Languoid, Doculect and Glossonym: Formalizing the Notion 'Language'

TLDR

Laypeople and non‑linguistic scholars use names like English or Witotoan informally, but linguists lack a technical apparatus to discuss nuanced differences in the meaning of such names in academic discourse. The authors propose three interrelated concepts—laNguoId, doculEct, and gloSSoNym—to provide a principled basis for discussing different points of view about whether two varieties should be associated with the same language. These concepts enable a precise description of what is being claimed by the use of a given genealogical or areal group name. The framework should be especially useful to researchers working on underdescribed languages where basic classification issues remain unresolved.

Abstract

It is perfectly reasonable for laypeople and non-linguistic scholars to use names for languages without reflecting on the proper definition of the objects referred to by these names. Simply using a name like English or Witotoan suffices as an informal communicative designation for a particular language or a language group. However, for the linguistics community, which is by definition occupied with the details of languages and language variation, it is somewhat bizarre that there does not exist a proper technical apparatus to talk about intricate differences in opinion about the precise sense of a name like English or Witotoan when used in academic discussion. We propose three interrelated concepts—laNguoId, doculEct, and gloSSoNym—which provide a principled basis for discussion of different points of view about key issues, such as whether two varieties should be associated with the same language, and allow for a precise description of what exactly is being claimed by the use of a given genealogical or areal group name. The framework these concepts provide should be especially useful to researchers who work on underdescribed languages where basic issues of classification remain unresolved.