1932

Abstract

Constructed languages, also known as conlangs, are languages that have been purposefully created for either real-world or fictional speakers. Within this article, I provide a summary of the language creation process and how the community of conlangers, people who make languages, come to know each other's work, as well as how language creation assignments are being adopted within university classrooms. I also explore the role of the language creator in bringing a community of speakers into existence through the invention of a language. I discuss whether speakers of a constructed language are part of a community of practice or a speech community and the implications for this distinction within anthropology. I also describe conscripts, or constructed orthographies, as well as the relationship between endangered languages and constructed languages, how invented worlds can create real-world shifts in worldview, and suggestions for new directions in research linking anthropology and constructed languages.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110152
2021-10-21
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/50/1/annurev-anthro-101819-110152.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110152&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adams M. 2011. From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  2. Adelman M. 2014. Constructed languages and copyright: a brief history and proposal for divorce. Harvard J. Law Technol. 27:2544–62
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Adger D, van Urk C. 2020. Three conlang projects at three educational levels. See Punske et al. 2020 49–68
  4. Amery R 2009. Phoenix or relic? Documentation of languages with revitalization in mind. Lang. Doc. Conserv. 3:2138–48
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson KJ. 1992. Places where a woman could talk: Ursula K. Le Guin and the Feminist Utopia. Women Lang 15:17–10
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Anderson SJ, Bischoff ST, Punske J, Fountain AV. 2020. Learning about language through language invention: “I was really proud of the language I created.”. See Punske et al. 2020 208–38
  7. Barnes L, van Heerden C. 2006. Virtual languages in science fiction and fantasy literature. Lang. Matters 37:1102–17
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bartolotti J, Marian V 2019. Learning and processing of orthography-to-phonology mappings in a third language. Int. J. Multiling. 16:4377–97
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bauman D. 1975. Verbal art as performance. Am Anthropol 77:290–311
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Becker U. 2006. Publishing for a diaspora: the development of publishing in the international Esperanto movement. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 30:3269–301
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bender M. 2002. From “easy phonetics” to the syllabary: an orthographic division of labor in Cherokee language education. Anthropol. Educ. Q. 33:190–117
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bergen BK. 2001. Nativization processes in L1 Esperanto. J. Child Lang. 28:3575–95
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Berry JA. 2020. Teaching invented languages as an introductory course: unfamiliar territory. See Punske et al. 2020 125–36
  14. Blanke D. 2003. Interlinguistics and Esperanto studies: paths to the scholarly literature. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 27:2155–92
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Blanke D. 2009. Causes of the relative success of Esperanto. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 33:3251–66
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Boas F, Hunt G. 1902. Kwakiutl Texts I. Publications of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Anthropology 4 vols. Mem. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist New York: Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.
  17. Bowern C, Lindemann L. 2021. The linguistics of the Voynich Manuscript. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 7:285–308
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bray MK. 1986. The naming of things: men and women, language and reality in Suzette Haden Elgin's native tongue. Extrapolation 27:149–61
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Broadribb D. 1970. Esperanto and the ideology of constructed languages. Int. Lang. Rep. 1970:2nd Quart1–9
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brookes T. 2010. Endangered Alphabets: An Essay on Writing Burlington, VT: Champlain Coll. Publ. Initiat.
  21. Byrd BR, Byrd AM. 2020. Teaching Proto-Indo-European as a constructed language. See Punske et al. 2020 186–207
  22. Carpenter A 2016. Invented languages: from Wilkins’ real character to Avatar's Na'vi. Fiat Lingua April 1, FL-000037-01. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carpenter AC. 2020. Teaching invented languages to the undergraduate major: a capstone course. See Punske et al. 2020 107–24
  24. Cheng C-C. 1982. The Esperanto of El Popola Ĉinio. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 12:149–62
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Cheyne R. 2008. Created languages in science fiction. Sci. Fict. Stud. 35:3386–403
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Christiansen MH 2000. Using artificial language learning to study language evolution: exploring the emergence of word order universals. The Evolution of Language: Third International Conference J-L Dessalles, L Ghadakpour 45–48 Paris: Ecole Natl. Supèr. Telecommun.
