nach oben

Erschienen in:

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Esperanto and Linguistic Justice: An Empirical Response to Sceptics

verfasst von : Cyril Brosch, Sabine Fiedler

Erschienen in: Language Policy and Linguistic Justice

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Sceptics of the international planned language Esperanto have recently raised objections to its neutrality and simplicity. Among other things, they prognosticate that in the case of Esperanto’s widespread dissemination, the number of native speakers will grow enormously and that the planned language will become increasingly irregular and borrow massively from English. Drawing on findings from case study and corpus analysis research, the authors suggest that such predictions, lacking the support of empirical data, are not based on a correct evaluation of the realities of Esperanto communication and are no more than speculation.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Language Policies for Migrants in Italy: The Tension Between Democracy, Decision-Making, and Linguistic Diversity

For exceptions see the reactions of Larsen (2012), Kimura in Kimura and Fiedler (2013: 95–97), Derks (2014), and Fernández Asensio (2014), who do stress interlinguistic aspects, but whose readerships are restricted to a small group of people due to the language and/or place of publication.

Coming from the pen of a renowned philosopher, Van Parijs’s arguments can be expected to fall on fertile ground. See, for example, their repetition by MacKenzie (2014) and the reply to it by Fiedler (2015b).

Firstly, as Fernández Asensio (2014: 129) has already pointed out, Van Parijs’s concluding statement on Esperanto that “considerations of linguistic fairness narrowly conceived […] must yield to efficiency considerations” (46) is a negation of everything he writes in his book on linguistic justice. Secondly, the presence of hundreds of millions of L2 speakers of English has neither come without effort nor does it last forever: the costs of learning English as a foreign language are born again and again with each new generation of children or adults who learn English. These costs are borne exclusively by non-native speakers, while native speakers benefit directly from the position of their language, as also Van Parijs concedes (2011: 50–53).

The data used in this study has been obtained as part of an ongoing large-scale project on the use of lingue franche including the planned language Esperanto (www.mime-project.org). Esperanto communication is analysed in a large variety of settings (higher education, everyday talk, scientific conferences, tourism) with a focus on speakers’ communicative behaviour and strategies such as language alternation (code-switching), metacommunication, repairs and ludic behaviour, wordplay, the role of accents, and other features.

Phonemics and phonotactics were not designed to achieve greatest ease but to be able to embrace as much international vocabulary from Greek, Latin, Romance, Germanic, and Slavic source languages as possible.

Cf. http://www.liberafolio.org/2015/de-putin-al-krimeo-2013-du-legindaj-jurnalismaj-libroj

According to statistics given by Blanke (2015: 206) based on an analysis of the languages of publication of works on interlinguistics registered in the bibliography of the Modern Language Association (volumes 1999–2008), the following languages are used: Esperanto (71.0%), German (10.9%), English (4.0%), French (2.0%), Italian (1.5%), and Russian (1.3%).

The World Congress in Lille, France, in 2015 was attended by approximately 2700 participants.

Esperanto is increasingly learned in online courses that are offered free of charge (e.g. lernu.net , livemocha, lingolía, duolingo, and EsperantoLand).

The Esperanto calendar for May through September 2015 published in the magazine Esperanto 3, 2015 pp. 66–67 informs about 53 several days’ events in 24 countries.

Blanke and Blanke (2015) list 24 specialized Esperanto organizations and 37 disciplines with specialist publications.

On the problems of the definition of the term “lingua franca”, see Brosch (2015a). For the sake of convenience, we use the term lingua franca here in its traditional fuzzy meaning, although English would be better called a “vehicular language” in Brosch’s framework, as there is a considerable body of native speakers.

“Ankaŭ se Esperanto estas ilo, ĝi tamen ankaŭ estas pli ol ilo”. From an interview of Brosch with an Italian woman living in Germany in the summer of 2015, 27:40–49 (see Sect. 3.1).

The respondents were an approximately 45-year-old Congolese man (interview no. 21), an approximately 50-year-old Japanese man (22), an approximately 50-year-old Chinese man (23), and an approximately 50-year-old Indian man (24).

