Sztuczne języki wobec mediów społecznościowych

• Authors: Białous, Maciej

Title variants

PL

Artificial languages in social media

Abstracts

EN

The main subject of this article is the condition of artificial languagesin contemporary social media. An analysis of the available statistics of YouTube, Wikipedia and Facebook shows the unwavering position of Esperanto as the most common artificial language. Other artificial languages, primarily auxiliary languages created in the 19th and 20th centuries, such as volapük, ido, novial, interlingua, interlingue, find their niches in social media, but their presence seems to be supported by very narrow groups of enthusiasts. Contemporary artificial language projects, such as lojban or toki pona are in a similar position. Although Internet is the natural environment for their development, they have not managed to gain wider popularity among users. Certainly, artistic languages embedded in well-known popular culture texts find a great resonance among the internauts, as shows the examples of Klingon and Sindarin languages mentioned in the article.

Keywords

EN

Esperanto; artificial languages; social media; subcultural capital

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku
• Journal: Pogranicze. Studia Społeczne
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 32

Dates

published

2018

Contributors

author

Białous, Maciej

References

• Adamiec M. (2005), Formacja intelektualna pokolenia klawiatury, Internetu i SMS-ów, [w:] Język @ multimedia, (red.) A. Dytman-Stasieńko, J. Stasieńko, Wrocław, s. 310-324.
• Adelma M. (2014), Constructed Languages and copyright: A brief history and proposal for divorce, “Harvard Journal of Law & Technology”, t. 27, nr 2, s. 543-562.
• Cunliffe D., Morris D., Prys C. (2013), Young Bilinguals’ Language Behaviour in Social Networking Sites: The Use of Welsh on Facebook, “Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication”, t. 18, s. 339-361.
• Eco U. (2002), W poszukiwaniu języka uniwersalnego, Gdańsk – Warszawa.
• Emrys S., Fink A., Peterson D. (2010), Conlanging 101, https://conlang.org/26c3.pdf, [01.10.2017].
• Kaplan A. M., Haenlein M. (2010), Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, “Business Horizons”, t. 53 (1), s. 59-68.
• Kulczycki E. (2011), Założenia filozoficznych języków apriorycznych, [w:] My w wieży Babel. Między przekleństwem a błogosławieństwem, (red.) M. Cieszkowski, J. Szczepaniak, Bydgoszcz, s. 39-49.
• Panek A. (2016), Język w przestrzeni Internetu, „Przestrzeń Społeczna”, nr 1 (11), s. 1-25.
• Scannell K. (2012), Translating Facebook into Endangered Languages, https://borel.slu.edu/pub/fel12.pdf, [01.10.2017].
• Stria I. (2015), Towards a linguistic worldview for artificial languages, https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/14392/1/PhD_Stria_ArtificialLanguages.pdf, [01.10.2017].
• Thornton S. (1995), Club Cultures: Music, Media and Subcultural Capital, Polity Press.
• Walhgren Y. (2004), Klingon as linguistic capital, https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/1355045, [01.10.2017].
• Żelazny W. (2012) Ludwik Zamenhof: życie i dzieło, recepcja i reminiscencje, wybór pism i listów, Kraków.
• Żytyński J. (1987), Esperanto i esperantyści, Warszawa.
• htpp//www.conlang.org, [01.10.2017].
• htpp//www.frathwiki.com, [01.10.2017].
• htpp//www.jezykotw.webd.pl, [01.10.2017].
• htpp//www.kli.org, [01.10.2017].
• https://pl.wikipedia.org, [01.10.2017].

Identifiers

URI

http://hdl.handle.net/11320/7481

DOI

10.15290/pss.2018.32.11