An Introduction to Applied Linguistics

a priori
elements. The alternative name for Interlingua, 
Latino sine flexione
(Latin
without inflexions), makes clear that the language is Romance in grammar (without
gender and without inflexions), and Romance and/or English in vocabulary.
Gode, who developed Interlingua in the 1950s, was never interested in the
replacement by Interlingua of any natural language. Rather, he saw it as a useful
addition. He intended it to be used for science and technology and above all for
translations, abstracts and summaries, for largely passive use. Once again, as with
Esperanto, the ambition to make international communication easier is unreal
precisely because the language favours those who themselves have a Romance back -
ground and at the same time does not offer the abundant advantages (not only
for passive reading of science and technology abstracts) that learning a natural
‘international’ language (such as English) must offer.
Volapuk, Esperanto and Interlingua are all artificial languages in that they all
make use of some 
a priori
elements and they combine several natural languages rather
than being based on one only. Modified languages differ from artificial ones in that
they have no 
a priori
elements and they are indeed based on one natural language.
The best example is Basic English (C. K. Ogden 1937). Like Interlingua, the purpose
of Basic English was to promote mainly technical communication: hence its name
B(ritish) A(merican) S(cientific) I(nternational) C(ommunication). It consists of
850 English words, ‘selected to cover everyday needs … the working principle is that
all words not on this list can be replaced by words that are … The simplification of
the vocabulary is achieved at the expense of a more complex grammar and a greater
reliance on idiomatic construction’ (Crystal 1995: 356).
Basic English was found to be easy to learn to read but difficult to write in with
112
An Introduction to Applied Linguistics
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 112

---

any facility, perhaps because it was fundamentally a means of vocabulary selection
and control, leaving the learner (especially the non-English-speaking learner) to
grapple with the complexities of circumlocution. It has been remarked that Ogden
simplified the vocabulary at the expense of the grammar. Furthermore its claim to
contain only 850 words was flawed in that those 850 were head words, which meant
that there were in fact very many more which were based on those head words.
Applied linguistics has shown little interest in artificial and modified languages,
unless we are to claim that Zamenhof, Gode, Ogden and the other inventors were
themselves applied linguists. In the sense that they have made use of linguistic
principles for an extra-linguistic purpose, in this case wider communication, they
certainly have a claim to being applied linguists. But it would seem that their
approach to applied linguistics is from the linguistic end, that they are being linguists
applied rather than applied linguists. And it is indeed the case that the artificial
languages, notably Esperanto, have attracted support from linguists on the grounds
that they can meet certain of the criteria we have already discussed and furthermore
actually look natural. Modified languages, on the other hand, seem more likely to
appeal to non-linguists, rather than to linguists, who take exception to all forms of
simplification. Hence their appeal to politicians such as Churchill and Roosevelt,
both of course first-language speakers of English.
But the applied linguist has shown little or no interest. Why is that? Large
maintains:
The very number of artificial languages invented indicates a deeply-felt need, at
least among the linguistically inclined, to impose order and rationality on the
haphazard instruments which have evolved for human communication. Points of
syntax are disputed endlessly, yet there is very little debate about the way in which
the international auxiliary or the world language would actually be chosen
and implemented. Perhaps this is not very surprising: it is a shame to sully the
intellectual discussion of language with the grubby facts of political reality. If
supporters of an international language are to win credibility, however, reality, no
matter how unpleasant, must be confronted.
(Large 1983: 157–8)
And since the focus of the applied linguist is on language in context, he/she is
likely to regard artificial languages with a jaundiced eye. In Chapter 4 (section 4) we
made the basic argument that for the applied linguist, language problems involve
more than language, listing the factors that must be taken into account.
Confronted by this list of factors that must be taken into account we can wonder
that artificial languages were ever considered viable. We have quoted Large on the
political aspect but an equally strong case against artificial languages can be made on
the other grounds, for example educational (providing the necessary resources for
teaching and learning), sociolinguistic (natural languages provide a major source of
identity for their speakers: it is difficult to see how this can transfer to an artificial
language, which has as one of its purposes the denial of local identity), psychological
(how motivated will people be to learn a language that, at least at present, has very
Applied linguistics and language use 113
02 pages 001-202:Layout 1 31/5/07 09:31 Page 113

---

little to offer, not many speakers, no films, no pop songs, few books and so on),
cultural (natural languages are culture bearing but how can an artificial language
fulfil this function until it too becomes a natural language and then prone to all the
problems that artificial languages seek to avoid).
Crystal (1987) is not optimistic about take up for artificial languages, even on
semantic grounds where he points to the lack of semantic matching across languages:
‘Speakers of different languages may translate their mother-tongue words into an
artificial language, but this does not necessarily mean that they understand each
another any better. The figurative, idiomatic and connotative uses of words will
differ: for example, American and Soviet attitudes to a word like capitalism will not
alter simply because both sides agree to use the same artificial language label’ (Crystal
1987: 355).
As we shall see in Chapter 7, the applied linguist has been accused of being
seduced by power, of furthering the spread of dominant languages and not giving
sufficient support to the declining languages of minority groups. That may or may
not be the case: for many applied linguists it seems perfectly possible to support
language spread as a means of furthering wider communication as much among
the minorities as elsewhere and at the same time to offer support and expertise to the
speakers of declining languages in their attempts to survive. But above all the applied
linguist is likely to take a realistic view of the situation; and in the case of language
treatment, if the factors we have suggested he/she must take into account are
relevant, then it is likely that projects to develop artificial languages and modified
languages such as Basic English will be regarded as both flawed and irrelevant to the
solution of language problems.