|
Recommendations
National and supranational language policy infrastructure
1. Academics and
policy-makers from 11 countries are convinced that ‘Europe urgently needs a transparent public discussion
on language policy with the aim of developing guidelines
for European and national language policies. Therefore it
is necessary to set up forums … for developing a new
European approach to the language issue in which as many
players as possible should participate (from the political
and economic arenas, the media, NGOs)’ (Vienna Manifesto
of June 2001, first recommendation, see Appendix 5 ). There
is a need for infrastructure and consultative procedures
to facilitate this.
2. Dialogue between key stake-holders in language policy
work, politicians, journalists, researchers, administrators
in the national and EU civil service, NGOs, and users of
language services, is a prerequisite for more informed policy
formation. It must draw on the existing scholarly evidence
worldwide, which at present appears to have little impact
on policy.
3. Each national government must have well qualified civil
servants specializing in language policy, with responsibility
for integrating language policies in commerce, culture, education,
research, the media, international relations, and in the
supranational institutions of the EU system.
4. There is a need for an equivalent strengthening of the
EU Commission with expertise in all aspects of language policy,
and with a mandate to strengthen the ‘general interest’ in
the sense of cross-cutting policies that ensure the vitality
of languages globally.
5. The Vienna Manifesto also suggests (Recommendation 3)
that ‘All governments should use a fixed percentage
of their GDP for promoting multilingualism in education,
research, politics, administration and the economic sector.’ Such
a proposal could provoke a major re-think of the value of
existing efforts and investment in this field, a reconsideration
of goals and priorities, and fruitful dialogue between the
public and private sectors.
6. A primary function of the national and supranational specialists
would be to bring language policy higher up on relevant political,
academic, and media agendas, to conduct awareness campaigns,
and produce pamphlets that debunk common myths (about the
excessive cost of EU language services, the need for a single ‘world’ language,
monolingualism as something normal, or age being the most
important factor in learning a foreign language), ignorance
(about personal or societal bilingualism, language X having
no grammar, or language Y too much), and prejudices (linguistic
xenophobia, Esperanto not being a ‘real’ language)
etc. They should also collect and disseminate information
on good practice in multilingualism nationally (e.g. Luxembourg
maintaining its national language proudly but using French
and German extensively in state affairs), and internationally
(instances of national and international languages being
in healthy equilibrium).
7. There should be urgent development of MA programmes in
currently neglected language fields, particularly multilingualism,
the sociology and ecology of languages, language rights,
the auditing of language needs, language planning and policy,
language and economics. A huge amount of scholarly literature
has been produced in recent years, in virtually all parts
of the world . The related fields of applied linguistics
and foreign language pedagogy, which tend to focus on the
forms of language, and theories and practices of learning
and teaching, are already well established in some countries.
8. MA and PhD degrees that are given the ‘European’ label
should set a good example of multilingual practice by following
criteria agreed on by the federation of university rectors
and vice-chancellors, and in particular require that the
programme of study is conducted in at least two languages,
and evaluation undertaken by assessors from at least two
EU countries .
9. In-depth analysis of the relationship between economic
policies and languages, at local/regional, national, and
international levels, and the extent to which the education
system is able to respond to changing needs, should be linked
to studies of linguistic diversity and its maintenance, and
to how economic policies for threatened languages can be
not merely defensive but more proactive and preventive.
10. One of the concerns of specialists in language policy
should be to ensure that the language factor is explicitly
addressed in all policy fields where it may be relevant,
rather than language being seen as something special and
distinct, or only a matter for education, law, and commerce.
At the other extreme, a narrow focus on language rather than
its embedding in social and cultural contexts needs to be
monitored, so as to avoid the risk of ‘the medium becoming
the message’ .
11. Measures are needed to counteract Hollywood dominance
on the screen, so that cinemas and TV companies diversify
culturally and linguistically in ways that promote exposure
to a range of European cultures and languages. Policy needs
to be shaped so as to ensure that such channels attract a
broad public .
12. Awareness campaigns should aim at informing the public
about languages in supranational affairs, language rights
as human rights, arguments in favour of a diversification
of the languages learned, big and small, and explaining how
multilingualism connects with cultural and biological diversity
and sustainability .
13. A Language Policies Handbook should be elaborated that
can serve as a source of inspiration for many routes to equitable
communication, through sensitive policies that respect linguistic
diversity, with examples of the provision of language services,
including those for people with special needs, examples of
how successful minority language policies can be undertaken,
and suggestions for how guidelines for European and national
policies could be formulated.
14. There is a need for networks that bring together the
various associations concerned with individual languages,
NGOs and para-statal bodies which have the interests of each
of the EU official languages at heart (French, Swedish etc),
so as to coordinate strategy internationally.
EU institutions
15. There must
be proper briefing for Members of the European Parliament
on how the translation and interpretation services
operate, since there is evidence that MEPs are ‘ignorant
about many aspects of what multilingualism involves’ .
16. There should be similar briefing for politicians, experts
and civil servants who work in member states and attend meetings
in EU institutions on the principles underlying interpretation
and translation, and the constraints that may account for
complete, direct interpretation not always being provided.
17. A Code of Language Conduct in EU Institutions should
be elaborated. This should aim at ensuring complete equality
for everyone in EU interaction, irrespective of mother tongue.
It should be monitored by the EU Ombud institution, which
deals with specific complaints but aims at also ensuring
good administrative practice, but has not yet been given
a mandate for this .
18. If the Council of Ministers were to consider any change
in Regulation 1, for instance introduction of a de jure two-tier
system according ‘big’ languages more rights
than other languages, no decision should be taken before
there has been an in-depth study of the consequences of any
such decision for all the languages concerned, and study
of alternative solutions. Such studies would need to be based
on prior identification of criteria and principles that should
be followed when language regimes are being decided on.
19. Special attention should be paid to the implications
of an increasing use of English for speakers of other languages.
This is a significant issue for people based permanently
in Brussels or Luxembourg, for those attending meetings there
irregularly, and for European civil society as a whole. Policies
that favour English, as a procedural language, or as a sole
link language with applicant states, or in correspondence
between EU institutions and member states, should not be
adopted without proper analysis of the implications for speakers
of each official language, and only after a transparent consultation
process. Monitoring procedures should be implemented to ensure
the rights of speakers of all official languages.
20. The EU must develop active policies that counteract linguistic
discrimination. Employment in EU institutions, or in bodies
funded by the EU, must at all levels require bilingual or
multilingual competence. Recruitment must never discriminate
in favour of native speakers of a language, either de jure
or de facto. Myths about the superior merits of any language,
or about assumed linguistic competence due to the accident
of birth, need to be effectively dispelled.
21. There needs to be more coordination between the language
services in EU institutions and national language policy
authorities, covering such matters as the training of translators
and interpreters, efforts to improve the quality and accessibility
of texts, terminology, use of databases, citizen access,
and users’ experience of the language services and
suggestions for improving these .
22. There should be regular monitoring by EU insiders and
outsiders of the operation of the system of working and procedural
languages in EU institutions, and the availability or otherwise
of texts in all languages when documents are sent out to
the governments and citizens of member states. When the internet
is used so as to make papers available early in the decision-making
process, as part of a policy of ensuring greater transparency,
it is essential that documents are available in all official
languages simultaneously.
23. There needs to be regular monitoring of the functioning
of EU language services when full interpretation is not provided,
for instance use of the SALT system, Speak All, Listen Three
(i.e. interpretation is provided from all languages but only
into English, French and German), which some MEPs would like
to see extended , and of the efficacy of the system in Commission
or Council meetings when some speak a foreign language.
24. Serious consideration should be given to the use of Esperanto
as a bridging or pivot language for the spoken and written
word in EU-internal communication, to calculating the economic
costs in the short term for learning the language, and the
longer-term economic savings that could result from implementation
of an Esperanto-based system. In parallel there should be
pilot studies and assessment of the implications for language
learning in schools, when Esperanto is learned as the first
foreign language, and as a bridge to learning others, where
the research evidence is that this is likely to provide all
learners with successful experience of a new language.
25. As lobbyism is a fact of Brussels life, there being over
2000 lobbying groups with a permanent office in Brussels,
most of them representing commercial interests, but none
specifically concerned with languages (with the exception
of an office representing the interests of ‘francophonie’,
and the EU-funded European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages),
thought needs to be given to how language policy interests
can be better covered by lobbies that should preferably receive
funding from a variety of sources.
26. A number of specific recommendations for strengthening
multilingualism in the EU are made under point 4 of the Vienna
Manifesto (on working languages, consistent multilingualism,
terminology, funding for translations, simultaneous interpretation,
translation quality, teacher exchanges, research funding).
Language teaching and learning
27. The Vienna Manifesto makes specific proposals for how
a reform of language teaching can result in a wider range
of languages being learned more effectively, see the nine
topics listed under point 5. These build on ongoing experience,
a range of types of innovative and inspired foreign language
learning that is already taking place in Europe . This should
be analysed more intensively prior to popularization in an
accessible form for parents, teachers, and decision-makers.
28. Publications on language learning topics for the general
public are needed. An admirable model of writing of this
kind is A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism,
by Colin Baker , which is written entirely as responses to
typical questions, grouped under section headings entitled
Family questions, Language development questions, Questions
about problems, Reading and writing questions, and Education
questions (Basic education, types of bilingual education,
achievement and underachievement, language in the classroom).
29. Dissemination of good practice, sharing information on
resources, teaching materials, software, methods of language
learning, and internet facilities, is also now widely available.
Many countries have national information centres, such as
the Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research,
CILT, in London . The exchange of experience across national
borders should be intensified, as a supplement to the work
of the British Council and the Goethe Institut (which function
independently, though mainly state-funded), French linguistic
advisers (who are attached to embassies), and other national
language promotion bodies. These fund useful activities,
but their role is to strengthen a particular national language
(English, Spanish, …), and commercial interests are
increasingly involved, education being a key field of activity
for corporate globalization (as seen in Chapter 3).
30. As a means toward diversifying language learning, it
has been suggested, often by French sources , that the criterion
of different linguistic families ought to guide a choice
of two foreign languages in school, e.g. one Romance language
and one Germanic language (or with enlargement, one Slavic
language). The same argument might be advanced when and if
the EU decides to consider formally restricting the number
of working languages in its institutions. Diversification
can alternatively be promoted if a geographical criterion
is used, for instance the learning of the language of a neighbouring
community (e.g. Czech or Hungarian in Austria). Another possibility
is for minority and majority children to learn an immigrant
language (as in the two-way programmes that are successful
in the USA ). All of these lines of argument can contribute
to ensuring that a range of languages is learned.
31. An increasing number of EU countries are experimenting
with various types of bilingual education, and with the teaching
of certain subjects through the medium of a foreign language
. Some of the most successful results are achieved in Luxembourg,
where education effectively makes most school-leavers trilingual
in the mother tongue, French and German . Also extremely
relevant as a model for imitation elsewhere are the ‘European
schools’, intended mainly for EU employees, and that
exist in 6 countries, in which the education is given in
two languages and an additional foreign language is learned
to a high level .
32. If a wider range of languages is learned more successfully
in school, there could be more reciprocity and diversity
in students travelling for higher education in other member
states. The schemes funded by the EU (Erasmus, Socrates)
can promote the learning of all EU official languages, but
when students who do not specialize in a language go abroad
for a term, or even a year, their stay may strengthen their
competence in English rather than in, say, Dutch or Finnish.
The figures for foreign students in Britain show that study
abroad is big business for Britain.
33. Higher education institutions should be encouraged to
formulate a languages policy for their activities, covering
teaching, research, publications, and professional development
in a broad range of languages, and partnerships that can
strengthen multilingualism and plurilingualism .
Research
A conference on European language policy organized by the
European Cultural Foundation in 1998, involving academics,
politicians, and administrators, was followed up by a report
detailing a large number of research needs . These have been
incorporated into the set below, which builds on needs identified
in early chapters.
34. Multi-disciplinary research should be undertaken of
the use made of languages in EU institutions in the principal
types of internal and external communication, as one means
of providing a well-documented clarification of the hierarchies
of languages in place.
35. There is a need for conceptual clarification of terms
that are central to language policy and that tend to be used
inconsistently, such as lingua franca, national language,
international language, minority language, official language,
and working language.
36. There should be a broad range of studies of multilingualism
as it evolves in a changing Europe, which can be seen as
four distinct areas, Domestic Europe in each country, Civil
Europe internationally, Institutional Europe (the EU), and
Educational Europe. State-of-the-art reports should draw
out present and predictable consequences of current language
policies for the linguistic groups involved. This research
could be connected to the study of domain loss and diglossia
(functional differentiation between languages for different
purposes), for which a refinement of research methods and
approaches is needed, particularly in light of the fact that
many contexts of use are fundamentally new because of technological
innovation, and changing patterns of communication as a result
of globalization and europeanization.
37. Research should analyse people’s experience of
foreign language learning, the collection of good practice
in educational contexts that achieve positive attitudes to
societal multilingualism. Key topics for multi-disciplinary
analysis are language awareness, good strategies for language
learning, and the potential for foreign language learning
to be assisted by means of Esperanto. There should in general
be a strengthening of scholarly input into decisions on the
organization of language learning in schools. This should
also include serious consideration of the importance of learning
non-European languages.
38. Research is needed into the use and learning of English,
not as a British or American language but as one for continental
European purposes. This should build on a description of
English as a lingua franca, and the relevance of this for
the teaching of English. Micro-level analysis of the forms
of English should be linked to study of macro-level questions,
such as the special position of English in globalization
and in European affairs, within the broader constellation
of all languages in the European linguistic ecology.
39. Research should clarify, in the light of experience worldwide,
which language policy issues lend themselves to rules and
regulations (for instance language rights and duties), and
which to recommendations and attitudinal change (for instance
inducements that facilitate multilingual communication, awareness
campaigns).
40. Many aspects of business communication are being studied
(intercultural communication, branding, mergers, etc) but
little addresses the implications in globalization of an
increased use of English (e.g. as the in-house language)
on language diversity and language maintenance. This should
be explored, along with the relationship between corporate
policies and EU law on language use in a unified market.
Would corporations wish for a European Language Union? As
two-thirds of the interest organizations in Brussels represent
business, and as access to the EU is ‘systematically
skewed in favour of employers, business, and capital’ ,
it would be important to know more of corporate intentions.
41. There is a need for research into the cosmologies associated
with particular languages, the ‘linguistic culture’ inherent
in national language traditions, so as to clarify whether
and why each national group understands language issues in
specific ways, and what foundations there are, if any, for
essentializing stereotypes, ‘the Germans/Greeks/… are
like this’.
42. Serious efforts should be made to induce professional
associations to develop and reflect on principles of good
multilingual practice in their own affairs, at research conferences
and in publications, so that debates and decisions on language
policy can be based on solid information rather than subjective
evaluation and opinion.
43. The coverage of language rights in international and
national law should be scrutinized so as to identify gaps
and limitations. Surveys should also assess how far linguistic
human rights are respected.
44. There is a need for further research on language topics
that have been barely touched on in this book, among them
Sign languages, Romani, and a range of adult literacy needs.
45. A framework should be elaborated that provides for partnership
between researchers and decision-makers at the national and
supranational levels, so as to ensure better coordination
in the identification of research needs and the dissemination
of research results.
|
|
