What is a Language Hierarchy?

A relatively advanced "Level 2" IAL such as Esperanto, though much easier to learn than irregular national languages, is still quite difficult for certain peoples - such as Chinese, English and Creole-speakers - whose grammar and/or phonology is less elaborate. For this reason it has often been asserted that an introductory IAL for all the people of the world should be a simpler "Level 1" language. However, such an assertion might cause one to ask: "Wouldn't a Level 1 language - i.e. with a restricted and limited phonology, vocabulary and grammar - equate to a primitive and rudimentary tongue that few people would want to use?"

To answer this question it is necessary to explain the LangX concept of a "language hierarchy". Such a hierarchy can be found within all languages, though it may be more noticeable among major languages. One aspect of the hierarchy exists within the lifespan of each individual, even as the infant normally progresses through babbled speech sounds to distinct words, then to a few words arranged in simple sentences, and finally to speech and then writing of increasing complexity. Having passed through these linguistic gradations, the individual might then use different levels of speech as appropriate. For instance, he might use simple words and sentences when addressing an infant but more complex language in academic circumstances. The same language is being used, but it is being employed hierarchically.

In the social context, the same phenomenon may be described in terms of "registers" or "sociolects". Thus, a person may use his language as a basilect (restricted vocabulary and simple grammar), acrolect (advanced vocabulary and grammar), or somewhere in between (mesolect), according to the type of audience or, if writing, the intended readership. In practice there is considerable overlap and such gradations may be ill-defined, though they certainly exist as a recognised linguistic phenomenon. For instance, in West Indian English the acrolect is Standard English (even RP English) and the basilect a type of creolised English (or anglicised Creole), between which indigenous speakers are normally adept at switching, at least to some extent, according to whom they are addressing. A true world language would necessarily have a much greater scope than any national language, including in its hierarchy of registers.

And now we come to an important point, which is that every person has normally learned simple words and sentences, but not all have progressed on to using their language in a sophisticated way. In other words, everyone in a community can understand and employ the basilect but not everyone is comfortable with all the mesolects, much less the acrolect

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

According to this hierarchic usage, 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 as 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 should be adopted in due course, or an existing one ratified. 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 in the public and official usage of the upper registers 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.