CC BY
9Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 6 (2014 7) 1015-1024
УДК 811.112.2
Exo-endoglossic (Centric) Model of German Language Policy
Juri V. Kobenko*
Tomsk National Research Polytechnic University 30 Lenin, Tomsk, 634050, Russia
Received 31.12.2011, received in revised form 11.01.2012, accepted 25.12.2013
The article offers an exo-andoglossic model of German language policy regarding the ecological specific of the historical development of German. The notion of centrism in language policy, that implies a balance between exoglossic and endoglossic evolutional tendencies of German, stands in the focus of attention.
Keywords: centrism of language policy, model of language policy, exoglossy, endoglossy, progressive and retrospective codification.
Point
One of the most important characteristics of the German codification policy is considered the polycentrism of forming the language idiom, i.e. when the language regulation is conducted by several normalizing societies that unite heterogeneous variants of words to a supradialectal system. Through interacting and changing of different languages and cultural traditions the processes of evolving literary norms may take quite unusual shapes and lead to the heterogeneity of the language stock. By this type of forming the literary idiom the codification of norms must be strict, but it is not always the case because the codification policy is usually adjusted by a particular language situation. Thus various periods in the history of German differ not only in presence or lack of a purposeful and conscious selecting and fixation of literary norms but also in their content, form,
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved
* Corresponding author E-mail address: serpentis@list.ru
intensity of codification processes as well as in the various degree of practical impact of codification requirements.
There are two types of normalization processes typical for the German language: retrospective or conservative, it means those depending upon the state of the language and its usage, which was characteristic for previous periods of the development, and progressive, i.e. still at the development stage, sometimes involving solutions quite out of the ordinary.
It is significant that this character of normalization activities makes the problems of importing innovations within the contact bilingualism regular and even expected: codification requirements can either not be realized for a long time or be realized very inconsequently. The periods of strictness of codification norms are inevitably replaced by their relative liberalization or pointed shortage.
The common meaning is that the codification remains behind the real usage of language. The state of codification at different stages of language development may vary and serves as a sign of a certain historical period. By inspecting the characteristics of the modern codification processes in the literary German language, the following problems can be mentioned:
1) an uncertain extent of the codification selectivity, i.e. how many language units are to be codified at different language levels of German;
2) an uncertain degree of regarding the differentiation of language units including variants of words.
1) As is known, the codification of norms in Germany is noticeable more selective and less imperative: it usually sets only general frames and conditions of their usage. Newest tendencies towards preciseness intaking downthe frequencies and consequently domination of different novelties by using mathematical computations apply only to few authors of modern German grammar editions. The divergence between the codification and the literary usage seem to belong to universal problems of codification processes because of the fundamental selectivity of the codification.
It needs to be noted that Semenyuk sees the core of this problem in a complicated interrelation of descriptive and prescriptive moments in codification of different language units. The element of recommendation / non-recommendation is supposed to be crucial to the codification: a mere description of norms is clearly insufficient; it is necessary to reflect the recurrent usage as well as "near" tendencies of the language development (Semenyuk, 1996). We can suppose, that the codification selectivity of a greater or lesser extent may give rise to new variants of words. However solid conclusions could be drawn only on the basis of a more diverse and extensive material requiring a special
research. The selectivity of the codification is oriented towards a concrete speech modification, which influences the expansion of social and functional basis of the codification. Most definite it is in the orthographic prescriptions for those strata, which are hardly subject to codification, e.g. professional vernacular. The cause of the codification remaining behind the present usage is considered here its retrospectivity as a parameter of embracing language units to be codified at language levels of German.
2) Parallel using of certain language units and from it resulting variation at all language levels were always most debatable moments of the German codification policy. In my opinion, the depth and stability of codification impact determine the amount of present variants of words. The practice of forming the German literary idiom and of its codification transformations provides the ground for supposing that codification requirements of norms are unstable and superficial. It is partly caused by the historical polycentrism of forming the German literary idiom as well as irregularity of standardizing impulses that are radiated by different normalizing societies. The selectivity mentioned above plays here a pivotal role, because it leads to exaggeration of codification processes. Prescribed loan-formations often appear as variants to conventional foreign prototypes, being in fact somebody's inventions. The idea of duration and firmness of norms to be evolved leads automatically to conservation of certain language units and conscious repelling of others. Whether such standardizing measures towards differentiation of variants are righteous, remains still uncertain.
A chronological unevenness of codification processes at different language levels is typical of the history of German. This unevenness corresponds in a certainway with non-simultaneity of objective processes of norm forming in native language communication. Moreover codification
processes are embarrassed and complicated where there is no real base of codification or the latter represents a heterogeneous formation, fitted together of elements different by descent and territorial belonging.
Large sections of German scholars hold the view that the German have no uniform language consciousness (kein einheitliches Sprachbewusstsein). Therefore the codification of variants of words can be impeded not only by heterogeneity of the German language idiom, but also by considering certain variants to prevail upon others according to their territorial belonging and stylistic value.
In was not until the beginning of the XX c. that the variants of German words were subject to codification. L. Sutterlin and G. Wunderlich first became aware of several grammatical and lexical options' differing in use according to a certain functional style and their diglossic stratification. The belletristic literature stopped to be regarded the mainstay of the codification of norms. Regarding the fact, that the codification is inferior to natural normalization processes, normalizers progressed towards differential interpretation of a norm, i.e. assigning them to certain functional strata.
From the end of the XX c. till the beginning of XXI c. with the liberalization of the literary norms the number of works dealing with differentiation of variants of words increases. In speech speakers are deliberately declining codified patterns. She also states that some authors pronounce themselves in favor of the new understanding of norms and find that the period of strictness of codification prescriptions has passed by irrevocably. The reluctance of speakers at following the codified norms can be regarded as a cause of the literary norms' loosing their strictness and is very characteristic of the currant state of the German language development. Such extralinguistic factors as secularizing special
areas of knowledge and weakening the tie of culture cause a variance of the present codification norm as well.
Every shift in the life of a society is accompanied by searching for "better" ways of codification and by need for a renewal of its functional base. Traditionally the German codification was based upon
- official and
- semiofficial ways of forming the literary norms.
These ways must consolidate the principle of polycentrism and contribute to a pluralistic approach to forming the literary norms. Among the first are activities of such lexicographic centers and publishing houses as DUDEN, Brockhaus, Wahrig, Langenscheidt etc., which codification base has been being formed by outstanding German scholars for many centuries.
The semiofficial ways in contemporary Germany are represented by activities of the puristic society VWdS (Verein zur Wahrung der deutschen Sprache = Society Of Preservation Of German) established in 1997 in Dortmund and known nowadays as VdS (Verein deutsche Sprache = Society Of German). The characteristic feature of VdS is retrospective orientation of codification. There is no endeavor to unify codification requirements of separate societies among its activities, but only to institutionalize individual and often unsystematic claims on having the last word in the codification policy. However some of its aesthetic creative tendencies, which can be traced back to Schottel's and von Zesen's word creations, merit recognition.
Conservative trends hindering foreign words - as well as any innovations - from penetrating the language could be crucial only in such cases, when their authority is enough to overshadow official centers and have influence on the survival of innovations being imported and pseudoborrowings. Still the only instrument of
codification of those societies remains artificial ousting of invasive elements from the language stock as a result of a recommended usage of national analogs. Purist sentiments of VdS upon the problem of Anglo-Americanisms are woven into subject of importance and role of German in the modern society, while the notion of language correctness is of an abstract character.
In modern Germany codification measures are restrained by the teleological criterion of correctness. The individual forms of codification connected with activities of single grammarians and lexicographers are not combined practically with official ways of codification as it was in the XVIII and XIX cc. Voigt points out that conflicting forms of loyalty towards language novelties causes objectively the deficiency of language consideration and the permanently growing need for renewal of the codification base.
The functional heterogeneity of the modern German language, i.e. its polyfunctionality and polyvalence, must condition on the extension of the codification base according to the extent of existing variance, the succession of advanced requirements and effectiveness of prescriptions from the viewpoint of different forms of language existence and levels.
The centrism of language policy was always that valuable and at the same time unreachable quality of language regulation which the majority of outstanding public figures as well as subjects of language policy tended to. Two levels of the linguo-political centrism need to be distinguished: 1) the intralinguistic one relating to the regulation only of the language idiom; 2) the extralinguistic level concerning the language situation in a region, country, continent etc.
1) On the intralinguistic level the centrism implies a balance between the exo- and endoglossic tendencies of language development, i.e. the areas of dia- and isomorphism. The deviation into the area of diamorphism leads to a domination
of borrowed language material, whereas the isomorphism area produces an archaization of the title language. Neither of both dynamics is the only correct nor absolute. The pressure of foreign language in the exoglossic phase as well as the isolating the resource stock of the recipient language (RL) from exoglossic influence cause irreversible changes to the language system, that deprive or interrupt certain language traditions or conserve them. That is why the reaction of the sociolinguistic variable will resemble the compensating swing of a pendulum: from the exoglossic to endoglossic phase and vice versa. And the more radical turns to be the previous phase, the wider will be the amplitude of that motion, which exposes the character of language change. The reduction of that amplitude itself is the goal of building a balanced model on this level.
The centrism also implies here a balance between the exo- and endoglossic models of language policy. A permissive linguo-political model, which mirrors the corresponding model of cultural policy, i.d. a policy of a higher level, leads to an increased borrowing the material of a donor language (DL) followed by its domination in the language stock. The restrictive character of language policy within an endoglossic model appears as a guarantee of conservation of a language state and archaization of the title language. The centric model should also provide a balance between language development, i.e. renewing the language stock, and preserving the language.
2) In language situations with several interacting components a balance is quantitatively (number of speakers), qualitatively (communicative potential / discourse frame) and certainly in the view of the estimation of status parameters of a language or its resources absolutely impossible due to the fact, that there are no balanced exoglossic situations in the
modern sociolinguistic practice (Mechkovskaya, 2000: 171). According to the naturally presented diaphastic differences between languages a centric model could become in a certain sense a "Swiss model" aimed at a preservation of the variety of languages spoken within a certain area by means of a total equation their social functions, i.e. status hypostasis, in this area.
On both levels the presupposition of the centrism faces doubtlessly a number of problems, for example, the absence of a real linguo-political principle in the first case. So, it is not clear, what should be given the preference to: the needs of an individual or those of the collective. As a result of this the language regulation may become an end in itself as well as lead to the ideologization of the title language (cf. the Nazi language). A diglossia (on the diastratic level, s. further) makes the fact of hybridization inevitable. Reciting a foreign culture presupposes the use of a DL material what normally results in developing a hybrid zone.
Although the idea of centrism as a functional balance of used language forms in the second case seems reminiscent of the idea of the European cross-culturalism and "plurilinguism" (Pool et alt., 1998: 2), it is controversial to the real situation in the EU, because it supposes a making languages with different communicative function (majority and minority languages) equal in terms of social prestige. Another contradiction is concerned with the situation around the bilingualism with English. Although a bilingualism per se whether with a standard language or another one as well as the globalization are not new to Europe, there is a need to have a good command of English at least passively, but as a matter of fact there is no spare for English in European syllabi owning to an equating status hypostases of all minority languages.
Therefore the balance as a realization of the idea of linguo-political centrism is a variable quantity and depends on conditions
and peculiarities of a certain language situation according to the ecological levels of a language diasystem: diastratic, diaphastic and diatopic (Flydal, 1951: 241).
1) An invariant of exo- and endoglossic dynamics on the diastratic level is synchronously a diglossia with an unavoidable polyglossity of the language idiom. Due to an impossibility of a simultaneous convergence with many languages the centrism assumes a diglossia with the vertical medium while all imported discourses get duplicated, what means in particular translation of advertisement spots, brands etc.
2) An implication of the centrism on the diaphastic level could be an additive bilingualism in a two-component and a trilingualism in a three-component situation. If there are more than three components, dispersive zones with their own linguo-political principles could be created.
3) On the diatopic level the centrism implies denying the idea of "purity" and accepting the condition of changing the inner form of the regulated language. The cognition that the cross-culturalism and the „homogeneous cultural environment where the language is preserved most purely" (Vinogradov et alt., 2008: 116) are opposed helps speeding up these mental processes. The diatopic balance means a non-assumption of language course deviation at more than 50% into both areas of iso- and diamorphism. Thereby a centric model should prevent a hybridization of languages (cf. the pidginization of German, where about 60% of all neologisms have their origin in English), but also not hamper language development which is a result of interiorization of exoglossic material.
Because the diatopy is considered to be the most important link of title languages' transformation, the mass-media should be carefully controlled in terms of preventing any misuse of their exemplary function in producing new words and expressions.
It needs to be emphasized that the diatopic level is rather hard to balance because of the sociological nature of current processes. Each actual phase is a symptom of the previous one, so a continuity of linguo-political tradition is essential for creating and applying a centric model. A mere announcement of such a model would not mean an end or beginning of an evolutional phase at all. This is the most difficult level just because it basically implies a regulation by means of language policy where every correction of the political course could cause undesirable consequences for components of a real language situation. Creating an advantage for one could be a drawback for another. It is thus of great importance to differentiate the levels of linguo-political regulation: the micro-level with language corpus as an object; macro-level where regulations focus on language status. While on the micro-level the course can be balanced with instruments of language policy (creation of bilingual norms, balancing of recommendation / non-recommendation elements etc.), it is not possible to change the status accent one-sidedly on the macro-level. Agreements on a higher -regional, interregional, federal - level are necessary, but as a result they might give way to the idea of a lingua franca. It is possible to balance progressive and retrospective tendencies of codification upon a constant status constellation within a language situation on a micro- and every micro-level by menas of balancing language planning (see further), which efficiency can be defined e.g. using the ideal-type model of language planning by H. Haarmann (Haarmann, 1998: 1667).
Not lesser significant and problematic point of the diatopic centrism is the balance between the areas of basic and external language continua. Problems of the external zones of German is the lessening until total failure of language regulation by subjects of language policy in the basic
continuum of German what results in demise of isolated zones being left to autochthonous subjects who are not necessarily interested in continuing of an exoglossic tradition. A balance means here a compromise between subjects of language regulation of both zones concerning the maintenance of the exoglossic language status not below those of other foreign languages i.e. keeping up the policy of prestige.
As V. Klokov emphasizes, a language policy "manifests itself in choice and publicity of languages for covering certain spheres of its application" among which he calls "national relations, those between a state and a society, education, culture, arts (literature, theatre et alt.), science, technology, religion etc." (Klokov, 1992: 14). The choice and publicity of languages within a centric model should be exo-endoglossic in each of areas called, it means, they should arise not out of presupposing an advantage because in this case the vertical medium will always be on the vantage point, but out of conscious using means of one of the language situation components as well as sober estimating opportunities of those components and their significance for a successful communication.
Therefore the most important prerequisite of creating centric models is the evolution of consciousness of RL speakers including subjects of language policy that implies awareness raising of using a title language in basic and external continua and exoglossic languages relevant for reaching a balance as well as readiness for saving the own language and loyality to the foreign one(s). For such kind of using (a) title language(s) we suggested the term "centric".
Every planned model of language policy is automatically an ecological scenario (i.e. an idealized construct of reality), which probability depends on how strongly the principle is followed by, that is in a centrism: a relative balance between exoglossic and endoglossic poles.
Example
According to the corpus and status parameters of modern German the theoretical foundations of the linguo-political centrism are explicated as follows (see Fig 1).
1) On the diastratic level a diglossia is recommended in discourses which basicly refer to English: computer, telecommunication, finance & banking, economics, entertainment.
A diglossia is reached here through the practice of discourse doubling, i.e. introducing bilingual registers. Where it is not possible,
e.g. because of space saving, the preference should be given to autochthonous or exoglossic material borrowed earlier (Gallicisms in the sport vocabulary of German). The parceling is bigger in those onomasiological groups which have a higher index of exoglossity.
A total avoiding the borrowing and hybridization of contacting languages is unreal because of the presence of exoglossic resources and a hybrid stock in German. Nevertheless it is possible to prevent a further hybridization through a parceling of registers. According to
diaphastie level
Г _........................iddtore bilin^ijism...................._ j
diastratic level
! disjoiiii '■'■■j<h i local duplication of ¿11 import«! distources !
; division of language registers i
diatopic level
(noil-i¡sumption ot'bihjuajp course deviation it more than 50?« into rhe aie« of iso- and diamoiphism}
LANGUAGE STATUS
2d itiinislrative plane scientific pbot
controlling mas: media ill spheres of informational support and advertisement preserving Che status of German as a language of international conferences held in Europe
teaching English is a second language in schools beside most spread European languages (is optional subjects): French etc. no defense! of these* written wirbin Gemian speaking countries in English
balance biiM-ttn liic areai of bisit and e\tiinal lanjuaje continua prOportioni in printing Engliih artitltf in Eurûpian journal*
ntawcatlDBi of langui;« regulation Kirb i German Council i journal in Getman for sptnialiiis in Сешап studies abroad
a European quotation index (for arlicies in all languages)
LANGUAGE CORPUS
administrative plane scientific plane
unified codification prescriptions COnCeillil) g llie Ellgjiill borrowings in ill iiiii of Getmaii distribution parallel thesauri fox mostly Americanized discourses (psychology, économies, polities)
basic principles of iprioric and jpostetioric derivation from English unified scientific terminology through pütial German izatioii of borrowed ternis
eoditkation of productive nLechanisnis Of derivation from English and earlier DLs of spelling refenn in t[d<r to reduce the redundant graphical variation
Fig. 1. Exo-endoglossic (centric) model of German language policy
H. Haarmann language planning measures of scientific and administrative plane which are opposed to less effective group and individual endeavors should play here a pivotal role (Haarmann, 1988: 1667). It presupposes a linguo-political monocentrism with a unified subject that is formally a Council consisting not only of scientific and administrative élite, but also representatives of all ranges of language policy application.
