Print

Print


Don Harlow said:
>  As far as Gode's help is concerned, I don't think there is any question
>  about that; Andre Martinet refers to "...a detachment of six Romance
>  linguists unconditionally devoted to Gode..." at IALA ("Cosmoglotta" #199
>  [July-August 1957], p. 56). My only point -- and some would consider it
>  purely theoretical -- is that a "Director of Research" should concentrate
>  on research, not engineering, which is a different field entirely.
Stan Mulaik responds:
Let me quote from the 1945 General Report of IALA:

"The International Auxiliary Language Association usually referred to as IALA
... has long been conducting its researches for determining the form of
auxiliary language best fittted to serve as the international medium of
communication for the contemporary world.  As the background for its work IALA
has drawn upon the rich field of experimentation provided by those who have
preceded us in work on the problem of a neutral auxiliary language.  All
their labors have furthered the movement for an auxiliary language. This
movement is stronger than ever today because global war and planning for the
world beyond the war have focused public attention upon the idea of a
common language.

"The auxiliary language movement has already demonstrated that it is possible
to construct from many national languages a single language by means of
which people of different mother tongues can exchange ideas.  No one of the
languages devised to date, however, has proved to be generally acceptable.
Therefore IALA has evolved objective procedures for providing an auxiliary
language that will be so internatinal in substance and in spirit that it
will meet the present situation of political and psychological realities
(p. 9).

So, the aim of these researches was to develop objective procedures for
developing an auxiliary language.   As the report subsequently put it:

"The practical contribution would be the development of a system by which
the impersonal methods of science might be applied more thoroughly than
ever before in determining wht material in the many languages of the world
is sufficiently common to be the basis of standardization for the vocabulary
of an international language. In 1933 the Directors of IALA voted that a
standardization project should be undertaken." (p. 18).

In that same year a Committee for Agreement was established consisting of
Albert Debrunner, Professor of Classical Philology and Indo-European
Linguistics, University of Berne and University of Basle, Chairman; Willem
de Cock Buning, former Trade Commissioner for the Netherlands East Indies;
William E. Collinson, Professor of German and Honorary Lecturer in
Comparative Philology, University of Liverpool; Joseph Vendryes, Dean of the
Faculty of Letters, University of Paris; Nicolaas Van Wijk, Prof.of
Baltic and Slavonic Languages, University of Leiden; and Mrs. Dave H.
Morris, ex-officio.  Mrs. Morris, a Vanderbilt before marriage, was
throughout the driving force and financial benefactrice behind IALA.

"The Committee conceived of the auxiliary language not as altogether as a
new language, but rather as a synthesis based upon existing ethnic and
constructed languages. It specified that the projected language should be
adequate for every kind of international communication and should be easier
to learn than any ethnic language. It also specified that in order to
insure comparative ease of learning, (1) the vocabulary of the language
should be composed of elements and features familiar to the largest
possible number of people with different mother tongues, and (2) the
structure of the language should be characterized by a high degree of
simplicity and regularity. It stipulated that to the fullest extent possible
the language be developed according to a system of procedures so objective
that anyone with adequate linguistic knowledge and capacity could be trained
to apply them."

"The Committee recognized the fact that there have been two schools of
thought in the auxiliary language movement: one, the _naturalistic_,
which emphasizes that an auxiliary language should embody the traditional
patterns of ethnic languages; the other, the _schematic_ which emphasizes
that an auxiliary language should be more logical and regular than any
ethnic language... Since both naturalness and regularity are desirable the
Committeee recommended that experimentation be carried on with both types
of languages, with the end in view of gathering data on which to base a
judgment as to whether an auxiliary language of the more naturalistic
type or one of the more schematic type would serve more satisfactorily as
a medium of international communication."

At Liverpool a grant from the Rockfeller foundation supported initial work
on the standardization project. The Research Corporation also gave an
annual grant "for research to assist in bringing about a neutral, non-
political auxiliary language."

Work went forward in Liverpool in the assembling and organization of
linguistic data until the fall of 1939.  Just before Liverpool was bombed
the linguistic data and library accumulated up to that time was moved to
New York.

In New York a new staff of trained workers of different nationalities was
organized by Mr. Stillman, who directed the work until he entered
Government Service in March, 1943. Dr. Alexander Gode then assumed
direction of the project.

Although the war cut off communication with European members of the
Committee for Agreement, except for Prof. Collinson in England, the plan
of work was so carefully charted by the Committee that it went on in
spite of the war and loss of key figures on the staff.

By 1945 the fundamental work on the standardization project had been
completed.  The system of standardization had been evolved and its methods
applied to the production of a standardized vocabulary for an international
auxiliary language.

The Report then provided only the general outline of the reasoning behind
the development of IALA's system of standardization. "The underlying idea
of IALA's system is that international words already in circulation in
languages actually spoken in the world today are subjected to standardizing
processes to fit them for service in the vocabulary of a neutral auxiliary
language." (p. 21).  What follows is a general outline of these methods,
and they are essentially the same as those described in the Introduction
to the Interlingua-English Dictionary.

"If we find that international words of wide geographical range," the
Report went on to say, "whatever their language of origin, are to be found
in nearly every case in one group of related languages, we can explore the
possibility of using this group as a clearing house for internatinal words.
What languages of our contemporary world promise to provide the richest
sources of international words?"


"Since we are conceiving of an auxiliary language for a global age, it
would be desireable to take from our fund of international words only
those which qualify from both aspects of internationality--namely,
those in the largest number of languages, and those most widely known
through geographical distribution. This conception is not practical,
however, in the present stage of the contacts of languages beause there are
not yet enough international words shared by Oriental and European languages
to provide a large enough vocabulary for an auxiliary language....."

"From the linguistic point of view, the vocabulary of an auxiliary language
should not be a hodgepodge of miscellaneous words which happen to be
international. For practical purposes it should have an aspect of familiarity
to the speakers of as many different national languages as can be represented
in it.

"Is there any method by which we can compile and standardize international
words of both classes so that the auxiliary language vocabulary will be
comprehensible to the largest number of people of different mother tongues?"

"If we find that international words of wide geographical range, whatever
their language of origin, are to be found in nearly every case in one
group of related languages, can we explore the possibility of using this
group as a clearing house for international words. What languages of our
contemporary world promise to provide the richest sources of international
words?"

"The argument that European languages rather than Oriental languages can
furnish the vocabulary of an auxiliary language is supported by nearly all
who have preceded or paralleled IALA in work in the field of interlinguistics.
Notably among them was Professor Jespersen, who, after IALA's Meeting of
Linguistic Research, wrote:

'It would be vain to aim at the real 'world-language' in the sense of one that
should be perfectly impartial to human beings of whatever nationality and
language, for that could be done only... by making the contemplated artificial
language as difficult as possible for everybody. The task of constructing
and even of learning such a languge would be beyond human power.  But the
matter assumes a different aspect as soon as it is recognized that we should
utilize as much as possible any community in linguistic form already existing,
for it turns out that there is nowhere in the world anything that can be
compared with the community existing among West-European nations and their
offshoots in the other parts of the world' (International Communication,
Herbert N. Shenton, Edward Sapir, Otto Jespersen; Kegan Paul, London, 1931,
p. 114).

The report continues: "The Slavic Languages, spoken in Russia, Poland and
the Balkan countries, and the Baltic languges have so far given comparatively
few words to the contemporary fund of internationally current words; but the
Germanic and Slavic ton gues have assimilated many words from the Romance
languages. For example, such important concepts as _politicis_ and
_cooperation_ are expressed in German, Russian, and Polish in words of Romance
origin.:

"In view of these facts, we concluded that English and the Romance languages
together could serve as a clearing house for international words of both
kinds, the native and the naturalized. They qualify for this service both
from the geographic and from the linguistic points of view of interntionality.
As a group of related languages we may call them the Anglo-Romance group."

"The limitation of the sphere of selection of internatinal words to the
Anglo-Romance group of languages makes possible the setting up of a standard
of internationality for determining the _eligibility_ of words for the
auxiliary language vocabulary. It also makes possible setting standards for
the _form_ and the _meaning_ of all eligible interntional words. In these
processes of standardization we can use as _controls_ the Anglo-Romanic
group of languages. In taking this group of languages as our control group,
we may limit our field still further by concentrating on the major Romance
languages. The major Romance languages, due to their wide geographical
distribution, have contributed many more interntional words and absorbed
many mnoe of them than the minor Romance languages--Catalan, Provenc,al,
Romansh, Roumanian. Therefore the minor Romance languages would not be
likely to provide any international words not already to be found in the
major languages of that group. Our system is therefore simplified by
using only the major Romance languages as controls."

Standardization of International Words

"The variants of all international words represented in English and the
major Romance languages show so close a family resemblance tht it is
possible to evolve a neutral or standard form typical of Romance words.
The common denominator or _prototype_, may usually be found by going back
to the nearest common ancestor word from which the variants have developed.
But if the international word has come into existence only in modern times,
a prototype form can nevertheless be determined by applying scientif
imgagination to linguistic knowledge and constructing a form of the same type
as the historical prototypes.

"As a word moves from language to language it sometimes takes on a
secondary or extended meaning peculiar to the language of a given country.
The science of semantics, which has recently attracted much popular attention,
is the branch of linguistics concerned with the meanings of words. In our
modern world where words are 'weapons of war' and can be made the tools of
peace, the meaning of an international word can be a vital matter. Hence
the meanings of international words and the exact definitions of the
standardized international words are a most important aspect of IALA's
linguistic research." pp. 23-28.

The report then discussed research on developing both naturalistic and
schematic forms of the auxiliary language based on the standardized
international vocabulary.  The aim of a naturalistic auxiliary language
is to achieve recognizability of the meanings of the words in contexts of
persons familiar with one or more of the ethnic languages from which the
vocabulary is extracted. "Therefore in the production of a vocabulary of
the naturalistic type the desirability of familiarity of word material is
given primary importance. The desirability of regularity of word-formation,
spelling, and pronunciation, though not disregarded,  is considered to be
of secondary importance". p. 30.

The schematic type of language stresses regularity of word-formation,
spelling and pronunciation is given primary importance.

"The method used in producing a vocabulary of the schematic type centers
on the deliberate establishment of a system of regular word-formation.
Such a system includes a set of standardized affixes, that is, suffixes
and prefixes, and rules for using them. The vocabulary is organized into
groups of words of closely related meaning, each group headed by a base
word, that is, a word which does not itself contain any of the standardized
affixes, and which can be used as the base from which derivatives can be
formed to cover the meanings of the other words of the group. Such groups
may be referred to as "schematic groups".  As a result of the organization
of the vocabulary into schematic groups of words, it can be fairly said
that, if one knows the standardized affixes and the rules of word-formation,
whenever one learns a base word, one also learns all of its derivatives
in their general meanings.  Users of the pioneer constructed languages of
the schematic type, such as Esperanto and Ido, have often commented on
how greatly the feature of regular word-formation economizes the effort
of learning a language of that type and also contributes to freedom and
facility in the active use of the language." p. 30-31.

"IALA's system as a whole includes: (1) Certain basic procedures which are
fundamental to the deveopment of any vocabulary by means of the system,
whether such vocabulary be of the naturalistic or schematic type, and
(2) procedures which can be used for modifying the naturalistic  vocabulary
produced by the basic procedures."

I might point out here that development of the basic, standardized
international vocabulary preceded development of either the naturalistic
versions or the schematic versions of the international auxiliary language.
So, Dr. Gode was doing research required by the standardization project
in developing first methods for objectively identifying international
words, then of standardizing them, and then actually carrying out the
project of establishing such a vocabulary.  Everything that Dr. Gode was
doing in his part time work during the war as Director of Research, was
well within the guidelines laid down for him by the Committee for Agreement.
There is no basis for thinking that Dr. Gode was doing everything on his
own, or that the direction he was leading the research was being done without
the approval of responsible members of IALA. His approach reflected the
general approach other professional linguists interested in interlinguistics
in his time were recommending. And the quote of Prof. Martinet, obtained
by the two French Interlinguans who visited him and recorded his comments,
is that the language produced and now visible in the _Panorama_ publication
as an example of Interlingua is essentially like what he had in mind as well.
It is also important now for everyone to realize that Prof. Martinet did not
leave IALA because of major disagreements with the way Gode had structured
the project, but simply because he got a better career offer at a world
class university in the United States. You are an academic linguist. Which
would be better for your career? Work on an "engineering" project in an
off-beat topic of linguistics, or work in a prestigious university with
a promising future in academia?  Gode in the meantime was working fulltime
as an Editor of Reference Works. When Martinet suddenly left, that put
Mrs. Morris in a quandry.  How would her beloved life's work be completed,
now that it was so close to being finished?  She went to Gode to see if
he would take over and finish the work he had supervised?  Well, he had
just received a very good offer at a prestigious Southern University
(Vanderbilt, I believe he told me) and was about to accept.  She would
have to make it worth his while and also (knowing how she tended to interfere)
allow him freedom to carry out the work without interference (I suspect this
was part of the bargain). So, that's my reconstruction of what happened.
It is also important to understand that in publishing the Interlingua-
English Dictionary, no mention is made of a grammar to use the vocabulary.
This is in keeping with the idea that the standardization project, which
culminates in the Dictionary, is preliminary to whatever form the
auxiliary language would take. He even suggests that he hopes other
auxiliary language inventors will look upon the dictionary as a primary
source for vocabulary as well as methods for expanding the vocabulary.
The Grammar with Blair is published separately as a recommended grammar
for use of the vocabulary.  The grammar also fulfills even some of the
schematic aims of other language constructors, because it is complete with
a long list of affixes and explanations of them, for use in not only
word formation, but in analyzing and understanding extant words in the
international vocabulary, for these have been carefully standardized in
derivational series in the IED that maintain the regular patterns of
derivation. There is a beautiful schema of word formation in the vocabulary
of the Interlingua-English Dictionary. It is much more regular than you
will find in the ethnic languages on which Interlingua is based.
Most speakers of the Angloromance language group will recognize this
schema of affixes as something familiar from their own languages, because
this schema of affixes is itself a grand prototype extracted from these
languages. But if you were teaching people who do not speak an Angloromance
language Interlingua vocabulary, you could point out how the system of
affixes works to help them understand the words derived from root words
in the derivational series. And the advantage to those who learn Interlingua
is that they can generalize this schema to helping them decipher words
in the ethnic languages of the AngloRomance group as well.  (Many words
absorbed in the Germanic and Slavic languages from the Angloromance group
also display aspects of this series, so it should not be totally unfamiliar
to speakers of these other languages).

But again I close to stress that it is unfair and unfounded to characterize
Gode as somehow acting on his own, out of touch with other linguists
involved with IALA. Or that he was not doing what his job was
supposed to do.

Stan Mulaik