Lingua franca, chimera or reality riassunto, Sintesi del corso di Lingua Inglese

Scarica Lingua franca, chimera or reality riassunto e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! INTRODUCTION (Lingua franca: chimera or reality?) The need for a common language is due to the intensification of exchanges between different parts of the world; this common language is often English, which must be considered as: ▪ primarily: lingua franca ▪ secondarily: mother tongue of specific communities. English is not the first language to play this role (other languages have been used as lingue franche). The issue1, however, is extremely controversial. Different definitions have been used to define a “lingua franca”: ▪ “Encyclopedia Britannica”: means of communication between populations speaking vernaculars that aren't mutually intelligible; the term was first used during the Middle Ages (lingua franca was a French and Italian based pidgin used in the Mediterranean by traders and Crusaders to communicate) ▪ “Larousse”: pidgin used in the Mediterranean; it is an auxiliary language used by groups which have different languages ▪ “Oxford English Dictionary”: a mixed pidgin (originally used in the Levant2 and mainly based on Italian) used as a medium between people speaking different languages ▪ “Lingua franca” (Jocelyne Dakhlia): it can be a “consensual place”; another meaning can be that of a national language; the third meaning is that of a mixture of languages (temporary limited) used by interlocutors which don't share the same mother tongue. PART I: LINGUA FRANCA AND LINGUE FRANCHE HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Aramaic. The first example of lingua franca is Aramaic (it is the language of the Persian Empire and of the Bible). The first traces that we have date back3 to the XII century BC. It was originally spoken by Aramaeans. It was closely related to Hebrew, Syriac and Phoenician (as a matter of fact, its alphabet derived from Phoenician). Aramaic was used in Mesopotamia (a great number of Aramaeans settled there), and then became the second official language in Babylonian and Assyrian empire. After the conquest of Mesopotamia by the Macedonian Empire (Darius I) around 600 BC, Aramaic became the official language of the empire and began to adopt the typical features of a lingua franca; this language, which was clearly different from local varieties, was used by the empire as a weapon for administration. After the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek slowly became the new lingua franca (II-III centuries AD), even though Aramaic continued to be spoken widely. The influence of Aramaic in its Syriac form was boosted by: ▪ spread of Christianity ▪ flourishing of commerce along the Silk Road. Greek. In the II and III centuries AD, Greek started to emerge as the second lingua franca of the ancient world; this language would have become: ▪ language of culture ▪ original language of the New Testament. It was thanks to Alexander the Great and the Greek wars that Greek became an united language (because of the political structure of Greece, there were different Greek dialects before), as inter- comprehension became essential. After Alexander's death, it established: ▪ first: in the various Hellenistic kingdoms ▪ second: in the Roman Empire; in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Near East, Greek kept its role of lingua franca (Latin had no significant impact there) ▪ third: in the Byzantine Empire. Greek had always had a great influence on cultural life. As a matter of fact, all Roman nobles spent long periods in Greece to complete their education. Another example is the massive translation of Greek literary and philosophical works into Latin (I century AD). The two most important Roman emperors for what concerns the importance of Greek were: ▪ Hadrian: he spent long periods in Greece and contributed to the development of Greek towns ▪ Marcus Aurelius: he used Greek for his philosophical works. From the IV century AD, after the dissolution of Roman Empire, Greek became the official language of the new Byzantine Empire. From the XV century, when the Ottomans swept aside5 the Byzantine Empire, Greek lost its status as official language, but it survived as the language of the Christian Orthodox Church. Its revival came in the XIX and XX centuries, when Greek became one of the pillars of the Greek nation. Latin. For several centuries, Greek shared the role of lingua franca with Latin, which became Western Europe dominant language because of the Roman Empire (while Greek was Eastern Europe lingua franca). Latin maintained its role as lingua franca even after the collapse of Roman Empire, until XVII and XVIII centuries. The force of Latin was also due to its being adopted by Catholic Church as official language (it is still its official language together with Italian, even though liturgies can now be celebrated with vernacular languages). After the end of the Roman Empire, the literary language remained close to classical Latin. However, another language gradually took its place: Vulgar Latin. Vulgar Latin began to split into various dialects, which gave birth to Romance languages, which became lingue franche. Thoselanguages never completely replaced Latin; however, writers started to translate their works also in other languages (in addition to Latin). (->EX: Descartes wrote his works both in Latin and in French; Newton wrote Both in Latin and in English). Latin allowed the creation of a community of learning which was not fragmented: it was an instrument of communication which allowed cultural exchanges. It is interesting to notice that, in addition to the circulation of works, there was also a circulation of scholars. (->EX: Copernicus). French. In the XVIII century there was a radical shift from Latin to other languages. Latin lost its role as lingua