In interview 24, for example, the question ran as follows: “Ofte oni aŭdas en Eŭropo, precipe ankaŭ de neesperantistoj, ke Esperanto estas, ĉar ĝi estas eŭropa aŭ ĉar ĝi estas tro eŭropeca, ke ĝi fakte estas nur unu plia koloniisma lingvo por la ekstereŭropanoj [...] Kio estas via opinio pri tiu sinteno?” (In Europe one can often hear, especially from non-Esperantists, that Esperanto is, as it is European or has European character, that it is in fact only another colonial language for people outside Europe […] What’s your opinion about this attitude?).

All examples are presented in the original, without corrections or comments. Uncertain elements are given in round brackets.

@ symbolizes laughter.

Here we do not primarily refer to the growth in Esperanto speakers between 1990 and 2011 according to the Hungarian population censuses (see http://www.ksh.hu/nepszamlalas/docs/tables/regional/00/00_1_1_4_2_en.xls) but, above all, to the many Hungarians in leading functions in all parts of Esperanto culture both now and in the past.

Cf. the following statistics about the number of members in the concerning national Esperanto associations, collected from the yearbooks of UEA: https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Membronombroj_de_UEA

See the magazine Esperanto N° 1290 (April 2015), a special issue on Esperanto in Africa, especially the article “Esperanto hejmiĝas en Afriko samkiel en aliaj kontinentoj” (“Esperanto is becoming at home in Africa in the same way as on other continents”) on p. 78, in which African speakers compare Esperanto with colonial languages.

Eco (1997: 330–332) points out that any a posteriori language is inescapably biased but that the alternatives like English are of course not less biased.

For an overviews of the research topic, see, for example, Gross (2006), Mahootian (2006), and Gardner-Chloros (2013).

We are aware that data obtained from different code-switching studies are not directly comparable because of differences in design, participants, and genres.

GeWiss is a research project on spoken academic language. It provides a corpus of audio recordings and transcriptions of academic communications (lectures and examinations) in German, Polish, Italian, and English as an empirical foundation for comparative research. Cf. http://gewiss.uni-leipzig.de.

Sprachenzentrum (language centre) is the term that is generally used at German universities to designate the departments that are responsible for teaching foreign languages to students of non-philological subjects.

Pölzl (2003) points out:

A very straightforward way of making their cultural identity (with focus on primary culture) salient in discourse is the use of lingua franca speakers’ ‘original voice’, i.e. their L1. (p. 4)

One way to achieve this [= to signal their individual cultural identity – S.F./C.B.] is by the use of their L1 within ELF. This code option is profoundly linked to ELF users’ basic need to identify with what they consider their language, and this is in most cases –as with the individual speakers in this data – their primary language. (p. 20)

It is noteworthy in this context that the corpus of Esperanto (compiled by B. Wennergren in 2002/2003) has the title Tekstaro de Esperanto and not Korpuso de Esperanto.

Esperanto terms are collected in the project Komputeko (http://komputeko.net/index_eo.php). In addition, the proceedings of KAEST (Konferenco pri Aplikoj de Esperanto en Scienco kaj Tekniko “Conference on the Application of Esperanto in Science and Technology”) (http://kaest.ikso.net/) and the scientific journal Scienca Revuo are important sources for technical terminology.

This often makes German speakers feel insecure as to how these words are to be pronounced.

Similar developments can be observed in other languages. See, for example, Furiassi’s (2010) collection of pseudo-anglicisms in Italian and Furiassi and Gottlieb (2015).

Simplified analysis (-o marks the noun, -a the adjective): komputila telefono (“computer telephone”), saĝtelefono (“clever/intelligent telephone”), and poŝtelefono (“pocket telephone”). An additional version, karestelefono, interpreting the screen touching movement as “stroking/caressing”, which is encountered from time to time, is probably rather intended to amuse people.

