Cover not available
Article published In:
Historiographia Linguistica
Vol. 27:1 (2000) ► pp.59–77

El Español en los proyectos de lengua universal

| Universidad de Oviedo,
‘One language for the world’ is the most perennial ideal in the history of humanity. Projects for a universal language have been multifarious. Its design typically depends on the dominant linguistic theories of the period in which such languages are conceived. The project by Bonifacio Sotos Ochando (1785–1869) of 1852 can be considered as the highest point reached by the tradition which harks back to the 17th century and tries to develop what is known as a ‘philosophical’ language or characteristica universalis. From 1860 onwards the projects for a universal language are, in general, a posteriori linguistic systems which look at historical grammars and languages in search for general principles and universal rules. Languages used for the design of such a posteriori projects are, for political and cultural reasons, European languages, mainly Romance languages. In this paper the focus is on Spanish. First, a classification of international language projects of is offered that, in some way, use Spanish. Second, the growing of Spanish language in the USA and its relationships with English is analysed. Third, the influence on Spanish by new technologies of communication is discussed. Finally, an analogy is drawn between the role of Latin in the 17th century and English in the 20th with regard to the search for an auxiliary international language.

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 29 May 2000
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hl.27.1.05vel
References (60)
Referencias bibliográficas
Anónimo. 1852. Del idioma universal, sus ventajas, y posibilidad de obtenerlo. Sanlúcar de Barrameda: Imprenta de José M. Esper.Google Scholar
Beck, Cave. 1657. The Universal Character: by which all the nations in the world may understand one anothers conceptions, reading out of one common writing their own mother tongues. London: William Weekley.Google Scholar
Berger, Ric. 1972. Historia del lingua international. Morges: Edit. Interlingua.Google Scholar
Bermudo, Pedro. 1653. Arithmeticus nomenclator mundi omnes nationes ad linguarum et sermonis unitatem invitans. Roma.Google Scholar
Burney, Pierre. 1962. Les langues internationales. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Calero Vaquera, María Luisa. 1999. Proyectos de lengua universal: La contribución española. Córdoba: Publicaciones de la Universidad de Córdoba y obra social y cultural cajasur.Google Scholar
Caramuel, Juan. 1654. Praecursor logicus, complectens Grammaticam Audacem, cuius partes sunt tres, Methodica, Metrica, Critica. Frankfurt: Joann. Godofredi Schonwetteri.Google Scholar
. 1635. Hebraeus Iberus. Auctore & Inventore P. Joanne K’aramuel Cisterciensi Monacho, Sacrae Theologiae Professore Lectore. Anno MDCXXXV. Se conserva manuscrito en el Archivo Capitular de Vigevano (Italia). Consta de 77 folios. Estaba preparado para imprimir.Google Scholar
. 1657. “Logodaedala”. Apparatus Philosophicus, 11–12. Frankfurt: Joann. Godofredi Schonwetteri.Google Scholar
Córdoba, Enrique. 1998. “La revista”. La Nueva España (Oviedo, 20 de septiembre de 1998), vi–vii.Google Scholar
Cornelius, Paul. 1965. Languages in Seventeenth-Century Imaginary Voyages. Genève: Droz.Google Scholar
Couturat, Louis. 1903. Pour la langue internationale. Paris: Paul Brodard.Google Scholar
Couturat, Louis & Léopold Leau. 1903. Histoire de la langue universelle. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Couturat, Louis. 1907. Les nouvelles langues internationales. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
De Urquijo, Julio. 1919. Lengua internacional y lenguas nacionales: El ‘euskera’ lengua de civilización. San Sebastián: Imprenta de Martín Mena.Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto. 1993. La ricerca della lingua perfetta nella cultura europea. Roma & Bari: Editori Laterza.Google Scholar
Gode, Alexander. 1951. Interlingua – English Dictionary. New York: Storm.Google Scholar
. 1956. “Interlingua: Tool of international communication”. Journal of Dental Medicine 111.108–117.Google Scholar
Gode, Alexander. & Hugh E. Blair. 1951. Interlingua: A grammar of the international language. New York: Storm.Google Scholar
Jacob, Henry. 1949. On Language Making: A paper read to the Philological Society, King’s College, London, February 6, 1948. Londres: Dobson.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1933. “Rapport de O. Jespersen et discussion”. Actes du deuxième Congrès international de [sic] Linguistes, Genève 25–29 août 1931, 94–106. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient Adrien Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Jones, Leslie. 1972. Eurolengo, the Language for Europe: A practical manual for business and tourism. Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Oriel Press.Google Scholar
Kircher, Atanasio. 1663. Polygraphia Nova et Universalis, ex Combinatoria Arte Detecta. Roma: Ex Typographia Varesij.Google Scholar
