Post on 12-Jan-2023
1
Michael Adams (ed.), From Elvish to Klingon. Exploring invented languages. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2011. vi + 294 pages, ISBN 978-0-19-280709-0, EUR 17.99.
Reviewed by SUSANNE MOHR, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Next to the approximately 6,000 natural languages in the world, there is probably an equally
large number of invented languages of different types, ranging from pasigraphies (usually
dating from the 19th century) to secret languages that fulfill the purpose of restraining
communication to a certain group within a speech community, to international auxiliary
languages (IALs) that are supposed to facilitate communication across borders. In From
Elvish to Klingon, Michael Adams suggests that there are at least as many invented
languages as natural ones (p. 3), while Okrent‟s (2009) estimate based on Dulichenko‟s
(1990) work, lists roughly 900 of them. Differences in number, as in the study of natural
languages, depend on the defining criteria for invented systems. However, no matter what
the exact number of invented languages turns out to be, a comprehensive account is not
possible (nor desirable) in a work of the current design. While Okrent‟s (2009) impressive
book includes 500 languages, the book discussed here comprises eight chapters by various
authors introducing 20 invented languages. This is followed by eight appendices written by
the editor himself, which are supposed to connect the chapters of the book and provide
actual language samples or background information on the respective languages. While the
book‟s purpose is to “illustrate various points along the spectrum [of invented languages]” (p.
10) and “to turn a critical eye on the reasons why people invent languages” (p. 15), the
criteria for the inclusion of individual languages could have been made more explicit though.
Moreover, the range of languages presented seems rather limited from a typological
perspective. Certain kinds of languages are not touched upon at all, as will be shown
subsequently. However, while other works mentioned above are certainly more
comprehensive accounts of invented languages, the current issue provides a concise
introduction to the field.
For the present review, I will not proceed by chronologically discussing the chapters of the
book but rather by looking at different types of linguistic inventions in turn, starting with
invented vocabularies first, then continuing with languages that have a somehow limited use,
grammar and/or vocabulary, and finally finishing with full fledged invented languages to be
used for all communicative purposes. To begin with, I will briefly comment on the introductory
chapter of the book, written by the editor himself.
In the first chapter of the book on “the spectrum of invention” (p. 1), Adams mainly comments
on the different motives for language invention, the different kinds of invented languages
including many of the examples given later on in the book, finishing with a plan of the
chapters. He cites Okrent‟s (2009) statement that “the primary motivation for inventing new
language has been to improve upon natural language” as one of the main reasons for
language invention. Besides this main reason, he puts forth several other motives such as
recovering “the language of Adam” that was lost after Babel, filling a language gap, practicing
linguistic or philological technique or, simply reasons of fame and money. His list indeed
seems to cover the spectrum of reasons for language invention which is nicely illustrated by
examples. Concerning the different kinds of invented language proposed here, a major point
in Adams‟ chapter is the invention of new vocabulary items in the context of slang. He
2
conclusively argues for the consideration of slang as inventive language in the sense that it
tests the boundaries of language (p. 9). Slang, however, might never achieve wide circulation
as it is usually used to distance a small group within a speech community from the rest. It
thus constitutes an “anti-language” in the sense of Baker (2002). This hints at the fact that
Adams tries to apply a usage-based, socio-cultural model of language to the study of
invented language because the notion of “anti-language” is closely connected to that of “anti-
society” (p. 2). This has similarly been argued by Kiessling and Mous (2004) in the context of
urban youth languages in Africa. They define anti-languages as sociolects that “emphasize
the interpersonal function [of language] at the expense of the referential function” (Kiessling
& Mous 2004: 328). Further, they argue that with the disappearance of other socially induced
forms of manipulated language in certain societies, new sociolinguistic contexts emerge in
which new linguistic forms such as urban youth registers in Nairobi (Sheng based on English
and Swahili) or Johannesburg (Iscamto based on Zulu) emerge. Altogether, this is in line
with Storch (2011) who states that by using these (sometimes secret) forms of language,
social identities are not only expressed by created. Adams‟ scope of investigation is thus
comprehensible but could have been expressed more clearly. Storch (2011) explicitly
stresses the importance of sociolinguistic parameters in the use of different types of
manipulated languages, such as virilocal, patrilinear family structures enhancing the use of
in-law avoidance languages for hlonipa among the Zulu and Xhosa, for example1. A clear
argumentation in the same vein would have been desirable.
Starting the discussion of those chapters that treat an invented vocabulary, chapter 3 by
Howard Jackson describes Newspeak and Nadsat, used in G. Orwell‟s 1984 and A. Burgess‟
A Clockwork Orange respectively. Although this chapter naturally analyses many literary
issues, the linguistic analysis put forth by Howard is rather detailed. Howard bases his
analysis on the appendix to 1984 (Newspeak) and on the Nadsat vocabulary compiled by
Hyman (1963), as well as on single instances of words provided in the books. From a
linguistic point of view, the most interesting parts on Newspeak are Howard‟s description of
the three sets of vocabulary of the language and the linguistic rules that operate on them (pp.
50-54), and the paragraph on “Orwell and Sapir-Whorf”, commenting on Orwell‟s occupation
with the relation between language and thought in the context of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
(pp. 61 f.). The three sets of vocabulary of Newspeak are actually a pared-down English
vocabulary, similar to Basic English invented by Ogden (1930). Howard nicely describes
word derivation processes and affixation as exemplified by the formation of emphatics by
adding the prefix plus- to a word, as in pluscold (p. 52). This is similar to natural languages
such as Shizuoka Japanese, in which prefixed emphatic forms take the prefix [çi] (taken from
Ueda 2010: 1):
(1) [naku] „cry‟ → [çinnaku] „cry furiously‟ [Shizuoka Japanese]
Unfortunately, a point that seems to elude Howard in this context is the under-determinability
of lexemes in Newspeak: think and knife can be both nouns and verbs. Consequently, it is
not clear whether the above example of pluscold is actually a noun or a verb. The
multifunctionality of words like knife might be due to either a zero conversion principle or a
shared lexical category. Regrettably, Howard does not elaborate on this matter any further.
