Overview

With several terms from the First World War still present in modern speech, Languages and the First World War presents over 30 essays by international academics investigating the linguistic aspects of the 1914-18 conflict. The first of the two volumes covers language change and documentation during the period of the war, while the second examines the representation and the memory of the war. Communicating in a Transnational War examines languages at the front, including the subject of interpretation, translation and parallels between languages; communication with the home front; propaganda and language manipulation; and recording language during the war. Representation and Memory examines historiographical issues; the nature of representing the war in letters and diaries; the documentation of language change; the language of representing the war in reportage and literature; and the language of remembering the war. Covered in the process are slang, censorship, soldiers' phrasebooks, code-switching, borrowing terms, the problems facing multilingual armies, and gendered language.

Full Product Details

Author:   Christophe Declercq ,  Julian Walker
Publisher:   Palgrave Macmillan
Imprint:   Palgrave Macmillan
Edition:   1st ed. 2016
Weight:   4.434kg
ISBN:  

9781137550354

ISBN 10:   113755035
Pages:   256
Publication Date:   15 July 2016
Audience:   College/higher education ,  Undergraduate ,  Postgraduate, Research & Scholarly
Format:   Hardback
Publisher's Status:   Active
Availability:   In Print  
This item will be ordered in for you from one of our suppliers. Upon receipt, we will promptly dispatch it out to you. For in store availability, please contact us.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements PART I: THE HISTORIAN'S PROBLEMS 1. Problems and challenges of a historical approach 2. Translation, interpretation and mistranslation: Belgian exiles and 'reformed' soldiers, their records and problems encountered by English language researchers PART II: REPRESENTING THE PRESENT 3. 'Fake Belgium' Linguistic issues in the diary of Father Achiel Van Walleghem (1914-1919) 4. Out of the Trenches: The Rhetoric of Letters from the Western Front PART III: LANGUAGE USE AND CHANGE 5. 'Aussie': code-switching in an Australian soldiers' magazine – an overview 6. From Antwerp to Britain and back again: the language of the Belgian refugee in Britain during the First World War 7. Language Changes in the Jewish Community in Kosovo and Metohija after the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) and the First World War (1914-1918) PART IV: LITERATURE AND REPRESENTATION 8. 'Excursion into a Foreign Language': Frederic Manning and Ford Madox Ford 9. 14 / 1914. On Jean Échenoz's Great War, meta-discourse and the English reception 10. 'The Language of Espionage: Mata Hari and the creation of the spy-courtesan' PART V: COMMEMORATION AND MEMORY 11. ''Here is our blood. When are our rights?' Flemish Graffiti and the Great War' 12. The Languages of Remembrance: An Attempt at a Taxonomy 13. Wartime citations in Ernest Weekley's An Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (1921) and contemporary dictionaries 14. War Discourse: still talking about the First World War in Britain, 1914-2014

Reviews

"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 already done so, the editors should ensure that all authors are aware of the structure of the volume and the sections into which their contributions are grouped, ideally with a short rationale/outline of the section and abstracts of the contributions within these sections. They should ask the authors to briefly refer to the rationale for this section and to position their contribution within it - rather than leaving this solely to the editors in their introductory chapter. It will increase an overall sense of coherence between the very diverse contributions if this is seen through in both volumes. II Comments regarding 1) The title strikes me as rather informal, given that edited collections address primarily the scholarly community. The title should reflect that the contributions illuminate the various ways in which War triggers language contact and intercultural encounter. Given that especially sociolinguistics and language history have looked at language contact phenomena, 'meetings between languages' comes across as slightly un-academic. The volume is currently laid out to comprise 16 contributions plus a substantial introductory chapter by the editors. It is a bit disappointing that there is no abstract yet for the introduction, especially given vi. above. I suggest to take out 2.4 and 4.1 from 1) to go into 2) and to add 7.1-7.3 from 2), which would result in 17 chapters + introduction in a volume focussing more stringently on language contact, linguistic encounter, translation, language policy and power in/during WW1. The proposed substructure within the volume seems adequate, but see i. and ix. above. III Comments regarding 2) The abstract of the chapter that is meant to function as an introduction here does not suggest that it engages directly with the ground covered in the following chapters. I suggest that the editors still write a short introductory chapter in which they situate the following chapters in relation to one another and provide a rationale for their order/subsections. Reading the abstract, it does not seem as though the following chapter could replace this. See also ii. above. The volume is currently laid out to comprise 15 contributions plus the introductory chapter. I suggest moving 7.1-3. to 1) and to add 2.4 and 4.1 from 1 to 2) and to add a more suitable introduction resulting in 15 contributions (incl. the current introductory chapter)+ introduction focussing more stringently on recording, researching and remembering the language of/about WW1. I suggest considering ix above for this volume, too. This I would recommend especially with a view on 9.1 and 9.2 which assemble rather awkwardly under the current section heading 'remembered language'. Perhaps a more fitting heading could be found for this? Something like, for instance, literary reflections of language contact would seem more apt. Since a sample chapter was provided, I feel invited to comment on it. Two brief points of criticism here: Firstly, there are many more studies on code switching and its function. It is a bit disappointing that the chapter does not engage with these more but only refer to a fairly dated publication by Gumperz (1989). Secondly, it seems a bit tedious in the appendix to list at length words that occur only once. Maybe these findings could be described rather than listed, maybe indicating the total number of those that occur only once and looking a bit into the usage of those that occur more often (and why). Since most of the suggestions above imply more than just minor changes, my recommendation is that the editors revise and resubmit the proposal. Review 4 - Catherine Baker, University of Hull, UK General 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project A two-volume set of edited volumes integrating languages-and-conflict studies into the study of the First World War. 2) Of the different product categories outlined above, which do you feel this proposal best fits and why? Edited collection. Tutors would be unlikely to base an entire course around it so the volumes are unlikely to be an upper-level text, but the book would be valuable for university libraries for supporting a particular theme within a course. Proposal 3) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? 4) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? You may wish to consider structure, organisation, coherence and presentation of material; scope, coverage and breadth of appeal or degree of specialisation; whether there are any obvious omissions; timeliness and likely shelf-life of the research; what proportion of the work, if any, will require substantial re-working? Are any suggested improvements fundamental to the project's success or discretionary matters which might be addressed after the project has been accepted? The topic of the proposal is important and timely, and presenting it as an edited collection allows for a comparative approach. The study of languages and conflict has blossomed in recent years but there is still something to be gained from the intensive focus on the First World War that this proposal offers. History modules specifically on the First World War are widespread and these volumes will enable the research area to be worked into teaching on WW1 whereas currently available works are either about other wars or contain a few contributions on WW1 alongside research that relates to