Language that is intentionally devised; not emergent from human interaction
This article is about the creation of planned or artificial human languages. For information about the linguistic field of language planning and policy, seelanguage planning. For languages that naturally emerge in computer simulations or controlled psychological experiments with humans, seeartificial language. For languages with a high morpheme-per-word ratio, seesynthetic language.
The Conlang Flag, a symbol of language construction created by subscribers to the CONLANGmailing list, which represents theTower of Babel against a rising sun
Aconstructed language is alanguage forcommunication betweenhumans (i.e. not with or betweencomputers) but unlike a language that emerges fromhuman interaction, is intentionally devised for a particular purpose.Constructed language is often shortened toconlang and is a relatively broad term that encompasses subcategories including:fictional,artificial,engineered,planned andinvented. A constructed language may include natural language aspects includingphonology,grammar,orthography, andvocabulary.Interlinguistics includes the study of constructed languages.
Grammatical speculation dates fromclassical antiquity; for instance, it appears inPlato'sCratylus in Hermogenes's contention that words are not inherently linked to what they refer to; that people apply "a piece of their own voice [...] to the thing".
Dionysius of Sicily createdneologisms likemenandros "virgin" (frommenei "waiting" andandra "husband") for standard Greekparthenos;menekratēs "pillar" (frommenei "it remains in one place" andkratei "it is strong") for standardstulos; andballantion "javelin" (fromballetai enantion "thrown against someone") for standardakon.
Alexarchus of Macedon, the brother of KingCassander of Macedon, was the founder of the city ofOuranopolis. Athenaeus recounts a story told byHeraclides of Lembos that Alexarchus "introduced a peculiar vocabulary, referring to a rooster as a "dawn-crier", a barber as a "mortal-shaver", a drachma as "worked silver", [...] and a herald as anaputēs [fromēputa "loud-voiced"].
"He [Alexarchus] once wrote something [...] to the public authorities inCasandreia. [...] As for what this letter says, in my opinion not even thePythian god could make sense of it."[1]
While the mechanisms of grammar suggested by classical philosophers were designed to explain existing languages (Latin,Greek, andSanskrit), they were not used to construct new grammars. Roughly contemporary to Plato, in his descriptive grammar of Sanskrit,Pāṇini constructed a set of rules for explaining language, so that the text of his grammar may be considered a mixture of natural and constructed language.
Page 68r of theVoynich manuscript. This three-page foldout from the manuscript includes a chart that appears astronomical.
A legend recorded in the seventh-centuryIrish workAuraicept na n-Éces claims thatFénius Farsaid visitedShinar after theconfusion of tongues, and he and his scholars studied the various languages for ten years, taking the best features of each to createin Bérla tóbaide ("the selected language"), which he namedGoídelc—the Irish language. This appears to be the first mention of the concept of a constructed language in literature.
The earliest non-natural languages were considered less "constructed" than "super-natural", mystical, or divinely inspired. TheLingua Ignota, recorded in the 12th century by St.Hildegard of Bingen, is an example, and apparently the first entirely artificial language.[2] It is a form of private mysticalcant (see alsoEnochian). An important example from Middle-Eastern culture isBalaibalan, invented in the 16th century.[3]Kabbalistic grammatical speculation was directed at recovering the original language spoken byAdam and Eve inParadise, lost in theconfusion of tongues. The firstChristian project for an ideal language is outlined inDante Alighieri'sDe vulgari eloquentia, where he searches for the idealItalian vernacular suited for literature.Ramon Llull'sArs Magna was a project of a perfect language with which the infidels could be convinced of the truth of the Christian faith. It was basically an application ofcombinatorics on a given set of concepts.[4] During theRenaissance, Lullian and Kabbalistic ideas were drawn upon in a magical context, resulting incryptographic applications.[clarification needed]
The 17th century saw the rise of projects for "philosophical" or "a priori" languages, such as:
Francis Lodwick'sA Common Writing (1647) andThe Groundwork or Foundation laid (or So Intended) for the Framing of a New Perfect Language and a Universal Common Writing (1652)
These early taxonomic constructed languages produced systems ofhierarchical classification that were intended to result in both spoken and written expression.Leibniz had a similar purpose for hislingua generalis of 1678, aiming at a lexicon of characters upon which the user might perform calculations that would yield true propositions automatically, as a side-effect developingbinary calculus. These projects were not only occupied with reducing or modelling grammar, but also with the arrangement of all human knowledge into "characters" or hierarchies, an idea that with theEnlightenment would ultimately lead to theEncyclopédie. Many of these 17th–18th century languages werepasigraphies, or purely written languages with no spoken form or a spoken form that would vary greatly according to the native language of the reader.[6]
Leibniz and the encyclopedists realized that it is impossible to organize human knowledge unequivocally in a tree diagram, and consequently to construct ana priori language based on such a classification of concepts. Under the entryCharactère,D'Alembert critically reviewed the projects of philosophical languages of the preceding century. After theEncyclopédie, projects fora priori languages moved more and more to the lunatic fringe.[citation needed] Individual authors, typically unaware of the history of the idea, continued to propose taxonomic philosophical languages until the early 20th century (e.g.Ro), but most recentengineered languages have had more modest goals; some are limited to a specific field, like mathematical formalism or calculus (e.g.Lincos andprogramming languages), others are designed for eliminatingsyntactical ambiguity (e.g.,Loglan andLojban) or maximizing conciseness (e.g.,Ithkuil[2]).
Already in theEncyclopédie attention began to focus ona posteriori auxiliary languages.Joachim Faiguet de Villeneuve in the article onLangue wrote a short proposition of a "laconic" or regularized grammar ofFrench. During the 19th century, a bewildering variety of such International Auxiliary Languages (IALs) were proposed, so thatLouis Couturat andLéopold Leau inHistoire de la langue universelle (1903) reviewed 38 projects.
The first of these that made any international impact wasVolapük, proposed in 1879 byJohann Martin Schleyer; within a decade, 283 Volapükist clubs were counted all over the globe. However, disagreements between Schleyer and some prominent users of the language led to schism, and by the mid-1890s it fell into obscurity, making way forEsperanto, proposed in 1887 byL. L. Zamenhof, and itsdescendants.Interlingua, the most recent auxlang to gain a significant number of speakers, emerged in 1951, when theInternational Auxiliary Language Association published itsInterlingua–English Dictionary and an accompanyinggrammar. The success of Esperanto did not stop others from trying to construct new auxiliary languages, such as Leslie Jones'Eurolengo, which mixes elements of English and Spanish.
Loglan (1955) and its descendants constitute a pragmatic return to the aims of thea priori languages, tempered by the requirement of usability of an auxiliary language. Thus far, these moderna priori languages have garnered only small groups of speakers.
Robot Interaction Language (2010) is a spoken language that is optimized for communication between machines and humans. The major goals of ROILA are that it should be easily learnable by the human user, and optimized for efficient recognition by computerspeech recognition algorithms.
Artistic language (artlang), devised to create aesthetic pleasure or humorous effect; including sub-categories such as secret languages, joke languages, and mystical languages
The boundaries between these categories are by no means clear,[8] and a language could fall into more than one category. A logical language created foraesthetic reasons would also be classifiable as an artistic language. One created with philosophical motives could also be used as an auxiliary language.
Ana priori constructed language is one with featuresnot based on an existing language, and ana posteriori language is the opposite.[7] This categorization, however, is not absolute, as many constructed languages may be calleda priori when considering some linguistic factors, and at the same timea posteriori when considering other factors.
Ana priori language has features that are invented or elaborated to work differently or to allude to different purposes. Somea priori languages are designed to beinternational auxiliary languages that remove what could be considered an unfair learning advantage for native speakers of a source language that would otherwise exist fora posteriori languages. Others, known asphilosophical ortaxonomic languages, try to categorize their vocabulary, either to express an underlying philosophy or to make it easier to recognize new vocabulary. Finally, manyartistic languages, created for either personal use or for use in a fictional medium, employ consciously constructed grammars and vocabularies, and are best understood asa priori. Examples include:
Ana posteriori language (fromLatin meaning "from the latter"), according to French linguistLouis Couturat, is any constructed language whose elements are borrowed from or based on existing languages. The term can also be extended tocontrolled language, and is most commonly used to refer to vocabulary despite other features. Likewise,zonal auxiliary languages (auxiliary languages for speakers of a particular language family) area posteriori by definition.
While most auxiliary languages area posteriori due to their intended function as a medium of communication, manyartistic languages are fullya posteriori in design—many for the purposes ofalternate history. In distinguishing whether the language isa priori ora posteriori, the prevalence and distribution of respectable traits is often the key.
Examples ofa posteriori languages:
Artistic
Brithenig (Latin and Welsh) by Andrew Smith (1996)
The termplanned language is sometimes used to classify an international auxiliary language[9] since the common alternative,artificial, may be perceived as pejorative. OutsideEsperanto culture,[a] the termlanguage planning means the prescriptions given to a natural language to standardize it; in this regard, even a "natural language" may be artificial in some respects, meaning some of its words have been crafted by conscious decision.Prescriptive grammars, which date to ancient times forclassical languages such asLatin andSanskrit, are rule-based codifications of natural languages, such codifications being a middle ground between naïve natural selection and development of language and its explicit construction. The termglossopoeia is also used to mean language construction, particularly construction ofartistic languages.[3]
Classifications are used differently by tradition. For example, few speakers ofInterlingua consider their language artificial, since they assert that it has no invented content. Interlingua's vocabulary is taken from a small set of natural languages, and its grammar is based closely on these source languages, even including some degree of irregularity. Its proponents prefer to describe its vocabulary and grammar as standardized rather than artificial or constructed. Similarly,Latino sine flexione (LsF) is a simplification of Latin from which theinflections have been removed. As with Interlingua, some prefer to describe its development as planning rather than constructing. Some speakers ofEsperanto andEsperantidos also avoid the termartificial language because they deny that there is anything unnatural about it.[citation needed]
Fictional or experimental languages can be considerednaturalistic if they model real world languages. For example, if a naturalistic language is deriveda posteriori from another language (real or constructed), it should imitate natural processes ofphonological,lexical, andgrammatical change. In contrast with languages such as Interlingua, naturalistic fictional languages are not usually intended for easy learning or communication. Thus, naturalistic fictional languages tend to be more difficult and complex. While Interlingua has simpler grammar, syntax, and orthography than its source languages (though more complex and irregular than Esperanto or its descendants), naturalistic fictional languages typically mimic behaviors of natural languages likeirregular verbs and nouns, and complicated phonological processes.[original research?]
A famous but disputedSapir–Whorf hypothesis is sometimes cited which claims that the language one speaks influences the way one thinks. Thus, a better language should allow the speaker to think better – more clearly or intelligently or to encompass more points of view. This was the intention ofSuzette Haden Elgin in creatingLáadan, a feminist language[2] embodied in herfeminist science fiction seriesNative Tongue.[11] Constructed languages have been included instandardized tests such as theSAT, where they were used to test the applicant's ability to infer and apply grammatical rules.[12][13] By the same token, a constructed language might also be used torestrict thought, as inGeorge Orwell'sNewspeak, or tosimplify thought, as inToki Pona. However, linguists such asSteven Pinker argue that ideas exist independently of language. For example, in the bookThe Language Instinct, Pinker states that children spontaneously re-invent slang and even grammar with each generation. These linguists argue that attempts to control the range of human thought through the reform of language would fail, as concepts like "freedom" will reappear in new words if the old words vanish.
Proponents claim a particular language makes it easier to express and understand concepts in one area, and more difficult in others. An example can be taken from the way variousprogramming languages make it easier to write certain kinds of programs and harder to write others.
Another reason cited for using a constructed language is the telescope rule, which claims that it takes less time to first learn a simple constructed language and then a natural language, than to learn only a natural language. Thus, if someone wants to learn English, some suggest learningBasic English first. Constructed languages like Esperanto and Interlingua are in fact often simpler due to the typical lack ofirregular verbs and other grammatical quirks. Some studies have found that learning Esperanto helps in learning a non-constructed language later (see propaedeutic value of Esperanto).
Most modern developers, calledconlangers, create constructed languages as a hobby, for a fictional work[14], or forpersonal fulfillment. Conlangers typically create languages by defining their language'sphonology,syntax,grammar, and other properties. Doing so requires at least a rudimentary understanding oflinguistics.[15]
Various papers on constructed languages were published from the 1970s through the 1990s, such asGlossopoeic Quarterly,Taboo Jadoo, andThe Journal of Planned Languages.[16]The Conlang Mailing List was founded in 1991, and later split off an AUXLANG mailing list dedicated to international auxiliary languages. In the early to mid-1990s, a few constructed language–related zines were published as email or websites, such asVortpunoj[17] andModel Languages. The Conlang Mailing List has developed a community ofconlangers with its own customs, such as translation challenges andtranslation relays,[18] and its own terminology. Sarah Higley reports from results of her surveys that the demographics of the Conlang list are primarily men from North America and western Europe, with a smaller number from Oceania, Asia, the Middle East, and South America, with an age range from 13 to over 60; the number of women participating has increased over time.
Later online communities include theZompist Bulletin Board (ZBB; since 2001) and the Conlanger Bulletin Board. Discussion on these forums includes presentation of members' constructed languages and feedback from other members, discussion of natural languages, whether particular features of constructed languages have natural language precedents, and how interesting features of natural languages can be repurposed for constructed languages, posting of interesting short texts as translation challenges, and meta-discussion about the philosophy of developing constructed languages, conlangers' purposes, and whether the creation of constructed languages is an art or a hobby.[3] Another 2001 survey by Patrick Jarrett showed an average age of 30.65, with the average time since starting to invent languages 11.83 years.[19] A more recent thread on the ZBB showed that many conlangers spend a relatively small amount of time on any one language, moving from one project to another; about a third spend years on developing the same language.[20]
One constraint on a constructed language is that if it was constructed to be a natural language for use by fictional characters, as withDothraki andHigh Valyrian in theGame of Thrones series, the language should be easily pronounced by actors, and should fit with and incorporate any fragments of the language already invented by the book's author, and preferably also fit with any personal names of fictional speakers of the language.[original research?]
When a constructed language has a community of speakers, especially a large population, it tends to evolve and hence loses its constructed nature. For example,Modern Hebrew and its pronunciation norms were developed from existing traditions ofHebrew, such asMishnaic Hebrew andBiblical Hebrew following a generalSephardic pronunciation, rather than engineered from scratch, and has undergone considerable changes since the state ofIsrael was founded in 1948 (Hetzron 1990:693).[citation not found] However, linguistGhil'ad Zuckermann argues that Modern Hebrew, which he terms "Israeli", is a Semito-European hybrid based not only on Hebrew but also onYiddish and other languages spoken by revivalists.[21] Zuckermann therefore endorses the translation of the Hebrew Bible into what he calls "Israeli".[22]Esperanto as a living spoken language has evolved significantly from the prescriptive blueprint published in 1887, so that modern editions of theFundamenta Krestomatio, a 1903 collection of early texts in the language, require many footnotes on the syntactic and lexical differences between early and modern Esperanto.[23]
Proficient speakers of constructed languages are few and far between. For example, theHungariancensus of 2011 found 8,397 speakers ofEsperanto,[24] and the census of 2001 found 10 ofRomanid, two each ofInterlingua andIdo and one each ofIdiom Neutral andMundolinco.[25] TheRussian census of 2010 found that in Russia there were about 992 speakers of Esperanto (the 120th most common) and nine of theEsperantidoIdo.[26]
The matter of whether a constructed language can be owned or protected by intellectual property laws, or if it would even be possible to enforce those laws, is contentious.
In a 2015 lawsuit,CBS andParamount Pictures challenged a fan film project called Axanar, stating the project infringed upon their intellectual property, which included theKlingon language, among other creative elements. During the controversy, Marc Okrand, the language's original designer expressed doubt as to whether Paramount's claims of ownership were valid.[28][29] The Language Creation Society submitted anamicus curiae brief claiming that the Klingon language itself is not copyrightable under section 102(b) of theCopyright Act of 1976, as it is "a procedure, process, or system for communication," rather than anexpression of an idea.[30]
David J. Peterson, who created multiple well-known constructed languages including theValyrian languages andDothraki, advocated a similar opinion, saying that "Theoretically, anyone can publish anything using any language I created, and, in my opinion, neither I nor anyone else should be able to do anything about it."[31]
However, Peterson also expressed concern that the respective rights-holders—regardless of whether or not their ownership of the rights is legitimate—would be likely to sue individuals who publish material in said languages, especially if the author might profit from said material.
Furthermore, comprehensive learning material for such constructed languages asHigh Valyrian and Klingon has been published and made freely accessible on the language-learning platformDuolingo—but those courses are licensed by the respective copyright holders.[31] Because only a few such disputes have occurred thus far, the legal consensus on ownership of languages remains uncertain.
TheTasmanian Aboriginal Centre claims ownership ofpalawa kani, an attempted composite reconstruction of up to a dozen extinct Tasmanian indigenous languages, and has asked Wikipedia to remove its article on the project. However, there is no current legal backing for the claim.[32]
^Leopold Einstein, "Al la historio de la Provoj de Lingvoj Tutmondaj de Leibnitz ĝis la Nuna Tempo", 1884. Reprinted inFundamenta Krestomatio, UEA 1992 [1903].
^abPeterson, David (2015).The Art of Language Invention (1st ed.). Penguin Books. pp. 21–22.ISBN978-0143126461.
^François Rabelais, Œuvres complètes, III, 19 (Paris: Seuil, 1973). Also cited in Claude Piron,Le Défi des Langues (L'Harmattan, 1994)ISBN2-7384-2432-5.
^"My hypothesis was that if I constructed a language designed specifically to provide a more adequate mechanism for expressing women's perceptions, women would (a) embrace it and begin using it, or (b) embrace the idea but not the language, say "Elgin, you've got it all wrong!" and construct some other "women's language" to replace it."Glatzer, Jenna (2007)."Interview With Suzette Haden Elgin". Archived fromthe original on 12 June 2007. Retrieved20 March 2007.
^"Axanar". Language Creation Society. 8 January 2017. Retrieved11 September 2025.April 28, 2016: Yesterday, the Language Creation Society filed anamicus brief (and exhibits) inParamount v. Axanar, to oppose Paramount's claim of owning a copyright in the Klingon language.
