sign in sign up
<<
Home , German language

This was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104 On: 02 Oct 2021 Access details: subscription number Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Position of the German in the World

Ulrich Ammon, David Charlston

Speaker numbers and economic strength of German

Publication details https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315157870-3 Ulrich Ammon, David Charlston Published online on: 15 Sep 2019

How to cite :- Ulrich Ammon, David Charlston. 15 Sep 2019, Speaker numbers and economic strength of German from: The Position of the German Language in the World Routledge Accessed on: 02 Oct 2021 https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9781315157870-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material. Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 cost-benefit terms and becauseoftheincreased communication potential.cost-benefit terms AdditionalSL- orFL guages (.g. Czech, Danish, Greek, etc.). With largerlanguages, ismore learning “worthwhile” in compare thelargerEuropean (English, French, German, etc.) withthesmaller lan- speaker number motivates thelanguage as aforeign language. peopletolearn For example, language.opment of a language into an international equal, Other factors a high native- included orSLspeakers aswell; FLspeakers are generallynotincluded. still speakit(. A.3). Inthestatistics, itisoften unclearwhetheronlynative speakers have been speakers (FLspeakers). andcan The latterhave thelanguageoutsideitsterritory learnt types: primarily, native speakers, second-languagespeakers (SLspeakers) andforeign-language dia.org/wiki/Esperanto). speaker number, includingthe very few native speakers, vary from 500,000 to 2 m(de.wikipe- 1989). Ithasvery few speakers, but they oftencommunicate internationally. Estimates ofthe languages. languageEsperanto (Sakaguchi1987,The onlynotable exceptionistheconstructed languages is beyondand their ranking as international doubt, strong at least with numerically existence ofapositive between oflanguagesby correlation therankordering speaker number (211 m, includingsecond-languagespeakers, according toEthnologue2005: 320). However, the strongnumerically languages, e.g. Bengaliwithconsiderably more than200 mnative speakers language (Ch. A.3). This isevident from therelatively weakpositionofmany international cially native speakers, or interlingual is use not of a a reliable indicator for the international for use. a language(Ch. A.7), canmotivate it, peopletolearn thereby boostingopportunities further contacts,Especially inthecaseofinternational the experiencing “communication potential” of speaker forcontactwithalanguageincrease numbers. inproportionOpportunities withrising they represent akey andasignificantindicatorfortheglobalpositionoflanguages. factor measuring “large” or “small” languages. For many experts, e.g. Abram deSwaan (2001: 27–33), Speaker numbers, orthe strength”“numerical oflanguages, are generallycitedasaparameterfor Apart from languages,Apart constructed native speakers represent capitalforthedevel thestarting - speaker numbers,When considering itistherefore expedient todistinguishbetween speaker However, asHeinzKlossnoted(1974b; 1982), alsoLieberson thenumber ofspeakers, espe- ECONOMIC STRENGTHOF 1. SPEAKER NUMBERS AND SPEAKER

Current speaker numbers (numerical strength) of German Current speaker strength) of numbers (numerical GERMAN 74 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 about language. The evaluation ofthiscensustherefore also containednorelevant also sufferfrom thesedefects. containsnotevenThe 2011censusforGermany oneexplicit reliability (de ofdatabecauseself-assessmentare anadditionalfactor 2005). Vries and countries,between comparison. time periods which hampers Limitationson validity and censuses, languageisnoteven vaguely mentioned orthequestionsare formulated andvary population (no. 8of the list; de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksz%C3%A4hlung). However, in many least the conversation”“language spoken innormal asoneofthe12significantfeatures ofthe inSt Petersburg StatisticalCongress recommendedInternational at thatcensusesshouldregister which arenumbers missing, not to mention data differentiated by speaker type. In 1872, the first sus figures with representative dataprovide a reference point, but itisoften precisely speaker 1985;ability (Crystal Graddol1999; 2002a: Haarmann 21–29; Coulmas2005a: 151–157). Cen- of German. thesefigures Even canbecomeflawederrors registering in withvalidity and reli- Turning to(i): first native German speakers andSLspeakers intheofficial-languageterritory (iii) (ii) (i) lowing three groups: languagesubdividedexpedient toestimatetotalspeakerintothefol- fortheGerman numbers worldwide,distributed the diaspora”“German (Kloss1935; Ammon 1991a: 91). Itistherefore (Ch. (speaking) minorities this is not so easy for German E), not to mention the small groups (Ch. ofGerman ), withreasonable accuracyintheofficial-languageterritory determined but German; e.g. theEurobarometersspecial ); alsoCh. .4.4). Native speakers andSLspeakers canbe (defined by self-assessmentofabilitytoconversesuch astheEUandadjoiningcountries in Ch. L.3.2); but, forGerman-speakers, similarlyreliable datais only available forlimitedregions, worldwide dataisavailable (e.g. Netzwerk Deutsch2010; Foreign Office, Bulletin610, 2015); canalso presentregions different problems. For example, ofGerman, somereliable forlearners for distinguishing genuine FL speakers from mere learners. Collections of data in different mastered language. Difficulties alsooccurwithself-assessmentofcompetencelevels asameans be countedasanative language, perhapsasecondnative language, oreven astheonlyactually languagewhichisnowsubsequently learned mastered betterthanthenative languageshould cally. from the almost unavoidable arise Uncertainties reliance on self-assessment, or whether a competence. to learn,non-learners even if they themselves do not have and may never reach useful language it isdifficulttodistinguishthemfrom real FLspeakers, but because “mere” canmotivate learners keep thesefigures separate. ofalanguageshouldbeincluded, Mere FLlearners notonlybecause thedifferent relevanceconfirm ofnative speakers, SLspeakers andFLspeakers andtheneedto of itssmallernumber ofnative speakers thanChinese(Graddol1999, 2006). Suchexamples position intheEU, althoughithasfewer native speakers thanGerman, andintheworld, inspite position. foritsinternational be crucial For example, Englishenjoys adominantinternational speakers therefore boostdevelopment language. intoaninternational FL speakers may, infact, Censuses in the German-speaking countries and the German-language territory (Ch. B.4) territory andtheGerman-language countries Censuses intheGerman-speaking However, themstatisti- typesthanitisto itiseasiertodefinespeakerregister andlearner from mere learners isanalmostimpossiblefrom task. mere learners useful competencelevel (Ch. C.1, end)–althoughdistinguishing “competent speakers” worldwide, learners FLspeakers includingallGerman andcurrent,German former with (Ch. ofGerman E); outsidetheofficial-languageterritory minorities native (speaking) SLspeakersGerman intheGerman speakers andifpossible German man (incentralEurope) (Ch. B.4 andD); ofGer- native SLspeakers intheofficial-languageterritory German speakers andGerman Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 75 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 2005: 11). skills in different everyday“Competent use of their German situations [. almostallhave“Second-generation immigrants agoodknowledge ofGerman” (. Werner not entirely withthe numerous, agree claims; alarmist on thecontrary, they are largely positive. Before goingany further, I must say thatthefindingsonforeigners’ do knowledge ofGerman withoutofficialstatusoftheirlanguage(Ch. (speaking)minorities finally totheGerman E). asthenationalofficiallanguage(Ch. ofstateswithGerman states andparts D.2.2–D.3.2), and required fornaturalisation(forcriticism, inGermany seeLi2014). topicsandareasinterest” ofpersonal about familiar –asstatedinthesummary). This isoften Framework as a minimum level (“can converse for German-speakers simply and coherently for SLspeakers whomightachieve competencelevel B1oftheCommonEuropean Reference speakers and non-speakers also remains unspecified because of lack of data. It is only relevant and the smalleras non-German-speakers.speakers ofGerman The distinctionbetween German non-native speakers, explained below) as SL with the larger fraction (according to the criteria asasecondnativeGerman language. Byway compensation, ofpartial I countallforeigners as language, speakers willalso classify asGerman-speakers, all minority-language – possibly with regions, isanofficiallanguagealongsidetheminority assume thatinminority inwhichGerman Sorbian area), andeven native I countallcitizensasGerman-speakers asGerman speakers. I also in censuses. residence permit. Itisoftenonlyforeigners definedinthisorasimilar way whoare included I refer more generally, notonlywithreference toGermany, toforeigners withapermanent anyway (www.bundesauslaenderbeauftragte.de/aufenthaltsberechtigung.html). In the following, Act of1January 2005 for citizensfrom non-EUstates; EUcitizenshave permit thispermanent with a eigners residence permit”“permanent – as provided under the Residence in the populationcomprehensively intocitizens, naturalisedforeignersandnon-naturalisedfor- with regard toknowledge ofGerman. To achieve anoverview, itwould beadvisable todivide astheofficiallanguage differs information. from otherstateswithGerman Censusinformation the predominant native –i.e. languageandsolenational orregional , iscalculatedas:in Germany =100% citizens+90%foreigners. ΣGerman-speakers foreigners asSLspeakers ofGerman, thetotal number ofpeoplewithaknowledge ofGerman to integrate. Accordingly, native if 100% ofcitizensare countedasGerman speakers, and90%of an overestimate forthepresent generation; however, otherforeigners are oftenmore prepared of German. A figure of95%for Turkish peoplemay applytothenextgeneration but would be as SL speakers residence permit) mistic proportion of 90% of foreigners (still with a permanent mit canbeclassifiedasSLspeakers ofGerman. For Germany, I have estimatedasomewhat opti- Migration, RefugeesandIntegration” (Engels/Köller/Koopmans/ Höhne2011: 157–159). ily language, by the andthisisconfirmed ofthe Federal Officefor Report “SecondIntegration very positivelyat schoolcorrelates withknowledge- ofGerman, asfam especiallywithGerman (Haug2008:the mostintegration-resistant 6). However, mosthave cometorealise thatsuccess indicateanupwardGermany trend (Sauer2012: 5). Inthiscontext, Turkish are among migrants theirlifetime,during are lower (43.6%), but thehighfigures forthosewhohavegrown upin second generation, thefigure is86.3%.migrants,arrived Thefiguresfirst-generation for who Turkish as very classify their knowledge good or good; (im)migrants of German even in the telephone survey (n =1000)inNorth- in2011, 98.9%ofthird-generation tively unproblematic groups” formostmigrant (Haug2008: 6). According toonerepresentative The following (Ch. considerationsrelate initiallytoGermany D.2.1), thentotheother For simplicity, asthesoleofficiallanguage(e.g. ofstateswithGerman instatesorparts the I am also guided by this formula for the other states and parts of states with German as ofstates with German for theotherstatesandparts I amalsoguidedby thisformula Based onthesefindings, residence per- offoreigners withapermanent atleastthe majority Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 76

.

.] is rela- Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 in 2010was 7,870,134(Federal Office forStatistics: Leporello_Bevölkerung_2010_D_web.de). inthenamedsituations).do notuseGerman The continuous resident population ofSwitzerland 65.6% canbecountedasnative speakers and6.9%asSLspeakers (1.3% ofthenative speakers native language”. Accordingly, atleast72.5%oftheSwisspopulation speakGerman, ofwhich fying terms, Freymond explained, speech,“In normal themain language[. asthelanguagewhichthey speak declared German “at homeandatwork/in education”.- Clari of 2010, asthe 65.6%ofthepopulationdeclared German “main language”, 6.9% andafurther Federal OfficeforStatistics)figurestor intheRegional according towhich, inthelastcensus people). This gives atotalof72,878German-speakers. (95.8% =70,048 people), SLspeakers (2,830 and90%oftheother foreigners(3,144)asGerman the , like , native the immigrant can alsobecountedas German speakers Deutschsprachige_Gemeinschaft_Belgiens.pdf). isthesoleofficiallanguage, SinceGerman only 4.3%were (www.kathonrw.de/uploads/media/7._Die_ foreignersfrom othercountries 73,119 peoplein2006. Ofthese, 80.9%wereGermans, and14.9%immigrant but Belgians speakers (3,283people). countries, SL of theassumed10%foreignersfrom non-German-speaking 90%asGerman nativeI therefore classify90%ofthetotalpopulationasGerman speakers (32,824people), and als” (Regional ofLiechtenstein:Administration www.llv.li/llv-as-bevoelkerung). population [. vorlaeufige_ergebnisse_31.12.2011). For 2010, itisclaimedthatthe “onethird ofthe 36,149) withaproportion offoreigners of33.3%(www.liv.li/pdf-llv-as-bevoelkerungsstatistik_ speakers, SLspeakers. and868,403foreigners and781,563German With thepercentages namedfor2012, native thatwould be7,452,497citizensandGerman was aroundAustria 8,420,900(www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/bevoelkerung/index.html). today,2001 andcertainly may beestimatedashigher. At theendof2011, thetotalpopulationof users;would beGerman however, users, theproportion ofpotentialGerman probably even in constitute 24%oftheforeigners, ofGerman 2.8% non-users sothatonly76%offoreigners 2012: www.integrationsfonds.at/zahlen_und_fakten/statistisches_jahrbuch_2012). Infact, the of foreigners in in2012was aroundAustria 11.5%ofthepopulation(Statistik interalia Austria German, together withoneotherlanguage(deCillia2012). and8.6%German The proportion indailycommunication;tion indicatedthatthey speaknoGerman by contrast, 88.6%speakonly (Rudolf deCillia, email, 28 August 2012). Inthe2001census, only2.8%ofthe popula- Austrian haveers knowledge ofGerman. as This hasbeendescribed avery cautiousestimate”“certainly 5124103119004.pdf?). tionen/Thematisch/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungstand/VorlBevoelkerungsfortschreibung (www.destatis.de/DE/PublikaSL speakers thenamountto81,102,768German-speakers stillunclear). residence permit (the proportion offoreignerswithapermanent Native speakers + man native speakers. 90%oftheforeigners, i.e. SLspeakers 6,668,778peoplecountasGerman eigners, i.e. 74,433,990citizens. According totheconsiderationsabove, thelattercountasGer- Office forStatisticsattheendof2011: atotalpopulationof81,843,743, ofwhich7,409,753for- native inproportion totheGerman ers speakers (, South ). language andoneofseveral officiallanguages, I adoptthesameapproach, allocatingtheforeign- andEastBelgium.asthewidespread native ofstateswithGerman Instatesorparts For Switzerland(Ch. D.2.4), Freymond (DeputySectional Direc toChristoph - I amgrateful (Ch. community in East The German-speaking D.3.1) had a total population of The StatisticsOfficeinLiechtenstein(Ch. D.2.3) quotedatotalpopulationof36,476(2010: For (Ch.Austria D.2.2), theavailable datajustifytheassumptionthataround 90%offoreign - (Ch.For Germany D), the following figures were derived from from the information Federal . .] offoreign nationality” are “predominantly Swiss, nation- andGerman Austrian Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 77 . .] iswhatwe callour

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 Table C.1–1 fied (compare Ch. A.8). may Immigrants increasingly retain Englishas alinguafranca, and willbeweakenedguistic integration aspostnationaltendenciesandglobalisationare intensi- power inthereceiving oflinguisticintegration language communities. Itispossible thatlin- asthenationalofficiallanguage. rates)inallstateswithGerman by birth falling isincreasing,immigration now sothatimmigration exceedsthe decline inpopulation(caused ofstatesconsidered here,parts while forthecitizenpopulationhasbeenfalling thebirth-rate SL speakers maydecrease while the proportion increase, of German because in all the states or limited growth rather than a decline. However, native the proportion of German speakers may native asGerman speakers.Germans All inall, thisamountsto407,200German-speakers. SLspeakers,German i.e. 104,600, SLspeakers withthe 12,100 whichgives 395,100German man SLspeakers. Oftheforeigners(minus Germans), I again, outofnecessity, counthalfas tions/-en-chiffres/Luxemburg-zahlen.pdf). All thecitizenscanbeconsidered Ger- 12,100 are Germans, thatis, 290,500citizens(www.statistiques.public.lu/catalogue-publica - resident populationfor2011of511,800, ofwhich221,300foreigners andofthese, inturn, 438,041 German-speakers. SLspeakers.113,738 German Together native withthe324,303German speakers, that makes together withtheSLspeakers amongthe75,926ItalianandLadinnative speakers, atotalof this between thenative-speaker proportions. This gives, forGerman: 37,812SLspeakers and, other regions, I assume90%knowledge ofatleastonethethree languagesandsubdivide case asSLspeakers. This would amountto75,926people. Regarding theforeigners, asforthe can subsequentlyspeakanduseGerman, soI have nooptionbut toestimate50%ineach asaschoolsubject.native German speakers learn However, itisnotknown how many ofthese wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnischer_Proporz_%28S%C3%BCdtirol%29). The Italian and Ladin people), Italiannative speakers 26.06%(121,760) andLadinnative speakers 4.3%(30,091)(de. the citizens, languagegroupsare subdivided asfollows: native German speakers 69.41%(324,303 news/news_d.asp?cate_id=9737). Ofthese, 467,228are citizensand44,522foreigners. Among total populationforyear-end 2011as51,750, with8.7%foreigners (www.provinz.bz.it/astat/ 543,039 SLspeakers. Of these, asperthedata, 5,705,847 were with5,162,808native German-speakers speakers and Austria Total Luxembourg community) (German-speaking Belgium (, ) Switzerland Liechtenstein Germany Whether the number of German-speakers will rise in the longer term dependsonthe in the longerterm will rise Whether the number ofGerman-speakers warnings,By contrastwithprevious alarmist theoutlookforfuture seems more like Table C.1–1 provides anoverviewfar. ofthefindingsso For Luxembourg (Ch. D.2.5), the “Institut nationaldelastatistique” gives a(rounded) total For Bolzano, South Tyrol inItaly(Ch. D.3.2), InstituteforStatisticsgives theRegional German (native and SL) speakers in the official-language territory ofGerman (nativeGerman andSL)speakers intheofficial-languageterritory Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 87,488,570 74,433,990 Native speakers 7,452,497 5,162,808 324,303 78 12,100 70,048 32,824 8,508,331 6,668,778 SL speakers 781,563 395,100 113,738 543,039 2,830 3,283 95,956,901 (≈96 m) 81,102,768 total speakers German 8,234,060 5,705,847 407,200 438,041 72,878 36,107 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 and Austria”, “German” and nationality”“of German (Ecuador, Israel, Colombia, , man” (France), origin”, national/naturalised of German-speaking “German “from Germany ashomeorconversational“German language” (), “passive knowledge ofGer- speaking” (Peru), “speakers of German” (), as homelanguage”“German (Australia, USA), tina, , , , , , , Uruguay and ), according varies tosource:The namingoftheirothercategories speakers”“German “German- (Argen- Canada, native Mexico(andtheSoviet Unionatthattime)onlytoGerman speakers (1989: 15f). expressly Germans). relate Dickgiesser thefigures citizens(former for Born/ time asGerman ple recognised by thePolish government as “indigenous” andby theFederal Government atthe native hadnofigures forGerman Dickgiesser speakers in (1989: 161f.), but onlyforpeo- rangesformany states,can beseenespeciallyinthenumerical e.g. BrazilorHungary. Born/ text,Born/Dickgiesser whichdiscussesthediversity ofthesources onwhichitisbased. This sources hasoverlooked but notaddedany. oneorotherminority from allrows were totalledandaveraged and, infact, ontheassumptionthateachofthree three totalsbefore itinthesamerow, otherwiseitsvalue would belower. Instead, theaverages German. asanaverageThe totalinthelastcolumn(7.493 m) must notbeunderstood ofthe Australia and ( 2009: 581, 640), are included in the figures for ”deutsch (Rabaul Creole German), the latter, with only about 100 speakers, being named for • • (Ch. D). Moreover, thefollowing datasources were removed: which ispresumably inflated. speakers ofGerman. However, I have atmy disposalonlytheavailable data, numerical much of inRussia)willknow (Oblast region howKaliningrad difficultitistoidentify real I have e.g. inPennsylvania (USA: ), Brazil)andinthe inRioGrandedoSul(Southern isoftendependentonsize.countries Anyone whohasever visited “German” – as minorities dependent distortions, becausefundingby thehomegovernment ortheGerman-speaking official-languageterritory,outside theGerman speaker may numbers besubjecttointerest- would increase ofGerman exponentially.official-language territory With languageminorities a majorresearch project problems becausethemethodological namedpreviously even forthe works worldwide by identifyingandcountingtheactualGerman-speakers would, however, be always withinreasonably intactnative-speaker beincorporated networks. suchnet- Gauging (compare Ch. ofGerman E).speakers outsidetheofficial-languageterritory SLspeakers can letin 19June 2012). speaks English athome([Swiss]FederalSwitzerland currently OfficeforStatistics: media bul- knowledge ofEnglish(Ch. A.5; Wagener 2012). 4.1%ofthestable resident populationof everthis couldsucceedinlinewiththecitizenpopulationacquiring more comprehensive The uncertainty of numerical estimates of German minorities is clearly articulated inthe isclearlyarticulated minorities estimatesofGerman ofnumerical The uncertainty ofHutterite,The varieties Pennsylvanian andMennoniteGerman, Silesianand “Unser- isnotanationalofficiallanguage The datalistedincludesonlynationsinwhichGerman Turning now of ourinventory to the next part (ii): native German speakers and possibly SL seasonal orborder dwellers. seeCh. (forthisterm real minorities E.1), or (contractGermans) but ratherexpatriates Mozambique, Philippines, RicoandUnited Puerto Arab Emirates, becausethere were no Kingdom”), Ireland, , Spain, Thailand and , andfrom Ethnologue2009: From “Deutsche Sprache” language]in [: Greece, Britain, (“United these states; 1989: Dickgiesser From Born/ Soviet UnionandCzechoslovakia, becauseofdissolution Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 79 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 Table C.1–2 Australia Belize Bolivia Bosnia andHerzegovina Brazil Chile Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador Estonia France (-) Israel Canada Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Columbia Lithuania Mexico Namibia Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Puerto Rico Puerto Rumania South Africa Ukraine Uruguay USA Uzbekistan Venezuela Totals wiki/Deutsche Sprache: 17f.) (Sources: 1989; Dickgiesser Born/ Ethnologue2009; “Deutsche Sprache” in Wikipedia: de.wikipedia.org/ Note: “n.d.” =no data; “n.f.” Native- and SL speakers of German outside official-language territory of German inm ofGerman Native- outside official-languageterritory andSLspeakers ofGerman =no figures 1989 Born/Dick-giesser 0.300 0.109 0.003 0.011 - 0.500–1.500 0.020–0.035 0.020 n.d. 0.002–0.003 - 1.200 0.096 0.439 - - - 0.010–0.012 - - 0.050 - 0.020 0.125 0.005 n.d. 1.100 n.d. 0.200–0.220 - - - - 0.041 - - - 0.220 0.008–0.009 1.610 - 0.025 6.114–7.153 2009 Ethnologue 0.400 