However, altogether his description of the completely regular word formation and thus the
avoidance of marked processes in the A set is concise. The main difference between the A
1 Avoidance languages will be discussed in more detail in the context of invented vocabularies.
3
and the B vocabulary set is the fact that the latter allows extensive compounding. His
comparison of the word formation processes of Newspeak to those found in Germanic
languages like Modern German and Old English hits the mark2; examples would have been a
bonus though. Moreover, comments on the types of compounds including features such as
possible headedness, endo- or exocentricity would have been interesting. On a more meta-
linguistic level, Howard comments on Newspeak and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, in stating
that Orwell obviously proposed a linguistic determinist view of the relation between language
and thought (p. 61). Nadsat, the second language discussed, is treated in less detail. It is a
teenage slang whose vocabulary Burgess did not want to be dated in a certain period (p. 50).
As the name suggests (Nadsat being a Russian suffix equivalent to English teen), the
vocabulary of Nadsat is Russian with English inflections (p. 68). Pp. 67-70 of the chapter
contain many examples of Nadsat words in an English context, which emphasizes that
Nadsat is a vocabulary rather than a language (Burgess 1972: 16; own emphasis):
(2) Dim had a real horrorshow length of oozy or chain round his waist […] and began to swing it beautiful in the eyes or glazzies.
This substitution of words by youths is reminiscent of youth slangs such as Yarada
K‟wank‟wa used by young speakers of Amharic in Addis Ababa. It is similarly used as a
secret slang in order to exclude others (parents, etc.) from communication. This is especially
emphasized by the fact that as soon as a certain lexeme‟s meaning becomes known to
outsiders, a new word is created. Examples from Yarada K‟wank‟wa are shown in (3a) and
(3b) (taken from Wolvers 2008: 4 f.):
(3) a. k’ədus k’ət’äl - „marihuana‟ [Yarada K‟wank‟wa] b. čik - „girl‟ [Yarada K‟wank‟wa]
While the chapter constitutes an interesting linguistic account of Newspeak and Nadsat, a
linguistic comparison to other languages mentioned would have been informative.
The second chapter that treats invented vocabularies is chapter 7 written by Stephen
Watt. The chapter discusses the language of Joyce, Beckett and Muldoon in their literary
oeuvre. Although probably rather interesting for the field of literary studies, the chapter is less
useful from a linguistic perspective. The only issues worth mentioning are Watt‟s comments
on several important sociolinguistic issues connected with these invented vocabularies as
they express the writers‟ attitudes towards English as the language of the colonizers in
Ireland. He briefly brings up Hiberno-English and its linguistic features (p. 163) but fails to
provide a linguistically relevant account3. He continues in describing language attitudes and
the struggle between Irish Gaelic and English in the post-Famine period (after 1852), which
finally leads to the three writers‟ motivations for inventing language in their works, namely a
feeling of inappropriateness of the English language to express Irishness. While describing
the structures of invented language, the description is only sparsely illustrated with examples
such as mkgnao „meow‟ from Ulysses. The reader is referred to Appendix 7, which however
only contains examples of Synthetic Scots, invented in the early 20 th century by Hugh
MacDiarmid (1934). Language samples would also have been desirable to illustrate Watt‟s
claim that Joyce manipulates some 41 languages and dialects “from Albanian to Welsh, from
2 Examples from German such as Bügelbrettbezug (right-headed endocentric) = „ironing board cover‟,
as well as the sheer infinite scope of these constructions are well known. 3 His pronunciation samples of /t/ and /d/ lack the IPA transcription one would have wished for, for
instance..
4
Finnish to Russian, from Romani to Sanskrit” (pp. 170 f.). He cites single examples from
Finnegan’s Wake such as collideorscape consisting of collide combined with kaleidoscope
(p. 171) and correctly characterizes them as portmanteau constructions. However, more
examples, also from Beckett‟s and Muldoon‟s texts (discussed on pp. 173-182), would have
assured better comprehensibility on the part of the interested linguist. Summarizing, it is
certainly interesting to include this chapter in a book on invented languages but it would have
benefited from more examples and more linguistic analyses in order to be interesting for a
linguistic researcher.
Other types of invented languages that are not mentioned at all in the context of
invented vocabularies are avoidance languages. Of special interest in this regard are
avoidance registers created to avoid the names of deceased persons or in-laws (of the
opposite sex). These types of avoidance languages are abundant in Australian Aboriginal
languages and have been documented for some East Cushitic and Bantu languages as well.
The lexemes for „sun‟ in Yidiny (Pama-Nyungan) are shown in (4) (taken from Romaine
2000: 22):
(4) Guwal (everyday register) Dyalnguy (mother-in-law register) bungan gari:man
The process applied in the above example represents an instance of paralexification; one of
the possible processes used in the creation of invented languages (Mous 1994). The term
refers to parallel word forms for one lexical entry that share meaning and morphology. In her
description of Ballishsha, the avoidance register of Kambaata women addressing their in-
laws, Treis (2005) also mentions this process (taken from Treis 2005: 299 f.).
(5) Common word (Kambaata) Ballishsha birrá asurnà „money‟ hamiilú qabará-ta „cabbage‟
Avoidance languages might also lead to changes of the linguistic system, as exemplified by
hlonipa, the avoidance language of married Zulu and Xhosa women talking to their male in-
laws. Apart from the names of the male relatives, women are proscribed from using any
other words that contain the same syllables as the names to be avoided. In this case,
avoidance strategies include phonological modifications and borrowing from surrounding
languages. Borrowing for phonological modification purposes is probably the reason why
clicks, which are not usually present in Bantu, came into Zulu and Xhosa (Storch 2011).
The abovementioned forms of invented language are directly related to the next issue
to be discussed, namely invented languages with limited use. For many of these, it is not
completely clear in how far they constitute a vocabulary of the type described in the previous
paragraph or a basic/simplified language.
