Conceptual Metaphors In Public Anglicism Discourse

By Author: ANN
Total Articles: 95
Comment this article

To commence the analysis with the two interviews that, among the articles found in Die Welt, represent most outspoken criticism on the usage of anglicisms in German, it is, first of all, interesting to note the striking parallels in the application of argumentative devices. These are generally reminiscent of purist discourse framing. Thus, at the beginning the respondents give a personal statement that clearly positions their opinion. This position is supported in the following by pseudo-factual information.

As further strategies that are typical of a purist complaint tradition, both interviewees denounce the Germans' mentality towards their own language and their allegedly subservient adoration of American English language and culture. These statements serve as indirect appeals to overcome a diagnosed Thomas Sabo Jewellery inferiority complex, to abandon a state of serfdom, and to be self-confident in being and speaking German. Finally, Wolf Schneider also takes recourse to a historical role model in order to moralize on the conditions that render English borrowings felicitous ...
... in German.

This was expressed best by Voltaire more than 200 years ago. He said that if one would like to import a foreign word, it has to be necessary first of all, secondly be comprehensible for everyone, and thirdly be conveniently pronounceable. In order to dig deeper into the structure of public discourse, the analysis will shift to the metaphorical images used in these interviews and in the other articles. The analysis follows Lakoff & Johnson's (2003 [1980]) framework of cognitive metaphor theory as it has been applied by numerous scholars since. The particular hypothesis for this study is that the metaphoric imagery in anglicism discourse is indicative of underlying conceptualizations of language and the occurrence of anglicisms. In addition, an analysis of metaphors as embedded conceptualizations from primary to more elaborate mappings can help to explain the similarities and the differences between public and academic discourse on anglicisms in German.

I don't think that the political climate in Germany allows any legal measures to hunt anglicisms. As the examples show, purist imagery in the discourse samples is built upon conceptualizing language as a material entity, as an organic (inanimate entity), and as an organism. The particular evaluative traits that depart from these general conceptualizations of language towards negative assessments of English influence on German draw upon images of mistreatment, impurity (mixing), carelessness, and inflicted sickness. As such, contact with English is depicted as harmful physical action on the (in) organic entity of German, and English elements, i.e. anglicisms, are perceived as aggressors and dangerous substances impinging on the integrity and functional, i.e. healthy, state of German. As far as non-purist public discourse is concerned, the metaphoric conceptualizations of the use of anglicisms in German are summarized below. The examples are taken from the remaining seven articles in Die Welt that discuss the influence of English on German from a more balanced perspective.

While on a general conceptual level, non-purist public discourse draws on similar basic metaphors conceiving of language as a material and as an organic entity, different evaluative imagery distinguishes purist from non-purist conceptualizations of English influence. Thus, images of danger, impurity, and destruction, which depict German as a passive victim of harmful English infiltrations, are cancelled in this sample of non-purist public opinions. Instead, German is conceptualized as an entity that has to be well-tended and taken care of. Furthermore, the examples Thomas Sabo Bracelets of non-purist public discourse show that contact with English is conceptualized as an act of migration. Accordingly, anglicisms emerge as migrating people or as imported goods which do not pose a threat to their recipient German. In contrast to purist discourse, the lack of danger in migratory contact with English is emphasized by portraying German as an active host who is in power to decide upon accepting or refusing the English migrants. In the second excerpt in (15a) migration of words between separate language-areas is evaluated positively as mutual enrichment.