Manufacturing language markets
This report from Bloomberg discusses the European Day of Languages:
Dzordzas Busas and Bilas Geitsas are how Lithuanians write George Bush and Bill Gates. The Finns have just one word for he and she -- haen. When the Maltese want cheese and biscuits, they order Galletti and Gbejniet. Brussels spent this week celebrating the continent's more than 200 languages, marking the European Day of Languages on Sept. 26. At seminars and workshops across the Belgian capital, participants could dabble with Danish or learn that "O, jakie milutkie!'' is the appropriate expression when stroking a rabbit's fur in Poland.More from the Europa site
As a Slovak proverb says: The number of languages you speak is the number of times you are human,'' Jan Figel of Slovakia, the European Union's commissioner for multilingualism, said in a statement. At the EU, languages drain cash. Its institutions spend 800 million euros ($960 million) a year translating documents. That money pays 1,650 linguists at the European Commission who make up the world's largest translation service, and for facilities for 732 lawmakers. The EU officially recognizes 20 languages, rising to 21 when Irish is added in 2007.
Some legislators say the language bureaucracy has run amok. They say officials from countries such as Malta, with a population of 400,000, should use English, French or German to save money and time in negotiations over EU laws and policies. "They have manufactured a market for bizarre combinations - - there was never a demand for Finnish into Maltese,'' Chris Heaton-Harris, a U.K. Conservative Party legislator in the European Parliament, said in a telephone interview. "It's berserk.'' ...
posted by Robert Micallef at 10/02/2005 10:06:00 PM
They say officials from countries such as Malta, with a population of 400,000, should use English, French or German to save money and time in negotiations over EU laws and policies.
I could go on and on about this, but it's past by bedtime...
Let's forget, just for a moment, that I'm a linguist and translator. I fully understand the need to save costs, and also to save time (which in turn entails saving more costs). It would indeed be more practical for there to be fewer official EU languages. But would it be just? Would it be practical for all parties involved, or only for the most populated countries? Can there be a limit to what is spent in order to safeguard fundamental rights? As I have explained twice on my blog (particularly here), the fact that Maltese is an official language is not merely symbolic. If I were to follow the symbolism argument, I would say that a situation where lesser-spoken languages are excluded from the list of official EU languages would mean that the affected countries would essentially be considered and treated as colonies of a hierarchy, and not as member states of a Union.
Yet there are more important reasons for supporting multilingualism than that. For an individual to be able to read the law and address the authorities in his or her mother tounge is a fundamental right, and we should keep in mind that there are people in Malta -even if a minority- who have a limited knowledge of English. Are rights quantifiable according to one's level of education, or are they universal?
Heaton-Harris' statement reminds me of something Nicholas Sarkozy proclaimed a few weeks ago. Sarkozy suggested that the EU be restructured in order for five or six countries to lead the way and make the decisions, with smaller countries simply deciding whether or not to follow suit. A condescending attitude such as this, and the disrespect it carries with it, are diametrically opposed to the spirit of the Union.
In my opinion, the EU had a historical duty to embrace Maltese as an official EU language. It is symbolic of a longstanding cultural /linguistic relationship between Europe and the Middle East/Africa.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home