0.135 0.069 0.160 Named, n.f. 1.506 0.035 0.026 n.d. 0.032 0.001 1.500 0.200 0.641 0.050 0.101 0.003 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.040 0.007 0.023 0.038 n.d. 0.001 0.523 0.001 0.045 0.647 n.d. 0.005 0.002 0.012 Named, n.f. 0.039 0.038 0.033–0.088 0.029 1.488 0.040 Named, n.f. 7.870–7.925 Wikipedia Sprache”“Deutsche in 0.330–0.350 0.200 n.d. n.d. n.d. 0.850–0.900 0.020 0.020 0.030 n.d. 0.002 1.200 0.200 0.438 0.358 0.020 0.003 n.d. 0.003 0.003 0.080–0.090 n.d. 0.030 0.166 n.d. n.d. 0.150 n.d. 0.045 0.862 0.005 0.006 0.002 0.300–0.500 n.d. 0.030 0.035 0.035–0.200 n.d. 1.100 n.d. n.d. 6.523–6.968 Average 0.347 0.148 0.036 0.086 - 1.127 0.028 0.022 0.030 0.018 0.002 1.300 0.165 0.506 0.204 0.061 0.003 0.011 0.003 0.003 0.058 0.007 0.024 0.110 0.005 0.001 0.591 0.001 0.100 0.756 0.005 0.006 0.002 0.151 - 0.035 0.037 0.133 0.019 1.395 0.040 0.025 7.493 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 • • • • reliable (fordataquality, seealsoCh. K.7). from official schooland university statistics,often originate they can, cautiously, be evaluated as learners. cially former representativepossible todetermine levels FL(GFL)learners, espe- ofcompetenceGerman counting speakers. Regarding theworldwide figures, ushere, whichconcern itis notcurrently details,I shall resist further giving whichare notrelevant forthepresent, of practicalpurpose To avoid inconsistency, this samecompetencelevel shouldalso beusedtodefineFLspeakers. work (“can converse topics and areas interest”). simply and coherently of personal on familiar I are involved. For thedichotomy intospeakers andnon-speakers, withregard toSLspeakers, SL speakers, possibilitiesfordistortion becauseconsiderably andcorresponding largernumbers cation by specifyingaminimum competence, istherefore even more urgentthaninthecaseof couldbedistinguishedfrom non-speakersof whichGerman-speakers ofGerman. This demar- ofGermany. the official-languageterritory She willalsoberegistered assuchthrough ourdatacollection method intheseparatedatafor Germany, SLspeaker. FLspeakers but isaGerman isnolongercountedinthegroupofGerman as a (GFL) as a childin woman German who learnt Turkey and now in b) have notbecomeSLspeakers ornative speakers. To explainb)withanexample: a Turkish it isthosepeoplewhohave thelanguageasaforeign languageanda)stillmasterit, learnt but speakers. ofthechapter,As suggestedatthestart thisdoesnotmeanFLlearners. Onthecontrary, especially largelanguages. However, thedifficulties aregreater considerably inthecaseofFL number ofnative speakers. tively, 128, 123and118 m. All inall, thisresults inadecliningtrend inview oftheshrinking at a consistent 28 2009), SLspeakers are figures alsonamedexpressly, forGerman fact inallthree editions andin presumably includesSLspeakers, (ibid: atleastforGermany 74). InEthnologue(2000, 2005, 95 and90 m(Ethnologue2000, 2005and2009), 2002a: and101 m(Haarmann 33). Haarmann speakers: around Weltalmanach 92 m(Fischer 1990: 758; Finkenstaedt/ Schröder 1990: 14); 100, for themostrecent period, perhapseven toolow – e.g. native forthetotalnumber ofGerman +7.5 moutside). ofGerman ritory obtained by addingthefigures from (ethnicity)];[scattered German Kloss1935), whichare notincludedhere. there” are (“Streudeutschtum smallergroups ofnative inothercountries speakers ofGerman overestimate ofthefigures, inthelast-namedcategories. Itshouldalso benotedthat primarily , Hungary). probably MyreinterpretationintoGerman-speakers leadstoan have already suggested competence level B1 of the Common European Reference Frame- for GFL learners worldwideFigure ares forGFLlearners available forthefollowing : The following overall figures are GFLtuition. totalledfrom allstatesoffering Sincethey a)ofadequatecompetenceinGerman,It ismuch onthebasis harder todealwithcriterion figures fornativeIt isdifficultenoughtodetermine speakers andSLspeakers oflanguages, In theoftencitedsourcesfigures, forcorresponding thedataare somewhat lower, –atleast The estimatedtotalnumber ofnative of103.5 mis speakers andSLspeakers ofGerman 2005: around 16.7 m(precisely 16,718,701; StADaF2005: 15); 2000: around 20.2 m(precisely 20,167,616; StADaF2005: 15); in theGoetheInstitute2000: lastpage, nopagenumbers); 1995: 17.5 m (precisely = 17,476,665 totalofthecolumnsfordifferent typesoflearners 1985: inReport types oflearners 46f); 1982/ 83: around 16.8 m (precisely =total ofthecolumnsfordifferent 16,836,172 m. Accordingly, the figures for native speaker + SL speakers add up to, respec- Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic Tables C.1–1 andC.1–2 (96 mintheofficial-languageter- 81 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 sustainable (Ch. promotion oftheglobalpositionGerman K). guage and culture, and at least selectively them where possible, considering within the also falls unreasonable. Thinking aboutthesepeople, whohave lan- already hadcontactwithGerman istherefore not order learners ofmagnitudearound +current 300 m still-living former which couldbeworth andtheirinhabitants. investigating countries forGerman-speaking An have never German. learnt contact They thusrepresent potentialforinternational acertain countries, withGerman-speaking more theirlanguageandculture familiar thanpeoplewho tence orhave lostitagain, shouldalsobeconsidered. Infact, theseare peoplewhohave become who are notGerman-speakers, becausethey have never reached anadequatelevel ofcompe- from 143.5to248.5 m. (nativefor speakers ofGerman speakers, SL speakers andFLspeakers) isobtainedasranging and ourspeculative figures forGFLspeakers (40–145 m)are added, thefollowing totalfigure ofnativeIf thenumbers speakers estimatedinthismanner, includingSLspeakers (Table C.2–1), GFL speakers – whichare now fictionalrather than speculative – would be: lower limitbecauseofthesubsequent, figures, higherlearner rangesfor the worldwide numerical estimated figure forusers, andtherefore speakers, of40 m, ofGerman andifthisisassumedtobea 25 generations: 425 mlearners). reality value Ifacertain totheearlier fortoday canstillbeascribed have stillliving today atotalfigure (with ofapproximately GFLlearners andcurrent 289 mformer 50 an average period, learning whichcouldperhapsbesetataround three years, of sothattheperiod figures similarto 1982/ 83dating back to 1965).(assuming learner Now, whatis still required is ures namedabove, ayearly average would ofaround thusbeobtainedforthisperiod 17 mlearners tobeincluded,for thetotalityofGFLlearners extendingfrom 1965 to2015. fig- From thelearner the average shouldperhapsbesetat15 years ofage, oflearning start providing of50 years aperiod worldwide was around 68.9 years: de. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebenserwartung). Ontheotherhand, withanestimatedaveragestart lifeexpectancy, say 65 years (in2008, theaverage lifeexpectancy whoare stillalive GFLlearners today. andformer GFLlearners of current Ononehand, onecould of datacollection. The figure citedisaround 1985: 40 m(Report 47; seealso Witte 8July 1987). in 1982/ 83.of Germany on the method Its reliability is doubtful because of lack of information made many years ago. Itisbasedonannual from reports overseas branchesoftheFederal Republic regularly toany extent. useGerman GFL learners But, tomy knowledge, theonlyestimatewas European Reference Framework) couldbeprovided by estimatesofhow manyorformer current A helpfulreference pointforactualGFLspeakers (from competencelevel B1oftheCommon • • mine speaker numbers, especially with largerlanguages. The totalfigures forGerman, which isbasedon existingdata.The following comparison Ch. C.1 showed how difficultitistodeter- In thiscontext, isnotincluded. thetotalnumber oflearners However, “mere” GFLlearners, asspeakers). 40–289 m (quiteunrealistically takingalllearners asspeakers);40–145 m (takinghalfofthe289learners or The upper limit for the required overall figure of GFL speakers is derived from the global sum years would accommodate around 17 generations of learners. With 17 generations, we would 2015: 15,455,452(Foreign Office, Bulletin6010:16). me by theGoetheInstitute); 2010: around 14.5 m(precisely 14,500,940)(Netzwerk Deutsch+supplementsshown to 2.

Speaker numbers of German compared with other compared languages German with Speaker numbers of Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 82 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 12. 11. 10. Dalby 1999/2000 Muller 1964 Table C.2–1 regions whichI haveregions addedtothenamedtotalspeaker numbers. and inEthnologue(2009). For somelanguages, (1987)gives figures Comrie onlyforindividual Ethnologue (1984; e.g. 315: “probably includes second-language speakers and )” inthecaseofDalbyonly certain (1999/2000), Ethnologue (2005, column2), in atleastin part included, the figures would have tobe . The inclusion of SL speakers in figures, especiallyforEnglish, French andto someextentGerman. IfSLspeakers hadbeen ers, withoutthisalways beingderivable from the sources, but thismay explainsomeofthelow methodsofdatacollection. does notguaranteeuniform vidual languages. Buteven thislimitationdoesnotguaranteeaneutral perspective andcertainly myself to sources which supply figures for all languages relevant to our context not just indi- school curricula. To individual languages, whichmightprivilege limit distortions I have limited claimsforanadvantagedsupport position ofthelanguage, e.g. organisations or ininternational to exaggeratebecauselargespeaker motivate numbers ofthelanguageand continued learning policy interests. Native oflanguages, countries theassociatedinstitutionsandindividuals tend widely. Inthiscontext, from sources very with highfigures oftenoriginate vested language- languages includedinthischapter, especiallyforSpanishandFrench, thefigures oftendiverge I collated from previous research, approximately agree withothersources. Butfortheother 10. 11. 12. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 2. 1. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. In many cases, thespeaker number foralanguagerefers onlytothenumber ofnative speak- Italian French Portuguese Bengali Japanese German Russian Spanish + English Chinese English Chinese Hindi+Urdu Spanish Russian Arabic Bengali Portuguese Japanese German French Italian Speaker numbers for German comparedSpeaker withotherlanguages(inm) forGerman numbers 100 135 145 185 265 515 55 65 85 85 90 95 1,000 1,000 900 450 320 250 250 200 130 125 125 70 French Indonesian Japanese German Bengali Portuguese Arabic Spanish Russian Hindi+Urdu English Chinese Culbert 1977 Culbert Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic Hindi+Urdu Chinese Ethnologue 2005 English Spanish Russian Arabic Bengali Portuguese Indonesian Japanese German French 101 113 120 131 133 134 225 246 278 369 821 95 83 425 873 309 322 145 206 171 177 122 French Bengali Indonesian Japanese Arabic German Portuguese Russian Hindi+Urdu Spanish English Chinese Ethnologue 1984 23 95 65 1,051 588 508 382 255 246 211 192 163 123 123 115 102 110 117 117 119 120 154 194 211 391 700 63 Chinese Ethnologue 2009 Spanish English Hindi+Urdu Arabic Bengali Portuguese Russian Japanese German French Italian French German Japanese Bengali Portuguese Arabic Indonesian Hindi+Urdu Russian Spanish English Chinese Comrie 1987 Comrie Table C.2–1 is 845.+178 329 (+60) 328 (+?) 243 (+224) 221 (+246) 181 (+69) 178 (+15) 144 (+110) 122 (+1)

