Language ideologies and language criticism

This article will introduce language ideologies prominently reflected in German Studies and associated with forms of language criticism. These language ideologies are closely linked to milestones in the standardisation of the German language, to thinking surrounding the diversity of variants and the related issue of language prestige, to the establishment of a national language, as well as to the delicate balance between the roles of ‘lay persons’ and experts, which, in the 21st century, has led to an increased academisation of the discourse as well as a growing debate surrounding the question of whether language is or should be ideological, ideologically laden or non ideological. Figurative language, as a condensate of socio culturally entrenched language ideologies, lends itself to identifying hardened concepts about language. In German Studies, metaphors are a typical linguistic historical point of reference in the study of language ideologies. To illustrate the function of metaphoric language, this article will therefore employ the metaphoric image of the plant: an image that has remained a fairly consistent pattern from the 17th century until the present.

Language ideology refers to a set of ideas and beliefs about how to use language, its speakers, and the discursive practices in that language community. This ideology implies a level of consistency in a language and its standardised norms and that any deviation from those norms might be considered ‘less than the ideal’ (see the foundational article in this volume). In this article, we provide an overview of how the ‘ideal’ use of the English language has changed over time, and the impact of various socio-cultural events in history on these developments, with a particular focus on pronunciation. We discuss how the almost imaginary concept of a spoken standard emerged in the history of (British) English. A spoken standard labelled Received Pronunciation (RP) formed a model that was influenced by social class, geography, and levels of education. The dominance of RP was further reinforced, when it was adopted by the broadcasters at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) in 1922, at which point it came to be referred to as BBC-English; the aim of which was to adopt neutral language use that was easily comprehensible to a broad audience. Factors such as the shift in social class and hegemony of languages as well as advances in technology have all contributed to acceptance of more varieties of English and a discouragement of negative attitudes towards lesser-known accents and dialects or non-standard language use, particularly in contemporary Britain and in the United States of America.

In France, the term language ideology generally has a negative connotation. One of the most prominent language ideological debates, which has also received an analogous level of public attention, surrounds the issue of the language standard. Within this debate, it is not rare for other languages and other variants of the French language (often col lectively described quite non-specifically with the term patois) to be dis paraged. Along with this emphasis on the language standard, language ideological discussions and discourses address aspects anchored in the imaginaire of many speakers, including the notion of the unique clarity of the French language. However, in the spirit of language purism, language ideological discussions, in which the Académie française continues to be involved to a certain extent, also include the rejection of borrowed words, particularly Anglicisms. Presently, the issue of écriture inclusive (‘inclusive written language’) is also being debated in terms of language ideology. Arguments citing potential confusion, illegibility, or possible difficulties in pronunciation play a major role in the assessment or rejection of inclu sive writing. Within numerous language ideological debates, demands are being voiced for an authoritative decision on the part of the Académie française.

In present-day Italy, alongside Italian as the official language, French, German, Ladinian and Slovenian all have co-official status at the local level. A total of twelve minority languages enjoy special status. Since the latter days of the Middle Ages, there has been a keen awareness that natural languages manifest themselves in the form of multiple varia tions. The gradual process by which the various dialects were overtaken by the Florentine vernacular was met with both positive and negative as sessments. These can be divided into two complementary streams, one of which is committed to monolingualism and has adhered to literary- aesthetic or, later, ideological-political arguments, and another that is pluralistic in nature. The negotiations surrounding the diversity of the variations, as well as the competing glottonyms that have emerged over the centuries, the designations for linguistic minorities, the positioning vis-à-vis Anglo-American influence and the discussions concerning shift ing norms in the spirit of ‘political correctness’ are all expressions and con veyances of linguistic ideologies that will be presented here as examples.

In the development of the Croatian language, every modern-era phase has been shaped on a macro-level by ideology. During the Renais sance of the 16th century, in keeping with prevailing ideology, the regional language variants of the coastal regions of Dalmatia were elevated to the status of literary standard languages, thus establishing them as in digenous and equal in status to the other standard languages. The full range of variants was incorporated into the new literary language and were stylistically differentiated through their manner of usage. From the 16th century on, a Kajkavian dialectal literary language also emerged in the northwest. In later centuries, this became supra-dialectal, but re mained outside the standard established in the late 19th century, sub sequently appearing only sporadically. In the 16th century, a Chakavian literary language with dialectal variants emerged on the Adriatic coast. In the 17th century, the situation was quite different. At that time, the Chakavian and Shtokavian dialects, and later, also the Kajkavian dialect, including their various expressions, were considered components of a single language and bearers of the same supra-regional identity. Since that time, efforts have been made to unify the dialects, from Chakavian and Shtokavian to even a hybrid language devised by writers (members of the ‘Ozalj Circle’) in the west, on the Chakavian-Kajkavian-Shtokavian border. The notion of a common lexical system led to integrative diction aries and, occasionally, to hybrid grammatical solutions. Moreover, the language was standardised in the 17th century by order of Rome, as part of the Catholic Counter-Reformation. This expedient standard was not exactly inclusive; it was an abstract, historically and literarily reconstruct ed language standard that allowed variants to be used as equally valid options. This standard was created for the translation of biblical texts and was used to create and substantiate identity. At the beginning of the 19th century, the political and cultural ideology of the national language emerged as a new factor. Now, the preferred linguistic standard was no longer abstract, but anchored in the cultural history and political ideal of the nation-state. In the 20th century, the common language of the Croats and Serbs (ignoring the Bosnians, Herzegovinians and Montenegrins), which, to an extent, had been forcibly standardised, served the politi cal ideology of the multi-ethnic state that emerged following the First World War. It persisted under communism after the Second World War, until 1991. Since the late 1960s, single-language standardisation revivals, especially in Croatia, laid the groundwork for the national and linguistic ideology that ultimately led to the collapse of the multi-ethnic state of Yugoslavia. Post-Yugoslav language ideology can be traced back to the historically recognised roots of language, complementing the historically delineating construction of identity by differentiating it from competing variants.