Re: Constructive linguistics

Hallo!

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 03:42:27 -0600,
"Thomas R. Wier" <trwier@...> wrote:

> From:    Sai Emrys <saizai@...>
> > So: why not propose a serious study of "constructive linguistics" (as
> > opposed to, e.g. "descriptive linguistics" of the language-savers, and
> > "prescriptive linguistics" of the grammarians)?
>
> I think there are both pragmatic and theoretical problems with this
> idea.  First the theory.  It's not clear exactly what the study of
> conlanging would contribute to the understanding of human languages.
> Natural languages are *far* more complex and intricate than any
> conlang has ever been.
Certainly.  Conlangs don't reveal more about natural languages
than model railroads reveal about real railroads.  This metaphor
of Jeffrey Henning is a good one.  They perhaps reveal more than
nothing, but certainly not much.

>        Obviously, I don't think that should stop
> people from creating conlangs, but I am not sanguine about the
> potential of coming up with something that would not immediately
> reveal itself to be artificial.
True.  A good naturalistic artlang may resemble a natlang in about
the same way a well-built model railroad with a realistic landscape
may resemble a real railroad system, or a masterul naturalistic
painting of a landscape may resemble a real landscape.  It may be
a model, an image of a language, but not much more.

>        Humans are too good at creating
> consistent generalizations, and when, rather than being handed a
> complex morass of conflicting generalizations in a real language
> environment, one is creating the whole language ab ovo, it's simply
> too easy to make the language brutally consistent.  (Of course,
> some conlangers *want* consistency, which is their right.) Thus,
> conlangs are more likely to reveal facts about people's attitudes
> towards language than facts about language as such.
Yes.  Again, the comparison with a model railroad or a naturalistic
painting seems applicable.

> Pragmatically, the problem is that it's really hard to get funding
> to research conlangs, and they don't easily fit into any of the
> humanities very well.
Well, it is pretty hard to get funding these days for anything
where the money-making applications aren't obvious.

>        What programs do exist are funded mostly
> by IALers like the Esperantists who often have motives other than
> art behind conlanging.  (Also fine, but most conlangs aren't IALs.)
Yes.  See below.

> If "constructive" or "creative" linguists has any place in academia,
> it would be from some kind of cross-disciplinary literary angle.
> Afterall, our patron saint is studied this way. :) (No, not Hildegard.)
Yes.

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 09:49:53 -0800,
Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...> wrote:

> One possible exception would be in the area of auxlang
> studies where it might be possible to test which
> features of an auxlang make it most accessable, or
> easy to learn for speakers of a large variety of
> languages.  It might, in other words, be possible to
> quantify candidate auxlangs by some objective measure
> of "goodness", and in doing so, have more concrete
> criteria for the design of future auxlangs.
AFAIK, there actually is such a discipline.  It is called
"interlinguistics".  But interlinguistics deals only with auxlangs,
ignoring artlangs altogether.

Greetings,

Jörg.

Reply