LIU Haitao
Communication University of China, Beijing
In 1911, the Belgian Jules Meysmans introduced term interlinguistique in his article “Une science nouvelle”. According to Meysmans, interlinguistics aims at studying “les lois naturelles de la formation des langues auxiliaire communes”(Meysmans 1911-12: 14). By the new science, Meysmans hopes to find the laws of formation of artificial or natural language functioning as a mean of cross-language and even cross-dialect communication. But for the most linguists, the term interlinguistics and the proposed science became known due to Otto Jespersen’s article (1931). It is interesting that Jespersen uses again in the title of his article the words “new science”, which is now defined as the “branch of the science of language which deals with the structure and basic ideas of all languages with a view to the establishing of a norm for interlanguages, i.e. auxiliary languages destined for oral and written use between people who cannot make themselves understood by means of their mother tongues.” (Jespersen 1931: 1). In Jespersen’s definition, the possibility of natural language working as interlanguage is excluded.
There is a common core in the definition of Meysmans and Jespersen: auxiliary language for the participators with different mother tongues in interlinguistic communication act. It seems clear what interlinguist shoud do, if we follow the definition. In fact, we can easily find from linguistic documents, so far, there are not united definitions for interlinguistics (Liu 1999b). Schubert (1989) tries to put all definitions into four classes: “(1) Interlinguistics is the study of planned languages; (2) Interlinguistics is the study of vehicular languages for interethnic communication; (3) Interlinguistics is the study communication among speakers of different native languages, with special focus on the changes their languages undergo in such contacts; (4) Interlinguistics is contrastive linguistics.” (p.8-18) Schubert explains the differences: “There are several competing definitions of interlinguistics around, which, in my view, mainly differ in scope. As the term suggests, interlinguistics has something to do with interrelations and with languages. Some authors focus on the interrelations between language systems, whereas others emphasize the relations among the speakers of different languages and their ways of communicating across language barriers” (1989: 7). The problem is understandable from two sides: (1) Interlinguistics isn’t still mature science, although almost is one hundred year since Meysmans’s paper hoping to create a new science; (2) Morphologically, term interlinguistics easily make ambiguity. It can be divided or understood as (a) /interlingu/ + /istics/ and (b) (/inter/ + /lingu/) + /istics/. The combination (a) means a science on international language (communication), (b) a science on the relations among languages. In Chinese interlinguistics documents there are different expressions for two notions: guojiyuxue for (a), and yujiyuyanxue for (b). Then, Chinese interlinguists do not argue what is interlinguistics, replacing to discuss which is more precise name for the science.
If we cannot read a congruent definition from the documents, it is natural to find the solution from what the scholars are doing (Barandovska-Frank 1995, Fiedler/Liu 2001) just like in applied linguistics (Davies 1999:16), or how the term is explained in some standard works in the field.
From the website of the most important (perhaps unique significant) society for interlinguistics (Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik e. V., GIL, Berlin, Germany), we have the following definitions:
Interlinguistics is the study of international linguistic communication from all its aspects (including the roles, structures, ways of development and application of ethnic and planned languages as means of international communication).
Planned languages are language systems, which have been consciously designed according to definite criteria by individuals or groups of individuals mainly for the purpose of making international communication easier.
Esperanto has been the most successful case so far of a language project which has managed to effect its transition to a fully-fledged language and which has found a sufficiently diverse and productive speech community.
How to link interlinguistics, planned languages and Esperanto into a whole? How to understand the hierarchy: interlinguistics-planned langauge-Esperanto? If interlinguistics is defined as a science of international language communication, why GIL also mentions planned language and Esperanto? Detlev Blanke, president of GIL, gives clear answer as the following: interlinguistics aims at the optimalization of international linguistic communication (Blanke 1985, 2006, 2004). For optimizing the action, we have to search the solution from rational, efficient and other angles. According to the definition of planned language, it is a consciously constructed language system for making international linguistic communication more easily and efficiently. An individual or a group, who can only initiate, cannot create a full-functional language. In this sense, Esperanto has important value to study the role of planned language as a mean of interlinguistic communication. Then, they are forming a congruent and solid fundament of the new science – interlinguistics.
Kuznecov, a representing figure of Russian interlinguisitcs, defines interlinguistics as “a science of inter-linguistic communication and interlanguages in general.”(1989: 97). More concretely, Kuznecov positions interlinguistics in its relation with other branches of linguistics “from different directions approaches those disciplines of linguistics that have a direct or indirect relation to 1) international languages and internationality in language or 2) artificial languages and artificiality in languages.”(1987: 14, cited from Schubert 1989: 30). Kuznecov (1989) concludes that “interlinguistics surely remains a branch of linguistics, but it cannot be considered a branch of applied linguistics, although they certainly have some aspects in common.”(p. 97). Based on the argument, he distinguishes interlinguistics into general and special. General interlinguistics investigates linguistic situation of the world, linguistic diversity, typology and levels of international communication, and efforts for solving the problem of interlinguistic communication by natural or planned languages. The theory on design and function of artificial language also belong to general interlinguistics. Special interlinguistics is the study about individual planned languages. Then, Esperanto studies belong to special interlinguistics (Kuznecov 1987: 12-13).
Sakaguchi (1998) also classifies general and special interlinguistics, but as a result of that she defines interlinguistics a science on planned languages, her general interlinguistics only treat goal, structure and function of planned language and study the relations between planned language and natural languages and other semiotic systems. She gives special interlinguistics a similar definition with Kuznecov. According to theoretical or practical grade, in the same monograph, Sakaguchi also divide interlinguistics into pure and applied interlinguistics. Such classification makes us rethink why we need interlinguistics, if we have had other branches of linguistics to study general question of language communication and its structure. Contrastingly, the task of interlinguistics is to find the (optimal) solution of international linguistic communication. In this way, interlinguistics is a task-driven, isn’t a pure theory. Szerdahelyi (1979) reasonablely argues “interlinguistics should find the answer for the problem, which language will solve the problem: national or international; past, current or future; ethnical or artificial?”(p. 10-11). Sure, interlinguistics is not only helpful to solve interlinguistic problem, also useful to other fields (Liu 1999a).
Compared with other fields in applied linguistics, interlinguistics has more close relation with language planning, which is often defined as “deliberate language change; that is changes in the systems of language code or speaking or both.”(Rubin and Jernudd 1971, cited from Cooper 1989: 30). Tauli (1968) even includes interlinguistics in his language planning theory as “the science of IL planning, or more precisely, the TLP (Theory of Language Planning) which investigates the principles, methods and tactics of IL planning. By IL is meant a universal language to be used as a means of communication by individuals belonging to different language communities” (p. 167).
In summary, interlinguistics is a branch of linguistics. Broadly speaking, it studies the problem of international linguistic communication from many directions with essential task to optimize and improve interlinguitic communication. Planned languages is rational constructed language for such goal. It isn’t difficult to understand why planned language always is the core of interlinguistics. The study of planned languages not only include general properties, design criteria, typology and structure of planned language, it should also investigate the process of socialization of such system from project to real language, which is one of the most important elements in the field. According to socialized grade (Blanke 1985, 2006), perhaps, Esperanto is unique planned language meriting the word “language”.
As a task- (or problem-) driven science, no doubt, interlinguistics is very useful to us. If interlinguistics aims at optimizing interlinguistic communication, this means that it is planning or changing our language (use and situation). Evidently, it isn’t an easy task, because “To plan language is to plan society.”(Cooper 1989: 182), but it is also an exciting science.
Bibliography
Barandovska-Frank, Vera. (1995) Enkonduka lernolibro de interlingvistiko. Sibiu: Editura Universitati din Sibiu.
Blanke, Detlev (1985) Internationale Plansprachen, eine Einfuehrung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
Blanke, Detlev (2004) Interlinguistics and Esperanto studies: Paths to the scholarly literature. Rotterdam: UEA.
Blanke, Detlev (2006) Interlinguistische Beiträge. Zum Wesen und zur Funktion internationaler Plansprachen. Herausgegeben von Sabine Fiedler. Frankfurt/Main usw.: Peter Lang.
Davies, Alan (1999) The Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Robert Cooper (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge University.
Fiedler, Sabine/Liu, Haitao (2001, Red.), Studoj pri interlingvistiko. Studien zur Interlinguistik. Festlibro omaĝe al la 60-jariĝo de Detlev Blanke. Festschrift für Detlev Blanke zum 60. Geburtstag. Dobřichovice (Praha): KAVA-PECH.
Jespersen, Otto (1930-31) A new science: Interlinguistics. Psyche 11 [3]: 57-67.
Meysmans, Jules (1911-12) Une science nouvelle. Lingua Internationale 1 [8]: 14-16.
Kuznecov, S.N. (1987) Teoreticekie osnovi interlingvistiki. Moskva.
Kuznecov, S.N. (1989) Interlinguistics: a branch of applied linguistics? In Schubert, K (1989), 89-98. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Liu, Haitao (1999a). Aplikata interlingvistiko. GrKG/Humankybernetik, 40(1), 31-41.
Liu, Haitao (1999b). Kiel evoluas interlingvistiko?. Language Problems and Language Planning, 23(1).
Sakaguchi, A. (1998) Interlinguistik. Gegenstand, Ziele, Aufgaben, Methoden. Frankfurt/M : Peter Lang Verlag.
Schubert, K. (1989) Interlinguistics. Aspects of the Science of Planned Laguages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Schubert, K. (1989) Interlinguistics-its aims, its achievements, and its place in language science. In Schubert, K. (1989), 7-44. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Szerdahelyi, Istvan. (1979) Enkonduko en la interlingvistikon. En T. Carlevaro, G. Lobin (red.), Einfuehrung in die Interlinguistik, 9-85. Alsbach: Leuchtturm.
Tauli, Valter. (1968) Introduction to a Theory of Language Planning. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.
www.interlinguistik-gil.de (2007-1-6)
