European Multilingualism

Current Perspectives and Challenges

By Rosita Rindler Schjerve, Eva Vetter

Multilingual Matters

Copyright © 2012 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-1-84769-735-6

Contents

Acknowledgements,
List of Abbreviations,
Introduction,
1 European Multilingualism: Political Scope,
2 European Multilingualism as a Field of Research,
3 The LINEE Project,
4 European Multilingualism Beyond LINEE,
Conclusion,
References,
Appendix,

CHAPTER 1

European Multilingualism: Political Scope

In the past 20 years and since the foundation of the European Union, the plea for EM has been a prominent feature of policy making (cf. High Level Group 2007: 22). Policy makers and stakeholders have been seeking to establish EM as a normative goal and, more recently, as a cross-cutting policy framework that relates to the major values and principles to which the European unification project adheres. Respecting the existing linguistic diversity and enhancing the multilingual competences of the European citizens have been conceived as important premises on which integration into a Union bound together by common values should be fostered. Following this politics and the normative stance it pursues, one might be inclined to argue that the EU has invented EM in order to ensure its goal of an ever-closer political and economic integration. It would appear, therefore, that EM has come to be an ideologically driven concept and that over the past two decades, its conceptualisation has undergone substantial changes. This is particularly true for the 1990s, when the issue of Europe as an information society was raised, and the new millennium, in which the scope of this politics has been widened towards integrating aspects such as migration, social cohesion, intercultural dialogue and lifelong learning. As yet, however, some crucial issues, for example, the role of minority and migrant languages (cf. Nic Craith 2006: 56; Extra et al. 2004: 395) or the question of language hierarchies within the EM project, have remained unclear (cf. Nic Craith 2006: 40–56; Phillipson 2009: 64–65). Apparently, EM has come to be an ideologically driven concept which in its functional top-down approach is not yet established well enough in the grass roots and in civil society at large.

The debate on EM relates directly to the diversity principle of the EU. The term ‘linguistic diversity’, often taken to be synonymous with EM in public and official debates, is used in a double sense. On the one hand, it is used descriptively to refer to the many languages that are actually spoken in Europe and particularly within the EU. On the other hand, it is used ideologically to refer to a central value to which the EU adheres in its treaties, declarations and related documents, and which constitutes a promotional objective and a political goal that the EU seeks to achieve. ‘Linguistic diversity’ is an integral part of ‘cultural diversity’ (cf. also Lo Bianco 2010: 39–54), and both are assigned crucial significance within the European unification process since the aim is to achieve political integration into the ever-closer Union without compromising the cultural distinctiveness and the linguistically defined identities of the member states.

In what follows, we will focus in more detail on how the plea for EM has evolved from the diversity debate in the EU’s economic and political integration process. We will then further elaborate on how EM has come to be introduced into the EU’s political agenda as a matter of policy in its own right. Finally, we will conclude by considering the main positions and challenges that arise in the pursuit of a policy which aims at respecting and promoting linguistic pluralism in Europe.

1.1 Multilingualism and the Diversity Debate

From a historical perspective, languages can be seen as intimately intertwined with the rise of national identities in Europe. The adoption of a common language has contributed crucially to the fostering of social integration and cultural centralisation within the European societies (cf. Gellner 1983). This is the reason why languages are so closely associated with cultural diversity in Europe (cf. Grimm 1995).

The EU is a multinational conglomerate which is being directed towards an ever-closer economic and political unification. The question naturally arises as to how such supranational unification can be achieved while at the same time ensuring the maintenance of cultural diversity at the national level, and finding ways of protecting pluralism without setting limits to the European unity has become an important political and legal issue (cf. Bogdandy 2007). It also needs to be noted that against the background of the enlargement and the continuing institutional and political transformation of the EU, ‘cultural diversity’ provides for a framework from which the overall identity and legitimacy of Europe would evolve (cf. also Weiss 2002: 62–63).

Originally, the EEC started as an economic community, which, however, soon became aware of the significance of the cultural dimension, since it provides the common basic elements and patterns of collective identification that would legitimise the promotion of the unification process. This is one of the reasons why from the 1970s onwards recurrent references were made to the common cultural heritage and to European identity based on the diversity of the national cultures and languages. The Declaration of European Identity, which was adopted at the Copenhagen Summit in 1973 (cf. Bull. 12-1973), is an early example for the perceived instrumental significance of culture in the process of integration. In the mid-1980s, a similar instrumental significance was attributed to language abilities within the framework of the European market and a solidarity Community. The Report by the Committee on a People’s Europe (cf. Bull. Supp.7-1985) submitted to the European Council (which was approved by the Milan European Council 28 and 29 June 1985) underlines that ‘the languages spoken in the Community form an essential part of its cultural heritage and contribute to its richness and diversity.’ The subsequent Council Decision of 28 July 1989, establishing an action programme to promote foreign language competence in the European Community (cf. OJ 1989 L 239: 24–32) notes that ‘greater foreign language competence will enable the Community’s citizens to reap the benefits of competition of the internal market and will enhance understanding and solidarity between the peoples which go to make up the Community, while preserving the linguistic diversity and cultural wealth of Europe’.

In the 1990s, it became evident that the European unification process had to go beyond the establishment of the Common Market and that political integration into an ever-closer Union was to be consolidated on the basis of a common cultural identity project (cf. Kraus 2008: 43). However, the plea for a common European identity was by no means to imply that the national identities were to be replaced by a supranational European identity. It was believed that they would coexist complementary to the latter (cf. OJ 1997 C 340: Art. 6.3). This explains why cultural and linguistic diversity came to constitute a major value or principle, as enshrined in the founding treaties of the EU (cf. Toggenburg 2003: 19–21). It also explains why the diversity issue has been accorded a prominent place in the various declarations and documents issued by the EU. In the light of the ever-closer integration process, the EU’s commitment to cultural and linguistic diversity appears to be all the more important as it does not only ensure the preservation of the national identities but also brings to the fore the common cultural heritage on which – as it is argued – the European identity is founded (cf. Cullen et al. 2008: 9): Diversity was represented not only as consistent with unity but also as a crucial component of it.

Thus, Art. 128 (cf. OJ 1992 C 191) of the Maastricht Treaty provides for the respect and promotion of the diverse cultures as they associate with the cultural heritage of the European peoples. The subsequent Millennium Declaration (cf. Helsinki Conclusions 1999: Annex I) adopted by the European Council in Helsinki (1999) refers to the EU as a community based on democracy and the rule of law, while it conceives of the EU citizens as a society bound together by common values such as freedom, tolerance, equality, solidarity and cultural diversity. This and other examples show that cultural diversity is a declared value that relates to other values and principles to which the EU is committed. Thus, the European Charter of Fundamental Rights (cf. OJ 2000 C 364: 1–22), which became part of the Lisbon Reform Treaty (cf. OJ 2007 C 306: 1–271), underlines the respect for cultural and linguistic diversity in its Art. 22, where a direct connection is established between diversity and the equality principle. And finally, Art. 3.3 of the actual Lisbon Treaty (cf. OJ 2008 C 115) reaffirms the promotion of cultural and linguistic pluralism and the safeguard of the European cultural heritage. From this it follows that ‘cultural diversity’ has come to be assigned a prominent place in the EU’s architecture.

Clearly, ‘cultural diversity’ is an issue that directly connects with the European identity framework and, hence, associates with the values and principles this identity is built on. Moreover, ‘cultural diversity’ is a central issue with far-reaching consequences both for European citizenship and for constructing a European polity (cf. Kraus 2008: 47–49). The EU is not a state but a multinational political unit. Thus, the Treaty of Maastricht introduced citizenship of the Union (cf. OJ 1992 C 191: Art. 8) on the premises that a person is a national of one member state and that EU citizenship should complement and not replace national citizenship (cf. OJ 1997 C 340: Art. 6.3).

Nevertheless, the question of how to constitute a European polity that is capable of forming the primary identification basis for European citizenship has as yet remained unanswered. Here, it is argued that a common European public sphere is required since it provides an indispensable premise for such a polity. Given the multinational order of the Union, it follows that the establishment of such a public sphere calls for transnational structures that are in line with the existing multicultural and multilingual diversity (cf. Kraus 2008: 70). In other words, constructing a common public sphere that accounts for transnational will-formation presupposes communication modes that enable citizens to exchange their opinions across national borders and language boundaries.

But how are these communication modes to be conceived? Here, we return to the question of the relationship between linguistic and cultural diversity. These two phenomena tend to be equated with the promotion of the one assumed to necessarily involve the promotion of the other, so that respect for cultural diversity ‘becomes in the first instance an imperative to respect [for] linguistic diversity’ (Kraus 2008: 76). The assumption is that managing diversity implies, first and foremost, managing the existing linguistic pluralism within and between the member states. Within this ideology of diversity, integration into a transnational community necessitates a pluralistic language regime that would allow for democratic and civic participation while at the same time forming the common ground for plural identifications. The discourse on diversity remains, however, silent in relation to the question of how the pluralistic language regime would ensure democratic participation and plural identifications.

Diversity, and in particular linguistic diversity, thus represents the ideological basis for the project of European integration. Alternative options for achieving integration into a transnational Community via a common language are not only omitted in this ideology but, to the contrary, also vehemently rejected, criticised or perceived as a threat. A language regime based on a common language which would support European integration, as it is already emerging with English as a lingua franca (ELF) in certain areas (cf. Seidlhofer 2004, 2007), clearly runs counter to this ideology.

In summary, we may say that diversity is a multi-layered concept as the debate on European diversity appears to be closely interrelated with core factors and components associated with the EU’s integration process. Linguistic diversity, it has been said, is a significant part of cultural diversity. This also explains why the debate on ‘linguistic diversity’ intersects so closely with the issue of EM and why both terms are often dealt with as if they were synonymous notions. A detailed reading of the legal texts, declarations and official documents reveals that in the beginning, EM was an issue primarily associated with educational matters. In the 1990s, it was mainly linked with the question of enhanced second and third language learning whereas, at a later stage, it would also include the objective of social cohesion and intercultural understanding. This is the reason why the issue of minority languages came to be included into the debate on EM. Since the central issue involves the question of how the problem of transnational communication across diverse languages can be resolved in order to make ‘unity in diversity’ a reality, EM has also come to cover transnational communication issues. Here, it comes as no surprise that the debate on ‘English Only’ and ELF, in competition with the other European languages, raises considerable concern (cf. Phillipson 2003: 6–7).

From what has been said so far, it may be concluded that ‘linguistic diversity’ and EM are intersecting notions, which, however, cannot be taken as fully synonymous terms (cf. also Cullen et al. 2008: 1). Rather, it may be argued that ‘linguistic diversity’ constitutes the ideological underpinning for European multilingual politics, while it also constitutes a political goal that is promoted on the assumption that linguistic diversity equates with cultural diversity, which again represents European identity as a whole. It remains, however, an open question how the desired European ‘unity in diversity’ can eventually be attained and how the respect for linguistic diversity can be implemented into effective communication across the diverse languages.

1.2 European Multilingualism: Towards a Comprehensive Policy Framework

Since the mid-1990s, linguistic diversity has become an issue of increasing significance on the EU’s political agenda and steps have been taken to put the principle into practice by fostering and enhancing multilingualism as a common European project so as to achieve the major objectives pursued by the Union in the ongoing unification process.

From 1995 onwards, the development of multilingualism as a common European project has been closely connected with the debate on the emergent European information society. It was argued that the impact of the scientific and technological world, the development of the information society and the internationalisation of the economy would prioritise information exchange and radically change the way societies function. From this perspective, particularly in multilingual societies and in the global markets, individual and societal multilingualism has come to be seen as a valuable cultural capital and an asset that speakers should benefit from (cf. COM(95)590: 5–6). Thus, the ‘Council Decision of 21 November 1996 on the Adoption of a Multiannual Programme to Promote the Linguistic Diversity of the Community in the Information Society’ (cf. OJ 1996 L 306: 40–48) established a multiannual programme to promote linguistic diversity in order to overcome linguistic barriers on the EU internal and the world markets and to provide citizens with equitable access to information in their own language. Such access to information would, it was argued, be enriched by the citizens’ knowledge of other languages, which, in turn, would foster initiatives to expand the teaching of other Community languages at school. In the perspective of the later Lisbon Strategy (cf. Lisbon Conclusions 2000), knowledge of languages became part of the basic skills Europeans should be provided with in transition towards a KBS. Such knowledge was seen as capital from which the evolving European knowledge-based economy would benefit.

(Continues…)Excerpted from European Multilingualism by Rosita Rindler Schjerve, Eva Vetter. Copyright © 2012 Rosita Rindler Schjerve and Eva Vetter. Excerpted by permission of Multilingual Matters.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.