Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/4, 2007: 505519

DIALOGUE

Victor Klemperer: The accidental sociolinguist1

Katharina Barbe
Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois

Wer denkt, will nicht u berredet, sondern u berzeugt sein; wer systematisch denkt, ist doppelt schwer zu u berzeugen.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, Klemperer nonetheless tried to remain active by recording astute albeit also very personal observations of his surroundings. These diary entries had 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 unbew altigte Sprache LTI Lingua Tertii Imperii: Aus dem Tagebuch eines Philologen (hereafter, LTI ). LTI has subsequently been published 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 J ager and J ager (1999) and J ager (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 2007 Journal compilation C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK, and 350 Main Street, Malden MA 02148, USA

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 of LTI . Two women influenced this decision. There thchen Sara,4 for two years his sixtyish room-mate of necessity, who with was Ka infantile 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 ho rst mit deinen Ohren, und du ho rst in den Alltag, gerade in den Alltag, in das Gewo hnliche und das Durchschnittliche, in das glanzlos Unheroische hinein . . . 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, ger 2000). There are for the first time, he was made to identify himself as a Jew (Ja many places in LTI where he shows his ambivalence. While on the one hand, he no 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 unGerman. He sees his beloved language co-opted for odious objectives. With utter despair, he shares his doubts about the deutschen Sprachcharakter, the character of the German language: 2. Nie habe ich von mir aus verstanden, wie er [Hitler] mit seiner unmelodischen und u berschrieenen Stimme, mit seinen grob, oft undeutsch gefu gten Sa tzen, mit der offenkundigen, dem deutschen Sprachcharakter vo llig kontra ren Rhetorik seiner Rede die Masse gewinnen und auf entsetzlich lange Dauer fesseln und in Unterjochung 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 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Journal compilation

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 the masses with his speeches, of holding their attention and subjugating them for such appalling lengths of time (Brady: 54). In (2) Klemperer grieves for the German language, which should have 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. ger 1999). That is, language contains the collective intellectual property (see Ja Thus, Klemperer maintains that the soul of a people is expressed through their language. Speakers cannot escape or overcome their 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 question and 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 geho rt wohl zur ger 2000). While Ja ger and Ja ger (1999) and Ja ger (2000) consider the LTI (Ja modal particle wohl (perhaps, arguably) to indicate insecurity, I see it rather as indicating resignation and disappointment. LTI is in some way a re-evaluation an analysis with hindsight. Klemperer mper 2000: appears to have known something ahead of its actual occurrence (Ka 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 spa ter unsere Haustiere: Katzen, Hunde und sogar Kanarienvo gel weggenommen und geto tet, nicht in Einzelfa llen und aus vereinzelter Niedertracht, sondern amtlich und systematisch, und das ist eine der Grausamkeiten, von denen kein Nu rnberger 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 Nu rnberger Prozesse is clearly made in retrospect, added mper (2000: later when he reviewed his diaries for extracts to publish as LTI . Ka 35) points to a diary entry from 1933, which appears also in LTI :
C The author 2007 Journal compilation C

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

508

BARBE

4. wo ku nftig das Wort Konzentrationslager fallen wird, da wird man an Hitlerdeutschland denken und nur an Hitlerdeutschland (LTI : 44/45). I think that when in future people say concentration camp everyone will think of Hitlers Germany and only of Hitlers Germany . . . (Brady: 36). mper indicates that Klemperer could not have known the effect of such Ka words as Konzentrationslager or even Hitlerdeutschland in 1933. Be that as it may, in LTI (and throughout his Tagebu cher), Klemperer documents how, through re-definition, re-introduction, new coinages and frequent repetitions, ordinary language was used to influence citizens attitudes and judgments. In addition, the ger (1999, language of extralinguistic entities took part in the indoctrination. Ja especially pp. 6 and 14) points out that the Nazis wove a web of propaganda which 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 discourses and 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 their ger 1999: 10). surroundings (Ja

