Is absolute multilingualism maintainable? The language policy of the European Parliament and the

106 Pages·2011·0.72 MB·English

Ghent University
Faculty of Arts and Philosophy

Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament
and the threat of English as a lingua franca
Supervisor: Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the
Dr. Katrijn Maryns requirements for the degree of “Master in
de Taal- en Letterkunde: Nederlands - Engels”
by Caroline Bogaert
2010- 2011
Preface
For two years, I have been able to immerse myself in the language systems of the European
institutions. Although I knew very little about the institutions and their functioning at first, I
am happy that, because of this final dissertation, I have now gained in-depth knowledge in
what appears to be an effervescent and almost magical secluded world. What might seem a
dull and bureaucratic system, is actually a well-oiled machine that, without a doubt, is one of
the world’s most powerful democracies.
How this grand system employing thousands of citizens from different cultural and linguistic
backgrounds can function so effectively, gained my interest and compelled me to investigate
this matter.The results of my research can be read below. The critique on Europe’s
multilingual system will never fade, but that does not mean that it should be forgotten what
tremendous results this language regime has yielded in the past, and will keep doing so in the
future.
Writing a final dissertation has not always been an easy process and in that respect, it goes
without saying that I would like to thank a few people who have helped me along the way.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Maryns, who helped me explore
this topic from different angles and who was always available to provide me with constructive
criticism. Also, I owe much gratitude to each of my interviewees and the other practitioners
who have shared their opinions on this topic with me: Mr. Coolegem, Mr. de Corte, Ms.
Mamadouh, Ms. Pitt, Mr. Richter and Mr. Wooding. It is self-evident that without the help of
the seven people mentioned above, I would not have been able to write this thesis.
Lastly, I would also like to thank Geert Bogaert, Martine Declercq, Tina Bogaert, Godelieve
De Latte and Kevin De Pril for their continuous support.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.........................................................................................................................1
1.1 Importance and purpose....................................................................................................1
1.2 Research questions............................................................................................................1
1.3 Outline and methodology..................................................................................................2
1.4 Main sources and preliminary research............................................................................3
2. The language system of the European Union.....................................................................4
2.1 The global language system of the EU.............................................................................4
2.2 Current language regime of the European Parliament......................................................7
2.2.1 The European Parliament: sui generis?......................................................................7
2.2.2 Institutional framework for the European language policy: an overview..................9
2.2.2.1 Regulation 1/58.......................................................................................................9
2.2.2.2 Criticism on Regulation 1/58................................................................................10
2.2.2.3 Controlled full multilingualism – the Podestà report............................................10
2.2.2.4 Controlled full multilingualism in the Code of Conduct......................................11
2.2.3 DG Interpretation and DG Translation: units that guarantee multilingualism........11
2.2.3.1 Directorate-General Interpretation........................................................................11
2.2.3.2 Directorate-General Translation...........................................................................13
2.3 Future enlargements........................................................................................................14
2.3.1 Turkey......................................................................................................................15
2.3.2 Croatia......................................................................................................................16
2.3.3 The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia........................................................17
2.3.4 Iceland......................................................................................................................18
2.3.5 Montenegro..............................................................................................................19
3. The use of English in the EU............................................................................................21
3.1 English as a lingua franca...............................................................................................21
3.1.1 Figures......................................................................................................................22
3.1.2 Competing languages as a lingua franca..................................................................24
3.1.3 Consequences...........................................................................................................25
3.2 In the Union....................................................................................................................27
i
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
3.2.1 Figures......................................................................................................................27
3.2.2 Competing languages as a lingua franca..................................................................28
3.2.3 Why English?...........................................................................................................29
3.2.4 Consequences...........................................................................................................29
3.3 Artificial languages as a lingua franca............................................................................30
4. Literature study: theoretical perspective...........................................................................32
4.1 Current debate: “The more languages, the more English” (de Swaan 2001).................33
4.2 Acknowledgement of the problem..................................................................................35
4.2.1 The Union does not take the problem seriously.......................................................35
4.2.2 Problems will arise in the future..............................................................................36
4.2.3 Lack of clear language policy..................................................................................36
4.3 Solutions offered.............................................................................................................37
4.3.1 Review of the multilingualism-system....................................................................37
4.3.2 One single working language...................................................................................37
4.3.3 Limited number of working languages....................................................................38
4.4 Is the debate exaggerated?..............................................................................................39
4.4.1 Acknowledgement of the problem...........................................................................39
4.4.2 Solutions..................................................................................................................41
4.4.3 English or an international auxiliary language as a lingua franca...........................42
4.4.4 Conclusion...............................................................................................................43
5. Interview data: the gap between theory and practice........................................................44
5.1 The context of the interviews..........................................................................................44
5.2 Acknowledgement of the problem..................................................................................45
5.3 Solutions.........................................................................................................................46
5.4 English or an international auxiliary language as a lingua franca..................................48
5.5 Future perspectives.........................................................................................................49
5.6 Conclusion......................................................................................................................50
6. Discussion: future developments......................................................................................53
6.1 Different working languages...........................................................................................53
6.2 English as a lingua franca...............................................................................................54
ii
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
