Journal of Sociolinguistics 11/4, 2007: 505–519

DIALOGUE

Victor Klemperer:
The accidental sociolinguist1

Katharina Barbe
Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, Illinois

Wer denkt, will nicht überredet, sondern überzeugt sein;

wer systematisch denkt, ist doppelt schwer zu überzeugen.2
(Victor Klemperer)
During the Third Reich, the romance philologist Victor Klemperer (1881–1960),
a baptized Jew, lived in Dresden married to a non-Jew. After the enactment of
the Nürnberger 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 Klemperer’s residence. The
diaries in their entirety were not published until 1995 in Germany. Klemperer’s
selection of language-related observations from his diaries appeared for the first
time in print in 1947 as Die unbewältigte 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 philologist’s 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 Klemperer’s LTI to set the stage. Based on Jäger and Jäger (1999) and
Jäger (1999), I will then position Klemperer’s 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 KLEMPERER’S 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
was Käthchen Sara,4 for two years his sixtyish room-mate of necessity, who with
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 hörst mit deinen Ohren, und du hörst in den Alltag, gerade in den
Alltag, in das Gewöhnliche 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,
for the first time, he was made to identify himself as a Jew (Jäger 2000). There are
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 un-
German. 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 überschrieenen Stimme, mit seinen grob, oft undeutsch gefügten Sätzen,
mit der offenkundigen, dem deutschen Sprachcharakter völlig konträren 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
Journal compilation 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
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 linguist’s 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.
That is, language contains the collective intellectual property (see Jäger 1999).
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 gehört wohl zur
LTI (Jäger 2000). While Jäger and Jäger (1999) and Jäger (2000) consider the
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
appears to have known something ahead of its actual occurrence (Kämper 2000:
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 später unsere Haustiere: Katzen, Hunde und sogar
Kanarienvögel weggenommen und getötet, nicht in Einzelfällen und aus
vereinzelter Niedertracht, sondern amtlich und systematisch, und das ist eine der
Grausamkeiten, von denen kein Nürnberger 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 Nürnberger Prozesse is clearly made in retrospect, added
later when he reviewed his diaries for extracts to publish as LTI. Kämper (2000:
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 künftig 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 Hitler’s Germany and only of Hitler’s Germany . . . (Brady: 36).
Kämper indicates that Klemperer could not have known the effect of such
words as Konzentrationslager or even Hitlerdeutschland in 1933. Be that as it
may, in LTI (and throughout his Tagebücher), 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
‘language’ of extralinguistic entities took part in the indoctrination. Jäger (1999,
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 women’s 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
surroundings (Jäger 1999: 10).

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,
for example, Jäger and Jäger (1999) do. Some see him primarily as an individual,
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,
not loaded with linguistic terminology (Jäger and Jäger 1999). His reflections
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
Journal compilation 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
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, Klemperer’s point of view now derives from his
membership in the dominated group (Van Dijk 2001: 96).
So far then, Klemperer’s LTI can and should be deemed a critical analysis.
Therefore, I primarily follow Jäger (1999) and Jäger and Jäger (1999) and consider
Klemperer’s 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.
Klemperer saw a close connection between language and power, and that, Jäger
maintains, puts him close to modern discourse theory, which is based on the
premise that discourses transport collective knowledge through time and thus
exercise power because discourses then lead to subjective action (Jäger 1999: 3).
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 Klemperer’s 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. Klemperer’s 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 Denkgewöhnung . . . (hat als) Nährboden 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 über durch die Einzelworte,
die Redewendungen, die Satzformen, die er ihr in millionenfachen Wiederholungen
aufzwang, und die mechanisch und unbewuβt übernommen 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 regime’s 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
(1988), Sternberger, Storz and Sükind (1989) and Friedländer (1980) for a
discussion of the LTI word organisieren):
7.
Aber wer hat denn gestern erst gesagt: “Ich muβ mir ein biβchen Tabak
organisieren?” Ich fürchte, das bin ich selber gewesen (LTI: 114).


C The author 2007
Journal compilation 
C 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 Zusammenhängen war denn dieser Generation, die 1933 noch
kaum über das Abc hinaus gewesen, das Wort heroisch mit seinem ganzen
Sippenzubehör ausschlieβlich 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
Sippenzubehör, 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 Watt’s 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
naı̈vely 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 Klemperer’s 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:
48–49). 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 10–12),
sickness, infection, or disease (13–15), is the discussion of propaganda as leading
to an involuntary consumption:
10.
Worte können sein wie winzige Arsendosen: sie werden unbemerkt verschluckt, sie
scheinen keine Wirkung zu tun, und nach einiger Zeit ist die Giftwirkung doch da
(LTI: 23–24).
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 überall. 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
action is also insinuated in the sickness metaphors (see also Jäger 1999):

13.
Wie sich Trichinen in den Gelenken eines Verseuchten ansammeln, so häufen sich
Charakteristika und Klischees der LTI in den Familienanzeigen (LTI: 133).


C The author 2007
Journal compilation 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST 513

Just as trichinae gather in the joints of someone with an infection,

so the characteristic features and clichés of the LTI gather in personal
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 wüten, 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 son’s unusual name, Isbrand Wilderich:
15.
So hieβ 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, daβ es sich hierbei um ein spezifisch deutsches, aus deutscher
Geistigkeit gesickertes Gift handelte, dann half kein Nachweis übernommener
Ausdrücke, Bräuche, politischer Maβnahmen: dann war der Nationalsozialismus
keine eingeschleppte Seuche, sondern eine Entartung des deutschen Wesens selber,
eine kranke Erscheinungsform jener traits éternels (LTI: 147).
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 éternels (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 éternels 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.
kleinbürgerlicher Krämer, der sich von hunderttausend Standesgenossen nur
dadurch unterschied, daβ er sich von den verlogenen Phrasen der Regierung nicht
betrunken machen lieβ (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 Klemperer’s 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 consumer’s 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,

C The author 2007
Journal compilation 
C 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 Stieve’s
book Geschichte des deutschen Volkes (History of the German people) published in
twelve editions between 1934 and 1942, to be a:
19.
. . . guter Köder, 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 (10–15) or voluntarily (17–19)
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 überall: laβ deine Hörer nicht zu kritischem
Denken kommen, behandle alles simplistisch! (LTI: 193).
Hitler’s . . . golden rule is always: don’t 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 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
516 BARBE

Make sure you never again say The Farmer or The Bavarian Farmer, don’t
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 individual’s 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 Klemperer’s personal development, relating his
struggle and his transition from a quasi-sympathizer to an outside observer.
Furthermore, they include Klemperer’s 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 kleinbürgerlich, 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
as authority in general. Jäger (1999) points out that Klemperer would reject
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
Journal compilation 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007
KLEMPERER AS A SOCIOLINGUIST 517

cannot be used as a justification for suspending critical thinking. The public’s

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 speaker’s 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
of CDA are dispersed throughout LTI’s pages (Jäger 2000); therefore, Klemperer
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. Klemperer’s 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 unbewältigte Sprache: Aus dem Notizbuch eines Philologen ‘LTI’ (The
unresolved language: From the notebook of a philologist ‘LTI’). Later editions, which
appeared after Klemperer’s death, omit unbewältigt, 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 Ausdrücken (LTI: 313); the dialect places
the fellow refugee’s origins in Berlin. Brady translates this into Cockney, and thus
draws on an already established link. In the German version of Shaw’s Pygmalion
as well as in its popular adaptation My Fair Lady, Eliza initially uses the dialect of
Berlin.
6. In history, for example, Klemperer’s 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. 162–84.
Bork, Siegfried. 1970. Miβbrauch der Sprache: Tendenzen nationalsozialistischer
Sprachregelung. Bern and München, Germany: Francke Verlag.
Brackmann, Karl-Heinz and Renate Birkenhauer. 1988. NS-Deutsch:
‘Selbstverständliche’ Begriffe und Schlagwörter aus der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus.
Straelen, Germany: Straelener Manuskripte Verlag.
Ehlich, Konrad. 1989. Über den Faschismus sprechen – Analyse und Diskurs. In
Konrad Ehlich (ed.) Sprache im Faschismus. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Suhrkamp.
7–34.
Friedländer, Henry. 1980. The manipulation of language. In Henry Friedländer and
Sybil Milton (eds.) The Holocaust: Ideology, Bureaucracy, and Genocide. Millwood, New
York: Kraus International Publications. 103–113.
Gerstenberger, Heide. 1997. ‘Meine Prinzipien über das Deutschtum und die
verschiedenen Nationalitäten sind ins Wackeln gekommen wie die Zähne eines alten
Mannes’: Victor Klemperer in seinem Verhältnis zu Deutschland und den Deutschen.
In Hannes Heer (ed.) Im Herzen der Finsternis. Victor Klemperer als Chronist der NS-Zeit.
Berlin: Aufbau Verlag. 10–20.
Jäger, Siegfried. 1999. Sprache-Wissen-Macht. Victor Klemperers Beitrag zur Analyse
von Sprache und Ideologie des Faschismus. Muttersprache 109: 1–18.
Jäger, Siegfried. 2000. ‘Die Sprache bringt es an den Tag’: Victor Klemperers Beitrag
zum Verständnis des Faschismus und seiner Nachwirkungen in der Gegenwart.
http://www.diss-duisburg.de/Internetbibliothek/Artikel/Klemperer.htm
Last accessed December 2006.
Jäger, Margaret and Siegfried Jäger. 1999. Gefährliche Erbschaften: Die schleichende
Restauration rechten Denkens. Berlin: Aufbau Taschenbuch Verlag.
Kämper, Heidrun. 2000. Sprachgeschichte–Zeitgeschichte: Die Tagebücher Victor
Klemperers. Deutsche Sprache 28: 25–41.
Klemperer, Victor. 1947/1967. Die unbewältigte 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 Philologist’s Notebook. London/New York: Continuum.
Lang, Ewald. 1996. Victor Klemperer’s LTI. Osnabrücker Beiträge zur Sprachtheorie 33:
69–79.
Maas, Utz. 1984. ‘Als der Geist der Gemeinschaft eine Sprache fand’ – Sprache
im Nationalsozialismus: Versuch einer historischen Argumentationsanalyse. Opladen,
Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.


C The author 2007
Journal compilation 
C 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 Einflüsse. Halle, Germany: VEB Verlag Sprache
und Literatur.
Sternberger, Dolf, Gerhard Storz and W. E. Süskind. 1989. Aus dem Wörterbuch des
Unmenschen. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Ullstein.
Stieve, Friedrich. 1934. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes. München/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.
95–120.
Watt, Roderick. 2001. Victor Klemperer’s 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. 33–45.
Weinreich, Max. 1999 [1946]. Hitler’s Professors. The Part of Scholarship in Germany’s
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. 1–13.
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.
[email protected]

C The author 2007

Journal compilation 
C Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2007