The choice of an auxiliary language for the world. Perspectives within the context of contemporary linguistics

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1. PRELIMINARIES
1:1. Introduction
1.2. A word on Typography

CHAPTER 2. AN AUXILIARY LANGUAGE FOR THE WORLD: GENERAL OUTLINE
2.1. The Definition of an 'International Auxiliary Language'
2.1.1. 'international'
2.1.2. Worldwide Communication
2.1.2.1. Maximum facilitation
2.1.2.2. A Bilingual Global Speech Community?
2.1.2.3. All Kinds of Linguistic Communication
2.1.2.4. Use Between Native Speakers of Different Languages

CHAPTER 3. UAL TYPOLOGY

CHAPTER 4. UAL SELECTION: A POLITICAL AND/OR A LINGUISTIC ISSUE?
4.1. Whether and How to Choose a UAL
4.2. Which UAL to Choose
4.2.1. Survey ol>the Issue
4.2.2. The Relevance of Topics Within Contemporary Linguistics to UAL Selection: Language Universals and Linguistic Equality
4.2.3. Deductions

CHAPTER 5. THE INNATENESS HYPOTHESIS AND THE SIMPLICITY AND LEARNABILITY OF POTENTIAL UALs

CHAPTER 6. THE LANGUAGE BIO-PROGRAMME HYPOTHESIS: EMPIRICAL DATA
6.1. The Creole Connection
6.2. Structures of Creolization
6.3. Loose Ends

CHAPTER 7. THE CHOICE OF A SCRIPT (AND ORTHOGRAPHY) CONCLUSIONS AND SUMMARY

NOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDIX I The term 'pidgin' and the UAL concept

APPENDIX II UAL selection by all nations simultaneously

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX III 'Interdependence' - cornerstone of the UAL ideology, 'globaloney' or global reality?

APPENDIX IV From a personal letter by S.C. Levinson, (1984)

APPENDIX V Socio-political neutrality and the choice of a UAL

APPENDIX VI Theories of Creolization: Substratum and Monogenesis

ABSTRACT

This study begins by providing a sociolinguistio description of the concept of a Universal Auxiliary Language (UAL). A typology of potential UALs - which comprises natural and constructed languages - is also presented.

Although the choice of a UAL is ultimately a governmental matter, arguments are presented for assuming that such a choice will depend heavily on linguistic expertise. This is seen to apply especially if the doctrine of the overall equality between natural languages were tested, and disproved. Therefore, studies on the way in which language structure optimally reflects a-prioristic universals such as learnability are considered relevant to the identification of UAL features. Learnability is defined as structural closeness to the language bio-programme.

Results of Bickerton's cross-linguistic studies on the similar way in which pidgins undergo structural elaboration when becoming creoles are presented.

These similarities in structures of creolization are attributed to the language bio-programme of pidgin acquirers, which imposes itself on the scant structure of the pidgin in the absence of a structurally more sophisticated L1.

However, it is possible that the same structures which would make creoles - and languages which ressemble them - optimally learnable would cause dis­advantages in other a-prioristic respects (like for example pragmatic sophistication) The reality of such a conflict of linguistic qualities is confirmed through evidence from another field of UAL concern: the evaluation of the qualities of possible UAL scripts. Though such conflicts in the realization of a-prioristic aims is bound to make the identification of an optimal UAL structure more complex, the current lack of (cross-)linguistic analyses along these lines precludes any assessment of the way in which and the extent to which this phenomenon may occur.

'One can only hope to make

the right choice, when one

knows the right answers'

(1)

CHAPITER 1

1. PRELIMINARIES

1.1. Introduction

Assuming that the world community will one day be confronted with the choice of an auxiliary language for the entire world, the aim of this study is to determine whether - and, if so, in what way - developments in contemporary linguistics can be considered of importance to the choice of such a language.

As the learnability of such a language - generally defined as structural simplicity - has always featured prominently among the concerns of advocates of a global auxiliary, emphasis was laid on this concept and the light linguistics could shed on it.

