A Social Perspective of Constructed Languages CLARK FENNIMORE

A Social Perspective of CONSTRUCTED Languages

BY CLARK FENNIMORE

Throughout human history, many languages have developed with unique cultures attached to them. This connection is described by Anderson as part of an “imagined community.” There are, however, currently several constructed languages with origins outside of that natural process of formation. Like the languages that have formed naturally, some constructed languages have developed cultural characteristics among users as an interesting phenomenon among modern languages. In short, constructed languages have developed a distinct form of imagined community.

First of all, more detail is needed concerning Anderson’s concept of the “imagined community.” The connection between language and culture is important because it brings people out of the mere awareness of the local environment and into a larger awareness of society. It allows people to recognize their place in a people group, whether that be a nation or a group of some other kind. It allows the formation of governments and other kinds of shared society. The sharing of language is then a large part of how we share culture because we can then communicate the many things we have in common with others. The imagined community is about people connecting through language and finding many things in common (Anderson).

Next, more detail is needed as to what a constructed language is. Other terms for the concept include planned or artificial language. It has already been contrasted with most languages, of which the features resulted from gradual changes in older languages. Instead, a constructed language has features resulting from a person or small group essentially sitting down and putting together a set of features to form a new language.

Several types of reasons have inspired people to construct new languages. Two of these reasons are of primary importance here. The first is provision of a neutral language in which people of different linguistic backgrounds can speak to each other—an alternative to the necessity of one of them knowing the other’s language. The second is provision of a language as part of the credibility of settings in stories of speculative fiction— an alternative to fitting real languages into imaginary settings. Though these are the two reasons to be discussed in detail here, there are others, such as testing of linguistic hypotheses (Constructed Languages).

There are too many constructed languages for an exhaustive discussion here. The discussion is to be limited to major examples. Those examples will be shown to have an impact in the modern world. That impact relates to the concept of “imagined community.”

The term constructed language is often abbreviated conlang. The process of forming such a language is called conlanging. A person engaged in this process is a conlanger. There is a special organization for such people, called the Language Creation Society—or LCS for short. Activities include meetings and publications for those interested in the conlang world (Language Creation Society).

The first type of constructed language mentioned above is the type constructed as a neutral language (Constructed Languages). A specific term for this type of language is an International Auxiliary Language—or IAL for short (Chandler, “International Auxiliary Languages”). This type of constructed language manifested itself in Volapuk, which became a part of public consciousness before any other constructed language. The concept of constructed languages existed centuries before Volapuk, but it was not until this one’s 1880 publication—from author J.M. Schleyer—that a significant number of people wanted to learn an IAL. However, its popularity quickly waned as people found it to be far short of practical. An important point is that its vocabulary was based on similar terms throughout the languages of Europe (Chandler, “History”).

The next major IAL was Esperanto, first introduced in publication in 1887 by Polish author L.L. Zamenhof. It was the primary IAL by 1900, though people also found it short of practical. That year, a Delegation was formed for the purpose of setting up an IAL. Esperanto was soon considered alongside Idiom Neutral—a new language from the same organization that had supported Volapuk. The resulting IAL was called Ido—based on Esperanto, but with changes made to original features that were considered defective. Idiom Neutral also had some influence in Ido (Chandler, “History”).

Ironically, Esperanto has remained the largest IAL in spite of Ido (Chandler, “History”). In fact, it has grown to the point that many couples who can speak it have raised their children with it as a native language in addition to the parents’ native languages. This fact plus its use only of features found in languages that developed naturally give it at least the potential to be classified as a natural language. Because its native speakers have at least one other native language, the other language always has an adstrate influence on the speaker’s Esperanto. Differences have developed between its native and non-native varieties (Lindstedt).

Lacking a community of regular contact, the native speakers of Esperanto have not produced any collective changes to the language. Instead there are different forms based on influence from different adstrate languages. Because of such influence, it has features of pidgin and creole languages. Furthermore, many features have taken form in Esperanto since the death of Zamenhof, thus making unofficial rules for its grammar. This development of the language independently of any standardizing policies has provided another form of evidence for its position as a natural language (Lindstedt).