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST
There is disagreement in the relevant literature regarding whether Klemperer can be considered a sociolinguist in general, or more specifically a discourse analyst as, ger and Ja ger (1999) do. Some see him primarily as an individual, for example, Ja 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 Maas 1984: 209). But it is now generally accepted that linguistic matters do not appear isolated 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 and Wodak 2001; Van Dijk 1985, 1998; Wodak and Chilton 2005; Wodak and Meyer 2001; and others). Klemperer uses relatively colloquial language, ger and Ja ger 1999). His reflections not loaded with linguistic terminology (Ja 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 to an audience larger than mere specialized linguists (Van Dijk 1998, 2001: 97). Outside of linguistics, LTI can be analyzed in many different ways, by sociologists, philosophers, or historians, to name but a few.6
C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Journal compilation

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

509

In LTI , Klemperer wrote down everything, not only the spitefulness, the absurd folly, 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 his membership in the dominated group (Van Dijk 2001: 96). So far then, Klemperers LTI can and should be deemed a critical analysis. ger (1999) and Ja ger and Ja ger (1999) and consider Therefore, I primarily follow Ja Klemperers LTI an exercise in sociolinguistics or, more precisely, in CDA, even though it may not seem so at first glance, nor might it have been intended to be. ger Klemperer saw a close connection between language and power, and that, Ja maintains, puts him close to modern discourse theory, which is based on the premise that discourses transport collective knowledge through time and thus ger 1999: 3). exercise power because discourses then lead to subjective action (Ja 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 victim of the situation. Certainly, the reader knows Klemperers point of view and his biases right from the outset. He paints himself as the forcefully expelled critical outsider who is compelled against 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 comments on also applies to himself and his life. Klemperers analysis is yet another assertion that the by now 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 LTI detached from their contexts? By detaching the 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.

PROPAGANDA AT WORK: EIN GIFTIGER JARGON A 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
C The author 2007 Journal compilation C

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

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 he was excluded; at the same time though, he was not immune to propaganda. Throughout LTI he addresses the power that a propaganda machine exerts in redefining 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 Denkgewo hnung . . . (hat als) Na hrboden 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 u ber durch die Einzelworte, die Redewendungen, die Satzformen, die er ihr in millionenfachen Wiederholungen aufzwang, und die mechanisch und unbewu t u bernommen 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 using Nazi-words (see also Schmitz-Berning (2000), Brackmann and Birkenhauer nder (1980) for a (1988), Sternberger, Storz and Sukind (1989) and Friedla discussion of the LTI word organisieren): 7. Aber wer hat denn gestern erst gesagt: Ich mu mir ein bi chen Tabak organisieren? Ich fu rchte, das bin ich selber gewesen (LTI : 114).
Journal compilation
C C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

511

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 using LTI -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 of LTI -words may be due primarily to carelessness. At other places, Klemperer seems to use them intentionally. Watt (2001: 39) claims that Klemperer uses the word Sippe, i.e. family, clan, without any apparent sign of embarrassment in the following instance: 8. Aber in welchen Zusammenha ngen war denn dieser Generation, die 1933 noch kaum u ber das Abc hinaus gewesen, das Wort heroisch mit seinem ganzen Sippenzubeho r ausschlie lich 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 had barely mastered the alphabet? (Brady: 2). Here Klemperer writes about heroisch, which as an LTI -word has a Sippenzubeho r, an LTI -family. His usage of the LTI -term Sippe can be also be seen as being intentional. In the context and description of the LTI -word heroisch it is clearly used derisively and negatively. The occasional unfairness of Watts criticism becomes apparent when Klemperer is taken to task for himself using the LTI -word ausrotten (exterminate) one of the seminal words of Nazi anti-Semitism . . . quite na vely and uncritically (Watt 2001: 39) in several places. One of the occurrences 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 indirectly quoting from a conversation with Markwald, a fellow Jew, who was later killed in the concentration camp Theresienstadt. It is at this point not Klemperer who uses ausrottbar, but a fellow sufferer. This supports Klemperers argument that even 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 smiles compassionately 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
C The author 2007 Journal compilation C

