Abstract
Introductory linguistics courses are a common component of general education curricula at many institutions of higher education, reaching tens of thousands of students with diverse backgrounds and interests. Such courses provide a great opportunity for linguists to convey the field’s message and its values to a wider audience. We propose that it is possible to increase the public outreach of such courses by engaging not only the students in the course, but also the campus community at large. In this paper, we report on using constructed languages (conlangs) as a tool to help students understand course materials via active learning as well as present linguistic research to the wider community of college campuses.
Appendix 1: Conlang criteria and resources
The criteria and resources provided to the students are as follows:
Your poster must include the following:
Names of the authors
Statement of author contribution: For each member of the group you should state what they helped with. This could be something like “Abe helped with the phonology of the language; Bob helped with creating the syntax; …” All members should have contributed to the linguistic aspects of language creation to some degree.
Linguistically, your conlang must satisfy the following criteria:
General criteria (Hockett design features)
Have duality of patterning
Have arbitrariness
Have discreteness
Have semanticity
Phonetic criteria
Create a chart or list sounds/forms (consonants and vowels) of the language
Which places and manners of articulation does your consonant inventory use?
Are consonant pairs asymmetrical in voicing? (only voiced or voiceless)
Phonological criteria
Follow the sonority hierarchy or develop such a hierarchy for syllables
Have at least one phonological rule and its environment
Have at least one example of allophonic variation
Have at least one phonotactic constraint
Have a list of allowed syllable structures
Have at least one meaningful suprasegmental feature
For example, is the language tonal? Does it distinguish consonant and/or vowel length?
Morphological criteria
Decide whether the language is agglutinative, polysynthetic, fusional, isolating, …
Have at least three inflectional and derivational morphemes (if not isolating)
Do nouns inflect for plural and/or possession?
Do verbs inflect for tense? (see agreement in syntactic criteria)
Decide on the order of morphemes, if there is more than one attached to the root
Syntactic criteria
Have at least one intransitive, one transitive, and one ditransitive sentence
Distinguish arguments of the verbs
Free/fixed word order? Case marking? Agreement (number, person, gender, etc.)?
Have the context-free phrase-structure grammar of the language
Have an example tree of one sentence
Semantic and pragmatic criteria
Differentiating the speech acts of questions, statements, and commands
Have at least one proper name
Have at least one common noun
Have at least one utterance with truth conditions
Have the ability to communicate tense: past, present, future
Have the ability to talk about a definite or indefinite entity
Sociolinguistic criteria
Name and describe at least two dialects/varieties of the language and explain at least two linguistic features which distinguish them from each other. When/where are these varieties used? Who speaks them in which contexts?
Explain how at least two demographic/identity factors (gender, region, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, age, etc.) are tied to variation in linguistic performance (phonological, morphosyntactic, lexical variables)
Minimum sentences to translate
‘The sun is rising.’
‘Eat the bread!’
‘Give her the ball!’
‘She threw the stick at me.’
‘The dogs slept.’
‘I will drink some water.’
‘Is he swimming?’
‘Get up!’
‘The dog barked at me.’
‘The dog bit the man.’
‘The man bit the dog.’
‘The boy was given a gift.’
‘He made me eat the cake.’
‘Please help me with the bags.’
‘Where is she going?’
‘She threw the ball to me in the park.’
External resources:
Peterson Google Talk “Create a language in 1 h”: https://youtu.be/StcSHmBZj2k
Appendix 2: Conlang poster rubric
The rubric used to grade each poster presentation given to the students is as follows:
Linguistic criteria: 20 points total
Score of 0 to 5 points: Poor
Students’ explanations of linguistic structure are unacceptable, one or more subareas may be completely unaddressed by the content on the poster, it is clear that students neither understood the assignment nor clearly grasped the concepts covered in the course, required sentences are either entirely absent or only partially provided.
Score of 6 to 10 points: Needs improvement.
Students fail to sufficiently explain all levels of linguistic structure in their constructed language, one area may not be mentioned by the poster, some elements of the constructed language might suggest that students did not understand some of the core concepts that were covered by the course, some required sentences may not be translated, or glosses not included.
Score of 11 to 15 points: Satisfactory
Students sufficiently explain all levels of linguistic structure, some logical flaws may be noticed at one or more levels of structure, but none critically affect the language as a whole, all required sentences are provided, but glosses may be missing.
Score of 16 to 20: Excellent
Students excel at explaining all levels of linguistic structure in their constructed language and the project clearly shows deep engagement with the course material, all levels of the language fit together logically, all sentences are translated, and glosses are provided for each.
Poster design: 5 points total
Score of 0 to 2 points: Poor
Students either do not have a poster or there is little required information provided on the poster.
Score of 3 to 4 points: Satisfactory
Poster may have some issues with design and some required information may be left out.
Score of 5 points: Excellent
Poster is well designed and clearly explains all required criteria for the assignment.
Presentation skills: 5 points total
Score of 0 to 2 points: Poor
Students are not able to answer basic questions about the structure of their language or do not attempt to explain features, students may clearly struggle with presenting.
Score of 3 to 4 points: Satisfactory
While some students may speak more than others, group members share the role of presenter somewhat equally and are able to answer most questions about their language. Some issues associated with nervousness may affect overall presentation, but do not distract from overall presentation.
Score of 5 points: Excellent
Group members share the role of presenter evenly and respond quickly and thoughtfully to questions demonstrating not only an in-depth knowledge of course material, but also how it applies to their own constructed language.
References
Bonwell, Charles C. & James A. Eison. 1991. Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report no. 1). Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.Search in Google Scholar
Freeman, Scott, Sarah L. Eddy, Miles McDonough, Michelle K. Smith, Nnadozie Okoroafor, Hannah Jordt & Mary Pat Wenderoth. 2014. Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111. 0–8415. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319030111.Search in Google Scholar
Peterson, David. 2015. The art of language creation. New York: Penguin Random House.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Introduction to the special collection on public outreach in linguistics
- To go big, we have to go home: building foundations for the future of community-engaged and public-facing research in linguistics
- Towards a theory of linguistic curiosity: applying linguistic frameworks to lingcomm and scicomm
- Linguistic discrimination and diversity: the pivotal role of linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania’s writing program
- Using constructed languages to introduce and teach linguistics
- “Science is in everything, whether we realize it or not”: using the IPA to encourage interest in the scientific study of language
- Bridging linguistics and high school students: the example of Noorlingvistide keeleklubi in Estonia
- The Linguistics Roadshow
- The Language Science Station at Planet Word: a language research and engagement laboratory at a language museum
- The moving project: exploring language, migration, and identity using participatory podcasting during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Talk about testimony: courtroom dialogue as racialized interactions
- Language science outreach through schools and social media: critical considerations
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Introduction to the special collection on public outreach in linguistics
- To go big, we have to go home: building foundations for the future of community-engaged and public-facing research in linguistics
- Towards a theory of linguistic curiosity: applying linguistic frameworks to lingcomm and scicomm
- Linguistic discrimination and diversity: the pivotal role of linguistics in the University of Pennsylvania’s writing program
- Using constructed languages to introduce and teach linguistics
- “Science is in everything, whether we realize it or not”: using the IPA to encourage interest in the scientific study of language
- Bridging linguistics and high school students: the example of Noorlingvistide keeleklubi in Estonia
- The Linguistics Roadshow
- The Language Science Station at Planet Word: a language research and engagement laboratory at a language museum
- The moving project: exploring language, migration, and identity using participatory podcasting during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Talk about testimony: courtroom dialogue as racialized interactions
- Language science outreach through schools and social media: critical considerations