Muhr, R. und B. Kettermann (éd.) (2004): Eurospeak. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf europäische Sprachen zur Jahrtausendwende, Frankfurt am Main. Peter Lang, Oesterreichisches Deutsch Sprache des Gegenwart, Band 1.

Manfred Görlach’s works have shown the extent to which all European languages have been influenced by English, a useful corrective to those who imagine that their language has been particularly exposed. It should not be concluded, however, that the influence of English and the reaction to anglicisms has been the same in all European language communities, and this collection of essays centring on Austrian German and its neighbours throws new light on how the Central European language communities have been dealing with the problem over the last decades. The tenor is given in the foreword, in which the editors, introducing the book drawn from two lecture series on the subject, give as the justification the extraordinary reaction against the anglicisation of German which became apparent in the late nineteen nineties, not only in the press, but more particularly in the form of associations of language activists, which already existed, but which were suddenly propelled into the limelight. The aim of the studies is to provide a linguistic analysis of a double phenomenon: the admittedly increased influence of English on one hand and the organised reaction against it on the other. The first two articles are by the editors, and may be considered as giving the general orientation of the volume. In “Anglizismen als Problem des Linguistik und Sprachpflege in Oesterreich und Deutschland zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts” (Anglicisms as a problem of linguistics and language activism in Austria and Germany at the beginning of the 21^st century), Rudolf Muhr brings the eye of the linguist to efforts of language activists in Germany and Austria in particular since the second world war. He admits that the use of English, in particular by official authorities in the fields of transport and services in both countries has gone too far, appealing to a young, urban audience while excluding an older, less sophisticated public, and goes so far as to contemplate legislative action, though he does not spell out what form this most unGerman action may take. In general, however, the rise in English language influence which most authors also detect during the past decade is real but largely confined to the ‘appellative’ or eye-catching function. The historical part of this article starts with a potted history of the reaction to foreign words in German, focusing on the period from the 1990’s on, which turns out to be far more active than generally thought at least by outside observers: the principle language activist movement, Verein deutsche Sprache boasting some 13,000 members in the 1990’s, a movement which seems to gain strength at the turn of the millenium. What holds for Germany also seems to hold for Austria, with some minor exceptions, and the author points out inconsistencies in most of their programmes, which are not necessarily puristic in orientation. The question of whether loan words drive out native words is also investigated and found lacking in evidence. The main demonstration of the thesis is an analysis of two lists of anglicisms which the activists wish to replace by German words; not only does Muhr find that almost all of the proposed substitutes are less appropriate than the English words that they are supposed to replace (largely from evidence drawn from ordinary dictionaries), he also comes to the conclusion that the ulterior motive is not to guarantee better communication for German speakers but simply to replace as many English words in German as possible. In the second article, “Anglizismen allgemein und konkret: Zahlen und Fakten” (Anglicisms: facts and figures) Bernhard Kettermann starts off by examining the various German language definitions and typologies of loan …