other periods. It will however be important for each volume to distinguish itself from the other in terms of concept. At the moment the distinction is between 'influences and contacts between languages' (Meetings Between Languages) and 'changes within individual languages' (Communicating, Recording and Remembering), although there is also some overlap between these contexts e.g. since three chapters of Meetings Between Languages will deal with language change among refugees. I wonder if the collection might be better reordered around another conceptual distinction - for instance, one volume on the wartime period and another volume on post-war? Or one volume on military operations and another on home fronts and memory? This would mean moving some chapters between volumes in order to keep the length of the volumes roughly equal, but a distinction like this might be easier to communicate to potential readers. Alternatively, if the current distinction is kept, the introductions and concepts of both books will need to make extremely clear why this distinction rather than any other is the most important one for ordering the field. It would be helpful to see revised abstracts for the Introductions of each volume, and for these and the chapter abstracts to give more indication of the historiography with which they intend to engage (e.g. how they situate themselves within current debates in First World War Studies, the cultural history of languages, and other areas where relevant). Certain chapters also have potential to make innovative contributions in other areas e.g. ap Glyn could interest researchers in 'four nations history' and Damjanovic's topic has been neglected in 20th-century south-east European history. Some abstracts were better than others in demonstrating the wider relevance of their study (the literature chapters, for instance, could have improved on this); it would be helpful for each to finish on a big question or debate in the way that the abstract for e.g. the Heimburger chapter in vol. 1 does, and for each to show how it adds to the overall theoretical contribution of the particular volume. All chapters in their full form will need to address an interdisciplinary audience - for instance, the sample chapter states that it 'follows a sociolinguistic approach only' and this may deter readers from other disciplines who would in fact benefit from reading it - it would strengthen the volume if all chapters demonstrated why their discipline's/disciplines' approach was also relevant outside those disciplinary boundaries. In the sample chapter the relevance is there, but a reader who is less familiar with the languages and conflict field might have to work harder to perceive it. A few abstracts were very brief or missing (Doyle and Schaefer; Coleman; Heimburger in vol. 2) and these should be expanded. In terms of geographical coverage there tends to be a predominance towards the Western Front and the states that fought in that theatre. That said, some contributions do set this in a transnational context e.g. Footitt or Fogarty. It was good to see some coverage of other armies and fronts e.g. Scheer (on the Habsburg army), Du Pont (Italy), Briffa (on Malta - a theatre which is very rarely discussed), Damjanovic (on the Balkan theatre). The Russian army and/or home front is a striking omission. Thematically, one growing research area in modern European history over the last 10 years has been the study of post-WW1 instability (1917/18-c.1923) and the opportunity to add a chapter on this topic might also have strengthened the volume. 6) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? Yes. One editor has a track record in representing this topic in the cultural/museum sector and the other is a historian conducting innovative research on Belgian refugees (a sub-topic which has itself been attracting public interest during the Centenary). The proposal did not contain full CVs of all contributors and this reviewer is familiar with some of their work but not others. 7) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. One obvious question is whether this proposal ought to be two volumes or whether the chapters should be condensed into one volume by abandoning some chapters. The proposed chapters are of high enough quality that they deserve publication on that score, however from a financial point of view having two volumes will increase the purchase cost, especially if you decide to only make them available in hardback. Some libraries might purchase one but not the other and some libraries might choose to purchase neither rather than have to take the incomplete set. This however is a marketing decision - from a scholarly point of view, there seems enough to justify the two volumes both being published. With the current conceptual division between volumes, the 'remembering' focus of the second one might appeal to some heritage organisations as long as this thread was strong throughout all the chapters it contained. Market and Competition 8) Who would you anticipate the main readership of this book to be (in terms of field and level)? Researchers in First World War studies or in c20 European cultural history. 9) Would this title be suitable for the student market as a core text? If so, would you adopt/recommend this book for any courses you teach? Not as a core text, but I would adopt at least one volume as background reading for one topic within a thematic module to which I contribute. 10) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? Yes, though the most likely disciplines where it will appeal are History and War Studies, with Linguistics/Sociolinguistics as a secondary market. Internationally its main appeal will probably be in Europe and Australia. With little on the US or Canada it may have less appeal in North America except in the fields of European history and French literature. 11) Would this title be suitable/essential reading for a practitioner or policymakers market? If so, please let us know if there are any organisations, institutions or professional networks that would be interested in the work. Could interest heritage institutions that are preparing or refreshing exhibitions and other activities on topics that are well covered within the proposal, e.g. refugees, trench newspapers or war literature. 12) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? Without having seen the full text, see responses to Q3-5 and Q7. Recommendation 13) Would you recommend: a) we publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions b) revising the proposal and resubmitting c) rejecting the proposal From an academic point of view my recommendation is A as I would like to see these volumes in print and be able to use them in teaching. However the level of revision required might be minor or major depending on how the conceptual distinction between the volumes is going to be tightened. Whether to publish these as one volume (which might require abandoning some chapters) or two volumes appears to me to be a marketing decision rather than an academic one. Series Editors We both agree with reviewer 4 that Julian and Christophe would be best served by separating the two volumes by time period. The first volume could be 'Languages and the First World War: multilingualism in a transnational war'. The second could be ""Languages and the First World War: memory and representation'. Vol. I could be as they propose in their 2 vol. reworking, together with the addition of 1.4 and 1.7 from Vol. 2. We would suggest moving 3.3, 4.3. and 4.4 to vol.2. The focus of vol. 1 would thus be to consider the problematics of communicating during this particular military context, aimimg to contribute to the historiography of the First World War as a transnational phenomenon. This volume could be structured around types/geographies of military operation, much as they've suggested, with papers limited to those that largely deal with the actual time period. We suggest that the Roynette chapter 9 in their vol 2 could lead off after the introduction, which would address the difficulties for historians in studying languages in the First World War. Languages at the Front Communicating Home The Home FrontCollecting languages at the time We feel that Volume 2 needs, a clearer disciplinary focus. Perhaps a cultural studies (linguistic legacy and memory) approach might be possible. Maybe the divisions could be based on genres and the ways in which the medium of remembrance conditions representations of the languages of war. Dictionaries ( 4.2/4.3) Diaries (4.4.,1.3) Language usage ( 1.6, 2.2, 3.3) Literature and representation( 2.5, 2.6, 1.5) Commemoration and memory ( 1.2, 2.4, 2.3, 2.1). We are not entirely convinced that Vol 2 will stand up on its own in its current form. It will certainly need a very good introduction that points to current work on legacy, memory and commemoration. The editors will need to give contributors clear briefings (as one reviewer suggests) on the disciplinary lines each vol. is taking. In summary, if it is to be published as two volumes., the division which might work is: Vol I: transnationalism in war - papers dealing with the war period itself and grappling with multilingualism/ problematics of communication in war. Vol II : language and memory - papers dealing with the post conflict representation of languages in the FWW. Response to reviews Christophe and I have taken a good look at the feedback from each of the reviewers and discussed the options for the LFWW proposal, and we hope these ideas will help us move the project forward: The main question is whether it is to be one book or two books. Reading the reviews and your views we have to decide whether to make one book which covers the range of the subject, or two discreet books, each of which cover aspects of the subject sufficiently distinct to merit publication as separate volumes. While we felt that a single volume of the size you suggest would fix the subject, we felt it would be missing too many papers which would establish the range of subject matter, time periods and geographic areas that the conference covered, and would miss the opportunity to really open up the potential of the subject. So we felt that two discreet volumes offered the opportunity to do this better, provided that we could agree on a division of material that would allow two strong volumes, each with a strong introductory essay (which could make references across the two volumes). We felt that it was necessary to make note of the fact that the material from the conference did not cover all the areas of conflict, but felt that the inclusion of Malta, Kosovo, the Austro-Hungarian army and Italy opened up the area of discussion away from the Western Front - and so it would be really important to include these papers. We are attaching revised plans - one for a single volume, which we fe"

