To be specified published in:
Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 42:2 (2018) ► pp. 220–245

Esperanto – a lingua franca in use

A case study on an educational NGO

| Universität Leipzig
| Universität Leipzig
A lingua franca can be a mediation choice for people who do not share a common language. Esperanto, a planned language, functions in this way as the working language in an educational non-governmental organization. The main characteristics of this use are described on the basis of interviews, field notes and spontaneous conversations analyzed using the methods of Conversation Analysis. It is shown that Esperanto functions as the dominant means of communication in the NGO, but also that the use of other languages is not excluded. A typical feature of Esperanto communication is the use of repairs: Esperanto speakers assist one another when faced with lexical gaps and they correct each other’s mistakes. Humor is ubiquitous and is mainly language-based, taking forms including wordplay and culture-specific allusions. These two features are closely related to speakers’ attitudes such as group identity and metalinguistic awareness. It is suggested that Esperanto is a valid option as a lingua franca outside of the private sphere, where it has predominantly been used until now.
Keywords: Esperanto, lingua franca, Conversation Analysis, repairs, humor, group identity, metalinguistic awareness
Published online: 21 June 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00019.fie
References

References

Beyene, T., et al.
(2008) Walking through jelly: Language proficiency, emotions, and disrupted collaboration in global work. (Harvard Business School Working Paper 09–138), pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Vasseur, M-T., Simonot, M., & Broeder, P.
(1996) Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural Encounters. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Brosch, C.
2018). Esperanto als Mittlersprache bei längerfristiger Mobilität. In S. Fiedler and C. Brosch Eds. Flucht, Exil, Migration – Sprachliche Herausforderungen pp. 69 90 Leipzig Leipziger Universitätsverlag
Chrdle, P.
(2013) Profesia uzo de Esperanto kaj ĝiaj specifaj trajtoj. Dobřichovice: Kava-Pech.Google Scholar
Crystal, D.
(1998) Language play. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Edwards, J.
(2010) Minority languages and group identity. Cases and categories. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenreich, S.
(2011) Doing business in Europe and beyond – Englisch als Lingua franca und andere Sprachen in der internationalen Wirtschaft. In I-A. Busch-Lauer and S. Fiedler (Eds.), Sprachraum Europa – Alles Englisch oder…? (pp. 89–106). Frankfurt (Main): Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Fiedler, S.
(2002) On the main characteristics of Esperanto communication. In K. Knapp and C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 53–86). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
(2012) The Esperanto denaskulo: The status of the native speaker of Esperanto within and beyond the planned language community. Language Problems & Language Planning, 36(1), 69–84. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2015) The topic of planned languages (Esperanto) in the current specialist literature. Language Problems & Language Planning, 39(1), 84–104. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Lingua-franca-Kommunikation – wirklich ein Fall des Let-it-pass? (Eine Analyse von Reparaturen in der Esperanto-Kommunikation). In C. Brosch and S. Fiedler (Eds.), Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik 2017 (pp. 57–71). Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Firth, A.
(1996) The discursive accomplishment of normality: On ‘lingua franca’ English and conversation analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 26, 237–159. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gunnarsson, B-L.
(2014) Multilingualism in European workplaces. Multilingua, 33(1–2), 11–33.Google Scholar
Ĝivoje, M.
(1973) Esperantonimoj. Milano: Author.Google Scholar
House, J.
(2003) English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(4), 556–578. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Teaching oral skills in English as a lingua franca. In L. Alsagoff, S. L. McKay, Hu Guangwei, & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), Principles and practices for teaching English as an international language (pp. 186–205). New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jansen, W.
(2010) La Fundamenta Esperanto: nekontesteble eŭropa, sed… In D. Blanke and U. Lins (Eds.), La arto labori kune. Festlibro por Humphrey Tonkin (pp. 271–289). Rotterdam: UEA.Google Scholar
Janton, P.
(1973/1993) Esperanto: Language, literature, and community (ed. H. Tonkin, transl. H. Tonkin, J. Edwards, & K. Johnson-Weiner). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Kaur, J.
(2011) Raising explicitness through self-repair in English as a lingua franca. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 2704–2715. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langlet, V.
