Sprachpolitik: Some Socio-Political Effects of English in Germany

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW

International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society [ijps] PP086-298131-10 March 8, 2001 14:41 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2001

Sprachpolitik: Some Socio-Political Effectsof English in Germany1

Stephen Wood1

Language is a major component of identification for individuals and nations,and linguistic difference has manifested itself as an enduring political issue.This continues in the age of “globalization” when the presence of a powerfulglobal force, the English language, now less attached to a particular nationalentity, is viewed as intrusive among language groups that are, including inthe most economically and technologically advanced countries. Some groupsand individuals within Germany’s postindustrial civil society are conductingan ardent defence of German against the encroachment of English. TheGerman state, meanwhile, is pressured to support the national languagewhile adapting, like the private economy, to new imperatives that tend tomagnify the presence of English.

KEY WORDS: language politics; German; English; globalization; national identity.

Germanists indeed have much to do with the German nation, but there is an im-portant aspect I do not want to forget. Germanistik is not only driven by Germanacademe. It is an international discipline, which is at home in all possible countriesand concerns itself there as a significant element of German culture.2

The once highly regarded German language counts for less and less in academe.English continues further on its international victory march.3

This paper examines some current effects of the English language pres-ence in Germany. In the last half-century, the post-war occupation of (West)Germany and the post-Cold War surge of commercial forces worldwide con-tributed to a vast growth in the presence and usage of English, and at leastsome familiarity with it among much of the population. In recent years arising discontent with this and associated developments has been simulta-neously manifested, notably through the appearance of civil associations

1Stephen Wood, Department of Political Science, University of Western Australia; e-mail:[email protected]

621

C© 2001 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


622 Wood

whose declared aims focus on the prevention, or even rescinding, of “un-necessary” or “superfluous” English terms in the German-speaking area(Sprachraum). For supporters of this standpoint an avid espousal of Germanis what transpires in practice, with a correlated advocacy of a more extensiveavoidance of English. The two quotations above reveal differing sentimentstowards the status of German. In the former, the then Federal President,Roman Herzog, affirms an optimistic viewpoint of a language in a flourish-ing condition. The second imparts the relative decline of German and therise of English. I contend that the prevalence and probable expansion of thelatter in Germany will be accompanied by the intensification of an emergentpolitical issue, firstly in civil society and later becoming a greater concernfor the German state.

The scope of the enquiry comprises national and international dimen-sions and, while a primarily empirical approach is employed, it also pos-sesses theoretical tangents. It is not easily situated within a single, clearlydefined discipline. As the international relations theorist Martin Wight onceremarked, “the purpose of building pigeon-holes is to reassure oneself thatthe raw material does not fit into them. Classification becomes valuable, inhumane studies, only at the point where it breaks down.”4 From one per-spective, a chiefly comparative politics setting is utilized to investigate thepoliticization of language use within the German domestic polity. Identifi-cation and evaluation of cultural-linguistic attributes and their roles in thesocio-economic context reveals widely differing attitudes towards English,German, or combined usage. There is an appropriation by the “defenders”of German of a right to speak for the nation and even, given the historicalrole of the language, in defence of the nation itself. For others, less concernedby the trends, the employment of English is a response, passive or active, toeconomic and social realities.

From another angle, international relations, itself presently experienc-ing a certain fluidity, provides a disciplinary lens through which to observethe contemporary operation and impact of international or “external”influences.5 While their influence cannot be discounted, it is not, at leastnot directly, states that encounter one another here. However, the conceptsof national identity and cultural hegemony, which sustain links to states, haveresonance and are useful analytical tools. In addition, there is the advent—in the literature at least, and, conjecturally, beyond it—of the phenomenonof “globalization.” The confluence of language and economy complicatesa universalist “class” explanation, demonstrating instead the internationalnature of current “global” processes, even where the emergence of a world-wide managerial elite is mooted.6 Linguistic evolution and economic pro-cesses are often closely linked, but as individual cases languages also havequalities which incline many of their speakers to resist others, even when

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 623

potential financial or technical advantages may be involved.7 Affective andintuitive factors are critical and national identity remains an important ref-erent. While both operate effectively as advanced capitalist economies ina global framework, Germany is a different nation and state to the UnitedStates, posited here as representing the major cultural interlocuter. Thereare then two confrontations: one internal to Germany; and one featured bythe response from actors within Germany to a foreign phenomenon and itsinfluence.

BACKGROUND

Germany’s post-war occupation and transformation facilitated a degreeof political, economic and cultural Anglo-Americanization. While “tradi-tional” and more modern German characteristics and expression prevailed,the American presence, and to a lesser extent the British, did establish a cer-tain “authority” for English-speaking culture, extending beyond language-oriented forms. This, argues Peter Breit, was largely due to the relation-ship’s “transactional” nature, even if some anti-Anglo-American sentimentpersisted.8 Foundations were laid for later post-Cold War developments.English has continued to impress itself as a feature of German and other so-cieties worldwide. More than one in five persons on the planet speak someEnglish and many of the rest are keen to learn, claimed the British Councilin 1995.9 While a boom in English courses in Germany is underway,10 therehas also, in recent years, been a noticeable increase in concern about theposition, and the content, of the German language in Germany itself. Re-sponse to a perceived diminution of the national language and its literaryand academic traditions has become increasingly active. Viewed by some aseven worse than any favouring of English over German, is the employmentof “Denglisch” or “Neudeutsch”, wherein native German speakers blendEnglish words into German syntax or merge two words, one from each lan-guage, into one. The older term for this, Kauderwelsch, has been joined bythose above and other descriptors like Schimpansensprache.

Historically, the mutual influence of the two languages is weighted infavour of German, from which much of the contemporary English vocab-ulary derived. There was a good deal of reciprocity, as a major account onthe seventeenth to nineteenth centuries suggests.11 Although there are manyshorter scholarly enquiries going back several decades, there are relativelyfew lengthy academic studies on the topic as examined in the present pa-per and a paucity of English language works.12 In contrast, numerous mediareports, and a vibrant Internet-based exchange, have recounted aversionsto the encroachment of English into Germany society and a concomitant

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


624 Wood

diminishment of German.13 Some ask “Can our language be saved?” andwrite of English terminology in advertising as making many Germans feelexcluded in their own country.14 Another factor that appears to have someinfluence is the lack of reciprocity by native English speakers. Relatively lownumbers are capable in or even attempt to speak German or other languages.These indicators suggest that extensive studies exploring the topic and itsevolution can be expected.

GLOBALIZATION AND COUNTERVAILING TRENDSIN GERMANY

The propellant for the, as some in Germany and elsewhere view it,current linguistic deluge, is “globalization,” a range of commercial, tech-nological, and cultural trends and processes, well advanced in western post-industrial societies, and which are percolating into most corners of theplanet.15 English both accompanies and drives this development as the prin-cipal verbal and written communication. Although its meaning and/or ex-istence are the subject of ongoing conjecture, a characterization, in this in-stance, of “globalization” rather than “internationalization,” is corroboratedby the intrusive agent not being specific to any one nation or state. Nor isthis English necessarily the language of Shakespeare or Eliot or Rushdie.Rather, it constitutes a number of variants, prominent among them forms ofAmericanese.16 Although the United States would be the leading contender,English is an instrument, a property, a cultural and economic asset now be-yond the “ownership” of a particular people, though it has been and still is ofspecial benefit for some.17 For those displeased with its ubiquity, specificallyinto their own domains, the assignment of “blame” to a definitive source isthereby complicated.