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 already done so, the editors should ensure that all authors are aware of the structure of the volume and the sections into which their contributions are grouped, ideally with a short rationale/outline of the section and abstracts of the contributions within these sections. They should ask the authors to briefly refer to the rationale for this section and to position their contribution within it - rather than leaving this solely to the editors in their introductory chapter. It will increase an overall sense of coherence between the very diverse contributions if this is seen through in both volumes. II Comments regarding 1) The title strikes me as rather informal, given that edited collections address primarily the scholarly community. The title should reflect that the contributions illuminate the various ways in which War triggers language contact and intercultural encounter. Given that especially sociolinguistics and language history have looked at language contact phenomena, 'meetings between languages' comes across as slightly un-academic. The volume is currently laid out to comprise 16 contributions plus a substantial introductory chapter by the editors. It is a bit disappointing that there is no abstract yet for the introduction, especially given vi. above. I suggest to take out 2.4 and 4.1 from 1) to go into 2) and to add 7.1-7.3 from 2), which would result in 17 chapters + introduction in a volume focussing more stringently on language contact, linguistic encounter, translation, language policy and power in/during WW1. The proposed substructure within the volume seems adequate, but see i. and ix. above. III Comments regarding 2) The abstract of the chapter that is meant to function as an introduction here does not suggest that it engages directly with the ground covered in the following chapters. I suggest that the editors still write a short introductory chapter in which they situate the following chapters in relation to one another and provide a rationale for their order/subsections. Reading the abstract, it does not seem as though the following chapter could replace this. See also ii. above. The volume is currently laid out to comprise 15 contributions plus the introductory chapter. I suggest moving 7.1-3. to 1) and to add 2.4 and 4.1 from 1 to 2) and to add a more suitable introduction resulting in 15 contributions (incl. the current introductory chapter)+ introduction focussing more stringently on recording, researching and remembering the language of/about WW1. I suggest considering ix above for this volume, too. This I would recommend especially with a view on 9.1 and 9.2 which assemble rather awkwardly under the current section heading 'remembered language'. Perhaps a more fitting heading could be found for this? Something like, for instance, literary reflections of language contact would seem more apt. Since a sample chapter was provided, I feel invited to comment on it. Two brief points of criticism here: Firstly, there are many more studies on code switching and its function. It is a bit disappointing that the chapter does not engage with these more but only refer to a fairly dated publication by Gumperz (1989). Secondly, it seems a bit tedious in the appendix to list at length words that occur only once. Maybe these findings could be described rather than listed, maybe indicating the total number of those that occur only once and looking a bit into the usage of those that occur more often (and why). Since most of the suggestions above imply more than just minor changes, my recommendation is that the editors revise and resubmit the proposal. Review 4 - Catherine Baker, University of Hull, UK General 1) In your own words, please provide a short outline of the project A two-volume set of edited volumes integrating languages-and-conflict studies into the study of the First World War. 2) Of the different product categories outlined above, which do you feel this proposal best fits and why? Edited collection. Tutors would be unlikely to base an entire course around it so the volumes are unlikely to be an upper-level text, but the book would be valuable for university libraries for supporting a particular theme within a course. Proposal 3) Does this proposal offer a useful and/or original contribution to the field? Is it addressing any new/emerging areas? 4) Does it adequately engage with recent scholarship? Does it take existing scholarship forward? 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal? You may wish to consider structure, organisation, coherence and presentation of material; scope, coverage and breadth of appeal or degree of specialisation; whether there are any obvious omissions; timeliness and likely shelf-life of the research; what proportion of the work, if any, will require substantial re-working? Are any suggested improvements fundamental to the project's success or discretionary matters which might be addressed after the project has been accepted? The topic of the proposal is important and timely, and presenting it as an edited collection allows for a comparative approach. The study of languages and conflict has blossomed in recent years but there is still something to be gained from the intensive focus on the First World War that this proposal offers. History modules specifically on the First World War are widespread and these volumes will enable the research area to be worked into teaching on WW1 whereas currently available works are either about other wars or contain a few contributions on WW1 alongside research that relates to other periods. It will however be important for each volume to distinguish itself from the other in terms of concept. At the moment the distinction is between 'influences and contacts between languages' (Meetings Between Languages) and 'changes within individual languages' (Communicating, Recording and Remembering), although there is also some overlap between these contexts e.g. since three chapters of Meetings Between Languages will deal with language change among refugees. I wonder if the collection might be better reordered around another conceptual distinction - for instance, one volume on the wartime period and another volume on post-war? Or one volume on military operations and another on home fronts and memory? This would mean moving some chapters between volumes in order to keep the length of the volumes roughly equal, but a distinction like this might be easier to communicate to potential readers. Alternatively, if the current distinction is kept, the introductions and concepts of both books will need to make extremely clear why this distinction rather than any other is the most important one for ordering the field. It would be helpful to see revised abstracts for the Introductions of each volume, and for these and the chapter abstracts to give more indication of the historiography with which they intend to engage (e.g. how they situate themselves within current debates in First World War Studies, the cultural history of languages, and other areas where relevant). Certain chapters also have potential to make innovative contributions in other areas e.g. ap Glyn could interest researchers in 'four nations history' and Damjanovic's topic has been neglected in 20th-century south-east European history. Some abstracts were better than others in demonstrating the wider relevance of their study (the literature chapters, for instance, could have improved on this); it would be helpful for each to finish on a big question or debate in the way that the abstract for e.g. the Heimburger chapter in vol. 1 does, and for each to show how it adds to the overall theoretical contribution of the particular volume. All chapters in their full form will need to address an interdisciplinary audience - for instance, the sample chapter states that it 'follows a sociolinguistic approach only' and this may deter readers from other disciplines who would in fact benefit from reading it - it would strengthen the volume if all chapters demonstrated why their discipline's/disciplines' approach was also relevant outside those disciplinary boundaries. In the sample chapter the relevance is there, but a reader who is less familiar with the languages and conflict field might have to work harder to perceive it. A few abstracts were very brief or missing (Doyle and Schaefer; Coleman; Heimburger in vol. 2) and these should be expanded. In terms of geographical coverage there tends to be a predominance towards the Western Front and the states that fought in that theatre. That said, some contributions do set this in a transnational context e.g. Footitt or Fogarty. It was good to see some coverage of other armies and fronts e.g. Scheer (on the Habsburg army), Du Pont (Italy), Briffa (on Malta - a theatre which is very rarely discussed), Damjanovic (on the Balkan theatre). The Russian army and/or home front is a striking omission. Thematically, one growing research area in modern European history over the last 10 years has been the study of post-WW1 instability (1917/18-c.1923) and the opportunity to add a chapter on this topic might also have strengthened the volume. 6) Do you feel the author/editor is suitably qualified to produce a high quality book on this topic? Yes. One editor has a track record in representing this topic in the cultural/museum sector and the other is a historian conducting innovative research on Belgian refugees (a sub-topic which has itself been attracting public interest during the Centenary). The proposal did not contain full CVs of all contributors and this reviewer is familiar with some of their work but not others. 7) If you are aware that the book is being considered for inclusion in a specific series, please comment on its suitability for that series. One obvious question is whether this proposal ought to be two volumes or whether the chapters should be condensed into one volume by abandoning some chapters. The proposed chapters are of high enough quality that they deserve publication on that score, however from a financial point of view having two volumes will increase the purchase cost, especially if you decide to only make them available in hardback. Some libraries might purchase one but not the other and some libraries might choose to purchase neither rather than have to take the incomplete set. This however is a marketing decision - from a scholarly point of view, there seems enough to justify the two volumes both being published. With the current conceptual division between volumes, the 'remembering' focus of the second one might appeal to some heritage organisations as long as this thread was strong throughout all the chapters it contained. Market and Competition 8) Who would you anticipate the main readership of this book to be (in terms of field and level)? Researchers in First World War studies or in c20 European cultural history. 9) Would this title be suitable for the student market as a core text? If so, would you adopt/recommend this book for any courses you teach? Not as a core text, but I would adopt at least one volume as background reading for one topic within a thematic module to which I contribute. 10) Is this book likely to have interdisciplinary and/or international appeal? Yes, though the most likely disciplines where it will appeal are History and War Studies, with Linguistics/Sociolinguistics as a secondary market. Internationally its main appeal will probably be in Europe and Australia. With little on the US or Canada it may have less appeal in North America except in the fields of European history and French literature. 