Article

The European Union’s Need for an International Auxiliary Language

Federico Gobbo 1
Author Information & Copyright
1Insubria University

Copyright ⓒ 2016, Sejong University Language Research Institue. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Published Online: Jan 01, 2017

Abstract

In the last few years, debate has centered around European Union language policy. Many people, language specialists and laymen alike, argue that the European Union should adopt a common tongue for practical purposes, at institutional and educational levels, while respecting the cultural richness of other languages. Although English, or sometimes Latin, has been proposed, an International Auxiliary Language (IAL) would seem to accomplish this aim better. In this paper we will compare, structurally and sociolinguistically, three major IALs: Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua, as candidates to serve as the common language of the EU, on account of their language vigour and vitality.

Keywords: International Auxiliary Language; European Union; language politics; English; Esperanto; Ido; Interlingua; Latin

References

1.

Albani, P. & B. Buonarroti. 1994. Dizionario delle Lingue Immaginarie. Bologna: Zanichelli.

2.

Angelino, G. 1988. L'Europa alla Ricerca di Una Lingua Comune. L'Idea Liberale 3, 12-17.

3.

Angelino, G. 1999. De Praestanti Methodo Docendi et Discendi Linguam Latinam. Latinitas 12, 145-150.

4.

Bausani, A. 1974. Le Lingue Inventate. Rome: Astrolabio-Ubaldini. Bergen, B. 2001. Naturalization Processes in L1 Esperanto. Journal of Child Linguistics 28, 575-595.

5.

Carlevaro T. & R. Haupenthal. 1999. Bibliografio di Ido. Bellinzona: Hans Dubois.

6.

Corsetti, R. 1994. A Mother Tongue Spoken Mainly by Fathers. Language Problems, Language Planning 3, 263-273. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

7.

Corsetti, R., M. Pinto, & M. Tolomeo. 2004. Regularizing the Regular: The Phenomenon of Overregularization in Esperanto-speaking Children. Language Problems, Language Planning 3, 261-282. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

8.

DGI. 2005. Directorate General for Interpretation. Retrieved February 3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/scic/interpreting/tech_relay_en.htm.

9.

DGI. 2003. Directorate General for Interpretation. Annual Report.

10.

Duggan, S. (ed.) 1945. International Auxiliary Language Association- General Report. New York: IALA.

11.

Duranti, A. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Jung, Y.-H. 2004. English, Unish and an Ideal International Language: From a Perspective of Speech Sound and Writing System. Journal of Universal Language 5, 21-36.

13.

Gazzola, M. 2003. La Relazione fra Costi Economici e Costi Politici del Multilinguismo nell'Unione Europea. Master's Thesis. Milan: Bocconi University.

14.

Gledhill, C. 2000. The Grammar of Esperanto: A Corpus-based Description. Muenchen:Lincom Europa.

15.

Gode, A. 1962. Standard Average European-English. International Language Review 8, 3-10. Denver, CO: Floyd & Evelyn Hardin.

16.

Hagège, C. 2000. Halt à la Mort des Langues. Paris: Jacob.

17.

Haskala. 2005. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved January 13 http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9039461.

18.

Holzhaus, A. 1969. Hilelismo. Projekto pri la Solvo de la Hebrea Demando. In U. De Ludovikito & E. Joykampf (eds.), Hebreo el la Geto 359-441. Kioto: Dai Nippon.

19.

Holzhaus, A. 1970. Doktoro kaj Lingvo Esperanto. Helsinki: Fondumo Esperanto.

20.

Large, A. 1985. The Artificial Language Movement. Oxford: Blackwell.

21.

Martinet, A. 1989. The Proof of the Pudding. In K. Schubert & D. Maxwell (eds.), Interlinguistics. Aspects of the Science of Planned Languages. Trends in Linguistic 42, 3-5. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

22.

Meisl, J. 1917. Der Hillelist. Der Jude 4. Berlin: Martin Buber.

23.

Peano, G. 1904. De Latino sine Flexione. Lingua Auxiliare Internationale. Revista de Mathematica 8, 74-83. Torino: Giuseppe Peano.

24.

Pennacchietti, F. 1987. L'internazionalità dell'Esperanto e il Carattere Degli Elementi Indoeuropei in Esso. In A. Chiti-Batelli (ed.), Quale Lingua Perfetta? 27-53. Rome: Lacaita.

25.

Phillipson, R. 2004. English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Politics. New York: Routledge.

26.

Piron, C. 1981. Esperanto: European or Asiatic Language? Esperanto Documents 22A, 1-32. Rotterdam: UEA.

27.

Rifkin, J. 2004. The European Dream. New York: Penguin.

28.

Rowling, J. 2003. Harrius Potter et Philosophi Lapis. London: Bloomsbury Publishing PLC.

29.

Tsuda, Y. 2004. A Critique of English as a Common Language for Perspective. Nagoya: Nagoya University.

30.

Zamenhof, L. 1905. Fundamento de Esperanto. Paris: Hachette.

31.

Zamenhof, L. 1929. Originala Verkaro. Leipzig: Ferdinand Hirt.

JUL Research Ethics Workshop

July 1-2, 2020   

For further detailed information, please contact us (unish@sejong.ac.kr).


I don't want to open this window for a day.

JUL Research Ethics Workshop

January 8-9, 2020   

For further detailed information, please contact us (unish@sejong.ac.kr).


I don't want to open this window for a day.