On the other hand, the internationalization argument also has consider-able evidence to support it. Its advocates concentrate mainly on economics,seemingly intent on demonstrating that individual national economies canand do retain capacities for autonomous decision-making.18 A little surpris-ingly perhaps, given the sensitivities and potential for politicization that isinvolved, the linguistic sphere appears less of a battleground for debates onthe nature, or actuality, of “globalization”—at least, in the English-speakingworld.19 The notion of “hybridization” or “creolization” of language is appli-cable though, indicating as they do forms of internationalization.20 Withoutwanting to diverge too far into a theory of nation and nationality, every lan-guage has or did have a nation, and many nations are defined most especiallyby their language.21 However rapidly distinct languages may be vanishingbefore the force of current linguistic and economic developments, there are

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 625

sufficient numbers remaining to suggest that even if one evolves towardshomogeneity it will necessarily come into contact with others in order todo so.

Uncertainty of ownership is not replicated with German, wherein theword “our” (unsere) often precedes a reference to the word “language.”As many view it, “globalization” is actually a case of the leading linguistic-cultural bloc (Anglo-American) making its presence felt among others and isfar less nation-neutral than some interpretations suggest. For native Germanspeakers who oppose the trend outlined, the presence of English in Germanyhas incited reactions ranging from irritation to anger to active resistance.One survey found that 57 per cent of Germans believe English words are tooprevalent in the “German” language. In the eastern regions it was 70 per cent.Discontent also increases in line with age with Germans under 34 beingless concerned than those aged from 35-54 and those over 55.22 Anotherresult from the Institute for German Language (Institut fur deutsche Sprache)stated that 25% of adults were disturbed by current trends and a further 30%thought that a critical point had been reached.23

These developments have inspired the formation of at least one sentineland censure league, the Verein zur Wahrung der Deutschen Sprache (Asso-ciation for the Preservation of the German Language) or VWDS. Sinceits formation in late 1997, the Verein has been very successful in attractingpublicity and members, of whom there were around 10,000 by June 2000,an increase of 33 per cent since January of that year. It declares itself po-litically and philosophically neutral (politisch und weltanschaulich neutral)and has been an encouragement to other, similarly oriented groups andindividuals. Founder and chairman, Walter Kramer, a Professor of Statis-tics in Dortmund, was awarded the 1998 German Language Prize by one ofGermany’s professional foundations. Other members include OttmarHitzfeld, the trainer of Germany’s most successful football club, BayernMunchen, and representatives from all political parties in the Bundestag(lower house of Parliament). In late 1999, the VWDS altered its name tothe less overtly combative Verein der deutschen Sprache (German LanguageAssociation) or VDS.24 It makes the following appeal:

We ask politicians, authors, journalists and linguists to be conscious of the threat toour language through the freighting in of Anglo-Saxon word and language goods,and apply themselves to the maintenance of the German language as a self-standingcultural language. A look at the language behavior of our French and Polish neighborscould be helpful.

In contrast to France there has been less attention in Germany on lan-guage criticism (Sprachkritik) and associated political implications.25 This ispartly due to the lack of a “central instance” of authority in linguistic ques-tions. There is no institution in Germany that operates, officially, as “a kind

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


626 Wood

of language supervisory board” though the Deutsche Akademie fur Spracheund Dichtung (German Academy for Language and Literature), Institut furdeutsche Sprache (Institute for German Language), Gesellschaft fur deutscheSprache (Society for German Language) and others are referred to as pro-moters of or commentators on the language.26 This decentralized approachis symptomatic of the political culture and organization of public admin-istration established in (west) Germany after the Second World War. TheGoethe-Institut, with official responsibility for language promotion, has noendorsed cooperation or recognition of common goals with other languageinstitutions or associations. The others are said to “take themselves seri-ously,” however,27 particularly the VDS, which has emerged in a de factorole of language guardianship.

One might expect a good deal of variance in individual interpretationsand emphasis among membership of the VDS and others who concur withits perspectives and aims. Nonetheless, establishing some general points isuseful. Central to the Association’s concerns is the “identity loss” it per-ceives as resulting from the continued flow of Anglo-Americanisms into theGerman language. Its charter refers to the German Basic Law (Grundge-setz), Article 3, pronouncing that no one should be disadvantaged becauseof origin, race or language.28 Opposition to what they see as the creepinghegemony of English and its consequent effect on German is then primary.Secondly, there are not only “negative” reactions involved here but also“positive” motivations to promote and invigorate the German language.Thirdly, the supporters of this cause stress that they are not “against English”per se, being more concerned for what might be termed the “proper use oflanguage,” whatever the language that is actually employed. That is, Englishitself is not rejected, rather its grammatically or otherwise incorrect usage is.Although it appears to contradict other evidence, the VDS declares that “inno case do we want to start a campaign against foreign words in the Germanlanguage.” In fact, many members are very capable English speakers, beingprofessional translators, university professors, international business peopleand so on. For them, to highlight this ability is to miss the point. Fourthly, con-scious of historical shadows and their potential to distort the contemporaryissue, the VDS is keen to impress that its members are not at all nationalistbut rather the proponents of deep cultural affinities, especially as expressedthrough the native language: “We are not language purists, we promote nonationalistic German jingoism” (Wir sind keine Sprachpuristen, wir treibenkeine nationalistische Deutschtumelei). One effect of this is alignment withother linguistic/cultural groups which may perceive themselves as afflictedby overbearing Anglo-American predominance. It is also a useful politicaltactic intended to extend the range of potential allies by appeal to similarconcerns.29

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 627

The issue under consideration here must be kept in perspective. On theone hand, there are, at time of writing about 10,000 actual members of theVDS. On the other, widespread publicity through the German print mediain particular, the growth rate of the Association and other signs of broadersocietal empathy with its orientation imbue it with considerable potentialfor influence, in addition to that which it has already demonstrated. It hashad a galvanizing effect on other groups and inspired the appearance of aSwiss affiliate (SVDS) in 1999. Computer programs are being developedto translate unwanted Anglicisms into acceptable German. The VDS claimto be acting for Germans who are not proficient in English (des englischennichtmachtige) and presumably discontented with its expansion into the Ger-man vernacular. Over 50 per cent of the population are estimated by themto fit this category, for whom everday practical problems like labels on goodswritten only in English constitute an unjustified handicap. By no means theonly likely adherents, a demographic element of this size provides a largepotential support base.

Differentiating itself from the “apparently objective role played by es-tablished language studied,” the VDS pursues “our duty towards our linguis-tic and literary inheritance, and with the democratic obligation of communalunderstanding, which modern, pseudo-cosmopolitan attempts to impress bymany half-educated people oppose.”30 This is at some variance to the positionnoted above that lesser educated people are less likely to understand andemploy English—they being, more often, among the Nicht-machtige regard-ing this language. The somewhat indeterminate strata or stratum of “half”or lesser educated are alternatively the impressionistic users of English andthose less likely to understand it. Most indications are that it is actuallybetter educated, higher income people who play a more critical role in theexpansion of English usage. Many are active in media, business, advertising,entertainment and even politics.