Contemporary linguists almost exclusively concern themselves with the study of natural languages, and advocates of a global auxiliary generally concentrate on constructed ones. But this study includes the premise that an auxiliary language for the world could be either natural or constructed. It was felt that what may be needed for the identification of optimal attributes of an auxiliary language for the world, is a cross­fertilization between the studies of natural and constructed languages, so that we may learn from natural language what to require from constructed ones, while the theory and practice of constructed languages may tell us more about natural ones.

Whether to choose an auxiliary language is not for linguists, or other individuals to decide, but rather for governments. However, the sub-question of which language to choose should be relevant to linguists, as it concerns weighing the different realities of language(s), i.e. as far as we understand them. This applies especially, and to the extent in which, evidence for the existence of inequalities between natural languages can be presented. In order to be reliable, knowledge of such inequalities should be based on empirical observation. Some evidence of this sort is reviewed in this study, and it there­fore seems unacceptable that contemporary linguists have so little to say about this fascinating field of potential applied linguistics: the choice of an auxiliary language for the world.

1.2. A word on Typography

Words of particular salience to the arguments were typographically highl ighted.

CHAPTER 2.

2. AN AUXILIARY LANGUAGE FOR THE WORLD: GENERAL OUTLINE

2.1 The Definition of an 'International Auxiliary Language1

How can the concept of an international auxiliary language, or 'interlanguage' (2) be defined? Minor differences aside, the advocates of such a language are in agreement as to what it is they are promoting. The general concept of the issue can be described in the following way (3):

1) An 'international auxiliary language'
2) is aimed at maximally facilitating worldwide linguistic communication, of all kinds, between native speakers of different national languages.
3) It is to be voluntarily selected by representatives of all nations (4) and to be taught, in principle, to all the people of these nations as a language secondary to the national language(s).
4) It may be a natural or a constructed (5) language (6) and its selection is to include the choice of a particular script and, if applicable, orthography.

2.1.1 'international'

If 'international' means 'pertaining to or carried on between different nations', (7) then it applies to any reality which involves more than one nation. A global auxiliary language, however, is meant to do far more than that.

As point 3) of the above definition shows, it is intended for all nations - and as such goes far beyond fulfilling the necessary and sufficient conditions for application of the term 'international'. A more accurate term is called for.

Three appropriate terms come to mind: 'global', 'universal' and 'pan-national'. They all refer explicitly to a reality which can only include all nations of the world. Though all are equally applicable, I choose 'universal', mainly because it matches terminology already used by some specialists (8), and because useful semantically-related terms can be derived from its morphological root (see note 2). Therefore, when referring to the definition of 2.1., I shall henceforth speak of a Universal Auxiliary Language (UAL).

2.1.2 Worldwide Conmunication

2.1.2.1 Maximum Facilitation

UAL specialists agree that the growing demands of international conmunication, and the magnitude of the problems of inadequate mutual comprehension caused by the linguistic heterogeneity which mark international contacts today, make the choice of a global auxiliary virtually imperative. The study of diverse languages may well be culturally enriching to the individual.

But for mankind to be compelled to study many languages in order to do what in today's interdependent world has become increasingly necessary - i.e. to communicate, directly or indirectly, with people whose native tongue differs from one's own - 'unilinguists' (9) consider unacceptable and rather ineffective (10). Continued...

Apart from the idea of world brotherhood, the interdependence of nations, in political, economic, ecological, scientific, military and all other conceivable respects can be considered a principle raison d'etre for unilinguistics (11). In this study, the validity of these political and ideological reasons for supporting the UAL idea will not be analysed or questioned, but assumed (12). For some information on interdependence as it relates to the choice of a UAL, see appendix III.

The idea of partitioning the world into various zones, for each of which a particular international auxiliary language would be chosen (13) unilinguists reject as running counter to points 2) and 3) of the above definition. For this would mean that the burden of having to learn a considerable number of languages in order to communicate worldwide would remain, which would imply excluding many people as it is considered unrealistic to demand of the majority of mankind to learn several disparate foreign languages through formal education.

