KNOBLOCH, C.: Volkhafte Sprachforschung. Studien zum Umbau der Sprachwissenschaft in Deutschland zwischen 1918 und 1945

The origin of semilingualism: Nils‐Erik Hansegård and the cult of the mother tongue

“…The Nazi seizure of power in 1933 had profound effects on the institutional organization and membership of German language sciences, but did not establish a single master narrative on language. Linguistic theory, as Hutton (1999, p. 57) points out, was not ‘important enough for dictatorial decree,’ but was allowed to remain ‘polyphonous’ (Knobloch, 2005, p. 305). The interrelationship of academic linguistics with the political agenda, ideological tenets and crimes of Nazism was, however, manifest in the widespread collusion of linguists with the Nazi state.…”

“…The interrelationship of academic linguistics with the political agenda, ideological tenets and crimes of Nazism was, however, manifest in the widespread collusion of linguists with the Nazi state. The protagonists of Nazi linguistics conducted politically profitable research on topics like mother tongue, Rasse (race) and Volk (people), carried Nazi Party (NSDAP) membership cards and held academic, bureaucratic and political positions of power (Hutton, 1999, 2022; Simon, 1985; Knobloch, 2005; Wiley, 2002). This was the theoretical–ideological nexus from which Hansegård imported the bearing elements of semilingualism.…”

“…Schmidt‐Rohr, whose works were still taught at the university, had been a committed Nazi functionary, serving as head of the language political bureau of the SS‐Ahnenerbe (Hutton, 1999; Simon, 1985, pp. 189–194; Knobloch, 2005, pp. 229–248; Levelt, 2013, p. 511).…”

“…229–248; Levelt, 2013, p. 511). Many of the professors whose talks Hansegård attended—including Kranzmayer, Heintel, Haekel and Höffler—were former NSDAP members (Knobloch, 2005). Other faculty, like holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl, were living victims of Nazi rule.…”

“…Similar to Hansegård, Schmidt‐Rohr regarded ‘some types of bilingualism’ as ‘completely harmless’, while insisting that other types had a ‘disastrous, soul‐killing, spirit‐ and culture‐exterminating effect’ (Schmidt‐Rohr, 1933, p. 179; see Hansegård, 1962a, 1966, 1968, 1990). Like many Nazi linguists, Schmidt‐Rohr campaigned against hybridization, dissolved categories and transgressed boundaries (Hutton, 1999; Knobloch, 2005). In his ideal society, the mother tongue of the Volk would be free from foreign influence and reign supreme in all sociolinguistic domains.…”