LangX - Answers to Some Questions

(a)  Isn't English already the international auxiliary language (IAL)?

(b)  Isn't Esperanto a perfectly adequate IAL?.             

(c)  What is the International Language Commission (ILC)?

(d)  How could the ILC choose an entirely neutral language?

(e)  What kind of IAL might the ILC select?

(f)  Would no more than the most basic IAL ever be required?

(g)  How would LangX develop?

(h)  How could the ILC steer a developing IAL?

(a)  Isn't English already the international auxiliary language for all practical purposes?

Not really, though some of its proponents in the media might convey that impression. English does have semi-official status in a few specialised fields, including air and maritime telecommunications, but even there its use is far from universal. Having said that, it's undoubtedly true that English is the leading auxiliary language in the world today, and will continue as such for a long time to come - whatever is decided concerning the IAL. As for English itself being officially selected, we think it most unlikely - for historical political reasons, and because of an irregular spelling system which has proved highly resistant to reform.

Moreover, as has often been pointed out, the pre-eminence of the English language relates more to the current status of English-speaking civilisation than to its inherent qualities. If the dominance of the English-speaking countries - which has arguably lasted from 1815 to the present - were to be superseded, the English language might consequently be expected to go the way of Ancient Greek, Latin, Arabic and French. The demise of the British Empire, the relative economic decline of America, the reversion of several ex-colonies to native languages, the establishment of rival languages in former English-speaking heartlands, and the continued political and cultural opposition to the English language from various quarters in several countries - all these are indications that the dethronement of English might already be proceeding.

The following statements are pertinent in this regard, though over a decade old:

......."In 1989 a study conducted in Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain concluded: "The real correct understanding of English in all the countries studied is notably inferior to the most pessimistic existing evaluations and our own guesstimates" Van de Sandt, Report in "Initiative Media News Bulletin" (London: Lintas Worldwide, January 1989)

.......In 1990 Sir (now Lord) Randolph Quirk, Professor of English at University College in London, put it thus: "Despite the persistent and glib assumptions in Britain and America, we are witnessing a significant relative decline (perhaps even an absolute decline) in the currency of English worldwide. This may come as a surprise to those who think of English as the medium of high-tech skills, international conferences, and professional journals: here indeed continued growth is doubtless the order of the day. But these are relatively slim and specialized lines of communication."

.......In 1991 Richard Bailey, Professor of English Language and Literature at the the University of Michigan and Associate Editor of the "Oxford Companion to the English Language" was even more specific: "The proportion of the world's population who regularly use English is 15% - and falling".

(b)  Esperanto is a perfectly adequate IAL which only needs support. Esperanto's official adoption and consequent implementation through educational systems worldwide would be hastened if sites such as this promoted it.

We believe that the globally-representative International Language Commission (ILC) which chooses or forms the IAL will in effect be revising Esperanto. The love and effort put into Esperanto will be realised in the coming IAL, which will be constructed very much upon its basis and inspired by its continuing influence. However, Esperanto as presently constituted looks most unlikely to gain the popular support necessary to become de facto IAL, or even to be officially appointed for the role. The absence of a thorough reform to make Esperanto more globally acceptable must be partly responsible: for instance, Esperanto's grammar is especially difficult for various peoples. There are a number of criticisms of Esperanto on the Internet; this one is probably the most comprehensive.

(c)   Assuming the ILC could agree on an IAL, wouldn't it be an unwieldy compromise? Wouldn't a functionable language require the coherent vision that only an inspired individual could provide?

No single person can possibly know enough to construct the IAL. The history of the movement has demonstrated this, though Schleyer, Zamenhof and others deserve every plaudit for their valiant attempts. Informal collaborations have fared no better: they have always split on controversial issues.

A congress or committee such as the ILC solves these problems by vesting authority in its unanimous or majority opinion. Of course there is a danger in this too, so a properly constituted arrangement is necessary - one which incorporates systematic consultation with all interested parties into the decision-making process. There is no reason, in fact, why the official committee and their consultees should not collaborate for the benefit all concerned.

