Standardization and self-regulation in an international speech community: the case of Esperanto

Abstract

This paper is concerned with Esperanto, the only planned language system that has managed the successful transition from the status of a mere project to a full-fledged language. This is partly due to linguostructural properties, but above all to extralinguistic factors. Esperanto has found a su‰ciently diverse and productive speech community which guarantees the constant and sustained dissemination of the language. This paper describes Esperanto as a planned language of the autonomous a posteriori subgroup. Its linguistic norm, which is documented in the Fundamento de Esperanto (1905), has developed steadily and become stable. It is supervised by the Akademio de Esperanto. Self-regulation takes place in a field of tension between diversifying forces (e.g. di¤erent linguistic and cultural influences because of the speakers' native backgrounds) and unifying forces (e.g. application during international meetings, literature, and radio programs). Its productive and flexible word formation system and syntax make Esperanto a means of communication with high expressive quality and stylistic variation. The main reason for the ease of Esperanto communication, however, is its democratic character: the lack of a native speaker whose competence decides on the language standard facilitates symmetrical communication.

Esperanto and minority languages

“…In this regard, the experience of Esperanto demonstrates how linguistic norms can be developed through metalinguistic consciousness (Fiedler 2006). One might ask whether the Cornish revival movement would have been more careful with reforms if it had been more familiar with the history of planned languages.…”

Language attitudes among Esperanto speakers

“…It is useful for comparisons; however, due to the changing ideology of the community, it can no longer accurately portray the current state. and apply the planned language is not simply restricted to the practical need of having an efficient means of communication" (Fiedler 2006), but rather has social and ideological roots. This was investigated by Caligaris (2016), who asked questions about the motivation to learn foreign languages and Esperanto, the planned language's relation to natural languages and Esperanto identity.…”

Inventing languages, inventing worlds. Towards a linguistic worldview for artificial languages

“…Only the latter group seems to be what Gumperz ( , in Patrick 2002 defines as a speech community. In the core of the Esperanto movement (member speakers are not necessarily affiliated to Universala Esperanto-Asocio, Universal Esperanto Association, or other official organisations; they can be individual activists) two main phenomena are observable: shared values and identity through language (Galor 2001;Wood 1979) and shared language norms (Fiedler 2006;Fiedler 2012). As previously stated, there are several more specific features as well (not only purely sociolinguistic) that make the community very similar to some natural languages, namely pidgins and creoles, minority and revived languages, and diaspora languages.…”