Language criticism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Language criticism examines language , speech acts and discourses on the connections between language and thinking or the ability to cognize ( philosophy of language ) as well as language and social conditions ( sociology ). According to Roland Barthes , linguist and founder of modern semiotics , language criticism is also social criticism, since language itself is ideological. In language maintenance , language criticism means the evaluation of language utterances. It can be both negative (reproach) and positive (recommendation) in its statement.

Philosophical origins of language criticism

In 1916, Ferdinand de Saussure proposed that linguistic signs are based on conventions within a language community. He coined the term arbitrariness for this . However, this has nothing to do explicitly and not necessarily with language criticism as cultural criticism.

Wilhelm Kamlah criticizes the philosophers' “monological writing and talking past one another” and calls for a (language-critical) “discipline of thinking and speaking” . He points out that before people philosophize, they “always speak” and that it is a common mistake to fake a “Kaspar Hauser situation” . From this everyday language and its pre-understanding of the world, the scientific language has to be newly developed.

Language criticism under the aspect of social analysis

Against the background of the connection between language and society, language is seen here as a socially effective instrument. Language is analyzed as a means of exercising power as well as establishing and reproducing power relations. This criticism of language can be found not only in cultural studies and sociology, but also in linguistics . In the 1920s, Kurt Tucholsky developed a primarily politically motivated form of language criticism under the motto "Language is a weapon".

In the doctoral program “Language Criticism as Social Criticism in European Comparison” of the European Center for Linguistics (EZS), the connection between behavior critical of language and social changes is examined. The examination languages ​​are currently German, English, French, Italian and Spanish.

Language criticism under the aspect of language maintenance

Language criticism and linguistics

From antiquity to the beginning of the 19th century, linguistic criticism was one of the tasks of linguistic research. With Jacob Grimm , a revision of the relationship between linguistic criticism and linguistics took place. Grimm's preface to the first version of the first part of his “German Grammar” (1819), called the “Manifesto of Historical Grammar”, marked the turning point. From then on there followed a development in linguistics that led to structuralism and thus to the view that language was a self-sufficient organism. The practical relevance was increasingly excluded. Characteristic of this attitude is the title of a book by structuralists Robert A. Hall from 1950: ( "Leave your language alone" ! Let your speech in quiet ). More recently, it has been observed that linguistics no longer just expresses brusque rejection of language criticism.

Linguistically justified language criticism

The linguistically justified language criticism is based on detailed communication analysis according to semantic and pragmatic criteria. It is based on pragmatics, speech act theory and communicative action theory. Criticism of linguistic utterances and speakers should be scientifically justified and not guided by ideological criteria. The language criticism should evaluate scientifically and well-founded, not be normative, but not refrain from every evaluation. Linguistically based language criticism is not reserved for linguists: "Language criticism is something for everyone" (Heringer slogan). Each individual should, in accordance with their linguistic competence, conduct language criticism and deal with their own use of language in a reflective manner. Linguistically well-founded language criticism thus enters into a didactic and emancipatory obligation: to enable freedom in dealing with language.

Linguistically sound language criticism does not only focus on speakers. She also criticizes the language critics who judge based on unfounded criteria.

All speaking is guided by rules that emerged from evolution and communication. Classic language criticism is based on established norms. That is why a well-founded critique of language includes the critique of linguistic norms which, in a certain sense, are external to the language. This is especially true for conflicting standards. Linguistically based language criticism sees itself as language norm criticism and aims to intervene in conflicting norms in a way that resolves conflicts.

Approach of the linguistically based language criticism according to Rainer Wimmer :

  1. Identify communication difficulties and communication conflicts
  2. Determine the goals and relevance of a language-critical analysis
  3. Identify linguistically important aspects of the conflict
  4. Analyze and linguistically these linguistic phenomena
  5. Evaluate linguistically and linguistically on the basis of the analysis.