Cf. the CEFL homepage http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/education/elp/elp-reg/cefr_EN.asp [30 November 2015]

Cf. Komuna … (2007) (www.edukado.net/ekzamenoj/referenckadro)

The expression is not included in reference books such as Duden 11 (Redewendungen) or Röhrich’s (1991) collection.

The dominance of English is indisputable in this respect. While in 1997 about 45% of all documents of the European Commission were initially drafted in English, the proportion has risen to about 81% in 2013 (European Union 2014).

An example that confirms this assumption is the Esperanto version of R. Phillipson’s book Only-English Europe? (2004), which contains lexical glosses and translations of all foreign-language book titles and quotes. See also the reviews on the translations of N. Chomsky’s Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World in Esperanto 4/2014 p. 90 and of Darwin’s The Origin of Species in Monato 10/2009 p. 25.

Brugmann and Leskien (1907: 23–26) already predicted that Esperanto would become much less regular as time goes by. 111 years later this still has yet to happen.

Strangely enough, the lack of neutrality due to the existence of native speakers is put forward with regard to Esperanto, whereas it does not seem to be relevant in the case of English, a language with about 400 million native speakers. On the contrary, advocates of English as a lingua franca have recently claimed the neutrality of English (e.g. Hülmbauer 2011: 59; House 2014: 364).

Lit. “from-birth-person”, a shortening of denaska Esperantisto “esperantist from birth”. For the terminology and further literature on this topic, see Fiedler (2012).

Here Van Parijs includes a reference to Arika Okrent’s article: “A Visit to Esperantoland” (2006), in which she reports on meeting Kim Henderson, a Danish musician and Esperanto native speaker. Unfortunately he disregarded other studies on this topic completely (see, e.g. Bergen 2001; Corsetti 1996; Corsetti et al. 2004; Lindstedt 2006; Sakaguchi 2006; Versteegh 1993).

Cf., for example, the addition of Esperanto to the languages in Google Translate in 2012, the dramatic growth of the Esperanto community in social networks, number of learners subscribing to online learning platforms (since May 2015, more than 1.6 million people started learning the language on the internet platform Duolingo), and the development of the Esperanto Wikipedia (with over 240,000 articles as of December 2017)

Crystal gives an estimation of 360–400 million L1 speakers and 1–1.1 billion L2 speakers.

Swahili does not seem to be a suitable comparandum either, as it is not only a lingua franca, but, for example, in Tanzania the “national” language with a monopoly in mass media and in early education.

For the difficulties of publishing in English encountered by non-native speakers, see Flowerdew (2007) and Gnutzmann and Rabe (2014).

Cf. https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listo_de_denaskaj_esperantistoj [1 December 2015]

An interesting finding of this kind was reported first in 2008 and again discussed in 2015 in the mailing list for parents of denaskuloj: Two children with English resp. French as their first native languages were reported to omit or ignore the accusative in sentences with the word order S-V-O, but not with other word orders, even in unlikely test sentences like Viron manĝas banano (OVS) “a man is eaten by a banana”, while no such behaviour was shown in case of a child raised with Russian and Esperanto. This can be interpreted as an overriding of the form-based alignment in Esperanto by the position-based interpretation of the dominant languages. This of course is possible only in SVO sentences. Further studies with controlled and homogeneous experiments and more participants are however necessary to confirm this explanation.

This aspect was not explicitly discussed by Fiedler (2012) and needs further backing.

See however the overview of investigations on the topic related to the project Springboard (Tellier 2012).

As Van Parijs (2011: 42) has put it: “the difference the choice of Esperanto would make in terms of fairness has far less to do with making journeys to proficiency in the lingua franca more equal than with making them much shorter”.

The situation can be compared with people who acquire their additional mother tongue in a diaspora (such as the children of Polish migrant workers in Great Britain). In the case of Esperanto, contact with peers is even more restricted. In a multilingual city such as Berlin, for example, there are presently only two families with small children who are denaskuloj, whereas there are Polish and Hebrew day care centres.

As the title of Corsetti’s (1996) paper reveals, it is fathers, above all, who speak Esperanto with their children.