franca, and was replaced by French. This evolution of French began in the XVII century, when France became one or the main political powers and the centre of intellectual life in Europe. A great role in this development had Enlightenment, which influenced the major European courts (French became the language of educated also abroad). (->EX: Russia; Prussia). French arrived also in Africa, Middle East and Far East. Its international role remained unquestioned until the end of World War I, when the USA emerged as a world power (and imposed English as lingua franca). French is still widely used. (- >EX: some international institutions; Francophonie). used to refer to Western Europeans) appeared for the first time in Arabic in the IX century (the European term appeared in the XVI century). The last document in lingua franca belongs to the XIX century (then it was replaced by French). The main features of lingua franca are: ▪ oral character ▪ simplified structure ▪ verbs are used in their infinitive form ▪ absence of inflection ▪ absence of concord between noun and adjective ▪ absence of person, gender, number and case for nouns and pronouns ▪ vocabulary is poor, however it is rich in synonyms (words of different origins). Lingua franca is the language of non-territoriality: it is a language for communication, which signals the recognition of the lack of common language. However, it is used to show a difference: it is the language of the other. It was the language used also for diplomacy (except in most formal situations, where there were interpreters). Enlightenment and colonialism, however, brought with them the idea of “pure languages” (brought from colonialists), which gradually replaced lingua franca. As a matter of fact, lingua franca was seen as corrupted, so it was degraded to the language of the dominated people. In conclusion, it is important to stress the attention on the divergence between language and identity: lingua franca doesn't carry ethical values, nor should be connected to peaceful exchange. ARTIFICIAL LANGUAGES The utopia of a common language to promote mutual understanding was firstly thought in the XIX century. A large number of constructed languages were proposed: ▪ Solresol: it was based on musical notes ▪ Volapük: it was based on German and English; it had an initial success, but then disappeared (it was difficult to understand outside the German-speaking area) ▪ Latino sine flexione: it was a simplified form of Latin with the same vocabulary but regularized grammar (its inventor thought that new auxiliary languages were unnecessary, as Latin was already established as the world's international language) ▪ Esperanto: it was the most successful. In particular, Esperanto was a language created in order to foster9 harmony among people. That's the reason why it attracted the suspicion of many totalitarian regimes in the XX century (it was used by anarchists and regional nationalists). Its features are: ▪ regularity ▪ modified Latin alphabet ▪ predominantly Romanic vocabulary ▪ use of lots of prefixes and suffixes. However, Esperanto has not succeeded in attracting a wide community of speakers, even though: ▪ convinced supporters promote it ▪ literary works have been composed in Esperanto ▪ major works of literature have been translated into Esperanto ▪ Google supports Esperanto. There are 2 main differences between the Mediterranean lingua franca or other lingue franche and constructed languages: ▪ genesis: lingue franche grow spontaneously, while constructed languages are consciously devised10 ▪ purpose: lingue franche are meant to fulfill a concrete need for communication, while constructed languages are meant to facilitate mutual understanding (so they aren't necessary). Nowadays people prefer to use natural languages. In the past decades English has spread as a vehicular language, even though it has no regular grammar and it isn't as easy to learn as constructed languages. PART II: ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA Through history there has been a constant need for a common language; during the last few decades an unparalleled increase of English has taken place. English is the working language (or one of the working languages) of all international organizations. It is the main language of: ▪ international business ▪ academic, technological and scientific contexts ▪ sports events ▪ media. (->EX: music bands singing in English instead of their mother tongue). Thus English is the symbol of modernity, freedom and rebellion; it can help overcoming local barriers. As it is the language of communication channels: ▪ it has helped overcoming the censorship put in place by totalitarian regimes ▪ it is used as a medium to be heard (even though you're trying to fight its supremacy). However, the spread of English has a few dangers, not only for other languages, but also for English itself. The spread of English: ▪ is seen as the spread of a form of imperialism: not only a linguistic imperialism, but also a cultural, political and economic one (->EX: USA) ▪ has a negative impact on English itself: standards fall and native speakers feel dispossessed of their own language. LINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC FEATURES English is currently the main world language: it is spoken by a declining number of mother tongue people and by an increasing second language speakers and even by more foreign language speakers. As a consequence, a poliycentric approach is necessary. The most successful model to describe English as a world language was devised by Raj Kachru. He thought of English as composed by 3 concentric circles: ▪ Inner Circle: English is spoken as the mother tongue; it is norm providing (it has its own varieties which are regarded as the correct ones) ▪ Outer (or Expanded) Circle: English has a key role in institutions and may be official