6.3 Maintenance of controlled full multilingualism.............................................................55
6.4 The European Union will further develop its diglossic language situation....................56
7. Concluding remarks..........................................................................................................59
8. Bibliography.....................................................................................................................64
9. Appendices........................................................................................................................69
9.1 Interview with the head of the Directorate-General of translation.................................69
9.2 Interview with the head of Unit for Multilingualism......................................................72
9.3 Interview with the head of the Directorate Interpretation...............................................81
9.4 Interview with a translator and a former interpreter.......................................................85
9.5 Interview with a scholar who specialises in these matters..............................................89
9.6 Written document: Basic information on interpreting in the EP....................................98
iii
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
1. Introduction
1.1 Importance and purpose
Multilingualism and the rise of English in European institutions is a widely debated topic.
Whereas in academic circles it is argued that the quality of both the interpretation and the
translation system has reached its limits, this statement is denied by practitioners from inside
the system. However, with the upcoming enlargements and no clear boundary to the amount
of countries that might join the Union in the future, the question of how the Parliament copes
with these concerns, presents itself. Can the Parliament maintain its language regime of full
multilingualism or is the English language becoming too important?
This dissertation goes more deeply into this debate and the suggested solutions for this
potential problem. Not only will this paper describe what the current state of affairs is, with
regards to the future enlargement of the European Union (EU), it will also investigate what
the current language policy of the European Parliament (EP) actually entails, and more
precisely, to what extent contemporary practice corresponds to what the theory prescribes.
Within the scope of this theory-versus-practice-dichotomy, I will try to find out if the increase
of English usage in (the corridors of) the European Parliament, lies at the basis. For this, I will
depart from Abram de Swaan’s slogan “the more languages, the more English!” (2001: 144).
De Swaan is a renowned Dutch political sociologist of language who investigates the
importance of English as a global language, and links it to the number of languages that is
spoken worldwide. Evidently, this is not a new phenomenon, but the need for one world
language, an idea that gradually arose over the past couple of decades, is all the more a recent
phenomenon. In the process of exploring de Swaan’s theory, the ideas of David Crystal on the
status of English as a lingua franca will also be looked into (Crystal 1999; Scholes 2010). I
will applyboth scholars’ line of thought to the setting of the European Parliament and its
approaching enlargements.
1.2 Research questions
Both de Swaan’s and Crystal’s ideas, combined with the findings of my preliminary research,
have led me to the following research questions: Is multilingualism in the European
Parliament maintainable and is it threatened by the increasing globalization of English as a
lingua franca? And to what extent are both phenomena correlated to each other? In other
1
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
words, is the fear that English will become the sole working language of the European
institutions justified and to what extent is this caused by an exaggerated and almost artificial
sense of tenacity towards Europe’s language diversity? This rather extensive research
question can easily be divided into different components. Not only will the current language
policy of the European Parliament be described and discussed, future enlargements of the EU
and their consequences on a linguistic level will be handled as well. Furthermore, the concept
of ‘lingua franca’ and more particularly, ‘English’ as a lingua franca, or the so-called globish
will be explored and it will be linked to the findings of the academics mentioned here above
and related research in the field of English as a global language. As a conclusion, I would then
like to find out if there is indeed a connection between the increase of the usage of English
and the enormous language diversity in the setting of the European Parliament.
1.3 Outline and methodology
As outlined above, the current language system of the European Union and the European
Parliament will be described in the next chapter. More particularly, the focus will be on how
this system has involved over the last decennia. In the third chapter, departing from David
Crystal’s opinions on the matter, I will outline the use of English in the EU and how it acts as
a lingua franca worldwide. Subsequently, the theoretical perspective on the debate will be
looked into: de Swaan’s theory and the opinions of other academicswill be explored. In the
same chapter, I will also investigate a more moderate take on the debate, based on the
interview I conducted with Virginie Mamadouh, a scholar specialized in the language regime
of the European institutions. In chapter four, the opinions of specialists on Europe’s language
policy will be described and I will present them with the criticism that is so often uttered with
regard to the language policy of the Parliament: it is too expensive, limits have been reached
and a solution needs to be found. The specialists I have chosen to interview in this framework
are the head of the Directorate-General for Translation, Miss Janet Pitt, and the Head of Unit
for Multilingualism and External Relations Service, Mr. Jochen Richter. The latter also used
to be Deputy Head of Cabinet to the Commissioner for Multilingualism under the Barroso I
Commission. Furthermore, I interviewed Mr. Sjef Coolegem, who is the Head of Directorate
for Interpretation and, during my preliminary research, I interviewed Mr. Fred de Corte, who
is a translator and former interpreter in the European Parliament. After a conclusion on the
general tenor of these interviews, these findings will be juxtaposed to what the academic
literature says about the matter, in chapter five. In the last but one chapter, I will discuss some
2
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
hypotheses for the future and what the consequence would be if each of these hypotheses
would be carried into effect. After summarizing the results of study, a detailed overview of
my final conclusions will be provided in the last chapter.
1.4 Main sources and preliminary research
In my bachelor paper, future enlargements were investigated and how they would threaten the
language policy of the European institutions, and more particularly, the functioning of the
interpreting system of the European Parliament. As a conclusion, I found out that,although
the Union considers multilingualism to be one of its key points, during the course of the years,
the institutions had to adapt their initial idea of absolute multilingualism. The premise of
absolute multilingualism, as it was laid down in the famous Regulation No. 1, which says that
all languages of the European Union are to be treated as official languages, was perceived as
not maintainable due to pragmatic, financial and structural complications. A growing body of
opinion claims that a revision of both the translation and interpreting system is advisable,
preferably taking into account the opinions of the linguistic staff and of academic scholars.
Departing from the conclusions of this preliminary research, I will go more deeply into what
renowned academics have said about the matter. My main primary sources are Virginie
Mamadouh’s articles on the matter and more particularly, her book De talen in het Europees
Parlement (1995). Also de Swaan’s book Words of the world. The global language system
(2001) will form an important part of my reading and I will combine his opinions with the
viewpoints of David Crystal (1999). Furthermore, the five interviews I conducted will also
play a substantial role in my findings and they are elaborated upon in the fifth chapter. I will
also make use of a written document sent to me by Martin Wooding1, head of Unit of Support
to Multilingualism.
3
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
2. The language system of the European Union
2.1 The global language system of the EU
Although this paper deals with the language regime of the European Parliament in particular,
it is useful to bear in mind that the communication in this institution is but a minor part of the
communication in total in the Union. Moreover, it is self-evident that all communication in
the Parliament is inextricablylinked to the forms of communication in the entire Union.
Abram de Swaan lists 4 levels of communication within the European Union, in his book
Words of the world. The global language system (2001). The figure below gives a schematic
overview of those levels:
Internal Transnational
communication of communication
the Member States: between Europe’s
official ‘mother citizens:
tongue’ language English

Civilian Society
Internal
bureaucracyof the
Formal, public
Institutions:
communication:
number of working
Regulation No. 1!
languages

European institutions
Figure 2: The different levels of communication within the European Union as a language constellation
4
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca
Firstly, he makes a distinction between the civil society and the European institutions.
The communication on the level of the civil society can be divided into two other levels, that
of the national and the transnational level. The national constellations of languages in Europe
are - simply put - the languages that are spoken within each member state. It is the mother
tongue of most citizens in the country and it is widely used in all domains of the public life. In
Europe, these languages are protected by the state and can therefore be called robust, as de
Swaan puts it. They are not subject to great changes, but will instead become stronger in the
future as they are seen as cherished national heritage. This is an important feature of the
European languages, because it has as a consequence that, as opposed to certain African or
Indian languages, they will never dissolve in other pidgin or mixed languages. Because of its
robustness, competition between the languages is strong and leads to jealousy. As de Swaan
puts it: “Jealousy between the settled language groups that are supported by the member
states, will always impede the introduction of one certain language as the only official
language of the European Union” (de Swaan 2002: 190, my translation). In other words, not
only will English never threaten the existence and robustness of other (smaller) languages, it
will almost certainly never be introduced as the sole official language in the Union.
The other level of communication within Europe’s civil society is the transnational
communication among the citizens of the different member states, in different regions and in
divergent spheres of communication. It almost always happens in English, but in certain
areas, other languages still compete as a lingua franca with English. French can compete with
English, mainly in the south of Europe and because of historical reasons. German competes
with English in Central-Europe but mostly out of demographical reasons2. Still, these
languages disappear into nothingness, compared to the prevailing status of English as the
medium for international communication. That has to do with both the prestige and the
attractiveness of the language. It is the most important second language in education for the
Union, and it has the highest score of centrality, as de Swaan puts it (2002: 196, my
translation). That means that the percentage of multilingual speakers that have knowledge of
English is the highest, compared to the total number of multilingual European citizens. Also,
the issue of self-confidence, when speaking a certain language, is of importance. “Not only do
more people learn English than any other language in the Union, they also use with a lot more
self-confidence” (de Swaan 2002: 203, my translation). In short, English will remain the most
dominant language in international (civil) communication, while French and German will
keep competing for the second place on the list.
5
Is absolute multilingualism maintainable?
The language policy of the European Parliament and the threat of English as a lingua franca