Re: Constructive linguistics

Thomas R. Wier wrote:

> 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.
I agree. In a linguistics course, a conlanging topic [1] could
theoretically be useful for first-year students to demonstrate
understanding of basic concepts and to practise analysis (let's
imagine there were two major assignments: to construct a conlang and
to review someone else's), but let's remember that only a very simple
conlang can be constructed in ten weeks, or whatever time is
allocated to the assignment. In an art history course, a study of
conlanging is a perfectly valid postgraduate topic, but conlanging is
*not* a major cultural phenomenon (just as well - can you imagine the
traffic on the list if it was?) and there's no demand for large
numbers of students to be trained to study it.

Far more sensible and pragmatic: if you want to do conlanging at
university, start your own conlanging student club. At most
universities, all you need to make any student club official is a
certain minimum number of members (usually ten). When every university
has a conlanging club, maybe *then* conlanging will qualify as a
major cultural phenomenon and therefore as a topic for undergraduate
study.

Adrian.

[1] Australian terminology at the universities I'm familiar with: a
    *course* is the total of what you do over several years towards a
    particular award, for example you do a linguistics *course* in
    order to get a linguistics degree; a *topic* is a specific
    component of a course which generally lasts a semester, such as
    "LING1502: Words and Sounds" or "LING2702: Language, Culture and
    Communication" (both real examples that I have completed); a
    *subject* is exactly the same as a topic except that it's a less
    formal way of saying it and can be used independently of the type
    of educational institution.

Reply