Languages and the First World War: Representation and Memory

Review 1 - Aviv Amit, Tel Aviv University, Israel 1. Broad Outline of the Project This proposal focuses on varied aspects of languages during the First World War. These are investigated in the wider context of language change and contact based factors which caused variations in languages especially in Europe (UK, France, Belgium, Germany, Malta, Italy, Austria, Kosovo, Wales), but also in other places around the world (Canada, USA, Australia, Senegal, India). The authors propose to divide the project into two parts. Part I about 'Meetings between languages' and part II about 'Communication, Recording and Remembering'. Each part would open with an introduction and include papers presented at the 'Languages and the First World War' conference that was held at the University of Antwerp and the British Library on 18 and 20 June 2014. Each one of these books would be arranged into sections, including, among others: 'interpreting and translation', 'politics as a catalyst for language change', 'linguistic contact', 'language change', 'language and power', 'the language of remembrance'. 2. Critical Analysis of its Strengths and Weaknesses Although there are many books on the topic of languages during WWI, this project is strategically located at the intersection of sociolinguistic, language contacts and historical studies, providing obvious links with other fields of research such as sociology, anthropology, literature and cultural studies, and therefore represents a great interest. In addition, the book's documentation is most impressive and varied to the point of including newspapers, private journals, songs, post-war literature, propaganda, memorials, phrasebooks, etc. Given the great interest in the remembrance of the First World War, there is clearly a potential market for this project, notably at universities' departments where modules include sociolinguistics, twentieth-century history, discourse analysis and cultural representations of languages during the war. There is also possible interest in literature and modern history departments, but the focus on sociolinguistics means that this is likely to serve as a support text for reference purposes, rather than a key item on a reading list. However, given the fact that this period represents an important phase in the history of many languages, it is likely that an incisive, original consideration of language change and contacts between languages during this time would enjoy a long shelf-life and wide circulation. The description of each essay is of course very brief and lacks a bibliography, so I do not know what sources each author might intend eventually to bring to bear on the discussion. In addition, there is no abstract for the introduction to present the comparative framework of each book. The quality of the papers is very various. Some are excellent and demonstrate a solid awareness of the relevant issues and how they might be investigated (parts 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.1, 9.1, 9.2), while others maybe deal with important topics, but often not in a very illuminating fashion and are in need of tighter editing. In addition, some abstracts in the proposal are too short (parts 3.1, 3.3, 5.2, 8.2), and some even lack an abstract (part 5.5 and the introduction of Book I). Whilst I very much like the concept for this project, I fear that the authors need to rethink considerably their proposal before it could be recommended for publication. The key problem that needs to be addressed is the structure of the project. The point of collecting all the papers presented at the conference into two books without any selection or adaptation is certainly not the best option to serve the needs of the potential reader. Hence, only the best papers should be considered for publishing to maintain a high standard publication and should be incorporated in one book instead of two. 3. Overall, my assessment is that the proposed project shows promise as a topic. But it needs conceptual grounding in a comparative framework and needs also to be structured differently. The authors should ensure the quality of the papers and therefore reject papers of low quality. Since the project offers to cover a wide area and includes different methods and approaches, I recommend selecting only the better ones. In addition, a conclusion, or final chapter, that would bring together the different essays, relate these to the multi-disciplinary approach of the project and provide discussion of methodological issues would have been a useful addition. Without some guiding comparative framework, the work will merely be an assemblage of papers, which would fail to accomplish what the authors hope to achieve (i.e. a project that 'provides material for comparison of these phenomena across languages and across language relationship within combatant nations [...]'). Thus, I recommend that the proposal be modified and re-submitted for consideration. Review 2 - Amanda Laugesen, Australian National University, Australia 1. Outline: The editors/authors propose two edited volumes based on papers presented at a conferences on Languages and War. The first volume considers aspects of contacts between speakers of different languages/linguistic contact. The second looks at communication, the recording and collection of language-change, and language and remembrance. The proposal currently includes a collection of abstracts of varying length and relevance, and covering a diverse range of topics. 2. Category: This proposal fits Category 1 Edited Collection. 3. Contribution/originality: The papers proposed for these two volumes are both useful and original, and will fill a gap in the literature about the First World War. It addresses important aspects of language policy and sociolinguistics, as well as highlighting the importance of paying attention to language in historical studies of war, something that has been largely neglected in the existing scholarship. 4. Engagement with recent scholarship: This will vary as to individual papers, but overall, the subject is timely, relevant, and the scholars represented (e.g. Hilary Footit) are key scholars in the area of language and war. I believe that some of the collected papers will help to further the scholarship/discussion of language and war and thus is significant. 5. Strengths and Weaknesses: I believe the subject area(s) covered by these proposed volumes is significant and important. Many of the proposed papers would be of interest to scholars working in a range of areas and disciplines. That being said, the proposal has some weaknesses. The abstracts are of varying quality and relevance to the proposed two themes. There is a need to further explicate how the different disciplinary approaches will work effectively to sell these volumes to scholars working in particular disciplinary areas. The two titles of the proposed volumes are too similar, and while I think the themes of the second volume are fascinating, the proposed papers for that volume seem less relevant to the themes, and the themes addressed by the individual papers somewhat less 'up to the minute' in terms of scholarly concerns. The first volume stands as a more coherent and important project as presented here. I think the two volumes need to be 'sold' as more coherent separate projects and considered on the merits of each, with a clearer explanation of the disciplinary approach(es) and questions relevant to each. Alternatively, the two volumes could be reconceptualised as a single volume - although this would require some papers being rejected and may dilute the intended aims of the volumes. As mentioned, the topics are largely important contributions to the scholarship, covering a range of topics relevant to contemporary scholarship on war: for example, the interaction of soldiers and civilians, language policy in war, the experiences of non-European troops in Europe, language change as a result of war and conflict. The focus on the First World War is of course very relevant given the Centenary. The sample chapter submitted with this proposal could do with some work - the argument is not very clear, or particularly convincing re Australian identity (although provides insights re the nature of 'cross-cultural communication' and representation of such in trench newspapers). The writing is sometimes clunky. It will need to be clear that editors intend to request contributors to polish up their work or will undertake some editing of the chapters before submission of the final manuscript. 