barbe - klemperer, the accidental sociolinguistic

7/27/2019 Barbe - Klemperer, The Accidental Sociolinguistic

1/15

Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/4, 2007: 505519

DIALOGUE

Victor Klemperer:The accidental sociolinguist1

Katharina Barbe

Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois

Wer denkt, will nicht uberredet, sondern uberzeugt sein;

wer systematisch denkt, ist doppelt schwer zu uberzeugen.2

(Victor Klemperer)

During the Third Reich, the romance philologist Victor Klemperer (18811960),

a baptized Jew, lived in Dresden married to a non-Jew. After the enactment of

the N urnberger Gesetze in 1935, he lost his professorship and, in late 1938, his

access to libraries. No longer able to pursue his scholarly endeavors officially,

Klemperernonetheless tried to remainactive by recordingastute albeitalso verypersonal observations of his surroundings.These diaryentrieshad to be hidden

with friends, as the Gestapo frequently searched Klemperers residence. The

diaries in their entirety were not published until 1995 in Germany. Klemperers

selection of language-related observations from his diaries appeared for the first

time in print in 1947 as Die unbewaltigte Sprache LTI Lingua Tertii Imperii: Aus

dem Tagebuch einesPhilologen (hereafter, LTI). LTIhas subsequently beenpublished

in several editions. In a translation by Michael Brady, LTI has only recently

become available to the English-speaking market with the title The language of the

Third Reich: LTI Lingua Tertii Imperii. A philologists notebook (Klemperer 2000;hereafter, Brady).3

LTI provides perceptive and personal observations of how the Nazis both

employed and manipulated language. This paper starts with a reflection

on Klemperers LTI to set the stage. Based on Jager and Jager (1999) and

Jager (1999), I will then position Klemperers linguistic observations into

sociolinguists, more precisely, into critical discourse analysis (CDA), while

focusing on the metaphor that emerges, propaganda is a poisonous jargon,

which Klemperer uses throughout LTI.

REFLECTIONS ON KLEMPERERS LTI

Klemperer deemed it important to share his observations with a wider readership

and to attempt to understand how anything as barbaric as National Socialism

C The author 2007Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20079600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA


2/15

506 BARBE

could take root and flourish in a society with an almost unparalleled tradition of

cultural achievement (Watt 2001: 36). He personalized his intentions, which he

disclosed in the last chapter ofLTI. Two women influenced this decision. There

was Kathchen Sara,4 for two years his sixtyish room-mate of necessity, who withinfantile fervor believed him to be a chronicler of the times. And then there was

a fellow refugee, whom he met after the war and who proudly proclaimed, that

she had been locked up for a year . . . cos of certain expressions (Brady: 286).5

She had insulted Hitler and Nazi organizations. These expressions as well as LTI-words, i.e. those coined, manipulated or re-fashioned by the Nazis, are at the

basis of his discussion. On a personal level, Klemperer kept his diaries because

he believed that they helped assure his intellectual and emotional survival, and

constituted a connection to ordinary life, something that was denied to him soon

after 1933:

1.

Ich sagte mir: du horst mit deinen Ohren, und du horst in den Alltag, gerade in denAlltag, in das Gewohnliche und das Durchschnittliche, in das glanzlos Unheroischehinein . . . Und dann: ich hielt ja meine Balancierstange, und sie hielt mich . . . (LTI:313).

I told myself: you hear with your own ears, and what matters is that you listen

in specifically to the everyday, ordinary and average things, all that is devoid

of glamour and heroism . . . And moreover: I kept hold of my balancing pole,and it kept hold of me . . . (Brady: 286).

During the Nazi ascension to power, Klemperer was bitterly disappointed

because he was forcefully excluded from German society, whose nationalistic

German and conservative aims he had supported wholeheartedly. In other words,

for the first time, he was made to identify himself as a Jew (Jager 2000). There are

many places in LTIwhere he shows his ambivalence. While on the one hand, heno longer belongs in German society, on the other hand, he still feels like a German

rather than a Jew and strongly identifies with German intellectual achievements.

He attempts to put the Nazis in the pariah position by describing them as un-

German. He sees his beloved language co-opted for odious objectives. With utter

despair, he shares his doubts about the deutschen Sprachcharakter, the characterof the German language:

2.

Nie habe ich von mir aus verstanden, wie er [Hitler] mit seiner unmelodischenund uberschrieenen Stimme, mit seinen grob, oft undeutsch gef ugten S atzen,mit der offenkundigen, dem deutschen Sprachcharakter v ollig kontr aren Rhetorik

seiner Rede die Masse gewinnen und auf entsetzlich lange Dauer fesseln und inUnterjochung halten konnte (LTI: 64).

