Social Science Queen of Sheba and Phonological Discussion

User Generated

Pnaqlpnarzbba

Humanities

Description

Unformatted Attachment Preview

In this module, we learned the basic phonological patterns in natural languages and how those did or did not feed Klingon phonology. We also learned that the functions of an invented language are sometimes associated with the phonological characteristics of the language (e.g. Klingon has characteristics that are not common in human languages, as Klingon is a language spoken by non-humans). Now pick one motivation for inventing a language and suppose you are creating a language driven by the motivation. Share your ideas with your classmates on the following points. 1. What is the motivation that you chose? 2. What phonological characteristics do you want your language to have? (Give at least one characteristic) 3. Why do you want your language to have those characteristics? Explain, referring to the motivation Sounds Non-linguists will often start with the alphabet and add a few apostro phes and diacritical marks. The results are likely to be something that looks too much like English, has many more sounds than necessary, and which even the author doesn’t know how to pronounce. You’ll get better results the more you know about PHONETICS (the study of the possible sounds of language) and PHONOLOGY (how sounds are actually used in language). If you read just one book on linguistics besides this one, make it J.C. Catford’s A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Catford goes through the possible sounds systematically, with practical descriptions of how to produce each one even without having heard them. Linguists use PHONES to refer to a particular sound used in a language. P h o n e tic n o t a tio n Language textbooks usually describe sounds by comparison with Eng lish, adding recipes for producing unusual sounds. Linguists instead use the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet), a set of symbols with precise meanings. I’ll ease into using the IPA, since it isn’t that helpful till you know some thing about phonetics. For now, IPA symbols will be in brackets, and I’ll use customary English representations in boldface. E.g. sh [f] refers to the English sh sound as in shirt and tells you that its IPA symbol is f. If an IPA symbol isn’t given, it’s the same as the English representa tion—e.g. the symbol for f is [f]. There’s an IPA chart at the back of the book (p. 270) Consonants You know about vowels and consonants— though the distinction be tween them isn’t as airtight as you heard in school. Consonants can be further organized, however. The most important division is a twodimensional distinction between PLACE OF ARTICULATION and degree of CLOSURE. 27 28 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT P la c e o f a r tic u la tio n Consonants are formed by obstructing the flow of air from the lungs. The first thing to check is where the obstruction occurs; by convention we start at the lips and move inward. • LABIAL: lips alone (w) • LABIODENTAL: lips and teeth together (f, v) • DENTAL: tongue against teeth (th: unvoiced [9], voiced [6]; French or Spanish t, d) • ALVEOLAR: tongue behind the teeth (s, z, English t, d, Spanish r) • PALATO-ALVEOLAR: tongue further back from the teeth (sh [f], American r [r]) • PALATAL: tongue touching the top of the palate (Spanish n [p]', Italian gn, Sanskrit c) • VELAR: back of the tongue against the back of the mouth (k, g, ng [q]) • UVULAR: tongue compressing way back in the mouth (Arabic q, French r). To pronounce an uvular q, pronounce a series of k ’s while sliding your tongue back as far as it will go. You’ll notice SOUNDS 29 a difference in pitch: q is about an octave lower than k. The k in milk is part of the way there (compare Mick). . GLOTTAL: constricting the throat (h, glottal stop [?] as in John Lennon saying bottle). The Roman alphabet doesn’t have enough symbols, so languages are forced to use letters ambiguously, or use digraphs or diacritics. English and Frenck t aren’t the same sound, for instance: French t is formed by touching the tongue to the teeth, English t by touching the alveolar ridge behind the teeth. D e g r e e o f c lo s u r e Consonants also vary depending on how much they obstruct the airflow. • STOPS (also called PLOSIVES) stop it entirely: p t k b d g. In the middle of a word, as in happy, this is so fast that we’re hardly conscious of the closure. The stop can be lengthened, however, and then we can see there’s actually a brief silence while the air flow is stopped. Compare back kit, Beckett. • FRICATIVES just impede the airflow, creating a noticeable hiss ing sound: f s sh [f] kh [x]. A fricative can be prolonged indefi nitely. . AFFRICATES consist of a stop releasing into a fricative at the same place of articulation, such as t + s in tsetse. English ch is actually an affricate, consisting of t + sh [tj]; likewise j is d + zh [d3]. APPROXIMANTS impede the airflow only slightly; there’s no hissing sound, only a slight change in sound quality: r 1 w y. . Confusingly, the IPA for y is Q]. Don’t mistake this for English • jIf the airflow isn’t obstructed at all, what you have is a VOWEL. M o r e d is tin c t io n s Voicing Consonants can be VOICED or UNVOICED; voicing just means letting the vocal cords vibrate. Unvoiced and voiced consonants usually come in pairs: p/b, t/d, k/g, f/v, sh/zh, and so on. Sometimes there are gaps: 30 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT • German has unvoiced kh [x] (which it spells ch) but not voiced gh [y] (which however exists in Dutch). • Spahish has unvoiced s but not voiced z. • Standard Arabic has voiced b but not imvoiced p. • Often approximants only appear in voiced form. Nonetheless it’s possible to have an unvoiced r 1 w y. For some English speakers, wh is pronounced as an unvoiced w[v^]. Vowels are normally voiced; we’ll see some exceptions later. Voicing isn’t entirely binary; languages can differ in VOICING ONSET TIME (VOT), which is when the voicing starts. English has relatively late VOT—we start voicing initial b, d, g, j pretty late; French, by contrast, has early VOT. English also tends to stop voicing pretty early if the con sonant ends a word. We really distinguish “voiced” consonants at the beginning and end of the word by other cues. N asalization Instead of simply stopping the airflow, we can re-route it through the nose, producing NASAL consonants: m n ng [q]. The mouth does the exact thing for b as for m; the difference is that the nasal passage is open for m. Thus we call m a NASAL STOP, or just a NASAL, with a labial place of articulation. Similarly, n is a nasal dental or dental-alveolar, and ng [q] is a nasal velar. If a language has other places of articulation, it can have other nasals, e.g. labiodental [rq], palatal [p]. A spiration Stops may be released lightly, or with a noticeable puff of air— ASPIRATION. In English, we aspirate unvoiced stops at the beginning of a word {pot, tall, cow), but not after an s (spot, stall, scow). French and Spanish doesn’t have this initial aspiration (and if you retain it while speaking these languages you’ll have a gringo accent). In Chinese, Hindi, or (Cusco) Quechua, there are separate series of aspi rated and unaspirated stops. In Chinese and Quechua, in fact, there isn’t a series of voiced stops at all. Beijing, for instance, doesn’t start with a b at all, but an unaspirated p. The IPA symbol is t”]; so the Chinese labial stops are [p p**] . SOUNDS 31 Palatalization A PALATALIZED consonant is pronounced by raising the tongue toward the top of the mouth. This happens to be about the position for y, and a palatalized consonant may sound to an English speaker as if there’s a y (IPA [j]) after or before it. Russian and Gaelic have palatalized and unpalatalized versions of most of their consonants. For instance, ^a, fla [da da] ‘yes, yes’ sounds very different from flafla [d%d^a] ‘uncle’. Palatalization is an example of CO-ARTICULATION: the consonant is pronounced at (or nearly at) its normal place of articulation, but with the tongue raised. So palatalized [n^] isn’t quitp the same as palatal Qi]. Labialization A LABIALIZED consonant is pronounced with the lips rounded. For in stance, Latin aqua ‘water’ was pronounced [ak"'a] with labialized k. This isn’t the same as the cluster [kw]; with true labialized [k”'], the lip rounding'is simu/taneoMs with the [kj. Any of the stops can be labialized, and fricatives too. G lottal gam es Most-sounds are produced by air moving from the lungs. It’s also possi ble to create a small amount of airflow by moving the larynx up or down, without any pulmonic airflow at all. Try it! Touch your Adam’s apple and sing an [a], "varying from high to low pitch; you’ll feel the larynx moving. Now do it silently. Finally, keep the vocal cords closed as for [?], put the tongue in [k] position, and raise the larynx suddenly— that should produce an EJECTIVE [k’], a sort of throaty puff. Now keep your lips closed as for [b], and move the larynx down while voicing; this should prgduce a strangled-sounding [6], an IMPLOSIVE. There’s also implosives [d] and [^ . T h e c o n s o n a n t g r id Where non-linguists tend to list sounds in alphabetical order, linguists prefer to use a PHONOLOGICAL GRID, with place of articulation across the top, and degree of closure down the sides. The grid fdr American English looks like this. 32 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT labiai s to p s iabiodentai P b f fricatives V affricates approxim ants n a sa is w m alveoiar aiveoiarpaiatal t d sh s z zh ch j r,l y n veiar glottai k g h ng Voicing is a third dimension in English; voiced sounds can simply te placed next to the unvoiced equivalent. This is where the p t k order comes from: the stops are listed in order of place of articulation. Rhotics In programming, there’s an aphorism that 10% of the functionality takes 90% of the effort. In phonetics we might say the same about r and 1, which are quite messy. There are a number of RHOTIC (r) sounds: • American r [i] is an approximant, but there are two ways of forming it (which sound about the same): ° A RETROFLEX r [^J is pronounced by curling the tongue up behind the alveolar ridge. Some languages, such as Hindi, have a series of retroflex consonants, such as the stops [f] and [cy. ° A BUNCHED r is pronounced by bunching up the tongue thickly under the palate; the tip is drawn back into the body of