Chapter 5 by Marc Okrand, Michael Adams, Judith Hendriks-Hermans and Sjaak Kroon on
Klingon, the language invented for a fictional race from the Star Trek movies and series, falls
into the category of languages with a limited use, grammar and vocabulary. The
categorization of Klingon as a restricted language may seem disputable given that Klingon is
nowadays “the largest fictional language” (p. 111), also used in real world institutions like US
American hospitals (p. 128). However, the authors provide a very detailed sketch of the
sociolinguistics of Klingon mainly based on Hendriks-Hermans (1999), which clarifies that
there is no real speech community for the language. The authors continue by stating that
5
most Klingon speakers are male Caucasian US Americans of around 30 years (p. 129),
which hints at a rather restricted community of speakers. They also acknowledge the fact
that according to the Klingon Language Institute only a handful of people (20-30) are fluent in
Klingon and could use it in everyday life (p. 128). They continue discussing whether the
users of Klingon actually form a speech community according to Patrick‟s (2004) criteria
which suggest that there is a continuum of “speech-communityness” ranging from large
geographically bounded urban communities to small secluded communities such as court
juries. After illustrating these criteria with examples, they conclude that “if there is a Klingon
speech community, it is very small indeed” (p. 131). Altogether, the description of the
sociolinguistics of Klingon is very thorough. The description of the language‟s structure, its
grammar and vocabulary (pp. 116-124) is sufficient to gain an impression of its linguistic
type. The authors elaborate on the phonetics and phonology of Klingon as for example the
typologically frequent syllable structure CV (C), while on the other hand adding non-English
sounds to make the language sound “more alien”.4 The accurate description of the choice of
sounds, their formation and illustration with examples does not completely compensate for
the sometimes weird and non-IPA transcription of the sounds though: /H/ instead of /x/, /gh/
instead of /ɣ/ (p. 117). It seems to be based on the transcription system of Klingon developed
for actors. Interesting however, is the explanation of Klingon sound symbolism that
associates the /k/ sound with outer space and aliens, as in kryptonite. Apart from phonology,
a few comments on syntax are made, identifying OVS as the basic word order of the
language. Given the rarity of this ordering cross-linguistically – languages such as Urarina
(isolate), Guarijio (Uto-Aztecan), Hixkarjana (Carib) form an exception – the aim of creating
linguistic otherness or markedness is definitely achieved. Nevertheless, also the grammatical
part of the chapter is clearly written for a lay audience. The character of agglutinative
languages of which Klingon is argued to be an example is described in a rather simple way,
which hampers comprehensibility when it comes to examples. Instead of providing an
interlinear morpheme translation for jIqIp’eghpu’’a’ „Did I hit myself?‟, the authors analyze the
word in the text. An interlinear translation such as in (6) would have been much clearer:
(6) jI- qIp- egh- pu- ’a’ [Klingon]
PRN- hit- 1SG.REFL- PRF- INT PRN hit myself PRF INT „Did I hit myself?‟
A final issue worth mentioning is the detailed description of the Klingon vocabulary and its
semantic fields that is provided. Although the original Klingon dictionary (Okrand 1985) only
contained 1,500 words, many examples of Klingon words are given on pp. 121 f.
Summarizing, it can be stated that irrespective of the sometimes non-linguistic or lay take on
the description of the language, the chapter provides an interesting and thorough description
of the linguistic features and sociolinguistic situation of this fictional invented language.
Chapter 6 by James Portnow discusses the topic of gaming languages. Most invented
languages described in this chapter are actually limited in vocabulary and use to the gaming
world, which is why it is put in the category of languages restricted in use and
vocabulary/grammar. One exception might be 1337 or “Leet”, as will be shown later on.
Portnow starts his discussion by showing that languages and games actually have much in
common, and relates this remark to Wittgenstein‟s term of “Sprachspiel” („language game‟)
(p. 136). Although treating a subject of leisure, the chapter is expertly researched and
4 This clearly presupposes English as a point of reference, rather than universal linguistic tendencies.
6
reasoned as well as linguistically informative. Portnow comments on six gaming languages:
Gargish, D‟ni, Simlish, Al-Bhed, Logos and 1337. While some of them are real game
languages, others are rather language games that originated in the universe of a videogame.
He explicitly acknowledges this for Al-Bhed (“it is a carefully crafted substitution cipher”, p.
148) and outlines its substitution system. The common characteristics of gaming languages
are probably due to the general requirements on languages in videogames, such as
inessentiality to game play (p. 138). These requirements often result in the creation of so-
called “flavor languages” that usually only comprise a few sentences and operate
unsystematically with the sole purpose to deliver a taste of the culture of its speech
community (p. 140). Portnow fails to mention Simlish in this context though. Although stating
that it is a non-language and gibberish (p. 146/148), he never classifies it as a flavor-
language. Given that it is a purely emotive language, the relation between meaning and form
is very close and non-arbitrary: “the „meaning‟ of the sounds is supposed to be the meaning
of the words” (p. 148). This seems closely related to phenomena such as ideophones which
are characterized by an iconic relation between signifiant and signifié and often relate to
sensory imagery such as sounds, smells and tastes (Dingemanse 2011). An example of this
iconic relationship is shown in (7) (taken from Childs 1994: 185):
(7) kpuk-kpuk-kpuk = „insistent rapping on the door‟ [Gbaya]
The structural differences between gaming languages are mainly attributed to their different
dates of invention. Portnow divides gaming history into three periods, “the mists of history
[…] (i.e. the last 1980s, really, anything up until about 2000); the modern era – anything after
the launch of the PlayStation 2 in 2000; massive multiplayer games and the future […]” (p.