Basic directions according to Schiewe

Jürgen Schiewe gives an overview of the history of language criticism . He differentiates between language criticism

Ancient philosophy was already concerned with language criticism as a critique of knowledge . This is expressed, for example, in the language studies of Plato , Aristotle or the Stoics . Textual criticism , on the other hand, only emerged in the Hellenistic period . The Alexandrian School was in charge here.

Directions of language criticism according to Gauger

Hans-Martin Gauger differentiates between criticism of language possession and criticism of language utterances .

According to Gauger, criticism of language possession can be expressed under two aspects: first, from the point of view of truth, finding the truth and imparting the truth; second, from the point of view of communicative intent.

According to Gauger, criticism of utterances can be criticized from three different points of view: content, form and especially linguistic (example use of foreign words).

“Language ideological attitudes” according to Polenz

Peter von Polenz classifies language criticism based on "language ideological attitudes". Uwe Pörksen describes his criticism of the language critics of the 1950s as "problematic", since language critics take the historical dimension of words and their aspect of truth seriously. Linguists like Polenz neglected these aspects because of their synchronous approach and their belief in the contextual determination of words. Here is Polenz's ideological classification of language-critical attitudes:

Linguistic conservative attitude

Again and again language decay complained in voice criticism. Certain changes in linguistic usage are seen as negative and in the corresponding ideology as decay. A past language usage (for example the language of Luther or Goethe) or one's own language usage is viewed as a positive ideal. The change inherent in language and the emergence of new forms are ignored.

Linguistic attitude

It is said that corruption is taking place, linguistic means from subculture varieties are adopted into public use, changes in the social structure are ignored. Stylistic taboos in text types are held to be unchangeable.

Historical attitude

Representatives of the "historical attitude" invoked the etymology or earlier meanings of a word. For example, the phrase “What alternatives are there?” Is wrong because the Latin age only allows you to choose between two options. The example is also known that you cannot “renovate” because “new” is already included in “renovate”. The changeability of conditions of use (change of meaning) is ignored. In addition, more language training is required of the speakers than is necessary for the communication requirements.

In the Anglo-American language area, in the 1990s, particularly through the publications of Henry Louis Gates, there was a confrontation with so-called signifyin ' , a basically ironic way of speaking in which, through the respective linguistic usage, for example, a strongly reflected consideration of the meanings of word components , Words (and concepts) themselves are taken ad absurdum (example: hello means bright / low ). In this way, the reference object is stripped and mostly also commented on. During communication, a situation arises beyond language, which is often astonishing because of its stupendous and unexpectedly obvious simplicity and which appears spontaneous, and which criticizes the use of language as such. Fundamental to this practice is the question of the cultural identity of Afro-Americans , whether they see themselves as western-influenced Americans or whether they understand or understand the break in the history of Afro-Americans as a break in their own history and continue to consider the historical background . The question that arises here is whether phylogeny corresponds to the ontogeny of humans, as Norbert Elias claims in the theory of civilization .

Language puristic attitude

Language purists advocate the "preservation" of the language of foreign words and the penetration of other languages. In the 18th century, people turned primarily against French and Latin in order to establish German as a generally understandable scientific language. In the 19th century, primarily nationalist motives were in the foreground. In the last quarter of the 20th century, the criticism turned primarily against Anglicisms . Polenz also uses the term language legitimation for such contexts .

It is not taken into account that German has always been a mixed language with a linguistic and cultural benefit. Attempts to translate foreign words have often failed. Sometimes both expressions are next to each other, but are used in different contexts. While address is primarily used in official language, address has not been displaced in public usage because the word was already established at the time of translation.

Speech monomaniac attitude

The language monomaniacal attitude describes a pedantic conception of language norms. With reference to the Duden or other reference works, what is not listed there is criticized. Proponents of this attitude assumed that every word in itself stands for something; Linguistics believe that words are only given their meaning when they are used.

Pan-linguistic attitude

Pan-linguistic advocates ascribed a potentially immoral effect to language itself. In the 1960s, language critics alleged that the German language was partly to blame for the crimes of the Nazi era. From the linguistic side it was countered that grammatical forms are not per se moral or immoral, but that the person who uses them can act morally or immorally.

Cultural Revolutionary Attitude

The culture-revolutionary attitude is against language barriers. She takes the view that language norms serve to suppress the lower classes. The fact that language standardization also serves other purposes is ignored, for example supra-regional or academic communication.

Feminist language criticism

The feminist critique of language has caused lasting changes in the German language, about feminine professional titles (teacher, doctor, Chancellor) , slash notation (teacher / inside) and the single-I (teachers I can) .

German feminist linguistics has four fundamental questions:

  1. How do women appear in the German language?
  2. How do women speak, in contrast to men?
  3. How do women behave in conversations with men?
  4. What power relations are formed in communication between men and women?

According to one of her founders, Senta Trömel-Plötz , when examining language norms and language systems for patriarchal domination, she comes to the conclusion:

“Our language does violence to us [women] because it favors the masculine forms. This creates a worldview in which women are not present. "

- Senta Trömel-Plötz : Violence through Language (1984)

This criticism of language led to many linguistic changes in the Federal Republic from the 1980s onwards. In 1990, the linguist Luise F. Pusch published All People Become Sisters: Feminist Language Criticism and, two years later, Trömel-Plötz's father tongue, motherland: observations on language and politics . A current example of the effects of this language criticism are job advertisements, which meanwhile make it clear that women could also have access to the advertised job. Since the constitutional rulings on the third gender optiondiverse ” in Germany in 2017 and Austria in 2018, indeterminate genders have also been included (“m / f / d”).

At the same time, this young form of language criticism is the subject of social debates. In addition to the radical rejection by standard-compliant and conservative linguists, statements are also criticized by linguistics, which also analyzes the connection between language and society. This includes parts of the discourse analysis (see Critique of Feminist Linguistics ).

"Guidelines for Avoiding Sexist Use of Language" (1980)

The article by the four linguists Senta Trömel-Plötz, Marlis Hellinger , Ingrid Guentherodt and Luise F. Pusch, published in 1980 in the journal Linguistic Reports , is considered fundamental , in which under the title Guidelines for the Avoidance of Sexist Language Use , six pages contain many examples of “ sexist language "Analyzed in German and compared them with" gender-equitable alternatives ". The authors named institutions that teach language, such as schools and universities, and those that spread language, such as the media and publishing houses, as target groups. The authors not only criticize the use of the generic masculine as “sexist” , but also linguistic asymmetries and forms of invisible women.

Male precedence in lists

A characteristic of the “sexist use of language” is also the consistent first mention of the man in pair names such as “Adam and Eve”, “Romeo and Juliet” or “Mr. and Mrs. Meier”, but also in both names such as “teacher” or “doctors” “(Pair forms). As an exception, the reverse order is common when directly addressing “Ladies and Gentlemen!”. Politicians are increasingly addressing citizens in speeches as “dear citizens” and their party friends at meetings, depending on the party, as “dear comrades” (left parties), “dear friends” (bourgeois parties) or “dear comrades” “(Right-wing parties). Correspondingly, gender-equitable language means that the sequence is used alternately, roughly evenly. Formerly common linguistic subordination of women as an appendage to a man, such as " Empress Friedrich ", "Mr. Meier and wife", "Hans Meier family", "Hans Meier couple", "10 managers, including 2 women" are increasingly avoided.


Another requirement concerns speaking respectfully about women, in particular avoiding derogatory terms ( pejorative ). There are also terms with a negative connotation for men, but one thesis of feminist linguistics is that these are much fewer in number and use. In addition, pejoration and the euphemism treadmill tend to affect socially weak groups and thus, at least in the past, more feminine than masculine terms.


