Quote of the day

It will be interesting to see exactly which customs the Vatican is going to allow from the past rich five centuries of Anglican worship, life and thought.

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

Demotix witness*upload*share

Navigation


View 12 comments

Which language for Europe?

Daniele Archibugi, 10 - 06 - 2009

Can the multiplicity of languages explain the low interest of the European people for the European Parliament? Would a single official language increase the relevance of the European Parliament?


More than half of Europe's citizens did not vote in the elections for the European Parliament, but the institution faces more challenges than those of credibility. One of the great challeges faced by the Parliament is the number of languages it uses: after the admission of Bulgaria and Romania these now total 23, practically one per European state. Etymologically, the word Parliament derives from a word actually meaning "speaking", but if the members of Parliament speak 23 different languages, what kind of Parliament can this be?

The European Parliament is not the only one to use several languages: the Belgian parliament, for instance, has two and the Swiss use four. However the MPs of these individual countries are able to understand one another without the need for interpreters. (Despite its tremendous linguistic diversity, India's parliament has only two official procedural languages - English and Hindi. If they feel unable to address the assembly in either of the two languages, members are allowed to speak in any of the country's nearly two dozen languages, with translation provided.) This is not so in the European Parliament: the work of the Assembly and the Committees entail the MPs being assisted by a team of interpreters. The possible language combinations have increased with the growing number of languages. You need a calculator to work out how many they are - 23*22 - a total of 506!  This requires the help of 403 full time interpreters and several thousand external collaborators so that Euro MPs can speak and listen in their own language.

It is no easy task, even for the European Parliament, to find translators from Finnish to Greek, or from Portuguese to Bulgarian. However, Eurocracy is ingenious, and to reduce costs it uses double translation: those who speak less widely known languages are first translated into the principal languages (English, French or German) and then retranslated into all the other less common languages. One wonders how much the substance of the MPs speeches is altered by the second or third translation.

Woe betide anyone trying to include a truly amusing joke in a parliamentary speech: it is nothing like the British House of Commons where the quips and the responses make the parliamentary debates more lively than a stage play. If an unwary MP cracks a joke in the European Parliament you first hear the roar of laughter of those following the speech in the original language and then one after the other of those listening in the first, second and umpteenth translation. However, the linguistic machine manages to work: the Parliament has only 403 interpreters, even if they are also helped by several thousand external collaborators; no one is prevented from speaking and listening in their own language.

But not even 23 official languages are enough to keep everyone happy. The linguistic minorities are also demanding to be able to use their own language. Among the more insistent are the Catalans, on the grounds that they alone make up nearly 10 million Europeans, practically twice as many as the Danes and Finns, four times more than the Slovenes and 25 times more than the Maltese. Similar demands are made by the Basques and the Corsicans. And then what about the approximately thirty million "third-country citizens" living in Europe and who speak all the languages of the planet?

It seems impossible that all these demands can be met. Some are now calling for the number of official languages to be reduced, or indeed to raise English to the status of sole official language of the Parliament. But to formally accord this privilege to the language of two states could lead to resentment being felt in all the other states. To tell the truth, even Ireland must be a little skeptical; it demanded successfully that Gaelic should become an official language. If we account that only a few Irish are able to understand and even fewer to speak Gaelic, it is clear that language policy, in this instance, has been used as an instrument of identity rather than of communication (for a further discussion of language and identity in the EU, see Patrizia Nanz, Europolis. Constitutional Patriotism Beyond the Nation State, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2007; and Peter A. Kraus, A Union of Diversity. Language, Identity and Polity-Building in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

But a lingua franca is desperately needed. The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, has suggested reviving Latin , an idea that would place all the MPs in a condition of equality (and certainly of similar difficulty), although Latin would further alienate the people from European institutions.

Will English become the single official language of the European Parliament, defeating its many diplomatic resisters? After all, English is already the most popular second language in the world as well as in Europe (see Eurobarometer, Europeans and their Languages, February 2006). But it is one thing to use English in business, tourism and education, and quite another to grant a special political privilege to the language of one of the 27 member countries. To ask the Euro MPs to speak a foreign language would enormously restrict the number of those eligible for election. There would be a risk of creating an assembly of technocrats that is distant from the people's needs. And certainly it does not help that English is also the language of an EU member state with a large density of euro-skeptics and which has not adopted the European currency.

But the march of English as lingua franca is difficult to stop. Even in the Swiss Parliament it is increasingly common to hear MPs of the French and German cantons communicating in English.

Perhaps the European Parliament should try to be part of the solution rather than of the problem. If all European students would study English as a second language, then in a couple of generations, both the MPs and their electorate would finally be able to understand each other. This might well be the most far-sighted measure to propose to the new European Parliament to bring back to the European polls at least some of those who stayed at home.

Average rating
(4 votes)
 
This article is published by Daniele Archibugi, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it without needing further permission, with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. These rules apply to one-off or infrequent use. For all re-print, syndication and educational use please see read our republishing guidelines or contact us. Some articles on this site are published under different terms. No images on the site or in articles may be re-used without permission unless specifically licensed under Creative Commons.
This article adheres to the openDemocracy.net principles.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Istvan Ertl said:



Sun, 2009-09-06 19:16

Real multilinguism might even be (or already is starting to be) a major economic incentive in Europe. Why should we always consider the presence of translators and interpreters as a handicap? Assuring that people can use their own languages and nevertheless understand each other can create workplaces while Europe specialises in managing multilingualism.

We do not need ONE lingua franca,neither English nor Esperanto. Both are useful when put to good use, but Babel is better.

Best

Istvan Ertl

 

 

Penelope Vos (not verified) said:



Sat, 2009-08-29 08:34

English speakers in Europe can either push for EVERYONE ELSE to spend 400-2000 hours learning English (depending on the language(s) they start with)
or they could show a little respect and offer to spend 100 hours learning Esperanto so that everyone can participate on an equal basis.
Children in all European countries could learn it to fluency before the end of primary school, leaving everyone free to choose other languages or not in high school.
Leaders of Brazil, Russia, India and China, met with the President of the Universal Esperanto Association this month. Afterwards the president of Brazil made the statement "We very much desire, in fact, that one day Esperanto be accepted by most countries as a language adopted to facilitate communication without linguistic privilege.(...)we agree about the value of the language promoted by your association.

jllortega said:



Tue, 2009-08-25 11:04

If we defend the use of language as a means of keeping or creating a collective identity, how do we intend to create an European identity without a common language? 

Defending the use of every possible language in the European institutions has so far kept subEuropean nationalists content, and has failed to raise European identity. It seems clear that there is no project for creating an European identity, but that there is one for avoiding its emergence, and it implies keeping Europe from acquiring a common language. 

I believe it is time to achieve a better balance and start working for a common language, which can only be English. I would make little sense to tell millions of Europeans that their efforts (time and money) to learn English will be rendered useless because some other language, Latin or Esperanto has been selected. And it would be rather  ridiculous to make them learn another language for communicating within the European Union when the world is progressing towards English.

Europe is not the center of the world and can't get out of a clear world wide trend.

Ian Press said:



Mon, 2009-07-06 16:39

The many languages of Europe is a fact, and anything which would further discourage native speakers of English from learning other languages is regrettable. The ubiquity of English is already discouraging enough. Multilingualism within individuals is itself a majority phenomenon world-wide. The situation as it is seems admirable to me, and further encouragement of so far unrecognized languages is desirable. It will increase communities' commitment to Europe and bond different linguistic communities rather than separate them, enhancing mutual respect. Time will tell, we have so little control over how linguistic matters emerge; political interference in national linguistic variety has in the past often been catastrophic, and if I were ever to permit myself to interfere, I would support multilingualism – in the case of 'weaker' languages that might ultimately be futile, but I would still do it. And it is marvellous that Irish is a fully recognized language of the EU.

Michael Fuchs said:



Thu, 2009-07-02 13:44

The writer draws a hilarious conclusion:

People did not go to the polls because, in the European Parliament, their MEPs must use their own language and they can't use English. You can't be serious! Why, then, did many British and Irish voters stay at home? Are they bored with using good old English all the time?

                                   

There is no rule that anyone has to use any particular language in the European Parliament. Some MEPs regularly or occasionally speak a foreign language instead of their mother tongue, even some British MEPs. The writer's claim that a "lingua franca is desperately needed" and even that it should be made compulsory is rather thinly veiled chauvinism. Go ask people in, say, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland or France whether they really are desperate to get rid of their national language(s), cultures and identities when communicating and working together in Europe. Listen to any one of the busloads of visitors to the European Parliament every week and you will be told that they are happy to witness the fact that their language is officially used and, thanks to highly trained and experienced interpreters and translators, understood.

 

I agree that when the Irish insisted on having Gaelic recognised in the EU it was an "instrument of identity rather than communication". Don't you think the same applies to every nation, language and cultural heritage currently represented in the EU? One of the outstanding achievements of the EU is that there is no contradiction of instruments of identity and communication in Europe.

Michael2009 (not verified) said:



Thu, 2009-07-02 09:18

The writer draws a hilarious conclusion:
People did not go to the polls because, in the European Parliament, their MEPs must use their own language and they can't use English. Why, then, did many British and Irish voters stay at home? Are they bored with using good old English all the time?

There is no rule that anyone has to use any particular language in the European Parliament. Some MEPs regularly or occasionally speak a foreign language instead of their mother tongue, even some British MEPs. The writer's claim that a "lingua franca is desperately needed" and even that it should be made compulsory is rather thinly veiled chauvinism. Go ask people in, say, Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland or France whether they really are desperate to get rid of their national language(s), cultures and identities when communicating and working together in Europe. Listen to any one of the busloads of visitors to the European Parliament every week and you will be told that they are happy to witness the fact that their language is officially used and, thanks to highly trained and experienced interpreters and translators, understood.

I agree that when the Irish insisted on having Gaelic recognised in the EU it was an "instrument of identity rather than communication". Don't you think the same applies to every nation, language and cultural heritage currently represented in the EU? One of the outstanding achievements of the EU is that there is no contradiction of instruments of identity and communication in Europe.

George J.Tauchman (not verified) said:



Sat, 2009-06-20 17:30

English is be the common language worldwide (70% if all contents of the internet, pop music, sports, business, international schools, international churches and so on) Europeans should accept it and stop the noncence with XY oficiall languages. Otherwise the English speaking countries and English speaking China and India will overtake faster then nowardays. After Europeans accepted English as a common SECOND LANGUAGE, they will be more chances to progress their economy through the knowledges of different THIRD LANGUAGES. Those communities who are speaking a SECOND and a THIRD LANGUAGE, will be more successful then those who are speaking ENGLISH ONLY. Success is MULTILINGUAL. Therefore: join En101 movement. Learn languages ONLINE - visit: www.1world1voice@en101.com
PS: We are offering an business opportunity as a En101 representatives / directors ; more informations:www.1vorld1voice.en101.biz // or contact us: 1world1voice@en101.com // Sincerely, George J.Tauchman, En101 Director, Czech Republic, EU (English, German, Czech, Slovak speaking) and Aileen Olegario-Tauchmanova, En101 representative (English, Tagalog, Portughese, Spanish speaking)

Stefano Keller said:



Wed, 2009-06-17 01:03

Dr. Robert Phillipson about European Union language policy

Let me suggest some books written by Dr. Robert Phillipson:

"English-only Europe? Challenging language policy"

"Linguistic Imperialism Continued"

Forthcoming publication (July 2009):
"Social Justice Through Multilingual Education"
Edited by: Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, Robert Phillipson, Ajit K. Mohanty

neil_nachum said:



Sun, 2009-06-14 00:02

 This is a good article on the language problems of Europe.  It remains an unsolved problem. I recomend a neutral language as a second language-a planned for this purpose-with a movement for peace behind it, as the missing element.  While there are thousands of people writing on this subject I'll refer you to my own blog on the subject: www.EsperantoFriends.blogspot.com   

or the US website: www.esperanto-usa.org

I am an activist for Esperanto in New York City for over 20 years and have lived abroad for a total of 16 years, mostly in Israel and Brazil (where I became conversant in Hebrew, Arabic and Portuguese). I lived in the two countries twelve years combined  and  4 years in 30 other countries.  Many thousands of activists for Esperanto surround the world.

Few people can master a foreign language without years of expensive study and a decade with native speakers.

 

Brian Barker (not verified) said:



Sat, 2009-06-13 20:58

Apparently Barack Obama is not even pushing English now as the international language.

I see he wants everyone to learn a foreign language, but which one should it be?

The British learn French, the Australians study Japanese, and the Americans prefer Spanish. Yet this leaves Mandarin Chinese. Hindi and Arabic out of the equation.

I agree it's time to move forward and teach a common neutral non-national language, in all countries, in all schools, worldwide?

An interesting video can be seen at http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_YHALnLV9XU Professor Piron was a translator with the United Nations in Geneva.

The argument for Esperanto can be seen at http://www.lernu.net

Dejo (not verified) said:



Sat, 2009-06-13 18:02

Interesting that L'Osservatore Romano should propose Latin when cardinals themselves are incapable of communicating in Latin among themselves. See Ulrich Mathias "Esperanto the new Latin of the Church".
http://books.google.ca/books?id=bSghSZV054UC&dq=Ulrich+Mathias+Esperanto&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=reBIjOTv1o&sig=gsfAi46wtpGiINUO00heaa0tM_w&hl=en&ei=QOYzSrSYJIHQMtWfyfYJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

AnneBoleyn said:



Fri, 2009-06-12 13:40

Very interesting to hear how difficult it is for our EMPs to understand each other. But I doubt that if all of them would speak in English the turn out will be higher. More than half of the citizens have not bothered to vote because it is unclear what the European Parliament can give back to citizens.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img> <map>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options