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

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, participant B, literally and figuratively in the same boat, observes A throwing up and cannot suppress his/her own reflex and joins A, the same then happens with C, D, and on down the line. Klemperer puts all participants in the same context, 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 ko nnen sein wie winzige Arsendosen: sie werden unbemerkt verschluckt, sie scheinen 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 LTI drinking water, and drinking water is a primary human nutritional need. 12. Das Gift ist u berall. Im Trinkwasser der LTI wird es verschleppt, niemand bleibt davon verschont (LTI : 105). The poison is everywhere. It is borne by the drinking water of the LTI , nobody is 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 ger 1999): action is also insinuated in the sickness metaphors (see also Ja 13. Wie sich Trichinen in den Gelenken eines Verseuchten ansammeln, so ha ufen sich Charakteristika und Klischees der LTI in den Familienanzeigen (LTI : 133).
C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Journal compilation

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

513

Just as trichinae gather in the joints of someone with an infection, s of the LTI gather in personal so the characteristic features and cliche announcements (Brady: 119). Discussing the dangers of LTI , Klemperer compares them to a plague, yet another metaphor implying involuntary infection: 14. Seuchen sollen ja immer dort am heftigsten wu ten, 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 siebzehnten Jahrhundert (LTI : 91). In the seventeenth century it was the name of one of our kin {Sippe}, which originally came from Holland (Brady: 80).8 Klemperer notes that by using the term Sippe alone, even the anti-government principal 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 deutscher Geistigkeit gesickertes Gift handelte, dann half kein Nachweis u bernommener Ausdru cke, Bra uche, politischer Ma nahmen: dann war der Nationalsozialismus keine eingeschleppte Seuche, sondern eine Entartung des deutschen Wesens selber, ternels (LTI : 147). eine kranke Erscheinungsform jener traits e Were it to be proved that this was a specifically German poison, one oozing out of German intellectualism, then evidence of expressions, customs and political 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 e ternels (Brady: 132).
C The author 2007 Journal compilation C

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

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 e ternels were diseased. 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 undoubtedly recognizes 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. kleinbu rgerlicher Kra mer, der sich von hunderttausend Standesgenossen nur dadurch 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, offered as legitimate, and if everybody is ingesting it, 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 of Rausch (intoxication) and Gift (poison)), just like imbibing intoxicating drinks, actually requires the consumers cooperation. An individual need not consume drugs and alcohol in order to subsist, but doing so may 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,
Journal compilation
C C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

515

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 Stieves book Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (History of the German people) published in twelve editions between 1934 and 1942, to be a: 19. . . . guter Ko der, 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 u berall: la deine Ho rer 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, here a 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).

C The author 2007 Journal compilation

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

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). LTI and the diaries also depict Klemperers personal development, relating his struggle 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 puts him down as kleinbu rgerlich, petty bourgeois, which amounts to an insult. His is 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. On the one hand, he suggests that the Nazi infection happened involuntary, 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, including even Jews, how could the German people be guilty? 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 and cultural 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 well ger (1999) points out that Klemperer would reject as authority in general. Ja acquittal, as Klemperer calls for critical, self-reflective scrutiny of language especially of propaganda. While ignorance leads one to be easily influenced, it
C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

Journal compilation

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

517

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, scrutinize and question. Thinking, scrutinizing and questioning takes effort and can be dangerous. Klemperer calls for citizens to be perceptive; he envisions a mature, 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 person outcast or not when he talks about speakers personal responsibilities. It is every speakers duty to question the language used by leaders, to be critical of this 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 ger 2000); therefore, Klemperer of CDA are dispersed throughout LTI s pages (Ja 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 that a 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 accessible to 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 indebted to 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. Throughout the paper the 1967 edition is used. In the 1947 and 1967 editions, the title of the book was Die unbewa ltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen LTI (The unresolved language: From the notebook of a philologist LTI). Later editions, which appeared after Klemperers death, omit unbewa ltigt, which is a loaded word meaning not 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 Ausdru cken (LTI : 313); the dialect places the fellow refugees origins in Berlin. Brady translates this into Cockney, and thus draws on an already established link. In the German version of Shaws Pygmalion as well as in its popular adaptation My Fair Lady, Eliza initially uses the dialect of Berlin. 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 Niven 2002).
C The author 2007 Journal compilation C

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

518

BARBE

7. Watt (2001) uses the 1996 LTI edition 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 and implication. In Omer Bartov (ed.) The Holocaust: Origins, Implementation, Aftermath. London: Routledge. 16284. Bork, Siegfried. 1970. Mi brauch der Sprache: Tendenzen nationalsozialistischer Sprachregelung. Bern and Munchen, Germany: Francke Verlag. Brackmann, Karl-Heinz and Renate Birkenhauer. 1988. NS-Deutsch: Selbstversta ndliche Begriffe und Schlagwo rter aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus. Straelen, Germany: Straelener Manuskripte Verlag. Ehlich, Konrad. 1989. Uber den Faschismus sprechen Analyse und Diskurs. In Konrad Ehlich (ed.) Sprache im Faschismus. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp. 734. nder, Henry. 1980. The manipulation of language. In Henry Friedla nder and Friedla Sybil Milton (eds.) The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide. Millwood, New York: Kraus International Publications. 103113. Gerstenberger, Heide. 1997. Meine Prinzipien uber das Deutschtum und die ten sind ins Wackeln gekommen wie die Za hne eines alten verschiedenen Nationalita ltnis zu Deutschland und den Deutschen. Mannes: Victor Klemperer in seinem Verha In Hannes Heer (ed.) Im Herzen der Finsternis. Victor Klemperer als Chronist der NS-Zeit. Berlin: Aufbau Verlag. 1020. ger, Siegfried. 1999. Sprache-Wissen-Macht. Victor Klemperers Beitrag zur Analyse Ja von Sprache und Ideologie des Faschismus. Muttersprache 109: 118. ger, Siegfried. 2000. Die Sprache bringt es an den Tag: Victor Klemperers Beitrag Ja ndnis des Faschismus und seiner Nachwirkungen in der Gegenwart. zum Versta http://www.diss-duisburg.de/Internetbibliothek/Artikel/Klemperer.htm Last accessed December 2006. ger, Margaret and Siegfried Ja ger. 1999. Gefa Ja hrliche Erbschaften: Die schleichende Restauration rechten Denkens. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag. mper, Heidrun. 2000. SprachgeschichteZeitgeschichte: Die Tagebucher Ka Victor Klemperers. Deutsche Sprache 28: 2541. Klemperer, Victor. 1947/1967. Die unbewa ltigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen 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. Osnabru cker Beitra ge 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.

Journal compilation

C The author 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007

KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST

519

Niven, Bill. 2002. Facing the Nazi past: United Germany and the Legacy of the Third Reich. London: Routledge. Reisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and Discrimination: 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: Eine kritische Untersuchung faschistischer Einflu sse. Halle, Germany: VEB Verlag Sprache und Literatur. Sternberger, Dolf, Gerhard Storz and W. E. Suskind. 1989. Aus dem Wo rterbuch des Unmenschen. 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 manipulation of 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: Yale University Press. Wodak, Ruth. 2001. What CDA is about a summary of its history, important concepts and its development. In Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. 113. Wodak, Ruth and Paul Chilton. 2005. A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: 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 DeKalb Illinois 60115 U.S.A. kbarbe@niu.edu
C The author 2007 Journal compilation

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007