On languages and particularly languages in the European Union

[Harold Schiffman]

On languages and particularly languages in the European Union

Languages are a great tool for the Human Being but can be a great
disadvantage as well. The problem is that languages were created to
communicate, and in fact animals use them this way, but when man
appeared on earth languages could be also used to encrypt messages
among certain groups of people. Therefore, for the Human being
languages are a double-edged weapon.

There is also another important point about languages. As they carry
lots of cultural elements, associate directly with certain ethnic
groups or countries, and are absolutely essential and inherent to
humanity, they are used as a political weapon and people are attached
to them more with the heart than with their heads, due to the strong
cultural basis held by languages. Languages are also an economic
power. This means that if a language is succesful, more cultural works
will be made on that language, therefore more money will get to people
speaking it. In result, languages are used nowadays for everything
except communicating, which is their main purpose.

There are many countries in the world which hold many languages.
Examples are China, India, many European countries and the European
Union, Brazil, Canada, and others. This means that languages are not
an insurmountable obstacle to develop a democracy, or to live in
peace. It is also true that many languages in a country can increase
government costs (due to translators), and extend many legal processes
in almost all the stages of the aplication of law. Nowadays, with the
state of the art in translation technology, these problems can be
reduced, but not eliminated. With the internet, there has been another
major change, and it is that any language which has specific and
organised (written) grammar and consolidated vocabulary can last
forever, because de facto anyone will be able to learn that language
and most sources will be publicly available. Beyond this point, and if
internet doesn't disappear, any language won't actually be eradicated.

The problem with language comes when, as said before, it is identified
with a group of people and this matter reinforces nationalism
theories. Many European Union member states are currently dealing with
this issue: Great Britain (although they don't have different
languages), Belgium, Spain... And, in an upper level, appears what it
has been called anti-europeism. In my opinion, the only way European
countries and the world itself have to deal with globalisation is
joining and grouping (for economic purposes, counteract nationalism
forces, and also to make it easier in general to comply with Human
Rights) instead of splitting or separating.

So, if the situation is this, should governments enforce the use of
one language only in their countries or not, and particularly, is the
European Union language policy correct? In my opinion, thinking with
the head would mean that the EU should try to get to use a single
official language, and many co-official, but the problem is that man
is human and it means we think with the heart many times.

Trying to obtain a solution for this takes us to think about it in a
pragmatic way. I'm practically sure things would go better if we all
had a common language, because, as it is an opinion and culture
carrier, sometimes language is used to separate, to encrypt, to
differentiate; therefore this phenomenom is associated sometimes with
xeonophobia and racism. It is very usual: when you enter in a shop and
the tender speaks other language than yours and you don't understand,
you instinctively suspect of him (maybe he's saying that I look dumb
so he's going to rise the price of what I'm trying to buy?). Other
examples could be shown here but maybe this one is enough. In the
other hand, if we don't think of the problem in a practical way we
might say that having many languages can increase culture and arts and
it is always great to read a book in the language it was written. That
is ok, though most movies I watch are translated and nothing happens.
But is it pragmatic? In a world where there are wars, there are
gratuitous deaths and things like that, should we think of personal
amusement before social understanding?

Therefore, maybe European Union language policy should enforce the use
of one official single language and many co-official. This could be
done by selecting an official language among all. The selection should
be arbitrary and pragmatical. And I think that if we follow those two
recommendations the EU should choose English as the official language
we should have. English is the world's most spoken occidental
language. We are all familiar with it and its alphabet. It is spoken
in the United States, in Canada, in Australia...

This won't happen in 50 years from now, though (in my opinion). So
European Union should force their member states to have a compulsory
education that teaches English as second (or third)language (in states
where their first language is not English). I suspect that, although
this is not what the European Union says, it is happening de facto in
most states. But maybe it's too early for the EU to say that. If the
EU said that, many countries might jump out from it. People are
thinking with the heart in that particular topic. But we are humans,
and sometimes we think that way, although people who achieve their
goals usually don't think that way very often... When the next
generation has been taught English compulsory, then the EU could
switch to a single, official language, and turn the rest from
co-official to unofficial, useful for cultural purposes and research.

For me, the benefits of having only one language are clear:




Mutual understanding
Single culture and idea of country
Less money spent on bureaucracy... less bureaucracy
Less xenophobic feelings
Culture and diversity can nowadays be preserved thanks to the internet
Fewer tools to differenciate, separate, exclude

Many points related above stand for the use of one official language:
pragmatism, impossibility to delete a language with the current state
of the art... Maybe the correct approach is to promote English for
communicating and co-official languages for culture and amusement.
Anyway, I hope the EU properly chooses the moment to say this because
if they do it early we might split up again and, for me, it would be
no good.

Anybody has anything to say about this?
http://ladyjusticesscholar.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-languages-and-particularly-languages.html

-- 
**************************************
N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
its members
and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
or sponsor of
the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who
disagree with a
message are encouraged to post a rebuttal. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)
*******************************************