language; it is norm developing (it is developing its own varieties) ▪ Expanding Circle: English is taught as a foreign language; it is norm-dependent (it has no right to develop its own varieties). This model, however, is often regarded as outdated; in particular, the distinction between the 3 circles is getting blurred12: as a matter of fact, Inner Circle is changing because of the influx of immigrants, Outer Circle's people are becoming native speakers, and Expanding Circle's people are using fit-for-purpose13 forms of English. English is becoming the tool for intercultural communication between the Circles and, in particular, between people belonging to the Expanding Circle. To reflect this new situation, the concept of English as lingua franca (ELF) has emerged (it has replaced the concept of EFL, which means English as foreign language). So, ELF is a contact language between people sharing neither the same language nor the same culture. This helps learners avoiding frustration (considering the Expanding Circle as characterized by EFL leads to the impossibility to learn the language as well as a NS, a native speaker, even though some features are not necessary for intelligibility). On the contrary, the concept of ELF defines the goal of English learning as the ability to communicate successfully with other non-native speakers (NNS). This places people belonging to the Expanding Circle on the same level of people belonging to Inner and Outer Circles, granting prestige to international English. ELF requires a redefinition of the traditional principles of English, in particular its ownership (which means the possibility to set norms and give judgments): if the distinction between NS and NNS fades, then English becomes a global asset14 belonging to all users (not only to NS); as a consequence, NS have lost their right to control the language. English belongs to everybody and, at the same time, to nobody. The first step in the transformation of English into an international language was similar to the process undergone by French: English has not been rejected by colonized countries (the appropriation of a language can be seen as the act of liberation). Compared to French, however, English has gone a step further: besides undergoing the process of creolization, English has also become the preferred language for international exchange. English is the world's most multicultural language (as a matter of fact, it has highly diverse linguistic backgrounds, therefore the contact is complex. In the 1980s linguistics and sociolinguistics started to focus on English as an international language (so, not used by mother tongue: this is a separate field of study). A new approach began to be used with ELF, which considered the ELF speakers as not obliged to be fully competent in the knowledge of English (they only need to be intelligible). This definition reverses the balance of power between NS and NNS, giving a great impact on the teaching of English. Lots of studies regarding ELF speech acts have been made: ▪ phonological features: the “Lingua Franca Core” is defined (it is the gathering of phonological features which are essential to be understood); some sounds are regarded as “particularly English” (->EX: the “th” sounds), and they have no impact on the success of communication, so they aren't included in the Core ▪ morphology and syntax: some “errors” shouldn't be considered as mistakes in the ELF context (->EX: third person -s; phrasal verbs; tags) ▪ pragmatics: new strategies, which open new perspectives are applied; as a consequence, non-nativeness is not seen as a problem, but as a resource or as an irrelevant aspect, and the focus is on the efficiency of communication. The concept of correctness should be replaced by that of appropriateness. Researches have been conducted in order to found15 ELF on sound16 bases. An essential step was to compile corpora of ELF in different settings. (->EX: academic setting; informal setting). One of the conclusions drawn from studies using this data is the goal-oriented and cooperative attitude of ELF speakers: ▪ they try to attain their communicative goal ▪ they try to create meaning together: they use different techniques in order to offer mutual help and encouragement. (->EX: co-construction of meaning; “let-it-pass”, funds) ▪ the fact that a language isn't merely an economic asset: its adoptation has symbolic implications and an economic impact, so the choice of a language as lingua franca isn't as fair as it seems; as a matter of fact, English has economic benefits, while other languages have many costs, and multilingualism would allow these costs to be more or less equally subdivided. Phillipson defines the advantage of English as “linguistic imperialism”. He thinks that the only strategy that would be able to counter the imposition of English and of Anglo-American culture and values is the balance between English and the other languages (multilingualism). Ives thinks that we have to take into consideration the cultural and symbolic values conveyed through languages. He concentrates in particular on the case of the EU linguistic policy. He claims that: ▪ if the decision to adopt English as lingua franca results from non-democratic actions, then it is impossible that this language will ever be democratic: this non-democracy will only increase ▪ it is important to approach the language as a human institution (it changes and determines its role in society): languages have an important role in power relationships and have important cultural and symbolic effects ▪ the EU linguistic policy is positive, especially translations: EU should be the model for international institutions because it considers multilingualism, and its ritual and symbolic values as important. A multi-faceted linguistic landscape for a multi-faceted world (Crystal and Graddol). A more