The Language Ideology of Silence and Silencing in Public Discourse

doi:10.1017/9781108345552.010

9 - The Language Ideology of Silence and Silencing in Public Discourse

Claims to Silencing as Metadiscursive Moves in German Anti-Political Correctness Discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 June 2019

Melani Schrӧter

Edited by

Amy Jo Murray and

Kevin Durrheim

Show author details

Amy Jo Murray: Affiliation:
University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa
Kevin Durrheim: Affiliation:
University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This chapter deals with the unsaid as a discursive strategy in antipolitical correctness discourse, where the unsaid is framed as something that can be said and needs to be said but is prevented from being said through silencing and taboos. Antipolitical correctness discourse is described as a language ideological debate. This metadiscursive debate involves notions of language taboos, denial of voice and representation, accessibility, and limitations of public discourse. It thereby negotiates issues not so much of language use, but of national identity, democratic representation, and purported cultural hegemony with the aim of changing public discourse. The strategy of claiming to be silenced to increase the acceptability of contested propositions rests on the extent to which silence is at odds with public discourse in modern mass democracies. Its functions will be exemplified using the example of the antipolitical correctness discourse perpetuated by Germany’s New Right. The chapter also aims to show how analyzing metadiscourse can on the one hand be a fruitful way for empirical textual analysis of the unsaid and on the other hand also provides scope for studying the language ideology of silence.

Keywords

silencing public discourse political correctness language ideology metadiscourse New Right Germany

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Qualitative Studies of Silence
The Unsaid as Social Action
, pp. 165 - 185

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108345552.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achino-Loeb, M.-L. (2006). Silence: The currency of power. New York; Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar

Anthonissen, C. (2003). Challenging media censoring. In Martin, J. & Wodak, R. (Eds.), Re/reading the past. Critical and functional perspectives on time and value (pp. 91–111). Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Behrens, M., & von Rimscha, R. (1995). Politische Korrektheit in Deutschland. Eine Gefahr für die Demokratie. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar

Benthien, C. (2006). Barockes Schweigen. Rhetorik und Performativität des Sprachlosen im 17. Jahrhundert. München: Fink.Google Scholar

Black, E. (1988). Secrecy and disclosure as rhetorical forms. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 74(2), 133–150.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language ideological debates. Berlin; New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse. A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bull, P. (2003). The microanalysis of political discourse. Claptrap and ambiguity. London; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Cameron, D. (2000). Good to talk? Living and working in a communication culture. London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar

Chouliaraki, L. & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar

Clayman, S. (2007). Speaking on behalf of the public in broadcast news interviews. In Holt, E. & Clift, R. (Eds.), Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction (pp. 221–243). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Couldry, N. (2010). Why voice matters. Culture and politics after neoliberalism. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar

Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. In Jaworski, A., Coupland, N. & Galasiński, D. (Eds.), Metalanguage. Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 15–51). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Erdl, M. F. (2004). Die Legende von der Politischen Korrektheit. Zur Erfolgsgeschichte eines importierten Mythos. Bielefeld: transcript.Google Scholar

Galasiński, D. (2003). Silencing by law. The 1981 Polish ‘performances and publications control act’. In Thiesmeyer, L. (Ed.), Discourse and silencing. Representation and the language of displacement (pp. 211–232). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Garbutt, J. (2018). The use of no comment by suspects in police interviews. In Schröter, M. & Taylor, C. (Eds.), Exploring silence and absence in discourse. Empirical approaches (pp. 329–357). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Groth, K. J. (1996). Die Diktatur der Guten. Political correctness. München: Herbig.Google Scholar

Herman, E. (2006). Das Eva-Prinzip. München; Zürich: Pendo.Google Scholar

Herman, E. (2007). Das Prinzip Arche Noah. Münche; Zürich: Pendo.Google Scholar

Herman, E. (2010). Die Wahrheit und ihr Preis: Meinung, Macht und Medien. Rottenburg: Kopp.Google Scholar

Herman, E. (2012). Das Medienkartell: Wie wir täglich getäuscht werden. Rottenburg: Kopp.Google Scholar

Hoffmann, A. (2007). Der Fall Eva Herman. Hexenjagd in den Medien. Grevenbroich: Lichtschlag.Google Scholar

Kailitz, S. (2008).Die politische Deutungskultur der Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Spiegel des ‘Historikerstreits’. In Kailitz, S. (Ed.), Die Gegenwart der Vergangenheit. Der ‘Historikerstreit und die deutsche Geschichtspolitik’ (pp. 14–37). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar

Kämper, H. (2002). Sigmund Freuds Sprachdenken. Ein Beitrag zur Sprachbewusstseinsgeschichte. In Cherubim, D., Jakob, K. & Linke, A. (Eds.), Neue deutsche Sprachgeschichte. Mentalitäts-, kultur- und sozialgeschichtliche Zusammenhänge (pp. 239–251). Berlin; New York: de Gruyter.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kämper, H. (2012). Aspekte des Demokratiediskurses der späten 1960er Jahre. Konstellationen – Kontexte – Konzepte. Berlin; Boston: de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Kilian, J. (1997). Demokratische Sprache zwischen Tradition und Neuanfang. Am Beispiel des Grundrechte-Diskurses 1948/49. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar

Mittmann, T. (2008). Vom ‘Historikerstreit’ zum ‘Fall Hohmann’: Kontroverse Diskussionen um Political Correctness seit Ende der 1980er Jahre. In Hölscher, L. (Ed.), Political Correctness. Der sprachpolitische Streit um die nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen (pp. 60–105). Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar

Niven, B. (2001). Facing the Nazi past. United Germany and the legacy of the Third Reich. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Owzar, A. (2006). Reden ist Silber, Schweigen ist Gold. Konfliktmanagement im Alltag des wilhelminischen Obrigkeitsstaats. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag Konstanz.Google Scholar

Peters, J.D. (1999). Speaking into the air. A history of the idea of communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Petry, F. (2016, November 9). Die Political Correctness ist am Ende. Junge Welt. Retrieved from https://jungefreiheit.de/debatte/kommentar/2016/die-political-correctness-ist-am-ende/Google Scholar

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Wodak, R. & Reisigl, M. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87–121). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Röhl, K. 1995. Deutsches Phrasenlexikon. Politisch korrekt von A bis Z. Berlin: Ullstein.Google Scholar

Sandkühler, G. (2008). Die sprachpolitische Auseinandersetzung: Historische und politische Grundlagen der Political Correctness in der frühen Bundesrepublik. In Hölscher, L. (Ed.), Political Correctness. Der sprachpolitische Streit um die nationalsozialistischen Verbrechen (pp. 18–59). Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar

Sarrazin, T. (2014). Der Neue Tugendterror. Über die Grenzen der Meinungsfreiheit in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar

Scharloth, J. (2011). 1968 – Eine Kommunikationsgeschichte. München: Fink.Google Scholar

Schirrmacher, F. (Ed.). (1999). Die Walser-Bubis Debatte. Frankfurt am Main: Insel.Google Scholar

Schröter, M. (2013). Silence and concealment in political discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schröter, M., & Taylor, C. (2018). Introduction. In Schröter, M. & Taylor, C. (Eds.), Exploring silence and absence in discourse: Empirical approaches (pp. 1–21). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Schwarz, M. (2009, October 17). ‘Wie moderner Terrorismus’ Interview with André Lichtschlag. Junge Freiheit. Retrieved from https://jungefreiheit.de/debatte/interview/2009/wie-moderner-terrorismus Google Scholar

Spitznagel, A., & Reiners, B. (1998).Geheimhaltung in der Folklore und persönliche Geheimhaltungserfahrung (pp. 109–138). In Spitznagel, A. (Ed.), Geheimnis und Geheimhaltung. Erscheinungsformen – Funktionen – Konsequenzen. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar

Staas, C. (2017, February 1). Political correctness. Vom Medianphantom zum rechten Totschlagargument. Die sonderbare Geschichte der Political Correctness. Die Zeit. Retrieved from www.zeit.wde/2017/04/politicial-correctness-populismus-afd-zensur Google Scholar

Thomann, J. (2007, October 10). Rausschmiss bei Kerner. Wie Eva Herman den Fernsehtod starb. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved from www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/rausschmiss-bei-kerner-wie-eva-herman-den-fernsehtod-starb-1490687.html Google Scholar

Thurlow, C., & Moshin, J. (2018). What the f#’$!: Policing and performing the unmentionable in the news. In Schröter, M. & Taylor, C. (Eds.), Exploring silence and absence in discourse: Empirical approaches (pp. 305–328). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Verheyen, N. (2010). Diskussionslust. Eine Kulturgeschichte des ‘besseren Arguments’ in Westdeutschland. Göttingen: Vandenhoek & Ruprecht.Google Scholar

Verschueren, J. (1985). What people say they do with words. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar

Von Hodenberg, C. (2006). Konsens und Krise. Eine Geschichte der westdeutschen Medienöffentlichkeit 1945–1973. Göttingen: Wallstein.Google Scholar

Walser, M. (1998, October 11). Experiences while composing a Sunday speech. Retrieved from German history in documents and images, http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3426 Google Scholar

Wodak, R. (2015). The politics of fear. What right-wing populist discourses mean. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A. & Kroskrity, P. V. (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp.20–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zerubavel, E. (2006). The elephant in the room. Silence and denial in everyday life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Zimmer, D. E. (1993, October 22). PC oder: Da hört die Gemütlichkeit auf. Die Zeit. Retrieved from www.zeit.de/1993/43/pc-oder-da-hoert-die-gemuetlichkeit-auf Google Scholar

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

Accessibility compliance for the HTML of this chapter is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.