the tongue. • In much of England r is a post-alveolar'approximant— like the retroflex r but the tongue pointed at the alveolar ridge, not curled back. (However, younger speakers seem to be adopting a sound more like a w!) • Another type of r is a TAP [r], where the tongue tip is brushed briefly against the alveolar ridge. This can sound like a d; thus “veddy” for “very” in attempts to capture certain accents. Span ish single, non-initial r (as in caro) is a tap; it’s also-common,in Scottish English. SOUNDS 33 • R can be TRILLED [r], which is like a repeated tap caused by vi brating the tongue against the alveolar ridge. Initial and double r in Spanish are trilled (as in rueda, carro). • French r is a uvular approximant or trill [r ] . Don’t confuse any of these realizations with a dropped r—that is, one that’s not there! Many English dialects are NON-RHOTIC, meaning that syllable-final r is dropped. L aterals LATERALS (1 sounds) are so called because they’re made with a closure, hke a stop, but leaving an opening at the sides of the tongue for airflow. • English has two distinct 1 sounds: ° CLEAR 1 is formed with the closure on the alveolar ridge; it occurs at the beginning of a syllable, as in Luke. ° DARK 1 [1] is formed by retracting the tongue (VELARIZATION); it occurs at the end of a syllable, as in cool. Velarization can be applied to other consonants as well. Many languages have a clear 1 in all positions; using a dark 1 in (say) Spanish will mark you as an anglofono. • Russian (among other languages) has a dental 1, with the tongue touching the teeth. If you want a Slavic accent, make your I’s dental. • Then there’s palatal 1 [X], as in Italian voglio. Spanish 11 used to be pronounced this way, and still is in some dialects. • If the edges of the tongue are closer to the sides of the mouth, so that there’s a noticeable hissing sound, you have a LATERAL FRICATIVE [^]. Welsh 11 is an unvoiced lateral fricative [I]. (You may pause to congratulate yourself that you can now work out a triple-barreled term like that. If you can’t, re-read the conso nants section!) P h o n e s , p h o n e m e s , a n d a llo p h o n e s I’ve talked about (say) different reahzations of English 1 or p. However, we need to be more precise about what this means. Each language has a set of PHONEMES- classes of sounds (phones) that speakers treat as “the same sound”. By convention. 34 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT • phonemes appear between slashes: /I/, /p/... • phones appear between brackets: [1], [p]... This allows us to be brief and precise. For instance, we say that English /p/ is realized as [p**] initially and as [p] elsewhere. (The absence of the ’’ indicates a lack of aspiration.) The two phones [p*"] and [p] are called ALLOPHONES of /p/. I TT i|: I ' j Ij, You can think of phonemes as how sounds are represented in the speaker’s mental grammar. Speakers are often quite unaware of allophonic variation. We don’t think of the p in pot and spot as different, though phonetically they are. ' Phonemes vs. letters Often phonemes correspond to letters, but don’t confuse them; letters are an aspect of writing systems, which are a separate topic. The same language may have multiple writing systems—e.g. Yiddish can be written in Hebrew or Roman letters; Turkish was once written in Arabic script and now uses Roman; Mandarin can be written using Chinese characters or in a dizzying variety of romanizations. j Letters don’t correspond one-for-one with phonemes— notoriously so, in Enghsh. Digraphs like ch represent a single phoneme /c/. A letter can represent different phonemes; e.g. s C2m represent /s/, /z/, or /s/. And a single phoneme may be spelled in many ways: e.g. English /f/ can be spelled f or ph. ; Phonemes may be written using IPA, but often this isn’t very conven ient. Eor a conlang, you can think of the phonemes as your romanization scheme— for most purposes, your writing system. If you like s better than f , by all means use it for the phoneme. i j I, \ But I’m j i j t 2 f \ C 0 N la e N ( 3 iN 4 C 0 9 ^ ! Maybe you’ve been making conlangs since you were eight and you use a lot of personal symbols. Well, knock it off. Once your conlang leaves your desk, you need to make it ac cessible to other people. Even if you carefully explain that % means [f], they’ll forget or won’t care. Plus, all those cool symbols you found buried in the Unicode manual have some actual meaning, and the people who know that meaning will just be confused when you misapply them. j j \ SOUNDS 35 Phonemes vs. allophones Here are some more examples of phones vs. allophones: . English /t/ is [f] initially, [t] after an [s], often an unreleased [t’] finally, and often a glottal stop [?] medially (as in button). . English /I/ is clear [1] initially, dark [i] finally. . English /m/ is usually labial, but if s labiodental [iq] before [f]. • In some English dialects, dropped final /r/ reappears before a vowel: I fear a disaster = [aj fir a dizasta]. In this case we may say that there’s still an underlying phoneme /r/, but it’s nor mally realized as [a], and only as [r] before a vowel. But for some speakers, an [r] is added between vowels whether or not written English has an r: e.g. I saw a cat = [aj sor a kaet]. For them, this intrusive r isn’t a phoneme at all. . Spanish /s/ is usually [s], but it’s voiced [z] before a voiced con sonant: los dedos = [loz dedos]. Allophones vs. dialectal realizations Don’t confuse allophones with dialectal variation. Allophones exist within a single speaker’s dialect. For instance, the different ways different English varieties pronounce /r/ are not allophonic. Each individual has a particular REALIZATION they always use—e.g. a Scottish speaker always has /r/ as flapped [r]. Different dialects can have differerit phonemes. For instance, European Spanish has a /0/ phoneme; in Latin American Spanish it’s merged with /s/. Some English dialects have a separate unvoiced /w/ for wh; others just MERGE this with /w/. Phonemic analysis Phones are very precise and not controversial: if you see [p’’] you know we’re talking about an unvoiced aspirated labial stop. (Though a few symbols aren’t as precise as they could be; e.g. [t] can be used for either a dental or an alveolar stop.) Phonemes, however, represent an analysis of the language, and there are often multiple ways to do this, and it’s not always possible to say that one way is the best. For instance, is /c/ a phoneme of English? Native speakers do think of it as a “sound”; they’re often surprised to learn that phonetically it’s made 36 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT of two sounds [t] + [[]• Calling /c/ a phoneme also makes some observa tions about English phonology neater. But we could also analyze it as a cluster /tj/. How do you know if a given sound is a phoneme or an allophone? The classical test is to find MINIMAL PAIRS— e.g. bat and pat show that /b/ and /p/ are separate phonemes in English. We can’t find minimal pairs for [p*"] in pat and [p] in spat— they never distinguish words; we say they are in COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION. Sometimes a phonological puzzle has no accepted solution. In Mandarin, the palatals j q occur only before high front vowels; they contrast with three separate series: the dental sibilants z c, the retroflexes zh ch, and the velars g k, none of which appear before those vowels. We’d like to say that the palatals are allophones of one of the other series, but it’s not clear which one! Cross-language comparisons Strictly speaking, only phones should be compared across languages. For instance, you can say that both English and Mandarin have [p] and [p**] phones. But it’s misleading and confusing to say that they both have /p/ pho nemes. You can find references to /p/ in grammars of both languages, but they don’t mean the same thing. English /p/ has [p] and [p**] allo phones and contrasts with /b/; Mandarin /p/ is always [p*"] and contrasts with /b/, which is normally [p], but may be realized as [b] in unaccented syllables. Informally, linguists do talk about (say) how many languages have an /a/. Just don’t take this too seriously. Without reading the individual grammars, you don’t know what it means that the language has an /a/— what actual realizations it has or doesn’t have. Some consonants are more common than others. For instance, virtually all languages have the simple stops [p t k]. Lass’s Phonology gives exam ples; see also David Crystal's The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, p. 165. Online, search for UPSID (the UCLA Phonological Segment Inven tory Database) or WALS (the World Atlas of Language Structures). Inventing consonants The amateur way of creating consonants it to mix letters— I encoun tered one conlang with a sound “between an n and an m ”. SOUNDS 37 You can pick from the many sounds English doesn’t have— e.g. add palatalized ii and a glottal stop 7. But it’s more naturalistic and more interesting to add entire series— or remove them. Cusco Quechua, for instance, has three series of stops—aspirated, non-aspirated, and glottalized—but doesn’t distinguish voiced and unvoiced stops. Or you can add places of articulation. For instance, while English has three series of stops, Hindi has five (labial, dental, retroflex, alveolopalatal, and velar), and Arabic has six (bilabial, dental, ‘emphatic’ (don’t ask), velar, uvular, glottal). Vowels Vowels vary in several dimensions. The most important are height, frontness, and roundedness. H e ig h t HEIGHT refers to the height of the tongue within the mouth; there’s also a tendency to open the mouth wider as the tongue lowers, so lower vowels are also called OPEN. The usual scale is HIGH [i, u], MID [e, o], LOW [a]. Many languages, including English, have four steps instead. Instead of mid there are two heights: • MID-HIGH or CLOSED: English /e, o/ as in say, so, French e and the [o] in eau\ the Italian e, o in cera, voce. • MID-LOW or OPEN: English /e/ as in set; French e and the o in dormer, Italian e, o in sella, cosa. For English speakers who distinguish Don / Dawn and cot / caught, the open o or /o/ is the second of these pairs. But if you pronounce these words the same, that’s not an open o but an [a]! You can produce /of by starting with /e/ and retracting the tongue; see Frontness below. The word closed is a mnemonic for closed /o/. The word open has open e (so don’t think about the o, which is also closed!). F r o n tn e s s FRONT vowels are pronounced with the tongue pushed forward, to the front of the mouth, [i e e ] as in me, may, meh are all front vowels. 38 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT BACK vowels are pronounced with the tongue retracted— e.g. [u o o] in do, doe, dawn. In between are CENTRAL vowels, such as the muddy schwa [a] found in the unstressed syllables of China, about, photograph. English /a/ as in p o t may be central, but for some speakers it’s a back vowel /a/. The a in cat is /se/, a low front vowel. T h e v o w e l g r id You can arrange the vowels in a grid according to these two dimensions. The bottom of the grid is usually drawn shorter because there isn’t as much room for the tongue to maneuver as the mouth opens more. front central back To get a feel for these distinctions, pronounce the phones in the dia gram, moving from top to bottom or side to side, and noting where your tongue is and how close it is to the roof of the mouth. Tenseness Once you understand the vowel grid, you can appreciate the distinction of TENSE vs. LAX. Graphically, tense vowels lie toward the edges of the diagram; lax vowels are closer to the center. The names refer to the fact that the tongue is held more tensely forward or backward in order to produce these sounds. The standard vowels used for phonetics, the CARDINAL VOWELS, are as tense as possible. English speakers, however, tend to pronounce /u/ and /e/ more centrally than the cardinal vowels. Many languages, including English, have tense/lax versions of almost all their vowels. Here’s the full diagram for my dialect of American English, using sample words: SOUNDS central front high closed \ pate low \ put p it uh pet open back boot peat \ 39 pat „ p u tt bought pot And using IPA; front central back R ou n d ed n ess A ROUNDED vowel is pronounced with the lips rounded, like English /u o/, as opposed to UNROUNDED vowels like /i e/. There’s a strong tendency for front vowels to be unrounded, and back vowels to be rounded, as in English, Spanish, or Italian. • French u, oe and German ii, 6 are FRONT ROUNDED vowels. To pronounce ii, your lips should be in the position for u, and your tongue for i. Or to put it another way, say [i] and purse your lips. The IPA for ii is [y]; don’t confuse this with English y. • Russian bi and Japanese u [ui] are BACK UNROUNDED vowels. To pronounce [m], say [u] and unpurse your lips. Here’s an expanded version of the basic vowel grid showing the IPA symbols for unrounded then rounded vowels in each position: 40 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT front central back O t h e r d is tin c t io n s Vowels can vary along other dimensions as well: • LENGTH: vowels may contrast by length, as in Latin, Greek, Sanskrit, Japanese, and Old English. Estonian has three degrees of length. Length just means that the vowel is pronounced for a longer time. E.g. Latin pdtus ‘drunken’ [po:tus] contrasts with potis ‘able’ [potis]. As a complication, short vowels may be laxed compared to their long counterparts. Don’t confuse this with the English “long vowels”—these do de rive from Old English long vowels, but they’re mostly diph thongs now. • NASALIZATION: like consonants, vowels can be nasalized. French, for instance, has four nasalized vowels [oe d e a] as in un bon vin hlanc. • VOICING: Vowels are normally voiced, but may be unvoiced in particular circumstances; e.g. Japanese often devoices vowels between two unvoiced consonants; e.g. the u [y] in kusa ‘grass’. An unvoiced vowel may have a fricative (hissing) quality. Pho netically, English h can be taken as the unvoiced form of the fol lowing vowel. SEMIVOWELS like y, w [j w] can be thought of as ultra-short vowels. Fronted [y] has a corresponding approximant [q], found in French—e.g. huile [qil]. Rhotics, laterals, and nasals can be prolonged, and thus can take the place of vowels—they’re SYLLABIC. English murk, vessel, lesson are [mrk VEsl lesn]. Dictionaries like to show a vowel [mArk lesan], but there aren’t really two separate phones there. SOUNDS 41 D ip h th o n g s A DIPHTHONG is a sequence of two different vowels in the same sylla ble, as in English coy, cow, guy /koj kaw gaj/. Phonetically, the vowels are not really distinct; the position of the vocal organs glides from one position to the other. English has a tendency to diphthongize its closed vowels: e.g. day is pronounced [dej], go is [gow]. Don’t carry this habit over to languages with purer vowels—e.g. French the, tot are [te, to] not [tej, tow]. The diphthongs mentioned above end with a semivowel; they can also begin with one, as in cute [kjut] or Chinese tian [tjen] ‘heaven’; or you can have a TRIPHTHONG beginning and ending with a semivowel: xido ‘little’ [pjaw]. A single vowel is sometimes called a MONOPHTHONG, usually in the context of sound change. In Southern American English, for instance, /aj/ has monophthongized to /a/. V o w e l s y s te m s As with the consonants, if you’re inventing a vowel system, don’t just add an exotic vowel or two. Invent a vowel system by adding or remov ing entire classes of vowels. Vowel systems vary greatly in complexity. Some of the simplest are those of Quechua (three vowels, i u a) and Spanish (five: i e a o u). Sim ple vowel systems tend to spread out; a Quechua i, for instance, can sound like English pit, peat, or pet. Spanish e and o have open and closed allophones. English is fairly rich in vowels, with a dozen or so. French has 16. W h a t m a k e s a n g o o d p h o n e t ic in v e n to r y ? People sometimes post phonetic inventories on my board and anxiously await comments. This mystifies me... it’s a bit like a painter showing you which colors he intends to use. It’s only a first, small step. Still, if you’re anxious, here are a few guidelines. • Don’t throw in every sound discussed above. New conlangers often throw everything they’ve learned into one language— a KITCHEN SINK conlang. • It’s a bit tacky to simply use all and only the sounds of English. Or, as in the Standard Fantasy Language, English plus kh. 42 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT • Think in terms of features, not sounds. E.g. add a series of retro flex stops, or nasalized vowels, not just one or two new sounds. • On the other hand, if your language is aimed at nonconlangers— e.g. it’s the background for a novel— your readers are going to ignore exotic sounds anyway. In that case it can be more effective to remove English sounds than to add new ones. Stress Don’t forget to give a stress rule. English has unpredictable stress, and if you don’t think about it your invented language will tend to work that way too. French (lightly) stresses the last syllable. Polish and Quechua always stress the second-to-last syllable. Latin has a more complex rule: stress the second-to-last syllable, unless both final syllables are short and aren’t separated by two consonants. If the rule is absolutely regular, you don’t need to indicate stress orthographically. If it's irregular, however, consider explicitly indicating it, as in Spanish: corazon, porque. In English, vowels are REDUCED to more indistinct or centralized forms when unstressed. This is one big reason (though not the only one) that English spelling is so difficult. Tone T one proper Mandarin syllables have four TONES, or intonation contours: high level; rising; falling-rising, and high falling. These tones are parts of the word, and can be used to distinguish words of different meanings: md ‘mother’, md ‘hemp’, md ‘horse’, md ‘curse’. Cantonese and Vietnamese have six tones. Tones are often described on a five-point scale, 5 being the highest. The Mandarin tones are 55, 35, 214, and 51. They may be understood better with diagrams of relative pitch: / ma ma ma ma SOUNDS 43 The diacritics are mnemonics for the diagrams. Tones are complicated by TONE SANDHI, where neighboring tones in fluence each other. For example, Mandarin’s third tone changes to sec ond before another third tone: wd hen hao Tm fine’ is pronounced wd hen hao. Some answers to questions people often have about tone: • Tones are not absolute, but relative to one’s normal pitch— in deed, relative to the intonation of the sentence as a whole. • Songwriters may or may not try to match the tones of the lyrics to the melody. In Mandarin songs tone tends to be ignored; in Cantonese not. P itc h -a c c e n t s y s te m s If that seems a bit elaborate, you might consider a PITCH-ACCENT sys tem, where intonation contours belong to words, not syllables. Japanese and ancient Greek are pitch-accent languages. In (standard) Japanese, syllables can be either high or low pitch; each word has a particular ‘melody’ or sequence of high and low syllables— e.g. ikebana ‘flower arrangement’ has the melody LULL; sashimi sliced raw fish’ has LHH; kokoro ‘heart’ has LHL. It sounds as if a tone has to be remembered for each syllable; but this turns out not to be the case. All you must learn for each word is the location of the ‘accent’, the main drop in pitch. Then you apply these three rules: . Assign high pitch to all MORAS (= syllables, except that a long vowel is two moras, and a final -n or a double consonant takes up a mora too). . Change the pitch to low for all moras following the accent. • Assign low pitch to the first mora if the second is high. Thus for ike'bana we have HHHH, then HHLL, then LHLL. C h a n n e ls The Amazonian language Piraha has an extremely simple phonological inventory, with tones. This allows it to be communicated by multiple CHANNELS: normal speech, humming, whistling. Whispering can be considered a channel too; it can readily be under stood though all voicing information is lost. 44 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT Phonological constraints Every language has a series of constraints on what possible words can occur in the language. For distance, as an English speaker you know somehow that blick and drass are possible words, though they don’t happen to exist, but vlim and mtar couldn’t possibly be native English words. Designing the PHONOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS (also called PHONOTACTICS) in your language will go a long way to giving it its own dis tinctive flavor. Start with a distinctive syllable pattern. For instance, • Japanese basically allows only (C)(y)V(V)(n): Ran-ma, A-ka-ne, Ta-te-wa-ki Ku-noo, Ru-mi-ko Ta-ka-ha-shi, Go-ji-ra, Too-kyoo, kon-kuu-ru, sushi, etc. • Mandarin Chinese allows (C)(i, u)V(w, y, n, ng): wo, shi, Meigu6, ren, wen-yan, chl-fdn, mdn-hud, Wang, pu-tong-hud, etc. • Quechua allows (C)V(C): Wall-pa-ku-na sa-ra-ta mi-kuch-kanku, ach-ka a-llin ha-tun mo-soq pu-ka wa-si-kuna, etc. • English goes as far as (s) + (C) + (r, 1, w, y) + (V) + V + (C) + (C) + (C): sprite, thanks-giv-ing. C and V? C stands for any consonant, V for any vowel. Parentheses mean that an element is optional. So (C)V(C) means that a syllable must contain a vowel, but can optionally have an initial and/or final consonant.____________________________ Try to generalize your constraints. For instance, m + t is illegal at the beginning of a word in English. We could generalize this to [nasal] + [stop]. The rule against v + 1 generalizes at least to [voiced fricative] + [approximant]. Some of you will immediately think of Vladimir. But notice that that’s a borrowing— new English words are still very unlikely to have vl. But it’s true that some constraints are harder than others— even in borrow ings like psychology we don’t try to pronounce [ps]—though the French do for psychologic. W o r k in g b a c k w a r d s If you already have a lexicon, you can deduce the phonotactics by exam ining it and seeing what sort of syllables you’ve allowed. SOUNDS 45 For instance, if you have a word bapada, all the syllables are CV. If you have strumpsk, you're allowing CCCVCCCC. But try to be more specific; probably you don’t actually allow clusters of any three arbitrary conso nants. If you have words like stroi, skrum, prek, blat, that’s more like (s)C(r,l)VC. Divide clusters however they sound best to you— e.g. bastroi could be bas-troi (CVC CCW) or bastroi (CV CCCW) or even bast-roi (CVCC CW). Be consistent, though. Then look at all the syllable types you’re allowing and decide if you really want to allow them all. Maybe you decide final CCCC is too much and have to change strumpsk. Assimilation Another process to be aware of is ASSIMILATION. Adjoining consonants tend to migrate to the same place of articulation. That’s why Latin in- + -port = import, ad + simil- = assimil- Consonants can assimilate in voice to; that’s why our plural -s sounds like z after a voiced stop, as in dogs or moms. It’s also why Larry Niven’s klomter, from The Integral Trees, rings false, m + t (though not impossible) is difficult, since each sound occurs at a different place of articulation; both sounds are likely either to shift to the dental position (klonder) or the labial (klomper). Another possible outcome is the insertion of a phonetically intermediate sound: klompter. Alien mouths If you’re inventing a language for aliens, you’ll probably want to give them really different sounds (if they have speech at all, of course). The Marvel Comics solution is to throw in a bunch of apostrophes: “This is Empress Nx’id”ar’ of the planet Bla’no’no!” Larry Niven just violates English phonological constraints: tnuctipun. We can do better. Think about the shape of the mouth of your aliens. Is it really long? That suggests adding a few more places of euticulation. Perhaps the airstream itself works differently: perhaps they have no nose, and therefore can’t produce nasals; or they can’t stop breathing as they talk, so that all their vowels are nasal; or the airstream is at a higher velocity, producing higher-pitched sounds and perhaps more emphatic consonants. Or per haps their anatomy allows odd clicks, snaps, and thuds that have be come phonemes in their languages. 46 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT Several writers have come up with creatures with two vocal tracts, al lowing them to pronounce two sounds at once, or accompany them selves in two-part harmony. Or, how about sounds or syllables that vary in tonal color? Meanings might be distinguished by whether the voice sounds like a trombone, a violin, a trumpet, or a guitar. Suggesting additional sounds is difficult and perhaps tiresome to the reader; an alien ambience can also be created by removing entire pho netic dimensions. An alien might be unable to produced voiced sounds (so he sounts a pit like a Gherman), or, lacking lips, might be stymied by labials (you nust do this to de a thentrilocooist, as ooell). Orthography Once you have the sounds of your language down, you’ll want to create an ORTHOGRAPHY— that is, a standard way of representing those sounds in the Roman alphabet. You have something very close to this already—your phonemic realiza tion. There’s nothing wrong with just using this as your orthography. You have some choices, however. Don’t try to be too creative here. For instance, you could represent /a e i 0 u/ as 6 e ee aw u, with the accents reversed at the end of the word. An outlandish orthography is probably an attempt to jazz up a phonetic system that didn’t turn out to be interestingly different from English. Work on the sounds, then find a way to spell them in a straightforward fashion. If you’re inventing a language for a fantasy world, take account of how English-speaking readers will mangle your beautiful words. Tolkien is the model here: he spelled Quenya as if it were Latin, didn’t introduce any really vile spellings, and kindly indicated final e’s that must be pro nounced. Still, he couldn’t resist demanding that c and g always be hard (I couldn’t either, for Verdurian), which probably means that a lot of his names (e.g. Cirdan) are commonly mispronounced. Marc Okrand, inventing Klingon, had the clever idea of using upper and lower case letters with different phonetic values. This has the advantage of doubling the letters available without using diacritics, but it’s not very aesthetic and it sure is a tax on memory. As an example of different approaches, here are some alternative trans literations for the same Verdurian sentence. From Rosenfelder, Mark. 2010. The Language Construction Kit. Yonagu Books: Chicago. SOUNDS 47 Mira rasfolzeca fo fase med imocul. Mira rasfolzheca rho faase medh imochul. Mira r a s f o l s E k a r o fa:se me6 imot/ul. A loving mother does not abandon a strayed son. The first is the one I actually use, inspired by Czech orthography- c for ch, s for sh, etc. The second uses digraphs, uglier but more suitable for naive English speakers and for ASCII applications, such as the early web. (In the Unicode era you can generally find any character you want.) The third uses IPA; never a bad choice, but sometime awkward (e.g. if you use unusual vowels and need to mark tone or nasalization). Avoid ee and oo for [i u]; they’re highly marked as English spellings. If people can handle sushi they can handle mira. If you’re inventing an interlanguage, of course, you shouldn’t worry about English conventions; create the most straightforward romanization you can. You’re only asking for trouble, however, if you invent new diacritic marks, as the inventor of Esperanto did. M ultiple transliterations A sense of variation among the nations of your world can be achieved by using different transliteration styles for each. In my fantasy world, for instance, Verdurian Darcaln and Barakhinei Dhdrkalen are not pronounced that differently, but the differing orthographies give then a different feeling. Surely you’d rather visit civilized Darcaln than dark and brooding Dharkalen? (Tricked you. It’s the same place.) However, these systems should be motivated—ideally each orthography is a good representation of the native writing system (or, for unwritten languages, its phonology). Verdurian and Barakhinei each have their own native alphabets, so the differing orthographies suggest this. Developing multiple languages, even if they’re just naming languages, can give a map a pleasing sense of complexity. Eor instance, here are some of the names from the continent of Arcel on Almea: Witsi?popok Zonydn Belesdo Uytai Siad ^ 0 Sme Gleij Hsanda Rimasaca Prahmai These ten names represent eight different language families, of widely different phonologies and phonotactics. None of the diacritics or un- 48 LANGUAGE CONSTRUCTION KIT usual characters is decorative; all are straightforward representations of the particular languages. D ia c r it ic s Some advice: never use a diacritical mark without giving it a specific meaning, preferably one which it retains in all uses. I made this mistake in Verdurian: I used 6 and u as in German, but e somewhat as in Rus sian (indicating palatalization of the previous consonant), and a as a mere doubling of a. I was smarter by the time I got to Cuezi: the circum flex consistently indicates a low-pitch accent. Avoid using apostrophes just to make words look foreign or alien. Since apostrophes are used in contradictory ways (they represent the glottal stop in Arabic or Hawai’ian, glottalization in Quechua, palataliza tion in romanized Russian, aspiration or a syllable boundary in Chinese, and omitted sounds in English, French, and Italian), they end up sug gesting nothing at all to the reader. W r itin g s y s te m s The next chapter discusses grammar, but once you have a phonology, you can create an ALPHABET or other writing system for your language. If you want to do so now, turn to the section on Writing Systems (p. 176). Acoustic phonetics So far we’ve been concentrating on ARTICULATORY PHONETICS—how sounds are produced. There’s also ACOUSTIC PHONETICS— how they are perceived by the ear and brain. To explain this would take a fairly long digression into the physics of sound waves, and wouldn’t really improve your conlangs. But a couple of facts may be of interest. Naively, we may feel that we speak a sound at a particular frequency. Really the sound wave is composed of a series of harmonics at various frequencies, with various peaks. The lowest peak is the FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCY, which we perceive as the pitch of the voice. The higher peaks are called FORMANTS. • As you raise the pitch of your voice, the fundamental frequency changes, but the formants do not. • The location of the formants changes for each vowel. SOUNDS 49 Here’s a plot of the first two formants (Fi and F2) for a particular speaker, in this case Canadian professor Kevin RusseU: F. 1500 1 2000 1 300 400 - • i 1000 _________ _ l _________ • u • I • e • U • 0 500 600 - • 0 • e • A 700 800 900 - • se • a By this time, this picture should remind you of something—namely, the charts of vowels earlier in the chapter. So now you know what’s really going on: openness corresponds largely to variation in Fi, and frontness to F2. Russell’s web page (see the Web Resources