RIASSUNTO Lingua Franca - Chimera or Reality?, Sintesi del corso di Lingua Inglese

Scarica RIASSUNTO Lingua Franca - Chimera or Reality? e più Sintesi del corso in PDF di Lingua Inglese solo su Docsity! 1 LINGUA FRANCA: CHIMERA OR REALITY? I. PREFACE Globalisation is drastically changing the world. The dramatic increase in mobility and contacts has turned communication into the big issue and languages play a major role to guarantee effective communication. Languages and language policy shape the society we want for the future. However, translation cannot be reduced to the rank of a technical skill. Today it became essential to understand the political and conceptual implications of any choice we make in languages. In the same way, linguistic policy always has a strong impact on policy. The aim is to see whether and how it can contribute to improve the work of the European institutions, promoting participation and inclusion. To fully understand this phenomenon, it is important to examine it in: - Diachronic perspective, to understand the present situation with English spreading as a privileged medium for cultural intercommunication; - Synchronic perspective, to understand the new dimension of English as an international language which raises increasing interest among scholars. A clear understanding of their different and conflicting positions is a precondition to try and define possible uses of a lingua franca at European level. II. INTRODUCTION In our globalised world the English became the common language considered today's lingua franca and the mother tongue of speakers’ communities. However, it is not the first language to play this role. Other languages have been used as lingue franche in the past and others may acquire this status in the future. The Encyclopaedia Britannica defines the term lingua franca as ‘Language used as a means of communication between populations speaking vernaculars that are not mutually intelligible’. The term was first used during the middle Ages to describe a French and Italian based jargon, or pidgin, developed by Crusaders and traders in the eastern Mediterranean and characterized by the invariant forms of its nouns, verbs, and adjectives. However, the Oxford English Dictionary stresses the hybrid character: ‘A mixed language or jargon used in the Levant, consisting largely of Italian words deprived of their inflexions’. The study will focus on the lingua franca as a vehicular language which allows inter-comprehension among people speaking different mother tongues. It will be examined from three different perspectives: - An overview of the languages, which have acquired the status of lingue franche in different periods and areas; - A closer look at the lingua franca of the Mediterranean, which was in the Mediterranean Basin from the Middle Ages until the 19th century; - Reference, which will be made to constructed languages. They surface throughout history and respond to a deeply need. In the 19th and 20th centuries numerous attempts were made in the belief that a common language would ensure fair communication. 2 1. LINGUA FRANCA AND LINGUE FRANCHE - HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Aramaic The first example of lingua franca in the ancient world was Aramaic (12th century BC), the language of the Persian Empire, the Bible and the Talmud. Originally spoken by the Middle Eastern Aramaeans, Aramaic is a Semitic language closely related to Hebrew, Syriac and Phoenician. Its script derives from the Phoenician alphabet and has formed the basis for many other alphabets (the Arabic and Hebrew ones).The settlement of Aramaeans in Mesopotamia and the use of Aramaic by Babylonian merchants from 700 BC turned Aramaic into the second language of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Around 600 BC, it was adopted as the official language of the whole empire showing the typical features of a lingua franca, clearly distinguished from the local varieties. After Alexander the Great's conquest, Aramaic slowly gave way to Greek, which overtook it as the common language in Egypt and Syria in the early 2nd century BC. However, Aramaic continued to be spoken widelyfrom Judea down into Arabia and Parthia, alongside: - Hebrew, the liturgical language and the language of the 9 higher classes; - Greek and Latin, the language of the Roman army. The penetration of Aramaic in the East is demonstrated by its influence on the Mongolic script, at the time of Genghis Khan in the 12th century, and by the Nestorian stele (781 AD), a bilingual Chinese Syriac text discovered in Sian which documents the presence of early Christianity in China. Greek In the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, Greek emerged as the second great lingua franca of the ancient world, becoming the language of literature, philosophy and the New Testament. Greek kept its role as lingua franca in the Eastern Mediterranean and in the Near East, where Latin was confined to the Roman army and administration. In the 1st century AD Greek literary and philosophical works were translated into Latin, which reveals the strong influence of the Greek language and culture. Major scholars of Greek origin like Plutarch and Polybius or Strabo moved to Rome and used the Greek language to celebrate the capital of the empire. Latin authors like Seneca the Younger wrote using Greek styles, and Roman heroes such as Scipio Africanus studied Greek philosophy. Among philhellene Roman emperors two deserve a special mention: - Hadrian, who spent long time in Greece contributing to the development of Greek towns; - Marcus Aurelius, a great Roman Stoic philosopher who used Greek for philosophical works. Following the dissolution of the Roman Empire in the 4th century AD, Greek became the official language of the new Byzantine Empire. However, when the Empire was swept aside by the Ottomans in the 15th century the status of Greek changed radically, losing definitively its status as official language. But Greek survived as the language of the Christian Orthodox Church and population. Its revival came in the 19th and 20th centuries, when the movement for national independence made the Greek language one of the pillars of the Greek nation. 5 Spanish and Portuguese Voyages of discovery brought their religion and their language to the peoples they colonized, permitting the creation of the first two great colonial empires: the Spanish and the Portuguese. Spanish became the first (and somewhere the official) language in all Latin American countries, except Brazil, and it is now the second most spoken language in the USA. Portuguese started to be spoken from Brazil to Goa, Macau and Timor in Asia. Its diffusion interested as well as the PALOP countries, which are Portuguese-speaking African countries: Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau, Equatorial Guinea, Mozambique, São Tomé and Príncipe. It was also used as a lingua franca in Sri Lanka for centuries. Brazilian Portuguese is a prestige variety which is today the language of about half the Latin American population. Dutch In the 17th century, the Netherlands became an important worldwide commercial power. However, the Dutch administered their dominions through the Dutch East and West India Companies. In the East, the Dutch never encouraged the local populations to learn their language, which vanished after decolonization; in the West, from the 19th century a policy of language expansion permitted the surviving of the language. Besides the Netherlands and Belgium, Dutch is nowadays the official language of Aruba, Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. Afrikaans should also be mentioned, even though it is now recognized as a distinct language, not a dialect or local variety. However, it is still an official language in South Africa and a fundamental mark of identity. Arabic Among non-European languages, the strongest lingua franca is Arabic. It spread rapidly in the Middle East and North Africa starting from the 7th century, following Mohammed’s preaching of the new Islamic faith and the religious wars. The Arabic speaking areas are characterised by the coexistence of numerous dialects: Modern Standard Arabic, which is used throughout the area and constitute the everyday spoken language. It derives from Classical Arabic, a revealed language not supposed to evolve and change. Arabic bears interesting resemblances to Latin after the fall of the Roman Empire, both becaming the languages of great revealed religions of different regions: - Latin: not so closely associated with religion and revelation, it evolved freely and overtime gave way to vulgar languages in all contexts and for all uses, - Arabic: preserved in more or less its original form, its natural varieties have never acquired the status of fully-fledged languages or enjoyed the same prestige as the Classical form. This explains the destinies of the Bible and the Qur'ân, which is translated merely for comprehension purposes. There are still continuous contacts and exchanges between Standard Arabic and its various dialects. If the structure of Arabic is fixed, its vocabulary integrates words from the various dialects and new words necessary to express new concepts or objects. However, Arabic is today's language of education and the media, offering all its speakers a powerful tool for communication. 6 3. LINGUE FRANCHE IN AMERICA Quechua and Nahuatl In Latin America, Quechua and Nahuatl are the languages of the Inca and Aztec empires respectively, still in use although the strength of Spanish. Nahuatl today refers to different dialects spoken by indigenous communities in Mexico. Adopted by the Spaniards to communicate with the indigenous populations and by the Catholic Church to propagate the Christian faith, Quechua is nowadays the language of 10 million people and an official language in several Andean countries. Tupi and Guarani Besides these living languages, one served as a lingua franca for a period after the discovery of the Americas: Tupi, today a dead language. It was the first contact language of traders and missionaries in their dealings with the Indians along the Atlantic coast of Brazil. On the basis of the various dialects spoken by the indigenous populations, the Jesuits developed a modified, uniform language which enabled communication between the Europeans and the Indians, as well as between Indian groups speaking different languages. Tupi was in common use until the 18th century, when it became extinct. Guarani, a language very closely related to it, has survived in Paraguay, where it is one of the official languages, alongside Spanish. 