Kristin
Tytgat, Brussels,Belgium
1. Linguistic diversity of the European Union and inter-ethnic communication
Anyone working daily in or with a European institution is confronted with the fact that he or she has to communicate with persons who do not speak his or her mother tongue. Where no interpreters are available, communication between two or more persons is only possible if one finds a common language. Thus the language problem in the EU is not only a matter of concern of the European institutions, but also a serious obstacle to the citizens of Europe.
The preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity and of equality in inter-ethnic exchanges within the EU, which are always declared as official targets of the Euro
pean integration process, are, in the long run, seriously threatened as a concentration process takes place in inter-ethnic communication in the direction of one or at most two national languages.
This has a direct impact on the education systems and private language learning not only in the Member States of the EU, but also outside it, in contacts with its neighbours and major trading partners.
Those who do not have one of the most frequently spoken languages as their mother tongue experience disadvantages daily, in economic, professional and even private life. A clear trend is evident : the attraction of lesser spoken languages and their cultures is diminishing among neighbouring people, since everyone tends to learn at least some English at school. This gives rise to the idea that it is possible to communicate with a broader group of persons instead of learning the language and culture of one’s neighbour, which in such case, would have limited the communica
tion possibilities.
The de facto use of two or even three working languages means that all those who do not have these languages as their mother tongue suffer two or even three times more discrimination than other people. In the absence of translators and inter
preters, they have to know, speak and write or at least understand not one, but two or three languages besides their mother tongue.
Recent developments in the EU and in Central and Eastern Europe have brought out at least three major arguments why there is an urgent need to think about inter
ethnic communication and the language problem in Europe :
Kristin Tytgat
1.1 The cohesion argument
The economic, social and political cohesion of a community of people depends to a large extent on their readiness to live and work together, and this depends in particular on equal treatment and non-discrimination in daily life between groups having different cultures and languages.
1.2 The enlargement argument
A fundamental principle on which the integration process within the EU is based is the ideal of equal treatment of all members of this community, the respect of their cultures and languages and free, non-discriminatory access to EU decisions in all official languages. The enlargement process within the next decade will put an addi
tional practical strain on this ideal and the maintenance of the principle “diversity within unity”.
It is not long since Europe was divided into two blocks as regards language edu
cation : the education system in Western Europe concentrated on English as the first foreign language at school while the Central and Eastern one was centred on Russian.
Now, a process of concentrating on English can be seen in the Central and Eastern European countries as well.
This tendency towards the monopoly of one national language shows the interna
tional wish for easing the communication problem. However, by choosing one of the national languages, another arises : the fact of social, cultural and language discrimi
nation within a political union. One may have solved the communication problem, but not the language problem, which lies in disadvantages for and discrimination against all those who do not have English as their mother tongue.
1.3 The diversity argument
Concentration on the language of one specific country of the EU constitutes a danger for cultural diversity, because it leads to decreasing use of the other languages of the EU and thereby to diminished possibilities of access to other cultures existing in Europe and elsewhere.
These “challenges” of the language situation in the EU have stimulated a group of persons within the European institutions and the language education sector to think about a long term strategy for dealing with the various aspects of the language problem in the EU and beyond.
As a member of this group I will try to explain to you at the end of this article our options to solve the language problem in Europe.
2. Language problem within the EU institutions
The EU consists of 15 Member States with 11 official languages and a lot of regional languages. Its communication or language problem is increasing every day.
The following major problems have been identified in this context:
a) the communication problem (politicians, experts, staff, etc.) ;
b) the interpretationproblem(qualification and numbers of interpreters, num
ber of language combinations, problem of the “relay” principle, etc.) ;
Section 1. Preparations for European Integration
c) the working language problem (efficiency, discrimination, etc.). Although the system of “official” working languages is used within the institutions only, it has an enormous spin off in general as to the position of the languages and cultures of the EU.
All 11 languages have equal rights, but some are more equal than others. English and French are the languages that predominate in the institutions. German, Italian and Spanish come on the second place which means that Danish, Dutch, Greek, Portuguese, Swedish and Finnish belong to the third category in this ranking order.
Regional and minority languages, not being official languages, are located on the fourth place according to this ranking system.
d) the translation and cost problem (translation capacity, terminology e.g.
legal equivalences).
Officially the language policy of the EU consists of declarations concerning the need for multilingualism, the necessity of preserving cultural and linguistic diversity and equal treatment of official languages but there is an evident dilemma between the practical need for efficiency and democracy in inter-ethnic communication on the one hand and the principle of equal treatment and preservation of cultural and linguistic diversity in the EU on the other.
3. Linguistic diversity in the EU member states
I would like to present here some challenges in the educational field. The EU will continue to support cooperation projects on languages between universities (ERAS
MUS) and school education projects on languages (COMENIUS) within the new SOCRATES action programme for cooperation in the field of education. Adopted on March 14, 1995 and spanning the period until the end of 1999 Socrates is based on the articles 126 and 127 of the Maastricht Treaty of the European Union. Article 126 provides that the EU shall contribute to the development of quality education by means of a range of actions, to be carried out in close cooperation with the Mem
ber States.
Student and Staff Mobility under the previous ERASMUS-LINGUA programmes (action II) have had an extremely positive effect on the quality of language studies in higher education. This was an observation made by several responsible persons in higher education.
3.1 LINGUA or promotion of language learning
To stimulate the teaching and learning of foreign languages the EU had already created the Lingua programme. The first stage started in 1990 and ended in 1994.
In the new action programme Socrates the teaching and learning of languages is again an important issue. Measures of the previous Lingua programme continue and are further developed. Significant new activities are also introduced. The Lingua sec
tion within Socrates addresses all levels and sectors of education, and complements by means of a number of specific actions the measures relating to language learning contained in other sections of Socrates. All the official languages of the EU are cov
ered by Lingua, together with Irish and Letzeburgesh, as well as Icelandic and Nor
wegian. Special priority will be given to the less widely used and less taught languages.
Kristin Tytgat
Lingua provides support for several actions: e.g. my institution will be involved in Action D “Development of instruments of language teaching and the assessment of linguistic competence”. Our priority will be the so called “small languages” in the EU. The objective of this action is to help improve the teaching and learning of small languages by creating innovative teaching materials and methodologies, as well as effective tools for assessing acquired linguistic skills.
3.2 Thematic networks: Sigma
A new initiative of cooperation is launched in Socrates, namely the ThematicNet
works or University CooperationProjectson Subjects ofMutual Interest.
In this respect I can mention the Sigma project of the Scientific Committee on Languages, recently selected as a thematic network. Besides other linguistic aspects Sigma recognizes that multilingualism is an important aspect of the richness of Euro
pean culture. Because language is an expression of peoples’ identity and language is also an expression of power, it is obvious that there is a strong need for clear policies concerning the diversity of languages and cultures in Europe. Multilingualism in Europe is both an expression of its cultural wealth and at the same time a barrier to communication.
In a Sigma work shop the idea of passive multilingualism was suggested: in addition to active foreign language competence receptive or passive competence in foreign languages should be developed. Experience has shown that receptive skills can be acquired within a relatively short period of time, and it would be perfectly feasible to acquire receptive competence in a number of languages. All young Euro
peans should have communicative competence in two languages from two different language groups and receptive competence in a number of languages belonging to these groups, according to participants in the Sigma workshop.
Moreover, research and education in international communication should increase our understanding of cultural behaviours and attitudes in other languages.
Differences in these behaviours and attitudes constitute often invisible barriers to effective communication across cultures. Practical training in intercultural commu
nication is seen among other things as a means of reducing the adverse effects of stereotyping, as a way of facilitating the mobility of human resources and as a prepa
ration for working in international and multicultural environments.
The Sigma Committee stresses also the importance of language teacher train
ing with particular attention to the less widely taught and used languages in the EU.
Further the crucial role of the training of interpretersand translators in the creation of Europe is recognized. There is a special need for more qualified inter
preters and translators in less widely used European languages.
With the selection of Sigma as a thematic network it will be interesting to see what its contribution will be to the language policy in the EU.
In general it seems to me that all these well intended language programmes of the EU can not hide the lack of a coherent and convincing long term strategy concern
ing the communication and language problem. By giving priority to the “small” lan
guages in education programmes the linguistic difficulties will not be solved in Europe.
Section 1. Preparations for European Integration
4. Language options in the EU 4.1 Theoretical options
OptionA: all official EU languages are used.
Advantages', equal treatment and non-discrimination
Disadvantage: it is impossible to acquire a knowledge of all official EU languages.
OptionB: one common language for inter-ethnic communication.
Advantages', rationality and efficiency
Disadvantage: discrimination if the common language is the official language of a Member State. No discrimination if the common language is a neutral and planned language.
Option C: two foreign languages obligatory for everybody: one for assuring equal
ity, efficiency and inter-ethnic communication, being a planned language, and one for guaranteeing cultural and linguistic diversity: this can be a national, regional or minority language.
4.2 The options in practice
Option A (use of all official EU languages) could be for the external relations of the EU.
) tion B (one common neutral language) could be a solution for the internal rela
tions of the EU.
Option C (two foreign languages of which one neutral) could be used in the edu
cational system of the EU.
The option of a neutral language such as e.g. Esperanto is perhaps the only accept
able solution. In the case of Esperanto it is clear that it is the most widely used planned language. Esperanto is relatively easy to learn for speakers of all languages. Every
thing that can be said in a national language can also be expressed in Esperanto.
Esperanto could even be launched as a bridge language for translation and interpre
tation. Moreover, it facilitates the learning of other languages.
5. Conclusion
The conclusion could be put as a question. Perhaps it is difficult to agree with the earlier mentioned options. But one thing is clear: a solution for the language prob
lem should be found in the near future and - as far as I know - the EU is not work
ing on any language policy. So how will tomorrow people communicate in Europe in a democratic, neutral, efficient, clear and correct way ?
References
Sigma project: Scientific Committee on Languages. Final report. Berlin. 1995.
Socrates: the European Community action programme in the field of education. Guidelines for appli
cants. Brussels. 1996.
The communication and the language problem in the European Community. European Parliament.
Brussels. 1993.