Neopurismus in Deutschland nach der Wende by Falco Pfalzgraf

Abstract

MLR, 104.1, 2009 219 was presentintexts well before Francoismand thetwentieth century. This is what gendercriticism teaches us todo: teaseout theinfluence ofgenderization intexts ofall times. We must neverassumethatthisinterest isrelevant onlyto the most dramatic eventsintwentieth-century Spanishhistory. Itisnotquitetruethat el poder dominante que suprimio la diferencia en laEspania de la posguerra [...] es el equivalente de lahegemonia masculinaque fuerza al silencio de lapartefemenina de lahumanidad. Lamismaestructura jerarquica ymonolitica que impuso su ideologia a losrepublicanos espanioles esanalogaa lasfuerzas generalizadas quehanexcluido a las autoras de loscainones literarios yde surepresentacion en textos historicos. (p.155) Silence isnot the same as absence. They are not tobe confused. Contandohistoriasis a monographpublishedin 2004 thatspeaksabout the transition todemocracy and confusesit with thenewmillennium.This ishighly problematic, as eventhecritical apparatus usedby McGovernbecameslightly out dated in the 199os. Finally, the book's editing leaves a lot to be desired: there are abundanttypographical andeditorial errors, aswell asmistakesof lexisand syntax, thelatter especially unfortunate. UNIVERSITY OF EXETER NURIA CAPDEVILA-ARGUELLES Neopurismus in Deutschlandnachder Wende. ByFALCO PFALZGRAF. (Osterreichi sches Deutsch.SprachederGegenwart, 6) Frankfurt a.M.:PeterLang. 2006. 351pp. E55.80;?41.90. ISBN978-3-631-54854-7. Falco Pfalzgraf's monograph (a revised versionofhis 2003 doctoralthesis)is a detailedand richly documented survey of theactivities ofneo-purists inGermany andAustriasincethelatel990s.The authoradoptstheterm Neopurismus torefer toa revival ofGermanpurismafter a fifty-year period,starting at theendof the Second WorldWar,during which little criticism offoreign influences uponGerman was heard.The twointroductory chapters of thevolumedealwithmethodological issuesand setthetopic of linguistic purisminits historical context. Themain body ofPfalzgraf's text, itsthird chapter, consists offour sections, three of whichdescribe the workoforganizations and individuals concerned withmaintainingtheauthen ticity ofthe Germanlanguage andwithdefending itagainst foreign influences, slang, andotherincursions seenas undesirable by the more traditionally inclined native speaker. The term Sprachschiitzer has been coined to refer tosuchpeople,a term which includesthe more precisedenotation of 'purist'. The threetypes ofSprach schiutzer whose activities aredocumentedin Chapter3areprivate associations, such as the VereinDeutscheSprache;state-sponsored associations, suchas theInstitut fur DeutscheSpracheand the Gesellschaft fulr deutsche Sprache;and autonomous Sprachschutzer ranging fromindividual authors, suchas the well-knownjournalist DieterZimmer,totheauthors offarright-wing 'homepages', suchasRonny Klukas. As onewould expect,suchbodies and individuals areconcerned,toa greater or lesser extent, withtheseemingly unstoppable tide ofAnglicismsthat haveinfiltrated 220 Reviews German sincethelatertwentieth century; so all are,to someextent, purists. The fourth sectionofChapter3 dealswith the writings ofacademiclinguists, notably HermannFinkandReinerPogarell, who showno overtinclination todefendthe German language against pollutionfrom abroad.Each of thesections ofChapter3 examinesthe degreeto which these variousdiscoursesincludethoseelements iden tified by AndreasGardt(in 'Zur Bewertung derFremdworter imdeutschen(vom16. bis20.Jahrhundert)', DeutschalsFremdsprache, 3 (2001),133-42) asgenerally typi calofextant discourses on foreign influences onGerman:pedagogical-sociological, structural, ideological, andcritical. Theprivate associations, for example, displayall four elements and resemble the puristic discourses ofprevious eras, particularly that of the Baroque era.Thewritings of individual purists alsocontainall four elements, while thestate-subsidized associations andprofessional linguists containonlysome ofthem. Thepedagogical-sociological aspectofthedebateon foreign wordsappears tobe theleastcharacteristic of latetwentieth-century puristic discourse. Pfalzgraf concludesthatthechiefly ideological basisofGermanneo-purismisa feature of theperiod following German reunification, whenAmericaceased tobe Germany's most important ally. It isperhaps for this reason that, in contrast to pre vious periods, America and its language are now seen as a greater threat toGerman culture and self-esteem than other Europeancultures and languages. Followingthe Wende, Germanybecame thesecondlargest language community inthe European Union; ithas consequently had to reassess and re-establish itspolitical and cultural identity in thelight of itsalteredpoliticalpositionand, inparticular, itsrecent economicweakness.Such a timeof changeandweaknesshas, Pfalzgraf argues, fuelled the resentment of purists against both foreignwords and foreign people. State-funded associations, however, appeartodistancethemselves from anyactivity thatcould be consideredracistor chauvinist, whichPfalzgraf sees as inkeeping withGermany's official oppositiontolinguistic purismafter the Second WorldWar. Thedevelopment of modernelectronic communicative channels, on the other hand, makes itpossible forpurists to spread widely a fearof 'linguistic colonization' while simultaneously directing their defensive zeal againstall things foreign. Pfalzgraf's admirable foray into this area of research has opened theway for further investiga tionandmonitoring ofneo-puristic activities inallGerman-speaking regions. Overall,this bookmakes a substantial contribution tolinguistic scholarship and points scholars towards awealth of primary sources that only the keenest Internet surferis likelytohave discovered.It examinesthepuristicendeavoursof both moderate linguists and some more fanatical members of the public, whose agenda isclearly one ofpoliticalextremism. Where thelatter are concerned, Pfalzgraf's monograph deals with an issue of concern to linguists and the public at large, and usefully...