For my own part I have never been able to understand how he [Hitler] was

capable, with his unmelodious and raucous voice, with his crude, often

C The author 2007Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007


3/15

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST 507

un-Germanically constructed sentences, and with a conspicuous rhetoric

entirely at odds with the character of the German language, of winning over

themasseswith hisspeeches, of holding their attentionandsubjugating them

for such appalling lengths of time (Brady: 54).

In (2)Klemperergrieves fortheGerman language, which shouldhave prevailed

and made the Germans aware of the dangers of unsophisticated propaganda,

but which could not carry out this task. This is interesting, too, because it

iterates the assumption that good ideas should be conveyed in good language,

a descriptive linguists nightmare. If a language contains all the spiritual and

intellectual property, as Klemperer asserts, then it contains the negative as well

as the positive aspects. In his diary, he writes that all cultural elements, be they

consumed unconsciously or consciously, find their expression through language.

That is, language contains the collective intellectual property (see Jager 1999).

Thus, Klemperer maintains that the soul of a people is expressed through their

language. Speakers cannot escape or overcometheir native language, a Whorfian

notion. Klemperer has been criticized for his Whorfian ideas (see especially Watt

2001). Under the Nazis, everything that Germany once stood for either changes,

becomes contaminated, or even disappears. Klemperer asks himself whether the

people of Hitler are the same as those of Goethe. He does not seem to have the

answer to such a complex questionand there may not be an answer in the end.

His writings appear tentative as his belief is being shaken. His resignation finds

expression when he says of terms, conscripted by the Nazis for their purposes,

that perhaps this term also belongs to LTI, in German auch das gehort wohl zurLTI (Jager 2000). While Jager and Jager (1999) and Jager (2000) consider themodal particle wohl (perhaps, arguably) to indicate insecurity, I see it rather asindicating resignation and disappointment.

LTI is in some way a re-evaluation an analysis with hindsight. Klempererappears to have known something ahead of its actual occurrence (Kamper 2000:

35). For example, he talks about the treatment of pets living in Jewish families;

these pets were considered contaminated by association.

3.

Man hat uns denn auch spater unsere Haustiere: Katzen, Hunde und sogarKanarienvogel weggenommen und getotet, nicht in Einzelf allen und ausvereinzelter Niedertracht, sondern amtlich und systematisch, und das ist eine derGrausamkeiten, von denen kein N urnberger Prozess berichtet (LTI: 113).

Later they took our pets away from us, cats, dogs, even canaries, and killed

them, not just in isolated cases and out of individual malice, but officially and

systematically; this is one of those acts of cruelty which will not be mentioned

at any Nuremberg Trial (Brady: 101).

The reference to the N urnberger Prozesse is clearly made in retrospect, addedlater when he reviewed his diaries for extracts to publish as LTI. Kamper (2000:35) points to a diary entry from 1933, which appears also in LTI:



4/15

508 BARBE

4.

wo kunftig das Wort Konzentrationslager fallen wird, da wird man anHitlerdeutschland denken und nur an Hitlerdeutschland(LTI: 44/45).

I think that when in future people say concentration camp everyone willthink of Hitlers Germany and only of Hitlers Germany . . . (Brady: 36).

Kamper indicates that Klemperer could not have known the effect of such

words as Konzentrationslager or even Hitlerdeutschland in 1933. Be that as itmay, in LTI(and throughout his Tagebucher), Klemperer documents how, throughre-definition, re-introduction, new coinages and frequent repetitions, ordinary

language was used to influence citizens attitudes and judgments. In addition, the

language of extralinguistic entities took part in the indoctrination. Jager (1999,

especially pp. 6 and 14) points out that the Nazis wove a web of propagandawhich covered all official institutions. This web also reached into the private

sphere, where it even included womens pregnant bellies proudly borne for Hitler,

to produce more potential soldiers.

Klemperer refers, thus, to a whole network of language and context and

conceives a net of discourse. Many expressions and phrases with similar allusions

weave this net, which is thrown over the public and in the end is accepted by them

(cf. LTI: 126). Klemperer clearly recognizes in language the effect of discoursesand their subject-imprinting power. Speakers and listeners are at the mercy of

this discourse if they are careless and/or unwilling to interact critically with theirsurroundings (Jager 1999: 10).

KLEMPERER ASA SOCIOLINGUIST

There is disagreement in the relevantliterature regardingwhetherKlemperer can

beconsidered a sociolinguist ingeneral,or more specifically a discourseanalystas,

for example, Jager and Jager (1999) do. Some see him primarily as an individual,

personal chronicler of the impact of politics on daily life, Alltag, who was not able

to isolate linguistic matters from their societal embedding (see especially Maas1984: 209). But it is now generally accepted that linguistic matters do not appearisolated from their societal embedding. Rather language and context are seen

as being mutually informing and dependent on each other (see e.g. Bork 1970;

Reisigl andWodak 2001; Van Dijk 1985, 1998; Wodak andChilton 2005; Wodak

and Meyer 2001; and others). Klemperer uses relatively colloquial language,

not loaded with linguistic terminology (Jager and Jager 1999). His reflections

have been dismissed as moralizing language criticism by some (Maas 1984).