6. Qualifications of authors/editors: There are some notable contributors amongst the proposed papers, including Hilary Footit and Lynda Mugglestone. As with any edited collection, experience and quality will vary. The editors appear to be well-qualified in the area, although neither appear to have experience on editing a collection. This is not necessarily a problem. 7. Suitability for series: I assume these volumes will be considered for the Palgrave Studies in Languages at War. This would be an ideal series for one or both volumes. 8. Readership: The volumes would be of interest to historians (military history, cultural and social history), linguists (especially sociolinguists, those interested in language policy issues), those working in interdisciplinary fields such as cultural studies. I would expect some interest from a number of countries that have an interest in the First World War (of which there are numerous). 9. Suitability as textbook: These volumes are being proposed as specialised collections. However, some articles could potentially be useful as supplementary readings in courses on the First World War (very popular with students) and Linguistics subjects on language contact, language policy, language and society, etc. 10. Interdisciplinary/international appeal: The volumes will appeal across a number of disciplines, but as mentioned above might more usefully identify the relevant disciplines so that they do not get 'lost' between disciplines. The volumes will have definite international appeal - the individual papers cover a good geographical range, and the First World War is a subject of interest in many countries. 11. Reading for practitioners/policymakers: The volumes might potentially have some appeal for those working in the military, e.g. those engaged in intelligence, communication, translators, etc. This is especially the case for the first volume. Marketing with military services in the UK, Australia, etc. may be of value. 12. Comparison: These volumes will occupy a niche in the market hitherto unfilled. The quality of contributing scholars is quite high. 13. Recommendation: The first volume is more coherent, and should be published, assuming the quality of individual papers is high. I would suggest some reconceptualization of the second volume, with a different title, and a resubmission of a proposal for the second volume. Alternatively, a reconceptualization of both volumes into a single one may also be a possibility - although I do think the first volume would be workable as is. Review 3 - Melani Schroeter, University of Reading, UK I General comments i. The way in which the two volumes are divided makes sense overall and is reflected in the differing titles. However, some individual contributions seem to be better placed in the other volume, which the editors might want to consider. a. 2.4 in 1) seems to steer towards a discussion of a current debate of remembrance rather than examine 'politics as a catalyst for language change'. It should join section 8 in 2). b. 4.1 in 1) seems to be concerned quite a bit with linguistic issues interfering with recording and researching material and therefore could be part of section 5 in 2). ii. Section 7 in 2) (including contributions 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3) are, even though they are concerned with semantic traces as a legacy of WW1, unlike the other contributions in 2), not so much concerned with recording and remembering and could therefore better join up with the contributions mostly in section 2 in volume 1). Section 2.5 in vol. 1), for instance, is also concerned with 'legacy', so these three contributions would not stand out. These shifts would make the issue of power/political catalysts on the one hand and issue of remembrance on the other more coherent. 2.1 in 1) might also join contributions on language contact. iii. If the volumes are related, but separate (and it is quite likely that the second volume attracts a slightly different audience than the first one, especially with the changes suggested in i), then they should also be separate in that the editors' introduction in volume 1 cannot extend to volume 2. At the moment, the section enumeration continues from volume 1 (1-4) into volume 2 (5-9). While the introductions in both volumes should refer to the other volume as a related publication, I would recommend not sprawling out one publication over two volumes, but keeping them admittedly separate. iv. The editors surely bring in sufficient qualification and academic credibility to oversee these editions, especially given their role in organising the respective conferences. They give a realistic indication of the market situation for the two volumes. v. The volumes are likely to have interdisciplinary and international appeal, ensured by the breadth and variety of contributions by scholars from different disciplines and the languages and materials they cover. vi. However, related to this is the - in edited collections like these essentially unavoidable - effect that the multiplicity of cases and details provided here on various languages (incl. Welsh, Maltese, Flemish, French and German) and materials (including trench journals, diaries, letters, poems, newspapers), brings to mind other countries/languages/materials that are not included. It would therefore be vital and necessary that the editors in their introduction to 1) comment on this breadth and variety also as a way of highlighting existing similar studies to the ones included in the volume and also to what extent the included contributions highlight gaps in the research landscape. vii. The volumes are very timely if they are published soon, since the period of the centenary WW1 remembrance has already begun. I am not so convinced by the suggested timeline (deliverance of a final typescript mid-December 2014) - especially since a number of abstracts are missing from the proposal and some abstracts suggest that proof reading might turn out to be a rather big job. viii. Assessing the (likely) quality of the individual contributions is made difficult by the differing length and informational value of the abstracts, especially since some do not specify the material that their analyses are based on (e.g. 2.1, 3.1, 3.3). ix. The contributions are fairly diverse, which is an asset as well as a bit of a problem, as mentioned above. If they have not alread...