140). While the languages invented in the first era were much more focused on written
communication, the languages of the second period were supposed to be speakable. This is
depicted in his analysis of Gargish, a language of the first era. The setup of the language is
actually not found in any natural language. Thus, certain parts of speech and tenses are
made clear through gestures and intonation. It thus represents a hugely multimodal kind of
language that has not been documented to date. It certainly exceeds the level of
multimodality usually found in spoken languages, including spoken words and co-speech
gestures that have no grammatical meaning however. It is also different from the sign
languages of the deaf, in which manual signs may carry grammatical meaning such as
plurality (Pfau et al. 2012). Generally, the linguistic description of the language is very
thorough, also including select aspects of phonology, comments on vocabulary and a
complete sample sentence with the corresponding transliteration and translation. This
generally holds true for the description of D‟ni, another language of the first era. It is
described as a “calligraphic” and “phonetic” language (p. 144) which means that each letter
corresponds to exactly one sound. A short reference to the principle of orthographic depth as
proposed in Frost & Katz (1992), for example, would have been desirable here. This would
have been especially useful for researchers of languages with another shallow orthography
such as Finnish or Castilian Spanish. The concise list of linguistic features of the language
on p. 146 compensates for these minor deficiencies though. The languages of the second
era, Simlish and Al-Bhed have already been dealt with here. The languages of the third era
are Logos and 1337. Both languages strongly rely on symbolism, in fact, Logos is actually
referred to as a “symbolic language” similar to Egyptian hieroglyphs (p. 153). Thus, there are
base symbols like an upward pointing arrow signifying „up‟ that are very much iconic and
similar to Egyptian logograms. The other symbols, such as those that mark grammatical
7
meaning, are not completely similar to any kind of Egyptian glyph, as their function is clearly
grammatical in contrast to Egyptian determinatives that have classificatory function. The
analysis of 1337 is rather concise. It is the “international language of gamers” (p. 156) still
extensively used today. Strictly speaking, it is not a language but rather a form of digital
calligraphy (p. 157) that developed from “common letter transpositions that occur wh ile typing
[and] have become accepted spellings of words” (p. 157). While providing impressive
examples of whole paragraphs in 1337 and commenting on puns that are used throughout
the gaming community, Portnow fails to acknowledge several issues. Firstly, 1337 shares its
reliance on symbolism with Logos. Secondly, it is a curious mixture of a language that is
rooted in one culture (and one language, i.e. English) and functions as a lingua franca (due
to its main use for communication between international gamers) in the gaming world at the
same time. In this regard it bears strong resemblance to the phenomenon of English as a
lingua franca (ELF), which was originally rooted in Anglophone culture but is internationalized
with respect to lexicogrammar and pragmatics (Jenkins et al. 2011). Examples of
lexicogrammatical features that are part of a common ELF core feature set are dropping of
3rd person singular present -s, or the replacement of infinitive constructions with that-clauses
(Jenkins et al. 2011: 289). An example of ELF pragmatics is the creation of the discourse
marker in my point of view combining in my view and from my point of view (Jenkins et al.
2011: 295). All in all, despite some minor weaknesses, the chapter is a very thorough and
linguistically interesting analysis of invented languages in videogames.
Although not directly related, gaming languages are reminiscent of play languages.
Play languages are rule-governed systems that represent manipulated versions of the matrix
languages they are derived from (Storch 2011). Speakers consciously change different
linguistic units of their native language according to certain phonological rules. This provides
interesting insights into the psychological reality of the syllable and word (Storch 2011: 20).
After Bagemihl (1995) play languages can be categorized into infixing of affixing, templatic,
replacement and reversing types. In infixing languages, a syllable is infixed after the first
vowel of the matrix word (cf. example (8) taken from Ntihirageza 2006: 3).
(8) eka → émneka „no‟ [Kirundi]
Templatic patterns are often exhibited by languages that display root-internal grammatical
patterns, such as Semitic languages. Here, a fixed sequence of consonants and vowels is
filled with the actual phonological material, i.e. a vowel slot would be filled with the word‟s
first vowel, after which a consonant has to follow (Storch 2011: 20). An example from
Amharic can be seen in (9) (taken from Hudson 1993: 48):
(9) wərk’ → wayrk’ərk’ „gold‟ [Amharic]
In replacement languages, certain phonemes are regularly replaced by another phoneme. In
Tenda (Atlantic-Congo), /k/ is replaced by /p/ (example taken from Ferry 1981: 174).
(10) ekès → epès „name of village‟ [Tenda]
Finally, in reversing play languages syllables and other phonetic features (such as tonal
patterns) are reversed, as in (11) (taken from Storch 2011: 21):
(11) dánô → nôdá „person‟ [Lango]
8
As has become evident, play languages are fully fledged linguistic systems and
should consequently belong to the next and last category of invented languages discussed in
the following paragraphs. An intermediate type of language to be mentioned before is special
purpose registers which include languages that may be either spoken or signed. Spoken
registers are Hausa crafts registers or the language of sculptors in Ancient Egyptian. The
Hausa register operates with several semantic motivations such as the resemblance of the
performed actions or conceptual resemblance. (12) shows an example of resemblance of the
performed action, as a magnet pulls iron in the same way a hyena pulls its prey (taken from
Bross 1996: 221):
(12) kúráar ƙárfèe „hyena of iron‟ [Hausa]
Better-known, however, are the monastic sign languages used by Cistercian monks
(described in detail by Barakat 1975 for a Cistercian Abbey in Massachusetts) or the Sawmill
sign language that was used throughout large parts of the USA and Canada (Pfau 2012).
These systems belong to the category of secondary sign languages, which as opposed to
primary sign languages of the deaf, do not represent full-fledged languages but rather
gestural communication codes with restricted use and varying degrees of elaboration (Pfau
2012: 528).5 These systems were developed for situations in which spoken communication is
impossible (in a loud sawmill) or prohibited (in a monastery). The lexicon of these systems is
often rather limited, as is their syntax. It is however possible to form sentences (example
taken from Meissner & Philpott 1975: 298):
(13) INDEX2 CRAZY OLD FARMER [Sawmill Sign Language] „You crazy old farmer.‟
Recent studies of hunting signs found among certain San groups of the Kalahari-Okavango
region have also shown that these signs are analyzable according to sign linguistic
phonological criteria such as handshape, location, etc. (Mohr & Fehn 2013).
The last group of languages discussed in the book is full-fledged invented languages, of
which international auxiliary languages (IALs) described in chapter 2 by Arden R. Smith are
certainly the most important ones as linguae francae. Besides discussing the structure of
IALs, the chapter nicely describes the history of artificial languages, starting in the 17 th
century with languages that aimed at recovering “the language of Adam” that was supposed
to reflect the order of the universe better than natural languages (p. 19). The author cites the
19th century as the heyday of invented languages. Generally, he discusses languages
grouped into (1) “a priori”, (2) “a posteriori” languages and (3) mixed systems (p. 20). This
classification is based on linguistic criteria, meaning that a priori languages are not based on
any existing languages, while a posteriori languages are based on existing structures and
elements. Mixed systems are a combination of both. The scope of the chapter is very broad,
commenting on 12 artificial languages, namely real character, Solrésol, Volapük, Spokil,
Esperanto, Ido, Occidental, Interlingua, Basic English, Weltdeutsch, Wede and Saxon
English. However, some of them are only briefly mentioned and discussed, and sparsely
illustrated by examples (Solrésol, Ido, Spokil, Occidental, Weltdeutsch and Wede
5 The group of primary sign languages does not belong to the category of invented or manipulated
languages mentioned here, but represents naturally developed systems.
9
respectively). Based on written language is the system of the Ars signorum (17th century). It
is especially interesting in that a word‟s letters are supposed to indicate a referent‟s place in
the universe, as the n class denoting concrete physical objects. This system is reminiscent of
noun class systems found in many languages around the world. However, this kind of system
is always strongly culture-related and would pose serious problems for a universal,
international language. Even within one language family, such as Niger-Congo, the number
of noun classes and the members of each class vary considerably, reflecting culture
differences between groups of one language family (Williamson & Blench 2000). Thus, there
are only remnants of noun classes in the Dogon languages, whereas there is a full system in
Gade. The a posteriori languages that are discussed in the chapter are Interlingua, Basic
English and Saxon English (pp. 40-46). While the first has Latin as its base, the latter have
English as their origin. Interlingua was developed in the early 20 th century, consisting of
“Medieval Latin […] with the grammar stripped down to the barest minimum” (p. 41). This is
only part of the story, as the vocabulary could in theory be taken from any language as long
as its internationality was verified by one of seven control languages of the Germanic,
Romance and Slavic language families (Morris 1945). Iinterlingua‟s grammatical structure is
very “regular”, adhering to the grammatical principles of the contributing languages (Gode &
Blair 1955). Thus, verbs have the same form for all persons and adverbs are formed with the
suffix –mente or –amente, similar to Romance languages. Canonical word order is SVO, thus
being considerably less marked than other invented languages discussed previously, such
as Klingon. Basic English that originated around the same time, is viewed with a very critical
eye. Smith criticizes the retention of the unintuitive orthography and the periphrastic and
unwieldy character of verbs. Generally, the Basic English word list compiled by Ogden
includes 850 words which are categorized as “operations”, “general words”, “things” and
“qualities” (descriptives/opposites) (Iijima 2005). These words are actually only roots which
are then modified by the addition of affixes. These are for example plural –s or adverbial –ly.
The limited set of vocabulary also limits the expressivity of Basic English, one of the major
criticisms on the language. Saxon English, which is subsequently mentioned, is on the
border of a posteriori languages and mixed systems. While the original idea was to rid
English of its Greek and Latin elements, it also featured a reformed spelling and grammar (p.
45). The most interesting descriptions are those of the mixed systems Volapük and
Esperanto. While Smith elaborates on the history and creation of the languages in more
detail than absolutely necessary, the linguistic analysis is rather thorough. Thus, Volapük‟s
orthography is outlined meticulously as well as the vowel system consisting of 8
monophthongs ([a], [ɛ], [e], [i], [o], [ø], [u], [y]). Schleyer (the inventor of the language)
generally aimed at “easy” structures, also on the phonological level. When compiling the
language, he changed the phoneme /r/ to /l/ because of Chinese speakers‟ difficulties in
pronouncing the phoneme. However, difficult vowels such as [ø] were retained, which
counterbalances these efforts in the other direction. Smith‟s outline of grammatical aspects
leaves almost no room for improvement, mentioning issues such as grammatical gender,
tense or verb marking, for example. It is reminiscent of Indo-European languages. Thus the
case system is based on German with a nominative, genitive, dative and accusative case.
(14) shows the declination of the noun vol „world‟ in the different cases.
(14) vol „world‟ (Nom.) vola „of the world‟ (Gen.) vole „to the world‟ (Dat.) voli „world‟ (Acc.)
10
Verbal categories are optional, which contributes to ease of acquisition. He concludes by
naming English, German and the Romance languages as the main sources of vocabulary
(pp. 29 f.). As the epitome of IAL and invented language, Esperanto, is depicted most
illustratively. Again, the history and origin of the language are commented on in much length
but the outline at the same time provides a critical view of linguistic structures.
Phonologically, Esperanto is based on Indo-European languages spoken in Europe.
Originally, a „one letter one sound‟ rule was the basis of its phonological system, which the
system deviates from nowadays, as correctly mentioned by Smith: ĉ = /tʃ/ or ŝ = /ʃ/ (p. 33,
phonetic transcription added). The vowel system is extremely simple, consisting of the five
cardinal vowels only, thus supporting the major aim of ease of acquisition. The rules of word
formation are spelled out comprehensibly in Smith‟s account. It reveals Esperanto‟s
agglutinative character, as the main principle of word formation is the combination of
prefixes, roots and/or suffixes. An example of this is the noun ending –o as in patro „father‟
which is turned into an object by the object marker –n or into a plural by the plural marker –j.
This displays the general tendency towards regularity and the avoidance of marked and
irregular forms. One of the most interesting points in Smith‟s chapter is the discussion of
Esperanto‟s linguistic type with respect to invented languages. While Couturat and Leau
(1903) and the author himself classify it as a posteriori, it certainly contains a priori elements.
A fact that would further support the classification of Esperanto as a priori is the origins of its
vocabulary. Most of it is based on the Romance languages, some on Germanic, Slavic and
Greek languages (p. 34). Unfortunately, he fails to mention examples of this, although these
could be easily retrieved: vendi „sell‟ (Romance), ami „love‟ (Romance), patro „father‟
(Romance), kuko „cake‟ (Germanic), forgesi „forget‟ (Germanic). These elements combined
with invented structures clearly show the language‟s mixed character. In conclusion, it can be
stated, however, that despite the minor neglects mentioned above, the chapter is a thorough
and linguistically well researched account of IALs.
Chapter 4 by Jeremy Marshall on Tolkien‟s invented languages represents another
account of fictional languages. As far as fictional languages go, these are probably one of the
most famous and meticulously planned inventions. In the same vein, Marshall‟s chapter
provides a thorough and well researched analysis of the linguistic world of Tolkien‟s oeuvre,
which exhibits only some minor flaws of reasoning or illustration by linguistic examples.
However, the author acknowledges himself that there are far more detailed analyses, such
as Hostetter (2007), while the present account “consider[s] Tolkien‟s […] work of language
invention […] as a feature of his published work” (p. 76). Thus, Marshall first introduces the
reader to the main languages discussed, namely Quenya (or Highelven), Sindarin (or
Greyelven) and places them in Tolkien‟s fictional world. Throughout the chapter, the relations
of the languages among each other as well as their bases in real world languages are
expertly mentioned and discussed. He also explains Tolkien‟s motives for and the process of
language invention. Thus, he states that Tolkien intended the Elvish languages to be
especially pleasant (p. 77) and cites the features of word form, relation between signifier and
signified, elaborate grammatical structures and historical background as providing this
beauty or pleasantness. On pp. 81-91 the reader is provided with a thorough description of
the phonetics and phonology as well as the grammar of the various languages of Middle
Earth, including Adûnaic, the language of the humans, Khuzdul, the language of the Dwarves
and the Black Speech of Mordor. The phonetic description is mainly based on a comparison
between English and these languages (“absence of schwa”, p. 81) which, although probably
useful for a lay reader, could have been formulated from a less euro-centristic point of view.
In sound, Quenya is compared to Latin, with a tendency towards open syllables, long vowels
11
and diphthongs, while Sindarin is compared to Welsh with a more restricted set of consonant
clusters and a tendency towards closed syllables (p. 82). It is striking and regrettable that the
descriptions of Sindarin usually feature more examples than the explanations of Quenya.
The grammatical description however, does not leave room for improvement, as it is
thorough, well argued and adequately illustrated by examples. The topics discussed include
case marking, pronouns, number, derivation and tense marking (pp. 84-88). Especially
noteworthy is the comparison between natural real-world languages and Tolkien‟s languages
amply exemplified on pp. 98-101. An example is the inflection of possessive pronouns (pp.
84 f.):
(15) a. atari- nya [Quenya]
father 1SG.POSS father-my „my father‟
b. mal’ k - ī [Hebrew]
messenger 1SG.POSS messenger-my
„my messenger‟
Generally, though, Quenya is supposed to be more European in style and structure, while
Khuzdul and Adûnaic rather show Semitic structures as shown by the name Khuzdul
„Dwarvish‟ itself, which is derived from the stem KH-Z-D that not only forms Khuzdul but also
Khazâd „Dwarves‟ by means of non-concatenative morphology. It is hence a typical Semitic
word formation process. Although this general tendency towards European structures seems
to be disproven by instances such as the one cited above or the existence of a dual in the
Elvish languages, the author proves his linguistic expertise by referring the reader to the
vestigial dual pronouns wit „we two‟ and git „you two‟. The resemblance to Semitic structures
in (15) is supposed to be an isolated incidence. Interesting although not completely
convincing is the description of phonoaesthesis in the lexicon. While the author defines the
term correctly as “the notion that certain sound combinations symbolize basic concepts” (p.
103), his example of Quenya carnë „red‟, which might recall carmine and carnation or minas
„tower‟ that recalls minaret, do not exactly show a full-fledged system of phonoaesthesis in
the invented languages. All in all, the analysis of (mainly) Quenya and Sindarin put forth in
this chapter presents a linguistically very well researched and, although a little too euro-
centristic at times, scientifically interesting account of the fictional languages of J.R.R.
Tolkien.
The final chapter to be discussed in the category of full-fledged languages is chapter
8 by Suzanne Romaine on revitalized languages. Romaine herself admits that it might not be
obvious why a chapter on revitalized languages should be included in a book on invented
language. However, she reasons comprehensibly that language revitalization always
involves a certain amount of language planning (p. 186), which is ultimately similar to
language invention. She exemplifies this by discussing the cases of Hebrew, Cornish, Néo-
breton, Hawaiian, Māori, Galician and Irish Gaelic. Moreover, she argues that even standard
languages are planned and consequently, invented languages without native speakers (p.
189). Looking at the case of English, she certainly has a case in point: Crystal (2003:110)
mentions that Standard English (SE) represents a “distinct combination of linguistic features
with a particular role to play”. Similarly, Modern Hebrew is a combination of linguistic features
in that it is derived from Biblical Hebrew (a Semitic language) to which Yiddish and other
European influences were added (p. 187). Altogether, over 100,000 new words were added
12
to the vocabulary, including new coinages from Semitic roots. Regarding revived Cornish and
Néo-breton, there are several examples provided, such as pellgomz „telephone‟ in Néo-
breton attempting to replace the preferred French „téléphone‟ (p. 188). Most examples are
taken from languages such as Hawaiian and Māori. Thus, especially in the section on
vocabulary (pp. 198-205), Romaine mentions many new Hawaiian and Māori inventions.
New coining for items that were not yet included in the lexicon are shown in (16) (p. 200):
(16) a. ngaru- iti [Māori]
„wave small‟ → „microwave‟
b. konga „fragment‟ + nuku „earth‟ → prefix konu- [Māori] e.g. konukura „metal-red‟ = „copper‟
For Hawaiian she lists the examples in (17) (p. 201):
(17) a. lolo uila [Hawaiian]
„electric brain‟ → „computer‟ b. hale noho haum na [Hawaiian]
„house live student‟ → „dormitory‟
It is especially noteworthy that she mentions additional examples from Quechua and also
Néo-breton in this context. While all these words were newly formed, others were borrowed
from surrounding languages like English that served as the source for kope „coffee‟ and puna
„spoon‟ in Hawaiian (p. 198), or pounamu „jade‟ that was borrowed from Polynesian into
Māori (p. 202). As becomes clear from this account, the languages thus constructed are a lot
more natural in that they are less regular than planned languages like Esperanto or Volapük.
They do not avoid marked forms or categories, but rather resort to common linguistic
processes, such as borrowing. Altogether, this well informed account of the history, planning
process and sociolinguistic situation of these languages proves Romaine‟s experience and
expertise in the field and is informative for laymen and linguists alike.
A type of invented language that certainly lacks in this list of full-fledged invented
linguistic systems is speech surrogates such as whistle or drum languages. The most well-
known exemplars of these systems are certainly whistled languages such as Silbo Gomero
on the Canary islands and the drum languages used in Western and central Africa.
Generally, they can be found all over the world, with Australia and North America being an
exception in that only very few languages have been reported there (Meyer 2005). Both
kinds of surrogates use the same principles. A major distinction (especially with respect to
whistled languages) is often made between tonal or non-tonal, i.e. formant-based languages
(Meyer 2005, Rialland 2005). In his study on whistled languages Meyer (2005) mentions 25
languages, of which 11 are formant-based and 14 tonal. The formant-based languages such
as Silbo Gomero or the whistled speech form found in Kusköy (Turkey) are phonetic
representations of their respective spoken language. Vowels are represented by differences
in height of whistling, consonants are represented by “loci”: idealized points toward and away
from which contours of whistling appear to move. Silbo Gomero has at least two loci,
whereas the whistled language based on Turkish found in Kusköy has four (Rialland 2005).
Rialland (2005: 241 ff.) nicely depicts this in spectrograms of spoken Spanish and whistled
Silbo Gomero sounds. Tonal whistled languages transpose the tone differences found in
their respective spoken language (Hmong, for example, has seven tones) but also certain
aspects of the signal envelope such as manner of articulation of consonants (Rialland 2005:
13
262). The whistled language based on Moba, spoken in Togo, similarly transposes tone as
well as the dynamic frame of an utterance. However, whistled languages are rather rare in
Africa, as drum languages are usually used for long distance communication. Meinhof (1976)
comments on the close relation between drum and whistled communication among the
Duala, thus emphasizing the similarities between the two systems. As mentioned above,
drum languages are found throughout forested areas in West and central Africa but also in
East Asia. A major distinction is made between all-wooden slit drums and skin drums (Van
Valen 1976). While the first are manufactured from a single log that is hollowed out and
opened by a slit, the latter have an animal skin on top (Van Valen 1976). They often occur in
pairs (hence the name “twin drums”), with a small and a bigger drum that have different
frequencies. The male drum is higher in frequency than the female drum (Witte 1976: 287).
These “talking drums” are used to communicate important messages between villages or just
for gossip. Carrington (1976) mentions that the tonal pattern of words is represented by the
drums, which is rather convenient with most African languages having register tones. The
context of these tones is then conclusive as to which word was represented (Carrington
1976: 615). An example of a drummed sequence from Kele (Bantu) is shown in (18) (taken
from Carrington 1976: 614):
(18) drummed: HL LH L HH L LH spoken: wana ati la sango la ṉyango
meaning: „child has no father nor mother‟
Moreover, for better comprehensibility the message is repeated three to four times
(Carrington 1976: 631). Usually, the drums have names such “dundun” among the Yoruba in
Nigeria or the “ntumpane” among the Ashanti in Ghana. In some groups, there are additional
special drums for proverbs, such as the “fo nto mfro m” among the Ashanti (Rattray 1976).
Interestingly, not all groups develop their own drum language as the Ewe in Togo have
borrowed their drum language from the Ashanti and only drum Ashanti words.
Before generally concluding this review, a brief remark on the appendix, written by Michael
Adams himself, seems necessary. As Adams states in the introduction, the appendices are
supposed to connect the separate chapters of the book. However, while the individual
appendices are certainly interesting and provide additional information on the languages
discussed in the corresponding chapters, they do not actually provide a framework for the
book. Moreover, some of the appendices are not very informative from a linguistic point of
view, as appendix 4 on Tolkien‟s languages which merely represents a collection of
commentary on Tolkien‟s linguistic inventions (p. 249-255). However, chapter 4 already
provided a thorough account of Tolkien‟s fictional languages which did not call for further
information. Most of the other appendices are linguistically interesting however: appendix 1
(pp. 227-233) discusses sociolinguistic issues related to language ownership, parts of
appendix 3 (pp. 224-248) comment on the question whether Nadsat is an argot, a jargon,
etc., appendix 5 (pp. 256-260) provides original language material from Klingon and
appendix 6 places gaming language in the context of slang. Appendices 7 and 8 are slightly
different from the rest, as they introduce a language that is not discussed in the
corresponding chapters (Lallans or Synthetic Scots in appendix 7 and Neo-Latin in appendix
8). However, they are linguistically informative with respect to these newly introduced
languages. Summarizing, the appendix constitutes an interesting, although not absolutely
necessary addition to the book.
14
In conclusion, it can be stated that the present volume presents an interesting overview of
the study of invented languages. While not as comprehensive and detailed as other works of
recent years (e.g. Okrent 2009), it certainly achieves its goal to present different points along
the spectrum of invented languages and to critically discuss the motivations for language
invention. Especially noteworthy are chapters like Suzanne Romaine‟s on revitalized
languages as their place in a book like this is not directly obvious. All the more interesting is
their reasoning and analysis of languages like Hawaiian in the framework of language
invention. Other chapters exceed the boundaries of linguistics, such as Stephen Watt‟s
account of language in Irish literature. From a linguistic point of view, it would have been
more informative to discuss other linguistic inventions such as special-purpose sign
languages or speech surrogates instead. Chapters like James Portnow‟s account of gaming
languages seem to have it all though: commenting on the history of and motivation for
invention, they simultaneously provide a thorough linguistic analysis of linguistic structures
and sociolinguistic situations. Altogether, the book ably combines traditional views and
accounts with new and innovative takes on language.