But, surely, the type of language used should not be at issue, especially because

linguists can gain public support only if relevant publications are accessible toan audience larger than mere specialized linguists (Van Dijk 1998, 2001: 97).

Outside of linguistics, LTIcan be analyzed in many different ways, by sociologists,philosophers, or historians, to name but a few.6



5/15


In LTI, Klemperer wrote down everything, not only the spitefulness, the absurdfolly, the lunacy accepted as reality, but also the little gestures, the remarks,

and the jokes. All in all, while he recognized the horrible reality, he also saw the

nuances and the existing contradictions (see Gerstenberger 1997: 19). Moreover,in his observations he combined linguistic and contextual issues and discussed

the effects of the same.

Klemperer describes in detail the ways in which linguistic forms are used

in various expressions and manipulations of power (Wodak 2001: 11). In the

language, or more precisely, the vocabulary, old words receive new meanings and

new words are coined on the basis of existing ones. Language becomes powerful

through its use by people in control, that is, language is not powerful on its own

it gains power by the use powerful people make of it (Wodak 2001: 10). Because

of his personal circumstances, Klemperers point of view now derives from hismembership in the dominated group (Van Dijk 2001: 96).

So far then, Klemperers LTI can and should be deemed a critical analysis.Therefore,IprimarilyfollowJager(1999)andJagerandJager(1999)andconsider

Klemperers LTI an exercise in sociolinguistics or, more precisely, in CDA, eventhough it may not seem so at first glance, nor might it have been intended to be.

Klemperer saw a close connection between language and power, and that, Jager

maintains, puts him close to modern discourse theory, which is based on the

premise that discourses transport collective knowledge through time and thus

exercise power because discourses then lead to subjective action (Jager 1999: 3).While Klemperer to a large extent looks at single words, he always does so in the

context of their use (but see Watt 2001 for a different view).

Klemperer lived his data; in this respect, he is not a detached, unbiased, and

impartial observer because he is also a victimof thesituation. Certainly, thereader

knows Klemperers point of view and his biases right from the outset. He paints

himself as the forcefully expelledcritical outsider who is compelledagainst his will

to modify or even sever his connection to German nationalistic ideas. In his role as

a participant observer, he is somewhat unreliable, in the sense that everything he

commentson alsoapplies tohimself andhis life.Klemperersanalysisisyetanotherassertion that the bynow traditional approach,to disconnect form (grammar and

lexicon) from function (usage and context), is not sustainable. What good would

it do to think about terms in the LTIdetached from their contexts? By detachingthe terms, would we ever be able to find out how they have been used, abused, and

misused? Considering propaganda to be a poisonous jargon, Klemperer ponders

how the Nazis exploited and manipulated language, as well as how the language

was, in turn, received, employed, and applied.

PROPAGANDAATWORK: EINGIFTIGER JARGONA POISONOUS JARGON

Language molds its speakers, which generally prevents speakers from stepping

outside their language and observing that there are as Tyler (1978) points

out other ways of being in the world. This influence ranges from the rather



6/15

510 BARBE

trivial (assuming the existence of relative clauses in every language) to the more

profound, considering speakers of other languages to be simply mistaken in

their conduct of life, and to feel thus justified in treating the unknown other

with contempt. To an extent, Klemperer was able to step outside because hewas excluded; at the same time though, he was not immune to propaganda.

Throughout LTI he addresses the power that a propaganda machine exerts inredefining linguistic terms, and he uses the metaphor propaganda is a poisonous

jargon to describe the influence of propaganda. Klemperer asserts that the use of

the Nazi language leads to Nazi thinking, again a Whorfian notion:

5.

. . . nicht nur nazistisches Tun, sondern auch die nazistische Gesinnung, die

nazistische Denkgewohnung . . . (hat als) N ahrboden die Sprache des Nazismus(LTI: 10).

. . . (not) only Nazi actions . . . but also the Nazi cast of mind, the typical Nazi

way of thinking . . . (has as) its breeding ground: the language of Nazism

(Brady: 2).

He further notes how the breeding ground of Nazism is reflected in language

and then internalized by the citizens.

6.

. . . der Nazismus glitt in Fleisch und Blut der Menge uber durch die Einzelworte,die Redewendungen, die Satzformen, die er ihr in millionenfachen Wiederholungenaufzwang, und die mechanisch und unbewut ubernommen wurden (LTI: 23).

. . . Nazism permeated the flesh and blood of the people through single words,

idioms and sentence structures which were imposed on them in a million

repetitions and taken on board mechanically and unconsciously (Brady: 15).