page) contains a good short introduction to acoustic phonetics. FROM ELVISH TO KLlNqoN Exploring Invented Languages MICHAEL ADAMS OXEORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS OXJFORD U N IV E R S IT Y PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department o f the University o f Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town D ar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur M adrid M elbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto W ith offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala H ungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Oxford University Press 2011 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2011 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly perm itted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate < reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope o f the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and yon must im pose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data available Typeset in Minion by Cenveo, Bangalore, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Clays Ltd, St Ives pic ISBN 978-0-19-280709-0 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Contents 1 The Spectrum of Invention Michael Adams i 2 Confounding Babel: International Auxiliary Languages Arden R. Smith 17 3 Invented Vocabularies: The Cases of Newspeak and Nadsat Howard Jackson 49 4 Tolkien’s Invented Languages Jeremy Marshall 75 E. S. C. Weiner and 5 ‘Wild and Whirling Words’: The Invention and Use of Klingon Marc Okrand, Michael Adams, Judith Hendriks-Hermans, and Sjaak Kroon 111 6 Gaming Languages and Language Games 135 James Portnow 7 ‘Oirish’ Inventions: James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Paul Muldoon Stephen Watt 161 8 Revitalized Languages as Invented Languages Suzanne Romaine 185 APPENDICES 1 Owning Language 227 2 Esperanto’s Zenith 234 3 Nadsat and the Critics 242 4 Tolkien’s Languages: A Brief Anthology of Commentary 249 Contents * Advanced BQingon 256 L4ngu4ge G4m35 in G4ming I4ngu4g35 261 The Case for Synthetic Scots 266 A Reconstructed Universal Language 272 Index 279 VI I rK J TIi € Spec+runi of Invention MICHAEL ADAMS Jtv€ry year, thousands of English professors in the United States, perhaps around the world, receive a circular offering them ‘Shakespeare in the original language’—Klingon, the invented language of a warrior race in the invented future world of the television and film franchise. Star Trek. There are scholars of Klingon: they have written grammars and lexicons of the language, as well as translations, and they communi­ cate with one another in refereed journals, one of them written entirely in BQingon (see Appendix 5 ). They treat Klingon as though it were a natural language, like English or Chinese, but Klingonists had to invent the language in order to write about it. To many of the circular’s recipi­ ents, the enterprise of translating great literature into a ‘fake’ language seems plain silly; they probably beheve the scholars responsible for it are inhabitants of a lunatic fringe. Language, the kind in which we speak and write every day, began as a biological and social phenomenon in prehistory. From that hypothet­ ical point forward, almost all of the world’s languages have developed 1 TIi € Sp€ctrMHi of Invention * ------------------------------------------------------------------- from the proto-language. Every new ‘natural’ language, when it was new, was a fresh sprig from an ancient root. One might think the plethora of naturally developed languages sufficient for human pur­ poses, but invented languages suggest otherwise: inventing a language is intimidating work; no one would attempt to invent one unless driven by a serious purpose or aspiration. And also by a sense that the language we have isn’t always the language we want. As Suzanne Romaine writes later in this book (Chapter 8), ‘A similarity of purpose and motivation drives inventors of all new languages whether in the real or fictional world. The perceived need for them arises from dissatisfaction with the current linguistic state of affairs. Recognition that language can be used for promoting or changing the social, cultural, and political order leads to conscious intervention and manipulation of the form of language, its status, and its uses.’ Natural languages are themselves responsible for the dissatisfaction. As Arika Okrent notes in her excellent, partially participatory account. In the Land o f Invented Languages, ‘The primary motivation for inventing a new lan­ guage has been to improve upon natural language, to eliminate its design flaws, or rather the flaws it has developed for lack of conscious desigii Looked at that way, invented languages almost seem inevitable: ‘Why not build a better language?’. It is no surprise that ‘the urge to invent lan­ guages is as old and persistent as language itself’ (Okrent 2009, 11- 12). Invented languages are curious artefacts of culture and may be worth investigating on that basis alone. But they are really much more than curiosities. For one thing, there are many more invented lan­ guages than one might guess—we know about nearly a thousand around the world and throughout history, in fact, and we can only guess at how many schemes ended up in the fire or a mouse’s nest. Okrent (2009 , 298 - 314 ) provides a splendid, comprehensive list, but it is incomplete nonetheless, because people insist on inventing yet more languages. For instance, a Parisian under the pseudonym Frederic Werst recently published Ward (2011 ), a novel in W ardw es^ (with a parallel French translation), a language over which he has laboured 2 Tht Spfctrwivi of Invention --------------------------------------------- « ------------- -------------------------------- for decades (Sage 2011 ). When everything is counted up, there have been roughly as many invented languages as there are natural ones, though, of course, the invented languages occasion relatively little use. Klingon is not alone, in other words, and many other invented lan­ guages are also culturally significant, with magnitude of significance in the eye of the beholder: Modern Hebrew, Esperanto, Orwell’s Newspeak, and the languages of Tolkien’s Middle-earth come to mind. In such company, and for good reasons, Klingon appears less silly, its speakers at least somewhat less crazy. The origin and development of each invented language illustrates its inventor’s sense of language, what it is, and what it should do, in linguis­ tic and historical terms; each also implies its inventors’ and users’ dis­ satisfactions with the language(s) already available to them. As Okrent suggests, this mirroring justifies a second, informed look at invented languages, because ‘language refixses to be cured a n d ... it succeeds, not in spite of, but because of the very qualities that the language inventors have tried to engineer away’ (2009, 17). But invented languages do much more than scratch the itch of natural language: each expresses one or more among a wide range of purposes and aspirations—political, social, aesthetic, intellectual, and technological. Each invention originates in a complex human motive. Even more than natural languages, invented languages both reflect and urge the cultures in which they are proposed, appreciated, and occasionally even used. Recovering the language of Adam Language—you can’t live with it and you can’t five without it. Dissatisfaction with natural language is really a psychopathological dis­ satisfaction with being human, because language’s design flaws, not to mention the mutual unintelligibility of the world’s many languages, are OUR FAULT. At least, that’s how the story goes. As the literary historian Russell Fraser puts it, ‘In the Garden of Eden, Adam spoke a language in which one word conveyed the root meaning of one thing without the 3 TIi € Sp€C+rtiWi of |iiv€iition -------------------------------- -------------------------------- possibility of confusion. His language was semiotic’ ( 1977, ix). Or, per­ haps we should say it was ‘onomastic’, a language of names, for ‘out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name’ (Genesis 2 :19). We still exercise this prerogative (see Appendix 8). Though fallen from grace and expelled from Eden, humankind appar­ ently continued to speak this language of one-to-one correspondences between words and things, but this linguistic purity, like all terrestrial purity, was too good to last. Our presumptuous ancestors attempted to build a tower to Heaven, and a jealous God was displeased: Now the whole earth had one language and few words ... And they said, ‘Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves ’... And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have aU one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech’. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of aU the earth, and they left off build­ ing the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of aU the earth. (Genesis 11:1-9) Ever since, language engineers have attempted to build not just a better language, but the original language, in order to unify the peoples of the world and, let’s be honest, to regain Eden and our innocence, to reach a perfect human state by means of unambiguous speech and clear com­ munication. Inventing the perfect language, however, is a lot like build­ ing a tower to Heaven—enterprising, yes, but already proscribed, history doomed to repeat itself, so we shouldn’t expect success any time soon. This impeccable logic has not deterred language inventors. Recovering the language of Adam, after all, would make a career—a sort of linguistic alchemy, it is the ultimate, elusive challenge. In the seventeenth century. 4 T1i€ SpedTMkvi of Inveiotion ------------------------------ * -----------------------------it was an inteEectual preoccupation of scholars across Europe, who pur­ sued, as Arden Smith explains later in this book (see Chapter 2 ), ‘what was called a “real character”: a universal written language that could be understood by speakers of all tongues’ People who harbour this ambi­ tion aren’t crazy, exactly, but, as Fraser puts it, ‘They are profoundly optimistic’ ( 1977, x). And though no one, not the seventeenth-century scholars nor the inventors o f twentieth-century logical languages like Loglan (see Appendix 1), has ever reconstructed Adam’s language or convinced any great number of people that they have, the attempt to purge language of ambiguity has produced valuable by-products. Fraser points out that ‘the mathematical research of John Wallis anticipates the discovery of the differential calculus’ ( 1977, 82), and we wouldn’t want to do without the differential calculus or the symbol Wallis invented to mean ‘infinity’. Inventing languages, even if they don’t turn out as we hope they wiU, is hardly a waste of time. Are all invented languages essays in the language of Adam, or at least in linguistic perfection? Arguably, no, yet the myth is often at least in the backs of the inventors’ and users’ minds. Its presence is felt most strongly in the creation of International Auxiliary Languages (lALs) like Esperanto, Volapiik, Spokil, and many others, which direcdy address the ‘interlinguistic problem’ of mutual unintelligibUity, whether God confounded human language or it got confusing all on its own (see Chapter 2 and Appendix 2 ). But when a community is first dis­ persed and then relocated (as in the case of Jews and Israel), or when a minority language is overwhelmed by the hegemony of an authorized one (as in the case of Cornish and English),, then reconstruction (of languages like Modern Hebrew and Cornish) shares some purposes with the quest for Adam’s lost language (see Chapter 8). The languages Tolkien invented for the peoples of Middle-earth, especially the Elves, are not attempts to recover or even to imitate Adam’s language, but they are aspirational, in two senses that correspond to the centuries-old search for it. First, Tolkien laboured for decades at his Elvish languages, and even if he didn’t intend them to represent 5 Tlie Spectrum of Invention ----------------------------- ----------------------------universally perfect language, he wanted them perfect in themselves, and he clearly thought they were beautiful, as do many of his readers (see Chapter 4). Second, Tolkien also enjoyed the challenge of doing something inconceivable to most people; for him, inventing languages was as irresistible as Everest to the mountain-climber. He loved English and other natural languages, but he thought he could make something as good, maybe better, because ‘a living language ... is not constructed’, so is misaligned with our linguistic needs, ‘and only by rare felicity will it say what we wish it to’ (Tolkien 1983, 218). I guess that amounts to one sort of dissatisfaction Romaine and Okrent have in mind. In The Lord o f the Rings, the Elves are about to return to Valinor from their exile in Middle-earth, a paradise regained. Perhaps there is a whiff of the Garden of Eden about Elvish after all. In the dystopian worlds of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and Anthony Burgess’s A Clockwork Orange, invented language functions in an anti-language of Adam. Burgess’s anti-hero, Alex, glibly distracts us and himself from the violence he perpetrates with his Nadsat, the criminal argot of teens in his time. Alex’s England is no other Eden, demi-paradise, nor his language, the language invented for him, Eden’s language; rather, both are dark, moralized consequences of Babel, the mutual unintelligibility and anti-sociality of people living on the same street. Where the language of Adam is unambiguous, transparent, Orwell’s Newspeak is deHberately obscure, a language of prevarication, not the one with which Adam delved and called a spade a spade. Yet without the very notion of the language of Adam, would its antithesis be possible? The language of Adam may figure, however minutely, in many an invented language, but even as it serves as a unifying theme, we must consider the variety of invented languages as well. The spectrum of invention We continually create new words in order to fill lexical gaps, where there are things or concepts not yet covered by words; we encounter 6 TIi € Sp€ctrwni of lnv€h+ioii -------------------------------- * -------------------------------- new species of flora or fauna, new physical entities (quark), political and financial institutions change (freedom fries ‘French fries’ [see Chapter 8], euro ‘unit of currency’), we create new products and services and so also create brand names and trademarks for them. In the journal Am erican Speech, the column ‘A mong the New Words’, currently written by Ben Zimmer and Charles Carson, is a quarterly chronicle of this phenomenon, though it captures only a tiny fraction of new words, many of which are coined on the fly, for specific but ephemeral purposes. While natural languages depend on (relatively) stable structures, their vocabulary is constantly renewed, but what we do naturally and inevitably, even when it’s creative, is not usually classified as ‘invention. A good bit of new vocabulary, the ephemeral part of it, is slang. Slang is interesting in the current context because it lies at one end of the spectrum of linguistic invention. As I argue in Slang: The People’s Poetry (2009), slang is ‘inevitable’ in a sense: social animals, we are always more or less simultaneously attempting to fit in and stand out, and slang is a means of doing so. It’s a mode of performance that iden­ tifies us, marks aflUiation with one group but not another, and amounts to poetry in everyday speech. As Barry J. Blake observes, ‘Language is a means of communication, but a good deal of language use’, including slang, ‘is deliberately obscure’ (2010,1). We can be vague in everyday speech in our familiar natural language, but ‘deliberation’ is a step towards ‘invention. According to Blake, ‘Slang expressions tend to be self-consciously inventive, but some are rather forced and probably too clever to achieve wide circulation or longevity’ (2010,203). ‘Self-consciously inventive’ is obviously a step beyond mere ‘inventioii Surely, it is the linguistic attitude of the genius at SlangSite.com who invented the word accipurpodentally ‘accidentally on purpose’, who doubtless revelled in the pleasures of lexifabricography, another item included in SlangSite’s dictionary. Slang is itself‘accipurpodental’, and the focus o f‘lexifabricography’ is on fabrication. Slang is inventive language and is usually invented, though 7 T1i € Spectruu^ of lnv€Htiovi --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- many common items are used without speakers retaining any sense of that invention—it is not an invented language, however, though, like slang, some kinds of invented languages are ‘forced and probably too clever to achieve wide circulation’. According to Paul Baker, Polari is ‘a secret language mainly used by gay men and lesbians, in London and other UK cities with an estab­ lished gay subculture, in the first 70 or so years of the twentieth cen­ tury’ (2002,2), an amalgam of criminal cant, theatre jargon, back and rhyming slang, Romani, Yiddish, and many other elements, with some unique grammatical features. Baker provides the following example: ‘Well hello ducky, it’s bona to vada your dolly old eek again. Order to your mother dear. Take the lattie on wheels did you? Fantabuloas! Oh vada that cod omee-palone in the naff goolie lally drags. Vada her gildy ogle fakes! Get dooey versa! I’ve nanti dinarly!’ (2002,2). Most people would consider Polari a specific slang, but it is, from a structural point of view, wonderfully complex. As Baker concludes, ‘In reference to Polari, I have also had to consider the question “What is a language?” carefully. Although some speakers used Polari in a complex and-creative way that meant it was mutually uninteUigible to outsiders, others merely employed it as a limited lexicon’, so ‘Polari cannot be called a language in the same way that English, French, Italian etc. are languages’ (2002,154). But among well-versed speakers and at the peak of its development, Polari was more than just words; slang is not a language but is sometimes a step closer to one than ‘mere’ vocabulary (see Adams 2009,165-73). In order to characterize Eolari, Baker, following the linguist Michael Halliday, finally settled on a linguistic category called ‘anti-language’: Anti-languages can provide (multiple) lexical items for concepts con­ sidered important to a particular ‘anti-society’—they allow the anti­ society to remain hidden, the shared language acts as a bonding mechanism and means of identification, and, most importantly, the anti-language allows its users to construct an alternative social reality and alternative identities for themselves. (2002,154) 8 T1i € Sptctrwkvi of lnv€Htioii -------------------------------- * -------------------------------- Burgess’ Nadsat certainly serves this purpose for Alex and his cro­ nies in A Clockwork Orange, but lALs and Klingon serve similar pur­ poses for their users. These purposes aren’t exclusive—you can learn Esperanto to promote world peace, but that would be an alternative social reahty, and Esperantist is an alternative identity, the shared language a means of bonding with fellow Esperantists. Inventing languages and using invented languages are all about alternatives that express, if not quite ‘anti-’, at least a certain dissatisfaction with language available around us. In Slang: The People’s Poetry I argue that slang self-consciously tests the parameters of language, what is possible, what you can get away with, and so is always, in a very strong sense, an anti-language. An invented language, the creation or use of it, similarly tests lan­ guage, but with a much higher level of commitment. I also argue that slang is poetic, and in a review of the book, Marcel Danesi suggests that I am pointing to an ‘originating force of poeticism, revealing the presence of a creative impulse in humans in the ways they create and use language’, a ‘poetic competence’ (2010, 507-B) parallel and allied to linguistic competence (the innate ability to learn language) and communicative competence (the innate ability to use language in human affairs). Poetry, or the poetic impulse, is thus inseparable from language, and, like slang, an invented language is an expression—a sustained, detailed, ambitious expression—of that impulse. While many think inventing languages is odd from a linguistic point of view (it might otherwise be justified by goals like constructing the alternative world of a fiction, or promoting world peace, or making money), it isn’t really. It’s perfectly natural to test ‘the limits and systems of discourse’ (Fraser 1977) by means of the ‘originating force of poeticism’; indeed, such testing may be essential to full ownership of language. Perhaps taking the trouble of inventing a whole language is overdoing it, but Okrent is right that invented languages are actually always about natu­ ral ones and about the linguistic and communicative competencies 9 TIi € Sp€c+rMi/M of Invention ------------------------4 -----------------------------underlying our language behaviour, whatever else they may also be about. Because self-consciously inventive language, like slang, and full­ blown invented languages, like Esperanto and Tolkien’s Elvish, share so many characteristics and yet are generally distinguishable from one another, it is best to see them on a spectrum of linguistic invention. The caveat generally’ is necessary because it is hard to tell whether Polari (following the colour spectrum) is red, like slang, or orange, or on the verge of orange; or whether Klingon, which isn’t yet fully developed or codified, belongs in the same colour as Elvish or Volapiik, for which the rules are more fully elaborated. This book attempts to illustrate various points along the spectrum, so includes chapters on vocabularies like Newspeak and Nadsat, as weR as languages with complete grammars, like lALs and reconstructed languages. It includes a chapter on lin­ guistic invention in literary style, not just ‘inventive’ language (which we expect from James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, and Paul Muldoon, the subjects of the chapter in question) but ‘self-conscious invention’ of idiosyncratic authorial anti-language (writers are always dissatisfied with the language they are given), invention more as a matter of practice than of principle, it might be said. Of course, the full-blown invented languages come into this account as well. The spectrum o f m otives Invention of a whole language, or of language on a smaller scale, then, can be driven by any number of motives. There is no reason to assume that each invention depends on one and only one motive, or even on one and only one type of motive. 'Ihough we accept the ‘negative’ motive that dissatisfaction with available natural languages drives invention of alternative languages, positive motives are also plausible. This book illustrates as many motives for inventing lan­ guages as the language or languages investigated in the various chap­ ters support. 10 The Spec+ruikvi of luveto+ion ------------------------------ * -----------------------------Certainly, there are linguistic motives for inventing a language. For instance, one might fill a ‘language gap’, that is, supply a language for a group, fictional or real, otherwise without an adequate language— Klingon was invented partially from this motive, as are reconstructed languages, like Modern Hebrew and Hawaiian (see Chapters 5 and 8, as well as Appendix 8). One might invent a language like Loglan (dis­ cussed briefly in Appendix 1) in order to explore what is linguistically possible, to probe linguistic limits, truths, assumptions, etc., or like any number of lALs in order to fulfil hnguistic possibilities (simplicity, for instance) left unreaUzed in natural languages (see .Chapter 2 and Appendix 2). One might also invent a language to practise linguistic or philological technique (to some extent) for its own sake and to accomplish difficult linguistic or philological things gracefully, with­ out apparent effort (what Baldassare Castiglione, in The Book o f the^ Courtier (1528), calls sprezzatura, a word he invented to fill what he saw as a lexical gap in Italian, with which, on this point, he was dis­ satisfied). Tolkien’s languages are motivated thus (see Chapter 4), and so is Klingon in its later stages of development (see Chapter 5 and Appendix 5). Though it captures a mode of conduct, sprezzatura is also an aes­ thetic term: sprezzatura is evident in equestrian exercises, Rembrandt’s brushstrokes, Mozart’s talent for composition, Oscar Wilde’s emi­ nently quotable wit. As already suggested, hnguistic motives easily cooperate with aesthetic ones. In inventing a language, one may aspire to make a thing of beauty, as Tolkien did with Elvish (see Chapter 4). Of course, beauty is in the eye o f the inventor, and some speakers find Klingon more attractive than Elvish; Loglan’s attempt to make sym­ bolic logic ‘speakable’ (see Appendix 1) suggests not only an interest in a useful language, but one whose structure reflects mathematical elegance. The inventor may also find aesthetic value in the very act of invention (whatever the outcome): in his lecture about inventing languages, ‘A Secret Vice’, Tolkien frequently mentions and sometimes discusses the pleasure of doing so. O f course, one may invent language 11 T1i € Spec+rwuo of Invention ----------------------------- ik ----------------------------- to promote plot, theme, or character in a literary work, as in A Clockwork Orange (see Chapter 3), The Lord o f the Rings (see Chapter 4), Star Trek (see Chapter 5), or various gaming worlds (see Chapter 6); to develop a distinctive voice, as in Finnegans Wake (see Chapter 7); or to promote the interactivity essential to a satisfying multiplayer online role-playing game experience (see Chapter 6). Inventing a language may also be a political act: reconstructed and renewed languages (Neo-breton or Maori, for instance) identify cultural space and celebrate cultural heritage (see Chapter 8), while lALs attempt to erase linguistic borders in the interest of universal understanding and the world peace to which it supposedly would give birth (see Chapter 2). Inventing a language may promote intersections of culture and ideology, or provide political or cultural voice to those silenced or inhibited by natural language (or the lack of it), for instance by Irish or Scottish writers dissatisfied with British English (for both motives, see Chapter 7 and Appendix 7), or Hawaiians recovering from the imperial domination of American English, or Jews establish­ ing Israel with a language, Hebrew, that hadn’t been spoken in nearly two millennia (see Chapter 8). Many of the aforementioned converge with personal and biograph­ ical motives. An inventor may be dissatisfied with natural language on linguistic terms but also feel a profound sense of alienation with surrounding circumstances prompting spiritual renewal in the imagi­ nation, as in Tolkien’s recourse to inventing languages in the trenches during the First World War (see Chapter 4). Or, invention may reflect the inventors’ sense of affiliation with a social group, as with the slang of online gamers (see Appendix 6). Or it may respond to an inventor’s sense that being ‘inside’ a language has a spiritual dimension or that making one up is spiritual exercise. In ‘A Secret Vice’, another of Tolkien’s favourite words is personal. Two other powerful personal motives are fame and money, some­ times operating simultaneously, at others mutually exclusive. Certainly, inventors of game languages or Klingon, working for profit-making 12 Tht Sptctrwkn of Invention ----------------------------- ----------------------------- firms, have a financial stake in the languages they invent, whether in the form of a salary or a proprietary interest. Uncovering the ‘secret’ of language, recovering the language of Adam, like alchemy, could be done for its own sake or for the motives outlined above. But it could also be a means of making gold from base elements and thereafter being rich as Croesus. Edward Rulloff, a nineteenth-century American thief and murderer who was also a dedicated linguist, was, at the time of his execution, writing what he supposed was the ultimate philo­ logical work. He hoped to sell his book to a government or private buyer for $500,000, sure that someone would buy it because knowl­ edge, even philological knowledge, is power. Theft was merely a stop­ gap, a series of advances he couldn’t wrangle from a pubUsher. You can read the whole, unbelievable story in Richard W. Bailey’s linguistic true-crime account. Rogue Scholar: The Sinister Life and Celebrated Death o f Edw ard H. Rulloff (2003). Inventing a language or owning one can be quite lucrative, and practical motives predominated in invention of Klingon and the several gaming languages discussed in Chapter 6, though the terms on which one can own language, even a language, are complicated (see Appendix 1). Still other motives for inventing a language are not only possible, but amply illustrated in the ensuing chapters. Those outlined here are, frankly, obvious, but human motivation is often subtle. The foEowing passage from Tolkien’s ‘A Secret Vice’ shows just how subtle: Some of you may have heard that there was, a year or more ago, a Congress in Oxford, an Esperanto Congress; or you may not have heard. Personally I am a believer in an ‘artificial’ language, at any rate for Europe—a believer, that is, in its desirability, as the one thing ante­ cedently necessary for uniting Europe, before it is swallowed by nonEurope; as well as for many other good reasons—a believer in its possibility because the history of the world seems to exhibit, as far as I know it, both an increase in human control of (or influence upon) the uncontrollable, and a progressive widening of the range of more or less uniform languages. Also I particularly like Esperanto, not least because 13 Th« Spfc+rwuo of Invention it is the creation ultimately of one man, not a philologist, and is there­ fore something like a ‘human language bereft of the inconveniences due to too many successive cooks’—which is as good a description of the ideal artificial language (in a particular sense) as I can give. No doubt the Esperantist propaganda touched on all these points. I cannot say. But it is not important, because my concern is not with that kind of artificial language at all. You must tolerate the stealthy approach. It is habitual. But in any case my real subject tonight is a stealthy subject. Indeed nothing less embarrassing than the unveiling in public of a secret vice. Had I boldly and brazenly begun right on my theme I might have called my paper a plea for a New Art, or a New Game, if occasional and painful confidences had not given me grave cause to suspect that the vice, though secret, is common; and the art (or game), if new at all, has at least been discovered by a good many other people independently. (Tolkien 1983,198) Tolkien’s motive, private pleasure in linguistic invention, is approached obliquely, by contrasting the type of language he invents with what it is not (that is, an lAL). Is inventing languages a New Art or a New Game? In raising the possibility of ‘game’, Tolkien has anti­ cipated one of the subtler motives identified by James Portnow in his chapter on gaming languages, below. The plan of this book Including this introduction, this book comprises eight chapters. Chapter 2, by Arden Smith, who has a Ph.D. in Linguistics from the University of California at Berkeley and is a noted scholar of Tolkien’s languages, is about International Auxiliary Languages from seventeenth-century interest in a ‘real character’ into the twentieth century—it is an impeccably informed and breathtaking survey, with an unusual emphasis on Volapiik, a predecessor of the more famous Esperanto, which is also discussed in some detail. Chapter 3, by Howard Jackson, now retired from a career as a professor of linguistics, writes 14 TIi€ Sp€ctrwi/n o f |iov€h+ioh ----------------------------- ----------------------------informatively and insightfully about Orwell’s Newspeak and Burgess’ Nadsat, two invented vocabularies prominent in the popular imagina­ tion, but not always understood, at least in terms of the motives for their invention. Chapter 4, on the languages of Middle-earth, is writ­ ten by E. S. C. Weiner and Jeremy Marshall of the O ^ o rd English D ictionary, co-authors with Peter Gilliver of a splendid book about Tolkien and the OED, The Ring o f Words (2006). Klingon is the subject of Chapter 5, written partly by Marc Okrand, who invented the lan­ guage, and partly by Judith Hendriks-Hermans and Sjaak Kroon, who have considered it sociolinguistically—I have stitched thencontributions into a chapter, adding a fair amount of material in the process, and acknowledge myself (unexpectedly) as a co-author. James Portnow, game designer and game design journalist, has contributed Chapter 6 which, I believe, is the first serious account of languages invented for online role-playing games. My colleague Stephen Watt, of Indiana University, has supplied a sophisticated and wide-ranging chapter on linguistic invention in the work of major modern Irish writers (Joyce, Beckett, and Muldoon, with some Shaw added for per­ spective). Finally, Suzanne Romaine, one of the world’s pre-eminent linguists, has contributed Chapter 8, bn reconstructed and renewed languages. The several chapters discuss the origin and development of the relevant languages, describe their structures and vocabularies, their fictional purposes (when they are languages of fiction), their social purposes (when they operate in the real world or some hybrid of real and imagined worlds, as in games), and the motives behind their making. The book assumes that people invent languages for good reasons, and that it’s our business as authors and editor to expose and clarify them—we hope readers will read about them critically, but with sympathy. For each chapter there is a complementary appendix, written by me, the editor. In some cases, appendices particularize topics raised in their chapters; in others, they introduce new but related topics; in all 15 Th« Sp€ctrwno o f Invention ------------------------------ ----------------------------cases, they attempt to bring chapters into contact with one another, to make something whole out of several chapters by even severaller hands. I suppose that I have tried to invent a book from what I was given, but not from dissatisfaction. Rather, on reading the chapters, I realized how rich the book’s argument is and wondered whether, perhaps, we could, well, not recover the language of Adam, but never­ theless understand something about the relations between language and human nature, not by means of what human nature gives, but by what we can make of it. References Adams, Michael. 2009. Slang: The People’s Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press. Bailey, Richard W. 2003. Rogue Scholar: The Sinister Life and Celebrated Death o f Edward H. Rulloff. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Baker, Paul. 2002. Polari— The Lost Language o f Gay M en. London and New York: Routledge. Blake, Barry J. 2010. Secret Language: Codes, Tricks, Spies, Thieves, and Symbols. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Danesi, Marcel. 2010. ‘The forms and functions of slang’. Semiotica 182; 507-17. Fraser, Russell. 1977. The Language o f Adam : On the Limits and Systems o f Discourse. New York; Columbia University Press. Gilliver, Peter, Jeremy Marshall, and Edmund Weiner. 2006. The Ring o f Words: Tolkien and the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press. May, Herbert G., and Bruce M. Metzger. 1977. The N ew Oxford A nnotated Bible with Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press. Okrent, Arika. 2009. In the Land o f Invented Languages. New York: Spiegel 8c Grau. Sage, Adam. 2011. ‘What’s the Wardwesan for ...? After 20 years of toil, Fr^ddric Werst has published a book in a language that no one understands’. The Times (2 February); 4-5. Tolkien, J. R. R. 1983. ‘A Secret Vice’. In The M onsters and the Critics and O ther Essays, edited by Christopher Tolkien, 198-223. Boston; Houghton Mifflin. Werst, Fr6d^ric. 2011. Ward. Paris; Editions du Seuil. In this module, we learned the basic phonological patterns in natural languages and how those did or did not feed Klingon phonology. We also learned that the functions of an invented language are sometimes associated with the phonological characteristics of the language (e.g. Klingon has characteristics that are not common in human languages, as Klingon is a language spoken by non-humans). Now pick one motivation for inventing a language and suppose you are creating a language driven by the motivation. Share your ideas with your classmates on the following points. 1. What is the motivation that you chose? 2. What phonological characteristics do you want your language to have? (Give at least one characteristic) 3. Why do you want your language to have those characteristics? Explain, referring to the motivation In a page, summarize the story of the 'Queen of Sheeba and the founding of the Solomonic kingdom’. Wild Whirling Words: The lhv€htioh Use of Klihcjoh MARC OKRAND, MICHAEL ADAMS, JUDITH HENDRIKS-HERMANS, AND SJAAK KROON Accord ihcj to the 2006 edition of the Guinness Book of World Records, the world’s ‘largest fictional language’ is Klingon. Though the hook acknowledges that there is no way of knowing how many speak­ ers the language actually has, it nonetheless asserts that ‘there is little doubt’ that Klingon is the ‘most widely used language of its kind’. The appropriateness of the listing, of course, depends on what other lan­ guages ‘of its kind’ there may be and, perhaps more fundamentally, on what ‘kind’ of language Klingon is. Klingon is a constructed language tied to a fictional context, rather than a constructed language like Esperanto (see Chapter 2) or a recon­ structed one like Modern Hebrew (see Chapter 8) intended for use among speakers in everyday circumstances. Klingon started out as 111 The Invention i^nd Use o f Klinsjon I ------------------------------------------» ------------------------------------------- 1 1 nothing more than a few Hnes of dialogue in a film, and, once devised, owes its current shape as much to the practicalities of moviemaking as it does to careful design, and its place in the record book—deserved or not—to the phenomenon known as Star Trek. Arika Okrent, in her very informative and clever book. In the Land of Invented Languages, asserts that ‘Klingon is a solution to an artistic problem, not a ling­ uistic one’ (2009, 282), intended to enhance the fiction of Star Trek by more fully realizing the speech of those populating the imagined universe of the films and television shows that make up the Star Trek franchise. In a sense, then, in the case of Klingon, necessity was the mother of invention. ■ Origins Klingon is a language devised for the Klingons, a fictional race of humanoids sometimes allied with but more often in conflict with mem­ bers of the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek movies, television programmes, video games, and novels. Klingons first appeared in ‘Errand of Mercy’ (23 March 1967), an episode of the original Star Trek television series, in 1967. In a later episode that same year, ‘The Trouble with Tribbles’ (29 December 1967), the fact that Klingons spoke their own language was first noted (one character boasts that half of the inhabitants in their quadrant of the galaxy are learning to speak ‘Klingonese’). Other than character names (and the word ‘Klingon’), however, no ‘Klingonese’ was ever spoken in the original Star Trek television series, which stopped producing new episodes in 1969. After a ten-year hiatus, the series re-emerged on the big screen with the premiere of Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). The first several lines of dialogue in the film are spoken by a Klingon captain in a lan­ guage never heard before, translated in subtitles. Before his fleet of ships mysteriously vanishes, within the first few minutes of the film, the captain barks out half a dozen or so commands (subtitled) and also gives what is presumably a description of his fleet’s circumstances 4 TIi€ |iiv€ntioM A,nd Use of Kliii
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Please view explanation and answer below.Here you go pal,I will be around to help again.Thank you very much.

1

Phonological characteristics
Motivation
People invent a language for different motivations. The motivation for inventing a
language that I chose is the invention of a language for the purpose of an international auxiliary
language as a global communication tool. Today, we live in a globalized world where borders
have become blurred and the concept of time and distance has been diminished. Also, the
advancement of technology has enabled people to communicate widely and instantly. Based on
this, I have selected the motivation to invent a language as a global communication tool. Today’s
interconnectedness of our society and the differences in language means that we need to invent a
language that can foster international communication. This is further important because popular
languages such as English and French have over the decades sparked revolt due to their
dominant status in economics, politics, and culture. Therefore, I believe that a language should
be invented and the motivation for this is to have an international...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags