Since 1 January the European Union has not only got two new members but also two extra languages: Romanian and Bulgarian. In fact, there are three 'new' tongues, for Irish has also joined the list of Brussels' 'official' languages, bringing the total to 23. But critics say that's at least 20 too many.
The European Union makes use of around 3000 interpreters and translators, most of them coming from the world's largest translation agency, the Directorate-General for Translation in Brussels. These translators are needed for the 1.3 million A4-size texts which are produced in Brussels each year and the more than 11,000 meetings.
Of course, this all comes at a price - translation work alone costs the EU one percent of its entire annual budget: that's 1.1 million euros, or 2.28 euros per inhabitant of the union.
Complication
With the addition of Romanian, Bulgarian and Irish, the figure for the number of possible translation combinations has grown from 400 to 529. An added complication is that Bulgarian uses the Cyrillic alphabet. Thanks to new computer technology this isn't such a big problem as the one faced in 1981 when Greece brought the first non-Latin language to Brussels. Even so, the European Commission says at least 40 Bulgarian translators will be needed.
The EU has chosen this expensive approach because, since 1958, multilingualism has been one of the key pillars of the European community. At that time it was laid down in a resolution that all limitations on the languages which could be used in the European Parliament would be seen as an obstacle to the democratic operation of the parliament. But the then EEC (European Economic Community) was made up of only six members, with four official languages: German, French, Italian and... Dutch.
Understandable
Still, the emphasis on linguistic diversity was maintained, even when even more member states joined. Guus Extra, Professor of Multilingualism at the University of Tilburg says this is understandable.
"Europe is still, after all, a continent that is characterised by linguistic diversity. If you look at the member states and the candidate member states of the EU, then the most typical characteristic of the nation state is the link with its language."
"France and French. The Netherlands and Dutch. Spain and Spanish. If you travel outside Europe, Australia or the United States, for example, that's not the case." However, one example of how such idealism can get quickly bogged down in political squabbles is provided by Ireland. When Dublin joined the EEC in 1973, the Irish voluntarily gave up the right to have their language given 'official status' in order to help keep the EEC manageable.
 |
 |
|
Click to listen to a report by Perro de Jong
|
Prestige
After all, the Irish all speak English too. But for almost all the member states which joined the EU in 2004, getting official status for their native tongues was a matter of prestige... even for tiny Malta, with just 350,000 speakers of Maltese. Dublin regretted its earlier gesture, and now the 260,000 people who speak Irish will see their language take its rightful place in Brussels. Professor Extra:
"I think that people have ran up against the limits of what is practically achievable a long time ago. When Europe speaks directly to its citizens, it will always be necessary to use the national languages of the member states so as to avoid creating a 'democratic deficit'."
"It is a fact that a whole lot of people don't belong to the cultural elite who can manage with English only. Though, of course, that's perfectly possible within the highest echelons of the EU." Lingua franca
Professor Extra would prefer to see English as the lingua franca rather than a combination of English, French and German as has often been suggested. He thinks that, otherwise, there's bound to be a debate at some point about whether Spanish or Italian or Polish or, in the future, Turkish, should also join this 'elite'.
There is, howeber, a third possibility - suggested in 2005 by Professor François Grin from Geneva: everyone in Europe should learn Esperanto as a second language! Then no one will feel like they're missing out and you will only need one internal working language for the EU. He thinks this would not only be the most fair solution, but also far and away the cheapest.
*Translated and Edited by RNW Internet Desk (cc)
Tags:
Brussels,
Bulgarian,
European Union,
expansion,
extra languages,
irish,
official,
Romanian,
tongue
jasmin,
21-01-2007
- India
Wow! The reactions are growing like the Tower of Babel, so I might as well add my storey / story too. Though I find English easier than anyother language yet Ido is also easy to master, better than Esperanto. So I agree with all who vote for Ido as second language of EU.
Gennaro Cappelluti,
genc@inwind.it,
20-01-2007
- Italy
I want just to add that all the languages ever spoken in human history and so also and especially latin has been once planned and so artificial languages. They got "living" languages and they got their richness as they were spoken. Thus, Ido as well would become as rich and effective as all the other existing languages, if more and more people would start speaking it. Moreover, as in the past there were not books, radios, TVs, schools, etc, nowadays we speak languages which are rather different from the planned and so original ones. With Ido it would not happen, as now we can keep regular a language. About words like "gezellig", "pizza", "dejavu", "internet", etc, Ido would not change them, it would just adopt them, as Ido respects all the tipical nouns.
Eberhard Scholz,
20-01-2007
- Deutschland
There is no other planned language besides Ido which has combined so clever the principle of regularity in structure with an international vocabulary. Ido is one of the planned language created by an international team of academics. It is an excellent compromise between artificial and natural languages. It could help to get over the language problem in the EU.
Gabriel Svoboda,
svoboda.gabriel@centrum.cz,
20-01-2007
- Czechia
An objection which is often raised against constructed languages is that they can never be as good as natural languages. It is true that our Interlanguage is not as rich as English, not as elegant as French, not as vigorous as German, not as beautiful as Italian, not as full of nuances as Russian, not as "homelike" as our mother-tongue. But note this well, that all these good qualities, which one appreciates and praises in the national languages, are found only when they are spoken or written by natives. And the Interlanguage may very well be richer than the English spoken by a Frenchman, more elegant than French as spoken by a Dane, more vigorous than the German of some Italians, more beautiful than the Italian of the English, more full of nuances than the Russian of Germans, and more homelike than my own tongue spoken by Russians. And as our language is an auxiliary language, it can only be compared fairly with natural languages as spoken by foreigners.
(Otto Jespersen, An International Language)
silvio,
19-01-2007
- itay
The adoption of Esperanto, as Eco points out, presupposes the possibility to fully translate from English, Russian, Italian, etc, to Esperanto. Now, I was very surprised by the fact that many Dutchmen and Dutchwomen were very proud of words like 'gezellig' or 'gedogen', because they cannot be fully translated. When I asked about the meaning of 'gezellig', a Dutchman started to make examples, talking about steaming cups of coffee, a lot of friends watching tv together, etc.. Ok, nevermind…. maybe I will never understand what 'gezellig' really means. Now, I would like to ask: is 'gezellig' exactly equal to 'cosy'? I guess that the Dutch answer would be a sheer 'nee'.
The Search for the Perfect language (the making of Europe ), by Umberto Eco adopts an historical approach. It is the history of the failure(s) of an utopian project, as the adjective 'perfect' in the title clearly shows. It is true that Eco (by the way, Umberto Eco does not speak Esperanto, he only knows the grammar) does not exclude the adoption of Esperanto as a common international language. However, he points out in his interviews the "religion" or "philosophy" of Esperanto. In other words, the Esperanto project is highly ideological, something apparent if you look at the fact that esperantists translate world literature in Esperanto, even if the world does not need it and can live without it . I mean, the article by Perro de Jong is a success of reactions because Esperanto is interesting as an ideology. If you are interested in a language other than Esperanto, you buy a grammar and you study the grammar. There is not a lot of debate about it. Esperanto is discussed as a cultural phenomenon, not for practical reasons, since even a country like Japan did not use Esperanto, but based its economic success on the adoption of English.
jasmin,
18-01-2007
- India
This reaction page is really growing up like the Tower of Babel so I might as well add my storey [story] as well. I have been following this discussion and have looked for Esperanto and Ido in the good old google. Now I find Ido easier than Esperanto....and can follow it given some time but having said that, I find English much easier, even easier than many of my own countries languages. In my view let English remain the first language of EU and Ido as second language for those who can learn it. Bona jorno!
silvio,
18-01-2007
- italy
Firstly, the adoption of Esperanto, as Eco points out, presupposes the possibility to fully translate from English, Russian, Italian, etc, to Esperanto. Now, I was very surprised by the fact that many Dutchmen and Dutchwomen were very proud of words like 'gezellig' or 'gedogen', because they cannot be fully translated. When I asked about the meaning of 'gezellig', a Dutchman started to make examples, talking about steaming cups of coffee, a lot of friends watching tv together, etc. Ok, nevermind…. maybe I will never understand what 'gezellig' really means. Now, I would like to ask: is 'gezellig' exactly equal to 'cosy'? I guess that the Dutch answer would be a sheer 'nee'.