Kurzweil, Raymond. 1990. The Age of Intelligent Machines. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Large, Andrew. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lodwick, Francis. 1972[1647]. A Common Writing: Whereby two, although not understanding one the others language, yet by the helpe thereof, may communicate their minds one to another. The Works of Francis Lodwick ed. por V. Salmon, 166–202. London: Longman.Google Scholar
López Tomás, José. 1918. Lengua española universal. Estudio-proyecto para adaptar al uso de la ciencia, el comercio, la industria, el turismo, y, en general, de todas las relaciones entre los países civilizados del mundo, el idioma oficial de España, la Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Chile, Dominicana, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Méjico, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Salvador, Uruguay y Venezuela. Valladolid: Imprenta Castellana.Google Scholar
Liptay, Alberto. 1890. La lengua católica, o sea, Proyecto de un idioma internacional sin construcción gramatical. Paris: A. Roger y F. Chernoviz.Google Scholar
Martines D’Antoñana, G. 1973. Neoispano: O idioma piu lógiko i moderno do mundo, formado d’español, inglés, italiano, fransés i portugés. Logroño: Editorial Ochoa.Google Scholar
Moreno Fernández, Francisco & Jaime Otero. 1998. “Demografía de la lengua española”. El Español en el mundo, 59–86. Madrid: Instituto Cervantes / Arco Libros.Google Scholar
Mourelle-Lema, Manuel. 1968. La teoría lingüística en la España del siglo XIX. Madrid: Editorial Prensa Española.Google Scholar
Nebrija, Antonio de. 1993[1492]. Gramática Castellana. Edición facsímil. Valencia: Artes Gráficas Soler.Google Scholar
Ogden, Charles Kay. 1930. BASIC English. London: The Orthological Institute.Google Scholar
Pastine, Dino et al. 1978. L’Europa cristiana nel rapporto con le altre culture nel secolo XVII. Firenze: La Nuova Italia Editrice.Google Scholar
Peano, Giuseppe. 1903. “De latino sine flexione, lingua auxiliare internationale”. Rivista di Matematica 81.74–83.Google Scholar
. 1924. Interlingua. Turin: Tipografía Foà.Google Scholar
Pei, Mario. 1958. One Language for the World. New York: Biblio & Tannen.Google Scholar
Pirro (pseud.). 1868. Universal-Sprache. Paris: Retaux.Google Scholar
Rey Pastor, Julio. 1954. Álgebra del lenguaje. Madrid: Real Academia Española.Google Scholar
Rosenberger, Waldemar. 1902. Gramatik und Wörterbuch der Neutralsprache. Leipzig: Haberland.Google Scholar
Rudelle, Lucien de. 1858. Grammaire primitive d’une langue commune à tous les peuples (Pantos-dîmou-glossa) destinée à faciliter les relations internationales dans les cinq parties du monde. Paris: Delalain.Google Scholar
Salmon, Vivian. 1972. The Works of Francis Lodwick: A study of his writings in the intellectual context of the seventeenth century. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1979. The Study of Language in 17th-Century England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. (2˚ ed., 1988.)Google Scholar
. 1992. “Caractéristiques et langues universelles”. Histoire des idées linguistiques. Tome II: Le développement de la grammaire occidentale ed. por Sylvain Auroux, 407–423. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.Google Scholar
. 1994. Language and Society in Early Modern England. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John BenjaminsGoogle Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1949[1931]. “The Function of an International Auxiliary Language”. Selected Writings in Language, Culture and Personality ed. por David G. Mandelbaum, 110–121. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schleicher, August. 1863. Die darwinische Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft. Weimar. Hermann Böhlau.Google Scholar
Selbor, León. 1888. Estudio filológico sobre lengua universal. Madrid: Imprenta de la Infantería de Marina.Google Scholar
Smith, Larry E. 1976. “English as an International Auxiliary Language”. RELC Journal 71.38–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Soler, Joaquín E. 1997. Política cultural en la red. Ponencia presentada al I Congreso Internacional de la lengua Española.Google Scholar
Zacatecas, México, abril de 1997. [URL]
Sotos Ochando, Bonifacio. 1852. Proyecto y ensayo de una lengua universal y filosófica. Madrid: Imprenta de J. Martín Alegría.Google Scholar
Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of language and translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Subbiondo, Joseph L., ed. 1992. John Wilkins and 17th-Century British Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Velarde, Julián. 1984. “Los orígenes del cálculo binario”. Actas del II Congreso de Teoría y Metodología de las Ciencias, 263–270. Oviedo: Pentalfa.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Proyectos de lengua universal ideados por españoles”. Taula: Quaderns de Pensament 7/81.7–78.Google Scholar
Wandruszka, Mario. 1980. Interlingüística. Madrid: Gredos.Google Scholar
Whorf, Benjamin Lee. 1956. Language, Thought and Reality. Ed. by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, John. 1668. An Essay Toward a Real Character and Philosophical Language. London: S. Gellibrand & J. Martin.Google Scholar
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1949. Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar