Originally published in: Omdal, Helge/Røsstad, Rune (Eds.): Språknormering - i tide og utide? – Oslo: Novus AS, 2009. Pp. 15-32.
Concurrent standardization as a necessity: The genesis of the new 1 official orthographic guidelines )
KERSTIN GOTHERT Rat fiir deutsche Rechtschreibung
The new official orthographic guidelines were brou ght into force by the official stat e auth orities on A ugust l st. 1998 and its principle goals we re a standa rdi zed represe nt ation of th e guidelines and a «gentle simplifica ti on in res pec t of content ». This regulation was not supported by th e public and in fact it was the starting point for a struggle for conce ptual solutions and a qu es t fo r th e ac hievement o f' a consensus between different po ss ible norms. Since orthograph y is an officially codified standard taking up a prominent pos ition among lingui sti c standards. it is of particular socio- politica l importance. It was th e foremos t task of the Council fo r Germ an Orth ography (Rat fu r deutsc he Rechtschreibung), in stituted in December 2004. to elaborate a co mpromise in order to bring th e «Orthograph ica l war» (Die Zeir) to an end , which was led enthusiasti ca lly for more than a deca le. - The conce rn o f' thi s article is to class ify historicall y the agreement reached in 2006. Against this background. it ca n be stated th at official guidelines will onl y be accepted. if th ey are ba sed upon th e usage in writing and if they take into account th e interes ts o f' the reader. Both principles are characteri zing th e proposa l made by th e ou ncil for German Orthogra ph y. An outloo k on the Council 's acti vities conce rning orthographic standardi za tion ex pec ted in th e future will conclude this article.
11 O n December 15' , 2006 peace was constituted by an impartial jud!!,e: «After long yea rs o f controversies, the hea ted debates were cut off temporarily by the so ca lled orthographical peace». In this way the Society for German Language (Gescllschaft fi.ir deutsche Sprache), which picks the «words of the year» annually, motivates its cho ice to declare «orthographica l peace» a «verbal ty pe fossi l» . These verbal type foss ils determine the public discuss ion to a grea t extent. T hey stand for important topics or they may be characteri stic in any other way.
15 Publikationsserver des Leibniz-Instituts für Deutsche Sprache URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:mh39-104646 Concurrent standardizati on as a necessity
«Peace» implies «War» . And indeed , in the years leading up to 2006 man y wa r metaph ors were to be found in the press covera ge of this topi c. The orth ographical war seems to have broken out (again) (tirol). Reports arc submitted from th e front I ine (Die Zeit) and the sloga n «era se mistak es» is chanted (like Hitler) (w -;, ). The «infamous dictati on of Versailles» (taz), read Vienna , where th e new orthographic ru les were stated in the nineti es, is claimed to bear res pon sibility for th e controversies . But what is the iss ue th ere? What happened in the years in-between? Where did the front line run ? What induces a cartoonist to depict German y on ce more as a divided country - a co untry cut in to two parts - each w ith its own orthographic rul es (d . illustration I )?
Wieder geteiltes Deutschland Illustrati on I : «A Gap Through the Land»
The concern of th is article is to an swer th ese qu es tions. In the first sec tion , I will introduce th e underl ying co nccpluctl ity and in particular the main principles th e Germ an orthography is bound to. Subsequently, I w ill clas sify th e reform of 1996 in th e co urse of history and name its aims. From the present-day point of view , the conception of the orthographic reform , as we ll as its un w illing acceptance by the pub lic, wa s th e so urce for its fai lure and as a consequ ence an ex tensive rev ision took place in 2006. What co nclu sion ca n be
16 Kersti n GOthert drawn from that co ncerning future processes of standard i;r.a ti on? I w ill dea l w ith this ques ti on in the las t sec ti on or my article.
Orthography takes up a prominent pos ition among lingui stic standard s beca use it is the only official codified linguistic standa rd . Codified mea ns that the orthographic rules arc ri xed in wrillcn fo rm. Swndard means that th e abidance of these rules ensures co rrect and hence officially ap proved spelling. The cru cial point ror the pupils is the combination between «(officially) codified» and «standard»: Onl y th ose, who ab ide by the rul es , are abl e to avoid mi stakes , which could lead to bad marks. Lingui sti c resea rch assumes th at the ex tern al standards undergo a process of internali za tion . During thi s process the standards arc not transferred onc-to- onc. but they arc necessarily enriched by a person's own generaliza ti ons and reg ul ati ons. T hi s necess ity is clu e to the fact that one would not be ab le to write fluently, if there was a constant need to chec k the rules. A typica l effect of intern alizat ion is the so called hyper-generali zation. This ex plains why every reform of German orthography ca nn ot possibly achieve w ide acceptance within the entire linguisti c community - as reasonabl e as the modifica tions might seem when rega rd ed singularl y . Only those rul es that confo rm to the internali zed rules of th e individual arc likely to be accepted. This ca n be illustrated by uttera nces like «I have always spelled thi s word like t·hat», which co uld be heard in the afterm ath of the reform of Germ an orth o- graphy in 1996. T he reform of Germ an orthography in 1996 did not change the basic principles or German orthography. As generally known , German orthograph y is based on an alphabeti c writing system, i.e. its elementary uni ts arc sounds and letters. As so unds rcrcr to lcllcrs and vice versa we ca n describe their co rrelat ion. T hi s fact is outlined with the phonologica l principle. T he co unterpart to the phonolog ica l principle is the morphological or semantic principle. The semantic principle enables the reader to ex tract the mean ing of a word from its orthograph y. For thi s reason, the word form s of one particul ar word stem should have similar orthograph y. For example, the final devoicing of th e final so und remains unmarked in the written text. Accord ing to a strict interpretation of th e phonologica l principle, spe lling should be
17 Concurren t standardization as a necessity
Obviously, the bas ic principles both arc linked close ly w ith the two basi c fu nctions of orthography , namely th e function or recording and the functi on of perception. By writing something down, utteran ces and th oughts ca n be tran sformed into something written and the 01hcr way around. So mclhing written can be tran sform ed into an uttera nce or a th ought. The phonological principle and the functi on of recording serve the writer of a language whereas the semantic principle and th e fun ction of perception serve th e reader of a language. In th e course of its development, orthography has been altered in ord er to mee t th e reader's needs in a better way. T he se man ti c principle became ever more effecti ve . This deve lopment was sped up considerably by grammar books and scholast ic works which indicate the semantic criteria fo r orthography very early. In the «Tci.itschc Grammatica» - published approximately in 1535 - lckclsamer points out that in ord er to write words correctly, one has to co nsider their meaning and their co mpos ition (p. C/ ). For exa mple, not knowing that a Haarband ('hai r-band ') is a band «which you bind your hair with» leads to an in correct pronunciation and as a co nsequence th e writer will spell ii according to this pronunciation . The res ult could be a spe lling like «harwtit» or «harwand». With this statement, Ickelsa mcr provides th e basic principle th at has determined th e orthograph y 01· th e German language to a great ex tent. Up to the 19'11 century , the Germ an orth ography had developed based by an interacti on of spelling usage and grammar books . Around 1800. the main features of the orthography were fi xed, but th ere was sti II a wide ran ge of variants. Fi rst"l y, th ese va riants arc yielded by the interference of the different pri nciples. Secondly, they ori ginate in the limitat ions of th e two principles . A paradigmatic exa mple of the forcmcntioned variants is the juxtapos ing use in thi s peri od of the spellings Me.mer and Messner ('sacri stan ') as we ll as Di111 e and Tinte (' ink '), er. D e111 sc/1es Wih"lerhuch :
T he first ex ample shows th e intcr l'crcncc or th e principles. Me.rner is deri ved rrom Middle Latin and as a loa nword it presents a regular structure. T he spelling with a single fo llows th e phonological principle where two conso nants indica te a short sy llab le. However. it is often related to Messe (' ma ss ' ). Because of this sy nchronous word relation. Messner may be spelled w ith
T he second exa mple - 1Ji111e and Ti11t e - shows th e limitations of the two principles. The clil'fercncc in spelling is cau sed by a pronun ciat ion v:1ria11t within th e Gcrm an- spea kin g area.
18 Kerstin Gut11ert
This was the status quo in the 19'11 century, which was considered in an ever more critical way. Es pec ially the sc hoo ls asked for uni formity in orthography. Konrad Duden summarized the public opinion as follows: «Neither two teac hers in th e same sc hool nor two proofreaders working for one typographer ag reed in every detail concerning orth ograp hy. But there was no official authority to turn to» (Duden 1908:33 1). In short , the so ca lled «Orth ograph ic question» had to be so lved . Official aut horities became in volved in the efforts o f agreei ng upon a standard. T he vari ant s might have disappeared over time, but even if th ey had done so, it would have taken a long time. The rul ebooks published in Erfurt (in 1833) and in Z urich (in 1837) marked the beginning of th e sta nda rd iza tion efforts by the state. Even w ith a geographically I imited purview, th ey ca n be seen as the cru cial step towards a stand ardi zed orthograph y. Since they were va lid exclusively for sc hools (a nd for th e public authorities), they had a strong model fun ction. In th e yea rs between 1833 and 190 I , - al I in all - twent y-three of th ese rulebooks were published in the German-speaking area. In 1876, initiated by Prussia, a conference was held in Berlin to reac h a larger consensus on German orthography, the «Yerh and lungcn der zur Herstellung grCi fk rer Einigung in dcr deut sc hen Rec ht schreibung berufenen Kon ferenz». It was th e first att empt to reac h a standardi zed orthography . The conference made history under th e title «First Orthographi cal Confe rence» w hich alrea dy indicates that it failed to achi eve its aim. We find va rious reasons for its failure in resea rch literature. but nevertheless th ese reasons pointed towards th e future. By comparing the aims. wh ich the conference members set themse lves. w ith the genera l observa tion I ment ioned in th e beginning. we ca n revea l clearly w hich we re in the end the most important reasons for th e failure or the conference . T he members or th e conference held in 1876 had two aims: unity and simplifica ti on. To ac hieve the latter, the lengthening sign should be eliminated (a mong oth er things). For exa mple, this in cluded the elimination of
The res ult of th e mee tings was surnmari t:ed by th e pres i lent who pointed out that
1 ... 1 difficulties could be ex trac ted from th e trad itiona l literature bu t that it did not provide a fundament al aspect in rega rd to th e dimension or th e reform . On th e con trary. th e orthograp hy or trad it iona l literature ha s to be modified to match th e
19 Concurrent standardizatio n as a necessity
temporary standard. If it was ac hieva ble for sc hools to have consequent and simple rules th en thi s req ues ted simplicity would indica te to deve lop orth ography even further away from prev ious usage. (Verhandlungen 1876: 8'.l)
The latter contradicts wh at was discussed above: A rcrorm can get pos itive res ponse only if it adopts the tendencies or usage in writing. T hereby it conrorm s to the writing intention of a large number or speakers or a language and to their intern alized standards. Furtherm ore, the reform should not weaken the reader's pos ition, who is interes ted in catching the meaning or an uttera nce quickl y. The spelling with
T he pri ma ry aim was to ac hi eve unity in errn an orthograph y. This wou ld hopefu lly be ac hieved by a modera te process. If you had tried to combine an overall reform or German orthog raph y with th e moderat e process or standardi za ti on you would soo n
have got out or your depths and att empted to ac hieve th e un achievable. J ... I By talking about a progress I already indica te that on no account we arc to stop this process. We have reac hed a stopover whi ch everybody has to reac h I ... J.
ha ve quoted Konrad Duden in detail , sin ce man y or th ose w ishing to reform the Germ an orth ograph y arter Duden diet rcrcr to hi s statements in ord er to underline th e necess ity or reforming. The reg ulati ons fixed in 190 I were markedly liberal and moderate clu e to the grea t pressure of finding a consensus. The rea diness to rind such a consensus was so grea t that controversial as pects were either not at all codified but left out or the rul es were formulated in a way that allowed to lerating opposed spellings. By the way of ex ample, the regulations of 190 1 do not include rules co ncerning separate and compound spelling and punctu at ion, and the guidelines co ncerning th e case of three letters fo llowing each other in immediate success ion arc fairl y open to interpretati ons:
20 Kerstin Guthert
It is possib le lo pu l on ly two consonants in compounds in which th e ~ame co nsona nl would have to be wrillen three times . T hi ~ is the case w ith Bre nn c ~sc l. Schiffahrl. Schnclliiurcr (and so 011 ) 1... 1.
I lowever, people did not appreciate the freedom of choice. The orth ographic guidelines had hardl y been decided when they already underwent restrictions on official and I ri va tc level. The first to restrict th e freedom of th e choice was the «Official dictionary or Germ an orthography to be used in Pru ssia n chambers», published in 1903. In the case of spe lling va ri ant s this dictionary for official use reported only one va ri ant. Konrad Duden proceeded similarl y in his Duden for typographer:-.. which was published for the first time in 1903 as we ll. A rter his death, th e Duden for typograph ers and the ge nera l Duden for Ge rm an orth ography were merged and from th at time on the freedom of choice was almost elimin ated . Soon the Duden acq uired an authority accepted by w ide sec tions of th e populati on, which made «Duden» a sy non ym for «dicti onary or German orth ography». In the fo llowing yea rs, the rul es published by Duden became more and more differentiated. To demonstrate this I wi ll get back to the compou nd s with two or three co nsonants. The regulations of 190 I contained on ly one rule concerning th e spelling of th ese co mpound s. In th e Duden of 199 1. we find no less than eight rules . In th e 199 1 version it is determined for exa mple that K1111 .1· 1 . 1· f(~[/ohrik is spe lled with two whereas K1111.1· tsf(~jjJ7as c h e is spelled wi th three
II The idea of reforming German orthograph y had remained present between 190 I and 1996 . T herefore it is not surprising that during all th ese years
21 Co ncurrent standardization as a necessity
lingui sti c resea rchers were engaged in thi s idea. After several railed attempts - for exa mple in Stuttga rt ( 1954) and Wiesb ad en ( 1958) - the so ca lled Intern at iona l Working-Committee for Germ an Orthography (lntcrn ati onalcr A rbc it sk rcis rl.ir Orthographi c) was es tablished in th e seventies. It comprised resea rchers from A ust ri a, Switzerl and and the two Germa n sta tes. Thi s Working-Committee made it its bu siness to fo llow Konra d Oudcn's ideas : their aim was to elaborate rules based upon unified criteri a and to prov ide for simplifica ti on - in short, they wa nted to bring about a reform . T he Committee was award ed its mand ate by the official politica l forces: for the Federal Republic of Germ any it was award ed by the Stan ling Confe rence or th e Ministers of Edu cation and Cultural A ffai rs and th e Federal M inis try or the Interi or in 1987. Both aims - unified criteri a and simplificati on - were fixed in the final reso lution of th e so ca lled First Vienn a Colloquies in 1986, held upon in vitati on by the officiate A ustrian Minister of Ed uca tion and A rt s. Herbert M oritz:
We have agreed on th e rev ision of th e regulations constituted by the Orth ographica l onfe rencc in Berlin in order to suit th em to the demand s or our ti me. We are es pec ially co ncern ed with th e simplifica tion or several rul es which have beco me more and more complica ted in th e co urse of time. (As qu oted in M entrup 1987: 15)
The Vienn a olloquies took pl ace in 1986, 1990 and 1994 and led direc tl y to th e reg ul ati ons of the orthographic reform in 1996 , which ca me into effect on A ugust I'', 1998. I ha ve reduced the in form ati on about the hi stori ca l fac ts to give you a ge neral idea of th e events th at lead to the reform of the Germ an orthography. It wa s a hard pi ece of work for all in volved parts. Finally, onl y a small part of th e ori ginal ideas was adopted into th e reg ul ation. Among these ori gin al ideas, th at were abandoned, th ere were - among other things - the de-capitaliza ti on or noun s, th e elimination or the lengthening signs to a grea t ex tent an d th e idea to spell 'das' with one - both as a co njuncti on and a pronoun (e.g. lch glaubc, da s er kom mt) . T he press coverage (with slogans like «Der Keiser sitzt im Bot und iss t A l») had contributed to thi s to a large extent: initiated by an article written by a member of the Working- ommittee published before the agreed date al ong with a highl y critica l co mmentary, it induced to the introduction of numerous co rrecti ons to the reform . But al so th e dec isions made in 1996 arc not based upon a consensus, bes t illustrated by the initially mentioned express ion «orthographi ca l wa r». T hi s wa r
22 Kerstin Guthert evolved th ro ugh severa l stages and it was fought roughly between two parties: 011 the one side official bod ies and the reformers and on th e other side the professional writers:
• On Jul y I'', 1996, the so ca lled Vienna Declanttion or Intent was signed by represe ntati ves of eight countries, in which German is the official or a minority lan guage. They co mmitted th emselves to introducing th e new regulations in sc hools and public au th orities in their countries .
• In 1996, at the beg inning of October, the teac her Fri edrich Denk collected signatures aga inst the reform of German orthography on the Frankfurt Book Fa ir. This so ca lled Frankfurt Declaration was signed by numerous writers like Ciinter C rass, Wolter Ke111po1vski, SigJi·ied Len -: and Martin Wolser. The writers ex pressed th eir opinion in the cover story «Nonsense Reform of German Orthography .. ave the German language! Poets in uproar», pub lished by th e news magazine Der Spiegel.
/\t the end of the same month , the Standing Conference issued the «Dres den Dec laration» in which they rejected the Frankfurt Declaration.
Between 1996 and 1998 , many parents instituted legal proceedings against the new German orthography , until the Fccleral Constitutional Court ascertained in .Jul y 1998 that the dec ision upon the appropriate orthography for the schools falls within the sphere or responsibility of th e fed eral states. Furthermore, the Court determined that the revision of the German orthograph y cl id not violate the constitutional ri ght s of parent s and pupils.
• In March 1997, th e International Committee for German Orthography co nsisting or twe lve members convened for the first time as provided for in the Vienna Dec laration or Intent. Its co mposition is largely identica l with the Working-Committee for German Orthography, which prepared the reform and its task was to accompany th e introduction of the rev ision; its work is documented in bi ennial reports.
In the referendum held in September 1998 in Schlcswig-Holstein , 56.4 per cent or the electors voted against the new orthograph y. This vote was taken back onl y a year later by the parliament.
23 Co ncurrent standardi za ti on as a necessity
A fter having introduced the new orthograph y in conce rt w ith the majority of the newspapers and new agencies on August I" , 1999 , the Fran!Jimer Allgemeine Zeitun f? reverted back lo the old orth ograph y in the summer or th e ye ar 2000. A lbeit th ese retrea ts, the administration of the Euro pea n Union introdu ced the new orthograph y on A ugust I", 2000.
• A t th e end of 2002, the German Academy for Language and Poetry (Deutsche A kadcmie flir Sprachc un d Dichtung) presented a comprom ise propos ing to keep th e new orthograph y in all cases «where it makes sense or does not do harm».
At the encl of 2003, the Intern ati onal Committee handed in its rourth report , in which they held fa st on the principles of the rev ision.
In spring of 2004, the Intern ati onal Committee for Germ an Orthography and the Germ an Academy for Language and Poetry met under the direc ti on of th e Standing Conference. T he attempt to find a compromise failed.
In June 2004, the Standing Conference dec ided to remove the Intern ati onal Committee at the encl of the yea r. It was repl aced by the Coun cil for Germ an Orthography with international represe ntati ves; the Council includes deliberately al so representati ves of th e cri tics of the orthographi c reform . Neve rtheless , it rein forced the terminati on of th e tran sition peri od on Jul y 3 1", 2005, during which the old spelling was tolerated in sc hoo ls.
In A ugust 2004, th e Axel Springer AG and th e pub I ishing house of Der Spiegel announ ced th eir return to the old orthograph y. T he Axel Springer AG holds a market share of 22.7 per ce nt of all daily papers (c f. the data published by the Commi ss ion on Concentration in the M edia, K EK ).
A ft er th at, th e Council for German Orth ograph y was formed quickl y and began its work in December 2004 reac hing a conse nsus on the basis of th e official orthographi c guidelines. I will co me back to thi s topi c later. In th e rirst pl ace it is to be cl arified wh y the reform in its 1996 version failed in the end . The objections raised in the public ca n be summari zed as follows: Firstly, th e rev1 s1on was des igned w ithout regard to the practi ca l usage. Due to its formal spelling criteria it is perce ived as an artificial crea tion and its guidelines arc fa r less functional that th e old orthograph y used to be.
24 Kersti n Guthert
Secondly, the revision was oriented on ly towards th e needs or people. who do not write much . Its simplifica tions were introduced at the ex pense or th e reader.
The ca rica turist Gij f ~ Wiede11r01'1 managed to present th ese objections in drawings I don't wa nt to deprive from you (er. illustration 2 and 3).
"Sieht mir ganz nach neuer Rechtschreibung aus, Kollege ... "
Illustra ti on 2: «Gene Licence»
This is the depicti on or a scientist who wants to take out a (Europea n) patent for the new German orthograph y. By doing so he runs into God . ocl takes a look at th e structure of th e new orth ograph y and tells hi s co lleag ue(!) that it represent s a new crea tion . T he message is clear: Scientists ha ve presumed to re- in ve nt the German orthography. Neither the sc ientist nor the government arc competent for this ta sk (in thi s contex t Europe usually represents over-reglcmentation by the legislature). T he rev ision was drawn up at a desk, hence it is sc icntiric, rational and sy ntheti c.
25 Concurrent standardization as a necessity
" ... und noch ein Loffelchen Vereinfachung ... "
Illustration 3: «Reform Bungling: Here Orthography»
The so ca lled German Michel (Deutsc her Michel), the symbol fo r the common German citizen, is impriso ned in a dark cellar. He sits at a table, ti ed up with a co rd , and politician s feed him with a «reform »-so up . The International Committee for German Orthography is serving th e soup which co nsists or a mi xture of «Kot?.» (ugh) and «Wiirg» (ick). Obviously, thi s ca rtoon docs not need any rurther comment. The reform was decided in secrecy and imposed upon the citizens. Politics and the Committee rorm a «baneful alliance». These arc the main points of criticism th at out cropped in the med ia coverage in those days. The main sc ientific criticism rea ds similar to the notions published in th e media . Since I will not go into the detail s of the critica l rema rks regarding the con tent for reasons or space, l wi II now, based on the remarks made at the beginning of this article, demonstrate on a more abstract level, in which way th e reform of 1996 is to be eva luated. For thi s purpose, I wi II revert to the rorcci tcd co ncep t of the semantic principle. By the sema ntic principle th e meaning is made tran spa rent in writing. The meaning ca n be orth ographically marked in different ways:
26 Kerstin Guthert
In the domnin of sound-letter class ifica ti ons meani ng ca n be marked by rinal devoicing (e .g.
In the domain of separate and compound spelling a new idiomati c meaning can be highlighted by co mpound spe lling (e.g.
In the domain of hyph enation the writer ca n mark th e different co mponents or a word (e.g .
111 the domain of ca pitalization a new idiomatic meaning can be indica ted by capit alization (e.g.
In th e domain or punctuation mea ning ca n be marked by subordination of clauses (e.g. < In the domain of sy ll ab ifica ti on and word di vision al th e encl of lines the meaning ca n be marked by the separa ti on in accordance with th e component s or a compound (e.g. Thus it appears th at th e sema ntic principle affec ts every sub-area of orthography . The rev ision of 1996 brought modificati ons to all sub-areas . Taking into account what has been sa id above. th ese mod ifications ca n be judged as fol lows : T he 'emantic principle is ~ tr c n g th e n ed with regard to th e sou nd- le11 er class ifica tion' and hy ph enation. w h e r ea~ it is weakened in every other orthographic domain. T he objection. th at the position or th e peopl e who do not write much has bee n consid ered in an unba lan ced way. is thu s leg itimate. Ill How did th ese fa cts influence the Coun cil 's work ? In 2004, the political forces entrusted the Council for Ge rm an Orthography to find a co ncurre nt so lution on the basis of the official guidelines. As a consequence, thi s co uld onl y mea n, th at - al"l er a preferential and one-s ided considerati on or the writer - to strength en again th e reader's pos ition , 1.e. emphas izing the sema ntic principle in a grea ter ex tent. The Council modified th e official guidelines in those cases where the se mantic principle had been wea ken ed. i.e. in th ose cases where ii ha s been 27 Concurrent standardizati on as a necessity att empted to obstruct or even revert the ordinary lingui sti c evolution by the mean s of modifications. The domain of the separat e and compound spelling was ma inly affected, but also parts of th e capitalization and of the punctuation rules as well as part s of th e rul es about th e sy llabificat ion and word di vision at the end of lines. Since th e Council was entrusted to integrate th ese modifications into the ex isting offic ial guidelines , a relati ve ly strict reg ulati on was inev itably maintained. Thus, the Council did not dispose of the freedom to dec ide whether all th ese stand ards were rea lly necessary or not. Onl y within th e domain of th e separat e and co mpound spelling rules , the ouncil disposed of more freedom of action. In thi s case, a complete rev ision was una voidable, sin ce th e rules had to be re-elaborat ed according to th e semantic principle. The ouncil had abstained from a co mplete regulati on of all aspec ts: whereas the official guidelines of 1996 contain rul es, which determine th e co mpound spelling (e.g . gu1schreibe 11 in th e sense of 011 rech11 e11 ) as we ll as rul es, which allow compound and separate spe lling (e.g. f.:<'ll'i 1111 - bri111:e11d , Gewi1111 br i111:e11d), but also rules, which determine separate spe lling (e.g. artif.: grii.fJe 11 ), the ouncil limited their regul ati on to th e first two cases using prototypes rather than form ally delimiting groups. The regul ation of the spelling or a verb accompanied by an adjecti ve could se rve as an ev idence: T he official guidelines or 1996 determined in general th e separate spelling or adjective and ve rb , if th e adjec tive has the endings 28 Kerstin Guthert mea ns of the notion or spe lling va ri ants. The public opinion perce ives for exampl e Cewinn hringend and gewi1111bringe11d as spe lling variants, even if actual ly they have to be ca tegori zed as phrase and compound (c f. grojJen Cewi1111 /Jrin gend but sehr gewi1111hri11 ge 11d). The compromise proposa l elaborated by th e Council was adopted by the official stat e authorities in spring of2006 and it beca me effective on August I'', 2006. It was soo n accepted also outside th e schools and pub lic au th orities , fu ll'illing thu s one of the ex pectations related to the instauration or the Council : the public di scussion should have been transferred to the Council. Its compos ition contributed certainly to this positive outco me, since the majority of the thirty-nine members be long to the publishing, pedagogica l and journalistic as wel l as to th e profess ional literary writing sec tor. Among others , th e news agencies, the PEN ccntcr and th e publishers of Duden , Wahrig and the A ustrian dictionary (OWB) hold each one sea t in Council , which is an international committee including representatives from German y, Austria, Sw itzerland , Liechtenstein , Sou th Tyrol and Belgium. M ea nwhile th e compromise has been accepted widely in the public li fe: th e rev ised orthographic guidelines arc applied by all newspapers and magazines pub I ishcd nation wide, i .c. al so by Der Spiegel, the Fra11kji1rter Allge111ei11e Ze i11111 f? and by the Axel Springer AG. The orthographica l peace has replaced the orthographical war not only in terms of search hits provided by the search engines: nowadays Google provides 1840 hits for «Rcchtschrcibfricdcn» against 233 hits for «Rcc ht sc hrcibkricg» (October 2007). IV By submitting the rev ised rul es the ouncil has completed a first phase in its work. Its future tasks arc defined in its statute and arc desc ribed as follows: This Council has been appointed to preserve th e unil'ormity in orthograph y in th e Germ an -speak ing area and to enhance the German orthography to the nece ssary ex tent on th e ba sis of th e ol'l'i cial ort hographic guidelines. The statute thu s not only determines, who has to assume th ese tasks , but it defines also their character and conten t. It is the Council fo r German Orth ography who has to assume th ese tasks , e.g., the ouncil is the lead ing authority l'or questions concern ing the German orthography providing by its work a guideline for al l publishing houses that publish dicti onaries. Thus, the Duden ha s los t its monopoly of being authoritative in case of doubt. 29 Concurrent standardization as a necessity It is th e preservation of the uniformity of German orthograph y that is mentioned as the l'irst ta sk ror the Council. Enhancement is mentioned onl y in second place. which have to be cl one «to th e necessary extent». This implies that modifications should only be proposed, if a general lingui stic change requires an update or the orthographic guidelines. So th e circle is closed again: Uniformity is again th e most imporl Note 11 The article refl ec ts th e llpinion or its author and follows mos t widely th e presentation held in Norway. In ord er lo prese rve it s fluent style. I dec ided not to use footnotes: th e relev ant bibliographi cal references arc to be round in th e li st of references. I thank Wo l)~t 111 M Me111r1111 for hi s advice and Drnw11w Mo/Jl(ir fo r her tran slation ass istance. Summary Die ncuc amtlichc Rcc ht sc hrcibrcgclung wurclc 1. um I . A ugust 1998 von den stant lichcn Stcllcn in Kraft gcsctzt uncl hattc zum Gruncl sat 7.. ncbcn cincr einhcitlichcn Darstellungs weisc cl er Regeln auch «bchutsamc inhalt- lichc Vereinfachungcn» vorzunchmcn. Dicsc wurdcn von cincr brciten OITc ntlid1kcit j ccloch ni cht untcrstlitzt. viclmchr setztc cin Ringe n um Konzcptc. d.h. um cin Sich-Einigcn zwischcn versc hicdcncn miiglichcn Normcn cin . Da die Orthographi c amtlich koclif'i7.icrl ist und somit cine hcrau sgchobenc St cll un g untcr den sprachlichcn Normcn cinnimmt . ist sic vo n bcsondcrcr gcscllsc hal'tspolitisc hcr Relevanz und die Pra gc dcr kon - scnsucllcn Normicrung wird 1.ur Notwcn 30 Kerstin Guthert References /\ugst. Gerhard & Strun k. Hiltraud . 1988 . Wie cl er Reeht sc hreibduden quasi amtlich wurde. Zur Ge nese und zu r Kritik des «Stillhaltebeschlusses» dcr Kultus- 111ini sterkonfercnz vo m 18./ 19. Nove mber 1955. M1111 erspmc/1e 98. 329- 344. Deut sc he Akacl emic l'i.ir Sprac hc und Dichtung (ed.) . 2003. Z11r Ne)i11·111 der de 111scli e11 Recli tsclirei/J1111 g . Ei11 Ko 1111J ro111!/JwJ rscli/ag. Gott in gen: Wal I stein . /)e11tscli e.1· WiirterlJ11 c!i 1·0 11 Jakob Gri111111 1111d Willie /111 Gri111111 . Bel . 1- 16. Leipzig 1854- 1960: Hirzc l. Duden. Konrad . I 903. On/111grnplii.1·c/i e.1· Wiirterh11 cli der de111scli e11 Spracli e. Nac/i de 11 .Jlir /J e11t .V<'lila 11 d, 6.1·1erreicli ////(/ die Sc/111 'ei-;. giiltigen w111/icli e11 Rexe/11 . Siebente A ul'lagc. neucr Abclru ek. Leipzig/Wien: Bibliographi schcs lnstitut. Duden. Konrad . 1908. Ree htsc hre ibung. In Wilhelm Rein (eel .): £ 11 cvklopiidiscli e.1· Handlmcli der Piidagogik. V IL Prinze nerziehung - Schulberi eht e. 2. A ul'lagc . 32 1- 338. Langensal 1.a: Beyer. Duden. 1991 . l? echtschrei/J1111 g der de11t sche11 StJmche. 20 ., viii I ig ncu bea rbcitcte und erwei tert e /\ul'lage. Herau sgegebcn vo n cl cr Duclenrcdak tion auf der Grundlagc dcr amtlichen Rec ht schreibregeln . Ma11nhc i111 /Wicn/Zlirich: Dudenve rlag. Erorn s. Hans-Wern er. 1999. Die Rcc ht sc hreibrel'onn in der l'>llentlichen M einung. In Gerh ard Sti ckel (ed.): S1m 1che. Sprac/111 •i.1'.1·e11.1·chq/i. O.//i,111/iclikeit : JohrlJ11 c!t 1998 !11 s1i1111 ji'ir drntscli e Sp/'(/ c/i e. 194- 224. Berlin/New York: de Gru yter. Gese llsc haft l'Lir deut se he Sprnche. 2007. Wiirt er des .lahres. Intern et: http:// www.gfcl s.de/ index.php'! id = l I (2007- 10- 14) Grebe. Paul (ed .) . 1963. Akt e11 ::. 11r Gescliichte der de111sc/i e11 Ei11/iei1sschreib1 111 g 1870-1880. Ma11nhc i111 : Bibliogrnphi se hes lnstitut. lekclsamer. Valentin . A bout 1535. /\in Teiitsc/1 e Gro11111101irn . /Jorm!/1 ainer von j111 se/b.1· 111 01:: /e.1·e11 lem e11 I 111i1 ol/e111 de111 I so -:. 11111 Te11tsche /e.1·e11 vii desselhe11 Ortl/Og/'(/p/tio 111a 11 gel \'/Id iiher/11(/1 I a 11 cli w1der111 l'i/ 111 ehr I -;. t1 1Fis.1·e11 gehiil'I . /\ 11 ch etwa.1· 1·0 11 der rccli ten art 1'11(/ £ 1y 111 0/ogia der teiitscli e11 spmch \'II(/ 11•bn a I rnd 1l'ie 111 r111 die 1'eiit.1che11 11 ·iirt £'/' i1111 jre silben ta\'/e11 I 1'11 d -:. t1.1·0111 e11 Bt1ch.1·10 /J e11 sol/ . (Reprint Stuttgart 197 1) Kohrt. Manfred. 1997. Orthngraphi sc hc Nonnen in tier de 111 okrati sc hcn ese ll schal't. In Gerlrnrd A ugst et al. (eds.): Zur Ne 11rege/1111 g der de111sc/i e11 Orthogm1Jhir': /Jeg rfi/l(/1111 g 1111 d Kritik. 295- 3 15. TUb ingen: N iemeyer. Kommiss ion 1.ur Ermittlung dcr Konze nt ra ti on im M cdienbereie h (= KEK). 2007. Medie11rele1'w1te \'(' /'\\ '(111(// e Miirkte. Zeit1111 ge 11 . Intern et: http://www.kek - on I ine.de/1nh altc/tagcszcitunge n .ht 111 I (2007- 10- 19) Ncrius. Dieter (ed.). 2002. Die onlwgm1Jhiscli e11 Ko1l)('rell'::. e11 1·0 11 1876 1111 d 190 1. I lildes heim/Zlirich/Ncw York: O l111 s. Ncrius. Dieter (eel .). 2007. /J e111sc/1 e Ortlwgmphie, 4., neu bearheit cte A ul'lagc. Hildes heim/Zi.irieh/Ncw York : lm s. M entrup, Wolfgan g. 1987 . Wiener Gespriiche zu Fragcn dcr Rcc ht sc hreibung. Sprnc/11·e11ort 87( I ): 15. M cntrup . Wolfgan g. 1993. Zur Reform tier deut sc hen Recht sc hreibung: Histori sc he 11 intcrgrlindc - Der aktuel le Vorschlag. 7'e m1i110/ogie et Trad11 ctio 11 1992( I ). 19- 50. M cntrup, Wolfgan g. 1999. Sprnche -Schreibbrauch - Schreihnorm - /\mtlichc Norm . Disk uss ion tier Ncurege lung der Rec ht se hreibung: Beobachtungen und Oberl egungcn. In M ari a Plimpel-Mader and Beatri x Sc hiinherr (eds.): Spmche - K11/111r - Gesc/1ichte: S/J/'{/ chhi.1·1orisclw S111die11 ::. 11111 /J e111scli e11 . Ha 11 s Moser -:. 11111 60. Ge/J11/'/ .1·w g. 183- 205). Innsbruck: lnstitut l'Lir Germ anisti k. 31 Concurrent standardiza ti on as a necessity Sc heuringcr, Hermann & Stan g, Christi an . 2004. Die de111sc!t e Rechtsc!treih1111 g. Gesc!tichte. Reformdiskussion, Neuregelung. Wien: Edition Pra csc ns . Schlaefer, M ichacl. 1980. Grundzlige cl er dcutschen Orthographiegcsc hicht c vom Jahre 1800 bis wm Jahre 1870. In Sprac!t wissenschc1/i 5, 276- 3 19. Sc hl ae fer, Michael. 198 1. Der Weg cl er deutschen Einheitsorth ographie vo m Jahre 1870 bi s zum Jahre 190 I. In Sprac!twissenscha/i 6, :'9 1--438. Verhandlun gen 1876: Verhancllungen cl er zur Herstellung groBerer Einigung in cl er cl eutsc hen Rec htschreibung berufenen Konfcrenz. Berlin , den 4 . bi s 15 . Januar 1876 . Halle: Wai senhaus . In Dieter Neri us (ed.) 2002: Die orthograp!tisc/1e 11 Ko11fere11 ze 11 van 1876 u11d 190 1, 1- 184. Hildcs heim/Zlirich/New York : Olms. Dr. Kerstin Gi.ithert G e sch ~ift s fi.ihr e rin , Rat fi.ir deutsche Rechtsehreibung lnstitut fi.ir Deutsche Sprache R 5 , 6- 13 D-68 161 Mannheim DEUTSCH LAND guethert @icls-mannhei m .de 32