The only answer, then, to the question of how to facilitate optimally the flow of global linguistic communication, is the adoption of one UAL. This would reduce the language learning effort required to the manageable, would limit problems of translation, interpreting, international publications, etc., to a minimum, and would constitute an adequate key to universal communications between native speakers of different languages.

2.1.2.2 A bilingual global speech community?

How does the unilinguistic view of worldwide communication tie in with definitions of the speech community? Continued...- community...

For surely verbal communication between members of different nations, no matter how timely and imperative, cannot be described as 'regular and frequent interaction' (14) to the extent that this applies within the nations concerned.

Of the various existing definitions of a speech community, those which appear of any avail in UAL context are:

a) either broad and simple, so as to enable inclusion of national and global communication separately and simultaneously. This applies to definitions like those of Bloomfield ("a group of people who interact by means of speech") or Lyons ("all the people who use a given language (or dialect)") (15)
b) or they need to specify the existence of shared attitudes to the language in question as a defining characteristic - like that of Labov who claims that the ("speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms"). (16) For the UAL concept implies a perception of the world as one community.

In UAL context the term speech community is only useful if it allows its members to be associated with several such communities at a time - one global and at least one national - instead of only one to the exclusion of others. (17) A UAL implies a double-focussed view of the world, with the world consisting of many primary national speech communities (with or without subdivisions) while also constituting one secondary global speech community.

A UAL is not designed for exclusive use by any particular social or professional group of people but, in principle, by everyone. (18)

For every person it is meant as a 'second' language (L2) - as opposed to 'foreign' (19) - in that it is expected to fulfill a societal function secondary to one's national language(s). As such, it is 'auxiliary' to national tongues, and it is meant to foster a somewhat asymmetrical global bilingualism. (20)

In today's world comnunity, with several thousand languages (see note 31) spoken in around 150 countries (21) linguistic standardization is seen as needed in much the same way - though perhaps politically not to the same extent - as is the case within countries like India or Nigeria where a large number of indigenous languages are spoken. (22) And there is nothing novel, unilinguists can rightfully claim, in assuming bilingualism as an aswer to inter­lingual communication. For although 'no really precise statistics exist concerning the number and distribution of speakers of two or more languages in the nations of the world', both the sociolinguistic present and past are 'replete with examples of language contact leading to some form of bilingualism'. (23).

2.1.2.3 All kinds of linguistic communication

What, then, are some of the needs of global communication - what use would the world make of a UAL? Without claiming exhaustiveness^ or any hierarchical ordering, the following areas of UAL application are suggested in the consulted literature: (24)

- personal travel and migration
- trade
- scientific and other professional terminology and exchange
- media information
- education
- inter- and intra-religious conrrunication
- political and diplomatic contacts
- cultural exchange
- technical terminology and cooperation
- military conmunication

One would expect the hierarchical ordering of the above functions to be relevant to the ultimate choice of UAL. For if a UAL is seen as, say, especially useful for scientific contacts and only to a lesser degree for cultural exchange, then the demands made on the linguistic structure and vocabulary of the would-be UAL may well differ from those made if the functional emphasis were the other way around. (25) This is especially the case if a suggested global auxiliary were only intended for use in a limited number of functions. An example of this is a simplified version of English, called Basic English, which is mainly intended for tangibles like business and scientific cooperation, and the designer of which renounces the intention of catering for the finesses of cultural exchange or diplomacy. (26) However, this paper is based on the view of mainstream unilinguists that a UAL should apply to all functions of human communication, and the idea of a 'universal (27) pidgin' like Basic English is not pursued. Continued

Furthermore, no attempt is made to differentiate between the relative importance of any of the social functions unilinguists attribute to a UAL. (28).

2.1.2.4 Use Between Native Speakers of Different Languages

Because a UAL is designed for use 'as a means of communication among people who have no native language in common' , (29) it matches the definition of a lingua franca.

There is, however, one respect in which the UAL concept does not necessarily overlap with this definition. For more often than not, a lingua franca is indigenous to the area in which it is spoken.