4. LINGUE FRANCHE IN AFRICA In Africa hundreds of languages and dialects coexist in the multilingualism. Since decolonization, the languages of the colonisers have been maintained as official languages in many countries, where the new elites could not reach an agreement on one domestic, political, neutral, acceptable and ethnical language. This happened in Nigeria, part of the British Commonwealth, and in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one of the francophone African countries. Swahili Among the African languages, only Swahili is spoken in Western, Eastern and Southern Africa. Its use as a regional language and its codification were promoted by the colonial powers to facilitate communication with the indigenous populations. The operation made Swahili today’s authentic African language among the official working languages of the African Union, the official language in Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda and a national language in other countries. In Tanzania, Swahili is not being identified with a specific ethnic group or social class, but it is now spoken by the vast majority of the population. In contrast, in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo, French is the only official language and Swahili is losing ground to another local lingua franca, Lingala. Lingala Lingala is a newly formed pidgin spoken in the capital Kinshasa and widely identified with the new elite. It is also the language of the media, music and show business, thus generating positive connotations in speaking. 7 5. LINGUE FRANCHE IN ASIA In Asia, the linguistic landscape has always been very complex and fluid with many languages and dialects which are not mutually intelligible. Newly independent states had therefore to choose a lingua franca ensuring inter-comprehension at state level. The newly formed states, however, followed utterly different linguistic policies. India Some 800 languages are spoken today and the official federal languages are: - Hindi, the dominant language in the North of the country and the language strongly associated with the nationalist struggle; - English, which was retained by the other ethnic groups. After independence, Hindi was seen as the language of the privileged elite of the North who controlled the country. Therefore, although Hindi is presently expanding, its chances of becoming the only official language in India are very low. Indonesia Malay has been adopted by all Indonesians as the medium of communication. Bahasa Indonesia was not the language of the elite and was spoken by only 2% of the population at the moment of independence, but it was chosen by the nationalist movement because it was not perceived as a sign of the domination over the others. Thanks to its wide acceptance, no European language - not even Dutch, the language of former colonizers - has managed to impose itself. China 7 to 13 main regional groups of Chinese are spoken, most of them mutually unintelligible. Until the early 20th century, a written form of Chinese, Classical Chinese, was used as a written lingua franca also in wide areas of the Far East: Japan, Korea and Vietnam. Outside China, the influence of Classical Chinese declined as a consequence of European penetration, whereas in China it was replaced by modern standard Chinese, the written lingua franca which now allows communication between speakers of the different varieties. As for oral communication the new lingua franca is Mandarin Chinese, anciently used to officials and civil servants but today chosen as the language of the compulsory education system. Today it is spoken by virtually all young and middle-aged citizens in mainland China. Cantonese stands out because of its wide diffusion and its prestige. While the other regional varieties are rarely used outside their well-delimited native areas, Cantonese is widely used in South-Eastern China and is the only variety of Chinese other than Standard Mandarin to be used in official contexts. It is also one of the official languages in Hong Kong and Macau. Owing to the explosive growth of the Chinese economy, Chinese is rapidly expanding outside China in parts of the Far East inhabited by Chinese populations and throughout the world the number of people learning Chinese as a second language is growing rapidly, leading some to envision Chinese, not English, as the future global lingua franca. 10 8. ENGLISH AS A LINGUA FRANCA Today, the news is the scale of international communication. The past few decades have witnessed unparalleled increases, emphasising the need for vehicular languages to overcome language barriers. By the strong role of English, labels like “World English”, “International English”, “English as a Lingua Franca”, “Global English”, or “Globish” have been coined. English is (one of) the working language of all international organisations. Besides the United Kingdom, Ireland, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, most countries belonging to the former British Empire have adopted it as their official language. Furthermore, new countries are promoting its use: Rwanda designated English as the official language of education in 2008, gaining ground on French as the chief foreign language even in former French colonies (Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco). It is also the main language of international business, chosen ever more frequently as the corporate language in multinational corporations and in academic, technological, scientific or sport contexts. 