  27. Cincu R. 2017. Emoticons: between linguistics innovation and symptom of the posthuman era. J. Media Res. 10:88–95
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Comrie B. 1995. The Paleo-Klingon numeral system. HolQeD 4:46–10
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Coon J. 2020. The linguistics of Arrival: Heptapods, field linguistics and Universal Grammar. See Punske et al. 2020 32–48
  30. Corsetti R, Pinto MA, Tolomeo M. 2004. Regularizing the regular: the phenomenon of overregularization in Esperanto-speaking children. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 28:3261–82
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Cowan JW. 1997. The Complete Lojban Language Fairfax, VA: Log. Lang. Group
  32. Culbertson J, Schuler K. 2019. Artificial language learning in children. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 5:353–73
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Destruel M. 2016. Reality in fantasy: linguistic analysis of fictional languages. MA Thesis Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA:
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Doricic A. 2018. It is known’: understanding cultural and linguistic diversity through the eyes of Dothraki speakers Research presented at the 2018 PCAS/ACAS Conference New Orleans, LA: Oct. 4–6
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Duranti A. 2009. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell
  36. Eckert P 2006. Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics K Brown 683–85 Amsterdam: Elsevier
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Elgin SH. 1984. Native Tongue New York: DAW Books
  38. Evans A, Stasi M. 2014. Desperately seeking methods: new directions in fan studies research. Participations 11:24–23
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Fabbri R. 2017. Basic concepts and tools for the Toki Pona minimalist and constructed language. arXiv:1712.09359 [cs.CY]
  40. Farrugia LM. 2018. Ónë Tengwelë: Elvish and English sound symbolism and ethnocentrism in J.R.R Tolkien's constructed languages. MA Thesis Interdiscip. Grad. Stud., Univ B.C. Okanagan: https://doi.org/10.14288/1.0368688
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  41. Fedzechkina M, Newport EL, Jaeger TF 2016. Miniature artificial language learning as a complement to typological data. The Usage-Based Study of Language Learning and Multilingualism L Ortega, AE Tyler, HI Park, M Uno 211–32 Washington, DC: Georgetown Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fettes M. 1996. The Esperanto community: a quasi-ethnic linguistic minority?. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 20:153–59
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Fiedler S, Brosch C. 2018. Esperanto – a lingua franca in use: a case study on an educational NGO. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 42:2220–45
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Fleming L. 2017. Artificial language, natural history: speech, sign, and sound in the emergence of Damin. Lang. Commun. 56:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Foer J. 2012. Utopian for beginners. The New Yorker Dec. 24. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer?
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Forster PG. 1982. The Esperanto Movement The Hague: Mouton
  47. Friederici AD, Steinhauer K, Pfeifer E 2002. Brain signatures of artificial language processing: evidence challenging the critical period hypothesis. PNAS 99:1529–34
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Friedner M, Kusters A. 2020. Deaf anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 49:31–47
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Garrido Sardà MR 2020. Esperanto and Red Cross: internationality and neutrality in early 20th century Geneva Paper presented at the virtual webinar Con/Lang, Art/Lang, Alt/Lang: Making Truth, Taking Responsibility on the Terrain of Language in Moments of Crisis, Nov. 20
  50. Gillon C, Delmonico E, Martinez R, Morrell S. 2020. Bringing language construction from the classroom to the community. See Punske et al. 2020 137–68
  51. Gnanadesikan AE. 2009. Cherokee: Sequoyah reverse-engineers. The Writing Revolution: Cuneiform to the Internet133–42 Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Gobbo F 2005. The digital way to spread conlangs. Language at Work: Language Learning, Discourse and Translation Studies in Internet. Second International Conference on Internet and Language SG Posteguillo, MLG Valor, S-D Insa, ML Renau Renau 45–53 Castelló de la Plana, Spain: Jaume I Univ http://hdl.handle.net/2318/1715701
  53. Gobbo F. 2013. Learning linguistics by doing: the secret virtues of a language constructed in the classroom. J. Univers. Lang. 14:2113–35
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gobbo F. 2017a. Are planned languages less complex than natural languages?. Lang. Sci. 6:March36–52
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Gobbo F. 2017b. Beyond the nation-state? The ideology of the Esperanto movement between neutralism and multilingualism. Soc. Incl. 5:438–47
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Goertzel B 2013. Lojban++: an interlingua for communication between humans and AGIs. AGI 2013: Artificial General Intelligence KU Kühnberger, S Rudolph, P Wang, pp. 21–30. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. Vol. 7999 Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Gómez RL, Gerken L. 2000. Infant artificial language learning and language acquisition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 4:5178–86
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Goodall G. 2020. The design(ing) of language. See Punske et al. 2020 69–85
  59. Green EM. 2014. Building the Tower of Babel: international sign, linguistic commensuration, and moral orientation. Lang. Soc. 43:445–65
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gumperz JJ 2009. The speech community. Linguistic Anthropology: A Reader A Duranti 66–73 Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Heller M. 2017. Dr. Esperanto, or anthropology as alternative worlds. Am. Anthropol 119:112–22
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hendriks-Hermans J. 1999. Klingon and its users: a sociolinguistic profile. MA Thesis Tilburg Univ. Tilburg, Neth: http://www.judion.de/klingon/
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Hiddinga A, Crasborn O 2011. Signed languages and globalization. Lang. Soc 40:4483–505
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Higley SL. 2007. Hildegard of Bingen's Unknown Language: An Edition, Translation, and Discussion New York: Palgrave Macmillan
  65. Hoffmann-Dilloway E. 2011. Writing the smile: language ideologies in, and through, sign language scripts. Lang. Commun. 31:345–55
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hopkins J. 2008. Choosing how to write sign language: a sociolinguistic perspective. Int. J. Sociol. Lang. 2008 19275–89
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hopkins JE. 2019. The constitution of the Itlani commonality. Fiat Lingua May 1, FL-000068-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hymes K, Seyalioğlu H. 2017. Dialect: A Game about Language and How It Dies Washington, DC: Thorny Games
  69. Jackson H. 2011. Invented vocabularies: the Cases of Newspeak and Nadsat. See Adams 2011 49–73
  70. Jones M. 2020. James Cameron learns Na'vi sign language in Avatar 2 set photo. Screen Rant Oct. 5. https://screenrant.com/avatar-2-navi-sign-language-set-photo/
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Jourdan C. 2021. Pidgins and creoles: debates and issues. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 50:36378
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Karlander D. 2020. Ideological indeterminacy: worker Esperantism in 1920s Sweden. Lang. Commun. 71:95–107
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kazimierczak KA. 2010a. Adapting Shakespeare for “Star Trek” and “Star Trek” for Shakespeare: “The Klingon Hamlet” and the spaces of translation. Stud. Popul. Cult. 32:235–55
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kazimierczak KA. 2010b.. “ Linguistic fandom”: performing liminal identities in the spaces of transgression. Liminalities: J. Perform. Stud. 6:2 http://liminalities.net/6-2/fandom.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kelly P. 2016. Introducing the Eskaya writing system: a complex messianic script from the southern Philippines. Aust. J. Linguist. 36:1131–63
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kersten AW, Earles JL. 2001. Less really is more for adults learning a miniature artificial language. J. Mem. Lang. 44:250–73
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kimura GC. 2012. Esperanto and minority languages: a sociolinguistic comparison. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 36:2167–81
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Krägeloh C, Neha TN. 2014. Lexical expansion and terminological planning in indigenous and planned languages: comparisons between Teo Reo Māori and Esperanto. Interlinguistics 38:159–86
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Large A. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
  80. Lee NH. 2020. The status of endangered contact languages of the world. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 6:301–18
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Lévi-Strauss C. 1955. The structural study of myth. J. Am. Folk. 68:270428–44
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lewis R. 2007. Language, Mind and Nature: Artificial Languages in England from Bacon to Locke Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  83. Li DCS. 2003. Between English and Esperanto: What does it take to be a world language?. Int. J. Soc. Lang 164:33–63
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Libert AR. 2008. Daughters of Esperanto München, Ger.: Lincom Europa
  85. Lindstedt J. 2006. Native Esperanto as a test case for natural language. SKY J. Linguist. 19:47–55
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Lindstedt J 2009. Esperanto – an East European contact language?. Die Europäizität der Slawia oder die Slawizität Europas. Ein Beitrag der kultur- und sprachrelativistischen Linguistik C Voss, A Nagórko 125–34 Stud. Lang. Cult. Cent. East. Eur. 2 München/Berlin: Otto Sagner
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Lindstedt J. 2010. Esperanto as a family language. Linguas francas. La véhicularité linguistique pour vivre, travailler et étudier. [Linguae Francae. Linguistic Vehicularity to Live, Work and Study] F Dervin 69–80 Paris: L'Harmattan
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Lo Bianco J 2004. Invented languages and new worlds. English Today 20:28–18
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Manning P. 2009. Review: Can the avatar speak?. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 19:2310–25