Preoccupation with requirements to understand or speak English wellis one aspect of the topic. It is related to another, more fundamental element;the concomitant reduction in the use, importance and quality of the Germanlanguage, most pertinently in Germany itself. Although the vexatious rawmaterial originates elsewhere, it is expedited by those Germans who, withsome frequency, employ English or quasi-English words and phrases in anotherwise German speaking domain. While far from terminal this may rep-resent a case of potential “language sucide.” “Because” as Coulmas ex-presses it, “it is the speakers of a language rather than anyone else whoare responsible for its decay.”31 Kramer has also spoken in similar terms.32

The latest edition of the Duden German dictionary incorporated a “hugeshare” (Ubergroβer Anteil) of new English inclusions—including the word“Denglisch” itself.33 The VDS interprets much of this English or Denglisch

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


628 Wood

usage as a phony or misguided cosmopolitanism, the result of a self-deceptionby many Germans that English is more contemporary, concise, profitable, orsimply “better.”34 By contrast, some other German speakers—who are alsocitizens—view this as an infringement on their own rights, viewing the VDSand their ilk as anachronistic or “arrogant intellectuals.”

When framing this as a domestic dispute among Germans, for our pur-poses a division into two societal groupings is helpful, even if not all membersof each are formally allied. It must also be noted that there is a third, largersection of the population, that is presently either unaware of or disinterestedin the issue. In a negative sense, Group A (the VDS and supporters) are de-picted as atavistic, paternalist, purist or pedantic, and nationalist. Group B(frequent or active users of English or “Denglisch”) are painted as mod-ish, crass, greedy, impressionistic, and culturally disloyal. In positive terms,Group A view themselves as respectful of their heritage, defenders of cul-tural values, supportive of diversity, and independent. Group B are adaptive,dynamic, contemporary, pragmatic, progressive and “liberal.”35

HISTORICAL AND SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCES

This may be a suitable point to introduce some other considerationson contemporary cultural politics into the discussion. Although examplesmay have existed in practice for millennia, as a theory, “cultural hegemony”is prominently identified with Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci’s concentrationwas on the predominance of an elite or class within a given national frame-work. He did not specifically apply the concept to the suzerainty of na-tional or linguistic groups over others, though it was signposted in his PrisonNotebooks.36 Internationally, cultural hegemony, or something approachingit, followed from an economic and/or political and sometimes military dom-inance. It has been more often applied to the relationship of developed, or“first world” nations or empires to developing countries, as in the writings ofEdward Said and various post-colonial scholarship.37 At the entrance to the21st Century, a cultural hegemony, or the possibility of it, emerges regardingthe relationship of a particular cultural-linguistic bloc (Anglo-American)with, in the case examined here, the Germanic speaking area, particularlythe FRG. In effect, one cultural division of post-industrial “western” soci-ety predominating over another, within the latter’s own territory. If thereis a “homogenization” of global culture or consumer culture occurring then“westernization” is too general a term. “Americanization,” possibly pre-ceded by “Anglo-,” is more distinct and applicable.38

One response towards Anglo-American influence witnessed in post-war German civil society was a resigned acceptance that derived from a

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 629

damaged national and individual self-confidence. Later this evolved into amore enthusiastic reception among much of the population. According toVoigt, a relative lack of pride in the national language, compared to otherEuropeans, may also indicate a “much deeper doubt about self-worth.”39

The author Horst Hensel echoes this, interpreting what he perceives as thedeterioration, even disintegration, of the German language as symptomaticof a negative national and international image, reflected in a lack of ap-preciation for German literature and culture more widely.40 “Nation” and“national identity” are essential components in this culture-politics relationand are largely defined by the presence, conceptual or otherwise, of bound-aries or demarcation. The current reaction against excessive foreign linguis-tic influence is suggestive of the concept, much discussed by Nietzsche, ofressentiment.41 While Nietzsche was mainly interested in how this operatedin regard to individuals, or character types, it can also be applied to largergroups, like nations, and how they react to the appearance in their own soci-eties of foreign models, methods or languages. Liah Greenfeld analyses thisin her work on nationalism, which also highlights the centrality of dignity innational self-conceptions.42 Dignity and ressentiment are feelings transposedto each other.

A shared culture reinforces communication of concepts like worth, dignity and iden-tity. Transmission in the mother tongue, especially under pressure by more dominantlanguages, is itself an assertion of these feelings. In Greenfeld’s account, the effectsof combined structural, cultural and psychological factors find expression in interna-tional politics.43

According to Greenfeld, the importation of foreign ideas or charac-teristics divulged a form of inferiority on the part of the importer and oftenprecipitated a response that “commonly assumed the form of ressentiment.”44

Norbert Elias expresses it as a question of self-esteem, with “membersof states and other social units” taking “a long time, even centuries tocome to terms” with alterations to cultural and political rank.45 A resem-blance is apparent in Coulmas’ notion of a “hierarchy of linguistic environ-ments.”46

Dignity (Wurde) is an element also emphasized by the VDS. For them, itis a matter of dignity that non-English speaking Germans are able to easilyunderstand and participate in the necessary verbal and written communi-cations of their everyday lives. The sensitivities involved in both historicaland contemporary contexts are testament to the subjectivity of languageand its inherent susceptibility to politicization. One VDS member inter-preted English as representative of Anglo-Americanism and a transporterof particular cultural information, not as the agent of a culture-neutral “glob-alization.” He did not personally feel under attack from Anglo-American

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


630 Wood

culture because Germany itself was “too powerful.” Nonetheless, it was nocoincidence that many Germans sought to orient themselves to it and profitfrom its glamour. This was a denial of their own culture.47 The VDS andthose supportive of its position, are at pains to impress that they do notadvocate—or want to be perceived as advocating—a reification of Germanculture, from any period. There are, still, parameters, or an implicit essentialcore, the precise extent or qualities of which are not elucidated.48

The categories of nation, or nation-state can, alternatively, be inter-preted as somewhat misleading. As indicated above, a particular nation-state does not own the English language, the regular use of which is now sowidely disseminated.49 Nor is there anything like a monolithic response to itfrom other national populations. Yet those opposing its pervasive influencefind themselves having to identify a source. Because of this partly tactical re-quirement, and the apparent absence of any immediately obvious alternativetarget, the traditional bases for the fusion and circulation of national-culturalcharacteristics, nation-states, serve this purpose. Rival states reappear as afocus for discontent because there is as yet no replacement, despite the evi-dence of powerful non-state forces throughout the world. Capitalism cannotbe solely or directly responsible because capitalism is the economic systemthat operates, quite effectively, in Germany, even if it is a different variant tothe Anglo-American model. The contrariety towards “globalization” or “in-ternationalization” that is analysed here is not, then, expressly concentratedagainst economic forces or a “system” per se, despite the profusion of nega-tive references that might indicate this. Rather, it is primarily a rejoinder tothe cultural accompaniments of the process, which, identified as the productof other national groups, not only differ from, but are viewed as a threat tothe existing culture. Fear of an oligopoly applies more to linguistic/culturalpower than economic power. Conversely, there are functional-economic ad-vantages to be gained from familiarity with a predominating language andthe cultural background that this linguistic key provides access to. In otherwords, while language itself has profound cultural significance it is also theintroductory mechanism for a panoply of other influences, many of whichare inextricably tied to economic or political phenomena. Coulmas suggeststhat the linguistic environment “is not shaped by economic conditions alone.Economic factors always interact, in different weightings, with geographic,political, socio-psychological and cultural factors in a wider sense.” Later heargues that