Esperanto is comparable to other languages for which the first generation of native speakers is discoverable. The example of creoles has been mentioned already, in which a pidgin—an example of the neutral type of language mentioned earlier for use between people of different language backgrounds- comes to be learned as the native language of the children of its speakers. Besides creoles, another similar situation is when a language historically ceased to have native speakers, but eventually a later generation of the descendants of its users decide to bring it back into use. The largest example of this situation is Modern Hebrew. In short, Esperanto is comparable to other languages in which a whole generation of native speakers learned it from non-native speakers. Because those other examples are classified as natural languages, Esperanto can still have the same designation in spite of its origin as a constructed language (Lindstedt).

At this point, the structure of Esperanto is worth discussing, starting with some points about origins of its features. Zamenhof incorporated features primarily from the Romance languages. However, other features were adapted from Slavic languages, as well as Yiddish. It has not gone through abrupt change, because unlike fast-changing creoles, its features were well-established by the time of the first native speakers. It is more like the beginning of Modern Hebrew in this sense. While second and first-language varieties have already been shown as different, there is also a third major variety in Standard Esperanto. A potential for future change is seen in the tendency of native speakers to drop many suffixes from the standard (Bergen). Esperanto has relatively free word order, though the pattern tends toward SVO. While similarities to creoles have been noted already, it strays from creole patterns of using free word order to mark the topic of the sentence. Nouns take suffixes for three cases, though of these the accusative is among the suffixes sometimes dropped. This particular case indicates direct object, and so the dropping of the suffix is compensated by SVO word order. To a degree, native speakers have different accents in Esperanto depending on the adstrate language. The difference of their Esperanto from that of their second-language parents shows that they are the ones changing those features (Bergen).

Because Esperanto has some features of creoles but also some significant deviations from them, it is considered to be more of a creoloid. When second-language speakers have taught it to their children as native language, the two parents usually have shared the same native language, so that Esperanto was not the only language they could use to speak with each other. Such parents have also tended to have fluency in Esperanto beyond that typical of a pidgin. The context in which Esperanto is the only language for communication is at conventions dedicated to the language, but these tend to meet only once a year and briefly—plus with only partial attendance from the Esperanto community (Bergen).

Some conclusions are to be reached concerning Esperanto in its social context. According to Mooney and Evans, languages and dialects form a major part of the identities of ethnic groups that use them (141). Esperanto can be seen as different from that kind of situation—not only does it lack connection to an ethnic group, but it is designed specifically to be neutral in that area. However, there is still a social group aspect to it, as represented particularly by the conventions mentioned already. This is to say that there is an element of identity that it gives to its users. There is no telling how the community could grow in this regard in the future.

The high degree of isolation among the speakers of Esperanto does not seem conducive to the formation of an imagined community. With a natural language, the native speakers tend to live within a particular area. Even when consciousness of community is very local, as when a town or village rarely communicates with the outside world, there is still a shared language connecting that community.

Esperanto can be seen to lack communities at even that level. However, its speakers, generally using it only within the family unit, can appreciate the fact that there are other speakers outside of the limited environment in which they use it. The language then forms a connection with other people whom they do not know. That connection, based on language, has elements of imagined community and can become more solidified as the language grows.

The IALs already described are among others that have been constructed. The other major type of constructed language is that for the purpose of fiction (Constructed Languages). A major example of this type is Klingon, from Star Trek. A simple set of features and vocabulary were first constructed for the language by actor James Doohan for the series. Linguist Marc Okrand later fleshed it out for more sophisticated use in the series. Because the language is named for the alien race to which it is native in the Star Trek universe, several rare features in human languages were chosen to give it an unfamiliar quality. These features come primarily from languages indigenous to the Americas, with examples such as OVS word order and other rare options in features of the different levels of language structure (Pereltsvaig).

In 1985, Okrand’s dictionary of the language was the first written work about it made available to the public. It sold to thousands of dedicated viewers who wanted to learn about the language they were hearing on the series. Later works in and about the language included magazines and translations of great literary works. There is even a Klingon Language Institute. With its basis in natural languages, it has been learned by many people; a few are even fluent. However it has some features that separate it from natural languages, such as only 2000 words available for use—since natural languages have much more (Pereltsvaig).

Klingon represents a different angle from Esperanto on the concept of language as part of identity. This one does not have native speakers, and is not designed for communication in a wide range of situations. However, it is still used as a source of bonding for dedicated followers of Star Trek. Speaking it is thus a form of identity for those who learn it. Its connection with Star Trek culture forms the basis of a type of imagined community, since such is based on a connection between language and culture.

