1932

Abstract

Linguistic research focuses primarily on the thousands of naturally occurring languages, but there are also languages that have been consciously created by individuals. There are four main types of these constructed languages. First, so-called philosophical languages were created in the seventeenth century as a way to better capture the reality of the world. Second, many international auxiliary languages were constructed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a way to solve practical problems of international communication. Third, many languages have been created in recent decades for the purposes of fiction (e.g., novels, film, television), especially in the realms of science fiction and fantasy, or simply as an enjoyable hobby. Fourth, it is now common to construct languages for use in psycholinguistic experiments. Each of these types of constructed languages presents interesting research questions and deserves increased attention from linguists.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707
2023-01-17
2024-04-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/9/1/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alexander T. 2014. Comprehensive illustrated Pakuni dictionary. Fiat Lingua FL-00001D-00 https://fiatlingua.org/2014/02/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson SR, de Saussure L, eds. 2018. Classics in Linguistics, Vol. 6: René de Saussure and the Theory of Word Formation Berlin: Lang. Sci.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aronoff M, Xu Z. 2010. A Realization Optimality-Theoretic approach to affix order. Morphology 20:2381–411
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bergen BK. 2001. Nativization processes in L1 Esperanto. J. Child Lang. 28:3575–95
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bjork RA, Bjork EL. 2020. Desirable difficulties in theory and practice. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 9:4475–79 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.09.003
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Blanke D. 2009. Causes of the relative success of Esperanto. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 33:3251–66
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Blanke D. 2015. How not to reinvent the wheel: the essential scholarly literature in interlinguistics and Esperantology. Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst. 13:2200–15
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bybee JL. 1985. Typological Studies in Language, Vol. 9: Morphology: A Study of the Relation Between Meaning and Form Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheng LSP, Burgess D, Vernooij N, Solís-Barroso C, McDermott A, Namboodiripad S. 2021. The problematic concept of native speaker in psycholinguistics: replacing vague and harmful terminology with inclusive and accurate measures. Front. Psychol. 12:715843
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chomsky N. 2010. Lingvo kaj menso Rotterdam, Neth: Univers. Esperanto Assoc.
  11. Collitz H. 1925. World languages. Language 2:11–13
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Comrie B. 1996. Natural and artificial international languages: a typologist's assessment. J. Univers. Lang. 1:135–55
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Corsetti R. 1996. A mother tongue spoken mainly by fathers. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan. 20:3263–73
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 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]
  15. Couturat L, Leau L. 1903. Histoire de la langue universelle Paris: Hachette
  16. Culbertson J, Schuler K. 2019. Artificial language learning in children. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 5:353–73
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dankova N. 1997. Temporalité en Esperanto: etude du transfert. PhD Diss., Univ. Paris 8, Paris
  18. Dankova N. 2009. Temporality in spoken Esperanto. Esperantologio/Esperanto Stud 4:43–60
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dankova N. 2015. Future participles in Esperanto. Esperantologio/Esperanto Stud 7:63–74
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dasgupta P. 1989. Degree words in Esperanto and categories in Universal Grammar. Interlinguistics: Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages K Schubert 231–48 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Dasgupta P. 1993. Idiomaticity and Esperanto texts: an empirical study. Linguistics 31:2367–86
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dasgupta P. 2018. Du problemoj en la sintakso de Esperanto. See Kiselman 2018 65–77
  23. Drezen E. 1931. Historio de la Mondolingvo: Tri Jarcentoj da Serĉado Leipzig, Ger: Ekrelo
  24. Dulichenko A. 1990. Mezhdunarodnye vspomogatel'nye iazyki [International Auxiliary Languages] Tallinn, Estonia: Valgus
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Eberhard DM, Simons GF, Fennig CD, eds. 2022. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. Dallas, TX: SIL Int. , 25th ed.. http://www.ethnologue.com
  26. Esper EA. 1925. A technique for the experimental investigation of associative interference in artificial language material. Lang. Monogr. 1:1–47
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Ettlinger M, Morgan-Short K, Faretta-Stutenberg M, Wong PC. 2016. The relationship between artificial and second language learning. Cogn. Sci. 40:4822–47
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Falk JS. 1995. Words without grammar: linguists and the international auxiliary language movement in the United States. Lang. Commun. 15:3241–59
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Falk JS. 2002. Women, Language and Linguistics: Three American Stories from the First Half of the Twentieth Century London: Routledge
  30. Fedzechkina M, Jaeger TF, Newport EL. 2012. Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. PNAS 109:4417897–902
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Fedzechkina M, Newport EL, Jaeger TF. 2017. Balancing effort and information transmission during language acquisition: evidence from word order and case marking. Cogn. Sci. 41:2416–46
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Garvía R. 2015. Esperanto and Its Rivals: The Struggle for an International Language Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  33. Gledhill C. 2000. Languages of the World/Materials, Vol. 190: The Grammar of Esperanto: A Corpus-Based Description Munich: Lincom Eur.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Gobbo F. 2011. The case of correlatives: a comparison between natural and planned languages. J. Univ. Lang. 12:245–79
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Gobbo F. 2017. Are planned languages less complex than natural languages?. Lang. Sci. 60:36–52
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goodall G. 1988. Kelkaj rimarkoj pri la subjekto en Esperanto. Waiguoyu/J. Foreign Lang. Shanghai Int. Stud. Univ. 1988:391–93, 104
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goodall G 2001. Pri la transitiveco de verboj en Esperanto. Language Planning and Lexicology: Proceedings of an International Symposium C Kiselman, G Mattos 115–31 Brasília/Chapecó, Brazil: Fonto
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goodall G 2021. The design(ing) of language. Language Invention in Linguistics Pedagogy J Punske, N Sanders, AV Fountain 69–85 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Greenberg JH 1963. Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. Universals of Language JH Greenberg 73–113 Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Hopp H. 2013. Introduction: the development of L2 morphology. Second Lang. Res. 29:13–6
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Hudson Kam CL, Newport E 2005. Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learner in language formation and change. Lang. Learn. Dev. 1:151–95
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Jansen W. 2007. Woordvolgorde in het Esperanto: Normen, tallgebruik en universalia PhD Thesis, LOT, Utrecht, Neth.
  43. Jansen W. 2012. The learnability of the reflexive in Esperanto. Linguist. Amsterdam 5:157–80
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Jespersen O. 1928. An International Language London: Allen & Unwin
  45. Jespersen O. 1931. A new science: interlinguistics. Psyche 11:57–67
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Kiselman CO 2018. Aliroj al Esperanto Dobřichovice Czech Repub: KAVA-PECH
  47. Koutny I. 2018. Tipologia karakterizo de esperanto kiel natura lingvo. See Kiselman 2018 129–46
  48. Kováts K. 2020. Manlibro pri Instruado de Esperanto Partizánske, Slovak: E@I
  49. Large A. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell
  50. Levin B, Hovav MR. 1995. Unaccusativity Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  51. Lindstedt J. 2006. Native Esperanto as a test case for natural language. SKY J. Linguist. 19:47–55
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Lindstedt J. 2009. Esperanto—an East European contact language?. Ein Beitrag der kultur- und sprachrelativistischen Linguistik, Vol. 2: Die Europäizität der Slawia oder dies Slawizität Europas C Voß, A Nagórko 125–34 Munich/Berlin: Otto Sagner
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Liu H. 2018. Kvantaj aliroj. See Kiselman 2018 147–67
  54. Maat J. 2004. Philosophical Languages in the Seventeenth Century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
  55. Monaghan P, Ruiz S, Rebuschat P. 2021. The role of feedback and instruction on the cross-situational learning of vocabulary and morphosyntax: mixed effects models reveal local and global effects on acquisition. Second Lang. Res. 37:2261–89
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Nagata H, Corsetti R. 2005. Influoj de gepatra lingvo sur la lernadon de esperanto: psikolingvistika esploro. Esperantologio/Esperanto Stud 3:5–39
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Nagata H, Corsetti R. 2018. Rezigno pri libereco ne ĉie kaj ne ĉiam: la vortordo en Esperanto. See Kiselman 2018 181–99
  58. Nate R 1996. The interjection as a grammatical category in John Wilkins' philosophical language. Historiogr. Linguist 23:1–289–109
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Okrent A. 2009.. In the Land of Invented Languages New York: Spiegel & Grau
  60. Parkvall M. 2010. How European is Esperanto? A typological study. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan 34:163–79
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Pereltsvaig A. 2017. Esperanto linguistics: state of the art. Lang. Probl. Lang. Plan 41:2168–91
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Pesetsky D. 2017. Complementizer-trace effects. Blackwell Companion to Syntax Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. , 2nd ed.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118358733.wbsyncom108
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  63. Peterson DJ. 2015. The Art of Language Invention: From Horse-Lords to Dark Elves to Sand Worms, the Words Behind World-Building New York: Penguin
  64. Polinsky M. 2018. Heritage Languages and Their Speakers Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  65. Punske J, Sanders N, Fountain AV, eds. 2020. Language Invention in Linguistics Pedagogy Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  66. Reber AS. 1967. Implicit learning of artificial grammars. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 6:855–63
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Saffran JR, Aslin RN, Newport EL. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:52941926–28
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Sapir E. 1925. Memorandum on the problem of an international auxiliary language. Romanic Rev 16:244–56
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Schreyer C. 2021. Constructed languages. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 50:327–44
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Schubert K 1989. Interlinguistics: Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter
  71. Schuler K, Yang C, Newport E. 2016. Testing the Tolerance Principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. Proceedings from the 38th Cognitive Society Annual Meeting2321–26 Mahwah, NJ: Cogn. Sci. Soc.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Sherwood BA. 1982. Statistical analysis of conversational Esperanto, with discussion of the accusative. Stud. Linguist. Sci. 12:1165–82
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Subbiondo JL 1992. John Wilkins and 17th-Century British Linguistics Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  74. Tolkien JRR. 1954–1955. The Lord of the Rings. 3 vols London: George Allen & Unwin
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Tolkien JRR 1983. A secret vice. The Monsters and the Critics and Other Essays C Tolkien 198–223 London: George Allen & Unwin
    [Google Scholar]
  76. van Oostendorp M. 1999. Syllable structure in Esperanto as an instantiation of universal phonology. Esperantologio/Esperanto Stud 1:52–80
    [Google Scholar]
  77. van Oostendorp M. 2001. Constructed language and linguistic theory: on the notions possible, impossible, and actual language. Interface: Tijdschrift Toegep. Linguïst 15:2203–22
    [Google Scholar]
  78. van Oostendorp M. 2018. The Esperantist background of René de Saussure's work. See Anderson & de Saussure 2018 201–8
  79. Versteegh K. 1993. Esperanto as a first language: language acquisition with a restricted input. Linguistics 31:3539–55
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Vilborg E. 1989–2001. Etimologia vortaro de Esperanto, 1989–2001. 5 vols Malmö, Swed: Eldona Soc. Esperanto
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Wandel A. 2015. How many people speak Esperanto? Or: Esperanto on the Web. Interdiscip. Descr. Complex Syst 13:2318–21
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Weiner ESC, Marshall J 2011. Tolkien's invented languages. From Elvish to Klingon: Exploring Invented Languages M Adams 75–109 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Wells JC. 1978. Lingvistikaj aspektoj de Esperanto Rotterdam, Neth: Univers. Esperanto Assoc.
  84. Wennergren B. 2020. Plena Manlibro pri Esperanta Gramatiko Partizánske, Slovak: E@I
  85. Wiese H, Alexiadou A, Allen S, Bunk O, Gagarina N et al. 2022. Heritage speakers as part of the native language continuum. Front. Psychol. 12:717973
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Windsor JW, Stewart R 2017. Can unnatural stress patterns be learned: new evidence from Klingon. Proceedings of the 2017 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
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Yang C. 2016. The Price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707
Loading

Data & Media 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