kritisch bewertet, whrend andere es fr unfruchtbar halten, sie lediglich als einen Verlust zu verstehen. Vielmehr bieten sich Mglichkeiten zu einem eigenbestimmten und innovativen Verhltnis zur Sprache an, die erkannt werden mssen, um praktiziert werden zu knnen. An die Stelle eines Denkens in Kategorien von Ausschliessung und Verdrngung kann, so argumentieren einige der Beitrge, eine Identifikation und wiederbelebte Liebe zur eigenen Sprache treten.

1. Without doubt, the importance of English as a language of international communication has increased significantly during recent decades. It has become the undisputed international language in many areas including tourism, business and trade, the sciences, popular culture and diplomacy. The statistical data are unequivocal. Equally obvious is that we do not know how to interpret such data. We are witnessing a rapid change of the worlds linguistic map without really understanding what we are witnessing. Inter-

Bernd Hppauf

pretations are highly controversial; furthermore, assessments of these tendencies are often emotionally charged. There is a fear among many European (and non-European) nations of losing the power of language itself, and with this the capacity for self determination and the development of cultural identity. This anxiety is particularly strong in France and Germany, but can also be observed, albeit to a lesser degree, within other nations with major languages. The principle of parity for the languages of all EU member states, initially six, now eleven and soon, as the result of the eastward expansion, many more has not been practiced in real communication for many years. What is new, however, is an emerging mono-linguaslism; and the dominance of English as both a language of institutions of the European Union as well as of general communication is perceived as a threat that may reduce all other languages to insignificance. The historical experience of colonization provides many observers with a preeminent model for interpreting the growing hegemony of English in the contemporary world as a whole as well as in the EU. The only situations in the past comparable to the current conflict over language, also designated a language war,1 was, they believe, the political domination of colonizing powers which uncompromisingly suppressed indigenous languages: English and French in Africa, America and Asia, Spanish and Portuguese in South America. This is a new experience for European nations that is particularly wounding to their self esteem, since they have enough experience with imperialism to know that it contains the notion of a purposeful project: the intentional spread of a political system, combined with cultural values and a life style, from one center of power that creates victims pushed to the margins, reducing their significance. This new variant of imperialism, they argue, is now spreading across the globe.2 While it is increasingly difficult to locate purpose in an identifiable power center, imperialism reshaped as a political program based on anonymous channels of electronic communication and language is all the more threatening. Powerful nations feel they are being pushed to the periphery of world affairs by English and AngloAmerican culture for which language is the main vehicle. The current phase of creating a new monetary, economic and political unity in Europe has created conditions that have had an obvious impact on the perception of language, in particular, the relationship between English the language of a nation that not only joined the EU late, but by continuing to be reluctant to give up national sovereignty is suspected of maintaining a mentality of imperialistic arrogance and other major European languages. German can serve as an example for the submergence of European languages as a consequence of the emergence of English as the foremost foreign language in

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

Europe. While Germany has the strongest economy in the EU and German is spoken by nearly 100 millions Europeans, the language is progressively marginalized in scholarship, commerce, youth culture and in the global linguistic market place, in similar ways to a reduction in the power of French internationally.3 In public debates and academic publications the question has often been raised whether German may be among the dying languages, its future reduced to the private sphere and folklore. The preparation of the conference on Globalization and the future of European languages in 2002, that provided the basis for most of the essays collected in this volume, made this obvious: the controversy polarizes opinions and touches emotions so deeply, that irrational responses are not uncommon. A controversy over the conference language nearly led to the abortion of the project. Issues related to the current situation of European languages and their prospective futures have been debated extensively at conferences and in publications, both scholarly and popular. This volume makes an attempt to reconstitute the debate by developing a new conceptual framework. It is our contention that the future of European languages, in terms of their relation to English, needs to be addressed in the context of globalization. In contrast to political interpretations that posit the situation in terms of a clash between English and other European languages, the observed polarization can more appropriately be interpreted within the frame of reference provided by one of the main tendencies of the present. With globalization as an analytical term, the rise of English and the complementary fall of European languages can then be perceived as a struggle between globalization and identity. Globalization is not a clearly defined term. Rather, it is beset with vagueness and inconsistencies and therefore often used with a mixture of uneasiness and fascination.4 Yet, considering the complex reality that needs to be conceptualized it has a great analytical potential and, as long as it is used as a semantic tool for sensitizing the observer, its explanatory range proves remarkably powerful. Globalization has been defined in two mutually exclusive ways: either as an extension of familiar tendencies in modernity towards internationalism and its imperialist heritage, or, alternatively, as the symptom of a deep caesura and the powerful and dominant tendency in a post-colonial world in which the nation state and with it stable identities, are losing the power once gained in the process of (occidental) modernization. Regardless whether globalization is constructed as a term of continuation or rupture, it denotes fundamental changes that are leading to unifying the world as a whole. The impact of new communication technologies and the global circulation of capital and consumer goods, as well as a new type of mass migration result in the disappearance of differences. Monocultures

Bernd Hppauf

are gaining ascendancy and [are] overwhelming the globe. Wherever we look, fewer kinds in ever fewer variants of corn and rice and wheat; Chinese, Russian and English; and sheep and cattle and pigs look back at us.5 Prksen observes a disquieting homogenization of modern languages which he calls a disabling of the vernacular. He warns that this part of a continued reduction of diversity threatens to turn the globe into one large and uniform space. Supporters of globalization tend to argue that, on the contrary, the reduction of cultural diversity is the inevitable implication of the desirable objective of globalization. Local cultures and a sense of place may well be losing ground, but this loss, they argue, is well justified by the gains achieved through the creation of a world liberated from inherited restrictions for communication and movement. One such loss, it needs to be added, is the loss in importance of languages other than English. They may be reduced to local idioms. This too, supporters of globalization argue, is a price worth paying. Other observers place less emphasis on loss and sacrifice and do not see the beginning of the final end for diversity, but rather the realization of a discourse initiated around 1800 when Kant, Goethe and other thinkers of the late Enlightenment phantasized about world citizenship, world literature and a world society, and wrote about humankind (die Menschheit) with enthusiasm. This society had no grammatical plural and served as the linguistic sign for an ideal of a world in harmony and eternal peace. In the process of its realization, it can be argued, this ideal lost much of its fascination, but is still worthy to be pursued. There is no need, it is the contention of this volume, to perceive the situation in terms of this exclusive opposition. Furthermore, this perspective could well be a crass distortion. The tension between these two mutually exclusive concepts of globalization provides the framework within which the arguments of the contributions to this volume are elaborated. They make an attempt to define language as either a major force or as the victim in this debate on globalization. It may not be a surprise to note that contributions based on the American experience have an inclination towards the more open and post-colonial concept of globalization and, as Robert Reimer argues in his essay, can even conceive of loss as a self-inflicted wound, whereas the German and, in general, European experience seems to embrace a concept of language connected with the stable identities of separate cultures and are consequently much more concerned with the pain of the wound.

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

2.1. The first interpretation links the language question closely to a concept of power vested in nation states and a system of international power relations. The conflict is, then, seen as an example of one political power seeking domination over other nations. Rome and the Roman Empire have been suggested as the model for this power game.6 A clash of civilizations, to use Samuel Huntingtons popular phrase, and dominance of one over all other civilizations presupposes the continuation of the system of nations as it has existed from the beginning of the modern period. It takes for granted the continued existence of the nation state as the basis of the organization of a reality that had not existed previously, namely, the world. This world wide system, from its inception on, has always been one of conflict and competition. What is at present changing, according to this view, is the scale of the struggle. There is no place on the globe unaffected by it since the EuropeanAmerican model which is rapidly changing to the American-only model became the only guiding force world wide. Also, this change is accompanied by a shift in the source of power from military and political domination to competing civilizations and their systems of economic and cultural production. Its absence from the political and sociological debate notwithstanding, language has to be considered a fundamental dimension of this change. This image of globalization is indebted to the critical analysis of mass culture pioneered in the 1940s by Horkheimer and Adorno. Based on observations gathered during their exile in America, they argued that the emergence of a homogenized mass culture would lead to a fundamental change in Western civilization. It was leading, they contended, to the lowest quality level of cultural production. The domination of American pop culture and the triumph of mass entertainment would, they feared, inevitably result in the eradication of diversity and the leveling of quality. What was missing from their analysis and, given recent experience, needs to be strongly emphasized is the weight of commercial interests of large corporations. Their agenda increasingly dictates the agenda of national governments and makes questions of linguistic diversity pale. The subjugation of cultural objectives and in particular linguistic and cultural self-determination to economic interests is simultaneous with the protection of producers and, American business strategy suggests, the bigger the producer the more protection it deserves. From this perspective, globalization is interpreted as a deceiving term concealing the imperialist struggle for domination. Power results from a civilizations success in promoting industrial goods and other products of national production and in the present it is particularly ideas, values and

Bernd Hppauf

entire systems of thought and perception mediated by language that will lead to domination. It is this analytical framework, critical of American capitalism as the anatomy of globalization, that leads to the perception of the growing domination of English as a threatening colonizing act of the Americanization of the world. The apparent arrogance of the political and economic elite in relation to the rest of the world provides further support for this critical analysis. Americas power, Zbigniew Brzezinski recently wrote, is unprecedented in its global military reach, in the centrality of Americas economic vitality for the well-being of the world economy It is no surprise that he adds to this benevolent view of Americas role in the process of globalization the worldwide appeal of the multi-facetted and often crass American mass culture.7 For critical theory that interprets globalization as a camouflaged Americanization of the world, the triumph of American pop culture is ill-understood in terms of its appeal. This distortion has to be corrected, they argue, and what is referred to by the innocent term appeal needs to be seen in terms of a continued international power struggle. Language as inextricably intertwined with this struggle for the domination of one nation over others makes it mandatory for anti-colonial and antiimperialist theories of liberation to include it in their critical analysis. As Phillipson argues in this volume, it can be interpreted as a major agent of domination not only among the members of the EU but in the emerging world market in the age of information and knowledge. Within this framework, European languages are being interpreted as centers of authentic culture.8 Through language a system of values and beliefs, knowledge and life style is being covertly imposed on other cultures.9 By putting them in a position of dependence comparable to colonies during their struggle for decolonization, they need to be protected. Leaving language policy to market forces, nationally and in the supranational institutions, is a recipe for more English and less of the other languages.10 What can be observed in relation to the power of English in politics and economics can also be said about the arts, literature and the entertainment industry which all are up against the menace of the subjugating power and need organized support in their struggle against the threat of their identity melting into global pulp. According to George Kennan who no one will accuse of ideological bias America exports the cheapest, silliest, and most disreputable manifestations of our culture. No wonder that these effusions become the laughingstock of intelligent and sensitive people the world over. But so long as we find it proper to let millions of our living rooms be filled with this trash every evening I can see that we would cut a poor figure trying to deny it to others beyond our borders11

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

2.2. The critical theory of the American culture industry undoubtedly captures the mood of many who feel directly affected by globalization. Globalizations power of dissolution creates feelings of exposure and extreme uncertainty. These feelings of threat are not to be underestimated and have led to active responses ranging from violent protests to subtle forms of resistance. Aggression and violence, as the ultimate expression of a desire for identification, create the desperate alternative to the abdication of self. Language, as several essays in this volume argue, is a key factor in this conflict. The power to litter public language with often ill-understood phrases and fragments of American English can appear as mere folly.12 Yet, it is more commonly associated by many with the power of anonymous corporations and huge institutions to rule over, and shape the lives of, individuals. The loss of language is not perceived in isolation, but as embedded in a wider context made up of the destruction of jobs, the erosion of the welfare state and the imposition of a new geographical mobility.13 Marketing slogans designed by multi-national corporations are declarations of their success in pulling down all boundaries and borders and creating a consumer paradise without limits. This achievement cannot be understood as an act of liberation so long as this opening is perceived as a damaging loss. Globalization, in a common assessment, is creating casualties who are helplessly exposed to a bizarre combination of internationalism and a new parochialism expressed through unfamiliar words and phrases and American sounds. For many this new language is difficult to comprehend, but, on the other hand, is associated with innovation, the power of the modern and dynamic as well as the distant other, not necessarily identical with America, but perceived as the anonymous power of a financial-industrial empire whose language is English. As long as changes in the language are perceived as loss and threat, the liberating opportunities for creativity and openness cannot be realized and the world becomes a space of alienation in which local and regional identities need to be protected from the danger of extinction. Petitions to parliaments of European countries, the creation of associations for the protection of ones own language and resistance to an increasing number of English words and phrases penetrating into German, French and other continental languages, are consequences of a growing attitude of defense against a perceived menace.14 They often demonstrate a high degree of frustration and anger. In Germany, the language of corporations, advertising, the media and increasingly also of education provide appalling examples of servility, lack of pride and, it has been suggested, contempt for ones own

10

Bernd Hppauf

language. The president of the Federal Republic of Germany, has given expression to this serious concern about a lack of love for the mother tongue, identifying it as the prime source for linguistic deterioration. Collections of ridiculous examples of linguistic pollution have been put together. The verhunzte Sprache, to paraphrase Thomas Manns word for the perversion of genuine German traditions for detested political purposes, has led to popular outcries of resistance to this unwelcome penetration and transformation of the common language by a foreign idiom. The effects that Americanization has had on the German language are often exaggerated out of all proportion and responses occasionally border on the hysterical. The claim has been made that the German language is suffering irreparable damage from an excessive influx of words and phrases from the Anglo-American sphere that has destructive effects for the creation of the individuals self. 15 Rather than the imminent death of authentic German or ruin of language as the precondition for the creation of self, it is the linguistic and mental framework of culture wars, it can be argued, that has lead to the perception of language as a unit fixed in time, a Gegenwartssprache that is threatened by extinction. From the distant and disengaged perspective of a socio-linguist, this defensive position may well be an entirely misconceived perception. Yet, it needs to be acknowledged that these anxieties are real. For those who are directly affected, globalization is easily identified with an act of expropriation and dispossession and the feared destruction of ones own language is experienced as a particularly painful loss. These feelings of loss and destruction, subjective as they may be, need to be taken seriously. They are indicators of the perceived threat and growing insecurity felt by many, for whom globalization is identical with exposure and loss as well as a frightening loss of identity.

3.1. In contrast, post-colonial globalization theories offer a different interpretation by suggesting a radically different model that no longer focuses on the expansion of the power of one, single nation within a system of nations, but attempts to address recent changes in terms of a transformation of time and space. Well known is Anthony Giddenss sociological definition of globalization that makes space shrink and links distanced places with each other, making them, thus, interdependent.16 While this is an attempt to overcome the inherited and restrictive framework of the nation state and related international systems based upon it, it maintains a way of framing globalization

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

11

as the extension of the process of modernization, that has a long history going back to the early modern period, the time of explorers who made the world shrink through their voyages, and the period in which the transportation revolution brought distant places within the reach of all. Recent changes are interpreted as an intensification and acceleration of these processes, and this interpretation remains within a framework of continuity. It links the present to the emergence of modernity and globalization to the spirit of early explorers, adventurers and experimental scientists. While this is an attempt to overcome the restrictive framework of the nation state and related international systems based upon the nation state, it is also a way of conceiving globalization in terms of historical continuity. These sociological definitions interpret globalization, often in spite of their stated intention, as a further step in the continuous evolution of the modern. Focusing on language suggests a very different account. The new importance of language as a defining quality and the new position of English among all other languages are indicative of the emergence of a new world, comparable to the rearrangement of the world by the Roman Empire with the concomitant spread of Latin as an inter-ethnic means of communication. The linguistic map of the globe has never been stable. Yet changes we are currently witnessing go far beyond ordinary changes of influence and popularity, or domination. The rapid emergence of English as the world language and the simultaneous decline of linguistic variety make the observer aware of a different scenario, one characterized by radical discontinuity. More radical definitions, less concerned with the future of the nation state and production of goods and services than with the world as a product of the imagination and symbolic exchange, make an attempt to frame the issue by focusing on movement and instability rather than stable concepts and reality in flux. Their perception is often denoted by the term flow, which is conceived as an element of relationships and networks. These flows do not have a specific place of origin and do not follow a defined course of movement, clearly not the direction from a center to a periphery. Their relationships are highly complex and resist analysis through a causeand-effect schema. Originators and recipients vary and change roles. Globalization as an aggregation of cultural flows or networks is a less coherent and unitary process than cultural imperialism and one in which cultural influences move in many different directions.17 They do not construct the world as a container holding separate cultures each centered on its own essential character, but rather the point of departure is the proposition that neither boundaries nor their definitions remain unaffected by globalization. In contradistinction to the assumption that societies, cultures and nation

12

Bernd Hppauf

states exist as bounded, separate, discrete and/or autonomous units, these globalization theories argue that there are no absolute political, social or cultural boundaries un-breached by global flows. Comparison, generalization, or any other mode of social theorizing must then address not separate examples or discrete cases. Instead, what they define as real are the most fleeting and instable qualities of modern life, movements, relationships and systems of signs, such as language. They are defined as phenomena that are densely and dynamically interconnected. 18 Globalization is then a term denoting not a process of acceleration and intensification but of a rupture, identical with the vanishing of the economic and political autonomy of nation states and the simultaneous emergence of a new space that absorbs all limiting boundaries. It defines the present as the presence of one society only, a society of multiple presences. This presence in one space will make one language indispensable, a global language.

3.2. Nations, regions and place, not dissimilar to identity and ethnicity, have never been fixed, but always imagined. They are, by definition, the unreal products of cultural imagery and construction. From this point of view, globalization is a concept for the emerging world society. Concerns in relation to the political implications of English as the dominant language world-wide notwithstanding, globalization cannot be comprehended as a system of independent nations or civilizations engaged in international exchanges or conflicts.19 Globalization cannot be conceptualized as intercultural exchange or described in terms of its potential for enriching autonomous cultures, or, alternatively, destroying their authenticity. Rather, what is needed is an understanding of movements and relationships, are conceptions of social realities that are supple enough to handle this flowing and flowed-at mode of being.20 So far, this debate has all but ignored languages. It is the objective of this volume to make a contribution to the debate by focusing on the role of language, arguing that changes in the global linguistic map can only be appropriately interpreted if they are perceived as an element of the process of globalization, understood in terms of movements and flows. One effect of globalization is that the traditional privileging of national languages in the production of knowledge is eroded. This is not the result of the traditional competition between nations, but of the unifying and universalizing power of one language in the production and distribution of scientific knowledge around the globe.21 English as the Tyrannosaurus Rex (John

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

13

Swales) of scientific language is in its early years and will not be threatened by extinction for a long time. Knowledge no longer has a natural home in any one, national language. On the contrary, localization creates the danger of undercutting a discourses claim to the status of theory. For example, psychoanalysis loses something of its theoretical power as soon as it is perceived as the product of bourgeois Vienna at the turn of the 19th century. The same seems to apply to the relationship between knowledge and language. Linguistic globalization has reached a point where theories couched in local, regional or national languages face difficulties of being perceived and integrated into international scientific discourse. The question as to how theories travel from one nation to another, from one place to another and from one metropolis to others has been asked,22 and the concept of traveling theory is emerging. An appropriate answer requires a shift of perspective. The underlying image of travel needs to be reconstructed under the conditions in which travel can no longer be defined as a movement from a place of origin to a destination, but is predicated upon a global network of traveling routes without a center, a place of origin and a final destination. Within this network of theory and information flows, English is used as the vehicle. We no longer perceive an individual theory that is translated from one language into the language of a host society and that subsequently travels from one place to another, but a constant exchange of knowledge and information in a pre-existing pattern of exchange. We do not know the answer to Cliffords question: How do theories travel among the unequal spaces of postcolonial confusion and contestation?23 It is obvious, however, that an attempt to answer it on the basis of the traditional pattern of a transfer of ideas and theories between national languages and fixed places has become insufficient and inappropriate. If we ask what the new knowledge gained by using globalization as a sensitizing analytical tool might be, the answer is paradoxical. Globalization is the result of a claim made by modern western societies, increasingly represented by America, to be exceptional and to hold a superior position and dignity through the universality of ideas and values. Globalizations effects, however, are the demonstration of the contrary. The emerging world society, characterized by the radically diminished importance of borders and various lines of separation, requires close contact between western and non-western societies and this contact makes it obvious that the universality claim cannot be justified. It is, as the examples of Turks in Germany and migrants in America, who do not wish to abandon their identity, or conflicts between the West and modern Islam demonstrate, nothing but an illusion. Many of these, allegedly, universal ideas and values are not shared or are

14

Bernd Hppauf

even aggressively rejected by large parts of the globes population. As yet, globalization and migration have led neither to an integrated world culture nor to the eradication of cultural difference and national languages. On the other hand, expectations of progress, equality, freedom and self-determination derived from the concept of a rational society that dominated political and social discourse from the 18th century on are not met by the emerging global society. It seems not to lead to the horror vision of complete homogeneity, but does not support the creation of stable identities either. Globalization forces us to realize that the unifying realities of the past, such as the nation state or a national language, were always dependent on the production of an imaginary shared world. At present, conditions for this production are undergoing fundamental changes. In the world of global flows and migration, it may be precisely the maintenance of the tension that must be understood as paradigmatic for the world society that is no longer the product of the 18th century imagination, but rather of electronic communication and flows with multiple directions. Skepticism in relation to unity and continuity could be seen as the imperative of the present. Negativity, difference and distinction in the face of the absence of cohesion, harmony and smooth adaptation to existing structures could well be defined as constitutive elements of the mental pattern referred to as globalization and world society.

4. In recent years, ethnologists and cultural analysts have made contrasting observations.24 The region, the village or home town and local landscapes have all been deconstructed in recent theory as constructions of the imagination. Critical analysis has done a lot towards debunking as a myth any nave notion of the local, the regional and the national as ontologies. They have never been empirically given, but always before globalization or internationalism had their impact on local idylls been the product of imagination and cognitive construction. They are under imminent threat by globalizations dissolving power. However, whereas globalization seems to know no borders and creates an infinite and homogenizing flow of everything and anything around the globe, it also seems to be giving rise to a new awareness of specificity, the particular and the difference of regions. Local cultures are demonstrating a remarkable power of resistance and capacity to absorb and transform goods and ideas spread through international trade. It can be argued that it is precisely the intensified awareness of the imaginary quality of identity and identification that is imperative for maintaining feelings of

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

15

belonging and security at a time when globalization is threatening to destroy them. Obvious homogenizing changes are, paradoxically, linked to a growing sense of self and local identity. Globalization, it has been observed, gives rise not only to often violent resistance movements, but also to an imaginative creativity that is less spectacular, but could lead to more lasting effects as the rediscovery and maintenance of regional cultural identity demonstrates. It is a surprising observation that the blurred images of self and indeterminate lines of separation are being clarified and gaining a new meaning and importance as a result of the perceived threat through globalization.25 Experience in ethnology, social psychology and related disciplines suggests the deep emotional attachment of people to place and a language which they are familiar with and have experienced as their own from childhood on. Boundaries and exclusion are experienced as natural and constitutive for the construction of identity. Old boundaries are being rediscovered and cultivated, leading to a considerable degree of identification. This includes the rediscovery of regional traditions and languages, believed for a long time to be dying out such as Frisian, Basque, Welsh or aboriginal languages of Australia and America. Local identities have always been fleeting constructs of the imagination and the linguistic diversity of Europe has never been a stable system of independent idioms. Languages have always been on the move, continuously changed and interfered with each other. Any Gegenwartssprache that can be analyzed as a system is an artificial construction. Attempts to stop changes or reverse them are fraught with oversimplification and inevitably enmeshed in the politics of identity and therefore an illusory reaction. Maintaining a focus on both at the same time is the difficult, but necessary task for those who observe or are affected by globalization. What Fabian suggested for the ethnology of foreign and local own cultures needs to be translated into the realm of language analysis: he suggests making culture liquid or liquidating culture by replacing static forms with indeterminacy, and clearly defined concepts with fuzziness, so that learning and unlearning, constructing and deconstructing can be accommodated within the framework of analytical description.26 Understanding the situation of languages in the age of globalization requires developing sensitivity to shifting relationships and unstable constellations. In this world of global flows the increasing importance of English will remain an extension of the age old struggle for political power only to the degree to which the nation state itself maintains the position it acquired four hundred years ago; with the decline of the nation state and the complementary rise of trans-national forms of organization, the national power struggle becomes insignificant and increasingly anachronistic.

16

Bernd Hppauf

Equally, the image of globalization as a free flow of ideas facilitated by English as the lingua franca of the world is obviously a distorting over-simplification. The significance of the expansion of English cannot be grasped by postulating a benevolent invisible hand that leads to the ideal of a global village based upon free communication of equals.27 Violent protests against globalization have made it obvious that this ideal is a nave deception. It seems equally deceptive to assume that globalization can be reversed and the linguistic diversity of previous centuries regained. Particularly interesting in this context are the observations about the current situation of the language and culture of the Pennsylvania Dutch in America. To some observers, this language is experiencing a phase of contraction and may be threatened with extinction. The essay by Donner and Valuska provides an outline of its deplorable vanishing resulting from processes of adaptation and homogenization. It is obvious that there is no identifiable agent behind this process and it may have to be accepted as an inevitable consequence of changing life styles. Empathy expressed in their essay demonstrates that they consider this a sad loss owed to modernization and its drive toward reducing diversity. For other observers, however, this language is well and alive and has a future, possibly reduced in scope and exclusiveness, but, as the experience with education outside the school curriculum seems to indicate, as a viable hybrid between the cultures that retains its status as a distinctive language. In her paper presented at the conference, Renate Losoncy offered strong empirical evidence that the Delaware valley where Pennsylvania German is spoken has potential to become the site where, under these new circumstances, the cultural framework for a complex identity with a two-sided orientation could emerge.28 A blending of the local German/Dutch tradition and American main culture could be interpreted as a model for the future of languages in the age of American hegemony word wide.

5. The question arises whether the network of openness and directionless flows creates a condition without rules and is leading to the final dissolution of order, that only veils cultural monotony, or will this new openness create conditions for defining specific niches where national languages can thrive and even gain new significance? Will globalization leave room for interfering and planning by national governments and cultural organizations? Does the conflict between globalization and identity exclude interference by interested organizations, or is it an invitation for interference, negotiation

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

17

and steering? National organizations such as the German Goethe Institute or the DAAD are faced with this open question and, despite the indeterminacy of the situation, need to make decisions that inevitably have political and financial implications. Contributions to this volume by representatives of the Goethe Institute and others, in particular John Lalande, Helene ZimmerLoew and Petra Braselmann, can see sufficient space for language policies by governments and other organizations and advocate developing strategies for taking a proactive position in support of languages. They are confident that the adverse effects of globalization can be overcome and furthermore see globalization as opening up new perspectives. Following this model, there is no need to perceive the current situation of languages as being threatened. On the contrary, fear is bound to lead to defensive strategies that are weak and may well turn into self-fulfilling prophecy. In any event, the chance to stop or reverse powerful global tendencies is remote. In the age of virtualization and digitalization, English is the global language, and it serves no purpose to engage in a struggle against this position. This global language is highly attractive and successful in seducing people the world over. No power or political agent is needed to make the language of the internet the language of desire for people all around the globe. It is the idiom of hopes and promises, of emancipation from feudal and autocratic powers, of liberating women, of consumption and unrestricted movement. Prisca Augustyns essay addresses the seductive power of this language. If the death of a language, as Meyers contribution argues, can be attributed to a lack of love, Augustyns essay offers an explanation as to why the love may have been lost. Its loss results from a flight from languages that are no longer attractive, since they have little to offer and pose no challenge. Success and prestige are being searched for where they are offered. English not as the language of Great Britain and possibly not even as the language of the USA, but as an artificial idiom of a dynamic, innovative world society is attractive in the way tax havens attract capital they offer higher revenues. The promise of success and productivity is irresistible both for capital and the restless mind. The decline of German as a language for the sciences, the social sciences and increasingly even the humanities is a point in case. There are two possible responses: closing the paths of flight by decree or regaining attraction. The history of capital moving around the globe makes it obvious that only the latter can have success. It is the simultaneity of threat and seduction, anxiety and pleasure that needs to be reflected on and that finally shapes the gaze of the observer. Many fine arguments can and have been made why German as a language of the sciences is worth to be maintained. They will convince no-one to opt in favor of the endangered language and

18

Bernd Hppauf

contrary to his or her personal interests and expectations. There is ample space for supporting the language. Attempts to make the language attractive and returning to it a seductive power is certainly, but not exclusively, a question of finances but also of innovative and imaginative approaches and projects. Focusing on the struggle over language as a conflict of power among nations and civilizations misses the challenge of the reality of the age of virtual realities. But neglecting the desire for place, identity and stability misses an equally strong current of the present. The desire to maintain a diversity of languages and, through language, identity, is misunderstood as long as it is read in terms of reactionary politics and anti-modern sentiment. It needs to be conceived in terms of a legitimate desire and a real dimension of the highly complex processes labeled globalization. Globalization is not only a tendency of the political and sociological reality of the present, it is also a mental pattern. Its connection with lived experience is not simply given, but needs to be defined. The question needs to be raised as to whether globalizations threat is a construction on the part of the observer and, consequently, what is required is a reconstitution of the ways of perceiving and describing the situation. The questions need to be addressed as to whether an active and aggressive approach to the indisputable loss in importance of national languages would be able to turn loss into gain. As several of the contributions to this volume suggest, languages cannot be understood as static systems defined by dictionaries and books of grammar. They, too, are in constant flux. For centuries, German has been subjected to the impact of several other European languages, primarily Latin, French and English and the concept of a language as a fixed system that can and deserves to be protected from change is an illusion. The struggle for preservation is predicated upon a concept of the history of languages as a series of artificially fixed moments in history, and of a purposeful construction of Gegenwartssprachen which, however, at any given moment in time, are in the process of mutation and reconstruction. The emerging German-Turkish literature can be read as a convincing example of this fluid and undefined relationship between globalization as a mental and emotion pattern and globalization as lived experience. Turkish-German author Feridun Zaimoglus books and, in particular, his provocative short text entitled Kanak Sprak (1995) are a case in point.29 Its language is obscene, aggressive and violent, using dirty imagery and slang, and is deliberately non-literary and non-German. In spite of its tough and provocative appearance, the self expressed in this aggressive language is affectionate and constructed in a new idiom capable of nestling up to equally instable identities.

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

19

In her essay Yazemin Yildiz refers to an emerging linguistic variety and diversity and, moreover, interprets this new and hybrid language as an encouraging sign of a growing sense of difference.30 The linguistic and literary foundations of the creation of a new reality is, she contends, triggered by one of the major characteristics of globalization namely migration. In her description, the merger of two languages and cultural traditions as practiced in Zaimoglus language, results from the every-day life practices of a migrant. The question of identity is of small importance and is subordinated to the needs of creating a symbolic space for a self-determined life in-between separate nations and cultures, German and Turkish. The invention of a new language is a decisive moment for creating a new reality in a period of migration flows and destabilized identifications. Undefined spaces on borders, beyond political definitions of dependence and obligations, and spaces outside national cultures and languages provide fertile ground for innovative experiments with life, triggered and encouraged precisely by the challenges of impersonal tendencies in globalization. This creative approach to language is not hampered by the fear and anxiety of loss. It creates a potential for the creation of self as fluid, diffuse and permeable, and that does not feel obliged, it seems, to have or own a single indistinguishable identity that gives stability, but, once threatened or lost, shatters the whole. This emerging hybrid language carries the stigma of the unwelcome outsider. However, this is clearly the problem of the insiders. Their immobility and inability to acknowledge a reality which they have not produced and have no control over results in attitudes of fearful exclusion. Attempts to salvage dissolving identities by demarcating spaces and arresting time need to be identified as a politics of illusion. Rather than looking at loss with melancholia or nostalgia, the situation of European languages seems to call for a balancing act. What seems to be required is the imagination and flexibility to develop a two-sided attitude that is capable of upholding both identification with ones own language and also respect, curiosity and openness in relation to other languages, practiced, not as an abstract ideal of tolerance, but as a concrete attitude towards the one or two foreign languages that each individual is surrounded by. Only in as far as the mental pattern globalization makes it visible, are we exposed to this ambivalence and perceive the situation as that of an emerging word society based upon mutual dependence and a complementarity of languages. They enter into a relationship of difference only in as much as the pattern of globalization makes it possible to perceive them in conjunction and as elements of a network, but not as separate and competing units. The difference between the global language and ones own language

20

Bernd Hppauf

is constituted neither by an absence of contact nor by warlike competition. It works the other way around; perceived differences are the necessary and constitutive precondition for the creation of a mental pattern that gives contours to the global society of which languages other than English will remain an integral part. This mental pattern has the potential to enable us to perceive and practice our own language without inhibition as the other of the global language, but not as its enemy, suffering its aggressive competition, and not its casualty. Attitudes of aggression or self-pity are anachronistic. A balancing act that maintains ones own language in the mode of continuous flux, English as the language of globalization and a mental pattern that creates the space for contact among the two will make it possible to realize that the argument which declares the world society a thinly veiled version of colonialism and English as the symbolic army of imperialism is little else than the certification of the new global societys existence turned upside down. Under the circumstances of globalization and the seductive power of its global language, the vanishing love for ones own language will not return as a result of competition and purification through exclusion, nor be found in the quest for absolute identification with a language that can be owned or possessed. The search for a uni-linear relationship to one language as the object of attention will undoubtedly fail. Loves reciprocity needs openness and a language that is not protected by well-meaning guardians. The most promising support that can be offered to ones own language are imaginative approaches and affection. Openness, free of fear and competition, will lead to confidence in European languages and prepare the only way to nurture their power to generate innovation and invite identification.

Notes
1. A less bellicose but equally fatal image has gained some prominence in recent years: the death of nature as a result of dying species and the general loss of bio-diversity. (See Hermann Dieters essay in this volume.) 2. John Tomlinson, Cultural imperialism. A Critical Introduction. Baltimore 1991, p. 175; Robert Phillipson, Linguistic imperialism, Oxford 1992; Phillipson, English-only Europe? Language policy challenges. London 2003. 3. Robert Phillipson, English for emerging or submerging multiple European identities? Paper presented to the Third Language and Politics Symposium, Queens University Belfast, 1810 September 2002.

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

21

4. Birgit Meyer and Peter Geschiere, Introduction to: Globalization and Identity: Dialectics of Flow and Closure. Oxford 1999, p. 1. 5. Uwe Prksen, Plastic words. The tyranny of modular language. University Park, PA 1995, p. 3. 6. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge and London 2000. Language and the media are conspicuously absent from their analysis of Empire. Yet, it seems to me that their central importance for the process they reconstruct is obvious. It is regrettable that Michael Hardt, who gave the opening address to the conference that led to this volume, did not have the time to prepare his lecture for publication. 7. Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, quoted from The New York Review of Books, 8 April 2004, p. 26. 8. Andreas Gardt, (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin, New York, 2000. 9. M. B. Salwen, Cultural Imperialism: A Media Effects Approach, in: Critical Studies in Mass Communication 8, 1991, p. 2938; Dieter E. Zimmer, Abschied von Illusionen. ber den internationalen Status der deutschen Sprache. In: Zimmer, Deutsch und anderes die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber. Reinbek 1998. 10. Robert Phillipson, English for emerging or submerging multiple European identities? (Footnote 3). 11. George Kennan interviewed by Richard Ullman, The New York Review of Books, 12 August 1999. 12. The literature on this issue is vast; see e.g. Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel. Berlin, New York, 2001: Andreas Gardt, Das Fremde und das Eigene. Versuch einer Systematik des Fremdwortbegriffs in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte. S. 3058. Ulrich Busse, Typen von Anglizismen: von der heilago geist bis Extremsparing aufgezeigt anhand ausgewhlter lexikographischer Kategorisierungen, S. 131155. Bernhard Kettemann, Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten. In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.), Eurospeak Der Einfluss des Englischen auf die europischen Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, Frankfurt 2002, S. 5383. 13. Conservative critics of modern culture observed an excessive influx of American words in the German language after 1945 and associated this, they thought, undesirable tendency with the collapsed identity following military and political defeat. Herbert Drube, Zum deutschen Wortschatz, Mnchen 1968, esp. pp. 125ff. 14. Eckart Werthebach, Die deutsche Sprache braucht gesetzlichen Schutz!, in: Berliner Morgenpost, 31.12.2000, p. 6. In 2001, the Institut fr Deutsche Sprache (Mannheim) proposed the creation of a German Language Council (Sprachrat) and stated as reasons the increasing number of English words and other related changes of the language that have led to suggesting a law for the protection of the German language and the creation of an academy following

22

Bernd Hppauf the French example. The Verein deutsche Sprache (Wiesbaden) is the most prominent example of a recent foundation of a language association. It claims 13000 active members and has branches in several German and European cities. The equivalent among a few similar organizations in France is an association called Dfense de la langue franaise. Verein deutsche Sprache: Leitlinien, 2nd edition, June 2000: www.vds-ev.de/ ueberuns/leitlinien.htm. In 2001, the Verein created a Berliner Sprachbndnis with the aim to stem the flood of foreign words and expressions. The sociological literature on the subject is vast. It seems to me that a representative approach is still: Anthony Giddens, Consequences of Modernity, 1995; Giddens, Beyond Left and Right, 1995. Diana Crane, Culture and Globalization, in: Global Culture. Media, Arts, Policy, and Globalization, ed. Diana Crane et al, New York and London 2002, p. 3. John D. Kelly, Time and the Global, in: Globalization and Identity: Dialectics of Flow and Closure, Oxford 1999, p. 240. Pioneering work was done by Arjun Appadurai, Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value, in: The Social Life of Things. Commodities in Cultural perspectives. 1986, S. 363; Appadurai, Disjuncture and difference in the Global Cultural Economy, in: Public Culture 2, 1990, p. 124, and Appadurai, Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis 1996; Christian F. Feest, Ethnologie und materielle Kultur, in: Das Ding. Die Ethnologie und ihr Gegenstand. Archiv fr Vlkerkunde 51, 2000, S. 147155. John D. Kelly, Time and the Global, p. 241. Among numerous publications, Ulrich Ammon, Die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache, Berlin, New York 1991; Ammon, Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch fr die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen. Berlin, New York 1998; Ammon (ed.) The dominance of English as a language of science. Effects on other languages and language communities. Berlin, New York, 2002; Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. Stuttgart 2000: Jrgen Schiewe, Von Latein zu Deutsch, von Deutsch zu Englisch. Grnde und Folgen des Wechsels von Wissenschaftssprachen, S. 81 104. Edward Said, Traveling Theory, in: E. Said , The World, the Text, and the Critic, Cambridge 1983, S. 226247; also: Caren Kaplan, Questions of Travel: Displacement, 1996. James Clifford, Notes on Theory and Travel, in: Inscriptions 5: Traveling Theories; Traveling Theorists, 1989, S. 177188; S. 178. Karl-Heinz Kohl, Das exotische Europa. In: Merkur 610, 2000. Kohl and Nikolaus Schaffhausen (eds), New Heimat, Exhibition Catalogue, New York, 2001; Dipesh Chakrabarty, Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference, Princeton, 2000.

15.

16.

17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

22.

23. 24.

Globalization Threats and Opportunities

23

25. Maiken Umbach and Bernd Huppauf (ed.), Vernacular Modernism, Stanford 2004. 26. J. Fabian, Time and the Work of Anthropology. Critical essays 1971-1991. Chur 1991, chapter 10. 27. Paradigmatic is David Crystals interpretation of the envisaged future of English as the language of uninhibited global communication. David Crystal, English as a Global Language. Cambridge 1997; Crystal, Language Death. Cambridge 2000. 28. It is regrettable that lack of time prevented the inclusion of a revised version of her presentation in this anthology. 29. Feridun Zaimoglu, Kanak Sprak: 24 Mitne vom Rande der Gesellschaft, Frankfurt 1995. 30. This interpretation of the potential of contact between languages stands in opposition to Prksens observation of an increasing unification, reduction of diversity and disabling of the language of the everyday-life. Footnote 5, p. 18.

References
Ammon, Ulrich 1991 Die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) 2001 The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity of Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Crane, Dian 2002 Global Culture: Media, Arts, Policy, and Globalization. New York: Routledge. Crystal, David 1997 English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000 Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Debus, Friedhelm, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.) 2002 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. Stuttgart: Steiner.

24

Bernd Hppauf

Gardt, Andreas (ed.) 2000 Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2000 Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Meyer, Birgit and Peter Geschiere 1999 Globalization and Identity: Dialectics of Flow and Closure. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003 English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Prksen, Uwe 1995 Plastic words. The tyranny of modular language. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press Stickel, Gerhard (ed.) 2001 Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel. Jahrbuch des Instituts fr Deutsche Sprache 2000. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Tomlinson, John imperialism 1991 Cultural imperialism. A Critical Introduction. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Umbach, Maiken and Bernd Hppauf (ed.) 2004 Vernacular Modernism: Heimat, Globalization and the Built Environment. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Zimmer, Dieter E. 1998 Deutsch und anders die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

Globalization and Language

The Past, Present, and Future of World English David Crystal

Zusammenfassung
Englisch ist heute die Sprache der Welt. Wie ist es dazu gekommen? Und was sind die Konsequenzen dieses neuen Status fr die knftige Entwicklung der Sprache? Der Aufsatz untersucht zehn historische Grnde fr die gegenwrtige Stellung des Englischen in den Bereichen von Politik, konomie, Presse, Reklame, Radio, Film, Unterhaltungsmusik, Reise und Sicherheit, Kommunikationssysteme und Ausbildung. Drei Konsequenzen der Globalisierung der Sprache werden angesprochen: Die Tendenzen, die das Englische bereits weltweit beeinflussen in der Form von neuen Englischs; die Wirkung von Englisch auf gefhrdete Sprachen; und der Einfluss des Englischen auf den linguistischen Charakter anderer Sprachen durch die Einfhrung von Lehn- und Fremdwrtern.

1. Introduction Any conference dealing with the theme of globalization must at some point address the question of language; and these days, the language which must be chiefly considered is English. I say these days, because only a relatively short time ago the prospect of English becoming a genuinely global language was uncertain. I never gave talks on English as a world language in the 1960s or 1970s. Indeed, it is only in the 1990s that the issue has come to the fore, with surveys, books, and conferences trying to explain how it is that a language can become truly global, what the consequences are when it happens, and why English has become the prime candidate (Crystal 1997, McArthur 1998, Graddol 1998). But, in order to speculate about the future of English or, as I shall say later, Englishes we must first understand what has happened in the past.

28

David Crystal

2. The present situation A language achieves a genuinely global status when it develops a special role that is recognized in every country. This role will be most obvious in countries where large numbers of the people speak it as a first language in the case of English, this would mean the USA, Canada, Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, several Caribbean countries, and a scattering of other territories. However, no language has ever been spoken by a mother-tongue majority in more than a dozen or so countries, so mother-tongue use by itself cannot give a language world status. To achieve such a status, a language has to be taken up by other countries around the globe. They must decide to give it a special place within their communities, even though they may have few (or no) mother-tongue speakers. There are two main ways in which this can be done. First, the language can be made the official (or semi-official) language of a country, to be used as a medium of communication in such domains as government, the law courts, the media, and the educational system. To get on in such societies, it is essential to master the official language as early in life as possible. This role is well illustrated by English, which now has some kind of special administrative status in over 70 countries, such as Ghana, Nigeria, India, Singapore, and Vanuatu. This is far more than the status achieved by any other language (French being closest). Second, the language can be made a priority in a countrys foreignlanguage teaching. It becomes the language which children are most likely to be taught when they arrive in school, and the one most available to adults who for whatever reason never learned it, or learned it badly, in their early educational years. Over 100 countries treat English as just a foreign language; but in most of these, it is now recognized as the chief foreign language to be taught in schools. Because of this three-pronged development of first language, second language, and foreign language speakers it is inevitable that a world language will eventually come to be used by more people than any other language. English has already reached this stage. Those who have learned it as a first language are now estimated to be around 400 million. Those who have learned it as a second language are more difficult to estimate, for now we must take into account the levels of fluency achieved. If we take a basic level of conversational ability as the criterion enough to make yourself understood, though by no means free of errors, and having no command of specialized vocabulary the figure is also some 400 million. The significance of these two figures should not be missed. The population growth in

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

29

areas where English is a second language is about three times that in areas where it is a first language. This means that second-language speakers of English will soon hugely exceed first-language speakers a situation without precedent for an international language. And when the number of people who speak English as a foreign language is taken into account, this contrast becomes even more dramatic (Graddol 2001). The British Council has estimated that roughly a billion people are learning English around the world (British Council 1997). Excluding the complete beginners, it would seem reasonable to take two thirds of these as a guess at the number of foreign learners with whom it would be possible to hold a reasonable conversation in English say 600 million. If, now, we add the three totals the 400 million who use it as a first language, plus the 400 million who use it as a second language, and the 600 million who use it as a foreign language, we will end up with a grand total of 1,400 million or so which in round terms is a quarter of the worlds population (recently passing 6 billion). No other language is used so extensively. Even Chinese, found in eight different spoken languages, but unified by a common writing system, is known to only some 1,100 million. Of course, we must not overstate the situation. If one in four of the worlds population speaks English, three out of four do not. We do not have to travel far into the hinterland of a country away from the tourist spots, the airports, the hotels, the restaurants to encounter this reality. But even so, one in four is impressive, and unprecedented. And we must ask: Why? It is not so much the total, as the speed with which this expansion has taken place, very largely since the 1950s. What can account for it?

3. Historical factors An obvious factor, of course, is the need for a lingua franca a concept probably as old as language itself. But the prospect that a lingua franca might be needed for the whole world is something which has emerged strongly only in the 20th century, and since the 1950s in particular. The chief international forum for political communication the United Nations dates only from 1945, and then it had only 51 member states. By 1960 this had risen to over 80 members. But the independence movements which began at that time led to a massive increase in the number of new nations during the next decade, and this process continued steadily into the 1990s. There are now 191 members of the UN nearly four times as many as there were 50 years ago. The need for lingua francas is obvious, and the pressure

30

David Crystal

to find a single lingua franca is a consequence, the alternative being expensive and often impracticable multi-way translation facilities. But why English? There is of course nothing intrinsically wonderful about the English language that it should have spread in this way. Its pronunciation is not simpler than that of many other languages, its grammar is no simpler what it lacks in morphology (in cases and genders) it certainly makes up for in syntax (in word-order patterns) and its spelling certainly isnt simpler. A language becomes a world language for one reason only the power of the people who speak it. But power means different things: it can mean political (military) power, technological power, economic power, and cultural power. Political power relates to the colonialism that brought English around the world from the 16th century, so that by the 19th century, the language was one on which the sun never sets. Technological power relates to the fact that the industrial revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries was very significantly an English-language event. The 19th century saw the growth in the economic power of the United States, rapidly overtaking Britain as its population hugely grew, and adding greatly to the number of world English speakers. The point was recognized by Bismarck as early as 1898: asked by a journalist what he considered to be the decisive factor in modern history, he is said to have replied, The fact that the North Americans speak English (cited in Nunberg 2000). And in the 20th century, we have indeed seen the fourth kind of power, cultural power, manifesting itself in virtually every walk of life through spheres of American influence. I will now look more closely at these different kinds of power, and their consequences, recognizing ten domains in which English is now pre-eminent.

3.1. Politics Most pre-20th-century commentators would have had no difficulty giving a single, political answer to the question, Why world English? They would simply have pointed to the growth of the British Empire. This legacy carried over into the 20th century. The League of Nations was the first of many modern international alliances to allocate a special place to English in its proceedings: English was one of the two official languages (the other was French), and all documents were printed in both. I have already mentioned the UN, which replaced it. But English now plays an official or working role in the proceedings of most other major international political gatherings, in all parts of the world. The extent to which English is used in this

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

31

way is often not appreciated. According to a recent issue of the Union of International Associations Yearbook, there are about 12,500 international organizations in the world. A sample showed that 85% made official use of English far more than any other language. French was the only other to show up strongly, with 49% using it officially. International politics operates at several levels and in many different ways, but the presence of English is usually not far away. A political protest may surface in the form of an official question to a government minister, a peaceful lobby outside an embassy, a street riot, or a bomb. When the television cameras present the event to a world audience, it is notable how often a message in English can be seen on a banner or placard as part of the occasion. Whatever the mother tongue of the protesters, they know that their cause will gain maximum impact if it is expressed through the medium of English. A famous instance of this occurred a few years ago in India, where a march supporting Hindi and opposing English was seen on world television: most of the banners were in Hindi, but one astute marcher carried a prominent sign which enabled the voice of his group to reach much further around the world than would otherwise have been possible. His sign read: Death to English.

3.2. Economics By the beginning of the 19th century, Britain had become the worlds leading industrial and trading nation. Its population of 5 million in 1700 more than doubled by 1800, and during that century no country could equal its economic growth, with a gross national product rising, on average, at 2% per year. Most of the innovations of the industrial revolution were of British origin. By 1800, the chief growth areas, in textiles and mining, were producing a range of manufactured goods for export which led to Britain being called the workshop of the world. Over half of the scientists and technologists who made that revolution worked in English, and people who travelled to Britain (and later America) to learn about the new technologies had to do so through the medium of English. Steam technology revolutionized printing, generating an unprecedented mass of publications in English. The early 19th century saw the rapid growth of the international banking system, especially in Germany, Britain and the USA, with London and New York becoming the investment capitals of the world. In 1914, Britain and the USA were together investing over $10 billion abroad three times as much as France and almost four times as much as Germany. The resulting eco-

32

David Crystal

nomic imperialism brought a fresh dimension to the balance of linguistic power. Money talks, then as now, was the chief metaphor and the language in which it was talking was chiefly English.

3.3. The press The English language has been an important medium of the press for nearly 400 years. The 19th century was the period of greatest progress, thanks to the introduction of new printing technology and new methods of mass production and transportation. It also saw the development of a truly independent press, chiefly fostered in the USA, where there were some 400 daily newspapers by 1850, and nearly 2000 by the turn of the century. Censorship and other restrictions continued in Continental Europe during the early decades, however, which meant that the provision of popular news in languages other than English developed much more slowly. Today, about a third of the worlds newspapers are published in countries where English has special status, and the majority of these will be in English. The high profile given to English in the popular press was reinforced by the way techniques of news gathering developed. The mid-19th century saw the growth of the major news agencies, especially following the invention of the telegraph. Paul Julius Reuter started an office in Aachen, but soon moved to London, where in 1851 he launched the agency which now bears his name. By 1870 Reuters had acquired more territorial news monopolies than any of its Continental competitors. With the emergence in 1856 of the New York Associated Press, the majority of the information being transmitted along the telegraph wires of the world was in English.

3.4. Advertising Towards the end of the 19th century, a combination of social and economic factors led to a dramatic increase in the use of advertisements in publications, especially in the more industrialized countries. Mass production had increased the flow of goods and was fostering competition; consumer purchasing power was growing; and new printing techniques were providing fresh display possibilities. In the USA, publishers realized that income from advertising would allow them to lower the selling price of their magazines, and thus hugely increase circulation. Two-thirds of a modern newspaper, especially in the USA, may be devoted to advertising. During the 19th cen-

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

33

tury the advertising slogan became a feature of the medium, as did the famous trade name. It pays to advertise itself became a US slogan in the 1920s. Many products which are now household names received a special boost in that decade, such as Ford, Coca Cola, Kodak, and Kellogg. The media capitalized on the brevity with which a product could be conveyed to an audience even if the people were passing at speed in one of the new methods of transportation. Posters, billboards, electric displays, shop signs, and other techniques became part of the everyday scene. As international markets grew, the outdoor media began to travel the world, and their prominence in virtually every town and city is now one of the most noticeable global manifestations of English language use. The English advertisements are not always more numerous, in countries where English has no special status, but they are usually the most noticeable. American English ruled: by 1972, only three of the worlds top 30 advertising agencies were not US-owned.

3.5. Broadcasting It took many decades of experimental research in physics, chiefly in Britain and America, before it was possible to send the first radio telecommunication signals through the air, without wires. Marconis system, built in 1895, carried telegraph code signals over a distance of one mile. Six years later, his signals had crossed the Atlantic Ocean; by 1918, they had reached Australia. English was the first language to be transmitted by radio. Within 25 years of Marconis first transmission, public broadcasting became a reality. The first commercial radio station, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, broadcast its first program in November 1920, and there were over 500 broadcasting stations licensed in the USA within two years. A similar dramatic expansion affected public television 20 years later. We can only speculate about how these media developments must have influenced the growth of world English. There are no statistics on the proportion of time devoted to English-language programmes the world over, or on how much time is spent listening to such programs. But if we look at broadcasting aimed specifically at audiences in other countries (such as the BBC World Service, or the Voice of America), we note significant levels of provision over a thousand hours a week by the former, twice as much by the latter. Most other countries showed sharp increases in external broadcasting during the post-War years, and several launched English-language radio programmes, such as the Soviet Union, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, The Netherlands,

34

David Crystal

Sweden, and Germany. No comparative data are available about how many people listen to each of the languages provided by these services. However, if we list the languages in which these countries broadcast, it is noticeable that only one of these languages has a place on each of the lists: English.

3.6. Motion pictures The new technologies which followed the discovery of electrical power fundamentally altered the nature of home and public entertainment, and provided fresh directions for the development of the English language. The technology of this industry has many roots in Europe and America during the 19th century, with England and France providing an initial impetus to the artistic and commercial development of the cinema from 1895. However, the years preceding and during the First World War stunted the growth of a European film industry, and dominance soon passed to America, which oversaw from 1915 the emergence of the feature film, the star system, the movie mogul, and the grand studio, all based in Hollywood, California. As a result, when sound was added to the technology in the late 1920s, it was the English language which suddenly came to dominate the movie world. And despite the growth of the film industry in other countries in later decades, English-language movies still dominate the medium, with Hollywood coming to rely increasingly on a small number of annual productions aimed at huge audiences. It is unusual to find a blockbuster movie produced in a language other than English, and about 80% of all feature films given a theatrical release are in English. The influence of movies on the viewing audience is uncertain, but many observers agree with the view of director Wim Wenders: People increasingly believe in what they see and they buy what they believe in. ... People use, drive, wear, eat and buy what they see in the movies (cited in Robinson 1995). If this is so, then the fact that most movies are made in the English language must surely be significant, at least in the long term.

3.7. Popular music The cinema was one of two new entertainment technologies which emerged at the end of the 19th century: the other was the recording industry. Here too the English language was early in evidence. When in 1877 Thomas A Edison devised the phonograph, the first machine that could both record

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

35

and reproduce sound, the first words to be recorded were What God hath wrought, followed by the words of the nursery-rhyme Mary had a little lamb. Most of the subsequent technical developments took place in the USA. All the major recording companies in popular music had English-language origins, beginning with the US firm Columbia (from 1898). Radio sets around the world hourly testify to the dominance of English in the popular music scene today. Many people make their first contact with English in this way. By the turn of the century, Tin Pan Alley (the popular name for the Broadway-centred song-publishing industry) was a reality, and was soon known worldwide as the chief source of US popular music. Jazz, too, had its linguistic dimension, with the development of the blues and many other genres. And by the time modern popular music arrived, it was almost entirely an English scene. The pop groups of two chief English-speaking nations were soon to dominate the recording world: Bill Haley and the Comets and Elvis Presley in the USA; the Beatles and the Rolling Stones in the UK. Mass audiences for pop singers became a routine feature of the world scene from the 1960s. No other single source has spread the English language around the youth of the world so rapidly and so pervasively.

3.8. International travel and safety The reasons for travelling abroad are many and various. Each journey has immediate linguistic consequences a language has to be interpreted, learned, imposed and over time a travelling trend can develop into a major influence. If there is a contemporary movement towards world English use, therefore, we would expect it to be particularly noticeable in this domain. And so it is. For those whose international travel brings them into a world of package holidays, business meetings, academic conferences, international conventions, community rallies, sporting occasions, military occupations, and other official gatherings, the domains of transportation and accommodation are chiefly mediated through the use of English as an auxiliary language. Safety instructions on international flights and sailings, information about emergency procedures in hotels, and directions to major locations are now increasingly in English alongside local languages. Most notices which tell us to fasten our seatbelts, find the lifeboat stations, or check the location of the emergency stairs give us an option in English. A special aspect of safety is the way that the language has come to be used as a means of controlling international transport operations, especially on water and in the air. English has emerged as the international language of

36

David Crystal

the sea, in the form of Essential English for International Maritime Use often referred to as Seaspeak. Progress has also been made in recent years in devising systems of unambiguous communication between organizations which are involved in handling emergencies on the ground notably, the fire service, the ambulance service, and the police. There is now Emergencyspeak, trying to cope with problems of ambiguity at the two ends of the Channel Tunnel. And of course there is Airspeak, the language of international aircraft control. This did not emerge until after the Second World War, when the International Civil Aviation Organization was created. Only then was it agreed that English should be the international language of aviation when pilots and controllers speak different languages. Over 180 nations have since adopted its recommendations about English terminology though it should be noted that there is nothing mandatory about them.

3.9. Education English is the medium of a great deal of the worlds knowledge, especially in such areas as science and technology. And access to knowledge is the business of education. When we investigate why so many nations have in recent years made English an official language or chosen it as their chief foreign language in schools, one of the most important reasons is always educational in the broadest sense. Sridath Ramphal provides a relevant anecdote (Ramphal 1996):
Shortly after I became Secretary-General of the Commonwealth in 1975, I met Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike in Colombo and we talked of ways in which the Commonwealth Secretariat could help Sri Lanka. Her response was immediate and specific: Send us people to train our teachers to teach English as a foreign language. My amazement must have showed, for the Prime Minister went on to explain that the policies her husband had put in place twenty years earlier to promote Sinhalese as the official language had succeeded so well that in the process Sri Lanka so long the pearl of the English-speaking world in Asia had in fact lost English, even as a second language save for the most educated Sri Lankans. Her concern was for development. Farmers in the field, she told me, could not read the instructions on bags of imported fertiliser and manufacturers in the global market were not likely to print them in Sinhalese. Sri Lanka was losing its access to the world language of English.

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

37

Since the 1960s, English has become the normal medium of instruction in higher education for many countries including several where the language has no official status. Advanced courses in The Netherlands, for example, are widely taught in English. No African country uses its indigenous language in higher education, English being used in the majority of cases. The English language teaching (ELT) business has become one of the major growth industries around the world in the past 30 years.

3.10. Communications If a language is a truly international medium, it is going to be most apparent in those services which deal directly with the task of communication the postal and telephone systems and the electronic networks. Information about the use of English in these domains is not easy to come by, however. It is thought that three-quarters of the worlds mail is in English. But as noone monitors the language in which we write our letters, such statistics are highly speculative. Only on the Internet, where messages and data can be left for indefinite periods of time, is it possible to develop an idea of how much of the worlds everyday communications (at least, between computerowners) is actually in English. To begin with, of course, the whole of the Internet was in English, because the Internet was yet another American invention. It began as ARPANET , the Advanced Research Projects Agency network, in the late 1960s, conceived as a decentralized national network, its aim being to link important American academic and government institutions in a way which would survive local damage in the event of a major war. Its language was, accordingly, English; and when people in other countries began to form links with this network, it proved essential for them to use English. The dominance of this language was then reinforced when the service was opened up in the 1980s to private and commercial organizations, most of which were (for the reasons already given) already communicating chiefly in English. There was also a technical reason underpinning the position of the language at this time. The first protocols devised to carry data on the Net were developed for the English alphabet, and no browser is yet able to handle all aspects of multilingual data presentation. However, the number of non-English language users on the Internet is growing all the time, and now exceeds the number of new English-speaking users. In particular, minority languages are finding that the Net gives them a louder and cheaper voice than is available through such traditional media as radio, and Usenet groups are now ongoing in several hundred languages. The estimate

38

David Crystal

for 2003 is that less than 50% of the Internet is in English. This is good news for those worried by the global trend in language loss, but it is also good news for those concerned that global intelligibility should not lose out to local identity. On the Net, all languages are as equal as their users wish to make them, and English emerges as an alternative rather than a threat (Crystal 2001).

4. The future of English as a world language When a language becomes a world language, what happens to it, and what happens to other languages as a consequence? There are no precedents, because no language has ever been spoken by so many people in so many countries before. Three questions need to be briefly addressed. Will English fragment into mutually unintelligible languages, as it spreads around the world? Will English kill off other languages? Will English change other languages?

4.1. Will English fragment? The answer to the first question is: probably yes, at one level, and no at another. For the yes answer we need to note the many new varieties of spoken English developing around the world, in such countries as India, Singapore, and Ghana (Burchfield 1994). They have been called New Englishes, and they have arisen because of the need to express national identity. A primary motivation of the newly independent nations of the 1950s and 1960s was the need to manifest their identity in the eyes of the world; and the most convenient way of doing this was through the medium of the language they use. Many of the new countries, such as Ghana and Nigeria, found that they had no alternative but to continue using English the alternative was to make an impossible choice between the many competing local ethnic languages (over 400, in the case of Nigeria). However, we can also appreciate the view that to continue with English would be, in the eyes of many, an unacceptable link with the colonial past. How could this dilemma be resolved? The answer was to continue with English, but to shape it to meet their own ends adding local vocabulary, focussing on local cultural variations, developing fresh standards of pronunciation. It is not difficult to quickly accumulate several thousand local words, in countries which have a wide range of local fauna and flora, diverse ethnic cus-

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

39

toms, and regular daily contacts with different languages. The emerging literatures of the Commonwealth countries the novels from various parts of West Africa, the poetry from the countries of the Caribbean illustrate how quickly new identities can emerge. The term New Englishes reflects these identities. And in some parts of the world, the kind of English which has emerged has brought increasing unintelligibility to outsiders as in the case of Singlish, in Singapore, which incorporates a great deal of Chinese. So, is the future one of mutually unintelligible Englishes an English family of languages, as some have put it? At the level of popular speech, this is probably already taking place. But there is another level usually referred to as standard English where there is little sign of any such fragmentation. Standard English is essentially written, printed English, seen in the textbooks, newspapers, and periodicals of the world and also, these days, on the World Wide Web. It is largely identical in its global manifestation; we must allow only for the small amount of variation in vocabulary, grammar, and spelling which make up the differences between American, British, Australian, and other regional standards. Standard English may of course also be spoken, and we hear it typically in the international broadcasting media, such as CNN, BBC, and ABC. Educated people also use it in daily interaction, at least on formal occasions; informally, they may well use a regional dialect, or a dialect which is a mixture of standard and regional (a modified standard). One of the consequences of globalization is that through the media we have immediate access to standard English, in ways that have come to be available but recently; and this is influencing the character of New Englishes. A British Council colleague told me a little while ago that he had just come back from India where he had seen a group of people in an out-of-the-way village clustering around a television set, where they were hearing CNN News beamed down via satellite. None of these people, he felt, would have had any regular contact with English previously other than the Indian variety of English used by their schoolteacher. But with a whole range of fresh auditory models becoming routinely available, it is easy to see how the type of English spoken in India could move in fresh directions. And satellite communication being, by definition, global, we can also see how a system of natural checks and balances well-attested in the history of language could emerge in the case of world English. The pull imposed by the need for identity, which has been making Indian English increasingly dissimilar from British English, will be balanced by a pull imposed by the need for intelligibility, on a world scale, which will make Indian English increasingly similar. And this could happen anywhere.

40

David Crystal

4.2. Will English kill off other languages? As to the second question, the effect of English on other languages, here the situation is much gloomier. The surveys which have taken place since the 1970s have shown us that, of the 6000 or so languages in the world, at least half are likely to become extinct in the next 100 years (Crystal 2000). One of the chief reasons is, of course, the way small rural communities have been affected by globalization processes. Ninety percent of the worlds languages are located in equatorial and tropical regions a thousand in Africa, over 700 in Papua New Guinea alone. One of the consequences of colonialism has been the way in which many of these cultures have assimilated to the dominant one, with an inevitable shift in use away from the indigenous language. In Australia and North America, for example, the shift has been to English. Because of its worldwide spread, English is undoubtedly the language which many of these peoples will eventually speak. But the issue of language death goes well beyond English, for the same effects have been noted in parts of the world where English is not historically a major influence. The indigenous languages of South America are also rapidly disappearing but there the shift has been to Spanish and Portuguese. In the area covered by the countries of the former Soviet Union, the shift has been to Russian. Chinese, French, Swahili, Arabic, and a few other languages have played similar roles. There is a massive imbalance of language use in the world: some 96% of the worlds population speak only 4% of its languages. There is of course very little that can be done to preserve the worlds linguistic diversity any more than it has been possible to prevent the extinction of so many biological species. On the other hand, the ecological movement has had its major successes, in conservation, and there is no reason why there should not be successes too, in relation to language. Governments can do a great deal by introducing sensible bilingual policies, and protection measures for minority languages. These can be reinforced by international statute, and the fostering of a generally positive climate of opinion. The Barcelona Declaration of Linguistic Rights (1996), currently being taken forward by UNESCO, is a step in the right direction. The European Bureau of Lesser Used Languages illustrates another positive development. But measures of this kind take many years to have any effect. In the meantime, languages are dying at the rate of one every two weeks or so. Linguists are urgently trying to document these dying languages before they disappear for ever for we must recognize that, when a spoken language dies which has never been written down, it is as if it has never been, and the loss to the human race is permanent. But it is an expensive business,

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

41

getting languages recorded. Organizations have grown up in several countries to try to help in Britain there is the Foundation for Endangered Languages, founded in Bath in 1995; in Germany there is the Gesellschaft fr bedrohte Sprachen, founded in Cologne in 1997 [address: Institut f. Sprachwissenschaft, Univ. Kln, 50923 Kln] but they are very limited by shortage of funds. It seems to me, though, that if we are concerned by the processes of globalization, as they affect language, then one of the ways in which we can actually do something is to work towards preserving our world linguistic heritage. While recognizing the importance of world languages as a means of fostering international intelligibility, we must not forget the importance of indigenous languages as a means of fostering community identity. We need both. A world in which there was only one language left (probably, but not necessarily English) a scenario which could in theory obtain within 500 years would be an ecological intellectual disaster of unprecedented scale. It is our responsibility to work towards ensuring that this does not happen.

4.3. Will English change other languages? The answer to this last question is, of course, yes. Indeed, it is the arrival of unprecedented numbers of loan words into other languages that has been one of the most notable trends in the past half century. Cultures vary greatly in their response to this influx, and within each culture there are mixed attitudes, as the surveys by Grlach (2001, 2002) have made very clear. Some people welcome them , seeing them as a source of lexical enrichment; more puristically minded people condemn them, seeing them as an attack on traditional language values. Organizations have been set up to fight them. In some famous cases, attempts have been made to ban them the loi Toubon in France being perhaps the best-known instance. The energy and emotion generated has to be respected, but at the same time history tells us very firmly that it is misplaced. All languages have always been in contact with other languages. All languages have always borrowed words from other languages. And no language community has ever succeeded in stopping this process taking place. The only way to do so would be to take ones language away from contact with other languages. But no-one would want the social and economic isolationism that such a policy would imply. There is a fallacy underlying the anti-borrowing position. Purists believe that borrowing words from other languages will lead to their own language changing its character and that this is a disaster. Change there certainly will

42

David Crystal

be. Disaster there certainly wont be. The evidence, of course, comes from English itself. A search through the Oxford English Dictionary shows that English over the centuries has borrowed words from over 350 other languages. This has changed the character of English dramatically. English today is not like the English of Anglo-Saxon times. In fact, four-fifths of English vocabulary is not Germanic at all, but Romance, Latin, or Greek. English is actually a Romance language, from the lexical point of view. I always find it ironic that when the French, for example, complain about some of the English words currently entering French, in many cases these are words which have a French or Latin origin (such as computer). As a result of all this, English has changed its character, undoubtedly. But has this been a bad thing? Much of the impact of Chaucer and Shakespeare to take just two of many authors is due to their ability to work with all that multilingual vocabulary. And everyone benefits, in a lexically enriched language. In English we have many doublets and triplets, such as kingly, royal, and regal, which stem from the borrowing history of the language one Germanic, one French, one Latin. Three words for the same basic concept allows a whole range of stylistic nuances to be expressed which would not otherwise have been possible. Loan words always add semantic value to a language, providing people with the opportunity to express their thoughts in a more nuanced way. This is exactly what is happening with English in other languages at the moment: young people, for example, find many English loan words cool, in a way that the older generation does not, and their expressiveness is empowered as a consequence. Many social domains now actively and creatively make use of English words in advertising, for example, where the use of an English lexicon can actually help to sell goods. It is, of course, the same in English, but the other way round. French words in English help to sell perfume. And one of the most widely used expressions borrowed into English via TV ads in the past decade or so was Vorsprung durch Technik. When a language adopts words and also sounds and grammatical constructions it adapts them. This is the repeated history of English, as it has spread around the world, evolving New Englishes. This will happen to the loan-words currently entering German and other languages too. When the French word restaurant entered English it slowly changed its meaning, losing the French nasal vowel in the final syllable to end up first with restuh-rong and eventually the modern pronunciation rest-ront. English words change their pronunciation, and eventually their English character, when they are re-pronounced in other languages. The syllabification which has affected English words entering Japanese is a well-studied case: several

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

43

are now unintelligible to a native-English listener which is one reason for the emergence of labels like Japlish (and of course such labels as Denglish and Angleutsch), with the implication that these varieties are becoming new languages. Such labels are not jocular though they are often used thus: they are intuitive attempts to characterize what is happening linguistically around the world, as languages become increasingly in contact with each other. They are a prime example of the point that human language cannot be controlled. The more a language becomes a national, then an international, then a global language, the more it ceases to be in the ownership of its originators. English itself has long since ceased to be owned by anyone, and is now open to the influence of all who choose to use it. That is why it is changing so much, as it moves around the globe, and why the scenario of an English family of languages is likely to be the main development of the 21st-century. One of the new varieties, incidentally, will be German: a patently German-influenced variety of English already exists, and is bound to develop further in due course. The reason that vocabulary attracts all the attention is because the lexicon is the area where change is most rapid and noticeable. People are aware of new words, and new meanings of words. But not all borrowings attract the same amount of attention. Loan words tend to be of two types: words for concepts which the language never expressed before (as in much Internet vocabulary); and words for concepts which were already expressed by a perfectly satisfactory local word. It is this second category which attracts the criticism, because there is a fear that the new word will replace the old one. It is a misplaced fear, as I have said, for two reasons. First, as the many examples like kingly illustrate, the new word does not replace the old one, but supplements it. As German, for example, adopts English words, and adapts them, they cease to be English, and become German though conveying a different nuance alongside the traditional German word. The process of integration is facilitated by many people, such as poets, novelists, dramatists, satirists, comedians, advertisers, and journalists, who can make use of these nuances creatively. It usually takes a generation for loanwords to become integrated, though the Internet seems to be speeding up this time-frame. Looking back on previous generations loan-words, we value them, because we see the way that authors and others have made good use of them. It is only the current generation of borrowings that attracts criticism. And second, even in cases where the new word does replace the old one (as often happened in English too, with hundreds of French words replacing Anglo-Saxon ones in the early Middle Ages) there is not very much that

44

David Crystal

anyone can do about it. As I have said, human language cannot be controlled. A story is told by the 12th-century historian, Henry of Huntingdon, that King Canute of England rebuked his flatterers by showing that even he, as king, could not stop the incoming tide nor, by implication, the might of God. The story has great relevance when we think of individuals, societies, academies, or even parliaments trying to stop the flow of loan-words from any language. They have never managed it in the past. They never will in the future. Language is just too powerful, because too many speakers are involved. Apart from a few cases where the numbers of speakers are so few that their usage can be planned by a central body (as in the case of some endangered and minority languages), usage is beyond control. This is plainly the case with a strong language like German, in a country which has incorporated so many ethnic identities. Instead of attacking loan words, accordingly, it makes much more sense to develop creative strategies to foster their integration, in literature, school, and society at large. That, in my view, would be time and energy better spent. Loan words are the invisible exports of a world where people talk to each other. As a citizen of the world, I value every loan word I have in my linguistic repertoire, and look forward to the day when others feel the same.

References
British Council 1997 English Language Teaching. London: The British Council. Burchfield, Robert (ed.) 1994 English in Britain and Overseas. (Cambridge History of the English Language V.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Crystal, David 1997 English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000 Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grlach, Manfred (ed.) 2001 A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 English in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Past, Present, and Future of World English

45

Graddol, David 1998 The Future of English. London: The British Council. 1999 The decline of the native speaker. In: David Graddol and Ulrike H. Meinhof (eds.), English in a Changing World. AILA Review 13: 5768. McArthur, Tom 1998 The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunberg, Geoffrey 2000 Will the Internet always speak English? The American Prospect 11/10 (27 March10 April). Ramphal, Sridath 1996 World language: opportunities, challenges, responsibilities. Paper given at the World Members Conference of the English-Speaking Union, Harrogate, UK. Robinson, David 1995 The Hollywood conquest. In: Encyclopedia Britannica Book of the Year, 245.

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe 1 Robert Phillipson

Zusammenfassung
Der Aufsatz untersucht die Expansion des Englischen in den verflochtenen Prozessen von Amerikanisierung, Globalisierung und Europisierung. Die Welt der Unternehmen hat einen entscheidenden Einfluss auf die Art und Weise gehabt, wie sich die EU entwickelt hat, und knnte nun auf eine einzige Sprache fr den gemeinsamen Markt drngen. Es gibt viele Grnde dafr, dass in EU-Institutionen die Sprachpolitik nicht offen behandelt wird. Die Sprachpolitik spiegelt ungelste Spannungen und Widersprche auf der nationalen wie auf der supranationalen Ebene. Es gibt sogar Uneinheitlichkeiten in der Verwendung von Grundbegriffen (wie Arbeitssprache oder lingua franca). Schweden ist bisher das einzige EULand, das eine grere Untersuchung durchgefhrt hat, wie eine gesunde Balance zwischen Schwedisch, Englisch und anderen Sprachen gesichert werden knnte. Die Erweiterung und die Diskussion ber die Zukunft Europas unterstreichen das dringende Bedrfnis, die Probleme einer Sprachpolitik anzugehen und Kriterien fr eine ausgeglichene vielsprachige Kommunikation auszuarbeiten.

Copenhagen Business School is a diverse university funded by the Danish state, and has an arts faculty, but the internationalization and commodification of European higher education mean that Danish universities are increasingly expected to run like businesses, to profile and market themselves competitively. One symptom of this is an increasing use of English. This trend in communication in the university world dovetails with comparable developments in commerce, politics, the media, and youth culture, due to the impact of the interlocking processes of Americanization, globalization and europeanization. The expansion of English is central to these processes, and influences local, national and international languages and linguistic identities. I shall explore some of the implications of this by reporting on some historical aspects of European unification and Americanization, some of the intrinsic paradoxes of language policy in Europe, which

48

Robert Phillipson

account for its relative neglect, on whether the expansion of English constitutes a threat to other languages, and the need for more pro-active language policies that strengthen linguistic diversity. In principle the European Union is strongly committed to maintaining the cultural and linguistic diversity of Europe. This principle is articulated in treaties and in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (2000): The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity (Article 22). In theory eleven languages have equal rights as official and working languages in the supranational EU institutions, but the reality is more complicated, for reasons that will be explored briefly. The management of multilingualism is very complex, and the imminent enlargement of the EU with additional states and languages will make matters even more complicated. Just as the political integration process blurs the borderline between national sovereignty and shared supranational policies, languages do not respect national borders and their use at the supranational level reflects hierarchies of language nationally and internationally. One of the motive forces behind bringing the economies of European states together was to establish forms of interdependence that would render military aggression impossible. This was to be achieved by settling territorial disputes between France and Germany and by ensuring that the reindustrialization process after the destruction of the 193945 war should address the needs and mutual suspicions of these countries and of the countries that the Nazis had occupied. Investment from outside Europe was essential for this, and could only come from one source, namely the USA. The Marshall Plan was part of a strategy to position America as the preeminent force globally through the Bretton Woods agreements on trade, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, and NATO. A successful economy in western Europe was seen as an essential bulwark against the communist bloc. American goals have been explicit and consistent since World War II. In 1948, the State Departments senior imperial planner, George Kennan, wrote: We have 50 per cent of the worlds wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. President Bush II is visibly cast in this mould, as clearly articulated by Condoleezza Rice, his foreign affairs adviser: The rest of the world is best served by the USA pursuing its own interests because American values are universal.2

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

49

The formation of the first EU institutions thus involved a mixture of American and European motives. Some on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1940s had plans for a United States of Europe, an idea which pacifist visionaries like Victor Hugo had mooted a century earlier. The USA insisted, as a condition for Marshall aid, on the economies of European states being coordinated and integrated. American pressure was therefore decisive for the form of European collaboration that was put in place from the late 1940s, the European Coal and Steel Community (1952), and the European Economic Community (1958). The first sketch of a European Political Community, with an Executive Council, a Court of Justice, and a Parliament was produced in 1953. The principle of parity for the languages of the participating states was established at this time, initially four, and now eleven. The relative strength of French in EU affairs is attributable to its earlier use in international relations, to the location of EU institutions in cities in which French was widely used, Brussels, Luxembourg, and Strasbourg, and to speakers of French, along with the Germans, occupying the political high ground in shaping the new Europe. The British were ambivalent about joining the EU because of their imperial links, and their belief that they have a special relationship with the USA. De Gaulle blocked British entry in the 1960s because he saw Britain as a Trojan horse for American interests. When President Pompidou agreed to Britain joining Europe in 1972, it is reported that one condition he insisted on was that the pre-eminence of French as the dominant language of EU institutions should remain unchallenged. Although nominally there was parity between the EEC official languages, French was primus inter pares. Pompidous worries about the risk of the French language being eclipsed by English were fully justified, as English is growing like a linguistic cuckoo in the main EU nests. The promotion of English worldwide has been central to British and American global strategy since 1945 3, the British Council playing a key role in maintaining the position of English in postcolonial states, and in the postcommunist world where globalization was preached through the trinity of the market economy, human rights, and English. As the Annual Report of the British Council for 196061 states: Teaching the world English may appear not unlike an extension of the task which America faced in establishing English as a common national language among its own immigrant population. The consequences of US language policy for immigrant and indigenous languages have been dire. It is also important to recall that national policies

50

Robert Phillipson

also determine American global strategies, and that English is central to both. This has, of course, also been true of the United Kingdom over several centuries. According to some senior Americans, the world can simply dispense with all languages other than English. In 1997 the US ambassador to Denmark, who came straight from the corporate world, where else, was rash enough to say in my wifes hearing at a luncheon at the University of Roskilde: The most serious problem for the European Union is that it has so many languages, this preventing real integration and development of the Union. A 1997 CIA report states that the following five years would be decisive in the establishment of English as the sole international language 4. The very idea that there is a single international language is of course nonsense. There are literally hundreds of international lingua francas in use, but the myth of the global use of English is widely believed in, especially by those who benefit from their proficiency in English, including academic cheer-leaders of linguistic globalization. George Monbiots book, Captive state: The corporate take-over of Britain (Macmillan, 2000), documents the many ways in which corporate power determines national and local government policy in countless fields, including agriculture, energy, the environment, urban planning, the health system, university research, and general education. The consolidation of an EU common market and monetary union has put into effect the wishes of the corporate world, coordinated by the European Round Table of Industrialists, an association of the chief executives of 46 of the biggest companies in Europe (op. cit., 320). This lobbying group is also directly involved in setting the terms for the enlargement of the EU with the countries of eastern and central Europe (ibid., 324). In negotiations on admission, all documents from applicant states have to be provided exclusively in English. The Transatlantic Business Dialogue brings together American and European corporations, and dovetails with the G8 and related heads of state networks. There is increasingly a single state-corporate structure. There are plans for a single market incorporating Europe and North America, a Transatlantic Economic Partnership, which will develop a worldwide network of bilateral agreements with identical conformity procedures (cited ibid., 329). Monbiot summed up these developments two years before the Johannesburg Earth Summit, and nothing has changed to disprove his analysis (ibid., 329330):

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe Before longonly a minority of nations will lie outside a single, legally harmonized global market, and they will swiftly find themselves obliged to join. By the time a new world trade agreement has been negotiated, it will be irrelevant, for the WTOs job will already have been done. Nowhere on earth will robust laws protecting the environment or human rights be allowed to survive. Elected representatives will, if these plans for a new world order succeed, be reduced to the agents of a global government: built, coordinated and run by corporate chief executives.

51

Despite this powerful trend, in which English is pivotal, multilingualism is endorsed in countless EU pronouncements. Decisions emanating from Brussels, agreed on by the fifteen member states (and 7080 per cent of national legislation involves implementing decisions taken in Brussels), are disseminated in the eleven languages. There are comprehensive interpretation and translation services in EU institutions that attempt to ensure that speakers of each of the official languages has equal voice and effect. An ever-expanding range of topics is being added to the EUs remit, including culture. In theory the EU does not legislate on education, but it is deeply involved in agenda-setting, funding countless schemes and research, and in the reform and standardization of higher education. This raises the question of how far language policy is still the preserve of the individual state, or can now be considered a matter for the Union. Can a member state do what it pleases, provided it pays at least lip-service to the language rights expressed in conventions, charters and EU treaties? Such questions, as well as the management of multilingualism internally in EU institutions, have been subjected to astonishingly little scholarly research. A recent doctoral study in international law in the US concludes that French language protection measures (the Loi Toubon) are in conflict with the Maastricht Treaty and the principles of a common market with the free movement of goods, services, labour and capital. Corporate lawyers may therefore soon choose to challenge national language legislation on precisely these grounds. The American doctoral student has a solution to all that linguistic diversity:
It is worthwhile to consider whether the EU should answer the call for uniformity on the issue of language business transactions and further protect itself against the potential onslaught of language regulation by each individual Member State. One potential action the EU might take would be to declare a common language in the EU market.5

52

Robert Phillipson

She argues along predictable lines: rapid access to information, efficiency, saving money on translation, eliminating national technical obstacles, all arguments that relate to the producer rather than the consumer. She pleads for the termination of the cultural protectionism of nations, invokes the strong role of English in the world marketplace, and English as a widely learned foreign language (which is correct), English as the common linguistic denominator of all European countries (which is rubbish), and US advances in the areas of technology and science (which we in Europe are supposed to be grateful for). The EU should act so as to prevent one nation from frustrating the fundamental principles of the supranational governing body (a comment which reveals little insight into the principles of EU decision-making). Her parting shot is that adopting a single language would serve, to unify, rather than divide, Member States. (op.cit., 202). Here is the monolingual worldview of Americanization being subtly marketed as europeanization under cover of globalization. Now it may well be that European governments are not waiting to follow this advice. Several have introduced or are contemplating legislation to resist the advance of English. However, the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law is presumably read by American corporate lawyers, who might choose to test the principle in court, and the outcome of any litigation in the European Court of Justice is unpredictable. But it appears that the Commission may be saving them the trouble and expense. In July 2002 the Commission sent a formal notice of complaint 6 to the French government stating that the national requirement that food products should be labelled in French (following French legislation) is in conflict with Eurolaw7. There has as yet been little litigation in this area, and the decisions are far from unambiguous, as indeed is the relevant Council directive8 on the harmonization of member states legislation on the labelling and packaging of food products. European case law is seen as holding that national law cannot require use of a specific language if the message can be expressed by other means, which can be another language that is easily comprehensible to the purchaser, possibly supported pictorially. The Commissions intervention suggests that it is possible that the transition from a single market to a single marketing language has begun. The Commissions action is seen by many in France as the thin edge of the wedge. According to LAllance pour la souverainet de la France, in a press communiqu9 entitled Europe is attacking the well-informed housewife, the Commission is working to impose anglo-american throughout the EU the construction of Europe means its destruction for the benefit of mercantile America. A body called Dfense de la langue franaise 10

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

53

organized a public demonstration in January 2003, even though the French government has revised its regulations so as to conform to Eurolaw requirements. It has resolved the issue by issuing a new ministerial order that maintains the obligation that products are described in French, but stipulates that other languages can be used in addition 11. That will not be the end of the affair. This example of a dispute between the Commission and a national government epitomises how inadequately language policies are handled. A second example that hit the headlines was a proposal to change one of the internal translation procedures in the Commission in Brussels, as part of a cost-saving exercise. The plan was leaked to the French government, as a result of which a joint letter was sent by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of France and Germany, Hubert Vdrine and Joschka Fischer, to Romano Prodi, the President of the Commission, on 2 July 2001. The letter accused the Commission of attempting to introduce monolingualism in EU institutions, which was a coded reference to English being installed as the sole in-house working language, and that this represented an unacceptable departure from the current system. Prodis reply, dispatched in French and German, asserts that multilingualism is of cardinal importance to the EU, that nothing had been decided, but that efficiency and savings in the language services need to be looked into. The impending enlargement of the EU made action even more important. By this stage, press coverage had identified a plot to impose English on the EU (Irish Times), Fischer and Vdrine against more English (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), Kinnocks language plan riles the French (The Independent), and so on. Much of the press coverage contains inaccurate statements about the present system and its costs, and engages in fanciful and nationalistic interpretation12. The exchange of letters and the press reports clearly reveal that an existential nerve had been touched. The two disputes are perfect examples of the recurrent underlying tension between national interests and supranational ones, and the absence of adequate procedures and principles for resolving the issues. I fear this is generally the case at the supranational level, and often nationally, even in countries which have given some thought to language policy, like France. French efforts have influenced the endorsement of linguistic diversity in EU proclamations, but there tends to be more special pleading for French rather than for rights for all relevant languages 13. Many factors account for language policy not being handled more smoothly and competently. There are major differences in the ideologies underpinning the formation of states, and in the role ascribed to language in these (the national romantic

54

Robert Phillipson

tradition, jus sanguinis, Herder, as in Germany, and the republican tradition, jus soli, citizenship, as in France). Language issues are therefore understood differently in different countries, including such basic notions as language and dialect, this impeding a shared understanding of language policy issues. Levels of awareness about language policy issues range widely between and within each EU country. They tend to be relatively high in, for instance, Finland and Greece, but often with a very selective focus, and low in Denmark and England. There is a poor scholarly infrastructure at European universities and research institutes for the analysis of language policy, multilingualism, and language rights, reflecting a lack of investment in this field. Responsibility for language policy in each country tends to be shared between ministries of foreign affairs, education, culture, research, and commerce. They each tend to have little expertise in language policy, and between them there is inadequate coordination, if any. In countries with a federal structure, responsibility is even more diffuse. As English is used extensively by native and non-native speakers from different parts of the world, there is no simple correlation between English and the interests of a particular state. The connection of English to the dominant economic system, and its entrenchment as the most widely learned foreign language in schools (much more successfully in northern than southern Europe), and to global networking remains. A laissez faire policy thus involves major risks for all languages other than English. Leaving language policy to market forces, nationally and in the supranational institutions, is a recipe for more English and less of the other languages. Clarifying whether the advance of English entails the submerging of other languages would require exploration of a range of language functions and contexts. As eleven languages are being used and developed in parallel in EU institutions, one can argue that all are being strengthened internationally, though not necessarily in equal measure, and without the hierarchy of languages being challenged. I wont go into the tricky question of the functioning of the translation or interpretation services, but merely mention that they are generally branded as excessively costly, whereas they in fact currently account for only 0.8 % of the total budget for all EU institutions, meaning 2 euros per year for each European citizen (which is peanuts compared with agricultural subsidies). This is a modest price to pay for a principle that use of the languages of each member state is an obligation, especially when preparing and agreeing on a constant stream of documents with the force of law in each member state.

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

55

The parity of the 11 official languages of the EU is a complex question 14, which journalistic coverage of language issues, typically triggered by a crisis of some sort, seldom does justice to 15. Language policies in Europe reflect many unresolved and interlocking paradoxes and tensions:
a legacy of nation states, national interests and languages, BUT supranational integration, and the internationalization of many domains, commerce, finance, education, science, politics, and civil society in EU member states; the formal equality of EU member states and their languages, BUT a pecking order of states and languages, currently visible in the shift from French to English as the primary working language in EU institutions. The figures for draft documents reflect a dramatic shift over the past twenty years from mainly French to mainly English 16; the onward thrust of americanization, cultural homogenization (McDonaldization), and the hegemony of English, BUT the celebration of European linguistic diversity, multilingualism, cultural and linguistic hybridity, and some support for minority and national language rights; languages seen as purely technical, pragmatic tools, BUT languages as existential identity markers for individuals, cultures, ethnic groups, and states; language policy as a matter of practical functioning, BUT language policy as politically sensitive, a coded way of politicians, eurocrats and diplomats acknowledging that they do not know how to reform the present regime, or improve EU internal and external communication, an issue which enlargement complexifies; Germany as a demographically and economically dominant force in Europe, BUT German progressively marginalized in scholarship, commerce, youth culture, and in the global linguistic marketplace, in similar ways to a reduction in the power of French internationally. The emergence of English as the foremost foreign language in Europe, because of its obvious functional utility, entails the submergence of other languages as foreign languages, and few education systems are seriously addressing the question of ensuring diversity in language learning, whether of foreign, regional minority or neighbouring languages; English being promoted as a linguistic panacea, BUT of the 378 million citizens of the member states, only 61 million speak English as a mother tongue, less than half of the rest are proficient in English as a foreign language, and the proportion speaking it confidently varies greatly from country to country17. It is ironic that states invest heavily in the learning of a language that symbolizes cultural imperialism, and awareness of the forms and mechanisms of cultural and linguistic imperialism is very patchy and often non-existent.

56

Robert Phillipson

Clarity when discussing EU language policy is elusive because many of the central concepts are muddled and used inconsistently. I will give you three examples: In theory all eleven languages have the same status as official and working languages. In practice there tends to be a restriction of working language to French and English, and for certain purposes, German too. This terminological confusion (which is present in the letter written to Romano Prodi by the French and German foreign ministers referred to earlier) is symptomatic of an acceptance of a hierarchy of languages. Some languages are more equal than others. Secondly, lingua franca tends to be used as though there is equality between users of the relevant language, but is it likely that native and nonnative speakers of French or English perform on a level linguistic playingfield? The innocuous label conceals the power dimension that privileges some and disadvantages others. Use of the mother tongue does not, of course, guarantee intelligibility. People who function regularly in several languages are more likely to be sensitive in their use of language in intercultural communication than monolinguals. Thirdly, the designations native/non-native take some users of the language as being authentic and infallible, and stigmatize others as not being the real thing. Work has begun in English as a Foreign Language teaching circles to describe and upgrade the English of continental Europeans, for several reasons18. English is used effectively by countless people for whom it is not a first language, so the ownership of English is changing, and perhaps these users should be seen as fluent users of a non-national, postnational language rather than as deficient users of mother-tongue English. This is an attractive principle, but whether it has any implications for language pedagogy is unclear. The assumed virtues of native speakers currently give them a colossal advantage, not least on the job market, and not only as language teachers. The Commission and the Council of Europe have been taken to task for illegitimately favouring native speakers of English when advertising posts that all EU citizens should have had equal access to. Monitoring this practice should be undertaken by the EU Ombud institution, but as yet its powers are tightly constrained. So some of our basic concepts in language policy are misleading. Permeating the structural and ideological factors that snarl up analysis at the supranational level of language policy, there is the banal reality of people talking at cross-purposes, with or without the assistance of interpreters. The unresolved paradoxes remain. The challenge of more equitable, visionary language policies has yet to be met.

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

57

Participation in EU activities by vast numbers of civil servants, experts, academics, teachers, and NGOs, adds a supranational linguistic identity to the existing national linguistic identities. Confident users of English and French, whether as a first or second language, are in a privileged position. And needless to say, foreign languages can be learned successfully, even by Brits19. In continental Europe, English has traditionally been learned additively, and until recently it has been difficult to imagine that speakers of German or Swedish run any risk of their mother tongues being marginalized or atrophying at the individual or group level. This picture may well be changing. This is due to the inroads English is making in many domains. The cover of the European edition of Business Week of 13 August 2001 asked in a banner headline Should everyone speak English?. The inside story was flagged as The Great English divide. In Europe, speaking the lingua franca separates the haves from the have-nots. The cover drawing portrays twin business executives: one communicates successfully, the English speaker; the other is mouthless, speechless. Competence in English is here projected as being imperative throughout Europe in the commercial world. By implication, proficiency in other languages gets you nowhere. The article describes how more and more continental European companies are switching over to English as the in-house corporate language. It also describes how English for business is big business for English language schools. It has been described as second in importance to the British economy after North Sea oil. English as the Tyrannosaurus Rex of scientific communication 20 is no extinct beast. In some faculties in Norway, scholars are rewarded for publications in English by a large bonus, whereas anything in the local language triggers a paltry one. The tendency is for international publication to be seen as intrinsically superior, even in countries with a long history of national scholarship, and this influences employment criteria and choice of research topic. The dominance of English as a language of science, both in publications and in postgraduate training, is increasingly under scrutiny, with alarm bells ringing in Austria 21, Denmark 22, Germany 23 and elsewhere. Two recent developments in the Nordic countries deserve special mention 24. The Nordic Council of Ministers commissioned research in 2001 on possible domain loss in the Nordic languages, a laudable exercise, because while everybody seems to have an opinion on language policy, there is often a dearth of hard data actually documenting trends. The reports suggest that there is a risk of the Nordic languages suffering attrition in some domains, particularly in scientific and technological activity. The Swedish government also established a parliamentary commission to evaluate

58

Robert Phillipson

whether Swedish was under threat from English, and to elaborate an action plan to ensure that Swedish remains a complete language, learned and used well by its first and second language speakers, and retains its full rights as an EU official and working language. The plan also aims to ensure that Swedes are equipped to function well in foreign languages, particularly English, and that Swedes from a minority language background enjoy language rights. A massive national consultation process is currently under way, to lead to legislation in 2004. This nation-state is apparently shifting from monolingualism to a differentiated spectrum of multilingualism. There is nothing new about functional differentiation among several languages. Christian Wilster, a poet who was the first person to translate Homers Iliad and Odyssey from Greek into Danish, wrote in 1827: Every gentleman who took his education seriously only put pen to paper in Latin, spoke French to the ladies, German to his dog, and Danish to his servants. Since that time we have experienced the heyday of the monolingual nation state throughout Europe, a stranglehold that is being eased apart by Americanization and Europeanization. We are now experiencing the erosion of the monopoly of a unifying and stratifying national language in nation-states. This raises many language rights issues 25. It is possible that access to the dominant international language will be the key distinction marking out haves and have-nots in continental European countries, in a much broader sense than Business Week intended. Broadly speaking this is the role of English intranationally in postcolonial states, where English opens doors for the few and firmly closes them for the many. In much of Europe, competence in English is becoming a prerequisite for access to higher education and employment, in tandem with preferred forms of communication in the national language. States are adjusting to globalization, which impacts on language policy overtly and covertly. It is not at all clear to what extent states are deciding on national language policy, or whether the initiative has already passed to EU institutions, the boardrooms of transnational corporations, and English-using gatekeepers in countless domains. The EU has basically steered clear of the issue, apart from needing to address the functioning of its institutions internally and externally in a selected set of languages. A policy statement was produced by the European Council during the 2002 Danish Presidency entitled Use of languages in the Council in the context of an enlarged Union 26. The document does not call into question the current practice of providing full language interpreting for meetings of the Council and the European Council, nor the requirement enshrined in the Councils Rules of Procedure for all legislative and policy documents before the Council for a decision to be translated into all official

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

59

languages. It suggests three ways of tackling the challenges of enlargement and more restrictive translation and interpretation procedures for lowerlevel activities, where economic and other constraints prevent full multilingualism. Further clarification of the principles to underlie implementation is needed. Although these points are essentially concerned with activity at the supranational level, clearly language policies here interlock with and influence what happens at the national and sub-national levels too. The Copenhagen summit in December 2002 was primarily concerned with reaching agreement on terms for the accession of new member states. At the press conference with heads of state from the existing and potential states when agreement was reached, the banner headline behind the politicians read One Europe in one language only. This prompted the Spanish Foreign Secretary, Ana Palacio, to write in El Pas on 16 December 2002: The motto One Europe, solely in English, requires a reflection. Even though Copenhagen did not face the question of languages, this is one of the pending subjects that sooner rather than later must be debated for the very survival and viability of this project of Europe with a world vocation. Within it, Spanish, one of the official UN languages, spoken by more than 400 million people in more than 20 countries, must take on the place it is entitled to. The Convention on the Future of Europe is unlikely to have language policy as a high priority, even if the goals of recent EU reforms aim at increased accountability, and better communication between EU institutions and citizens. But the Convention has been asked to take language policy on board by a number of bodies. These are typically either concerned with a single official language which is seen as being marginalized (I am familiar with approaches by protagonists of French 27, German 28 and Italian 29 ) or the exclusion of minority languages (where efforts are spearheaded by the Catalans). The submission to the Convention Linguistic proposals for the future of Europe, by the Europa Diversa 30 group, pleads for more active policies to strengthen linguistic diversity, for funding for all autochthonous European languages, for the subsidiarity principle to ensure that power and self-regulation in language affairs should be as decentralized as possible, and for a public debate on reform of the language regime in EU institutions. They suggest that experts and users should identify the specific functions performed by different languages, and that a clear distinction should be made between (1) binding documents and political representation, at least one official language for each state must be included, but interpretation and trans-

60

Robert Phillipson

(2)

(3)

lation services would support a range of specified, necessary functions, depending on need, and in a more flexible but restrictive way than at present, languages of service to the citizens of Europe, more of which would be used in interaction with the general public and in publications, including the lesser used languages recognized by member states in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, and the internal working languages of the EU institutions, which should be restricted to 3 or 4.

This is a sociolinguistically informed document, the main value of which is to point to a way of addressing and potentially solving some of the current problems of linguistic hierarchies and inefficiency, while also bringing autochthonous languages into mainstream EU communication. Implementation along the lines proposed would serve to consolidate the efforts that the EU currently puts into functioning multilingually, but could make the institutions more communicatively effective and efficient. This exercise might also serve to show how hollow a lot of the rhetoric of total multilingualism and linguistic equality is. There is in fact nothing odious about a restricted number of languages being used by permanent employees of an institution that brings together people from different backgrounds. Eurocrats can be expected to function in three languages, the mother tongue and two others, and this should be demanded particularly of those who have French or English as their mother tongue. In such employment, a higher level of proficiency can be expected in reading and listening than in writing or speaking. By contrast, it is unreasonable to expect representatives of member states, national politicians, civil servants and experts, to function as well in a foreign language as in their mother tongue. In theory they are not expected to do so, since interpretation and translation serve to facilitate interaction across language borders, and often do so impressively, but in practice there are many logistic problems in drafting complex texts in parallel in several languages, and having texts ready on time. Change must tackle the fundamental paradoxes in EU language policy, clarify the criteria that can lead to equitable multilingual communication, and implement policy and practice that respect linguistic human rights and strengthen linguistic diversity. There is therefore an urgent need to bring together all the relevant stake-holders in language policy. There is a lot of relevant experience worldwide, though far too little is known to decisionmakers nationally and supranationally. Most of the books by social scien-

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

61

tists on European integration devote very little space to language policy and reveal gross ignorance. They tend to regard an expansion of English as unproblematical. The issues are, in my view, so complex that they need book-length treatment. My book English-only Europe? Language policy challenges (Routledge, 2003) 31 attempts to move from describing the past and present of languages in Europe to a set of 45 specific recommendations that are designed to ensure language a higher profile and more competent treatment. They are grouped into four categories covering: national and supranational language policy infrastructure EU institutions language teaching and learning research.

Hopefully recommendations will not merely remain informed speculation until the political will is generated bottom-up and top-down to move away from laissez faire and crude national agendas to a more inclusive agenda that converts the EU rhetoric of maintaining diversity into reality. No language is intrinsically evil or good. English can be used to ensure the emergence of a more equitable European linguistic order.

Notes
1. This is a revised and updated version of a talk given initially in Belfast in September 2002, see John M. Kirk and Dnall P. Baoill. 2. Strategy paper Campaign 2000: Promoting the national interest, cited in the Danish daily paper Information, 14 June 2001. 3. Phillipson, R. (1992). 4. Reported by Herv Lavenir de Buffon, founder of the organization Comits pour le franais, langue europene. RO Magazine 34, 22 June 2002. 5. Feld, S.A. (1998), 199. 6. French lettre de mise en demeure. 7. See the article by John Lichfield in The Independent, 19 August 2002, which predictably pokes fun at the French and does not address the issue of language rights. 8. 2000/13/EF, of 20 March 2002. 9. On 28 July 2002, www.souverainete.france.org, see also www.voxlatina.com. 10. www.langue-francaise.org.

62

Robert Phillipson

11. Dcret no 20021025 du 1 aot 2002 art 1, Journal Officiel du 2 aot 2002. It is known as the Decret Dutreil. 12. A prime example is the editorial Organic is healthier in The Daily Telegraph of 16 August 2001. Another is Ian Black (2002). 13. French has for centuries been regarded as a uniquely significant language, and France as la mre des arts, des armes et des lois (Joachim du Bellay, 1525 1560). 14. Irish is not an official language but is a treaty language. It can be used at the European Court of Justice. 15. For instance, The Guardian on 20 March 2002: The French language meets its Waterloo. Enlarging the EU is good news for the English language, confirming its victory over French as the classic medium of European integration. 16. A further symptom is that publications in other languages are being dropped, e.g. the Annual Reports on competition policy were available in all official languages until 1995, the 1996 report was published in Dutch, English, French and German, and it is now published exclusively in English. http:/europa.eu.int/ comm/competition/annual_reports. 17. See Eurobarometer Report 54 of 15 February 2001 for a representative study of foreign language competence in all member states. These reports are on http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg10/epo/eb.html. 18. Seidlhofer, B. (2001), 133158. 19. I well recall the good advice given to me by the admissions tutor of the university which gave me a place to read modern, meaning foreign languages. My tutor approved of me immersing myself in France and Germany for months before going up, but advised strongly that I should read as much English literature as possible. How could one expect to acquire a profound familiarity with foreign cultures and languages if one is not securely grounded in ones own groups cultural history? In bilingual education terms, learning should be additive not subtractive. A recent study for the Anglo-German Foundation for the Study of Industrial Society (reported in The Guardian, 6 March 2003) reports that the decline in young people in Britain studying foreign languages at the upper secondary and tertiary levels is due to embarrassment at the idea of speaking a foreign language and the general climate of negativity towards languages in the UK. 20. This is John Swaless term, in an article in World Englishes in 1997. 21. Vienna Manifesto, Appendix 5 of R. Phillipson (2003). 22. P. Jarvad (2001). 23. Gawlitta, K. and F. Vilmar (eds.) (2002). 24. Both are summarized in Engelska sprket som hot och tillgng i Norden (The English language as a threat or resource in the Nordic countries), Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2002. This small book contains a 15-page rsum in English. 25. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (2000). 26. Council of the European Union, 15334/1/02 REV 1, 6 December 2002.

English as Threat or Resource in Continental Europe

63

27. See the petition on www.voxlatina.com on Pour la libert de vivre en franais. 28. Stellungname von Vereinen zur Frderung des franzsischen, der deutschen und anderer europischer Sprachen zur Vorlage bei den Mitgliedern des Europischer Konvents, die mit der Erarbeitung einer Europischen Grndungsakte beauftragt sind, 200204 in: Gawlitta and Vilmar (eds.) (2002). 29. The association La bella lingua has promoted a resolution in defence of the Italian language, with the support of members of parliament. There is collaboration between protagonists of French, German and Italian. 30. Fourth draft, 1 July 2002, approved by an international conference convened by five Catalan bodies in Barcelona, May 31 June 1. 31. At the time of writing, March 2003, the book is being translated into Esperanto, and there are plans for a translation into German.

References
EU learns to conduct its business with an English accent. The Guardian Weekly. April: 410. Buffon, Herv Lavenir de 2002 Comits pour le franais, langue europene. RO Magazine 34, 22 June 2002. Feld, S.A. 1998 Language and the globalization of the economic market: the regulation of language as a barrier to free trade. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 31: 153202. Gawlitta, K. and F. Vilmar (eds.) 2002 Deutsch nix wichtig? Engagement fr die deutsche Sprache. Paderborn: IFB Verlag. Jarvad, P. 2001 Det danske sprogs status i 1990erne med srlig henblik p domnetab [The status of the Danish language in the 1990s particularly in relation to domain loss]. Copenhagen: Dansk Sprognvn. Kirk, John M. and Dnall P. Baoill Language planning and education: Linguistic issues in Northern Ireland, the republic of Ireland, and Scotland. Belfast: Queens University, www.bslcp.com. Nordic Council of Ministers 2002 Engelska sprket som hot och tillgng i Norden [The English language as a threat or resource in the Nordic countries]. Copenhagen. Black, Ian 2002

64

Robert Phillipson

Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003 English-only Europe? Language policy challenges. London: Routledge. Seidlhofer, B. 2001 Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 11/2: 133158. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove 2000 Linguistic genocide in education or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah/New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture? Hans Joachim Meyer

Zusammenfassung
Auch in der Vergangenheit haben europische Sprachen, wie heute das Englische, bedingt durch politische Macht, wirtschaftliche Strke oder kulturellen Einfluss eine fhrende internationale Rolle gespielt, insbesondere das Franzsische und partiell auch das Deutsche. Der internationalen Bedeutung des Letzteren ist durch die verbrecherische Nazidiktatur ein tdlicher Schlag versetzt worden. Heute kann von den europischen Sprachen nur noch Spanisch mit Englisch konkurrieren, ohne auch nur entfernt dessen berragende Stellung zu erreichen. Um den globalen Gebrauch des Englischen zu erfassen, wird u. a. die Existenz neuer Varianten wie Euro-English oder Mid-Atlantic English angenommen. Es muss aber bezweifelt werden, dass deren Sprecher das Potential des Englischen tatschlich eigenstndig nutzen und zu gleichberechtigten Partner der englischen Sprachgemeinschaft werden knnen. Vor allem wird fr das Internationale Englisch vielfach der Begriff der lingua franca verwendet. Dabei wird bersehen, dass es sich dabei begrifflich um eine Mittlersprache zum Informationsaustausch fr bestimmte Bereiche der funktionalen Kommunikation handelt. Zum Wesen einer Sprache gehrt jedoch ihr kreatives Potential zur Formulierung neuer Gedanken und ihre Verwobenheit in einen kulturellen Kontext. Insbesondere in der Semantik sind Sprach- und Geistesgeschichte fest miteinander verbunden. Deshalb ist das zutreffendere historische Analogon fr das Internationale Englisch das Latein des rmischen Imperiums und des westlichen Europas vor der Herausbildung der Nationalsprachen. Seit lngerem ist vor allem in den Naturwissenschaften eine Rckkehr zur Einsprachigkeit, diesmal auf der Basis des Englischen zu beobachten. Dies wird in den Naturwissenschaften erleichtert durch die dort festzustellende relativ klare Trennung der Kommunikation ber die Forschung vom eigentlichen Forschungsprozess und untersttzt durch das Vorhandensein bestimmter rhetorischer Muster des Englischen fr diese Kommunikationszwecke. Dagegen wrde die bernahme des Englischen in vielen Geisteswissenschaften wie etwa auch in der Jurisprudenz zu einem Bruch mit den geschichtlich gewachsenen Kulturtraditionen fhren. Die Frage stellt sich, ob die wachsende Internationalisierung des wissenschaftlichen und akademischen Lebens zur weltweiten Dominanz des Englischen oder zu einem akademischen Multilingualismus fhren wird. Entscheidend scheint dabei, ob es in den nationalen Gesellschaften gengend mentale

66

Hans Joachim Meyer

Bereitschaft und intellektuelles Engagement gibt, die sprachliche Vielfalt zu bewahren. In der deutschen Gesellschaft ist derzeit eine starke Tendenz zur sprachlichen Aufgabe der eigenen Identitt zu beobachten, die mit der allgemeinen Neigung zur Geschichtsvergessenheit und zur Nichtachtung des kulturellen Erbes einhergeht. Trotz einigem Widerstand wird in Deutschland Englisch in den meisten Bereichen einschlielich der Politik als Ausdruck von Kreativitt, Innovation und modischer Werbung zunehmend bevorzugt. Daraus entsteht die reale Gefahr, dass die deutsche Gesellschaft Teil des Empires der amerikanischem Kultur wird entweder, weil sich einflussreiche Krfte davon einen Vorteil versprechen, oder aus blankem Opportunismus. Der Rckzug des Deutschen vor dem Englischen weltweit und im eigenen Land ist weithin eine selbstverschuldete Tragdie.

The English theme of this conference is The Fate of European Languages in the Age of Globalisation. This reads like the announcement of a tragedy. Fate means destiny, that is, a power which controlls all events in a way that cannot be resisted. And fate can also mean death and destruction as the ultimate and inevitable end of the story. So we have here two dramatis personae the killer and the victim. But who is the killer and who the victim? In a tragedy it is the life of the victim which is fated to come to an end. And, as the theme of this conference specifies, it is German which may be the victim. However, the power of destiny is not mentioned. Is it too obvious or are we too polite? In any case, there are European languages which do not seem to share the fate of German. It has become a commonplace to say that, in the world of today, English is the leading language. The question is, however, what such a statement implies. In the course of history quite a number of languages have been used as means of communication across the borders of countries and between people of different mother tongues. Does the present international position of English simply result from a change of role and importance among languages? That the language of one nation takes on the role of an internationally accepted medium of communication, particularly in diplomacy and foreign trade, but also in culture and in academic learning, is not a new phenomenon in history. The French language had such a status in Europe from the end of the 17th up to the beginning of the 20th century. German, although to a lesser extent, also played for some time such a role in central, eastern, and south eastern Europe. Nor is it peculiar to our time that a language which originally came into existence in one country is taken to other parts of the world and becomes the language of several nations. Apart from English, there are three other languages originating from the European continent Spanish, Portuguese and French which have spread far into the world, becoming the

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

67

standard language of a number of now independent nations or legally recognized minorities. In the case of Spanish, this development does not seem to have come to an end as can easily be noticed in this city and in this country, which, if I may venture to say this, is an encouraging antidote to any danger of resignation lurking in the theme of this conference. Nevertheless it is undoubtedly true that it is English an idiom that at the beginning of European history was spoken only in some parts of the British Isles lying on the outskirts of Western Christianity which has experienced the most impressive expansion all over the world, making it not only the standard language of a few major nations but also giving it the function of a second language for a large number of people. Among experts, so I trust, even the most passionate admirers of English will agree that this astonishing ascent is not primarily due to the special linguistic virtues of this language. As with Spanish, French and Portuguese it is, in the first place, the result of political power, economic strength and cultural influence. And, as the example of English and Spanish shows, it is mainly the result of colonialism and migration, particularly, where the establishment of colonial empires has been combined with a migration to the conquered lands, leading to a solid domination over the indigenous population. Although French was not only the generally accepted language of foreign politics and diplomacy for more than two centuries but also set the social and cultural standards, at least for Western Europe, for quite a long time, its influence began to wane, albeit slowly, when France was no longer the strongest state on the continent, but Russia. Today the efforts of German educational policy to convince young people of the advantages of learning French are really successful only in those regions which border on France where the proximity fosters the growth of a natural interest in immediate communication. In other words, knowing French is no longer a matter of prestige. The former influence of the German language was mainly based on the position of Austria, which for a long time was the leading central European power, but after 1871 of course also on the growing power of the united Germany, as well as to some extent on German migration to eastern and south eastern parts of Europe in earlier centuries. This situation changed radically with the reduction of Austria to a smaller European state after the first world war, the total defeat of Germany in the Second World War, which had been unleashed by Hitler and the Nazi leadership, and the subsequent expulsion of almost all Germans from the eastern and south eastern parts of Europe, despite the fact that their ancestors had been living there for ages. It was a catastrophe which followed from the destruction of the first German

68

Hans Joachim Meyer

Republic, the breaking with the liberal and democratic traditions of German history, and the renunciation of humanism by the nationalist and racist forces which seized power in Germany in 1933. The immediate consequence was that the second pillar on which the international position of the German language had rested for more than a century began to crumble the world-wide reputation of German culture and the international respect for German academic learning and research. Many who had earned this respect through their achievements in intellectual life took it away with them when driven from their country, which had fallen into the hands of murderers and torturers. These political criminals are, we must not forget, the killers in our tragedy. It was German hands which struck the first and, possibly, fatal blow to the international position of the German language. Today, among the languages of European origin, only English and Spanish can really claim importance in international communication. However, the international position of Spanish is mainly based on the communication in and among the Spanish-speaking nations and national minorities who, with the exception of Spain and a few smaller territories, form a Spanish-speaking zone which is still expanding to the north. Only English stands a good chance of being the main language of the emerging global society. In addition to its status as the first or the second language in many countries, and its increasing role in traditional fields of international cooperation such as trade, diplomacy or military operations, English has come to serve as practically the only accepted medium of communication in a number of important areas of human activity associated with progress and modernity, such as promising fields in the natural sciences, international traffic and tourism, and the film and entertainment industry. In these and other areas English offers to an everincreasing number of people the chance of borderless communication and the opportunity to achieve their purposes without the need to overcome the barrier of a foreign language. For some people, particularly when they have been born in an English-speaking country, the temptation is irresistible to assume that they can also neglect cultural differences. Whereas for centuries going abroad meant learning another language and getting acquainted with another culture, in other words, becoming a richer personality, today some competence in English appears to remove such necessities. Those who speak English may get the impression of being more or less at home everywhere. This helps to be quicker, more mobile and more efficient, which corresponds to modern ideals of life and work. To superficial observers the whole world seems to be steeped in English. It is an impression which may breed irritation. I remember a British colleague from the endangered species of foreign-language teachers imitating tourists from England in Spain and

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

69

their surprised statement: Those chaps dont speak English! It may also lead to prejudice which breeds aggressive arrogance, particularly if English is used to transport and propagate a particular way of life.1 Such attitudes threaten the cultural diversity of mankind, which is at least as important as the diversity of the biosphere we try to preserve. In any case, English has reached a degree of world-wide importance which goes far beyond the traditional role of internationally used languages. How should this new role be discussed and explained? The term International English for a particular variety of this language is typically used to describe its position in the world resulting from colonialism and migration. Its new and unique role in the age of globalisation seems to be better captured by the term Global English. But how can we precisely define the new aspects of the world-wide role of English: As a neutral tool for bordercrossing communication all over the world or rather as a form of political power and cultural dominance in the global society of tomorrow? Only for the function of English as a neutral tool of international communication would its frequently used characterization as a new lingua franca be satisfactory and acceptable. Originally, the term lingua franca was used to denote a link language spoken around the eastern half of the Mediterranean Sea, serving merchants and sailors from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds as a medium of communication. Its basis was derived from Italian idioms, but it also included Greek and Arabic language elements. Therefore in linguistics, lingua franca in its proper sense denotes a language used for a restricted range of communicative purposes and combining elements from more than one language. Generally speaking, lingua franca is a hybrid language for specific functions, used in a larger territory in which various national languages are spoken. If lingua franca is to be more than a metaphor for the global role of English, a precise definition of the functions and situations to which this term applies is required.2 In fact, various attempts have been made to identify a particular variety of English for which, linguistically, the term lingua franca could make sense. An important characteristic of a lingua franca seems to be that the role of the native speaker or rather of the ideal native speaker as a source of linguistic norms and correct usage is not consistent with the hybrid and functional nature of this kind of language. It is, therefore, only logical that David Graddol (1999)3 puts special emphasis on the decline of the native speaker in absolute numbers, when analysing the new role of English as a global lingua franca, particularly in view of the new conditions developing in Europe.

70

Hans Joachim Meyer

Graddol suggests distinguishing two types of second language. The first definition identifies those countries where English serves a role in intranational communication, although only a minority of the population may actually understand and use English. The second definition refers to an L2 speech community as one which is norm creating that is, developing its own institutionalised variety of English. These are the so-called New Englishes: mainly in former British colonial territories. 4 As Graddol points out, neither definition can be applied to the newly developing situation in Europe, where, as a consequence of the role of English as a global lingua franca, we can find an increasing number of fluent speakers of English who do not conform to the traditional definition of L2 speaker. Instead, he suggests the linguistic model of speech communities which redefine themselves as cross-border affiliation groups rather than as geographic groups in national boundaries.5 This seems to be in accordance with the concept of Euro-English or Mid-Atlantic English as proposed by Marko Modiano (2000).6 This is thought to be a variety of English spoken by competent non-native speakers, whose pronunciation cannot be identified geographically and as a copy of native-tongue usage. Their vocabulary is not restricted to British usage but also includes terms and expressions from American English. Spelling, too, shows and accepts American influence. Generally speaking, Mid-Atlantic or Euro-English is not firmly based on a prescriptive standard, but instead is seen as a descriptive model which incorporates a wide range of possible usage.7 In fact, the concept of EuroEnglish is a logical consequence following from Modianos theoretical point of view that native speakers of major varieties are simply one group among many that collectively comprise the English-using world. Thus, competent non-native speakers of English are placed on an equal footing in a centripetal model.8 The question is how realistic the model of EuroEnglish as a variety in its own right can be and how far it agrees with our insights into the nature of languages. In actual communication it is certainly not necessary, as Modiano is right to assume, to achieve near-native proficiency in one prestige variety.9 Such views may help to define realistic aims for foreign-language teaching. But Modianos as well as Graddols motivation when challenging the prestige of true-born English speakers as models of correct and acceptable usage is of a much more fundamental character. To Graddol the very concept of well-defined identities which are associated with definite languages is outdated and will give way to new formations of identity; greater mobility; and a new hierarchy of languages which places most European citizens in a plurilingual context.10 What kind of new identities will develop and what the relationship of language and

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

71

culture will be, seems to be an open question. On the one hand, Graddol (2001)11 regards it as a key aspiration of the new European project to roll back the centuries-long development which created monolingual cultures built around standardised national languages and to create a new, borderless territory in which the majority, if not all, citizens are multilingual.12 On the other hand, he cannot help noticing that the present spread of English is taking Europe in a rather different direction towards a form of multilingualism in which languages have a hierarchical relationship, and towards a society in which some languages are more equal than others.13 Modiono is much more outspoken when referring to Euro-English which allows Europeans to retain their divergent cultural distinctiveness as one possible way to counteract the impact of Anglo-American cultural, linguistic, and ontological imperialism.14 I confess to sharing the fears that the cultural richness of Europe is in danger, but I cant share Modianos hope that this way it will be possible to target features of the language which have currency in the communication process.15 In fact, the implication that currency could be a metaphor for language is highly questionable. Taken in the meaning of money, which seems to be intended here, it is the function of currency to make different things comparable by reducing qualitative characteristics to quantitative units. Such a comparison, however, fails to grasp the very nature of language, which is much more than an instrument of communicative exchange. Language provides a potential for creativity which combines linguistic competence with intellectual as well as emotional capacities. Any development of language is embedded in a definite cultural context and contributes to a definite culture. Therefore languages embody cultural history, particularly in their semantics, which may be regarded as the core of any language. It is for this very reason that the success of communication often depends very much on the art of negotiating meaning. To assume that as a lingua franca all speakers of English have the same right of access and accountability for the development and definition of the language,16 is not much more than a nice illusion. And to believe that systems of marginalization, of prestige accents and of Euro-centric notions of the supremacy of European culture and societal organisation will no longer be operative when English is deemed to be a lingua franca sounds politically correct but is far from reality. In fact, there will never be a living language that is cultureless. Just as speaking cannot be separated from thinking, it is equally impossible to use and understand the potential of a language without its cultural context. In spite of all these critical objections, however, it seems plausible to assume that certain functions of English in border-crossing communication

72

Hans Joachim Meyer

can be described adequately as a new lingua franca, because these functions are confined to definite spheres of border-crossing culture. In this communicative role it may have a much wider and much more varied thematic scope in communication, and its linguistic and rhetorical means may show a higher degree in sophisticated standardisation than a traditional lingua franca. Nevertheless, this modern lingua franca is also restricted in its domain and in its repertoire. Hence, the assumption that part of the communicative use of English in the emerging global society indeed constitutes a modern lingua franca does not provide an answer to the challenge which global English presents to the national identities making up Europe and its cultural richness. A really intriguing question is: Why has the linguistic category of lingua franca become so popular in linguistics when trying to account for the new dimension in the international role of English? Is it because of its close connection with trade and commerce? Do these historical roots give this term an appeal of modernity? Or is it rather the subconscious attempt to avoid an alternative interpretation of the dominant position of English one cant help thinking of when considering the history of languages. In fact, it was not the lingua franca of the Mediterranean that was the dominant language of Western Europe before the era of nation-building and the emergence of national cultures. It was Latin which, in turn, was the heritage of the Roman Empire. Under Roman rule the conquered territories had been transformed radically and a Roman society had been established. It is true that the Roman Empire was also a multilingual and multicultural melting-pot. But the result was a unifying culture whose character was Roman and whose language was Latin. Up to the present, those parts of Europe which for a long time were Roman provinces still bear the stamp of Roman culture. And their languages are a Latin offspring. Only in England was the impact of the Roman Empire so thoroughly erased by the Anglo-Saxon invaders that Latin influence had to be brought in again by the Norman conquerors. It was medieval Latin and its dominant role in all decisive spheres all over Western Europe in church, education, scholarship, culture and politics which created a border-crossing linguistic and mental unity. Hence, it is Latin that appears to provide a more adequate model to predict and understand what a comparable position of English in uniting Europe could mean for languages whose international role is insignificant or decreasing, as is the case with German. Only in this context does it make sense to speak of the fate of European languages in the age of globalisation. A lingua franca, which by definition serves a restricted range of communication only, will never be able to threaten the national role of languages nor to exclude them

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

73

totally from international life. A new Latin, however, would establish a new imperial culture and reduce national languages to the status of local dialects. In contrast to Latin in medieval Europe, English as a new Latin would be both the language of English-speaking national cultures and the language of the strongest power in the world. Under these circumstances there is no reason to hope for equal partnership in the use and the further development of English. Whether English will take up the position of a new Latin depends first and foremost on the strength of the national cultures and their international attractiveness. In other words, the present and future role of English is not primarily the result of aggressive attitudes and strategies of the Englishspeaking world or of particular English-speaking countries, although one could refer to more than one example pointing in this direction. In a world which is moved forward by competition, it would be naive to blame people for using their chance. In my view, an imperial position of English in the European and global societies of tomorrow would not be the result of defeat, but of surrender. Even in the Roman Empire it was probably culture which counted more than political suppression. Today we live in a free world, in which cultural ideals and standards are much more influential than political or military strength. Hence, in the first place, it will be the decision of the national communities themselves, in particular of their elites and their younger generations, whether they live and develop their own heritage in the continuous process of border-crossing exchange or, instead, prefer to accept English, particularly American English, as the expression of modernity and try to pose as Americans. They would then risk resembling people who hope to be successful by copying the manners and products of others. How much depends on the prevalent intellectual mood is today exemplified to a truly extreme extent by German society. Let me start with some observations on academic life which I would then like to place in a broader context. Universities are rightly considered to be the apex of the educational system and they are expected, at least, to act as centres of the intellectual life in society. As places of research and scholarship universities are dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, which, by its very nature, is an international phenomenon. At the same time, universities have been the most important institutions for the development of a national culture and a national consciousness. This double role, however, is not evenly spread over the spectrum of the various academic disciplines, and we have to bear in mind these differences when considering the effects of globalisation on international academic communication. These differences also provide a remarkable argument for the necessity of distinguishing between English as a new lingua franca or as a new imperial culture.

74

Hans Joachim Meyer

During the Middle Ages and even for a long period afterwards the European universities knew only one language and this was Latin. Of course the German universities were no exception. It was not until 1688 that Christian Thomasius, a Professor of Law at Leipzig, for the first time in the history of German universities, dared to give a lecture in German. It was an academic innovation which his university didnt appreciate at all so that he was forced to go elsewhere. In the two following centuries, however, German universities as well as universities in other European countries made a remarkable contribution to the development of national languages, particularly in education and academic scholarship, but also in other fields of great significance for the process of nation-building such as law and politics. United by the common pursuit of knowledge, the academic world more or less continued to be an international community, but it no longer had an international language. Instead, some national languages, among them German, gained great international prestige because of the quality of academic work in their countries. About half a century ago this multilingual period came to an end, at least in the natural sciences. The Second World War made the United States of America the leading power of the western world, not only in the political and in the military sense, but also in science. This rapidly increasing leadership of American science in a continuously growing number of research areas has been first and foremost the result of the enormous efforts the United States has undertaken to promote research in promising fields and to expand its institutions of higher learning. The steep rise in American publications presenting the latest scientific findings quite naturally increased the importance of English in the world of science. It also raised the attractiveness of American universities for young people all over the world, particularly for those with English as a first or second language, of which for historical reasons there is a vast number. In addition, English has attained the status of being the first foreign language in most, if not all, European educational systems. This is leading to an ever-growing number of people with considerable communicative competence in this language. Meanwhile, the United States can make use of well educated and highly motivated young people from all over the world to enhance its international leadership in science. A superficial assumption could be that the emergence of a world-wide culture speaking, writing and of course also thinking in English will be the inevitable outcome of this development. Together with the political power, the economic strength and the cultural influence of the United States this would, in fact, establish a new imperial culture, reducing the other national languages and cultures to a colonial status and making the so-called global

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

75

village some people dream of nothing more than an American village or rather a place which would resemble the not so elegant districts of New York. But is this really the only perspective history has to offer? Of course it is true that if academic research is an international phenomenon and if universities are the most important institutions of research, the composition of their professoriate as well as of their student body should be international. Internationality, however, cannot be achieved by domination and surrender, but should be based on equality and mutual respect. Hence, a community which is truly international cannot be monolingual but must be multilingual. So far this is only a necessity for the universities on the European continent, but that need not be the end of the story. The question we have to address is whether academic multilingualism has a basis in the reality of academic research and teaching. In other words, is it possible to distinguish between academic disciplines which on the one hand form a monolingual, almost entirely English-speaking international community, and other academic disciplines which, by the very object of their study, are closely related to a national culture? English, in contrast to the German concept of Wissenschaft, makes the distinction between science and the humanities. There can be no doubt that science, or, to be more precise, the natural sciences today constitute an international culture whose language is English. The change to English has been so radical that famous German science journals not only publish in English but have even taken on English names. Of course the end of German as a language of science, which in the course of two centuries developed a particular literary quality, is also a severe cultural loss. At the same time we have to bear in mind that the natural sciences are characterized by a relatively clear separation between doing research and communicating about research. As has been shown by linguistic studies, it is definitely not the purpose of research articles when reporting about a particular piece of research in science to describe the stages of the intellectual process in its intricate complexity of trial and error, of assumptions and corrections. It is rather the intention to present and discuss the starting point of the work, the methods used and the results obtained in a standardized form which typically obeys particular stylistic conventions and rhetorical strategies. As has been shown by John Swales (1990) 17 in his analysis of English in academic and research settings, following Hoey (1979) and others, the research article is a particular genre with its own quite separate conventions, its own processes of literary reasoning and its own standards of argument, within all of which one powerful shaping paradigm is that of the problem-solution text type.18 In other words, on the basis of the English rhetorical tradition, a highly standardized communicative

76

Hans Joachim Meyer

repertoire has been developed for the natural sciences which may be referred to as a new lingua franca, because it is only a functional medium of communication on a restricted sphere of activities and purposes. In contrast, it is characteristic of the humanities that studying phenomena and defining insights into these phenomena are parts of the same intellectual process because it is the semantic potential of the particular language used which provides both indispensable instruments of analysis and the necessary material for expressing the results. Accordingly, it would be against the very nature of research in the humanities to separate the act of investigation from the act of communication. Instead it is only possible either in a second step to translate the results into another language (which so far has been the usual procedure in international communication) or to give up ones own language as an instrument of, as well as a potential for academic work. The latter alternative would have a disastrous effect on the rank of the language which is being excluded from the realm of academic and scientific thinking, because, as the eminent German scholar Karl Voler once remarked, a purely poetic literature, without scientific writing, is nothing more than a written dialect.19 Scientific thinking has a deep influence on modern society and this influence is increasing steadily. It is therefore hard to deny that a European country would face considerable consequences if the society and the academic community, particularly in the humanities, no longer spoke and thought in the same language. Moreover, both the object of study and the semantic potential of the language are often deeply influenced by a definite national culture and its intellectual history. This is especially true for literature, philosophy, law, history and related academic fields which are of great importance for the self-perception and the traditions of a national community. There are, admittedly, also academic areas outside the natural sciences where together with new approaches in research English has made its impact, such as in economics, which, for obvious reasons, is turning towards a globalised perspective, or in some areas of linguistics. Nevertheless it is difficult to imagine how the traditions in the humanities, in law and in the social and political sciences could be continued if the academic community abandoned the languages in which for centuries the cultural and intellectual treasures of the nations have been preserved. It would be either foolish or arrogant not to see the dangers which may result from such a far-reaching cultural break for the development and for the mental stability of a national community. Incidentally, the newly founded International University of Bremen which uses English as the language of instruction and regards itself as a model for higher education in Germany offers study programmes in the humanities which have practically no relation to German history or culture.

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

77

The answer to the threat of cultural loss cannot, of course, be a return to the past. In the emerging global society internationality of academic work is no longer confined to the border-crossing exchange of ideas, methods and findings, but it is also an omnipresent linguistic reality of research and teaching. If we want to preserve and continue the cultural richness of mankind, the academic community will have to accept the task of working and communicating in a multilingual context not only world-wide, but at any given place. In this multilingual academic community English will have a central position, not only as the lingua franca of the natural sciences, but also as one of the important links between the various academic fields, particularly between science and the humanities, because otherwise the distance between the two cultures, which C. P. Snow deplored, would widen. Since, generally speaking, the object of academic study is the reality of our world in all its complexity and diversity, there is a chance for such a multilingual academic communication which could preserve and enhance the cultural richness of the world. A chance, however, is a challenge. Whether a national academic community will take up this challenge, depends on their interest in the life and the fate of their nation, of their culture and of their language. And this, in turn, will interact with and, to a large extent, depend on the intellectual attitudes prevalent in the national community. It is for this very reason that I am worried about the fate of German. Indeed, it is hard to find another European society in which so many people are ready and even eager to give up their national identity. A good case in point is provided by the present efforts of university reform. One important proposal is to divide the four or five year degree courses into two study cycles or study stages, each leading to a degree, so that we would have a sequence of two degrees instead of one final degree as at present. On the whole, I am very much in favour of this consecutive study structure, because it would allow for more differentiation, either between a more practical and a more theoretical orientation or between fundamental studies and specialized studies and because it would allow considerable flexibility in combining different study programmes. Lastly, it would promote international mobility, particularly with universities in the English-speaking world, because we would then no longer have one degree, but a first and a second degree. I also accept that as a consequence of this model we should give up the Diplom as the typical German final degree, because I know that the usual translation as diploma is misleading and discriminating. We should follow the Austrian example and call it Magister, which would correspond to our mutual tradition. And we should revitalize the Baccalaureate as a first degree whenever this makes sense. Both names would be more or

78

Hans Joachim Meyer

less correctly understood in the international academic community. And whoever has read or seen Goethes drama on Dr. Faustus would recognize them as part of German culture. An ideal solution, or so one might think. Those, however, who take a look at the present public debate in Germany, may get the impression that the paramount aim of reform consists in abolishing the German degrees and introducing the English Bachelor and Master degrees, or rather the American degrees of Bachelor and Master, because the argument most frequently used in their favour is that these are the international degrees. Some even suggest introducing the PhD instead of the German doctoral degrees which would, in fact, be a kind of re-import, because the Doctor of Philosophy or rather the Philosophiae Doctor was modelled on the Humboldian Doctor Philosophiae. As this historical example shows it is indeed highly useful to study international experience in the academic field and there is undoubtedly a lot to be learned from successful American research universities. In fact, however, the new two cycle or two tier degree courses resemble the American degree structure only very superficially, because the German Bachelor is primarily intended as a professional qualification and not as an academic education. The surprising thing is that there isnt much thorough analysis of American higher education in the present German university reform debate, because the most important aim is to design shorter degree courses which provide a better-structured professional qualification. Nevertheless, particularly for the public, the aim seems to be to look as American as possible. One could even say this in the literal sense of the word. There is more than one publication about the new bachelor and master courses showing German graduates in American gowns with mortar boards. This is all the more ridiculous in a country which in the late sixties took foolish pride in destroying its own traditions in academic appearance and self-presentation. And it is especially astonishing as we today know quite a lot about the effects of signs and symbols in society. But in their desperate attempt to defend or regain an internationally respected position for German academia too many people forget that second-hand products are often thought of as second-rate. In this respect, German academic policy is fully in line with strong tendencies in German society. This is true for politics and for the economy, for culture and for advertising and especially for the media, as one can easily see, hear and read everywhere. In fact, sometimes one gets the impression that German society is drunk with an idealized picture of American society. In this respect, there is no difference between the political parties. It was the old German Government headed by the Christian Democrat Helmut Kohl which combined the reform of university studies with the experimental

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

79

introduction of American degrees. It was the present German Government headed by the Social Democrat Gerhard Schrder which continued this and, when starting their economic policy, held a conference on as the English theme read Germany as a pioneer square (I hope youve an idea what that could mean). Again, it was the students organisation of my own party, the Christian Democratic Union, which has just recently organised a congress (or should I rather say staged an event?) under the fascinating English motto Education now. In all these cases, the message is clear: German is out and English, or rather American English, is in. Business has long shown a strong trend to dress up as American as possible, for instance by giving new products English names and even by renaming old German products and services. An especially repugnant example was set by German Telecom, a privatised former state enterprise. And when the Euro was introduced, German banks distributed so-called starter kits to their customers. The attitude behind all this was most poignantly expressed by a leading representative of German business who characterized himself as an American with a German passport. As can be easily imagined, entertainment and advertising have yielded almost totally to the temptation of appearing modern by using English. Most music bands have English names, for example, Element of Crime crime against what, one is inclined to ask. My own university, the famous Humboldt University in Berlin, in the hope of appearing fashionable, put its annual ball under the intriguing motto Landscape of Human Senses (whatever that may mean). An increasing number of commercial advertisements are in English, ranging from witty to silly. Cities also hope to improve their international image in this way. Frankfurt on Main took the lead with the fanciful slogan We make markets. And when I return to Dresden, Ill be welcomed at the airport by a large poster promising Success included. There is an increasing number of shops, particularly those which are expensive and aim at appearing elegant, which take on English names. The leading German science organisations also contributed to this development when they gave their initiative to encourage public interest in scientific research the English name PUSH which is the abbreviation of Public Understanding of Science and the Humanities. Examples like these could be given in large numbers. It is this trend which, intentionally or subconsciously, is creating and spreading the impression that English is the only language that symbolises progress and modernity. Meanwhile the preference of English has become so aggressive that I do not hesitate to call it a kind of public pressure. It would be unfair to ignore the fact that these trends also meet with disapproval and criticism. Outstanding scholars such as Wolfgang Frhwald 20

80

Hans Joachim Meyer

and Martin Gauger 21 have voiced their concern, although with an undertone of sadness and resignation. Jrgen Trabant22 made a profound and highly critical analysis of the global impact of English on academic writing and thinking. Public figures have made thoughtful comments on the critical situation of German.23 Recently, the Academy of German Language and Literature deplored the decline of German as a language of the sciences and warned of the negative effect this may have on the quality of the democratic discourse. Similarly, the conference of German faculties of the humanities supported the use of German in research and academic teaching, and, although much too late, encouraged the universities, also in new courses, to confer degrees which continue or resume German academic traditions. At the same time, some groups have been making furious attacks on the quickly rising number of Anglicisms, and there are even not very enlightened demands to introduce protective legislation like in France. Let me add that such a step would be without any historical precedence in Germany and quite certainly, to say the least, not very effective. Too often, however, this is said to discourage people from taking public action in favour of German, which would, possibly, be regarded as being against the spirit of political correctness, which in present-day Germany includes an attitude of national humility. This may explain why, on the whole, resistance against the cultural and academic degradation of German is weak and hardly dares to speak out, although it is wide-spread. Instead, there are two predominant trends in the intellectual discourse. The first is simply to deny that the German language is in danger, arguing that the influx of foreign words and phrases has been normal for a living language throughout history and will become even more so in the age of globalisation and that, at least so far, there is no reason to assume that the ability of German to integrate foreign elements has been weakened. One could call this the linguistic argument, which practically confines itself to repeating undeniable platitudes from textbooks. The other trend is less of an argumentative, but rather of a practical kind. People with influence in various sectors of the German society hail the increasing use of English as the language of the future, support this development actively and ridicule those who lament the inevitable consequences for German. This takes us to the core of the problem. The question is not whether the German language is impaired in its grammatical structures or in its lexical stock, although one could cite examples for both. Nobody can deny that an exchange with other languages as well as with other cultures may indeed be a source of enrichment. It is rather the cultural status and the role of German for expressing human ideals, insights and aspirations which is at stake. This

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

81

position is not necessarily in danger because we are approaching a globalised world. German, not only in its international but also in its national role, will be threatened if this challenge is not taken up, because then, inevitably, German society would become part of an empire of American culture. In order to understand this situation, which is unique in present-day Europe, we must consider the crucial importance that the Westernisation of the larger part of post-war Germany had for the success of the Federal Republic and for the stability of German democracy. It was the myth of Germanys special way in history which played into the hands of the undemocratic and nationalist forces who strangled the Weimar Republic, unleashed the Second World War and drove the German nation into its deepest catastrophe. It was the alliance with the Western world and especially with the United States which gave the larger part of the divided nation a new historical chance. The longer the division of Germany lasted, the less hope there was of national unity. And more and more West Germans preferred to be citizens of the free World and of the uniting Western Europe. For an increasing number of Germans, Germany and her history was more a legacy than a heritage. To most Germans the chance of unity came totally unexpectedly. And for too many of the West Germans it meant nothing more than the addition of East Germany to the Federal Republic. Their expectation was that, with their financial support, the new East German states would very soon live and look just like the old Federal Republic. Only few recognized that, simultaneously, an historical era had irrevocably come to an end and that the unification of the country would provide an enormous chance for a renewal of the whole of German society. This chance has hardly been used. And the inevitable result is disappointment and frustration, both in East and in West Germany. The last decade of the 20th century saw the beginnings of globalisation. In this new era, East German dreams could not come true nor could the West German success story be continued. Moreover, the end of the cold war did not lead to eternal peace, as many had assumed, but the quickly changing situation forced Germany to accept a much larger share of the burden of international responsibility. At the same time, the fact that for the first time in her history Germany was not only united in peace and partnership with her neighbours, but that finally, as the result of German unification, the concepts of nation and democracy had come together, did not play a decisive role in public thinking. For too long in the years before 1989, the hope of achieving national unity had been practically abandoned or had even been criticized in West German society, whereas the membership in the Western alliance had been generally accepted, although with some dissent concerning the military

82

Hans Joachim Meyer

consequences. It cannot be my aim to analyse the German mentality of the last decade. But it is my conviction that this would provide at least part of the explanation for the accelerating speed with which in Germany, much more than elsewhere, English is being taken as the expression of modernity. It seems an attempt to escape from German history, to get rid of a country which is no longer successful, but proves to be slow in defining and accepting reforms, to repeat the West German miracle of the fifties by behaving like the star pupil of the western world. And as it is an individualistic solution to the problem, it is not only a comparatively easy way, but grants the satisfaction of being more modern and more westernised than others. In my view, this is yet another example of our national leaning towards extremist attitudes and of our lack of historical balance. There can be absolutely no doubt that we Germans have many good reasons to be thankful to the people of the United States of America for their support in defending or regaining our freedom and in re-uniting our nation. Today the United States bears the main responsibility in the world for peace, and it is our duty to accept our share of international responsibility in reliable solidarity with the United States. In addition, America is the leading power in almost every aspect of life and it is in our interest to have close and constructive cooperation. But all this cannot justify an attitude of cultural surrender, which is fashionable today in German society. It is not the bizarre mixture of German and English into so-called Denglish which really threatens the future of German. It is the wide-spread contempt for our own mother tongue which makes us an object of scientific curiosity and the theme of this conference. Nobody can predict the further course of history and of course I do not want to accept that German is seriously endangered. But if the rise of English to the position of the leading language in the emerging global society should seal the fate of German as the language of a living culture, this would not be the fault of the Americans or of the English-speaking world. It would be a self-inflicted tragedy.

Global English a New Lingua Franca or a New Imperial Culture?

83

Notes
1. Cameron (2000), 3842. 2. See Braj B. Kachru (1996), 906913, where the function of lingua franca or contact language is described as one aspect of the global role of English. In contrast to this: David Crystal (1997), 8 12. He uses the term lingua franca in a more general sense as a common language. 3. David Graddol (1999), 5768. See also Crystal (1997), note 2. 4. Graddol (1999), 67. 5. Graddol (1999), 67. 6. Marko Modiano (2000), 3337. 7. Modiano (2000), 34. 8. Modiano (2000), 35. 9. Modiano (2000), 35. 10. Crystal (1997), 68. 11. Graddol (2001), 4755. 12. Graddol (2001), 52. 13. Graddol (2001), 53. 14. Graddol (1999), 34. 15. Graddol (1999), 35. 16. Graddol (1999), 36. 17. Swales (1990). 18. Swales (1990), 119. 19. Eine lediglich poetische Literatur, ohne wissenschaftliches Schrifttum, ist geschriebener Dialekt, keine vollwertige Literatur. (Karl Voler, Geist und Kultur in der Sprache, Heidelberg 1925, p. 236) Quoted by Lothar Hoffmann (1976) as an introduction to his book Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache. 20. Frhwald (3/2000), 1015 and (1997), 385394. 21. Gauger (1999), 85101. 22. Jrgen Trabant (2000), 189203. 23. See e. g. Plenarprotokoll of the 212 th session of the Deutscher Bundestag, of January 24, 2002.

References
Cameron, Deborah 2000 Good to talk? The cultural politics of communication. The European English Messenger IX/1: 3842. Crystal, David 1997 English as a global language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

84

Hans Joachim Meyer

Frhwald, Wolfgang 1997 Die Sprache der Wissenschaft. In: Was kann Naturforschung leisten, 385394. Halle (Saale) (Nova Acta Leopoldina, vol. 76/303). Frhwald, Wolfgang 2000 Deutsch als Sprache der Wissenschaft. Aviso. Zeitschrift fr Wissenschaft und Kunst in Bayern: 1015. Gauger, Martin 1999 Die Hilflosigkeit der Sprachwissenschaft. In: Christian Meier (ed.), Sprache in Not? Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch, 85101. Gttingen. Graddol, David 1999 The decline of the native speaker. In: English in a changing world, AILA Review 13: 5768. Graddol, David 2001 The future of English as a European Language. The European English Messenger X/2: 4755. Hoffmann, Lothar 1976 Kommunikationsmittel Fachsprache. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Kachru, Braj B. 1996 English as lingua franca. In: H. Goebl et al. (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik / Contact Linguistics / Linguistique de contact. Vol. 1: 906-913. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Modiano, Marko 2000 Euro English: Educational standards in a cross-cultural context. The European English Messenger IX/1: 3337. Swales, John 1990 Genre Analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trabant, Jrgen 2000 Umzug ins Englische. ber die Globalisierung des Englischen in den Wissenschaften. In: Deutscher Hochschulverband (ed.), Glanzlichter der Wissenschaft. Ein Almanach, 189203. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius.

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German? Rudolf Hoberg

Zusammenfassung
Die Frage nach dem Verhltnis von Deutsch und Englisch gehrt zweifellos zu den am meisten diskutierten Sprachproblemen in der deutschen ffentlichkeit. Es geht dabei um zweierlei: Um die Frage, welche Stellung das Deutsche und andere Sprachen bei der Vorrangstellung des Englischen heute einnehmen, weltweit und in Europa; und um die Frage, wie sich der englische Einfluss auf das Deutsche und auf andere Sprachen auswirkt und wie er zu bewerten ist. In dem vorliegenden Beitrag werden beide Probleme errtert und Lsungsvorschlge diskutiert.

1. Is German becoming Denglish? Without doubt many people in Germany will respond affirmatively to this question. Yet, further inquiry shows that most of them do not know what they are affirming or maintaining. Is German disappearing and being replaced by another language? Or is German simply changing in a manner that those who respond affirmatively consider false? A survey conducted by the Institute for the German Language in Mannheim in 1997 yielded this result: Among those aspects of current language development viewed negatively, Anglicisms stand out the most (Stickel 1999, p. 42). For a long time I have concerned myself with the question why this is so. Together with students in German Studies at the Technical University of Darmstadt I have evaluated and continue to evaluate letters sent to me personally, to the Society for the German Language, and to other persons and institutions.1 After the Commission for better German of the Society issued a paper I conceived (Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache / Society for the German Language, 1999), the letters received in the first months of 2000 by the office of the Society were subjected to especially detailed analysis. It can be said without reservation that my previous comments

86

Rudolf Hoberg

on the critics of Anglicisms and my typology of the reasons for rejecting Anglicisms (see Hoberg 2000, p. 311f.) retain their validity until today. Nonetheless, I have to emphasize that our results are not representative and could not be so, for the letters came almost exclusively from those who rejected Anglicisms. Consistently, the letter writers offered four reasons for their rejection: First assertion: Anglicisms are superfluous; there are enough German words or, alternatively, new German words could and should be coined. For example: Kids (still the most criticized Anglicism) in comparison to Kinder. Comment: There are no superfluous words, firstly because only exceptionally do languages contain totally synonymous words and secondly because for speakers and writers no word they use is superfluous; otherwise they would not use it. And of course Kids and Kinder have quite distinct meanings. This example, like many others, shows how those opposing Anglicisms often lack the ability to differentiate in the use of language. Second assertion: Anglicisms make communication difficult. Comment: No one has ever attempted to prove this general assertion. Of course new words, including German words, can make communication difficult or even impossible when they are introduced into the everyday language from technical or special languages. Third assertion: The use of Anglicisms is often nothing more than pretentiousness and swagger. Comment: Without a doubt there is a kernel of truth in this statement. The use of English words serves many contemporaries as the token of a modern attitude toward life; one is in, if one uses Anglicisms. Institutions such as the media have also proven susceptible to this fashion, so that for instance television stations in Germany employ the English word news instead of the German Nachrichten or entitle a program Best of Frhlicher Alltag (Sdwestrundfunk, 4.8.1998). But one can show off, make oneself seem important, and express ones modernity by using German words as well. For the most part, such fashions have a short lifespan. Fourth assertion: Due to identity problems above all related to the Nazi past Germans flee their language.

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German?

87

Comment: This hypothesis has also yet to be in any way substantiated or proven. Though I am not able to go into the identity problems of the Germans here, it must be pointed out that English influences other languages, and this is especially true of the German used in Switzerland (though it is well known that the Swiss did not participate in the Nazi crimes). Linguists are often accused of only registering and analyzing data while they abstain from evaluation. The reproach is groundless in its all-inclusiveness, and above all it does not apply to those who employ scientific methods to develop criteria for the critique and cultivation of language, as is the case with the Society for the German Language. And such a cultivation of language must above all guard against any currying of populist favor and against any purely intuitive criticism of language. Moreover, it must admonish the public to judge according to the facts. In regard to Anglicisms, one must consider above all: It is true that the influence on German has greatly increased since 1945 and especially in the last few decades. Still such complaints are not new. They have been raised for over 100 years. I cite three texts from circa 1900 to exemplify this. In 1899 the General German Society for Language, an organization with many members, held its general assembly in Zittau and unanimously approved the following declaration: With the ever growing influence of things English the number of foreign words borrowed from the English language is increasing in a dubious fashion. In this language phenomenon the old inherited defect of the German people emerges again: The overestimation of foreign things, a lack of self assurance, and a contempt for ones own language (Dunger 1909, Foreword). The president of the language society Herman Dunger, who formulated this text, adds in his Englanderism in the German Language: The highest ambition of many a young German is to be taken for an Englishman. Much as the Germans earlier aped the French, they are now aping the English (Dunger 1909, p. 3). And I have frequently cited Theodor Fontane who, in his novel of 1899 Der Stechlin, has the old man of Stechlin ask: Does one still say djeuner la fourchette? The reply to this: Hardly, Papa. As you know, everything is now in English (Fontane 1980, p. 65). Such comments and explanations could come from todays guardians of language if one simply replaced Englishman and English by American.

88

Rudolf Hoberg

Compared to the total German vocabulary, but also to the lexical borrowings from other languages, the number of Anglicisms is still very low (see e.g. Busse 1999). Anglicisms are found in great number only in certain types of texts and above all in advertisements, in certain specialised languages such as the language of cybernetics, and in certain radio and television programs. Contrary to popular opinion the language of youth does not contain an excessive number of English words. And in one special type of text written by young people, the Abitur-essay (high school examination essay), the proportion of English nouns is 0.06 %, while the total number of nouns deriving from a foreign language is 14 % (see Grimm 2003). The question is rarely raised why words from other languages and especially from English are viewed so negatively or even sensed as a threat. Should one not view them as an enrichment given that foreign words which have found a place in the German language are incorporated semantically and grammatically into the German system of language (today cool in German has a different meaning than cool in English)? Should one not adopt the understanding of foreign words expressed above all by Goethe in his Maxims and Reflections when he writes: The power of a language lies not in its rejection but in its assimilation of what is foreign. (Goethe 1994, p. 508).

2. About the place of the German language in the world and in Europe In academic literature there is disagreement about the number of languages in the world. Recently it is above all Harald Haarmann without question one of the most competent researchers in this area who has dealt with this question (Haarmann 2001a and 2001b). As he points out, the answer to the question depends on basic criteria for which there is no generally recognized scheme of organization. So as a measure one can for example use the communication barrier. Cultural anthropologists prefer to use this barrier to identify local communities of language. However where exactly the barriers occur between local language varieties is again a subjective matter and depends upon the language capabilities of the individual speaker. To many North Germans, Bavarian is absolutely incomprehensible, while others with a high sensitivity to language are able to deal with the German spoken in the South (2001a, p. 36). Or one can use the linguistic criteria of the lexical disparity as a measure. According to the proportion of common elements

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German?

89

in the vocabulary, the language formation may be categorized either as a dialect of a language (e.g. when a majority of lexical congruence exists) or as an independent language (when there is a preponderance of deviation) (2001a, p. 37). The role the written word plays among distinct varieties of language may also be of significance for qualifying them. The status of Bavarian or Swiss-German with regard to the barrier of communication may be very different in comparison to other German dialects, but because both are under the umbrella of standard German (in terms of the interregional written language), they belong to the dialects of German (2001a, p. 37). Finally, the view of the speaker of the language with regard to linguistic self-identification should not be ignored. Among the most recent occurrences of linguistic differentiation is the separation of Croatian from Serbian, which according to the self-identification of their speakers, no longer form part of a Serbo-Croatian continuity. Rather they are seen as independent national languages with distinct cultural as well as social-political orientation (2001b, p. 8). Based on such criteria Haarmann, as he modestly notes, attempts an estimate, and concludes that there are 6417 languages in the world. Most of these languages are spoken by very few people: only 273 languages are spoken by more than a million people and these speakers comprise more than 85% of the worlds population. Furthermore, only twelve languages are spoken as first and second languages by more than 100 million people. They are:
Table 1. (All statistics from Haarmann 2001b, p. 11ff.) Language Number of Speakers (millions) 1210 573 418 352 242 209 % of the worlds population 23.6 11.3 8.2 6.9 4.7 4.1 Language Number of Speakers (millions) 196 182 175 131 125 101 % of the worlds population 3.8 3.5 3.3 2.5 2.4 2.1

Chinese English Hindi Spanish Russian Arabic

Bengali Portuguese Indonesian French Japanese German

With regard to Europe I will draw on earlier publications by Haarmann (1993, p.50ff.), which rank European languages by the number of speakers (only the first language speakers; the data refers to the period around 1990).

90

Rudolf Hoberg

At the top are the following 14 languages that have more than 10 million speakers:
Table 2. (From Haarmann 1993, p. 53) Language Number of Speakers in Europe 135,769,000 91,473,000 58,120,000 56,390,000 55,437,000 43,235,000 38,231,000 Language Number of Speakers in Europe 28,616,000 23,741,000 20,230,000 14,604,000 12,425,000 10,100,000 10,075,000

Russian German French English Italian Ukrainian Polish

Spanish Romanian Dutch Serbo-Croatian Hungarian Portuguese Greek

The tables rank German, in terms of the number of speakers, twelfth in the world and second in Europe; it is ranked first in the European Union. The number of people speaking a language as a mother tongue certainly does not play the most important role for the transnational relevance; otherwise most people in the world would learn Chinese or Russian. But the number is also not insignificant, for the only languages of international import are those with comparatively large numbers of first and second speakers. So today English also occupies the top position as a foreign language because it is so widespread as a mother tongue. Two additional factors determine above all the transnational rank of a language: the historical-cultural factor; herein still lies for example the reason for the significance of French the political-economic factor, which has been decisive in establishing the primacy of British and American English. These factors, and above all the last one, determine the significance of a language for transnational scientific communication and for the decision about which language is used in publications, lectures, conferences, or teaching. The following graphics supply information about the development in the natural and social sciences and the humanities over the last 20 years (from Ammon 1998, p. 152 and p. 167):

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German?


100
74,6 77,1 80,5 87,2 90,7

91

10,8

10

9,2 6,9 3,9 2,9 2,4 2,1 2,3 1,6 1,6

English Russian Japanese French German

3,5 3,1 2,3

3,3 2,5 2,4

1
1980 1984 1988 1992

2,1 1,7 1,3 1,2

1996

Figure 1. Proportion of the languages in natural science publications from 1980 to 1996 (percentages): English Russian Japanese French German.

100
66,6

69,1

69,9

70,6

71,7

82,5

English French German Spanish 10


8 6,6 6,8 3,8 5,2 3,6 5,9 6 3,6 4 5,9 5,4 5,9 5,7 3,8 2,2 5,9 4,1

1
1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1995

Figure 2. Proportion of the languages in social-science and humanities publications from 1974 to 1995 (percentages): English French German Spanish.

92

Rudolf Hoberg

English is by far the most frequently used foreign language in Europe, German ranks second, French third (see Auswrtiges Amt 2000, p. 9).

3. Consequences If I understand it correctly, then today a widespread unanimity exists about two points. Firstly, all languages are equal. It is true that they differ in their structures, which has all kinds of consequences; but there are no linguistic or other reasons to refute this basic equality. From this derives an imperative to preserve and cultivate a plurality of languages with their distinct structures of meaning and perspectives and to foster a multilingual world. It is in the modern and ever more uniform world that one must preserve or sharpen peoples awareness that the demise or repression of a language always signifies a loss not only for the speaker of the language but, moreover, for all of humanity. In the second place, it is the modern world with its transnational and trans-regional communications (communicative relationships) that forces one to use rational criteria to reevaluate the significance of languages within the framework of these communications. No one can deny that English occupies first place. English is the dominant language in the whole world; indeed it is the first world language in the history of mankind. Previous transnational languages such as Latin, Greek, or German, were only employed in certain regions of the world in the case of the aforementioned languages in the Near East and in Europe. Today one can travel to all the continents: Everywhere English serves or will serve as the most important means of communication among the citizens of different nations. The primacy of English has led to, and will maintain, the role of English as the second language wherever it is not spoken as the mother-tongue. Consequently, English influences all languages, not only German. Only too seldom has consideration been given to the roles other languages beside English assume in international communication. One may love Estonian or Czech, but no one not even Estonians and Czechs would suggest lending these languages a special status in the communication between different peoples. In Europe, and especially in the European Union, two languages besides English have to be conceded a special status, German and French, and not for nationalistic reasons: German, because German speakers represent the largest language community in the European Union, because it has a tradi-

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German?

93

tion as a foreign language especially in Northern and Eastern Europe that still persists, and because today it occupies the second position after English as a foreign language; French, because it holds the third place among the mother tongues of Europe, because it has a long tradition as a foreign language, and because currently in Europe and above all around the world it remains one of the most important foreign languages. In recent years various institutions and associations especially in Germany have come out in support of multilingual capabilities, for instance in the Tutzinger Theses about Language Policies in Europe (see Deutscher Germanistenverband 1999); these were supported by various organizations including the Society for the German Language in two resolutions of the General Assembly of the International Association of German Studies (IVG) concerning the use of German as a working language in the European Union and as an additional language in international commerce (see Internationale Vereinigung fr Germanistik 2000a and 2000b) in the declaration German in a Multilingual Europe of the Society for the German Language (see Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache 2000) in a Memorandum: Policies for the German Language (see Stickel 2001) in a Call by the Society for the German Language and the Editorial Board of Duden, which was supported by many people and which requests that beside English and French German should serve as a working language in all European bodies and that the federal government and the governments of the German states (Lnder)do more than previously to support the German language and culture, both domestically and internationally (see Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache 2001) In many parts of the world other languages besides English have gained a special significance: Spanish and Portuguese in the United States, for example. The importance of both languages will extend beyond the United States, given that as the table above shows they rank fourth and eighth respectively in the number of their speakers worldwide.

94

Rudolf Hoberg

During the last few years I have had the opportunity to study the situation of German Studies and the teaching of German as a foreign language in many countries. This allowed me to establish two things: firstly that universities, schools, and other educational institutions are accomplishing an impressive amount with regard to linguistic, literary, and didactic studies, curricula, teaching materials and the practice of teaching; secondly that the numbers of those learning is not very high for the most part the numbers have decreased starkly in recent years above all because it is difficult to motivate people to learn German. In my view the motivation problem is the greatest one in the area of German as a foreign language. Even people who highly appreciate Germany and Germans or residents of other German-speaking countries often do not understand why they should learn German. After all, they can get along well with English in the center of Europe and more generally in contact with those whose mother tongue is German. Thus it is appropriate to conclude with three short considerations or recommendations that could perhaps increase the motivation to learn German. It is first important that German speakers do more for their own language. Whenever Germans make efforts to address foreigners in their native languages or in English, it may well be taken as a sympathetic gesture and it certainly does not suggest the presence of nationalism in language use 2; but this behavior may also cause the German language to be regarded less highly and learned by fewer people. More and more frequently frustrated foreign colleagues tell me that their students do not find positions as interpreters, because ever more frequently Germans in foreign countries are abandoning the use of their native language, even when translators are available. One often applies the term loyalty to language in this context. Yet to me the term hardly seems suitable because it describes the individuals relation to his native language in a much too legalistic manner. Still, it is correct that the German population especially its politicians and businessmen needs to be repeatedly reminded not to neglect the German language. With regard to the task of teaching German as a foreign language, one should focus on two goals, which at first glance may appear contradictory: On one hand as far as possible the teaching must be oriented toward practice. This task has gained preeminence during the last few decades mainly because the teaching of German related to the professions and, lately, especially business German has received more

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German?

95

emphasis and attracted more and more students. On the other hand, one needs to be aware not only that the learning of a foreign language advances communication and the exchange of information, but also that knowledge of another language has a value in itself. The structures, the semantics, and the world view (Humboldt) of another language offer a new way of seeing and new perspectives and serve to open the way into another culture. And let us not forget that through learning a difficult language one expands ones mind. Much is to be gained from learning a language like German, with its complex grammatical structure, merely receptively, so that it can at least be understood. Such learning is considerably easier and takes less time, but nonetheless offers important insights and enables communication between people who have a passive knowledge of each others language. Each can speak and write in his or her mother tongue and thereby express him- or herself in a more differentiated manner than in a single foreign language. Among the current commonplaces is one that says the world is changing ever more quickly and that globalization is increasing. Thus plans for language policies and promotion can only have relevance for the next few years or at best decades. No one knows how long English will maintain its preeminence. The proportion of English in the internet has already decreased while that of German has increased, so that German now surpasses all other languages beside English (Ammon 2000, p. 5). Will our grandchildren increasingly learn Chinese? Or Russian, which will probably attain a stronger position in Europe? However the world develops, everything must be done so that not just one but several languages are used for communication purposes in the world and in Europe, and so that through the increasing and receptive learning of language the speakers of the little languages will also have as many opportunities as possible to speak in their own language with those from other language communities.

Notes
1. I would especially like to thank Aram Pohosyan, Bettina Wallot and Alexander Winter for their detailed evaluations. 2. The German should learn all languages, so no foreigner discomfits him at home, but also so he is at home everywhere (Goethe 1994, p. 508).

96

Rudolf Hoberg

References
Ammon, Ulrich 1998 Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Berlin. 2000 Wird deutsch verdrngt? Hinweise zum Bestand, zur Erklrung und zu Frderungsmglichkeiten. Redetyposkript (masch.). Auswrtiges Amt Kulturabteilung 2000 Auswrtige Kulturpolitik. Berlin. Busse, Ulrich 1999 Keine Bedrohung durch Anglizismen. Der Sprachdienst 1: 1820. Deutscher Germanistenverband 1999 Tutzinger Thesen zur Sprachpolitik in Europa. Der Sprachdienst 6: 220222. Dunger, Hermann 1909 Englnderei in der deutschen Sprache. Berlin. Fontane, Theodor 1980 Werke, Schriften, Briefe. Abt. 1, Bd. 5. Darmstadt Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache (ed.) 1999 Stellungnahme der Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache zum englischen Einfluss auf die deutsche Gegenwartssprache. Der Sprachdienst 6: 217220. 2000 Deutsch im vielsprachigen Europa. Der Sprachdienst 6: 201203. 2001 Aufruf der Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache und der Dudenredaktion. Der Sprachdienst 1: cover page 4. Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von 1994 Werke. Hamburger Ausgabe in 14 Bnden. Vol. 12, 12th ed., Mnchen. Grimm, Hannelore 2003 Vernderungen der Sprachfhigkeiten Jugendlicher. Frankfurt/Main. Haarmann, Harald 1993 Die Sprachenwelt Europas. Geschichte und Zukunft der Sprachnationen zwischen Atlantik und Ural. Darmstadt. 2001a Babylonische Welt. Geschichte und Zukunft der Sprachen. Frankfurt/ Main. 2001b Kleines Lexikon der Sprachen. Von Albanisch bis Zulu. Mnchen. Hoberg, Rudolf 1994 Die Rolle der deutschen Sprache in Wissenschaft und Technik. DINMitteilungen 5, 32935. 1996 Fremdwrter. Wie soll sich die Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache dazu verhalten? Der Sprachdienst 5: 137142. 2000 Sprechen wir bald alle Denglisch oder Germeng? In: Karin M. Eichhoff-Cyrus and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Die deutsche Sprache um die Jahrtausendwende. Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall? Mannheim, 303316.

English Rules the World. What Will Become of German? 2001

97

berlegungen zur aktuellen Sprachenpolitik. In: DAAD (ed.), Germanistentreffen Deutschland Dnemark Finnland Island Norwegen Schweden. Bonn, 2529. Hoberg, Rudolf 2002 Zur Stellung der deutschen Sprache in der Welt und in Europa. In: DAAD (ed.), Germanistentreffen Deutschland Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile, Kolumbien, Kuba, Mexiko, Venezuela. Bonn, 1522. Internationale Vereinigung fr Germanistik (IVG) 2000a Resolution zur Verwendung von Deutsch als Arbeitssprache in der Europischen Union. Wien (masch.). 2000b Resolution zur Verwendung von Deutsch als weitere Sprache im internationalen Wirtschaftsverkehr. Wien (masch.). Stickel, Gerhard 1999 Zur Sprachbefindlichkeit der Deutschen: Erste Ergebnisse einer Reprsentativumfrage. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Sprache Sprachwissenschaft ffentlichkeit. Berlin, 1644. 2001 Memorandum: Politik fr die deutsche Sprache. Sprachreport 2: 810.

Language Policies in East and West. National Language Policies as a Response to the Pressures of Globalization Petra Braselmann

Zusammenfassung
Eine der Antworten auf den Globalisierungsdruck ist ein deutlich zunehmendes Interesse an der Abgrenzung der eigenen Identitt, vor allem durch die Sprache. Sprachpflege bekommt in den einzelnen Lndern einen gewaltigen Auftrieb, Sprachgesetze werden erlassen oder gefordert. Das franzsische Sprachenschutzgesetz von 1994 wird dabei zum nachahmenswerten Prototypen (ohne dabei allerdings den Umbruch in der franzsischen Sprachpolitik zur Jahrtausendwende zu beachten), der aber nicht einfach auf andere Lnder bertragen werden kann: Zu unterschiedlich sind die jeweiligen historischen, ideologischen und politischen Voraussetzungen, zu anders sind die jeweiligen Feinde, vor denen man sich schtzen will. Der Beitrag analysiert aktuelle sprachpolitische Konzepte in West (Frankreich, Deutschland, Italien und Spanien) und Ost (Polen, Lettland, Slowakei, Rumnien und Ungarn) und arbeitet die unterschiedlichen Einstellungen zum Englischen bzw. zu anderen erdrckenden Sprachen heraus. Danach bedeutet Globalisierung durchaus nicht immer Amerikanisierung, damit kann auch Russifizierung oder Germanisierung gemeint sein.

Languages and their speakers tend to resist linguistic and cultural amalgamation which in most cases is directed against English. Nevertheless, English leaves traces in the respective European languages and has, beyond that, become the language of international communication at the expense of the other great languages. English has become the most important (modern) umbrella language.1 Anglo-America assumes a model function and is transformed into an umbrella culture in virtually all walks of life.2 Maintaining language standards internationally has thus gained substantial significance. Language protection laws according to the French model are passed or at least demanded. Until recently this process only applied to the countries of Western Europe. However, since the breakdown of the Iron Curtain Eastern European countries have also been infected by the American Virus.

100

Petra Braselmann

Following a brief overview of the function of English in the world (1), recent developments in French language policy which has become a model for other nations are outlined (2) and subsequently recent developments in language politics in the East (4) and West (3) are discussed.

1. The killer language English English has outgrown the function of a national language and become denationalized as the lingua franca of the world. This first genuinely common language in the history of the world is fragmented along country lines into a bunch of new languages. Historically this fragmentation of English has been abetted by the British, who care little about the purity and correct usage of their language. They traditionally display a laissez-faire attitude contrary to the French, who have left no doubt that they want to spread an uncorrupted version of their language. In places such as the Ivory Coast, where French has been accepted as the lingua franca, it is true that the language has been simplified, but such varieties have been largely ignored (Grlach 2000: 630632). After World War II America began to set the standards, and like the British the Americans did not pursue any specific language policy. There are different reasons for the predominance of English in the world (Braselmann 2002a: 298302). One lies in the peculiar structure of the language, in so-called intertranslatability and, as Ineichen (2003: 405) notes, in the fact that other languages lack the flexibility, e.g., to serve as a computer language. This certainly applies to French with its stark normative tradition. The English understood by most people around the world is losing its similarity to British English. So Euro-English is not the English of the British or of the Americans, but rather the international English often only mastered by native speakers of English if they have had the experience of learning other languages. Yet this happens rarely: approximately 66 % of the British lack knowledge of a foreign language. The notoriously monolingual British lack flexibility in adapting to other cultural and linguistic requirements, which causes them problems in the globalization process. The British government has recognized this in the mean time.3 Americas increasing power and its influence on the media have called forth world-wide reactions. Americanisms are often stigmatized. Until recently this was even, or especially, the case in Great Britain, where at least such an allergy to language has been overcome, because the Americanisms are hardly recognized as such any longer (Grlach 2000: 626). World

Language Policies in East and West

101

wide the allergy to the killer language obtains, mainly for four major reasons: 1. English is displacing other languages as the lingua franca in international communications. 2. English is replacing other languages in their role as a first foreign language. 3. English is undermining other national languages, so that one speaks of Germeng, Spanglish, and Franglais. 4. English functions in competition to regional languages and is responsible for the demise of languages. To each point in detail: English or rather Anglo-American has become the lingua franca of an era marked by global networking, the New Economy, and the internet. Globalization has created a situation that necessitates such a world language. Now about 80 % commercial negotiations worldwide take place in English, making it a prerequisite for participating in world trade. If these facts primarily affected the first and second tier in corporate hierarchies a decade ago, now the relevance of the lingua franca extends to the lower levels, and even workers and salaried staff increasingly attend language schools. Though in the 1960s the European Commission still composed 80 % of all its texts in French, today French texts comprise only about 40 %. And the proportion is still decreasing despite the immense efforts of the French government. Diverse studies, (e.g. Ammon 2002, 1998) indicate how the other great languages have lost their previous functions how, for example, in science and international communications, German has given way to English. Countries acceding to the EU as part of its Eastern extension have to use English when communicating with international bodies. Thus, in future we will have three classes of member states: those privileged to have English as a mother tongue, those employing the working languages of German and French, and finally those, like the new member-states, that will be precluded from using their mother tongues. Switzerland with its four languages (German, French, Italian, and Romansh) offers a special case in point: the increasing international need for English reduces the motivation to learn the languages of the country, especially Italian and Romansh (Koller 2000: 563609). Ineichen (2003) relates how French has lost its status under the new school law, which regulates language instruction in the upper level of the common schools (Volks-

102

Petra Braselmann

schule) of the Confederation (2000). After English became obligatory beginning in the 7th grade (beside German in the Romansh and Italian speaking Cantons, beside Romansh or Italian in the German ones), French has become an elective. Since perestroika the influence of the Anglo-American model has spread to Eastern Europe. To the detriment of French and German, English is increasingly the primary foreign language. That e.g. to most Russians the United States epitomize economic well-being has engendered imitation of Anglo-American behavior and patterns of communication. This expresses itself linguistically in numerous Anglicisms and borrowings that, in many cases, replace older French borrowings or even German ones (Ohnheiser 2002: 149165). While the above points (1 and 2) certainly correspond to a realistic assessment, this is less true with regard to the following points (3 and 4). Based on their corpus analysis of Anglicism usage in individual languages, linguists have long allayed fears: contrary to expectations and even in areas prone to Anglicisms (e.g. the press, the language of youth, music magazines, advertisement, and commercial texts) their usage is low.4 Yet this does not necessarily contradict the prognosis of the undermining and overwhelming effects of Anglicisms made so vehemently by their opponents and certain language preservation societies. Since the 1990s they have argued on another level and evaluated phenomena against the backdrop of their history of mentalities and not within but beyond the sphere of language (in political, ideological, social, and historical areas).5 Their meta-discourse typically enlists the metaphors of threat, war, sickness, and death.6 Finally we come to the death of languages attributed above all to the killer function of English. In an impressive manner, Haarmann (2002: 152170) not only demonstrates that the danger to small languages should be seen independently from the undeniable globalization of language through English, but also that the most endangered languages lie outside English speaking countries or more precisely in countries not directly influenced by English or ones in which it has little currency. The dissolution of the little languages takes place under the pressure of assimilation to dominant languages other than English: among them are Russian, Chinese, Portuguese in Brazil, and Spanish in Latin America. Where English is responsible for languages dying as in the United States or Australia, not the globalizing function of the language but the pressures of assimilation in everyday life are the cause. Once one has detected the supposed killer function of English a call for the language police la franaise seems the obvious response. Below

Language Policies in East and West

103

we shall address the differences between countries answering that call, the instruments available to them, and the intentions behind their responses.

2. French language policy as a model French language policy has served as a model for other countries. But there is a problem in this, in that the international reception of French language legislation ends with the last law, Loi Toubon of 1994, and decisive changes have been made since then. After some painful experiences and digressions, France has found its way back to the normative power of usage, to the inviolability of normative use. One can ask why France has gained the role of the pioneer. There are at least two answers to this: one reason is that the French have had the longest ongoing debate about language norms; no other nation has such a tradition of language laws, which can be traced back to at least the 16th century.7 It is the special attitude of the French toward their language, their consciousness of norms, and their loyalty to language 8 that gives rise to legislation that is quite unique. Another reason is that, compared to other languages, the fixation on the classical norm in France led to inflexibility and reduced willingness to innovate whenever a new French designation was necessary. Paradoxical as it may seem, it is precisely this that encouraged further borrowings. At the beginning of the 1970s those responsible for the cultivation of the language realized (much too late) that the traditional battle against Anglicisms would have to be extended into a terrain that had been hitherto willfully ignored, namely into areas of specialized terminology. The government constituted the first terminology commissions, which were supposed to cleanse the specialized language of Anglicisms and replace them with French neologisms. To the traditional arbiters of language neologisms were always suspect, because they seemed incompatible with bon usage. Yet instead of offering the traditional critique of neologisms, the highest authority now produced them. In this alone, however, lies an innovative potential quite distinct from the traditional cultivation of language. More and more the Academy is losing influence. In 1975 the traditional retrospective norm was superceded by one the state decreed in the form of the first modern language law. In 1994 the second law, the Loi Toubon followed. It is now in effect. Intended to tighten restrictions, this law was supposed to extend the prohibition of Anglicisms to the private sector as well. Yet, a ruling of the constitutional court citing the right to freedom of expression prevented this.9 During this period politically decisive action was taken to support the

104

Petra Braselmann

law protecting language: in 1992 the constitution was changed (The language of the Republic is French); citing the Treaties of Rome (1958) and Maastricht (1992) the French language was declared an object for preservation much like historic monuments this occurred due to a concern about the displacement of French in a unified Europe. Currently (since the Decree of 1996) 10 the orientation of language policy is receiving a different emphasis. The institutional organization is being reformed, the Academy re-evaluated. All official lists of words have to be revised. The government mandate resulted in Rpertoire terminologique of 2000, a collection of approximately 3,500 words, and the database CRITER (2. July 2001). Initial analyses show that Anglicisms are now clearly being treated in a more liberal fashion; the prohibitions against English borrowings long established in French have been lifted (e.g. spot, groggy, manager), among them are many internationalisms.11 The present shift in emphasis is partially due to the increased activity of the EU-Commission, which views some aspects of the law as incompatible with the principles of the European Union. The French are being forced to make emendations thus softening the rigid enforcement of the Loi Toubon. This is documented in the annual report to Parliament. One should also note in this context that France has not yet ratified the EU-Charter on the Support of Regional and Minority Languages. Article 21 (Loi Toubon) merely acknowledges the Charter in a non-committal manner: The stipulations of this law do not oppose their use (i.e. the regional languages). Five facets of the turning point and shift in attitude are documented in the following: 1. The official stance on language is becoming more lenient: the Academy now emphasizes that basically there are rather few Anglicisms in French and even admits that many government attempts at intervention have been unsuccessful, as can be read in the foreword to the governments Rpertoire.12 2. The law stipulates that all consumer information such as posters, instructions, labels, etc. are to be written in French or translated into French and employ the same size of lettering. This passage was weakened by an EU intervention, which made it clear that protecting the freedom of international trade took precedence over French national consumer protection (and not vice versa, as provided for by the French law). In France this led to the Circulaire du 20.9.2001, which offered pictograms and symbols to make a French translation superfluous. According to a ruling of the

Language Policies in East and West

105

European Court of Justice on 12.9.2002 even the food labels no longer had to be translated, because English was easily comprehensible to the consumer. 3. According to the law, academic colloquia and conferences taking place in France have to be conducted in French. Documents not in French are to be translated.13 Nonetheless, in France such events are increasingly conducted purely in English. 4. The implementation of the 1992 EU Charter on regional languages was rejected with a reference to the changed Constitution: The language of the Republic is French. The incompatibility of this paragraph with the Charter (esp. article 7) that also grants the speaker of regional languages special rights beyond the purely private and familiar sphere was emphasized in the decision of 16.6.1999 by the Conseil constitutionnel. Those in favor of ratification in France invoked the example of other countries which had signed the Charter and which in part have already ratified it (Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria, Slovakia, Croatia) despite a corresponding article in their constitutions regarding the official language.14 Moreover, one can cast doubt on the credibility of the French, who have committed themselves to a multilingual Europe 15 on one hand, but on the other hand have prohibited multiple languages within their territory to favor traditional uniformity.16 The urgency of the problem for the French government evinced itself, when the Dlgation gnrale la langue franaise was renamed Dlgation gnrale la langue franaise et aux langues de France in November 2001. The two axes of the new emphasis in French language policy are synthesized in this organization: the cultivation and promulgation of the national language and (now in addition) the support of regional languages. This seems to mark a clear turning point, one which the new director Bernard Cerquilini articulates clearly: he calls the still dominant, French monolingualism of the Revolution17 a danger to the Republic, a historical catastrophe, and a terrorist conception of language.18 Legislative measures underpinning this new beginning are exemplified in the Dcret n. 2001733 of 31. July 2001, which established the Conseil acadmique des langues regionales within the Academy to support regional language policies. 5. It is also noteworthy that the last Rapport au Parlement of 200219 is markedly shorter than its predecessors. It now only contains two parts; the first one rather tersely reports on national measures such as control actions, offers statistics exclusively concerning infringements against Article 2 (consumer information) of the law, and describes new edicts and

106

Petra Braselmann

activities in support of regional languages. The report about controls and punishments comprised the major part of the previous Rapports. Perhaps one can conclude from this that the language police are generally more reserved in their actions. The second part of the report deals with measures to advance the status of French in international bodies. The appendix is of interest in its report about a number of court findings. These evince the changing disposition toward language policy; for in contrast to the preceding years, the law is interpreted in a very lenient and flexible manner. On 9. May 2001 a court in Paris thus ruled that the English expression The fashion awards (instead of the suggested Trophes de la mode) could be easily understood even by persons with limited knowledge of English; professionals well-acquainted with the international fashion milieu would in any case know the Anglo-American expression; the English phrase may therefore be employed. Similarly, there exists no danger of confusing playboy and play in the house even among the French with only rudimentary English knowledge (Ruling on 21. February 2001), etc. To recapitulate: diverse indications suggest that a new orientation and liberal attitude toward English has been pursued in a consistent manner since the middle of the 1990s20: English or, as the case may be, knowledge thereof by the French is officially accepted as a fact, and the protection of the consumer no longer applies as the main legitimization for legislating language use as it still did with regard to the laws passed in 1975 and 1994 (Braselmann 1999: 128130). The problem of the regional languages is also being addressed seriously. In other words, a gradual accommodation to EU principles is taking place, though certainly not always on a voluntary basis. The following considers aspects of language policy in other western and eastern countries against the background of the French prototype for language policy.

3. Language policies in western countries In Germany there were vehement attempts to introduce a language law la franaise. If, in mid-1990s, the media still poked fun at the French law of 1994, one can ascertain an increasing sensitivity toward the incursions of English into German since the end of the 1990s. This finally led to the demand for a German purity law proposed by the CDU politician Werthebach (cf. Braselmann 2002b). Responding to inquiries on 31 October 2001 and 7

Language Policies in East and West

107

February 2002 21 from both major factions of the Bundestag, the Federal Government held that a language law was neither worth striving for nor desirable and therefore decidedly rejected that legislative option. Only the procedures of the Berlin municipal administration have been revised (8 May 2001) and now enjoin the 140,000 employees of the public sector to avoid unnecessary Anglicisms. However, this is not backed up by sanctions.22 Apart from these attempts, in Germany the attitude toward Anglo-Americanisms is principally tolerant or indifferent. This derives, in good part, from experience of the Second World War, after which the Germans have not been able to treat the cultivation of language and identity in an uninhibited manner.23 The Spanish Constitution of 1978 lists Castilian as the official state language; the regional languages enjoy a co-official status in the corresponding regions. There is no official cultivation of language or language policy. Certainly at times a language law la franaise has been demanded, but it was never realized.24 Instead the self-imposed cultivation of language by the large newspapers (El Pas, El Mundo, ABC, La Vanguardia, etc.) and the news agency Agencia Efe and cultivation in the form style books (libros de estilo) play an important role. Analyses show that these media clearly deal with Anglicisms in a more descriptive fashion than French language policies25 and much more so than French style books, which are even more restrictive (Braselmann 1999: 123125). In the Spanish style books the Academy sets the norms but on occasion one decides against them and disposes liberally.26 The success of the style books in Spain can be attributed to this openness and to a basically descriptive stance, which play a prominent role in the normative discussion. Drawing on his empirical findings Lilienkamp (2001: 453) characterizes this as follows: In Spanien formulieren die Gegner [von Angloamerikanismen] nicht so drastisch und emotional wie die Puristen in Frankreich, und die Befrchtungen uern sich nicht so geringschtzig und spttisch ber Sprachreinhaltungsmanahmen wie die Laxisten in Deutschland.27 Such a statement needs to be seen against the background of the actual goals of the hispanophone policies in the Post-Franco era: the unidad de la lengua and the convivencia de las lenguas take clear precedence over the traditional cultivation of purity (pureza) (Braselmann 2002a: 324327). Although Italy similar to France and Spain has an academy and also participates in international language organizations, it ranks compared to France and Spain last on a scale measuring activities in language cultivation and policies. It has hardly any organizations for the cultivation of language.28 Books on style do not play the same role in Italy as in Spain.

108

Petra Braselmann

Empirical studies demonstrate that though such books are at times evaluative, setting norms is exclusively the function of the Academy, which, for its part, does not prescribe but rather advises descriptively (Sachs 2003). Among the countries considered, Italy is the most open toward English, as proven by corpus analyses (Berger 2001). One possible explanation lies not least in the distinctive behavior of the speakers toward their language. Italys efforts with regard to language policy center on so-called italianit, the spread of Italian at the expense of the numerous dialects. This could be the reason for never declaring English as a disruptive factor. One more reason for the Italians tolerant attitude towards English lies undoubtedly in the fundamentally descriptive mode not only of the Academy but also of the non-professional linguists.29 Normative questions are decided from the perspective of the majority of the language users, with reference to the present and not the past (as in traditional France).

4. Language policies in the countries of Eastern Europe Since the upheaval of 1989, but above all with the projected entry into the European Union, the countries of Eastern Europe have participated in the process of globalization, which has elicited policies of linguistic self-assertion and delimitation. Due to their distinct historical, political, and ideological circumstances, however, they react in a manner different from the West European countries and choose to assert themselves against more languages than just English. Since 7 October 1999 Poland has a Law about the Polish Language, which became effective on 9 May 2000. This law, which came into being during the negotiations for entry into the EU, aims to strengthen the Polish language and to stem the influence of German, Russian and English. The Preamble reads:
given the experience, that historically the occupiers and oppressors campaigns against the Polish language were a tool of de-nationalization, (and) discerning the necessity to protect national identity in the process of globalization the Parliament of the Republic of Poland decrees the present law. 30

Here the term occupiers and oppressors refers to Germans and Russians. The law draws on the painful history of attempts to Germanize or Russify the indigenous population, which fell to Austrian, Prussian, and Russian rule after the Partition of Poland, as well as on the experience of persecution in

Language Policies in East and West

109

the German and Soviet occupied areas during World War II; an integral element of that persecution aimed at the use of Polish (Grucza 1998: 118136). Globalization cannot be equated with Americanization here, rather it relates more to the consequences of the entry into the EU and not least to the fears about a United Europe of the German Nation. Only in Article 7, Paragraph 1, in which foreign-language product names, service designations, offers, advertisements, instructions, forms, invoices, receipts, etc. are expressly prohibited, does the demarcation against English become apparent. Article 11 responds with exceptions to these restrictive proscriptions: the use of proper names, foreign newspapers, magazines, books and computer programs, activities in the universities and schools, technical and commercial terminology. In contrast to the French law the Polish law does not introduce any radical changes into the language. Yet only the future will show whether against the background of this law a demand for the Polonization of international English terms will arise. There are already initial indications of this (Cirko 2001: 4). The articles 6, 7 (paragraph 2), and 8 also stipulate the use of Polish for international legal communication, a fact that Cirko (2000: 4) considers important and sensible, but one that led to a reminder from the EU that such stipulations, in the limitations they put on the exchange of goods, contradict the ban on trade restrictions. In this regard one can expect the law to be amended (Grtner/Hempel 2001: 914). Offenses against the law are punishable with (largely symbolic) fines equal to 50 to 100 Euro (Article 15). The Latvian language law of 6 October 1989 was passed to counter the influence of Russian. Latvian, which had been forced out of education and public administration in the course of Russification, has now become the official language of the country. After the Republic of Latvia declared independence on 4 May 1990, the law regulating the official language was variously emended and could take effect (Eckert 2002: 601, 602). Offenses are to be punished by fines: up to the equivalent of 200 Euro. Russian is now associated with occupation and violence, whereas the English language, which is also increasingly leaving its mark on Latvian (especially in the lexical area), is considered the language of the Free World (Blinkena 1995: 168169). A second law, passed on 1 September 1999 and in effect since 1 September 2000, protects the status of minority languages and is therefore welcomed by the EU.31 After separating from the Czech Republic on 1 January 1993, Slovakians became an independent people with their own state for the first time. On 15 November 1995 a law was passed declaring the Slovakian language the language of that state. When the law took effect, Czech reverted from the offi-

110

Petra Braselmann

cial state language to become a minority language. This law was changed on 1 June 1999 with respect to ratification of the EU Charter concerning minority languages, which grants minorities of 20 % in any community the right to use their mother tongue when communicating with the authorities. This arrangement relates to 513 localities with Hungarian inhabitants and to four other localities, two with German and two with Croatian minorities (Gladrow 2002: 493). The protective function of the law is directed against the dominance of Hungarian and the Hungarians, and only secondly against English (Ohnheiser 2004). In the language one easily detects a decrease in Germanicisms and Russianisms in favor of an increasing lexical presence of Anglicisms in the areas of politics, business, sports, music, and entertainment (Gladrow 2002: 487). Since 1989 the political and social importance of Russian has also more generally declined in favor of English (Kaala 1995: 93). The debate about a law to protect the Romanian language began on 10 November 1997 and is yet in its early stages. Different drafts exist; the last consideration in the Senate took place on 19 December 2002.32 The likelihood that the law will pass is good: the last Senate vote counted 72 for and 10 against with 6 abstentions. Above all the question here is the protection of Romanian in public places, texts, and institutions. These, for example, include advertisements, posters, consumer information, packing, television and radio programming. Material in foreign languages have to be translated, in the case of written materials with letters in the same size as the original, in oral transmission just as loud and starkly accentuated as the model. The requirement of oral transmission cannot be found in any other language law, not even in the French one. Paragraph 5 offers numerous exceptions: the law cannot be applied to registered brand names, scientific or literary-artistic texts, publications in foreign languages, including those of minorities, radio and television programs in the languages of minorities, programs with religious content of those with minority languages. Paragraph 7 threatens violators with sanctions, in fact with substantial fines (up to about 1446 in euros), which are graded according to which paragraphs have been violated. Traditionally and historically Romania has adopted much from France and this also extends to the area of language legislation: some adopted aspects can be found, e.g. in parts of the application area and the duty to give translations in letters of the same size as the original. Admittedly the Romanian case differs from the French in the explicit acceptance of minority languages (as noted above France is still working on this) and more generally in the abundance of exceptions. The law is not very precise, offering no examples.

Language Policies in East and West

111

In Hungary the system began to change in 1988, and this was reinforced by the elections of 1990. Radical political, economic and social changes took place and continue to take place, which affect the language (Balsz 1995: 171181). Public streets are marked by signs in foreign languages especially German and English but this does not disturb the Hungarians (Balsz 1995: 176). Since 27 November 2001 a language law has existed that regulates the presence of the Hungarian language above all in the media and in public signage. The preamble stresses that Hungarian is a flexible language which has derived much from other languages. The new media and the internet, however, threaten to infiltrate the language with foreign elements from which Hungarian needs protection. Every Hungarian has the right to be informed about the new world in his/her own language. In this the attempt to guard against English becomes apparent. Still the law, with its many exceptions, is rather tame: so it still allows foreign language designations e.g. for company and product names, in the press, on the radio and television, and in advertisements ( 1), in businesses, show windows and on posters ( 2.1). Accepted designations such as e.g. Speis (German or Austrian) or k.u.k.-Monarchie may still be employed ( 5.1). Otherwise translation is required, just as in France, and in letters exactly as large as the foreign-language original ( 3.2). The only sanction for transgressing the law as of 1 January 2003 is the removal of the foreign language posters and signage. The dependence on the French model is evident in that the law addresses the danger of English infiltration. However, for economic reasons (to strengthen the economy the settlement of German and American companies in Hungary is greatly desired), apart from some exceptions the law is a pro-forma law.

5. Concluding considerations Our observations about Language Policies in West and East are subtitled National Language Policies as a Response to the Pressures of Globalization. From them several things should have become clear: Due to the threat of globalization, an increasing interest in protecting ones identity, above all in the area of language, has arisen in all countries. While among the western countries only France has a language law, the legal protection of language in eastern countries has high priority, especially in ones that have recently regained their sovereignty. Currently among the West European countries a tendency is becoming evident not only in Italy but also in Spain and even in France, which rejects a purist and retrospective ideal norm. This is not only

112

Petra Braselmann

the result of convictions, but also, as the case of France demonstrates, of the normative power of language usage on a national level and of the pressure from the EU on an international one. At the same time in these countries, one is able to detect a significant interest of speakers in protecting their own languages. Frances language policy is becoming a prototype worth emulating. This only became possible at the turn of the century after the French changed course and replaced (internationally derided or criticized) claims supporting the exception culturelle of the French and France with the official demand for a multilingual Europe.33 The French language policy cannot simply be applied to other countries, for each has distinct historical, ideological and political requirements. The American Virus reached the East after the political transformation, but there the attitudes toward English (still) vary. In the West the allergy to English is pronounced; it is the single linguistic and cultural enemy. In the East English still stands as the language of the Free World, whose economic, political, and cultural norms appear worthy of imitation. As the discussion of language laws shows, these countries want to restrict the influence of dominant and domineering languages, i.e., German (Poland), Russian (Poland, Latvia), and Hungarian (Slovakia). Language policies directed toward English have just been initiated (e.g. in Poland, Romania, and Hungary) and, given the economic power of the United States, they will be instituted only half-heartedly. This is more or less evident in the symbolic punishments for transgression, such as the threat of removal for foreign-language signage in Hungary or in Poland or extremely minimal fines. To remain with the image of the killer language: English is replacing other languages in international communication, it replaced French as the first foreign language in the West, Russian, French, or German in the East, and thereby English assumes the prestige they once held, something which expresses itself in the increase of borrowings from English. Globalization certainly does not always mean Americanization, it can also mean Russification or Germanization or something similar and it must moreover be distinguished from Internationalization. 34

Language Policies in East and West

113

Notes
1. berdachungssprache. See the chart in Lilienkamp (2001: 22). 2. See Braselmann (1997: 445464). 3. The Nuffield Report drafts strategies to advance knowledge of foreign languages on all levels (Durrell 2002: 286297). 4. See for instance: Braselmann/Hinger (1999: 287292), Glahn (2002: 220223), Hoberg (2000, 2002), Ketteman (2002: 6186), Noll (1991), above all the empirical analyses of French, German, and Spanish music magazines in Lilienkamp (2001), refer also to the discussion of recent literature, pp. 7682 et passim. 5. See above all the consistent argumentation of the distinct strategies for evaluating language in Spitzmller (2002: 247265). 6. For the prototypical French normative discussion see Klein-Zirbes (2001: 4760). 7. See Braselmann (1999: 4ff. and 2002c: 2629). 8. Regarding the loyalty to language of the French see Lilienkamp (2001: 249280). 9. For the genesis of the law see Braselmann (1999: 925). 10. Dcret n. 96602 du 3 juillet 1996 relatif lenrichissement de la langue franaise. 11. For more on the new activities see Braselmann (2001, 2002a). 12. For a more extensive treatment see Braselmann (2002a: 321324). 13. See Albert Salon, presentation at a conference in Beirut am 28./29.9.2002 (www.voxlatina.com Nr. 66 v. 9/10/2002). 14. According to sources by 3.7.2002 (http://conventions.coe.int) the following lands had ratified it: Armenia, Denmark, Germany, Great Britain, Finland, Croatia, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Switzerland (as the first land already in 1997), Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Hungary. 15. For more on the French postulate concerning multiple languages that is sometimes pushed forward, see Braselmann (2001: 171173). 16. Available at: http: www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/france.htm. 17. For the language politics of the French Revolution see Schlieben-Lange (1987: 2638), Brumme/Bochmann (1993: 63190). For the linguistic influence on the neighboring romance lands, see Brumme/Bochmann (1993: 191238). 18. Available at: http://www.culture.fr/culture/dglf/entretien-BC.htm. 19. Available at: http://www.culture.fr/culture/dglf/rapport/2002/index.htm. 20. At first this can be ascertained in the professionalization of the commissions and the democraticization of the language cultivation (Braselmann 2001: 167179), then in the revocation of prohibitions on Anglicisms and the acceptance of common English words (Braselmann 2002a: 321324). 21. Drucksache 14/7250 Drucksache14/8203. 22. Interior Ministry of the Senate, Pressemitteilung 42 (9/5/01), 49, Abs. 2. 23. For a differentiated presentation of the German loyalty to language see Lilienkamp (2001: 361392). 24. See Lebsanft (1997: 9699), Braselmann (2002a: 324327). 25. See Braselmann/Hinger (1999: 289292).

114

Petra Braselmann

26. Thus books of style often leave Anglicisms in their original (for instance: traveling, jazz), which the academy allows to transpose into Castilian (traveln, yaz). See Sachs (2003: 104107) and Braselmann 2004. 27. Unlike the purists in France, in Spain the opponents [of Anglo-Americanisms] are not drastic or emotional, and they express themselves in a less deprecating or ridiculing manner about the preservation of language than the indifferent observers in Germany. (Translation by the author) 28. However, refer to the newly association formed by parliamentarians from different political parties, La bella lingua, whose purpose is to protect Italian from the influence of other languages, whereby regional languages are meant as well as global English (Metzeltin 1988: 377). 29. See Schmitt (2001: 464ff.). 30. Translation by the author. 31. http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/lettonie.htm. 32. The origins of the drafts are well documented, see http://www.cdep.ro. 33. Cf. Braselmann (2002c: 3139). 34. Cf. Braselmann (2002d: 959978).

References
Ammon, Ulrich 1998 Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2002 Deutsch unter Druck von Englisch in Wissenschaft und Politik. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 139151. Mannheim/Leipzig/Vienna/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, Volume 3). Balzs, Gza 1995 Die Kultur der ungarischen Sprache. In: Jrgen Scharnhorst (ed.), Sprachsituation und Sprachkultur im internationalen Vergleich, 171181. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang. Berger, Bettina 2001 Globalisation und Antiglobalisation: Angloamerikanismen im Internet- und Computerbereich des Italienischen. Innsbruck: Diplomarbeit. Blinkena, Aina 1995 Die Kultur der lettischen Sprache. In: Jrgen Scharnhorst (ed.), Sprachsituation und Sprachkultur im internationalen Vergleich, 159170. Frankfurt/Main: Peter Lang. Braselmann, Petra 1997 Sprachkontakt Kulturkontakt. Angloamerikanische Sprache und Kultur als transglossisches Phnomen in der Romania. In: Maria

Language Policies in East and West

115

Iliescu, Werner Marxgut, Erich Mayr, Heidi Siller-Runggaldier and Lotte Zrner (eds.), Ladinia et Romania. Festschrift fr Guntram Plangg zum 65. Geburtstag, 445464. Vigo di Fassa: Istitut Cultural ladin. 1999 Sprachpolitik und Sprachbewusstsein in Frankreich heute. Tbingen: Niemeyer. 2001 Institutionelle Sprachlenkung in Frankreich: neue Wege. Neues von der Sprachpflegefront. In: Gerda Haler, Texte und Institutionen in der Geschichte der franzsischen Sprache, 165187. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. 2002a Englisch in der Romania. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 298 332. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, Volume 3). 2002b Deutsche Sprachpflege la franaise? Muttersprache 4/112: 289308. 2002c Sprachpolitik in der Romania. In: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) (ed.), Germanistentreffen Deutschland Argentinien, Brasilien, Chile, Kolumbien, Kuba, Mexiko, Venezuela 8.12.10.2001, 2342. Bonn: DAAD (Tagungsbeitrge So Paulo 2001). 2002d Globalisierung von Sprachen und Kulturen. In: Revue belge de Philologie et dHistoire (RBPH) 80/3: 959978. 2004 Anglizismen in spanischen Stilbchern, in: Volker Noll/Sylvia Thiele (eds.), Sprachkontakte in der Romania. Zum 75. Geburtstag von Gustav Ineichen. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Braselmann, Petra and Hinger, Barbara 1999 Sprach(en)politik und Sprachpflege in Spanien. In: Ingeborg Ohnheiser and Manfred Kientpointner and Helmut Kalb (eds.), Sprachen in Europa. Sprachsituation und Sprachpolitik in europischen Lndern, 281296. Innsbruck: Inst. fr Sprachwissenschaft. Brumme, Jenny and Bochmann, Klaus 1993 Sprachpolitik in der Romania. Zur Geschichte sprachpolitischen Denkens und Handelns von der Franzsischen Revolution bis zu Gegenwart. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Cf. The review by Petra Braselmann (1997): Vox Romanica 56: 344348. Cirko, Leslaw 2001 Sprachpflege per Gesetz. Sprachreport 1: 24. Durrell, Martin 2002 Die Sprachenpolitik der Europischen Union aus britischer Sicht. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 286297. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, Volume 3).

116

Petra Braselmann

Eckert, Rainer 2002 Lettisch. In: Milo Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europischen Ostens, 597613. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Wieser (Wieser Enzyklopdie des europischen Ostens 10). Gardt, Andreas (ed.) 2000 Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Grtner, Wolfram and Hempel, Mirek 2001 Das Gesetz ber die polnische Sprache im Lichte des Europischen Rechts. Zeitschrift fr Rechtsvergleichung, Internationales Privatrecht und Europarecht 1: 914. Gladrow, Anneliese 2002 Slowakisch. In: Milo Okuka (ed.), Lexikon der Sprachen des europischen Ostens, 477494. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Wieser (Wieser Enzyklopdie des europischen Ostens 10). Glahn, Richard 2002 Englisches im gesprochenen Deutsch Einfluss und Bewertung. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 220235. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3). Grlach, Manfred 2000 Nation und Sprache: das Englische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 613641. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Grucza, Franciszek 1998 Aspekte des Deutschen aus polnischer Sicht. In: Heidrun Kmper and Hartmut Schmidt (eds.), Das 20. Jahrhundert. Sprachgeschichte Zeitgeschichte, 118136. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. Haarmann, Harald 2002 Englisch, Network Society und europische Identitt: Eine sprachkologische Standortbestimmung. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 152170. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3). Hoberg, Rudolf (ed.) 2002 Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 286297. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3). Hoberg, Rudolf 2000 Sprechen wir bald alle Denglisch oder Germeng? In: Karin EichhoffCyrus and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende. Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall?, 303316. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 1).

Language Policies in East and West 2002

117

English rules the World. Was wird aus Deutsch? In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 171183. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3). Ineichen, Gustav 2003 Englisch bzw. Angloamerikanisch als Universalsprache. In: Sebastian Kempgen and Ulrich Schweier and Tilman Berger (eds.), Russistika-Slavistika-Linguistica. Festschrift fr Werner Lehfeldt zum 60. Geburtstag, 403412. Mnchen: Sagner. Kaala, Jn 1995 Die gegenwrtige Sprachsituation und aktuelle Aufgaben der Sprachkultur in der Slowakischen Republik. In: Jrgen Scharnhorst (ed.), Sprachsituation und Sprachkultur im internationalen Vergleich, 9199. Frankfurt a. Main: Peter Lang. Kettemann, Bernhard 2002 Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten. In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.), Eurospeak. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf europische Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, 5586. Frankfurt a.M./Wien u.a.: Peter Lang. Klein-Zirbes, Anja 2001 Die Dfense de la langue franaise als Zeugnis des franzsischen Sprachpurismus. Frankfurt a. Main/Berlin a. o.: Peter Lang (Bonner romanistische Arbeiten, vol. 77). Koller, Werner 2000 Nation und Sprache in der Schweiz. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 563609. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Lebsanft, Franz 1997 Spanische Sprachkultur. Studien zur Bewertung und Pflege des ffentlichen Sprachgebrauchs im heutigen Spanien. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Lilienkamp, Marc 2001 Angloamerikanismus und Popkultur. Untersuchungen zur Sprache in franzsischen, deutschen und spanischen Musikmagazinen. Frankfurt a.M./Berlin a. o.: Peter Lang (Bonner romanistische Arbeiten, Volume 76). Metzeltin, Michael 1988 Italienisch: Externe Sprachgeschichte. In: Gnter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (ed.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, vol. 4, 361379. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Muhr, Rudolf and Kettemann, Bernhard 2002 Eurospeak. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf europische Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende. Frankfurt a.M./Wien a. o.: Peter Lang.

118

Petra Braselmann

Noll, Volker 1991 Die fremdsprachlichen Elemente im franzsischen Argot. Frankfurt a. Main/Bern a. o.: Peter Lang. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg 2002 Sprachkontakt Kulturkontakt. In: Christian Todenhagen (ed.), Text text structure text type. Festschrift fr Wolfgang Thiele, 149165. Tbingen: Stauffenburg. 2004 Sprache(n) und Sprachsituation in den EU-Beitrittslndern. In: Lew Zybatow (ed.): Translationswissenschaft im interdisziplinren Dialog. Innsbrucker Ringvorlesungen zur Translationswissenschaft III. Frankfurt a.M./Berlin a. o. : Peter Lang. Okuka, Milo (unter Mitarbeit von Gerald Krenn) (ed.) 2002 Lexikon der Sprachen des europischen Ostens. Klagenfurt/Celovec: Wieser (Wieser Enzyklopdie des europischen Ostens 10). Pfandl, Heinrich 2002 Wie gehen die slawischen Sprachen mit Anglizismen um? (Am Beispiel des Russischen, Tschechischen und Slowenischen). In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.), Eurospeak. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf europische Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, 117 154. Frankfurt a.M./Wien a. o.: Peter Lang. Rathmayer, Renate 2002 Anglizismen im Russischen: Gamburgery, Bifteksy und die Voucherisierung Russlands. In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.), Eurospeak. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf europische Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, 155180. Frankfurt a.M./Wien a. o.: Peter Lang. Sachs, Eveline 2003 Laienlinguistisches Normbewusstsein in Italien und Spanien dargestellt anhand von Stilbchern. Innsbruck: Diplomarbeit. Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte 1987 Das Franzsische Sprache der Uniformitt. Zeitschrift fr Germanistik 8/1: 2638. Schmitt, Christian 2001 Sprachnormierung und Standardsprachen. In: Gnter Holtus, Michael Metzeltin and Christian Schmitt (ed.), Lexikon der romanistischen Linguistik, vol. I, 2, 435492. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Spitzmller, Jrgen 2002 Selbstfindung durch Ausgrenzung. Eine kritische Analyse des gegenwrtigen Diskurses zu angloamerikanischen Entlehnungen. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 247265. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/New York: Duden (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3).

The Impact of English on the Vocabulary and Grammatical Structure of German

German as an Endangered Language? Peter Eisenberg

Zusammenfassung
ber den Zustand des Deutschen wird in den vergangenen Jahren mehr und lauter geklagt. Auch scheint die Zahl der Stimmen, die das Klagelied anstimmen, zuzunehmen. Immer gibt es Sprachkritiker, die von Verfall und Bedrohtheit sprechen, aber inzwischen sehen fast sechzig Prozent der Deutschen die Entwicklung ihrer Sprache als bedenklich oder sogar als beunruhigend an. Wissenschaftler befrchten einen Verlust der universellen Ausdrucksmglichkeiten, Politiker erinnern bei ihrer Meinung nach passender Gelegenheit an die marginale Rolle des Deutschen in internationalen Organisationen und einige Sprachwissenschaftler halten die Kraft des Deutschen zur Assimilation oder Integration fremden Sprachmaterials fr nur noch gering. Meist wird dabei dem Englischen eine besondere Rolle zugeschrieben, und zwar sowohl was seine internationale Stellung als auch was seinen Einflu auf das Deutsche betrifft. Was aber kann genau gemeint sein, wenn wir in einem solchen Zusammenhang von unserer Sprache selbst reden wollen und nicht einfach ein kulturkritisches Lamento auf die Sprache bertragen? Der Beitrag mchte diese Frage ernst nehmen. Er spricht eine Reihe von Mglichkeiten an und wendet sich dann ein wenig genauer einem der Paradeflle fr den Einflu des Englischen auf das Deutsche zu, nmlich der Flexionsmorphologie. Wie geht das Deutsche mit den fremden Wrtern um? Kann es sie assimilieren oder gar integrieren? In welchem Sinn oder welcher Richtung verndert es sich dabei? Knnte eine Bedrohung entstehen?

1. Endangeredness By conversational maxim the title of the New York conference The Fate of European Languages in the Age of Globalization: The Future of German has to be read as a request. We should be concerned about the future of the German language in the age of globalization. We should work out an honest diagnosis and think about possible remedies. Perhaps one can take comfort from the fact that the future of German is closely related to the fate of European languages in general, but this might be some kind of cold comfort. It seems evident and therefore to be presupposed that there are indeed prob-

122

Peter Eisenberg

lems for the future of German. More radical formulations can be heard at many places and in many contexts, calling German a dying, a threatened, or at least an endangered language. Linguists and modern linguistics as their academic discipline, are blamed again and again for not being really interested in their subject matter. This is all the more the case as in the German tradition there has never been a simple division between academic work on language on the one hand and popular or even populistic language criticism on the other. At all times we find professionals who were concerned about the state and the development of the language, such as Joachim Heinrich Campe, whose attempts to translate foreign words into German are now labelled as some kind of enlightened purism (Campe 1813; Schiewe 1998: 125150; Ha-Zumkehr 2001: 111 118). Jacob Grimm who is still considered the founder of the discipline now called Germanistik was worried about the German language during the greater part of his working life. This tradition has never been interrupted and is still alive (see Schiewe 1998 for an overview touching on todays situation and Schrodt 1995 for an elucidating report on the intricate relationship between German philology and language criticism in the 19th and 20th centuries). Walter Krmers Verein deutsche Sprache (VdS), which was only founded in 1992 and which is the most influential private organisation fighting the influence of English on German, had no problem in constituting a highly reputable academic advisory board. It is from this side that we hear the reproach: Die Sprachwissenschaft und die sprachpflegenden Institutionen haben diese Entwicklung ignoriert und sich so aus ihrer Verantwortung fr unsere Sprache gestohlen (Glck and Krmer 2000: 90; see also Glck 2000). German philology cannot simply ignore the public language debate, if only because a large majority of the Germans consider the development of their mother tongue to be alarming or disquieting (beunruhigend oder bedenklich, Stickel 1998: 42). We have to be involved, but of course we have to insist on retaining the most important achievement of modern linguistics, that is its status as an empirical discipline. Descriptive linguistics can contribute in an essential way to the language debate by clarifying what could be meant if one talks and worries about endangeredness with respect to a language such as German. Within linguistics the term is used for such, and only such, languages which are in danger of becoming extinct by the loss of native speakers. Some years ago the Society of Endangered Languages (Gesellschaft fr bedrohte Sprachen) was founded. The main goals of the society are the collection and distribution of information about the language situation world wide, and

German as an Endangered Language?

123

raising funds for the documentation of at least some of the about fifty languages dying every year (for further information see http://www.unikoeln.de/GbS/). When talking about a language with nearly 100 million speakers and more than 20 million learners one should carefully avoid even the slightest associative links in this direction. A more specific aspect of endangeredness applies to what has been called the universal character of a language. The group of languages fulfilling the conditions is not very large. They are standardized as spoken and as written languages but nevertheless include numerous dialects and technical terminologies, all kinds of registers for special purposes, an extensive literature and a subtle social stratification. What has been deplored during recent years is first of all the decreasing importance of German as a language for international scientific communication. And even worse, certain scientific terminologies have not been transferred, or not completely, to German regardless of whether this would be easily possible or useful (Prksen 1994; Ammon 1998; 2002). But even if it is true that the Germans are less active and more opportunistic in this respect than for instance the French, this aspect of language globalization has nothing whatsoever to do with German. Differences between German and languages comparable in size and status are gradual in nature. This again is not to state that we should stay inactive. Yet it seems of some importance not to give the impression that there is anything special here with respect to German. The kind of language threat which constitutes the long and ongoing history of German purism is completely different in nature. Motivations have been manifold in this heterogeneous movement, even if one only takes into consideration the attempts to purify or protect the language from foreign words. If arguments or at least something like reasons can be found for the claim that the language is threatened, they are in most cases neither linguistic nor can they be directly related to linguistic argumentations. If purity is a value in itself, if etymological facts are sufficient to mark a word as strange, alien or nonnative and therefore replaceable by a domestic or native word, then there is not very much left for linguistic reasoning. Furthermore Peter von Polenz in his overview (Polenz 1999: 264293) makes it quite clear that at several points in its history purism was not even able to identify the areas of influence from other languages on German. For the period of a rapidly developing language movement as part of the nationalistic euphoria after 1871 he states: ber der Fremdwort-Jagd an der Oberflche der Sprache (Ausdrucksseite) wurde der viel grere innere Lehneinflu auf den Geist der deutschen Sprache vllig ignoriert (Polenz 1999: 270). And as far as the foreign vocabulary is concerned he identifies a lack of differen-

124

Peter Eisenberg

tiation as the main problem: Trotz hufiger Erklrungen und Dementis ber mavolles, differenziertes Vorgehen wurde der Unterschied zwischen zu ersetzendem Fremdwort und unentbehrlichem Lehnwort zwar postuliert, aber niemals definitorisch geklrt [] (Polenz 1999: 270). The distinction between Fremdwort and Lehnwort is by no means uniform and uncontroversial in the literature, but most authors make use of integration when explicating it. We will use the following section 2 to go a bit further into terminological questions. At the moment it will suffice to remember that at least one reading of integration is adapted to the core grammar of the borrowing language, where grammar in turn can simply be understood as a description of the phonological, morphological and syntactic systems, possibly augmented by a description of the graphemic system. By this step one gains access to the tools designed for the systematic exploration of language contact as it has been developed and applied e.g. in the epochal work of Uriel Weinreich (Weinreich 1967). Nonnative words can then be described with respect to their structural properties as integrated or not integrated, and these properties can eventually be related to the respective ones in other languages. As we will see, this simple and seemingly evident kind of analysis has not become dominant or even influential in the discussion of the status of loan words in German. To agree upon a satisfying terminology we will now briefly review some of the literature proposing a classification of nonnative words and especially anglicisms (section 2). We will then attempt to identify some of the relevant properties of German anglicisms on one level of grammatical description, namely the level of inflection (section 3). Section 4 draws some conclusions by returning to the question of what can be said about endangeredness.

2. Alien anglicisms Academic as well as public interest in loan words was awakened to new life so to speak in Germany after World War II by Peter von Polenz article Fremdwort und Lehnwort sprachwissenschaftlich betrachtet. The article was first published in 1967 in the journal Muttersprache (Polenz 1979). It was the same year in which Polenz edited the second German edition of Saussures Cour, and the article appeared in the same journal as many chauvinistic and racist language articles before 1945. Muttersprache had been the official organ of the Allgemeiner Deutscher Sprachverein. These and some other circumstances clearly signalized that fundamental changes were taking place in the field.

German as an Endangered Language?

125

For the questions we are discussing the most important issue was Polenz appeal to synchronic linguistic analysis. Two main points can be made. First Polenz argued that a purely etymological perspective can end up in all kinds of racist reasonings about the status of words in general and above all of loan words. What he criticizes is Der methodologische Irrtum eines Philologen, man brauche zur Beurteilung des gegenwrtigen Zustands einer Sprache nur die Etymologie anzuwenden [] (Polenz 1979: 13). Instead he suggests considering words with respect to their sociological and structural properties. The fundamental question is formulated as Wie verhalten sich Wrter fremdsprachiger Herkunft im Systemzusammenhang des Wortschatzes zu den sinnbenachbarten Wrtern aus heimischem Sprachmaterial? (Polenz 1979: 17). The second point is of equal significance. Polenz (1979: 2629) gives many examples and describes some basic regularities of productive word formation with foreign stems and affixes. He analyses the morphological processes involved as part of the German language system, i.e. explicitly not as part of the Greek or Latin system, though most of the morphs in question are borrowed from these languages. So it becomes evident that most foreign words do not even exist in the languages from which they are supposed to originate. Instead they are elements of the German, and possibly only of the German, vocabulary, but they are nevertheless foreign words. It seems to have been largely unthinkable or at least not realized in the German tradition that it could be of some interest to consider such words not exclusively from an etymological perspective. Despite the reliance on synchronic linguistics Polenz left the range of words to be treated as foreign words or loan words as it was. Of course he discussed in some detail the necessity to differentiate Lehnwrter (as integrated) from Fremdwrter (as not integrated), where the criteria could be either sociolinguistic or structural in nature. The basis for the whole discussion was nevertheless the origin of the units to be analyzed from languages other than German. Within this domain of foreign elements in the literal sense of the word any question may be asked, all kinds of properties can be explored. But first of all the foreign origin has to be assured. Polenz takes it that one is considering Wrter fremdsprachiger Herkunft (1979: 17), Wrter und Wortstmme aus anderen Sprachen (1979: 26) or, citing Hans Marchand, one is in general occupied with Wrtern mit aus Fremdsprachen stammenden Bestandteilen (1979: 27). We do not want to suppose that there is anything wrong with this approach. But we do want to bring to attention the fact that etymological considerations still play a basic role in that they define the domain of the vocabulary in question. And it has to be added that

126

Peter Eisenberg

this is also the case in most of the later attempts to define notions such as, for instance, anglicism in German. The term is defined, for example, as Oberbegriff von Entlehnungen aus dem britischen Englisch, dem amerikanischen Englisch, sowie den brigen englischsprachigen Lndern [] (Yang 1990: 1) or somewhat more abstract as for use in the Anglizismen-Wrterbuch (Carstensen and Busse 1993) as [] jede Erscheinung der deutschen Sprache [], die auf Transferenz der englischen Sprache zurckgeht (Busse 2001: 134). Under such headings we then find elaborate classifications of linguistic units starting with morphemes and ending up with phrases, which are used in German and whose form or meaning or whose form and meaning can be said to originate in English. One tries hard to detect these units no matter whether identifiable by their properties as anglicisms or not. If it can be shown that words such as starten, streiken, killen, kicken, tanken, Killer, Kicker, Tanker were first used in English and only later on in German, then they are seen as anglicisms despite the fact that they are fully integrated into German and behave in every respect like German words from the core vocabulary. The same holds for so called loan translations (Eierkopf, Arbeitsessen, Umeltschutz, Lehnprgung), for loan creations (Klimaanlage air conditioner, Helligkeitsregler dimmer, Stozeit rush hour, Lehnschpfung) and for semantic loans (hei hot, realisieren to realize, feuern to fire, Lehnbedeutung). Each class may be further differentiated since for some of the words the meaning in German seems to be very close to the English meaning, whereas for others this is not the case. They all are anglicisms for genetic, not structural reasons. They are considered to be loan words and borrowed from English (Jorgensen and Moraco 1984: 104) though they were generated in German. Again it should be stressed that we do not want to question in any way the research on language contact which is trying to understand the circumstances under which linguistic forms or meanings are taken over by a language. However it is anything but compelling to talk about the influence of one language on another language and about the consequences of this influence if one does not even know what exactly this influence consists of. The hidden influence of English on German is extensively discussed in the literature, one of the results being Anglizismen dieser Art nachzuweisen ist schwierig und bedarf intensiver Recherchen [] (Busse 2001: 137), and [] often it can not be established beyond doubt that the equivalence is really based on translation (Busse/Grlach 2002: 26). To pursue this idea might even appear a bit like looking for the threat. However interesting such research may be, it will not help us to answer the question of whether German is threatened

German as an Endangered Language?

127

by the influence of English. We just do not know what it could mean for a language to be threatened this way. As a consequence of this reasoning, semantic loans such as realisieren (to understand), kontrollieren (to intentionally influence) or Philosophie (rules for behavior) are not to be taken as anglicisms at all but as latinisms or greekisms. The same is true for all other words which come into German (probably) via English but do not have any specific English grammatical properties in German, as for instance Taifun, Waggon, Wigwam, Dschungel, Bumerang, Knguru. For the native speaker of German they are nonnative for different reasons, but without an appropriate world knowledge he can not perceive them as originating from English. So it might well be the case that the speaker classifies a word as nonnative without being able to relate it to a specific language. On the other hand we do not see any problem in classifying words such as computerisieren, Air-Bus, Anti-Dumping and Beatmusik as anglicisms which are latinisms or greekisms at the same time. The opposite stance is taken here with respect to words or other units which are not borrowed from English but contain anglicisms as parts or have grammatical properties specific for English. The main group of such words consists of the so called pseudoanglicisms. For the native speaker of German the famous Handy is an anglicism as well as Baby, City, Body, and Showmaster as well as Cocktailparty or Bodyguard. We have to even go one step further by including words which do not embody any English morpheme. In a normal English dictionary as well as in the AnglizismenWrterbuch one finds words or constituents of words such as Smarty and Nuts, but not of words such as Snickers and Twix. Even if the latter exist somewhere in English, this would be of no importance for their status as anglicisms in German. They are anglicisms by structure, not by origin. The influence of English on German, in the sense that German is affected, changed, threatened or endangered by this influence, can be more clearly defined if one talks about the language systems. I would not in principle deny the possibility of talking also about what Polenz quotes as the Geist [spirit] of a language, though this seems difficult particularly if one compares closely related languages. It would, for example, undoubtedly be of interest to know whether German is changing in the way it constructs its metaphors. It would also be interesting to know what it means that German now uses a verb such as denken more like a transitive verb (Sie denkt dies; Sie denkt, da ). Is it an important change if one takes into account that (1) the older argument pattern of denken is still alive (denken an etwas) and (2) German has for a long time had similar verbs with the argument structure in question (Sie glaubt, da ; Sie vermutet, da ). And what does it

128

Peter Eisenberg

mean that the Germans now tend to say in 2002 instead of the traditional im Jahr 2002? What does it mean if one takes into account that for a long time they have said vor/seit/nach 2002? Perhaps somebody will come up with something interesting on such issues. The goal of the present paper is more moderate and concrete. It should make sense (Es sollte Sinn machen) to talk about language by talking about language systems, and this all the more so as it is at least imaginable that a language can be destroyed by the destruction of its system. Hence, we use the term anglicism in German for language units of German exhibiting grammatical properties which for the average native speaker are properties of English and at the same time not properties of units describable within the core grammar of German. In the German literature such units are often called fremd (Wurzel 1981: 908 910). This does not exactly match alien found in the English literature, but of the terms available this seems by far the most suitable. So in what follows we will talk about alien anglicisms.

3. Anglicisms in German inflection Though closely related in many respects, English and German are still fundamentally different as far as inflection is concermed. It should therefore be interesting to consider how German inflects its anglicisms. Is there any serious influence of English? Is the German system even on the way to becoming more and more similar to the English system? We will discuss these questions briefly with examples from the three open inflecting word classes, i.e. the adjectives, the verbs and the nouns.

3.1 Adjectives The inflectional behavior of anglicistic adjectives is rather heterogeneous, yet anything but chaotic. Most importantly, it seems possible to order the adjectives along a scale of integratedness, taking the inflectional behavior of the prototypical native adjective as the point of reference. As a first step we distinguish the following classes (1). (1) a. clean, cool, soft, fair, smart, safe, tough b. clever, proper, gentle, open c. fit, hot, hip, top

German as an Endangered Language?

129

d. e. f. g. h.

light, live, pur pink easy, dirty, fancy, groggy, happy, trendy, tricky, sexy relaxed, recycled, gelabelled, gepuzzled, airconditioned big, full, second, electronic, essential

The adjectives of the first class are inflectionally integrated. They are marked as anglicisms by their spelling or by some phonological peculiarities. So soft is pronounced as [sft]. The voiceless [s] is not found in initial position before a vowel in the core vocabulary. An interesting point can be made for an adjective like cool, which is normally, or at least by many speakers, pronounced as [ku] with a velarised []. When inflected as in attributive position, this alien phonological feature disappears. The inflected forms are then fully integrated morphologically and phonologically (coole [kul], cooles [kuls] a.s.o.). It is a widespread phenomenon that certain integrational steps can trigger others which might or might not be directly related to them. For most adjectives the first step is the occurrence in predicative or adverbial position, where it is uninflected and therefore most similar to the English form. To inflect is a significant step away from the one-form English to the multi-form German word paradigm. Similar considerations seem to be in place for the second group (1b). In the core vocabulary the same three classes of bisyllabic adjectival stems with a sonorant forming the coda of a reduced syllable can be found: heiter, edel, offen. They differ with respect to possible reductions of schwa (Raffelsiefen 1995; Eisenberg 1998: 174175). The anglicisms follow them as soon as they are integrated phonologically, e.g. heiteres properes as well as heitres propres. Neither gentle nor open has made this step. As anglicistic adjectives light, live (and perhaps pur) are used in postnominal position (Linguistik light, Fuball live, Whisky pur). The construction seems to be gaining importance in German and is realized with adjectives of all types (Eishockey brutal, Urlaub total, Kartoffeln satt; Drscheid 2002: 6270). So live and light can be said to be not inflected for syntactic reasons and partially integrated. The adjectives of the fourth group (1d) are confined to predicative and adverbial position for purely orthographic reasons. They are taken over with their English spelling, but this spelling could not be preserved in inflected forms. A single consonant letter marking the position between a stressed lax vowel and schwa has to be geminated. Since integration of spelling is in general difficult to achieve, this gemination does at least not appear immediately. So we have hip besides hipp, but we often hear phrases like ein

130

Peter Eisenberg

fittes Team while hesitating to write them. Furthermore a gemination in attributive but not predicative position would lead to different spellings for the stem form of such a word paradigm. In German this is unlike in English only possible under special conditions which are not met here. The behavior of pink (1e) appears to be somewhat special if not seen in the semantic field of color terms. The form is fully integrated phonologically, since German has adjectives like krank, schlank, flink as well as many verbal and nominal stems of this structure. Pink is nevertheless hardly inflected in written language. This is probably one of the cases where speakers are simply aware of the fact that the word is borrowed. Therefore they treat it in analogy to the numerous alien color terms which hardly ever inflect, such as beige, oliv, azur, trkis, orange. So pink is integrated into this group, not (yet) into the core vocabulary. But being integrated at all stabilizes the behavior. Normative grammar offers trkisenes and trkisfarbenes as ways out of the difficulties, which both also work for pink. Simple stems with a second unstressed open full syllable in German generally avoid a naked reduced syllable following them. This is the reason why the adjectives of 1f cannot be inflected. They might become further integrated one day by being used in attributive position without inflection as is the case for the longstanding color terms lila and rosa (eine lila/rosa Latzhose). At present they simply seem to be too anglicistic for this kind of usage. The adjectives of 4g have the form of participles, though some of them are not directly derived from verb stems. We do not need to discuss the complex question of how such forms could be derived. For the context given it is of importance that they are restricted to uninflected use as long as the English -ed is preserved in the written form. In some of them this ending can easily be replaced by the German -t, which then also leads to a different position of schwa. We get recycelt, recyceltes Papier and the infinitive recyceln instead of the less integrated recyclen. The verb recyceln now inflects exactly like segeln, handeln, regeln from the core vocabulary. It is inflectionally fully integrated. A process of this kind can not be expected for airconditioned. Since the infinitive ends with an -n, the respective verbs build it as in verregnen with the participle verregnet. This would mean airconditionet for our candidate, which now looks more like an abortive than an integrated anglicism. The alternative airconditiont is problematic in the way some mechanically built participles in the core vocabulary are. On water-bottles we find the form enteisent (deironed) which nobody uses in every day language. With the last group (1h) we would like to demonstrate what it means to be not integrated. These adjectives are English words and not anglicisms of

German as an Endangered Language?

131

German. They are mostly found in phrases which are at least interpretable as purely English phrases such as Wir sind Ihr electronic partner or eine CD von Essential Classics.

3.2 Verbs The integration processes for verb stems are even simpler and more uniform than for adjective stems. At least the following classes can be distinguished: (2) a. boomen, bowlen, surfen, catchen, coachen, dealen, strippen, stylen, tunen, jobben, joggen b. covern, lasern, powern, doubeln, labeln, puzzeln, setteln c. mixen, stressen, jazzen, beaten, flirten, hotten, splitten, jetten d. antrnen, anklicken, aufpoppen, aufsplitten, ausflippen, ausknocken e. babysitten, websurfen, downloaden, upgraden All verbs follow the weak declension, which is without doubt the unmarked pattern in present-day German. Most of the simple monosyllabic stems (2a) immediately include all finite and infinite forms of the verbal paradigm and select the auxiliary for the perfect according to the general rules (Er hat gedealt; Sie ist zum Brandenburger Tor gejoggt). Furthermore, verb stems adopt immediately the orthographic gemination of consonant letters in final position. The English to pin, to job, to dip produce the German pinnen, jobben, dippen. Gemination is then preserved in all forms. The weak verb follows what Wurzel (1984) calls stem inflection, i.e. there are no forms which consist of the pure stem without any suffix. As a consequence the verb stem and the respective noun stem often differ in that the former exposes gemination whereas the latter does not (pinnen der Pin, jobben der Job). Such spelling difference is not permitted in the core vocabulary, it marks a stem as alien. Bisyllabic stems with final -er and -el (2b) can also be fully integrated in following the pattern of verbs such as rudern and segeln. Some of them may have to make several steps, as has been demonstrated above for recyclen recyceln. There are no formal obstacles to taking these steps. This is different for the verbs with final -en (e.g. the English fasten). As far as I can see at the moment they do not integrate. Monosyllabic anglicistic verbs even adopt the pecularities of the German system (2c). A verb like stressen does not differentiate the 2nd and 3rd person

132

Peter Eisenberg

singular in present tense (du stresst, er stresst) exactly as in du hasst, er hasst. A verb like beaten on the other hand has at this point bisyllabic forms (du beatest, er beatet) again like the core verbs of this type (du bietest, er bietet). The most productive word formation pattern for simplex verb stems of the core vocabulary is their combination with verbal particles. Since the mono- and bisyllabic anglicistic verb stems do not show serious formal differences here, they follow this pattern without problems. 2d gives just some examples of this kind. Even more impressive are the examples of 2e. German has several types of verbs for which it is not clear if or to what degree a unit is grammaticalized as a verbal particle (Eschenlohr 1999). It seems that these types also occur as anglicisms. So babysitten behaves like bausparen. We can use the infinitive and all finite forms as long as the first constituent is not separated (Er will babysitten/bausparen; ob er babysittet/ bauspart). One runs into the same problems with both verbs when trying to separate the first constituent syntactically (?Er sittet baby; ?Er spart bau) or morphologically (?Er hat babygesittet; ?Er hat baugespart). So there are structural problems with certain anglicisms, but they are not specific ones. We find them as well in the core grammar.

3.3 Nouns The first and most important step English noun stems have to perform for becoming usable in German is the choice of gender. (3) a. Job, Trend, Fight, Check, Shop, Boom, Boy, Chip, Claim, Clinch, Coach, Cup, Deal, Drink, Drive b. Show, Couch, Site, Cream, Band, Beach, Crew, Drum, Soap, Gang, Mail, Line, Rate, Farm c. Lunch, Girl, Brain, Face, Dope, Steak, Bike, Camp, Cash, Coil, Crime, Date, Foul, Goal, Home, Kid As can be seen from the examples in 3, simplex nouns and especially monosyllabics obtain their gender from the German noun which is most similar in meaning. Where it is difficult to find such a noun, in most cases the masculine is chosen as the unmarked gender (e.g. der Check, Claim, Chip; Carstensen 1980; Gregor 1983).

German as an Endangered Language?

133

It is widely agreed in the literature that within core grammar the declension type of nouns corresponds to the gender (Bittner 1999; Thieroff 2001). For anglicisms like the ones in 3 this does not hold. Instead they stick to the sinflection, which is independent of gender. It marks the plural forms of all nouns as well as the genitive singular of the masculines and neuters by a nonsyllabic -s. So the s-inflection is not just a borrowing from English. If at all this could be stated for the plural marker, but not for the declension type as a whole. For the masculines and neuters of the core vocabulary, -s is the unmarked suffix in the genitive singular. Here it can normally be syllabic (des Stuhls/Stuhles), whereas for the anglicisms it has to be nonsyllabic (des Fights/*Fightes). Choosing the s-inflection may therefore be understood as an integrational step, though one leading to partial integration only. Full integration is in most cases bound to special phonological conditions (der Boss die Bosse, der Stress des Stresses), otherwise it remains marginal (die Couch die Couchen, das Dope des Dopes). Again, orthographic facts seem to play an important role here (Wegener 1999; Eisenberg 2001: 205), but we are far from a real understanding of these processes. One also has to state that anglicisms can preserve the s-inflection for a long time and by this avoid full integration. Nouns like der Schal, Streik, Start are completely integrated with respect to their phonological properties and their spelling, but they still follow the s-inflection. All we can say is that there are no formal properties which could force a monosyllabic simplex to give up this choice. The status of the s-inflection and in particular the s-plural is controversial in the literature. In his popular book on the relation between rule-based and analogy-based linguistic structures, Pinker (1999), following Wiese and Clahsen, takes the s-plural as unmarked in the overall system, though only a small minority of nouns adhere to it (Wiese 1996; Clahsen 1999). We have argued elsewhere that this position is untenable for systematic reasons (Eisenberg 2002). An alternative is the more traditional position, which takes the s-plural as marked, but unmarked in use for special purposes. This position is strengthened by the functional interpretation Wegener (2002) proposes for this plural marker. According to her approach, the s-plural is chosen when the stem should be unaffected by inflection as far as possible. As an example take the noun Bach from the core vocabulary with its plural Bche. The plural stem form has only one sound in common with the base form. Moreover the plural has two syllables with the boundary separating the final consonant of the stem. In contrast the family name of the Leipzig composer has the plural die Bachs, where the stem does not change at all.

134

Peter Eisenberg

Names are linguistically sacrosanct and for this reason they mark the plural by the heavy consonant s instead of the syllabic suffixes from the rest of the core system. Besides proper names the s-plural goes with abbreviations, with short terms, with plurisyllabic words ending in an open unstressed syllable with a full vowel (der Uhu, die Oma, das Auto) and with some related classes of nouns. For anglicisms it would be functional to preserve the splural as long as the word is not well known and accepted in German and should therefore be used with one and only one stem form. It might not be completely unrealistic to look for a motivation of this kind when considering the inflectional behavior of alien words. For the data given this seems to be difficult, and we have to conclude: Either Pinkers view is correct. The anglicisms in question are then fully integrated in that the s-plural would be part of the core grammar. The core grammar would have already changed at this point. Or Pinkers view is not correct. The anglicisms are then only partially integrated. The core system would not have changed since the s-plural would be marked. It is a real challenge to think about methods for answering this kind of question empirically. Things are much easier for most polysyllabic and morphologically complex nouns. We will just mention two examples. (1) As German anglicisms, nouns such as der Jockey, Hippie; die City, Disco; das Baby, Dummy are expected to take the s-plural for reasons based on regularities of German and indeed this is the case. (2) German anglicisms ending in -er and selecting the masculine for whatever reason are expected to take the so called zero plural (der Raver die Raver, der Browser die Browser). These words are fully integrated in that they behave like the respective nouns from the core vocabulary (der Eimer die Eimer, der Denker die Denker).

4. Conclusion German anglicisms are not always smoothly integrated into the core inflectional system. There are some frictions, and the anglicistic nouns might even help to induce a more serious systematic change. How can this situation be evaluated? Grlach compares the influence of Romance languages on English in the 14th century with the present situation and concludes: The parallels to present-day anglicisms in European languages are obvious (Grlach 1999: 124). With respect to the German inflectional system this view seems at least to be exaggerated. The influence of English is still marginal compared to the deep changes of the derivational and inflectional system caused by Latin and French. At the moment we can not even be sure

German as an Endangered Language?

135

which changes are in fact taking place and if there are serious ones which of them go back to English. Only if these questions are answered could it be possible to reflect about threats and destruction. And not later than at this point will it become evident that it is hardly imaginable to separate normal changes from threats and destruction.

References
Ammon, Ulrich 1998 Ist das Deutsche noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter 2002 Deutsch unter Druck von Englisch in Wissenschaft und Politik. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch, Englisch, Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik, 139151. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Bittner, Dagmar 1999 Gender classification and the inflectional system of German. In: Barbara Unterbeck and Matti Rissanen (eds.), Gender in Grammar and Cognition, 123. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Busse, Ulrich 2001 Typen von Anglizismen: von der heilago geist bis Extremsparing aufgezeigt anhand ausgewhlter lexikographischer Kategorisierungen. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 131155. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Busse, Ulrich and Manfred Grlach 2002 German. In: Manfred Grlach and Ulrich Busse(eds.), English in Europe, 1336. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campe, Joachim Heinrich 1813 Wrterbuch zur Erklrung und Verdeutschung der unserer Sprache aufgedrungenen fremden Ausdrcke. Ein Ergnzungsband zu Adelungs und Campes Wrterbchern. 2 vols. Braunschweig. Carstensen, Broder 1980 Das Genus englischer Fremd- und Lehnwrter im Deutschen. In: Wolfgang Viereck (ed.), Studien zum Einflu der englischen Sprache auf das Deutsche, 3775. Tbingen: Narr. Carstensen, Broder and Ulrich Busse 1993 Anglizismen-Wrterbuch. Der Einflu des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945. 3 vols. Band 1, AE. Berlin: de Gruyter.

136

Peter Eisenberg

Clahsen, Harald 1999 Lexical entries and rules of language. A multidisciplinary study of German inflection. Bahavioral and Brain Sciences 22: 9911013. Drscheid, Christa 2002 Polemik statt Wahlkampf pur Das postnominale Adjektiv im Deutschen. Zeitschrift fr Sprachwissenschaft 21: 5781. Eisenberg, Peter 1998 Grundri der deutschen Grammatik. Band 1: Das Wort. Stuttgart/ Weimar: J.B.Metzler. 2001 Die grammatische Integration von Fremdwrtern. Was fngt das Deutsche mit seinen Latinismen und Anglizismen an? In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 183209. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2002 ber Steven Pinker. Die Natur der Sprache. Aus dem Englischen von Martina Wiese. Heidelberg/Berlin. Spektrum Verlag 2000. Zeitschrift fr germanistische Linguistik 30.1: 100109. Eschenlohr, Stefanie 1999 Vom Nomen zum Verb: Konversion, Prfigierung und Rckbildung im Deutschen. Hildesheim: Olms. Glck, Helmut 2000 Drfen Linguisten werten? In: Helmut Glck and Walter Krmer (eds.), Die Zukunft der deutschen Sprache. Eine Streitschrift, 6270. Leipzig: Klett. Grlach, Manfred 1999 Morphological Problems of Integration: English Loanwords Ending in -er and -ing in selected European Languages. In: Form, function and variation in English: studies in honour of Klaus Hansen, 117 125. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Gregor, Bernd 1983 Genuszuordnung. Das Genus englischer Lehnwrter im Deutschen. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Ha-Zumkehr, Ulrike 2001 Deutsche Wrterbcher Brennpunkt von Sprach- und Kulturgeschichte. Berlin: de Gruyter. Jorgensen, Peter A. and Donna Anglin Moraco 1984 The categorization of English loanwords in German. In: Wolfgang W. Moelleken (ed.), Dialectology, Linguistics, Literature. Festschrift fr Carroll E. Read, 104114. Gppingen: Kmmerle. Pinker, Steven 1999 Words and Rules. New York: Basic. Polenz, Peter von 1979 Fremdwort und Lehnwort sprachwissenschaftlich betrachtet. In: Peter Braun (ed.), Fremdwort-Diskussion, 931. Mnchen: UTB Fink. 1999 Deutsche Sprachgeschichte vom Sptmittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Band III, 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Berlin: de Gruyter.

German as an Endangered Language?

137

Prksen, Uwe 1994 Wissenschaftssprache und Sprachkritik. Untersuchungen zu Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tbingen. Raffelsiefen, Renate 1995 Conditions for stability. (Arbeiten des SFB 282, Nr. 69). Seminar fr Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft, Universitt Dsseldorf . Schiewe, Jrgen 1998 Die Macht der Sprache. Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Mnchen: C.H.Beck. Schrodt, Richard 1995 Warum geht die deutsche Sprache immer wieder unter? Die Problematik der Werthaltungen im Deutschen. Wien: Passagen. Stickel, Gerhard 1998 Zur Sprachbefindlichkeit der Deutschen: Erste Ergebnisse einer Reprsentativumfrage. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.): Sprache, Sprachwissenschaft, ffentlichkeit, 1644. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Thieroff, Rolf 2001 Morphosyntax nominaler Einheiten im Deutschen. Habilitationsschrift, Universitt Bonn. Wegener, Heide 1999 Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen. Linguistik online 4/3. www.euvfrankfurt-o.de/3_99/wegener.html 2002 Aufbau von markierten Pluralklassen im Deutschen eine Herausforderung fr die Markiertheitstheorie. Folia Linguistica XXXVI/ 34: 261295. Weinreich, Uriel 1967 Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton (first edition 1953). Wiese, Richard 1996 The Phonology of German. Oxford: OUP. Wurzel, Wolfgang Ulrich 1981 Phonologie: Segmentale Struktur. In: Karl Erich Heidolph et al., Grundzge einer deutschen Grammatik, 898990. Berlin: AkademieVerlag. 1984 Flexionsmorphologie und Natrlichkeit. Ein Beitrag zur morphologischen Theoriebildung. Berlin: Akademie. Yang, Wenliang 1990 Anglizismen im Deutschen: am Beispiel des Nachrichtenmagazins Der Spiegel. Tbingen: Niemeyer.

Does Denglish 1 Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature? The View of a Nature Lover and Language Fighter Hermann H. Dieter

Zusammenfassung
Die Lexik einer Sprache ist der (genokulturelle) Code derjenigen Kultur, die sich seiner bedient. Zu viele Mutationen auf einmal zerstren den Phnotyp. So entsteht zur Zeit in Deutschland Sprachbruch namens Denglisch und weltweit BSE Bad Simple English. Das Sterben der sprachlich-kulturellen Vielfalt unter dem Druck der einen einzigen, dabei zur Allerweltsart verkommenden Sprache wird im Sinne eines Sprachdarwinismus fast naturgeschichtlich zwingend hingenommen. Sprachenschutz gilt heute noch als rckstndig, Naturschutz dagegen als zukunftsweisend, anregend, interessant. Wrter sind jedoch nicht nur naturhaft-akustische Lautgebilde. Sie sind auch Kulturdenkmale im Kleinstformat (trotz ihrer stndig wechselnden Bedeutung). In Form von Sprachen regelhaft organisiert, bilden sich aus ihnen komplexe Kulturund Sozialprodukte. Deren Vielfalt ersetzt die Babelsche Einfalt. Namen haben nur deshalb einen Sinn, weil es fr dasselbe Ding oder denselben Begriff immer unermesslich viele Deutungen oder Sichtweisen gibt. Der Zusammenhang Sprachenschutz/kulturelle Vielfalt hat deshalb auch unmittelbar mit natrlicher Vielfalt, Schutz und Nutzung von Natur und Begeisterung fr sie zu tun. Dieser Zusammenhang muss endlich weltweit dieselbe umweltpolitische Beachtung wie der Artenschutz finden! In Deutschland ist die Deformierung der Kultursprache Deutsch zum Denglischen in den Bereichen Musik, Sport, Mode, Alltagsinformatik und vielen anderen besonders weit fortgeschritten. Eigensprachliche und/oder lngst assimilierte Wrter zur Bezeichnung von Begriffen werden massenhaft des Landes verwiesen. Neue werden kaum mehr gebildet und die ersatzweise hereingelassenen sind hufig nur in Form von Wortbruch verfgbar, statt sich zu differenzierten Stzen zu fgen. Wer mit Sprache nicht sprachkologisch, d.h. nicht pfleglich umgeht, dem ist auch nicht ohne weiteres zuzutrauen, dass ihm der pflegliche Umgang mit der

140

Hermann H. Dieter

Natur ein Anliegen ist. Der mchtige ADAC beispielsweise, Wunsch- und Angstgegner des Natur- und Umweltschutzes, schreibt Denglisch in seiner Mitgliederzeitschrift lngst gro. Sollten sich auch die Antipoden der global player, wie z.B. der B.U.N.D., der VCD, Greenpeace u.a. auf solchen Sprachstil einlassen, dann verlren sie ihre Glaubwrdigkeit als Anwlte von Natur und Nachhaltigkeit. Wenn Sprachen sterben, sterben Denkweisen, Blickwinkel, Wahrnehmungsraster, begriffliche Gliederungen der Wirklichkeit und ihre sprachlich immer neue Wiedergabe und inhaltliche Wichtung. Unter dem Druck der eindimensional konomischen Vernunft und ihrer Sprache gert schon heute das Beziehungsgeflecht aus Mensch, Natur und Umwelt unter die konomischen Zweckzwnge der einen, diese Sprache beherrschenden Macht. So wie Artenvernichtung immer auch Vernichtung von menschlicher Kultur (geschichte) und Kultivierbarkeit von Natur ist, so ist Sprachvernichtung immer auch Vernichtung der Wahrnehmbarkeit von Natur im weiteren und von menschlicher Umwelt im engeren Sinne. Sprachenpflege ist deshalb nicht nur eine Aufgabe der Kultur-, sondern auch der Umwelt- und Naturschutzpolitik.

1.

Linguistic and ecological diversity are equally under pressure

1.1. Introduction There is a close relationship between environmental destruction and cultural breaches. This overdue observation was made in no. 4/2000 (p. 5) of the BUNDmagazin, an important forum and stimulus in nature conservation, by its former chief editor Jrgen Ruschel (Ruschel 2000). This observation corresponds to the unspecific feeling that in spite of the economic boom and the global advance of democracy, something is going on that is fundamentally wrong, from the global increase in pollution (to the) sometimes devastating consequences of globalization for indigenous peoples and their cultures (and) to the loss of a marketing-free living environment here in the west Every interpersonal emotion, every locality is transformed into merchandise. For many this has become alarming (Klein 2001). Increasingly uninhibited neo- or turbo-capitalism is environmentally destructive and its coupling to the one, indeed single turbo-language, is culturally destructive. We speak here not of English, but of BSE Bad Simple English the language of global marketing. Not only in Europe, but

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

141

all over the world, it stands for the erosion of cultures. Cultural diversity in Europe and all over the world are a first rate challenge (Hamm and Hoffmann, 2002). The arrival of Naomi Kleins book and Ruschels observation in the European Year of Languages, 2001, came in the nick of time, not merely just in time which in German usage would be Denglish [ = hotchpotch of German (Deutsch) and English words].

1.2. Language displacement NO THANKS! It does not do justice to the English language to caricature it as the language of uninhibited turbo-capitalism. However, it is indisputable that its apologists, when it is a matter of their language, propagate exclusively their English. Linguistic diversity is not dear to them, but too dear. They expect the same attitude from their dear customers as well. Otherwise, these would no longer be able to share in their inventions of the global market. The global market is not interested in maintaining linguistic and cultural diversity. It may even regard the multidimensionality of world views that this diversity opens up as an obstacle to unhampered trade. It looks as if the costs of maintaining diversity will be left to those who always pay where the market does not feel responsible: the state, the general public, and, hence, you and I. Taking a somewhat cynical approach, one might say why not? After all, the public pays for supporting other cultural assets as well (i.e., theatres, exhibitions, and museums), so why should it not pay for preserving linguistic diversity? Today 5000 to 7000 languages are still spoken around the world. Of these, 2,500 are threatened with extinction, and by the year 2025, more than half may have disappeared. They will not even have the chance to pass on the cultural heritage they bear within them to the coming generations. Would a linguistic-cultural contract between generations help? If these cultures disappear they and their intimate relationship with nature will be lost forever. We must do all we can to protect these people, said Klaus Tpfer, Executive Director of UNEP, during the 21st session of UNEPs Governing Council in early February 2001 in Nairobi. Only about 100 languages can be preserved for the future in written form and at least 100,000 speakers are needed to keep just one of the existing languages alive and capable of development (UNEP 2001).

142

Hermann H. Dieter

1.3. Language development YES PLEASE! The lexicon the spoken and written vocabulary of a language could, with regard to its function and developmental capability, be described as the (genocultural) code of that culture which uses it (Kerckhove 1994: 158). Put simply: 1 word stem = 1 gene. The decoding, linking, regulation, contentrelated interpretation and modification of words follow a languages individually developed linguistic-historical phonetic, grammatical and syntactical systems of rules. Too many mutations at once, especially if they are arbitrarily set and not adaptable to the respective system of rules, destroy the phenotype. This is how a linguistic breach is occurring at present called Denglisch in Germany and globally BSE a commonplace English for linguistic simpletons. We are distressed by observations of the alarming increase in omnipresent species when we see them threatening orchids, birds, large mammals, bats or moths and hence the diversity of natural species. But the death of linguistic-cultural diversity under the pressure of the one single language degenerating to a commonplace language is accepted as if it were a linguistic Darwinian law. In view of this extinction of languages under the pressure of English, there is hardly an emotive word dull enough to not fashionably transfigure it, as it promotes cultural exchange through globalization, politically welcome it, as it helps to overcome chauvinism and provincialism, historically play it down, as we have seen all this before, dress it up as scientific fact by the platitude languages evolve, and naturalistically trivialize it: language is very alive. But an exchange between linguistically dead cultures would be just as lifeless as the globally uniform language is undifferentiated, whilst chauvinism and provincialism meet the least resistance and thrive best where the linguistic and cultural identity of a people is disregarded or where an identity not their own is imposed on them. Historically speaking, the present state is primarily characterized by the global displacement of cultures and languages under the pressure of one single, de facto self-protecting common species. Abandoned and less resistant, the others lose any chance to evolve.

