The "Jargon ~ Pidgin ~ Vernacular" Progression

Three Stages to a Universal Language:

[1]  Global Vocabulary or “Global Jargon”

[2]  International Auxiliary Language or “International Pidgin”

[3]  Very Slow and Gradual Transformation to a Single World Language or “Universal Vernacularisation”

Let us imagine we are in a foreign land where we do not know the language. What would be the priority - knowing a few words, or knowing the elements of the grammar?  Given such a choice we would obviously choose the words, since a theoretical knowledge of grammar without a supply of words is practically useless.

Indeed, researchers have verified that non-linguists in such a situation have tended to rely upon a few common words (a “jargon”) without attempting to organise them grammatically. As might have been expected, this finding parallels the normal process of language development within each individual, in which words precede their grammatical organisation. It might be supposed, then, that inaugurators of IALs would have been motivated to formulate an internationally-acceptable core vocabulary before creating a grammar.

However, we well know that the hundreds of IALs listed on the Internet have been generally more concerned to present a comprehensive grammar than a workable vocabulary.

Why is this? At least three reasons might be suggested:

(1)  Because of the huge number of synonyms (for the same concept or object) within the world’s hundreds of languages and many thousands of dialects, the task of formulating an international core vocabulary might well be (or seem) more difficult than creating a grammar, of which there are a limited number of fundamental types.

(2)  Potential IALs have to appeal, not only to the public, but also to the originators of public policy. It follows that use of a single IAL at all international conventions, and as the second language of every schoolchild, will never be realised without official endorsement. Thus the IALs are in competition with the great national tongues such as English, and to present a less complete grammar is to risk dismissal as “Newspeak”. In other words, since vocabulary relates more to popular usage than theoretical purview by the powers that be, it tends to be left in abeyance.

(3)  A misapprehension that a global IAL is unprecedented in recorded history has led to the notion that the victory will only come from a process of trial and error. Thus there have been numerous IAL attempts, as though the author of each has been seeking the perfect combination of linguistic elements conducive to universal recognition and official approval. (Happily, none of this labour has been wasted, since the best of it will be applied in the future as the IAL develops.)

However, the IAL has indeed had successful precedents or prototypes, albeit on a localised scale. These have been the various pidgins and creoles that have arisen during past centuries. Robert Craig and I provided some background information (see note below) in Chapter 12 of Lango. Since jargons, pidgins and vernaculars have really been stages in the same localised IAL developments, I now refer to the sequence as the jargon ~ pidgin ~ vernacular progression (JPVP). The essentials of the JPVP might be summarised as follows:

Jargons have arisen where typical non-linguists from very different cultures brought together by the force of circumstance (e.g. whalers, or foreign soldiers and civilians) have found it convenient to attempt to communicate verbally.

Historically, what has emerged in such circumstances has been less a complete language than a lexicon of common words, with grammar provided by sign language and the immediate context. Jargons have usually disappeared along with the forced conditions that gave rise to them.

However, some jargons have subsequently developed into pidgins, which are really international auxiliary languages (if only between two nations) with basic grammar and extra words from various sources. Even though these "surviving" jargons might have been introduced with pidgins in mind, it still remains true that every pidgin has been preceded by a jargon.

History also teaches us that no pidgin has long remained a purely auxiliary language. Either it has died out with the commercial factors that gave rise to it, or the children of traders, seafarers etc. have unconsciously adopted the pidgin as their mother tongue - with all that means for creative development. Another parallel may be found within the cognitive development of the individual, with the JPVP correlating to the cognitive stages first described by Piaget.

Correspondingly it is reasonable to conclude that an IAL should be established by beginning at the “jargon” stage with a global core vocabulary. Also, just as the historic JPVPs were each based upon the language of traders, whether Portuguese, English or French etc., a new "global JPVP" should be largely based - at least initially - on the main worldwide trading language of today, namely English.

This, then, is a proposal to promote an IAL amenable to all sections of society, according to the only successful historic precedent (in terms of the widest social penetration and follow-through to "vernacularisation"):

[1] Establish an acceptable global phonology and core vocabulary mainly based on English and also - to a corresponding extent - the other major trading languages which have permeated the world.

[2] Establish a "global pidgin" on this basis, according to the same historic precedent. In practice this would mean a "Chinese-type" grammar, thereby balancing out the initial "Western" bias in the phonology and vocabulary.

 

(Note 19 Jan 2007: Following Prof. Mufwene's contention that creoles arose through the historic "plantation / homestead" situation, and that pidgins, a species pertaining more to the "trading" scenario, neither became "creolised" nor turned into "creoles", I have changed the terminology of the progression from "contact language -> pidgin -> creole" to "jargon -> pidgin -> vernacular". This is a mere verbal modification that does not affect the argument. Although a moot point I suspect that, technically speaking, Prof. Mufwene is probably correct. In any case this alteration allows "contact language" to be replaced by the better term "jargon".)

 

   

 

Homepage

LangX

Next

Phonology

Vocabulary

Links