It was ordinary language that was used to influence citizens attitudes and

judgments through re-definition, re-introduction, new coinages, and frequent

repetitions. Because of the persistent automatic and involuntary absorption,words can function like tiny doses of arsenic. Initially, the doses are swallowed

unnoticed and without any apparent effects. However, after longer exposure the

poison starts to take effect, and then a subtle, and ultimately more substantial

transformation in attitudes can be detected. Klemperer notes that even those who

suffered under the Nazis were not immune to the regimes misinformation. As he

relates in his discussion of the word organisieren, he caught even himself usingNazi-words (see also Schmitz-Berning (2000), Brackmann and Birkenhauer

(1988), Sternberger, Storz and Sukind (1989) and Friedlander (1980) for a

discussion of the LTIword organisieren):

7.

Aber wer hat denn gestern erst gesagt: Ich mu mir ein bichen Tabakorganisieren? Ich f urchte, das bin ich selber gewesen (LTI: 114).



7/15


But who was it that said only yesterday I must organize some tobacco for

myself? I fear it was me (Brady: 102).

Klemperer has been accused of usingLTI

-words seemingly unawares and

without explanation (Watt 2001: 38). While, at times, that criticism may be

valid, I believe in a few instances his usage ofLTI-words may be due primarily tocarelessness. At other places, Klemperer seems to use them intentionally. Watt

(2001: 39) claims that Klemperer uses the word Sippe, i.e. family, clan, withoutany apparent sign of embarrassment in the following instance:

8.

Aber in welchen Zusammenhangen war denn dieser Generation, die 1933 nochkaum uber das Abc hinaus gewesen, das Wort heroisch mit seinem ganzen

Sippenzubehor ausschlielich entgegengetreten? (LTI: 11, emphasis added).

But after all, in what contexts had this generation come across the word

heroisch {heroic} and all its kindred spirits, a generation which in 1933 hadbarely mastered the alphabet? (Brady: 2).

Here Klemperer writes about heroisch, which as an LTI-word has aSippenzubehor, an LTI-family. His usage of the LTI-term Sippe can be also be seenas being intentional. In the context and description of the LTI-word heroisch it isclearlyused derisively andnegatively. Theoccasional unfairnessof Wattscriticism

becomes apparent when Klemperer is taken to task for himself using the LTI-wordausrotten (exterminate) one of the seminal words of Nazi anti-Semitism . . . quitenavelyanduncritically (Watt2001:39)inseveralplaces.Oneoftheoccurrences

in question is shown in the following excerpt:

9.

ausrottbar seien die deutschen Juden wohl (LTI: 226, Watt 2001: 39).7

the German Jews could certainly be exterminated (Brady: 207).

Note the Subjunctive I (seien) in the German version. Klemperer is indirectlyquoting from a conversation with Markwald, a fellow Jew, who was later killedin the concentration camp Theresienstadt. It is at this point not Klemperer whouses ausrottbar, but a fellow sufferer. This supports Klemperers argument thateven the sufferers use the detested terms at times, which Seidel and Seidel-Slotty

(1961) contend is quite a common occurrence. Nobody seems to be immune to

propaganda.

In order to illustrate the infectiousness of propaganda and its far-reaching

effects, Klemperer relates an incident which happened on a Bornholm to

Copenhagen boat trip. He describes a chain reaction of seasickness (cf. LTI:4849). After one person throws up over the railing, everybody else at first smilescompassionately while secretly assuming that this is not going to happen to

me, but in the end, of course, nobody is left standing. Through this anecdote he

describes the influence of the new language of the Nazis, implying that nobody



8/15

512 BARBE

can willingly escape propaganda any more than one can escape the onset and

effects of seasickness. The effect of the propaganda is compared to the action of

throwing up. So in a shared surrounding, the often choppy waters of the Baltic

Sea leading to Copenhagen, participant A succumbs to seasickness, participantB, literally and figuratively inthesameboat, observes A throwing up and cannot

suppress his/her own reflex and joins A, the same then happens with C, D, and on

downtheline.Klempererputsallparticipantsinthesamecontext,Germany,while

A resists the lure of propaganda briefly, he/she succumbs; B observes this, tries to

resist but involuntarily, reflexively also surrenders. This is the explanation of

the effects of propaganda, which he describes as contagious and involuntary. So,a recurring argument in LTI, using metaphors of poisoning (examples 1012),sickness, infection, or disease (1315), is the discussion of propaganda as leading

to an involuntary consumption:

10.

Worte konnen sein wie winzige Arsendosen: sie werden unbemerkt verschluckt, siescheinen keine Wirkung zu tun, und nach einiger Zeit ist die Giftwirkung doch da(LTI: 2324).

Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear

to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all

(Brady 2000: 15).

Klemperer notes that even those people who surely were not Nazis were still

not immune to the poison, which, as we have seen in (7), includes even himself:

11.

Keines war ein Nazi, aber vergiftet waren sie alle (LTI: 108).

None of them were Nazis, but they were all poisoned (Brady: 96).

But they could not do anything against this poison as it was spread in the LTIdrinking water, and drinking water is a primary human nutritional need.

12.

Das Gift ist uberall. Im Trinkwasser der LTI wird es verschleppt, niemand bleibtdavon verschont (LTI: 105).

The poison is everywhere. It is borne by the drinking water of the LTI, nobodyis immune to its effects (Brady: 93).

Here the poison is accidentally ingested, in particular because it is contained

in the drinking water. The poison can also be the poison of disease. Involuntary

action is also insinuated in the sickness metaphors (see also Jager 1999):

13.

Wie sich Trichinen in den Gelenken eines Verseuchten ansammeln, so h aufen sichCharakteristika und Klischees der LTI in den Familienanzeigen (LTI: 133).



9/15


Just as trichinae gather in the joints of someone with an infection,

so the characteristic features and cliches of the LTI gather in personalannouncements (Brady: 119).

Discussing the dangers ofLTI, Klemperer compares them to a plague, yet anothermetaphor implying involuntary infection:

14.

Seuchen sollen ja immer dort am heftigsten wuten, wo sie zum erstenmal grassieren(LTI: 244).

. . . epidemics are supposed to spread like wildfire in places they assail for the

first time (Brady: 222).

An epidemic initially infects a people who do not yet have access to antibodies,whose bodies are incapable of fighting it. Clearly this constitutes an involuntary

seizure of the afflicted. Klemperer notes that even a deeply religious principal of

a Catholic school, who retired rather than become a party member, replied upon

being asked for an explanation of his sons unusual name, Isbrand Wilderich:

15.

So hie der Mann unserer aus Holland stammenden Sippe im siebzehntenJahrhundert (LTI: 91).

In the seventeenth century it was the name of one of our kin {Sippe}, whichoriginally came from Holland (Brady: 80).8

Klemperer notes that by using the term Sippe alone, even the anti-governmentprincipal showed his Nazi infection. Note that in (15) Klemperer quotes the

principal. Sippe is also translatable as relatives, family, clan, or tribe (see also above(8)). It was rarely used before the Nazi era. During the Nazi regime this term was

elevated and used especially in agrarian literature (Schmitz-Berning 2000: 574

ff.). Following the poison metaphor, the unfortunate principal could not help

becoming infected because propaganda is a poison swallowed involuntarily. Is

the poison perhaps homegrown, as Klemperer writes in (16)?

16.

Erwies es sich, da es sich hierbei um ein spezifisch deutsches, aus deutscherGeistigkeit gesickertes Gift handelte, dann half kein Nachweis ubernommenerAusdr ucke, Br auche, politischer Manahmen: dann war der Nationalsozialismuskeine eingeschleppte Seuche, sondern eine Entartung des deutschen Wesens selber,eine kranke Erscheinungsform jenertraits eternels (LTI: 147).

Were it to be proved that this was a specifically German poison, one oozing

out of German intellectualism, then evidence of expressions, customs andpolitical measures appropriated from abroad would be of no use: if that was

the case, then National Socialism was not an imported scourge but rather a

degeneration of the German character itself, a diseased manifestation of those

traits eternels (Brady: 132).



10/15

514 BARBE

What if this poison is seeping out of the German collective psyche? What

if German intellectualism constitutes an especially fertile ground for National

Socialism? What if National Socialism was not imported but homegrown?

Klemperer asks himself these questions without ever really providing answers.But even in (16) he seems to find a way out by stating that the traits eternels werediseased. A disease as discussed above is involuntarily acquired. In order to

eradicate a disease, the infective agents, the culture, the event(s), the people who

infected the Germans have to be found. So again, he locates a culprit outside of

the German mindset. Sickness is still involuntary and blameless. At this point

it seems that Klemperer is an apologist and the criticism of Maas (1984), Watt

(2001) and others is appropriate.

However, in several instances, Klemperer takes the Germans to task when

he bemoans the voluntary befoggedness of most citizens. He undoubtedlyrecognizes a voluntary aspect of accepting propaganda when he describes

propaganda as an intoxicator (17), a drug (18) or even as bait (19). He refers

judgmentally to an acquaintance as a not particularly well educated, morally

upright burgher and calls him a:

17.

kleinburgerlicher Kr amer, der sich von hunderttausend Standesgenossen nurdadurch unterschied, da er sich von den verlogenen Phrasen der Regierung nicht

betrunken machen lie(LTI

: 74).

petty-bourgeois grocer who only differed from hundreds of thousands of his

kind in not allowing himself to be intoxicated by the perfidious phrases of the

government (Brady: 64).