Alderson, J. C. (2007). The CEFR and the need for more research. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 659–663.CrossRef

Ammon, U., & Carli, A. (Eds.). (2007). Linguistic inequality in scientific communication today (AILA Review) (Vol. 20). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). English ‘on top’: Discourse functions of English resources in the German mediascape. Sociolinguistic Studies, 6(2), 209–238.CrossRef

Beinhoff, B. (2013). Perceiving identity through accent. Attitudes towards non-native speakers and their accents in English, Contemporary studies in descriptive linguistics (Vol. 35). Oxford: Lang.CrossRef

Bergen, B. K. (2001). Nativization processes in L1 Esperanto. Journal of Child Language, 28, 575–595.CrossRef

Beyene, T., Hinds, P. J., & Cramton, C. D. (2009). Walking through jelly: Language proficiency, emotions, and disrupted collaboration in global work. Working Paper 09-138. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.

Blanke, D. (2003). Interlinguistics and Esperanto studies. Paths to the scholarly literature. Language Problems and Language Planning, 27(2), 155–192.CrossRef

Blanke, D. (2009). Causes for the relative success of Esperanto. Language Problems and Language Planning, 3, 251–266.CrossRef

Blanke, D. (2015). How not to reinvent the wheel ... The essential scholarly literature in interlinguistics and esperantology. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems (INDECS), 13(2), 200–215.CrossRef

Blanke, D., & Blanke, W. (2015). Is scholarly communication possible in a so-called “artificial” language? Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems (INDECS), 13(2), 216–235.CrossRef

Blom, J.-P., & Gumperz, J. J. (1972). Social meaning in linguistic structures: Code-switching in Norway. In J. J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics (pp. 35–71). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.

Bonfiglio, T. P. (2010). Mother tongues and nations: The invention of the native speaker. New York: de Gruyter.CrossRef

Bourkina, O. V. (2009). Произносительная норма в Эсперанто. PhD thesis, Sankt-Peterburg.

Brosch, C. (2015a). On the conceptual history of the term Lingua Franca. Apples – Journal of Applied Language Studies, 9(1), 71–85.CrossRef

Brosch, C. (2015b). Attitudes towards foreign accents in English as a Lingua Franca and Esperanto. Talk held at the MIME workshop on Lingue franche II, October 26, 2015, Leipzig.

Brosch, C., & Fiedler, S. (2017). Der spezifische Beitrag des Esperanto zum propädeutischen Effekt beim Fremdsprachenlernen (mit Schwerpunkt auf der Erwachsenenphase). Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik, 2017, 11–31.

Brugmann, K., & Leskien, A. (1907). Zur Kritik der künstlichen Weltsprachen. Straßburg: Trübner.

Bruthiaux, P. (2002). Predicting challenges to English as a global language in the 21st century. Language Problems and Language Planning, 26(2), 129–157.CrossRef

Bruthiaux, P. (2003). Contexts and trends for English as a global language. In H. Tonkin & T. Reagan (Eds.), Language in the twenty-first century: Selected papers of the millennial conferences of the Center for Research and Documentation on World Language Problems, held at the University of Hartford and Yale University, Studies in world language problems (Vol. 1, pp. 9–22). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Calvet, L.-J. (1999). La Guerre des Langues et les Politiques Linguistiques (2nd ed.). Paris: Hachette.

Canagarajah, S. (2009). Multilingual strategies of negotiating English: From conversation to writing. Journal of Advanced Composition, 29(1–2), 17–48.

Carstensen, B., Busse, U., & Schmude, R. (2001). Anglizismen-Wörterbuch. Der Einfluss des Englischen auf den deutschen Wortschatz nach 1945 (erste Ausgabe: 1993–1996). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Christiansen, P. V. (2006). Language policy in the European Union: European/ English/ Elite/ Equal/ Esperanto Union? Language Problems and Language Planning, 30(1), 21–44.CrossRef

Corsetti, R. (1996). A mother tongue spoken mainly by fathers. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3), 263–273.CrossRef

Corsetti, R., Pinto, M. A., & Tolomeo, M. (2004). Regularizing the regular: The phenomenon of overregularization in Esperanto-speaking children. Language Problems and Language Planning, 28(3), 261–282.CrossRef

Council of Europe. (2001). Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching, assessment (CEFL). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Couturat, L., & Leau, L. (1907). Histoire de la langue universelle (2nd ed.). Paris: Hachette.

Crystal, D. (2006). English worldwide. In D. Denison & R. M. Hogg (Eds.), A history of the English language (pp. 420–439). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Csiszar-Salomon, P. (2009). Duboj kaj demandoj pri familia lingvo [Doubts and questions on family language]. In I. Koutny (Ed.), Abunda fonto. Memorlibro omaĝe al Prof. Istvan Szerdahelyi (pp. 311–319). Poznań: ProDruck and Steleto.

De Mauro, T. (2014). In Europa son già 103 – Troppe lingue per una democrazia? Bari: Giuseppe Laterza & figli.

De Schutter, H., & Robichaud, D. (Eds.). (2015). Linguistic justice. Van Parijs and his critics. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 18(2).

Derks, J. (2014). Akademia pledo por venkigi la anglan (Review of Van Parijs 2011). Libera Folio. Retrieved from http://www.liberafolio.org/Members/Johan_Derks/akademia-pledo-por-venkigi-la-anglan

Dryer, M. S., & Haspelmath, M. (Eds.). (2013). The world atlas of language structures online. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Retrieved from http://wals.info.

DucGoninaz, M. (Ed.). (2002). La Nova Plena Ilustrita Vortaro de Esperanto. Paris: Sennacieca Asocio Tutmonda. Retrieved from http://vortaro.net/.

Duden 11 Redewendungen. (2008). Wörterbuch der deutschen Idiomatik, 3. überarbeitete und aktualisierte Auflage. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut and F.A. Brockhaus AG.

Eco, U. (1997). The search for the perfect language. Malden: Blackwell.

European Union. (2014). Multilingualism and translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office.

Fernández Asensio, R. (2014). Lingva justeco: Instruscienco estas la ŝlosilo. (Review of Van Parijs 2011). Beletra Almanako, 21, 123–135.

Fettes, M. (2003). The geostrategies of interlingualism. In J. Maurais & M. A. Morris (Eds.), Languages in a globalising world (pp. 37–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (1999). Plansprache und Phraseologie: Empirische Untersuchungen zu reproduziertem Sprachmaterial im Esperanto. Frankfurt: Lang.

Fiedler, S. (2002). On the main characteristics of Esperanto communication. In K. Knapp & C. Meierkord (Eds.), Lingua franca communication (pp. 53–86). Frankfurt: Lang.

Fiedler, S. (2010). The English-as-a-lingua-franca approach: Linguistic fair play? Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(3), 201–221.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2012). The Esperanto denaskulo: The status of the native speaker of Esperanto within and beyond the planned language community. Language Problems and Language Planning, 36(1), 69–84.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2014). Gläserne Decke und Elefant im Raum. Phraseologische Anglizismen im Deutschen. Logos Verlag: Berlin.

Fiedler, S. (2015a). The topic of planned languages (Esperanto) in the current specialist literature. Language Problems and Language Planning, 39(1), 84–104.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2015b). ELF and the alternatives: Comments on Ian MacKenzie’s article in JELF 2014; 3(2), 395–407. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(2), 333–337.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2015c). Code-switching in Esperanto. Talk held at the MIME workshop on Lingua francas II, October 26, 2015, Leipzig.

Fiedler, S. (2015d). Esperanto Phraseology. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems (INDECS), 13(2), 250–263.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2016). “a slim core of Esperanto roots (...) and a huge periphery of (English) borrowings”? – kommt es zu einer Anglisierung des Esperanto? Interlinguistische Informationen Beiheft, 23, 49–67.