8.1 - English in music The number of music bands singing in English clearly shows its appeal, as does the number of people drawn to it as the language of their idols. English has become a symbol of modernity and speaking, becoming part of a global culture. Starting from the 1960s and 1970s, through popular music, English has become in many countries a symbol of freedom and rebellion, often allowing the opponents of totalitarian regimes to make their voices heard worldwide. - The events after the Iranian presidential elections in 2009 clearly showed the importance of a vehicular language to break isolation and circulate information. The official media did not cover the protests and manifestations which spontaneously broke out in the days after the official results, but news of the riots could reach the outside world thanks to these new tools. Universal use of English meant that the news spread rapidly and afar, even those who fight its supremacy recognise it as a powerful medium to make themselves heard. - During a march in support of Hindi against English organised in India, demonstrators carried banners in English to reach a wider public. - The protest of fundamentalist Muslims after satirical cartoons making fun of Muhammad were published in Denmark: they protested against the Western world, but did so using slogans in English, even though it is the language of “the Great Satan” and is perceived as the very symbol of Western predominance. However, the phenomenon is not so welcomed given the perceived risk of serious dangers not only for the survival of other languages, but also for English itself. On the one hand, the more English develops, the more fears are voiced that it propagates a new form of imperialism. English speaking countries (the US) impose their cultures and values, their economic and political supremacy, the global uniformity and homogenisation. While positive and clear action promotes cultural diversity by protecting smaller languages and cultures, the global reach of English could have a negative impact on English itself, leaving native speakers feeling dispossessed of their own language. 11 9. LINGUISTIC AND SOCIOLINGUISTIC FEATURES 9.1 - A new polycentric world English is spoken as a first language by a declining portion of the world population, but by an increasing number of second language speakers and even more as a foreign language (EFL)1. English is used by about 330 million native speakers, while the number of speakers of English as a second language (ESL)2 is estimated at between 300-500 million and the number of those who speak English as a foreign language probably range between 500 million and 1 billion. Where native speakers are a minority, speakers tend to assert their right to appropriate the language. The Indian linguist Raj Kachru classified English as a world language consisting of three circles: - The Inner Circle, which refers to the bases of English where it is spoken as the mother tongue (the USA, UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). Inner Circle communities are norm providing, because they have their own varieties of English regarded as the correct ones. - The Outer Circle, which includes nations where English may be adopted as an official language: about 50 territories mainly belonging to the former British Empire (India, Singapore, Malawi, Nigeria). Outer Circle communities are norm developing, because they develop their own varieties by the conflict between linguistic norm and linguistic behaviour. - The Expanding Circle, where English is an important international language, but not the official one. This includes countries non-colonised by speakers of the Inner Circle and where English is taught as a foreign language (Mexico, Germany, Brazil, Japan). Speakers in the Expanding Circle are norm-dependent, because the right to develop new varieties is not recognised, since all deviations from native speaker standard are regarded as mistakes. The Inner Circle is transforming in a massive influx of immigrants, speakers in the Outer Circle are becoming slowly native speakers, while people in the Expanding Circle are going to use de-Anglo- Americanised forms of English. That’s why the concept of “English as a lingua franca” (ELF) replaced the concept of “English as a foreign language”. In Kachru’s model, EFL concerns speakers in the Expanding Circle who learn English to acquire native speaker competence.ELF “dethrones” the native speaker (NS) and defines the goal of English learning to communicate with other non-native speakers (NNS). This new approach places speakers in the Expanding Circle on the same level as speakers in the Inner and Outer Circles. Under the EFL approach, English becomes a global asset belonging to all users and native speakers started to lose the right to control the language. English is no longer being learned as a foreign language - in recognition of the hegemonic power of native English speakers - and no longer embodies a single culture, the Western Judaeo-Christian culture. The first step in the transformation of English into an international language was similar to the process undergone by the French language; on the contrary, the populations of the former colonies can attain final liberation only by appropriating it. Compared to French and the other former colonial languages, English has become the world’s most multicultural language for international exchange among people who use it as a vehicular language. 