A situation similar to Klingon is that of the languages constructed by J.R.R. Tolkien for his fiction set in Middle Earth—the fictional world that he invented. A major network of research on these is The Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, which includes many researchers from around the world. It publishes magazines and newsletters for those interested in this area of research (The Elvish Linguistic Fellowship). Another important site for research of Tolkien’s languages is Parf Edhellen: an elvish dictionary. As the name indicates, this site lists and defines words from the languages of Middle Earth. These languages include those of the elves and other races portrayed in Middle Earth (Parf Edhellen).

One of the most well-known works which Tolkien wrote in the setting of Middle Earth is The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The trilogy concludes with The Return of the King. The narrative part of the book in followed by appendices expanding the mythology of Middle Earth. Of these, Appendices E and F give great detail about the languages of the mythology (435-466). These provide a major demonstration of how Tolkien constructed his languages. Several details are of importance in this discussion. Of the languages of elves mentioned earlier, the ones developed extensively are Quenya and Sindarin. These two are shown to have a realistic genetic relationship under a family called Eldarin. Their differences have a realistic explanation in being native to two groups that separated from each other geographically. These groups’ common descent from the Eldar makes them closer to each other than to the descendants of East-elves, with languages of even greater difference from their own (Tolkien 452-453). Tolkien’s genius in the field of linguistics allowed him to create a sophisticated network of languages as demonstrated particularly by those he gave to his elves (Parf Edhellen).

Of course there are also humans in Middle Earth, thus leading to the presence of “Mannish” languages. Of particular importance among these is the Westron language, which became native to the other races within a large part of Middle Earth, thus being called “Common Speech” as well; only the elves maintained their own languages within the area. There are, however, other regions where men have different languages. There are languages particular to some very remote bands of humans. Other human languages include Adunaic. There is another group called the Dunedain, who have taken elvish languages as their own native languages (Tolkien 452-455).

A few other races are of importance in Tolkien’s stories as well. The Hobbits include several main characters, but the Common Speech is the only one attributed to them as native. Dwarves are shown to have their own language, though they use it only among themselves. Orcs are an evil race using the Black Speech of Sauron. The language of the Ents is not given great detail, but it is shown to be very distinct in sound structure and to require very long sentences (Tolkien 456-459).

In the books, Tolkien wrote quotes in the languages primarily in the Latin alphabet. However, he invented writing systems in which they are supposed to have been written in Middle Earth. In other words, what he wrote in the Latin alphabet is supposed to be an ancient language transcribed in these cases. In Appendix E, there is a description of what sounds are represented both by the characters in the invented writing and by the Latin letters used to transcribe them. The invented writing systems include alphabets and abjads. Furthermore letters, defined by writing on paper, are distinguished from runes, defined by writing in stone. The Eldarin elves are depicted as developing all the writing systems in Middle Earth. However, the languages of other races represent modifications for their own phonology (435-451).

Within this fictitious network of languages, there are many principles of real languages. Several of these are described by John Algeo. One major principle is that of a language family—a group of languages with each resulting from a unique set of changes to an earlier source language shared by all the member languages (52). In the area of writing, languages of the real world represent many writing systems of different types. Furthermore, it has been common for one civilization to take the writing system of another civilization and modify it to represent its own language. A major example is the Greek alphabet, which has been modified into many other alphabets of the modern world (35-39). Thus, Tolkien presents fictitious applications of real processes in language. There are in Middle Earth fictitious language families and writing systems. They show credible growth in language families and credible spread of a writing system to different linguistic contexts. They show a very detailed example of how constructed languages can reflect real languages.

In conclusion about Tolkien’s languages, there is a sense of community among the professionals who research them. This situation is different from the many Star Trek enthusiasts who learn Klingon to identify more closely with the series. Instead, the study of Tolkien’s languages seems to be more about an academic interest in his fiction. This is not to deny academic study of Klingon, as such study certainly occurs. Likewise, Klingon’s original use on television parallels the use of elvish languages in the major film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings. While there are parallels, Tolkien’s languages and Klingon represent different kinds of imagined communities. They show different ways that a constructed language can accumulate groups of people interested in studying them, whether for literary studies or for television fans.

