Bulletin n. 2/2008
September 2008
CONTENTS
  • Section A) The theory and practise of the federal states and multi-level systems of government
  • Section B) Global governance and international organizations
  • Section C) Regional integration processes
  • Section D) Federalism as a political idea
    • Etzioni Amitai
    A Global, Community Building Language?
    in Federalist Debate (The) , Year XXI, n. 2, July ,  2008 ,  16-20
    The merits and demerits of a global language Adopting a global language would greatly reduce the transaction costs of conducting business across national borders1. It would greatly facilitate the transmission of knowledge. It would help people of different backgrounds understand each other more readily and might curtail hostility and contribute to conflict resolutions and more generally to peace. Some even hope that "prejudices and stereotypes would be dismantled or differentiated, and more flexible cooperation (not merely in the context of the economy) would become possible2". Many a sociologist, however, would warn that increased communication among groups can actually increase conflict. One can though take it for granted that a global language would reduce gross misunderstandings when international agreements and treaties and laws are given different means as result of being translated into a variety of languages. In an age where the benefits of a global language are not actively considered, some examples from the European Union highlight these merits. As of January 1, 2007 the EU has 27 member states and 23 official languages3. The EU stresses the importance of multilingualism among its citizens, explaining: languages are not a mere means of communication. They contribute to a better knowledge of other European cultures and have a real potential for a deeper understanding between European citizens. Multilingualism policy aims at ensuring multiculturalism, tolerance and European citizenship. Widespread general competence in foreign languages also plays its part in keeping xenophobia and intolerance at bay. We have to understand each other if we want to reap the full benefits of the cultural, social, and economic richness of our continent4. However given that no one can learn all the languages of the EU, if more and more European would learn the same second language, this would great enhance such an understanding. However no movement is underway to choose such a shared second language. The absence of an official, shared EU language causes a significant portion of the total EU budget, $1.3 billion a year, to be dedicated to interpretation and translation of the official transcripts, documents, court rulings and regulations into all the 20 official languages5. In addition to exacting considerable costs, numerous misunderstandings arise because of subtle and not so subtle differences in interpretations result from these multiple translations. This point is illustrated by a simple example. The European Central Bank (ECB) is required to use all EU languages for official purposes6. In 2006, ECB president Jean-Claude Trichet outlined a change in policy using the simple words "strong vigilance". Translated across the various languages the words communicated different positions. In Spanish these terms were translated as extrema vigilancia, which sounds much stronger than the English original and could lead Spanish observers to worry that, "the central bank is facing galloping inflation". Thus, even with a team of terminologists dedicated to the task of carefully parsing official bank language, it is difficult to preserve nuance across the numerous languages in which the ECB must produce official statements and reports7. At the same time, introducing a shared regional language, let alone a global one, runs into the fact that language constitutes a key element of the identity, bonds, history, and culture of many existing communities, whether national or merely ethnic groups within a nation. This fact is used to oppose a shared language in numerous circumstances. Far from seeking to embrace a shared language, many national and ethnic communities are deeply committed to protect and even promote their particularistic tongue. Thus, since the 1970's many of the Bretons of France have sought to revive their native language; they view Breton as an important element of the culture of the Brittany region that has been endangered due to French linguistic hegemony8. Endeavors to promote Catalan in the four Spanish provinces and French in Quebec further exemplify efforts to preserve identity by protecting a particularistic language from a more widely shared one. Opposition to English is especially strong as it is associated with American military and cultural imperialism. In short, although the merits of a shared language can be readily outlined, the sociological and communitarian foundations of the opposition are at least equally strong. Hence the quest for a shared language best take, and has taken, a rather different course. Particularism and Universalism It is a serious sociological misunderstanding to assume that people are either dominated by local, particularistic values or by universal ones, such as those encased in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is best to consider a society as a community of communities, not one that holds X millions individuals, as a two or multiple tier social structure9. The said integration is achieved by dividing loyalties and identifications between those where more encompassing entities takes precedence (e.g. the nation, in most matters concerning relations with other nations) versus those in which the smaller communities govern (for instance, in the US, a good part of the curriculum of a given school). There are considerable variations in the ways national and local communities share people's commitments and affections, but most if not all societies have at least two layers of such commitments. This model of a two-tier structure, of layered loyalties and identities, the combination of local and cosmopolitan culture, provides