12 9.2 - English as a lingua franca: a new discipline When English is used in international contexts by people for whom it is not the mother tongue, ELF talk cannot be conceived with a view to an ideal English norm and the ELF speaker cannot be measured to ‘the native speaker’. The fact that a lingua franca speaker is not fully competent in the part of his/her linguistic knowledge understudy reverses the balance of power between native speakers and nonnative speakers, having a major impact on the teaching of English. However, the features of ELF and its pragmatic implications must be clearly defined: whether ELF should be regarded as a distinct variety or rather as a specific way of using the language. Joan Jenkins’ research on the phonological features of ELF led her to identify the “Lingua Franca Core”. showing how certain sounds like the “th” sounds /θ/ or /ð/ are very often dropped by ELF speakers, without any impact on the success of communication. Similar studies on morphology and syntax tell that “Errors”, which appear regularly in ELF communication, often comprise deviations from features such as 3rd person -s, tags, phrasal verbs and idioms, tense use with a preference for -ing forms. The studies on pragmatics in the ELF context show that in ELF communication speakers tend to apply specific strategies: the great shift in perspective is “from treating…‘non-nativeness as problem’ to viewing ‘non-nativeness’ as a resource or ‘non-nativeness’ as unattended. ELF scholars focus on the communicative efficiency of English in ELF communication. Such speakers are not concerned with emulating the way native speakers use their mother tongue within their own communities, nor with socio-psychological and ideological meta-level discussions. Here, the central concepts are efficiency, relevance and economy in language learning. People need and want to acquire the instrument ‘English’ whatever the ideological baggage. Widely shared by ELF scholars, this stance recalls the concept of correctness, which is established by reference to native speaker norms when English is taught as a foreign language. In ELF, correctness should be replaced by appropriateness, the ability to attain “global inclusiveness and egalitarian licence to speak in ways that meet diverse local needs”. Academics found ELF on sound bases by compiling corpora: - The Vienna ELF corpus: compiled at Vienna University, it focuses on unscripted, largely face- to-face communication among fluent adult speakers from a wide range of first language background. It also includes private and public dialogues, private and public group discussions, casual conversations and one-to-one interviews. - The ELFA corpus: the corpus of English as a Lingua Franca in Academic Settings, developed at the Universities of Helsinki and Tampere. ELF speakers, whit their goal-oriented and cooperative attitude, often strive to attain their communicative goal and create meaning together. Several techniques were found to be regularly employed: co-construction of meaning, negotiation, code switching to exploit all linguistic resources at hand, simplification at certain levels (dropping the 3rd person -s the subject being already clear, or frequent use of generic verbs) matched by complexification at other levels (higher rate of repetition and reformulation). 15 10. POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS 10.1 - De Swaan and Van Parijs: an English-only world? Abram De Swaan English is considered as today’s vehicular language and local languages as markers of identity, especially in Europe where the citizens’ attachment to their mother tongues is strong and national. Coined by Jean-Paul Narrière, the term global English (Globish) refers to a new simplified form of English consisting of 1500 words and employed in intercultural communication. Globish combines basic English and the terminology of the digital age and the international media. Narrière observed that British and American executives had more difficulties than their non-native counterparts when dealing with non-native clients. Similar ideas are endorsed by scholars like Abram De Swaan and Philippe Van Parijs, who separate the communicative aspect of language from issues of culture and power. English as a lingua franca becomes an instrument for fostering democracy and progress, which would be hampered by artificially multilingualism. De Swaan argues that it is only rational and natural that people want to learn English, defines as the Q-value of language: - The product of its centrality: the proportion of multilingual speakers who speak it; - The product of its prevalence: the proportion of its speakers in the language constellation. De Swaan rejects the view of the linguists David Crystal, by which languages are living organisms which can die when they no longer fulfil the needs of the community using it, and the link between linguistic and cultural diversity. History shows that wars have been fought by groups speaking the same language (the war of independence or the civil war in America), while communities with different mother tongues manage to coexist peacefully. In his view, adopting a common language does not automatically entail imposing cultural homogeneity, specifically the Anglo-American model. About 90% of students in Europe rationally choose English as their second language, because they opt for the language that will enable them to communicate with the largest number of people (prevalence) and that has the highest percentage of multilingual speakers (centrality). He also criticises radical multilingualism because the outcome of its sentimental defence will simply be the triumph of English: “the more languages, the more English”. Granting equal rights to a high number of languages only reinforces the hegemony of English. The more fragmented the linguistic landscape, the greater the need for a common vehicular language, perceived as neutral by all speakers. In Belgium, English is sometimes used not to privilege either French or Dutch, while in Catalonia the trend is to promote English with the local language, rather than the national one. When linguistic equilibriums are complex and fragile, English can become a unifying force. According to De Swaan’s analysis, English is the rational choice which allows small linguistic communities to secure the best opportunities on the labour market for individuals. The outcome is that English is the primary means of communication in Europe, where the language problem is gradually resolving itself, just as in South Africa. By doing nothing, the Commission is actually helping to consolidate the position of English as the only way out of the confusion of tongues. 16 Philippe Van Parijs Philippe Van Parijs regards a common language as mandatory for the process of European integration, in order to be able to communicate in a fair and egalitarian way. To realize that, it is essential that the EU should adopt a single lingua franca over and above existing national and regional languages. English is the only adequate tool because the past decades have witnessed such a convergence toward it as the second language of choice. Like De Swaan, Van Parijs rejects the automatic link between language and culture. The values identifying a culture, the ‘ethnos’, can be expressed through any language which appears adequate, while adopting a language for intercultural communication, English, does not mean adopting the values originally expressed through that language. However, this process is not straightforward nor without obstacles, among: - The advantage of native speakers in competitive situations; - The overwhelming prestige of contents initially expressed in English; - The material profits deriving from an amount of translation into this language; - The resources for language learning saved in English speaking countries; - The parallel profits these countries make from offering language learning services. The use of English is justified because the risks of multilingualism are more serious as the asymmetry between English-speaking and non English-speaking countries, between English monolingual and multilingual entities. The first option for decision-makers is making Europe attractive to highly- qualified workers and stopping the present brain drain to English-speaking countries. Attractive conditions to keep the linguistic territoriality should be offered to enterprises and highly-qualified workers to encourage them to settle in Europe, where identification with the local languages is very strong. However, Europe cannot rely on the spontaneous action of the market and the free choice of its citizens. National and regional languages coexist because they serve different purposes. 10.2 - Grin and Ives: in defence of multilingualism The disappearance of any language is an irreparable loss for humanity because it causes the death a whole culture and system of values. The adoption of a specific language is not a free choice based exclusively on rational considerations by speakers, but a consequence of the political and military power of the peoples speaking it. The use of English was prompted by: - The power of Great Britain as a colonial empire; - The rise of the US as the first economical, political and military world power; - Its undisputed supremacy in different areas (science, technology, media, show business). This approach underscores the importance of language for different cultures and emphasises the risks in adopting a single language - today English - at the expense of others, keeping endangered languages alive and limiting the influence of the predominant language. Protecting linguistic diversity means protecting cultural diversity and preventing the disappearance of weaker or smaller local cultures. Languages spread the Anglo-American culture and its underlying values. 17 François Grin François Grin draws attention to the benefits Great Britain reaps from language-related services, estimating that the teaching sector in the UK earns almost £ 1.3 billion in invisible exports and about £10 million in education-related exports: €17-18 billion per year including the investments of English speaking countries. Every one of the 394 million non-English-speaking citizens of the EU, including those from the poorest new Member States, are subsidising the British economy. Grin points out that a language highlights the symbolic implications of adopting a lingua franca and should therefore be accounted for when assessing the economic efficiency of English. On this basis, he rejects the claim that the choice of English as a global language is always sound and fair. On the contrary, the distribution of these costs is utterly inequitable (multilingualism vs. English only) and multilingualism may not be more cost-efficient, but it does ensure a more equitable distribution of costs and does not make non-English speaking countries pay for English speaking countries. Similarly, Robert Phillipson defines this unfair advantage of English speakers and English speaking countries as ‘linguistic imperialism’, which would be the only strategy to prevent Anglo-American values and culture from being imposed worldwide together with the English language. To this end, he calls for a sustainable balance between English and other languages, through processes that lead to multilingual competence. Additive English for specific purposes is desirable, provided English learning and use are situated in local multilingual ecologies. Peter Ives Like De Swaan and Van Parijs, Peter Ives maintains that “arguments that support the adoption of English as a lingua franca for Europe utilize a rarified notion of language, which ignores the history of language within the rise of the modern nation-state and democracy”. Scholars do not grapple with the complexity of what language is and how it relates to democracy. In fact, most political theory treatments side-step the language issues by dividing the ‘communicative’ or instrumental functions of language from the ‘expressive’ or ‘symbolic’ dimensions. Instrumentalist assumptions seem to be at the heart of the way ‘global English’ is treated, implicitly or explicitly, by much of: - Political science - Social sciences (outside sociolinguistics, language planning and education) - Media The importance of approaching language is a human institution subject to historical change and the communicative aspect of language must be taken with the power relationships of language. The current EU linguistic policy is working positively, especially its focus on translation, in contrast to the views which regard the EU’s linguistic policy as a chaotic refusal to make clear and effective decisions. The EU is a potential model for other supranational democratic organizations which pronounces on the importance of linguistic diversity in the face of globalizing English. He underlines the role of translation among languages [as] a framework and metaphor for translation among diverse communities with differing values and views of the world, for the very type of ‘solidarity’. 20 11. CONCLUSIONS In our globalised world, language strategies play a major role. Whether lingue franche emerge as mere contact languages or the mother tongue of a given group, their purpose is to facilitate communication among people who do not share the same mother tongue. They are transitory and unstable, but always connected to power and prestige. Studying past lingue franche is essential to understand the present situation. Besides the ‘Englishes’, we can see the emergence of a new form of English: English as a lingua franca or Global English, which belongs to all its speakers (native and non-native). English is a hybrid tool which should not be seen as an instrument of imperialism - associated with the culture of the countries originally speaking it - but as a vehicle necessary to the native languages and cultures of all its speakers. It still evokes strong (positive and negative) reactions among scholars, decision-makers and in the media. International English as the new lingua franca is seen at two extremes: - An imperialistic tool which reflects today’s balance of power; - The only solution to our communication needs, capable of bringing about social justice and equality and overcoming social and political exclusion. Protesters against the generalised use of English in international contexts would recognise that there is widespread agreement on the need for a common language to make direct communication, which is essential when speakers of different languages come together. Generalised/systematic translation and interpretation cannot always be provided. Intercomprehension can be useful and effective, but does not work well when the speakers have different (non-neighbouring) languages. Machine translation and the new technologies are improving rapidly, but even for the future it is hard to imagine that they will be able to meet all our needs for direct communication, leaving us with the need for one common language. The opponents of using English are fearful that it will cause a loss of linguistic diversity, which is a defining feature of European civilisation. On the contrary, learning and speaking English as a lingua franca can be an incentive to learning other languages. This emerges from recent research carried out among Erasmus students under the LINEE Project3, according to which they come into contact with other students speaking different mother tongues and feel they have to acquire some knowledge of the local language. The new friendships may encourage them to learn further new languages. The same dynamics is observed among people who go abroad to work. Many companies choose English to secure the services of international staff with a wide range of mother tongues and places of origin. These people need to become competent in the local language if they want to settle and participate in local life: when you go to a bar with a group of people who all speak the local language, English is pretty useless. English is a contact language used to create a shared space, which covers a restricted range of subjects (pertaining primarily to public life) and does not belonging to anybody. English as a lingua franca (ELF) cannot become a fully-fledged language. It is a mere tool for communication, limited and unstable, which can be abandoned or replaced as soon as it no longer serves its purpose. 