Fiedler, S. (2017a). Phraseological borrowing from English into German: Cultural and pragmatic implications. Journal of Pragmatics, 113, 89–102.CrossRef

Fiedler, S. (2017b). Lingua-franca-Kommunikation - wirklich ein Fall des Let-it-pass? (Eine Analyse von Reparaturen in der Esperanto-Kommunikation). Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik, 2017, 57–71.

Fiedler, S., & Liu, H. (Eds.). (2001). Studien zur Interlinguistik. Festschrift für Detlev Blanke zum 60. Geburtstag/Studoj pri Interlingvistiko. Festlibro omaĝe al la 60 jariĝo de Detlev Blanke. Dobřichovice (Prag): Kava Pech.

Flowerdew, J. (2007). The non-Anglophone scholar on the periphery of scholarly publication. In A. Carli & U. Ammon (Eds.), Linguistic Inequality in Scientific Communication Today (pp. 14–27). Amsterdam: Benjamins.

Furiassi, C. (2010). False loans in Italian. Milano: Polimetrica.

Furiassi, C., & Gottlieb, H. (2015). Pseudo-English. Studies on false anglicisms in Europe. De Gruyter Mouton: Berlin.

Gardner-Chloros, P. (2013). Contact and Code code-switching. In R. Hickey (Ed.), The handbook of language contact (pp. 188–207). Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.

Garvía, R. (2015). Esperanto and its rivals. The struggle for an international language. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRef

Gnutzmann, C., & Rabe, F. (2014). ‘Theoretical subtleties’ or ‘text modules’? German researchers’ language demands and attitudes across disciplinary cultures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 13, 31–40.CrossRef

Gobbo, F., & Fößmeier, R. (2012). A university mainly in Esperanto. Rask – International Journal of Language and Communication, 35, 87–106.

Görlach, M. (Ed.). (2001). A dictionary of European anglicisms. A usage dictionary of anglicisms in sixteen European languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Görlach, M. (Ed.). (2002). An annotated bibliography of European anglicisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Grin, F. (2008). Principles of policy evaluation and their application to multilingualism in the European Union. In X. Arzoz (Ed.), Respecting linguistic diversity in the European Union (pp. 73–83). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Gross, S. (2006). Code switching. In Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 508–511). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

House, J. (2014). English as a global lingua franca: A threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching, 47(3), 363–376.CrossRef

Hülmbauer, C. (2011). English as a lingua franca (ELF): A mode and its implications. In J. Normann Jørgensen (Ed.), A toolkit for transnational communication in Europe (pp. 43–68). Copenhagen: Københavns universitet.

Jansen, W. (2010). La Fundamenta Esperanto: nekontesteble eŭropa, sed ... [Fundamental Esperanto: Without doubt European, but …]. In D. Blanke & U. Lins (Eds.), La arto labori kune. Festlibro por Humphrey Tonkin (pp. 271–289). Rotterdam: UEA.

Janton, P. (1993[1973]). In H. Tonkin (Ed.), Esperanto. Language, literature, and community (H. Tonkin, J. Edwards, & K. Johnson-Weiner, Trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Jenkins, J. (2007). English as a lingua franca: Attitude and identity. Oxford: University Press.

Jones, M. C. (2005). Some structural and social correlates of single word intrasentential code-Switching in Jersey Norman French. French Language Studies, 15, 1–23.CrossRef

Kimura, G. C. (2012). Esperanto and minority languages. Language Problems and Language Planning, 36(2), 168–181.

Kimura, G. C. (2015). Grundzüge interlingualer Kommunikationsstrategien – dargestellt am Beispiel der deutsch-polnischen Grenzregion. Sophia Journal of European Studies, 7, 59–88. Retrieved from http://repository.cc.sophia.ac.jp/dspace/handle/123456789/36456.

Kimura, G. C., & Fiedler, S. (2013). Interlinguistisch relevante Fachliteratur 2011/2012. In C. Brosch, & S. Fiedler (Eds.), Plansprachen – ideengeschichtliche Aspekte (pp. 95–103). Beiträge der 22. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik e.V., 23.–25. November 2012, in Berlin. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Interlinguistik (Interlinguistische Informationen, Beiheft 20).