A longer absence of concrete administrative measures causes in opinion of many specialists in German studies the decrease in its status throughout the world.
2) The diaphastic centrism aims at a general studying English as a result of which many lexical phenomena would be translated into German und vice versa. This measure enables to decrease the amount ofAnglo-Americanisms borrowed owning to imitation and to reduce the pressure of English until a simple code switching. The objective of this level is the educational bilingualism with English not as a vertical medium, but a popular foreign language. The attribute "foreign" should help avoiding an increase of the status of English to a state language und stopping the pidginization of German.
3) The centrism on the diatopic level implies refusing the idea of "purity" on the one hand and approving the change condition of German inner form on the other hand. Beside the traditional differentiation between corpus and status the models differ after H. Haarmann according to spheres of the most effective language planning: administrative and scientific ones (Haarmann, 1988: 1667).
In view of the corpus the following should be done in order to avoid the imbalance: a) in the administrative sphere: - total unifying of codification prescriptions concerning the English borrowings in all areas of German distribution;
- setting basic principles of aprioric and aposterioric derivation from English;
- codification of productive mechanisms of derivation from English and earlier DLs;
- correction of spelling reform in order to reduce the redundant graphical variation (strengthening literal norms contributes considerably to reduction of quoting and manipulating English words and expressions by mass media).
b) in the scientific sphere:
- introducing the practice of parallel thesauri for mostly Americanized discourses (psychology, economics, politics);
- unifying the scientific terminology through partial Germanization of borrowed terms (in cooperation with outstanding scientists in certain fields);
In view of the status the following is necessary to be done in order to avoid the status decrease of German:
a) in the administrative sphere:
- controlling mass media in spheres of informational support and advertisement as well as commercial projects using in their ad spots uncodified English borrowings;
- teaching English as a second language in schools beside most spread European languages (as optional subjects): French, Russian, Spanish etc.;
- setting linguo-political balance between the areas of basic and external language continua, i.e. balancing their values of codification prescriptions and social prestige.
b) in the scientific sphere:
- preserving the status of German as a language of international conferences held in Europe;
- no admitting any defenses of theses written within German speaking countries in English;
- setting proportions in printing English articles in European journals;
- establishing a journal in German for specialists in German studies abroad (A uslan dsgermanistik);
- creating a European quotation index that would exclude any linguistic discrimination (for articles in all languages).
Resume
The linguo-political centrism meets the main requirement to a language policy: it acts as an ecological scenario that ensures multilevel balance between social nature of language evolution and immanent (inner) impulses of language development, between function of interethnic mediation and ethnic communication, between tendencies of language alienation and preservation of autochthonous resources, between the permissivity and restrictivity of language regulation.
References
1. V.A. Vinogradov, A.I. Koval, VYa. Porkhomovsky, Sociolinguistic typology (Moscow: Editorial URSS Publishers, 2008) (In Russian).
2. V.T. Klokov, Language policy in African francophone countries (Saratov: Saratov State University Publishers, 1992) (in Russian).
3. N.B. Mechkovskaya, Social linguistics (Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2000) (in Russian).
4. N.N. Semenyuk, "Formation of literary norms and types of codification processes", Language norm: typology of normalization (Moscow: Russian Academy of Science, 1996), p. 23-44 (in Russian).
5. L. Flydal, "Remarks on certain relations between style and language stock", Norsk annual for linguistics. Issue 16 (Oslo: Universitets forlaget, 1951), p. 240-257 (in French).
6. H. Haarmann, "Use of languages and language policy [text] / H. Haarmann", Linguistics and communication science (Berlin, NY: Walter de Gruyter 1988), p. 1660-1678 (in German).
7. J. Pool, M. Fettes, "The challenge of interlingualisme: A research invitation", Esperantic Studies. Issue 10 (New York: ESF, 1998), p. 1-3 (in English).
Экзоэндоглоссная (центричная) модель регулирования современного немецкого языка
Ю.В. Кобенко
Национальный исследовательский Томский политехнический университет Россия, 634050, Томск, ул. Ленина, 30
В статье представлена экзоэндоглоссная (центричная) модель немецкой языковой политики с учётом диасистемных характеристик исторического развития титульной языковой формы. В центре рассуждения находится понятие центризма языковой политики, предполагающего лингвополитический баланс между экзоглоссными и эндоглоссными тенденциями эволюции немецкого языка.
Ключевые слова: лингвополитический центризм, модель языковой политики, экзоглоссия, эндоглоссия, прогрессивная и ретроспективная кодификация.