Secondly, The Search for the Perfect language (the making of Europe ), by Umberto Eco adopts an historical approach. It is the history of the failure(s) of an utopian project, as the adjective 'perfect' in the title clearly shows. It is true that Eco (by the way, Umberto Eco does not speak Esperanto, he only knows the grammar) does not exclude the adoption of Esperanto as a common international language. However, he points out in his interviews the "religion" or "philosophy" of Esperanto. In other words, the Esperanto project is highly ideological, something apparent if you look at the fact that esperantists translate world literature in Esperanto, even if the world does not need it and can live without it . I mean, the article by Perro de Jong is a success of reactions because Esperanto is interesting as an ideology. If you are interested in a language other than Esperanto, you buy a grammar and you study the grammar. There is not a lot of debate about it. Esperanto is discussed as a cultural phenomenon, not for practical reasons, since even a country like Japan did not use Esperanto, but based its economic success on the adoption of English.
Ahmad R. Mamdoohi,
17-01-2007
- Iran
There is a very big problem in the world called "the international or common language problem" and there is an ideal solution for it called "Esperanto". It is more than 25 years (since I got familiar with Esperanto), that I am wondering why they do not apply the solution for the problem.
Unfortunately it seems that most people still think that a national language - like Latin, Russian, French or now English - can be used as a common language. But it would not work, as it has not worked during millenioms till now. It is just like those people, who are still believing that the Earth is flat (www.theflatearthsociety.org). Only a neutral, scientific, easy-to-use and capable language like Esperanto can solve the problem soonest, and for the least amount of expenditure. It is not my finding; Gandhi, Rolland, Tolstoy, Talkien, Tagore, Umberto Eco, ... and many many other grat men have confirmed Esperanto as the common language for all - why, realy why, some do not want the prooblem be resolved? Thanks.
Günter Schlemminger,
14-01-2007
- Germany
English is no good medium for solving the language problem in the EU. Grammar and word order are okay, but what about pronunciation and spelling? The English and Americans may keep their beautiful tongue like it is. The imperative reform has been completed hundred years ago and is called IDO. What we need now are modern textbooks and up-date dictionaries for IDO, the best auxiliary language I know.
Günter Schlemminger, g_schlemminger@web.de, 14-01-2007 - Germany
Frank Kasper,
13-01-2007
- Germany
I prefer the international language Ido, why it is easy to learn, to speak and to write for the most people in Europe and also all over the world.
silvio,
12-01-2007
- italy
I have some philosophical, or rather theoretical, arguments against the adoption of artificial languages: Ido, Esperanto... Language is not a mere picture, a model of reality: "if we had to name anything which is the life of the sign, we should have to say that it was its use". Meaning as use, Wittgenstein would say. Language, when we speak, is part of an activity, a form of life. Now, an utopistic and elitist language made in laboratory, spoken mainly by educated people, is not international: it is sectarian. Why? Because it is not vernacular, expressive and spontaneous. It is crystal without sweat. It is burocratic and standard. Because if a supposedly simple artificial language was thaught in schools, it would give birth to a variety of dialectal forms (therefore it would not be synthetic anymore). Come on, how can you court a girl in Esperanto? Impossible. Basic English is much more better. Antonio Gramsci and Benedetto Croce couldn’t agree more.