Klimpfinger, T. (2009). “She’s mixing the two languages together” – Forms and functions of code-switching in English as a lingua franca. In A. Mauranen & E. Ranta (Eds.), English as a Lingua Franca: Studies and findings (pp. 348–370). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Kraus, P. A. (2008). A union of diversity: Language, identity and polity-building in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Larsen, J. S. (2012). Philippe van Parijs kaj Esperanto. Libera Folio. Retrieved from http://www.liberafolio.org/Members/jens_s_larsen/parijs.

Li, D. C. S. (2003). Between English and Esperanto: What does it take to be a world language? International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 164, 33–63.

Lindstedt, J. (2006). Native Esperanto as a test case for natural language. In M. Suominen et al. (Eds.), A man of measure: Festschrift in honour of Fred Karlsson on his 60th birthday (pp. 47–55). Special Supplement to SKY Journal of Linguistics 19.

Lindstedt, J. (2010). Esperanto as a family language. In F. Dervin (Ed.), Lingua francas. La véhicularité linguistique pour vivre, travailler et étudier (pp. 69–80). Paris: L’Harmattan.

Lins, U. (2016/2017). Dangerous language. Vol. I: Esperanto under Hitler and Stalin. Vol. II: Esperanto and the decline of Stalinism (H. Tonkin, Trans.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

MacKenzie, I. (2014). ELF and the alternatives. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 3(2), 395–407.CrossRef

Mahootian, S. (2006). Code switching and mixing. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 511–527). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Matras, Y. (2009). Language contact. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRef

Maurus, B. V., III. (2014). The Sanskrit experience and language planning. Język. Komunikacja. Informacja – Language. Communication. Information, 9, 58–70.

Minnaja, C., & Silfer, G. (2015). Historio de la Esperanta Literaturo. La Chaux-de-Fonds: LF-koop.

Motschenbacher, H. (2013). New perspectives on English as a Lingua Franca. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRef

Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code mixing. Cambridge: CUP.

Myers-Scotton, C. (2005). Multiple voices. An introduction to bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell-Wiley.

Nevelsteen, Y. (2012). Komputeko. Prikomputila terminokolekto (2nd ed.). Partizánske: E@I.

Nuessel, F. (2000). The Esperanto language. New York: LEGAS.

Okrent, A. (2006). A visit to Esperanto land. The American Scholar, 75(1), 93–108.

Onysko, A. (2007). Anglicisms in German. Borrowing, lexical productivity, and written codeswitching. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRef

Papaloïzos, L. (1992). Ethnographie de la communication dans un milieu social exolingue. Le Centre Culturel Esperantiste de la Chaux-de-Fonds (Suisse). Frankfurt: Lang.

Parkvall, M. (2010). How European is Esperanto? A typological study. Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(1), 63–79.CrossRef

Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe. Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.

Piron, C. (1981). Esperanto: European or Asiatic language? Esperanto Documents 22A. Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.

Piron, C. (2006). Choosing an official language. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. Mattheier, & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics / Soziolinguistik: An international handbook of the science of language and society / Ein internationales Handbuch zur Wissenschaft von Sprache und Gesellschaft (Vol. 3, pp. 2484–2493). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Pölzl, U. (2003). Signalling cultural identity: The use of L1/Ln in ELF. Vienna English Working Papers, 12(2), 3–23. Retrieved December 13, 2015, from http://www.univie.ac.at/Anglistik/views/03_2/POEL_SGL.PDF.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7/8), 581–618.

Rampton, B. (1998). Language crossing and the redefinition of reality. In P. Auer (Ed.), Code-switching in conversation (pp. 290–320). London: Routledge.

Reershemius, G., & Lange, D. (2014). Sprachkontakt in der mündlichen Wissenschaftskommunikation. In C. Fandrych, C. Meißner, & A. Slavcheva (Eds.), Gesprochene Wissenschaftssprache: Korpusmethodische Fragen und empirische Analysen (pp. 57–74). Heidelberg: Synchron-Verlag.