90 (+28) 68 (+50) 62 (+?) 11,000 103 115 145 150 150 200 200 215 280 300 68 Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 English surpasses allotherlanguages,English surpasses andFrench from possibly all apart English. are considerably than several more important stronger numerically languages. Inthisrespect, hardly play communication arole (Ch. in international A.3). Conversely, EnglishandFrench rank.and international Ononehand, strong thenumerically languagesHindi-Urdu andBengali marked discrepancies between strength (basedonnative numerical speakers andSL-speakers) at least2,500languagesare stillspoken currently intheworld (Ch. A.7). However, there are also strongestall amongthe12numerically languagesinworld. in mindthat Itshouldbeborne which play economic, aleading role ininternational academicordiplomaticcommunication are strongestlanguages simultaneously belongtothegroup ofthenumerically languages. Languages languages (Ch. A.7; F.1; G.1; H.1)reveals thefollowing correlation: important internationally older figures. are by presumably differences determined intheinclusionofSL-speakers ortheprojection of trend doesnotexplainallfluctuationsinspeakerlong-term numbers; fluctuations short-term dropping backin rankposition; thisquestionwillbetaken upagainin Ch. C.3. However, the but theseare themore recent ones. trend gives is The long-term animpression thatGerman Portuguese, Bengali andJapanese according tosomeofthesources, are onlyaheadofGerman German; insomecases, theirspeaker number ismany thanthatofGerman. timesgreater Arabic, all accounts, Chinese, English, Hindi-Urdu (alsoonlyHindi), Spanish andRussianare aheadof higher figures forFrench, which evidently includeFLspeakers (Ch. A.3)or even FLlearners. By hadpreviously sharedGerman withJapanese (Ethnologue2005). However, there are many much was (Ethnologue2009), recently neckandwithGerman inpositionten, andinfact which positions sixand11ofalllanguagesintheworld. With theinclusionofSLspeakers, French unbracketed datarelate onlytonative speakers. oflanguages.comparison Relevant datain 328). BecauseoftheincompletedataonSLspeakers, Ethnologuedoesnotallow acomprehensive varieties, there are 181,272,900 “L1 speakers” and, “including L2speakers”, 250 m(ibid: 21, Arabic varieties” (ibid: 21, 523). For Bengali, withoutdistinguishingbetween standard andother 523); but for “Arabic” inthesenseofall Arabic varieties, 221 mand246L2speakers ofall system(compare Ch.writing B.1). For “Arabic, Standard”, there are 206 m “L1 speakers” (ibid: languages, becauseofthesame(ideographic) but whichare mutuallyinwriting intelligible those “varieties” whichwould beevaluated orallyaccording tolinguisticdistanceasdifferent nese”, whichseemstorefer tonative speakers (ibid: 20). Presumably, thelargefigure includes with theadditionof178 m “L2 speakers” (ibid: 339), however, of 1.213 mforallvarieties “- For instance, for “Chinese, Mandarin”, there are 845,456,760 “L1 speakers” (native speakers), other languages, thefigures forthestandard differfrom thoseforthetotalityof varieties. nologue 2009, there are nodatafor “L2 speakers” (SLspeakers) ofEnglishandItalian. With some Throughout, I have alsocombinedfigures forHindiandUrdu (language: Hindi-Urdu). InEth- however, from Ethnologue2005(page508)onwards, figures were available for “ArabicStandard”. Arabic”,Colloquial Arabic”,Colloquial “Western Arabic”and “Egyptian”;Eastern “Sudanese for Arabic, e.g. inEthnologue(1984), I have added figures for Colloquial “Eastern Arabic”, “North wheredata forallvarieties indicated, but otherwise, figures forthestandard variety. Accordingly, “Swabian” (Ethnologue2009: 553–555). To counteractthissplitting, I have taken comprehensive Ch. B.1), theseinclude “Bavarian”, “Saxon, Upper”, “ ”, “Kölsch ent languages. Alongside disputable casessuchas “German, Swiss” or “Saxon, Low” (compare towards languagesplitting(glottotomy). For example, dialectsare shown German asindepend- Comparing thelanguagesnamedin Comparing According tothesefindings, basedonthe number ofnative speakers, moves German between Ethnologue, whichisthemostcomprehensive inventory oflanguagesintheworld, tends Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic Table C.2–1 withthevery high-rankinginternational Table C.2–1 (lastcolumn)are shown inbrackets; the 84 ”, “ ”, Mainfränkisch Pfaelzisch” and Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 numbers ofactualFL-speakersnumbers (Ch. A.3; C.1). years”, willbefulfilled. Above all, must onnoaccountbeequatedwiththe numbers learner number forChineseasaforeign language learner toaround 100 minthenextfew“[will] rise example, itmay bequestionedwhethertheChinese-government prognosis (2006: 63)thatthe tion istherefore required withregard toinflatedexpectations relating to vested interests. For 105). Many ofthesefigures may have been overtaken already orwillbeinthenearfuture. Cau- approximately FLlearners, thenumber ofcurrent asper for different languagesare notavailable forthiscomparison. I have onlybeenable toestimate strengthsecured includingFLspeakers ifnumerical couldbedetermined. However, figures over to us to learn German [. over German touslearn an English officer”“engineering onavisitto Weimar saying, “you have done well [. perhaps apprehended even of the nineteenth century. at the start Around 1825, he welcomed sicism, positionandcultural standingofhislanguagewhichwas emphasisedtheinternational tion; andaround 1800, Classicism. German Moreover, Goethe, Clas- anexponentofGerman 1500, thiswould meanthehumanisminspired- by theItalianRenaissanceandReforma Around territory? native intheGerman-language German speakers andtheculturalflourishing (Table C.3–1). Mightitbepossible toshow acausalconnectionbetween thelargerreservoir of strongest language. Intheintervening period, by itwas French surpassed andthenby English attwonumbers periods: around 1500, level withFrench; and, around 1800, asthenumerically brackets. Similarfigures(1966: occurinBurney 67). Figure C.3–1 , named by thehighestnumbers Jespersen are given inbrackets, thelowest without (Jespersen 1933: 229, Note1). Itisalsounclearwhetherhemeansonlynative speakers. In Figure C.3–1 shows thedevelopment ofsixEuropean languagessince1500. (cf. Ch. A.7). For Portuguese andallnon-European languages, olderfigures are not available. have figures forsixEuropean languages, i.e. languages international not forallthecurrent to otherlanguages; relative 2)speaker ofGerman numbers toworld population. For 1), I only 7 bn). developmentAnalysis oflongerterm requires: relative 1)speaker ofGerman numbers 1927: justunder1.5%(Ch. 26)andiscurrently C.1: withmore 103.5 mbythan comparison speakers andSLspeakers totheworld populationin1925was stillaround 5%(1:20; Winkler countries.in developing thanindustrial countries native proportion ofGerman The numerical tury. isapproximately Itscourse proportional toglobalpopulationwhichgrows more strongly also evident in world population and presumably began towards the end of the nineteenth cen- case doubled from 1:1.45to 1:3.66; for Chinese, it increased by 40%, from 1:5.15to1:8.67 (in each hasthuscontinued toincrease,those languagesandGerman e.g. forSpanish, ithasmore than of these languages.in the native-speaker and official-language territories The distance between have grown andJapanese. more thanthoseofGerman topopulationgrowthThis corresponds istered, the speaker of Chinese, numbers Arabic, Bengali, Hindi-Urdu, Portuguese and Spanish Disregarding fluctuations, is not learning German”.is not learning Goethe replied, well, German “If someone understands he can do man hadbecomesogreat “that there ishardly ayoung who Englishgentlemanofgoodfamily A closer correlation between international importance and numerical strength couldbe andnumerical between importance A closercorrelation international It is faintly evident fromIt isfaintly Figure C.3–1 and Regrettably, Jespersen from doesnotindicatesources – apart Tesnière (1928)for1926 Ethnologue 2009compared withMuller1964). This laginthedevelopment is ofGerman 3.

Long-term development of speaker numbers of large large speaker numbers development of Long-term of Table C.2–1 shows significantchanges over time. Inthe45 years reg- . Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic .]”. The visitortoldGoethe that, inEngland, interest inGer- European languages 85 Table hadhighspeaker C.3–1 thatGerman Table .7–3 (Ch. J.7; also Ammon 2010c: . .] coming

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 Language Table C.3–1 in German”. boys who wanted tohave andgirls tospend thenextwinterinInnsbruck their children tutored is now inEngland; thefashion German learning inGodesbergI saw withthree orfour afamily hauer (1828: 128)describes “children whoseeducationistobecompletedon tour. Because onanEnglishtravelreporting company ontheLower Rhineinthe1820s, Johanna Schopen- among theBritish. this interest inGerman confirm For example, contemporaries historical (Eckermann’s Conversations withGoethe , 1825, Geiger, L. (ed.)(1902) : , 101f). Other German, because it “is the language of commerce and is especially indispensable on journeys” ”.good German Goethe expressly stated that only French could not be replaced by without many otherlanguages”, because “we cannow “read themostexcellentworks [. (Sources: Jespersen 1933; Muller1964; Ethnologue2005) Figure C.3–1 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 1926 (Source: afterJespersen 1933: 229)

Million 600 100 200 300 400 500 Long-term developmentLong-term ofspeaker of sixEuropean numbers languagesinmillions 0 Numbers ofspeakers ofmajorEuropeanNumbers Languagesover time English 4 (5) 6 8.5

116 (123) 170 20 (40) 1500 Russian Spanish Italian German English French 1600 German 10 10 10 30 (33) 75 (80) 80 Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 1700 1800 Russian 3 3

25 (31) 70 (85) 80 3 (15) 86 1900 French 10 (12) 14 20 27 (31) 45 (52) 45 1926 19642 Spanish 8.5 8.5 8.5 26 44 (58) 65 005 Italian 9.5 9.5

14 (15) 34 (54) 41 9.5 (11) . .] in Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 after Dalby 1999/2000, for2011, asperCh. C.1 end) (Sources: afterJespersen 1933: 229; from 1964, afterMuller1964, for1987, afterEthnologue1984, for1999, Note: native German speakers aspercentage ofworld population, speaker 1500to1926 numbers 2011 1999 Tables C.2–1 andC.3–1, –prognoses withoutthe –uncertain forfuture decades. Weltv%C3%B6lkerung). The sequenceofproportions shown in 1987 the UNOanticipates[. 1960: 3bn, 1974: 4bn, 1987: 5bn, 1999: 6bn, 2011: 7bn. “With ameanprojection upto2025,1804”. thetwentieth century, During theglobalpopulationalmostquadrupled. 1927: 2bn, world populationwas some500 m(UNestimate); itonly 1 billionpeople[. “surpassed declined again. This relative declineislikely tocontinue infuture decades. Around 1500, the rose relative toworld population andthen, from around themiddleoftwentieth century, impacted onthespeaker oftheirlanguages. numbers guese was notworth mentioningbecause, inhisday, colonialactivities ofnative hardly countries The previously low figures forRussianandEnglishare also remarkable. For Jespersen, - Portu position, strongest behindeachofthenumerically European languages, istypical forGerman. positively – atleastroughly – withphasesofpoliticaldominancethenative countries. Second 1500 Table C.3–2 for individual, smallstates, the grossdomesticproduct was used by way ofassistance. Sincethe national product for the states was taken from the 2005, 2009), whichgives speaker forlanguagesinevery numbers stateintheworld. The gross figuresgross relate totheirnational product (GNP). These were basedonEthnologue(1984, Moreover, Mackey’s figures relate tothepurchasing power ofspeakers, whilethesubsequent strongnumerically languages (Chinese, Hindi-Urdu, Bengali and Portuguese) are not included. strongest language communities intheworld athistimebecauseJapanese is missing, andseveral throughout. Mackey with the ten economically (1976: concerned 199–220) is not primarily (Mackey 1976; Ammon 1991a: 49, also for2005and2009). The figures are notcomparable at itsdisposal. academic, diplomaticandsoon –tendtobemore intensive economicstrength ifithasgreater a language” isusedforshort. contacts withalanguagecommunity – commercial, International strength ofthespeakers orlanguagecommunity. The term andeconomicstrength of “numerical tor forglobalposition. strength,As withnumerical thisrefers, more precisely, totheeconomic In additiontospeaker numbers,fac- theeconomicstrength (GNP)ofalanguageis asignificant 1960 1927 1800 The speaker numbers for German during theapproximately during The speaker initially 500-year for German numbers period By contrast, thehighspeaker forFrench numbers andEnglish(Table C.3–1 ) eachcorrelate Table C.4–1 gives anoverview ofexistingdataandfigures collectedspeciallyforthisbook 4. Long-term development inproportionLong-term toworld ofspeaker ofGerman population numbers

Comparing the economic strength of language communities theeconomicComparing strength of . .] 8.17billion, and10.9 billionby 2100” (de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ 1.5% 2.1% 2.7% 3.3% Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 2% 4% 3% 87 Fischer WeltalmanachFischer 1990, 2007 and 2012; 104: 125: 133: 100: 10: 80: 30: Table C.3–2 isderived from 7000 m 6000 m 5000 m 3000 m

2000 m 1000 m . 500 m .] in Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 (Ch. J.7) standsonamore stable foundation thanflamencoandbeachholidays. (seeCh.tries C.5), ofSpanishasaforeign language popularity whichcouldmeanthattherising these weaknesses have beencompensatedby coun- populationgrowth intheLatin- view ofrecent oneconomicweaknesses reports ofSpainand countries.American Maybe cally overtaken in by extent –isperhapsmore Spanish – althoughnottosuchagreat surprising native speakers +178 Table C.4–1  by comparison of by comparison strength(GNP) doesnotcoincidewith rankingby (speaker numerical numbers). This isshown As suggestedinCh. C.4, therankingoflanguagecommunities according toeconomicstrength forMandarin,numbers but of Chinese (1,213 also for all varieties ever, itmay beexaggeratedfor2009, becausethecalculationwas based notonlyonspeaker advantage over (2009approximately German 21%)hasbecomeeven since2009. greater How- China’s toaworld economicpower rise similarranktotheUSA. ofcurrently Itseconomic by Chineseandtoalesserextentby Spanish. given Relegationby Chineseishardly surprising 2005). hasonlyrecently beenrelegated from German this “customary” position, very evidently noticeableing languages,(1984to inposition3isparticularly stabilityofGerman theenduring but withoutspecifyingsources andmethod. (1997: calculatedtheeconomicstrength oflanguagesinaboutthesamemannerfor1994, 28f.) were added(=economicstrength ofthelanguageintotal). ItcanbeassumedthatGraddol relevant state). Finally, foreachlanguageacross allvalues allthestatesinworld determined respective languageintherelevant state(=economicstrength ofthelanguagecommunity inthe tion was calculated(totalGNP: population)andthenmultiplied by thespeaker ofthe numbers publication year ofEthnologue. For eachstate, thegrossnationalproduct perheadofpopula- Weltalmanachdata intheFischer show adelay, they were matchedasaccuratelypossible tothe talmanach 2007; Ethnologue2009andFischer Weltalmanach 2012) (Sources: Mackey 1976; Ethnologue1984andFischer Weltalmanach 1990; Ethnologue2005andFischer Wel- c 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. Regarding changesover the34-year period, whichI mentionhere only forthehigher-rank- Arabic Dutch Italian Spanish French German Russian English 1975 5. recent years Development ofeconomicstrength ofeconomicallystrongest languagecommunities in

