Post by Bozur on Apr 21, 2008 7:22:35 GMT -5
Magazine / Multilingualism / Debate | 16/04/2008
Europe's Babel
by Nina Diezemann
Multilingualism is a special feature of the EU, but at the same time it presents an obstacle to understanding. Should Europe agree to use English as a lingua franca or must it promote each individual language?
Following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU now has twenty-three official languages. But if one includes minority and regional languages as well as the numerous dialects, the number of different languages is much greater. Linguist Wolfgang Schulze estimates there are more than 200 languages in Europe.
"Europe's linguistic diversity is... a precious asset," the Spanish daily El País wrote on 4 March 2008. The EU takes a similar view, and in 2007 even appointed an EU Commissioner for Multilingualism, the Romanian Leonard Orban.
But linguistic diversity also creates great difficulties for understanding within Europe. Writing in The Guardian on 18 October 2007, Timothy Garton Ash saw this as an obstacle to the emergence of a European public domain and as aggravating democratic shortcomings with the Union. "The heart of Europe's democracy problem is not Brussels, it's Babel," he wrote. For this reason many people advocate using English as Europe's lingua franca.
Language and identity
But language isn't just part of European identity, it plays a big role in personal identity as well. As the Portuguese Member of the European Parliament Edite Estrella put it in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias on 10 December: "Linguistic policy is a delicate theme that touches sensitive domains: identity and emotions. This signifies that it is easier to reach an agreement on a single currency than on linguistic choices".
Particularly for small countries, having their own language is very important. People assume that countries whose language is one of the EU official languages are taken seriously and have influence in the EU. But the multi-lingual policy is being taken to absurd extremes.
A question of principle
In keeping with this multi-lingual policy Irish, or Gaelic, is one of the EU's official languages. In Ireland itself Gaelic is promoted by the state although it is hardly in everyday use. "Very few Irish speakers go through life without facing levels of comment and abuse", the Irish lecturer Alan Titley lamented on 1 December 2006 in the Irish Times. And Mary Regan reported on 2 January 2008 in the Irish Examiner that only just over half of the Irish Members of the European Parliament use the language at all. Less than 30 minutes of Irish was spoken in the European parliament in its first full year as an official language.
The same goes for Maltese, which also has the status of an EU official language, although the country itself has two official languages: Maltese and English.
A crazy translation policy
One consequence of the EU's policy of multilingualism is the huge amount of money it spends on translation. Although nowadays the proceedings are only translated into all EU languages at major meetings of the Council or of the EU Commission, the members of the European parliament generally give their speeches in their own language. The translation service costs the EU one billion euros a year.
"However that billion euros guarantees the equality of all EU languages only on paper," Vinko Ošlak complained in the Slovenian newspaper Dnevnik on 3 August 2007. "In linguistic reality we have a situation similar to that under the Hapsburg Empire, where German was the dominant language. In the EU English is the dominant language today."
But the very thing Ošlak criticises Paul Geudens regards as positive: "Using English as the working language would be ... much more effective and help to save money," he wrote in the Belgian Gazet van Antwerpen on 7 September 2006, after EU parliamentarian Alexander Stubb presented a report on the translation expenditure of the EU Parliament, Commission and Council.
The dominance of English
But many EU members take a very critical attitude to English as the dominant language, perceiving it as a threat to their own language.
A debate is currently taking place in Sweden about whether Swedish should be promoted more strongly. "In certain circles – particularly among people who are highly educated in the fields of technology, medicine or science – Swedish has been almost completely replaced by English." Sydsvenska Dagbladet commented on 19 March 2008.
The French are traditionally particularly sceptical about the use of English. "In ten years the number of documents of the EU Commission written originally in French has fallen from 40 to 14 percent. Over the same period the number of English-language documents has risen from 45 to 75 percent," the French writer Olivier Poivre d'Arvor complained on 18 March 2008 in the French newspaper Le Figaro. The linguist Bernard Cerquiglini even attributed his fellow countrymen's no vote to the EU Constitution to the declining influence of French in EU institutions: "Most French people find the idea of an English-speaking Europe abhorrent. ... The French distress can be measured by the referendum."
"Broken English"
But agreeing to use English for practical reasons also has an affect on the English language itself. "English lost its character as a language some time ago. Although it is considered a world language, it is merely a means of communication stripped of all cultural and historical substance," Eckhard Fuhr wrote with regret in Die Welt on 1 February 2008.
Like his German colleague, Peter Ehrström also favoured multilingualism over a world language reduced to the basic necessities. He wrote in the Finnish Vasabladet on 23 February 2007: "'Broken English' may be the world's leading language, but this isn't enough. Unlike for members of the majority, for representatives of minorities being able to speak three, four or even five languages is a necessity that is taken for granted."
Several lingua francas
In the larger EU states, the idea is being considered of establishing just a few other languages as lingua francas alongside English. "Politicians will have to come to accept a limited multilingualism," wrote Jutta Limbach, the former president of the Goethe Institute on 3 July 2006 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. Limbach called for those languages to be English, French and German. "Germany and France have a special role to play in preventing a linguistic monoculture."
But proposals of this kind have been very critically received in countries like Italy, for instance. "Italy is in an inferior position, because its politicians have a precarious grasp of foreign languages," wrote Andrea Bonanni on 2 October 2007 in La Repubblica. Bonanni's comment came after the Italian Minister of Justice Clemente Mastella left a meeting of the EU Council because at a working dinner only Portuguese and Slovenian, the languages of the current and the next EU presidency, were being spoken alongside English, French and German.
But bilingualism or multilingualism is not only a problem for Italian politicians, as the Internet magazine cafebabel.com showed in an article on the linguistic abilities of European politicians on 5 March 2008.
And Europe's citizens are no better linguists than its politicians: A Eurobarometer survey revealed that only 56 percent of Europe's citizens can hold a conversation in another language and only 28 percent in two or more foreign languages.
Two languages for every EU citizen
For this reason, the EU wants to promote the learning of foreign languages. At a summit in Barcelona back in 2002, the heads of state and government decided that every EU citizen should have the opportunity to learn two foreign languages as a child. And at the end of 2007 a group of experts commissioned by the EU and led by the French-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf put forward the proposal that every European should "adopt” a third language alongside his or her mother tongue and English. 2008 is the European year of intercultural dialogue; furthermore, in September the EU Commissioner for Multilingualism Leonard Orban wants to present a new strategy for multilingualism.
Nevertheless, promoting a common identity among EU citizens who speak different languages remains a major challenge – as Timothy Garton Ash wrote in his Babel Europe article. Ideally the multilingualism of many EU citizens could help to promote the emergence of a European public sphere just as much as a pragmatic lingua franca. For anyone who learns a foreign language also has to come to grips with a foreign culture. "Linguistic competence, however, is not just a question of practicality," the Tübingen philosopher Otfried Höffe wrote in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 2 January 2006. "It also serves the principle of reciprocal respect – an attitude which is crucial for Europe. Those who learn other languages are showing that they regard other cultures as being on an equal footing with their own, and their knowledge of the language as therefore valuable."
www.eurotopics.net/en/magazin/sprachen-2008-04/debatte-sprachen-2008-04/
Europe's Babel
by Nina Diezemann
Multilingualism is a special feature of the EU, but at the same time it presents an obstacle to understanding. Should Europe agree to use English as a lingua franca or must it promote each individual language?
Following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU now has twenty-three official languages. But if one includes minority and regional languages as well as the numerous dialects, the number of different languages is much greater. Linguist Wolfgang Schulze estimates there are more than 200 languages in Europe.
"Europe's linguistic diversity is... a precious asset," the Spanish daily El País wrote on 4 March 2008. The EU takes a similar view, and in 2007 even appointed an EU Commissioner for Multilingualism, the Romanian Leonard Orban.
But linguistic diversity also creates great difficulties for understanding within Europe. Writing in The Guardian on 18 October 2007, Timothy Garton Ash saw this as an obstacle to the emergence of a European public domain and as aggravating democratic shortcomings with the Union. "The heart of Europe's democracy problem is not Brussels, it's Babel," he wrote. For this reason many people advocate using English as Europe's lingua franca.
Language and identity
But language isn't just part of European identity, it plays a big role in personal identity as well. As the Portuguese Member of the European Parliament Edite Estrella put it in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias on 10 December: "Linguistic policy is a delicate theme that touches sensitive domains: identity and emotions. This signifies that it is easier to reach an agreement on a single currency than on linguistic choices".
Particularly for small countries, having their own language is very important. People assume that countries whose language is one of the EU official languages are taken seriously and have influence in the EU. But the multi-lingual policy is being taken to absurd extremes.
A question of principle
In keeping with this multi-lingual policy Irish, or Gaelic, is one of the EU's official languages. In Ireland itself Gaelic is promoted by the state although it is hardly in everyday use. "Very few Irish speakers go through life without facing levels of comment and abuse", the Irish lecturer Alan Titley lamented on 1 December 2006 in the Irish Times. And Mary Regan reported on 2 January 2008 in the Irish Examiner that only just over half of the Irish Members of the European Parliament use the language at all. Less than 30 minutes of Irish was spoken in the European parliament in its first full year as an official language.
The same goes for Maltese, which also has the status of an EU official language, although the country itself has two official languages: Maltese and English.
A crazy translation policy
One consequence of the EU's policy of multilingualism is the huge amount of money it spends on translation. Although nowadays the proceedings are only translated into all EU languages at major meetings of the Council or of the EU Commission, the members of the European parliament generally give their speeches in their own language. The translation service costs the EU one billion euros a year.
"However that billion euros guarantees the equality of all EU languages only on paper," Vinko Ošlak complained in the Slovenian newspaper Dnevnik on 3 August 2007. "In linguistic reality we have a situation similar to that under the Hapsburg Empire, where German was the dominant language. In the EU English is the dominant language today."
But the very thing Ošlak criticises Paul Geudens regards as positive: "Using English as the working language would be ... much more effective and help to save money," he wrote in the Belgian Gazet van Antwerpen on 7 September 2006, after EU parliamentarian Alexander Stubb presented a report on the translation expenditure of the EU Parliament, Commission and Council.
The dominance of English
But many EU members take a very critical attitude to English as the dominant language, perceiving it as a threat to their own language.
A debate is currently taking place in Sweden about whether Swedish should be promoted more strongly. "In certain circles – particularly among people who are highly educated in the fields of technology, medicine or science – Swedish has been almost completely replaced by English." Sydsvenska Dagbladet commented on 19 March 2008.
The French are traditionally particularly sceptical about the use of English. "In ten years the number of documents of the EU Commission written originally in French has fallen from 40 to 14 percent. Over the same period the number of English-language documents has risen from 45 to 75 percent," the French writer Olivier Poivre d'Arvor complained on 18 March 2008 in the French newspaper Le Figaro. The linguist Bernard Cerquiglini even attributed his fellow countrymen's no vote to the EU Constitution to the declining influence of French in EU institutions: "Most French people find the idea of an English-speaking Europe abhorrent. ... The French distress can be measured by the referendum."
"Broken English"
But agreeing to use English for practical reasons also has an affect on the English language itself. "English lost its character as a language some time ago. Although it is considered a world language, it is merely a means of communication stripped of all cultural and historical substance," Eckhard Fuhr wrote with regret in Die Welt on 1 February 2008.
Like his German colleague, Peter Ehrström also favoured multilingualism over a world language reduced to the basic necessities. He wrote in the Finnish Vasabladet on 23 February 2007: "'Broken English' may be the world's leading language, but this isn't enough. Unlike for members of the majority, for representatives of minorities being able to speak three, four or even five languages is a necessity that is taken for granted."
Several lingua francas
In the larger EU states, the idea is being considered of establishing just a few other languages as lingua francas alongside English. "Politicians will have to come to accept a limited multilingualism," wrote Jutta Limbach, the former president of the Goethe Institute on 3 July 2006 in the Frankfurter Rundschau. Limbach called for those languages to be English, French and German. "Germany and France have a special role to play in preventing a linguistic monoculture."
But proposals of this kind have been very critically received in countries like Italy, for instance. "Italy is in an inferior position, because its politicians have a precarious grasp of foreign languages," wrote Andrea Bonanni on 2 October 2007 in La Repubblica. Bonanni's comment came after the Italian Minister of Justice Clemente Mastella left a meeting of the EU Council because at a working dinner only Portuguese and Slovenian, the languages of the current and the next EU presidency, were being spoken alongside English, French and German.
But bilingualism or multilingualism is not only a problem for Italian politicians, as the Internet magazine cafebabel.com showed in an article on the linguistic abilities of European politicians on 5 March 2008.
And Europe's citizens are no better linguists than its politicians: A Eurobarometer survey revealed that only 56 percent of Europe's citizens can hold a conversation in another language and only 28 percent in two or more foreign languages.
Two languages for every EU citizen
For this reason, the EU wants to promote the learning of foreign languages. At a summit in Barcelona back in 2002, the heads of state and government decided that every EU citizen should have the opportunity to learn two foreign languages as a child. And at the end of 2007 a group of experts commissioned by the EU and led by the French-Lebanese author Amin Maalouf put forward the proposal that every European should "adopt” a third language alongside his or her mother tongue and English. 2008 is the European year of intercultural dialogue; furthermore, in September the EU Commissioner for Multilingualism Leonard Orban wants to present a new strategy for multilingualism.
Nevertheless, promoting a common identity among EU citizens who speak different languages remains a major challenge – as Timothy Garton Ash wrote in his Babel Europe article. Ideally the multilingualism of many EU citizens could help to promote the emergence of a European public sphere just as much as a pragmatic lingua franca. For anyone who learns a foreign language also has to come to grips with a foreign culture. "Linguistic competence, however, is not just a question of practicality," the Tübingen philosopher Otfried Höffe wrote in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung on 2 January 2006. "It also serves the principle of reciprocal respect – an attitude which is crucial for Europe. Those who learn other languages are showing that they regard other cultures as being on an equal footing with their own, and their knowledge of the language as therefore valuable."
www.eurotopics.net/en/magazin/sprachen-2008-04/debatte-sprachen-2008-04/