Relationships between adult gender extremes in German

One result of this are some linguistic asymmetries that should be eliminated in gender-equitable language. Thus, in German until the recent past between woman and Miss differentiated, while something similar for man or Lord not exist. In addition to this non-existence of a male equivalent, which also affects Virgo , these paired lexemes also behave asymmetrically:

Man Woman
Taken alone, nothing speaks against this basic opposition; it can only be problematic in combination with the following pairs of terms.
Man - woman
Like most masculines, men can in principle be moved to a feminine term using the affix { -in }. This happens especially for compound words like Hauptmann - Hauptmannin , where other variants like Hauptfrau are already semantically occupied differently. This strengthens the prototypical association of man with man , especially since the words are etymologically closely related, and explains why there is no female counterpart to team .
Man - woman or male - female
Although the noun woman can only be used pejoratively in contemporary parlance, this connotation is missing from the derived adjective that instead of? fraulich or * fräulich is used.
Lord - lady
This pair of terms is used for polite or subordinate designation, especially in the impersonal form of address. It could be criticized from a socio-critical point of view because it depicts hierarchical social roles (cf. comrade , citizen ), but taken in isolation it would be unproblematic from a feminist point of view, as both lexemes differ from the basic pair of men and women . However, the seemingly related, strongly judgmental adjectives are sometimes problematized wonderfully and stupidly .
Lord - mistress
Also this masculine, unlike the family names brother, father, uncle , can be moved and is then only suitable for hierarchical relationships.
Mr. Mrs
In the personal salutation, possibly supplemented by the (surname) name, a mixture of the previously mentioned pairs is used. This is sometimes seen as problematic because Mr. has a much stronger social hierarchical component. As formal diminutive mistresses and masters in the sense of 'pet owners', the lexemes are equivalent.
Guy - woman
In some pairings, Kerl is also used for the masculine form, such as devil guy , devil woman . In contrast to Herr und Mann , Kerl is never promoted to * Kerlin .
Ø - Miss
Neither Herrlein nor Mannlein is an antonym to Fräulein , which (unlike Junker ) was used both as a salutation and as a designation until the late 20th century.
Male - Ø
In the sense of 'figure' (for example Ampelmännchen ), females do not appear in pairs with males and neither can mistress be used in this way. Occasionally, unusually, the phonologically related girl appears as an alternative.
-man - Ø
In some compound words such as Blaumann denote the inanimate, may man will be substituted by no female lexeme.
Ø - woman
Some compound words, such as virgin and cleaning lady , are so strongly feminine that no male counterpart has so far developed or maintained (see Junker ). However, a man is also referred to as a Virgo who was either born under the zodiac sign of the same name or who has no sexual experience.
man - Ø
The generalized personal pronoun man is etymologically more closely related to man than to man , but since it is pronounced like man , it is also under criticism and in some cases parallel formed (* woman , * fra ) or reshaped (* human , * men ) Neologisms are used.

Lack of visibility of femininity in pronouns

The German system of possessive and personal pronouns only distinguishes between the sexes in the third person singular, while other languages ​​also differentiate in the plural ( e.g. French) or in the first or second person, but some do not at all.

There were various suggestions for new pronouns to be introduced , for the general use of the neutral pronoun (es) or for the use of the genderless plural (they) also for the singular (like the English " singular they "). However, in German, some forms of the neuter pronoun correspond to the masculine (such as sein ) and the plural of the third person resembles the feminine singular (she, hers) . In practice, however, denominations (pair forms), reformulations (neutralization) and the generic use of the masculine are common. The same applies to relative pronouns and attributes that adopt the inflected form of the noun to which they refer, especially since the endings are similar.

3rd person pronouns
staff Possessive Relative Demonstrative Reflexive
Nom Acc Date gene Nom Acc Date gene Nom Acc Date gene Nom Acc Date gene
neuter it it him his his e his n his m / r / n his s / r the the the whose the the the whose themselves
Masculine he him of the the of the the
Feminine she she her of their her e their n your m / r / n your s / r the the of the their the the of the their
Plural them those those their

Political Correctness

In the 1980s, a language criticism came to Europe from the USA , pointing to discriminatory phenomena in language and reflecting on linguistic expressions in terms of their colonial, racist and sexist connotations.

In the 1990s, a campaign against political correctness ("PC" for short) by neo-conservatives from the USA was started by conservative and, above all, right-wing extremist media in Germany. Diedrich Diederichsen and authors from the Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research examined this discourse in the FRG from the very beginning. They showed that such a language criticism from the “neoconservative” language maintenance side is only disparagingly referred to as political correctness . With this designation, a critical language criticism is assumed to be a form of taboo and it is thus stigmatized in order to reject and fend off further reflections on language.

Language criticism in a European comparison

Language and its use are reflected on and criticized in many language cultures. A comparative perspective is particularly interesting. It provides references to common and different language ideologies. The “practice of judgmental language reflection” is being investigated in the European Language Criticism Online (ESO) project . The project provides a comparative perspective on language criticism in European language cultures; Language criticism appears here as a special form of language reflection in which cultural ways of thinking and acting are shown. So far, practices of language and communication evaluation in the European cultural area have not been systematically compared. The project develops a conceptual history of European language criticism. The results are published in the handbook European Language Criticism Online (HESO) to a public interested in the language . The examination languages ​​are currently German, English, French, Italian and Croatian.

See also


Language critical works

  • Hans Jürgen Heringer : Wood fire in the wooden stove. Essays on political language criticism. Tübingen 1982.
  • Theodor Ickler : Critical commentary on the "new regulation of German spelling". (= Erlanger studies. Volume 116). with an appendix to the “Mannheim hearing”. 2., reviewed u. exp. Edition. Palm & Enke publishing house, Erlangen / Jena 1999, ISBN 3-7896-0992-7 .
  • Hans-Martin Gauger : What we say when we talk. DTV, Munich 2007, ISBN 978-3-423-34384-8 .
  • Hubert Ivo: Teaching German after 1945 . Verlag Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-631-39385-7 .
  • Victor Klemperer : LTI [Lingua Tertii Imperii]. Philologist's notebook . Aufbau-Verlag, Berlin 1947.
  • Walter Krämer : Interfere or look the other way - problematic German language . (Lecture on the award of the German Language Prize 1999; Weimar, September 24, 1999). In: Henning Kaufmann Foundation for the Care of the Purity of the German Language (Ed.): Deutscher Sprachpreis 1999. Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, Essen 1999, pp. 30–37.
  • Uwe Pörksen : Plastic words. The language of an international dictatorship. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2004, ISBN 3-608-93614-9 .
  • Michael Rudolf : Atmo. Bingo. Creed. The ABC of cult Germans. Edition Tiamat, Berlin 2007, ISBN 978-3-89320-111-2 .
  • Rainer Wimmer: The language criticism comes from the language itself: reflection is required. In: The Language Service. Issue 3–4, 2009, pp. 77–90.
  • Daniel Valente: Political Language in the Chancellor's Duel: A Politolinguistic Analysis. Saarbrücken 2010, ISBN 978-3-639-28971-8 .
  • Hans Jürgen Heringer, Rainer Wimmer: Language criticism. UTB, Paderborn 2015, ISBN 978-3-8252-4309-8 .

Scientific engagement with language criticism

  • Aptum. Journal for language criticism and language culture. : Hempen, Bremen. ISSN  1614-905X .
  • Philosophy as language criticism in the 19th century . Frommann-Holzboog, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. (problemata)
  • Vincent Balnat, Barbara Kaltz: Language criticism and language maintenance in the early 20th century: Attitudes to "foreign words" and "short words". In: Bulletin of the Henry Sweet Society for the History of Linguistic Ideas. 49, 2007, pp. 27-37.
  • Ekkehard Felder, Horst Schwinn, Katharina Jacob: Language standardization and language criticism (language standard criticism) in German. In: Ekkehard fields et al. (Hrsg.): Handbuch Europäische Sprachkritik Online (HESO) . Volume 1: Language standardization and language criticism. University Publishing, Heidelberg 2017, ISBN 978-3-946054-59-7 .
  • Wolfgang Müller: German for thought leaders and thinkers. In: text + write. (Critical language contributions from issue 1/1981 to issue 4/1994).
  • Thomas Niehr (Hrsg.): Linguistics and language criticism. Perspectives on their mediation. Hempen, Bremen 2014, ISBN 978-3-944312-17-0 .
  • Peter von Polenz : History of Language and Language Criticism. German Language Prize 2000 from the Henning Kaufmann Foundation for maintaining the purity of the German language. (= Yearbook of the Henning Kaufmann Foundation ). 1st edition. Edition Argus, Schliengen 2000, ISBN 3-931264-12-2 .
  • Willy Sanders : Language criticism and what the "specialist" says about it. Scientific Book Society, Darmstadt 1992, ISBN 3-534-11690-9 . ( Sprachkritikastereien. 2nd, revised edition. 1998, ISBN 3-534-14110-5 )
  • Günter Saße : Language and Criticism. Investigation into the language criticism of the modern age . Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1977, ISBN 3-525-20538-4 .
  • Jürgen Schiewe : The power of language. A history of language criticism from antiquity to the present. CH Beck, Munich 1998.
  • Jürgen Spitzmüller, Kersten Sven Roth, Beate Leweling, Dagmar Frohning (eds.): Dispute language. Language criticism as applied linguistics? With a selection bibliography on language criticism (1990 to spring 2002). (= Freiburg contributions to linguistics. Volume 3). Hempen, Bremen 2002, ISBN 3-934106-21-8 .
  • Fritz Tschirch : History of the German Language. Volume I: The development of the German language in the prehistory and early days. 1966; Volume II: Development and changes in the German language from the High Middle Ages to the present . 1969.

Web links

Wiktionary: Language criticism  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
Wiktionary: Critique of language use  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations

Individual evidence

  1. Roland Barthes: The realm of signs. Frankfurt am Main 1981, p. 21.
  2. That year, students published Saussure's transcripts of his lectures under the title Cours de linguistique générale .
  3. ^ Wilhelm Kamlah , Paul Lorenzen : Logical Propädeutik. Preschool for Reasonable Speech , Bibliographisches Institut, Mannheim 1967.
  4. a b Homepage "European Language Criticism Online"
  5. Hans-Martin Gauger: Don't turn my language on! In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. February 6, 2006.
  6. Jürgen Schiewe : The power of language. A history of language criticism from antiquity to the present. Beck, Munich 1998, ISBN 3-406-42695-6 . There is also a review by Theodor Ickler in the Deutsche Sprachwelt
  7. ^ Hans-Martin Gauger : directions of language criticism. In the S. (Ed.): Speech disorders. Contributions to language criticism. Munich 1986, pp. 13-25.
  8. Peter von Polenz: German language history from the late Middle Ages to the present. Part 3: 19th and 20th centuries. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1999. (De Gruyter Study Book) ISBN 3-11-014344-5 .
  9. Uwe Poerksen: Plato's dialogue about the correctness of words and the problem of language criticism. ( Memento from August 11, 2007 in the web archive )
  10. Is the German language threatened with decay? In: publications.ub.uni.frankfurt. Retrieved August 26, 2019 .
  11. Margarete Jäger : Violence against women - through language? Unpublished lecture manuscript, edited by the Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research 2000, as of September 25, 2006.
  12. Senta Trömel-Plötz : Violence through language. In: Same (ed.): Violence through language: The rape of women in conversations. Fischer paperback, Frankfurt / M. 1984, ISBN 3-596-23745-9 , pp. 50–69, here p. 56 ( view of quotations in the Google book search); quoted from: Margarete Jäger: Violence against women - through language? Unpublished lecture manuscript, edited by the Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research 2000, as of September 25, 2006.
  13. Senta Trömel-Plötz: Father language, mother country: observations on language and politics. Women's offensive, Munich 1992, ISBN 3-88104-219-9 .
  14. ^ Luise F. Pusch : All people become sisters: Feminist language criticism. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt / M. 1990, ISBN 3-518-11565-0 .
  15. a b c d e Senta Trömel-Plötz , Ingrid Guentherodt , Marlis Hellinger , Luise F. Pusch : Guidelines for Avoiding Sexist Language Use. In: Magdalene Heuser (Ed.): Women - Language - Literature: Scientific research approaches and didactic models and experience reports for German lessons (=  ISL information on language and literature didactics . Volume 38). Schöningh, Paderborn u. a. 1982, ISBN 3-506-74088-1 , pp. 84-90 (first published in: Linguistic Reports. Issue 71, 1980, pp. 1-7).
  16. Leyla Movahedi: Gender equitable language - the ORF and linguistic equal treatment based on the program "concrete - the ServiceMagazin". Diploma thesis University of Vienna 2009, p. 64–96: Guidelines - an overview , here p. 64–67 (supervised by Johanna Dorer , Faculty of Social Sciences; download page ).
  17. ^ Greville G. Corbett: Sex-based and Non-sex-based Gender Systems. In: Dryer, Matthew S. & Haspelmath, Martin (Eds.): The World Atlas of Language Structures Online (WALS). Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology , Leipzig 2013, Chapter 31, accessed on July 13, 2020.
  18. Brigitta Huhnke: "pc": The new mantra of the neoconservatives. In: Andreas Disselnkötter, Siegfried Jäger u. a. (Ed.): Evidences in the Flow : Loss of Democracy in Germany. Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research , Duisburg 1997, ISBN 3-927388-60-2 , pp. ?? - ??.
  19. ^ Katrin Auer: "Political Correctness": Ideological code, enemy image and stigma word of the right. In: Austrian Journal for Political Science . Volume 30, No. 3, 2002, p. 294.
  20. ^ Rainer Wimmer: "Political Correctness": a case for language criticism. In: Andreas Disselnkötter, Siegfried Jäger u. a. (Ed.): Evidences in the Flow : Loss of Democracy in Germany. Duisburg Institute for Linguistic and Social Research , Duisburg 1997, ISBN 3-927388-60-2 , pp. ?? - ??.
  21. ^ Diedrich Diederichsen: Political corrections. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1996.
  22. Ekkehard fields, Katharina Jacob: The practice of judgmental language reflection in European societies as a mirror of their self-image. The European Language Criticism Online (ESO) project. In: Thomas Niehr (Hrsg.): Linguistics and language criticism. Perspectives on their mediation. Hempen, Bremen 2014, pp. 141–161, here: p. 142.
  23. Handbook European Language Criticism Online (HESO)
  24. Ekkehard fields, Katharina Jacob: The practice of judgmental language reflection in European societies as a mirror of their self-image. The European Language Criticism Online (ESO) project. In: Thomas Niehr (Hrsg.): Linguistics and language criticism. Perspectives on their mediation. Hempen, Bremen 2014, pp. 141–161.
  25. Katharina Jacob: When Europe reflects on its speech and constructs its own and common. The European Language Criticism Online (ESO) project. In: Jianhua Zhu, Jin Zhao, Michael Szurawitzki (eds.): Files of the XIII. International German Studies Congress Shanghai 2015 - German Studies between Tradition and Innovation. (= Publications of the International Association for German Studies (IVG ). 21). Volume 2, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main et al. 2016, pp. 297–301.