In order to describe how purists have affected the German language it is necessary to define purism. Pfalzgraf (2009) states, “there is scarcely any intellectually satisfying definition to be found in the relevant literature.” (p.138). George Thomas (1991) however does give a summary of assorted existing definitions: “Purism is the manifestation of a desire on the part of a speech community...to preserve a language from, or rid it of, putative foreign elements or other elements held to be undesirable... Above all, purism is an aspect of the codification, cultivation and planning of standard languages.” (p.12). Linguistic purism in Germany came about in the 17th century and is still active in the present day. This essay will follow the efforts of German purists in chronological order, starting with the origins of various Sprachgesellschaften in the early 1600s, and finishing with purist movements still active nowadays, such as the Verein Deutsche Sprache. Pfalzgraf (2009) splits purism in the history of the German language into six phases: the baroque era; the Age of Enlightenment; from the French Revolution to the Carlsbad Decrees; the early 19th century; from 1871 to the Second World War; and from World War 2 until present day (pp. 143-158). The attitudes, actions and success of German purists differ greatly between these various phases, therefore it is very useful to assess purism in this way in order to fully understand the impact that different purists had on the German language.
The baroque era of purism in the history of the German language ranged from the early 17th century up until the early 18th century. At the beginning of this period German was seen as an unimportant language both academically and culturally, inferior to languages such as Latin, French and Italian. German scholars on the other hand believed the German language to be both “ancient and dignified” (Pfalzgraf 2009 p.143) and also regarded it as a protolanguage (Jones 1999). Pfalzgraf (2009) goes on to write that it was “thought to be important to cultivate the German language and keep it pure from foreign influences” in order “to fend off the cultural dominance of French and Latin” (p.143). This description of the context and historical background conveys the birth of German purism. The main idea of purity in this period was to make German a culturally central language by ridding it of foreign lexical influences, and also offensive or unclear words and expressions. This in turn lead to the appearance of the Sprachgesellschaften in Germany.
Perhaps the most important Sparachgesellschaft of the baroque era was the Fruchtbringende Gessellschaft which was created in 1617 by Ludwig von Anhalt-Köthen, and lasted up until the end of the century. The Bericht der Fruchtbringenden Gesellschaft Zweck und Vorhaben (1622) declares that an association should be established “in which one would speak and write in good pure German and otherwise, in the same group, would undertake to elevate our mother tongue (as nature obliges each of us to do) in a useful and constructive fashion.” (my translation). In other words, the society was created in order to promote the vernacular use of German. One of the major ways the Fruchtbringende Gessellschaft achieved this was through its designation of names and emblems with explanatory verses to all of its members. For example, Ludwig was named Der Nährende and his emblem was a loaf of bread; Justus Georg Schottelius, a very influential figure in purism at the time, was called Der Suchende. Pfalzgraf (2009) suggests that many of the emblems given to members relate to the Italian Accademia della Crusca (founded in 1582). He writes, “The metaphor of separating the grain from the chaff expresses the idea that there are both desirable and undesirable words, phrases, grammatical constructions, etc., in every language, the former being worth taken care of, whereas the latter should be abolished.” (p.144). This analysis of the metaphor sums up what the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft was trying to achieve. David Wellbery (A new history of German literature 2004) suggests that new discussions were created in the choosing of these emblems and verses, and that “In the very act of admitting its members, the Fruit-Bearing Society fulfilled the purpose for which it had been founded: to foster conversation and literature in the German language.” (p.279).
The Age of Enlightenment in general promoted a different attitude towards German purism. Pfalzgraf (2009) writes that the key aim of the period “was to establish German as a language of science to replace the widely-used Latin language.” (p.146). However amongst the most important purists of the age there were big contrasts in attitudes and approaches towards the standardization of the German language. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) was very much in favour of the scientific promotion of German in favour of Latin. He saw the German language as under threat because scholars favoured Latin and even French over German. He also agreed with the baroque view that obscenities and colloquialisms should not be used. However Leibniz was not totally against the use of foreign words in German. Pfalzgraf (2009) states that Leibniz agreed with the use of foreign words in academic and government writings, but believed that regular everyday German should contain no foreign influences at all. Therefore Leibniz did share some of the same attitudes to other purists regarding foreign influences, however he did not agree with the total abolishment of them. At the other end of the spectrum there was Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, who Pfalzgraf describes as “the most extreme language protector of the Enlightenment.” (2009 p.148). Klopstock’s attitudes follow on from those brought about in the baroque era. In his book Zur Sprachreinigung im Deutschen 1789-1871 (1975) Alan Kirkness writes that Klopstock pursued “the patriotic pride in the mother tongue” (p.54 my translation). Evidence of Klopstock’s patriotism can be seen in the Memoirs of Frederick and Margaret Klopstock (1808). Early in his life Klopstock decided to write the first epic poem in German in order to “raise the fame of German literature in this particular to a level with that of other European countries” because the French “had denied to the Germans any talent for poetry” (p.5).
