What do we mean by language criticism? We define our object of investigation:
We define language criticism as the practice of evaluating language reflection and understand it to mean published and publicly accessible statements in which speakers – explicitly or implicitly – establish a certain language attitude, a certain language behaviour as an appropriate or inappropriate convention or norm (cf. Felder/Jacob 2014: 142).
What do we mean by criticism in general?
By criticism, we mean in general ›a scientific statement‹ and in particular ›a description and, if necessary, an assessment of phenomena based on criteria, values and value judgments‹. A distinction can be made between negative criticism (reprimand) and positive criticism (recommendation).
How is language criticism defined in German studies?
Since the 1970s, there has been a discussion in German linguistics about whether and how language can be criticized linguistically. Language criticism was initially understood here as the descriptive and criteria-guided recording of language-reflexive utterances in a society. At the turn of the millennium, the purely descriptive and criteria-led description and discussion of utterances postulating a specific language usage norm was expanded to include a further approach. The forms of language use that actually occur in society with language-critical implications are identified and described and discussed on a meta-level, from a historical and contemporary perspective. On the meta-level, linguists no longer rule out an assessment and a plea for a specific position after a criteria-led discussion. Attempts are now being made, on the one hand, to describe practiced language criticism and, on the other hand, to practice language criticism itself, according to linguistic criteria of appropriateness.
[spoiler title=”Language criticism in English”]
In English there is neither a term that corresponds to the German studies term language criticism, nor a counterpart to the language academies of the Italian Accademia della Crusca or the French Académie Française. Nonetheless, there is a tradition of evaluative language reflection that goes back to the beginning of modern times. One of the first language-critical debates in England in the 16th and 17th centuries was directed against the increasing use of Latin foreign words by academics in everyday language, which found expression in the so-called inkhorn controversy. Since the 18th century, a complaint tradition has also developed that evaluates “good” and “bad” use of language and stands in the context of the prescriptive standardization of standard English through its codification in dictionaries and grammars. In particular, propriety, politeness, and correctness were key concepts in the assessment of “good” use of language, which was based on the linguistic customs of the educated and literary upper classes in London, Oxford, and Cambridge. A political-ideological character can be seen above all with a view to language-critical debates in the context of British colonialism and the discussions about political correctness (the counter-movement against racist, religious and sexist stigmatization in linguistic usage) that emerged in science and the public at the end of the 1960s about the role of Global English or English as the lingua franca in scientific, business and everyday communication. This public language-critical discourse stands in contrast to the one that has prevailed in English linguistics since the 1950s. Due to the emergence and increasing influence of sociolinguistics, variety and contact linguistics as well as linguistic anthropology, an emphatically descriptive, non-judgmental view of language has prevailed to this day, which focuses on the importance of linguistic diversity.[/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Language criticism in French”]
For French, there is no equivalent to language criticism, neither on a conceptual nor on a terminological level. However, the potential subject of language criticism research was partly captured by other concepts: ʿLanguage evaluationʾ (Évaluation de la langue), ʿLanguage politicsʾ (Politique linguistique), ʿLanguage planningʾ (Aménagement politique), ʿDefence of the languageʾ (Défense de la langue). The practice of evaluating language reflection has played a central role in France since the standard was explicitly described in the 17th century and is immediately tangible when it is referred to as bon usage. In the debate about the Abus des mots in the 18th century, language criticism as social criticism is directed against the use and ‘abuse’ of individual words. Comparable to the dictionary of the inhuman (Wörterbuch des Unmenschen) and the subsequent debate for German, linguistic structures are directly associated with attitudes. Due to the discrepancy between normative expectations and the actual language skills of broad sections of the population, which has become clear since the 19th century at the latest, a deep sense of crisis emerges with the introduction of compulsory schooling at the end of the 19th century and leaves the language-critical efforts as evaluation, planning and cultivation of the language until grow to the present day. Since the second half of the 20th century, these efforts, which are carried out on a broad public level, have been directed against foreign linguistic influence, mainly in the area of lexis. This finds, among others, its echo in the evaluative language reflection of traditional institutions such as the Académie française, but also in the initiatives and publications of the newly created, primarily state institutions, which are ultimately responsible for the implementation of state language laws.[/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Language criticism in Italian”]
Language criticism in the sense of dealing with questions of appropriate language use is primarily relevant for Italian under the somewhat less specified terms “language reflections” and “language debates”. Traditionally, the search for a nationally relevant literary language (Italian ‘Questione della Lingua’) gives rise to statements relevant to language criticism, while today, among other things, the importance of Italian as a cultural language and the role of Anglicisms are the focus of language-related debates and evaluations.[/spoiler]
[spoiler title=”Language criticism in Croatian”]
In Croatian, the term language criticism refers to the evaluative language reflection on the language norm and its appropriate use. This means the choice of language, its reference to norms and its communicative effect in the language community. The term of language reflection in Croatian shows significant similarities with the corresponding German term.[/spoiler]
How do we define language criticism for the European comparison?
In comparison to the other philologies, the term language criticism represents a unique selling point of German studies. There is no equivalent translation in English, French, Italian, Croatian or Spanish of the concept language criticism. Regardless, there is a long language-reflexive tradition in these philologies of descriptive and normative description, recording and assessment of language usage habits, which are discussed from a linguistic (scientific) and lay linguistic point of view and then approved or rejected. In contrast to the Germanic tradition, the other philologies are far more open to value judgments and assessments of linguistic doubts and disputes.
Our definition of language criticism as the practice of evaluating language reflection wants to do justice to this tension between the purely descriptive recording of language phenomena (linguistic perspective) and its assessment (expectation of a linguistically and politically interested public). Therefore, evaluative means both ›measuring against a standard of value‹ and ›assigning or denying a certain ideal value‹. In this context, the definition language criticism is a practice of evaluating language reflection means the linguistic and lay linguistic description and evaluation of linguistic expression possibilities (cases of doubt, disputes, etc.). By disclosing the criteria and argumentation, linguistics, together with the public, contributes to language awareness in society (cf. Janich 2004).
What do we mean by European language criticism? We define our object of investigation from a European perspective:
With the anything but modest-looking label European language criticism, we want to strengthen a program and not postulate its fulfilment. We consider the relationships presented above to be highly relevant, in all languages. In view of the complexity of the phenomena associated with the program, we have concentrated on a few languages that we can study at the European Center for Linguistics (Europäisches Zentrum für Sprachwissenschaften) and the resources available there from the institutions involved – namely the Modern Philology Faculty of the University of Heidelberg and the Institute for the German Language in Mannheim are able to edit.
European language criticism therefore means two things: in addition to the description of (selected) individual language and (sometimes) national customs of evaluating language reflection, we are particularly looking forward to the European comparison – more precisely the systematic comparison of certain language phenomena of a similar nature from a historical and current point of view. With this perspective, we claim to work on a research gap and to do justice to a desideratum. We primarily describe language criticism practiced in Europe and are striving for European language criticism. In small contributions, however, we also practice language criticism ourselves (e.g. on the use of the Negro king in children’s literature).
Against this background, we advocate with Bär 2002 “a strengthening and institutional anchoring of language criticism in Germany” (Bär 2002: 241), but above all also in Europe. This does not mean the establishment of a central language-standardizing institution based on the French or Italian model, but a platform for exchange and discussion that includes universities and intellectual circles across languages and countries. The European Language Criticism Online platform aims to contribute to this.