Printing ‘German’? The Printing Press and the Standardization of Early New High German.

Early New High German and the idea of Standard German

Early New High German is a term used for German spoken between 1350fn:{Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 85} or 1450fn:{Wells (1990), p. 192} and 1650.fn:{Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 85} The periodization is relatively arbitrary. During this time, the territory that will later be Germany was split into many different political units, almost all of them under relatively loose control by the Holy Roman Empire. Using 1450 as our starting date, our period begins with there being (relatively) few manuscriptsfn:{Compared to the later print runs for printed books. Relatively, manuscript production was flourishing, cf. Schulz (2014), p. 275f}, written in local ‘writing dialects’, but is bookended by a number of grammars claiming to be grammars of “German” (“der Teutschen Sprache”)fn:{Wells (1990), p. 241}, as well as societies for regulating “German”, most notably the fruchtbringende Gesellschaft.fn:{Salmons (2012), p. 280f} These are all referring to “German”, not to “High German” or “Low German” or “German of the Saxonian chancery”, so it seems that some idea – still far from fully formed – of a standard language called “German” was emerging. And indeed, this period sees Low German be relegated to a dialect,fn:{Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 85} and increasing similarity in the orthography and vocabulary of written works.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 73f} What it also sees, however, is the invention of movable type printing and its spread all over Germany (and beyond),fn:{Hartweg (2005), Abb. 22} and the printing of hundreds of thousands of German bibles.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 205f} In how far did printing contribute to the formation of this still nascent standard language? This paper will aim to discuss the ways the printing press might have been a factor in standardization, and how impactful it was.

Evidence for standardization

When talking about the standardization of German, what are we even talking about? Mainly, the development of a linguistic norm, as an additional layer to existing dialectal varieties, that do not get replaced (at least not immediately),fn:{Salmons (2012), p. 264f} but become marked as ‘wrong’ or ‘substandard’ for use in writing.fn:{Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 86} This involves two processes: To apply a linguistic norm consistently within a document, and to have this norm be binding for anyone writing German. The first process appears trivial, but for the longest time, spelling and morphology could vary wildly within one document. For one example, take Ulrich Schmidl, a merchant turned conquistador who wrote down his experiences in South America after his return home to Straubing 1554.fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 294} His original manuscript, written in Middle Bavarianfn:{Huffines (1974), p. 61f}, is orthographically quite inconsistent, often containing the same word in multiple different spellings, e.g. modern Baum as paumb, pauem, paim, paiemb, beim, peÿm. Certain inflections, such as plural, case, and mood are not always clearly marked.fn:{Ibid. p. 64} Even Martin Luther does not follow consistent spelling rules, especially at first: He has 14 (!) different variants of spelling Wittenberg, although he reduces this down to two, probably due to the influence of his printers.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 206} Consistent norms were sometimes applied by printers and chanceries (of which more later), but even those were based on regional printers- and scribal languages. In these, and the local dialects they partially reflect, we do find most of the features of modern Standard German, so that the process of standardization must have been a process of selection of norms out of the vast pool available. To prove this, let us compare some examples of different written dialects, as well as modern Standard German. For the beginning of our timeframe, there is no large basis of texts to compare, and comparing all the various dialectal features and their representation in graphs of early printed works would exceed the scope of this analysis, so that the following is merely an illustrative selection, taken from different prints of Luther’s ‘Septembertestament’:

1) Melchior Lotther, Wittenberg, 1522:

Vnd es war ynn yhrer schulen eyn mensch besessen mit eynem vnsaubern geyst/ der schrey vnd sprach/ Hallt/ was haben wyr mit dyr zu schaffen/ Jhesu von Nazareth? Du bist komen vns zu verderben/ ich weys [...] Jhesus bedrawete yhn [...] vnd fur aus von yhm [...] was ist das fur ein newe lere [...]

2) Adam Petri, Basel, 1522:

Vnd es war in iren schuͦlen ein mensch besessen mit einem vnsauberen geyst/ der schrey vnd sprach/ Halt/ was haben wir mit dir zuͦ schaffen/ Jesu von Nazareth? du bist komen vns zuͦ verderben/ ich weysz [...] Jesus betrauwete [...] vnd fuͦr ausz von im [...] was ist das für ein neuwe lere [...]