moderate approach is taken by Crystal and Graddol, who have investigated the international dimension of English and its relations with other languages. Crystal focused on: ▪ risks connected to the death of languages ▪ status of English as a world language. For what concerns the first point, Crystal thinks that languages are like living organisms with their own characteristics, and they should be protected in order to prevent their disappearance. He listed 5 reasons why we should prevent the death of languages: ▪ we need diversity in the field of languages: the strongest ecosystems are those which are most diverse ▪ languages are important for shaping identity ▪ languages bring with themselves the history of the people that speak them ▪ languages contribute to the sum of human knowledge ▪ languages are interesting as they are the unique encapsulation of a world view. For what concerns the second point, Crystal recognizes that English supremacy is the consequence of the power of the countries that speak it: as a matter of fact, languages become international only when their speakers are powerful. We should promote bilingualism, so that we can benefit both from the national language and from the lingua franca. Graddol noticed that global English is gradually ousting24 English itself. As the number of NS is decreasing and the number of NNS is increasing, NS will have to face the competition with NNS in a world where English will be taken for granted and at least another language will be required. As a matter of fact, multilingualism is becoming the rule; there is a continuous swing between: ▪ supremacy of English: it is thought that English will spread even more in the next years ▪ multilingualism: there is the awareness that learning more than one language is important. (->EX: lots of people started learning Chinese, as China has now an important role in economy; China, on the other hand, is promoting the learning of English and of other languages). This tension can be noticed also on the Internet: ▪ the majority of the material that we can find on the Internet is in English ▪ the Internet is multilingual now: URLs in Arabic, Cyrillic and other characters were introduced; localization and translation are available in an increasing number of pages. PART III: INTERVIEWS INTERVIEW I: FRANÇOIS GRIN Could you elaborate a bit on the expression “English as a lingua franca”? Grin defines lingua franca as a mode of communication which emerges between people not sharing the same mother tongue or linguistic repertoire; it is a sort of mid-point of the languages of the various participants. According to Grin, the term “lingua franca” is over-used nowadays: we should pay attention when we define languages as a lingua franca (->EX: English), because, even though they have some variation, they are still languages and not lingua franca. So, in your opinion ELF is not different from other varieties of English? Grin thinks that ELF is another English variety because the differences between ELF and English are of no importance, as the meaning is still clear. (->EX: the drop of the third person singular -s in conjugated verbs). He thinks that ELF is another English variety because: ▪ when questioned, supporters of this notion claim that ELF is not another language, but a situation which is defined by the fact that it is used by NNS; however, they can't answer when questioned about the use of ELF between a NNS and a NS ▪ NNS are interested in learning standard English, not ELF: this doesn't affect the power relationship between NS and NNS ▪ NNS want to learn also the right pronunciation of English, even though it is very difficult because to do this would require lots of hours of exposure (not because of colloquialisms). However, the problem is not English itself, but the linguistic hegemony (the situation would be the same also with other languages). Does this mean that the question of ownership is meaningless? Grin thinks that the question of ownership is meaningless, so we can't say that promoters of ELF are propagating linguistic imperialism. Don't you think that we need a common means of communication to be able to communicate directly? Grin thinks that it isn't necessary. Social justice requires the prevention of the death of minor languages. The need to have a democratic institution is to ensure communication, which can be made by using the gathering of different strategies: ▪ translation and interpretation ▪ inter-comprehension: people who speak very similar languages (->EX: Romance languages, German languages) shouldn't use another language to communicate; they should be taught in order to become able to understand similar languages (the EU approves this approach: programmes have been developed to reach this aim) ▪ Esperanto: it is cheaper and faster to learn than any other language and, moreover, it is a much more balanced solution; this role could be played also by English, however English shouldn't be used as the one and only strategy (it would be an undemocratic solution). How do you judge the claim “the more we promote different languages the more English will be spoken”? Grin thinks that this claim is true under a certain set of assumptions. These assumptions are: ▪ the put in place of a language policy: if you don't put it in place, there is a risk that this happens, because people would learn languages which they expect to use most and because the language which is expected to be the most known is used for international meetings (however, the language which is chosen is not necessarily the one that excludes the lowest number of people: it can be the one that is associated with power and which is used by people who has more power either symbolic or material) ▪ language policy that you want to put in place: if you want many languages to be used and legitimated, it's normal to use translations, inter-comprehension and a bit of Esperanto, English and (maybe in the future) Chinese; so it isn't obvious that we have to choose a single language ▪ inter-sate communication: it is useless for one country to adopt this policy if the other countries don't do it (and keep on using English); there is a need for coordination between countries, which have to stay together in order to encourage people to learn the languages that they are interested in. Many people think that English has become a trend which can't be reversed; so we should accept it and recognize the right of people to choose which language they want to learn. Grin thinks that the situation we are in is unprecedented (so we can't compare English to Latin) because of globalization and the develop of information and communication technologies. It is obviously an important language; however it has many false clichés, which must be dismantled: ▪ “nowadays everybody speaks English”: it is false, even in those countries where people have a high level of English (->EX: Sweden) ▪ “people want to learn English”: Grin carried out a survey in Switzerland and the result was that 85% of respondents think that it is important to learn also another (or more other) language besides English; so the attitude towards languages can be incomplete (many young people want to learn English, but not everyone) ▪ “English is the language of business”: English is a language often used in business, but, because of its spread use, it is considered banal nowadays; in some parts of the world, moreover, other languages have a more important role than English (->EX: in the French-speaking part of Switzerland German is more useful than English) ▪ “universities in non English-speaking countries must offer courses in English in order to attract the best foreign students”: students who are really interested in learning English go to English-speaking countries' universities, unless they are not taken in those universities, so they would choose non English-speaking countries' universities only as fall-back options; professors complain because of the desire of universities in non English-speaking languages to pretend to be “modern” because they fail to attract the brightest students. It is said that in countries where English is widespread as a medium of education the level in to be simple, it is a very difficult language, which must be spoken with its own “frames of mind” (typical of NS), not with the reflection of other languages' “frames of mind”. What we need is to look at things in context. English can become an element of power for people from Anglo-Saxon countries, who consider it as their own asset. Mackiewicz thinks that it isn't true: as a matter of fact, in the UK the standard of English has declined. However, some people think that it is an injustice, because, through English, Anglo-Saxon countries gain lots of money, and NNS have to make a huge effort to reach an acceptable level of English. Mackiewicz thinks that it is partially right, because nowadays about half of British vacancies are assigned to foreign people, because they have an advantage on British: they know at least one more language, so they are more flexible than British, because they can see things from different points of view ; this makes the difference. In other words, multilingualism can be considered as an asset. Mackiewicz says that this is only an aspect of multilingualism, which is also important for other reasons. (->EX: if you move to another country to work in a company where English is used, English is not necessary, because outside the workplace, people communicate through their mother tongue). So English will never replace other languages. Mackiewicz thinks not, however there is a risk where the national language doesn't function properly, because it can be “impoverished”, which means that terminology develops only in determined contexts: people should be able to speak their own language in all contexts, both with peers and with public. You need at least 2 languages to be able to do this, your national language and English. And, of course, if you want to move around, even more languages. It would be even better if we would be able both to speak and write them correctly. This would be important also for those people who have parents of different mother tongues. The education system is very important to reach this goal. Mackiewicz thinks that it has a great importance, because we have more complex language profiles than ever before. (->EX. There is an elite, composed by people which have 3 first languages and, if they are lucky, they can both speak and write it; more English is spoken than before; there are people who have half a language only). The gap is widening, so if you want to have a great importance, you have to be capable of speaking about complex issues in English. This is why there is no discussion about removing English. However, parents are also insisting on other languages as well. (->EX: Spanish is becoming the second most popular language in Berlin). This means that there is growing awareness about the need to speak more languages than English. Mackiewicz thinks that people are aware of this. They choose to learn other languages because they think that it is important and because they think they know English well. This is, however, another problem: you may think that you know a language well, but it is not always like that; many people aren't able to communicate with the language they think they know well, not only orally, but also by writing something which is understandable. People nowadays think that English (and other languages) is only a means of communication which isn't connected with culture. Mackiewicz says that, while teaching English at school, you provide information about British and American cultures, forgetting that English is spoken also in many other