In his essay, Das Phänomen des Purismus in der Geschichte des Deutschen (1998), Kirkness states that there were four different approaches towards purism in the period 1789 to 1819. These were the educative-enlightening approach, the language structural approach, the radically-rational approach, and the political-nationalistic approach (p.411). An important purist of this period to mention is Joachim Heinrich Campe who followed the educative-enlightenment approach towards purism. He was not nationalistically influenced, but wanted to create a language which every German could use, even the uneducated. His intentions were to create a transparent language with no unclear foreign words. Pfalzgraf (2009) writes that Campe “was of the opinion that only a pure German language, comprehensible to every citizen, would lead to the general enlightenment of the German people.” (p.149) In his attempts to achieve this Campe created his Wörterbuch der Deutschen Sprache (1807-11), of which he accumulated five volumes. On top of that he created the Wörterbuch zur Erklärung und Verdeutschung der unserer Sprache aufgedrungenen fremden Ausdrücke (1813). In his dictionaries Campe is said to have produced around 3,500 neologisms, however only about 350 of them are still used today. Pfalzgraf suggests that Campe was perhaps not very successful due to his limited knowledge of linguistics and his superficial methods (p.150). He even tried to change the styles of contemporary writers in order to better distribute his ideas, which lead to heavy criticism from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Overall Campe was not very successful in his attempts to break the foreign lexical barrier between the uneducated and educated classes.
The early nineteenth century was also a relatively unsuccessful period for purists in Germany. This phase was characterised by nationalistically motivated purists, quite the opposite approach from that of Joachim Campe. A further difference was in who was actively campaigning for purism. Academics began to condemn the use of foreign words, in contrast to earlier times when they had accepted foreign influences in German. They believed that to create a German national unity and emancipation it was necessary to have an “unadulterated standard German” (Pfalzgraf 2009 p. 152). Many Sprachschutzvereine and journals were founded in this period. These included the failed Verein der Deutschen Reinsprache,Die Eiche and the Freies Deutsches Hochstift (which still exists today). The former two were both created by Karl Brugger, an eager patriot and nationalist. However in both, “practically nothing was achieved” (Pfalzgraf 2009 p.153). The reasons for his failures can be compared to those of Campe in the earlier phase. Brugger was not actually a qualified linguist and had poor knowledge of linguistic constructions. These two eras involved many purists, however it seems their passion outweighed their actual knowledge of the subject, leading to little impact upon the German language.
In contrast to the ineffective efforts of German purists from earlier times, the period 1871 up to the Second World War saw much success in German. A major reason for this was the abolishment of foreign words in areas of official work. Hundreds of German words replaced French ones in industry, travel, the army and the post office. For example the French word for a ‘return-ticket’, Retourbillet, was replaced with the German Rückfahrkarte. Therefore there was official support for the protection of the German language in certain public sectors.
This period also saw the creation of successful Sprachschutzvereine – organisations which had previously failed and made no impact upon the language. The most important of these was the Allgemeiner Deutscher Sprachverein (ADSV) which was founded by Hermann Riegel in 1885. This society had three key objectives. Firstly was to purify the German language through the abolishment of foreign influences. Secondly was to repair and protect the quintessential spirit and nature of the German language. Lastly the ADSV wanted to invigorate the patriotism of the German people. Perhaps this last aim can be seen as the most important, for the ADSV were more concerned with a sense of national identity rather than with the German language itself, as can be seen in the organisations motto, “Gedenke auch, wenn du die deutsche Sprache sprichst, daß du ein Deutscher bist!” The ADVS managed to create a passion for the German language amongst ordinary Germans, causing them to join the fight against foreign influences. However after its initial success the ADSV struggled with the rise of the Nazis, who opposed the aims and activities of the foundation. Joseph Goebbels in particular was against the work of the ADSV, which came to an end around 1940.
After the end of the ADSV there was no real purist activity in Germany for many decades. However since the 1990s the battle against foreign influences has sparked up again. Where in earlier times purists were mainly concerned with the use of French words, recently the ridding of English words in the German language and anti-Americanism have become the focal points of German purism. Many refer to anglicisms as ‘Denglisch’. The Verein Deutsche Sprache is another Sprachverein which was founded in 1997. According to its website it now has over 32,000 members across countries all over the world, a third of which are friends of the German language from Asia and Africa. The aims of the association are also stated on the website. They want to combat the anglicization of the German language; remind Germans of the value and beauty of the German language; and they do not want to lose the ability to define new things with new words. The second aim mentioned is similar to the attitudes of the former ADSV. Once again the society is promoting a sense of German pride, as well as focussing on the language itself.
In their main campaign against ‘Denglisch’ the VDS target companies and institutions which are not using the German language as it should be. For example they write protest letters to organisations which they have labelled as Sprachhunzer des Monats. On top of that they select a Sprachpanscher des Jahres (language adulterator of the year) and have also had a Tag der deutschen Sprache every year since 2001 on 30th September. Yet again however it is possible to claim that this society puts passion for the German language ahead of actual linguistic knowledge. Although the academic advisory board of the VDS is made up mostly of university professors, almost none of them are experts in the field of linguistics.
To summarise, since 1600 there have been many purist individuals and organisations in Germany which have attempted to cleanse the German language of foreign influences and restore a sense of national pride in the German people. The various attempts over the centuries have had varying degrees of success, but overall it must be argued that German purists have had little impact upon the German language since 1600. Too many of the individuals and societies have lacked the linguistic knowledge needed in order to make a difference and persuade people that the German language is in fact in danger. There have of course been successes along the way, for example in the campaigns of the Fruchtbringende Gesellschaft, the institutionalisation of linguistic purism after 1871, and, to an extent, the early years of the ADSV. Many German words have been created over the years which have successfully replaced French, Latin and English words. However the amount of success does not accurately reflect the effort put in by German purists since the 17th century. An example of this is the mere ten percent of Joachim Campe’s suggestions which were accepted into the German language. Although all of the purists have been extremely eager and passionate in their activities, the lack of actual linguistic knowledge and understanding of how language functions in a speech community has to be seen as a major reason for why they have had little impact upon the German language. Many efforts have been made since 1600, but relatively little has been achieved.
This is Preview only. If you need the solution of this assignment, please send us email with the complete assignment title: ProfessorKamranA@gmail.com
