“The current rhetoric of the csu contributes to the refusal”

The linguist Anatol Stefanovich about the often discriminatory language usage in the so-called "Escape"

Anatol Stefanowitsch was born in 1970 in Berlin and studied at the Universities Hamburg and Houston English, language learning research and general linguistics. Since 2012 he is a professor for linguistics at the Free University of Berlin. Together with other language scientists, he regularly writes on the language log about political language and language policy.

"Actions Speak Louder Than Words", It is called. To what extent does the language use influence our thinking about our thinking – and thus our actions? Anatol Stefanovich: Language does not form the reality, but a perspective on the reality. In this respect, the language usage can play a crucial role in the evaluation of people and situations. A textbook example: someone who blasts a government building in the air, we can, depending on the perspective, as "terrorist" or "Freedom" describe. The choice we meet then attracts certain thought and patterns of action: we have to get a terrorist, on the other hand, to support a freedom cheaper or have at least understanding for his freedom fight. Of course, we can get through carefully thinking of such terms loose and to a more differentiated evaluation – language determines our thinking, it only suggests us certain ways of thinking. But since we do not think about many things carefully, the language uses a crucial role. Thilo Sarrazin, Pegida, Burning Flightsheime, Right Populist Tone from the Rows of the CDU / CSU: The right crawls from your hiding. How does this new legal prere be noticeable in the language usable? Anatol Stefanovich: There are one of the propagandistic voice patterns so-called "bourgeoic" Politicians and feuilletonists who may not be generally supposedly accepted, but now they are now accepted as a normal part of the public discourse – the "Fortress Europe" or the "Self-defense" Bayern against the escape policy, or the ideal demand for "Boundaries" for the inclusion of escape strings, which is nothing else than the well-known "The boot is-full"-Rhetoric in a new robe. On the other hand, stronger a voice image of escape plants is always "load" through, under the country "augely", "gaze" or "break together" threatens. Such language images are dangerous because they – more than individual words like "terrorist" or "Freedom" – steer our thoughts and arguments in prefabricated tracks. Of course, the gross number of escape strings, which are currently coming to Europe and especially to Germany, the company from gross challenges – especially as we are completely unprepared, although the situation was actually foreseeable. But this challenge as "load" To promise, our understanding begins in a way in which the opportunities that put in these challenges are completely hidden. Anatol Stefanovich, Professor for Linguistics at the Free University of Berlin. Picture: Ben Stefanovich not only right groupings, but also old people often speak of "Asylum" – often without knowing what that term actually implies. Where did this term and what about him is problematic? Anatol Stefanovich: The term appears in the 1970s – at a time when the words "Asylum seekers" and "Asylum seekers" had been established. The word "Asylum" From the beginning, served to distinguish unwanted asylum seekers from the awkwards and present as illegitimate – similarly, like today unpould "Economic escape" legitimate "Weapons of war" be delimited. The word "Asylum" Finds in negatives from the beginning – in combinations like "illegal asylum", "Criminal asylum" and "Silhouette". This negative aura surrounds any use of the word – even where it was possible without bose intention. Left groupings are currently about, instead of "Escape" from "Fucked people" or from "Refuge" to speak. why? Anatol Stefanovich: On the one hand, this groupings is the feeling that the word "Refugee" has a slightly descending balance – maybe because of the recycling "-ling", The frequently (but not extremely) occurs in negative valuable words – "Weakling", "intruder", "Scribble" etc. A really convincing argument is not that alone, as neutral or positive words with "-ling" Can be formed – for example, the word "Newcomer", that lately more often than alternative to "Refugee" proposed. On the other hand, however, the focus is also criticized on the plot of the escape, which in the word "Refugee" is – the English "Refuge" is more of the safe refuge – the refugium – directed, and the word "Refugees" Loads the escape at least in the past.

"The term asylum critic is a devilateral euphemism"

