Can Constructed Languages Improve International Communication? Lessons from Esperanto
by Araina Zulfiqar (Pakistan)
Abstract
The question raised in this paper is whether or not constructed languages facilitate international communication and what Esperanto contributes to this aspect. It considers a brief summary of Esperanto's initial goals, ease of use, and status as a living international language. A concern is debated why Esperanto remains limited globally and how it can help to overcome some of the language barriers? Esperanto is regarded as a prime example of deliberately planned international communication that opens up opportunities for cross-cultural interaction. However, its wider impact depends on social, institutional, and historical factors.
Introduction
As international cooperation has expanded, people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds have increasingly needed to communicate. Diplomacy, research, migration, and humanitarianism involve regular communication in foreign languages and the use of translation and/or interpretation to bridge the gap. These systems not only enable international cooperation but also show how important language is for sharing information and understanding across language barriers. An intriguing question remains: what if a language were purposefully designed to be understood worldwide and could help remove some of those barriers?
This is evident in international organizations, given their scale. The United Nations has six official languages, and interpretation is available at its meetings between these languages. For accurate interpretation and translation, the organization says it is important to communicate accurately on matters of global importance. Interpreters' work also requires them to consider variations in terms, accents, speech speed, and culture (United Nations, n.d.). This does not mean multilingualism should be eliminated. Indeed, the UN considers linguistic diversity a desirable attribute to be maintained. Ignoring the need for interpretation is a fundamental barrier to international cooperation. People must understand each other to negotiate, collaborate, and decide together.
The same problem arises outside the diplomatic rooms. The World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed communication barriers to healthcare access for refugees and migrants in the WHO European Region in 2019. It recognized that interpretation, translation, cultural mediation, and training were effective strategies for overcoming these barriers (World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, 2019). In such instances, communication does not simply facilitate conversation. Communication difficulties with healthcare professionals can affect access to and uptake of health care.
None of this implies that language itself causes international conflicts. Countries can fully comprehend one another and yet disagree over land, resources, security, ideology, or history. Nevertheless, language bridges those differences more easily. For this reason, constructed languages are worth considering minimizing linguistic barriers.
Constructed Languages (conlangs) are languages deliberately developed for a specific purpose. Unlike natural languages, they are consciously designed rather than developing gradually through everyday use. Some are created for fictional stories or artistic expression, while others are intended for practical communication. International auxiliary languages are in the second category. They serve as an additional language through which speakers of different native languages can communicate without replacing their existing languages (Goodall, 2023).
People have tried to develop international auxiliary languages several times. Esperanto is especially relevant for this discussion because international communication was an original purpose of its creation. It has since developed a community of users. Rather than asking whether every constructed language can achieve the same thing, Esperanto gives us a concrete case through which we may examine both the possibilities and the limitations of the idea.
Esperanto emerged in the late 19th century in the multilingual setting of Białystok, where various linguistic and national groups coexisted. Zamenhof (1887) introduced Esperanto as a language he wanted to be accessible to people from various nationalities, without making one language the language for all. He described it as "the common property of the whole world and a means of direct international communication”. Zamenhof considered the language's purpose and design, ease of learning, and practical communication as key goals. He wanted people not only to learn the language but also to use it to communicate with people from different countries (Zamenhof, 1887). This supported Zamenhof's interest in establishing a language that could communicate across linguistic barriers (Schor, 2016).
Esperanto was thus designed with regularity as its main concern. It features a highly systematic grammar, regular spelling and pronunciation, and the prefixes and suffixes to form new and related words from common roots (Zamenhof, 1887). These features may facilitate the language learning, although how easily someone learns a language depends partly on the learner’s prior experience and the existing languages. Nevertheless, the Esperanto’s design suggests that simplicity was not accidental, and it was one of the issues Zamenhof intended to address.
Meanwhile, its history shows that proving something is possible and showing it can work is another. English, being an international language, gained prominence in many aspects of cross-national communication (Crystal, 2003). Its widespread use created a practical need for others to learn it and it played a role in the world as a result of historical, political, economic, scientific, cultural and technological factors. Consequently, English become a common and convenient language that offer opportunities for learning, work, and research.
This is therefore an important clue as to how languages spread, given their limited adoption. While a good language can be easier to learn, design is not the only way to build a global community of users. Other factors responsible for dissemination of a language include its history, social and economic advantages, and its presence in existing institutional frameworks (Crystal, 2003). Limited spread of Esperanto does not necessarily mean that the idea itself was unsuccessful, but rather how challenging it is to a new language to compete with one that has an already established language.
Esperanto was not restricted by a set of rules. People started to use it to communicate by letter, for meetings, literature, cultural exchange, and eventually, for being able to communicate online (Universala Esperanto-Asocio, n.d.). It created original literature and translations, providing speakers with a need to use the language beyond mere practice. Meanwhile, international events enabled people from various nations to come together through a shared language (Universala Esperanto-Asocio, n.d.). Though Esperanto is not quite as common as its founders envisioned, it is a real-life case study in a constructed language being used as a living language.
Better communication does not guarantee an agreement. A common language, while conducive to understanding, will not resolve disagreements over territorial boundaries, political agendas, economic resources, security, historical grievances, or ideology. Nor does understanding someone's words necessarily mean understanding their experiences, intentions, or perspectives. The quality of communication still depends on the people involved and their ability to understand each other. This is a point of interest that must not be overlooked when evaluating Esperanto's potential to prove anything. It is only one case study and not evidence that all constructed languages can change international relations. Esperanto shows how individuals can communicate in a deliberately constructed language and how a viable international community can be built around it. However, its limited adoption attests to this rather than its universal effectiveness.
Perhaps that is the most helpful lesson that Esperanto offers. It does not show that humanity requires a common language, nor that a new language can avert international warfare. What it does demonstrate is that people can consciously communicate across linguistic boundaries. Language can be created with neutrality, accessibility, and international use in mind, and people can choose to build real relationships through it.
It is perhaps a more modest achievement than Zamenhof had envisioned, but also a more attainable one. Constructed languages may not bring people to agreement simply by giving them the same words. They can, however, make it easier for those who might not otherwise be able to communicate. For international understanding, that is not a complete solution, but it is a meaningful place to begin.
Resources:
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999
Goodall, G. (2023). Constructed languages. Annual Review of Linguistics, 9, 419–437. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-030421-064707
Schor, E. (2016). Bridge of words: Esperanto and the dream of a universal language. Metropolitan Books.
United Nations (n.d.). Official languages. https://www.un.org/en/our-work/official-languages
Universala Esperanto-Asocio (n.d.). Esperanto: The international language. https://esperanto.net/en/esperanto-the-international-language/
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (2019). What strategies to address communication barriers for refugees and migrants in health care settings have been implemented and evaluated across the WHO European Region? https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053501
Zamenhof, L. L. (1887). Dr Esperanto's international language: Introduction and complete grammar [English translation].