References
Bagemihl, B. 1995. Language games and related areas. In J. Goldsmith (ed.) The handbook
of phonological theory. Cambridge: Blackwell, 697–712.
Baker, P. 2002. Polari – The Lost Language of Gay Men. London & New York: Routledge.
Barakat, R. 1975. The Cistercian sign language : a study in non-verbal communication.
(Cistercian Study Series 7) Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications.
Burgess, A. 1972. A Clockwork Orange. Harmondsworth and New York: Penguin.
Carrington, J. F. 1976. Talking drums of Africa. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-Sebeok (eds.)
Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter,
591-668.
Couturat, L. & L. Leau. 1903. Histoire de la langue universelle. Paris: Hachette.
Childs, T. 1994. African Ideophones. In Hinton, L. et al. (eds.) Sound Symbolism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 178-204.
Crystal, D. 2003. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Dingemanse, M. 2011. The Meaning and Use of Ideophones in Siwu. PhD dissertation:
Radboud University Nijmegen.
Dulichenko, A. 1990. Mezhdunarodnye vspomogatel’nye jazyki. Tallinn: Valgus.
Ferry, M.-P. 1981. Les ganles tecresses des Ndéta (les langues secrètes des Tenda).
Objects et mondes 21:173–176.
Frost, R. & L. Katz (eds.) 1992. Orthography, Phonology, Morphology and Meaning.
(Advances in Psychology 94). Amsterdam et al.: Elsevier.
Gode, A. & H. E. Blair. 1955. Interlingua. A grammar of the international language. New
York: Frederick Ungar Publishing.
Hendriks-Hermans, J. 1999. Klingon and its Users: A Sociolinguistic Profile. MA thesis:
Tilburg University.
Hostetter, C. F. 2007. Languages Invented by Tolkien. In Michael Drout (ed.) J.R.R. Tolkien
Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment. New York: Routledge.
Hudson, G. 1993. Evidence of an Argot for Amharic and Theoretical Phonology. Journal of
African Languages and Linguistics 14:47–60.
15
Hyman, S. E. 1963. Nadsat Dictionary. <http://soomka.com/nadsat.html>
Iijima, R. 2005. 850 Basic words: grouped and listed by C. K. Ogden.
<http://www2.educ.fukushima-u.ac.jp/~ryota/word-list.html>
Jenkins, J., A. Cogo and M. Dewey. 2011. Review of developments in research on English
as a lingua franca. Language Teaching 44(3), 281-315.
Joyce, J. 1939. Finnegan’s Wake. New York: Viking.
Kiessling, R., & M. Mous. 2004. Urban youth languages in Africa. Anthropological Linguistics
46(3): 303–341.
MacDiarmid, H. 1934. At the Sign of the Thistle. London: Stanley Nott.
Meinhof, C. 1976. Die Geheimsprachen Afrikas. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-Sebeok
(eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris: Mouton de
Gruyter, 151-157.
Meissner, M. & S. B. Philpott. 1975. The Sign Language of Sawmill Workers in British
Columbia. Sign Language Studies 9, 291-308.
Meyer, J. 2005. Description typologique et intelligibilité des langues sifflées, approche
linguistique et bioacoustique. Phd thesis: Université Lumière Lyon 2.
Mohr, S. & A.-M. Fehn. 2013. Phonology of hunting signs in two Kalahari Khoe-speaking
groups (Ts‟ixa and ||Ani). Paper presented at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of America, Boston, MA.
Morris, A. V. 1945. IALA‟s system: Underlying facts and reasoning. General report.
International Auxiliary Language Association: New York.
Mous, M. 1994. Ma‟a or Mbugu. In P. Bakker & M. Mous (eds.) Mixed languages.
Amsterdam: Institute for Functional Research into Language and Language Use, 175–
200.
Ntihirageza, J. 2006. Tone, vowel length and dissimilation in Kirundi language games. Paper
presented at ACAL 37, Eugene, Oregon.
Ogden, C. K. 1930. Basic English: A General Introduction with Rules and Grammar. London:
Paul Treber & Co.
Okrand, M. 1985. The Klingon Dictionary. New York: Pocket Books.
Okrent, A. 2009. In the Land of Invented Languages. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Orwell, G. 1954. Nineteen Eighty-Four. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Pfau, R. 2012. Manual communication systems: evolution and variation. In R. Pfau, M.
Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.) Sign Language. An International Handbook. Berlin/New
York: De Gruyter Mouton, 513-551.
Pfau, R., M. Steinbach and B. Woll (eds.) 2012. Sign Language. An International Handbook.
Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Railland, A. 2005. Phonological and phonetic aspects of whistled languages. Phonology 22:
237-271.
Storch, A. 2011. Secret manipulations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tolkien, J.R.R. 1966. The Lord of the Rings. London: George Allen & Unwin.
Treis, Y. 2005. Avoiding their names, avoiding their eyes. How Kambaata women respect
their in-laws. Anthropological Linguistics 47(3): 292–320.
Ueda, I. 2010. On the sociophonetic status of emphatic verbs in Shizuoka Japanese.
Proceedings of the workshop “Sociophonetics, at the crossroads of speech variation,
processing and communication. Pisa, Italy.
Valen, L. van. 1976. Talking drums and similar African tonal communication. In T.A. Sebeok
& D. J. Umiker-Sebeok (eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The
Hague/Paris: Mouton de Gruyter, 746-750.
16
Williamson, K. & R. Blench. 2000. Niger-Congo. In B. Heine & D. Nurse (eds.) African
Languages. An Introduction, 11-42. Cambridge: CUP.
Witte, P. A. 1976. Zur Trommelsprache bei den Ewe-Leuten. In T.A. Sebeok & D. J. Umiker-
Sebeok (eds.) Speech surrogates: drum and whistle systems. The Hague/Paris:
Mouton de Gruyter, 285-288.
Wolvers, A. 2008. Yarada K’wank’wa and urban youth identity in Addis Ababa. Unpublished
manuscript.