Gennaro Cappelluti,
genc@inwind.it,
11-01-2007
- Italy
Definitely English is nowadays lingua franca. But why? Because of the British colonialism? Because of the USA economical power? Maybe, but I think above all because of its easiness. Could English have been easier? Yes it could, if it had been more regular and had had more words closer to the ones spread in Europe and so if it had been more natural for EU citizens. Does Ido satisfy these qualities? Absolutely it does! Would EU citizens spend less energy in learning it than English? Absolutely they would! Ido is fantastic even because it adopts with no variation all the most spread nouns in the world, regardless their origin. Then it is perfectly compatible with all the world languages. Somebody says Ido is a dead language. If EU citizens started speaking it, Ido would start living!!
silvio,
11-01-2007
- Italy
Language is not an animal species. The diffusion of English does not necessarily endanger other languages like Dutch or Italian (i.e. think about the peculiar pronunciation of 'r' in the Dutch language, in a word like 'print'). Language is not a conventional coin. Thus, Language is not a cold academic convention without truth, known also as Esperanto. The only problem about Esperanto is that it was born dead. Moreover, I do not understand why English is dangerous for other languages or identities and Esperanto is so democratic. The truth of the matter is that I can write my reaction in Esperanto, in Italian or, why not? in my own dialect. The only result would be that very few people could understand what I am trying to communicate.
It is worth noting that it would be deeply unfair to say that English is the language of the american empire: this is pure antiamericanism. English is lingua franca in many Master programmes in the Netherlands and across the Globe. Why don't they choose Esperanto at Amsterdam, Utrecht or Leiden University? Answer: It would be either silly or mad. So when you hear about adopting Esperanto within the EU, please, don't laugh too hard.
I would like to make a point about Italy. If Italian culture is doomed to disappear (obviously I do not believe that), it would be caused by isolation, not by English language. I can give you a stupid but meaningful example. When I was in the Netherlands I have seen "La vita è bella" of the Italian director Roberto Benigni, in Italian with Dutch subtitles. In Italy all the movies are dubbed in Italian. So it is impossible for an english-speaking man in Rome, to understand an English movie like Rambo. This is a lack of respect toward other cultures, because movies are part of what is known as culture. I am not sure, but I guess that Dutch famous director Paul Verhoeven made 'Basic Instinct' in English, just like the Italian Gabriele Muccino with 'The pursuit of happiness'.
In conclusion, I would like to sum up with a joke. I like to think that if the personal computer was invented in Groningen, now it would have a Frisian name.
Sorry for my English and the lenght of my reaction(s).
Gennaro Cappelluti,
genc@inwind.it,
11-01-2007
- Italy
I think that language diversity for EU is especially a huge business, as it keeps working so many people. But if we adopted any artificial language as EU official lingua franca, many new professional profiles would rise. Maybe we don't move to change the current situation just because we are lazy and we don't care so much about common money... The choice of an artificial language as official lingua franca is absolutely the most politically correct decision we can take: there would be no special advantage for any country! We acted this way already when we adopted our common currency, the euro: we didn't choose the pound, mark, franc, lira, etc, but we just adopted a new one... It would have been absolutely politically incorrect and crazy to propose any already existing currency. EU should inform its citizens about all the existing artificial languages and settle a referendum to decide the lingua franca to use... In that case I'm rather sure Ido would be chosen!
Jose Luis Cossio,
09-01-2007
- Mexico
Its posible that one day pression for the use of one neutral language for avoid conflicts about the use of national languages or simply for budget problems made that some day EU finds one solution. Now exist many conlangs very good for that purpose, for auxlang for the EU, like Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua. Personaly me prefers Ido ´cause not has the dificults that Esperanto presents for present times or for use in computing (the circumflex letters), and Interlingua has that "cult aura" yet. I sugest the learning of Ido, an esperanto true reform, that is surely that one day EU perhaps wants to find. Ido is a aux language easy an very fast to learn. I wants someday communicate with a french, a swedish, a greek, a rusian or a turkish without language ploblems. Ido is the solution that i sugest for you european friends. Bona deziri por vi ca yaro 2007/Good desires for you this year 2007.