Ideological motivations, especially those related to religion, ethnic identity, and na-tionalism, often provide the foundations of language loyalty strong enough to resistthe forces of economic development. But wherever languages retreat or disappear,economic development is an important, often decisive factor.50

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 631

DOMESTIC SECTORS: BUSINESS, GOVERNMENT,AND EDUCATION

English or “Denglisch” has permeated most levels and sectors of Ger-man society, including national institutions. Several companies have or arein process of adopting English as their main operating language and somebusiness and industry organizations have encouraged its use as a neces-sary means to commercial success.51 Proposals have even been floated tointroduce English as a second official language by 2010. Various studies andgovernment-backed initiatives investigating the relation of “culture” and“economy’ have sought means of cooperation and mutual benefit betweenthese branches of society yet also seem to foreshadow an intensificationof friction. Partly in response to the perceived power and protean prop-erties of English, some politicians, notably former Foreign Minister KlausKinkel, were keen to overcome any sanctified separation of culture fromother fields and promote the German language as an economic and politicalinstrument.52 Elsewhere concerns were expressed, including in parliamen-tary contexts, about the demeaning of the language by seeking to commer-cialize it.

The VDS draws attention to major German companies and public agen-cies and complaints against ministers in Land and Federal governments.Deutsche Telekom, Deutsche Bahn, and Deutsche Bank are large organi-zations carrying the name of the nation, expressed in the language of thenation, for which spokespersons, advertising and some company documen-tation have or has employed English. While the Goethe-Institut thankedDeutsche Bank, Deutsche Telekom, Daimler Benz and Siemens for spon-sorship, all of these were criticized by the VDS for over-use of Englishand under-use of German, either by prominent executives or in general.53

The VDS claims credit for having reversed several culturally inappropriateinitiatives such as the “German Call” by Deutsche Telekom or the “Ger-man Parcel” service from Deutsche Post. It was particularly incensed bythe Volkswagen “Foundation’s” competition for younger artists (nationaleNachwuchskunstler) titled, in English, “Songs of Nietzsche and Goethe.” Inwhat became something of a legal cause celebre—the “Vogelgesang Case”—the VDS and others supported an employee of Lufthansa, the German air-line, who had added German translations to English terminology on aircraftequipment and apparently intended this to become standard practice. Onecommentator described the outcome as “Lufthansa wins against the Germanlanguage.” Others had previously asked, “Is Lufthansa a German airline?”54

While acknowledging that it is charged with a different range of tasks,the Goethe-Institut is somewhat less purist in its allegiances to the German

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


632 Wood

language than the VDS. In December 1998, Lufthansa, also listed by theGoethe-Institut as a major sponsor, “won” the VDS Sprachhunzer (lan-guage murderer) of the month award for the phrase “Mit dem Standbyoneway upgrade voucher kann das Ticket beim check-in aufgewertet wer-den.” The chief executive of Deutsche Telekom won the 1998 Sprachpan-scher (language diluter or adulterer) of the year “award.” In 1999 it was wonby Johannes Ludewig of Deutsche Bahn. The candidates for 2000 includedformer federal Education Minister, Jurgen Ruttgers, Jurgen Weber, chair-man of “Deutsche Lufthansa AG,” the Rector of Munich’s Ludwig-Maximiliens-Universitat, Andreas Heldreich, and Rolf Breuer of DeutscheBank. With the notable exception of fashion entrepreneur Jil Sander,55 menare considered by the VDS to be far worse denigrators of the German lan-guage than women.56 An affiliated organization awards a Sprachwahrer ofthe year for outstanding service to the language and its users.

For better or worse, the worldwide importance of a language is now de-pendent on the breadth of its usage: aesthetic or other qualitative factors, ortraditional prestige, are not of highest consequence. Germany has a dilemmain this respect. On the one hand, designated state agencies have sought topromote German internationally through language courses, exchange pro-grams, and cultural events involving artists and writers; and to preserve and“cultivate” the linguistic heritage in Germany and Eurasia. The state has alsobeen placed under pressure to respond to those disgruntled by the increas-ing presence of English, often, as they perceive it, in preference to German.There are some legally enforced essential linguistic requirements:

For example, in Germany no one can become branch director of a bank withoutbeing accepted by the Federal Office of the Supervision of the Banking Business inBerlin. Although its examination focuses on content rather than language, it forcesnon-German speaking applicants to be proficient in German, since no allowancesare made for limited German proficiency. Hence, even though the management ofa foreign bank may not share the conviction that German language proficiency isindispensable for heading a branch office in Germany, it cannot but comply with thisrequirement.57

On the other hand the state has imperatives which sometimes conflictwith protection and privilege for German internally. In one field traditionallyfinanced and organized by the state sector, education, this dilemma is becom-ing potentially acute. At the elementary levels it has not been so controver-sial. Ruttgers’ call as Education Minister for all children to be instructed inEnglish from the first class was generally agreed. “Sensible and correct,” onereport summarized. A European Commission White Paper also stated thatchildren should have learnt three European languages by the end of theirschooling; and as soon as English, the first foreign language, was learnt, theearlier they could begin with others.58 In contrast, Switzerland is adopting a

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 633

policy whereby schoolchildren must learn its (four) official languages beforeEnglish.

It is at higher levels where sensitivities intensify. Foreign students fromcountries where English is prevalent: Malaysia, India, Singapore, Hong Kong,perhaps Britain or the United States, or those from other places who haveEnglish knowledge, are more likely to consider German universities for partor all of their degrees in engineering, physics, natural science, medicine andso on, if curricula were available in English. In Germany, 98% of physicistsand 83% of chemists publish their research in English.59 Some prominentjournals (Liebigs Annalen, Chemische Berichte) were the focus of controver-sies because of their shift to becoming exclusively English-language publica-tions. Germany remains at the forefront in the teaching of music and there isdemand for “German as a Foreign Language” (Deutsch als Fremdspache).60

Business German (Wirtschaftsdeutsche) is especially popular in central andeastern Europe (CEE) and the former Soviet Union (FSU). In these casesdemand is greater than the capacity to supply.61 However, German is not sopopular as a language of instruction for other disciplines, whereas English is.The asymmetry in relative popularity between two or three specialist Ger-man disciplines and most others is clear. In response to declining foreignstudent numbers some universities have introduced English curricula (inter-nationale Studiengange) and others are doing so.62 The 1999 German RectorsConference reported the launch of more than 300 “Anglo-American style”BA and MA programs to attract students who preferred these to the “tradi-tional German Diplom degree.”63 These pressures contribute to an erosionof German language use and import in the country that invented the mod-ern university, a trend long underway.64 The predicament—to support theGerman language while funding universities to teach in English and employAnglo-American methods—is one that the previous and present govern-ments have had to tacke, in the face of professional and public displeasure.It is likely to sharpen for future governments.

