Open Access

National Socialism, one could argue, was all about belonging: belonging to the ‘Volk’ or the ‘Volksgemeinschaft’, belonging to the ‘Aryan’ or ‘Non-Aryan race’, belonging to the National Socialist ‘movement’, and so on. These categories of belonging worked both inclusionary and exclusionary and they were constituted, proclaimed and enacted to a great part through language. What is more, they had to be performed through communicative acts. For the normative side of National Socialist propaganda and legislation, this seems rather obvious and one-directional. On the side of the general population, however, this entailed a mixture of communicative need to position oneself vis-à-vis National Socialism (mostly in affirmative ways), but also the urge to do so willingly. When we look at the language use of ‘ordinary people’ in different communicative situations and texts during National Socialism, we have to focus on these dimensions of discursive collusion, co-constitution and appropriation. People during National Socialism, such is our hypothesis, navigated through discourses of belonging and by that made them real and effective. Besides diaries, war letters and autobiographical writings, one way to grasp this phenomenon is to analyse petitions, i.e., letters of complaint and request sent in large numbers by ‘ordinary people’ to public authorities of the party and the state. As I will show by some examples, letter-writers tried to inscribe themselves within (what they took for) National Socialist discourses of belonging in order to legitimate their claims. By doing so, they co-constituted and co-created the discursive realm of National Socialism.

In the context of a Nordic Conference on Bilingualism, it can be a rewarding task to look at issues such as language planning, policy and legislation from a perspective of the southern neighbours of the Nordic world. This paper therefore intends to point attention towards a case of societal multilingualism at the periphery of the Nordic world by dealing with recent developments in language policy and legislation with regard to the North Frisian speech community in the German Land of Schleswig-Holstein. As I will show, it is striking to what degree there are considerable differences in the discourse on minority protection and language legislation between the Nordic countries and a cultural area which may arguably be considered to be part of the Nordic fringe - and which itself occasionally takes Scandinavia as a reference point, e.g. in the recent adoption of a pan-Frisian flag modelled on the Nordic cross (Falkena 2006). The main focus of the paper will be on the Frisian Act which was passed in the Parliament of Schleswig-Holstein in late 2004. It provides a certain legal basis for some political activities with regard to Frisian, but falls short of creating a true spirit of minority language protection and/or revitalisation. In contrast to the traditions of the German and Danish minorities along the German-Danish border and to minority protection in Northern Scandinavia (in particular to Sámi language rights), the approach chosen in the Frisian Act is extremely weak and has no connotation of long-term oriented language-planning, let alone a rights-based perspective. The paper will then look at policy developments in the time since the Act was passed, e.g. in the Schleswig-Holstein election campaign in 2005, and on latest perceptions of the Frisian language situation in the discourse on North Frisian Policy in Schleswig-Holstein majority society. In the final part of the paper, I will discuss reasons for the differences in minority language policy discourse between Germany and the Nordic countries, and try to provide an outlook on how Frisian could benefit from its geographic proximity to the Nordic world.

This replication study aims to investigate a potential bias toward addition in the German language, building upon previous findings of Winter and colleagues who identified a similar bias in English. Our results confirm a bias in word frequencies and binomial expressions, aligning with these previous findings. However, the analysis of distributional semantics based on word vectors did not yield consistent results for German. Furthermore, our study emphasizes the crucial role of selecting appropriate translational equivalents, highlighting the significance of considering language-specific factors when testing for such biases for languages other than English.

Der Beitrag untersucht Bedeutungszuschreibungen an den 30. Januar 1933 während des Nationalsozialismus. Ausgehend von der Beobachtung des hohen historisch-symbolischen Gehalts, der diesem Datum auch heute noch anhaftet, wird anhand von charakteristischen Belegstellen gezeigt, mit welchen Aufladungen die Ereignisse dieses Tages während der NS-Zeit versehen wurden, sowohl von Seiten wichtiger Instanzen des NS-Regimes, aber auch durch die Ko-Konstitution und teils strategisch-funktionale Aneignung dieser Deutungsmuster durch einzelne Mitglieder der integrierten Gesellschaft. Im Zentrum steht nicht so sehr eine spezifische kommunikative Praktik, sondern die Beobachtung, dass ein zentrales Referenzdatum des Nationalsozialismus, der 30. Januar 1933 als ›Tag der Machtergreifung‹, in unterschiedlichen kommunikativen Praktiken zur Anwendung kam bzw. dass die ›historische‹ Bedeutung dieses Datums in unterschiedlichen kommunikativen Praktiken konstituiert wurde.

„Unserdeutsch”, a creole spoken in a former German South Pacific colony, and what is now Papua New Guinea, is being extensively documented and studied by linguists for the first time. There is no time to lose, because after a chequered history the world's only German-based creole – long ignored – is facing extinction.