Europe: Linguistic Follies: The economic consequences of the rise of English

Harold Schiffman hfsclpp at
Sun Jul 22 12:32:34 UTC 2007

Linguistic follies

Jul 19th 2007
>>From *The Economist* print edition
The economic consequences of the rise of English Peter Schrank

IN RECENT years Brussels has been a fine place to observe the irresistible
rise of English as Europe's lingua franca. For native speakers of English
who are lazy about learning languages (yes, they exist), Brussels has become
an embarrassingly easy place to work or visit. English is increasingly
audible and visible in this scruffily charming Belgian city, and frankly
rampant in the concrete-and-glass European quarter. Now, however, signs of a
backlash are building. This is not based on sentiment, but on chewy points
of economic efficiency and political fairness. And in a neat coincidence,
Brussels is again a good place to watch the backlash develop.

Start in the European district, where to the sound of much grinding of
French and German teeth, the expansion of the European Union has left
English not just edging ahead of the two other working languages, but in a
position of utter dominance. The union now boasts 27 members and 23 official
languages, but the result has been the opposite of a new tower of Babel.
Only grand meetings boast interpreters. At lower levels, it turns out, when
you put officials from Berlin, Bratislava, Bucharest and Budapest in the
same room, English is by far the easiest option.

Is this good for Europe? It feels efficient, but being a native
English-speaker also seems to many to confer an unfair advantage. It is far
easier to argue a point in your mother tongue. It is also hard work for even
the best non-native speakers to understand other non-native versions of
English, whereas it is no great strain for the British or Irish to decipher
the various accents. François Grin, a Swiss economist, argues that Britain
enjoys hidden transfers from its neighbours worth billions of euros a year,
thanks to the English language. He offers several reasons, starting with
spending in Britain on language teaching in schools, which is
proportionately lower than in France or Switzerland, say. To add insult to
injury, Britain profits from teaching English to foreigners. "Elevating one
language to a position of dominance is tantamount to giving a huge handout
to the country or countries that use it as a native language," he insists.

What about the Europe outside the bubble of EU politics? Surely the rise of
English as a universal second language is good for business? Perhaps, but
even here a backlash is starting, led by linguists with close ties to
European institutions and governments. They argue that the rush to learn
English can sometimes hurt business by making it harder to find any staff
who are willing to master less glamorous European languages. English is all
very well for globe-spanning deals, suggests Hugo Baetens Beardsmore, a
Belgian academic and adviser on language policy to the European Commission.
But across much of the continent, firms do the bulk of their business with
their neighbours. Dutch firms need delivery drivers who can speak German to
customers, and vice versa. Belgium itself is a country divided between
people who speak Dutch (Flemish) and French. A local plumber needs both to
find the cheapest suppliers, or to land jobs in nearby France and the

"English, in effect, blocks the learning of other languages," claims Mr
Baetens Beardsmore. Just as the global rise of English makes life easy for
idle Britons or Americans, it breeds complacency among those with English as
their second language. "People say, 'well, I speak English and I have no
need to learn another language.'" He cites research by the European
Commission suggesting that this risk can be avoided if school pupils are
taught English as a third tongue after something else. A huge
government-financed survey of Brussels businesses reveals a dire shortage of
candidates who can speak the right local languages (40% of firms have
reported losing contracts because of a lack of languages). One result is a
very odd labour market. By day, Brussels is more or less bilingual, hosting
a third of a million Dutch- and French-speaking commuters from the prim
suburbs, who fill the lion's share of well-paid graduate jobs. Once night
falls, Dutch-speakers are in a small minority.
Not getting on their bikes

Moreover, among permanent Brussels residents, unemployment hovers around
20%. Just a short journey away, in Dutch-speaking suburbs such as Zaventem
(home to the airport), unemployment is 4-5% and employers complain of
worsening labour shortages. Even within Brussels, thousands of job vacancies
go unfilled every month because nine in ten jobseekers cannot read and write
in French and Dutch, prompting employers to bin their applications. Olivier
Willocx of the Brussels Chamber of Commerce and Industry argues that too
many Brussels natives are "allergic to learning Dutch". The rise of Dutch is
painful for some. French was once the language of the Belgian and Brussels
elite, but the post-war period has seen Dutch-speaking Flanders (as the
north of Belgium is known) boom. "Like it or not, the real economic power in
Brussels is Flemish," contends Mr Willocx.

Hardline nationalist politicians in Flanders must take some blame because
they have done a lot to make French-speakers feel unwelcome. The head of the
Brussels employment service, Eddy Courthéoux, also questions the sheer
number of job advertisements that demand both Dutch and French, saying that
for some "it is just a way of avoiding hiring a foreigner": code for
Moroccan, Turkish or African immigrants. Perhaps Brussels should accept its
fate as an international city, and switch to English, like some European
Singapore (although with waffles, *frites *and dirty streets)? For all his
problems finding jobs for monolingual locals, Mr Courthéoux looks appalled.
"Living in a bilingual city is not a misfortune, it makes life rich and
interesting," he argues. Some would call this pure sentiment, others might
suggest that it reflects hard-nosed economics. But Brussels is actually a
good place in which to hear the point and simply nod your head.

N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its
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)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list