3) Hanns Schönsperger, Augsburg, 1523:

Vnd es war inn jrer schuͦlen ein mensch besessen mit einem vnsaubern geyst/ der schrey vnd sprach/ Hallt/ was haben wir mit dir zuͦschaffen/ Jesu von Nazareth? du bist komen vns zuͦuerderben/ ich weisz [...] nd Jhesus bedrawete jn [...] vnd fuͦr ausz von jm [...] was ist das für ein newe lere? [...]

4) Silvan Otmar, Augsburg, 1524:

Vnd es was in irer schuͦlen ain mensch besessen mit ainem vnsauberen gaist/ der schry vnd sprach/ Halt/ was haben wir mit dir zuͦschaffen Jesu von Nazareth? du bist kōmen vns zuͦ verderben/ ich waisz [...] vnd Jesus bedroͤwet jn [...] vnd fuͦr ausz von jm [...] was ist das für ain new̌e leer? [...]

5) Melchior Ramminger, Augsburg, 1526:

Und es was in iren schuͦlen ain mensch besessenn mitt ainem vnsauberen gaist/ der schray und sprach: Halt/ wz haben wir mit dir zeschaffen Jesu vonn Nazareth? du bist komēn vns zuͦ verderben: ich waisz [...] Und Jesus beschalckt jn mit trōwen [...] vnd fuͦr ausz von jm. [...] Was ist das für ain neuwe leer [...]fn:{Ibid. p. 207f}

6) Modern Standard German spelling:

Und es war in ihrer Schule ein Mensch besessen von einem unsauberen Geist/ der schrie und sprach: Halt/ was haben wir mit dir zu schaffen, Jesu von Nazareth? Du bist gekommen, uns zu verderben/ ich weiß [...] und Jesus bedrohte ihn [...] und fuhr aus von ihm. [...] Was ist das für eine neue Lehre? [...]

We can see that (1) uses ⟨y⟩ when the others would have used either ⟨i⟩ or ⟨j⟩, and today would use ⟨i⟩, ⟨ie⟩ and ⟨ih⟩, amongst others. ⟨uͦ⟩ is used for modern ⟨u⟩ and ⟨uh⟩, but not in the first text, which renders both modern ⟨u⟩ and ⟨ü⟩ as ⟨u⟩. Some text uses double consonants, especially for final sounds (especially (5)), modern ⟨ß⟩ is rendered as ⟨sz⟩ most of the time (which is still the name for ⟨ß⟩), but just ⟨s⟩ by (1). There are variations in the use of ⟨t⟩ and ⟨d⟩ (which are just graphs for the unvoiced and voiced version of the same sound). The modern diphthong /ei/ is variably rendered as ⟨ei⟩, ⟨ai⟩, ⟨ey⟩.fn:{Ibid} What is visible is that none of these texts is much more close to modern Standard German than any of the others, and that most texts have some features that survive in modern Standard German that the others do not have. We can also conclude that these texts, for all their differences, are quite similar to modern Standard German, so that standardization can be postulated as the main way modern Standard German evolved from the language base of this time.

What of the changes by the end of the period? Comparing works from the second half of the seventeenth century, we see a language that is far more familiar to today’s German speakers:

In Teutschland aber hatt man annoch dem latein und der kunst zuviel, der Muttersprache aber und der Natur zu wenig zugeschrieben, welches denn sowohl bey den gelehrten als bei der Nation selbst eine schädtliche würckung gehabt (Leibnitz, 1682) fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 74}

Sixteenth-century authors also mention the existence of a standard variety of German, so for example Schottel (Die Hochteutsche Sprache […], ist nicht ein Dialectus eigentlich, sondern lingua ipsa Germanica.)fn:{Ibid. p. 73} and Opitz, who mentions eine Form des Dt., nach der man sich richten [muss], wie nach dem Attischen bei den Griechen.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 203}

So a norm for Standard German does seem to have begun evolving – but in how far was the printing press involved?

