NickNicholas JournalofUniversalLanguage3 March2002,133-167 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages: TheLongDistanceReflexivevo’ain Lojban NickNicholas UniversityofMelbourne,Australia Abstract Anotionwhichunderliesmuchfunctionalistthinkingonlanguageis thatlanguageisasystemwhosestructureisengineeredtosolve problemsincommunication.Artificiallanguagesareofparticular interestinthisregard,becausesuchproblemsolvingcanbeundertaken consciouslyonthepartofbothlanguageplannersand(totheextent thatthelanguagecommunityallowsit)languageusers,enablingthe linguisticstructuretoadapttotheircommunicativeneeds.Such languageusersareapplyinglayintuitionsaboutwhatlinguisticfeatures willbemoreeffectiveincommunicationwhatmightbecharacterised as‘folkfunctionalism’. Aninstanceofsuchadaptationisconsideredhere:theLojban pronoun vo’a ,intendedasagenericreflexive,hasbecomealong distancereflexiveinordertoalignwithLojban’sidiosyncraticprono- minalsystem.Infact,thisseemstohavebeendoneindependentlyby thelanguageplannerandthelanguagecommunity.Thatthesolution 134 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban yieldedistypologicallyunusualdemonstratesthatcommunicativeand paradigmaticpressurescantrumpnaturallanguagehabit,andeven typologicaluniversalsina‘perturbed’grammaticalsystem. 1.FolkFunctionalism Therearetwodominantparadigmsoflookingatlanguage.The formalist paradigm,whichincludesmuchofmainstreamcontemporary syntax,holdsthatlanguageistobeinvestigatedasaformalsystemin andofitself,andthatexplanationsforwhylanguageisthewayitis shouldbesoughtinternallytothatformalsystem.The functionalist paradigm,ontheotherhand,seekstoexplainfeaturesoflanguagewith referencetofactorsoutsidethesystem-namely,thefunctiontowhich languageisput,communication.Accordingtosuchthinking,features oflanguageareastheyarebecausetheyservetooptimisecommunica- tion;forinstance,genderwouldbeexplainednotasageneticallycoded parameterofthegrammar,oranincidentalfeatureofthelexicon,but asamechanismforallowingthelistenertokeeptrackofthereferents inadiscourse.1 Functionalismthusimplicitlyregardslanguageasakindofproblem solving,thoughofcourseopinionvariesastohowthisproblemsolving isbroughtabout.Somefunctionalistsfavouranevolutionaryapproach tothefunctionforminterplay,wherebymechanismsofevolutionary selectionselectbetweenformsofvaryingcommunicativeefficacy(e.g. Croft2000).Otherlinguists,likeScott(1985)andHage?ge(1993), emphasisethedeliberativecontributionofindividualspeakersin manipulatinglanguageforms,ratherthanexplaininglanguagechange onlyasanimpersonal,‘invisiblehand’process. Theextenttowhichlanguagechangecharacterisedas‘natural’is 1 Forthelatestinthelongrunningdebatebetweenformalistsandfunctionalists,see Darnelletal.(1998). NickNicholas 135 guidedbydeliberatechoicesishardtogauge.Butofcourse,language isroutinelysubjecttochangethroughdeliberatechoiceintheformof prescription,whichcanattimeshaveratherdrasticeffectsonlanguage (seee.g.theinstanceslistedinJahr1989).Prescriptionismotivatedby variousextralinguisticfactors-snobberynottheleastamongthem.Yet oftentherationalesinvokedforaprescriptivechoiceappealtonotions of‘logic’,clarity,anddisambiguation.Forexample,throughoutthe Balkanstheliteraryregistersoflanguagespreferthedeclinabletothe indeclinablerelativepronoun,particularlyinmarkedrolessuchas indirectobject(Albanian:Buchholz&Fiedler1987:301; Serbo-Croatian:Gallis1956:178,Golab&Friedman1972:43;Modern Greek:Householder,Kazazis&Koutsoudas1964:92-93);therationale offeredforthispreferenceis‘clarity’.SoforexamplePapazafiri (1994:67)inapopularisedprescriptivemanualonModernGreek: When[indeclinable] pou correspondstoaprepositional phrase,moreattentionneedstobepaidtotheexpression.It oftencreatessuchlackofclarity,thatitshouldbesubstitutedby the[declinable]pronoun oopios andtheappropriatepreposition. Butthedeliberatechoicebyaprescriptivistofagivenlinguistic formoveranother,inordertofacilitatecommunication,isnotdifferent inessencetowhatfunctionalistsclaimlanguagespeakersdo,whenthey favouragivenformforfunctionalreasons.Admittedly,thecontextin whichprescriptivistsoperateisanomalous,relativetonaturallanguage change:prescriptivistsareprimarilyconcernedwithwrittenlanguage, whichasacommunicativesystemhasmuchlessredundancythan spokenlanguage;sothefunctionalpressurestheytakeintoaccountcan bequitedifferenttothoseofunmarkedlanguageuse. Nevertheless,ifthereisanyvaliditytothenotionthatatleastsome ‘natural’languagechangeisdeliberative,thenprescriptionmayyield someinsightsintohowsuchchangeisdecided.Thoughprescriptivists areliterateandfamiliarwithtraditionalgrammar,theyareusually 136 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban naiveasfarasmodernlinguistictheoryisconcerned;sotheinsights theyhaveoncommunicativeefficacy,andonwhereambiguitymay eventuate,mayresemblewhatordinarylanguagespeakershaveinmind whentheymanipulatelanguage.Evenifitturnsoutthatnosuch deliberativelanguagechangeoccurs‘naturally’,thenaive(i.e.prescien- tific)notionspeoplehaveaboutlanguageandambiguitycanhelpus formulateamorepsychologicallyrealisticmodelofhowpeople cognitivelydealwithlanguage,whentheyreasonaboutitinthe abstract.Byanalogywith‘folkpsychology’asadescriptionofpeople’s prescientificmodelofthemind,Idescribethiskindofthinkingabout language,anditsadaptationtocommunicativepressures,as‘folk functionalism’. Theprescriptionofliterarylanguagesispartofaspectrumof languageplanning;andtheextremepointofthatspectrumis representedbyartificiallanguages.Sinceinmostcasesthecreatorsof artificiallanguagesareenthusiasticamateursratherthanprofessional linguists,thedecisionstheymakeastowhichlinguisticfeaturesto incorporateintotheirlanguagesarealsoinstancesoffolkfunctionalism. Theclassicinstanceofthis,asfarastheInternationalAuxiliary Language(IAL)movementisconcerned,aretherecurringpolemicsas towhethertheaccusativeofEsperantoisaGoodoraBadThing.From apurelylinguisticviewpoint,thequestionismoot:caseisonewayof trackingwhoisdoingwhatinadiscourse,wordorderisanother,and contextathird;languagessuccessfullyemployanyoneofthese mechanisms,anditismeaninglesstoaskwhethercaseorwordorder ismoreefficacious.Moreover,otherfactorscloudthediscussionin interlinguistics:aesthetics,learnability,linguisticdiffusion,etc.None theless,thequestionofwhetheralinguisticfeaturelikecaseis efficientandeffectiveincommunicationiscertainlydebatedinterms offolknotionsofclarityandambiguity--i.e.intermsoffolk functionalism. Instancesoffolkfunctionalismaboundinartificiallanguagedesign, particularlyinartificiallanguagesintendedasIALs.Attimes,theycan NickNicholas 137 beverymuchprescientific;thedreamthankstowhichLudovik Zamenhofdecidedtoincludedefinitearticlesinhislanguage(Boulton 1960:14)isoneofthemorespectaculardemonstrationsofthis.Butthe creativedecisionsoflanguagecreatorsaretiedupwithpersonal preference,ifnotwhim,andbydefinitioncannotbetriedoutinusage beforetheyareintroduced.Arathermoreinterestingphenomenon occurswhenthelanguageisreleasedintoausercommunity,anda communicativelyinefficientorineffectualfeatureisrepairedbythat community,applyingprinciplesoffolkfunctionalism. Thewaysuchchangetakesplaceinartificiallanguagesis idiosyncratic.Artificiallanguagestendtobestronglyprescribed,in ordertoforestallthelanguagesplittingupintovariants(the disdialektigho frequentlywarnedagainstinEsperanto).AsManders (1950:61)pointsout,the‘democraticnorm’oflinguisticcorrectnessis inapplicabletoEsperanto: Incontrastwithethniclanguages,inwhichgenerallyonly whatisgenerallyusediscorrect,inEsperantoonecanuseany expressionwhichiscomprehensibleanddoesnotcontradictthe Fundamento [languagedefinition].EvenifallEsperantistssaid Anglio ‘England’or stulta ‘stupid’[newerforms],Iwouldspeak correctlyinusing Anglujo and malsagha [theoriginalforms]. Thisconservativeprescriptivismtendstobepolicedvigorouslyin artificiallanguagecommunities;sotheextenttowhichsuchlanguages canbealteredinuseatalliscircumscribed.Indeed,inliteraryartificial languages(Tolkien’slanguagesbeingthebestinstance),thelanguage issostronglyboundtoadefiningcanon-bycommunityconsent(not tomentionlegalconstraint)-thatitismeaninglesstospeakoflanguage changecarriedoutbythecommunity:thecommunitysimplywillnot allowit. Furthermore,forsuchrepairtotakeplace,thelanguageneedsto haveasufficientlylargeandautonomouscommunity,toenablea 138 FolkFunctionalisminArtificialLanguages:TheLongDistanceReflexivevoainLojban responsetothecommunicativeuseofthelanguage.Acommunityof one(ashasbeenthecasewithanynumberofartificiallanguages)is notsufficientlylargetocountassuchacommunity.Likewise,change drivenprimarilybyideologicalratherthancommunicativepressures doesnotnecessarilyshedlightonwhetherthealternativesare consideredtobecommunicatively,andthuslinguistically,more effective.MuchofthevigorousdebateonreformprojectsforVolapük, Esperanto,andIdo,forexample,canbedismissedasideologically motivated. Thatsaid,therehavebeenindisputableinstancesoftherapy practicedonartificiallanguagesbylanguagecommunities.Thestrong relianceofartificiallanguagesonwrittencommunication,andthe relativelysmallsizeoftheircommunities,meansuchlanguage change-as-therapyismoreakintothefolkfunctionalismofnatural languageprescriptivists,thantheobscureforcesdrivingthe‘normal’ evolutionofnaturallanguages.Proponentsofsuchchanges,nonethe less,areabletoarticulateconcernsaboutambiguityorinefficiencyin thelanguage,andtoelaboratesolutionstothoseproblemswhichdonot fallafoulofthelanguages’prescriptivecanontherebypreserving continuityinthelanguages,anddrawingapprovalfromthenormally conservativecommunity.ForEsperanto,themostprominentinstance hasbeenthelongdrawnoutsearchforadistinctagentivepreposition, endingupwithGrosjean-Maupin’s