Anglicisms and Americanisms Can Complement Our Language, Expand Our Thinking Automated detection of anglicisms is vital for drawing more substantial. And detailed quantitative conclusions and for allowing a broader, comparative perspective of English influence on other languages. To tackle the issue of anglicisms from a cross-linguistic point of view indeed appears as the second major challenge of research as this would permit understanding the effects of English as a globalizing language on a more synthetic and comprehensive base. In the European context, Gorlach's publications (English in Europe, 2002, and A Dictionary of European Anglicisms, 2001) - offer a first step in this direction. Such approaches, however, would need to be unified by a cogent model of language contact that explains and predicts the similarities and differences found in individual contact scenarios between globalizing English and other languages. In addition, transnational research cooperations are imperative for allowing a diversified and detailed grasp on the use of English, including such immanent concerns as investigating speakers' attitudes to the occurrence of English (cf. Paivi et.al., 2008, for a recent questionnaire-based study in Finland). Researching attitudes is also essential for building a bridge between scholarly and public concerns which, as indicated above, perceive English influence from rather distant perspectives. As the studies by Spitzmiiller (2005) and Pfalzgraf (2006) show, public discourse on anglicisms in German has experienced an upsurge of purism since the 1980s. Spitzmiiller (2005:113) links this fact to a general rena-tionalization of anglicism discourse in the eighties and nineties latently caused by allied politics after World War II, and foremost because of the rising economic and technological dominance of the USA. Similarly, Pfalzgraf (2006:311) stresses the role of the USA as a sole superpower (after the breakdown of the USSR) and the reunification of Germany as reasons for increasing neo-purist tendencies in the early nineties. Two events appear as particularly crucial for the shaping of public opinion in the nineties. First of all, the passing of the Loi Toubon in France, which restricts the use of English terminology in official documents (cf. Grigg, 1997), has set off a discussion for similar legislation in Germany. As Spitzmiiller (2005:129) reports, this politicization of anglicism discourse intensified at the beginning of the new millennium when a delegate of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) put in an official request for a law protecting the German mother tongue against anglicisms ('Schutz der deutschen Mut-tersprache vor Anglizismen'). Such a step, however, was not considered necessary and was brushed off by the government. Thus far, the political climate has disfavoured a language law and has taken a stance of non-interference. A statement by the then president of the Bundestag, Wolfgang Thierse, is indicative of the political attitude at the time: Outright rejection of foreign words and Germanizing purism are not reasonable in times of Europeanization and globalization. The inflationary and thoughtless use of foreign words can lead to difficulties in understanding, even to a loss of means of expression in our mother tongue. Reasonably and sensitively employed, however, anglicisms and americanisms can complement our language, expand our thinking, and, on the whole, enrich our culture. This statement decries purist tendencies as irrelevant in the current context of Europeanization and globalization while, at the same time, it appeals to reason and sensitivity in the use of English in German. Such a benevolent but cautious attitude to anglicisms is representative for non-purist public opinions (see below).
Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5
Not yet Rated