Printing in German

To determine whether printing was influential in the standardization of German, we first need to examine what was being printed, where it was being printed, and how much of it. After Gutenberg establishes his movable type press, the technology starts spreading all over Germany.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p.99, Abb. 22} Importantly, most books being printed at this time were still being printed in Latin. For the end of the fifteenth century, Schirokauer (1951) notes the ratios of 27 : 2, 9 : 2, 3 : 1 of books printed in Latin to those printed in German.fn:{To be specific, this refers to three different print shops: Zainer, Hohenwang, and Reger. See Schirokauer (1951) for more examples} The numbers remain similar for the begin of the sixteenth century, and by 1570, 70% of prints are still in Latin.fn:{Schirokauer (1951), p. 327} It will take until 1681 for German-language prints to overtake Latin ones. As for the amount, for the early phases of printing (though it is not specified when exactly that is) Schirokauer quotes an estimate of 200 copies per print runfn:{Schirokauer (1951), p. 328}, though this likely varies a lot, especially later in our time period – with the number of works printed varying as well. These are the amount of German-language prints during the begin and heyday of the reformation:

Printing as a factor in standardization – potential factors

Standardization for the export market

Historically, the paradigmatic reason for printers to aim for a standardized language that has been given was economic self-interest, to be able to sell to a larger, export market.fn:{Ibid. p. 324} And indeed, Polenz & Sperber (1978) uncritically assert that die geschäftlichen Interessen des Buchhandels wirkten darauf hin, daß man sich immer mehr bemühte, grob Dialektisches aus der gedruckten Sprache fernzuhalten. fn:{Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 86} But, based on the figures of Latin to German prints and the small runs, Schirokauer concludes that the printers’ economic base must have been local. Schirokauer limits his investigation to the turn of the sixteenth century though,fn:{Schirokauer (1951), p. 327} and conditions seem to have changed somewhat by 1565. In that year, a publishing house run in part by Sigmund Feyerabend sold 2650 copies of 23 works to 50 different cities scattered throughout Germany and even beyond.fn:{Huffines (1974), p. 61} Some printing houses, such as Froschauer in Zürich, distinguished between books meant for a local market and ones meant for export.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 93} Hartweg (2005) offers up the perspective that aside from big publishing houses, many small printers did exist (and printed for the local market), but that many of these printers went out of business as the flood of reformational and political pamphlets subsided.fn:{Ibid} Even if a book was exported though, in how far would a fifteenth-century reader even be hindered in their reading by dialectal differences, presumably being exposed to many different dialects in the very dialect-heterogenous world of fifteenth-century ‘Germany’?fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 286} If printers edited their texts for economic reasons of some sort, there must be more to it than intelligibility alone.

Internal consistency and printer’s languages

And printers did significantly edit texts, not merely their orthography, but also syntax, vocabulary, and in some places, much to the chagrin of authors, even content.fn:{See Huffines (1974), p. 72. Also much cited is Luthers „Warnung“:Vnd ist mir offt widerfaren, das ich der nach drucker druck gelesen, also verfelscht gefunden, das ich meine eign erbeit an vielen orten nicht gekennet, auffs newe habe mussen bessern., here cited by Huffines (1974) p. 62-63} Recall the aforementioned example of Schmidl, the conquistador who had written down his experiences, and who’s manuscript characterized by inconsistent spelling and sometimes unclearly marked inflections. When it was printed in its first edition by Sigmund Feyerabendfn:{Huffines (1974), p. 61f., 65} in 1567fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 294}, spelling is much more consistent, as is morphology, especially inflection.fn:{We do not know if Feyerabend was working with the original manuscript, however} In general, compared to the manuscript, the edition is more concise and precise.fn:{Huffines (1974), p. 70ff} Similarly, in the case of Hans Tucher, who had his pilgrim report printed in 1482, the printed edition shows more orthographic consistency, but also some coloring by the printer’s local dialect.fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 288} Finally, Hans Sachs’ Ständebuch, printed 1568 - also by Feyerabend -, shows higher consistency and different dialectal coloring compared to the manuscript, although the dialectal coloring is reduced in the edition.fn:{Ibid. p. 291} So printers did often aim for consistency, at least within one work. What seems to have motivated the printers is a desire for quality.fn:{Ibid. p. 295f} This seems to have been a part of a shift in mentality in general, as many authors started reworking their drafts, sometimes multiple times, before printing them.fn:{Ibid. p. 287f} According to Schulz (2014), while medieval copyists aimed for a complete text, print was supposed to create a complete and final edition.fn:{Ibid} Since it emerged before that works printed by the printer would often have the printer’s dialectal coloring, and there are large printing houses such as Feyerabend’s where this probably would be shared to some extent, and taking the printers desire for internal consistency and thus quality, it’s possible to see how this would have given rise to regional printer’s languages, which is what we do see in the sixteenth century.fn:{Ibid. p. 284} These could be an intermediary step towards a standard language, especially as printers tended to move multiple times during their careers,fn:{Schirokauer (1951), p. 336-37} thereby exposing different printers languages to each other. Huffines, quoting Moser (1969), claims [...] Im Laufe des 16. Jahrhunderts beginnt der Buchdruck, je mehr sich die örtlichen Unterschiede abschleifen, desto stärker zur Einheit des Deutschen beizutragen.fn:{Huffines (1974), p. 61} Schirokauer argues strongly against this point, marshalling a whole host of examples of print shops in which the language varies wildly from edition to edition, switching between local dialects and other, more widespread ones.fn:{Schirokauer (1951). Schulz (2014), p. 296 mentions examples that would support the opposite claim, that there was a general movement towards language similarity, but it is hard to know if these are representative of a larger trend or not} Schirokauer sees in this chaos a Mangel an Formsinnfn:{Ibid. p. 328}, but that seems hard to substantiate, given the above examples of printers and authors agonizing over form. It seems equally as likely, though hard to prove, that the above examples are instances of printing languages in contact, languages in the process of becoming more similar. However, lacking very detailed quantitative studies tracing spelling, morphology, and vocabulary through many different printing houses, it is hard to determine if the printing houses were indeed significantly contributing to the standardization of the language as a whole, as opposed to just mirroring language changes originating from elsewhere.

