Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 41:3 (2017) ► pp.287–303

Spelling reformers and artificial language advocates

A shifting relation

| Universidad Carlos III de Madrid

This article explores the shifting relations that took place from the last decades of the 19th to the first years of the 20th century between two of the most innovative language movements of the time: the spelling reform and the artificial language movements. The article focuses on the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Although both movements shared a similar language ideology which run counter to the organicist perception of language and emphasized its democratic function, the article shows how the shifting political environment in which they operated affected their relation. The article identifies three stages. In a first stage, and convinced that the reform of the spelling and the promotion of an artificial, neutral language were not mutually exclusive projects, the spelling reformers were favorably inclined towards artificial language projects. In a second stage relations began to skew when some reformers advocated for the “natural Esperanto” solution, which implied the promotion of a small language to the status of the international lingua franca. In the last stage, when nationalist sentiments and international rivalries mounted, the spelling reformers broke ties with the artificial language movement and worked to improve as much as possible the international standing of their own languages.

Keywords: spelling reform, linguistic democracy, international language, Esperanto
Article outline
  • First interactions
  • Transition: The search for a natural Esperanto
  • Spelling reform and linguistic imperialism
  • Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 19 February 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00007.gar
References
Abercrombie, D.
(1965) Isaac Pitman. In Studies in phonetics and linguistics (pp. 92–107). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ammon, U.
(2001) Entwicklungen des Deutschunterrichts in nicht-deutschsprachigen Ländern. In Gerhard Helbig, Lutz Götze, Gert Henrici, and Hans-Jürgen Krumm (Eds.). Deutsch als Fremdsprache: ein internationales Handbuch (pp. 68–83). Berlin: de Gruyter,Google Scholar
Blanke, D.
(1985) Internationale Plansprachen. Eine Einfuhrung. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J.
(Ed.) (1999) Language ideological debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bramann, K-W.
(1987) Der Weg zur heutigen Rechtschreibnorm. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cram, D., & Maat, J.
(2001) George Dalgarno on universal language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dauzat, A.
(1912) La défense de la langue francaise. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Eble, A.
(2008) Die Sionsharfe, eine katholische Zeitschrift fur christliche Poesie. Prälat Schleyer Jahrbuch 2008, 29–54.Google Scholar
Egger, A.
(1870) Die Reformbestrebungen auf dem Gebiete der deutschen Rechtschreibung Wien: Holder.Google Scholar
Ellis, A.
(1888) On the conditions of a universal language. Transactions of the Philological Society, 18881, 59–98.Google Scholar
Forster, P.
(1982) The Esperanto movement. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garvía, R.
(2015) Esperanto and its rivals. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, K.
(1852) The Spelling Reform. Die Reform der englischen Orthographie auf Grund des von Pitman und Ellis erfundenen phonetishen-Alphabets. Leipzig: Coldits.Google Scholar
Haupenthal, R.
(2008) Über die Startbedingungen zweier Plansprachen. Prälat Schleyer Jahrbuch 2008, 56–7.Google Scholar
Henderson, F., & Poole, W.
(2001) General introduction. In Francis Lodwick On language, theology, and utopia (pp. 1–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Heselwood, B.
(2013) Phonetic transcription in theory and practice. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobsbawm, E.
(1990) Nations and nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Iriye, A.
(2002) Global community. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, S.
(2005) Spelling trouble? Language, ideology and the reform of German orthography. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kamusella, T.
(2008) The politics of language and nationalism in modern central Europe. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Keller, M.
(1991) Ein Jahrhundert Reformen der französischen Orthographie. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Kniele, R.
(1989 [1889]) Das erste Jahrzehnt der Weltsprache Volapük, edited by Reinhard Haupenthal. Saarbrüken: Iltis.Google Scholar
Küppers, H-G.
(1984) Orthographiereform und Öffentlichkeit. Düsseldorf: Swann.Google Scholar
Large, A.
(1985) The artificial language movemen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macmahon, M. K. C.
(1986) The International Phonetic Association: The first 100 years. Journal of the International Phonetic Association, 161, 30–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, A.
(1889) Volapük und Stenographie. Rund um die Welt (November 1 1889), 225–228.Google Scholar
MacMillan, M.
(2103) The war that ended peace. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Michaelis, G.
(1854) Die Vereinfachungen der deutschen Rechtschreibung vom Standpunkte der Stolzeschen Stenographie beleuchtet. Berlin: F. Duncker.Google Scholar
Nasaw, D.
(2008) Andrew Carnegie. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Nerius, D.
(2000) Die Rolle der II. Orthographischen Konferenz (1901) in der Geschichte der deutschen Rechtschreibung, Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, 1191, 30–54.Google Scholar
Portebois, Y.
(2003) La réforme de l’orthographie, une affaire d’État. Histoire Épistémologie Langage, 251, 71–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmon, V.
(1988) The evolution of Dalgarno’s Ars signorum . In V. Salmon, The study of language in 17th century England. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996a) Effort and achievement in 17th century linguistic dcholarship. In V. Salmon, Language and society in early modern England (pp. 3–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996b) William Bedell and the universal language movement in 17th century Ireland. In V. Salmon, Language and society in early modern England (pp. 99–111). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996c) Thomas Harriot (1560–1621) and the English origins of Algokian linguistics. In V. Salmon, Language and society in early modern England (pp. 143–172). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sauer, W., & lmut Glück, H.
(1995) Norms and reforms: Fixing the form of the language. In P. Stevenson (Ed.), The German language and the real world (pp. 69–95). London: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Schaefer, M.
(1981) Der Weg zur deutschen Einheitsorthographie vom Jahre 1870 bis zum Jahre 1901. Sprachwissenschaft, 61, 391–438.Google Scholar
Shenton, H.
(1933) Cosmopolitan conversation. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Tauber, A.
(1958) Spelling reform in the United States. Unpublished dissertation. Columbia University.Google Scholar
Veblen, T.
(1994 [1899]) The theory of the leisure class. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Weber, E.
(1976) Peasants into Frenchmen: The modernization of rural France, 1870–1914. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, K., & Schieffelin, B.
(1994) “Language ideology,” Annual Review of Anthropology, 231, 55–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar