In this section, the authors of the ESO project comment on societal discussions of current language usage from a linguistic perspective. On the one hand, such public discourses use language as a medium for communication, for representing and constructing reality, or as an instrument of power. On the other hand, they negotiate societal topics by means of linguistic signs, which turns these public discourses again into objects of language-critical reflection. They exemplify how speech communities express, reproduce, and constitute attitudes, ways of thinking and concepts through their language usage.
Current contributions:
July 2023
Ekkehard Felder’s contribution “Zwischen Verdunkeln und Erstrahlen: Erinnern mit und in Sprache” on the blog »Semantische Wettkämpfe« at the Spectrum of Science Scilogs
July 2023
Sybille Große
Manifesto Le français va très bien, merci (2023)
A manifesto published by the renowned French publisher Gallimard on May 25, 2023, with the wonderful title “Le français va très bien, merci” (The French language is doing very well, thank you), makes one sit up and take notice. First of all, because it is directed against the repeatedly formulated pessimistic statements that would like to see the French language “in danger” or even “on the brink”. But also because it was written by 18 francophone linguists and is linked to an online petition, which in a few days found more than 1000 supporters as well as a considerable media echo (https://www.tract-linguistes.org/blog/), such as in the French daily newspapers Le Figaro or Libération. The group has given itself the name Les Linguistes atterrés (The Appalled Linguists) in reference to the worldwide movement Les Économistes Atterrés (The Appalled Economists).
Read the entire contribution here:
S. Große – Manifest Le français va très bien, merci (2023)
February 2023
Sven Bloching
CULTURE WARS AND LANGUAGE CRITICISM – How struggles over culture translate into struggles over language
In this blog post, Sven Bloching gives an overview of linguistic publications in the project “Culture Wars: Kämpfe ums kulturelle Erbe” (Culture Wars: Fight for cultural heritage), which deal with the relationship between language criticism and moral criticism, between language change and cultural change, between semantic struggles and political struggles over cultural heritage. There are links to the publications that were created in the linguistic sub-project, together with a brief description of their thematic connections.
Read the entire contribution here:
S. Bloching – CULTURE WARS UND SPRACHKRITIK – Wie Kämpfe um Kultur sich in Kämpfen um Sprache äußern
June 2022
Ekkehard Felder’s contribution “„Was die Wanzen tötet, tötet auch den Popen“: Sprachkritik versus Freigeist” on the blog »Semantische Wettkämpfe« at the Spectrum of Science Scilogs
April 2022
Ekkehard Felder’s contribution “Sprache ist weder gerecht noch ungerecht: Die Politisierung der Alltagssprache” on the blog »Semantische Wettkämpfe« at the Spectrum of Science Scilogs
August 2020
Ekkehard Felder’s contribution “„Wir schaffen das“ – aus linguistischer Sicht ein genialer Satz” on the blog »Semantische Wettkämpfe« at the Spectrum of Science Scilogs
July 2020
Lara Vivienne Neuhauser
Why does nobody want to save the dative? Selective species protection in the German case system
Case management of prepositions
Many people have an exact idea of what is beautiful, sophisticated or even correct and wrong language. Linguistic cases of doubt, in which a choice has to be made between the dative and genitive case, are particularly much discussed: Does it mean “wegen des Sturmes” or “wegen dem Sturm”? Is “laut der Studien” or “laut den Studien” better? In public discourses on these issues, the term language decline is often used; the decline of the genitive, which appears better and of higher quality, is regretted. A well-known advocate of this case is Bastian Sick, who sells one bestseller after the other with his recommendations for good use of language. As a “linguist” he has set himself the goal of “skewering ‘wrongly set’ words in German texts” (Sick 2008: 16ff.). So also, the form “wegen dir”, whose appearance is “dangerous” and a “low blow” (ibid.: 21). Where does this devaluation of the dative and the reputation of the genitive as a “prestige case” come from (Klein 2018: 217)? Why does nobody want to save the dative?
Read the entire contribution here:
June 2018
“Gypsy”, “negro”, “asylum seeker”, “missus”, “women’s gossip”, “Yid” – there are many examples of discriminatory use of language in everyday life. Language is not a neutral medium; it always has inherent potential for perspective. The use of language in discourse shapes the shape of the facts and is consequently a means of constructing reality.
The keyword political correctness refers to society practicing language criticism by discussing what discriminatory or politically correct language is and how useful such language regulations are.
The linguist and blogger Anatol Stefanowitsch emphasizes the relevance of language criticism for an open and just society. In his book A Question of Morals: Why We Need Politically Correct Language he is committed to non-discriminatory language: “just language alone does not create a just world. But by using them, we show that we want a just world in the first place.”
In his pamphlet, Anatol Stefanowitsch first defines what is meant by politically correct language and presents the debate about political correctness on the basis of explosive cases (e.g. the Negro king in “Pipi Longstocking”). He then explains the connection between language and morality and provides guidance on how we can speak morally.
As part of the European Language Criticism Online (ESO) project, we would like to draw your attention to this interesting publication, which was published by Dudenverlag in March 2018:
June 2014
Johannes Funk/Katharina Jacob/Luisa Larsen/Maria Mast/Verena Weiland/Kathrin Wenz
“Negro king” or “King of the South Seas”? A linguistic and language-critical statement
1 From public debate to academic reflection (Katharina Jacob)
Racism is a disposition that is not eliminated with the elimination of words.
(DER TAGESSPIEGEL 01/27/2013)
Words take their toll even if they were not said with bad intentions.
(DER TAGESSPIEGEL 01/18/2013)
Words, including the bad ones, always have to be considered within the context in which they are used.
(DER TAGESSPIEGEL 01/20/2013)
Quotes like the ones listed above show that there is a heated debate going on in society concerning discriminatory terms in children’s and adolescent’s literature. This debate has started even before the controversy about the “negro king” in “Pippi Longstocking” began in January 2013. Terms in children’s and youth literature provoke intense discussions in the media – a display of society actively practising language criticism.
Some voices call for the deletion of passages that contain discriminatory words and thoughts. Others demand that these passages be rewritten or that terms like Negro King are deleted and replaced by more neutral terms like King of the South Seas. In addition, there are people who want to preserve the author’s artistic freedom and want to respect the text as a piece of art in its own right. They advocate parental meta-linguistic comments in order to guide children in the reading process and make them aware of the different interpretations. Society thus wonders: Should discriminatory terms in children’s and youth literature be eliminated, replaced, or kept and commented (or explained)?
Since reactions from linguists and other scholars have been scarce on this topic, we take the opportunity to give our views – after all, linguistics also encompasses language criticism.
We are PhD scholarship holders, postgraduate members and collaborators of the project European Language Critism Online (Europäische Sprachkritik Online, ESO), which investigates language criticism across various European languages as part of the European Center for Linguistics (Europäisches Zentrum für Sprachwissenschaften, EZS, http://www.ezs-online.de). Each of us delineates his or her language-critical perspective on the topic. We then conclude this position paper with a language-critical recommendation that serves as a summary of our respective perspectives.
Read the entire contribution here:
June 2013
Kathrin Wenz
“Professoren und Professorinnen” – a case for feminist language criticism?
The media has recently reported that Leipzig University now uses the grammatically feminine term “Professorin” for generic reference to designate both male and female professors. Potsdam University has also implemented a similar rule (cf. article in the Berliner Zeitung, Spiegel Online, June 4 and 5, 2013).
Potsdam University’s spokesperson Mangelsdorf explains the decision first with better readability. Second, she refers to the statement made by the University’s task group that proposed the change and that is of the opinion that – after centuries of patriarchal thinking – the time has come for a wholly feminine denomination (article in the Tagesspiegel on July 4, 2013). This decision has triggered strong reactions. On the one hand, feminists welcome the rule and see it as an important step towards more equal communication. Critics, on the other hand, consider the decision pointless say that this change will not affect the factual discrimination of women in the work domain. This is the most current example of a debate that has been going on since the 1980s on how gender equality may be achieved in the language use of forms of address and professional titles.
Read the entire contribution here:
K. Wenz – Professoren und Professorinnen – ein Fall für die feministische Sprachkritik_