Luther as a standardizing force

One person has often been supposed to have caused these changes: Martin Luther. Martin Luther has often been regarded as having a large influence on modern Standard German, sometimes even called the father of modern Standard German.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 79} And if Luther is the father, surely the printing press must at least be the midwife? After all, Luther’s massive reach – by 1626, more than 200 000 bibles had been printed in Wittenberg alone - would have been impossible if his diverse works and invectives, and especially, of course, the German bible, had not been so widely and (relatively) cheaply available.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 205}

By which mechanism might have Luther influenced German? On first blush, the answer seems obvious: After all, at some points, Luther’s printed works made up a third of all German works printed. But not just many, but most prints were not actually sanctioned by Luther, but instead unauthorized copies. By Luther’s death in 1546, 90 whole or partial sanctioned bibles had been printed, compared with around 260 unauthorized ones. And every printer, sanctioned or not, made minor and major edits. Luther himself did not follow particularly consistent spelling, and his printers did not hesitate to edit it as they saw fit.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 205ff} His vocabulary does not suffer quite as strong editing, however, and seems to have become commonly understood, as evidenced by the Basel prints of Luther’s New Testament: 1523 they added glosses for words they judged might be hard for readers to understand – but a few years later they discontinued the practice, it having apparently become unnecessary, as ‘Luther-Words’ had become widely understood.fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 297} Nevertheless, reading this gloss today, most of the words are not in use anymore, are archaic or even meaningless today. For each ‘aͤnlich’ there is an ‘Affterreden’ and an ‘Altuättelisch’. Generally, analyses of the similarity between ‘Luther-German’ and modern Standard German are a mixed bag. The sounds indicated by the text are mostly the ones of modern Standard German, but with some medieval holdovers.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 87} Similarly, his syntax is neither more ‘modern’ nor more ‘archaic’ than the rest of the High German language area to this time.fn:{Ibid. p. 88} He undoubtedly secured some words’ place in the German language, which otherwise would have remained regional,fn:{Ibid. p. 90} but many of his choices did not make it into modern Standard German.fn:{Salmons (2012), p. 271, citing Clajus (1578)} In total, his choices did not particularly influence modern Standard German.