countries. This may be a problem, because people are getting aware about the importance of the inter-cultural dimension (it is important to understand each other). The other concern is that of the “imperialism” of English: it is said that English will also impose its own values together with language; it isn't true, because British people, for example, nowadays are more and more inward- looking. Another thing to remember is that the USA is much more diverse than it seems: as a matter of fact, Spanish is becoming more and more important, so the USA is not an “English only” country. Can you communicate effectively without having near native competence? Mackiewicz says that the question shouldn't be put like this, because there are many so-called NS which aren't able to speak correctly their own language. We have to speak about competences: this is the real issue. In this respect, education has a main role: we have to encourage people to gain a great level both in speaking and writing, both in our own mother tongue and in foreign languages. It is also important to maintain our own identity: it is not necessary to speak a good BrE; it is important to have great competences, because we can be intelligible even though we use our environmental variety of English. Are we facing a choice between either the improvement of English or the encouragement of linguistic diversity? Mackiewicz thinks that we can have both; the question is: how can we have both of them? It is wise to maintain linguistic diversity, because every country can be defined also because of its language. There is nowadays, however, the weakening of Member States: as a matter of fact, in border-crossing regions (->EX: Tyrol), we have a form of bilingualism. This is a very encouraging situation. This situation may also be better than the use of ELF (unless you work in international companies). There is, however, also another development, which is very dangerous: in areas with strong separatist movements, the use of English is strongly wanted; this tendency can be very dangerous for national languages. Promoting ELF means defining a new way of teaching and learning the language. Mackiewicz says that there is a complicated system which defines at what level of English (or other languages) you are, which isn't only based on grammar or anything like that. The approach you need to learn a language depends always on the context: if you want to use English effectively (so for writing and talking about complex issues), then you need a proper command of it, in order to be capable to use subtle distinctions while using it; on the contrary, if you need it only occasionally, then the basics are sufficient. If you can't use English properly, however, you need a translator, who has also to consider the context he is in: if you address to an international audience to talk, for example, about universities, you have to explain how the system works, without taking anything for granted. This is a new challenge, even for the education system, because if you want to work in an international environment, you have to think about the approach to use. And what about the language diversity? Mackiewicz thinks that language diversity is not going to disappear. Because of migration and mobility the situation has become very complex: this is why people use English. As a matter of fact, the more languages you have, the greater the need for one single tool. This has some limitations: ▪ people's insufficient command of languages ▪ identity ▪ rights: they have to be extended, because we can't expect anyone coming to Europe to speak every language spoken there; it would be important for Europeans to start learning also other languages, because Europe and the world have changed, and an achievement of integration is needed. So we need a radical change in the attitude towards languages. Mackiewicz says that there are policies which state that we have to be proficient in at least 3 languages (we can choose between major languages, regional languages and migrant languages). However, even though economic problems are taken into strong consideration, the linguistic problem is not taken into account in economic policies; if even at a European level we decide that the linguistic problem is not there, how can we expect Member States to take it into account? On the other hand, however, there are also limits to what the EU can do: EU can issue policies and encourage mobility (->EX: LLP), however it can't oblige Member States to do anything. Nowadays people are worried about the economic system, and forget other important issues; this can have negative consequences. EU should promote not only the collaboration between Member States, but also integration. The ELF issue seems less important than this; however, it is still important to remember that ELF is not a pidgin, but a language, which has its own features which need to be learned to express properly. INTERVIEW III: PHILIPPE VAN PARIJS I would like to talk with you about ELF. Van Parijs thinks that ELF is an important tool which allows us to understand each other. We must reconcile the concepts of equality and the need to be understood in a cheap way by everyone, ELF. The connection between English and the concept of justice isn't straightforward. It seems that the choice of a single language as lingua franca is a sign of injustice (because NS seem to be privileged), however it is not like this. Other people suggested the use of translators and interpreters, which is however an expensive choice. To reach justice, we need a language which allows the most people to communicate effectively. This is why we need to democratize the competence in English: everyone should learn English, so that it wouldn't be necessary to use translators and interpreters (so even poor people can communicate). The choice of English has occurred because