Its use there is generally a result of the particular socio-political or socio-economical dominance of its native speakers. This is the case, for instance,with the use of Swahili as a trade language in large parts of East Africa and that of Hausa in West Africa. The same occurred when Latin became the language of church, science and education in Western Europe as a result of the expansion of the Roman Empire. And it is fair to say that in today's world English has become widely used as an international lingua franca, by pro­Western nations, through the political, economic, scientific and cultural dominance of its native speakers.

Sometimes, however, lingua francas are 'not indigenous to the area in question' in which cases they are 'often learned through formal education'. (30) For example, many African nations use English as a lingua franca for national and international contacts, though these languages are not the native tongues of the people concerned and thus have to be taught as second languages.

Because the UAL concept implies use at worldwide level (see point 2) of definition) it is, of course, most unlikely that a language indigenous to the entire globe can be found, or that any of the world s speech communities will become politically, economically and socio- psychologically dominant enough for its native language to gradually develop into a truly universal lingua franca. However, the consulted literature by Sapir claims, and that by Witzel illustrates, that this has been claimed - especially with regard to English in today's world community.

The establishment of a UAL will rather demand effort on the part of political and educational institutions. It will have to be selected by common accord and it will have to be taught (see point .3) of definition). It may even have to be constructed (point .4)).

Therefore, between the two kinds of lingua franca - i.e. the spontaneously-generated local variety and the institutionally- developed non-indigenous type - only the latter can apply to a UAL. Unfortunately, the consulted literature offers no terminological distinction between these two kinds of lingua franca, which shall be termed 'evolved' and 'instituted' respectively here. In a world as linguistically varied (31) as ours, a UAL can only be an instituted lingua franca.

CHAPTER 3

3. UAL TYPOLOGY

The question of whether to choose a natural or UAL (henceforth NUAL) or a constructed UAL (CUAL) has constituted an issue of contention between unilinguists.(32) For reasons discussed in appendix IV, most unilinguists favour the idea of a CUAL as opposed to a NUAL. This goes in particular for prominent unilinguists like Couturat, Jespersen or Sapir. (33) but it is not correct to assume that those who favour the adoption of a NUAL are any less committed to the UAL issue. (34) And there are also those who take a neutral position. (35)

Besides, the NUAL-CUAL split is rather obscured by the fact that most CUALs, to varying degrees, use the grammar and/or vocabulary of natural languages as the raw material for their construction.

And, conversely, the grammar and/or vocabulary of some suggested NUALs is artificially 'improved', which by definition makes them less natural. Thus the distinction can only be used with reservations as to its accuracy.

The following three-way classification of UAL candidates is common in the literature: (36)

I a-priori UAL systems
II a-posteriori UAL systems
III mixed systems

I. a-priori systems in particular the so-called 'philosophical languages' (37) are communication codes based on the Aristotelian (38) views of the universe being shaped by a pre-existing order and the philosopher having the ability to establish a taxonomy of concepts in accordance with this order.

This philosophical classification is taken, 'a priori', as a prerequisite and a basis for the construction of a UAL. These languages were popular in the 17th and 18th centuries (see also notedOO)- with prominent examples like Dalgarno's 'Ars Signorum' (1661) and Wilkins' 'Essay Towards a Real Character and a Philosophical Language' (1668), 'Essay' for short. (39) These schemes bear no intentional resemblance to natural languages. They are based on the use of natural-language-independent symbols like musical tones, gestures, numbers or individual letters to encode linguistic meaning and to compose messages. They are meant to represent their a-priori inventory of meaning with greater ontological validity, logical regularity and universal accessibility than any natural language. (40)

Although these systems thus claim a maximum of a quality which in modern generative phonology would be called 'naturalness' (in that the linguistic information conveyed is more universally real), the mere fact that they do not resemble natural language arguably makes them less natural than other CUAL types.