a model for a global language that will have many of the benefits of such a tongue and be much less damaging to the extant constitutive role of language to particularistic communities. Following such a societal design one would seek not to replace particularistic languages that are constitutive of various communities, but add a universal language to them, a second language that all would share. For instance, the French could continue to study and speak French as the "mother" tongue, enjoy all the subtleties of its literature, particular imagery, nuances, and identity-affirming content. However, when communicating with members of other societies, they would draw on one and the same shared language. (To put it differently, the model of layered loyalties and identities views the global language as additive, rather than as a language that would replace particularistic ones. These particularistic languages serve constitutive roles in communities; seeking to displace these languages would be subtractive10). This approach may seem very plausible, even self evident, until one notes that it requires that the second language taught and used by all nations would have to be one and the same one. If this development is to take place, it would require a major change in public policies of many nations, we shall see shortly. English: The de facto lingua terra Which language would best serve as the second, global language? In effect, this decision has already been made, although not as a result of any meeting of any deliberative body. As is well known, English has become de facto the global language, although numerous nations still resist its use - often because they conflate protection of their primary language with a need to reject a shared secondary one. The fact that English has not been recognized as the said global language is highlighted by the fact that although members of the EU very often communicate with one another in English11, they not only maintain the use of 23 primary, particularistic languages but have not agreed on a secondary one. Thus in 2002, the heads of state or governments at the Barcelona European Council called for "a sustained effort to improve the mastery of basic skills, in particular by teaching at least two foreign languages from a very early age"12. Any two. One may say that Chinese is in actuality the language more people speak than English, and hence it is the proper terra lingua. However, we are looking not for the largest number of people who speak to other members of their nation or civilization with a particular language, but the number of those who use a given language to communicate across borders and cultures. Here English - whether desired or not - has reached a level that makes it difficult to image how it could be replaced13. Nearly a quarter of the world's population (between 1.2 and 1.5 billion people) are fluent or competent in English14. An article entitled, "The new Latin: English dominates in academe" reports: Ninety-five percent of the 925,000 scientific articles published in thousands of major periodicals in 1997 were written in English, according to Eugene Garfield, founder of the Science Citation Index, which tracks science publications. But only half of the English articles originated in English-speaking countries. The trend toward publishing in English began after World War II and has accelerated over the past 20 years15. Increasingly multinational corporations and comparatively smaller companies with a global clientele increasingly use English as their working language. Among the companies that participate in this trend are French luxury goods' LVMH Mo‘t Hennessy Louis Vuitton and Italian appliance maker Indesit Company (formerly Merloni Elettrodomestici). European aircraft manufacturer Airbus' working language has been English since it was established16. The German postal service, Deutsche Post World Net, is increasingly using English as its working language. Thus, de facto English has established itself as the global language, as the second language for many nationalities, who maintain their primary "mother" tongue. Policy implications To review our discussion up to this point, before turning to its policy implications: (a) Instead of trying to find one language that all people will adopt, the world is leaning toward maintaining various national and ethnic languages and using English as second language for cross national communications. This combination allows nurturing local cultures as well as the flourishing of the international realm. (b) The choice of English has economic and cultural benefits for nations whose citizens speak English as their first language. These can be countered to some extent but not eliminated. (c) Accepting the remaining tilt seems preferable compared to the alternatives of having no shared language or trying to institute a universal primary language. The question hence arises what are the implications of the preceding analysis for policy-makers. Clearly which languages are taught in a given school system, can be used to communicate with public authorities, are recognized as the basis of treaties and other legal documents, are employed on a variety of communication devices from street signs to ballots, are all subject to public policy. Public policy hence plays a key role in determining whether the development of a global language is accelerated or slowed down. For instance, in Quebec the provincial government attempted to erode the use of English and promote French forcefully with the Charter of the French Language. Amongst other rules, this 1977 law required commercial signs in French to replace multilingual signs in English and French, as well as English-only signs. The Canadian government defended this bill before the Supreme Court of Canada17 and the UN Human Rights Committee18. Ultimately, a compromise resulted where both English and French were permitted, though the French must be markedly predominant19. The Office quˇbˇcois de la langue fran
    ©2001 - 2020 - Centro Studi sul Federalismo - P. IVA 94067130016