English is a natural language which was already widely learned. It is often said that English is an expensive language to learn. Van Parijs thinks that learning English is expensive only if we don't use all the technologies which allow us to learn it faster and cheaper. An example is the dubbing of American films: by only subtitling them, we can make children learn faster and easier spoken English and the written mother tongue. Parents will still spend a huge amount of money to make their children learn English, but their level will be better. We also need to have schools where teacher make children speak foreign languages; children should speak and make mistakes, in order to correct them and to become confident with the languages (only by speaking we can continuously improve English and reach our goal, which is the capacity to make an effective communication with other people). Grammar is only a second step (which isn't, however, irrelevant). Also the exposure to materials written in English is important to learn it. In order to spread English through medias, so, it is important to promote English products instead of offering a wider choice. Van Parijs thinks that there are several things to be considered. Firstly, when English culture penetrates other cultures in the original language, it is less policies, will no longer be able to protect their own country from the invasion of major languages. So, we shouldn't abandon the knowledge of European languages. We need to have multilingual schools, where children are taught their mother tongue, English and other European languages. CONCLUSIONS Language strategies have an important role in our globalized world; the lingua franca question is at the centre of the debate. Lingue franche can be seen as a constant in history, as their purpose is to facilitate communication among people who don't share the mother tongue; they are unstable, because they are strictly connected with power relationships. English is today's lingua franca (this fact is widely accepted); however, ELF is different from English spoken, for example, in the UK or in the USA: ELF is a new form of English, a tool which can't be used as an instrument of imperialism or as associated to the culture of the countries originally speaking it. ELF can be used in specific situations and can be enriched through the national languages of the speakers. ELF evokes both positive and negative reactions: ▪ ELF is an absolute disaster: it is an imperialistic tool which reflects today's balance of power ▪ ELF is the one and only solution to our communication needs: it brings social equality and overcomes social and political exclusion. A common language is needed: this language should be widely used with reasonable competence. ELF's opponents are fearful that it will replace all other languages and, as a consequence, that it will cause a loss of diversity. However, this fear is ungrounded, as we can see in: ▪ Erasmus program: English is an essential tool to communicate at the beginning; however students try then to learn the local language in order to feel accepted, so ELF stimulates people to learn a new language ▪ people working abroad: even though they can speak English at work, ELF is pretty useless for what concerns social life, as people speak their mother tongue. ELF creates a shared space, but it also underlines the fact that the speakers don't belong to the same community. However, it can't become a real language, as it is unstable and will be abandoned as soon as it won't serve anymore; this may be the future of English, as it is possible that we will have a multilingual world in the future. It is clear that multilingualism is not disappearing; on the contrary, it is rising because of migrations, mobility and new technological developments. So ELF is a great tool that can be used in those contexts; however it can't be the one and only tool to be used in those cases because it has some limits: ▪ compartmentalizing of linguistic functions: if ELF were adopted everywhere, it would be used only for official occasions (while the local language would be used in the other occasions); when a language is used for specific contexts and functions only, it tends to be downgraded and doesn't keep up with new developments(->EX: use of English in sciences) ▪ by adopting a new common language, the culture and values expressed with the previous language are downgraded: we should defend diversity, as it is one of the most important assets in Europe; so we should promote multilingualism ▪ it is almost impossible that English will penetrate the whole world (even in the future): if we want to build an inclusive society, we have to pay attention to linguistic and cultural diversity, in order not to marginalize any strata. The promotion of multilingualism plays a major role because it facilitates social integration and is important for the development of a personality capable of facing new challenges. The risks of monolingualism are shown by the UK, where number of pupils who opt for the study of foreign languages has dropped. The consequence is that they will lack of language skills, so they won't be able to communicate effectively in our globalized world (this has a negative effect on the competitiveness of British companies on the world market). The conclusion that we can draw is that we are living in a transitional phase, which calls for flexible responses, not for monolithic solutions. To this end, all available linguistic resources should be used, for example the use of English for inter-cultural communication: English has an important role at a first step of conversation which can't be ignored, but must be encouraged, even though the supremacy of English may be temporary. However, since we are living in a multilingual world, an important role have mediators, which guarantee communication and integration.