It is the logical rigour with which these systems claim to refer to meaning, however, which makes their validity as vehicles for human cctimunication questionable. For in order to be logically related, meanings have to be defined. Contemporary linguists hold meaning to be ultimately establishable by the intuition of each native speaker only. As intuitions are by definition subjective, semantic objectivity becomes unattainable - and with it logical validity. Continued And it seems scientifically unacceptable to assume that philosophers are endowed with a special semantic intuition which enables them to objectively postulate aprioristic linguistic meaning. Besides, a-priori CUALs by definition lack native speakers to determine the semantic facts even if they were determinable. And if on the other hand one would try to avoid this problem by shaping meaning after natural languages, a-priori schemes would, of course, cease to be aprioristic.

Another way of thinking about logical validity in meaning is not in terms of the unambiguous identification of meaning, but rather in terms of its fixedness. Such semantic determinacy is also implicit in the claims of a-priori schemes. However, it has been argued, and illustrated in experiment, that in human communication such semantic determinacy does not exist. (41) Due to changes in the individual's and the speech community's perception as well as changes in the real-world environment of the community, linguistic change in general and semantic change in particular constantly and inevitably produce linguistic indeterminacy. (42)

It is for these reasons that the validity of a-priori schemes as UAL candidates can be disclaimed.

It should also be noted that by obliging their users to sing, sign or write their messages, the overall functional practicability (see point 2) of definition and section 2.1.2.3.) of these schemes is reduced, and that unlike most later CUAL architects their inventors frequently envisaged limited functional applications which do not match the definition of 2.1. Continued

Despite their historical and philosphical interest they will receive no further attention in this paper as CUAL candidates.

However, this does not apply to their rationale, elements of which have remained pertinent to subsequent developments in unilinguistics (discussed below).

II. a-posteriori systems are constructed with elements taken from natural languages

Whereas the a-priori schemes emerged mainly in the 17th and 18th centuries, most a-posteriori languages came about during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (43) But the principles according to which the latter were constructed were heavily influenced by their a-priori predecessors. Such principles include maxims of logic, like monosignificance (also called 'uniqueness') of morphemes and reversibility of rules of grammar. (44) However, as these languages - unlike a-priori schemes - are not intended to be based on the rigorous classification of realities in the universe, they include no claim to absolute perfection. They are meant to minimize, rather than avoid completely, the structural idiosyncracies and the ontological relativity of natural language.

As unilinguists have mainly been native speakers of Indo-European languages, a-posteriori systems draw their substance mainly from these languages. (45) The following sub-types are distinguished:

A NUALs:

A.l. untouched classical languages (e.g. Latin)

A.2. untouched living languages (e.g. Spanish)

A.3. simplified classical languages (e.g. Latino Sine Flexione) (46)

A.4. simplified living languages
A.4.1.minimal languages, like Basic English (see note 26) or Fran^ais Fondamental (47) where the lexicon of a natural language has
A.4.2.reformed languages - where besides the lexicon, other levels of the language have also been modified (e.g. semantics, phonemics, morphology, etc.) Example: Wede (='Welt-Deutsch') (48)

B. CUAL candidates - where linguistic elements have been taken from a number of natural languages

B.l. autonomous languages, where the lexicon, though in principle taken from ethnic languages, is structured as regularly as possible without further consideration to the idiosyncracies of vocabulary in natural languages. Examples of this type are Esperanto and Ido.

Regularity is achieved through the application of certain principles, like the monosignificance or monofunctionality of all affixes, or a consistent phonemic orthography. (49)

B.2. naturalistic languages, are constructed along the principle that maximum similarity with particular languages is best. Constructors of these CUAL candidates generally choose the most regular forms from among a number of natural languages.

The result is that while these languages are more regular than ordinary natural languages, they do not attain the regularity of autonomous languages. In fact, the affixes are often polyfunctional and thus polysememic and the roots of the words often vary regardless of the semantic relation between the words concerned.