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Martin KC. 2014. New words notes June 2014. Oxford English Dictionary Blog June 13. https://public.oed.com/blog/june-2014-update-new-words-notes/
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Meluzzi C. 2019. Real communities for invented languages. Dothraki and Klingon on the Web. Am. Lang. J. 3:216–29
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Morcin R. 2015. How to say (almost) everything in a hundred-word language. The Atlantic July 15. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/07/toki-pona-smallest-language/398363
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ochs E, Capps L. 2001. Living Narrative: Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  94. Okrand M. 1992. The Klingon Dictionary: English/Klingon, Klingon/English New York: Pocket Books
  95. Okrand M. 1996. The Klingon Way: A Warrior's Guide New York: Pocket Books
  96. Okrand M. 1997. Klingon for the Galactic Traveler New York: Pocket Books
  97. Okrand M, Adams M, Hendriks-Hermans J, Kroon S. 2011.. ‘ Wild and whirling words’: the invention and use of Klingon. See Adams 2011 111–34
  98. Okrent A. 2009. In the Land of Invented Languages New York: Spiegel & Grau Trade Paperbacks
  99. Olsen N. 2003. Marketing an international auxiliary language: challenges to a new artificial language. J. Univers. Lang. 4:75–89
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Ottenheimer HJ. 2006. The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology Toronto, ON, Can: Thomson-Wadsworth
  101. Ottenheimer HJ, Pine J. 2019. The Anthropology of Language: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology Boston, MA: Cengage
  102. Peacey B. 2020. You're the only one who knows my true identity: how fandoms create new identities for constructed language learners. MA Thesis Interdiscip. Grad. Stud. Univ B.C. Okanagan: https://dx.doi.org/10.14288/1.0394130
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  103. Pearson M. 2020. Using language invention to teach typology and cross-linguistics universals. See Punske et al. 2020 86–106
  104. Peterson DJ. 2015a. The Art of Language Invention: From Horse-Lords to Dark Elves, the Words Behind World-Building New York: Penguin Books
  105. Peterson DJ. 2015b. Remembering Defiance. Fiat Lingua Dec. 1, FL-000033-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Portnow J. 2011. Gaming languages and language games. See Adams 2011 135–59
  107. Post D. 2017. Copyright in Klingon. The Washington Post Jan. 9. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/01/09/copyright-in-klingon/
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Punske J, Sanders N, Fountain AV. 2020. Language Invention in Linguistics Pedagogy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  109. Quijada J. 2019. Frequently asked questions. Ithkuil: A Philosophical Design for a Hypothetical Language http://ithkuil.net/faqs.html
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Roehr-Brackin K, Tellier A. 2018. Esperanto as a tool in classroom foreign language learning in England. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 42:189–111
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Rogers SD. 2011. A Dictionary of Made-Up Languages: From Adûnaic to Elvish, Zaum to Klingon—The Anwa (Real) Origins of Invented Lexicons Avon, MA: Adams Media
  112. Romaine S 2011. Revitalized languages as invented languages. See Adams 2011 185–225
  113. Rosenstock R. 2008. The role of iconicity in international sign. Sign Lang. Stud. 8:2131–59
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Sams J. 2021. A discovery of conlangs and conlangers: a personal history. Fiat Lingua Jan. 1, FL-000070-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Sanders N. 2016. Constructed languages in the classroom. Language 92:3e192–204
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Sanders N, Schreyer C. 2020. The interdisciplinarity of conlangs: moving beyond linguistics. See Punske et al. 2020 169–85
  117. Schreyer C. 2011. Media, information technology and language planning: What can endangered language communities learn from created language communities?. Curr. Issues Lang. Plan. 12:3403–25
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Schreyer C. 2015. The digital fandom of Na'vi speakers. Performance and performativity in fandom L Bennett, PJ Booth. Transform. Works Cult 18 2015. https://doi.org/10.3983/twc.2015.0610
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  119. Schreyer C. 2021a. Artificial languages. See Stanlaw 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0444
    [Crossref]
  120. Schreyer C. 2021b. Language and creativity: fiction language and writing. See Stanlaw 2021. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0186
    [Crossref]
  121. Schreyer C, Adger D. 2021. Comparing prehistoric constructed languages: world-building and its role in understanding prehistoric languages. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 376: 1824.20200201
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Schreyer C, Ballantine C, Bella V, Gabias J, Ganzini B et al. 2013. The culture of conlanging: What can we learn about culture from created languages?. Fiat Lingua, Aug. 1, FL-000017-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
  123. Schubert K 1989. Interlinguistics. Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