To follow Klemperers metaphor: if the intoxicating substance is so easily

available,and,moreover,offeredaslegitimate,andifeverybodyisingestingit,then

it is much simpler to become intoxicated than to stay sober. A critical evaluation

of what one hears (ingests) takes effort, and at this juncture some action on the

part of the speaker, however reluctant, is necessary. In order to imbibe, one has

to lift a bottle or glass to the mouth. Once the bottle or glass is at the mouth,

then drinking is effortless, so no thinking is involved. Similarly, a narcotic or drug

needs be consumed. One needs to have:

18.

das eingeschluckte, das umnebelnde Rauschgift (LTI: 106).

swallowed the mind-numbing drug (Brady: 94).

Swallowing is yet again a voluntary action. Accordingly, taking Rauschgift (in

German a compound ofRausch (intoxication) and Gift (poison)), just like imbibingintoxicating drinks, actually requires the consumers cooperation. An individual

neednot consume drugs and alcohol in order tosubsist, but doing somay well lead

to dependency and a craving for more. In this case, the consumption is officially

encouraged and inhibitions may be overcome because it is a communal action,



11/15


generally accepted as reasonable. For the individual as a member of a group,

conforming becomes easier than defiance. The majority were probably content

to swim with the tide (Townson 1992: 149). Bait also has to be resisted actively.

An enticing pledge promises more than it can keep. Klemperer considers Stievesbook Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (History of the German people) published intwelve editions between 1934 and 1942, to be a:

19.

. . . guter K oder, sein Gift ist in unschuldige Brocken gewickelt (LTI: 288).

. . . good bait, its poison . . . wrapped up in innocent scraps (Brady: 263).

Bait is surely a lure which can be resisted, so here again collaboration is needed

for one to fall for the bait. Klemperer knows that it is harder to refuse to go

along with the general trend than to submit to it. To recapitulate, Klemperer

describes propaganda as either involuntarily (1015) or voluntarily (1719)

received, internalized and accepted as truth. He also considers a number of

prerequisites which are necessary for propaganda to be effective and to influence

the masses. The first of these (20) requires the electorate to refrain from

questioning:

20.

Hitlers . . . oberstes Gesetz lautet uberall: la deine H orer nicht zu kritischem

Denken kommen, behandle alles simplistisch! (LTI: 193).

Hitlers . . . golden rule is always: dont let your listeners engage in critical

thought, deal with everything simplistically (Brady: 176).

The masses need to be kept ignorant; their minds can be completely dulled

(Brady: 217). Klemperer uses Verdummbarkeit here, -keit involves a process, herea process of making stupid. Ideally, to be easily influenced, the population

need to be both primitive types (Brady: 208) and childlike masses (Brady:

209). Note that Klemperer does not include himself in the masses he describes

although he criticizes himself for occasionally falling under the spell (see above(7)). Klemperer admits that it is not easy to elude these power grabs because

of the endless repetition of lies and half-truths, as well as the twisting of facts.

He concludes that the unquestioning acceptance of authority and the resulting

subservience, paired with a reluctance to question authority, make the public

susceptible to propaganda.

Klemperer chastises even himself for unreflected actions prior to 1933, the

time when he still belonged. He remembers his tendency to overgeneralize and

to put himself above others and notes contritely:

21.

Sage nie wieder Der Bauer oder Der bayerische Bauer, denke immer an Den Polen,an Den Juden! (LTI: 307).



12/15

516 BARBE

Make sure you never again say The Farmer or The Bavarian Farmer, dont

forget The Pole and The Jew! (Brady: 280).

In addition, he bemoans his past attitude of judging a group either based

on stereotypes (All Poles are . . .) or generalizing an individuals frowned-upon

actions or behavior to cover all of his/her compatriots.

22.

Vielleicht hatte vordem auch ich zu oft DER Deutsche gedacht und DER Franzose,statt an die Mannigfaltigkeit der Deutschen und Franzosen zu denken (LTI: 311)

Had I too also once thought too readily about THE German and THE

Frenchman, rather than keeping in view the diversity of the Germans and

the French? (Brady: 284).

LTIand the diaries also depict Klemperers personal development, relating hisstruggle and his transition from a quasi-sympathizer to an outside observer.

Furthermore, they include Klemperers doubts and his missteps, as well as his

arrogance and feeling of intellectual superiority which appear in several places

(such as in (17)). While he admires the grocer for his steadfast opposition, he also

putshimdownas kleinburgerlich,pettybourgeois,whichamountstoaninsult.Hisis also a journey, which he openly admits. And, after all, is it not specifically in a

diary where we can freely write about our thoughts, doubts, and shortcomings?

