ABSTRACT
The history of public discourse in the post-war period has been heavily influenced by the socio-political agenda. Over the last 50 years there have been many debates and running themes, some of which have strongly shaped modern ways of life and the political situation in Europe: debates about economic systems (Planwirtschaft, Marktwirtschaft), the question of Europe, the role of military forces in Germany, questions and problems of education, the image of young people as well as their lifestyle with all its changing dangers and problems (drugs, violence, the 1968 student revolts) and their particular way of speaking (see ch. 37), the problem of foreign words in German, relations between the two Germanies, Vergangenheitsbewältigung, the threat of terrorism, the changes in many aspects of private life and sexual practice, questions of energy production and the environment, debates about development aid, foreign workers, immigration and ethnic integration. These topics, to which others could easily be added, were recently analysed in a seminal study Kontroverse Begriffe (Stötzel and Wengeler 1995) by a Düsseldorf research group. Linguistically, the importance of public discourse and of ‘public topics’ consists of three main aspects:
The way such topics are dealt with brings about certain views and attitudes with regard to people, groups, events, etc. Whilst there is no direct or causal relation between language use and attitudes – the former being connected and filtered by intermediary aspects such as the understanding of utterances and critical reflection – public discourse does fundamentally shape the views, attitudes and beliefs of people, contributing to public decision making and the eventual successful (or otherwise) outcome of such decisions.
A broad spectrum of forms of communication and text-types is now used for dealing with topics of public interest, ranging from speeches and debates in committees to talkshows, radio interviews and reporting in newspapers and other media. Whilst clear examples can be found of attempts in these fields to shape certain views intentionally, public language usually functions much more subtlely. Employing certain linguistic means commits the language user to a certain view, even if (s)he does not have the intention of shaping the views of others, e.g. in reporting and commenting on immigration issues the three words Zuwanderung, Zuwanderungsstrom, Zuwanderungsflut move from neutrality to an articulation of threat. All referential expressions therefore commit the user to a view about the kind of object under discussion. Thus the traditional distinction between ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ is not particularly helpful when it comes to dealing with language use and views.
Public discourse has had important consequences for the development of temporary and standardized German vocabulary. As in other fields, lexical innovations always far outnumber the items that eventually establish themselves in the lexicon (Fritz 1998: ch. 3). Frequently, such words are coined by politicians and spread quickly by the media, although the diffusion process can be more complex, e.g. when terms are taken up first by politicians from the Fachsprache of specialist communities before dissemination to a broader audience. In addition, already extant terms can be used in new or more specific ways, e.g. words such as Begabung, Auslese or Elite had long since been available in German, but were used in specific ways and within specific vocabulary networks and traditions of usage in debates about education and Bildungspolitik (see Stötzel and Wengeler 1995: ch. 5). Auslese and related terms, for example, which have a history in natural science (reception of Darwin), were used in Nazi politics and pedagogy, and still circulate in contemporary discussions in Germany and related cultures (e.g. France, Japan).