What might also exacerbate the “problem” is the German educationsystem’s encouragement of students to spend a semester abroad, which alsocontributes to the rise of English influence. Despite their five to nine yearsof high-school English many younger Germans are not satisfied with whatthey consider a rudimentary training that does not prepare them for a gen-uine encounter with English speaking societies and cultures. Several havedivulged that it is only after immersing themselves in an English-speakingsociety that they have realized how complex and difficult their own languageis (and more so for foreigners), and by comparison, how relatively simplestandard English is.65

A leading scholarly opponent of these developments is Ulrich Am-mon, a professor of Germanistik, and a resolute advocate of maintaining

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


634 Wood

or advancing the German language, from impressing its rightful position inEuropean institutions to its role and reputation in academic teaching andpublishing.66 In the latter area, English now fulfills the role of Latin in themiddle ages and those who do not publish and present papers in Englishare to a large extent ignored. In the field of sociology, for example, 86 percent of publications are in English, compared to 4.4 per cent in Germanand 4.2 per cent in French.67 Focusing on the academic domain in a review ofAmmon’s recent book, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung noted functionaland emotional dimensions to the removal of opportunity for native speakersof languages other than English to employ them. Along with practical diffi-culties that may be involved in being required to write or speak an unmas-tered foreign tongue, language use, even among sophisticated intellectualelites, can be a matter of pride, jealousy and anger.

The arrogance of English native speakers, who at international academic conventionsoccasionally laugh at their makeshift English-formulating colleagues, is retorted byAmmon in good linguistic style.68

Ammon’s partial consolation is that pure English is not the languagethat is sweeping the planet. Rather, this method of communication is a jar-gonized form of quasi- or even pseudo-English, strongly influenced by tech-nology and pop culture, variable from place to place, and which also containsscraps and modifications of numerous other languages and even terms whichmay not have derived from any linguistic family. The nature of this language,its hybridity and multiple influences, is a means by which anyone can infor-mally claim a part-ownership, or at least reject that it somehow “belongs” tonative English speakers.69 English is, for the most part, a Selbstlaufer, withno mind of its own to trample and consume all other languages, nor is anygovernment directing it to do this. It is, however, an immense economic andpolitical advantage for, among others, Britain and the USA. The New YorkTimes regarded it as the latter’s “most important export article.”

EUROPE AND DEMOCRACY

The domestic context in Germany has various international linkages,with participation in the EU prominent among them. There has long beenan insistence from the European Commission and other EC/EU bodies thatcontinued integration in Europe (and even a hypothetical world polity) willnot, and cannot, lead to a “melting pot effect.” The spread of a globalizedmonoculture, where nuance and diversity of languages and other nationalor regional cultural attributes are gradually diminished, is an alarming sce-nario for many Europeans and is countered by numerous cultural policy

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 635

initiatives. “Subsidiarity” and a decentralized approach to the administra-tion of cultural affairs are especially prominent in German public policylegislation and rhetoric. Coulmas notes that the move to raise the positionof German in European institutions was championed by the Federal Eco-nomics Ministry, emphasizing that “there is more behind this campaign thannational pride; for today language has greater economic significance thanever before.”70 The emergence of the European Central Bank (ECB) asEurope’s primary monetary institution means it is now taking over much ofthe German Bundesbank’s former range of duties and authority. There areironies apparent here, and not only regarding the Germans. The ECB is basi-cally an English-speaking institution despite its seat being in Frankfurt, andthe UK, the only native English-speaking country in the EU (if we attributeIrish/Gaelic to the Republic of Ireland), is not a member of the Euro cur-rency bloc for which the bank was established. The term “City of the Euro”to describe Frankfurt was one related case that provoked a considerableoutcry.

Voigt accurately concludes that “citizens have taken up the struggleagainst Pidgin-German.” This case provides an example of the agent-structure problem in international relations: agency, represented by the VDSas an active citizen organization, versus the structure or system of Englishlanguage-dominated international interaction. National society is portrayedas the font of democracy, and of culture. For Voigt, it is “Europe” to whicha broader appeal to defend “national languages” is made. This is necessaryin order to preserve not only “cultural status” but “high-level democraticcommunication within the language communities, and because of the val-ues linked to them, including identity.” Voigt and the VDS arrogate—orattempt to—the moral gravity of “democracy” in the service of what mightwell be interpreted as a patriotic and/or political cause. This is not to saythat the Anglo-American world has any monopoly on democracy or demo-cratic theory, rather that it is another example of how such things can bevariously employed to further a variety of interests. It also indicates thatwhile “democracy” may be a universalizable concept, its substantive prac-tice remains bounded by the individual politico-legal frameworks known asstates, the majority of which are also identifiable by the cultural features,especially language, of their populations.

“Europe” is also paradoxical. It is an unfinished project that, as thingspresently stand, requires far-reaching unity and diversity in the same placeand time. For political purposes unity is needed (e.g. to act as a coherent econ-omy of scale vis-a-vis the United States or Japan, or to effectively implementinternal policies). It then threatens to impinge on national-cultural speci-ficities and state sovereignties as mandated by various treaties. Evolutionto a sufficient level of cultural commonality could resolve disinclinations

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


636 Wood

towards political unity; but also presupposes a move towards greaterhomogeneity.71

While there are European-level cultural policy initiatives, the largernation-states in particular reserve most of their energies and funds for na-tional endeavours.72 Following in a grand and influential linguistic, literaryand scientific tradition, the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) has indus-triously promoted German culture and intellectual presence internationally.At the forefront of its External Cultural Policy (Auswartige Kulturpolitik)is the German language, the most vital cultural attribute of the nation, and,potentially, an important economic and political instrument for the state.Supporting the German language is the declared first goal of the FRG’smain cultural office, the Goethe-Institut. German has the most native speak-ers in Europe, around 95 million, and 21 million learning, over 12 million ofthem in CEE/FSU. The FRG is joined by Austria and Switzerland in variousschemes to promote the German language.73 Augmenting a desire not to beperceived as incorporating any hegemonic tendencies of their own, a veiledreference to the global predominance of any other culture or language mightbe detected in the German state agencies’ strong accent on the pursuit of a“dialogue” between cultures.

Having conducted a combative defence against English, France mightbe expected to engage in an alliance with the “partner language,” German.In October 1999, the VDS (then VWDS), from where a degree of admira-tion for French methods is apparent, invited former French Culture Minister,Jacques Toubon, prime mover behind the prohibitive 1994 French languagelaw (Loi Toubon), to a symposium in Hannover on the “defence of na-tive languages.” The French l’AGULF (the general association of the usersof the French language) may have been a model of sorts for the VWDS.French crackdowns have been directed and/or supported by the state andhave sometimes been quite severe in terms of financial cost for dissidents.74

If either language is to most effectively resist English it will require conces-sions from the French to the Germans. After failing to do so in regard toEnglish, France has tried to maintain French above German in internationalinstitutions including in the EU, UN and also NATO. When the Cold Warended and Germany reunited, a new range of challenges and opportuni-ties appeared to the east. External Cultural Policy, along with many otherGerman priorities, was reoriented. The eastwards development of the EU,which boosts German and reduces the importance of French, further jeop-ardizes an alliance against English.75

The “Europe” in which Germany has sought to anchor itself hascontinually found itself going “back to the Language Question.”76 In May2000, Poland introduced a wide-ranging, prohibitive law regarding thepublic usage of foreign languages. With few exceptions, any advertising,

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 637

product descriptions, and commercial, legal or cultural announcementsmust appear (also or solely) in Polish. Although German commerce andindustry organizations were not pleased, the VDS registered empathy withthis response to “preserve Polish nationality” in the post-cold War world.While this political-legal action is also directed primarily against English, itconcurrently provides a form of cultural and psychological defence againstthe asymmetric, even overbearing, power of neighbouring Germany.Germany itself, led by a new federal-level “state minister for culture,”adopted an “empty chair” policy in the manner of Charles de Gaulle forthe July 1999 European Council meeting in Finland because the Finns re-fused to allow German as an official language.77 Meanwhile, misunderstand-ings are a matter of course in the European Parliament (EP), the futuredemocratic forum for Europe without a commonly understandable lan-guage. In this political arena, German, with the largest number of nativespeakers, does not have the same “pivot-language” status as English andFrench,78 though there are representatives working to strengthen its posi-tion. It might be added that across Europe, Danes, Dutch, Poles, Hungarians,Czechs and Slovaks are all more likely to (have to) speak German thanvice-versa.

Moving beyond Europe briefly, Fishman has suggested that “if Ger-mans can pursue globalization and yet remain German-speaking amongthemselves, why should Telugus in India not aspire to do the same?.”79 AsI have tried to demonstrate, the situation in Germany is not so straight-forward. And it is not only there where contentions regarding foreign lan-guages are occurring. For example, Turkey has a campaign to protect its lan-guage and to employ perfectly good Turkish words instead of English. Thestate-run Turkish Language Institute is also substituting Arab and Persianwords, if necessary by roughly equivalent Turkish terms. Kurdish, which has12 million speakers, is banned in public discourse. South Korea has also ex-perienced controversies over proposals to institute English as a co-officiallanguage.80

Conversely, in the United States the English Empowerment Act (inresponse to the rise of Spanish and other languages) was passed by theHouse of Representatives in 1996 (Bill 123) followed by Bill 189 in 1999.One internet survey claimed 97% were in favour of English as the officiallanguage, despite opposition not only by non-native English speakers butgroups of, and individual, native English speakers. Reminder of the Germanrole in American history introduces a salutary perspective. The Articlesof Confederation were originally in German and English, while presentlyaround 60 million Americans have some German heritage. If German hadbecome the number one language in the USA it is unlikely there would bea Verein (zur Wahrung der) deutsche(n) Sprache in Germany today.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


638 Wood

CONCLUSION

A cursory tracing of the interplay between linguistic, cultural, economicand political factors in the development of the western world sees the Kultur-nation “Germany” playing a principal role. The German-speaking Reforma-tion provided a major impetus for the growth and geographic expansion ofeconomic interactions. Whatever his aversions to usury, Luther’s translationof the Bible into German coincided with the emergence of the “protes-tant ethic” and the nascent “spirit of capitalism,” later elucidated by MaxWeber.81 In the last two hundred or so years this became the signature ofAnglo-American economy and society. In the last fifty, and particularly thelast twenty years, the Anglophone version has come to predominate, andpermeate much of the rest of the world, including Germany.

The Germans, meanwhile, against majority wishes, have had their na-tional currency prised from them. Inexorable diminution of the nationallanguage is too much for some, and this discontent has a curious prede-cessor in Dr. Johnson’s objections to the (English) jargon of commerce.82

The “dilution” of German is countered by an intensification of endeavoursto “put the brake on unnecessary internal Anglicisation, which has alreadybegun to eat away at its structures.”83 Politicization of the issue will coin-cide with the VDS and like-minded groups and individuals consolidating aform of linguistic aegis, and “in all probability, the Verein zur Wahrung derdeutschen Sprache [now VDS] will not have to be renamed ‘The Associa-tion for the Preservation of the German Language’ ”.84 As languages withlarger numbers of speakers come under perceived threat, “language ecol-ogy,” in which the question of survival is central, is likely to gain prominence.Alternatively, Coulmas declares that “languages adapt to needs”: that is, totheir own ecology, and in ways that may displease “traditionalists.”85 Contro-versies or conflicts of this nature will increasingly be witnessed within “theWest,” thus narrowing the defining attributes of and/or presenting barriersto a genuine “globalization.” The diffusion of commerce and financial flowsmay render state borders partly redundant but economic activity requirescommonly understandable—and acceptable—mediums of communication.Many native speakers of languages other than English are not content fortheir own to become mere epiphenomena. Whether this constitutes the Zeit-geist or is a transitory reaction to it will be manifested in the next decade.

ENDNOTES

1. The German word Politik can be interpreted or translated into English as both “politics”and “policy.” Sprachpolitik normally indicates “language policy.” Here I employ it (also) in

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 639

the sense, “politics of language.” For valuable help with this article, many thanks to/VielenDank an Werner Voigt.

2. Roman Herzog “Uber die Germanistik als offentliche Wissenschaft” Bulletin 2-10-96.(Germanisten haben zwar viel mit der deutschen Nation zu tun, aber ich mochte einenwichtigen Aspekt nicht vergessen. Germanistik wird nicht nur von deutschen Wissen-schaften betrieben. Es ist eine internationale Wissenschaft, die in allen moglichen Landernzu Hause ist und dort fur die Prasenz eines wesentlichen Elementes deutscher Kultursorgt.)

3. Wolf Peter Klein “Pidgin als Weltsprache: Der Ruckgang des Deutschen in den Wis-senschaften” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 14-10-98 p. N5. (Die einst hochgeachtetedeutsche Sprache zahlt in der Wissenschaft immer weniger. Das Englische setzt seineninternationalen Siegeszug weiter fort.)

4. Martin Wight International Theory: the three traditions Eds, Gabriele Wight and BrianPorter (Leicester: Leicester University Press 1991) p. 259, quoted in David S. Yost “Politicalphilosophy and the theory of international relations” International Affairs 70, 2, 1994pp. 263-90.

5. See, for example, John MacMillan and Andrew Linklater Eds. Boundaries in Question:New Directions in International Relations (London: Pinter 1995).

6. Michael Hartmann “Auf dem Weg zur transnational Bourgeoisie?” Leviathan 1, 1999pp. 113-141.

7. See Florian Coulmas Language and Economy (Oxford: Blackwell 1992).8. Peter K. Breit “Culture as Authority: American and German Transactions” in The Amer-

ican Impact on Post-War Germany Ed. Reiner Pommerin (Providence: Berghahn 1995)pp. 125-148.

9. See British Council Worldwide (London: British Council 1995) pp. 6-7; Joshua Fishman“The New Linguistic Order” Foreign Policy Winter 1998-99 pp. 26-39. These estimatesfar exceed those in, for example, Samuel Huntingdon’s Clash of Civilizations and theRemaking of the World Order (New York: Simon & Schuster 1996).

10. Sebastian Lehmann “Erst buffeln, dann baden” Die Zeit 1-7-99 p. 55.11. Peter F. Ganz Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz 1640-1815. See

Philip Palmer The influence of English on the German vocabulary to 1800: a supplementto Ganz (Berkeley: University of California Press 1960).

12. Indicative of the larger works directly or indirectly associated with the topic are: BroderCarstensen et al. Anglizismen-Worterbuch: der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschenWortschatz nach 1945. 3 vols. (Berlin: Gruyter 1993-95); R. Pogarell and M. SchroederWorterbuch uberflussiger Anglizismen (IFB Verlag: 1999); Hermann Fink Von Kuh-Lookbis Fit for Fun: Anglizismen in der heutigen deutschen Allgemein- und Werbesprache(Peter Lang 1997); Ulrich Ammon Ist Deutsch noch internationale Wissenschaftssprache?Englisch auch fur die Lehre an den deutschsprachigen Hochschulen (Berlin: Gruyter 1998);Volker Michel Strocka Ed. Die Deutschen und ihre Sprache (Bremen: Hempen 2000);Christian Meier Ed. Sprache in Not?: Zur Lage des heutigen Deutsch (Gottingen: Waller-stein 1999); Andreas Gardt Ed. Nation und Sprache: Die Diskussion ihres Verhaltnissesin Geschichte und Gegenwart (Berlin: 1999); Ammon Die internationale Stellung derdeutschen Sprache (Berlin: Gruyter 1991); also of interest is the more general work bythe German “globalization expert” Ulrich Beck Perspektiven der Weltgesellschaft (Frank-furt: 1998); and an unpublished study by Werner Voigt Zur Zukunft des Deutschen undanderer Sprachen in Europa (1999); In English, Patrick Stevenson Ed. The German Lan-guage and the Real World (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1997); Michael Clyne TheGerman Language in a Changing Europe (Cambridge: CUP 1995), provides an extensive,informative work of linguistic scholarship with some reference to the socio-political themediscussed here.

13. “Zuviel Englisch in Rechnungen: Uni-Professor verklagt Telekom” Bild 2-5-98; “Kampferfur die Reinheit der deutschen Sprache” Lubecker Nachrichten 9-8-98; ““Sprachpan-scher 1998” gesucht—Dortmunder Verein kampft mit Erfolg gegen Anglizismen” Berliner

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


640 Wood

Morgenpost 27-9-98; “Kampf gegen Sturzflut uberflussiger Anglizismen” FrankfurterRundschau 17-4-99; “Neue Huter der deutschen Sprache” Westdeutsche Zeitung 11-5-99;“Sprachlos” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 6-7-99; “Die deutsche Sprache wird un-wichtig” Die Welt 2-8-99 are a few of many.

14. “Ist unsere Sprache noch zu retten”? www.seniorweb.uni-bonn.de/OBERHAUS/9 98/sprache.htm

15. Anything like a full list would be too large and diverge too much from the specific theme. Aselection of relevant works might include: Saskia Sassen Globalization and its Discontents(New York: New Press, 1998); Tony Spybey Globalization and World Society (Cambridge,MA: Polity 1996); Globalization: Theory and Practice Eds. Eleonore Kofman and GillianYoungs (New York: Pinter 1996); Malcolm Waters Globalization (New York: Routledge1995); Mike Featherstone Undoing Culture: Globalization, Postmodernism and Identity(London: Sage 1995); Roland Robertson Globalization: Social Theory and Global Culture(London: Sage 1992).

16. These, however, are not distinct languages. See “Englische und amerikanische Variantederselben Sprache” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 19-6-99 p. 11. On the variations andexpansion of English see the large body of work by Manfred Gorlach. On the broadertheme see Julian Sauran “The End of International Relations: The State and InternationalTheory in the Age of Globalization” in MacMillan and Linklater Eds. Boundaries inQuestion pp. 224-261.

17. According to Fishman, its prevalence will not be sustained forever and the challenge ofvarious rivals may be stronger and sooner than many believe. See Fishman “The NewLinguistic Order”.

18. See, for example, Paul Hirst and Graeme Thompson Globalization in Question: The In-ternational Economy and the Possibilities of Governance (Cambridge: Polity 1996); LindaWeiss “Globalization” New Left Review n225 1997 pp. 3-27. Linda Weiss The Myth of thePowerless State: Governing the Economy in a Global Era (Cambridge: Polity 1998).

19. This is very likely influenced by most participants debating, e.g. economics and “global-ization”, being native or near-native speakers of the same language (English or others).The specific subjectivities that would be involved if (national) languages were the focusfor disputation on “globalization” are not applicable.

20. Jan Nederveen Pietersee “Globalization as Hybridization” in Global Modernities Eds.Mile Featherstone, Scott Lash and Roland Robertson (London: Sage 1995) pp. 45-68.

21. Anthony Smith National Identity (London: Penguin 1991).22. “Deutsch fur Schimpansen” Focus 14, 1999, pp. 193-195.23. Dieter Kappf “Telekom-Chef ist “Sprachpanscher des Jahres 1998” Stuttgarter Zeitung

23-12-98.24. The VDS/VWDS also changed its Internet site’s logo; from the European symbol of yellow

stars on a blue background to the Federal Republic’s black, red and gold colours.25. Petra Braselmann Sprachpolitik und Sprachbewusstsein in Frankreich Heute (Tubingen:

Niemeyer 1999).26. Jurgen Schiewe Die Macht der Sprache: Eine Geschichte der Sprachkritik von der Antike

bis zur Gegenwart (Munchen: Beck 1998).27. Interview, Goethe Institut, Munich, June 1999.28. VWDS Leitlinien: Europa ist unser Haus und Deutsch unsere Sprache (Dortmund: 1998).29. Voigt Zur Zukunft des Deutschen und anderen Sprachen in Europa p. 3.30. VWDS Press Release (Pressemeldungen) 21-3-99. See also Stephen Brockman Literature

and German Reunification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999) on the post-1990 development of a German “national” literature.

31. Coulmas Language and Economy p. 168.32. Walter Kramer “Selbstmord in Raten—Die deutsche Sprache auf dem Weg zum Pidgin-

Dialekt” Lecture 12-7-00.33. Roland Kaehlbrandt “Auch Denglisch hat’s geschafft” Rheinischer Merkur 25-8-00 p. 24.34. Correspondence by the author with members of the VWDS/VDS, 1999–2000.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


Sprachpolitik 641

35. Based on interviews, communiques, conversations, various media sources and personalobservations. See also Ulrich Ammon “Purist, Chauvinist?” Die Welt 18-3-00.

