Lingua Franca

May European Union adopt a Lingua Franca?

English vs. International Auxiliary Languages (IALs)

pros and cons

Federico [email protected]

LGC Conference 2005, Cardiff, Friday 8th July

Outline

1. The EU Language Policy after theEnlargment

2. Why EU citizens need a EuropeanLingua Franca

3. English, Latin, or an InternationalAuxiliary Language (IAL)?

Concluding remarks

?


The EU Language Policy Regime (1)

“Article 1The official languages and theworking languages of theinstitutions of the European Unionshall be Czech, Danish, Dutch,English, Estonian, Finnish,French, German, Greek,Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian,Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish,Portuguese, Slovak, Slovenian,Spanish and Swedish.”

Source: EU Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, lastly amended 30 May 2005


How many official and working languages?

The 5th enlargment (1 May 2004):● 10 more country members entered;

in total:

● 25 country members;● 21 official and working languages.

The 6th enlargment (2007):● Bulgaria and Romania will join;● Croatia and Turkey had requested;● former Yugoslavia States? Israel?

in total (it's a guessing!):

● about 30 country members;● about 30 official languages. Source: Europa DGT web site 2005


How many languages are spoken in the EU?

Obvious remarks:

not every language spoken in EUhas such an important status:

● not considered regional languages(e.g. Welsh, Catalan);

● not considered so-called communitylanguages (e.g. Hindi, Urdu, Swahili,Arabic);

in total:

● about 40 languages spoken in EU!

Source: Lönnroth 2004

A (multi)language planning policy has to deal with all languages spoken in the EU


The EU Language Policy Regime (2)

The legal basis:● Regulation No 1/1958.● Article 21 of the Union’s founding

treaty.

Roles of language policy:● language policy is a promoter of

maintaining peace in the EU;● language policy is a plank

of the EU's cohesion.

Two fundamental principles:● citizens have a right to their language

(language right as a human right);● equality of treatment between

peoples and individuals(equity in communication).

Does EU in practice respect these two fundamental principles?


Some languages are more equal than others

One example will be enough:

translating in the Commission.

1 416 817 translated pages (2003):

● English originals: 59%;● French originals: 28%;● German originals: 4%;● Other EU languages: 9%.

Nota Bene:

● data before the 5th enlargment;● legal obligation to translate

important texts (priority criterion).

Neither language right nor equity in communication are respected


EU, why not a Lingua Franca? (1)

At an institutional level:

● legal obligation to write originalsinto the Lingua Franca;

● in case of doubtful interpretationin European Courts' contexts,priority will be given to the versioninto the Lingua Franca;

● Lingua Franca will be the primaryworking language in every EU agency, for example;

● no more 'second division' languagestatus in key situations(e.g. European Patent Office).

It's the only practical solution which respects the language right principle.


The ideal EU citizen speak at least 3 idioms

General agreement among scholars:

● EU favours a multicultural society;

● this implies multilingualism; so:

● every EU citizen should be at leasttrilingual.

see for example the ReccomendationsMannheim-Florence by EurFedLing

There is no agreement how to apply:

● trilingualism;● language right;● equity in communication.

How does a Lingua Franca fit into a trilingualism language regime?


Proposing a triglossia regime as trilingualism

Triglossia as differentiation in contextuse of three languages, according tothe social functions involved.

A language has two social functions:

● group-symbolic function; and

● communicative function;

General remark:

“Symbolic function becomes clearly perceptible only if it diverges from, or clashes with, communicative function.” (Ammon, 2004) A road sign in English and Irish, from cafebabel.com

This scenario has strong consequences to EU education at every level


Which triglossia?

THE 3-LEVEL SCHEMAsymbolic communicative

Local Language Identity core very own group

Official Language(s) National identity country members

Lingua Franca EU identity EU citizenship

The local language level follows the personality principle: people may cultivate whatever 'motherlanguage' they want (regional, community, etc.).

