|
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
You name one person ONE PERSON that works for the EU that cannot speak English!!! |
Interesting article i came across surfing the web.................
EU-Aktuell
The EU at a linguistic crossroad:
Multilingualism
or “English Only”?
15 Member States - 11 official languages ... the EU shows a rich
linguistic repatoire. But not everybody is happy about it...
Daniel Spichtinger
Reaktionen an:
[email protected]
Language Mix
Language In writing Orally
French 92.5% 90.1%
English 73.3% 60.8%
German 18.3% 15.0%
Spanish 6.7% 9.2%
Italian 8.3% 6.7%
Source: Haselhuber (1991) qtd. in Ammon (1994: 8).
Further reading
Ulrich Ammon et.al. (ed.) (1994) English only? In Europe in Europa en Europe. International Handbook of European Sociolinguistics 8. Tübingen:
Niemeyer. 1-15.
Born, Joachim (1996) "Vertiefung, Kerneuropa oder Subsidiaritätsprinzip. Beobachtungen zu Eurospeak und Schlüsselwörtern der europäischen Integration aus sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht."
In: Herman Funk and Gerhard Neuner (eds.) Verstehen und Verständigung in Europa. Konzepte von Sprachpolitik und Sprachdidaktik unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Deutschen als Fremdsprache. Berlin: Cornelsen. 66-83.
Coulmas, Florian (1991) (ed.) A Language Policy for the European Community: Prospects and Quandaries. Berlin: De Gruyter. 1-44.
Hartmann, Roland (ed.) (1996) The English Language in Europe.
Exeter: Intellect. 24-36.
Pfeiffer, Waldemar (1992) "Eine Sprache für Alle oder für Jeden Eine? Sprachenvielfalt und "Interkulturalität" als Basis eine europäischen Integration. Ein Essay aus der Sicht eines Polen." Die neueren Sprachen 91 4/5 369-375.
Spichtinger, Daniel (2000a) The Spread of English and Its Appropriation. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, University of Vienna.
http://www.geocities.com/dspichtinger/dipl.htm
The debate about the use of English in the institutions of the EU is basically a conflict between those who opt for more efficiency and uniformity - and therefore welcome one lingua franca - and those who wish to preserve the rich linguistic repertoire of Europe. Members of the latter group often use the rather lofty argument that the use of "English only" (that is English as the EU's only working language ) would run counter to the "nature" of plurilingual Europe. In reality, however, multilingualism is often invoked only as a slogan to prevent a downgrading of one's own language.
It is ironic that it is exactly the great importance that nation states attach to their national languages which motivates their backing of linguistic plurality on the community level. Officially, then, the languages of all member states are regarded as equal (de jure status). In the day to day workings of the EU institutions, however, an equal treatment of all eleven official languages is impossible: therefore French, English and German are regarded "more equal than others" and are unofficially designated "working languages" (de facto status). German, however, is constantly in danger of loosing this special status.
Differences between EU institutions
Interestingly, there seems to be a deep division between the Commission and the European Parliament concerning the language question. While the former favours a solution where English and French are designated working languages or a trilingual solution which includes German, the latter prefers a multilingual solution with English, French, German and Spanish as official languages. Currently the European Union tries to balance the opposing trends of uniformity on one side and linguistic diversity on the other side by opting for a pragmatic approach: EU policy, also in respect of future enlargement, states that
...for reasons of principle, legal acts and important documents should continue to be translated into the official languages of all member states. To ensure effective communication in meetings, pragmatic solutions will have to be found.
In at least one respect the Union's pragmatic approach can be said to have a serious flaw: it has led to a legal vacuum. Therefore, any country which feels excluded from the inner circle of working languages (Spain, for instance) may at any time trigger a new debate on European language policy.
A way forward:
English as the language of European Identity
Generally, English is fairly well established in Europe. However, many Europeans still seem to regard the language as belonging to the British or Americans - hence the fear that English will displace native national languages. The way forward, I suggest, is to look beyond the boundaries of Europe and to observe how other multlingual societies have solved the language problem. Even after independence countries like India, Pakistan and Nigeria have retained English as their official language because it functions as a link between a variety of different cultures and peoples. Thus, English has been appropriated to serve Indian, Pakistani and Nigerian purposes; it is no longer the language of the British coloniser.
Applying this model to Europe would involve appropriating English for European purposes. Such an appropriation process is already taking place in certain domains. EU officials, for instance, have developed their own variety of English, sometimes called "EU-English", "Eurospeak" or "Euro-English". It is thus important to note that Euro-English is not "bad" English, it is simply English appropriated for the purposes of those working in the European institutions.
Advantage for native-speakers?
Critics maintain that if English were introduced as the only working language, its native speakers would gain an enormous advantage: they would be able to work more efficiently than their non-native speaker colleagues. Consequently, they might be regarded more highly by their superiors. Non-native speakers, by contrast, would feel frustrated because they would have to work in a foreign language and may be corrected by a native speaker.
But these arguments can only be upheld if we regard native speaker norms as the only correct ones. However, if we follow the Indian or Nigerian model and regard Euro-English as an appropriate standard (at least for those working in the European institutions) the advantages of the English native-speakers are significantly reduced because both native speakers and non-native speakers would have to conform to a non-native standard.
The role of "smaller languages"
It must be stressed, though, that to affirm the "Europeaness" of English does not in any way indicate that other languages are not important as well. Rather than seeing the EU's language "problem" as a question of "English Only" versus multilingualism I propose that one should try to find a synthesis of these only seemingly contradictory approaches. It has been suggested that one should simply regard different languages as having different functions: not every small language has to function as an international means of communication.
This is what we have English for. Smaller languages (like Danish, for instance) can - and should - act for local purposes. But bigger languages like Spanish, French or Portuguese can be a valuable asset in the non-English speaking world. Because the customer still prefers to buy in his (or her) own language such languages might provide an important advantage for European business against American competitors who all too often rely everyone being able to speak English.
A Language of European Identity?
On a general level, English should be promoted as a European lingua franca. Again, however, the emphasis should not be on native speaker norms but on common intelligibility. A French or German accent is a marker of one's identity and should not be condemned as long as the speaker remains intelligible. It is, of course, highly uncertain whether English will really function as an intra-European language outside of specialised functional domains. On the one hand, this seems likely because, due to increased co-operation and cultural exchange, more and more Europeans from different countries will need to communicate with each other. On the other hand, it is not certain that the general populace will accept English as a language of their European identity. In any case, linking English with a European identity can only be a long term project.
English as a threat?
In Europe, resistance to English is sometimes (but not always) an indication of the resistance to globalisation; in this function it signals the desire of those who are uncomfortable with the breakdown of traditional barriers by the rapid improvement of transportation and information technology to return to the "safer" times of "right or wrong, my country".
To counter this movement by trying to replace national identity (and language) with a supranational one is certainly the wrong way. Instead we should try to achieve a balanced identity where the basic needs of national self-recognition do not collide with supranational integration. This aim would be achieved if it is realised that it is perfectly possible to be a Viennese, an Austrian and a European and that, consequently, one can speak German as one's national and English as one's European language.
|