A more recent constructed language is Dothraki, from the HBO series Game of Thrones. The series is based on A Song of Fire and Ice, a series of novels by George R.R. Martin. While the novels provide some vocabulary for the language, named after the fictional ethnic group that is supposed to speak it, the grand majority of its development was done specifically for the television series. Its development was the work of young linguist David J. Peterson. With the popularity of the series, Peterson published Living Language Dothraki as an analysis of the language (Dothraki).

There are several public websites used by those enthusiastic about the series. There is also a website for the language itself (Dothraki). In short, this language is a major part of discussion for those who follow the series. It is thus part of the identity of a community, in a way similar to Klingon, though on a smaller scale.

The last constructed language to be discussed here is Na’vi, from the movie Avatar. Comparable to several other languages discussed so far, it is a major point of interest for fans of the movie in which it is used. The website Learn Na’vi connects those who want to learn the language. In the fictional world of the movie, the language is named for the alien race that speaks it. It is actually still being expanded by Paul Frommer, who was hired to construct it originally for the film directed by James Cameron. Its grammar includes several features that occur rarely in real languages (Learn Na’vi).

Something interesting about these languages developed for fiction is in their relationship to the fictional worlds for which they were developed. They can often be seen to define fictional races. In this way, they are comparable to languages that have developed naturally in the real world, since those define real ethnic groups. These constructed languages then take what real languages represent and transfer that onto fictional groups, which are supposed to have their cultures constructed along with the languages.

Several constructed languages have developed a distinct form of identity for people who study them. Esperanto is unique as a constructed language with some native speakers. Some other constructed languages are like Esperanto in representing a distinct form of imagined community in the format of brief gatherings.

Furthermore, some have websites as primary forums for their communities. While lacking native speakers, those languages still provide a means by which people interact, thus forming personal connections.

With the exception of Esperanto, the others described here are connected to people enthusiastic about modern media franchises of which constructed languages form an important part. Furthermore, they include two languages that are supposed to be native to aliens, thus constructed intentionally with unusual linguistic features meant to give them unfamiliar vibes. These, plus Tolkien’s languages and Dothraki, show connections among people who follow speculative fiction franchises. Constructed languages can thus connect people in different ways, including through genre interests. The groups that use them form the subcultures which they define.

WORKS CITED

Algeo, John. The Origins and Development of the English Language. 6th Ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. Anderson, Benedict. “Imagined Communities” (excerpt). The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 3rd Ed. Vincent B. Leitch,

Editor. New York: Norton, 2018. Pp. 1832-1839. Bergen, Benjamin K. “Nativization Processes in L1 Esperanto.” Journal of Child Language, 2001. Pp. 575-595. Online. http://www.cogsci.ucsd.edu/~bkbergen/papers/NEJCL.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2019. Chandler, James. “International Auxiliary Languages.” International Auxiliary Languages, 2010. http://interlanguages.net/. Accessed 29 November 2019. …. “History of the International Language Ido: A Brief History of the

Search for a World-Language.” International Auxiliary Languages, 2010. http://interlanguages.net/IdoHist.html. Accessed 29

November 2019. “Constructed Languages.” Must Go. 2014-2019. https://www.mustgo.com/worldlanguages/constructed-languages/.

Accessed 29 November 2019. Dothraki: A Language of Fire and Blood. http://www.dothraki.com/. Accessed 4 December 2019. Language Creation Society, 2019. https://conlang.org/. Accessed 29 November 2019. Learn Na’vi. https://learnnavi.org/. Accessed 4 December 2019. Lindstedt, Jouko. “Native Esperanto as a Test Case for Natural Language.” A Man of Measure: Festschrift in Honour of

Fred Karlsson on his 60th Birthday. SKY Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 19. Pp. 47-55. Online. http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/

SKY2006_1/1FK60.1.5.LINDSTEDT.pdf. Accessed 30 November 2019. Mooney, Annabelle and Betsy Evans. Language, Society & Power. 4th Ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. Parf Edhellen: an elvish dictionary. https://www.elfdict.com/. Accessed 3 December 2019. Pereltsvaig, Asya. “Klingon.” Languages of the World, 2019. https://www.languagesoftheworld.info/uncategorized/klingon-2.html.

Accessed 1 December 2019. The Elvish Linguistic Fellowship, 2015. http://www.elvish.org/. Accessed 3 December 2019. Tolkien, J.R.R (1956). The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Reprint. New York: Ballatine Books, 1994.