The official language level follows the territoriality principle: country membership implies proficiencyin (at least one of) the official language(s) of the country.

The lingua franca level follows the territoriality principle at a European level, gives strenght toEuropeanisation.

So, which consequences at the educational level?


EU, why not a Lingua Franca? (2)

At an educational level:

● the local language will be vehicle ofhistory, local traditions, etc. (free-dom for allophones to establish theirown schools/classes);

● the official language will be vehicleof literature, national law, etc. (and itis prerequisite to obtain countrymembership);

● the Lingua Franca will be vehicle ofscience and international disciplines(and guarantees people mobility).

Again, it's the only solution which respects the language right principle.


Main features of Lingua Franca candidates

In order of importance:

● pan-European character: every EUcitizen may find something familiar;

● ethnic neutrality: not owned or tiedby a single group or countrymember;

● high hybridism: it should have a lotof language substrata and it shouldbe high receiptive to accept newwords.

● living language: it must be alanguage used in real context, not aproject to be tested yet. ?

Let's see pros and cons of the main candidates


English: the status quo choice (1)

Pros:

● pan-European character: it's felt asthe de facto 'global language';

● ethnic neutrality: soon in the worldthere will be more L2 speakers thannative ones (Crystal): it's not ownedby any ethnos, even British (positionstrengthened by a spelling reform);

● high hybridism: it is German incharacter, but Romanced in lexicon;it accepts almost everything.

● living language: it's the strongestlanguage in the world.

Moreover, English would strenghten the Euro-Atlantic partnership


English: the status quo choice (2)

Cons:

● pan-European character: it's not so'pan': europeanization does meanglobalisation?

● ethnic neutrality: English belongs toits native speakers, who are at risk ofmonolingualism (Eurydice report);

● high hybridism: Slavic roots andothers will enter in everyday use.

● living language: finally it willemerge a new variety, an ELFE“English as a Lingua Franca forEurope”, from EU English Style docs.

Will cats and dogs rain everywhere in the continent?


ELFE will transform itself in Europanto?

“In Bruxel, de europaica capitaal cite, elke

day millieros van fonzouvrieros (fonkzionarios ouvrieros) travallabant por make de europaica maschina werke.

Finalmently, eine only lingua erat gespoken: de Europanto. Partodo in Europa de Hoge Europantico Instituto organizabat cursos zo dat alles europeos Europanto als secunda lengua koneuropaico fonkzionarios elke jaaro hadde eine Europanto examen to helde.

”from: 'Cabillot versus der malefieko finnko'

A fine linguistic joke as Europanto may teach us something


Latin: back to European roots (1)

Pros:

● pan-European character: it's language substratum of everylanguage in EU, more or less;

● ethnic neutrality: it doesn't belong to a living ethnos;

● high hybridism: after the contactwith Ancient Greek, it is very low;

● living language: it is spoken todayonly in circles of enthusiasts as anIAL, a 'language for holydays'(septimanae latinae europeae, 100people max).

It gives a clear direction to European Union identity towards Christianity


Latin: back to European roots (2)

Cons:

● pan-European character and ethnicneutrality: it gives a clear advantageto speakers of Romance languages;

● living language: it has some traits ofclassical Latin (morphology, syntax)and some traits of vulgar Latin (exp.phonetics);

Probably Latin in wide use will changein a Latino maccheronico form.

Again: a Europanto risk!

A question: how Latin may fit everyday needs in contemporary world?


Harrius Potter may give us a cue

English original:

“ At that moment the telephone rang and Aunt Petunia went to answer while harry and Uncle Vernon Watched Dudley unwrap the racing bike, a video camera, a remot control airplane, sixteen new computer games, and a VCR.

”Latin translation:

“ illo momento telephonium sonuit et Matertera Petunia abiit responsum dum Harrius et Avunculus Vernon spectant Dudleum detegentem birotulam cursoriam, cinematographicam machinulam, aeroplanum ex longiquo directum, sedecim novos ludos computatorios, televisificum exceptaculum.

”

Conclusion: Living Latin is similar to a IAL candidate.

Let's see the three IAL candidates as EU Lingua Franca


General traits of IAL candidates

Regardless of specs:

● ethnic neutrality: they doesn't belong to a living ethnos;

BUT

● living language: we will consideronly IALs with an establishedspeech community (non-ethnicbase);

There are more than 1,000 IALprojects who either died with theirauthors or were revitalized recently,throughout the World Wide Web. ?

So, we have only 3 IAL candidates: Esperanto, Ido and Interlingua


Esperanto: the tradition of IALs (1)

Pros:

● pan-European character: everyEuropean may find somethingfamiliar, at a glance (also Slavic);

● ethnic neutrality: it doesn't belong toany ethnos, but there are 1,000families using it;

● high hybridism: language substrata:Latin, French, German (Yiddish),English, Russian, Polish;

● living language: from 1887. manymeetings (even 1,000+ people).

It is well used in a lot of contexts, both formal (e.g. academic) and informal


Esperanto: the tradition of IALs (2)

Cons:

● pan-European character: its demosfeels itself as world wide, notEuropean in character;

● high hybridism: phonemic writingsystem, LEGO-like morphology, easeborrowing, is paid by “strange”compunds at a glance: e.g. foresto(being away), malliberulejo (prison),easy “only” for speakers;

● living language: for a minority, it isso valuable, worthy of use and study,to concede the role of InternationalLanguage to English. 1905: 668 people from 20 countries. It still lives after a century.

It prefers productivity regardless the language background


Ido: the only Esperanto offspring survived (1)

Pros:

● pan-European character: its morefamiliar and easier to pronounce forRomance language and Englishspeakers than Esperanto (scienco >cienco, science, ŝpruco > spricar, tospray);

● high hybridism: less hybrid thanEsperanto (no more Slavic elements,few Germanic), it prefers derivationto borrowing (a precize and richsystem);

● living language: from 1908. Fewcongresses (100 people max).

It tries a synthesis between productivity and readability for Europeans


Ido: the only Esperanto offspring survived (2)

Cons:

● pan-European character and highhybridism: Slavic and German rootsless European than Romance? Wordderivation may be very complex andaccumulates suffixes in “heavy”compounds: talent-oz-a templ-obuddh-ist-al instead of talent-atempl-o budh-ist-a;

● living language: many supportersex-Esperantists, more engaged inIAL disputes than in practical uses.

Louis de Beaufront and Luis Couturat (picture by Ric Berger)

Its structure is less flexible than Esperanto and too influenced by French


A compare: the Maastricht Treaty (Clause 3B)

English original:

The community shall act within the limits of the powersconferred upon it by this treaty and the objectivesassigned to it therein. In areas which do not fall withinits exclusive competence the community shall takeaction in accordance with the principle of subsidiarityonly if and insofar as the objectives of the proposedaction cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member-states and can therefore by reason of the scale or effectsof the proposed action be better achieved by thecommunity.

Source: Progreso, Sep-Dec 1995

Ido translation (by Adrian Pilgrim):

La Komuneso devas agar interne di la limiti dilautoritato quan ica kontrato grantis ad ol e dil skopiatribuita ad ol en la kontrato. En domeni qui netrovesas en olua resortiso exkluziva la Komuneso devasagar segun la principi di subsidiareso nur se e til ke laskopi dil ago projetita ne povas suficante atingesor dalmembro-stati e povas do plu bone atingesor dalKomuneso pro la skalo o rezulti dil ago projetita.

Esperanto translation (by William Auld):

La Komunumo devas agi interne de la potencolimoj,kiujn rajtigas al ĝi tiu ĉi traktato, kaj de la celoj ĉi-traktate difinitaj al ĝi. En agadkampoj, kiuj ne trafas enĝian solkompetenton, la Komunumo devas agi laŭ laprincipo de akcesoreco nur se, kaj ĝis tioma grado ke, laceloj de la proponata agado ne sufiĉe atingeblas de lamembro-ŝtatoj kaj sekve pro la amplekso kaj efikoj dela proponata agado povos esti pli bone plenumitaj de laKomunumo.


Two principles directions in IAL planning

Schemism (or: Esperanto school)

● more productivity: one root, somesuffixes, a lot of words, trying not to“distort” original forms

Naturalism (or: naturalistic school)

● more readability: extracting frominternational natural languagesprototype forms, trying not tointroduce irregularities.

De Wahl (in Cosmoglotta 61 (6) June1929) said: instead of build reformed“Esperantids”, one should start fromthe international lexicon.

Edgard De Wahl (Occidental) and Otto Jespersen (Novial), 1935

What was the result of this different, opposite, principle?


Interlingua: the naturalistic school result (1)

Pros:

● pan-European character: it's pan-Romance (with an eye to English)only;

● high hybridism: less hybrid thanEsperanto (no more Slavic elements,few Germanic), it prefers derivationto borrowing (a precize and richsystem);

● living language: from 1951, fewcongresses (100 people max).

It is really readable at a glance from every cultivated people


Interlingua: the naturalistic school result (2)

Cons:

● pan-European character: it's a languagerevival of vulgar Latin just before the fall ofthe Roman Empire;

● high hybridism: too low: it always dependsto Latin or Romance languages (GonçaloNeves);

● living language: after about 50 years ofuse, its ethymological principle sounds notso effective (e.g. emere > acetar, 'to buy',nimis > troppo, 'too much'), more, pro-nounciation is too Romance-centered.

Article I-2 The Union's values

The Union is founded on the values of respect forhuman dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the ruleof law and respect for human rights, including the rightsof persons belonging to minorities. These values arecommon to the Member States in a society in whichpluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice,solidarity and equality between women and menprevail.

Articulo I-2 Valores del Union

Le Union es fundate super le valores de respecto aldignitate human, al libertate, al democratia, alequalitate, al Stato de Derecto e respecto al derectoshuman, incluse le derectos pertinente a minoritates.Iste valores es commun al Statos membros in unsocietate characterisate per le pluralismo, le non-discrimination, le tolerantia, le justitia, le solidaritate ele equalitate inter feminas e viros.

Translation of EU Constitution by UMI

Neo-Romanticism: language as the main tool of (Western) civilization


Esperanto, is it really only so schemistic?Fictional example sentence: :the old weak Lady slowly took short steps away

Schemistic lexicon Naturalistic lexicon English wordsmal-jun-a old-a oldmal-fort-a febl-a weakmal-jun-ul-in-o dam-o Ladymal-rapid-e lant-e slowlymal-long-a kurt-a shortmal-proksim-iĝ-i dist-iĝ-i to move away

Schemistic translation:

La malforta maljunulino malrapidemalproksimiĝas per mallongaj paŝoj

Naturalistic translation:

La febla olda damo lante distiĝas per kurtaj paŝoj

A more realistic translation shows the unique flexibility of Esperanto:

La febla maljunulino foriĝas malrapide per kurtaj paŝoj

Esperanto has a strong structure avoiding the Europanto risk


A Lingua Franca: little cost, great benefit

Conclusion:

two main candidates.

ELFE (English as Lingua Franca for Europe)

● new European-English variety;● EU enters the Inner Circle of Englishes;● Europanto risk?

Esperanto

● very good properties;● language right preserved;● more equity in communication.

Total costs for language services combined

year language services overall EU budget

2003 785 97, 500

2004 (est.) 1, 154 100, 000

2005 (est.) 3, 498 105, 000

(in millions of €; from: Directorate-General for Translation)

EU citizens will finally belong to one demos?


Lingua Franca

Documents

Transcript of Lingua Franca