ABSTRACT
There are three major assumptions about Jugendsprache (henceforth JS) that are incorrect. First: that it is a recent phenomenon. Between 1749 and 1888, there appeared 21 dictionaries devoted to the ‘language’ of students (studied in the nineteenth century by Kluge), a variety that was soon joined by that of the schools (Pennälersprache, nineteenth century) and of the Youth Movement (early twentieth century). Second: that it is a sign of a decline in educational standards amongst young people that threatens to weaken the moral and economic fibre of the nation. In 1984, the cover story of Der Spiegel captured a mood that had been growing since the mid 1970s: Deutsch [in Gothic script!]: Ächz, Würg. Eine Industrienation verlernt ihre Sprache. In this respect there is now a marked difference of opinion between researchers in the field who underline the temporary, creative aspects of JS and a public still very much concerned with its perceived detrimental effect upon the German language (Stickel 1999). Third: that there is actually such as thing as JS at all. It is significant that there is no direct equivalent of JS in English linguistic terminology, e.g. ‘Youth Language’, and that it is often marked simply as ‘slang’. The basis upon which most recent research has proceeded, is summed up aptly by Gloy et al. (1985: 115):
(1) Es gibt nicht die (eine) Jugendsprache (2) Es gibt nicht die Jugendsprache (im Gegensatz zur Erwachsenensprache) (3) Es gibt nicht die Jugendsprache, sondern das Sprechen von Jugendlichen
Accordingly, there has been a shift in research methodology in this area. It is no longer acceptable simply to use questionnaires to isolate particularly striking words (geil, A8) or grammatical agents (such as the adjectival/adverbial usage of total, null [A7] and the generalizing particle so B52) and label them JS – a method that is essentially ‘einem lexikalischen Voyeurismus verhaftet’ (Schlobinski et al. 1993: 38). This has been replaced by a broader approach based on the ethnological principle of observer participation that fully recognizes the status of JS as a vibrant variety or ‘speech style’ (Sprechstil) of German with a broad range of situation-dependent characteristics: ‘a particular configuration of structural attributes and their communicative functions, which is based on shared sets of norms and values and therefore on shared expectations, but which may vary according
to situational and interactive factors such as intention, choice of topic, audience, and context’ (Schlobinski 1995: 327).