  124. Senghas RJ 2003. New ways to be deaf in Nicaragua: changes in language, personhood, and community. Many Ways to be Deaf: International Variation in Deaf Communities L Monaghan, C Schmaling, K Nakamura, GH Turner 260–82 Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Shannon G. 2012. Is a collaborative conlang even possible?. Fiat Lingua Sept. 1, FL-00000C-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Sherwood BA. 1982. Variation in Esperanto. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 12:1183–95
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sherwood BA, Cheng C-C. 1979. A linguistics course on international communication and constructed languages. Stud. Linguist Sci. 10:1189–201
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Shulist S. 2017. Film review: Conlanging (warning: may nerd-splode). Anthropology As… Blog July 27. https://anthropologyas.wordpress.com/2017/07/27/film-review-conlanging-warning-may-nerd-splode/
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Smith AR. 2011. Confounding Babel: international auxiliary languages. See Adams 2011 17–48
  130. Sokolovska Z. 2016. Imagining Europe's linguistic diversity in the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly. Lang. Commun. 51:40–49
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Speer R, Havasi C. 2004. Meeting the computer halfway: language processing in the artificial language Lojban. Proceedings of MIT Student Oxygen Conference Cambridge, MA: MIT Oxyg. Alliance http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.87.7134&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  132. Stanlaw J 2021. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
  133. Stark L, Crawford K. 2015. The conservatism of emoji: work, affect, and communication. Soc. Media Soc. 1:2 https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115604853
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  134. Starr RL, Puderbaugh R, Gafter RJ. 2020. The authentic alien: production and evaluation of sociolinguistic variation in Klingon. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Annual Meeting Jan. 3
  135. Stria I. 2015. Towards a linguistic worldview for artificial languages PhD Diss. Uniw. Im. Adama Michiewicza Poznań, Pol:.
  136. Sutrave N. 2017. Hol Sarmey QeD QulwI’ ghItlh: a typological analysis of Klingon. MS Thesis Linguist. Univ Canterbury: http://hdl.handle.net/10092/14555
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tolkien J. 1983. 1931. A secret vice. The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays198–223 London: George Allen and Unwin
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Tonkin H. 2007. Recent studies in Esperanto and interlinguistics; 2006. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 31:2169–96
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Tonkin H. 2015. Language planning and planned languages: How can planned languages inform language planning?. Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst. 13:2193–99
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Usui H. 2008. Interlinguistics and Esperanto studies in the social context of modern Japan. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 32:2181–202
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Van Oostendorp M 2019. Language contact and constructed languages. Language Contact: An International Handbook J Darquennes, J Salmons, W Vandenbussche 124–35 Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Versteegh K. 1993. Esperanto as a first language: language acquisition with a restricted input. Linguistics 31:3539–56
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Vultee D. 2013. The Language(s) of Gallifrey. Fan Phenomena: Doctor Who P Booth 117–26 Bristol, UK: Intellect
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Wahlgren Y. 2004. Klingon as linguistic capital: a sociologic study of nineteen advanced Klingonists. Bachelor's Thesis Dep. Sociol. Lund Univ: http://klingonska.org/academic/wahlgren-2004-klingon_as_linguistic_capital.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wandel A. 2015. How many people speak Esperanto? Or: Esperanto on the Web. Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst. 13:2318–21
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Watkins B, Annis WS 2014. Siinyamda. Fiat Lingua Novemb. 1, FL-000026-00. http://fiatlingua.org/
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Watkins BD. 2017. Conlanging: The Art of Crafting Tongues Video, 1 h, 41 min Salon De Bu LLC Los Angeles: http://conlangingfilm.com/
  148. Webster S. 1983. Ethnography as storytelling. Dialect. Anthropol 8:3185–205
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Weiner ESC, Marshall J. 2011. Tolkien's invented languages. See Adams 2011 75–109
  150. Weiss J. 2020. Star Wars: the Mandalorian created a new form of sign language for the Tusken Raiders. SyFy Wire Novemb. 3. https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/the-mandalorian-tusken-raider-sign-language
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Whynot LA. 2016. Understanding International Sign: A Sociolinguistic Study Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univ. Press
  152. Windsor JW, Stewart R 2017. Can unnatural stress patterns be learned: new evidence from Klingon. Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association AA Monti. https://cla-acl.artsci.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/actes-2017/Windsor_J.Stewart_R.2017CLAProceedingsPaper.pdf
  153. Yaguello M. 1991. Lunatic Lovers of Language: Imaginary Languages and Their Inventors London: Athlone Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110152
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error