(1895/2002) Vojaĝimpresoj. Arranged as electronical publication by Franco Luin. http://​tekstaro​.com​/pl​/prenitutantekston​.pl​?nomo​=vojaghimpresoj.
Levinson, S. C.
(1983) Pragmatics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lloancy, M-T.
(1985) Esperanto et jeu de mots dans l’œvre de Raymond Schwartz (1894–1973). Paris: Université Descartes.Google Scholar
Lønsmann, D.
(2011) English as a corporate language: Language choice and language ideologies in an international company in Denmark. PhD Thesis, Roskilde University Denmark.Google Scholar
Lüdi, G., et al.
(2010) Plurilingual practices at multilingual workplaces. In B. Meyer and B. Apfelbaum (Eds.), Multilingualism at work: From policies to practices in public, medical and business settings (pp. 211–234). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacGill, S.
(1986) Streĉ’ eĉ, Ŝteĉj-skeĉ’! Antverpeno: Author.Google Scholar
Maul, S.
(1987) Vortaj (A)ludoj. Antverpen: FEL.Google Scholar
Mauranen, A.
(2006) Signaling and preventing misunderstanding in English as a lingua franca communication. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 177, 123–150.Google Scholar
Mayring, P.
(2002) Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Grundlagen und Techniken. Basel: Beltz.Google Scholar
Mel’nikov, A. S.
(2004) Lingvokul‘turologičeskie aspekty planovych meždynarodnych jazykov (na fone etničeskich jazykov). Rostov-na-Donu: Izdatel’stvo Rostovskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogičeskogo universiteta universitieta.Google Scholar
(2008) Vortludoj kaj luda komunikado en Esperanto. San Marino: Author.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2004) Ways of “doing being plurilingual” in international work meetings. In R. Gardner and J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 18–39). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R.
(1991) On the organization of corrective exchanges in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 16, 59–83.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Parkvall, M.
(2010) How European is Esperanto? A typological study. Language Problems & Language Planning, 34(1), 63–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pool, J., & Grofman, B.
(1989) Linguistic artificiality and cognitive competence. In K. Schubert (Ed.), Inter Schabert Interlinguistics: Aspects of the science of planned languages (pp. 145–156). New York: de Gruyter CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rašić, N.
(1994) La rondo familia: Sociologiaj esploroj en Esperantio. Pisa: Edistudio.Google Scholar
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G.
(1974) A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A.
(2000) When ‘others’ initiate repair. Applied Linguistics, 21(2), 205–243. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.
(1977) The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361–382. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schor, E.
(2016) Bridge of words: Esperanto and the dream of a universal language. New York: Metropolitan Books.Google Scholar
Schubert, K.
(Ed.) (1989) Interlinguistics. Aspects of the science of planned languages. New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Smit, U.
(2010) English as a lingua franca in higher education. A longitudinal study of classroom discourse. Berlin: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, G.
(2008) Concise encyclopedia of the original literature of Esperanto. New York: Mondial.Google Scholar
Svennevig, J.
(2008) Trying the easiest solution first in other-initiation of repair. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 333–348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tange, H., & Lauring, J.
(2009) Language management and social interaction within the multilingual workplace. International Journal of Communication Management, 13(3), 216–232.Google Scholar
Tonkin, H., & Poór, V.
(Eds.) 2015 The phenomenon of Esperanto. Special Issue of Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems, 13(2).Google Scholar
Wagner, J., & Firth, A.
(1997) Communication strategies at work. In G. Kasper and E. Kellermann (Eds.), Communication strategies (pp. 323–343). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Wandel, A.
(2015) How many people speak Esperanto? Esperanto on the Web. INDECS 13/2, 318–321.Google Scholar
Watterson, M.
(2008) Repair of non-understanding in English in international communication. World Englishes, 27(3–4), 378–406. CrossrefGoogle Scholar

Internet sources

(1) https://​teokajlibroj​.wordpress​.com​/2016​/06​/02​/mia​-vivo​-kiel​-esperanto​-volontulo/

(2) https://​teokajlibroj​.wordpress​.com​/2016​/08​/30​/miaj​-pensoj​-pri​-ijk​-kaj​-uk​-2016/

Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Schreyer, Christine
2020.  In The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology, ► pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Schreyer, Christine
2021. Constructed Languages. Annual Review of Anthropology 50:1 ► pp. 327 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 04 november 2021. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.