And yet, in the grammars we will mention later, German will be elevated by some to a place among the venerable languages of Hebrew and Greek, as the language God chose to speak through sein auserwähltes Instrument Luther (Clajus).fn:{Wells (1990), p. 237} And indeed, the rising prestige of German must be caused to a large part by the fact that now reading German would gain you direct access to the scripture, which itself became a positive good in protestant areas (sola scriptura). Ickelsamer, a student of Luther’s, claims that there is kaum ain werck oder creatur auf erden / die zuͦgleich zu Gottes ehr vnd vnehr / mehr gebraucht würdt / denn die lesekunstfn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 65} It is hard to imagine the sustained interest in the German language that we see from the 1530s onwards without it being invested with divine importance - and ecclesiastical scrutiny. This investment of divine importance would not have been possible without the printing press.

Exposure effects

But Luther’s bible wasn’t the only thing people read. Many different texts were published, by authors and printers all over the Holy Roman Empire. Thus, the time after the invention of the printing press was the first time that the many different varieties of German circulated relatively widely. This would have shown many intellectuals how much standardization really was necessary. And notice they do: Ickelsamer complains that people writing German don’t think about how to arrange their letters most subtly and correctly, Frangk bemoans that there is no area in which the language doesn’t contain etwas straffwirdigs/ oder misbreuchiges,fn:{Ibid. p. 71} and Sattler notices that daß dieser zeit vnder zehen Personen nicht eine wie die andere die teutsche Spach schreibt.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 234} Good, then, that the printing press also created a base of texts on which to base orthographies and grammars for the German language. Luther’s bible translation, of course, but also many others; Frangk mentions Emperor Maximillian’s chancery and Johan Schönsperger, an Augsburg printer, as well.fn:{Ibid. p. 233} Motivated by the bad examples and the good, language-reformers began printing both basic orthographies, and later, German grammars.

Teaching German

In the sixteenth century, schools for German begin to become more and more common. They had been spreading since the thirteenth century,fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 63} but really got going during the Reformation. As German gained in prestige, Luther and other reformers began calling for the creation of schools.fn:{Ibid. p. 65} Some towns also stressed worldly benefits, since nothing important could now happen in the world without it being printed.fn:{Ibid} Early books about how to spell and write start to be printed, such as Ickelsamer’s Die rechte weis auffs kürtzist lesen zu lernen […] (1527) and Kolroß’ Enchiridion: das ist Handbuchlin tütscher Orthographi […] (1530),fn:{Wells (1990), p. 235} and Luther’s bible becomes a cornerstone of protestant schooling.fn:{Ibid. p. 204} Cheaper ‘teutsche Schulen’ would often teach religious knowledge and ‘proper behavior’ as well as German, and often relied on protestant materials, such as Luther’s catechism.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 64} The orthography of the manuals and religious works used for education would have varied based on the printer’s location, of course, perhaps even for the orthographical material – a handbook for grammar and orthography by Meichßner suffered that fatefn:{Wells (1990), p. 234} – but would have further served to secure whatever tendencies had developed in print languages in the writing (and reading!) practice of the society.

Writing about writing: German-language grammars

Next to these simpler didactic works, and learning by Luther-imitation, slowly more ambitious grammars emerged - perhaps motivated by factors mentioned earlier. Fabian Frangk and Johann Elias Meichßner publish tracts on orthography in the 1530s.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 233f} In the second half of the sixteenth century, three Latin grammars of German appeared, which aimed to shape how foreigners learned the language.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 72f} Later, in the seventeenth century, a few more influential grammars are published, and the focus slowly starts moving away from defining German orthography and grammar and towards protecting it from foreign influences.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 72f., 68}

It is unclear, however, how much influence these grammars had. For example, these grammars often even reflect an existing standard when claiming to regulate something for the first time.fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 297} Often, the suggestions made by these grammatical reformers reflect rules that do not point in the direction of modern usage. Many of them point to Luther’s bible translations as examples to imitate, but the editions they were pointing to were reprints, inadvertently following the trends of language change German was experiencing at that time, rather than prescribing something different. Additionally, we don’t have detailed figures for copies printed, so that it is hard to know how widely these reformers were read.fn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 78} If they were widely read, however, this would have only been possible thanks to the printing press.

Preempting printing: Chanceries

When looking at the early reasons and mechanisms for the standardization of German, chanceries are the big competitor to the printing press. Chanceries were quite common in medieval and early modern Europe, first as part of royal courts, but later also as part of city administrations.fn:{Salmons (2012), p. 265} Many influential German authors of the sixteenth and seventeenth century cite chanceries as influential for their language, not least of which Luther, who claims that he follows the Sechsichen cantzley, quam imitantur omnes duces et reges Germaniae; [...] Ideo est communissima lingua Germaniae.fn:{Wells (1990), p. 212} So, even before Luther’s bible (however changed by printers) or large printing houses themselves could become models for imitation, chanceries served as a model for imitation.

The chanceries influence can also be seen in a different area. We find evidence of these chanceries influencing each other, especially when a change was adopted by the more prestigious ones. For example, Niklas von Wyle complains that so bald sy [other writers] etwas nüwes sechen usz ein fürsten cantzlie, […] sich des gebruchent wie die affen.fn:{Schulz (2014), p. 279} The chancery often put pressure on its scribes to adopt these changes.fn:{Ibid} This created intra-chancery ‘scribal languages’ which by the aforementioned process became ‘scribal language areas.’ These areas, and the printer languages mentioned before, basically overlap one-to-one,fn:{Ibid. p. 281, Polenz & Sperber (1978), p. 87} which raises the suspicion that printer languages were merely continuing a process of leveling of dialectal differences which had begun long before with the chanceries.

How impactful was the printing press?

To conclude: In how far did printing contribute to the formation of Standard German? Printer’s editing and printer’s languages must have had some impact, though if they originated the changes or merely amplified trends already present in the chanceries is far from clear. Luther might have contributed some words to the modern Standard German vocabulary – but a lack of these would not have impeded standardization. Luther’s raising of the prestige of the German language, though, seems more pivotal, and the basis for much of the German-language schooling and the motivation for grammatical reforms. This, together with the effects of exposing the heterogenous state of German, especially its orthography, is the avenue via which the printing press probably most affected and accelerated the formation of Standard German. Without large-scale quantitative analyses, however, any conclusion must be tentative, as for any trend mentioned here, enough counterexamples can be found to muddy the waters to the point of unclarity.

There is a way, though, in which this analysis cannot reveal the true impact of the printing press, in which it misses the point entirely. Most of the linguistic standardization and reform occurred later, from 1650 onward via the establishment of a German state, universal schooling system and near-universal literacy. All these phenomena are bound up in a world in which the printing press is inextricably enmeshed. The world of the eighteenth and nineteenth century, of imperial Germany is unimaginable without newspapers, a complex bureaucratic and legal system reliant on print, and teachers and schoolmasters teaching rules from compact grammars of the German language. Similarly, 17th- and 18th-century German intellectuals might have debated the corruption or enrichment of the German language via loanwordsfn:{Hartweg (2005), p. 108ff}, but these would have never had the cultural cachet or the exposure to influence the German language if they hadn't been featured in widely-printed foreign-language military manuals or scientific treatises. The world of the early modern period and beyond itself, the world that produced the very standardized German language used today, is - inevitably or contingently - in part a product of the printing press.

Bibliography

1. Hartweg, F. (2005). Frühneuhochdeutsch: eine Einführung in die deutsche Sprache des Spätmittelalters und der frühen Neuzeit (2., neu bearb. Aufl.). Tübingen: Niemeyer.
2. Huffines, M. L. (1974). Sixteenth-Century Printers and Standardization of New High German. The Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 73(1), 60–72.
3. Polenz, P. von, & Sperber, H. (1978). Geschichte der deutschen Sprache: erweiterte Neubearbeitung der früheren Darstellung von Hans Sperber (9., überarb. Aufl., [Nachdr.]). Berlin: de Gruyter.
4. Salmons, J. (2012). A history of German: what the past reveals about today’s language (1st ed). Oxford, U.K: Oxford University Press.
5. Schirokauer, A. (1951). Der Anteil des Buchdrucks an der Bildung des Gemeindeutschen. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Geistesgeschichte, 25(3), 317–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03376092
6. Schulz, M. (2014). Deutsch in Handschrift und gedrucktem Buch im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert. Aus Buchwerkstatt und Bibliothek / hrsg. von Lorenz Korn, Birgitt Hoffmann und Stefanie Stricker.
   Wells, C. J. (1990). Deutsch, eine Sprachgeschichte bis 1945. Tübingen: Niemeyer.