11) Would this title be suitable/essential reading for a practitioner or policymakers market? If so, please let us know if there are any organisations, institutions or professional networks that would be interested in the work. Could interest heritage institutions that are preparing or refreshing exhibitions and other activities on topics that are well covered within the proposal, e.g. refugees, trench newspapers or war literature. 12) How does this proposal compare to the main competing titles in this area in terms of quality of writing and content? Without having seen the full text, see responses to Q3-5 and Q7. Recommendation 13) Would you recommend: a) we publish this book as it stands or after minor revisions b) revising the proposal and resubmitting c) rejecting the proposal From an academic point of view my recommendation is A as I would like to see these volumes in print and be able to use them in teaching. However the level of revision required might be minor or major depending on how the conceptual distinction between the volumes is going to be tightened. Whether to publish these as one volume (which might require abandoning some chapters) or two volumes appears to me to be a marketing decision rather than an academic one. Series Editors We both agree with reviewer 4 that Julian and Christophe would be best served by separating the two volumes by time period. The first volume could be 'Languages and the First World War: multilingualism in a transnational war'. The second could be Languages and the First World War: memory and representation'. Vol. I could be as they propose in their 2 vol. reworking, together with the addition of 1.4 and 1.7 from Vol. 2. We would suggest moving 3.3, 4.3. and 4.4 to vol.2. The focus of vol. 1 would thus be to consider the problematics of communicating during this particular military context, aimimg to contribute to the historiography of the First World War as a transnational phenomenon. This volume could be structured around types/geographies of military operation, much as they've suggested, with papers limited to those that largely deal with the actual time period. We suggest that the Roynette chapter 9 in their vol 2 could lead off after the introduction, which would address the difficulties for historians in studying languages in the First World War. Languages at the Front Communicating Home The Home FrontCollecting languages at the time We feel that Volume 2 needs, a clearer disciplinary focus. Perhaps a cultural studies (linguistic legacy and memory) approach might be possible. Maybe the divisions could be based on genres and the ways in which the medium of remembrance conditions representations of the languages of war. Dictionaries ( 4.2/4.3) Diaries (4.4.,1.3) Language usage ( 1.6, 2.2, 3.3) Literature and representation( 2.5, 2.6, 1.5) Commemoration and memory ( 1.2, 2.4, 2.3, 2.1). We are not entirely convinced that Vol 2 will stand up on its own in its current form. It will certainly need a very good introduction that points to current work on legacy, memory and commemoration. The editors will need to give contributors clear briefings (as one reviewer suggests) on the disciplinary lines each vol. is taking. In summary, if it is to be published as two volumes., the division which might work is: Vol I: transnationalism in war - papers dealing with the war period itself and grappling with multilingualism/ problematics of communication in war. Vol II : language and memory - papers dealing with the post conflict representation of languages in the FWW. Response to reviews Christophe and I have taken a good look at the feedback from each of the reviewers and discussed the options for the LFWW proposal, and we hope these ideas will help us move the project forward: The main question is whether it is to be one book or two books. Reading the reviews and your views we have to decide whether to make one book which covers the range of the subject, or two discreet books, each of which cover aspects of the subject sufficiently distinct to merit publication as separate volumes. While we felt that a single volume of the size you suggest would fix the subject, we felt it would be missing too many papers which would establish the range of subject matter, time periods and geographic areas that the conference covered, and would miss the opportunity to really open up the potential of the subject. So we felt that two discreet volumes offered the opportunity to do this better, provided that we could agree on a division of material that would allow two strong volumes, each with a strong introductory essay (which could make references across the two volumes). We felt that it was necessary to make note of the fact that the material from the conference did not cover all the areas of conflict, but felt that the inclusion of Malta, Kosovo, the Austro-Hungarian army and Italy opened up the area of discussion away from the Western Front - and so it would be really important to include these papers. We are attaching revised plans - one for a single volume, which we fe

Author Information

Julian Walker is a British Library educator, an artist and writer. His books on language include Discovering Words, Team Talk: Sporting Words and their Origins and Trench Talk. Christophe Declercq is a lecturer in translation (University College London, UK and University of Antwerp, Belgium) who has been working on Belgian refugees in Britain for well over a decade. On the subject, he has spoken widely at conferences in both Britain and Belgium, has worked with the BBC and VRT (Belgian television) and manages several social media outlets.

Tab Content 6

Author Website:  

Customer Reviews

Recent Reviews

No review item found!

Add your own review!

Countries Available

All regions