Aptum, Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 22. Jahrgang. 2026, Heft 1

This paper examines the possibilities and limitations of a text-linguistic classification of Forbidden Texts and Texts of Prohibition. Drawing from legal and pragmatic considerations, it argues that Forbidden Texts, due to their sole common feature of being prohibited, constitute a highly heterogeneous group that does not form a meaningful text type category. In contrast, Texts of Prohibition can be conceptualized as a prototypically structured text type, with legal texts serving as the prototype and other normative texts, such as service instructions or administrative regulations, representing less prototypical instances. The study also analyzes texts that thematize prohibitions — whether through reporting, commentary, or the public dissemination of prohibited content — resulting in a diverse spectrum of texts. Concluding remarks focus on the modalities by which prohibitions are communicated in public spaces, highlighting the use of various semiotic means. The investigation underscores the need for further research to better understand the complex interplay and linguistic characteristics of different text categories related to prohibitions.

This paper investigates prohibition texts at three German-speaking universities through the lens of linguistic landscape research. Photographic data collected at the University of Zurich, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and Leuphana University of Lüneburg form the empirical basis of the study. Annotation and analysis of the material reveal both commonalities and differences in terms of spatial context, placement, materiality, mode of production, modality, and linguistic form. By comparing prohibition texts across institutional settings, the study provides insights into the ways in which institutional communication reflects and reinforces spatial, cultural, and social norms. The findings underscore the analytical value of a linguistically informed, multimodal approach to the study of public prohibition signage within and beyond academic environments.

Reflecting on the relativism of social norms within metacommunicative language use, this paper discusses the meaning and communicative function of ‘censorship’ in conspiracy theories. Based on qualitative discoursepragmatic analysis of censorship allegations in the Verschwörungstheorienreferenzkorpus (VerReKo) we argue that by making these allegations, conspiracy theorists can claim authority for their “truths“ while rejecting any other possible knowledge as dictatory and unlawful. The umbrella term becomes a strategic instrument to stir up fears, generate discoursive visibility and lastly to make money.

The rigid cultural and language policy of the National Socialists, which began immediately after their seizure of power, resulted not only in a comprehensive levelling and de-differentiation of language styles, but also an attempted standardisation of the world of text types in the ‘Third Reich’. This turned a large number of opposing into banned texts, partly due to the groups of actors producing them and the content conveyed by the texts. In this article, one type of banned text produced by groups of resisters shall be examined as an example: Camouflage writings produced by the communist resistance, by means of which camouflaged resistance literature was to be smuggled into the discursive hermeticism of Hitler's Germany.

This article presents one of four tabooing strategies called didacticized transgression with which taboo boundaries can be justified and stabilized. Simultaneously this strategy enables enlightenment about what is taboo. To demonstrate this, a commemorative exhibition about nazi crimes is examined, wherein antisemitism and fascism are both observed and simultaneously relegated to the realm of the unacceptable. In a second part, the article examines the satire project “Unternehmen Reichspark”, which can be understood as a response to the New Right’s demand for a ‚political turn in memory principles‘. While the Right aims to ensure that Nazi crimes are no longer perceived as taboo violations, the project illustrates what historical education without taboo might look like.

In this paper we discuss how academic writing is affected by epistemologic norms, especially in regard to the prohibition of contradiction and command to contradict. More precisely, we are interested in how these norms become apparent in guidelines for academic writing in university contexts. On an empirical level the paper analyses a corpus of 250 guidelines for the use of what we call coherence vocabulary. Furthermore, the text illustrates different forms of epistemological norms on the basis of qualitative text analysis.