Comparison of economic strength with numerical strength numerical economic strength with of Comparison 141 204 266 944 Table C.2–1 with 26 37 78 88 m SL-speakers; cf. Ch. C.2). has alsobeen economi- that German The fact Hindi-Urdu Dutch Portuguese Italian Arabic Chinese French Spanish Russian German Japanese English 1984 Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic Table C.4–1 (Ch. C.2; C.4). Figures C.5–1 andC.5–2 1,090 1,277 4,271 102 203 234 302 359 448 669 738 801 88 Bengali Hindi-Urdu Russian Portuguese Arabic Italian French Chinese Spanish German Japanese English 2005 113 215 584 872 985 1.207 2.215 2.399 3.204 3.450 4.598 12.717 m by comparison with 845 m by comparison Russian Italian Arabic Portuguese French German Spanish Japanese Chinese English 2009 14,187 1,185 1,687 1,703 1,866 3,109 4,257 5,001 5,029 5,379 m Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 ranking is determined by the decline in numerical rankingwhichmay by thedeclineinnumerical even ranking isdetermined betheprincipal tion 7to10isrelevant tothisexplanation. The parallelismsuggeststhatthedeclineineconomic community from position 3toposition5. A simultaneous declineinspeaker from numbers posi- strength. forthetwo yearsillustrate thecomparison included, withdataforeconomicandnumerical (Sources: Ethnologue2009andFischer Weltalmanach 2012) Figure C.5–2 (Sources: Ethnologue1984andFischer Weltalmanach 1990) Figure C.5–1 Of particular relevanceOf particular here isthedeclineineconomicstrength oftheGerman-language Billion US- GNP Billion 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 500 0 0 Englis

munities around 2009inbillionUS$ community comparedEconomic strength withotherlanguagecom- ofGerman-language Englis munities around 1984inbillionUS$ community comparedEconomic strength withotherlanguagecom- ofGerman-language h h Japanese Chinese

Japanese German Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic Billion US-$ Billion US-$ Spanis Russian

h

German Spanis Million speaker Million speakers h 89

French French

Portugues s Chinese

e

Arabic Arabic

Italian Italian

Russian Portugues

e 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

Million speakers Million speakers Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 language far exceedFL speakers ofChinese,language far even includingnative andSLspeakers andshow a English couldnoteven beapproached by Chinese. andspeakers ofEnglishasaforeign Learners as beinglimitedtonative speakers and SLspeakers (Ch. C.4). IfFL-speakers were included, our previous scalefortheeconomic strength ofalanguageor languagecommunity is seen modellingwithaflatteningcourse would presumablylogarithmic becloserto reality. of competitorstates, alsoslowed down totheirrateofgrowth. Insteadoflinearmodelling, a notable exampleisJapan, whoseeconomicgrowth, asitapproached level thetechnological into developed economies –thattheeconomicgrowth rateofChinesewilldeclineover time. assumed – ashasbeenroutinely the observed during “maturing” ofunderdeveloped economies will continue. However, alinear projection would be dubious. Above all, itmust therefore be have declinedfrom 9.6:1to2.6:1. Recenteconomic-growth datasuggest thatthisdecline cal strength. between the two the period Figs., During i.e. within25 years, theproportions 2009 (Table C.2–1) – around 3.7 times as great, if it developed- in proportion with numeri language community would thanthat of the English greater be far the twoinFigures ofbars C.5–1 pairs andC.5–2. The economicstrength oftheChinese- overtake theentire English-language community economically. This possibilityisillustratedby to alesserextentSpanish-speakingcountries. cussion here: theEnglish-speaking, German-speaking, Japanese-speaking, French-speaking, and org/wiki/Bev%C3%B6lkerungsexplosion). underdis- forthecountries This appliesprimarily more highlydeveloped countries, sothatadditionaleconomicgrowth isunlikely (de.wikipedia. mately becontrollable withnew technologies. Moreover, populationgrowth hasflattenedinthe about continuingwarnings economicgrowth, damagemay astheassociatedecological ulti- about global overpopulation,warnings which seem better founded than the equally familiar tonarrower limitsthanpure economicgrowth. by This issupported thenow familiar Japanese, French and Spanish. Butthis would always occur if population growth were that theChinese-languagecommunity economic growth hasgreater potentialthantheEnglish, applies forJapanese, German, French and –toalesserextentalsoSpanish. This findingsuggests community,the German-language economicpositionisstronger thannumerical, andthesame With Chinese, exceedseconomic; rankingfar numerical forEnglish, thisisreversed. Butwith of population/speaker numbers. community grew economicallystronger in terms thantheGerman, whileSpanish grew primarily ily through strongergrowth numerical (speaker numbers). Inthisperiod, theChinese-language through stronger economicgrowth primarily (GNP).terms With Spanish, however,- itwas primar less rounded here). C.4–1). albeit slightly, behindSpanish, whichitstilloutranked in1984 –andeven in2005(cf. factor. from 1984to2009, Intheperiod laggedeconomicallybehindChineseand, German An ultimatelyeven objectiontothepresent prognosis more serious if canbeconstructed Various have indicators even suggested that the Chinese-language community will one The difference between theChinese- andtheEnglish-languagecommunities isalsoevident. The figures suggestthattheChinese-languagecommunity ineconomic overtook German Economic 1.2(2009): 0.7(1984)(growth quotaofproportions 1.7). 3.7(2009):Numerical 1.8(1984)(growth quotaofproportions 2.1); Spanish: German; Economic 1.3(2009: 0.4(1984)growth quotaofproportions 3.3); 13.5(2009):Numerical 6.9(1984)(growth quotaofproportions 1.9); Chinese: German; In detail, 1984–2009, intheperiod asfollows theproportions varied (cf. C.2–1, C.4–1 – data Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 90 – according to our datafor Table

Downloaded By: 10.3.98.104 At: 10:33 02 Oct 2021; For: 9781315157870, chapter3, 10.4324/9781315157870-3 be synonymous andprobably clearer. of community is expressly expandedtoincludeFLspeakers. Then the terms “economic strength strength andlanguagecommunities nolongerfitssoneatly, unlesstheconceptoflanguage language withastrong leadforanundefinedperiod. Butthe relationship between economic strength, ascanbeestimatedatpresent Englishwillremain – theeconomicallystrongest – sofar 2000, 2006; 2003). Crystal Ifitseconomicpotentialisincludedinthemeasurement ofeconomic inthedirection ofthetotalworldtendency toexpandfurther population(cf. Ch. A.7; Graddol language ” and “economic strength ofspeakerslanguageX” (includingFLspeakers) would Speaker numbers/economic strength Speaker numbers/economic 91