36. Antonio Gramsci Selections from the Prison Notebooks Eds. and Trans. Quintin Hoareand Geoffrey Nowell Smith (London: Lawrence and Wishart 1971).

37. Edward Said Culture and Imperialism (New York: Knopf 1993).38. Cf. Waters Globalization p. 140.39. Voigt Zur Zukunft des Deutschen und anderen Sprachen in Europa p. 3.40. Horst Hensel “Der “Verein zur Wahrung der deutschen Sprache”: Verteidigung der Mut-

tersprache und kulturelle Selbstbehauptung” Academicus Sommer 1999 (Neue DeutscheBurschenschaften).

41. In particular, Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887). See On the Genealogy of Morals/EcceHomo Ed. Walter Kaufman, trans. Walter Kaufman and R.J. Hollingdale (New York:Vintage 1989).

42. Liah Greenfeld Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-sity Press 1992).

43. Stephen Wood Germany, Europe and the Persistence of Nations: Transformation, Interestsand Identity 1989–1996 (Aldershot: Ashgate 1998) pp. 56-57.

44. Greenfeld Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity p. 15.45. Norbert Elias The Germans: Power Struggles and the Development of Habitas in the Nine-

teenth and Twentieth Centuries Ed. Michael Schroter, Trans. Eric Dunnell and StephenMennell (Cambridge: Polity 1996 [1989]) p. 4.

46. Coulmas Language and Economy.47. Correspondence, VWDS, 1999.48. A desire for the qualified maintenance of some form of linguistic status quo was indicated

by the use of “preservation” (Wahrung) in the Verein’s official title. This has now beendropped.

49. Nor, as its official representatives frequently insist, does the German state own the Germanlanguage Stephen Wood “The Bundeskulturminister and other Stories: Observations onthe Politics of Language in Germany” German Politics 8, 3, 1999 pp. 43-57.

50. Coulmas Language and Economy p. 169 and p. 183.51. On its internet site, a leading German industry and commerce association (Deutscher

Industrie und Handelstag — DIHT) encouraged English as more modern, dynamic andglobal. Those who do not realize this are not “flexible.” More recently this informationappears to have been removed.

52. Kultur, Kommerz und Auβenpolitik-Ungewohnte Perspektiven, neue Kooperation (Frank-furt a.M. 1996); cf. Coulmas Language and Economy p. 114. Several foundations (Stiftun-gen) have produced publications on the theme.

53. Goethe Institut Jahrbuch 1997/1998 (Munchen: 1998).54. Ulrich Greiner “Ist die Lufthansa eine deutsche Fluglinie?” Die Zeit n48 1996.55. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 20-4-96.56. “Frauen reden reineres Deutsch: Manner benutzen zum Angaben lieber Anglizismen”

Frankfurter Rundschau 3-5-99.57. Coulmas Language and Economy p. 134.58. “Ruttgers fur Englisch-Unterricht ab der ersten Klasse” and Christina Lohr

“Allerweltssprache” Die Welt 11-8-98.59. Gert Raeithel “Brodeln im Sprachmeer” Suddeutsche Zeitung 10/11-7-99 (Feuilleton

Beilage n156).60. Ulrike Koppchen “Ansturm auf abgezahlte Platze” Tagesspiegel 6-7-99 p. 29.61. Stephen Wood “Culture, Commerce and Foreign Policy: German Eastern Interests and

Domestic contexts Juxtaposed” German Politics and Society 17, 2, 1999 pp. 55-85.62. Joachim Fritz-Vannahme “Warum auslandische Studenten deutsche Universitaten mei-

den” Die Zeit n20 1996; Wood “The “Bundeskulturminister” and other Stories.” Hamburgand Erfurt are among the prominent universities that are expanding the use of English asa language of instruction.

63. The Week in Germany 19-11-99.

P1: GKW/RKP P2: GKW


642 Wood

64. Dieter Zimmer “Warum Deutsch als Wissenschaftsprache ausstirbt” Die Zeit n30 1996.65. Informal conversations with the author.66. Ulrich Ammon “Die internationale Stellung der deutschen Sprache; Ist Deutsch noch in-

ternationale Wissenschaftsprache?; “The German Language: Lingua Franca overshadowedby English?” Deutschland Magazine n2 1994 pp. 44-49.

67. Ulrich Ammon “Viele Sprache machen keine Wissenschaft” Die Welt 20-10-98.68. Klein “Pidgin als Weltsprache.” (Der Arroganz englischer Muttersprachler, die auf interna-

tionalen wissenschaftlichen Tagungen gelegentlich ihre notdurftig formulierenden Kollegenbelacheln, entgegnet Ammon in guter linguistischer Manier.)

69. Cf. Raeithel “Brodeln im Sprachmeer.”70. Coulmas Language and Economy p. 119.71. Stephen Wood “Building Europe: Culture, History and Politics” Journal of Historical

Sociology 11, 3, 1998 pp. 397-416.72. Stephen Wood “Cultural Diplomacy, Cultural Protection and “Ever Closer Union”” In-

ternational Society for the Study of European Ideas 1996 Conference Proceedings (Utrecht:ISSEI 1997).

73. Sprachen Brucken uber Grenzen: Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Mittel- und Osteuropa Ed.Hans-Jurgen Krumm (Vienna: Eviva 1999).

74. Petra Braselman “Reinheitsgebot fur die Sprache: Kampf den Anglizismen?” Frank-furter Allgemeine Zeitung 11-4-00; Coulmas Language and Economy pp. 134-135; JeanLasar “Comment proteger la langue allemande face a l’invasion de l’anglais?” Le Monde8-9-99.

75. Stephen Wood “Germany’s “External Cultural Policy”: More Politics among Nations”in Peter Monteath and Fredric Zuckerman Eds. Modern Europe: Histories and Identities(Adelaide: Humanities Press 1998) pp. 251-263.

76. B. de Witte “Cultural Legitimation: Back to the Language Question” in European Identityand the Search for Legitimacy Ed. Soledad Garcia (London: Pinter/RIIA 1993) pp. 154-171.

77. Christian Wernicke “Feindbild Europa” Die Zeit 8-7-99 p. 1.78. Daniela Weingartner “Capito? Verstanden? Compris?” Die Zeit 17-6-99 (Leben p. 3).79. Fishman “The New Linguistic Order” p35.80. Yang Sung-jin ““English as Official Language” sparks intense Debate” Korea Times

22-7-98.81. Max Weber The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism Trans. Talcott Parsons (Lon-

don: Unwin 1930) [orig. Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus 1905].82. Coulmas Language and Economy pp. 43-44.83. Zimmer “Warum Deutsch als Wissenschaftsprache ausstirbt” (“die unnotige innere

Angliszierung zu bremsen, die bereits seine Strukturen anzufressen beginnt.”).84. Raeithel “Brodeln im Sprachmeer.” (“Aller Voraussicht nach muβ der Verein zur Wahrung

der deutschen Sprache nicht in “Association for the Preservation of the German Language”umbenannt werden”).

85. See Coulmas Language and Economy p. 261.

Sprachpolitik: Some Socio-Political Effects of English in Germany

Documents

Transcript of Sprachpolitik: Some Socio-Political Effects of English in Germany