(d)  How could the ILC choose an entirely neutral language, equally easy or difficult for all nationalities?

An entirely neutral language would be very difficult if not impossible to realise in practice. For instance, unless the script were bi-directional, or vertical perhaps, it would favour either the left-to-right majority or the right-to-left minority. Similarly, there would have to be a choice between logographic and alphabetic script - the former benefiting East Asian countries such as China and Japan, and the latter the rest of the world. Much the same might be said about phonology and grammar. Moreover, even if a "horizontal" neutrality were achievable between the very diverse languages and scripts of the world, there might still be the problem of finding a "vertical" neutrality, or median position, between linguists and non-linguists in every country. Briefly, it would be most impractical to start from an equal position in all linguistic categories. However, it should be possible to balance things out, and in such a way as to achieve an overall justice and equity. For instance, for practical and historical reasons LangX will probably begin with a phonology and core vocabulary based on English and the Western Romance languages - so by the same token its initial grammar should be weighted towards Chinese and other Eastern models.

(e): Would it be possible to guess what kind of IAL the international committee might select?

Leaving aside the question of LangX for now, a solid consensus of opinion believes that the following linguistic attributes are desirable in an initial IAL:

(1) alphabetic script - logographic scripts take many times longer to learn

(2) orthographic script - one-to-one correspondence between letters and sounds with no duplicated or silent letters

(3) regular grammar, with the simplest possible rules, and no exceptions

(4) no linguistic genders

(5) an international vocabulary - with the eventual goal of words from as many languages as possible

(6) no synonyms - only one word or name for each thing

(f): "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet!" Kipling's sentiment remains as true today: cultures are essentially self-contained and will remain so; no more than the most basic IAL will ever be required.

There are two schools of thought here. On the one hand, there are those who believe that, after the IAL is officially instituted, everyone will always and for all time speak at least two languages - the various mother-tongues for domestic consumption and the IAL for international communication. These hold that the primary focus of culture is national or ethnic, but that international agencies are necessary in order to support the requisite level of material civilisation - through trade, tourism, transport, communications, science, peace-keeping and the like. In other words, the international agencies deal in mundanities, whereas the more spiritual side of life - whether found through historic religions, secular philosophies, national treasuries of literature etc. - is not "global" or "international" in any real sense, since it is always linked to a particular culture or tradition.

On the other hand are those who discount the possibility of self-sufficient or autonomous entities communicating indefinitely on a second-hand basis, believing that all languages will eventually merge into a single language by way of an official IAL, and claiming that this process is merely a conscious continuation of what is already occurring. Decades or centuries after the official IAL inauguration, everyone might still learn at least two languages at school, but they would expect the IAL to develop relative to the mother tongues.

They would point to the precedent of pidgins and creoles, inasmuch as pidgins were IALs on a smaller scale, formulated for essentially the same reason - the pertinent fact about pidgins being their tendency to become creolised: a process shown to derive from children learning and using the pidgin as a mother tongue. Thus, although pidgins were originally employed as purely auxiliary trading languages - second languages that nobody used as a mother tongue - children of certain traders, seafarers etc. evidently learned the pidgins as mother tongues, and elaborated them with borrowed or intuitive grammatical constructions and new words from various sources - exactly as tends to happen with mother tongues or primary languages in their developmental phase.

Correspondingly, since the IAL will begin its life essentially as a global pidgin, there is every chance that it will be elaborated by future generations in a similar way and for the same reasons. The modern world contains an ever-increasing number of itinerant key workers and administrative personnel employed by transnational corporations and international agencies. Such people will find the IAL particularly useful, whether or not they possess other second languages such as English, and consequently the children of some of them are likely to pick up the IAL as a mother tongue. The intuitive elaboration of the IAL might then be expected to follow, in concert with more formal and conscious innovative attempts by authors, advertisers, film-makers etc. who might well wish to write in the IAL directly in order to access the global market, the whole being co-ordinated and kept within acceptable bounds by the IAL committee.

Assuming this process of development came to pass, the relationship between the IAL and every national tongue would be comparable to that which formerly existed between the minority ethnic tongues and the great national languages which entirely surrounded them. Thus, even as islands of minority ethnic tongues have been surrounded by a sea of English, every language would eventually find itself within the matrix of the IAL. And correspondingly, even as English formerly diluted and absorbed minority ethnic tongues in its midst, English would itself be absorbed, along with all other languages, into one universal tongue of enormous capacity and subtlety.

The history of the dogged survival of certain minority ethnic tongues clearly shows that such a process would never be achieved by force, rather would it happen for cultural and economic reasons. Thus, if speakers and writers were to deliberately use the international auxiliary language to reach the widest possible audience or readership, and listeners were to learn it - and tune into it - to keep up with the latest news and newest thought from anywhere in the world, there is little doubt that this common language would develop its own character as a truly global tongue, even as primary creative impetus went into it. If this did indeed happen - whether through neologism, transliteration, or other aspects of linguistic development - the national languages of the world could be expected to successively abandon their separate identities, over a period of centuries, in order to become part of it: in the same way that some minority ethnic tongues have hitherto become submerged in national languages.

Thus there is no reason to suppose that an international auxiliary consciously developed for creative usage would not gradually obtain the linguistic and euphonic capacity to incorporate all useful features, whether structural or decorative, from both "national" and constructed languages. Indeed, it might well display these assets more precisely and harmoniously than their own more or less irregular grammars, partial phonologies and ramshackle orthographies. In such a scenario the mother-tongues would continue to be preserved in written and recorded form, but ultimately for sentimental value rather than linguistic information.

(g)  If LangX begins as Lang25 with a restricted and limited phonology, vocabulary and grammar, won't the result be a primitive and rudimentary language that few people will want to use?

The theory behind LangX is that the base level at any one time will be the official IAL, capable of being used and understood in any country, but that the progressively more differentiated and complex levels should by all means be used privately - on the understanding that all such attempts are unofficial, experimental, and very possibly subject to drastic modification at a later date. Thus Lang25 would be fixed, during the initial time period, with the six levels up to and including Lang53 progressively fluid as they were "beta tested" - with a particular focus on the next level Lang29.

In this way an online dictionary might contain the core Lang25 vocabulary, but also six additional levels of vocabulary corresponding to Lang29 etc., of increasing provisionality. The different levels of words might be juxtaposed in the same dictionary, but colour-coded or otherwise differentiated. Similarly, cross-translation to as many languages a possible should focus on the base level (Lang25). Apart from the theoretical reasons already referred to there is also the practical consideration that a new script would probably be adopted in due course. Levels of grammar, of increasing provisionality, might be published in the same way.

As in childhood linguistic development, and the related establishment of pidgins, one might expect the greatest initial use of the IAL to be for relatively mundane purposes - for which no more than an elementary language would be required. But in any case the proposed restriction should prevent the IAL separating into a vertical hierarchy of class languages just as invidious to global communication as the current horizontal pattern of national languages.

(h)  How could the ILC create a language which is also evolving "naturally" in the body of users at the same time?

It would be necessary to balance these potentially opposing tendencies. The ILC should be neither too active or prescriptive nor too passive or descriptive. The former might cause it to attempt to guide the language too rapidly, or in a direction the body of users were not prepared to take; the latter would allow for irregularity, such as had been sanctioned by mass usage. Harmonising these centralising and decentralising forces might not be easy, but a properly constituted committee, engaged in a continuous process of consultation with all interested parties, and taking a strictly (though not exclusively) scientific approach to all linguistic questions, should allow both centre and periphery to evolve together.

antonyalexander@langx.org