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

143

2.

Species conservation, linguistic diversity and cultivation of nature

2.1. Language and perception of nature Today, language conservation is still considered backward-looking, whilst nature conservation is something forward-looking, stimulating and interesting. Along with Rio came finally the development of a positive awareness to the benefit of a friendly nature conservation that encourages us to get involved. The connection between species conservation and natural diversity has reached at least the minds of the decision-makers. But the interdependence between language conservation and natural diversity must still be laboriously brought to their awareness. Words are not merely acoustic articulations. They are also miniature cultural monuments, although their meanings and connotations are changing continuously. Organized with rules in the form of languages, they form complex cultural and social products. In the cultural sense, Johannes Rau, President of the German Federal Republic, in his Gutenberg speech of November 23, 2000 in Mainz, wished for more loyalty to our national and to most of us mother tongue. Berlins former minister (Senator) for internal affairs, Werthebach, by contrast emphasized its socially integrative function and considered it necessary to protect it by law. (Werthebach 2000). Additionally, the European Year of Languages proclaimed by the European Commission and the Strasbourg parliament in 2001 was intended to increase the awareness of the advantages of multilingualism. Multilingualism allows us to change viewpoints with never-ending variety. Diversity replaces Babelian uniformity and simplicity. Names are given meaning, because there are many meanings (Porsch 2001). The contextual connection between language and (cultural) diversity is not just a mere analogy for the interdependence between species diversity and diversity of natural habitats. Language diversification is not only a precondition for the development of cultural diversity but also for a diversified perception of nature, for its corresponding conservation and for joy in its perceived diversity. Therefore, the precise term culture in the sense of sustainable exploitation of soil, plants and animals is the result of a diversified perception of nature in linguistic, aesthetic, social and many more categories of culture. The idea of the globe being a sustainably cultured garden includes its being as a garden of many (human) cultures. It links the Biblical order given to humankind to have dominion over nature with the pleasure of cultivating nature, but not with work, worries and plagues (Makowski

144

Hermann H. Dieter

und Buderath 1983). It follows that a garden is the purest of human pleasures (Francis Bacon [1625], as cited in Makowski & Buderath 1983). It was cultivated for centuries in Europe by means of unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, whilst we moderns often speak of sustainability and precaution. By precaution we mean that nature can only remain permanently cultivatable through scientifically cultivated recourse to the wilderness (= uncultivated nature, or non-culture), hence, for example, through circumspect recourse to its chemical or genetic resources.

2.2. Dedifferentiation of perceptions of nature through dedifferentiation of language In the transitional stage between non-culture and culture, we break up and dissect an unspeakably complex reality into culturally specific patterns of perception or concepts. The broken concepts become ideas; these are described in words for the purpose of communication, and in turn are expressed through language (put into words). But a word can only express in language a few real aspects, and sometimes only one, of the concept described, and never completely. For this reason, thought and the world, and the world and language, are never structurally congruent. The complexity of the linguistic means of a culture, and hence of its lexicon (vocabulary) and structure (grammar), with which its speakers internally communicate about reality, is a measure of the differentiation with which they consider reality. The finer their linguistic perception, the less broken their relationship with reality, and the less broken the transition. For example, the more elaborated our concepts of environment, nature and wilderness are, the more careful consideration we can use in shaping the environment through targeted interventions and permanently cultivate nature through recourse to wilderness (see above). For example, in the Andes Mountains of South America, an ancient, very differentiated and equally efficient form of land cultivation using canals, terraces and fields at an altitude of 4000 m has endured for over 3000 years. In central Africa, the Aka pygmies possess highly differentiated knowledge of the healing powers of certain plants. For centuries, the Dai have lived in the Holy Hills of the Chinese province of Yunnan, in harmony with a genetically extremely diverse flora and fauna. The basket weaving art of the Tlingit people in the northwest United States is unsurpassed (UNEP 2001). Such differentiated cultural relationships between nature and humans are also reflected in the respective cultural language in each example. They

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

145

could disappear along with the language before we and our Western Civilization have a chance to see how differentially these cultures perceived nature. There are many more examples of non-industrialized ways of cultivating nature illustrated in a 1999 report by the UNEP (Posey 1999). It shows, for instance, how closely language, speech and knowledge determine the genocultural code (Kerckhove 1994), hence the structure and content of the knowledge of primitive societies. The preservation of as many languages as possible and their speakers is essential for the preservation, and subsequently, the cultivation of biodiversity (other topics are the social, health and intellectual aspects of the unity of linguistic and natural biodiversity).

2.3. A philosophical view Now let us take a look at the picture of our way of thinking and perceiving, La condition humaine, by Ren Magritte (fig. 1). It illustrates what is behind the assessment of the nature of the lexicon, as differentiated from the structure of languages. Is there not something else behind this easel, hence in front of Ren Magrittes personal eyepiece and his field of projection, for his concept of landscape and nature (differentiated or less differentiated) than what we, in this case, can see only on his easel? Is the window, even the picture itself, merely an easel, a staffage? What could be hidden behind it? We do not know, for here we see everything only from a special viewpoint, through the eyepiece of Magritte! Every language differs from all other views of reality, by both subjecting it to and describing it from a singular, unique viewpoint. The literal ability to describe, inherent to all the many languages that we have not used from birth, to focus and refract reality, stands for just as many other concepts of the world. Only through their diverse linguistic refraction do reason, sensual perception, and the subconscious become capable of experience, sight, and communication. Magrittes painting is an allegory of this. Language refracts and fractures reality (see fig. 2): this is not only inescapable, but is also the beginning of cultural history and cultural diversity. For every language reflects reality with different shades, through different accentuations, in different angles of light. Therefore, the linguistic-conceptual refraction and breaking of perceptions in the area of transition between nature and culture is both inescapable and unavoidably complex. Today this complex refraction is threatened by its degeneration into a simple predetermined breaking-point of the connection between species protection and natural diversity. This connection threatens to break if the

146

Hermann H. Dieter

connection between language protection and cultural diversity does not finally, as demanded in 2002 by UNICEF and in 2001 by UNEP, receive the same global environmental policy attention as species conservation!

Figure 1. La condition humaine (Ren Magritte)

VG Bild-Kunst Bonn 2002

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

147

2.4. Conclusion from Section 2 Along with every linguistic eyepiece that is unfocussed, devalued, and eventually replaced by an ostensibly more focussed eyepiece, we irrevocably lose culturally specific knowledge, which differentiates among dealings with nature, differentiated perceptions of it, and differentiated use. Linguistic dedifferentiation under the pressure of the one more favoured language thus leads to a dedifferentiation of our perception of nature and our possibilities to sustainably protect and cultivate it!

3. Case study: The German language 3.1. From Denglish /BSE In the meantime, we have started to break away from our mother tongue. The result is more unpleasant than merely disloyally breaking ones word it is a break with our specific culture and perception of reality. Our linguistic eyepiece is becoming unfocussed and cloudy under the pressure of the

Figure 2. Language refracts and fractures reality (and every language differently)

148

Hermann H. Dieter

prefabricated words (Dieter 2000) of the single other eyepiece. Words for concepts either originating from the German language and/or that have been long assimilated in it are being expelled from the country en masse. Hardly any new words are being formed and those let in as replacements are often only available in the form of broken words, rather than strung together into differentiated sentences. In brief, in Germany the fields of music, sport, fashion, everyday computing and many others have been witness to the extensive progression of the deformation of the German language of culture into Denglish. Is even the language of nature conservation threatened by this de-differentiation? Some observations: (1) In the summer of 2000 the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation German: Bundesamt fr Naturschutz or BfN invented the English motto Busy for Nature for its abbreviation. Begeistert fr Natur ( = enthusiastic about Nature) would have been just as suitable, but instead our native language was pushed aside as de facto old-fashioned, not ready for tomorrow, backward, outdated in favour of bad English (or Denglish). But in contrast to the English motto, the German not only expresses (blind?) busyness for nature, but also the huge semantic field related to Geist (mind or spirit), which is loaded with associations and indeed related to culture in a narrower sense. Hence, the German motto would in the spirit of this essay refer with complete ease to the mutual contextual dependencies of the terms nature and culture. Should this context really be lost to the more important purpose in favour of the mindless (!) advertising purpose? The BfNs press office asseverated that the (D)English motto was only developed with a view to the youth target group and that it is only three words! But do we have to really explain to an organisation like the BfN that todays youth is the creator of tomorrows language and its semantic fields and that many a mickle makes a muckle also applies analogously to the diffuse overloading of a language with bits of words that can be neither added to nor expanded in these fields? This careless attitude towards our most important cultural asset by the BfN unfortunately has a systematic background, as is demonstrated by the title it gave its competition in 2002 for particularly impressive photos and films on nature, spots for nature.

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

149

(2) In October 2000 the linguistically careless sentence Greening our childrens future on a carefully designed invitation from the Berlin BUND2 to its 20 th anniversary celebration came to my eye. Wouldnt its presumed message be much more vivid if it had used a play on words with the German words begrnen (to green) and begren (to greet, to welcome), hence moving away from the linguistic mainstream (Die Zukunft begrnen fr unsere Kinder)? (3) The NABU 3 booklet no. 2/2000 spoke of Birding for Kids and Fit for Birding in conjunction with bird watching Who is going to build such Denglish bits into structured German sentences? Is this perhaps not even desired? How is busy inflected, what is its semantic field in German with the connotations so important for a precise, expressive and graphic way of speaking (nuances)? What does the verb to green actually mean? Its meaning intended here (to make green as a transitive verb) does not exist in the English language let alone to bird (instead of to go birding)! Hence, the creators of such expressions are forcing us to use a Germanised, a false, emotionally charged English (Doppelpunkt 2000) unless we are able to patiently overlook it. The BfN with its spots, with its Busy for Nature, the Berlin BUNDs greening slogan and the unsuspecting birding for kids of the NABU aim into the conceptual nebula for the sake of short-term effects. They aim roughly precisely towards where the busy mainstream Denglish of fast profit-seekers and trendsetters have long been swimming from fast food chains to big tourist transporters all the way to the true global (gambling) players. From all of their perspectives, the cultural asset of linguistic diversity has long begun its march off into the museum, i.e. into the cultural deep freeze. Hence, the paradisiacal vision of the global village threatens to degenerate into a worldwide village of merchandise. In some parts of the world, it has already become a nightmare. The only cultured village language would be Bad Simple English, whose worldwide variations hardly differentiate from one another any more than the dog breeds Airedale and Yorkshire Terrier in the gardens of the culturally unsophisticated villagers. Perhaps for a time one or the other non-English language would come into fashion as the after-work and at-home dialect.

150

Hermann H. Dieter

3.2. to simple-minded diversity. Oh simple-minded diversity! The powerful ADAC (the German automobile association), the ideal and bogy opponent of nature conservation and environmental protection, has long made full use of Denglish in its members magazine. If now its antipodes like the BUND, the VCD, Greenpeace, etc., as well as government agencies dedicated to environmental protection and nature conservation, should be drawn into such a poor linguistic style (which already appears to be the case for the BfN), then they would not only lose their linguistic profiles. They would also lose their credibility as advocates of the environmentally and socially proper utilization of the term sustainability. This term has not only an ecological and economic, but also a sociocultural component. Only those who also consider this can expect to personally motivate people globally and lastingly for the model of sustainability. Grasping reality means grasping it linguistically (H. G. Gadamer). Creative utilization of our national and mother tongue not only requires cultural imagination, but also creates our concept of the future! Only institutions such as the military or international air traffic can (and must) function without imagination. Imagination pays, both intellectually and conceptually, through the creation of added value as regards content. It cannot be produced through blindly adopting and cloning prefabricated words from other language species (Dieter 2000). According to W. v. Humboldt/L. Weisgerber/B. Lee Whorf/E. Sapir, the same applies to the language of conceptions of nature. Wilhelm v. Humboldt said of thought that it follows a network of rails that are set down in the respective language. According to Benjamin L. Whorf, the culture of the Native American Hopi, whose language has no expression for time as we know it in Indo-European languages, would have even been able to develop a physical conception of the world without the factor of time, having the same power of explanation as Newtons conception of the world, in which the time factor plays a constitutive role (see Whorf 1971: 58, and a short summary in Strig 2002: 313). Hence, even in natural sciences, language conveys more than just univocal ideas, as would the word alcohol for a certain aspect of a good wine or the word mammal for someones lover. This interpretation of the role of any language in discovering reality by refracting it was called aspective realism (Rothacker 1959). Hence, one single global language eyepiece, even highly praised as scientifically essential, would allow us to perceive only one single, more or less rationalized, reality. Next to it, all other less rational languages would soon be obsolete. What a prospect!

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

151

If we do not handle language ecologically, i.e. with care, we cannot expect to understand how to treat nature with care (Dieter 1994). When languages die, ways of thinking, perspectives, perception patterns, conceptual categories of reality, and their different respective renderings and content weighting, die along with them. Just compare the content of the trivial names from only a few languages for one single insect family (e.g. for butterflies), or a simple plant species (e.g. for lily of the valley 4)! Each language illuminates an entirely different aspect of what we perceive of the insect or plant and keeps it alive in the cultural and scientific memory of humankind. Therefore, through application of reason, to come back to the interpretation of the painting by R. Magritte, the world can only be seemingly clarified in its different levels of reality. (Makowski und Buderath 1983). Already today, under the pressure of the one economic reason and its onedimensional language, the interlaced relationships between humans, nature and the environment are coming under the economic expedient constraint of the one power that uses this language all too eagerly. This cannot be aligned with making the concept of sustainability concrete in a way that is diverse as regards content not from an ecological and not from an economic, much less from a socio-cultural or political point of view. The connection between language protection and cultural diversity is therefore more than merely analogous, is not only in indirect proportion to the relationship between species conservation and natural diversity. In addition, there are also direct connections between language protection and natural diversity and between species protection and cultural diversity. For the destruction of species is also always the destruction of human culture (cultural history) and of the ability to cultivate nature, while the destruction of a language is also the destruction of the perceptibility of nature in a broader and of the human environment in a narrower sense.

3.3. Conclusion from Section 3 The destruction of languages results not only in the destruction of cultural, but also of functional, potentials of nature. Thus the destruction of future possibilities for living and shaping life, just like the destruction of natural resources, is revoking the contract between generations. Therefore, language cultivation is not only a matter of cultural policy as stated again recently in a resolution by a Worlds Cultural Forum (2002). It is also a matter of environmental protection and policy to protect diversity of natural species and habitats.

152

Hermann H. Dieter

4. Practical/political consequences Environmental and nature conservation policy are right to stop the dediversification of nature. However, a certain concept of nature is always the product of a certain linguistic-cultural perception. From conclusions 2.4 and 3.3 it follows that the response of environmental and nature conservation policy to linguistic levelling in a global mono culture should be: (1) Loyalty to our own and openness to other languages, exchange but not an undifferentiated intermixing between all of them, intensive cultivation of terminologies; (2) critical, functionally circumspect use of words as long as they are foreign to our own linguistic code, e.g. today in Germany with Anglicisms, both among experts and in everyday language: grnen rather than greening, Begeistert fr Natur rather than Busy for Nature, Vgel schauen rather than the impossible birding; (3) making preferential use of and further developing the linguistic resources of the closest, hence the national or mother, language, as well as (4) actively speaking at least two foreign languages, one from a directly neighbouring country, and understanding others so that an ever larger part of international communication is made possible on the basis of fluency, and possibly soon even electronically on the basis of acoustic language recognition programs (Hilberg 2000). Think global, speak local: This motto briefly and concisely summarizes all four responses. It should be adhered to by the B.U.N.D, by Greenpeace and other organisations, as well as by public institutions that work for sustainable species protection and nature conservation in the sense of the UNEP (2001). They would be doing so for the linguistically and culturally sustainable future of our children!

Does Denglish Dedifferentiate Our Perceptions of Nature?

153

Notes
1. Denglish = hotchpotch of German (Deutsch) and English words 2. BUND = Bund fr Umwelt- und Naturschutz Deutschland (German Association for the Protection of Environment and Nature) 3. NABU = Naturschutzbund Deutschland (German Association for the Conservation of Nature and Wildlife) 4. Butterfly = papillon (French), Schmetterling (German). The German Schmetter- comes from Slavic smetana for butter (>Schmetterling = butterfly, similar to English. In the Middle Ages this word was used for flying witches who came by night to steal the butter). Lily of the Valley = le muguet (= French from Latin muscus = odour, scent), Maiglckchen (= German May bell)

References
Dieter, Hermann H. 1994 kologie als Sprachkritik. UWSF 6/3: 121122. 2000 Fertigwrter Fertigkost. ERNO 1/3: 125127. www.scientificjournals.com/erno. Doppelpunkt 2000 Deutsch-Jahresthema: Es gibt kein richtiges Deutsch im falschen Englisch. Doppelpunkt 2/2000. Hamm, Bernd and Herbert Hoffmann 2002 Invitation to the International Conference Cultural Imperialism or blossoming diversity, held under the auspices of Viviane Reding, Member of the European Commission for Culture, at the Catholic Academy of Trier (www.kat-akademie.dioezese-trier.de), Germany, October 1720. Hilberg, W. 2000 Hat Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache wirklich keine Zukunft? Forschung & Lehre 12: 628630. Kerckhove, Derrick de 1994 Kunst und Natur: kologische sthetik. In: Christoph Wulf, Dietmar Kamper and Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Ethik der sthetik. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Klein, Naomi 2001 No Logo! Der Kampf der Global Players um Marktmacht. Mnchen: Riemann. Makowski, Henry, and Bernhard Buderath 1983 Die Natur dem Menschen Untertan: kologie im Spiegel der Landschaftsmalerei. Mnchen: Kindler.

154

Hermann H. Dieter

Porsch, Peter 2001 Sehnsucht nach Babel. Parlament von links. April issue. (Marcel.Braumann@slt.sachsen.de.) Posey, Darrell A. (ed.) 1999 Cultural and Spiritual Values of Biodiversity: A Complementary Contribution to the Global Biodiversity Assessment. Paris: UNEP Publications. Ruschel, Jrgen 2000 Korrespondenz in Sachen Rechtschreibung. BUNDmagazin 4. Rothacker, Erich 1959 Ontologische Voraussetzungen des Begriffs Muttersprache. In: H. Gipper (ed.): Sprache als Schlssel zur Welt. Festschrift fr Leo Weisgerber, 3946. Dsseldorf: Schwann. Strig, Hans Joachim 2002 Abenteuer Sprache. Mnchen: dtv. UNEP 2001 United Nations Environment Programme: Press release of 8 February 2001 on the 21st session of the UNEP Council. UNICEF-Kurier 4. www.unep.org/GC/GC21. Werthebach, Eckart 2000 Die deutsche Sprache braucht gesetzlichen Schutz! Berliner Morgenpost, 31.12.2000: 6. Whorf, Benjamin L. 1971 Sprache, Denken, Wirklichkeit. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt. World Cultural Forum 2002 For the linguistic and cultural diversity and against linguistic-cultural hegemony. In: K. Gawlitta and F. Vilmar (eds.), Deutsch nix wichtig Engagement fr die deutsche Sprache. Paderborn: IfBVerlag, Paderborn. ISBN 3 931263 304.

Internationalizing Science and Technology

German as an International Language of the Sciences Recent Past and Present 1 Ulrich Ammon

Zusammenfassung
Der Beitrag legt dar, in welchem Ausma und warum Deutsch in der Zeit gegen Ende des 19. und zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts eine Weltsprache der Wissenschaft war, durchaus gleichen Formats wie Englisch und auch Franzsisch. Es wird beschrieben und erklrt, wie und warum seit Ende des I. Weltkriegs Deutsch als internationale Wissenschaftssprache an Boden verloren hat, hnlich wie Franzsisch, und wie und warum Englisch eine immer herausragendere Stellung gewonnen hat. Die quantitativen Verschiebungen werden anhand diverser Statistiken aufgezeigt. Darber hinaus werden auch die hauptschlichen Ursachen angesprochen: der wirtschaftliche Ruin der deutschsprachigen Lnder durch den I. Weltkrieg, der Boykott gegen deutschsprachige Wissenschaftler und Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache seitens alliierter Wissenschaftler in der Zeit nach dem I. Weltkrieg, Mord und Vertreibung zahlreicher deutscher Wissenschaftler in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus, abermaliger wirtschaftlicher Ruin durch den II. Weltkrieg und der seitdem anhaltende brain drain, der hauptschlich den USA zugute kommt. Es wird auch belegt und begrndet, warum der Stellungsverlust von Deutsch und der Stellungsgewinn von Englisch in den theoretischen Naturwissenschaften besonders dramatisch verlaufen ist, dagegen schwcher in den angewandten Naturwissenschaften und in den Sozialwissenschaften und am wenigsten tiefgreifend in den Geisteswissenschaften. Allerdings ist die verbreitete Meinung, dass es in den Geisteswissenschaften noch gesicherte Nischen fr Deutsch als internationale Wissenschaftssprache gibt, wie im vorliegenden Beitrag gezeigt wird ein Mythos. Abschlieend werden die Probleme deutschsprachiger Wissenschaftler in heutiger Zeit dargestellt. Sie haben, zugespitzt gesagt, die Wahl, durch Hinwendung zum Englischen als Wissenschaftssprache die internationale Stellung des Deutschen weiter zu unterminieren oder sich auf Deutsch im provinziellen Bereich zu bewegen. Die seit 1997/98 eingefhrten Internationalen Studiengnge an deutschen Universitten in englischer Sprache erhellen besonders dramatisch die Sprachschwierigkeiten der deutschsprachigen Lnder in der internationalen Kommunikation. Diese Studiengnge untergraben nur dann nicht das Studium von Deutsch als Fremdsprache im Ausland, wenn die Studierenden in ihrem Rahmen auch Deutsch lernen oder sogar an deutschsprachigen Lehrveranstaltungen teilnehmen mssen. Abschlieend

158

Ulrich Ammon

wird begrndet, warum die derzeitigen sprachlichen Nachteile deutschsprachiger und anderer nicht-englischsprachiger Wissenschaftler letztlich nur dadurch beseitigt werden knnen, dass den Muttersprachlern des Englischen, die unter der englischsprachigen Weltbevlkerung immer mehr in die Minderheit geraten, die normative Kontrolle ber die Weltsprache entrissen wird. Als Signal fr diese Zielsetzung sollte die Weltsprache umbenannt werden, und zwar von Englisch in Globalisch (auf Globalisch natrlich Globalish).

1. Introductory remark This text is based on a paper I presented at the conference The Fate of European Languages in the Age of Globalisation: The Future of German that took place in the Deutsches Haus in April , 2002. During the preparation for the conference, the organisers had a debate with some of the potential participants, especially with the president of the Gesellschaft fr Deutsche Sprache, Rudolf Hoberg, about the conference languages. The organisers had proposed to use English for the presentation of the papers for practical purposes, because they feared that potential participants would otherwise be excluded for want of sufficient knowledge of German. The conflict was solved by the offer of the Gesellschaft fr Deutsche Sprache to pay for simultaneous interpretation if necessary; it was left to each speaker to decide what language to use, English or German. I am mentioning this conflict because it is an intrinsic aspect of my topic. A hundred years ago, it would probably have been conspicuous for a scholar of German, a Germanist, to speak English even at a conference in the USA. Today, this is entirely normal, and to some participants speaking German might appear the more marked choice. This would definitely be true in a somewhat global setting. There, the choice of any language other than English is felt to be deviant. I assume that such a choice is perceived as potentially more face-threatening, i.e. threatening positive face, since it is much more likely that people will know English than any other foreign language.

2. German was one of the world languages of science at the end of the 19th and in the early 20th century Lady Chatterley, her sister, and her husband studied in Germany until the war forced them back home. What D. H. Lawrence writes in his famous novel was by no means unusual at the time before WW I, namely for British

German as an International Language of the Sciences

159

students to study at a German university and of course to know German. The same holds true for students of various other countries. Jintaro Omura, a Japanese scholar of a Samurai family, writes in the journal Deutsche Sprache, published in Japan, in the 1998 volume:
Germany now has the reputation of being the most advanced country in the sciences, which is in fact the case. Therefore, the most eager students from all countries choose to study there. (Vorwort, translation U. A.)

Until the early 19th century the German universities had the reputation of being too speculative. Tout sy passe en thorie [everything remains theoretical], was even the verdict of Germaine de Stals, who otherwise admired things German. In the course of the century however, natural sciences and empirical research developed as a consequence of Wilhelm von Humboldts university reform, among other reasons. Thomas Huxley expressed British concerns as early as 1869 when he wrote:
Ask the man who is investigating any question profoundly and thoroughly be it historical, philosophical, physical, literary, or theological; who is trying to make himself master of any subject [] whether he is not compelled to read half a dozen times as many German as English books. (see Gizyncki 1973: 477)

At the beginning of the 19th century, Latin and French were still the more important languages of science in Germany. The importance of German increased however hand in hand with the advancement of science and scholarship in the German-speaking countries. This development was based on favorable economic and political conditions in the course of the 19th century, which now with hindsight almost appears to have been the German century.

3. The 20th century took another turn At its end, the USA celebrated the 20th century as hers. The parallels are, however, misleading. Germany was never a scientific center, nor was German a world language, to the same extent as the USA or English are today. In addition, the political basis of German prevalence was more fragile and problematic. One often encounters the opinion that Nazism and WW II were crucial for the decline of German and also of French, and the simultaneous rise of

160

Ulrich Ammon

English. However, this development began earlier. It would probably have happened even without the wars and without Nazism, though more slowly and to a lesser extent. English was positioned much better than German for becoming the global language early on: as a wide-spread colonial language and as the national language of the USA, which started to become the economically strongest country in the world even before WW I. Germany was economically second then, and has never been No 1. I will come back to this later.

Table 1. Number of quotations by five-year intervals in The Journal of the American Chemical Society 1926 from the four most frequently quoted chemistry journals 1871 1875 33 1901 1905 Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft Journal of the Chemical Society Liebigs Annalen der Chemie Zeitschrift fr physikalische Chemie 79 47 23 19 1876 1880 44 1 13 1906 1910 115 45 33 29 1881 1885 53 2 18 1911 1915 67 60 37 21 1886 1890 56 5 19 6 1916 1920 30 37 8 6 1891 1895 60 20 21 16 1921 1925 78 122 26 53 1896 1900 64 21 22 28 Sum total 668 390 278 191

Journal Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft Journal of the Chemical Society Liebigs Annalen der Chemie Zeitschrift fr physikalische Chemie

German as an International Language of the Sciences

161

A languages position in the sciences shows in the number of publications in that language, but also in their evaluation. The frequency of their citation, the impact factor in the case of a journal, is an important indicator of evaluation. In the 1920s, the American scientists P. L. and E. M. Gross (full first names not given) identified the journals that served as the main citation sources of American chemists (Gross/Gross 1927). Of the four journals cited most often, three appeared in Germany, using German as their sole language of publication. The fourth journal was British. The Berichte der deutschen chemischen Gesellschaft were clearly in first place (cf. Table 1). On that basis the two researchers made recommendations for journal subscriptions but also for foreign language learning, namely:
Certainly it should be insisted that a reading knowledge of German be required of every student majoring in chemistry in college. French can hardly be accepted as a substitute []. (Gross/Gross 1927: 388)

The last sentence aimed at the shift in foreign language learning in the USA during and after WW I. German had been replaced by French as the most frequently studied foreign language, which was later replaced by Spanish. The replacement of German was the consequence of anti-German attitudes during and after the war. The decline of German as a foreign language during and after WW I was not limited to the USA, and had negative impacts on German as an international language of science, though perhaps not immediately. On close inspection, it shows even in the Gross findings (cf. Table 1), but becomes more evident in the more comprehensive study by Minoru Tsunoda (1983: 144 155) (cf. Figure 1). He found that German exceeded any other language in the number of publications in the natural sciences during the first two decades of the 19th century. Thereafter however, its share continually declined, and so did the share of French, while the share of English continued to rise. In the 1990s, over 90 percent of the natural-science publications were in English, and no other language accounted for more than 2 percent. I found this in a follow-up study to Tsunoda I carried out myself using the same bibliographical data bases Tsunoda had used for his previous study (results in Figure 2). Notice that the ordinate of Figure 2 has been compressed; in real proportions the distance between English and any other language of scientific publications would be much greater. By 1996, all the other languages of science of any significance, except English, had shrunk to the same low level. The periodical bibliographies are an indicator of that development. They regularly give a comprehensive overview of the publications in the respective

162

Ulrich Ammon

field. If one glances through their volumes year by year one can virtually see the language shift. It is of additional interest for our topic that some of the most representative of these bibliographical data bases, as we would call them today, were formerly produced in Germany, but that most of them were taken over by their Anglo-Saxon competitors. Examples are Chemisches Zentralblatt, founded as early as 1830 and absorbed by Chemical Abstracts in 1969, or Physikalische Berichte, founded in 1845 and taken over by Physics Abstracts in 1995. As to official languages and language choice in international scientific conferences, there is, to my knowledge, no comprehensive long-term investigation. There can, however, be no doubt that German was regularly among the official conference languages before WW I, together with English and French.
%
70
64,1

60
55,62

50
48,55 44 46,29

53,31 50,64

40
35,8

37,5 33,68 33

English French
27,29 21,15 15,21 33,26 30,23 25,66

30

27,2

27,6

German

20

23,6

22,3

10

14,35 12,21

14,82

14,38 9,43

10,16

11,9 4,6

7,07

0
1880 1890 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980

Figure 1. Proportional language use in scientific publications in the course of one century (cf Tsunoda 1983)

German as an International Language of the Sciences

163

This changed as a consequence of the international boycott against German scientists and the German language after WW I. It was initiated by the French and the Belgian science organisations and joined by most of the allied countries. As a consequence, German and Austrian scientists and the German language were virtually banned from international science conferences until the mid 1920s. In more than 60 percent of the 275 international science conferences during these years, not a single German scientist was able to participate. The protagonists of the boycott justified it as the punishment for the German scientists support of their governments military endeavors. The German scientists responded with a counter boycott which dragged on until the Nazis came to power (cf. Schroeder-Gudehus 1966; 1990). The history of this boycott and counter boycott is presently being researched by Roswitha Reinbothe in connection with myself at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

%
100
74,6 77,1 80,5 87,2 90,7

English 10 French German


3,5 3,3 2,9 3,1 2,4 2,4 1,6 1,6 1,3 1,2

1
1980 1984 1988 1992

1996

Figure 2. Proportional use of languages in natural science publications 1980 1996 (Ammon 1998: 152)

164

Ulrich Ammon

The Nazi period stands out, among other atrocities, as a spectacular example of a countrys scientific self-destruction. By as early as 1936, 1,617 university professors and researchers had been expelled, not only Jews, of whom 1,160 went to English-speaking countries, 825 of them to the USA (cf. Table 2). Scientific self-destruction went so far that even sciences essential for the war suffered, as the Nazi leaders themselves finally had to admit. We at least can thus nourish the belief that the German scientists may have refused to build nuclear weapons for Hitler.
Table 2. University professors expelled from Germany by 1936 8 11 62 30 166 132 12 Archeologists Architects Art Historians Biologists Chemists National Economists Pedagogues 54 20 53 113 60 457 31 Engineers Geographers Historians Legal Scholars Mathematicians Medical Scientists Musical Scholars 96 55 124 26 39 23 45 Philologists Philosophers Physicists Psychologists Sociologists Theologians Zoologists

1,617 Thereof 1,160 to English-Speaking Countries: USA 825, Britain 318, Australia 17

As a consequence of Nazism the country was in ruin and there were virtually no resources left for science. A huge brain drain, again mainly to the USA, followed. A complimentary blow at German and all other international languages of science except English was dealt by an important change of foreign language requirements at American colleges and universities in the 1960s. Many of them decided to reduce or to abolish language requirements especially for natural science studies after they had come under mounting criticism as being of doubtful utility (Wiltsey 1972, Part 1: 7; cf. for details on the discussion Ammon 1998: 13). William Mackey (personal communication) believes that the American Tertiary Institutions decision to reduce or to abolish foreign language requirements had a major impact on the decline of languages other than English as international languages of science. American scientists who play a dominant role in the international scientific community have thus been encouraged not to read publications in languages other than English, or are no longer able to do so. Scientists from other linguistic backgrounds therefore have to publish in English if they want their findings to be read by their most influential and powerful colleagues.

German as an International Language of the Sciences

165

This brings us to the present, where the brain drain from Germany to the USA continues, though of course more moderately. Under these circumstances, only a miracle could have preserved the previous international standing of German as a language of science.

4. Some aspects of the present situation My sketch of the historical development may have left the impression that the wars and German crimes alone have caused the decline of German as an international language of science. However, this is not my opinion. Even before WW I, English was destined to become the dominant international language, also of the sciences. English had been spread around the globe to a much greater extent than German as a consequence of successful colonialism, and the English-speaking countries had been economically dominant for centuries, with Britain leading in the 19th and the USA in the 20th century. Sociologist of science de Solla Price (1986: 142) has found that the share each country has of the worlds scientific literature [] turns out to be very close almost always a factor of 2 to that countrys share of the worlds wealth (measured most conveniently in terms of GNP), or that a societys achievement in the sciences is, as a rule, proportional to its economic strength, though there are exceptions. Germany was such an exception in the 19th and early 20th century. The wars certainly accelerated the decline of German and the rise of English. As a consequence of WW I, the regional extension of German was reduced through the loss of all the colonies and the reduction of German and Austrian linguistic influence in Central-Eastern and Eastern Europe. Both wars also increased the economic discrepancy between the German-speaking and the English-speaking countries. Today, the English-speaking countries have more than five times the economic strength (in terms of GDP) of the German-speaking countries. In 1998, the USA spent $ 185 billion on research and development, compared to Germanys meagre $ 37 billion. The entirety of the German financing disaster becomes obvious in the comparison of the spending of 10 developed countries on tertiary education as % of GDP (year 1999, The Economist, 16 Nov. 2002: 35). Germany ranked lowest of all the 10 countries compared; Canada came first, with the USA second. Germany spent 1.3 % less of its GDP on tertiary education than the United States. If Germany raised its spending to the same percentage it would have to add $ 27,345 billion (German GDP in 1999 was $ 2,103,804 billion). That amount of money could pay for more than 50,000 additional full professorships if costs of a professorship are taken as $ 0.5

166

Ulrich Ammon

million annually). This amount of professorships is missing in Germanys competition with the USA. Simplistic as this calculation certainly is, it still gives a rough impression of the enormity of the gap. To close this gap Germany would probably have to remold its entire social system, which those privileged by it will certainly not permit. Thus, in a recent attempt at developing mere competitive clout in the natural sciences, the financing of niche subjects (Orchideenfcher) at German Universities has been reduced lately. This has had disastrous effects on some fields. An example is Hethitology which has been dramatically underfinanced at the Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur [Academy of Science and Literature] at the University of Mainz, with noticeable negative effects on the international standing of German in this field (Heinrich Otten, personal communication). Under these conditions, German science cannot seriously compete with US science, at least not generally. This unequal competition is mirrored in the German scientists choice of English as their language of publication as well as in the flight from German by the scientists from other linguistic backgrounds than German. This movement is explicated in Table 3. It shows that the German scientists share has increased in the world-wide publications in English as well as in German. The second line of figures indicates that the German scientists shifted to English,

Table 3. Shares of authors from Germany in Biological Abstracts and MathSciDisc Biological Abstracts (%) Shares in GermanLanguage Publications Shares in EnglishLanguage Publications 1980 22,0 0,7 1984 23,6 3,0 1988 26,7 3,1 1992 10,7 1,4 1995 77,2 5,3

MathSciDisc (%) 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1982 1983 1985 1990 1995 1,3 1,3 0,9 1,8 2,4 1,3 Shares in German-Language Publications 5,3 5,6 4,8 5,3 4,8 5,9 6,3 6,0 Shares in English-Language Publications 2,1 4,4 27,7 38,8 51,2 58,0

6,0

6,2 10,2 12,2 12,1 12,3

German as an International Language of the Sciences

167

and the first line of figures indicates that scientists of other linguistic background fled from German (details in Ammon 1998: 153155). There might at best be a chance to compete in special fields, as smaller countries can successfully compete with larger ones through specialization. Chances seem to be best in the humanities rather than in the natural sciences. The USA does not invest so much in them, probably because of their assumed irrelevance for power and the economy. And the German language still has some international standing there, in fields like Classical Archeology or Philology, which Harald Weinrich has dubbed niche subjects of German (cf. for details Ammon 1998: 170179). However, Germany does not really invest in these fields either, for motives similar to the USA. In addition, there is a strong tendency that more and more German books are being translated into English, especially reference books. A recent example is the New Pauly 2003. This development further undermines the international standing of German, even in the humanities.

5. Problems and possibilities of relief There seems to be no danger for the national standing of German as a scientific language on first view. In reality, however, there is, especially in the natural sciences and technologies. Starting in the winter semester 1997/98, so-called International Study Programs have been introduced in the natural sciences and technologies at German universities with English as the language of teaching. They have since been expanding. I assume these programs are there to stay, since teaching in English is considered essential for attracting foreign students and for preparing German students and professors linguistically for globalization (Ammon/McConnell 2002). The struggle is now for maintaining German as an additional language of teaching in these programs. It has so far been successful, with a few exceptions. The arguments for maintaining German appear strong. They are based on democratic ideals science should remain linguistically accessible to everyone and on Germanys linguistic interests. The effect on German as a foreign language might otherwise be disastrous. One should be aware, however, that there are other viewpoints on that question based on different interests and that maintenance efforts will have to continue to avert further substitution of English for German. There is also the important problem of continuously modernizing German as a language of science. It seems at times that German scientists and scholars are not up to the task. They often simply adopt English terms, even in the

168

Ulrich Ammon

humanities. One of many examples is the term Gender Studies, for which neither Geschlechterforschung nor any other German translation is considered an adequate translation. The unmodified adoption of English terms will, one must assume, increase the communicative difficulties and perceived distance between the academic and the non-academic part of German society. On the other hand, it will be difficult for German scientists and scholars to maintain two sets of scientific terms: one in German and one in English. The latter will be indispensable if they want to participate in international scientific communication. There are reasons outside academia to continue studying German as a foreign language. These days, German must, for academic reasons, compete with about half a dozen other languages of similarly limited importance, whose scientists publish largely in English. There remains, however, one motive in favor of German, and admittedly also of French: its importance for the history of numerous fields. Some historically-minded scientists or scholars may want to read some groundbreaking publications in the original language, such as, to mention just a few, Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Marx Das Kapital, Freuds Traumdeutung, or Einsteins Relativittstheorie. For German scientists the present linguistic situation is difficult. They have not yet become familiar with todays dominant language of science to the same extent as their Dutch or Scandinavian colleagues. Their skills in English are often limited, and they are quite isolated from the global scientific community. The danger of isolation became obvious in a survey of a small, clustered random sample of German scientists (n=69) I did some years ago (results in Ammon 1990). 25 % of them confessed difficulty in reading English texts, 38 % in oral comprehension, and 57 % in writing. Whatever the real level of skills, the mere thought that they may be insufficient seems to keep individuals from participating in international communication. Thus, if the use of English was required, those surveyed would not engage in the following undoubtedly important activities: 19 % would not participate in conferences, 24 % would not have contacts with colleagues, and 33% would not publish (Ammon 1990). German scientists and scholars have to serve two scientific markets at the same time: the national and the global, and they face continuous role conflicts and criticism for whatever language choice they make. From one side, they are criticized for being provincial, and from the other side, for betraying their own language community. It is important that they should engage in global communication in order to learn, but also to demonstrate that science and scholarship in the German-speaking countries are, as I hope, better than their reputation.

German as an International Language of the Sciences

169

It seems that German scientists and scholars should do both: maintain their own language of science, especially on the national level, and also use English for international communication. They should, in addition, contribute to changing English into an even more global language. They should especially help put an end to the native speakers exclusive control of global language norms and their intolerant correctness judgments, especially in the case of written texts. English native speakers corrective behavior versus non-natives can well be regarded as a kind of linguicism, i.e. linguistic discrimination of a minority against a majority. The term linguicism has been proposed by Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson (e.g., 1995: 105). Even sociolinguists, from whom I have collected numerous examples, participate in this kind of discrimination. It should be openly criticized as the attempt to protect linguistic privileges for reasons of prestige, communicative advantage and economic pay-off (cf. Ammon 2000 b). To indicate a fairer direction of development the global language should be renamed something like Globalish (not Globalese, which sounds pejorative). I am of course aware that this is a huge task that even seems impossible to solve at the moment. It nevertheless deserves careful examination (see for details Ammon 2003). Let me finish with a note which may sound pessimistic but which should be seriously considered to avoid illusion and disappointment. Each community has the genuine interest in spreading its language, since the use value of that language increases in proportion to its communicative range. Abram de Swaan has explained this convincingly on the basis of the idea that languages are hypercollective goods (cf. for details de Swaan 2001: 2733). These are goods which are not only available for free, like public goods, air for breathing for instance, but of which the owners if one chooses to call them that should be grateful to those who acquire them, since their use value increases in proportion to the number of owners. Languages are, as I said, such hypercollective goods. Gratefulness from the side of the native speakers of a language, or from its foreign language speakers, towards those who newly acquire it, seems in order in light of the fact that not every individual is, it seems, interested in learning or handling an additional language. Rather, people mostly do so only under pressure. Such pressure may be subtle as, for example, when one would otherwise be classified as uneducated, but it is pressure nevertheless. Why, if learning and handling an additional language were to everyones taste, would so many language communities readily give up their traditional tongue, which linguists deplore as language death, or why would people in the English-speaking world be so reluctant to study foreign languages

170

Ulrich Ammon

under the impression that their mother tongue suffices for communication world-wide? Additional languages provide mainly additional forms but little additional content, and they are not particularly efficient cognitive instruments, compared for instance to mathematics. I am afraid this holds true even against Wilhelm von Humboldts or Whorfs views that every language entails a specific view on the world. I am arguing this way to raise awareness of the possibility that German may be studied as a foreign language only so long as there are recognizable advantages to the knowledge and use of the language. It might be worth examining carefully, in light of these thoughts, whether there will still be any need to study German as a foreign language once every German, or at least every reasonably educated German, knows English, or Globalish. And isnt this the long-term objective, or at least the unintended outcome, of present language politics and language teaching in Germany? Or where else is the recent introduction of English, even into the primary school curriculum, supposed to finally lead? I must, however, admit that I do not see any way out of this tunnel that may end in abolishing German as an international language. The German language community may have no other choice than to undermine itself the international standing of its own language.

Note
1. This paper is based on the authors book Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch fr die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschule (1998) and on his article Ammon 2000a. The reader is referred to these two publications for more details and for further references. A shorter version of this paper appears in: Ammon 2004.

References
Ammon, Ulrich 1990 German or English? The Problems of Language Choice Experienced by German-Speaking Scientists. In: Peter Nelde (ed.), Language Conflict and Minorities, 3351. Bonn: Dmmler. 1998 Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch fr die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen. Berlin/ New York: Walter de Gruyter.

German as an International Language of the Sciences 2000a

171

Entwicklung der deutschen Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz G. Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert Vortrge des Internationalen Symposions vom 18./19. Januar 2000, 5980. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. 2000b Towards more Fairness in International English: Linguistic Rights of Non-native speakers. In: Robert Phillipson (ed.), Rights to Language. Equity, Power and Education,111116. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. 2003 Global English and the non-native speaker. Overcoming disadvantage. In: H. Tonkin and T. Reagan (eds.), Language in the Twenty-First Century. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 2004 The Decline of German and the Rise of English as International Languages of the Sciences. In: Rdiger Ahrens (ed.), Europische Sprachenpolitik European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universittsverlag Winter. Ammon, Ulrich and Grant McConnell 2002 English as an Academic Language in Europe. A Survey of its Use in Teaching. Frankfurt a. M. etc.: Peter Lang. Canick, Hubert (ed.) 2003 Brills New Pauly: Encyclopedia of The Ancient World. Leiden: Brill. Gizyncki, R. 1973 Centre and Periphery in the International Scientific Communication: Germany, France and Great Britain in the 19th Century. Minerva 11, 477. Gross, P. L. and E. M. Gross 1927 College Libraries and Chemical Education. Science 66, 385389. Schroeder-Gudehus, Brigitte 1966 Deutsche Wissenschaft und Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 1914 1928. Diss. phil. Genf. 1990 Internationale Wissenschaftsbeziehungen und auswrtige Kulturpolitik 19191933. Vom Boykott und Gegen-Boykott zu ihrer Wiederaufnahme. In: R. Vierhaus and B. Brocke (eds.), Forschung im Spannungsfeld von Politik und Gesellschaft. Geschichte und Struktur der Kaiser-Wilhelm-/Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, 858 888. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson 1995 Linguistic Human Rights, Past and Present. In: Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson (eds.), Linguistic Human Rights, 71110. Berlin/New York: Mouton-de Gruyter. de Solla Price, Derek J. 1986 Little Science, Big Science and Beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.

172

Ulrich Ammon

de Swaan, Abram 2001 Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Tsunoda, Minoru 1983 Les langues internationales dans les publications scientifiques es techniques. Sophia linguistica 13: 144155. Wiltsey, Robert G. 1972 Doctoral Use of Foreign Languages: A Survey. 2 Parts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

The Future of German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication Konrad Ehlich

Zusammenfassung
Die Monolingualisierung des wissenschaftlichen Betriebes, die vor allem von einer Reihe von Naturwissenschaften ausgeht und immer strkere Pressionen auch bildungspolitischer Art entfaltet, ist aufs engste mit dem so genannten Globalisierungsdiskurs verbunden. Wissenschaftlichkeit wird zugleich in einem parallelen Prozess (im Sinne der in der angelschsischen Welt ungebrochenen Scheidung von scientiae und artes) zunehmend nur noch den Naturwissenschaften und den an sie methodologisch adaptierten Sozialwissenschaften attribuiert was nicht zuletzt forschungspolitische Konsequenzen hat. Die Monolingualisierung steht im Widerspruch zu hauptschlichen Kennzeichen der neuzeitlichen Wissenschaftsentwicklung, die ihre Dynamik gerade ber die Umsetzung in die Volkssprachen gewonnen hat. Wissenschaftssprachen als Tresore des Wissens und Ressourcen seiner Aneignung und Weiterentwicklung haben eine substantielle Beziehung zu ihren Gegenstnden und den Methoden ihrer Erforschung. Sie gewhrleisten zugleich die bermittlung der Erkenntnisse in das allgemeine gesellschaftliche Kommunikationsmedium und tragen dadurch einem fundamentalen demokratischen Erfordernis Rechnung. Europa mit seinen vielfltigen nationalsprachlich verfassten Wissenschaftskulturen wird mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit der Ort sein, an dem sich die Zukunft einer mehrsprachigen Wissenschaft fr die Weltwissenschaftsentwicklung des neuen Jahrhunderts entscheidet.

1. The so-called globalization concerns various areas of societal life to different extents, and even within these areas there are considerable differences. Economics, for example, appears to be different for global players and for medium-sized businesses or the service sector; the sphere of production, on

174

Konrad Ehlich

the other hand, varies with respect to the results of globalization as compared to the sphere of distribution. Globalization seems to be on the agenda of German politics for certain societal domains such as the university, and beyond that, the schools. In comparison to other areas, such as those of major industry, these are unquestionably old institutions. In my opinion, globalization discourse is marked by several prota pseude, initial lies. Among these are claims that globalization just happens, or comes into being through that invisible hand which controls the actions and future of the actors involved, behind their backs. Another one of these lies is the claim that globalization is an unalterable fate, and still another one is the semantic fallacy which is realized in and through the term itself: if something has to do with the globe, all subglobal aspects seem, eo ipso, no longer relevant. Globalization seems and is propagated to be an expression of unsurpassable modernity. This entails all those verdicts which are generally articulated when criticizing ideas that refuse to succumb to the modern demand of being modern. It is, in other words, the Weltgeist, the world spirit itself (Inwood 1992, 275) which speaks in globalization, and imperiously commands its critics to remain in silence.

2. One of the probable globalization victims will be the linguistic diversity of scientific communication. This diversity appears as a relic which is not only superfluous, but distinctly annoying. According to this view, science itself seems to strive for and insist on the necessity of monolingualism. This view and the movement to make it real is particularly powerful in the natural sciences, and it is all the more powerful the more directly results of research appear to be transformable into applications, and thus into profit. Basic research, on the other hand, seems to be less directly dependent on a uniform scientific language. The connection between research, research publication, and opportunities of making profit and siphoning it off is driven by the parameter of time. The connection between public knowledge gain and private exploitation of research results may mean that it is a matter of days and under the condition of the Internet a matter of hours, minutes, and even seconds of publication priority that decides who counts as the originator of an idea and who does not.

German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication

175

This creates immense pressure to publish important research or that found to be important in that and more and more only that very language in which the claim to the ownership of the research results will be internationally recognized. 3. Natural sciences and the humanities have been leading a bitter dispute of the faculties for a long time. While at the beginning of the 19th century, nature and, therefore, the sciences referring to it were judged as being the pure relinquishment of the spirit, the place most estranged from it, natural sciences set about turning the tables in the next one and a half centuries, discrediting the Geisteswissenschaften, the humanities, as simply insignificant, and even as non-sciences. Originality claims and exploitation interests of the natural sciences have pushed for a friction-free international medium of communication, a vehicle which can go back and forth between the different locations of scientific practice at will. English is thought to be that vehicle today. Understanding language simply as a means of transport which can be arbitrarily replaced sees the production of knowledge as language-free, in principle. Vagueness which is indispensable in everyday language counts as something to be eliminated. Yet an artificial language would succeed at this better than any of the ones handed down. Thus, natural and other sciences are tending towards a unified language. English is propagated to be that language. In fact, however, it is another language in which a languageindependent understanding of the objects is strived for and, maybe, achieved the language of mathematics. The written form of it with its Arabic digits differs semiotically from the written forms of any spoken language. The number signs and other symbols construct their own world. What comes between them has a tendency of being redundant, if not dangerous, because it is chatty. 4. The methodological discourse which begins at the natural sciences radicalizes the Cartesian program, or to be more exact: that part of this program which goes beyond the Meditationes de prima philosophia. The ever increasing, vehement pressure of natural sciences to establish themselves as the only kinds of science is reflected in a number of programmatic blueprints, among the most important of which are Neopositivism and the

176

Konrad Ehlich

Unified Theory of Science. The latter is not striving for a Unified Theory of Signs for nothing, censoring all language that is not within its own postulates. The elimination of alternative scientific discourses concerns the communication processes of the scientific community to different extents. Since science eo ipso tends towards reflexivity, that elimination means the elimination of those areas of reflection from which natural sciences believe to have emancipated themselves from. It is, above all, the theory of understanding, hermeneutics, which succumbs to the pressure of elimination. Only few elements of a theory and practice of understanding in a hermeneutic sense of the term are accepted in natural science. These elements are transmitted by a rigorous rite of initiation for novices, and they are made invisible as such by declaring them as integral part of positivistic practice of science. Thus they are rendered immune against reflection. What goes beyond counts as superfluous and is discredited.

5. Within the Anglo-Saxon and in particular within the US American scientific tradition, a gap between the academic disciplines is established on terminological grounds. The antique-middle age term of scientia is awarded only to those academic disciplines which have as their object nature, and which have as their methods formalization and calculation. In this, a piece of a Leibnizian program is carried out, the goal of which was to develop a scientia generalis. This scientia was to use a universal language, a lingua philosophica or grammatica rationalis. With the help of this language, mistakes would only appear in the form of simple calculation errors. However the Leibnizian program did not limit itself to the object area of nature. The actual goals...were...enlightenment and advancement, perfection of the human intellect, of personal timely happiness and eternal salvation, and above all, the general common wealth which, if possible, was to be realized in this life (Schepers 1992, 1507). Leibniz hope is bound to the thought of a universal language, or, to be more exact, a universal writing system. This universal language is, however, in no way identical to any existing languages. It is rather, at best, the result of philosophical construction. At the latest, the linguistic turn in the Anglo-Saxon language philosophy, Wittgensteins individual turn, and the hermeneutic turn, as well as its radicalized application to scientific theoretical requirements for all thinking by Apel have made clear that the Leibnizian hope is more of an illusion than of a program.

German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication

177

Everyday language is necessarily the last meta-language. However, everyday language is only to be had as a single, particular one (cf. Weinrich 2002). The philosophical reflection and theoretical foundation of science are unavertibly thrown back to those languages from which the language of science was supposed to differentiate itself. Each and every science is thus indispensably bound to linguisticity. Using an everyday language for the business of science requires that the assessments and limits of that everyday language for doing this job are both elaborated in great detail and with specific reference to the very qualities of the particular language in question. In view of the diversity of human language structure, in view of the differences to be found even there where languages are attested to being closely related or where their family similarity is assumed, it is improbable from the start that scientific communication in languages based on these everyday languages is unconditionally the same. But this is exactly what is commonly thought about scientific language.

6. According to these notions, language of science is considered to be, by and large, a case of specific terminology. This terminology is seen as a special vocabulary in which word tokens are combined for carefully limited and defined objects. To speak the language of the science of, e.g., chemistry, means then to appropriately use these word tokens in agreement with the definition results, thus submitting the speaker to the status quo of the definition power of the scientific community. Given that chemistry with its system of abbreviations can deliver a prima vista plausibility for this view, it becomes increasingly complicated the more science nears life and mental objects. Terminologies always seem to be particularly handy and independent of the individual languages when they are translated into something mathematic. Such a translation is a fragment of the Leibnizian program. It remains an objective of the natural scientific disciplines, which analogously approach social sciences and the humanities with it as a challenge to be strived for. When this translation is successful, the language basis, however, has only seemingly been left behind, because Wittgenstein made this clear mathematics in itself is a language, though of a special kind. This language, indeed, like the characters used for putting mathematics into writing

178

Konrad Ehlich

actually lies beyond particular everyday languages. This, however, is exactly the reason why the language of mathematics is not the same as any of the existing languages of science, neither German, nor French and also not English. Everything scientific that goes before mathematization and mathematicability, and everything scientific that lies beyond them, everything which does not unfold in the categories of number or quantification, which surpasses them, is bound to language and thus to languages.

7. Ever since science has been practiced in a modern sense, the consciousness of this language bond has increased. In the reality of the European practice of science since the 15th century, science lost its linguistic innocence, or rather: the blindness to its language bond. Before that, there had been a naive-ethnocentric confidence in language which saw in Greek-Latin the obvious prerequisite and the sufficient equipment for everything which should be expressed in the process of thinking. Latin-Western knowledge, as opposed to the Greek East, had reduced this to a Latin which was expanded to include foreign, i.e., Greek, words. The immense shock of intercultural encounters, at first with the Arabic knowledge world in its broad and superior form, and then with the ByzantineGreek one after the disasters of 1204 and 1453, shook this naive trust. The emancipation from authoritative knowledge structures strived for a new method of understanding with new personnel, personnel from the people, and with other, different languages, the dialetti volgari, the languages of the people. These founding movements of modern science meant a new way of acquiring knowledge of the world and of the development of thought. It has happened both by means of enormous expansion in all directions, and as a result of the use of all those cognitive, linguistic, and operative resources which lend themselves to the curiosity of wanting to know. To do science in such an environment means that a multitude of approaches, methods, guiding questions, and applications constantly arises and is continuously practiced. This, indeed, occurs at the price of a loss of control which was practiced by the authorizing bodies before. The variety of procedures for the gain of knowledge, for the linguistic transposition of knowledge, and for the utilization of knowledge occurs in a competitive ensemble whose limits are determined solely by the commitment

German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication

179

to these very procedures. A rigid ethics of science, whose final ground and only realization possibility lie in the self-obligation of the researcher, guarantees the communicability of knowledge. The concrete organizational forms of the discourse communities are founded in the overall capacities provided by their linguistic reference domains. The linguistic communities maintain scientific practices which can and do work. They warrant a communication which guarantees creativity and innovation, as well as the tradition of and initiation into existing knowledge.

8. The languages of science being based on particular languages are an expression of exactly these larger discoursive contexts. They are open forms for the structuring of the scientific process. At the same time, they guarantee the variety and multitude of innovation. Instead of unilateral uniformity, they enable diversified innovation paths based on a generalized common knowledge. The individual languages of science are coined in a substantial way by the history knowledge has taken in these discourse communities, and this to an extent which cannot be seen by the terminological abridgement of the scientific language. All European science languages are treasuries of acquisition processes of this general knowledge. These acquisition processes have taken place in the different European science cultures, at different times, in different ways, and with different results for the respective languages of science. Their common ground is a continuous process of exchange, translation, and transfer which is characteristic for the entire modern period. It has taken on varying forms, from brain drain and expulsion, to scientific exchange in the form of migration-movements, to letter exchange and net culture, up to reflected encounters of different scientific cultures. The present-day languages of science contain specific results of these reception processes. The distribution of avant-garde and arrire-garde positions has fluctuated strongly over time. Correspondingly, the scientific findings and contributions differ with respect to the different scientific cultures. Their assessments depend substantially on the general cultural and, in particular, on their political environment as the recent history of German science drastically demonstrates.

180

Konrad Ehlich

9. Indeed, the processes just described have yet to be researched extensively. Spectacular cases of scientific linguistic camouflage indicate the type of problems inherent in these transfer processes, and, at the same time, they obstruct the dimensions of the actual scientific communicative facts for a cynical common sense public. In my opinion, a more exact research into the assessment and limits of the particular languages of science is among the most urgent desiderata of a science of science, which reflectively takes care of the fundaments of scientific practice. If the future of the development of science is not simply to be left to the natural drives of the market, and if this future consequently not to be committed to a new naivet that forgets all that science really is, then evaluation criteria are necessary in order to determine the quality of the different scientific languages, and, thereby, their value for the world scientific culture. Basically and in a salient way this question has to be faced by Europe. Europe is the place where the diversity of scientific linguistic practice has emerged and has been supported to the present. Europe offers both the chances and the reflective foundation for making this the object of future research. Moreover, Europe has the biggest chances and the declared political will to let multilingualism become reality. However: the depth of these problems and the extent of the research efforts necessary have not yet been consciously recognized, neither for the scientific communication nor for a successful multilingual policy. In particular, politics still keeps its eyes closed to the requirements of the implementation of a new European language policy which makes educational-political action follow the articulated concepts of multilingualism. Too timid are the mobility programs of the European scientific cultures such as e.g. ERASMUS and SOCRATES, too coincidental are the scientific discoursive encounters, and too hesitant are the educational-political financers to enable the necessary density and intensity of European multilingualism in the sciences to become a constant and continuous reality.

10. Next to the wealth of a diverse development of science which is generalized in transfer processes, scientific-linguistic multilingualism offers a further central feature which is important for the future of societies. For each lan-

German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication

181

guage community, it guarantees a linguistic and communicative permeability in principle, between everyday language and the language of science. This permeability is increasingly indispensable for democratic societies. This is a result, in particular, of the fact that modern democracies are knowledge societies, therefore, societies which have complex knowledge structures as a foundation for their existence. Knowledge innovations are full of risks. Traditional societies were able to reach back to a wealth of experience which had been proved reliable throughout a long history. Modern knowledge societies exist by permanently revolutionizing knowledge stocks. This means that calculations for dealing with the unknown are unavoidable. These calculations, however, cannot be left to science alone. On the contrary, societies as a whole must be able to democratically decide about them. The crises of expertocracies will otherwise be crises of the societies themselves. In order for the emancipated citizen to be able to make appropriate decisions, the language of science must remain accessible to him or her. Here lies a hidden inner conflict of modern societies, the processing of which remains an important societal task. Science languages based on the languages of the people can decisively contribute to finding appropriate solutions.

11. The question of the languages of science is not in the least a question of access to the resources of knowledge. Unmistakably, the future of knowledge gain and the future of the use of knowledge resources has the best chances there, where science finds optimal conditions. The recent Nobel Prize development illustrates this in an exemplary scenario. Here, it is characteristic that although knowledge resources are indeed distributed throughout different parts of the world, accumulation of monetary resources, discourse abundance, and freedom of research which translates into innovation remain to be found almost exclusively in the USA nowadays. It is not surprising that these conclusions are internalized particularly by young scientists and increasingly determine their individual career planning. It is much more surprising, on the other hand, that both educational planners and politicians of science in Europe obviously seem to accept, and even to conceptualize, the constellation described above, as an unchangeable fate. In doing so, they contribute massively to its stabilization and realization.

182

Konrad Ehlich

The scientific landscape of the United States of America has become rich, diverse, and increasingly successful through the developments of the 20th century. To a large extent, it is self-sufficient, which was not the case at the beginning of the 20th century. Solely with the intake of the best minds from all over the world, it orients itself beyond its own borders. This is a factual policy of science, which in itself is understandable. What is less understandable is that other large scientific communities are increasingly defining themselves complementarily to that policy. Thought production is driven by the motor of the language of science in a decisive way. This is to be understood in a plain, straightforward way. Look, for an example, to the book market. It remains significant for university practice even in times of the Internet. The development of the German-language market as opposed to the English-language market demonstrates the problematic situation in all desirable clarity. The substitution of German-language textbooks with English-language ones has been in part completed in several natural sciences and medicine. The repercussions which result for knowledge gain have not, in my opinion, been sociologically examined up to now, even though this should really urgently be done. The hope of a few German publishers to play along with the US American and Commonwealth market of scientific literature does not seem to be well-grounded. These markets exist within themselves. In order for something to be interesting to them, scientific texts must have already been written in or published in English. If anything at all is brought into these markets from outside, it is in the form of buying the scientists themselves, possibly at even higher salary rates than those of the natives. The self-definition of European science as complementary to English language scientific needs means that de facto European science removes itself from the market. This, in my opinion, cannot be in the best interests of European societies. The future of European science communication will either be successful by strengthening the European science languages and the development of scientific multilingualism, or it will lose itself as a subcontractor for intelligence for the needs of the US American market. The alleged globalization of the practice of science is at no place free of the post-national bases which make and will continue to make themselves clear, not in the least in the financial foundation of this practice. A competitive model of science which could indeed offer a forum for the achievement of scientific diversity can hardly consist of the self-removal of a majority of competitors from the market. Monopolization comes at a high price and is in constant danger of transforming into loss of knowledge.

German and Other Non-English Languages of Academic Communication

183

12. The linguistic reductionism which sees modern multilingual scientific development as simply being on the wrong track for world knowledge development has some prima-vista arguments for itself. A closer observation of the relationship between science and language and of the sociolinguistic reflections of a multilateral development of science supports a different view, an educational-political concept for the future of scientific communication in which multilingualism plays a central role. This is, as stated before, above all a task for Europe. If preserving and developing the wealth of multilingual science languages is successful there, it will remain indispensable in general. This will perhaps even make it attractive for scientists from within the English speaking sphere to learn languages and, at the same time, to experience a consciousness of language in their own work, and of utilizing reflection on language as a part of their own scientific reflection, seeing and accepting the hermeneutic quality of all scientific work, even that of natural sciences.

References
Apel, Karl-Otto 1973 Transformationen der Philosophie [Tr.: (1998) Towards a Transformation of Philosophy. Translated by Glyn Adey and David Fisby. Milwaukee, Wis.: Marquette UP]. Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp. Descartes, Ren (1641) 1959 Meditationes de prima philosophia...Lder Gbe (ed.) [Tr.: (1960) Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Laurence J. Lafluer. New York: Liberal Arts Press]. Hamburg: Meiner. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1830) 1959 Enzyklopdie der philosophischen Wissenschaften. Friedhelm Nicolin and Otto Pggeler (eds.) [Tr.: (1959) Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Translated by Gustav Emil Mueller. New York: Philosophical Library]. Hamburg: Meiner. Inwood, Michael J. 1992 A Hegel Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell.

184

Konrad Ehlich

Schepers, Heinrich 1992 Articel Scientia generalis. In: Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Grnder (eds.), Historisches Wrterbuch der Philosophie, Volume 8, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, col. 15041507. Weinrich, Harald 2002 Sprache, das heit Sprachen [Language, That Means Languages]. Tbingen: Narr.

Language and Identity

The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe 1 Wolfgang Thierse

Zusammenfassung
ber den Zustand der deutschen Sprache wird in ffentlichkeit und Politik immer wieder kontrovers diskutiert, gerade mit Blick auf die Anglizismen. Die Pflege unserer Muttersprache sollte eigentlich selbstverstndlich sein: Sprache bedeutet Heimat. Pauschale Fremdwortablehnung und deutschtmelnder Purismus sind allerdings im Zeitalter der Globalisierung wenig sinnvoll. Sensibel verwendet, knnen Anglizismen unser Denken erweitern, unsere Sprache und Kultur bereichern. Das Scheitern aller Sprachlenkungsversuche in der frhen DDR hat belegt, dass sich der Sprachgebrauch nicht verordnen lsst. Demokratie bedeutet nicht zuletzt auch Freiheit der Sprache. Die Situation der deutschen Sprache in Europa und darber hinaus ist derzeit von gegenlufigen Tendenzen gekennzeichnet. Einerseits ist weltweit ein Rckgang als Wissenschaftssprache unbersehbar. Auf EU-Ebene gab es wiederholt Versuche, die Amtssprachen auf Englisch und Franzsisch zu reduzieren, obwohl Deutsch in der Europischen Union die grte Zahl an Muttersprachlern und die zweitgrte Gesamtsprecherzahl also Mutter- und Fremdsprachler aufweist. Der anstehende Beitritt verschiedener osteuropischer Staaten mit verbreiteten Deutschkenntnissen strkt die Stellung der deutschen Sprache in Europa. Diese Chance gilt es zu nutzen und zugleich die Fremdsprachenkenntnisse deutscher Schler und Studenten zu verbessern. Gerade die Auseinandersetzung mit unseren Nachbarsprachen frdert eine europische Brgergesellschaft, in der sich die einzelnen Sprachen und Kulturen wechselseitig bereichern.

In his novel The Meeting at Telgte, Gnter Grass, one of the undisputed masters of the German language, described a meeting of German poets during the Thirty Years War. The poets discuss what can be done to counter the decay of the German language, its infiltration with foreign expressions and the danger of its being displaced by French. Gnter Grass, who is the best illustrator of his own texts, summed up the answer to these problems with a

188

Wolfgang Thierse

memorable drawing: a field of stones from which a hand rises holding a quill embodying good style and the careful use of language. This drawing by Gnter Grass often comes to mind in connection with the linguistic rubble and debris we encounter ever more often, particularly in the media. The quill held high is a good symbol for the task of handling one of our most important cultural goods responsibly and sensitively. The unification of Europe does not make the careful use of our mother tongue in any way superfluous quite the contrary. Anyone who wishes to preserve cultural plurality in Europe should look after their own culture. And anyone who wishes to uphold the linguistic diversity of Europe must also establish, or maintain, order in their own language. I will therefore begin by making a few remarks about the state of the German language and then discuss linguistic diversity in a Europe that, in spite of the introduction of the single currency, the euro, and the use of English as a lingua franca, ought to remain a Europe of linguistic and cultural diversity. Passionate debates about the German language break out time and again in politics and public life, on talkshows and in the culture sections of the broadsheet newspapers focussing mainly on Anglicisms and Americanisms. As the President of the Bundestag, I too have a tale or two to tell about such expressions. I receive large numbers of invitations packed with a confusion of fashionable Anglo-Saxon words: a Mega-Event involving a Performance with a high degree of Media-Prsenz, or a round-tableconference with a subsequent Presse-Briefing, etc. Sometimes I just want to pass on these letters to the Bundestags in-house language services asking for them to be translated back into German. However, I am not just concerned about foreign words, but about the thoughtless, sloppy use of our language in general. Having studied the German language and German literature, and specialized in cultural studies, I feel growing unease at the way with which our language is treated and not just in the media. Politics also makes its contribution. The linguist Uwe Prksen coined the term plastic words for expressions that are easy to combine with other terms, give the impression of being extremely significant, but often do not actually mean very much. Structural policy, development, communication, winding down and zero growth are empty phrases of this kind that are widely found in political language. Incidentally, Prksen also quotes the word Leittechnologie leading technology, which is reminiscent of the phrase deutsche Leitkultur [leading German culture], a term much discussed in the debate on multiculturalism. This raises the suspicion that Leitkultur too could be a plastic word: everybody knows it, many people use it, whether approvingly or with great

The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe

189

hostility, and no one really knows exactly what it means. This example shows how important sensitivity towards the public use of language is and what a powerful educational effect the criticism of political language can have. Ultimately, it has become clear in the discussion about Leitkultur that the supposedly German elements of the leading culture are, in reality, general European and Western values and that the particularly productive periods of German culture have always been times when we Germans opened ourselves to the best influences of other cultures: during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, but above all in our orientation towards the basic values of Western democracy since 1945. The high points of German culture have always come when it has been wedded to other cultures and also to other languages. In consequence, the current criticism of the state of the German language often overshoots the mark. This is particularly true when it comes to foreign words. A sense of proportion and calmness are required here, above all else. Cultivating our mother tongue makes a great deal of sense, and should really be a matter of course. By contrast, in the age of Europeanization and globalization, an out-and-out rejection of foreign words and narrow-minded, nationalistic purism would make little sense. The inflationary, thoughtless use of foreign words can lead to difficulties of comprehension, as well as a loss of the expressive potential of our mother tongue. Sensibly and sensitively deployed, however, Anglicisms and Americanisms complement our language, extend our thinking and enrich our culture as a whole. This is proved by a look at the history of our language. The Anglicisms of today have a similar place to that held by imports from Latin, and then French, in the 17th and 18th centuries, influences that certainly did not have a negative impact on the development of our language. Just as today, there were, of course, ridiculous modish phrases and affected displays of education, which Lessing parodied very amusingly in his play Minna von Barnhelm. But many of the riches of classical civilization were introduced into our culture along with the borrowings from Latin. French loan words and formations are also an expression of the influence exerted by French culture, in particular the thinking of the French Enlightenment. This was a process that has had many positive consequences for our cultural and political history. Why should it be any different as far as todays Anglicisms are concerned? After all, the Germans, who immediately subject everything to exhaustive philosophical scrutiny, who always, maybe too often, take a fundamental approach to matters, could well do with a dose of Anglo-Saxon pragmatism. This is why there would be little point in a law to protect the German language, something called for by some people. Language cannot be regu-

190

Wolfgang Thierse

lated. It is impossible to prescribe how language should be used in public, let alone in private. Every attempt to do this inevitably provokes resistance. My scepticism on this point has not just linguistic, but also biographical grounds. As a former citizen of the GDR, I have many years of experience with regulated language, particularly with the party jargon of the Socialist Unity Party (SED) and with the failure of all attempts to impose it in general usage though this jargon did have some effect on the language used by East Germans. However, the jargon of the functionaries in the GDR was exposed and undermined by the popular wit, and all kinds of ridicule and irony: examples include the twisting of the Marxist formula das Sein bestimmt das Bewutsein [being determines consciousness] into das Sein verstimmt das Bewutsein [being [in the GDR] casts a shadow over consciousness]; or the pun on the clichd phrase sozialistische Wertegemeinschaft [socialist community of values] when one of the endless queues in front of the shops was described as a sozialistische Wartegemeinschaft [socialist community of waiting]. In addition to this, in the everyday life of the GDR one developed, of necessity, a special sense that enabled one to identify the kind of person one was dealing with from the language they used. Speak that I may see you, was the relevant maxim. For example, anyone who merely said hier [here] instead of bei uns in der DDR [we in the GDR] was signaling a certain degree of reserve. And anyone who wrote the foreword to a book about grain mites without including a reference to the achievements of socialist agriculture in the light of the resolutions adopted at the umpteenth Party Conference of the SED had to be prepared for condemnation by the censors as an objectivist or bourgeois researcher. These linguistic regulations have become history. But to the present day I have still not lost the feeling of happiness that I live in freedom, and that means above all: speaking freely and being able to talk openly. Democracy means not least freedom of language, the inherent right of the individual to use the words they want to use and not the words other people want them to use. The sensitivity to spoken and written language developed by citizens of the GDR has hopefully not disappeared with the well deserved end of the GDR. Rather, it should continue to be close to the hearts of all Germans. The use of our language is not a matter of secondary importance, not just a playground for amateur linguists and armchair critics. How we use our mother tongue always shows to a certain extent how important our culture is to us, how much we are prepared to champion it. Why is it that, in the current debate about the German language, people always call for action by others, for academies, for laws, for linguistic

The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe

191

guardians? Instead, we need to set a good example ourselves, by using our language in a way that is worthy of emulation, demonstrating the unobtrusive, but powerful, influence of good practice in public speaking and writing. This is a field in which much can be done in the family and at school to lay the foundations for the good and correct use of ones mother tongue. Children should be taught to appreciate the beauty and expressiveness of the German language in their German lessons, but also in other contexts. Certainly, the Germans have no lack of exemplary literary texts, from Goethe, Schiller and Heine to Thomas Mann, Brecht and Grass. Good, skilled teachers can open many doors and awaken their pupils interest in the riches of German language and literature. Journalists can also set an example. Newspapers have a special responsibility for the use of our language. We should have the opportunity to read texts written in comprehensible, vivid German in the daily and weekly newspapers. By the same token, the directors-general and editors of public and, especially, private radio and television stations should pay greater attention to their presenters occasionally sloppy use of language. Government offices, public authorities and, above all, our parliaments are also places that could provide positive linguistic models. Let us therefore seek to drive back the tide of frothy language in the media and advertising, the bewildering German of the bureaucrats, incomprehensible lawyers cant, empty, meaningless political jargon. This is a field where the directors-general of broadcasting stations, the managers of public bodies, Land and federal ministers, and debaters should lead by example. Let us seek to produce comprehensible, stylistically good, clearly formulated German. Let us exploit the expressive richness and beauty of our mother tongue, instead of depriving ourselves of its magnificent linguistic resources. Language means home. Our mother tongue is the foundation of the diversity and richness of our culture. We should not allow it to be taken from us and certainly not sacrifice it to tendencies towards uniformity in Europe. This brings me to the second aspect of the subject: the linguistic diversity of Europe. The Council of Europe and the European Union designated 2001 the European Year of Languages. This was a good sign. After all, the ongoing process of European unification had awakened fears that, along with its linguistic diversity, Europes cultural plurality was also under threat. The truth is that, in a European Union that, in the foreseeable future, will probably have almost thirty members, the trend towards common languages of communication and that means firstly English, secondly French will

192

Wolfgang Thierse

become even stronger than in the past. These changes could take place at the expense of German if we do not take care. The European Year of Languages was organized under the motto Languages open doors a statement that is just as correct as it is forward-looking. Particularly in view of this, we should not permit the German language to have the door slammed in its face in Europe. In this respect, worrying tendencies are noticeable at various levels. This is true not just as regards the obvious decrease in the use of German as a language in the academic sphere, particularly in the humanities a field in which our language still had global importance in the 19th and early-20th centuries. This loss of significance is associated with the circumstance that, as the international academic language, English dominates publications about the natural sciences in spite of a whole list of German Nobel laureates. The humanities, the arts and the field of cultural studies, in which German still has weight and prestige as the language of poets and thinkers from Goethe, Kant and Hegel to Thomas Mann, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Habermas, are currently not accorded the importance that one would wish them to have which has a negative impact on the use of German as an academic language. But there are also irritating signals in the political arena. This was illustrated, among other things, by the decision no longer to offer German as a working language for deliberations below ministerial level within the EU that was taken by the European Council during the Swedish Presidency in the first six months of 2001. There had already been a similar attempt to restrict the working languages of the European Union to English and French under the earlier Finnish Presidency. On that occasion, the German Federal Government protested successfully, and German was finally provided as a working language after all. In future, the Federal Republic of Germany will also work to ensure that the German language continues to be used at all levels in the EU and that a knowledge of German is given greater consideration as an educational and qualifying criterion for employees of EU bodies. Certainly, German is not an easy language to learn. Mark Twain () once said that, a gifted person ought to learn English in thirty hours, French in thirty days, and German in thirty years. However, in a Europe that is growing ever closer together, excluding the language that has the largest number of mother-tongue speakers in the European Community and the second largest number of users if we count everyone who speaks it as a first or foreign language is neither in line with citizens needs nor in any way a compelling necessity.

The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe

193

The accession of the new East European member states will open up very promising opportunities for promoting the German language in the European Union. German is spoken by many future EU citizens in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, as well as in the Baltic states. Nowadays, German, and not English, often serves as a lingua franca in business dealings in the region. It is no coincidence that demand for German language courses and skills is so high in the countries of Eastern Europe. There is particular interest in the services provided by the Goethe Institute there. We should therefore put an end as soon as possible to the long period during which the financial support for the important work done by the branches of the Goethe Institute across Europe and the world has been consistently reduced and, instead, provide more funding! Clearly, strengthening the status of the German language as European unification progresses must not become an end in itself at national level. Our aim should be in the words of Thomas Mann not a German Europe, but a European Germany in a culturally diverse Europe. Apart from cultivating their own language, therefore, anyone who prizes linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe must also be ready to deepen and extend their knowledge of other European languages and cultures. In future, we Germans will have to work harder to acquire foreign languages. We can make a start on our annual holidays to Mallorca, the Algarve or Tuscany. Of course, one can get by with German in most tourist centres. But it is a sign of respect for the culture and interest in the people of these countries if we Germans try to master at least the basics of the local language particularly if we are planning to go back next year anyway. The need for broader foreign language skills and the educational consequences to be drawn from this will have to be addressed more strongly than in the past, particularly by our schools and universities, but also in vocational and political education. Certainly, one of the aims defined for the European Year of Languages that future EU citizens should have a mastery of at least three languages: their mother tongue and two foreign languages sounds very idealistic. Many teachers today would be happy if the majority of their pupils could at least write their own language reasonably well and knew how to make themselves understood to a certain extent in English. Nevertheless, in an expanding Europe, people who do not know other languages will face increasing difficulties particularly as far as their career prospects are concerned. The EUs education and exchange programmes, such as Socrates, have certainly proved their worth in the higher education sector and, to a certain extent, at the upper secondary level of schooling as well. However, they

194

Wolfgang Thierse

begin relatively late. It is well known that young children find it easier to learn foreign languages. It would be good to begin language teaching in schools earlier something that is already happening in German primary schools and also to liberate it from the compulsive German thoroughness that, at present, forces children who take the Abitur, the German higher education entrance qualification, to learn English at school for up to eight years so losing time for other languages. In this respect, foreign language teaching in Germany has moved a long way from Humboldts concept of education. Wilhelm von Humboldt definitely did not argue for a single language to be learned over many years. Rather, he believed that it was more useful to learn one foreign language for a short time, one or two years, then a second for a similar period and, ideally, then go on to add even more. With corresponding models of foreign language learning for example, based on the formula 3 plus 3 plus 3 years it would be possible to convey a great deal of basic knowledge that could be refreshed and consolidated later in higher education, in a work setting or as a leisure activity. Nor should we confine ourselves to just English, French and Spanish when choosing which languages to learn. In a globalized world, there is no avoiding the need for English as a first or second foreign language. But why not pay more attention than in the past to our linguistic neighbours in Europe? French is close in every sense on the Upper Rhine, while Dutch is more relevant on the Lower Rhine, and Polish on the Oder. And if there are successful town twinning schemes why not offer lessons in Danish, Czech or Russian? In an age of global players, it can be well worth teaching even supposedly exotic languages, such as Japanese or Chinese. Last, but not least, the bilingual skills of the foreign citizens who live in Germany from the former Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey, Italy, Spain and Portugal could be used much more effectively than in the past to promote language skills and to build a European consciousness. After all, languages are much more than just tools for communication. They form the basis of all intercultural competence, extend our knowledge of others and, at the same time, relativize our own view of the world. Wilhelm von Humboldt showed that our thinking and understanding of the world are always mediated by language and that each individual language opens up its own, unique perception of the world. Encounters with foreign languages make us aware of perspectives and intellectual possibilities that would otherwise remain closed to us. Each foreign language allows us to gain a certain degree of insight into a new view of things, particularly the everyday life of a people, can break down divisions and adversarial think-

The German Language and the Linguistic Diversity of Europe

195

ing, and promote understanding and tolerance. Goethe () summed up how learning foreign languages encourages tolerance when he wrote: The German should learn all languages, so that no foreigner makes him feel uncomfortable at home, while he feels at home everywhere abroad. Only a knowledge of other peoples languages gives us comprehensive access to their cultures, allowing us to become aware not just of how they differ from us, but also of what we have in common. This broadening of perspectives will be of great significance for the further progress of European unification, as well as for the development and deepening of a European consciousness. Ultimately, many EU citizens harbour reservations, or even fears, about the idea of Europe becoming ever more closely integrated, while at the same time losing ever more of its cultural diversity. Concern about the loss of cultural identity goes hand in hand with the fear of being governed by anonymous bureaucracies in Brussels or Strasbourg that pay no attention to national or regional interests, let alone cultural particularities. Education and information are the only ways of dispelling these fears and anxieties. The process of European unification is in no way intended to bring about uniformity, let alone a levelling of the individual cultures and languages quite the contrary. The goal is rather a heterogeneous, culturally and linguistically diverse Europe. In this respect, the diversity of languages in Europe is the linguistic touchstone of the subsidiarity principle of a European Community that wants to maintain and protect not just the national languages, but regional languages such as Breton and Sorbian, and is equally concerned for minority languages, such as Romany. The magnificent plurality of Europes languages reflects the cultural diversity of the European continent a diversity that is not primarily a hindrance to understanding in the economic process, but above all represents an immense cultural asset. It is in the interests of all Europeans to preserve these riches. This is why linguistic diversity is far more than a pleasing decorative appendage to the economic and political enlargement of the EU. Rather, the maintenance of linguistic diversity, including the ancient European languages of culture, Latin and Greek, is a basic prerequisite for a democratic Europe growing peacefully together in which the individual cultures and languages mutually enrich each other. The European Year of Languages demonstrated that securing linguistic and cultural diversity in Europe is a common task. The German Bundestag and the Federal Government see this as an important obligation for European policy. However, the efforts to promote a European consciousness by broadening peoples knowledge of other languages and cultures can only be effective as long as we have a sure command of our own mother tongue,

196

Wolfgang Thierse

and use it carefully and responsibly. These are two sides of the same coin and there is much to be done in both areas even though the European Year of Languages is over. We can all contribute to this, those of us who hold the German language and Europes linguistic diversity dear philologists, modern languages lecturers and teachers, natural scientists and cultural studies researchers who continue to publish their results in German, journalists and teachers committed to correct and comprehensible German, and also, of course, politicians. It would be best for us all to begin with ourselves, with our own writing and speaking. The quill held up in Gnter Grasss drawing is an urgent appeal to exploit the opportunities we have to combine our own and other cultures in an enlarging Europe, to use our mother tongue responsibly and sensitively, and to approach the languages of other countries and cultures in a cosmopolitan, tolerant way.

Note
1. Revised version of the lecture Linguistic Diversity as a Political Obligation given at the Humboldt University in Berlin on 16 March 2001.

Language and National Identity Andreas Gardt

Zusammenfassung
Bei der Bildung politischer, kultureller und ethnischer Identitt von Gemeinschaften spielt Sprache stets eine zentrale Rolle. Der Beitrag beschreibt dies am Beispiel des Deutschen, in historischer und aktueller Sicht. Ausgangspunkt ist die Feststellung der semantischen Offenheit des Begriffs der Nation selbst. In thematisch einschlgigen Texten wird er durch vier sich berschneidende Komponenten bestimmt: einer politischen (Nation als politische Einheit, als Staat, Reich o..), einer kulturellen (Nation als Resultat gemeinsamer Traditionen, Institutionen etc.), einer ethnischen (Nation als Abstammungsgemeinschaft) und einer voluntativen (Nation als Ausdruck eines gemeinsamen Willens). Wird Sprache zur Identittsbestimmung herangezogen, dient sie als Ausdruck der Identitt einer Gemeinschaft, hufig auch als ihr Motor. Dabei gilt die Beziehung zwischen der Nationalsprache und der Nation bzw. dem Volk oft als so eng, dass eine Gefhrdung der Sprache etwa durch Fremdwrter zugleich als Gefhrdung politischer, kultureller und ethnischer Integritt und Identitt der Sprachgemeinschaft erscheinen kann. In lteren Argumentationen wird das Deutsche immer wieder als berhistorische Gre beschrieben, die ihren Sprechern trotz aller politischer Uneinigkeit eine identittsstiftende Orientierung bieten kann. Der Beitrag endet mit einem kurzen Blick auf die gegenwrtige Diskussion der Bezge zwischen deutscher Sprache und politischer/kultureller Identitt.

Language has always played a central role in the formation of the political, cultural and ethnic identity of societies. In texts of a more or less ideological character, the various dimensions of identity are often subsumed under the heading of national identity. This paper deals with some of the historical and current debates relating language to identity in Germany. The concept of nation itself is a somewhat vague concept. The term does not denote a well defined ontological entity existing independent of its representation in language. It would be going too far to say that a nation is no more than what is generally regarded, and denoted, as a nation, but it is obvious that the constructivist dimension of nation i.e. that part of the concept which owes its existence to acts of intellectual deliberation and

198

Andreas Gardt

their verbal communication rather than to given facts of historical reality is far greater than it is with other concepts from the realm of politics. In modern sociology and historiography this is almost a truism, often expressed by a reference to Benedict Andersons famous definition of a nation as an imagined community 1. The following description of the concept of nation is based on the study of about 180 German texts, ranging from the 17th century to the present day, with an emphasis on texts from the middle of the 19th century onward. 2 The texts include historical and political treatises, handbooks of political history e.g. various editions of the Staatslexikon , general encyclopedias etc. The majority of the texts however are concerned with language and contain explicit reference to the relationship between nation and language: e.g. the correspondence of the members of the German language societies (Sprachgesellschaften) in the 17th century, the prefaces to dictionaries, grammars, rhetorical works etc. (such as Jacob Grimms introduction to the Deutsches Wrterbuch in 1854), and numerous essays on linguistic questions, from the Ermahnung an die Teutsche by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1679) to Joachim Heinrich Campes puristic statements in the late 18th century, the nationalist pamphlets from the middle of the 19th century, the aggressive texts during the Third Reich, and the comments of German writers in a divided Germany after 1945. A study of these texts with particular regard to the expression Nation shows that there are four separate contexts in which the word mainly appears: political, ethnic, cultural, and volitional. It is these four realms which constitute the concept of nation. The expressions that appear in the context of the word Nation are used either as synonyms of Nation, or they are used to define Nation. Where the term Nation is used in a political sense it appears in the context of expressions like: Staat, Land, Reich, Siedlung/Siedlungsraum, Gemeinschaft des Territoriums, politische Unabhngigkeit/Souvernitt, Garantie von Brgerrechten, Rechtsgleichheit der Brger etc. (state, country, empire, settlement, unity of territory, political independence, political sovereignty, guarantee of civil rights, equality of the citizens before the law etc). Where the term Nation is used in an ethnic sense it appears in the context of expressions like: Volk, Stamm/Stammesgemeinschaft, Landsmannschaft, identity of Abstammung, Ursprung, Geburt, Rasse etc. (people/folk, tribe, identity of descent/origin/birth/race etc.). Where the term Nation is used in a cultural sense it appears in the context of expressions like: identity of Sprache, Traditionen, Geschichte, Mythologien, Sitten und Gebruchen, Religion; Gemeinschaft des wirtschaftlichen

Language and National Identity

199

Lebens, gemeinsame Organisationsformen/Institutionen, kulturelle Eigenstndigkeit etc. (identity of language, traditions, history, mythologies, customs, religion; common economic structures, common institutions, cultural individuality etc.). Finally, where the term Nation is used in a volitional sense, it appears in the context of expressions like: Wille, Bekenntnis, Loyalitt, gemeinsames Wollen und Handeln, Solidaritt etc. (will, profession, loyalty, common belief and action, solidarity etc.). Any study of texts covering such a length of time must take into account the changes of meaning an expression like Nation undergoes. Many of the semantic features Nation has acquired in more recent texts are covered by other expressions in earlier texts, particularly by Volk (people). Whereas in modern German Nation denotes a more political entity and Volk a more cultural and/or ethnic entity, earlier texts still show the close relationship between Nation and its Latin predecessor natio, used mainly to describe the regional and ethnic origin of a person. Two quotations from the Brockhaus-Encyclopedia, from 1898 and1991, illustrate this: Nation seen as a community of people who share the same descent, language, customs and culture and are characterized by specific racial features (1898) 3 vs. Nation as the frame within which people regard themselves as belonging to a specific cultural group and as politically independent, based on the notion of a common history, tradition, culture, and language (1991).4 Obviously, the four components which constitute the concept of nation are not equally distributed in all texts at all times. In Germany, until 1945, great emphasis was laid on the ethnic and cultural dimension of nation, which was to a large degree due to the lack of a unified territory until the late 19th century. Cultural and ethnic elements in the definition of the nation played a far greater role in Germany than, for example, in North America, where a common territory was given and where the obvious multiethnic and multicultural character of the population would have weakened any definition of nation resting on ethnic or cultural uniformity. The texts under consideration illustrate that a concept of nation which is based on assumed ethnic and cultural uniformity is prone to generalizations and mystifications of various kinds: the nation is often seen as rooted in the allegedly ancient history of its people, which provides it with an almost natural origin. The building of the nation seems less the result of deliberate decisions of human agents than as the necessary, natural and self-evident consequence of given historical and ethnic (i.e. biological) facts. The following quotations illustrate this. As the paper aims at a description of the concept of nation, rather than of the history of the expression Nation,

200

Andreas Gardt

not all of the passages quoted contain the word Nation, but may contain expressions which denote one or the other dimension of the concept. In a text of 1663 the author states that, when reflecting upon the countries of Europe, their history and their languages, the only country one will find that has remained unconquered both by foreign powers as well as by foreign tongues is the free, ancient, and great Germany (Schottelius 1663, 123). 5 The Germany of today, the author states, is the same Germany which has existed for thousands of years (1663, 48).6 In 1797 Friedrich Schiller writes: The German empire and the German nation are two different things. [...] Even if the empire disappeared, German dignity would remain untainted. This dignity is of an ethical nature, it rests in the culture and in the character of the nation, which is independent of its political fate (Schiller 1797, 431).7 An author of 1810 reflects upon this notion of the character of a nation, when he describes what characterizes a people (Volk): It is [...] its inner nature, its life, its power of regeneration, of reproduction. In all segments of a people there dwells a folklike thinking and feeling, [...] suffering and acting, foreseeing and believing (Jahn 1810, cf. Gschnitzer et al. 1992, 332).8 It is these almost mystical forces and powers of its people which lead to the building of a nation, so that each people has the nation which is appropriate of it. The quotations also illustrate that in texts dealing with the concept of nation, the political, the cultural, the ethnic and the volitional sphere are often combined in a way which does not allow any rational definition of the concept. Rather, elements of these spheres are blended unspecifically, which is reflected in lexical coinages such as Nationalkultur, Nationalcharakter, Volksgeist, Volksseele, Volkswesen etc. (national culture, national character, spirit/soul/nature of the people). The meaning of these expressions is hard to define, and often the same holds true for the word Nation itself. In semantic categories, the function of the word is frequently less referential than expressive (in Karl Bhlers understanding of the term9) and deontic 10. The expressive function of Nation becomes apparent where a speaker or author, in using the word, signifies a certain sociopolitical stand he takes. The deontic quality of Nation lies in the fact that the very use of the word often seems to suggest the necessity of action to be taken concerning the nation, its welfare, its safety, its future. The same deontic quality can be seen in the phrase nationale Identitt (national identity). The phrase often appears in texts which, while not explicitly agitative, make use of semantically intense language, not seldom charged with strong emotions. The components that constitute nation political, cultural, ethnic and volitional elements , also constitute national identity. In the texts, national identity is

Language and National Identity

201

often presented either as something to be preserved (which demands certain activities), or as something that is threatened (which then demands that measures be taken against these threats).11 When language is introduced into this sphere of the national, it blends in easily. Some quotations: In 1612 the reformer Wolfgang Ratke offers to the diet of Frankfurt a plan on How, in the whole of the empire, a common language, a common government and, eventually, a common religion can be introduced.12 In 1647, Carl Gustav von Hille, in his chronicle of a baroque language society, calls upon all Germans to protect the freedom of our fatherland and of our language.13 Johann Gottfried Herder, in 1768, defines a national language (Nationalsprache) as a treasure trove of the thinking of a people.14 For Wilhelm von Humboldt, in 1821, the different languages are the means of the particular ways of thinking and feeling of the nations.15 In 1854 Jacob Grimm ends the preface to his German dictionary with these words: Beloved German countrymen, of whatever territory or belief you may be, enter the great hall of your inherited, ancient language, learn it, hallow it and cherish it, the life and future of your people depend on it.16 Nearly a century later, in 1937, Thomas Mann regards the responsibility of a people for its language as a responsibility for the people itself, as a way of keeping untainted its image in the face of mankind.17 A final quote by the East German writer Peter Schneider, from his book Der Mauerspringer (1982): If there is still a fatherland of the Germans, it has most likely survived in their mother tongue. In contexts of this nature, the emotive, suggestive and deontic qualities of the expressions Deutsch (German) and Sprache (language) become more important than any clearly definable referential meaning they might have. Other expressions used in these contexts are: Sprachnatur, Sprachcharakter, Sprachwesen, Sprachgeist, Nationalsprache, arteigene Sprache, rassegeme Sprache (nature of the language, character of the language, genius of the language, national language, species adequate language, race adequate language). What the above quotations also show is that in Germany, more than in other countries, language is used as a symbol of the unity of the nation, as a symbol of being German: What makes us German so the argument runs is not political unity (which does not fully exist), but a common culture, common traditions, and common character traits. Sometimes the argument is extended to include common ethnic features, but always the existence of a common language is stressed. In 1918 the lexicographer Friedrich Kluge wrote that the mother tongue is the symbol of the fatherland. The unity of the language is the unity of home [Heimat]. Caring for the mother tongue

202

Andreas Gardt

means caring for Germanness [Deutschtum]. Almost exactly a hundred years before, Theodor Krner wrote in his Jgerlied: Uns knpft der Sprache heilig Band, / Uns knpft ein Gott, ein Vaterland / ein treues deutsches Blut (What links us is the holy tie of language, is our God, our fatherland / is our faithful German blood). Linguistic, religious (i.e. cultural), political and ethnic features are inextricably intertwined. Moreover, the language, the political unit (country, empire, nation etc.) and the cultural and ethnic unit (culture, people, race etc.) balance and support each other. When one of these elements is brought out of balance, the others are affected as well. This delicate balance is frequently referred to in texts which are of a more patriotic or even nationalist character. It is a commonplace in puristic statements that the frequent use of foreign words threatens not only the language in its lexical substance but also the identity of the community of speakers. In the face of the increased use of French words in Germany in the 17th century, particularly at court, an author warns of the consequences of linguistic subservience: He who makes his language a maid will become a servant.18 By using French expressions in German the German spirit is alienated, the natural way is corrupted (Hille 1647, 3).19 In 1794, the lexicographer Joachim Heinrich Campe states that the native language is always the most appropriate one for the intellect, the spirit, the morals, the customs, the characteristic features and the political constitution of the people who speak it (Campe 1794, XXVIII).20 By virtue of the specific nature of its vocabulary and its grammar each language has an essential influence on the formation of the intellect (Geistesausdehnung und Geistesausbildung, ibid., 18) of its speakers: A German ceases to be German i.e. to be exactly what nature has made him to be to exactly the same degree to which he uses foreign words instead of German ones (ibid, XXIX). And by doing so, he gives up the characteristic features of the thinking and of the attitudes of a German, which in turn fit perfectly well with the natural, ethical and civil constitution of Germany (ibid.).21 A more negative picture of French linguistic influences is drawn by Friedrich Ludwig Jahn in1833: French words blacken and poison our souls, darken our views, confuse our everyday life, and disfigure, distort and violate our Germanness [Deutschthum] by the different ethical, legal and political notions they bear.22 The concept of Germanness (Deutschtum, Deutschheit) appears in the texts until 1945. Foreign words threaten the integrity and identity of the German people: By reducing the scope (Geltungsbereich) of the German language, the Germanness of the citizens [Volksgenossen] is directly threatened.23 With the rise of modern anthropology in the 19th century, the concept of race is introduced into the linguistic discussion.

Language and National Identity

203

While this does not always take on an ideological character, it becomes increasingly ideological in the first decades of the 20th century, culminating in the period of National Socialism. The racial characteristic (rassische Eigenart) of the Germans finds its parallel in the specific character of the German language, and like the race, the language does not tolerate foreign elements.24 The racial fate of an individual (Rasseschicksal), which results from his biological disposition (Blutsanlagen), is considered to be closely related to his individual linguistic fate (Sprachschicksal) and his fate as a member of his people (volkliches Schicksal).25 The comparison of ideological descriptions of language in texts from several centuries does not imply, of course, that the historical background in which these descriptions are embedded, is more or less identical. Obviously, the social and political backgrounds of the fight against French loanwords in the 17th century, of the puristic statements of Joachim Heinrich Campe around 1800, and of the aggressive ideological statements of the early 20th century are very different. It cannot, however, be disputed that there are striking parallels in the ideological motifs and strategies of argumentation. Ideological descriptions of language often have comparable aims and thus a similar structure. Where, for example, it is intended to strengthen the identity of a political, cultural and ethnic community by referring to the language of this community, this language must not be presented as an arbitrary set of signs, as a mere tool, which only serves to convey information, is more or less exchangeable by any other set of signs and does not have any emotive and suggestive qualities. Instead, the language of the community is usually i.e. in different historical contexts presented as the natural form of expression of this community, as deeply linked to its cultural and sometimes even ethnic identity. In summing up what has been stated so far, nation, as a concept, is constituted in a fourfold context: political, ethnic, cultural, and volitional. Language easily blends into this context. It is then seen in an almost intimate relationship with its speakers, their intellectual and emotional life, and the resulting political and cultural institutions of this life. National identity to a considerable degree depends on the national language, which is not only an expression of this identity, but also serves as a constant stimulus to it. Texts which bring together language and nation often present an ahistorical view of language: language as something monolithic and beyond time, not exposed to quick change and superficial fashions (such as foreign words). The ahistoricity follows from the logic of the argument: where language has the function of expressing and furthering national identity, it must appear firm and stable, reliably codified and easily identifiable by all its speakers.

204

Andreas Gardt

At the end of this paper, the present situation regarding the relationship between language and identity in Germany will be sketched briefly. After 1945, the deep rooted nationalism, which had built up in Germany from around the middle of the 19th century, ceased to exist. In particular the ethnic dimension of earlier debates on questions of identity disappeared completely. Due to the historical legacy, die nationale Frage (the national question) was hardly talked about officially, until the reunification of 1990. The new political situation within Germany, but also the changes in the countrys international position, suggested the need for a reconsideration of all kinds of questions of national scope. It is more than likely that the current debate on the influence of English on German less the debate on the increasing importance of English as a lingua franca in the sciences, but the debate on the use of Anglicisms in everyday German is not caused by an excessive increase in Anglicisms over the past ten years but by the fact that these Anglicisms are viewed differently now, as a consequence of the changes in public awareness in the wake of the reunification. Seen in this light, the debate on the use of Anglicisms in German is due to a reconsideration of the role the German language plays for the national identity of the Germans. It must be added that the correlation of the German language and national identity is of course not only felt by Germans. German is an official language in seven European countries, alone or together with other languages. In all of these countries the question of language and national identity is discussed with regard to German, but usually under headings different from the ones dealt with by the articles in this volume. In Austria, for example, the relationship between the Austrian variant of German and High German is discussed, in Luxemburg the position of High German among the other official languages French and Ltzebuergesch (Luxemburgish).26 These aspects also touch on the question of language and national identity, but not with regard to the relations between German and English. Quite apart from that, the question of Anglicisms plays a certain role in some of these countries as well. As the question of language in relation to national identity is dealt with differently in each country, this paper concentrates on the situation in Germany. There is no reliable evidence that allows a precise description of the role the German language plays for the national identity of the Germans nowadays. In academic circles the question of language and national identity does not seem to be a subject dealt with explicitly. The expression nationale Identitt is usually avoided; if anything, kulturelle Identitt is, for historical reasons, given preference. Publications concentrating on the influence of English on German (volumes of conference papers27, texts of the Deutsche

Language and National Identity

205

Akademie fr Sprache und Dichtung/German Academy of Language and Literature 28 etc.), show a noticeable concern of many colleagues as regards the future of German as a language of science. Moreover, many colleagues share a certain dislike of the excessive use of Anglicisms in everyday speech. Authors may criticize an irritating tendency to show off (ein bedenkliches Imponiergehabe), to gain prestige (Prestige-/Gewinndenken) (Debus 1999, 2932), or they may criticize the resulting problems of comprehension (Verstndnisschwierigkeiten, ibid.), but their criticism is not based on ideological arguments. Yet it seems likely that the very increase in the past ten years in the number of conferences and academic publications dealing with the language question is related to the political changes in Germany. Where the media are concerned, this picture does not really change much: a general reserve concerning the use of explicit political arguments in the debate. Although the media have dealt with the use of Anglicisms fairly frequently in recent years, overt national tones are avoided. The picture does change to a certain degree when taking into account publications of non academic language societies. The largest one in Germany is the Verein Deutsche Sprache, founded in 1997, with about 13,000 members (according to its own publications). The society claims that it wants to further the self respect and dignity of all people whose native language is German29. The criticism of Anglicisms or rather: Americanisms or AngloAmericanisms, as the texts say is combined with a criticism of globalization, which is seen as a growing international dependency on the United States. In the same context, the dangers of a loss of identity of the German speaking countries are described. Some of the arguments presented here are clearly ideological. If a description of the role of the German language as regards questions of identity in present day Germany remains somewhat speculative, this is even more the case concerning assumptions about future developments. Considering the four components which constitute national identity the political, the ethnic, the cultural, and the volitional it is however fairly safe to assume that ethnic arguments will not play any role in the discussion about identity. The German language seen as reverberating in the blood of its speakers is, once and for all, a notion of the past. Likewise, it is probable that political arguments will either play no role at all or that they will play a role different from that in the past. The German language can no longer be used as an argument for the need to create a unified German state, as there has been such a state since 1990. However, political arguments may well play a certain role with regard to language policies in the

206

Andreas Gardt

context of immigration into Germany: The current political debate suggests that immigrants will be expected to learn the German language as a prerequisite to granting them the right to stay in the country. If German is to play a role in the context of the debate about a German identity, this will most likely be supported by cultural arguments, but without the ideological overtones of similar arguments in the past. To argue against Anglicisms or against the growing dominance of English in the sciences is, and will be, supported by the argument that a native language is an immediate expression of the cultural traditions of its speakers and that choosing a different language would alienate the speakers from these traditions. But there is no evidence so far that these arguments will lead to the introduction of language laws in Germany comparable to those in France. The situation in France differs from the situation in Germany in two respects. Firstly, France is governed centralistically, whereas Germany is not. To pass laws against the use of foreign words would in Germany most probably be within the legislative responsibility of the various German Bundeslnder (states), and not of national government. And it is not very likely that a nation-wide consensus in the question of language laws could be reached. Secondly, the puristic tendencies in France are supported by a certain anti-American sentiment among intellectuals and members of the political class. In Germany, antiAmerican sentiments are far less prevalent in public life and in politics.

Notes
1. Anderson 1991. 2. A list of the texts would be beyond the scope of this paper; for details of the texts see Gardt 1994, 1999, 2000a, 2000b and (forthcoming). 3. Nation as die erbliche Stammes-, Sprach-, Sitten- und Kulturgemeinschaft, welche bestimmten Menschenmassen und Familien ein eigentmliches Rassegeprge aufdrckt. 4. Nation as a Rahmen [...], innerhalb dessen sich Menschen neben kultureller Eigenstndigkeit v.a. polit. Selbstndigkeit (Souvernitt) unter Verweis auf eine als gemeinsam angenommene Geschichte, Tradition, Kultur, Sprache zumessen. 5. Wenn man die Europeischen Landschaften / samt den enderungen / so denselbigen vielfaltiglich zugehangen / berdenken / und das Sprachwesen zugleich mit beobachten wird / alsdann sol sich das freye uhralte grosse Teutschland wol allein finden / welches von frmder Macht gntzlich unbezwungen / und von frmden Sprachen unverworren geblieben.

Language and National Identity

207

6. da [...] das jtzige Teutschland annoch dasselbe Teutschland ist / welches vor etzlichen tausend Jahren gewesen. 7. Deutsches Reich und deutsche Nation sind zweierlei Dinge. [...] und wenn auch das Imperium untergienge, so bliebe die deutsche Wrde unangefochten. Sie ist eine sittliche Gre, sie wohnt in der Kultur u[nd] im Character der Nation, der von ihren politischen Schicksalen unabhngig ist. 8. Es ist [...] sein inwohnendes Wesen, sein Regen und Leben, seine Wiedererzeugungskraft, seine Fortpflanzungsfhigkeit. Dadurch waltet in allen Volksgliedern ein volkstmliches Denken und Fhlen, [...] Leiden und Handeln, [...] Ahnen und Glauben. 9. Bhler 1934. 10. Cf. Hermanns 1994. 11. The deontic dimension of the phrase national identity became very obvious in Germany in 2001, when the chief minister of the state of Hesse, Roland Koch, said that the question of nationale Identitt should be made a central subject of his partys (the Christian Democratic Union) next campaign. Kochs use of the phrase nationale Identitt led to a heated debate about political conservativism vs. liberalism in Germany, as if the mere use of the phrase implied a certain political stance. 12. [...] Wie Jm Gantzen Reich ein eintrchtige Sprache, ein eintrchtige Regierung, vnd Endlich Auch ein eintrchtige Religion [...] zu erhalten sey (Ratke 1612, 24). 13. Es gehe darum, unseres Vaterlands / und unserer Sprache Freyheit zu bewahren (Hille 1647, 78*). 14. Gedankenschatz eines ganzen Volkes (Herder 1768, 13) 15. Die Sprachen sind die Organe der eigenthmlichen Denk- und Empfindungsarten der Nationen (Humboldt 1821 [?], 26). 16. Deutsche geliebte landsleute, welches reichs, welches glaubens ihr seiet, tretet ein in die euch allen aufgethane halle eurer angestammten, uralten sprache, lernet und heiliget sie und haltet an ihr, eure volkskraft und dauer hngt in ihr (Grimm 1854, LXVII). 17. [...] auch die Verantwortung fr das eigene Volk, Reinerhaltung seines Bildes vorm Angesichte der Menschheit (Mann 1937, 11). 18. Machst du die Sprach zur Magd: So wirst du werden Knecht (Sigmund von Birken, in Neumark 1668, b6r). 19. Durch die Sprachverderbnis wird die Rede / und der Teutsche Geist erfremdet / die rechte Art / verunartet (Hille 1647, 3). 20. Die Muttersprache ist dem Geiste, der Gemthsart, den Sitten, den Landeigenheiten und der brgerlichen Verfassung des sie redenden Volkes am allerangemessensten. 21. Der Deutsche hrt in eben dem Mae auf ein Deutscher, also das zu seyn, wozu die Natur ihn bestimmt hat [in dem er seine Sprache mit Fremdwrtern durchsetzt]. In doing so, he gives up die Eigenthmlichkeiten der Denk und Sinnesart eines Deutschen, which in turn fit (passen) into the natrliche, sittliche und brgerliche Verfassung [Deutschlands].

208

Andreas Gardt

22. Jene Wlschworte, so Seelengift einschwrzen, unsere Grundansicht verdstern, die Lebensverhltnisse verwirren, und durch andersartige, sittliche, rechtliche, und staatliche Begriffe das Deutschthum verunstalten, entstellen und schnden (Jahn 1833, 206, zit. nach Straner 1995, 264). 23. Where German is unterdrckt und zurckgedrngt, [ist] die Deutschheit unserer Volksgenossen unmittelbar bedroht (Muttersprache 1934, 412). 24. [...] duldet keine fremden Einflsse (Muttersprache 1935, 298). 25. Georg SchmidtRohr, in Muttersprache 1939, 267f. 26. For a description of the language question in Austria see Wiesinger 2000, for an overview of the presence of German in Europe see Ammon 2000 and 2000a. 27. To mention only two recent publications: Debus/Kollmann/Prksen 2001 and Hoberg 2002. 28. The Academy has published statements concerning the use of Anglicisms in German and has dealt with the question on conferences (see for example the yearbook 2001 of the Academy). 29. See the homepage of the society: www.vds-ev.de.

References
Ammon, Ulrich 2000a Die Rolle des Deutschen in Europa. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 471494. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2000b Sprache Nation und die Plurinationalitt des Deutschen. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 509524. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Anderson, Bendedict 1991 Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (1983). Revised Edition. London/New York: Verso. Bhler, Karl 1982 Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache (1934). Stuttgart/New York: Fischer. Campe, Joachim Heinrich 1794 Ueber die Reinigung und Bereicherung der Deutschen Sprache. Dritter Versuch welcher den von dem knigl. Preu. Gelehrtenverein zu Berlin ausgesetzten Preis erhalten hat. Braunschweig. Debus, Friedhelm 1999 Entwicklungen der deutschen Sprache in der Gegenwart und in der Zukunft? Stuttgart (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Nr. 2).

Language and National Identity

209

Debus, Friedhelm, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.) 2001 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. Stuttgart (Mainzer Akademie der Wissenschaften und Literatur, Abhandlungen der geistes und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, Nr. 10). Gardt, Andreas 1994 Sprachreflexion in Barock und Frhaufklrung. Entwrfe von Bhme bis Leibniz. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1999 Sprachpatriotismus und Sprachnationalismus. Versuch einer historisch-systematischen Bestimmung am Beispiel des Deutschen. In: Andreas Gardt, Ulrike HaZumkehr and Thorsten Roelcke (eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte, 89113. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2000a Nation und Sprache in der Zeit der Aufklrung. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 169198. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2000b Sprachnationalismus zwischen 1850 und 1945. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 247271. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Gardt, Andreas (ed.) 2000 Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. ( = Gardt 2000) Gardt, Andreas (forthcoming) Nation. In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus Mattheier and Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics Soziolinguistik. An international Handbook of Science of Language and Society. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter (Handbcher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft). Grimm, Jacob 1854 Vorrede. In: Jacob Grimm and Wilhelm Grimm, Deutsches Wrterbuch. Berlin. Vol. 1, col. ILXVII. Gschnitzer, Fritz, Reinhart Koselleck, Bernd Schnemann and Karl F. Werner 1992 Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse. In: Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, 141431, vol. 7, Stuttgart. Herder, Johann Gottfried 1768 ber die neuere Deutsche Literatur. Fragmente. In: B. Suphan (ed.), Smtliche Werke. 2nd ed. 1877, vol. 2. Berlin. Hermanns, Fritz 1994 Schlssel-, Schlag- und Fahnenwrter. Zu Begrifflichkeit und Theorie der lexikalischen politischen Semantik. Mannheim (Arbeiten aus dem Sonderforschungsbereich 245, vol. 81).

210

Andreas Gardt

Hille, Carl Gustav von (1647) 1970 Der Teutsche Palmbaum: Das ist / Lobschrift Von der Hochlblichen / Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft Anfang / Satzungen / Vorhaben / Namen / Sprchen / Gemhlen / Schriften und unverwelklichem Tugendruhm. Reprint. Mnchen. Hoberg, Rudolf (ed.) 2002 Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag (Thema Deutsch, vol. 3). Humboldt, Wilhelm von 1963 Ueber den Einfluss des verschiedenen Charakters der Sprachen auf Literatur und Geistesbildung (1821). In: Wilhelm von Humboldt, Werke in fnf Bnden. Vol. III: Schriften zur Sprachphilosophie, 4th ed., 2730. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Jahn, Friedrich Ludwig 1833 Merke zum Deutschen Volkstum. Hildburghausen. 1884 Deutsches Volkstum (1810). In: Carl Euler, Werke. Vol.1. Hof. Kluge, Friedrich 1914 Unser Deutsch. 3rd. ed. Leipzig. Mann, Thomas (1937) 1963 Briefe 19371947. Frankfurt: Fischer. Muttersprache. Zeitschrift des deutschen Sprachvereins. 1886ff. From 1886 until 1922 under the title: Zeitschrift des Allgemeinen Deutschen Sprachvereins; from 1922 until 1925 under the title: Zeitschrift des Deutschen Sprachvereins; from 1925 until 1939 under the title: Muttersprache. Zeitschrift des deutschen Sprachvereins; from 1939 until 1943 under the title: Muttersprache. Zeitschrift fr deutsches Sprachleben mit Berichten aus der Arbeit des Deutschen Sprachvereins und des Deutschen Sprachpflegeamts; since 1949 under the title: Muttersprache. Zeitschrift zur Pflege und Erforschung der deutschen Sprache. Neumark, Georg 1970 Der Neu-Sprossende Teutsche Palmbaum. Oder Ausfhrlicher Bericht / Von der Hochlblichen Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft Anfang / Absehn / Satzungen / Eigenschaft / und deroselben Fortpflantzung [...]. Weimar n. y. (Dedication 23. VIII. 1668). Reprint. Mnchen. Ratke, Wolfgang 1892 Memorial (1612). In: P. Sttzner (ed.), Ratichianische Schriften I, 2427. Leipzig. Schiller, Friedrich 1983 Deutsche Gre (1797). In: Freidrich Schiller: Werke. Nationalausgabe. 43 vls., vol. 2/1. Weimar: Hermann Bhlaus Nachfolger.

Language and National Identity

211

Schottelius, Justus Georg 1967 Ausfhrliche Arbeit Von der Teutschen HaubtSprache [...]. Braunschweig 1663. Reprint, ed. by Wolfgang Hecht. 2 Parts. Tbingen. Straner, Erich 1995 Deutsche Sprachkultur. Von der Barbarensprache zur Weltsprache. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Wiesinger, Peter 2000 Nation und Sprache in sterreich. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 525562. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Yiddish and German: An On-Again, Off-Again Relationship and Some of the More Important Factors Determining the Future of Yiddish Joshua A. Fishman

Zusammenfassung
Die romanischen und semitischen Sprachanteile des Jiddischen und seine Ursprnge aus einer auergewhnlich belesenen und kulturell eigenstndigen Sprachgemeinschaft bedeuten, dass Jiddisch nie ein bloer Dialekt des Deutschen war. Aber wie auch andere Varietten, die die Verwendbarkeit fr das gesamte Spektrum der modernen Funktionen einer Sprache anstreben, war das Jiddische Gegenstand sowohl geplanten als auch ungeplanten Ausbaus, da es durch feindlich gesinnte und sogar mrderische Vlker immer weiter nach Osten gedrngt wurde. Seine berhmte skulare Kultur, die im frhen 19. Jahrhundert gerade dann aufblhte, als das deutsche Prestige zuflligerweise ebenfalls seinen Hhepunkt in Osteuropa erreichte, brachte sogar eine Gruppe von Autoren hervor, die kurzzeitig fr eine Annherung an das Standarddeutsche eintraten. Jetzt, da das Jiddische aus der tdlichen Umarmung durch das Deutsche befreit ist, nimmt es in der Alten wie in der Neuen Welt wieder zu, vor allem unter ultraorthodoxer Schirmherrschaft. Deren Sprachnetzwerke sind sich des Kampfes gegen neuhochdeutsche Germanismen vor dem Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht mehr bewusst. Wie das Deutsche selbst ist die orthodoxe Sprache der Gefahr exzessiver Verwendung von Anglizismen ausgesetzt. In seiner ber tausendjhrigen Wanderung ist das Jiddische nie weniger deutschen Einflssen ausgesetzt gewesen als in der Gegenwart. Doch bleibt abzuwarten, ob es seine Abschiedsgeschenke von den Deutschen und ihrer Kultur lange wird berleben knnen.

1. Genesis scenarios Although no one doubts the early and intimate tie between Yiddish and German, a lively debate is still going on as to the exact relationship between the two during the first five centuries of their association. The older and still better established school of thought, represented by Max Weinreichs

214

Joshua A. Fishman

History of the Yiddish Language (1973, 1980), traces the origin and eastward spread of the Jewish ways of using Germanic speech from 11th century Alsace-Lorraine and the nearby cities of Worms, Mainz and Speyer. A newer view, represented by Paul Wexlers Yiddish: The Fifteenth Slavic Language (1991), posits the early Germanic relexification of a Judeo-Sorbian variety and its subsequent spread both eastward and westward with marked Slavic characteristics. The only reason for mentioning this difference in scholarly opinion in this paper, is because both scenarios involve non-Germanic influences upon Yiddish at its very genesis (Judeo-French and Judeo-Italian [both referred to as Laaz in then-contemporary lay and rabbinic works] in the Weinreich version and Judeo-Sorbian and Judeo-Greek in the Wexler version). Of course, Hebrew and Aramaic were present from the very outset too, in both versions of the genesis of Yiddish, due to the common male practice of spending considerable time every day, from age three to as late as family funds or personal perseverance permitted, in the study of classic Jewish texts and their explication and translation via local Jewish vernaculars. As a result of the above Jewish components plus the non-standardized nature of all Germanic and Slavic varieties (at that early time when Jews were nevertheless already literate and direct quotations can be presented for the very earliest period of Yiddish), it can be demonstrated that Yiddish was never exactly like non-Jewish German from the very outset. This is also reflected by the earliest extant multilingual Yiddish dictionary of 1549 (Fishman 1995). This work includes equivalents of all Yiddish terms in several other languages, including German, that are likely to be of use to Jewish merchants and travelers. Had Yiddish been exactly like German, no separate column for German would have been necessary.

2. Not exactly like German Seemingly, being not exactly like German was an unstable and ambiguous state which invited resolution in either of two directions: becoming more like German, on the one hand, or becoming even less like German, on the other hand. The early names for Yiddish reflect this ambiguity, among them being Loshn-Ashkenaz (either the language of Germany or the Language of German Jewry [=Ashkenazim]), Yidish-Daytsh (Jewish-German), zhargon (jargon) and, only since the 17th century and (with the passage of time, exclusively) Yiddish. The fact that some German specialists continued to consider Yiddish as a variety of German well into the 20th century is irrelevant for almost all Yiddish speakers. It does not correspond to any intracommunal

Yiddish and German

215

view or aspiration since the beginning of the 20th century and must be seen as counterbalanced by another outsider designation, namely Ashkenazi German. The latter is a scholarly term (Wexler 1981) coined to designate the manner in which many Yiddish-speakers spoke German, rather than how they spoke Yiddish. Increasingly, speaking or writing Yiddish in a fashion more like non-Jewish German or less like non-Jewish German, became a marker, i.e., a stylistic feature of which all were conscious and that was, therefore, not only interpreted as reflecting a Jewish agenda but one which was often consciously utilized accordingly.

3. German for Jewish modernization: West and East Yiddish inevitably became the vehicle of Jewish modernization/secularization in East-Central and Eastern Europe after the middle of the 19th century. In contrast to an Ultra-traditionalization response (akin to what might now be termed fundamentalism), which some lay and rabbinic spokesmen preferred in the face of unwelcome social change, a substantial group of more enlightened rabbinic and lay leaders advocated many and fargoing changes, whether in religion, dietary and health practices, political participation, Europeanization of clothing and facial-hair styles, spare-time activities and, above all, education for adults and for children. Such extensive changes were propelled by constantly rising urbanization, new methods of production and distribution and, therefore, new trades and occupations (as well as unemployment and poverty related to the lesser profitability of peddling, small shopkeeping and artisanship, and closer physical and psychological proximity to the co-territorial non-Jewish populations which both the growing cities and factories engendered. Both the resistance to and the advocacy of modernization required and facilitated greater communication (and new media of communication, particularly via the huge expansion of inexpensive print) between leaders and their constituencies, adherents or would be adherents, and raised the question of what kind of Yiddish to use in the variegated politico-educational efforts directed at the masses more generally. All but a handful of the new urban elites quickly realized that neither Hebrew, Russian nor Polish could get through to anywhere near the numbers that they hoped to reach, influence and lead. Yiddish was really the only option, whether one liked it or not. Of course there was also the possibility of using German. It had been successfully employed by the corresponding Jewish modernization movement among German and other Central European Jews (Hungarian, Czech,

216

Joshua A. Fishman

Slovak) half a century or so earlier, during the so called Western Haskala (enlightenment). This success was predicated both on linguistic and supralinguistic grounds. Linguistically, Western Yiddish had remained appreciably closer to German, not having wandered far from its area of origin and not having been exposed to Slavic (and not even to as many learned Hebraic) influences as had Eastern Yiddish. Accordingly, it was simpler to shift linguistically from Western Yiddish to German, and to accept a folk-linguistic view that the former was no more than an insular and non-prestigious dialect of the latter. Supra-linguistically, Western European Jews were more Westernized in 1800 than the bulk of Eastern European Jews were even in 1850 and, therefore, appreciably further along the road of interpreting themselves as no more than Germans (Europeans) of Moses persuasion. German represented both modernity (technical superiority) and Germanness (the possibility of equal rights and privileges of citizenship) to Jews in the Western-Germanosphere. Reform Judaism accepted German as its liturgical language with few qualms, and thousands upon thousands eagerly employed Moses Mendelsohns (17291786) German translation of the OldTestament, initially published in Hebrew characters (1783) so as to be usable even by Jews who knew no Christian letters (galkhes). It quickly became the text via which that language could be acquired by Jews in its pure form. Indeed, so successful was the German Haskala in fosterng the acquisition of German among its constituency that their views of and use of Western Yiddish deteriorated rapidly, to the point that this much maligned variety of Yiddish (dubbed maushelen [Mosesy, i.e., spoken like an obvious Jew]) became increasingly impoverished and virtually extinct by World War I.

4. Closing the German-Yiddish gap in Eastern Europe: Einbau Pro-German Eastern European modernizers also contended with linguistic and supra-linguistic factors. Eastern Yiddish, extended all the way from the German-Slavic border, on the West, to the furthermost Baltics, in the north, the Black Sea, in the south, and the outer reaches of the Ukraine, in the east. It was vastly more removed from Standard German by the mid-nineteenth century and had developed an intellectual variety heavily impacted by learned Hebraic lexicon and grammar, on the one hand, and a folksier variety appreciably impacted by Slavic phonology, lexicon and grammar, on the other hand. It had not only attained a larger repertoire of informal to formal varieties but several of these had begun to appear in an increaingly extensive literature (secular and religious), equally accessible and popular across its

Yiddish and German

217

own three major dialect lines. At the same time, the archaic Western Yiddish classics had increasingly begun to be republished in Eastern Yiddish (Kerler 1999), so that even a reading knowledge of Western Yiddish (and its attendant utility as a bridge to German) had begun to atrophy. On the other hand, supra-linguistically, the combined effect of a much lower German population density than that which existed in the Western Yiddish territory, and feedback from the noticeably stronger Slavic language and nationality convictions among all the indigenous non-Jewish populations upon Jewish Eastern Europe, were ultimately much too strong for the pro-German modernizers to overcome, even given the prolonged positive reputation of all things and ideas that were considered German. But the Germanizers in the East did not give up without a hefty struggle, the echos of which are still recognizable in Yiddish in speech and in print to this very day today, well over a century later. They succeeded in importing a non-functional German-influenced orthography (full of silent hs, es, double consonants and vowels in the German manner, i.e. combinations to signify long e, ei combinations to signify long i, fs instead of vs, u for the umlaut-u even though it had long-since changed to short i in all Yiddish dialects) and the monsterously long compound-substantives for which German is famous [albeit not unique]), a huge vocabulary (much of it redundant with older, pre-existing Yiddish terms that were unlike the newly borrowed New High German competitors) and even not a few awkward (for Yiddish) grammatical conventions like positioning the verb at the end of an utterance. Most of these Germanisms had been noticeably diminishing in frequency and acceptability, with only some of the most change-resistant Ultra-Orthodox press still exhibiting them aplenty. However, the determining factor in the defeat of Germanization efforts was the military/political expulsion of German influence after World War I, on the one hand, and the defeat of the entire German-Jewish transethnization model of Jewish modernization, on the other hand. Eastern European Jews not only couldnt aspire to become Germans but they couldnt even aspire to become Poles, Russians, etc. (for which German would not have been functional anyway). While German Jews mostly opted to become modern Germans of Moses persuasion, Eastern European Jews mostly opted to become modern and to remain Jewish in a variety of secular and/or religious political colorations. Thus the attempt to make Yiddish more like German in Eastern Europe failed definitively when German was no longer an open-sesame to modernization in that part of the world, a part of the world in which transethnification and translinguafication more generally were both roundly rejected by all concerned, Jews and non-Jews alike.

218

Joshua A. Fishman

5. The attempts to make Yiddish less like German: Ausbau There were also anti-Yiddish sentiments (and even movements) in Jewish Eastern Europe, of course, but they were generally fleeting, relatively minor and did not lead in a Germanizing direction at any rate, neither for Jews nor for Yiddish. On the other hand, opposition to Germanisms started early and was fairly unrelenting, to the point that by the end of the 19th century even Hebraists or Russifiers attempted to write good Yiddish when they wanted to reach and influence the Jewish masses that were functionally illiterate in any other tongue. Mendl Satenover, the first translator of a free-standing Yiddish translation of a book of the Bible (Psalms), at the very beginning of the 19th century, stated that it was his predilection to distance Yiddish from German and to write it as it is spoken amongst us in our Eastern Podolye (in undzer mizrekh-padolye), revealing in this one brief expression both his proSlavic and pro-Hebrew sympathies for the stylistic development of Yiddish (Fishman 1985). His work was immediately met by both sharp criticism (even prior to publication) and by support informed by the historical and comparative linguistics of the time. While his detractors attacked Lefin (in Hebrew) for using a vulgar and corrupt tongue, his defenders defended him (also in Hebrew) on the ground that vernaculars all over the world were being developed by writers and intellectuals who championed them into independent and elegant literary and educational vehicles. As the prime example of one such formerly lowly dialect, English was constantly mentioned and its insistance on being neither German nor French was emphasized to legitimate the non-German direction of Yiddish modernization in Eastern Europe. The concept of good Yiddish required at least something of an unofficial standard for its cultivation (there being no official body, except in the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence, between 1925 to 1990, that could officially define and inforce it). Whereas the first Yiddish newspaper in the Czarist Empire (Kol Mevaser 1862) and those that came after it, and the burgeoning Yiddish press in the United States (from 1880 and onward to this very day) were all frequently, even if unconsciously, Germanizing, a consensus ultimately developed among Yiddish linguists, lexicographers, writers and polished spokespersons for all political and religious movements. Indeed, these proto-elites were much more united in their anti-Germanism than in most other ideological respects. The apogee of anti-Germanism was reached in the early to mid-30s when both the Yiddish Scientific Institute YIVO (in Vilne, then in Poland) and the Central Yiddish School Organization (Warsaw) in the secular capitalist world and the Yiddish sections of the Scientific Academies of Soviet White Russia and the Ukraine, in the Communist world,

Yiddish and German

219

adopted orthographic rules and guidelines that were clearly anti-German in nature, even if they differed in several other respects. This was crystal clear at all other linguistic levels in all of the YIVO publications and, above all, in Max Weinreichs popular pamphlet Daytshmerish toyg nit Germanisms are no good (1938), which served simultaneously as a guide for teachers, pupils, journalists, writers and lay-adults more generally. The fact that interwar Poland, the Baltic states, Roumania and (until the late 30s) the Soviet Union boasted several hundred Jewish elementary, secondary and even tertiary schools in which Yiddish was the regular language of instruction, made it possible for these institutional language policies to effectively define required usage for many thousands of children in the 30s. The ultra-Orthodox, who also sponsored a large number of Yiddish schools of their own (Kazhdan 1947) and who had an understandable predilection for more traditional usage in language as in most other things, did not accept neither the YIVOs nor the Soviets norms. They required a traditionalist norm and the one which they adopted was simultaneously both antiGerman (anti-Maskilic) and anti-modern (anti-atheistic) more generally (Birnbaum 1977). By the time the Second World War began, only some of the most extreme ultra-Orthodox circles still reflected the re-Germanization of Yiddish that had taken hold more than a century earlier.

6. Yiddish and German since the Holocaust The major fact to keep in mind about the relationship between Yiddish and German after the Holocaust (even a more important fact than the understandable Jewish abhorence of all things German) is that within a decade after the war the bulk of the speakers of Yiddish were no longer in Europe and, therefore, further from direct German influences than ever before. The major centers of Yiddish are now in the United States and Israel. In both of them ultra-Orthodox and secularist schools, periodicals, books and textbooks continue to carry on their efforts. Judging from these sources the avoidance of Germanisms is rarely a matter of interest or even of conscious awareness. Yet the impact of German continues to erode, if only because there is no source from which any such influence could eminate and compete with other influences upon Yiddish useage, particularly those from English and Israeli Hebrew. The Yivos Unified Yiddish Orthography (UYO) has slowly but surely gained adherents. It is the only orthography now followed in secularist circles and, of late, it has broken through into ultra-Orthodox circles as well. Accord-

220

Joshua A. Fishman

ingly, the former impact, conscious or merely habitual, of German on Yiddish-in-print has been totally eliminated in secularist circles and is slowly weakening in ultra-Orthodox ones. Several of the latter are now published in mixed or interstitial orthographies and the direction of any further change that they may experience is clearly toward the UYO. This is a small but noteworthy triumph in the annals of non-governmental language planning. A smaller but still noteworthy success is continuing to unfold at the lexical level. Neologisms pertaining to the realms of science and technology, once so massively dependent on obvious New High German borrowings, are now clearly independent of that source. The elimination of older German borrowings, however, still meets up with some rejection on the grounds that opposition to them is akin to still fighting the last war, even after that war ended more than half a century ago with the eradication of direct YiddishGerman contacts. Only a small and shrinking proportion of Yiddish speakers now has any knowlege or consciousness of German and this, of course, renders any continued de-Germanization efforts more difficult (or, as its few opponents maintain, unnecessary and nonsensical). Lexical de-Germanization is currently associated largely with the publications of the League for Yiddish, its founder and director Mordkhe Schaechter and Yiddish courses at the college level, where the need for neologisms pertaining to popular fads and technological innovations is most clearly felt. Since most of the individuals who constitute the small and largely academic coterie of active de-Germanizers and neologism coiners are only in their 30s and 40s, it can be expected that their lexical efforts along these lines will continue for roughly half a century and will then be taken up by their own students. Some of these neologisms have been adopted by the periodical press and, in some cases, have experienced a truly remarkable diffusion in a relatively brief period. Yiddish will still remain a Germanic language, of course, and most of its neologisms continue to be derived from the Germanic component of the language, but the principle of ausbau from New High German may well continue to be as staunchly subscribed to as it is now. If so, Yiddish will not be the only Germanic language to follow this approach to autonomy motivated distancing.

7. Theoretical review Following Kloss (1932, 1967), language planning is commonly separated into corpus planning and status planning. These must be seen as two sides of the same coin, however, since there is no real corpus planning without

Yiddish and German

221

functional status issues being uppermost in the minds of the planners. The latter must also influence the former, every bit as much as new functional statuses inevitably influence the direction of corpus planning. This relationship between status and corpus is clear enough in Abstand languages (languages that are too different in their basic makeup to permit the weaker of the two to be considered a mere dialect of the other). However, it is in languages that are basically quite similar to each other that the interdependence of status and corpus comes clearly and urgently to the fore. Under such circumstances the basic independence of the weaker from the stronger language can be questioned and certain newer statuses may be denied to it on the very basis of its assummed dialectal status. Under such circumstances, the adherents of new and higher statuses for the weaker language will champion further autonomy motivated distancing in the corpus planning realm, just as the opponents of such new and higher statuses for the weaker language will oppose such distancing. There are several different routes (rationales) which autonomy motivated corpus distancing may follow. One route is to emphasize a classical (usually a classical religious) tradition with which the weaker language is associated but with which the stronger one is not. Accordingly, Urdu corpus planning draws its inspiration from Perso-Arabic (and ultimately, Islamic) sources for its corpus planning, while Hindi remains solidly committed to the Sanscritic path of Hinduism. Via mutually incomprehensible script selection, language purification movements and disparate classic bases for the formulation of neologisms the two languages that are so similar in popular speech as to be indistinguishable, have become highly and visibly different in print. Had Yiddish followed this path it would have cultivated corpus planning based upon its unique Hebraic religious tradition. Indeed, the traditional script difference between Yiddish and German would have lent itself to this approach, but there the similarity between the two contrasted cases ends. The Eastern European protagonists of advancing or opposing autonomy motivated distancing between Yiddish and German rarely considered the rejection or adoption of Latin script or of Latinisms in corpus planning. This had been an ingredient of the earlier German Haskala, which bitterly opposed and ridiculed Western Yiddish. The ultimate adoption by German Jews of German script for intra-communal and even religious purposes was viewed in Eastern Europe as having led to Reform Judaism and to apostacy. Accordingly, the Eastern Haskole took pains to differentiate modernization from Christianization and the use of Latin script (or, more broadly, of Latinisms generally) in corpus planning. Such use was decidedly a nonstarter in the East. Similarly, the adherants of distancing Yiddish from

222

Joshua A. Fishman

German in Eastern Europe could not achieve their goals via maximal Hebraization in matters lexical (the scripts of the languages already being virtually identical). Hebrew for secular purposes was opposed by many of the minority that knew it well in Eastern Europe, because they regarded such useage as a profanation of the sacred. On the other hand, Hebrew was insufficiently understood among the rank and file of both males and (particularly) females to depend upon it for communication with the Jewish masses. This is not the place in which to review the several other rationales and directions for attaining autonomy motivated distancing that remained unutilized in the modernization of Eastern European Jewry at a time when German represented the acme of modernization. The einbau vs. ausbau distinction seems to apply best to the facts of the Yiddish case as well as to the facts of a few other cases round the world. In Norway, also, no religious fault line fell between the adherants of Ryksmaal and Landsmaal (Haugen 1966). The former, also known as Dano-Norwegian, was considered more cultured and intellectual by most city-folk but was regarded as currupted by foreign influences that had robbed it of any real authenticity. Indeed, the case of Norway is very much like the Yiddish one, since only one ethnoreligious identity is involved, but the rural and coastal Norwegian pursuite of authenticity via distancing from outside influences was, in many ways, even more difficult to attain than was the Yiddish one. Landsmal (renamed Nynorsk New Norwegian) was a fully artificial creation, assembled on the pattern of ancient Viking inscriptions out of a variety of dialectal sources whose major common feature was that they were judgd to be totally autochthonous. Distancing from Danish was the major consideration, and whenever dialectal Western Norwegian alternatives existed, the one that was furthest from Danish was the one that was preferred. The result was still a ScandinavianGermanic language but one that left no doubt as to its independence from Danish. There are still other examples of the ausbau principle in action (without the script issue of Urdu-Hindi): Frisian vs. Dutch, Belarussian vs. Russian, Gallego vs. Portuguese, and, in earlier centuries, also Dutch vs. German and Slovak vs. Czech. On the other hand, the Croatian vs. Serbian case, the Rusyn vs. Ukrainian case, and the Macedonian vs. Bulgarian case are all more similar to the Urdu-Hindi one in that script differences ultimately tied back to different classicals are also involved. In the Eastern European Yiddish-German case overriding the major script differences between the two languages played only a minor role because Latin letters for Yiddish had so very few adherents. Also, there was no major difference between the westernizing penchants of the two opposed parties. Those who favored modernization via einbau with written New High German often

Yiddish and German

223

even accepted a diglossic model in which German and Hebrew would share H (high power) functions (perhaps also with Polish or Russian), while Yiddish would continue to be the omnipresent informal and intimate L (low power) vernacular. Ironically enough, the ausbau advocates who favored the maximal de-Germanization of Yiddish were, nevertheless, still under the strong influence of German-derived language and ethnicity ideologies. These reached back to Herder and stressed language purity (in the German case this meant the rejection of French loanwords) and the absolute necessity of an authentic and independent language in order for its speakers to successfully constitute an independent and creative nation. The modernization of Yiddish could not escape from this German-derived ideology even though it has been amazingly effective (certainly effective given its well nigh total lack of governmental enforcement connections that might assist to distancing it from German) in escaping from the shadow of German in its corpus planning per se. Now that this escape has been substantially accomplished, at least by a noteworthy segment of the Yiddish-speaking and Yiddish-writing community, it is probably time (if not high time as some would claim) to give attention to the inroads of English and Hebrew and to the lack of inter-generational mother-tongue transition within the Yiddish secular world.

8. Finally: Noticing the elephant at the zoo Meanwhile, back at the ranch, much more was happening to Yiddish than its struggle with the German language that has so fascinated many linguists. The German Nazis had a much more devastating impact on Yiddish than did the Haskala at its very worst. As was the case with the Amerindians and the Aborigines and their respective languages, the speakers of Yiddish were subjected to conquest, occupation and, finally (the final solution) to annihilation en masse (Holocaust). Der Tod ist ein Meister aus Deutschland, Paul Celan wrote, and certainly this applied to Yiddish as well. Having lost six million speakers, two millions of them children and infants, there is no chance that it will recover its former ubiquity among those Eastern European Jews and those of their offspring who miraculously survived the utter carnage and disruption of World War II, or among those who were fortunate enough to migrate elsewhere before the War erupted. This irreparable loss goes far beyond the scope of any possible ameliorative attempt. Turning then to those millions of Yiddish speakers who had the good luck or the foresight to resettle outside of Eastern Europe, we encounter the negative impact of more ordinary varieties of dislocation: virtually simulta-

224

Joshua A. Fishman

neous urbanization, seculartization, migration and globalization. Urbanization already began in the old homelands prior to World War I and it was continued and accelerated in the countries of resettlement (including the Soviet sphere). It brought Yiddish speakers into much closer residential and occupational proximity with non-Jews, necessitating a lingua franca that inevitably turned out to be the local language of government. From this followed the loss of whatever Yiddish monolingualism there might have existed earlier as Jews increasingly undertook roles in urban occupations, non-Jewish schools, political parties and the opportunities of civic nationalism and social mobility in democratic centers of mass-immigration. These processes too had begun prior to the mass-migrations out of Eastern Europe; however, in totally new and unfamiliar surroundings in which ethnoreligious nationalism was either lacking or much weaker than it had been in Eastern Europe and in which social mobility was much more widely available their potency vis--vis language shift was magnified. These processes quickly led to the deYiddishization of most immigrants derived from Eastern Europe. In most ways, these processes also affected all non-Jewish immigrants as well and their respective languages also generally languished in the United States, Canada, South Africa, Australia and even the Soviet Union, although the Jewish rate of re-culturation and re-linguification was generally much higher than among others, due to the impossibility of homeland reinforcements.

9. Two unique factors, one negative and one positive If blood-letting and assimilative globalization are widespread debilitative factors for small languages, the re-vernacularization of Hebrew, the Zionist rejection or downgrading of Yiddish as a language of detested diasporic subjugation, and the enthronement of Hebrew in the newly founded State of Israel were, taken together, a problem nexus for Yiddish quite unlike that faced by most other languages. The presence of a classical linguistic rival within the cultural fold proved to be a greater stumbling-block for Yiddish than it did for the varieties of vernacular Arabic (vis--vis Classical Arabic) or for the Hindu vernaculars (vis--vis Sanskrit). The other classicals have remained unvernacularized and assigned to religious rituals or texts as well as to other functions requiring literacy and formality. As a result, the classicals and the vernaculars generally avoided functional clashes. In the Jewish case Yiddish and Hebrew underwent modernization and secularization at roughly the same time and although Hebrew retained its ritualized and textified classical functions it also attained modern, secular spoken ones as well. As a

Yiddish and German

225

result, it clashed functionally with all diasporic Jewish vernaculars, Yiddish the foremost among them. In Israel this clash also had behind it the force of law, Yiddish books being specially taxed, newspapers burned in their kiosks, theaters being refused permanent venues, speakers being booed off the stage and even those speaking it informally in the street being public ally admonished not to do so (Fishman and Fishman 1978). The one stateone people-one language model of language policy remained unquestioned (at least vis--vis Jews) until fairly recently, when Yiddish could no longer count on any more youthful native speakers in secular circles. During the past few decades, annual prizes have been instituted for noteworthy Yiddish authors, state-stipends for a meager number of Yiddish books, broadcasts and theater. All of which can now do no harm to Hebrew and diffuse criticism from abroad. However, the additional dislocation of Yiddish caused by an enemy within the gates has been somewhat ameliorated by the dawning recognition that Yiddish possesses a special friend at court as well. UltraOrthodox Jewry slowly recovered from the horrors of the Holocaust and has re-emerged as a fully intact culture with a very dense population concentration, an extremely high birth rate and a self-separating ethos vis--vis the State of Israel or of the secular state anywhere. Large segments of Ashkenazi Ultra-Orthodoxy continue to be inter-generationally Yiddish speaking and conduct their schools (elementary, secondary and tertiary) as well as all other communal institutions in Yiddish, whether these segments reside in Israel or in the diaspora. As a separating tongue, Yiddish is viewed as being within the pale of sanctity (Fishman 2002), while modern secular vernacular Hebrew is rejected as destabilizing the pre-Messianic status quo. Probably as many as 10%20% of Israeli and of World Jewry can be described as Ultra-Orthodox and, accordingly, the future of Yiddish has begun to appear less bleak than was hitherto assumed to be the case (Fishman 2001). Ultra-Orthodoxys express rejection of either the American or the Israeli mainstream ways of life should go far to assuring that Yiddish will survive the rising tide of globalization of the 21st century. Thereby hangs a tale that other minority and lesser-used languages might want to consider and try on for size.

10. Conclusions Yiddish has been exposed to both autonomy-motivated distancing from German (ausbau) and to dependency-motivated approximation to German

226

Joshua A. Fishman

(einbau) for nearly two centuries. Nevertheless, the major forces shaping its future lie elsewhere. Drastically weakened by the German-inspired Holocaust during World War II, its fate today and tomorrow will be determined both by (a) the usual predators that prey upon threatened languages (primarily, the inroads of English-oriented globalization) the world-over, (b) the rather atypical presence of an erstwhile Classical partner, but now rival and opponent, in the form of revernacularized and thoroughly secularized Hebrew and the latters current champion (the State of Israel), and (c) the unexpected resiliency of Ultra-Orthodoxy and its capacity to regroup and to resist the pressures of the modern world.

References
Birnboym, Shlomo A. 1931 Geule fun loshn [Redemption of language]. Lodz, Beys yakev. Reprinted (1981) in Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Never Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters, 181195. The Hague: Mouton. Birnboym, Shlomo A. 1977 Der traditsyonalistisher oysleyg fun yidish in poyln [The tradionalist spelling of Yiddish in Poland]. Dos yidishe vort: 3132. Dow, James R. 1999 Germany. In: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, 286299. New York: Oxford University Press. Fishman, Joshua A. 1985 Nothing new under the sun: A case Study of alternatives in ethnocultural identity. In: Fishman, The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival, 77103. Berlin: Mouton. 1995 Dictionaries as culturally constructed and culture-constructing artifacts: The reciprocity view as seen from Yiddish sources. Lexicographia, Series Maior 64: 2934. 2000 The status agenda in corpus planning. In: Richard D. Lambert and Elana Shohami (eds.), Language Policy and Pedagogy, 4352. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2001 A decade in the life of a two-in-one language: Yiddish in New York (secular and Ultra-orthodox). In: Joshua A. Fishman, Can Threatened Languages be Saved?, 74100. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters.

Yiddish and German 2002

227

The holiness of Yiddish: Who says Yiddish is holy and why? Language Policy 1: 123141. Fishman Joshua A. (ed.) 1999 Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. New York/Oxford: University Press. Haugen, Einar 1966 Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Kazhdan, Kh. Sh. 1947 Di geshikhte fun yidishn shulvezn in umophengikn poyln [The history of Jewish school systems in independent Poland]. Mexico City: Kultur un hilf. Kerler, Dov-Ber 1999 The Origins of Modern Literary Yiddish. Oxford: Clarendon. Kloss, Heinz 1932 Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen [The development of new Germanic literary languages]. Mnchen: Pohl. 1967 Abstand languages and Ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9/7: 2941. Schaechter, Mordkhe 1969 THE hidden standard: A study of competing influences in standardization. The Field of Yiddish 3: 284304. Reprinted in: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), 1981, Never Say Die! A Thousand Years of Yiddish in Jewish Life and Letters, 671696. The Hague, Mouton. 1999 Der eynhaytlekher yidisher oysleyg: fun folkshprakh tsu kulturshprakh (An iberblik iber der historye funem eynhaytlekhn yidishn oysleyg); Takones fun yidishn oysleyg (zekster aroyskum). [The unified Yiddish spelling: From a vernacular to a literary language (An overview of the history of the Unified Yiddish Spelling); Rules of Yiddish Spelling (6th edition)]. New York: YIVO and League for Yiddish. Weinreich, Max 1938 Daytshmerish toyg nit [Germanisms are no good]. Yidish far ale X: 97106. Reprinted: 1938. Yidishe sprakh 34: 2333. 1980 History of the Yiddish Language (Translated from Yiddish by Shlomo Noble and Joshua A. Fishman). Chicago. University of Chicago Press. Originally published in Yiddish, 4 vols., 1973. New York: YIVO. Wexler, Paul 1981 Askenazic German, 17601895. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 30: 119132. 1991 Yiddish, the fifteenth Slavic language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 91 (entire issue).

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language: Many Ways of Speaking German; Many Ways of Being American David L. Valuska William W. Donner

Zusammenfassung
Die Pennsylvania-Deutschen sind Nachkommen von Immigranten aus der Pfalz, die sich im spten 17. und 18. Jahrhundert im sdstlichen Pennsylvanien ansiedelten. Ihre Sprache ist mit den Dialekten der Pfalz noch immer eng verwandt und wechselseitig verstndlich. Die Mehrheit der Pennsylvanien-Deutschen ist heute in die amerikanische Gesellschaft integriert. Sie haben jedoch einige spezifische kulturelle Praktiken beibehalten und ihre Sprache bewahrt. Die Mitglieder der Reformierten und Lutherischen Protestantischen Kirchen bilden die groe Mehrheit, und unter ihnen besteht ein bestndiger Druck, Englisch statt Pennsylvanien-Deutsch zu gebrauchen. Dieser Druck hat sich in der letzten Zeit verstrkt. Viele ltere Menschen sprechen noch Deutsch, aber viele der jngeren nicht mehr. In unserem Beitrag untersuchen wir die Entwicklung der Sprache, Grnde fr ihre Erhaltung ber einen Zeitraum von 300 Jahren und die Beziehung zwischen der Sprache und einer ethnischen Identitt sowie die anhaltenden Versuche, die Sprache zu erhalten und zu unterrichten.

The papers presented at this conference have examined the manner in which the use of the German language has changed and in many cases is being eroded, mostly as the result of the increased use of English. Language is so much a part of cultural and individual identity that this replacement in language suggests a corresponding replacement in culture and identity that many find troubling. The dominance of English is part of broad social, economic and political processes that both contribute to and are enhanced by the globalization of the world economy, and the prominent position of English-speaking nations in globalization. But it would be overly simplistic to see this process as one that pits the English language against German, or American cultural hegemony against German cultural autonomy, or more

230

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

generally as an American dominated globalization versus regional identities. The dynamics of globalization are never static and are themselves constantly changing. Dominance and regionalism are partly matters of perspective: German may be under pressure from English, but regional dialects of German are under pressure from High or standard German and the relationships between languages in multi-lingual communities are often dynamic and changing. The conferences discourse about the future of the German language has the potential of becoming somewhat hegemonic itself in its assumptions about the primacy and invariability of one version of the German language. There is considerable diversity both among the speakers of dominant languages such as English and among speakers of the German language. This paper is concerned with one aspect of this variation and diversity. For, as we shall argue in this paper, there are many ways of being American and many ways of speaking German. It is at the intersection of this cultural and linguistic diversity that we find the Pennsylvania Germans. The Pennsylvania German language, like the ethnic identity that it reflects, was never static, and was constantly reshaped and redefined as a cultural force over the past three hundred years. Over the course of that time, Pennsylvania Germans used a Germanic language to forge a distinctive American identity. Stephen Nolt (2002) in his recent study, Foreigners in their Own Land, provides an excellent insight into the process of ethnicization-asAmericanization that the Pennsylvania Germans experienced. The German immigrants established strong ethnic communities that strengthened their traditional values. These traditional communities were strengthened after the American Revolution through a process Nolt refers to as Peasant Republicanism. This republicanism was based upon a fear of libertarianism and government from afar. The Germans wanted government to be local and autonomous. This concept explains the Pennsylvania Germans unique cultural conformity and isolation in a world of excessive individualism (Nolt 2002: 3034). These ethnic communities shared a common set of evolved folkways and material culture. The Pennsylvania Germans were easily discernible by dress and lifestyle and they reacted strongly to any that wished to change the accepted traditions. Religion was a critical part of their cultural identity and acted as an agent to reinforce the long accepted values and folkways. The Lutheran and German Reformed churches acted as ethnic magnates pulling the people into a community of commonly held beliefs reflecting a shared ethnic heritage. Language, both Pennsylvania German and High German, were central marks of identity and cultural cohesion as well as tools of communication (Nolt 2002: 14, 16 and 29).

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

231

Pennsylvania German or Pennsylfaanisch Deitsch is still spoken in southeastern Pennsylvania (with areas of usage in Maryland, Virginia, and a few other sections in the American Midwest and Canada). This language is derived from the dialects of German found in the southwest region of Germany, where the ancestors of most Pennsylvania Germans lived. The dialect of German spoken in this region of Germany is still mutually intelligible with Pennsylvania German. But there are difficulties in communication between speakers of standard German and speakers of Pennsylvania German. If English is eroding the use of standard German in Germany, it is more drastically eroding the use of Pennsylvania German in the United States, and so too is High or standard German eroding the use of regional dialects inside Germany, including those that are mutually intelligible with Pennsylvania German. But the Pennsylvania German language has lasted for several hundred years in the United States under immense pressure from a dominant language and culture, and its future is not necessarily one of a language headed for obsolescence.1 The Pennsylvania Germans are a composite ethnic group comprised of German speaking people that immigrated to the American colonies in the period from 1683 through the first decade of the 19th century. They came from a variety of areas: western and southern Germany, eastern France, Switzerland, Austria, Belgium and Holland. The greatest concentration of immigrants came from the areas of the Rhine, Palatinate (Pfalz), Baden, Hessen, Darmstadt, Hanau-Lichtenberg, Wrttemberg, Alsace-Lorraine, Tyrol and several cantons in Switzerland. Most came for economic reasons, but the minority sect groups (i.e.) Mennonites, Amish, Schwenkfelders, Bretheren and Moravians sought religious freedom. Nearly 90% of the German immigrants were German Reformed or Lutheran (Church people) and they came for new economic opportunities. Over the next 100 years these German immigrants made cultural accommodations with the predominant English culture, and to a certain degree assimilated, but, as earlier stated, they clung tenaciously to their native tongue. There are some subtleties in Pennsylvania German culture that are often misunderstood by outsiders. The terms Pennsylvania German and Pennsylvania Dutch (Dutch is a corruption of Deitsch) refer to the same people, although the Pennsylvania Germans or Pennsylvania Dutch argue bitterly among themselves over which is the preferred moniker.2 Pennsylvania Germans share a language and basic cultural practices, but they are a very diverse group. Part of this diversity is grounded in fundamental religious differences that have resulted in profoundly different attitudes towards culture change and modernization. A common distinction is made between

232

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

Plain Pennsylvania Germans and the Church groups. The Plain people are Anabaptists (mainly Mennonite and Amish), who vary somewhat in religious beliefs and cultural values, but generally are pacifists, believe in adult Baptism, and are conservative in adopting new technology and fashions. These Plain People include the Old Order Amish and Old Order Mennonites who restrict the use of modern technology and adhere to traditional values. Tourists flock to Lancaster County in Pennsylvania to see these people. These conservative Anabaptists also make their way into many sociology and anthropology textbooks, and their lifestyle even provided a backdrop for a Hollywood movie, Witness. In contrast, the Church Pennsylvania Germans include Lutherans and German Reformed (now United Church of Christ) and are by far the largest numbers of Pennsylvania Germans. But they are generally very accepting of modern technology and at present they are far more assimilated into mainstream American culture. Far less exotic and visible, they are also far less noticed by tourists, social scientists who write textbooks, and Hollywood scriptwriters. But these Church Pennsylvania Germans retained many distinctive cultural practices and their Pennsylvania German language well into the 20th century, and there are still a large number of Pennsylvania German speakers among the Church people, although most are elderly. The Church people are also responsible for many of the cultural, artistic and craft practices that modern tourism has conflated with the Amish. The rest of this paper is mainly concerned with the use of the Pennsylvania German language among the Church people. Among the Old Order Mennonites and Amish, Pennsylvania German remains the primary language used at home and most peoples first language (a modified form of standard High German is used in religious meetings and English is learned in schools).3 Three of the presenters at the conference, Robert Kline, Troy Boyer and Richard Wolf, represent some of the diversity in backgrounds found among the Pennsylvania German Church people. Dr. Robert Klein is a retired physician from Lebanon County. He is president of the Pennsylvania German Society. Founded in 1891, the Pennsylvania German Society is the foremost organization involved in the publication of scholarly materials about Pennsylvania Germans. He is also active in the largest organization that preserves and continues to use the Pennsylvania German language, the Grundsow Lodges. Reverend Richard Wolf is a Lutheran Minister. He is active in teaching Pennsylvania German language classes. He is also a very popular speaker at Grundsow and Fersommling meetings. Troy Boyer is a doctoral candidate in Folklore at the University of Indiana. He is also Executive Director of the Pennsylvania German Society. All are fluent

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

233

speakers of English; Kline and Wolf are also fluent in Pennsylvania German. In their presentations, these three people also outlined the major themes in language use among Pennsylvania Germans that shape this paper. Dr. Kline emphasized the legitimacy of Pennsylvania German as a language. The presentations of Boyer and Wolf were counterpoints to one another. Wolf emphasized the resilience and strength of the Pennsylvania German language. Boyer, on the other hand, emphasized the pressures on the Pennsylvania German language that make it hard for younger people, such as himself, to learn it. Both represent important facets of the language situation. There are still many older speakers who are fluent in the language and enthusiastic about the history and cultural traditions that the language reflects. But Boyer, who has less command of the language, points out that most Church Pennsylvania Germans in his generation have minimal familiarity with the language. The Pennsylvania German language is still an important medium for communication, but primarily for older Pennsylvania Germans. Although Pennsylvania German was maintained as the primary language in some regions of Pennsylvania over the last 300 hundred years, language loss has been especially intensive over the last 100 years. Two wars with Germany put some pressure on doing things German, and led to some reluctance to use a language that some might associate with Germany. But there were other factors, perhaps more important, affecting language use that resulted from economic changes. The economy of the area shifted from agriculture towards industry, and labor moved from farms to factories. The common or public school system became well established by the early 1900s, and teachers, including Pennsylvania Germans ones, insisted on English as the language of instruction. Media, radio, recordings, television and movies, were in English (although there were a few very popular Pennsylvania German radio shows). Increased mobility and the transition to an industrial economy also brought in people from outside the region who did not speak the language. Among Church people it is rare for people born after 1950 to be able to speak the language. It must be added that the loss of Pennsylvania German was to a large extent the result of choices that Pennsylvania Germans themselves made about the importance of knowing English in order to be successful in American society. Even by the end of the 19th century, leading Pennsylvania German educators were advocating the exclusive use of English in schools. These men were strong advocates of their Pennsylvania German culture and heritage and some were key members in the development of the Pennsylvania German Society, but they came to

234

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

view mastery of English as essential for a successful life in American society. In a historical review of attitudes and policies towards bilingualism in the United States that included a large section on Pennsylvania Germans, Heinz Kloss (1977) concluded that in many cases governmental policies were sympathetic towards speakers of languages other than English, but that speakers of foreign languages themselves often supported programs and activities that increased the use of English.4 Language is intimately related to the cultural identity of its speakers and as cultural identity changes so does the use of the language (Sollors 1986, 1988, 1998). Pennsylvania Germans were active participants in both the maintenance and development of their language. As they defined and redefined their relationship with American society, so too they developed and redefined their use of language. In the 19th century, a Pennsylvania German identity developed that was both distinctly American and also something that was seen as somewhat different from mainstream American society. The development of a Pennsylvania German literature paralleled that development. In the 20th century there were several important efforts to preserve the Pennsylvania German language. These efforts culminated in the development of a folk and oral tradition that has lasted into the 21st century. Pennsylvania German is sometimes labeled a dialect, but this is misleading. It is a language that, like many non-standard versions of a major language, is often considered to be inferior or sub-standard. One factor affecting the status of Pennsylvania German is that for many years it lacked a distinctive or recognizable literary tradition. In 1800, literate Pennsylvania Germans read and wrote in German, and over the course of the 19th century, they wrote increasingly in English. Starting in the second half of the 19th century there were several efforts to develop a literary tradition in Pennsylvania German. A major leader in this group was Henry Harbaugh, an influential Reformed Minister who edited his own religious journal, The Guardian. In 1861, in the pages of The Guardian, Harbaugh started writing poems in Pennsylvania German, mostly with nostalgic or natural themes. After his death, many of his poems were published in a book, Harbaughs Harfe (1870). Others began writing in Pennsylvania German for a larger public, including in regular newspaper columns. In the late 1860s, Edward Rauch (1868) began another major literary theme in Pennsylvania German by writing letters to his own newspaper under the pseudonym of Pit Schweffelbrenner. In the 1870s, some educators advocated using Pennsylvania German as a language of instruction in schools, although almost invariably with the ultimate goal of learning and using English. Abraham Reeser Horne, a principal at Keystone State Normal School in

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

235

Kutztown (which evolved into Kutztown University), wrote the Pennsylvania German Manual in 1875. This book was an educational manual to help Pennsylvania German speakers pronounce English and also to aid in teaching Pennsylvania German students (Horne 1875). In the 1880s and 1890s, a series of Pennsylvania German newspaper columns were written by Thomas Harter, under the pseudonym of Boonastiel. These columns were collected into a very popular book (Harter 1904). Boonastiel is a regional example of a major national tradition of characters in American literature who combine backwoods humor and wisdom. By 1900 there was a vibrant literary tradition in the Pennsylvania German language, which continues in many newspaper columns in the present.5 But Pennsylvania German was used as a literary language in only a limited set of domains and contexts. People who read and wrote in Pennsylvania German also read and wrote in English, and English was their primary literary language for most of their activities. Moreover, there has never been the wide acceptance of any standardized orthography for spelling in Pennsylvania German. Although a Germanized orthography (called the BuffingtonBarba system) has been developed and is preferred by most Pennsylvania German intellectuals, many writers do not follow it. The result is a variety of different spelling conventions, most often based upon English. Despite these obstacles, the literary use of the Pennsylvania German language continues to the present. There are still many Pennsylvania German dialect columns in regional newspapers in southeastern Pennsylvania. And there are still some book-length productions in the language. The development of Pennsylvania German as a literary language paralleled the diminished use of German and the increased use of English as the primary literary language for most Pennsylvania Germans. In fact, the development of Pennsylvania German as a literary language can be viewed as an important aspect of the development of an American identity that was both self-consciously American and also self-consciously Pennsylvania German. Nolt (2002) has argued that by the middle of the 19th century, Pennsylvania Germans had developed a distinctive ethnic identity. About this time, Pennsylvania Germans were also distancing themselves from German national culture and the German language. With a longer history in the United States, they viewed themselves as quite different from more recent 19th century migrants from Germany to the United States. In fact, the Pennsylvania German Society, founded in 1891, limited membership to people who had ancestors that arrived before 1808 to restrict the membership of the descendants of more recent immigrants. For many Pennsylvania Germans the crux of the problem was the condescending attitude that many

236

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

of the 19th century German immigrants (1820, 1830, 1848, and 1850) assumed. The newer immigrants were shocked at the cultural backwardness of the Pennsylvania Dutch, and ridiculed their language. The newer immigrants felt that the language of the Pennsylvania Dutch was vulgar, and that the Pennsylvania Dutch were only interested in economic advancement and eschewed all culture. In addition, most of the newly arriving Germans to Pennsylvania settled in larger cities while the Pennsylvania Dutch were primarily rural. There developed a schism between the two Teutonic groups that remains in some small form even to this day.6 This evolving ethnic identity shaped language use. As the German language was being replaced by English as the main literary language for most Pennsylvania Germans, the Pennsylvania German language was being developed into a literary language, but one that often used American literary images and themes, reflecting essential features of the ethnic identity that the Pennsylvania Germans were developing. In the early 1930s a movement emerged that represents a further development in the construction and maintenance of a Pennsylvania German identity that was both American and also something that emphasized a distinct Pennsylvania German heritage. Pennsylvania Germans began organizing special events and occasions that emphasized the exclusive use of the Pennsylvania German language. One part of this movement included the use of Pennsylvania German during church services. For much of the 19th century, standard German not Pennsylvania German was the main language of church services among the Lutheran and Reformed groups. Many congregations began switching to English services towards the end of the 19th century. By 1930, English had replaced almost all German church services among these congregations. It was in this historical context that Pennsylvania Germans started using their own language for church services. At present, the use of Pennsylvania German has become a tradition for some churches on special occasions.7 As in the development of a Pennsylvania German literary tradition in the later part of the 19th century, the use of Pennsylvania German in 20th century church services shows the innovative use of a language to reflect a distinctive American identity. During the early 1930s, Pennsylvania Germans also began developing other special events and organizations that emphasized the self-conscious use of Pennsylvania German. The most notable and successful of these organizations was the Grundsow (Groundhog) Lodges. The first lodge held its first meeting in Allentown in 1934. The annual meetings were developed as occasions for the exclusive use of the Pennsylvania German language. The central theme was structured around the groundhog and his reputation

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

237

for weather prediction, derived from European practices at Candelmas and beliefs in the weather predications of badgers or bears coming out of hibernation. The annual meetings are usually held on or near Groundhog Day (February 2) and much of the lodges activities include references to the weather predictions of groundhogs. Songs, usually translations of wellknown American ones, are sung in Pennsylvania German. There are humorous skits that usually combine satire and nostalgia. There are also speeches that usually combine earthy humor with some moral theme (many of the speakers are pastors). Over the next 50 years, lodges were established in different towns and regions, and at present there are 17 active lodges. (A lodge in Philadelphia at Temple University operated from 1938 until the late 1960s, but is now disbanded.) The most recent lodge was established in 1991. Although leaders complain that attendance has dropped in recent years, most meetings have between 250 700 people in attendance. Grundsow meetings are for men only; but the organizers of the Grundsow Lodges were active in starting similar gatherings that included men and women, called Fersommling. The first ones were organized in the 1930s, and there are now at least 30 different groups that hold annual meetings with participation at about the same level as the Grundsow Lodges. Although these Fersommling do not include the imagery associated with the groundhog, they include the other features of Grundsow meetings such as songs, skits and speeches in the Pennsylvania German language. Many speakers and leaders are active in both organizations. These meetings are rare examples of a continuing folk tradition that was created in the 20 th century and continues into the 21st century. It is worth noting that the founders of the first Grundsow Lodge in 1934 were concerned that the Pennsylvania German language was being lost. Over 70 years later the movement remains lively and energetic.8 Pennsylvania German is still found in some regional newspaper columns, occasional radio and cable television shows and on ceremonial occasions. But its use is under pressure. There are fewer radio shows and newspaper columns than fifty years ago. There are very few, if any, locations, settings or linguistic domains of the Church people where Pennsylvania German is spoken as the primary language. Even among its speakers, most conversations are in English. This, however, does not mean there are no efforts to maintain and even revive the language. The Grundsow Lodges sponsor classes where the language is taught. The language is also taught by a variety of local community organizations and in some of the colleges in the region. There are some efforts to continue the use of the language in several public schools.9 Working on a dissertation about the Pennsylvania German

238

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

language in the mid 1990s, Michael Werner, a native of Germany, was surprised at the number of people still writing in Pennsylvania German. Werner found that many were writing in relative isolation without knowledge of how many others were also writing in Pennsylvania German. As a result, he started a journal, Hiwwe wie Driwwe, and maintains a website that publishes the work of these writers. This journal and an associated internet site are leading sources for information about the Pennsylvania German language. One of the most exciting prospects for the maintenance of the Pennsylvania German language is the growing contacts between scholars and laypeople from Pennsylvania and those regions of Germany where a similar dialect of German is still spoken. In the continuing evolution of the Pennsylvania German language, this growing relationship might represent a new and international phase.10 In any consideration of the future of the German language, it seems to us that there should be some consideration of what is happening to the various dialects or versions of the German languages. In the case of Pennsylvania German, a German language was transported to America where it was developed and became an integral part of an ethnic identity that was clearly American, although at the same time distinctive. The development of a Pennsylvania German literature reflected the development of this American identity. The development of this literary language was also part of the replacement of standard German by English as the literary language of most Pennsylvania Germans. In 20th century, the development of church services in Pennsylvania German also reflected the replacement of standard German by English as the main language in churches. This introduction of Pennsylvania German into new linguistic contexts and the replacement of standard German by English reflect the development of an American Pennsylvania German identity. The development of Grundsow and Fersommling are also clearly American ceremonies for the maintenance of a Germanic language. A non-standard German was developed into a part of a non-standard American ethnic identity. Whatever its future, the language has a remarkable past as a long-lasting minority language, as a rare example of the development of a non-English American literary tradition, as an expression of a culturally unique American identity, and as the medium for folk traditions that lasted into the 21st century. There is no way to predict the future of the Pennsylvania German language. For the foreseeable future, Old Order Amish and Mennonites will continue to preserve a pool of speakers who use it as their primary language. For the Church people, things are more complicated. Almost certainly, there will be more restricted areas of usage with fewer speakers. But it also seems

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

239

very likely that the language will continue to evolve in new ways that reflect the concerns and interests of its users. Perhaps, rather than speculating about a single future for Pennsylvania German, it makes more sense to suggest that there are several alternative futures. Many marginal languages in other parts of the world have experienced surprising revivals, despite predictions about their demise. As discussed above, the Grundsow Lodges and Fersommling have been successful and even grown over the past 70 years. The interests of natives of Germany in the Pennsylvania German language suggest that another possible future is a transatlantic one that unites regional speakers from the Palatinate with Pennsylvania German speakers. But whatever else happens, we can only hope that, at the very least, one future will include some widespread appreciation among Germans and Americans of the past accomplishments of Pennsylvania Germans in preserving and developing a Germanic language to express a distinctive American identity.

Notes
1. An excellent and recent overview of the Pennsylvania German language is found in Mark. L. Louden (2001). 2. Henceforth, we will use the term Pennsylvania German to refer to the people and their language. 3. For discussions of the Amish, see John Hostetler (1980), Donald Kraybill (1989). For discussions of Church Pennsylvania Germans, see Ralph Wood (1942), William Parsons (1976), Scott T. Swank (1983), Don Yoder (1990), Homer Tope Rosenberger (1966). A recent and excellent discussion of the history of Church Pennsylvania Germans is found in Steven M. Nolt (2002). 4. See also Donner (2000, 1999). 5. Overviews of the language and literature are found in Harry Hess Reichard (1918) and Earl Robacker (1943). 6. For discussions about the ambivalence towards Germans and more recent German immigrants, see Don Yoder (1980:107108; 1985), Glatfelter (1980: 3, 9), John J. Appel (1962). 7. See Yoder (1978). 8. See Russell Wieder Gilbert (1956), Donner (2002). 9. The authors represent one of the organizations that have developed in the past ten years to help educate about Pennsylvania Germans and preserve the language. A partnership between several community organizations and Kutztown

240

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner

University has developed the Pennsylvania German Cultural Heritage Center, which sponsors programs that educate about the Pennsylvania German culture and try to preserve the language. A Chair for Pennsylvania German Studies has been endowed and there are plans to begin teaching classes in Pennsylvania German. 10. Werners website is http://www.hiwwe-wie-driwwe.de. Another German, Frank Kessler is active in collecting information about the programs that encourage the use of Pennsylvania German in the United States.

References
Appel, John J. 1962 Marion Dexter Learned and the German American Historical Society. Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 86: 287318. Donner, William W. 1999 Abraham Reeser Horne: To the Manor Born. Der Reggeboge (Journal of the Pennsylvania German Society) 33: 1 and 2: 317. 2000 We Are What We Make of Ourselves: Abraham Reeser Horne and the Education of Pennsylvania Germans. Pennsylvania Magazine of Biography and History CXXIV/4, 521546. 2002 Loss uns Deitcha wos mr sin: Leave us Dutch the way we are: The Grundsow Lodges. Pennsylvania German Review, 3952. Gilbert, Russell Wider 1956 Pennsylvania German Versammling Speeches. The Pennsylvania Speech Annual: 320. Glatfelter, Charles H. 1980 The Pennsylvania Germans: A Brief Account of their influence on Pennsylvania. University Park: The Pennsylvania Historical Association. Harbaugh, Henry 1870 Harbaughs Harfe. Philadelphia: B. Bausman, Reformed Church Publication Board. Harter, T. H. 1904 Boonastiel. Bellefonte/PA: T. H. Harter. Horne, Abraham Reeser 1875 A Pennsylvania German Manual. Kutztown, PA: Urick and Gehring. Hostetler, John 1980 Amish Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Kloss, Heinz 1977 The American Bilingual Tradition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

The Past and Future of the Pennsylvania German Language

241

Kraybill, Donald 1989 The Riddle of Amish Culture. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Louden, Mark 2001 The Development of Pennsylvania German Linguistics within the Context of General Dialectology and Linguistic Theory. In: Lester W. J. Seifert (ed.), A World Atlas of Pennsylvania German, 752. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Nolt, Steven M. 2002 Foreigners in the Their Own Land: Pennsylvania Germans in the Early Republic. State College: Penn State University Press. Parsons, William 1976 The Pennsylvania Germans: A Persistent Minority. Boston: Twayne. Rauch, E. H. 1868 De Campain Breefa fum Pit Schweffelbrenner un de Bevy, Si Alty. Lancaster: Rauch and Cochran. Reichard, Harry Hess 1918 Pennsylvania German Dialect Writings and their Writers (Proceedings of the Pennsylvania German Society, Volume 26). Lancaster: New Era Press, Pennsylvania German Society. Robacker, Earl Francis 1943 Pennsylvania German Literature: Changing Trends from 1683 to 1942. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Rosenberger, Homer Tope 1966 The Pennsylvania Germans, 18911965. (Pennsylvania German Society 63). Lancaster: The Pennsylvania German Society. Sollors, Werner 1988 The Invention of Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sollors, Werner (ed.) 1986 Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Dissent in American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998 Multilingual America: Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and the Languages of American Literature. New York: New York University Press. Swank, Scott T. (ed.) 1983 The Arts of the Pennsylvania Germans. New York: Norton. Wood, Ralph (ed.) 1942 The Pennsylvania Germans. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Yoder, Don 1978 The Dialect Service in the Pennsylvania German Culture. Pennsylvania Folklife XXVII / 4: 213. 1980 Palatine, Hessian, Dutchman: Three Images of the German in America. In: Ebbes fer Alles-Ebber Ebbes fer Dich: Something for Everyone Something for You, 10729. Breiningsville: The Pennsylvania German Society.

242

David L. Valuska and William W. Donner The Pennsylvania Germans: Three Centuries of Identity Crisis. In: Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh (eds.), America and the Germans, Volume I: Immigration, Language, Ethnicity, 4165. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Discovering American Folklife: Studies in Ethnic, Religious,and Regional Culture. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

1985

1990

German in the USA

Language Policies of the Goethe-Institut Nikky Keilholz-Rhle Stephan Nobbe Uwe Rau

Zusammenfassung
Jede Debatte ber die Zukunft der deutschen Sprache fhrt mitten in die Beziehungen der deutschen Sprache zu anderen Sprachen, zur Sprachensituation in Europa und zu den Aufgaben, die dem Goethe-Institut als grtem Sprachmittler im offiziellen Auftrag der Bundesregierung dabei zukommen. Die Spracharbeit des Goethe-Instituts ist das Synonym fr die Frderung von Deutsch als Fremdsprache im Ausland. Sie setzt in breitem Rahmen berall dort an, wo eine Frderung notwendig und Erfolg versprechend ist. Die Arbeitsfelder Sprachenpolitik, Sprachunterricht, Sprachprfungen, Lehrmaterialerstellung, Medienarbeit, Aus- und Fortbildung, Entwicklung von Curricula, Schleraustausch, Stipendienprogramme und Werbung fr das Deutschlernen bilden ein komplexes Geflecht. Zahlreiche standardisierte Instrumentarien und klar definierte Arbeitsprinzipien wie Zielgruppenorientierung, prioritre Frderung des Aufbaus von Strukturen zur Deutschfrderung, multiplikatorische Wirksamkeit, professionelle Vermittlung, Nachhaltigkeit, flexible Bedarfsund Nachfrageorientierung und eine systematische Projektevaluierung bilden die Basis und das Resultat jeder Aktivitt. Eine gezielte Frderung der deutschen Sprache im Rahmen einer differenzierenden Sprachenpolitik muss auf der Grundlage eines Sprachenangebotes erfolgen, das nicht von einer Konkurrenzsituation der Sprachen, sondern von den Bedrfnissen im jeweiligen Land ausgeht und auf den konkreten Bezug der Sprachen aufeinander abgestimmt ist. Die politische Zielrichtung der Arbeit des Goethe-Instituts zielt also auf die Werbung fr den Erwerb von Fremdsprachen, und zwar mehrerer. Sie zielt auf die Verankerung dieses Prinzips in den Curricula und in den Kpfen der Entscheidungstrger im Bildungssystem unserer Gastlnder. Das Goethe-Institut verfolgt eine Strategie der Mehrsprachigkeit, weil es davon berzeugt ist, dass die Kenntnis fremder Sprachen nicht nur eine Frage von Kommunikationstechniken ist, sondern dass Sprachen Kpfe und Herzen ffnen und einen unverzichtbaren Beitrag zum internationalen kulturellen Dialog leisten. In den USA ist das Interesse an Deutsch begrenzt. Der Erwerb einer Fremdsprache wird von Bildungseliten abgesehen mehrheitlich nicht als notwendig und erforderlich betrachtet. Deutschunterrichtende knnen auf eine exzellente Berufs-

246

Nikky Keilholz-Rhle, Stephan Nobbe and Uwe Rau

organisation zhlen, die American Association of Teachers of German (AATG). Dennoch sind die Erwartungen an das Goethe Institute, entstanden durch die offensive und wohlmeinende Sprachfrderungspolitik Deutschlands der vergangenen Jahrzehnte, hoch. Im Mittelpunkt der Spracharbeit in den USA stehen Aktivitten mit Partnern und Multiplikatoren. Die wesentlichen Handlungsfelder sind Bildungskooperation, Information und Service, Werbung fr das Deutschlernen, Kulturprogramme fr Schler, Studenten und Lehrer sowie Lehrerfort- und -ausbildung.

1.

The future of European languages other than English in the era of globalization

1.1. Language policy and promotion of the Goethe-Institut Focus Europe Languages open doors is the European Councils slogan used to publicize multi-lingualism and language diversity. Is this catchphrase appealing in the United States or is it a typically European issue? Is multilingualism not a necessity for everyday communication in Europe, with its 80 different languages spoken? It is not only in Europe where linguistic and cultural diversity is tightly interconnected and interdependent; universally, language, thought processes and cultural identity cannot be considered to be individual and independent. Thus every assessment of the future of the German language will lead into the core of the relation between German and other languages, into the situation of languages in general in Europe and to the responsibilities that the GoetheInstitut has as the most important organization, that, on behalf of the German government, teaches German as a foreign language. The Goethe-Institut today is represented in 77 countries with 125 cultural institutions and has 16 language centers in Germany; 31 of these cultural institutions are in European Union countries and 48 in European countries outside the EU, which means that by far the largest number are located in Europe. What does that mean for the thematic orientation and focus of the language programs of a national cultural institution in a multilingual Europe? As German loses its importance as a national language in postnational constellations (Habermas) and language educational policies become more internationally oriented, new directions are necessary. These new directions in a united Europe need to take into consideration the cultural characteristics of individual national elements in Europe and their cultural diversity. It must project a new vitality into the drive for the usefulness of a language in many different contexts.

Language Policies of the Goethe-Institut

247

What is the situation of the German language and its role in Europe? German is the mother tongue of almost 100 million people in Europe, and is one of the official languages in seven countries. This would indicate that German is the most frequently spoken mother tongue in Europe, and is studied by 18% of all students in the EU. In Central and Eastern Europe, where about two thirds of the 18 million people who study German worldwide reside, German is the second foreign language after English, and is in first place at professional schools and technical colleges. One of the reasons to learn German is Germanys economic strength. She is the largest European business partner and central to the largest number of business transactions. Furthermore, there are a great many regional relationships; Germany shares borders with many countries, which recognize the importance of the German language. With 14 linguistic neighbors, Germany is the country of international trade and exchanges between North and South and, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, between East and West. The elimination of formerly insurmountable borders between Eastern and Western Europe and between the two Germanies has freed us from rigid thought. It created many new ways of life and different interests, making new learning processes necessary. Language is also a very important tool and medium when it comes to defining not only new geopolitical priorities, but also new intellectual horizons. In the early days of modern linguistic philosophy, Wilhelm von Humboldt stated:
Because of its characteristic of separating peoples, language bridges the individual differences through the interrelation and understanding of foreign speech. Languages are not really tools with which to describe known truths, but rather to discover previously unknown truths.

Today, fifteen years after the opening of the borders, we look at the recent changes on the global map as something already quite familiar. Under close examination, however, these changes are anything but natural, which makes it even more important to examine the depths of the interaction between us and them, as Humboldt stated. This is a particularly important task for the Goethe-Institut, which has been committed since its founding to further international dialogue. Dialogue is not necessarily based on similarities, but on understanding and communication. A European language concept therefore has to be varied and multilayered, and the aspect of neighborhood relation-

248

Nikky Keilholz-Rhle, Stephan Nobbe and Uwe Rau

ships, closely connected with the idea of a Europe of Regions, is extremely significant and useful. Border communities have lived the idea of unity not based on a competitive order but on diversity with reciprocal language programs for a long time. This has significantly increased since the opening of the eastern borders. Bilingual study courses and exchange programs, language training for tradesmen and artistic activities that go beyond the pragmatic aspects of language studies guarantee the significance and understanding of the smaller language, thanks to a constantly updated communication resulting from the necessity of shared activities of border-crossing neighbors. Undeniably we see a new dimension of European unity, which does not confront individual and local needs in abstract ways, but, on the contrary, arises from these needs, respects and constantly reinvents them. Establishing relationships with a neighbor on the other side of a border through language learning is quite common in Europe. The basic approach to communicate with ones neighbors in their own language and to gain an understanding of different ways of living and thinking is, however, atypical of Europeans. This approach is based on the universal belief that mutual understanding leads to accepting different cultures, the basic condition for peaceful coexistence. Such coexistence is unfathomable, and not only since September 11, 2001, without global cultural cooperation that knows no borders. The language programs of the Goethe-Institut promote the teaching of German as a foreign language. These programs are carried out wherever it is necessary or promising to teach the German language. The activities include language policy, classes, and examinations, instruction material, media work, professional training and further education, development of curricula, student exchanges, scholarship programs and advertising for the learning of German. In carrying out these activities, standardized tools are used and clearly defined work principles are employed, such as group targeting, developing structures and methods for German language promotion, multiplied efficacy, professional placement, sustainability, flexible supply and demand orientation and a systematic project evaluation. Annually, the Goethe-Institut reaches on a global scale:
110,000 430,000 165,000 50,000 freelance German teachers German teachers in public school systems German teachers in our institutes in 270 other partnership institutions.

As a visible result of this new area of activity, the Goethe-Institut has been the official representative of Germany in the cooperation with the Office of

Language Policies of the Goethe-Institut

249

the Conference of Cultural Ministers in the European Center for Foreign Languages in Graz, Austria since early 2000. This institution of the European Council, which 28 of the 48 member states of the Council have so far joined, carries out joint projects for the advancement of foreign languages in Europe. Incidentally, Canada is an associate member. The political goal of the Goethe-Institut is to promote the learning of foreign languages several foreign languages. It wants this idea to be deeply anchored not only in the curricula but also in the heads of the decision-makers of educational systems in the host countries. There is no competition with other languages or desire to oust them; the Goethe-Institut subscribes to a multilingual strategy because it is convinced that foreign languages are not merely a tool for improved communication, but that languages open heads and hearts, and undeniably contribute to an international cultural dialogue.

1.2. Language policy and promotion of the Goethe-Institut Focus USA The US have always had a special significance for Germany, and this transatlantic relationship continued after the Cold War and German reunification, becoming even clearer following September 11. To implement the fundamental tasks of cultural and educational policy (Konzeption 2000), while considering the specific characteristics of a transatlantic relationship with a view of the current challenges to our communitys fundamental social and cultural convictions, the Goethe-Institut in the US has defined its goals and future measures, in coordination with the German Embassy, the Consulates General and the Federal Foreign Office. The principles of this work concur with the goals of foreign cultural and educational policy of cultural dialogue, exchange of intellectual and aesthetic experiences, and meetings and interfacing through dialogue and exchange programs, visits and cultural cooperation. Interest in the German language in the US is limited and, excluding academic elitists, learning a foreign language is not really considered a necessity. Based on retirement figures, the number of high school German teachers is not only slowly declining, but it has become common for the positions not to be refilled; colleges and universities face similar situations. The number of secondary students is on a slight decline, remaining rather stable between two and three percent from 1960 to 2000. In higher education, German study is also declining. This situation has led to the general goals of the language departments of the Goethe-Institut in the USA:

250

Nikky Keilholz-Rhle, Stephan Nobbe and Uwe Rau

promotion of Germany and German language educational interests presenting a current and balanced picture of Germany in a European context creating awareness of German culture and society, and their development. Even with positive thinking we cannot deny the fact that there is an asymmetrical perception of Germany and Europe in the US. One colleague of a European cultural institute described our work quite simply as high importance, low impact. A goal-oriented promotion of the German language within the framework of differential language policies must be based on a language promotion that is not dictated by competition between languages, but on the full understanding of the cultural and economic reasons why the German language is of importance for the relationship between the two countries. In order to offer German as a foreign language in schools, the host countries will have to incorporate a second foreign language into their school curricula. It would be highly desirable that the American educational system established a national policy of two foreign languages. In addition to the educational advantage of learning German as a second foreign language, there is the bebeficial factor that it is easier to learn additional foreign languages by using the experience of having studied another foreign language. For the Goethe-Institut, this translates into a stronger commitment to international, especially European organizations, cultural institutions and educational committees in Germany and abroad. German educators in the US can count on an excellent professional organization, the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG). Still, as a result of Germanys financially powerful and well-meaning language learning support during the past few decades, the expectations of the GoetheInstitut are high. In scholastic areas, as well as pedagogy for German as a foreign language (Pdagogische Verbindungsarbeit or educational services), the Goethe-Institut is regarded as the German partner in terms of subject expertise and the presentation of information and materials in support of German cultural studies. The primary purposes of promoting the study of the German language abroad consist of the professional development of teachers of German and the support of professional organizations. Because of the high number of German students on one hand, and limited financial resources on the other, it is essential to reach out by means of Multiplikatoren, or teacher trainers. In other words, the big change developed from the need to save money, coupled with over-proportional job reductions and the closing of institutes,

Language Policies of the Goethe-Institut

251

which no longer permits traditional supervision and care of the individual German teacher. Our interests to promote the study of the German language in the US are focused on activities featuring partners, facilitators and institutions such as networks, professional organizations and teacher trainers. Essential steps taken are educational cooperation, information and services, the promotion of learning German, special cultural programs for school children, college students and teachers, as well as teacher training and continuing education. The Goethe-Institut has carried out a number of projects to express and promote the concept that mutual understanding leads to the acceptance of different cultures. The institutes in the US focus on central activities and perceive certain areas of work, which are decentralized for the entire region. The Goethe-Institut Atlanta approaches language teaching as a vehicle for creating an image of Germany, and this image by school children who do not study German is primarily shaped by social studies, as a required subject. In presenting a well-balanced image of Germany, the Goethe-Institut is taking the initiative to develop current historical and cultural materials, and making them available to educators. The institute in Boston was responsible for the pedagogical area Kinder lernen Deutsch or Children Learn German; Chicago is the center for business German; New York oversees the national organizations and coordinates the regional language activities as well as advertising, the basis for German programs in the US. In addition, New York is the headquarters of the German American Partnership Program (GAPP), the largest scholastic exchange program in the country and the most important area in the rubric of educational exchanges. GAPP devotes itself to fostering exchange between schools in Germany and the US in the form of long-term school partnerships with group exchanges, which simultaneously play an important role in stabilizing and promoting German language programs. San Francisco carries out the advertising project Soccer for the west coast. Washington is responsible for the vast field of media in German education in the US. As a bearer of information, the new medias role in the area of language work is very visible and will be of primary importance in the future. Goethe-Institut language courses are determined by certain locations needs, in other words, offering classes primarily to those future leaders in their fields who would otherwise have no opportunity to study German. The courses are also open to remedy a lack of language proficiency within the scope of German language teachers and professional development. The Goethe-Institut at present also co-sponsors seven summer schools across the US. The funding of these programs finances special professional

252

Nikky Keilholz-Rhle, Stephan Nobbe and Uwe Rau

development seminars, which are part of the structure of the German summer schools. Another important contribution in promoting German is our stipend program for teachers, TAs (teaching assistants), and for people who have a specific cultural and academic interest in Germany. The programs offer stipends for thematic seminars, i.e. methodology, didactics, German cultural studies as well as intensive language courses at one of the 16 institutes in Germany. Collaboration and cooperation is another important aspect of our language work, and the Goethe-Institut can illustrate its close relationships with numerous organizations through successful projects and programs. Through its collaboration with the Embassy and the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service), special programs are designed and funded through the Stndige Arbeitsgruppe fr Deutsch als Fremdsprache (StADaF) or Permanent Task Force, German as a Foreign Language. Collaboration with the German Consulate General and the German Information Center includes organization of mutual meetings, and participation at important regional and national conferences; collaboration with the CDS International includes work in combining intensive language courses with individual internship programs in companies in Baden-Wrttemberg to promote German language studies at community colleges and adult education study exchanges; collaboration with the AATG (American Association of Teachers of German) include promotion of German as a foreign language, education and continuing education for teachers of German, production of pedagogical materials, exchange and stipend programs. In working with regional conferences and trainer networks, the Goethe-Institut maintains its dedication and determination to strengthening its ties to teachers of German and their professional development. The joint efforts of the Goethe-Institut to promote the learning of German in the US compare, as a German diplomat once said, at times to the dilemma of the Queen of Heart in Alice in Wonderland: in this place, it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place.

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA John Lalande II

Zusammenfassung
Mein Aufsatz behandelt Fragen der Frderung des Unterrichts von Deutsch als Fremdsprache durch offizielle Institutionen mit Regierungsgeldern. Ich stelle die Frage, mit wem offizielle Institutionen effektiv zusammenarbeiten knnen, um bestimmte linguistische und weitere kulturelle Ziele zu erreichen, frage nach Grnden, warum Deutsch als Fremdsprache gefrdert werden sollte (besonders in den USA) und nach der Rolle von Deutschlehrern als Betreibern der Sprach- und Kulturvermittlung. Ich versuche, bestimmte Felder zu bestimmen, auf denen offizielle Institutionen ihre Bemhungen, DaF zu frdern, konzentrieren knnten.

This paper focuses exclusively on two of the questions posed by the conference organizers, viz.:
Should German institutions (such as the DAAD or the Goethe Institute) adopt a more aggressive role in furthering the teaching of German? Or should this be left to local authorities and institutions of education?

As a teacher of German in the US for nearly thirty years, it seemed to me that these questions demanded a response lest decision makers on the other side of the Atlantic receive the wrong message, i.e., one of apathy. My initial reactions to the two questions were immediate and pronounced. To begin, I was surprised that the questions had been posed in an either-or format. Why could one not envision a scenario in which both German/Austrian/Swiss institutions and American institutions worked together to promote the teaching (& learning) of DaF 1? It seems to me that one-sided efforts to promote the study of German be they from the American or European side are doomed to failure or mediocre results from the start. American teachers of German need the resources of the German-speaking countries, but they need our collective sensibilities and

254

John Lalande

experiences to know when and how to best apply those resources. Later, I shall identify four specific suggestions. My 2nd immediate reaction to the couplet of questions was an unequivocal Yes! to the query whether or not German, Austrian or Swiss institutions should at all assume a role in furthering the teaching of German. As Gerhard Weiss (1985: 220) stated in reference to the then generous support of the FRG: Diese Art der Betreuung ist erstens fachlich eine sine qua non, und zweitens ist sie eine psychologische Notwendigkeit. I see no developments since 1985 which would render his assessment any less relevant or valid today than it was then. Before any discussion why German institutions should be involved in efforts to support the study of German in the USA or elsewhere, it seems to me that the problematic phrase more aggressive demands attention. Just what is meant by such a term? That German institutions should assume a more aggressive role in promoting German language study than they currently do or have in the past? That they should be more aggressive than perhaps other countries promoting their respective languages (other than English)? The use of the incomplete comparative more aggressive is problematic. It posits, quite erroneously, that Germans can already be described as aggressive and should perhaps be more so. This is a concession which, I daresay, few American teachers of German would be willing to make regarding the overall Sprach- or Kulturpolitik of any German-speaking country. Granted, in some parts of the world, one can indeed find evidence of a more aggressive German Sprachpolitik. This would certainly seem to be the case in Eastern Europe. In reference to Africa, Norbert Ndong stated at the 1993 IDV (Internationaler Deutschlehrerverband) Conference in Leipzig: Die immer weiter steigenden Zahlen der Deutschlernenden und Germanistikstudenten zeugen davon, da Deutschland zu einer agressiveren, erfolgsorientierten Kulturpolitik bergegangen ist. 2 Unfortunately, it must be said that the recent, vigorous attempts to promote German language study in Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia seem to have occurred consistently at the direct expense of efforts to promote the study of German on the North American Continent. Indeed, they have occurred despite even spirited assurances to the contrary given by FRG officials in 1989 to a delegation of AATG (American Association of Teachers of German) representatives touring Germany that any growth in the East or South would never occur at the expense of growth in, and commitment to, the West.3 Since then, however, the USA has witnessed the closings of numerous Goethe Institutes and steadily shrinking subsidies to the USAs only nationwide professional association

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA

255

which could have a positive impact on the study of the German language, viz., the AATG. It seems appropriate at this juncture to call attention to another significant conceptual oversight in the questions formulation: in posing its either-or question about whether German institutions or local authorities and institutions of education should assume a more aggressive role in furthering the teaching of German, the option of engaging professional associations most notably the AATG, is conspicuously left out. In a way, though, the omission of the AATG as a partner worthy of collaborative efforts, whether deliberate or not, points perhaps to what can only be described as part of the problem. Until and unless governmental sources such as DAAD, StaDaF and others who hold the purse strings through which change(s) can be effected until they begin to view the 6000+ teachers of the AATG not as an afterthought but as the primary ally & vehicle through which positive growth in the study of German might be effected, the growth or reasonable maintenance of German as a foreign language in the USA will not likely be realized. I would assert that increased financial support of the AATG and its initiatives is an area where German institutions do need to be more aggressive and engaged.4 It is a well-known fact that in terms of business exports, Germany enjoys a well-deserved reputation for being an aggressive, creative and engaged superpower. Its lofty world ranking is no small feat for a country which counts a mere 80 million inhabitants among its population. Yet when it comes to sharing its language and culture, German aggressiveness, creativity and effective marketing seem to all but disappear. Instead, its behavior in this regard might lamentably be described as too often indecisive, overly timid, feckless and lacking a consistently clear focus. On the other hand, the very fact that governmental support of Germanlanguage study in the USA and elsewhere is being (re)examined and (re)assessed is indeed a most welcome development. It seems a good time now for signaling a new era or turning point in the attitude of government associations toward collaboration with one another and with American Germanists and language instructors. The question has been raised whether Germans should at all continue to promote the study of German abroad, particularly in view of the widespread use of English as a lingua franca in such diverse & prestigious fields as law, science, and business. As a native speaker of English, as a teacher of German, but also as one who views himself as a world citizen, I again feel compelled to respond. To begin, I embrace wholeheartedly the view expressed by Gertrude Zhao-Heissenberger, who in response to my request for information

256

John Lalande

on the Austrian governments position re. its Sprachpolitik wrote in February 2002 that the goals of global collaboration, intercultural understanding, and establishment of solid foundations for cultural and economic communication/ understanding can not be fulfilled solely through the use of English! 5 I agree with the position of Hans-W. Blaasch, who remarked in 1993 at the IDV Conference in Leipzig: Nationale Sprachverbreitungspolitik muss Vielsprachigkeit frdern, um die Hegemonie einer Sprache zu verhindern, da diese politisch und kulturell bedenkliche Abhngigkeiten schafft.6 In a resolution passed at its 2001 meeting in Lucerne, the IDV called for government support of language policies which promote multilingual world citizens: Fr das friedliche Zusammenleben und fr die Entwicklung demokratischer Gesellschaften sind Erhalt und Frderung der Mehrsprachigkeit eine entscheidende Grundlage.7 Apart from the cautionary tone which marked Blaaschs warning, and the political sounding IDV statement, there are a number of other reasons which speak for the study of DaF in the USA: Firstly, it should not be forgotten that one out of five Americans is of German descent. A recent AATG study (Andress et al. 2002), supported by StaDaF funds, points out that interest in the linguistic and cultural heritage of ones ancestors plays a significant role in a high school students decision about which foreign language to study. This interest should be used to form the basis of creative and effective strategies designed to promote the study and learning of DaF. Secondly, in 1853, Rufus King, superintendent of the Cincinnati Public Schools, described the study of German as a link (Verbindungsglied) between Germans and their descendants (see Frank 1985: 175). While Rufus referred to German as a vehicle for maintaining family relationships on both sides of the Atlantic, does it not make sense for us to view the study of German also as a link which holds together our cultures on both sides of the Atlantic? In spite of recent frictions, it cannot be denied that for the past 50 years, Germany and the USA have enjoyed a relationship that has been mutually beneficial in such areas as politics, trade, military matters, education, the arts and in the sciences. I submit that the study of German, coupled with positive travel, study and work experiences, must be viewed as the cornerstone of a successful Verbindungsglied concept for the future. Thirdly, it is not uncommon to hear technological and ideological arguments cited as reasons for the study of languages. I submit there is a more compelling reason. Even if English continues its phenomenal growth as

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA

257

the lingua franca, I maintain that genuine communication, i.e., communication that affects the whole person, occurs best, through communicative exchanges which at some point involve use of each interlocutors native language (NL), particularly when such exchanges occur on the territory of the target language (TL) or host country. I maintain furthermore that communication outside of ones NL tends toward superficiality; thus, for those who aim to establish a bond beyond the exchange of bartered goods be they of an economic, political or technological nature the use of English as a lingua franca will always be experienced as somehow deficient. Put another way, it is only through the use of ones own NL, which lies at the psychological core of every individual and a language community, that one begins to speak to the heart. Without the study of DaF, therefore, and without the study of other foreign languages in general, one will not likely come to really discover, know, and appreciate what riches lie within a person or a culture. The primary message to be sent in this regard to German, Austrian and Swiss decision makers is that economic globalization and the concomitant spread of English throughout economic, political and even scientific circles should not be accepted as sufficient reasons to withdraw support for more important exchanges on the personal and spiritual levels. The fact that it has even become a topic of serious conversation must be viewed as troubling indeed. Fourthly, as an American, I cannot help but observe the difficulty with which Germans have historically summoned up enthusiasm for the support of their language being studied on foreign soil, lest it be viewed with suspicion and mistrust that a new nationalistic threat was imminent. However, as Wolfgang Schuble (2001) recently wrote, the reemergence of Vaterlandsliebe und Patriotismus can be viewed in a healthy, positive light. Just as he argued: [] Wir suchen ein stabiles Gleichgewicht zwischen Nation und Europa, I would argue that a stable balance and respect across cultures will not be achieved unless members of different cultures respect and learn each others languages. It is precisely because, (Schuble 2001) Nhe und Vertrautheit wichtiger werden that German government institutions should support the study of German abroad. Without profound knowledge of the others language and culture, familiarity and understanding are not likely to be achieved. Even worse, interlocutors may think these goals are achieved, when eventual realities may ultimately reveal otherwise.8

258

John Lalande

The following reasons are offered why the governments of German-speaking countries should work more intensely with American educators, especially the AATG, to promote the study of German: First, the AATG is an august but non-elitist professional body. Gerhard Weiss made a similar observation in 1985.9 I would be leery about the prospects of German institutions working primarily or exclusively with institutions of education, primarily because they seem to have a tendency to prefer elite and elitist institutions of higher education. Second, German teachers are Kulturvermittler. They give a face to the culture of German-speaking countries. Weiss (1985: 220) also correctly notes: Der Einflu der Lehrer auf das Deutschlandbild in Amerika ist nicht zu unterschtzen. An example from my own instruction illustrates the point well. It occurred in my own teaching of 1st-year German language instruction during the fall 2001 semester in connection with the events of September 11th. Despite the attack on the World Trade Center, little or no mention was made in the press about the loss of non-American lives. Little or no mention was likewise made about the sympathetic and generous reaction of those in the German-speaking world to those same events in the days and weeks following the event. Like myself, many teachers of German consistently wove a discussion thereof into our classes. I used, for example, not only information garnered from governmental and newspaper websites but also emails from friends and family. There was one letter in particular which moved students deeply, and which helped underscore key instructional points I am consistently trying to make, viz., that we live in a global community, that we have a responsibility to consider the global consequences of various decisions, and that citizens of the German-speaking world are, for the most part, to be viewed as relatives and friends of ours. The letter was from a Univ. of Osnabrck exchange student who had attended various functions within our German program the preceding year. Her unsolicited letter was written in English and entitled Germany is praying for you. As Kulturvermittler, not only do teachers of German give a face to the culture of German-speaking countries, but because they teach language and culture, they help lay the foundation for improved cross-cultural understanding. Again, Zhao-Heissenberger and I are of the same mind in this regard, for she writes: Eine Sprache zu unterrichten oder zu erlernen, ohne den dazugehrigen kulturellen Hintergrund zu verstehen, wrde nicht den Effekt des

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA

259

gegenseitigen Verstehens erzeugen, sondern interkulturelle Miverstndnisse eher frdern. 10 These things are mentioned to underscore the point that when it comes to formation of a popular image of Germany, not among intellectuals, teachers of German can do more good than whatever emerges from multimillion dollar investments made into prestigious cultural institutes. Those cultural centers and institutes, noble and necessary as they are, can hardly compete with the multiplication role German language teachers play in shaping the American view of, and attitude toward, the German-speaking world. And yet when one looks at where monies of the German, Austrian or Swiss governments are applied, one sees that most funds are allocated more with an eye toward that which is prestigious and elite, rather than on that which has greater impact in numerical terms. Earlier, Gerhard Weiss (1985: 221) noted that German language teachers in the USA play such an important role as transmitters of communicative and cultural ideas, that they are, as he put it, more important than ambassadors in Washington. The point is to shed light on the agents of change at the local level. It is teachers (and their students) of the German language who are the multiplying agents. If a German-speaking government is serious about promoting German language study, it must put its money where its mouth is, viz., in the spoken language taught in classrooms throughout the USA. This preference seems to be ignored by German, Austrian and Swiss organizations which made decisions about how money is to be spent in the USA.11 I would like now to suggest four areas in which the political institutions of German-speaking countries might direct or concentrate their efforts to further the teaching of German: specific text materials and visual materials, study trips targeted to specific groups, and inter-agency collaboration. 1. Let me address first the issue of text materials. As a textbook author and consultant for various publishing houses, I am acutely aware of the steadily declining market for German-language textbooks and the concomitant rise in publishers refusals to publish high quality books, CDs and other materials for German language instruction. If the current trend continues, the profession may find itself issuing comments similar to those of H. Rattermann, who in 1881 in an address delivered at the DeutschAmerikanischer Lehrertag in Cincinnati warned: Ohne geeignete Bcher fr den Deutschunterricht knne es keine Zukunft fr die (deutsche) Sprache in Amerika geben, und das Resultat sei, da die Amerikaner die Deutschen und ihre Weltanschauung nicht verstehen knnten.12 A key word in this statement was appropriate books. Teachers of DaF in the

260

John Lalande

USA need books which are written primarily for the American student.13 And yet we in the USA may soon find ourselves needing subsidies from the German-speaking word in order to guarantee the production and availability of texts and materials created for the American market. The need has already manifested itself at the advanced levels of DaF. The ancillary materials currently being produced and disseminated by such institutions as the Goethe Institute and the Austrian and the Swiss ministries of education have been of the highest quality. The day may soon be upon us, however, when monies will not only be required to produce ancillary materials for the intermediate and advanced levels of instruction, but primary texts for the elementary level as well. At the very least, I recommend continued, support of the AATGs Curriculum & Materials Center. 2. The 2nd area that I would like to identify as an area in dire need of significant support from the institutions of German-speaking countries is travel/ study trips for students in what I shall term the critical commitment times. The critical commitment times are hereby defined as those times in a students education when important decisions are made about which foreign language to study or commit oneself to on a protracted basis. These critical commitment times are posited here as those occurring in the 2nd half of 8th grade, and from the 3rd year of high school through the 3rd semester of college/university study.14 My recommendation, based upon 28 years of teaching, and upon my own experiences as an American student, is to lobby intensively and creatively to induce a student to travel to German-speaking countries during one of these critical commitment times. If this can be achieved, I maintain that most young people who get a taste of German, Austrian or Swiss culture will invariably seize the opportunity to study the language and culture as soon as they can. During the 20+ years I served as a TA Supervisor and Director of Elementary and Intermediate-Level German Instruction at major research universities, I could not help but note time and time again how so many of our TAs emerged from the ranks of students who had absorbed precisely such an experience during their critical commitment times.15 How might such an approach work with 8th-grade graduates? These young graduates might be awarded a coupon entitling them and a parent to travel to Germany for free or for a significantly reduced rate. For high school students, one might consider an expansion of the currently successful AATG summer study programs, or better yet, one might look to initiate new travel

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA

261

groups during spring breaks. At the college level, one might also consider the establishment of newly-created student hostel programs.16 In the past few years the AATG has begun a new endowment fund designed expressly for the purpose of promoting student travel abroad. In the first phase of the endowment solicitation, German teachers contributed $100,000 of their own money to subsidize student travel abroad. In short, teachers of German know, recognize and are willing to personally support, even with their own monies, the importance of such an endeavor. I do not just speak for myself, therefore, in advancing such a proposal; I speak for thousands of American teachers of DaF. Student travel abroad may also represent one effective means of motivating more people to consider teaching as a career, and thus possibly helping to alleviate the problem of teacher shortages that plagues many schools at this time. No doubt, the suggestion I have raised is a costly one and might too readily be dismissed by governmental officials as unaffordable, particularly in these troubled economic times. On the other hand, if the political will for such an action is lacking, then no time will be viewed as favorable. I suggest that my proposal be viewed like an investment. In that light, whatever monies are associated with it must be seen as guaranteed to yield handsome dividends over the short- and long-term. As I indicated earlier, if the political will is present, then the goals of this proposal can be realized. 3. The third area concerns visual materials. There is no doubt that this is an age where young people prefer to have their lives impacted through music, video, fashion trends, etc. German associations, such as the Goethe Institute have done a magnificent job of producing such modern materials for our students. Yet here is one area in which far more could be done, namely posters. Posters of art, cityscapes, landscapes etc. Whenever i receive posters from German-speaking countries, they quickly get snapped up by students. Students like them. I am not overly concerned about the disappearance of such posters from class, because whether they advocate for German language and culture in- or outside the classroom is of little concern to me. Either way, the goal of advocacy for German is being fulfilled. My view is that we need thousands more good posters! Indeed we need a veritable avalanche of such posters which will shout for us the natural beauty of the German-speaking world, and which beckon the beholder to come experience those same wonders. We need more visual materials which depict everyday people having fun just enjoying life and engaged in merriment, pictures that not only make one want to be somewhere, but with someone.

262

John Lalande

4. There is a fourth and final area i would like to identify where German institutions might direct their efforts to promote the study of German: collaboration amongst themselves and among the Big 3 government institutions. German, Austrian and Swiss institutions are encouraged to work more closely with one another. Collaboration on working toward achievement of the common goal of promoting German language study might reduce the incidences of duplication of effort.

Conclusion German language instruction began in this country 300 years ago.17 As Weiss (1985: 221) has pointed out, it can look back upon a long and honorable tradition, despite experiencing many ups and downs. There is no reason why, in spite of the rapid growth of English as a lingua franca, and despite the rapid growth of Spanish as the USAs preferred choice for second language study, that German cannot and should not continue to maintain its solid position as the third most popular foreign language in the USA nor is there any reason why German cannot continue to enrich the educational experience of Americans through its related linguistic and cultural contributions. To continue as such, i have advocated in no uncertain terms, that institutions of German-speaking countries should indeed continue to work with German educators,18 particularly with the AATG, that they must eschew all tendencies toward elitism, that they must become more confident, less timid and more engaged in the promotion of German language study, and that they would be well-advised to explore more meaningful and productive working relationships with their official counterparts in other German-speaking countries. Perhaps in this way, the future of teaching German as a foreign language in the USA can be secured, if not for another 300 years, then at least for the next generation. That would seem to be a realistic, attainable goal, and one which would benefit native speakers of both English and German.

The Kulturpolitik of German-Speaking Countries in the USA

263

Notes
1. DaF, which represents Deutsch als Fremdsprache or German as a Foreign Language is an internationally used acronym; hence, i shall use it throughout my paper, even though the inclusion of a German acronym into an English paper might be found odd by some. 2. See Hirschfeld/Fechner 1993: 19 (Deutsch aus afrikanischer Sicht). 3. These oral assurances were personally delivered to me and other AATG representatives invited to attend the FRGs 40th Anniversary Celebration in Bonn. They were given by members of Inter Nationes, the Auswrtiges Amt and various representatives serving in the Bundestag . 4. This is not to say, of course, that American teachers of German do not value the past contributions which have been made. The argument here is simply that more can, should and must be done. 5. Email from Gertrude Zhao-Heissenberger of Austrias Bundesministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, dated 4 February 2002. Her German statement reads as follows: Die Antwort auf die Frage, wie ein Land in Zeiten finanzieller Einsparungen seine diesbezglichen Aktivitten gestaltet und diese begrndet ergibt sich somit aus dem Willen zu globaler Zusammenarbeit, Frderung des interkulturellen Verstndnisses, der Notwendigkeit, sich als potenzieller Partner fr kulturelle und auch nicht zuletzt fr wirtschaftliche Kontakte zu prsentieren, die dafr notwendigen gegenseitigen Verstndnisgrundlagen (die nicht allein mit der englischsprachigen Kommunikation erfllt sein knnen!) zu schaffen. 6. Excerpts from his presentation Die Verbreitung von Nationalsprachen als Fremdsprachen: nationale Aufgabe und universelle Verpflichtung Beispiel Deutsch als Fremdsprache, may be found in Hirschfeld/Fechner 1993: 87. 7. See Section I. The resolution is available at http://www.wlu.ca/~wwwidv/info2001.htm 8. Learning the language of the other is, therefore, a matter of both cultural understanding and cultural respect, i.e., respect for the other individual and for the language community to which s/he belongs. 9. See page 215. 10. Email from Gerttude Zhao-Heissenberger of the Austrian Bundesministerium fr Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur, dated 4 February 2002. 11. Since this talk was delivered in spring 2002, German-American relations have cooled in the context of the Iraq war. Here too, however, teachers of German have been able to impress upon students that in spite of such cooling, there remains a solid basis for mutual trust and collaboration (such as with peacekeeping efforts in Afghanistan). At no time are similar voices heard in the media. 12. See Ted E. Frank 1985: 171. 13. Yes, the profession needs authentic reading materials, but it also needs texts whose manner of linguistic and cultural presentation is clear and accessible to the average American student. (It is certainly no coincidence that not a single

264

John Lalande European-produced textbook or textbook package has failed to gain a significant share of the (post)-secondary market in the USA.) I salute Chancellor Schrder, who in welcoming 25 juniors from New York City high schools connected with the tragedies of 9-11, said he wanted to give them a lasting gift. Syracuse Post Standard, 20 February 2002. His choice of juniors demonstrates an appreciation for targeting students in one of the two proposed critical commitment times. I know this was true in my own life as well. The experience i had visiting Germany the summer following the 8th grade was so positive, that even though the opportunity to study German at the high school level never presented itself, i embraced the opportunity to study German at the college level. Note that my suggestions are intended to complement, not replace, successful exchange programs already in existence, e.g., GAPP. Frank writes on p. 172: Der allgemeine Deutschunterricht in Amerika begann 1702 in Germantown, PA. In a resolution passed at the IDV Conference of 2001 in Lucerne, the necessity of both sides working together is given emphasis in Section 2 of that same resolution (Beide Seiten mssen zusammenwirken und Instrumentarien und Szenarien entwickeln, die Mehrsprachigkeit aufwerten und mglich halten.)

14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

References
Andress, Reinhard, Charles J. James, Barbara Jurasek, John F. Lalande II, Thomas A. Lovik, Deborah Lund, Daniel P. Stoyak, Lynne Tatlock and Joseph A. Wipf 2002 Maintaining the Momentum from High School to College: Report and Recommendations. Die Unterrichtspraxis: Teaching German 35: 114. Frank, Ted E. 1985 Die Anfnge des Deutschunterrichts an den ffentlichen Schulen Amerikas: Eine Studie ber das Buch Der amerikanische Leser von 1854. Zeitschrift fr Kulturaustausch 35: 171179. Hirschfeld, U. and J. Fechner (eds.) 1993 X. Internationale Deutschlehrertagung. Universitt Leipzig. 2.-7. August 1993. Deutsch als Fremdsprache in einer sich wandelnden Welt. Thesen. Leipzig: Interdruck. Schuble, Wolfgang 2002 Es muss nicht gleich Stolz sein. Ein Plydoer fr Vaterlandsliebe und Patriotismus. Was eine Gesellschaft zusammenhlt auch die Globalisierung hat die Bedeutung der Nation nicht verringert. Sddeutsche Zeitung, 1./2. Dezember 2001: 9. Weiss, Gerhard 1985 Bemerkungen zur gegenwrtigen Lage des Deutschunterrichts in den Vereinigten Staaten. Zeitschrift fr Kulturaustausch 35: 214227.

Self-inflicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping Robert C. Reimer

Zusammenfassung
Im Lauf des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts ist das Studium des Deutschen an amerikanischen Schulen und Hochschulen drastisch zurckgegangen. Von der Position der am hufigsten gelernten Sprache zu Beginn des Jahrhunderts ist Deutsch nun auf Platz drei hinter Spanisch und Franzsisch gefallen und nhert sich den bescheidenen Zahlen fr Japanisch, das nun auf Platz vier liegt. Ursachen fr den Rckgang des Interesses an der deutschen Sprache sind das vernderte demographische Profil der USA sowie das image und die Reputation des Deutschen. Weitere Grnde sind die vermutete sinkende Bedeutung des Deutschen insgesamt, aber insbesondere als Sprache von Wissenschaft und Handel, sowie die deutsche Vorliebe fr Englisch als zweiter Sprache. In einem Zeitalter, in dem Englisch die Sprache der Kommunikation zwischen Sprechern, deren Muttersprache nicht Englisch ist, geworden ist, wre es fruchtlos, wollten Sprachlehrer einfach das Deutsche propagieren. Diese Lage sollte aber nicht daran hindern, Lehrbcher zu suchen, die ein anderes Deutschland als das Land konservativer Extremisten oder Lederhosen-tragender Jodler zeigen. Noch sollte sie uns davon abhalten, Strategien zu entwickeln, die Deutsch als eine lebendige und dynamische Sprache vorfhren, in der sich Hoch- ebenso wie PopulrKulturen ausdrcken. Wir hoffen, dass die Kollegen des Goethe-Instituts uns bei dieser Aufgabe weiterhin untersttzen.

In a key scene from Sally Potters The Tango Lesson (1997) the two principle characters are walking and dancing along the Seine conversing in French. Shortly thereafter, they are in a caf continuing to speak French until the conversation turns to the question of identity whereupon Sally, the British native, and Pablo, the Argentine native, switch over to English. In telling Pablo that she is an atheist and a Jew, Sally reverts back to her native language, English, even though she is fluent in French. Pablo reveals that he is a dancer and a Jew, choosing also to express himself in English, perhaps out of deference to Sally, even though his native language is neither English

266

Robert C. Reimer

nor the French he had been speaking earlier. On the one hand this moment suggests the preponderance of English in European film productions and reveals the hegemony of the English native speaker in conversations even when both speakers are fluent in another language they have in common. On the other hand the scene also suggests that for some, Sally for instance, language and identity are closely related and for others, Pablo for example, language and identity are separate. For Pablo, identifying as a dancer and as a Jew is more important than identifying as a Spanish speaker from Argentina. I cite this scene from The Tango Lesson because I believe the dialogue demonstrates the difficulty of the issues facing the language profession in an age of globalization: First, English is hegemonic, that is, it controls the discourse. Second, English is ubiquitous, that is, everyone seems to speak it more or less fluently; and finally, in the minds and ears of film directors, English has become the language of the private sphere, perceived as capable of expressing emotional content as well or better than other languages. In the scene being discussed, Sally and Pablo identify with English as they reveal their artistry and Jewish ethnicity, tears rolling down their faces as they finish the conversation. When contemplating the fate of German as a language spoken in the public sphere and private sphere, we need to ask ourselves, If French loses out to English in this very intimate moment in this very French film,1 what chance does German have of prevailing against the new lingua franca? What chance indeed, and in this essay I will address the status of the German language in the American public arena. I will look at the level of awareness of German as a living language with over one hundred million native speakers. More specifically I will examine the presence of German as a subject in the curricula of American education. In examining German enrollments in schools and universities, I will address the absence or negative presence of the German language and contemporary German culture in American awareness. To a much lesser extent I will also touch upon the disappearing presence of the German language in Europes public sphere. I want to first establish a possible relationship between Germanys crises of identity (there has been more than one such crisis over time) and the absence of the German language in Americas collective awareness. I want then to show the relationship between this loss of identity and lack of public awareness and the decline in interest in learning the language at all levels of the school system. The high enrollments in the German language (Shea) early in the twentieth century suggest the importance of language and identity and the presence of the German language and culture in public awareness for the popu-

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

267

larity of German as a course of study. At a time when hundreds of thousands of German-Americans were entering their second generation of being in America and their numbers were being reinforced with hundreds of thousands more immigrants, German was the most studied language in the schools and at the university. Some of the students were surely heritage learners, the second-generation children who spoke German at home, identified with German culture, and now wanted to become more proficient in the language. But others were undoubtedly non-speakers of German who wanted to learn and be enriched by a culture that seemed to be dominating American culture, at least in the Midwest, and was lending the names of its greatest citizens to streets, parks and schools. The high number of students of German at the time suggests that awareness of language and culture, reinforced by that cultures ubiquity and propinquity, influenced the choice of second language. This situation prevailed until the outbreak of the First World War, when for reasons of emotionally-induced patriotism and government edicts (according to some reports the teaching of German was banned in twenty two states [Shea]), the German language all but disappeared from American schools. Even the heritage learners and new immigrants distanced themselves from the language. My father, for example, born in Milwaukee in 1899, spoke no English for the first twelve years of his life, having attended only German speaking schools in this most German of American cities. Yet after the outbreak of the First World War by his account he stopped speaking German. It was not until I was an adult studying for my doctorate in German that I learned my father grew up speaking German. A friend was visiting me from Germany and he and my father conversed in their native language. To a question of why he never spoke German with me since he knew I was studying the language, my father replied that he did not want to encourage me to study a language of a culture with which he did not identify. He was an American. Although this conversation took place in 1969, the two wars that formed the backdrop to my fathers anti-German sentiments were clearly still influencing him to deny his heritage. The decline in the numbers of students taking German however cannot be blamed entirely on the world wars and the loss of cultural identification. The late sixties and early seventies witnessed a widespread dropping of second language requirements that affected all language disciplines, not just German. Indeed an article in an ADFL Bulletin from 1972 indicates that all modern languages other than English faced a bleak future in American education. There are a good many language teachers, who, if given the opportunity to say so publicly, would claim that modern foreign languages are on

268

Robert C. Reimer

the brink of disaster and are about to descend into the bottomless pit, at the bottom of which are presumably Latin and Greek. (Schaefer 1972: 58) Moreover, although there have been periodic rises in language enrollments over the last thirty years, the trend for French, German, and Russian has been downward, with even the increases in Japanese tapering off. Between 1970 and 1998, French saw a decrease from a high of 359,313 to a fifty-year low of 199,064, although university enrollments dramatically increased during the same period. Between these years German fell from 202,569 to 89,020 and Russian from 44,626 (reached in 1990) to 23,791. The high for Japanese of 45,717 reached in 1990, had fallen slightly by 1995 to 44,723 and further to 43,141 by 1998. Yet during this time overall second language enrollment increased by over 80,000 students, the bulk of which enrolled in Spanish, a language that now has 55% of all second language students against 16.7 for French, 7.5 for German, 3.6 for Japanese and 2.0 for Russian (Brod and Welles 2000: 2229). The increase in the number of students who choose to study Spanish mirrors the increase of visibility of Latino and Hispanic cultures in American life, just as the high number of students taking German mirrored the high visibility of German American culture early in the twentieth century. Besides demonstrating that not all languages are losing interest among American students, the figures indicate that German is approaching a level that could threaten the language as a viable discipline at all levels (Peters 1994: 511). High school students could begin questioning, if they are not already, why they should start German if the college of their choice might not have a German program where they will be able to continue and build on their high school experience. Likewise, undergraduate programs (or courses at advanced levels) may lose enrollment and thus be eliminated if minimal levels of students, often recruited from those students who started German in high school, are not retained. The cycle of fewer begets fewer will eventually threaten graduate programs, whose pool of PhD candidates will shrink as potential students realize there are few university positions open to them.2 To realize that the future is not bright, one need only consider the plight of language programs at Drake University, outsourced to study abroad institutes, or Bennington College, which reportedly eliminated and then brought back language study at a reduced level. German instructors in the high schools and also in undergraduate programs have always been and continue to be resourceful at recruitment. Thus, due to the efforts of German teachers at all levels of the curriculum the glass is only half drained. Accordingly, I would like now to give an overview of teachers past initiatives to encourage students to learn German.

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

269

This brief overview is given both to place the study of German in perspective, but also to address the issues I mentioned above, namely the absence and/or negative presence of German and Germany in the public awareness of Americans and American institutions. Over the years foreign language educators have adopted numerous language fashions to boost enrollments in language courses (Reimer 1998: 3240). The bandwagons, which include among others, direct method, audio-lingual method, communicative approach, languages for career enhancement, cognitive self-improvement, courses in translation, professional and quaisi-professional certificates, immersion and foreign languages in elementary schools, pertain to all languages. Yet, German teachers have been particularly adept at adopting and adapting the latest fad, illustrating the old Avis car rental claim we try harder or Essos put a tiger in your tank. These two ads ironically illustrate the problem however. In the sixties their German translations, wir geben uns mehr Mhe and pack den Tiger in den Tank appeared on German-class blackboards in America, offering students evidence of Germans relevance in the world. Without a doubt, if those slogans were to appear for the first time today, the German advertising industry would leave them in the original, but I will return to that point below. All of the language fashions, some more than others, speak to the absence or negative presence of German in American awareness. In some way or other they all work to raise the visibility of German language and culture among American students and to adjust or correct perceptions about the language and the culture that supports it. For the most part, they have all failed. For example, German teachers have used methodological innovations to make the language easier to learn in an attempt to persuade students that the language has an undeserved reputation for being difficult. Gone is the Frau im Dirndl using an antiquated book filled with unmemorizable paradigms, replaced by the Frau oder Herr injeans rapping lyrics to grammatical patterns. Yet the number one complaint at Advanced Placement readings, or other venues where German teachers congregate, is that students just dont understand grammar, suggesting even while we promise that German is easy to learn, we still insist on structural perfection, making German a formidable obstacle for American students. Pragmatic movements have likewise failed to help Germans cause. Indeed they may have actually hurt. For example, in the seventies, as enrollments first started to fall, schools began to introduce programs of literature in translation (Caputo-Mayr 1974: 4750). For the most part, these courses tapped into a latent awareness of German culture by focusing on Thomas

270

Robert C. Reimer

Mann, Hermann Hesse, Bertolt Brecht, Franz Kafka, and Gnter Grass, authors who have until recently been part of the liberally educated American. While courses in translation bring in students to general education courses, they do little for enrollment in language courses. Moreover if a course in translation draws thirty students and one in language draws ten, it is not long before administrators question the course with only ten, as to them both courses appear to have identical content. Likewise, certificate programs in translation, for example (training students to translate from German into English), were introduced in the eighties as a way to stop the loss of majors by offering an alternative to the literature based track. As the promise of employment implicit in the term certificate has failed to materialize, these programs too have lost enrollment. More importantly, they threaten to discredit any of the reasons the profession advances for the study of a second language. I would like to turn now to a feature all of the major bandwagons possess, namely a focus on the contemporary culture of the country of the target language. In the case of German and Germany, I want to address the profound impact this has on perception of German culture and perhaps on the study of German as a second language. I have used the term absence of awareness to characterize Americans knowledge of German culture. It would be more accurate and ultimately more fair to limit Americas unawareness to the contemporary culture of over one hundred million native German speakers in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. For except among the post Berlin Wall generation of Americans, who may indeed have no notions at all about people who speak German, most Americans will have more or less vague to well-formed impressions about German speaking countries, especially Germany. This leads to another problem however as those vague to well-formed impressions include innocuous cultural stereotypes as well as dangerous cultural prejudices. That is, German and Germany are not absent from the consciousness of American students. Rather they are present either in stereotypes that are not genuine, consisting of Bavarians in native costume playing quaint music or in stereotypes that play and replay a negative past, Hitler, the Nazis, the Holocaust, neo-Nazism, cold war, Berlin Wall, and the 1972 Munich Olympics tragedy. As George Peters (1994) writes in an essay on recruiting minorities to the study of German: Despite the efforts of many well-meaning teachers, Germany is still a distant country for most Americans, and thinking about Germany tends still to be dominated by two conflicting stereotypical images: beer, lederhosen, and cuckoo clocks on the one hand and swastikas, SS troops, and concentration camps on the other. Yet Peters questions whether attempts to revise the image by

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

271

presenting a Germany in which minorities are seen in everyday situations and are generally happy, successful in school, and well-integrated into German society will work and whether this is an honest strategy. (Peters 1994) Peters identifies a problem that we must solve if we are to increase student interest in German, finding a balance between our presentation of Germany past and Germany present. How else can we persuade students to study German? The fifteen year old high school student, the college freshman, and the adult learner taking a language for personal enrichment and perhaps to travel need some kind of incentive to pick German. In the publics mind, French is the language of love, gourmet cuisine, high fashion, the tour de France, and architectural icons such as the Eiffel Tower or the Louvre Museum. Spanish is the language of their neighbors, warm climates, adventure, exciting cuisine, and youth. Italian is the language of romance, art, gondolas, goodfellows, and familiar but nonetheless enticing cuisine. German in contrast seems to be the language of cuckoo clocks, precision engineering, Hitler, and skinheads. For the most part, the beginning and intermediate language texts of all the languages present either culturally neutral or culturally innocuous content as they introduce students to a new language through dialogs and readings. When authentic texts are offered at this level, in most languages these tend to focus on positive aspects of the culture, art, music, and tourist attractions. Thus, Mexico City is presented without air pollution and Rome without corruption. French books stress fashion and Paris. German textbooks in contrast present the countrys troubled past and its sometimes equally troubled present either directly or in the subtext. Given the tragedies emanating from Germanys legacy of war, genocide, and national division they probably have no choice. Germanys legacy is real, it cannot and should not be willed away by German teachers, rendering moot a discussion of whether to include historical information in our textbooks. Certainly we should, both because Germanys past explains much of its present and also because the past is part of present day discourse. Nevertheless, including Germanys past does not require eliminating its present, and missing from most of the textbooks for beginning and intermediate German is sufficient positive content to balance the negative images, whether these negative images are independent of or reinforced by the textbook. There are few to no images in American textbooks that entice us to learn this language, and few that suggest the German culture has a lot to offer Americans. Judging by many textbooks one would not know that Berlin is exciting and youth oriented, carnival in Cologne and along the

272

Robert C. Reimer

Rhine is fun, soccer is a popular sport, and Germans, including American expatriates in Germany, play professional basketball. These topics are for the most part absent from our presentation of the culture as we teach the language. If they are part of the book, they are often not fully integrated into the teaching material and thus lend themselves to being cut if time is short. Yet, German culture, whether youth-oriented pop culture or adult-oriented classical culture is popular and relevant to Germans everyday lives. Why then do textbooks that include song lyrics usually present the works of the old Liedermacher or political folksingers that complain about outdated forms of rebellion or the coldness of German society? To be fair, textbooks exist, Vorsprung by Thomas Lovik or Deutsch Heute by Jack R. Mueller, that present a brighter side to German culture, but they do not make up the majority of available texts. In addition, the Goethe Institute and the American Association of Teachers of German offer printed and internet materials that focus on contemporary German culture. Unfortunately such ancillary materials are first, often difficult to build into the typical three-hour class, even if other duties allowed instructors the luxury of didacticizing them, and second, often intended for more advanced learners. I want to now turn to another issue that affects enrollment, the hegemony of the English language and American culture throughout the world. Accordingly for the next portion of my essay I want to shift direction and speculate on the effect that the dominance of the English language and of the American culture in Germany has had on the decline of German as a second language in America. Since 1945 American culture, particularly pop culture, has held power over German imaginations (Flippo 1997). At wars end members of the vanquished nation that became the Federal Republic, embraced, whether willingly or not is not the issue here, the American way of life. The turn to American culture became particularly visible in popular culture, where the influence of American jazz and swing, already begun in the Twenties and interrupted by the Third Reich, resumed more strongly than ever. Indeed, films whose stories are set in immediate postwar Germany have only to play a few measures of Glenn Millers In the Mood to conjure up not only Germany 194548 but also to suggest Germanys forced seduction by American politics and culture. Perhaps nowhere is this forced seduction more clear than in the film industry, where the Western Allies, but especially the United States because of Hollywoods domination of the world film market, dumped movies on a country hungry for entertainment but without the immediate infrastructure to meet the demand or achieve the production values of the American product.

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

273

Moreover, the German films that were made, with a few notable exceptions, incorporated the best and worst of American originals. Helmut Kutner, whose films during the Nazi period were already displaying a Hollywood look, turned to well known American genres. His Epilog (1950) for example, for its first fifteen minutes uses the point of view of the camera as it follows its hero around, copying a claustrophobic technique used in Lady of the Lake (Robert Montgomery, 1947). Kutners Die Zrcher Verlobung (The Affairs of Julie, 1957) plays like an imitation Hollywood musical comedy. Even more strongly influenced by Hollywood were the teenage rebel films. Joseph von Bkys Die Frhreifen [Mature for Their Years, 1957) and Georg Tresslers Die Halbstarken (Teenage Wolfpack, 1956), for instance, included sweetshops, rock music, coca cola bottles, and heroes in tight pants. In place of Marlon Brando and James Dean from The Wild One (Lszl Benedek, 1954) and Rebel without a Cause (Nicholas Ray, 1955), the films offered Horst Buchholst and Christian Doermer. Indeed, as motorcycles drive down a quiet, middleclass German street at the end of Die Halbstarken, the reference to Germanys troubled youth becomes an homage to Hollywood and America. Yet, in spite of the American iconography, these films in the end remain German, as they negotiate a postwar identity crisis caused by wanting to reject the past and having no present model to copy other than America as seen in films. For some this crisis played out into embracing American culture uncritically, as evidenced by the genre of teenage musical films starring Gus Backus in the early sixties, replicas of Hollywoods beach blanket movies, with plots and music just as forgettable. But Backus, even though an American, sung in German, and the top forty hits on the radio, often covers of American hits, were also sung in German. Since those early postwar years, Americas influence on German popular culture has continued unabated, in film, music, and television. In Wim Wenderss film (Kings of the Road, 1976) Robert Zischler, one of two characters traversing Germany, finding himself humming a popular American tune, stops humming and remarks that the Americans have colonized our subconscious. Cultural historian Hyde Flippo estimates that 85 % of all films in Germany are Hollywood produced and German television plays American hit series dubbed into German or produces Germanized versions of them. Moreover, as in the United States, television has become cluttered with commercials. In the last two decades, German popular culture it seems has undergone a second identity crisis as it confronts influences from America, but this time American pop culture can claim complete victory. In the fifties, when American pop culture was first embraced, German pop culture stayed German at its core, expressing the new content in the German

274

Robert C. Reimer

language. In the latest wave of American influence, the German language has conceded victory to English. Records are no longer covered by German singing artists but released by the original artist, or by German vocalists singing in English, hoping not merely to sound like the original but also to achieve breakthrough success, possible only in English. There are of course exceptions to this, the most notable being rap and hip hop singers, but here too English dominates the charts, reflecting the desire for the music to reach an international audience.3 Similarly in the film industry, German is giving way to the English language. For example, the formerly universal dubbing of Hollywood movies into German has given way to screenings in the original language, capitalizing on the fact that so many Germans speak English and want to practice the language at the movies. Moreover, New Wave and post New Wave directors have turned to making films in English in order to gain wider release, for example, Volker Schlndorffs Palmetto (1998), Wim Wenderss End of Violence (1997) and Million Dollar Hotel (2000), and Tom Tykwers Heaven (2002) among many others. English is also present on German television thanks to MTV, CNN and other cable networks. American language educators are fond of proclaiming the usefulness of German in the worlds of business and academe. One of many brochures used to persuade students to take German asks why learn German? The supplied answer reads: German is a leading language of science, business, literature, philosophy, theology, history, music, and art. (Ratwick) Yet, the ubiquity of the English language in the German public sphere as described in the preceding paragraph has affected commerce and university alike, placing claims of utility in doubt. Charlotte, NC (site of my home institution, The University of North Carolina Charlotte) is home to almost 100 German firms, mostly small affiliate operations but some larger firms as well. On a visit to one of the larger firms, the manager told our students German was not necessary for employment there since their German employees speak English, especially in the workplace and especially when Americans are present. Albeit, such anecdotal evidence has to be taken with a grain of salt, but the incident nonetheless calls into question advice to students that they learn German because it is the language of business. Likewise, it has probably been decades since German was the language of science, if the number of PhD programs that no longer require proficiency specifically in German is evidence. And while one cannot dispute the importance of philosophic and theological tracts written in German, one also cannot dispute that most important works are available in excellent English translations. Indeed, the proliferation of programs that offer certificates in translation attests as much to the importance of English as a means for com-

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

275

municating in business, science, and academics as it does to the relative lack of readers with proficiency in German, requiring translations. Finally, German universities themselves are administering the coup de grace to German as a language necessary for non-Germans to function in the public sphere in Germany. At one time, two years of university study in German was considered to be a minimum to reach the lowest level of proficiency required to study abroad. Remedial courses during the year of study or pre registration immersion courses were offered to get students prepared for courses in the German language. This has started to change the last few years. On an exploratory visit to initiate exchanges with schools in BadenWrttemberg and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, two German states very different from each other, university officials used the high degree of English fluency of their instructors as a recruitment incentive. Shortly thereafter, against the advice of the German faculty at my university, the Department of Engineering established a program in Aachen (in yet another German state) that required no German for participation. A number of the Engineering faculty visited the school and returned announcing that the faculty and students in Aachen did indeed speak English fluently and thereafter Charlottes students would not be required to study German before going on the program. Most recently, two of the German members of the North Carolina/Baden-Wrrtemberg Exchange Consortium, the University of Stuttgart and the University of Mannheim have announced programs for non German-speaking students that will be conducted entirely in English, with beginning language instruction in German as ancillary. In Stuttgart, for example, although students will be offered intensive instruction in German before classes begin, the ensuing courses in art history, architecture, economics, and literature will be conducted in English. Mannheims plan is similar but the focus there is on social studies. And finally, a recent essay in Deutschland, a publication of the German Press and Information Office, announced an initiative to increase the number of international students at German universities. Using slogans in English such as Hi, Potentials! International careers made in Germany, and Qualified in Germany, the article explains that foreigners wishing to study in Germany are given the opportunity of doing so without having to speak German fluently from the start. More than 100 degree courses offer seminars and lectures in English as well as German (p. 24). That the students on these programs may one day learn German is possible, even probable. That they will have to learn German if they plan to continue studying in Germany is fact. But the suggested meta-text to students and non-German faculty in these new initiatives is that English is often the language of the public sphere at the university,

276

Robert C. Reimer

with German being relegated to private conversations, and therefore not necessary. I would like to turn briefly to German film distribution in America for an example of how the German language is disappearing from the public stage. The German film industry in the last two years has produced over 80 films each year in the German language (the number is closer to 100 but some of the films are in languages other than German, usually English). Only one of these films received theatrical release in America in 1999/2000 and another was also released on video and DVD with subtitles. In 2000/2001, two were released for theatrical showing and as yet no additional ones for video or DVD. Moreover, the catalogue from earlier years reveals that a film such as Doris Drries Keiner liebt mich (Nobody Loves Me, 1994), which was popular with art cinema houses, has never been made available in the United States on VHS or DVD.4 No wonder German teachers pounce on a film like Tom Tykwers Lola rennt (Run Lola Run, 1998), exhibiting it ad infinitum, as if no other German films of interest to students existed. How different the case is with French film. The French film industry has an annual festival in Sarasota touting the years new releases. Once a year, critics, distributors and educators can preview the new product, of which the French film industry is justifiably proud. The subsequent distribution of the films introduced at the festival is also different than is the case with German films. German films, even if they do not receive commercial distribution, for example, may play in America, in cities with a Goethe Institute, or an advantaged university. That is, the films are offered outside the commercial marketplace. Film distributors that might pick up German language films are reluctant to do so as these films may have already played the largest or most profitable venues, and thus the potential for a profitable booking has been diminished. In contrast, the French film industry prepares a catalog of the new titles and includes some of the more popular titles from previous years. Rather than offering these films free of charge outside the normal distribution apparatus, the French cultural agency offers subsidies to university and French language societies so they can book the films for theatrical and campus play. In this way the industry achieves distribution for less commercial films, as distributors are more likely to pick up films that because of the subsidies are more likely to be booked. Also important is the fact that the films also still have a potential audience in major cities. As a consequence, French films reach an audience while German films languish, being seen by viewers fortunate enough to live in a city with a Goethe Institute. French films are more widely distributed because the French have a film distribution policy. The Germans, in spite of film offices throughout

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

277

the world, do not have an apparent film policy, at least not one that favors wide distribution of the films. German film policy is of course not the cause for falling enrollments in German at American schools and universities, nor is any absence of concern on the part of those institutions trusted with the furthering of German language and culture in America the cause. Quite the contrary is true. For over the years the Goethe Institute, the Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst, and Inter Nationes (now under the auspices of the Goethe Institute) have sponsored films, lectures, musical groups, and theater productions for enhancement of German culture in America. Moreover, together with the American Association of Teachers of German and individual universities, they have undertaken numerous initiatives to increase enrollment in German at all levels of schooling. Yet as mentioned earlier, the numbers of students taking German at the college level continues to fall, declining from over 200,00 to 89,000, even as the numbers entering college has increased. There has been a similar decline at the high school level. In the early nineties one study predicted that German enrollments are so anemic compared with enrollments in other languages, particularly Japanese and Spanish, that unless the level is restored to as they put it 200,00 in 2002, the field will die out. (Peters 1994) Well, the year 2002 has come and gone and the number of students studying German has fallen below 100,000 in spite of the efforts to combat the trend of decline. Have strategies to increase the popularity of German backfired? That is, do offerings in translation and in discipline specific vocabulary, emphasis on historical realities, and discourse emphasizing the problematic issues in contemporary Germany have an adverse effect on enrollments? Have our proactive efforts to increase enrollment combined with linguistic and pop culture trends in Germany, that is the use of English in music, film, commerce, and international symposia, doomed German to the status of a private rather than a public language? The questions have no definitive answers. Nonetheless let me propose that whenever we translate our publications into English, whenever we offer courses that were traditionally taught in German in English, whenever we recruit students to study in Germany with English language slogans, and certainly whenever we offer coursework at German schools in the English language, we suggest that German is irrelevant because the world prefers English.

278

Robert C. Reimer

Notes
1. Although Sally Potter is a British director and much of the film is in English, the tone is decidedly French. Financing as with many independent European films was multi-national. 2. A similar phenomenon is occurring in the United Kingdom where lack of opportunities to study language beyond high school may be driving down numbers in the schools also. Every year universities produce fewer language graduates. Worst hit are French and German. It is not easy to take a language degree unless you did it at A-level, and demand for A-level languages is steadily decreasing. Since 1992, those taking French A-level have declined by a third, and those taking German by 16%. Spanish increased by 22.5%, butfrom a low base. Francis Beckett (5.11.2002). 3. So-called German folksongs, endlessly reproducing the melodies of hits from the 1950s are also mostly in German. Heard on television shows with titles that conjure up sentiments of Heimat or a lost presence. These songs are hardly aimed at German youth and play only a minor role in German pop music and are therefore left out of my discussion. 4. The seeming reluctance of the German film industry to make German language videos with subtitles available on VHS or DVD is apparently similar in the United Kingdom. A recent article in Time Out, an entertainment weekly, bemoaned the lack of German titles in the video catalogs. British viewers looking for subtitled DVDs might be forgiven for thinking that the whole scene stopped with the death of Fassbinder in 1982. Paul Cooke (27.11. 2002: 82).

References
Beckett, Francis 2002 Dumbing down. The Guardian, (November, 5th, 2002), http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/artsandhumanities/story/0,12241,829901, 00.html [November, 6th, 2002]. Brod, Richard and Elizabeth B. Welles 2000 Foreign language enrollments in United States institutions of higher education. Fall 1998. ADFL Bulletin, 31:2 (Winter 2000), 2229. Caputo-Mayr, Maria Louise 1974 German literature and culture courses in English: Trends in Pennsylvania. ADFL Bulletin, 06:2 (November 1974), 4750. Cooke, Paul 2002 Time Out, # 1684 (November, 27th, 2002), 82. Flippo, Hyde 1997 The German way : aspects of behavior, attitudes, and customs in the German-speaking world. Passport Books.

Self-inicted Wounds? Why German Enrollments are Dropping

279

Hoffmann, Rainer 2001 International careers made in Germany. Deutschland, #6 (December/ January 2001), 2227. Peters, George F. 1994 Dilemmas of diversity: Observations on efforts to increase minority participation in German. ADFL Bulletin, 25:2 (Winter 1994), 511. Ratwik, Anita Why Choose German? www.webcampus3.stthomas.edu/paschons/language Reimer, Robert 1998 Language immersion: Learning from past mistakes. In: Hartmut Melenk and Hans-Peter Drfel (eds.), Fremdsprachunterricht in der Grundschule, 3240. Schneider Verlag. Schaefer, William D. 1972 The plight and future of foreign language learning in America. ADFL Bulletin, 03:3 (March 1972), 58. Shea, Robert 2000 The influence of background knowledge on foreign language choice. http://www.serve.com/shea/chenpapr.htm [March, 25th, 2000].

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States Helene Zimmer-Loew

Zusammenfassung
Wir stehen gegenwrtig der Herausforderung von drastisch sinkenden Zahlen von Deutsch-Schlern und Studenten in den USA gegenber. Durch geplante Zusammenarbeit und koordinierte Initiativen aller, die Sprache, Literatur und Kulturen der Deutsch sprechenden Lnder unterrichten, liee sich dieser Herausforderung begegnen. Der Aufsatz behandelt die Geschichte und Grndungsprinzipien der American Association of Teachers of German und beschreibt deren gegenwrtige Frderung der Lehrenden auf allen Ebenen des Unterrichts.

Introduction For many of us involved in the teaching and learning of the language, culture, and literature of the German-speaking world in the United States, the past decade has brought the realization that our discipline has attracted many fewer students and therefore fewer candidates or Nachwuchs for our present positions than we had anticipated. We were perhaps lulled into complacency coming out of a period of stability at the post secondary level in the 70s and 80s and even growth on the precollegiate sector. Many have searched for reasons for this decline. Some colleagues have found the causes, created solutions, and are now attracting more students to their programs. Despite these successes, we are still facing a challenge, one that we are endeavoring to meet in order to attract people like ourselves who for varying reasons find the study of things German in all their forms, an enhancement not only to our professional but also to our lives outside our chosen careers. The major premise of this article is that through the cooperative, collaborative efforts and combined forces of all those who teach the language, literatures, and cultures of the German-speaking world, we can meet the pres-

282

Helene Zimmer-Loew

ent challenge. This article first presents the statistical status of the study of German in the United States at present and the perceptions of the public, students, and educators of German about the study of German in several recent surveys. The article concludes with the history and present role of the American Association of Teachers of German (AATG) in supporting the teaching and teachers of German at all levels of instruction through its programs, publications, and services that aim to foster communication among and between all those engaged in meeting this challenge.

A history of enrollments For many years, Deutsch als Fremdsprache has held, and at present still holds, third place among the most studied languages in the USA, a country where at any given time less than 44% of public high school students (912 grades) and 8% of college/university students are learning any language, according to the latest statistics by Draper and Hicks (2002) of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL) and from Brod and Welles of the Modern Language Association (MLA), respectively. German enrollments reached their peak in 1915 with 324,000 or 24.4% of all public school students. By 1922 the numbers had plummeted to 13,385 or 0.6%. Twelve years later, there was again substantial growth to 135,000 students or 2.4% but by 1948 that number had again declined to 43,195 or 0.8 % (2002: 6). Enrollment numbers and percentages of students in secondary schools since the late 1950s have vacillated between a low of 123,500 or 1.5% (1959) and a high of 423,000 or 3.3% (1968). Most recently (2000), there are 283,000 students of German enrolled, down by 43,000 since 1994, or 2.1 % (2002: 6). Since 1970, German enrollments at colleges and universities have declined from a high of 203,000 students or 19 % of the college enrollments to a low 89,000 or 7.5% in 1998, according to the most recent MLA survey (2002: 24).

Reasons for optimism Despite these recent enrollment figures, there are reasons for us to be optimistic or at least to take advantage of several opportunities to reverse the present trends.

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States

283

First, two recent surveys that collected the perceptions of the general public about the study of German demonstrate that there is in fact a modest interest in our discipline. The first, an Omnibus survey administered by Frank N. Magid Associates for the Goethe-Institut Inter Nationes (2002), explored Americans interest in foreign languages and specifically the German language. The data are based on a total of 1,025 U.S. respondents age 18+ who were interviewed via telephone between June 5 and June 9, 2002. The survey is nationally representative and has a margin of error of +/3.2% (2002: 1). It first explored participants perceptions on the importance of studying foreign languages in general. Nearly four in ten Americans (38%) think that it is very important to learn a foreign language, and 37% of Americans think that it is somewhat important to learn a foreign language, for a total of 75% who believe that studying a foreign language is important (2002: 1). As might be expected, the question about personally studying German as a foreign language resulted in lower importance ratings than the question about learning a foreign language in general. Only 25% of Americans say that it is very or somewhat important to them to study German (2002: 4). When respondents are asked to explain the rationale behind their German language importance ratings, their answers focus on personal reasons. Americans who think that it is very important or somewhat important to study German as a foreign language cite their German heritage or the existing German language skills of friends and family members as reasons for their positive opinion. A second set of reasons relates to the geographic reach and general importance of the German language, with a considerable group of respondents saying that speaking German would allow them to communicate across Europe. Also mentioned is an interest in German culture and history. Interestingly, practical reasons such as visits to Germany, having German friends, and using German in everyday life play only a minor role (2002: 8). Americans who think that it is not important at all or not very important to study German focus on functional and practical aspects when justifying their opinion, saying that they simply have no need to speak German. Some respondents believe that the language is not spoken by many people and prefer other languages more important than German. Fortunately, few respondents perceive that learning German is too difficult, nor do they have negative perceptions of Germany or the Germans (2002: 9). In a second survey conducted by Magid Associates on the image of Germany for the German Information Center, German was listed as the fourth most important foreign languages after Spanish, Chinese and French (2002:7).

284

Helene Zimmer-Loew

Third, statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics project that K-12 enrollments will increase to 54.3 million by 2007, an increase of 7% since 1995. In addition, 16.1 million of these students will enter institutions of higher education in 2007, up 16% from 1995. These students born in 1990 are presently candidates for high school German programs over the next 34 years and college-bound in fall 2007. Surely, the study of German will be an option for some of them. Fourth, in an effort to determine why a majority of secondary school students who have committed themselves to the study of German for three or more years chooses not to continue their study in college, the AATG surveyed nearly 5000 of these high school students. The project entitled Maintaining the Momentum: The Transition between High School and College German Study asked them what motivated their decision to choose German over other languages offered in their school, why they continued after their first year, and why they will or will not continue their study at the post secondary level. Lynne Tatlock (2002: 8), author of the preliminary article on the survey in a recent issue of the AATG Newsletter, writes: The single most significant result of this survey is the affirmation of the importance of affective motivators for students of high school age who are continuing German, motivating factors described by such survey items as clear sign of progress in German, e.g., fluency, and love for German. She notes that these affective factors also greatly influenced the students choice of German in their initial decision to study a language, for example, seemed like fun or seemed interesting. A second important finding is that those who continue with German in college do so because they loved their experience in high school and that they want to continue using the language as much as possible. In the full length report on the project in Die Unterrichtspraxis (2002: 1011), the Maintaining the Momentum Task Force reports and analyzes in detail the results of this survey and concludes with twelve recommendations to teachers of German at all levels of instruction. They include: be enthusiastic remind students frequently of their progress (not their shortcomings) encourage speaking as much as possible focus on practical communication via reading and writing emphasize vocabulary building keep grammar in perspective integrate German into students daily lives use German to present other topics

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States

285

show the connection of German to other academic subjects show how German relates to a broad range of career goals develop students information gathering skills in German keep up your own professional development None of these recommendations are beyond the ability of those present and future teachers of German to incorporate into their teaching and professional lives! Fifth, another AATG initiative, led by Heidi Byrnes (1996), culminated in the July 1996 report entitled The Future of German in American Education that appeared in Die Unterrichtspraxis. This series of forums around the country over a two-year period demonstrated that there was general agreement about the concerns facing the profession and the variety of solutions that might effectively address them: demographic changes not favoring German, change in the make-up of the profession (fewer immigrant teachers), additional demands on teachers by communicatively oriented language instruction and the need for professional development to meet those demands, the closing of programs at all levels of instruction, the increasing emphasis on career preparation only, and the down-playing of the usefulness of German. Recommendations that came from many forum participants included (1996: 256261): Reform of the curriculum in terms of content, sequence and delivery Active recruitment for students at all levels New approaches to accountability based on student global performance such as student portfolios New approaches to teacher education and faculty development including the integration of content and pedagogy Improvement of departmental leadership including strategic planning, priority setting, and identification of resources. A summary action plan included developing leadership seminars, supporting curricular reform, disseminating information about models of excellence, developing pilot projects and models for articulation, and planning for the strategic use of technologies to advance information gathering and sharing of issues. The association is in the process of implementing these, and several are contained in its most recent strategic plan entitled Critical Issues. For example, we have already held two leadership seminars for department chairs, program heads, language coordinators and undergraduate/graduate coordinators of postsecondary institutions. They were designed to give par-

286

Helene Zimmer-Loew

ticipants an opportunity to discuss present and future concerns of the profession and to develop specific action plans to be implemented at their institutions within a multi-year strategic plan. Former participants are in the process of establishing a regional network of consultants who would be available to help postsecondary-level departments of German with strategic planning initiatives. Again, these recommendations are feasible and appropriate for consideration by every department of German or modern languages.

The role of the AATG The AATG continues to play a major role in coordinating efforts to maintain the role of German in American education. It is our associations tradition and the basis of its founding. In the very first issue of The German Quarterly, Camillo von Klenze (1928), College of the City of New York, describes the rationale behind the founding of the association in 1926. He states the reasons why scientists, literary men and businessmen could not imagine not knowing the German language for their professional pursuits and the evidence of the great interest in German at the time: the high secondary school enrollments in German in 1915 (see above). He laments how World War I shattered this picture and rendered the language worthless, if not dangerous (1928: 3). He goes on to reason:
Under these circumstances, it becomes imperative for us teachers of German to use every legitimate means of improving the position of German in our schools, colleges, and universities. The first step to be taken is the formation of an organization embracing all teachers of German in every part of the country. Only by enthusiastic cooperation can we hope to accomplish anything tangible. We teachers in colleges and universities can learn from the men and women in the schools whose problems are more essentially pedagogic. They in turn can profit by contact with those whose main business it is to keep abreast of new currents in the higher life of Germany. Such contacts, though always of prime importance, were never sufficiently achieved. At the present juncture the necessity for them has become imperative. (1928: 34)

The aim of the new association was to spread the knowledge of German in this country by increasing the efficiency of the teaching of German. The method suggested to accomplish this aim was to draw into the organization

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States

287

as many teachers of German as possible from all over the country. In this fashion, they feel self-confidence, energy, and the consciousness of power can best be stimulated among us.(1928: 4) Von Klenze cites the new theories in the pedagogy of language and the new conditions in Germany as reasons to review the current textbooks. The most efficient way to accomplish these changes is through papers read at meetings and discussions to help teachersbecome energetically alive to the new problems and possibilities.(1928: 5) He ends his rationale with a resounding affirmation about the value of the study of German:
Knowledge of German, as every intelligent person admits, must once more become a vital factor in our national life. A large body of excellent teachers of German working shoulder to shoulder with teachers of other languages will be in a position to do its share towards fulfilling that ideal deal to the heart of every one of us: to make American culture richer and more manysided than any in history. (1928: 6)

We can look back at von Klenzes enthusiastic admonition to all teachers of German to join together as the continuing rationale for the existence of the present day AATG. The equity between teachers at various levels of instruction in a variety of institutions is evident in the AATG Constitution and Bylaws where it is clearly stated that the Vice President and the President are chosen alternately from the primary or secondary school level and the college or university level and that members of the Executive Council shall alternate between pre-collegiate and post-secondary levels. The bylaws of most of AATGs 61 chapters also reflect this balance. The membership of AATG, presently at 6000, consists of 49% representing pre-collegiate, 34% the post secondary and 17% undetermined or not teaching (please note that the pool of college university personnel is much smaller than that of the K-12). Its 17 national or external committees and task forces are filled with knowledgeable, dedicated colleagues, and most are balanced in gender, geography and teaching level. The team of eighty professional development consultants available to chapters for professional development is almost evenly divided between K-12 and 13-post-graduate colleagues. We continue to seek ways to keep the conversation between and among levels alive and to maintain a balance in the public image of the AATG. Being in contact with so many members on all levels in our many projects and, of course, the leadership of the Executive Council and our officers has helped the AATG keep alert to articulation concerns from the membership.

288

Helene Zimmer-Loew

Von Klenzes admonition for teachers of German to work shoulder to shoulder with teachers of other languages has also been realized in recent years. Since languages are not generally considered part of the core studies in most educational institutions, a collaborative of eight language-specific associations and ACTFL was formed to join in the well-established movement for standards among all other disciplines. The Foreign Language Standards Collaborative (see note) has created standards for the learners K16, Standards for FL Learning in the 21st Century (1999).These standards represent a major departure from the prevalent view that foreign languages are only for the elite, college-bound student. The statement of philosophy clearly directs its focus on foreign languages for all students:
Language and communication are at the heart of the human experience. The United States must educate students who are equipped linguistically and culturally to communicate in a pluralistic American society and abroad. This imperative envisions a future in which ALL (emphasis in original) students develop and maintain proficiency in English and at least one other language, modern or classical. (1928: 7)

Other departures include a description of what students should know and be able to do, an emphasis on learning content while learning language, and performance-based assessments. In an effort to influence all aspects of education, the Collaborative has also supported standards for accomplished teachers through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, for schools of education through the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, and for entry level teachers through the Council of Chief State School Officers. In order to serve the needs of a varied membership, the AATG provides publications, programs, and services to teachers of German at all levels of instruction as well as to individuals interested in the German language and cultures.
Publications: The German Quarterly contains articles on literature of the German-speaking countries, German philology and German studies as well as book reviews. Die Unterrichtspraxis, published in the spring and fall, carries articles on research, pedagogy and methodology along with book reviews, the quarterly Newsletter, provides members with an association update, events in the profession, and opportunities of interest, and a series of Infobltter features issues and programs of special interest.

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States

289

Chapters: Membership in the national AATG automatically includes membership in one of its sixty-one chapters. Each chapter supports a variety of local and regional projects designed to support teachers at all levels of instruction. Website and Listserves: AATG maintains an active website and two listserves, one a discussion group, and the other to advertise job openings at all levels of instruction, providing the often isolated teacher of German the opportunity to communicate with others easily and without charge. Werbung: In cooperation with the Goethe Institute, we disseminate various materials to support the study of German, such as a video, brochures, posters, and a Werbemappe. Professional Development: Through the chapter structure, in-depth workshops and seminars on the latest topics of pedagogical, literary and cultural interest are available to all members. For the past three years we have provided training to selected younger members of the profession, our future leaders. In cooperation with a university and the Goethe Institut, we offer a series of online courses (German Online Distance Education Network or GOLDEN) that can lead to a Masters degree with an emphasis on the teaching of German. Annual Meeting: A variety of conference sessions and workshops on pedagogical, cultural, and literary themes, open forums and the business meeting of the association are offered annually. Summer Seminars: We offer inexpensive summer seminars on a variety of topics and in several locations here and in Germany and Austria on topics such as early language learning, business German, literature, Landeskunde, and current events and also work with the Goethe Institut to disseminate information about its summer study programs. Kinder lernen Deutsch: This program supports the teaching of German to K-8 children by providing teacher training, materials, and assistance in establishing such programs. Materials Center: The Center offers a large variety of print and audio-visual materials such as reference works, short publications, and teacher-created units targeted to students and faculty at all levels of instruction. Awards: In cooperation with the Goethe Institut, the Checkpoint Charlie Stiftung, Lufthansa, and the Max Kade Foundation we honor members of the association for their outstanding work as educators and scholars. Student Programs: AATG sponsors several programs for students including the National German Testing Program, Awards Program, German Summer Study

290

Helene Zimmer-Loew

programs, and the Delta Epsilon Phi National German Honor Society for secondary students. Outreach: AATG is an allied organization of the Modern Language Association, a constituent member of the Joint National Committee for Language/National Council for Languages and International Studies (our Washington DC-based advocacy coalition), the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers (publishers of the Modern Language Journal) and an organizational member of the American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, the Foreign Language Standards Collaborative, and Internationaler Deutschlehrerverband.

Seventy-seven years have passed since the founding of AATG. The value placed by the public on the language, literatures, and cultures of the German-speaking countries has vacillated throughout that period as reflected in student enrollments. The concerns of AATGs founders and the problems the association faces today appear to be quite similar. Perhaps we can dedicate more of our energy and efforts to meeting these challenges together, since the need for cooperation at all levels and with all those who support the study of German and other languages has never been greater.

Appendix The Foreign Language Standards Collaborative consists of


AATF: AATG: AATI: AATSP: ACL: ACTFL: ACTR: ATJ: NCJLT : CLASS: CLTA: American Association of Teachers of French American Association of Teachers of German American Association of Teachers of Italian American Association of Teachers of Spanish & Portuguese American Classical League American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language American Council of Teachers of Russian Association of Teachers of Japanese National Council of Japanese Language Teachers Chinese Language Association of Secondary-Elementary Schools Chinese Language Teachers Association

Meeting the Challenge: The Future of German Study in the United States

291

References
Frank N. Magid Associates 2001 Das Bild Deutschlands in der amerikanischen ffentlichkeit. New York: Frank N. Magid Associates. Frank N. Magid Associates 2002 The Importance of Learning German as a Foreign Language: An Executive Summary. New York: Frank N. Magid Associates. National Standards in Foreign Language Project. Standards for Foreign Language Learning in the 21st Century. 1999 Lawrence/KS: Allen. Andress, Reinhard et.al. 2002 Maintaining the Momentum from High school to College: Report and Recommendations. Die Unterrichtspraxis 35/1: 114. Brod, Richard and Elizabeth Welles 2000 Foreign Language Enrollments in United States Institutions for Higher Education, Fall 1998. ADFL Bulletin 31/2: 2229. Byrnes, Heidi 1996 The Future of German in American Education: A Summary Report. Die Unterrichtspraxis 29/2: 253261. Draper, Jamie and June Hicks 2002 Foreign Language Enrollments in Public Secondary Schools, Fall 2000. Yonkers/New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language. Klenze, Camillo 1928 The American Association of Teachers of German. The German Quarterly 1/1: 36. Projections of Education Statistics to 2007 1997 Washington DC: NCES. http://nces.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/pj/p97003.html. Critical Issues: The Strategic Plan for the American Association of Teachers of German. 2002 Cherry Hill/New Jersey: American Association of Teachers of German. http://www.aatg.org/member_services/critical_issues.pdf. Tatlock, Lynne 2002 Special Report Maintaining the Momentum: The Transition from High School to College. American Association of Teachers of German Newsletter 37/2: 712.

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss Peter Wagener

Zusammenfassung
Der Aufsatz nhert sich der Frage, wie Sprachwandel beobachtet und beschrieben werden kann, auf empirischen Wege: Es werden Sprachbiographien von deutschstmmigen Amerikaner(inne)n aus Wisconsin nachgezeichnet. Diese Fallstudien von denen hier zwei etwas nher beleuchtet werden lassen ganz unterschiedliche Entwicklungen in der Lebenszeit eines Sprechers erkennbar werden. Der Beibehaltung und behutsamen Wandlung im Sprachgebrauch einer schweizerdeutschen Sprecherin steht der beinahe komplette Verlust der deutschen Sprachkompetenz einer Niederdeutsch-Sprecherin gegenber. Fr die Rekonstruktion dieser Wandlungsprozesse in realer Zeit wird die Methode des Re-Recordings prsentiert der erneuten Aufnahme von Sprechern, die in frheren Tonaufnahme-Aktionen in Wisconsin bereits einmal erfasst wurden (hier: 1968 und 2001). Erste Ergebnisse der zu Grunde liegenden linguistischen Analysen werden in Tabellen dargestellt.

1. Problems in observing and describing language change The determination of the means and results of language change is one of the foremost pursuits of linguistic research. For a long time, questions surrounding this issue have only been examined by means of written material, observed over long periods of time. Only in the last few decades has the actual process of change in spoken every-day language come into focus. To William Labov we owe the helpful method of distinguishing between apparent-time and real-time analysis of language change (see Labov 1994, cf. Bailey et al. 1991, Haas 1999). With the following two examples, I will show how the language biographies of individual speakers can be used for systematic observation of language changes. As a fundamental means of eliciting this useful material, the re-recording of speakers enframed in lifetime-studies will be described.

294

Peter Wagener

2. Two case studies: Language biographies 2.1. Language maintenance and dialectal change First I would like to introduce Vreni. She lives in Americas Little Switzerland in southern Wisconsin. Immigrating from Switzerland to Wisconsin as a toddler, she married there in the late 1920s and taught her husband a Swiss his first bits of English. The couples language was Swiss German, but with their children they spoke only English. (The daughter confided that they, as children, experienced their parents Swiss German as a kind of secret language in which they were not supposed to take part.) The following excerpts of recordings taken in 1968 and 2001 present, as examples of the comparative linguistic material, two Wenker sentences and a narrative on the slaughtering of pigs. Example 1: Wenker sentences 4 and 5
1968 L = Interview: Brian Lewis, then grad. student in Madison, WI G = Speaker VG, female, G., Dane County, WI

L: () der gute alte Mann ist mit dem Pferde durchs Eis gebrochen G: de alte L: und in das kalte G: Mann isch mit dem h Rosse durs Iesch durchebroche L: Wasser gefallen er ist vor vier oder G: un in das chalt Wasser kchfalle L: sechs Wochen gestorben G: er isch h vier oder sechs Woche zrck gschtoorwe 2001 W = Interview: Peter Wagener G = Speaker VG, female, G., Dane County, WI

W: () the good old man has broken through the ice with his horse G: de alt W: and has fallen into the cold G: Ma * isch durche Ies durchebroche mit m Ro W: water mhm * he died four or six G: and isch in des chalte Wasser rinnekiet W: weeks ago G: oh er isch drie * drie oddr vier Woche zrck gschtoorba

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss

295

Example 2: Slaughtering of pigs


1968 G = Speaker VG, female, G., Dane County, WI

G: () h * wann ma hett weller ne Schwien metzker *2* hoi- * heit sies G: mittr er Nacht so vor (??)schlache * heits kstoche mitm Messer * und G: danach hett ma dann messe * Wassr * kchoche bis s kchochend isch un G: hetts Messer () G: un da * Wrscht * hett ma au a mache loe * hett ma upr cha in Huus un G: hett me mache lo * und hett sa * hm * zimmerrcht hett ma au sauzi G: kmacht * und die andere hett ma in Steihawwe tuen und hett Schmutz hei G: kmacht un drberglaat oddr de Glseren steri- sterilisiert

2001

W = Interview: Peter Wagener G = Speaker VG, female, G., Dane County, WI T = Daughter von VG

G: () oh Schwei- (LAUGHING) das isch gruusig * by me * for mi isch es G: gruusig * 3 * jaha * mir hett im Wintr immer * hett mir kmetzgert * un G: hett e Choa kmetzgert un des * e Sau * hm mau- * e Choa dt se schisse G: un des Sau well * e Sau channt die au schisse un danach dt se steche G: se chann gue blete * W: G: und was hat man dann gemacht? mit dem Fleisch?

W: ja G: ja * mit hei da * Metzger ka eine wo mer do e Lt des goe ushelfe () W: und was fr Wrscht? G: was fr ne Gwrscht? Jaa * h * just * ich chant * W: mhm nicht G: eifach a Wurscht * me hett nett verschiedene Wrscht kho * nn W: von dem Blut eine? na? G: na-a-a Blotwrscht? N-- * no-o T: Blotwrscht

296

Peter Wagener

W: ja? G: ( LAUGHING ) n- * ja * det h * I thi- now ( STUTTERING ) but h * I think T: ( INCOMPREHENSIBLE, BUT IN ENGLISH ) W: mhm mhm mhm mhm G: I think my * mi husb- * mi Moa glaub i hetts noch * gesse * I think so W: mhm mhm mhm hm G: mei Ma- miene mei Mutter * but * n i deach * n- * ttn T: Oma mit Dad G: Sies esse?

The code-switching in the end is effected by the interference of the daughter, who is present as well. Although she understands German well, the old communicative rule here upheld. Comparing the two recordings, it becomes very clear how few changes are indicated in Vrenis language. Her conditions of communication have stayed relatively stable. Today she resides in a nursing home, where she maintains everyday communication with a number of Swiss German speakers. Switching between German and English is still as normal for her as it has been from childhood on.

2.2. Language loss My second example will illustrate the scope encompassed by the reality of language change: Anna from Manitowoc County at Lake Michigan. We generally find a vast variety of motives to either keep speaking German or to give it up. This woman from R., Manitowoc County, told me that in her childhood the change from Low German to English took place when the children started school. This situation can often be observed, and usually leads to a complete abandonment of German by the children. This case, however, was an exception: while two aunts of the speaker, who were living with the family, were both deaf, they had learned to lip-read German but not English. For that reason, the speaker kept her German Low German in this case along with English. It was a necessary means of comunication within the family as long as the aunts lived. The following excerpt of a transcript of this conversation displays an interesting switch from Low German to Standard German. This interview has been conducted primarily in English, except for the renewed questioning and translation of comparative texts (Wenker sentences etc.). It is a re-recording of a speaker Jrgen Eichhoff had previously interviewed in 1968, who has by now lost

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss

297

most of her abilities in Low German. (Here, the text about pig-slaughter has been cut after the sentences.) Example 1: Wenker sentences 4 and 5
1968 E = Interview: Jrgen Eichhoff, then Professor of German at UW at Madison H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

E: () der gute alte Mann ist mit dem Pferd durchs Eis gebrochen H: de ool E: und in das kalte Wasser gefallen H: Keerl is mit de Peerd inne Ies rinnefallen E: er ist vor vier oder sechs Wochen H: un is inne koole Woter rinnefallen E: gestorben H: nach veier odder ses Wochen is hei dood bleben

2001

W = Interview: Peter Wagener H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

W: () der gute alte Mann ist mit dem Pferd durchs Eis gebrochen H: de * de W: mhm mit H: ool Keerl is * in *2* de lake fallen durch dat Ei- durch dat Ies W: dem Pferd H: oh mit * mit de * Feerd * horses *2* mit de *5* I dont know W: H: what that will be in High German and Ge- and Plattdtsch either * mit de W: mh Feerd or Peerd? H: f- * f- Feerd that would be the same thing ja I think W: would you say Feerd or Peerd? is mit dem Pferd *2* er ist H: so thats what Id say Feerd ja W: durchs Eis gebrochen mhm mhm und H: is in de Ies falle is drch de Ies falle W: ins kalte Wasser gefallen und ins kalte Wasser gefallen * and H: is what? W: fallen into the cold water mhm H: un is h un is * in de h kool woter falln

298

Peter Wagener

W: er ist vor vier oder sechs Wochen gestorben H: he died about * die I * hei W: mhmmhm H: is dood bleewe onjefhr veier odder sechs Wochen vorher

Example 2: Wenker sentence 16


1968 E = Interview: Jrgen Eichhoff H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

E: Du bist noch nicht gro genug, () H: du bist no nich groot nouch () 2001 W = Interview: Peter Wagener H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

W: Du bist noch nicht gro genug, () H: du bist no nich groot * enough *3* W: H: du * du bist no nicht gro enough * ja du bist no nicht gro enough

Example 3: Slaughtering of pigs


1968 H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

H: () denn wenn de Dach kome dee * denn msste sei de Schwien rutegriepe H: * un * un un * denn msste er mit de xt vr de Kopp schloan * denn H: hewwest de Butchermetze nohme un hewwet se inne Genick rinnestoke * dat H: Blaut rutelope kill * un dat Blaut hewwet se bruukt tom Blautwust maken 2001 H = Speaker AH, female, R., Manitowoc County, WI

H: () se se * bri bringe de Schwien * rute * un denn h stke sei s inne H: * in de neck *2* in dat throat * un denn *3* mutt dat Blaut rutekomme * H: un denn hnge de Schwien up * un denn cut * h cut de * cut de Schwien H: open in de front * and and and * see I get myself mixed up * un denn H: nehme se alle de insides rute * un denn nehme se de insides * odder * se H: sei cleane de all * inside out * und denn * h * schaffe se dat meat all H: ab * und denn make dei * Wust out of dat

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss

299

To explicate the above situation more exactly: the behavior of the speaker in 2001 is determined by a great insecurity, and therefore contains several hesitations and interruptions in the translation of the sentences. The question now begged by the linguist is, of course, as to what happened in the meantime: how did the change, in the form of a partial loss of language competence, come to pass? Researchers in the field of language change think they know how the reduction of language competence is effected. The loss is believed to be stronger in the more open levels of language analysis (such as the lexic) and much weaker in the more closed ones, such as phonetics/phonology. The presented excerpt displays the lexical gaps. Thus, at first sight it can be confirmed that there are more changes in these areas, and less among the phonological characters or even the suprasegmental characters of regional language.

3. Analyzing real time change: The method of re-recording Still there remains a question: What is the motivation for, and relevance of, these renewed recordings? What do they forecast for research in language change? It is helpful to examine dialectal and regional spoken varieties of Germanspeaking migrants their language biographies, the changes in language use, and substance and system in an English-speaking environment. The material for this analysis is founded on a very effective methodical access of comparative analysis of historical and contemporary sound recordings. That means that the data the analysis is based on has been gathered by revisiting speakers interviewed in earlier sound recording-campaigns (cf. Wagener 1997, 1999, 2002). With these methods, we are pursuing the aim of examining selected phenomena of language change in different varieties of spoken German in real time. Subject to this research are changes in the speech of the individual, as well as phenomena of social language change within the language communities, within a time frame of up to 53 years. The basis of the data collection are sound recordings of German-speaking immigrants in Wisconsin from the 1940s and the 1960s. For comparison, sound recordings of the main German basic dialects, as well as sound recordings of dialect speakers from formerly German areas in Eastern Europe (Flchtlinge), are used. These recordings are archived in the Archives of Spoken German, part of the Institute for German Language in Mannheim/Germany (see Knetschke and Sperlbaum

300

Peter Wagener

1983, Haas and Wagener 1992; online www.ids-mannheim.de/DSAv). In the forefront of the analysis is the verification of recent hypotheses of research in language change. For example, it is postulated that disappearing varieties of German show a loss of lexical options, a simplified grammatical structure, and disorderly variation before their disappearance. Very little is actually known about the concrete processes of language change, conversion, and loss. The most common pattern of loss of German in north America is the conversion or shift from generation to generation. This can be verified especially in the present. Indicative of this trend is the example of Hans from Ansbach/Bavaria, a brewer, who came to Wisconsin in the early 1970s. Hans is bilingual: he speaks German with his wife, but otherwise communicates primarily in English. Of his children, the son is bilingual as well, while the daughter is exclusively monolingual. Their children, in turn, are monolingual even in competence. Examples from the present like this one are commonplace; particularly amongst imigrants of the 1960s and 70s placed in university and corporate environments. Language competency is usually coupled with a corresponding change of citizenship over generations: German and English, German passport, first generation Frequently both languages and citizenships, second generation English, American citizenship, third generation. This model has consistently been used over the years and observes that the first generation was still completely German-speaking, while bilinguality usually marked the second generation, and the actual switch of languages occured in the third generation. We know far less about the change and, when applicable, the loss of a language during the lifetime of one individual speaker. The dilemma in tracking this change is that there is no universal procedure for doing so, and at best, only isolated features are measured. There seems, however, a solution at hand, through the combination of single values. For all features included in the survey, I can determine a coefficient (of measure) which is modified only very slightly by the variation of single features. Tests with data of interview sequences confirm this. Thus my survey on individual language change is based not on the analysis of developments of isolated features, but on the comparison of indices representing the dialect level and the nonstandard level of different speech samples of single speakers, and rendering them commensurate (for more detailed information on the measuring procedure and more examples see Wagener 1997, 1999, 2002).

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss

301

4. Results in figures Applied to comparisons of various time periods, represented by tape recordings in 1968 and 2001, indices which have been determined for all nonstandard features can be related to each other. The indices of all features (here taken from Winteler 1876, Streiff 1915 and Lewis 1968) are marked as the most salient features for Schwyzerttsch by these authors. They are compared in figure 1. The indices of all features of the Low German speaker of Manitowoc (here taken from Lauf 1988, Niebaum 1977, Seymour 1970, 1978a, 1978b, Stellmacher 1981) are salient features as well. They are compared in figure 2. The data here graphically presented may give an indication of what kind of results may be drawn from real time analyses like these, and in which way the tendencies recorded on the tapes (and in small excerpts given in the transcripts) can be verified. Summarizing the results, we can clearly identify discrepancies in language loss, in this example between the speaker of Schwyzerttsch, who maintains her dialectal competence over her lifetime, and the speaker of Low German, who largely lost her competence after three decades. 100 95 WS 90 NAR 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 1968 50
Fig. 1. Vreni 1968 and 2001 Dialect level: Percentage of all features Place: G., Dane County, Wisc. (WS = Wenker Sentences, NAR = narrative parts of the interview)

2001

302

Peter Wagener

100 90 WS 80 NAR 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1968 0


Fig. 2. Anna 1968 and 2001 Dialect level: Percentage of all features Place: R., Manitowoc County, Wisc. (WS = Wenker Sentences, NAR = narrative parts of the interview)

2001

5. Conclusion As long as research in language change has limited itself to, respectively, testing its models of interpretation for the process of change on isolated phenomena or on small amounts of material, the potentiality of a cohesive description and explanation of the process of language change in detail was limited and often did not reach very far. Thus, it seems promising, within the scope of extendible speakers linguistics (cf. Macha 1991), exemplified by case studies, to concentrate on explicitly observable processes of change regarding individual speakers. In this way, language variations at first applied to individual cases can be described in statu nascendi. The more reconstrucions of individual cases can be related to each other based on identical theoretical and methodical prerequisites of observation the more clearly will regularities show, and thus mechanisms be reconstructed. Possibilities to empirically reconsider and support theoretical assumptions will then result. These possibilities result from an effort towards further findings

German in Wisconsin: Language Change and Loss

303

on the conditions, mechanisms and results of language change. This effort is one of the central concerns of linguistics, and here linguists attention has, as a rule, been directed primarily toward longer periods of time. Also, nolens volens written sources have been used, often without regard to their reliability. Using these sources, linguists could describe the results of language change, but the process itself has often been neglected. For that reason, research is increasingly trying to access spoken material for reference. In accordance with the premise, that the development of a language is made accessible through the help of several synchronic cuts, there have arisen different ways to register the language as manifested in the past, in order to compare it to the current state of development. Such relativist systems are recruited from descriptions of medieval realisations of languages (such as Old Saxon or MHG). Within German dialectology, the tertium comparationis has also been taken from i.e. Georg Wenkers early elicitations to the Deutscher Sprachatlas for an allotment of time in the late 19th century. Another supportive technique often used in recent linguistic studies is the simulation of time periods. This is predicated on the assumption that language variation can serve as a model for different phases of a process of language change. I believe that we need no longer depend on such methods. If we systematically pursue the method of re-recording to obtain material from real situations as a basis of linguistic research of language change in real time, a more comprehensive and accurate picture of language change and loss may emerge.

References
Bailey, Guy, Tom Wikle, Jan Tillery and Lori Sand 1991 The apparent Time Construct. Language Variation and Language Change 3: 241264. Haas, Walter 1999 Sprachwandel in apparent time und in real time. In: Wolfgang Schindler and Jrgen Untermann (eds.), Grippe, Kamm und Eulenspiegel, 125144. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Haas, Walter and Peter Wagener (eds.) 1992 Gesamtkatalog der Tonaufnahmen des deutschen Spracharchivs, vol. 2. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Knetschke, Edeltraud and Margret Sperlbaum 1983 Das Deutsche Spracharchiv im Institut fr deutsche Sprache. Mannheim.

304

Peter Wagener

Labov, William 1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. Oxford: Blackwell. Lewis, Brian A. 1968 The Phonology of the Glarus Dialect in Green County. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison. Lauf, Raphaela 1988 Vernderungen im Langvokalsystem nordniederschsischer Ortsdialekte zwischen 1879 und 1986. Jahrbuch des Vereins fr niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 111: 103114. Macha, Jrgen 1991 Der flexible Sprecher. Untersuchungen zu Sprache und Sprachbewutsein rheinischer Handwerksmeister. Kln: Bhlau. Niebaum, Hermann 1977 Westflisch. Dsseldorf: Schwann. Seymour, Richard K. 1970 Linguistic Change: Examples from the Westfalian Dialect of Nienberge. WORD 26/1: 3246. 1978a Linguistic Change: Examples from the Verb System of the Westfalian Dialect of Nienberge (near Mnster). In: M. A. Tazayery et al. (eds.), Festschrift fr A. A. Hill, 237248. Lisse. 1978b Linguistic Change in the Westfalian Dialect of Nienberge: Preliminary Investigation Based on Comparison of Two Versions of a Text. In: Stephen J. Kaplowitt (ed.), Germanic Studies in Honor of Springer, 305328. Pittsburgh. Stellmacher, Dieter 1981 Niederschsisch. Dsseldorf: Schwann. Streiff, Catharina 1915 Die Laute der Glarner Mundarten. Frauenfeld. Wagener, Peter 1997 Nach 40 Jahren: Zu individuellen Vernderungen der gesprochenen Sprache. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Varietten des Deutsch: Regionalund Umgangssprachen, 291307. Berlin. 1999 Niederdeutsch im Wandel. Eine Panelstudie zum Wandel des gesprochenen Deutsch in realer Zeit. Jahrbuch des Vereins fr niederdeutsche Sprachforschung 122: 4566. 2002 German Dialects in RealTime Change. Journal of Germanic Linguistics 14/3: 271285. Winteler, Jost 1876 Die Kerenzer Mundart des Kantons Glarus in ihren Grundzgen dargestellt. Leipzig/Heidelberg.

Language and the Creative Mind

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization: Semiotic Implications of Anglicisms in German Prisca Augustyn

Zusammenfassung
Diese semiotische Analyse verbindet einige Anglizismen im deutschen Kontext mit grundlegenden Aspekten der Globalisierung. Es wird gezeigt, dass englische Produktnamen und Werbestrategien eine globale sthetik reprsentieren, die durch Anglizismen der Alltagssprache bejaht wird; dadurch entsteht ein neues System von berzeugungen und sozialen Verhaltensmustern. Auch durch die Flexibilitt, die durch englische Berufsbezeichnungen signalisiert wird, werden alte Hierarchien verwischt; jedoch profitieren nur die, die sich von den Beengungen ihrer Umwelt tatschlich befreien knnen. Im Mittelpunkt der Analyse steht der Aspekt der Verfhrung; als wichtigsten Effekt dieser globalen sthetik betrachtet die Autorin nicht etwa die sprachlichen Auswirkungen der Anglizismen an sich, sondern die Entstehung einer sich an der globalen sthetik orientierenden Elite, deren kulturelle Entfremdung und die dadurch entstehende soziale Polarisierung.

1. Language and the semiotics of culture What activates the linguists mind, are the observable regularities of language, according to the philosopher Jaques Bouveresse (cf. Rauch 1999: 32); what activates the semiotists mind is the law governing, or the constraint affecting, any social practice, and the fact that it is articulated like a language (cf. Kristeva 1975: 47). Irmengard Rauch calls this the languageinlay in semiotic modalities (1999: 82); this reflects both the inherent alliance of linguistics and semiotics and the postulate that language underlies all semiosis (ibid. 86).

308

Prisca Augustyn

1.1. The self as a process of communication In the theoretical vacuum of non-verbal semiosis (cf. Lange-Seidl 1977; cf. Rauch 1999), all phenomena, including language, action, and thought, are signs; indeed man himself is a sign or, as the late Thomas Sebeok said, man is to be understood as a process of communication (Sebeok 1977: 181). A similar conjecture can be found in Jacob von Uexklls theory of autoambience, or Umwelt in the original German (1940). Uexklls work was devoted to the problem of how living beings perceive their environment and how this perception determines their behavior. [] Of particular interest to Uexkll was the fact that signs are of prime importance in all aspects of life processes (Uexkll, Thure 1987: 147). It was Sebeok (1979) who first recognized Uexklls contribution to general semiotics. Uexkll describes the self as psychophysically suited to its autoambience, the non-self, which in turn has its existence through the particular self; he speaks of functional circles (Funktionskreise) of individual experience.

1.2. Uexklls functional circles Jakob von Uexklls theory of autoambience (Umwelt ) reverses the understanding of reality in the traditional philosophy of science. Thure von Uexkll explains the model of functional circles as elements of the subjective self-world which form an ultimate reality:
Reality, to which all is subjected and from which everything is deduced, is not to be found outside, in infinite space, which has neither beginning nor end, and which is filled with a nebulous cloud of elementary particles; nor is it to be found inside, within ourselves and the indistinct, distorted images of the external world created by our mind. Reality manifests itself in those worlds described by Uexkll as Umwelten (subjective-self worlds) with which sense perception surrounds all living beings like a bubble clearly delineated but invisible to outside observers. (Uexkll, Thure 1987: 148)

For Jakob von Uexkll, signs and sign processes are the only true reality and the laws under which the signs and sign processes communicate themselves to our mind [] are the only true laws of nature (ibid.).

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization

309

1.3. Self and non-self One of the fundamental notions in Uexklls theory of autoambience is the sign relationship self and non-self in which each is indicative of the other. This most primitive of sign relationships results in a strangely reciprocal relationship between nature, which has created man, and man who not only in his art and science, but also in his experiential universe, has created nature (Uexkll, Thure 1987: 149). This primitive sign relationship lies at the basis of the mechanism of forming belief through continuous semiosis, which is most effectively expressed in the dictum that the self and the universe are reciprocals (cf. Shands and Meltzer 1977: 89).

1.4. Community, identity, and language-change A semiotic perspective suggests that signs are constantly translated into other signs as a continuous process of the sign-interpreting community. And conversely, the continuous sign-interpreting process perpetuates the community and identity is established by sharing in this continuous process. Language change, therefore, must always be placed in the context of this continuum, because it is the teleology of language change [], of why symbols grow (2: 332), which semiotic method imparts to linguistics as a haunting legacy and challenge (Rauch 1999: 59). In particular, the challenge is in finding appropriate descriptive techniques that characterize the connections, laws, and constraints relating the verbal to the non-verbal. Rather than giving more examples for the rise of Anglicisms in German, the purpose of this chapter is to analyze the ascendancy of Anglicisms from a semiotic perspective by describing some scenarios associated with the upsurge of Anglicisms that link the linguistic evidence with the effects of globalization. Through this analysis Anglicisms can be interpreted as cultural signs that invert the process of signification as means of expression for that which is experienced to something that is experienced as it is expressed, so that the language itself functions as a source of experience. The fundamental notions of Uexklls theory of autoambience, the functional circles and the sign relationship self and non-self as well as the notion of community, play an important role in describing the modes of seduction (section 2), whose most important cultural consequences are not the corruption of the language or the erosion of national identity, but the bifurcation and polarization of human experience.

310

Prisca Augustyn

2. Modes of seduction 2.1. Endless horizons, limitless desires Why is the BMW in a commercial not typically driving through the Bayerischer Wald or the Alps, but something that looks more like the Salt flats of Utah or the deserts of Arizona? Yes, the occasional scenario takes the driver into the quaint scenery of an Italian village, but the German fascination with Italy is easily explained as the yearning for things Mediterranean; not to embark on voyages of discovery but primarily to escape the daily grind of the locality. Why, though, drive into these endless horizons of nowhere in particular? In fact we might fall prey to the one or other illusion of a computer-generated image, signifying endless possibilities of movement, implying the sheer limitlessness of our desires. Similar images of uninhabited landscapes crop up in the context of planning our financial future by investing in all but boundless desires: The boat on which we sail across the ocean, the house on a deserted beach, the horse on which we ride into the sunset far away from the confining reality of congested suburbs and cluttered apartments. Our desires are no longer located at home, but more and more in a space one only enters virtually, and yet that space becomes part of the non-self and is incorporated in our functional circles, with varied impact on the predicaments of different types of people. While some can actually realize their desires out there, far away, others are still separated by physical obstacles and temporal distances. It is in the hope of participating in an imaginary community outside of our limited territory that we wish to make global connections instead of Auslandsgesprche, or buy tickets at the ticket counter rather than a Fahrkartenschalter. While the English in phone bills and at train stations expresses where we could go, the German only reminds us of where we are. Zygmunt Baumann describes the socio-psychological consequences of this change in the perception of time and space and the associated pattern and scale of social organization as follows:
If the new exterritoriality of the elite feels like intoxicating freedom, the territoriality of the rest feels less like home ground, and ever more like prison all the more humiliating for the obtrusive sight of the others freedom to move. It is not just that the condition of staying put, being unable to move at ones hearts desire and being barred access to greener pastures, exudes the acrid odour of defeat, signals incomplete humanity and implies being

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization

311

cheated in the division of splendors life has to offer. Deprivation reaches deeper. The locality in the new world of high speed is not what the locality used to be at a time when information moved only together with the bodies of its carriers; neither the locality, nor the localized population has much in common with the local community. (Bauman 1998: 2324)

The question arises, whether the same globalization manifests itself in different cultures; and whether it manifests itself in similar ways. If Anglicisms in German are interpreted as signs of a desire for a community outside the traditional infrastructures we inhabit, what are the parallels in other cultures? For instance, in the United States, the emergence of the planned community may be interpreted as an expression of the wish for new forms of unity; the gated community, therefore, must be seen as a form of symbolic unity that stems from the same estrangement with the local community.

2.2. The Future. Together. Now. What is signified by the slogan of a large insurance company on German TV, The Future. Together. Now.? To be sure, the slogan is not to be translated as Die Zukunft. Zusammen. Jetzt. ; rather, the English slogan is impossible to translate in any other language, because it is not referring to the Future, the Together, or the Now of any language or any community in particular, but instead it suggests the existence of a Future, a Together, and a Now that transcends any locality and suggests the existence of a community of those who have the power to invest. What was known as the local community used to be defined by the opposition here and there, which no longer corresponds to the functional circles of all individuals inhabiting the same locality.
Homogeneity now must be hand-picked from a tangled mess of variety through selection, separation and exclusion; all unity needs to be made; concord artificially produced is the sole form of unity available. Common understanding can be only an achievement [] in strenuous competition with an indefinite number of other potentialities all vying for attention and each promising a better (more correct, more effective, or more pleasurable) assortment of life tasks and solutions for life problems. (Bauman 2001: 14)

This telegraphic phrase The Future. Together. Now. in the German context signifies this would-be community of interests outside of any locality but

312

Prisca Augustyn

part of our non-self, which is, unfortunately, not available to us but which we would whish to participate in. It expresses our desire for a community, a cultural continuum as our experience in our local context becomes ever more fragmented. For some, the place they inhabit becomes meaningless as they cut themselves free from the locality by creating systems of meaning whose emphasis is on an aesthetic disassociated from the reality of the locality.

2.3. Sorry, tut mir leid Is a person who steps on someones toes on a bus really saying the same thing as Entschuldigung I am sorry or Verzeihung I am sorry when he says Sorry, tut mir leid? While this may qualify as the same speech act, it is what the speaker signifies about himself that is different; recall Peirces definition of man himself as a sign, or Sebeoks man as a process of communication (1977: 181). Is he who prefers to say schon n bisschen strange rather than komisch, eigenartig, seltsam, kurios signifying a different quality of strangeness than all the German near-equivalents? Again, the difference is in what the speaker signifies about him- or herself and his or her particular non-self or autoambience to which the self is psychophysically suited. The infusion of such adjectives and interjections in ones personal language is indicative of functional circles that incorporate localities other than the immediate locality of the speaker, be they virtual or real, or any other elements of this superimposed space of information that are devoid of spatial dimensions. It is this subjective self-world, whose functional circles form what Uexkll explained as the ultimate reality. As Florian Illies remarks in his book Generation Golf describing the predicaments of now thirty-something year old Germans, Es gab wahrscheinlich rund 3,5 Millionen weiblicher Singles, die zwischen 1995 und 1999 am Samstag ab 16 Uhr bgelten oder ihre Wohnung putzten und dazu Melrose Place oder Beverly Hills 90210 schauten. [Between 1995 and 1999, there were probably around 3.5 million single females who were watching Melrose Place or Beverly Hills 90210 on Saturday afternoons while cleaning their appartments or ironing their clothes.] (Illies 2001: 128). And he adds a few pages later Mit dem Rund-um-die-Uhr-Programm von MTV und Viva ist eine neue Form von Weltzusammenhang entstanden, die Orientierung bietet, weil man jederzeit einsteigen und auch jederzeit wieder aussteigen kann. [The 24 hour programs on MTV and Viva have

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization

313

brought about a new form of global cohesion which offers continuity, because it is possible to enter and exit any time.] (ibid. 133). While the new would-be community is encoded in the singular temporality of the endless loop, the locality, again, becomes more and more meaningless; as Baumann says, cheap comunication floods and smothers memory rather than stabilizing it (Bauman 1998: 16).

2.4. Wir sind jetzt alle Product Managers The German professional world increasingly prefers job titles in English as job categories are becoming more amorphous. While Sekretrin secretary has definite connotations of subordination, the title Team Assistant in German companies implies flexibility and responsibilities of equal importance as those of all other members of the respective team. Richard Sennett tells us in The Corrosion of Character that the system of power which lurks in modern forms of flexibility consists of 3 elements; discontinuous reinvention of institutions; flexible specialization of production; and concentration without centralization of power (Sennett 1998: 47). English job titles in the German context signify power, precisely because most power is exercised by the units who manage to remain the sources of other units uncertainty; and because the manipulation of uncertainty is the essence and the primary stake in the struggle for power and influence inside every structured totality (Bauman 1998: 34). In analogy with the previous observations, the professional world behind steel and glass becomes another culture-free zone that follows a global aesthetic representative of another would-be community as many different types of jobs fall into categories like Product Manager, Sales Manager, Account Manager to name a few. The list is endless; job announcements in any German newspaper attest to this. While English titles signify power, the new flexibility is deceptive. The opacity of hierarchies has led to new methods of control, because it became clear to many business leaders [] that only in the highly paid fantasy life of consultants can a large organization define a new business plan, trim and reengineer itself to suit, then steam forward to realize the new design (Sennett 1998: 49). The same polarization of experience manifests itself in the professional world; while some gain power and flexibility with a new title for a more indistinct job profile, others lose influence and find themselves ever more locked up in the same old tasks.

314

Prisca Augustyn

2.5. Wer Lady isches will, search t nicht bei Jil Sander Here is a well-known quote: Mein Leben ist eine giving-story. Fr den Erfolg entscheidend war mein coordinated concept. Die audience hat das alles supported. [My life is a giving-story. What was important for my success was my coordinated concept. The audience supported this.] It is no coincidence that the German fashion designer Jil Sander, formerly known as Heidemarie Siline, whose 1996 interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Magazin is the source of this illustrious quote, is one of the most ambitious creators and promoters of an international fashion aesthetic. Her intended audience is, as she tells us, the audience who supports her; another would-be community with no other foundation to rest on but some shared agreement expressed in their aesthetic judgment. Zygmunt Baumann links this would-be community with Kants notion of Aesthetic Community, about which he says:
Just as beauty boils down to artistic experience, the community in question is brought forth and consumed in the warm circle of experience. Its objectivity is woven entirely from the friable threads of subjective judgements, though the fact that they are woven together colours those judgements with a veneer of objectivity. (Bauman 2001: 65)

Correspondingly, in Florian Illiess Generation Golf, we find a characterization of what he calls die Generation der Lebensstheten, die ein ganzes Leben lang am Gesamtkunstwek Ich [bastelt] und sich statt mit Politik lieber mit der Frage [beschftigt]: Ist der grne Badezimmerschrank ein adquater Ausdruck meines Lebensgefhls oder nicht? [the generation of lifestyle aesthetes who spend their entire lives creating their personality as an art object; and rather than to concern themselves with politics they prefer addressing issues such as: Is the green bathroom cabinet an adequate expression of my personal life aesthetic or is it not?] (Illies 2001: 60). Jil Sanders supportive audience is precisely the exterritorial aesthetic community, a new elite that is independent of any locality. Her giving story begins by giving herself a name that cuts her free from the cultural baggage of her origin, and continues in a culture-free self image whose purpose is the promotion of a global aesthetic.

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization

315

3. The secession of the successful: Don Juans aesthetic community Bauman speaks of the secession of the successful as a form of escapism primarily through personal taste and consumer behavior (2001: 50ff). He characterizes the escapees of modern societies by a comparison to the figure of Don Juan in Kierkegaards Either/Or; take Mozarts Don Giovanni if you wish. According to this conjecture, it is seduction, not possession they long for; or rather, the constant perpetuation of desire and restless seduction that never moves toward a final state. As Pierre Bourdieu explained, temptation and seduction have replaced normative regulations as the principal means of system construction and social integration. It is the norm breaking [] that is the main effect of temptation and the essence of seduction (Bauman 2001: 130131). As passions are volatile and short lived the aesthetic community is not one that strives for a common good or moves toward a final state or ideal, instead its raison dtre is never to be gratified in its constant search for satisfaction (cf. Bauman 2001: 66). The principal conclusion is that rather than homogenizing the human condition, the desire to follow a global aesthetic tends to polarize it. While some are freed from territorial constraints it degrades the locality, to which others remain confined. What creates new systems of meaning for some, produces meaninglessness and social uncertainty for others, which Pierre Bourdieu has repeatedly described as permanent precarit, the uncertainty about ones future and ones social standing (cf. Bauman 2001: 41 42) in a fragmented local community. At the same time, the elite has chosen isolation by following a global aesthetic that frees them from the socio-political context of their locality. Matthias Horxs term neoaristokratische Lebensform [neo-aristocratic lifestyle] is appropriately illustrated by Florian Illiess Generation Golf :
Ende der neunziger Jahre war es sogar schon soweit, dass sich StudentenWGs einmal die Woche eine Putzfrau leisteten, um in der gesparten Zeit Inline-Skating machen zu knnen. Nie war die Frage, andere fr sich die Drecksarbeit machen zu lassen, so wenig eine Frage der Moral wie fr uns. [Towards the end of the nineties student roommates were already hiring people to clean their apartments so they could go inline-skating in the meantime. To have someone else do the dirty work for you has never been less of a moral question than it is for us.]. (Illies 2001: 156)

316

Prisca Augustyn

As postulated in the beginning, the purpose of this paper was to show that the most important cultural consequences of these modes of seduction are not the corruption of the language or the erosion of national identity, but the bifurcation and polarization of human experience. The final question to ask is why there is such a crowd of Don Juans in contemporary German society? (The term crowd is used here in lieu of community.) If culture is defined as a process of communication, in which the continuous sign-interpreting process perpetuates the community and establishes identity as collective experience, the following quote by Michael Benedikt is of crucial significance in the contemporary German context: Social cohesion at any scale is a function of consensus, of shared knowledge, and without constant updating and interaction, such cohesion depends crucially on early, and strict, education in and memory of culture. Social flexibility, depends on forgetting and cheap communication. (Michael Benedikt 1995: 41). In this context, Florian Illies (2001: 175) raises the following issue:
Man hat den Eindruck, dass die vllige Fixierung unseres Geschichtsunterrichts auf die Nazi-Zeit zu einer aufflligen Schieflage gefhrt hat. Alle Meinung und Emotion, die ein Mitglied der Generation Golf fr Historie brig hat, ist auf die Nazi-Zeit gemnzt. Zu Bismarcks Deutschlandpolitik, Napoleon oder dem Prager Frhling haben wir in der Regel weder Kenntnis noch eine Meinung. Die Moral, so haben wir jahrelang gelernt, beginnt immer erst, wenn es zu einer durch deutsche Gromachttrume verschuldeten Katastrophe kam. Und weil wir so oft die Jahre von 1933 bis 1945 in allen ihren Verstelungen durchgenommen haben, wissen wir leider so gut wie nichts ber die Zeit danach. Bis zur Kubakrise, dem Vietnamkrieg oder zu Willy Brandt haben wir es nie geschafft. Und schon war das Schuljahr wieder vorbei. Und im nchsten begann man wieder mit dem Ende der Weimarer Republik. [It seems as if the fixation on the Nazi-period in our history classes has lead to an uncomfortable imbalance. All opinions of and emotions my generation could have towards our history are linked to the Nazi-period. We have neither knowledge of nor the ability to form opinions of Bismarcks Deutschlandpolitik, Napoleon, or the Prague Spring. We have been taught that ethical questions arise whenever German expansionist fantasies have lead to catastrophes. And because we went through the intricacies of the period between 1933 1945 so many times, we know nothing about what happened after World War II. We never made it to the Cuba Crisis, the Vietnam War, or Willy Brandt. And another school year was over. And in the next school year, history lessons, once again, began with the end of the Weimar Republic.]. (Illies 2001: 176)

Florian Illies provocatively explains how the warped sense of history and the cultural memory of young Germans that seems forever anchored in the

The Seductive Aesthetics of Globalization

317

Nazi-period inevitably makes them seek liberation in a global vision more than any other group of modern day Don Juans. If what Michael Benedikt calls social cohesion at any scale is, indeed, a function of shared knowledge that depends on constant updating and interaction, early, and strict education in and memory of culture (Michael Benedikt 1995: 41), the German situation is one that is inevitably more precarious than any language purist may suspect. Anglophilia has become an integral part of the subjective self-world of those who follow the attraction of global unity; their ultimate reality is the culture-free flexibility of an aesthetic community that depends on nothing more than the constant perpetuation of desire and restless seduction. The corruption of the language per se must be understood as indicative of a precarious condition that has stopped questioning itself. The purists preoccupation with the surface manifestations of language change seems like an inopportune distraction when the primary concern should be the cultural estrangement of a young generation and the social polarization of a society whose latent uncertainty is most adequately expressed in the title of Illiess final chapter Die Suche nach dem Ziel hat sich somit erledigt [the quest for a final destination has become pointless after all.] (Illies 2001: 189).

References
Baumann, Zygmunt 1998 Globalization. The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. 2001 Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 2001 The Individualized Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Beck, Ulrich 1999 World Risk Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Benedikt, Michael 1995 On Cyberspace and Virtual Reality. In: Man and Information Technology (lectures from the 1994 international symposium arranged by the Committee on Man, Technology and Society at the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences [IVA]). Stockholm. Bourdieu, Pierre 1984 Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hetherington, K. and R. Munro (eds.) 1997 Ideas of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell.

318

Prisca Augustyn

Hpfl, Heather 1997 The melancholy of the black widow. In: K. Hetherington and R. Munro (eds.), Ideas of Difference, 236237. Oxford: Blackwell. Illies, Florian 2001 Generation Golf. Frankfurt: Fischer Kierkegaard, Sren [1994] Either/Or. Trans. David F. Swinson and Lillian Marvin Swinson. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Krampen, Martin et al. (eds.) 1987 Classics of Semiotics, 147179. New York: Plenum Press. Kristeva, Julia 1975 The system and the speaking subject. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), The Tell-tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics, 4555. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Lange-Seidl, Annemarie 1977 Approaches to Theories of Non-verbal Signs. (Studies in Semiotics 17) Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. McBride, Stephen and John Wiseman (eds.) 2000 Globalization and its Discontents. London: Macmillan. Rauch, Irmengard 1999 Semiotic Insights: The Data Do the Talking. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Rorty, Richard 1998 Achieving our Country, Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Sebeok, Thomas A. (ed.) 1975 The Tell-tale Sign: A Survey of Semiotics. Lisse: The Peter de Ridder Press. Sebeok, Thomas A. 1977 A Perfusion of Signs. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 1979 The Sign and its Masters. Austin: University of Texas Press. Sennett, Richard 1998 The Corrosion of Character: the Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: Norton. Shands, Harley C. and James D. Meltzer 1977 Unexpected Semiotic Implications of Medical Inquiry. In: Thomas A. Sebeok (ed.), A Perfusion of Signs, 7789. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Uexkll, Jakob von 1940 Bedeutungslehre (Bios, Abhandlungen zur theoretischen Biologie und ihrer Geschichte sowie zur Philosophie der organischen Naturwissenschaften, Bd. 10). Leipzig: Verlag von J.A.Barth. Uexkll, Thure von 1987 The Sign Theory of Jakob von Uexkll. In: Martin Krampen et al. (eds.), Classics of Semiotics, 147179. New York: Plenum Press.

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture 1 Yasemin Yildiz

Zusammenfassung
Globalisierungsdebatten, die nur um Amerikanisierung und Homogenisierung kreisen, werden der tatschlichen Komplexitt kultureller Entwicklungen und Verschrnkungen vor Ort nicht gerecht. Im Extremfall knnen diese Diskurse die in Deutschland bereits existierende kulturelle und sprachliche Heterogenitt sogar verschleiern. Um die Situation der deutschen Sprache im Globalisierungszeitalter vollstndiger zu erfassen und zu bewerten, ist es daher ntig, Globalisierung verstrkt als Prozess transnationaler Interaktion zu verstehen. So hat Migration als transnationales Phnomen die Bedingungen fr neue Formen von Deutsch geschaffen. Am Beispiel von Feridun Zaimoglus Kultbuch Kanak Sprak (1995) zeigt dieser Aufsatz, wie eine genuin transnationale sthetik die deutsche Sprache und damit Kultur neu imaginiert. Kanak Sprak speist sich dabei aus so unterschiedlichen Quellen wie jugendlichem Slang, norddeutschem Dialekt, literarischer Hochsprache, englischsprachigem Hip-Hop-Vokabular und rotwelschen und jiddischen Bruchstcken. Damit wird die deutsche Sprache der Ort, wo lokale und globale, nationale, nicht-nationale und transnationale Sprachen und Codes auf innovative Weise aufeinander treffen.

Die Welt franst aus: Sprache(n) entstehen. Und in Deutschland? Deutschland franst im Innern aus. Es entsteht genau dort Neues, wo Mitne werden: zu Sprachen. Sprache zu Literatur. The world frays: Language(s) emerge. And in Germany? Germany frays on the inside. Something new emerges precisely where discordant notes turn into: language. Language into literature. Jos F. A. Oliver (Oliver 1995: 1163)

320

Yasemin Yildiz

1. Introduction: The Kanak Sprak phenomenon In 1995, Turkish-German writer Feridun Zaimoglu published a slim volume with the provocative title Kanak Sprak: 24 Mitne vom Rande der Gesellschaft [Kanak Speak: 24 discordant notes from the margins of society].2 In this text, Zaimoglu puts forward a powerful social and cultural critique of German society; this critique is partially articulated through the appropriation of the highly derogatory term Kanake, an ethnic slur primarily directed at migrants from Turkey or those presumed to be from Turkey. Rather than pointing to positive counterexamples to combat the negative associations of that term such as criminality, violence, or sexism Kanak Sprak embraces these stereotypes in an exaggerated and defiant appropriation. The book does so in a series of monologues attributed to young men of Turkish background in Germany who occupy marginal and frequently abject social positions such as pimp, garbage collector, heroin addict, Islamic fundamentalist or transsexual. These figures describe mainstream society and their own status within it in critical, provocative, and at times offensive terms. What is most striking about these monologues and in fact constitutes their most visceral provocation is their language. Frequently relying on violent, obscene, and scatological imagery and obscure slang, the language of the text is strongly oral and deliberately unidiomatic. In its overall effect, German, in this text, appears strange, if not alien. Zaimoglu asserts that this language is based on the speech of young men he interviewed for the book. Along with this claim to authenticity, though, he also acknowledges that he reworked the language and made conscious choices in its representation (Zaimoglu 1995: 15, 18). As a result, he has created a distinctive style and language that is neither found on the streets, nor elsewhere in literature. Far from being unified and homogenous, the voices that Zaimoglu creates in this manner are frequently at odds with each other, both in terms of content and style. For the most part, though, Zaimoglus figures do not explicitly discuss language or comment on it; instead they engage in trenchant social critiques. Yet, it is to a large degree their language which underscores the force of the social commentaries. By transgressing the rules of language and the norms of the sayable, the monologues enact this critique and make it a material fact. With its language and attitude Kanak Sprak is the figurehead of a cultural phenomenon that has spread into multiple media.3 While others have also undertaken to redefine the slur the hip hop group Fresh Familee, for instance, released their song Sexy Kanake a year before Kanak Sprak appeared Zaimoglus book has been the most visible site of this appropriation.

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

321

Since the mid-1990s, numerous artistic (re)appropriations of the Kanak figure and versions of the language have taken shape and resulted in literary anthologies, films, music, theater and video performances, comedy acts, and cartoons with titles such as Kanaksta (Lottmann 1999), Kanakmn (Omurca 2002), and Fear of a Kanak Planet (Loh and Gngr 2002).4 Zaimoglu himself became a much sought after commentator for major papers such as Die Zeit and a frequent guest on TV talk shows. At the same time, the loosely organized network Kanak Attak formed, articulating an anti-assimilationist critical stance towards mainstream German culture and politics (Kanak Attak 1999). Remarkably, the various appropriations were produced both by minority and majority artists, thus testifying to the emergence of a cultural figure and form which agitates the German imagination at large.5 Not all of these spin-offs shared the same anti-hegemonic thrust that characterizes Zaimoglus book.6 In some cases, ethnic German authors simply reproduced the stereotypes without any critical twist, so that Kanake turned back into the insult that it was before, as in the case of the popular dictionaries concocted by Michael Freidank (2001).7 As this broad-based and heterogeneous appropriation testifies, this phenomenon goes beyond a single author and media star. What these various manifestations of the Kanak phenomenon share is the transgressive quality of their discourse, linked to some kind of non-normative use of the German language. It is a phenomenon which links minority representation to new aesthetic forms and formats and in particular turns to the German language as a crucial site of this representation.

2. Bringing in globalization discourses: Against the primacy of the Americanization paradigm This foregrounding of language in the articulation of marginalized social identities makes Kanak Sprak in particular a very suggestive text for thinking about the future of the German language. In fact, Kanak Sprak forces us to examine our understanding of globalization and how it should inflect the way we pose such questions as the future of German. Striking about much of the German discourse on linguistic globalization is the fact that even where globalization is the framework of the discussion, it is still frequently stuck in a deeply binary constellation of German vis--vis English. The issue of language and globalization tends to be understood as referring to the dominance of English and, more generally, to the threat of cultural Americanization.8 This constellation is implicitly figured as the confrontation of two clear-cut

322

Yasemin Yildiz

national languages or at least one national language (German) with another, globally functioning, national language (American English).9 Yet, globalization can precisely not be understood in exclusively national terms. As theorists such as anthropologist Arjun Appadurai have pointed out, technological developments and the effects of large scale migrations are among the factors that have changed the parameters of cultural interaction. National boundaries no longer exclusively determine the participants of that interaction or the participating cultural channels and products (Appadurai 1996; see also Hardt and Negri 2000). The various spoken and written forms of present-day German thus interact with multiple influences, influences which register in multifarious ways. This means that besides English we need to take into account the evolving multilingualism within Germany as part of the German languages contextual fabric. Furthermore, exclusively focusing on the threat of Americanization has the effect of mistakenly imagining German as otherwise unchanged and unchangeable.10 It may lead to the ideological fantasy of an organic and pure German which has remained untouched, as if it were outside of time and history. Instead we need to recognize that it is a living language which continues evolving and which registers change. The most serious ideological problem with the sole focus on Americanization is therefore that it obscures the contemporary realities of German, its potential for exciting impurities and its creative uncontrollability. Even the interaction with what we facilely call English occurs in a more complex manner than a binary opposition implies. As is well known, in its global reach there is not simply one English but rather a language which undergoes transformations and is appropriated in the most diverse ways. Besides multiple new Englishes (Crystal 1997: 130134), there are elements seemingly from English which have a life of their own. What can we make of a ubiquitous word in German such as Handy for instance? This word seems to derive from English, but no English speaker, who didnt also know contemporary German, would recognize that this is the word for cell phone.11 Is it then English which puts pressure on German or German which borrows from other languages for its own purposes? I suggest that the most important question we need to ask in this respect is: what desires does the use or evocation of English satisfy for German speakers? What does Americanization look like from this vantage point? What functions does it fulfill? The interaction between languages does not take place unilaterally. Therefore, we need to alter our framework to register fully the processes in which the German language is involved. Even if we assume the dominance of English in general and Americanization in particular, we still need to consider local appropriations of English, as well as other languages,

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

323

and what they tell us about local forms of agency and desire. The insight into the interdependence of the global and the local what some refer to as glocalisation (Roland Robertson) can be observed in other realms, and it is necessary to consider that dynamic for the case of language as well.12 How can this more transnational understanding of globalization inform the present discussion? In evaluating the future of German in a globalizing world, the effects of migration on German culture in general13 and on the German language in particular necessarily occupy a central place, since ethnic minorities appropriate and alter the German language in new ways.14 Moreover, languages of minorities also change their form and function as they interact with German. Peter Auer and Inci Dirim (2003), for instance, have done research on the appropriation of Turkish by non-Turkish adolescents in Hamburg which shows the diverse social uses to which that language is put in the everyday life of young people from German majority and non-Turkish minority backgrounds. The example of young ethnic German Aussiedler from Kazakhstan interspersing Turkish phrases into their German speech gives us a different dimension of globalization that remains occluded by the sole focus on English. Such a focus on multilingualism within Germany unearths a dynamic that is much more complex than a mere binary between an invading, Americanized English and a supposedly homogenous, stable German language. As part of the recognition of multilingualism within Germany, it will also be necessary to recognize the diversity of speakers of German. Ultimately this recognition will challenge the still prevalent view that the German language is the sole property of ethnic German speakers, which others might borrow but not possess. In this respect, we encounter a paradox: While there is a lament over the supposed decline in the use of German, there is an unwillingness to admit that German is not the sole property of ethnic German speakers and that there are in fact many other speakers of German. One of the questions for the future of the German language is: can the allegedly organic link between ethnic Germans and the German language be rethought? What is really at stake: is it the future of the German language or is it the future of the notion of an ethnically and culturally homogenous Germany which is the only legitimate owner of the language? If one cares for the future of the German language, will it be possible to care for it without necessarily linking it to ethnic Germans as its sole proprietors? Sociolinguistic research is indispensable for showing us the present state of the language evolution in everyday life. The actual use of the language, however, occurs along with the equally changing cultural imagination of the language. That is, a language does not solely exist in its actual linguistic

324

Yasemin Yildiz

parameters, but also in the continued cultural constructions of it. How a language is conceived of culturally, which notions circulate about it in cultural discourses, does not necessarily correspond to linguistic characteristics of that language, but constitutes a distinct realm in itself. It is here that a text such as Kanak Sprak comes into play. Literature can help us understand what cultural meanings are produced at the site of the transformation and multiplication of German. While there is a dynamic relationship between the linguistic situation in everyday life and the reimagination of that situation in literary texts, the two should not be conflated, but rather investigated complementarily.15 A focus on the cultural imagination of the language is also relevant given the crucial role ascribed to imagination in processes of cultural globalization (Appadurai 1996: 31). In this context, it is significant that minority writers in contemporary Germany have increasingly turned to the German language itself as a site for articulating a cultural critique of the exclusive nature of the nation as an imagined community. Among the contemporary minority writers who reinvent and reimagine the German language is for instance Emine Sevgi zdamar, author of Mutterzunge, Mother Tongue (1990), who in (1991) was the first minority winner of the prestigious Ingeborg-Bachmann-prize.16 zdamars writing, in part, draws on literal translations from Turkish while remaining in German, a strategy which results in a highly poetic alienation effect.17 Also gaining in prominence is poet Jos F. A. Oliver, who primarily writes in high German, but intersperses his local Allemannic dialect as well as Spanish passages into some of his poems, thus changing not only the form but also the cultural resonance of German dialect and Heimat homeland poetry.18 The significance of these poetic and provocative reshapings of the German language by minority writers does not lie in depicting changes occurring on societys margin. Rather, they produce new imaginaries (Gaonkar 2002) and with that signify the reimagination of the cultural landscape at large.

3. Relocating difference: From Turkish to German Given the widespread interest it provoked, Kanak Sprak appears as a significant site of such a new imaginary. As I have already noted, the book does not document a sociolect, but rather produces an artificial language which in this form exists only as a literary invention. Not the least through this language, Kanak Sprak constitutes an imagined space in which unforeseen connections between some languages and histories are made, at the same

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

325

time that expected relations between other languages, cultures, and histories are downplayed or transformed. What do these choices tell us about the language poetics of Kanak Sprak specifically, and about language and globalization more generally? Turkish-German youth and in some places also young people of other ethnicities practice code-switching between Turkish and German.19 Yet, Kanak Sprak does not feature words from Turkish or other migrant languages.20 Instead, Turkish is present only in the most indirect ways: as in the frequent reference to Germans as der Alemanne, which plays with the French-derived Turkish word for German (Alman) and the name of the Germanic tribe. An expression such as Jungblutbengel [young blood rascal] (Zaimoglu 1995: 28) is also not immediately recognizable as an evocation of the Turkish word for young man, delikanli, though it may draw on the words literal meaning crazy blooded in addition to the German phrase junges Blut young blood.21 The only place in Kanak Sprak where we encounter actual Turkish words is in the foreword, and there they are only cited to indicate what has been left out. As it turns out, the expressions which Zaimoglu mentions as ones which he intentionally did not incorporate are terms of endearment: gzm (mein Auge), gzmn nuru (mein Augenlicht) [my eye [] light of my eye] (Zaimoglu 1995: 14). The author explains this choice by his desire to avoid the Folklore-Falle [folklore trap] and not let his language be misunderstood as blumige Orientalensprache [flowery language of Orientals] (Zaimoglu 1995: 14). That means that neither actual Turkish words, nor Turkish-derived expressions are a suitable means of representing the Kanak as Zaimoglu wants to construct him. In order to avoid orientalizing his subjects Zaimoglu does away with Turkish or minimizes its influence. For example, the term of endearment light of my eye is replaced with the less flowery Bruder [brother] (Zaimoglu 1995: 14). The tenderness which might be expressed through the Turkish phrase is replaced by a fraternal relationship and a renewed emphasis on masculinity.22 With this strategy, Zaimoglu inadvertently reproduces the image of Turkish as inherently Oriental that is apolitical, sentimental, feminized.23 In this manner, Turkish is excised and avoided. Since the words and the grammar of the text are clearly in German, that language would thus seem to be the proper home of the figures in Kanak Sprak. Indeed, German is the necessary matrix for understanding Kanak Sprak, but it is not sufficient in itself. Zaimoglu gestures at that fact, when, in his introduction, he translates passages into standard German: Der Kanake sagt, [] Hasshand teilt gerne aus, bricht sich aber viele Knochen und meint wer von Hass erfllt

326

Yasemin Yildiz

ist, greift ohne Rcksicht auf Verluste zur Gewalt. [The Kanak says hatred hand likes to give it out, but breaks many bones. And means whoever is filled with hatred turns to violence without consideration of losses]. Or: Der Kanake sagt Gott fickt jede Lahmgre und meint wenn man weiterkommen will, muss man sein Schicksal selbst in die Hand nehmen. [The Kanak says god fucks every lame brat and means if you want to advance, you have to take your fate into your own hands] (Zaimoglu 1995: 14). Although in both cases every word of the initial sentence is in German, the sentences themselves require further translations in order to enable understanding. Through this intralingual translation, German is multiplied and its multiplicity is gleefully displayed. What Zaimoglu is telling his readers is that they might know one German language, but that this does not ensure access to understanding and a common ground for communication. The language does not, however, only signal difference and eschew showing affiliation. The traces of spoken language in particular are often indicative of north German vernacular through such characteristics as contractions of the article eine into ne, or the use of olle for alte old. This use of the vernacular locates the text in a specific German region, rather than in the nation at large. Within the monologues, the local region is frequently evoked as a point of reference (Wir sind wchsige aus gaarden, hier, wo man das olle gras halm fr halm wachsen hrt [We are growing-ups from gaarden, here, where you can hear the ole grass grow blade by blade] Zaimoglu 1995: 39). Such a local affiliation is not unusual for ethnic minorities globally and seems to offer a site of belonging alternative to the nation.24 The language does not stay restricted to the local, though, but mixes the most diverse registers. For example, pathos, which is evoked through archaizing word order, clashes with vernacular expressions: Wenn ihr wie olle zoopaviane nach des deutschen wrters zuckerwrfel schnappt, vergesst nicht, dass ihr euch habt eure blanke seele verwursten lassen. (Zaimoglu 1995: 86). [When like some ole zoo baboons you grab at the german guards sugar cubes, do not forget, that thou hath allowed your bare soul to be made into cheap fodder]. By making the mixing of registers one of the primary stylistic features of the text, Zaimoglu challenges the demarcation line around what is proper and what belongs together.25 This strategy does not obey the expected clichs of Gastarbeiterdeutsch guestworker German or Trkenslang slang of Turks both of which are associated with simplified and incorrect grammar and with the importation of foreign words. Though situated on the margins of society, these figures language lays claim to all levels of articulation and to their anarchistic hybridization.

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

327

Rather than referring back to either of the two national languages that would seem to be available to Turkish-German youth standard German or Turkish Kanak Sprak marks the emergence of a different mode of articulation. Zaimoglu stresses this when he asserts that the language of the Kanak figure setzt sich aus verkauderwelschten Vokabeln und Redewendungen zusammen, die so in keiner der beiden Sprachen vorkommen [is assembled out of hotchpotched vocabulary and turns of speech which in this form do not occur in either of the two languages] (Zaimoglu 1995: 13, emphasis added). It testifies to the existence of something that is not derived from national languages. Instead, this language evokes a realm of creativity simultaneously within and beyond the scale of national languages.

4. English and rap in Kanak Sprak: The imposition of the global? While a migrant language such as Turkish remains quite subterranean, Kanak Sprak mobilizes not only spoken language and regional dialects of German but also the global language English. Is this then merely another case of Americanization? As I argued earlier, we need to consider the specific uses to which the English language is put. In Kanak Sprak, English words appear not exclusively but most frequently in contexts in which rap is evoked. Although this is the case only in three monologues out of 24, the placement of these three among the first five (monologues 1, 3, and 5) gives the impression that they are representative for the text as a whole. Via rap, English language fragments thus enjoy a privileged position and serve as an entryway into Kanak Sprak. In the monologue attributed to Bayram, 18, breaker, the connection between English phrases, German minority discourse, and rap takes this shape:
Ich binn breaker und hab meine gute posse, die alle peace wollen und peace stiften, weil peace is schon das, was man aus sich machen sollte, hter ber deinen bruder und die posse und ber die kleinen, die schon ne wehr brauchen vor den verdammten verderbern im dunkeln. Rap isn harter kodex, auf schlaffem posten bist du im nun toter posten. [] Der rap sagt: sieh dich vor vorm untersten wie obersten chargen, vor dem der garantiert im falschen pelz rumluft, um dich auf lamm zu polen. Bist dun lamm fressen sie dich. [] hier bei uns, bei den breakern und rappern, bei den brdern und schwestern, ist schluss mit dem stuss, wir schwimmen nicht mit dem strom, wir machen nen eigenen strikten strom, wo jedern fluss is und aufhrt n gottverschissenes rinnsal zu sein.

328

Yasemin Yildiz

Im a breakdancer and I have my good posse who all want peace and do peace cause peace is what you should make of yourself, guardian of your brother and the posse and of the little ones who already need some defense against the damned ruiners in the dark. Raps a tough code, on a slack post youre fast a dead post. [] rap says: beware of the lowest and the highest ranks, of the one who runs around in a false fur, to rewire you into a lamb. If youre a lamb, theyll eat you. [] here among us breakdancers and rappers, among the brothers and sisters, were done with that bullshit, we dont swim with the tide, we make our own strict tide, where everyones a river and stops being a goddamshitty rivulet. (Zaimoglu 1995: 4142)

The English words, breaker posse and peace, stem from the vocabulary of African American rap culture and in the speech of this figure provide an identity, a community, and a vision, respectively. Beyond the referential meaning of the words, they offer a mode of orientation and of making sense of the world, of ones own position within it as well as a code of conduct. This orientation and sense-making activity draws on a social analysis implicit in the terms themselves. Because of these implicit meanings, German words could not take their place. Instead, the English words and the specific minority culture to which they refer in this context, make the young TurkishGerman breakdancer part of a much larger posse, namely one which is transnational. The transfer of this African-American cultural practice to a German context, however, has its own specific parameters and implications. As anthropologist Ayse aglar (2001) points out, hip hop and rap culture and aesthetics have been actively promoted by state institutions as an appropriate language and cultural practice for Turkish-German youth in particular. German social workers in youth clubs have organized courses in rap and staged local graffiti and breakdance competitions (aglar 2001: 226227). Paradoxically, they saw these forms of U.S. minority culture as a means of integrating young Turkish-German men into German society (aglar 2001: 229230). This observation is partially confirmed in another Kanak Sprak monologue entitled Der direkte Draht zum schwarzen Mann [the direct line to the black man] attributed to Ali, 23, Rapper (von da crime posse). Considering rap as a means of Aufklrung [enlightenment] (Zaimoglu 1995: 28) for the oppressed, Ali sees his role as spreading an anti-drug and anti-crime message: no drugs, no crime [] wenn du echt bronx sein willst [no drugs, no crime [] if you want to be real bronx] (Zaimoglu 1995:28). If he does not succeed in his musical career, Ali continues, he will join the police force, since he pleads for unbedingte teil-

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

329

nahme [unconditional participation in society] (Zaimoglu 1995: 32). This example demonstrates that far from being simply an outlaw identity, rap can also function as part of a state apparatus of law and order.26 One of the most successful products of this effort was the predominantly Turkish-German hip hop group Cartel whose formation was enabled precisely by state-sponsored social work in Berlin.27 Their surprise success in 1995 coincided with the publication of Kanak Sprak. Both are part of a general trend where minorities in Germany can be heard primarily through the vehicle of hip hop, which appears as the designated and most legitimized means of minority articulation.28 Rap is thus actually a site where minority and majority imagination if we can make such a distinction intersect and interact. While this does not mean that the young people who embrace this style are merely manipulated, it does point to the fact that in the German imagination there is a link between minorities in Germany and U.S. American minorities.29 This imagined link between Turkish-Germans and African Americans is by no means new. Already in a (1973) feature on Turkish migration to Germany, the Spiegel magazine raised the specter of German cities turning into Harlem. US-American culture has for some time served as a site of projection for dealing with changes in German society. Experiences with cultural differences were and are articulated through reference to a U.S. American context, and seem to suggest that no useful German precedents are available. So what role does English play in this context? Actual English words and phrases constitute only a minimal portion of Kanak Sprak. Yet at the same time, English is of strategic importance for the book. In citing the English vocabulary of rap, the figures in Kanak Sprak participate in one of the prime examples of a transnationally circulating cultural form, one which they claim for themselves. Though globally dominant, rap carries with it the association of oppositionality and minority resistance on which these figures draw. With this appropriation of the globalized language of rap, they go beyond the tired clich of being stuck between two cultures, the still dominant trope in discourses on Turkish-Germans.30 As a third term and language, English breaks down the binary between sole affiliation with either Turkish or German. As we have seen, however, drawing on an English-language mediated cultural form does not necessarily denote a place outside German culture. On the contrary, English mediation is at times used as a gateway to a place in German culture. In that case, English does not stand for Americanization but is used in Germany as a means to negotiate other forms of cultural difference, both by the state and by minority subjects. Ultimately, the presence

330

Yasemin Yildiz

of English and rap in Kanak Sprak illustrates how a multiplicity of local desires shapes the circulation of global forms, at the same time that global cultures provide a transformative language for expressing the conditions of the local.

5. Rotwelsch and Jewish languages in Kanak Sprak While Zaimoglu uses the enabling language of hip hop, the monologues also draw on other languages, forms, and even histories. Besides hip hop aesthetics, Zaimoglu also likens Kanak Sprak to other jargons: Lngst haben sie [die Kanaken] einen Untergrund-Kodex entwickelt und sprechen einen eigenen Jargon: die Kanak-Sprak, eine Art Creol oder Rotwelsch mit geheimen Codes und Zeichen. Ihr Reden ist dem Free-Style-Sermon im Rap verwandt, dort wie hier spricht man aus einer Pose heraus [They [the Kanaks] have long since developed an underground-code and speak their own jargon: Kanak Speak, a kind of Creole or thieves cant with secret codes and signs. Their speech is related to the freestyle sermon in rap, in both cases one speaks from a certain pose] (Zaimoglu 1995: 13). While rap is highlighted, the other analogies and related linguistic codes are significant in their own regard. Rotwelsch, for instance, is known as the secret language of marginal groups, such as wandering beggars, small-time criminals, or prostitutes and dates back to the Middle Ages, though forms of it are still alive in some areas.31 It is an itinerant code based on a vocabulary of elaborate neologism and circumlocution that remains incomprehensible to those not instructed in it. This effect is furthered by numerous borrowings from other languages, Yiddish in particular, as well as Slavic and Romance languages. Clearly, the Kanak Sprak of Zaimoglus making has a few things in common with Rotwelsch, both in its make-up the tendency to create new German words, the borrowing from other languages and in its social positioning on the margins. Whereas rap style summons a form of effective public speech, Rotwelsch signifies a means of communication that excludes the mainstream and the majority. If a community is imagined through this code, then it is one of shared secrets, marginality, and illegality. Kanak Sprak combines both elements: through its twisting of the standard language it creates opacity and signals the exclusion of the majority from its network; at the same time it is a form of stylized public speech. The use of Rotwelsch also raises the question of Yiddish. Much of Rotwelsch consists of borrowings from Yiddish, a fact that in the past has had grievous consequences for the latter, as it was mistakenly conflated with the

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

331

so-called thieves cant (Grossman 2000: 134135). In Kanak Sprak we repeatedly find expressions such as schlamassel (47), mischpoke (121), meschugge (117), schofele (136), words which have origins in Yiddish. Although these words are used today in everyday speech and might have lost the connotation of Fremdwrter Germanized foreign words the citation of these Germanized Yiddish words is nonetheless intriguing. Even if there is no conscious link made to Yiddish and all the associations it brings with it in Germany, does the use of such words not suggest the presence of unconscious histories embedded in languages? What, furthermore, does their use tell us about immigrants relationship to the history and cultural memories with which they come into contact and into which they necessarily enter, not the least through language?32 In fact, references to experiences of German-Jews and particularly the German historical memory of the Holocaust surface throughout Zaimoglus text.33 Given these explicit references, the traces of Jewish languages in Kanak Sprak do not seem random in this carefully composed volume.34 Some of the other Jewish references are quite ironic, as when Zaimoglu has the Islamic fundamentalist say Ich, der ich mich [gottes] wort ergeben, esse koscheres, geschchtetes fleisch (Zaimoglu 1995: 141) [I who has submitted to gods word, eat kosher, properly slaughtered meat]. By using the Hebrew term kosher rather than the Turkish-Arabic helal, Zaimoglu blurs Jewish and Muslim practices within a German text and linguistically crisscrosses minority subject positions within Germany. In this particular instance, he undermines the very discourse on purity and properness which the sentence confesses to. With Rotwelsch Zaimoglu invokes a language form which is itself bastardized and meant to undermine authorities and which stretches across territories without being tied to a nation. That is, through Rotwelsch and, less explicitly, Yiddish, the text evokes non-national languages which were thought of as illegitimate and improper, a sphere in which Kanak Sprak, too, locates itself. These languages serve as the index of a cultural memory of previous marginal existence beside and within German.

6. Conclusion: Politics of resignification, or, German in an age of globalization As I have demonstrated, Kanak Sprak joins multiple languages and codes in irreverent and complex ways in order to give voice to a cultural and political transformation under way. The starting point in this process is the reappropriation of the slur Kanake. Zaimoglu credits the Black consciousness

332

Yasemin Yildiz

movement and hip hop with providing the model for this reappropriation (Zaimoglu 1995: 17). However, the altered way Kanak has come to function shares some significant features with another recently reclaimed term, namely queer.35 This term began being widely used in the 1990s first in the United States by sexual minorities such as gays, lesbians, and bisexuals and in the meantime has also entered the German vocabulary. Like Kanak, queer was a highly derogatory term before it became a defiant self-reference. Moving away from referring to specific ethnic or sexual identities, both Kanak and queer have taken on the function of umbrella terms in political movements. In the case of Kanak, this is particularly evident with the network Kanak Attak since it does not organize around one specific (ethnic) identity (Kanak Attak 1999; Cheesman 2002: 187). This enlarged notion of Kanak may also explain why others of various backgrounds have felt free and encouraged to adopt the term. Furthermore, both Kanak and queer represent an anti-normative and anti-normalizing stance. Under both names, discourses of assimilation are rejected and visibility is provoked.36 In this context, it is worth pointing to the historical moment that preceded Kanak Sprak. Following German reunification, the early 1990s witnessed an increasing number of racist attacks against the non-German population and Germans of color. Besides the open mob violence in Rostock primarily against Vietnamese families (1992) or the numerous firebombings of refugee shelters, it was especially the firebombing of the homes of long-resident Turkish-German families in Mlln (1992) and Solingen (1993), in which women and children died, that provoked the mass protests from minorities against racist violence.37 The attack on long-established families undermined the credibility of the dominant rhetoric of assimilation and integration. In the context of those protests, there was the first outspoken rejection of assimilation as an acceptable or promising demand on minorities. This rejection of assimilation and normalization preceded Kanak Sprak and finds a reformulated articulation in it.38 The resignification of Kanak is a synecdoche for the resignification that the text as a whole undertakes. In Kanak Sprak the German language itself is resignified. That does not simply mean that parts of it are twisted, turned, and changed, but rather suggests that what German is, is itself in question, and is altered by the uses to which Zaimoglu puts it. The significance of Zaimoglus project therefore does not lie in the invention or inscription of a language for actual use, but more in its performative thrust, which interpellates new collective subjects and which makes the German language a multilayered home. The German language that we encounter in Kanak Sprak is woven out of multiple linguistic levels and is not confined to a national

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

333

framework. Rather, it imagines a German which is the site of the local along with the transnational, drawing on national memories, as well as remembering non-national languages. In its self-assured performance, Kanak Sprak emphasizes that the transformation of German culture is not something abstract but something that makes itself felt through the very fabric of the German language. Globalization understood as Americanization runs the risk of simplifying and obscuring the much more complex dynamics that will define the future of German. In particular, such an understanding does not account for other aspects of globalization such as multilingual migration. Even where we do detect forms of Americanization, we still need to pay attention to the local meanings given to them, by understanding them as the interplay between hegemonic influence, local histories, and local appropriations. Zaimoglus writing helps us understand the cultural imagination of the German language in the present, and its generative, albeit non-traditional possibilities. Writing such as Kanak Sprak may not be the future of German, but it does reveal a part of its present.

Notes
1. I would like to thank Leslie Adelson for comments on an earlier version of this paper and Barbara Mennel for her feedback on a later version. I am particularly indebted to Michael Rothberg whose support for and critical interest in this project have been invaluable. 2. In addition to numerous articles, Zaimoglu has published five more books since then. See Zaimoglu (1997), (1998), (2000), (2001), (2002). Unless otherwise noted, all translations of titles and passages are mine. 3. See Cheesman (2002) for the most extensive account of the reception of Zaimoglus text. 4. This is the title of a German-language book about hip hop (2002). The title is a reformulation of the rap album Fear of a Black Planet by the US-American group Public Enemy. As these examples suggest, hip hop is of central importance in this phenomenon. Though Zaimoglu does not say so explicitly, the appropriation of Kanake is modeled on the appropriation of the racist epitaph nigger in some forms of hip hop. The word nigger itself appears prominently in two different functions in the text. In one case it is set off against Kanake in a sarcastic mimicry of German attitudes towards different people of color (1995: 22); in another it functions as an overarching identificatory term (1995: 25). For more on hip hop and Kanak aesthetics and politics see below. 5. For an example of a cross-ethnic identification and use of the form, see the texts of Italian-German writer Vito Avantario (2000).

334

Yasemin Yildiz

6. Among the most successful versions in popular culture are the characters created by the comedy duos Erkan&Stefan and Mundstuhl. They do not, however, deal with the political and explosive issues which are at the core of Kanak Sprak, but rather use non-standard speech and minority youth as comic triggers. 7. See also Cheesman (2002: 180). It is also important to point out that despite the so-called Kanak-Chic (see Steyerl [2001] for a critical assessment), the term is still very much used as an insult. I was repeatedly reminded of that in an online search in which next to the many entries on Zaimoglu, there were police reports of brutal attacks on minorities accompanied by verbal abuse featuring that slur. 8. See for example Br (2000:1820). Much more polemical articulations of that view can be found in the contributions to Glck and Krmer (2000). Focusing on the media dimension of globalization likewise primarily leads to a discussion of the role of English, as in Hoffmann (2000). 9. Given this discourse on the global dominance of English elsewhere, it is ironic that in the U.S. itself, for instance, there have been voices worrying about the status of English vis--vis Spanish. These voices have led to the emergence of English-only movements in recent years. This underscores the deeply political nature of perceptions of encroachment and threat. The Harvard-based project Multilingual America, led by Werner Sollors (1998), began in part as a response to that political debate and offers an alternative vision of American literature by collecting American writings in languages other than English. 10. It might be useful to remember the manifold ways in which German already bears the traces of other languages. In his classic study, Eric Blackall (1959) has traced many of the strands that led to the development of German as a high literary language in the course of the 18th century. His study shows in great detail, among other things, the crucial role that the emulation of English style and grammar played in this development. 11. Schiewe discusses this phenomenon with further examples such as showmaster or twen (Schiewe 2000: 40) 12. On the conceptual relationship between the global and the local see Hardt and Negri (2000: 4445) who treat both as different networks of flows and obstacles (45) and rightly caution against the other extreme, the tendency to privilege the local alone. 13. For a useful brief overview of the history of labor migration to Germany since the late 19th century and a sketch of its social and cultural effects see Terkessidis (2000). 14. See for instance the work of Peter Auer or Volker Hinnenkamp. I would like to thank Phillipp Angermeyer for drawing my attention to Auer. 15. Androutsopoulos (2000) offers an insightful sociolinguistic consideration of the interaction between non-standard language varieties developed by speakers and the stylized adoption of that variety in media and various cultural forms. He lays out quite clearly the differences between these forms, but also stresses their dynamic relationship. Among the examples of stylized versions of what he calls ethnolect are in fact Zaimoglus first two books. His analysis, however,

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

335

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

25.

26.

27.

focuses on the role of mass media in the circulation of ethnolect and does not engage with Zaimoglus work at any length. For the most extensive coverage of literature by minorities see the handbook edited by Chiellino (2000) in which, however, as Cheesman (2002: 190) points out, Zaimoglu and the Kanak phenomemon are treated only briefly and dismissively. See Konuk (1997) and Seyhan (2001) for an analysis of the literary language and the relationship between Turkish and German. See for example Oliver (1993). These bilingual or multilingual aesthetics are not limited to minority writing in German, but can be found across multiple languages and contexts. That is, they constitute a distinct transnational literary phenomenon. Gloria Anzaldas Borderlands/La Frontera (1987) and Abdelkebir Khatibis Amour bilingue (1983) are just two prominent examples of such an aesthetic engagement with language. See also Sommer (2003) who gathers essays about bilingual games in multiple languages and literary contexts. Androutopolous (2000: 5). Zaimoglu himself hints at that fact in his description of the sources of Kanak Sprak. (Zaimoglu 1995: 13). The fact that he does include Turkish words on occasion in his subsequent works, makes this absence even more remarkable. The rarity of direct allusions to the Turkish language is one of the features which distinguishes Zaimoglus writing from zdamars style. This gendered discourse ultimately finds its expression in rap-inspired rhythms and attitudes, as I will suggest below. For a critique of the sexual politics in the larger Kanak phenomenon, see Gutirrez Rodrguez (2001). aglar (2001: 236) highlights the fact that belonging is no longer defined along nation, state or ethnicity but is rather oriented towards urban spaces. Kanak Spraks local affiliation, however, does not follow the trend of locating minorities in metropolitan spaces, but rather in the province. The aforementioned use of Allemanic by Jos Olivers is a further literary example for this. The range of registers and the recourse to a high literary vocabulary also differentiates his style starkly from that of the popular comedy version of migrant youth speech. The foregrounding of the black man in this monologue further indicates that the source for and point of access to this appropriation of American English is ultimately the expression of a resistant male minority existence. Although there is a monologue by a male-to-female transsexual (Zaimoglu 1995: 3438) Kanak Sprak is explicitly gendered as male. In response to strong criticism, especially from Turkish-German women, Zaimoglus third book Koppstoff: Kanaka Sprak vom Rande der Gesellschaft [Headstuff: She-Kanak Speak from the Margins of Society] (1998) gathered monologues by female counterparts to the figures in Kanak Sprak. Yet the language in that volume is noticeably different, with some entries written in standard German. In fact, the group da crime posse of the above mentioned rapper Ali (Aksoy) was part of Cartel. As Cheesman notes, Aksoy is the only clearly identifiable

336

Yasemin Yildiz figure in the text (2002: 185). For a fascinating discussion of the very different meanings which Cartels reclaiming of Turkish identity through hip hop acquired in the German, Turkish-German, and Turkish contexts vis-a-vis nationalism, see aglar (2001: 231233). It should be noted, though, that in contrast to Kanak Sprak, Cartels songs were predominantly in Turkish while also featuring Spanish, German and English lyrics. This appears to be true outside of Germany as well, as indicated by a New York Times feature on Turkish-German youth via a portrait of filmmaker Neco etin and the focus on his hip hop, graffiti and gang member experience (Bernstein 2003). For a more accurate and critical discussion of this trend in filmic representations see Mennel (forthcoming). I would like to thank Barbara Mennel for sharing this essay with me prior to its publication. In this context, it would also be important though not possible here to consider the role of Afro-Germans, both as active producers of hip hop (see Loh and Gngor 2002) and other forms of German minority culture and as figures in discourses on cultural difference in Germany. For an incisive critique of this extremely widespread trope, see Adelson (2001). See Girtler (1998) for an account and documentation of the contemporary Viennese variety. In his essay Germany-Home for Turks? Turkish-German poet, novelist, and public intellectual Zafer Senocak asks: Doesnt immigrating to Germany also mean immigrating to, entering into, the arena of Germanys recent past? (Senocak 2000: 6). Adelson discusses this in greater detail in her (2000) essay where she explores Jewish references in Turkish-German literature. Yiddish, of course, gradually ceased to be the primary language of most German Jews in the course of the 19th century, so that the link imagined between Yiddish and German Jews is no longer based on fact. For more on tropes about Jews and language, see Gilman (1986). My title suggests this parallel by alluding to Judith Butlers important essay Critically Queer (1993). Engel (1999/2000) lays out in much more detail the parallels and overlaps between the queer and Kanak movements in Germany. aglar (2000: 233) makes a similar argument about the historical and cultural moment with respect to the success of Cartel. In his foreword to Koppstoff, Zaimoglu (1998: 9) retrospectively acknowledges the impact of those events on Kanak Sprak.

28.

29.

30. 31. 32.

33. 34.

35. 36. 37. 38.

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

337

References
Adelson, Leslie A. 2000 Touching Tales of Turks, Germans and Jews: Cultural Alterity, Historical Narrative and Literary Riddles for the 1990s. New German Critique 80: 132. 2001 Against Between: A Manifesto. In: Salah Hassan and Iftikhar Dadi (eds.), Unpacking Europe: Towards a Critical Reading, 244255. Rotterdam: NAi Publishers. Androutsopoulos, Jannis 2000 From the streets to the screens and back again: On the mediated diffusion of ethnolectal patterns in contemporary German. http://www.archetype.de/papers/iclavedraft.html Anzalda, Gloria 1987 Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: aunt lute press. Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Auer, Peter and Inci Dirim 2003 Socio-cultural orientation, urban youth styles and the spontaneous acquisition of Turkish by non-Turkish adolescents in Germany. In: Jannis Androutsopoulos and Alexandra Georgakopoulou (eds.), Discourse Construction of Youth Identities, 223246. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Avantario, Vito 2000 ins gesicht. In: Jamal Tuschick (ed.), Morgen Land: Neueste deutsche Literatur, 2124. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag. Br, Jochen A. 2000 Deutsch im Jahr 2000: Eine sprachhistorische Standortbestimmung. In: Karin M. Eichhoff-Cyrus and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende: Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall?, 934. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Bernstein, Richard 2003 A bold new view of Turkish-German youth. New York Times. [April, 13th, 2003]. Blackall, Eric A. 1959 The Emergence of German as a Literary Language, 1700 1770. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, Judith 1993 Critically Queer. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, 223242. New York: Routledge. aglar, Ayse 2001 Management kultureller Vielfalt. Deutsch-trkischer Hip-Hop, Rap und Trkpop in Berlin. In: Sabine Hess and Ramona Lenz (eds.),

338

Yasemin Yildiz

Geschlecht und Globalisierung: Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Streifzug durch transnationale Rume, 22141. Knigstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag. Cheesman, Tom 2002 Akam-Zaimoglu-Kanak Attak: Turkish Lives and Letters in German. German Life and Letters 55/2: 180195. Chiellino, Carmine (ed.) 2000 Interkulturelle Literatur in Deutschland: Ein Handbuch. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler. Crystal, David 1997 English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Engel, Antke 1999/2000 Queer-feministische und kanakische Angriffe auf die Nation. Vor der Information 25. Freidank, Michael 2001 Kanakisch-Deutsch: Dem krassesten Sprakbuch ubernhaupt. Frankfurt/Main: Eichborn. Gaonkar, Dilip Parameshwar 2002 Toward New Imaginaries: An Introduction. Public Culture: Society for Transnational Cultural Studies 14/1: 119. Gilman, Sander 1986 Jewish Self-Hatred: Anti-Semitism and the Hidden Language of the Jews. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Glck, Helmut and Walter Krmer (eds.) 2000 Die Zukunft der deutschen Sprache: Eine Streitschrift. Leipzig: Ernst Klett Schulbuchverlag Leipzig. Grossman, Jeffrey A. 2000 The discourse on Yiddish in Germany from the Enlightenment to the Second Empire. Rochester: Camden House. Gutirrez Rodrguez, Encarnacin 2001 Widerstand in der diffrance: Reprsentation, Vereinnahmung und Gegenstrategien von MigrantInnen und schwarzen Deutschen. iz3W: Bltter des Informationszentrums 3. Welt 253: 2223. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2000 Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Hoffmann, Hilmar (ed.) 2000 Deutsch global: Neue Medien-Herausforderungen fr die Deutsche Sprache? Kln: DuMont. Kanak Attak 1999 Kanak Attak und basta! Manifest gegen Mltikltralizm, gegen demokratische und hybride Deutsche sowie konformistische Migranten. Die tageszeitung. [January, 28th, 1999]. Khatibi, Abdelkebir 1983 Amour bilingue. Montpellier: Fata Morgana.

Critically Kanak: A Reimagination of German Culture

339

Konuk, Kader 1997 Das Leben ist eine Karawanserai: Heimat bei Emine Sevgi zdamar. In: Gisela Ecker (ed.), Kein Land in Sicht: Heimat weiblich?, 143157. Mnchen: Fink. Loh, Hannes and Murat Gngr 2002 Fear of a Kanak Planet: HipHop zwischen Weltkultur und Nazi-Rap. St. Andr/Wrdern (AU): Hannibal. Lottmann, Joachim (ed.) 1999 Kanaksta: Von deutschen und anderen Auslndern. Berlin: Quadriga. Mennel, Barbara 2002 Bruce Lee in Kreuzberg and Scarface in Altona: Transnational Auteurism and Ghettocentrism in Recent Turkish-German films. New German Critique 87: 133156. Oliver, Jos F.A. 1993 Gastling. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch. 1995 Kanak Sprak Schreiben am Ufer der Fremde. Eine Rand-Literatur in Deutschland? Universitas: Zeitschrift fr interdisziplinre Wissenschaft 594: 11561166. Omurca, Muhsin 2002 Kanakmn. www.omurca.de zdamar, Emine Sevgi 1990 Mutterzunge. Hamburg: Rotbuch. Schiewe, Jrgen 2000 Sprachpurismus als Aufklrung: Soll man Fremdwrter verdeutschen? In: Volker Michael Strocka (ed.), Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache. Uwe Prksen, Jrgen Schiewe, Georges-Arthur Goldschmidt, Bernhard Waldenfels, 3568. Bremen: Hempen. Senocak, Zafer 2000 Germany Home for Turks? A Plea for Overcoming the Crisis between Orient and Occident. In: Zafer Senocak, Atlas of a Tropical Germany: Essays on Politics and Culture, 1990 1998, 19. Edited and translated by Leslie A. Adelson. Lincoln/London: U of Nebraska P. Seyhan, Azade 2001 Writing outside the Nation. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Sollors, Werner (ed.) 1998 Multilingual America: Transnationalism, Ethnicity, American Literature. New York: New York University Press. Sommer, Doris (ed.) 2003 Bilingual Games: Some Literary Investigations. New York: Palgrave. Steyerl, Hito 2001 Ornamente der Neuen Mitte: Wo Widerstand zu Kanak-Chic wird. iz3W: Bltter des Informationszentrums 3. Welt 253: 2425. Terkessidis, Mark 2000 Migranten. Hamburg: Europische Verlagsanstalt/Rotbuch.

340

Yasemin Yildiz

Zaimoglu, Feridun 1995 Kanak Sprak: 24 Mitne vom Rande der Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Rotbuch. 1997 Abschaum: Die wahre Geschichte von Ertan Ongun. Hamburg: Rotbuch. 1998 Koppstoff: Kanaka Sprak vom Rande der Gesellschaft. Hamburg: Rotbuch. 2000 Liebesmale, scharlachrot. Roman. Hamburg: Europische Verlagsanstalt/Rotbuch. 2001 Kopf und Kragen: Kanak-Kultur-Kompendium. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Taschenbuch. 2002 German Amok. Roman. Kln: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.

Globalization: A Look at the Positive Side John M. Grandin

Zusammenfassung
Die Bedeutung des Englischen als Weltsprache nimmt durch die Globalisierung stark zu. Das heit jedoch nicht, dass das Interesse an deutscher Sprache und Kultur in den USA absinken muss. Das in der multinationalen Kommunikation oft benutzte Global English lsst in den meisten Fllen kaum eine subtile Kommunikation zu, da es eher eine pragmatische Notsprache ist. Wer eine tiefer gehende und dauerhafte Kommunikation mit einem Gesprchspartner sucht, muss mit der betreffenden Sprache und Kultur vertraut sein. German Departments in den USA sollten zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass Studierende in den von der Globalisierung betroffenen Fachgebieten (zum Beispiel den Wirtschafts- oder Ingenieurwissenschaften) ihre Berufschancen durch das Erlernen der deutschen Sprache und das Studium der deutschen Kultur verbessern knnen. Das Beispiel des Studiengangs International Engineering an der University of Rhode Island, in dem Studierende Deutsch und Ingenieurwissenschaft studieren und ein Jahr als Studenten und Praktikanten in Deutschland verbringen, zeigt eine Mglichkeit, neues Leben fr Deutsch ins amerikanische Hochschulwesen zu bringen. Die University of Rhode Island hat ber 100 Hauptfchler in Deutsch und das Fach geniet ein hheres Ansehen im Lehrangebot der Universitt als je zuvor.

The intent of this volume is to assess the impact of globalization on the German language and culture, especially within the framework of American higher education at a time when the world appears obsessed with learning English. The fact that English has indeed become the lingua franca of the 21st century would seem, at least on the surface, to eliminate the need, once and for all, for Americans to concern themselves with languages other than English. Falling German enrollments, along with those of most other languages at both the secondary and post-secondary levels, indicate that most Americans believe they can, in fact, live, work, and travel most anywhere in the world without learning another language. As this volume testifies, Germanists fear that the place of the German language and culture in the American higher education curriculum is threatened by the hegemony of

342

John M. Grandin

the English language worldwide. Some go so far as to doubt the future stability or integrity of languages such as German even within their own national borders. The intent of this article is to explore some counter-arguments to these anxieties, to suggest that the rapid pace of globalization may, contrary to our fears, be making knowledge of languages other than English even more important for Americans than in the past, and to explore ways in which German departments might recognize, explore, and proactively respond to potential new opportunities. As we shall see below, there are indeed signs of new paradigms for American language programs, promising besieged languages such as German new vitality and an expanded place in American higher education. First, we should note that the English used today as the most universal language for global communication is not in competition with the native tongues of those who use it routinely for utilitarian purposes. Global English1 is a simplified language, stripped of subtleties and complexities, often supporting little more than surface-level communication for nonnative speakers around the world. Global English enables peoples throughout the world to accommodate monolingual Americans who are unwilling to learn other languages and expect the world to speak with them in English. As a commonly accepted global language, it also enables, for example, Brazilians to speak with Chinese, Germans to speak with Vietnamese, Koreans to speak with Italians, and so on. Global players know that global English is a language of convenience with a depth far inferior to their own mother tongues. It is accepted as a necessary tool, and for those using it as such, it is far less than perfect and not viewed as a substitute for or threat to ones own first language. As one German executive described this phenomenon to the author of this article: The language of global business is bad English. Though the widespread reality of Global English makes it convenient for Americans to communicate on basic levels in most countries around the world, we are nave to think that the subtleties of business, politics or interpersonal intercourse can be successfully bridged without knowledge of the linguistic and cultural perspectives of our partners. Those without at least one language other than English are confined to their own linguistic and cultural perspectives and thereby handicapped in comparison to their multilingual peers from other nations. Americans must consider the reality that the true global standard for cross-cultural communication in todays global society is not English, but rather multilingualism. Though unfortunately not universally expected of American students, it is made clear to students in

Globalization: A Look at the Positive Side

343

other parts of the world that mastery of other languages is a fundamental requirement. Secondly, it must be stressed that the use of English among global organizations is, in practice, far less extensive than one is often led to believe. Though we may read that English is the official language of global companies such as Siemens, DaimlerChrysler, and others, it is far from true that day-to-day business in Munich or Stuttgart is conducted in English. Even when cross-national meetings take place in English, any in-depth discussion commonly reverts to subgroups in the mother tongue, and the best of the German English speakers still feel the need to think things out in their first language. The CEOs such as DaimlerChryslers Juergen Schrempp are required to be very much at home with English, but, as one moves down from the very top managerial levels, the volume and quality of English drops dramatically. When the German engineer picks up the phone to speak to his or her counterpart abroad, in most cases he or she, as a speaker of basic Global English, would prefer to do business in German, and, at the very least, to have someone at the other end of the line who understands the German linguistic and cultural perspective.2 When the non-German visitor approaches the main gates of companies in Germany, he certainly is not greeted in English, and, unless he or she is a known non-speaker of German, the business will be done in German. In cases where a nonGerman is accommodated by English, he or she will still be surrounded by conversations in German. In short, he will be the linguistic outsider and not the native speaker of the corporate official language. Knowledge of some English is assumed at many levels in global companies in Germany, but the lack of German is a major handicap for the native speakers of English working for or with German-American or AmericanGerman companies. The thousands of people living these linguistic realities every day know that having both languages at hand in their facilities in Germany and the USA significantly enhances the chances for success. From another and much more blunt perspective, it is worth noting that Siemens, BMW, DaimlerChrysler and other companies of this global reputation and stature are, after all, still German companies. The strategic decisions are carried out by Germans, in Germany, in the German language, and from a German perspective. It is logical, therefore, that any Americans planning to play any kind of major role in companies such as these had better be able to join the decision-making processes, which often occur over dinner or a drink or in other social settings, in German (!), and not in Global English! For these reasons, companies such as Siemens and BMW are actively combing the world for talented young professionals who are at least bilingual and

344

John M. Grandin

who have in-depth international experience. Because they know that Americans do not foster these kinds of skills, they are actively working with the few universities who are finding ways to teach German language and culture to young professionals.3 It is critical that language faculty take note of the impact that globalization has had upon business and industry in recent years and understand how this relates to their roles and obligations in preparing young people for opportunities unknown in the past. If one considers, for example, a company such as BMW, globalization has meant a major transition from relatively small Bavarian automobile manufacturer to major worldwide competitor with manufacturing centers in several countries. Who would have thought that BMW would build some of its most prized models in South Carolina for export to the entire world? Who would have thought that BMW would have to be in daily communication with key colleagues in the United States, England, South Africa, Mexico, the Far East, and elsewhere? Mercedes is another brand which, though international for decades, nevertheless retained its image and standard through its adherence to German craftsmanship (Made in Germany). The DaimlerChrysler we know today, however, is a global company, building cars and trucks in most continents and selling to a worldwide market. Though key decisions are still made in Stuttgart, its day-to-day operations are conducted globally, and its success relies intensely upon communication from country to country, from continent to continent. As companies such as these have undergone major transitions in this age of globalization, so too have their personnel needs, and so too the preparation that is needed for young professionals to thrive and survive in this new global workplace. An engineer, for example, is now required to bring numerous skills beyond those of pure technology to the workplace. If he or she is to succeed today, the need to work in multinational teams, the need to understand and integrate the perspectives of peers and partners from other national locations are critical qualifications. Global companies such as Siemens view multilingualism and international experience as fundamental to any positions of major responsibility. And they are looking to universities to encourage students to acquire these skills during their programs of study. Language faculty, along with their colleagues in many other subject areas across the curriculum must take note of the changes in the global workplace and understand that there is significant and growing demand for bilingualism among Americans. It is incumbent upon universities and colleges to understand and react to these changes and to develop curricula appropriate to the needs of students who will live and work in this new age

Globalization: A Look at the Positive Side

345

of globalization. Though Germanists may have never considered themselves to be major players in preparing students for the workplace outside of academia, the age of globalization is asking this of us, and, at the same time, is offering a chance for a new and more central role in the overall university curriculum. For the first time ever, German departments now have the opportunity to link the humanities intricately with the technology disciplines, and to play a significant role in the driving of the worlds economy. The University of Rhode Island has taken note of these facts and developed a curriculum for its engineering students, helping to prepare them for the workplace of technology which has become intensely global in recent years. The International Engineering Program (IEP)4 is a five-year undergraduate program leading to both the Bachelor of Science in one of the engineering disciplines and the Bachelor of Arts with a major in German (with tracks also available in French and Spanish). Students in this program study language and culture each semester as they progress in their engineering curriculum. In the fourth year of the five-year sequence, German IEP students spend the fall semester at our partner university (Technische Universitt Braunschweig) and then progress to a six-month professional engineering internship with one of now almost 25 associated companies in the German-speaking countries. The overall goal is to provide engineering students with the skills needed for the global workplace, i.e., to graduate engineers with second language proficiency, international work experience and technical expertise, as well as the interpersonal skills required for interaction with peers throughout the world. The IEP has proven to be an attractive program for all parties involved. The engineering faculty are excited to see their students in the forefront of such a new educational direction, and take note of the fact that this doubledegree program requiring one additional year attracts only highly motivated and gifted students. The language faculty are delighted to see their courses of interest to a new and previously neglected clientele. The IEP model has breathed new life into the German program at URI, which now boasts over 100 majors. The global businesses providing internships abroad and general support for the program are likewise pleased with the IEP. IEP students are highly gifted and motivated, demonstrating a willingness to open themselves to the world. The companies view IEP students as candidates for high potential positions and thus recruit them eagerly and provide salary incentives for the global preparation, the language, and the second degree. The students themselves endorse the program with their eagerness to join the IEP and their hard work in pursuit of the qualifications for todays global workplace.

346

John M. Grandin

The IEP has, however, not been developed with ease, as it has meant significant new directions for the German faculty at URI. The program now offers, for example, beginning through advanced intermediate language sections specifically designed for engineering students. It also offers an advanced technical German course taught in German by German-speaking engineering faculty. Another major component of the program is internship placement with companies abroad, which, too, is coordinated by the German faculty. The German program also supports and coordinates the annual exchange of students with the Technical University of Braunschweig. Finally, the German faculty have taken the initiative to acquire, renovate, and manage an IEP House, which serves as residential and administrative center for the program on the URI campus.5 The current status of the International Engineering Program demonstrates that German can play a major role in higher education today. 20% of URIs undergraduate engineering students are now simultaneously completing a BA with a language major along side their engineering BS. Of the approximately 180 students currently in the program, 105 are in the German IEP. The program has meant new life for German language and culture at URI. It has not only solidified enrollments, but has put forth a new model for professional education in todays global society. It has likewise enabled the German faculty to bring language, culture, and a humanistic perspective to a whole segment of the student body, for whom this had never been a consideration in the past. Finally, the students have learned the benefits of bilingualism and international experience in very concrete ways. Of the approximately 150 graduates of the program, the faculty can still boast, even in todays slow economy, of a 100% job placement rate. URIs International Engineering Program brings new hope to German programs at schools with professional degree programs like engineering. But it also raises many questions about the overall role of German language and culture programs in the American higher education system. Can or should faculty with expertise in classical Germanistik, i.e., expertise in some area of German language and/or literature, retool to accommodate the needs of students in professional school programs? Do German department faculty have the entrepreneurial skills needed to create new curricula in collaboration with colleagues from very different fields? Can programs combining language with professional school curricula preserve the humanistic goals of faculty in the humanities? The German faculty at the University of Rhode Island can answer these questions for themselves with a resounding yes. They have attracted large numbers of engineering students to their courses and have, in the process,

Globalization: A Look at the Positive Side

347

been able to adopt their courses to the interests of students in technical disciplines. Each year separate sections of German are offered for engineering students at the beginning through advanced intermediate levels. Faculty have been recruited to support the teaching of these courses through the medium of technical German. The German faculty have likewise learned to be innovative, political, and entrepreneurial. They have solicited support from German-American companies; they have acquired and renovated their own administrative and residential center for the IEP; they have built a network of companies in Germany, which guarantee six-month internships for as many as 25 students per year. At the same time, they have developed a student clientele at the upper levels, enabling them to offer fully subscribed literature and culture courses at the advanced levels, thereby ensuring the integrity of German as a humanities major and their original mission. Are there indications that the URI model might work elsewhere? In the context of its Sixth Annual Colloquium on International Engineering Education in October 2003,6 the University of Rhode Island International Engineering Program attracted engineering and language faculty from 50 American universities as well as several German universities to explore this topic. Many, such as Georgia Institute of Technology, Rice University, Texas A&M, the University of Wyoming, and others are on the path to programs similar to the IEP model, indicating a genuine interest and commitment. The concept of the integration of German language and culture with engineering studies is likewise being strongly supported by organizations such as the German Academic Exchange Service, the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (U.S. Department of Education) and others. What is the message from the URI experience for German departments in the United States? The URI faculty know that they would not be in business had they not undertaken substantial changes several years ago. Because the traditional humanities student simply is no longer there, the program had to be open to new options or, essentially, close its doors. Fortunately, URI was blessed with an engineering dean at that time who understood the importance of preparing engineers for international experience. Fortunately URI had a German faculty willing to explore drastically new alternatives on behalf of their students. Fortunately the German faculty were willing to take chances and could convince their administration that non-traditional forms of research and teaching should be counted toward promotion and tenure. Are these experiences transferable? To a large degree, there is no choice for those at all interested this question. If German is to survive as a disci-

348

John M. Grandin

pline in the American higher education system, it has to change, i.e., it has to adapt to contemporary needs. This does not mean that all universities have to go the way of a University of Rhode Island, but it does mean that each department at each college or university must assess its situation and its role within the overall institutional mission. And each German faculty group will have to ask what role they should be playing, who their allies are, and how they can make their own institutional statement on behalf of the German language and culture. Those who fail to take strong entrepreneurial steps on behalf of their programs will slowly disappear.

Notes
1. Global English has become a topic of study and research in recent years. Recommended reading would include Crystal (1997). 2. Clear evidence for this observation is available from the results of a survey conducted among engineers in the multinational locations of the TRW Corporation in 1995. See Grandin/Dehmel (1997: 2: 115). 3. The author of this article travels annually in Europe to arrange internships for his students, as recently as November 2003. He is in ongoing dialogue with over twenty global companies regarding their personnel needs and the qualifications desired for professionals in the global workplace. Such observations are therefore based upon direct contact with corporate leadership. 4. For more information about the University of Rhode Island International Engineering Program, consult: http://www.uri.edu/iep. 5. For more information on the development of the IEP House and its philosophy, see: http://www.uri.edu/iep/house/index.html. 6. For details about the Annual Colloquium on International Engineering Education see: http://www.uri.edu/iep.

References
Crystal, David 1997 English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grandin, John M. and Eric W. Dehmel 1997 Educating Engineers for the Global Workplace: a study of CrossCultural Issues, with Eric W. Dehmel. The Journal of Language for International Business, Volume 8/2: 115.

Select Bibliography

Ahlers, Christian and Gnter Holtus 1999 Lassen sich Anglizismen verbieten? Zum Wortschatz der Informatik in der fachbezogenen Presse Frankreichs. In: Peter Wagener (ed.), Sprachformen. Deutsch und Niederdeutsch in europischen Bezgen. Festschrift fr Dieter Stellmacher zum 60. Geburtstag (ZDL-Beiheft 105), 297310. Stuttgart: Steiner. Ahrens, Rdiger (ed.) 2003 Europische Sprachenpolitik. European Language Policy. Heidelberg: Universittsverlag Winter. Ammon, Ulrich 1991 Die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1995 Die deutsche Sprache in Deutschland, sterreich und der Schweiz. Das Problem der nationalen Varietten. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1998 Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache? Englisch auch fr die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. 2000 Die Rolle des Deutschen in Europa. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 471494. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2000 Sprache Nation und die Plurinationalitt des Deutschen. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 509524. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Ammon, Ulrich (ed.) 2001 The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Effects on Other Languages and Language Communities. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Ammon, Ulrich, and Grant McConnell 2002 English as an Academic Language in Europe. A Survey of its Use in Teaching (Duisburger Arbeiten zur Sprach- und Kulturwissenschaft 48). Frankfurt a. M. a.o.: Lang. Ammon, Ulrich, Norbert Dittmar and Klaus Mattheier (eds.), 1987/1988 Sociolinguistics, Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft. 2 vls., 2nd ed. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. [2nd ed. forthcoming, eds. Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus Mattheier and Peter Trudgill]

350

Select Bibliography

Anderson, Benedict 1991 Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Revised Edition. 1st ed. 1983. London/New York: Verso. (dt.: Die Erfindung der Nation. Zur Karriere eines folgenreichen Konzepts. Frankfurt/New York 1996: Campus-Verlag.) Androutsopoulos, Jannis K. 1998 Deutsche Jugendsprache: Untersuchungen zu ihren Strukturen und Funktionen (VarioLingua 6.). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 2000 From the streets to the screens and back again. On the mediated diffusion of ethnolectal patterns in contemporary German. Essen: Laud. Anglizismen-Wrterbuch. 19931996 Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945. By Broder Carstensen and Ulrich Busse, in collaboration with Regina Schmude. 3 vls. Berlin: de Gruyter. Appadurai, Arjun 1996 Modernity of Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Askedal, John Ole 2000 Das Deutsche als strukturell europische Sprache. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 385417. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Bader, Wolfgang 1999 Deutsche Sprache im Inland deutsche Sprache im Ausland. Beziehungsprobleme aus der Sicht des Goethe-Instituts. In: Christian Meier (ed.), Sprache in Not? Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch, 3351. Gttingen: Wallstein-Verlag. Br, Jochen A. 2000 Deutsch im Jahr 2000: Eine sprachhistorische Standortbestimmung. In: Karin M. Eichhoff-Cyrus and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Die deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende: Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall?, 934. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Basler, Otto 1995ff. Deutsches Fremdwrterbuch. Begonnen von Hans Schulz, fortgefhrt von Otto Basler. Ed. by the Institut fr Deutsche Sprache. 3rd ed. Berlin: de Gruyter. Baumann, Zygmunt 1998 Globalization. The Human Consequences. New York: Columbia University Press. 2001 Community. Seeking Safety in an Insecure World. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. 2001 The Individualized Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Bausch, Karl-Heinz 2000 So weit und so nah Deutsch in Armenien. Sprachreport 16: 1923.

Select Bibliography

351

Beck, Ulrich 1999 World Risk Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press Beinke, Christiane 1990 Der Mythos franglais. Zur Frage der Akzeptanz von Anglo-amerikanismen im zeitgenssischen Franzsisch mit einem kurzem Ausblick auf die Anglizismendebatte in Dnemark. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Berger, Tilman 2000 Nation und Sprache: das Tschechische und das Slovakische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 825864. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Born, Joachim and Gerhard Stickel (eds.) 1993 Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Braselmann, Petra and Barbara Hinger 1999 Sprachpolitik und Sprachbewutsein in Spanien. In: Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Manfred Kientpointner and Helmut Kalb (eds.), Sprachen in Europa. Sprachsituation und Sprachpolitik in europischen Lndern, 281296. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft. Braselmann, Petra 1999 Sprachpolitik und Sprachbewutsein in Frankreich heute. Tbingen: Niemeyer. 2001 Institutionelle Sprachlenkung in Frankreich: neue Wege. In: Gerda Haler (ed.), Texte und Institutionen in der Geschichte der franzsischen Sprache, 165187. Bonn: Romanistischer Verlag. 2002 Globalisierung in Sprache und Kultur. Revue belge de philologie et dhistoire 80/3: 959978. 2002 Englisch in der Romania. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik. (Thema Deutsch 3.), 298332. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Braun, Peter 1999 Internationalismen und Europismen: Eine lexikologische Analyse. Sprachreport. Informationen und Meinungen zur deutschen Sprache 4: 105119. Braun, Peter (ed.) 1979 Fremdwortdiskussion. Mnchen: Fink. British Council 1997 English Language Teaching. London: The British Council. Buffon, Herv Lavenir de 2002 Comits pour le franais, langue europene. RO Magazine 24, June 22nd. Burchfield, Robert (ed.) 1994 English in Britain and Overseas. (Cambridge History of the English Language V.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

352

Select Bibliography

Burkhard, Armin 2002 weitschweifig wlderhaft antimusikalisch Die schreckliche deutsche Sprache im Spiegel literarischer (Vor-)urteile. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 87104. Mannheim/ Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Busse, Ulrich 1993 Anglizismen im Duden. Eine Untersuchung zur Darstellung englischen Wortguts in den Ausgaben des Rechtschreibdudens von 18801986. Tbingen: Niemeyer. 1995 Drinks und Dinks. Correctness auf gut Deutsch. In: Bernd Polster (ed.), Westwind. Die Amerikanisierung Europas, 140147. Kln: DuMont. 2001 Typen von Anglizismen: von der heilago geist bis Extremsparing aufgezeigt anhand ausgewhlter lexikographischer Kategorisierungen. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 131155. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. [see also: Anglizismen-Wrterbuch] Busse, Ulrich and Manfred Grlach 2002 German. In: Manfred Grlach (ed.), English in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1336. aglar, Ayse 2001 Management kultureller Vielfalt. Deutsch-trkischer Hip-Hop, Rap und Trkpop in Berlin. In: Sabine Hess and Ramona Lenz (eds.), Geschlecht und Globalisierung: Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Streifzug durch transnationale Rume, 221241. Knigstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag. Carstensen, Broder 1981 Semantische Scheinentlehnungen des Deutschen aus dem Englischen. In: Wolfgang Viereck (ed.), Studien zum Einflu der englischen Sprache auf das Deutsche. Studies on the Influence of the English Language on German, 77100. (Tbinger Beitrge zur Linguistik 132.) Tbingen: Narr. [see also: Anglizismen-Wrterbuch] Chiellino, Carmine (ed.) 2000 Interkulturelle Literatur in Deutschland: Ein Handbuch. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler. Coulmas, Florian 1985 Sprache und Staat. Studien zur Sprachplanung und Sprachpolitik. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Select Bibliography

353

Crystal, David 1997 English as a Global Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2000 Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001 Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daniels, Karlheinz 1959 Erfolg und Mierfolg der Fremdwortverdeutschung. Schicksal der Verdeutschungen von Joachim Heinrich Campe. In: Peter Braun (ed.), Fremdwortdiskussion, 145181. Mnchen: Fink. (also: Muttersprache 69: 4654, 105114,141146.) Davidheiser, James C. 1998 Die auswrtige Sprachpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland aus der Sicht eines amerikanischen Germanisten. Muttersprache 108: 193206. de Swann, Abram 2001 Words of the World. The Global Language System. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Debus, Friedhelm 1999 Entwicklungen der deutschen Sprache in Gegenwart und in Zukunft? (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Mainz. Abhandlungen der geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 2). Stuttgart: Steiner. Debus, Friedhelm, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.) 2000 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.). Stuttgart: Steiner. Detering, Heinrich 2000 Deutsch als Sprache der germanistischen Literaturwissenschaft. Erfahrungen und Thesen. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 159176. Stuttgart: Steiner. Djukanovi, Jovan 2001 Deutschunterricht und Germanistikstudium in der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien. In: Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and HansJrgen Krumm (eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2nd vol., 16591666. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Donalies, Elke 1992 Hippes Hopping und Toughe Trendies: ber (neu)modische, noch nicht kodifizierte Anglizismen in deutschsprachigen Female-YuppieZeitschriften. Deutsche Sprache 20: 97110.

354

Select Bibliography

Dow, James R. 1999 Germany. In: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity, 286299. New York: Oxford University Press. Dresch, Andreas 1995 Adventure Look und Sport-Appeal: Das Phnomen modischer Anglizismen in Men-Lifestyle-Zeitschriften. Deutsche Sprache 20: 240268. Duckworth, David 1979 Der Einflu des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz seit 1945. In: Peter Braun (ed.), Fremdwortdiskussion, 212245. Mnchen: Fink. Durrell, Martin 2002 Die Sprachpolitik der Europischen Union aus britischer Sicht. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 286297. Mannheim/ Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Ehlich, Konrad 1997 Von der Attraktivitt der Lehrangebote fr Deutsch als fremde Wissenschaftssprache. Wissenschaftspolitische Voraussetzungen und didaktische Konsequenzen: InfoDaf 24/6: 757770. 2001 Ein Europa viele Sprachen. Die Grundschule 33/10: 1214. 2002 Sprachliche Pluralitt in den Wissenschaften als kulturelle Herausforderung. In: Gnther Schneider and Monika Clalna (eds.), Mehr Sprache mehrsprachig mit Deutsch. Didaktische und politische Perspektiven. Mnchen: iudicium. 2002 Sprachlicher Unitarismus und Globalisierung. Die Union. Vierteljahreszeitschrift fr Integrationsfragen 1/2002: 918. Ehlich, Konrad, Harro Stammerjohann and Jakob Ossner (eds.) 2001 Hochsprachen in Europa. Entstehung, Geltung, Zukunft. Freiburg im Breisgau: Fillibach. Eichhoff, Jrgen 2002 Deutsche Einflsse auf das Englische. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik. (Thema Deutsch 3.), 266285. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/ Zrich: Dudenverlag. Eichhoff-Cyrus, Karin and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.) 2000 Die Deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall? Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Eisenberg, Peter 1990 Stirbt das Deutsche an den Internationalismen? Zur Integration von Computerwrtern. Der Deutschunterricht 3: 1724. 2001 Die grammatische Integration von Fremdwrtern. Was fngt das Deutsche mit seinen Latinismen und Anglizismen an? In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 183209. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Select Bibliography

355

Extra, Guus and Durk Gorter (eds.) 2001 The other languages of Europe. Clevedon/Buffalo/Toronto: Multilingual Matters. Fabricius-Hansen, Catherine 2000 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache in Skandinavien. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistesund sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 177192. Stuttgart: Steiner. Filinski, Peter 1998 Chatten in der Cyber-World. Bonn: International Thomson Publ. Fink, Hermann 1997 Anglizismen in der Sprache der neuen Bundeslnder: Eine Analyse zur Verwendung und Rezeption. Frankfurt: Lang. Fishman, Joshua A. 1985 Nothing new under the sun: A case Study of alternatives in ethnocultural identity. In: Joshua A. Fishman (ed.), The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival, 77103. Berlin: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) 1999 Handbook of Language and Ethnic Identity. New York/Oxford: University Press. 2001 Can Threatened Languages be Saved?: Reversing Language Shift, Revisited; A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fix, Ulla 2000 Urteile ber Wrter. Kriterien fr die Bewertung von Wortbildungsprodukten in Stilistiken und Stillehren. In: Irmhild Barz, Marianne Schrder and Ulla Fix (eds.), Praxis und Integrationsfelder der Wortbildungsforschung, 167186. Heidelberg: Universittsverlag Winter. Flippo, Hyde 1997 The German Way: Aspects of Behavior, Attitudes, and Customs in the German-Speaking World. Lincolnwood (Ill.): Passport Books. Fldes, Csaba 1993 Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Ostmitteleuropa am Beispiel Ungarns. In: J. Born and Gerhard Stickel (eds.), Deutsch als Verkehrssprache in Europa, 217235. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1997 Das Fach Deutsch als Fremdsprache und die auswrtige Sprach- und Kulturpolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Anmerkungen aus einer auslandsgermanistischen Perspektive. Studia Germanica Universitatis Vesprimiensis 1: 3748. 1998 Deutschunterricht und Germanistik in Ungarn. Geschichte Stand Ausblicke. In: F. Grucza, T. Namowicz, J. Wiktorowicz and L. Kolago (eds.), Deutsch und Auslandsgermanistik in Mitteleuropa. Geschichte Stand Ausblicke (Dokumentation einer internationalen Konferenz, 10.12. Oktober 1996.), 6679. Warszawa: Graf-Punkt.

356

Select Bibliography

Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im stlichen Mitteleuropa. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 193209. Stuttgart: Steiner. 2000 Was ist die deutsche Sprache wert? Fakten und Potenzen. Wirkendes Wort 50: 275296. 2002 Deutsch und Englisch. Ein Sprachnotstand? Befunde und Anmerkungen aus einer ostmitteleuropischen Perspektive. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 341367. Mannheim/Leipzig/ Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Frhwald, Wolfgang 2000 Deutsch als Sprache der Wissenschaft. Aviso. Zeitschrift fr Wissenschaft und Kunst in Bayern: 1015. Funk, Hermann and Gerhard Neuner (eds.) 1996 Verstehen und Verstndigen in Europa. Konzepte von Sprachenpolitik und Sprachdidaktik unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Berlin: Cornelsen. Gardt, Andreas 1999 Sprachpatriotismus und Sprachnationalismus. Versuch einer historischsystematischen Bestimmung am Beispiel des Deutschen. In: Andreas Gardt, Ulrike Ha-Zumkehr and Thorsten Roelcke (eds.), Sprachgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte, 89113. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2001 Das Fremde und das Eigene. Versuch einer Systematik des Fremdwortbegriffs in der deutschen Sprachgeschichte. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 3058. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. in print Nation. In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar, Klaus Mattheier and Peter Trudgill (eds.), Sociolinguistics, Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft. 2 vls., 2nd ed. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Gardt, Andreas (ed.) 2000 Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Gauger, Hans-Martin (ed.) 1988 Babel in den Geisteswissenschaften oder der ungetrumte Traum. In: Els Oksaar, Sabine Skudlik and Jrgen von Stackelberg (eds.), Gerechtfertigte Vielfalt. Zur Sprache in den Geisteswissenschaften, 203231. Darmstadt: Luchterhand-Literaturverlag.

2000

Select Bibliography

357

Gauger, Hans-Martin 1999 Die Hilflosigkeit der Sprachwissenschaft. In: Christian Meier (ed.), Sprache in Not? Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch, 85101. Gttingen: Wallstein-Verlag. Gerok, Wolfgang 2000 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache in der Medizin. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 229238. Stuttgart: Steiner. Giddens, Anthony 1990 The Consequences of Modernity. Cambridge University Press. Gizyncki, R. 1973 Centre and Periphery in the International Scientific Communication: Germany, France and Great Britain in the 19th Century. Minerva 11: 477. Glahn, Richard 2001 Anglizismen Ursachen fr den hufigen Gebrauch. Muttersprache 111: 2535. 2002 Der Einflu des Englischen auf gesprochene deutsche Gegenwartssprache: Eine Analyse ffentlich gesprochener Sprache am Beispiel von Fernsehdeutsch. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Glck, Helmut and Werner Wolfgang Sauer 1997 Gegenwartsdeutsch. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Metzler. Glck, Helmut 2000 Drfen Linguisten werten? In: Helmut Glck and Walter Krmer (eds.), Die Zukunft der deutschen Sprache. Eine Streitschrift, 6270. Leipzig: Klett. Gnutzmann, Claus, Frank G. Knigs and Waldemar Pfeiffer (eds.) 1992 Fremdsprachenunterricht im internationalen Vergleich: Perspektive 2000. Frankfurt am Main: Diesterweg. Goebl, Hans, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary and Wolfgang Wlck (eds.) 1996/1997 Kontaktlinguistik. Contact Linguistics. Linguistique de contact. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung. 2 vls. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Goethe Institut Inter Nationes 2002 Die Frderung der deutschen Sprache im Ausland. Mnchen: GoetheInstitut. Grlach, Manfred 1999 Morphological Problems of Integration: English Loanwords Ending in -er and -ing in Selected European Languages. In: Uwe Carls and Peter Lucko (eds.), Form, Function and Variation in English: Studies in Honour of Klaus Hansen, 117125. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

358

Select Bibliography

Nation und Sprache: das Englische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 613641. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Grlach, Manfred and Ulrich Busse 2002 An Annotated Bibliography of Anglicisms German. In: Manfred Grlach (ed.), An Annotated Bibliography of European. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 92125. Grlach, Manfred (ed.) 2001 A Dictionary of European Anglicisms. A Usage Dictionary of Anglicisms in Sixteen European Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 English in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2002 An Annotated Bibliography of European. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Graddol, David 1998 The Future of English. London: The British Council. 1999 The decline of the native speaker. In: David Graddol and Ulrike H. Meinhof (eds.), English in a Changing World. AILA Review 13: 5768. 2001 The future of English as a European Language. The European English Messenger IX/1: 4755. Gregor, Bernd 1983 Genuszuordnung. Das Genus englischer Lehnwrter im Deutschen. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Greule, Albrecht 2002 Deutsch am Scheideweg: National- oder Internationalsprache? Neue Aspekte der Sprachkultivierung. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 5466. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Grucza, Franciszek 2001 Deutschunterricht und Germanistikstudium in Polen. In: Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and Hans-Jrgen Krumm (eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2nd vol., 15281543. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Gschnitzer, Fritz, Reinhart Koselleck, Bernd Schnemann, Karl Ferdinand Werner 1992 Volk, Nation, Nationalismus, Masse. In: Otto Brunner, Werner Conze and Reinhart Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, vol. 7, 141431. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. Gnther, Ulla and Eva Lia Wyss 1996 E-Mail-Briefe eine neue Textsorte zwischen Mndlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. In. Ernest W.B. Hess-Lttich, Werner Holly and Ulrich Pschel (eds.), Textstrukturen im Medienwandel, 6186. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

2000

Select Bibliography

359

Haarmann, Harald 1988 Sprachen und Sprachpolitik. In: Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar and Klaus Mattheier (eds.), Sociolinguistics, Soziolinguistik. An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft, 2 vls., 2nd vol., 15581578. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 1993 Die Sprachenwelt Europas. Geschichte und Zukunft der Sprachnationen zwischen Atlantik und Ural. Frankfurt/New York: Campus-Verlag. 2000 Nation und Sprache in Ruland. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 747824. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2001 Babylonische Welt. Geschichte und Zukunft der Sprachen. Frankfurt/ New York: Campus-Verlag. 2001 Die Kleinsprachen der Welt Existenzbedrohung und berlebenschancen. Eine umfassende Dokumentation. Frankfurt/Berlin/Bern: Lang. 2002 Englisch, Network Society und europische Identitt: Eine sprachkologische Standortbestimmung. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 152170. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. 2002 Sprachenalmanach. Zahlen und Fakten zu allen Sprachen der Welt. Frankfurt/New York: Campus-Verlag. 2002 Sprachenvielfalt im Globalisierungsprozess. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 929. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Haller-Wolf, Angelika 1998 Entwicklungstendenzen im Gegenwartsdeutschen. Sprachspiegel 6. Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri 2000 Empire. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Hattenhauer, Hans 2000 Zur Zukunft des Deutschen als Sprache der Rechtswissenschaft. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 255272. Stuttgart: Steiner. Helbig, Gerhard, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and Hans-Jrgen Krumm (eds.) 2001 Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2vls. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Helfrich, Uta 1993 Neologismen auf dem Prfstand. Ein Modell zur Ermittlung der Akzeptanz franzsischer Neologismen. Wilhelmsfeld: Egert.

360

Select Bibliography

Heller, Klaus 1980 Zum Problem einer Reform der Fremdwortschreibung unter dem Aspekt von Zentrum und Peripherie. In: Dieter Nerius and Jrgen Scharnhorst (eds.), Theoretische Probleme der deutschen Orthographie, 162192. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. 2002 Was ist ein Fremdwort? Sprachwissenschaftliche Aspekte seiner Definition. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 184198. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Herberg, Dieter and Michael Kinne 1998 Neologismen (Studienbibliographie Sprachwissenschaft 23). Heidelberg: Groos. Herberg, Dieter 2001 Neologismen der Neunzigerjahre. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 89104. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Hermanns, Fritz 1994 Deutsche Sprache deutsche Identitt. Elemente und Aspekte deutscher nationaler Selbstauslegung. In: Karl Ermert (ed.), Sprache zwischen Markt und Politik. ber die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache und die Sprachenpolitik in Europa, 187204. Rehburg-Loccum: Evangelische Akademie Loccum. 2003 Die Globalisierung. Versuch der Darstellung des Bedeutungsspektrums der Bezeichnung. In: Martin Wengeler (ed.): Deutsche Sprachgeschichte nach 1945. Diskurs- und kulturgeschichtliche Perspektiven. Beitrge zu einer Tagung anlsslich der Emeritierung Georg Sttzels. Hildesheim/New York: Olms. Hess, Sabine and Ramona Lenz (eds.) 2001 Geschlecht und Globalisierung: Ein kulturwissenschaftlicher Streifzug durch transnationale Rume. Knigstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag. Hetherington, K. and R. Munro (eds.) 1997 Ideas of Difference. Oxford: Blackwell. Hoberg, Rudolf 1996 Fremdwrter: Wie soll sich die Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache dazu verhalten? Sprachdienst 5: 137142. 2000 Sprechen wir bald alle Denglisch oder Germeng? In: Karin EichhoffCyrus and Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Die Deutsche Sprache zur Jahrtausendwende Sprachkultur oder Sprachverfall?, 303316. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. 2001 berlegungen zur aktuellen Sprachenpolitik. In: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) (ed.), Germanistentreffen Deutschland Dnemark Finnland Island Norwegen Schweden, 2529. Bonn.

Select Bibliography

361

Hoberg, Rudolf (ed.) 2002 Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.). Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Hoffmann, Hilmar 2000 Das Goethe-Institut als Mittler deutscher Sprache und Kultur. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 495508. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Hoffmann, Hilmar (ed.) 2000 Deutsch global: Neue Medien Herausforderungen fr die Deutsche Sprache? Kln: DuMont. Hoffmann, Hilmar and Kurt-Jrgen Maa (eds.) 1994 Freund oder Fratze? Das Bild von Deutschland in der Welt und die Aufgaben der Kulturpolitik. Frankfurt am Main/New York: CampusVerlag. Hofmann, Dirk 2002 Do you understand Denglisch? Eine Umfrage zum Anglizismenverstndnis. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 236246. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Hhne, Gnter 2000 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache in den Ingenieurwissenschaften. Zur Situation in der ehemaligen DDR und in Osteuropa. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistesund sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 247254. Stuttgart: Steiner. Horx, Matthias 1995 Trendwrter von Acid bis Zippies. 2nd ed. Dsseldorf: ECON-Verlag. Houska, Leo 1996 Zum Wandel der Fremdsprachenpolitik und zur Stellung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache in der Tschechischen Republik. In: Hermann Funk and Gerhard Neuner (eds.), Verstehen und Verstndigen in Europa. Konzepte von Sprachenpolitik und Sprachdidaktik unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache, 9499. Berlin: Cornelsen. Janich, Nina and Albrecht Greule 2001 da wei man, was man hat? Verfremdung zum Neuen im Wortschatz der Werbung. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 258279. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

362

Select Bibliography

Jorgensen, Peter A. and Donna Anglin Moraco 1984 The categorization of English loanwords in German. In: Wolfgang W. Moelleken (ed.), Dialectology, Linguistics, Literature. Festschrift fr Carrol E. Read, 104114. Gppingen: Kmmerle. Jung, Matthias 1993 Sprachgrenzen und die Umrisse einer xenologischen Linguistik. Jahrbuch Deutsch als Fremdsprache 19, 203230. 1995 Amerikanismen, auslndische Wrter, Deutsch in der Welt. Sprachdiskussion als Bewltigung der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. In: Georg Sttzel, Martin Wengeler et.al. (eds.), Kontroverse Begriffe. Geschichte des ffentlichen Sprachgebrauchs in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, 245283. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Kachru, Braj B. 1996 English as lingua franca. In: Hans Goebl, Peter H. Nelde, Zdenek Stary and Wolfgang Wlck (eds.), Kontaktlinguistik. Contact Linguistics. Linguistique de contact. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenssischer Forschung. 2 vls. Vol. 1, 906913. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Kalverkmper, Hartwig and Harald Weinrich (eds.) 1985 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache. 25. Konstanzer Literaturgesprch des Buchhandels. Tbingen: Narr. Kemmerling, A. 1999 Deutsch als Sprache der Philosophie. Wieweit ist das in Gegenwart und Zukunft noch mglich? In: Christian Meier (ed.), Sprache in Not? Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch, 6576. Gttingen: WallsteinVerlag. Kern, Rudolf 1997 Deutsche Sprache in der Slowakei. Germanistische Mitteilungen 45/46: 155161. Kettemann, Bernhard 2002 Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten. In: Rudolf Muhr and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.), Eurospeak Der Einfluss des Englischen auf die europischen Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, 5383. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Kirk, John M. and Donall P. OBaoill Language planning and education: Linguistic issues in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Scotland. Belfast: Queens University. Kirkness, Alan 1984 Fremdwort und Fremdwortpurismus: Lehren aus der Sprachgeschichte fr den Deutschunterricht. Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 52: 1429. 1993 The Native and the Foreign: German Vocabulary in the European Melting Pot. In: John L. Flood et. al. (eds.), Das unsichtbare Band

Select Bibliography

363

der Sprache. Studies in German Language and Linguistic History in Memory of Leslie Seiffert, 411430. Stuttgart: Heinz. 1998 Das Phnomen des Purismus in der Geschichte des Deutschen. In: Werner Besch, Anne Betten, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger (eds.), Sprachgeschichte. Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer Erforschung, 407 416. 2nd ed., Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2001 Europismen/Internationalismen im heutigen deutschen Wortschatz. Eine lexikographische Pilotstudie. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 105130. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter Kirkness, Alan and Horst Haider Munske (eds.) 1996 Eurolatein. Das griechische und lateinische Erbe in den europischen Sprachen. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Kloss, Heinz 1932 Die Entwicklung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen. Mnchen: Pohl. 1967 Abstand languages and Ausbau languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9/7: 2941. Koller, Werner 2000 Nation und Sprache in der Schweiz. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 563609. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Konferenz der deutschen Akademien der Wissenschaften (eds.) 1999 Werkzeug Sprache. Sprachpolitik, Sprachfhigkeit, Sprache und Macht. Hildesheim: Olms. Kontra, Miklos, Robert Phillipson, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Tibor Varady (eds.), 1999 Language: A Right and a Resource: Approaching Linguistic Human Rights. Budapest/New York: Central European University Press. Lebsanft, Franz 2000 Nation und Sprache: das Spanische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 643671. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Lehnert, Martin 1990 Anglo-Amerikanisches im Sprachgebrauch der DDR. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Leisi, Ernst 1975 Der Wortinhalt. Seine Struktur im Deutschen und Englischen. 5th ed. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. Leonhard, Joachim-Felix 2002 Deutsch in einem vielsprachigen Europa. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 6773. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag.

364

Select Bibliography

Markl, Hubert 1986 Die Spitzenforschung spricht englisch. In: Hartwig Kalvenkmper and Harald Weinrich (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache. 25. Konstanzer Literaturgesprch des Buchhandels, 2025. Tbingen: Narr. Markus, Manfred 1999 Englisch in Europa. In: Ingeborg Ohnheiser, Manfred Kientpointner and Helmut Kalb (eds.), Sprachen in Europa. Sprachsituation und Sprachpolitik in europischen Lndern, 353351. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft. McArthur, Tom 1998 The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Meier, Christian (ed.) 1999 Sprache in Not? Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch. Gttingen: Wallstein-Verlag. Meyer, Birgit and Peter Geschiere 1999 Globalization and Identity: Dialectics of Flow and Closure. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers Modiano, Marko 2000 Euro English: Educational standards in a cross-cultural context. The European English Messenger IX/1: 3337. Mohr, Annette 2001 Deutschunterricht und Germanistik-Studium in Estland. In: Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and Hans-Jrgen Krumm (eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2nd vol., 16831690. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Mhlhausen, C. et. al. 2000 Wrterbuch der Szenensprache. Mannheim: Dudenverlag. Muhr, Rudolf and Bernhard Kettemann (eds.) 2002 Eurospeak Der Einfluss des Englischen auf die europischen Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Munske, Horst Haider 1988 Ist das Deutsche eine Mischsprache? Zur Stellung der Fremdwrter im deutschen Sprachsystem. In: Horst Haider Munske, Peter von Polenz, Oskar Reichmann and Reiner Hildebrandt (eds.), Deutscher Wortschatz. Lexikologische Studien. Ludwig Erich Schmitt zum 80. Geburtstag von seinen Marburger Schlern, 4674. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2001 Fremdwrter in deutscher Sprachgeschichte: Integration oder Stigmatisierung? In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 729. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Nelde, Peter (ed.) 1990 Language Conflict and Minorities. Bonn: Dmmler.

Select Bibliography

365

Nettelbeck, Joachim 2000 Deutsch in internationalen Wissenschaftseinrichtungen. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistesund Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10), 105124. Stuttgart: Steiner. Nettle, Daniel 1999 Linguistic diversity. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Neuner, Gerhard 1996 Faktoren von Sprachenpolitik und Rahmenbedingungen von Fremdsprachenpolitik am Beispiel Deutsch als Fremdsprache. In: Hermann Funk and Gerhard Neuner (eds.), Verstehen und Verstndigung in Europa. Konzepte von Sprachenpolitik und Sprachdidaktik unter besonderer Bercksichtigung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache, 1121. Berlin: Cornelsen. 2002 Policy approaches to English. Strasbourg: Council of Europe / Language Policy Division. Nida-Rmelin, Julian 2002 Die Verantwortung der Politik. Ein Pldoyer fr Mehrsprachigkeit. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 7482. Mannheim/ Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Nortmeyer, Isolde 2000 Die Prfixe inter- und trans-. Beitrge zur Lehnwortbildung. Tbingen: Narr. Ohnheiser, Ingeborg, Manfred Kientpointner and Helmut Kalb (eds.) 1999 Sprachen in Europa. Sprachsituation und Sprachpolitik in europischen Lndern. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft. Oksaar, Els 1994 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache internationale Perspektiven. In: M. Todtenhaupt and I. Valfridsson (eds.), Sprache als lebendiger Kulturspiegel. Festschrift fr Astrid Stedje, 128f. Ume/Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International. Pahl, Gerhard 2000 Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache in den Ingenieurwissenschaften. Das Verhltnis zum angloamerikanischen Sprachraum. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000. (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10), 239246. Stuttgart: Steiner.

366

Select Bibliography

Paul, Rainer 2001 Deutschunterricht und Germanistik-Studium in Ungarn. In: Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and Hans-Jrgen Krumm (eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2nd vol., 15441551. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Peter, Jrgen 1995 Der Historikerstreit und die Suche nach einer nationalen Identitt der achtziger Jahre (Europische Hochschulschriften: Reihe 31, Politikwissenschaft 288.). Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Phillipson, Robert 1992 Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2003 English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge/Taylor & Francis. Phillipson, Robert. (ed.) 2000 Rights to Language: Equity, Power and Education. Celebrating the 60th Birthday of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Polenz, Peter von 1967 Sprachpurismus und Nationalsozialismus. Die Fremdwort-Frage gestern und heute. In: Eberhard Lmmert, Walther Killy, Karl Otto Conrady and Peter v. Polenz, Germanistik eine deutsche Wissenschaft, 111165. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 1979 Fremdwort und Lehnwort sprachwissenschaftlich betrachtet. In: Peter Braun (ed.), Fremdwortdiskussion, 931. Mnchen: UTB Fink. Polster, Bernd (ed.) 1995 Westwind. Die Amerikanisierung Europas. Kln: DuMont. Prksen, Uwe 1988 Plastikwrter. Die Sprache einer internationalen Diktatur. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta. 1994 Wissenschaftssprache und Sprachkritik. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Gegenwart. Tbingen: Narr. 2000 Mehrsprachigkeit und Selbststand. ber die staatsunabhngige Herausbildung einer deutschen Gemeinsprache und ihre denkbare Zukunft: Sieben Thesen. In: Volker Michael Strocka (ed.), Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache. Reflexionen ber ein unsicheres Verhltnis, 733. Bremen: Hempen. Reagan, Timothy. and Humphrey Tonkin (eds.) 2003 Language in the Twenty-First Century. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Reichmann, Oskar 2000 Nationalsprache als Konzept der Sprachwissenschaft. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 419469. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Select Bibliography

367

Rorty, Richard 1999 Achieving our Country. Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rosenbaum, Oliver 1996 chat-Slang: Lexikon der Internet-Sprache. ber 3000 Begriffe verstehen und anwenden. Mnchen: Hanser. Runkehl, Jens, Peter Schlobinski and Torsten Siever 1998 Sprache und Kommunikation im Internet. berblick und Analysen. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Salon, Albert 2002 Die Sprachenfrage in der EU aus franzsischer Sicht. Eine sprachpolitisch-praktische Perspektive. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 333340. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Sandy, Helge 2000 Nation und Sprache: das Norwegische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 865905. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Schelper, Dunja 1995 Anglizismen in der Pressesprache der BRD, der DDR, sterreichs und der Schweiz: Eine vergleichende, typologische und chronologische Studie. Qubec: University Laval, Diss. Scheuringer, Hermann 1993 Deutsch alte und neue Lingua Franca in Ostmitteleuropa? Germanistische Mitteilungen 37: 6992. Schiewe, Jrgen 1998 Die Macht der Sprache. Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart. Mnchen: C.H. Beck. 2000 Sprachpurismus als Aufklrung: Soll man Fremdwrter verdeutschen? In: Volker Michael Strocka (ed.), Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache. Reflexionen ber ein unsicheres Verhltnis, 3568. Bremen: Hempen. 2000 Von Latein zu Deutsch, von Deutsch zu Englisch. Grnde und Folgen des Wechsels von Wissenschaftssprachen. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10), 81104. Stuttgart: Steiner. 2001 Aktuelle wortbezogene Sprachkritik in Deutschland. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 280296. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

368

Select Bibliography

Schlobinski, Peter 2001 Anglizismen im Internet. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel, 239257. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Schlobinski, Peter and Niels-Christian Heins (eds.) 1998 Jugendliche und ,ihre Sprache. Sprachregister, Jugendkulturen und Wertesysteme. Empirische Studien. Opladen/Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag. Schmidt, Hartmut 2000 Sprachen der Wissenschaften an der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10.), 143158. Stuttgart: Steiner. Schmitt, Christian 2000 Nation und Sprache: das Franzsische. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 673745. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Schrodt, Richard 1995 Warum geht die deutsche Sprache immer wieder unter? Zur Problematik der Werthaltungen im Deutschen. Wien: Passagen-Verlag. Schroeder-Gudehus, Brigitte 1966 Deutsche Wissenschaft und Internationale Zusammenarbeit, 1914 1928. Diss.phil. Genf. Schtte, Dagmar 1996 Das schne Fremde: anglo-amerikanische Einflsse auf die Sprache der deutschen Zeitschriftenwerbung. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Seidlhofer, Barbara 2001 Closing a conceptual gap: the case for a description of English as a lingua franca. International Journal of Applied Linguistics: 11/2: 133158. Sennet, Richard 1998 The Corrosion of Character: the Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: Norton. Seyhan, Azade 2001 Writing outside the Nation. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Skudlik, Sabine 1990 Sprachen in den Wissenschaften. Deutsch und Englisch in der internationalen Kommunikation. Tbingen: Narr. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson (eds.) 1995 Linguistic Human Rights. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

Select Bibliography

369

Sollors, Werner (ed.) 1986 Beyond Ethnicity: Consent and Dissent in American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1998 Multilingual America: Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and the Languages of American Literature. New York: New York University Press. Sollors, Werner 1988 The Invention of Ethnicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sommer, Doris (ed.) 2003 Bilingual Games: Some Literary Investigations. New York: Palgrave. Spitzmller, Jrgen 2002 Selbstfindung durch Ausgrenzung. Eine kritische Analyse des gegenwrtigen Diskurses zu angloamerikanischen Entlehnungen. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik (Thema Deutsch 3.), 247265. Mannheim/Leipzig/ Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. Spitzmller, Jrgen, Kersten Sven Roth, Beate Leweling and Dagmar Frohning (eds.) 2002 Streitfall Sprache. Sprachkritik als angewandte Linguistik? (Freiburger Beitrge zur Linguistik 3.). Bremen: Hempen. Sporrer, Susanne and Mirjam Weber (eds.) 1997 Sprachenpolitik in Europa Sprachenpolitik fr Europa. Stuttgart: Institut fr Auslandsbeziehungen. St anescu, Speranta 2001 Deutschunterricht und Germanistikstudium in Rumnien. In: Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Gtze, Gert Henrici and Hans-Jrgen Krumm (eds.), Deutsch als Fremdsprache. Ein internationales Handbuch. 2nd vol., 16711676. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Stanforth, Anthony W. 1996 Deutsche Einflsse auf den englischen Wortschatz in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Mit einem Beitrag zum Amerikanischen Englisch von Jrgen Eichhoff (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik 165). Tbingen: Niemeyer. Stark, Franz 1997 Stationen deutscher Sprachenpolitik. In: Susanne Sporrer and Mirjam Weber (eds.), Sprachenpolitik in Europa Sprachenpolitik fr Europa, 2738. Stuttgart: Institut fr Auslandsbeziehungen. Steinbach, Horst-Ralf 1984 Englisches im deutschen Werbefernsehen. Paderborn: Schnigh. Stephen McBride and John Wiseman (eds.) 2000 Globalization and its Discontents. London: Macmillan. Stickel, Gerhard 1999 Zur Sprachbefindlichkeit der Deutschen. Erste Ergebnisse einer Reprsentativumfrage. In: Gerhard Stickel (ed.), Sprache Sprachwissenschaft ffentlichkeit. Jahrbuch des Instituts fr deutsche Sprache 1998, 1644. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.

370

Select Bibliography

Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache an aueruniversitren Forschungseinrichtungen. In: Friedhelm Debus, Franz Gustav Kollmann and Uwe Prksen (eds.), Deutsch als Wissenschaftssprache im 20. Jahrhundert. Vortrge des Internationalen Symposiums vom 18./19. Januar 2000 (Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 10), 125142. Stuttgart: Steiner. Stickel, Gerhard (ed.) 1999 Sprache Sprachwissenschaft ffentlichkeit. Jahrbuch des Instituts fr deutsche Sprache 1998. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. 2001 Neues und Fremdes im deutschen Wortschatz. Aktueller lexikalischer Wandel. Jahrbuch des Instituts fr Deutsche Sprache 2000. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. Sttzel, Georg and Martin Wengeler (eds.) 1995 Kontroverse Begriffe. Geschichte des ffentlichen Sprachgebrauchs in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Straner, Erich 1995 Deutsche Sprachkultur. Von der Barbarensprache zur Weltsprache. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Strocka, Volker Michael (ed.) 2000 Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache. Reflexionen ber ein unsicheres Verhltnis. Bremen: Hempen. Stukenbrock, Anja forthc. Sprachnationalismus. Sprache als Medium kollektiver Identittsstiftung in Deutschland (16171945). Swales, John 1990 Genre Analysis. English in adademic and research settings. Cambridge: University Press. Trabant, Jrgen (ed.) with D. Naguschewski 1995 Die Herausforderung durch die fremde Sprache. Das Beispiel der Verteidigung des Franzsischen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Trabant, Jrgen and Brigitte Jostes (eds.) Fremdes in fremden Sprachen. Mnchen: Wilhelm Fink Verlag. Trabant, Jrgen 2000 Umzug ins Englische. ber die Globalisierung des Englischen in den Wissenschaften. In: Deutscher Hochschulverband (ed.), Glanzlichter der Wissenschaft. Ein Almanach, 189203. Stuttgart: Lucius und Lucius. Viereck, Karin 1980 Englisches Wortgut, seine Hufigkeit und Integration in der sterreichischen und bundesdeutschen Pressesprache (Bamberger Beitrge zur Englischen Sprachwissenschaft 8). Frankfurt am Main: Lang.

2000

Select Bibliography

371

Viereck, Wolfgang 1980 Studien zum Einflu der englischen Sprachen auf das Deutsche. Studies on Influence of the English Language on German (Tbinger Beitrge zur Linguistik 132.). Tbingen: Narr. Wandruszka, Mario 1990 Die europische Sprachgemeinschaft. Deutsch/Franzsisch/Englisch/ Italienisch/Spanisch im Vergleich. Tbingen: Francke. Wegener, Heide 1999 Die Pluralbildung im Deutschen. Linguistik online 4, 3/1999. http://www.linguistik-online.de/3_99/wegener.html. Weinreich, Uriel 1967 Languages in Contact. Findings and Problems. The Hague: Mouton. First published 1953. Weinrich, Harald 2002 Europa Linguafrancaland? In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik. (Thema Deutsch 3.), 3043. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zrich: Dudenverlag. 2002 Sprache, das heit Sprachen. Tbingen: Narr. Wiesinger, Peter 2000 Nation und Sprache in sterreich. In: Andreas Gardt (ed.), Nation und Sprache. Die Diskussion ihres Verhltnisses in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 525562. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. Wiltsey, Robert G. 1972 Doctoral Use of Foreign Languages: A Survey. 2 Parts. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Winkler, Heinrich (ed.) 1978 Nationalismus. Knigstein/Ts.: Athenum-Verlag. Yang, Wenliang 1990 Anglizismen im Deutschen. Am Beispiel des Nachrichtenmagazins Der Spiegel. Tbingen: Niemeyer. Zielke, Achim 1991 Beispiellos ist beispielhaft oder: berlegungen zur Analyse und zur Kreation des kommunikativen Codes von Werbebotschaften in Zeitungs- und Zeitschriftenanzeigen (Reihe Medienwissenschaft 5.). Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus-Verlag. Zimmer, Dieter E. 1998 Deutsch und anders die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber. Reinbek: Rowohlt. 1998 Abschied von Illusionen. ber den internationalen Status der deutschen Sprache. In: Dieter E. Zimmer, Deutsch und anders die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber, 201214. Reinbek: Rowohlt. 1998 Neuanglodeutsch. Hundert Computerbegriffe in zehn Sprachen. In: Dieter E. Zimmer, Deutsch und anders die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber, 86104. Reinbek: Rowohlt.

372

Select Bibliography

Neuanglodeutsch. ber die Pidginisierung der Sprache. In: Dieter E. Zimmer, Deutsch und anderes die Sprache im Modernisierungsfieber, 785. Reinbek: Rowohlt. Zint-Dyhr, Ingeborg 2002 Deutsch und Englisch in Skandinavien. In: Rudolf Hoberg (ed.), Deutsch Englisch Europisch. Impulse fr eine neue Sprachpolitik. (Thema Deutsch 3.), 368381. Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/ Zrich: Dudenverlag.

1998

List of Contributors

Professor Dr. Ulrich Ammon Gerhard-Mercator-Universitt FB 2 Institut fr Germanistik Lotharstr. 65 47057 Duisburg Deutschland Ammon@uni-duisburg.de

Priv.-Doz. Dr. Hermann H. Dieter Direktor u. Prof. am Umweltbundesamt, Berlin / Mitglied des Bundesvorstands des Vereins Deutsche Sprache Postfach 10 41 28 44041 Dortmund Deutschland hermann-h.dieter@uba.de

Professor Prisca Augustyn, Ph.D. Florida Atlantic University Dept. of Languages & Linguistics 777 Glades Rd. Boca Raton, FL 33431 USA augustyn@fau.edu O. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Petra Braselmann Leopold-Franzens-Universitt Innsbruck Institut fr Romanistik Innrain 52 6020 Innsbruck sterreich Petra.Braselmann@uibk.ac.at Professor David Crystal, Ph.D. University of Wales Department of Linguistics Bangor, Gwynedd LL57 2DG Great Britain crystal@dial.pipex.com

Professor William W. Donner, Ph.D. Kutztown University Department of Anthropology Kutztown PA 19530 USA donner@kutztown.edu

Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Konrad Ehlich Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitt Institut fr Deutsch als Fremdsprache / Transnationale Germanistik Ludwigstr. 27 80539 Mnchen Deutschland ehlich@daf.uni-muenchen.de Professor Dr. Peter Eisenberg Universitt Potsdam Institut fr Germanistik Postfach 601553 14415 Potsdam / Deutschland eisenberg@rz.uni-potsdam.de

374

List of Contributors Nikky Keilholz-Rhle Goethe-Institut Abt. Spracharbeit Ausland Dachauer Str. 122 80637 Mnchen Deutschland Professor John F. Lalande II, Ph.D. Chair Modern Languages and Literatures / 205 F Wilber State University of N.Y. at Oswego Oswego, NY 13126 USA lalande@oswego.edu

Professor Joshua A. Fishman, Ph.D. 3616 Henry Hudson Pkwy. / Apt. 7B-N Bronx NY 10463 USA JoshuaAFishman@aol.com Professor Dr. Andreas Gardt Universitt Kassel Fachbereich 09 Germanistik 34109 Kassel Deutschland gardt@uni-kassel.de

Professor John M. Grandin, Ph.D. Executive Director International Engineering Program 67 Upper College Road Kingston, Rhode Island 02881 USA grandin@uri.edu Professor Dr. Rudolf Hoberg Vorsitzender der Gesellschaft fr deutsche Sprache Spiegelgasse 13 65183 Wiesbaden Deutschland sekr@gfds.de sprachli@linglit.tu-darmstadt.de Professor Dr. Bernd Hppauf New York University Department of German 19 University Place New York, NY 10003 USA bernd.huppauf@nyu.edu

Professor Dr. Hans Joachim Meyer Staatsminister a.D. Calvinstr. 5a 10557 Berlin Deutschland

Dr. Stephan Nobbe Director Goethe-Institut Prag Masarykovo nbrezi 32 11000 Praha 1 Czech Republic il@prag.goethe.org

Professor Dr. Robert Phillipson Copenhagen Business School Department of English Dalgas Have 15 2000 Frederiksberg Denmark rp.eng@cbs.dk

List of Contributors Uwe Rau Deputy Director and Head of Language Department Goethe-Institut 1014 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10028 USA rau@newyork.goethe.org Dr. Peter Wagener Institut fr Deutsche Sprache R 5, 613 68161 Mannheim Deutschland wagener@ids-mannheim.de

375

Professor Robert Reimer, Ph.D. UNC Charlotte Department of Languages and Cultural Studies 9201 University City Blvd. Charlotte, NC 28223 USA rcreimer@email.uncc.edu Wolfgang Thierse Prsident des Deutschen Bundestages Deutscher Bundestag Platz der Republik 1 11011 Berlin Deutschland mail@bundestag.de David L. Valuska, Ph.D. Executive Director Pennsylvania German Heritage Center at Kutztown University Department of Languages and Cultural Studies Kutztown, PA 19530 USA valuska@kutztown.edu

Yasemin Yildiz, Ph.D. cand Cornell University Dept. of German Studies 183 Goldwin Smith Hall Ithaca, NY 14853 USA yy47@cornell.edu

Helene Zimmer-Loew Executive Director American Association of Teachers of German 112 Haddontowne Court #104 Cherry Hill, NJ 08034-3668 USA helene@aatg.org

You might also like