CONCLUSION: LINGUISTIC RESPONSIBILITIES

Klemperer discusses the effects of propaganda mainly in metaphorical poisoning

terms.Ontheonehand,hesuggeststhattheNaziinfectionhappenedinvoluntary,

that the public could, therefore, do nothing against it. Moreover, this infection

spread even to those people who suffered under the regime. Thus, if this

propaganda poison affects every person without their willing participation,

includingevenJews,howcouldtheGermanpeoplebeguilty?Particularly,because

of these metaphorical choices, Klemperer has been criticized for minimizing guilt

precisely because he seems to show a way out by offering the explanation of the

involuntary aspect the I could not help it defense (see also Ehlich 1989). In

this respect, Lang (1996: 72) calls LTI a profound analysis of the spiritual andcultural prerequisites of gullible following.

Conversely, several rejoinders can be found in his writings. Not all of his

metaphors imply involuntary affusion; many imply voluntary ingestion, usually

because it is easier and more satisfying to do so than to think about what is being

consumed. In several places Klemperer rebukes those speakers who are ignorant,

uncultured, and generally unwilling to question both their own beliefs as wellas authority in general. Jager (1999) points out that Klemperer would reject

acquittal, as Klemperer calls for critical, self-reflective scrutiny of language

especially of propaganda. While ignorance leads one to be easily influenced, it



13/15


cannot be used as a justification for suspending critical thinking. The publics

voluntary submission to propaganda is a result of laziness, an unwillingness to

think,scrutinizeandquestion.Thinking,scrutinizingandquestioningtakeseffort

and can be dangerous. Klemperer calls for citizens to be perceptive; he envisions amature, thinking, and reflecting public. However, such awareness is difficult and

often reserved for people who are like Klemperer outcasts from the system.

Ultimately, Klemperer wants to entice everybody to become that thinking

personoutcastornotwhenhetalksaboutspeakers personal responsibilities. It

iseveryspeakersdutytoquestionthelanguageusedbyleaders,tobecriticalofthis

language, and not to remain ignorant. It seems that Klemperer would like every

speaker to acquire the tools for critical language evaluation. Many basic elements

of CDA are dispersed throughout LTIs pages (Jager 2000); therefore, Klemperer

can be considered a sociolinguist and, more precisely, a critical discourse analyst.This becomes especially clear in his choice of the metaphor propaganda is a

poisonous jargon as well as in the didactic aim of LTI, in which he argues thata vigilant speaker/hearer has the potential to avoid ingesting the metaphorical

poison. Klemperers colloquial language should not detract from the fact that

LTI is an example of CDA. It is vital that CDA enlightens and that it is accessibleto a large public (Van Dijk 2001), as it has a crucial role to play in the general

education of a responsible citizenry.

NOTES

1. I am indebtedto John Bentley, Wendell Johnson, and Doris Macdonald, as well as Allan

Bell, Nikolas Coupland and other reviewers for their helpful suggestions.2. (Klemperer 1967: 110). Someone who thinks does not want to be persuaded but

rather convinced; someone who thinks systematically is doubly hard to convince(Brady: 98). In the body of the text, I will provide the German original in italics

followed by the English translation.

3. Throughoutthepaper the 1967edition isused. Inthe 1947and 1967 editions, thetitleof the book was Die unbewaltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen LTI (Theunresolved language: From the notebook of a philologist LTI). Later editions, whichappeared after Klemperers death, omit unbewaltigt, which is a loaded word meaningnot yet overcome or unresolved. The title of the 1996 edition, for example, is simply

LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen.4. After the adoption of a decree (17 August 1938), Jewish women had to add the name

Sara and men Israel in order to be immediately identifiable as Jewish.

5. In the original: ein Jahr gebrummt . . . wejen Ausdr ucken (LTI: 313); the dialect placesthe fellow refugees origins in Berlin. Brady translates this into Cockney, and thus

draws on an already established link. In the German version of Shaws Pygmalionas well as in its popular adaptation My Fair Lady, Eliza initially uses the dialect ofBerlin.

6. In history, for example, Klemperers reflections have been regarded as an example

of the history of everyday life that is Alltagsgeschichte (Bartov 2000: 176; also Niven2002).



14/15

518 BARBE

7. Watt (2001) uses the 1996 LTIedition and cites p. 265 for this quote.8. Brady often includes the German term in curly brackets, especially at places where

several translations are possible and the translation cannot make the relationships

clear. Here he may have followed a convention also found in Weinreich (1999[1946]).

REFERENCES

Bartov, Omer. 2000. German soldiers and the holocaust: Historiography, research andimplication. In Omer Bartov (ed.) The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath.London: Routledge. 16284.

Bork, Siegfried. 1970. Mibrauch der Sprache: Tendenzen nationalsozialistischer

Sprachregelung. Bern and Munchen, Germany: Francke Verlag.Brackmann, Karl-Heinz and Renate Birkenhauer. 1988. NS-Deutsch:

Selbstverstandliche Begriffe und Schlagworter aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.Straelen, Germany: Straelener Manuskripte Verlag.

Ehlich, Konrad. 1989. Uber den Faschismus sprechen Analyse und Diskurs. InKonradEhlich(ed.) Spracheim Faschismus. FrankfurtamMain, Germany: Suhrkamp.734.

Friedlander, Henry. 1980. The manipulation of language. In Henry Friedlander andSybil Milton (eds.) The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide. Millwood, NewYork: Kraus International Publications. 103113.

Gerstenberger, Heide. 1997. Meine Prinzipien uber das Deutschtum und dieverschiedenen Nationalitaten sind ins Wackelngekommen wie die Zahne eines altenMannes: Victor Klemperer in seinemVerhaltniszuDeutschlandunddenDeutschen.InHannesHeer(ed.) ImHerzenderFinsternis.VictorKlempereralsChronistderNS-Zeit.Berlin: Aufbau Verlag. 1020.

Jager, Siegfried. 1999. Sprache-Wissen-Macht. Victor Klemperers Beitrag zur Analysevon Sprache und Ideologie des Faschismus. Muttersprache 109: 118.

Jager, Siegfried. 2000. Die Sprache bringt es an den Tag: Victor Klemperers Beitragzum Verstandnis des Faschismus und seiner Nachwirkungen in der Gegenwart.http://www.diss-duisburg.de/Internetbibliothek/Artikel/Klemperer.htmLast accessed December 2006.

Jager, Margaret and Siegfried Jager. 1999. Gef ahrliche Erbschaften: Die schleichendeRestauration rechten Denkens. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag.

Kamper, Heidrun. 2000. SprachgeschichteZeitgeschichte: Die Tagebucher VictorKlemperers. Deutsche Sprache 28: 2541.

Klemperer, Victor. 1947/1967. Die unbewaltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch einesPhilologen LTI. Darmstadt, Germany: Melzer Verlag.

Klemperer, Victor. 1996. LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen. Leipzig, Germany: Reclam.Klemperer, Victor (translated by Martin Brady). 2000. The Language of the Third Reich:

LTI Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologists Notebook. London/New York: Continuum.Lang, Ewald. 1996. Victor Klemperers LTI. Osnabr ucker Beitr age zur Sprachtheorie 33:

6979.Maas, Utz. 1984. Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache fand Sprache

im Nationalsozialismus: Versuch einer historischen Argumentationsanalyse. Opladen,Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.



15/15


Niven, Bill. 2002. Facing the Nazi past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich.London: Routledge.

Reisigl, MartinandRuth Wodak. 2001. Discourse andDiscrimination: Rhetorics of Racism

and Anti-Semitism. London: Routledge.Schmitz-Berning, Cornelia. 2000. Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus. Berlin:de Gruyter.

Seidel, Eugen and Ingeborg Seidel-Slotty. 1961. Sprachwandel im dritten Reich: Einekritische Untersuchung faschistischer Einfl usse. Halle, Germany: VEB Verlag Spracheund Literatur.

Sternberger, Dolf, Gerhard Storz and W. E. Suskind. 1989. Aus dem W orterbuch desUnmenschen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Ullstein.

Stieve, Friedrich. 1934. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes. Munchen/Berlin: Verlag von R.Oldenbourg.

Townson,Michael. 1992.Mother-Tongue and Fatherland. Manchester, U.K.:Manchester

University Press.Tyler, Stephen. 1978. The Said and the Unsaid: Advances in the Study of Cognition. New

York: Academic Press.Van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.). 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press.Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Ruth Wodak

and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.95120.

Watt, Roderick. 2001. Victor Klemperers experience of the totalitarian manipulationof language. In Jeffrey Welsh and Peter Lynch (eds.) Language Change: Poetry, Politics,

and Common Usage. Bloomfield Hills, Michigan: Cranbook Press. 3345.Weinreich, Max. 1999 [1946]. Hitlers Professors. The Part of Scholarship in Germanys

Crimes Against the Jewish People. New Haven, Connecticut and London: YaleUniversity Press.

Wodak, Ruth. 2001. What CDA is abouta summary of its history, important conceptsand its development. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of CriticalDiscourse Analysis. London: Sage. 113.

Wodak, Ruth and Paul Chilton. 2005. A New Agenda in (Critical) DiscourseAnalysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinary. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:Benjamins.

Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds.). 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis.London: Sage.

Address correspondence to:

Katharina Barbe

Department of Foreign Languages & Literatures

Northern Illinois University

DeKalbIllinois 60115

U.S.A.

[email protected]


barbe - klemperer, the accidental sociolinguistic

Documents