Röhrich, L. (1991). Lexikon der sprichwörtlichen Redensarten (5 Vols.). Freiburg: Herder.

Sakaguchi, A. (2006). Einige Bemerkungen zur dreisprachigen Erziehung meiner Kinder (Polnisch — Esperanto — Deutsch). In L. Cirko & M. Grimberg (Eds.), Phanomene im syntaktisch- semantischen Grenzbereich (pp. 133–143). Dresden: Neisse-Verlag.

Schubert, K. (Ed.) (1989a). Interlinguistics. Aspects of the science of planned languages (pp. 63–88). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Schubert, K. (1989b). Interlinguistics — its aims, its achievements, and its place in language science. In K. Schubert (Ed.), Interlinguistics. Aspects of the science of planned languages (pp. 7–44). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Seidlhofer, B. (2012). Anglophone-centric attitudes and the globalization of English. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 1, 393–407.CrossRef

Sutton, G. (2008). Concise encyclopedia of the original literature of Esperanto. New York: Mondial.

Švelch, J. (2015). Excuse my poor English: Language management in English-language online discussion forums. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 143–175.

Tellier, A. (Ed.). (2012). Esperanto as a starter language for child second-language learners in the primary school. Esperanto UK: Stoke-on-Trent.

Universala Esperanto-Asocio. (2007). Komuna Eŭropa Referenckadro por lingvoj: lernado, instruado, pritaksado. Rotterdam: UEA.

Van Parijs, P. (2004). Europe’s linguistic challenge. Archives Européennes de Sociologie, 45(1), 113–154.CrossRef

Van Parijs, P. (2011). Linguistic justice for Europe and for the world. Oxford: University Press.CrossRef

Versteegh, K. (1993). Esperanto as a first language: Language acquisition with a restricted input. Linguistics, 31, 539–555.CrossRef

Wandel, A. (2015). How many people speak Esperanto? Esperanto on the web. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems (INDECS), 13(2), 318–321.CrossRef

Wells, J. C. (1989). Lingvistikaj aspektoj de Esperanto. Rotterdam: UEA.

Wennergren, B. (2005). Plena Manlibro de Esperanta Gramatiko. Retrieved May 1, 2016, from http://bertilow.com/pmeg/.

Widdowson, H. G. (1994). The ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 377–389.CrossRef

Wood, R. E. (1979). A voluntary non-ethnic, non-territorial speech community. In W. F. Mackey & J. Ornstein (Eds.), Sociolinguistic studies in language contact (pp. 433–450). The Hague: Mouton.

Wray, A., & Grace, G. W. (2007). The consequences of talking to strangers: Evolutionary corollaries of socio-cultural influences on linguistic form. Lingua, 117, 543–578.CrossRef

Wright, S. (2000). Community and communication: The role of language in nation state building and European integration. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Wüster, E. (1931). Internationale Sprachnormung in der Technik, besonders in der Elektotechnik (Die nationale Sprachnormung und ihre Verallgemeinerung). Berlin: VDI-Verlag.

Wüster, E. (1955). La terminoj „esperantologio“ kaj „interlingvistiko“. Esperantologio, 4, 209–214.

Zamenhof, L. L. (1887). [pseudonym Dr. Esperanto] Meždunarodnyj jazyk [International Language]. Warsaw: Kel’ter.

Zamenhof, L. L. (1894). Universala Vortaro de Esperanto [Universal Dictionary of Esperanto]. Warsaw: Press Gins.

Zamenhof, L. L. ([1905]1991). Fundamento de Esperanto. Kun Enkondukoj, Notoj kaj Lingvaj Rimarkoj de D-ro A. Albaut. Pisa: Edistudio.

Titel: Esperanto and Linguistic Justice: An Empirical Response to Sceptics
verfasst von: Cyril Brosch
Sabine Fiedler
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Language Policy and Linguistic Justice
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-75261-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-75263-1

Copyright-Jahr: 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75263-1_17