Which term Do you prefer for escape or fits. enameled people? Anatol Stefanovich: In the rough and large, I do not see any arguments, fundamentally limited to the widespread and not on negative context "Refugee" to do without and warn to talk it unnotically and thus contribute to a stigmatization. But I can the arguments for alternatives like "Refuge", "Escape" or "Refugees" very well – Again, does not ask the question that the word "better" or "proper" is, but what perspective I want to express linguistically. In the discourse is space for more than one word. And of course I became individual persons who are herself through the word "Refugee" reduced or described incorrectly, prove respect, in conversation with them as far as possible to do without the word. The feminist linguistin Luise Pusch has pointed to the fact that "the escape" as masculine is primarily interpreted by a manner. This leads to female escapears sometimes even as "Escape woman" are called – as if they are no escorts, but only married to escape strings. Even SPIEGEL ONLINE has last the term "Asylum critic" Used in a headline. How to evaluate this term? Anatol Stefanovich: This is a veiling euphemism, which is disappearing on the gland after a short career for the gland. If it is really about a criticism of asylum policy, one does not face the escape of the escape of the escape and belongs to the people who try to come to rest after a often traumatic escape. No, who wants to criticize asylum policy, must already demonstrate where laws are made, and of course genuine "Asylum critic" also know something about asylum policy and bring a few arguments. But who wives against people or does not matter because they do not "from here" are not asylum-critically motivated, but xenophobic, racist and / or nationalist. As long as these hate tirades and the hazy do not exceed the border for criminal liability, we must endure them on behalf of freedom of expression, but we do not have to go through the pradicate "critical" annoy. Currently, you have a steady one "Wave of refugees", Starting at the weekly newspaper the time, on debates in the Bundestag until everyday talk in the Cafe. What suggests this term? Anatol Stefanovich: This language picture is already a lot of age, it can also be found in the discussions of the 1990s. Word "wave", "flood" or "current", who actually relate to water masses are one of the most common language images for migration movements, not only in German, but also in other languages. When I get over escape "flood" or "wave" Speech, do I talk about it that it is individuals with very own biographies. The language picture of the "wave" brings – as well as that of the "load" – His own logic with: Water masses are a threat, and we can only mean it "row", "channel", "redirect" or "fend off" – And then we transfer this idea to our thinking about escape. Not only escapeons, other groups of people are discriminated in linguistically, especially gays and lesbians, people with disabilities and religious minorities. Which terms can be found here very bad? Anatol Stefanovich: I will not call any concrete examples, the internet is full of you anyway. But I find the words especially bad, where there is a new time for every occasion, whether you can not use them, though those affected – so those who are called the words – have been clear and clearly saying that they have been so can not be mentioned and the historical, linguistic and societal reasons to reduce in detail. Again and again, the supposed law of the majority society is defended to name a foam kiss or a pepper-ashes with racist names or to make new generations of children with the racist language of a children’s book from the 1940s. As if the tiny acquisition, the new words or literary revision bring with them, a serious argument, on the other hand, to deal more respectful with our fellow human beings. About the linguistic discrimination against women has been discussed for years. What says and write best best? Workers? Workers? Workers? Or worker * inside? Anatol Stefanovich: There are no "best" Solution, it depends on which circles you are and what you agree on there. Linguistically close to the standard are the double formulas (workers and workers). The other solutions are experimental, and everyone and everyone must decide for themselves whether and in which communication situations they are good and properly. Only one thing is clear: the so-called generic masculine – so the sole use of the manual form associated with the assertion that women were communicated – does not matter. Experiments clearly show that these forms are unconsciously understood in a manal manner and a mental effort is necessary to get to generic interpretation. That the half of the population has to stand out, whether it is just communicated, or not, is simply unacceptable. The emporting of many men, if they are conversely in contrast to a feminine form together – we remember the storm of the harvest when the University of Leipzig has formulated her basic order in feminine – shows that manner knows that very well. Which people of public life are currently considering the biggest language panscher? Anatol Stefanovich: "Spanner" Here is the wrong word – language is always in the river, we "puff" So with her every time we use it. Linguistically particularly unpleasant, however, fall on long Horst Seehofer and other CSU politicians – we remember how Seehofer spoke of it in 2010, Germany did not want to "Social Office for the whole world" and the immigration "other cultures" rejected, or how he in 2011 Bavaria "to the last cartridge" against "Immigrants in the social systems" wanted to defend. The current rhetoric of the CSU, which represents the fundamental right to asylum and steady "Boundaries" speaks, this refuses of the public discourse continues consistently. And what people certify a thorough handling of the language? Anatol Stefanovich: Hard to say. Angela Merkel maybe – she says so well as nothing, because she can hardly say anything wrong.

"We can all become speech converter heavyweights from the rank of Luther or a dpa"

Finally, a question for the possible, future development of the language. Will soon be considered as correct high German to say: "Because of the bad weather" or "I go cinema"? What awaits us in linguistic terms? Anatol Stefanovich: "Because of the bad weather" is already correct German, the genitive we actually only use in the written language. "I go cinema" will certainly not prevail very soon in the standard German, it is limited to clearly different subcultures. Overall, it is difficult to predict the future of a language. Relatively sure I am that our vocabulary will continue to grow, and of course, many English laths continue to take over. And overall I believe that the German and less discriminatory. Although this lasts as a necessary, but overall I see a positive tendency. In short, how do such a language change actually? Top-down, for example, by tying a discriminatory usage of media or dishes? Or bottom-up, for example, by igniting individuals in social networks a shitstorm or a discussion? Anatol Stefanovich: Language change takes place everywhere where language is used – any exercise has the potential to develop the language creatively. Grammatic change takes place slowly and steadily, while changing in vocabulary can be quite abrupt. Of course, it plays a role of how many people perceive an exercise with a creative innovation – it is a small circle, then the innovation has to prevail so to speak from mouth to mouth slowly, or not. If it is a rough circle, it is correspondingly faster. In this respect, the mass media has always played an important role – first of the letter printing, later newspapers and television. Martin Luther has contributed to the dissemination of many words, simply because his Bible reie was present in every household, and if the DPA or AP today use a word, it is minutes later on thousands of screens, tablets and smartphones. Social networks are distributing the dynamics here by writing individuals to write things that are distributed viral. So we can theoretically become all language converter heavyweights from the rank of Luther or a dpa. The moment must be votes and our linguistic innovations must be invited to imitation.

Patrick Spat lives as a freelance journalist and book author in Berlin.

Like this post? Please share to your friends:
Leave a Reply

;-) :| :x :twisted: :smile: :shock: :sad: :roll: :razz: :oops: :o :mrgreen: :lol: :idea: :grin: :evil: :cry: :cool: :arrow: :???: :?: :!: