Cover not available
Article In:
Evolution and Revolution in Language and Linguistics
Edited by Janine Berns, Marie Steffens and Esther Baiwir
[Nota Bene 1:1] 2024
► pp. 14–39

Language criticism in Austrian daily newspapers

Analysis of the argumentative topoi in letters to the editor

 | Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt | KU Leuven
Letters to the editors of daily newspapers are often used to criticize linguistic phenomena. This paper presents an analysis of the language criticism in letters to the editors of three Austrian daily newspapers (Kronen Zeitung, Kleine Zeitung, and Die Presse), focusing on the argumentative topoi used in letters expressing negative attitudes towards the linguistic phenomena discussed. The analysis includes letters on two examples of natural language change (anglicisms, teutonisms) and on two cases of imposed language change (gender-fair language, political correctness). It is shown that while a number of topoi are used in both cases (mainly general topoi that consider any language change as bad), there are also a number of specific topoi especially in the case of imposed language change, typically claiming that most people are against those changes and that we have other, more important problems to worry about than making the language gender-fair or politically correct.
Keywords: language criticism, letters to the editor, gender-fair language, political correctness, anglicisms, teutonisms
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Language criticism in letters to the editor
  • 3.Aims and data
  • 4.Topics: General distribution
  • 5.Topoi in letters criticizing unnatural/imposed language change
    • 5.1Gender-fair language
    • 5.2Political correctness
  • 6.Topoi in letters criticizing natural language change
    • 6.1Anglicisms
    • 6.2Teutonisms
  • 7.Comparison and discussion
  • 8.Conclusion and outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (24)
References
Adler, Astrid & Janin Roessel. 2023. Welche Veränderungen fallen Menschen in der deutschen Sprache auf? IDS Sprachreport 39,3. 34–38.Google Scholar
Bucher, Hans-Jürgen. 1986. Pressekommunikation. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Winifred V. 2012. Myths we live and speak by. In Hüning, Matthias, Ulrike Vogl & Olivier Moliner (eds.), Standard Languages and Multilingualism in European History, 45–69. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dieckmann, Walther. 2012. Wege und Abwege der Sprachkritik. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Fandrych, Christian & Maria Thurmair. 2011. Textsorten im Deutschen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Fix, Ulla. 2007. Leserbriefe. In Habscheid, Stephan & Michael Klemm (eds.), Sprachhandeln und Medienstrukturen in der politischen Kommunikation, 213–238. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Leserbriefe. In Grösslinger, Christian, Gudrun Held & Hartmut Stöckl (eds.), Pressetextsorten jenseits der ‚News‘, 139–156. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Friedemann, Alfons. 2017. Argumentative Muster der Sprachkritik im Wandel. Aptum 13,2. 164–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gloy, Klaus. 1998. Sprachnormierung und Sprachkritik im ihrer gesellschaftlichen Verflechtung. In Besch, Werner et al. (eds.), Sprachgeschichte. 2. Auflage, 396–406 Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hennig, Jörg. 2005. Volkes Stimme — auf Redaktionslinie ausgewählt und redigiert. In Horky, Thomas (ed.), Erfahrungsberichte und Studien zur Fußball-Europameisterschaft, 129–144. Hamburg: Horky.Google Scholar
Klug, Nina-Maria. 2021. (Afro)Deutschsein. Eine linguistische Analyse der multimodalen Konstruktion von Identität. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meuleneers, Paul. 2022. Reduktionen in der medialen Debatte um die Gendersprache. GfdS lecture (online), 28-11-2022.Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Leslie Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language. 3rd edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mlitz, Andrea. 2008. Dialogorientierter Journalismus. Konstanz: UVK.Google Scholar
Muhr, Rudolf. 1995. Zur Sprachsituation in Österreich und zum Begriff ‚Standardsprache‘ in plurizentrischen Sprachen. In Muhr, Rudolf, Richard Schrodt & Peter Wiesinger (eds.), Österreichisches Deutsch, 75–109. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
Niehr, Thomas. 2019. Was linguistische Sprachkritik will, soll, kann. Aptum 15,2. 163–172. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oppenrieder, Wilhelm & Maria Thurmair. 2003. Sprachidentität im Kontext von Mehrsprachigkeit. In Janich, Nina & Christiane Thim-Mabrey (eds.), Sprachidentität — Identität durch Sprache, 39–60. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Spitzmüller, Jürgen. 2020. Fremdwortdiskurse. In Niehr, Thomas, Jörg Kilian & Jürgen Schiewe (eds.), Handbuch Sprachkritik, 218–224. Berlin: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stockinger-Ehrnstorfer, Karin. 1980. Der Leserbrief. Salzburg: Landespressebüro.Google Scholar
Torres da Silva, Marisa. 2012. Newsroom practices and letters-to-the-editor: An analysis of selection criteria. Journalism Practice 6,2. 250–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin. 2002. Understanding the conditions for public discourse: Four rules for selecting letters to the editor. Journalism Studies 3,1. 69–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wengeler, Martin. 1996. Sprachthematisierungen in argumentativer Funktion: Eine Typologie. In Böke, Karin, Matthias Jung & Martin Wengeler (eds.), Öffentlicher Sprachgebrauch, 413–430. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
. 2019. Topoi, argumentative Muster und Präsuppositionen. In Burkhardt, Armin (ed.), Handbuch politische Rhetorik, 649–669. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziem, Alexander. 2005. Begriffe, Topoi, Wissensrahmen. Perspektiven einer semantischen Analyse gesellschaftlichen Wissens. Germanistische Linguistik 180–1811. 315–348.Google Scholar