An example of this type is Occidental-Interlingue. (50)

Novial, designed by 0. Jespersen does not have the two draw­backs mentioned above. Continued Besides for monosignificance and regularity, its lexical elements were chosen for maximum internationality (where international is thought of as European). (51)

B.3. 'integrated' systems, constitute a combination of the elements of different proposed CUALs. The language 'Neo', for instance, is made up of Esperanto, Ido and Novial. (52)

III. mixed systems constitute a mixture of a-priori and a-posteriori principles. The lexical elements, for instance, of these languages may well be inspired by natural languages, but the word roots may have been altered beyond recognition - like in the case of Volapuk. The criteria for these changes to the basic material from natural languages are more than autonomistic, they are a-prioristic. In order to conform to an a-priori standard of pronounceability, for instance, letters are frequently dropped, making the morphological connection with the source language very opaque. (53)

4. UAL SELECTION: A POLITICAL AND/OR A LINGUISTIC ISSUE?

4.1. Whether and how to choose a UAL

In the past lingua francas have been established as the result of imposition rather than the free choice of its speakers. For instance, after the conquest of foreign territory, the conqueror's native tongue would become the lingua franca in the area - or at least serve as a basis for it, as in the case of pidgins and creoles.

This goes for both evolved and instituted lingua franca - as in the respective cases of, for instance, French-based creole in overseas French territories and Latin in Western Europe during and after the Roman Empire.

The UAL concept implies a different formula altogether. It is based on the principle that a UAL will be freely chosen by representatives of no less than all the world's nations. (54) Such a choice presupposes the political motivation to adopt a UAL. This motivation, translated into the decision to choose a UAL, is at the ultimate discretion of political authorities. The ultimate choice would have to be agreed by all, and not dictated by a few. Whether this presupposes the existence of some pan- or supra-national decision­making authority (and if so, what kind of institution this would be) or whether a UAL would be selected by an ad-hoc convening of governments, are matters of political conjecture. The same goes for sub-questions like whether decisions will be taken by majority vote or rather unanimously, whether decision-makers will have a vote relative to the population they represent, or whether a one-state-one-vote principle will be applied, etc Continued...

All such institutional and procedural questions are for the actual political authorities, not for today's unilinguists to decide.

In other words, the questions of whether and how to select a UAL are political issues to which the results of unilinguistic research can be only directly relevant. For only inasmuch as unilinguists can mobilise public opinion (55) or act as a pressure group (56) towards UAL adoption could they conceivably influence political motivation for a UAL - i.e. to the extent in which these strategies would be repaid by concrete (inter-governmental policies.

4.2. Which UAL to choose

4.2.1.Survey of the issue

Thus political considerations are the only pertinent ones in determining whether and how to select a UAL. Therefore, it is legitimate to ask whether - and if so, at what stage and to what extent, linguistic expertise can be considered relevant to the UAL selection process at all. This section is about those very questions.

What, if anything, do professional linguists think about this themselves? Linguists generally appear at best sceptical about the feasibility of the selection of a UAL in general and, by extention of the relevance of linguistics to the choice of a UAL (e.g. see appendix IV). UAL pessimists point out that to assume that political motivation for the adoption of a UAL will one day be sufficient, is to underestimate the role of nationalism in international relations, (57)

... and that socio-psychological constraints (58) will preclude

the realisation of linguistic universalism as a language attitude and as a language policy. UAL advocates would reply that de-facto global interdependence (see appendix III), possibly supported by universal public opinion, (also see appendix III) can make the UAL politically expedient in due time, that the UAL concept does imply a respect for national and cultural (including linguistic) diversity and integrity and that UAL planning, though unique, is in fact possible, for examples of similar language planning cases, on a national scale, do exist. (59)

However, assuming that a UAL is desired, and that administrative mechanismsfor its selection can be agreed upon, the next crucial question would be w h i c h language to choose. What are the prospects of linguistic UAL-selection criteria being used here?

As today's world is not sufficiently interested in the adoption of a UAL (60), unilinguists cannot realistically gauge the weight of all the political factors which will be considered once enough political motivation will be available. In fact, as political decisions are at the discretion of the decision maker, it is implausible that unilinguists will ever be in a position to make conclusive and precise predictions about the political priorities of the UAL planners. But lack of political information in itself does not preclude the isolation and description of the linguistic aspects of the UAL issue and of potential UALs. There is no logical reason why description of the linguistic dimensions of potential UALs cannot be analysed independently from socio-political, educational, ideological and other non-linguistic angles of UAL concern.

[...]