21 Nicholas Ostler acknowledges the international role played by English, but the weakness is represented by its convenience. When International English ceases to be convenient, it will be dropped without ceremony and with little emotion. This is inevitable because it is the historical destiny of all lingue franche. The objection that English is here to stay because there is no credible alternative will disappear, because we will in future no longer need a single language. In spite of the exponential growth of English, multilingualism is not disappearing. Massive migration, growing mobility and the kind of new technological developments help people to make contact with different linguistic environments and to develop their language skills. Even in traditionally monolingual territory, migration has made bilingualism and multilingualism an everyday reality. Even though English as a lingua franca is proving an effective linguistic tool in certain contexts, it cannot be the only pathway to communication and mutual understanding in our complex world. We should not underestimate the risks connected with linguistic functions, which would be a consequence of the generalised adoption of the lingua franca: the lingua franca would be used for public communication and the local language for more private uses or as a marker of identity. When a language is reserved for specific contexts and functions, it tends to be downgraded, fails to keep up with new developments and becomes unsuitable in a growing number of fields. English is generally accepted as the language for written and oral communication in the (hard) sciences; it is hard to see any radically different language regime in prospect. However, many experts are alarmed at the decline in the use of languages other than English by scientists who are not English native speakers, but who use English in their working lives. Remedial action is possible: the mathematician Jacques Lafforgue is convinced that the use of French in mathematics does not reflect the strength of mathematics in France, but is an ingredient in its success. We have to be aware that, if one language spreads massively at the expense of the others, it is not only those languages that risk being downgraded, but also the cultures and values which are expressed through them. Language always conveys values, even when it is used as a practical tool and not as a medium for cultural identification, like Global English. Diversity is a great asset of Europe nurtured by who move to Europe bringing their cultures and values with them: we need to foster the idea that multiple (linguistic) identities can coexist harmoniously. The monolithic concept of ‘one language, one country’, which has characterised the history of Europe, no longer reflects the current increasing of fluidity and mobility. The promotion of multilingualism and individual plurilingualism is important for developing a personality capable of facing new challenges, interacting with a wide range of attitudes. An example of the risk of radical monolingualism is the United Kingdom. Interest in language learning has declined to the point that foreign languages are no longer compulsory in school curricula. The percentage of pupils opting for foreign languages has dropped dramatically, causing negative consequences. Experts started to stress the importance of language learning and the adverse effects of illiteracy in this field, calling for effective policies to make pupils and their families conscious. 22 The more English spreads (and the more plurilingualism and bilingualism develop at global level), the more native speakers of English are becoming monolingual: they will lack the skills necessary to act and communicate effectively in a globalised world. This will have negative repercussions on a personal level and for the country as a whole. Native speakers often fail to communicate even in their mother tongue. The lack of language skills seems to have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness of British companies on world markets, compared to other companies more aware of the importance of language skills and more willing to invest in this field. A justification for ‘English is enough’ is the spread of English. Everybody virtually knows English, especially among the younger generations, even if this claim does not reflect reality. In the future English is highly unlikely to penetrate all strata of the world’s population, or even of Europe’s. This means that, if we want to build an inclusive society, we must be careful not to embrace policies and strategies which marginalise large strata of the population. The level of knowledge of English still differs according to: - Age group - Geographical location - Social class We cannot rely entirely on a lingua franca to the detriment of other strategies, like translation and interpretation, essential tools that enable the citizens to play an active part in Europe. We are experiencing a transitional phase - marked by extreme fluidity - which copes with the constant tension between localisation and globalisation. English for intercultural communication is a linguistic resource that can enable speakers with different mother tongues to communicate directly (mostly orally). English as a lingua franca should be encouraged with strategies promoting multilingualism: - Acquisition of other languages - Translation and interpretation - Various forms of localisation - Development of innovative tools: inter-comprehension or machine translation. National economies have become more integrated in the global economy; money and workers have become more mobile; the pace of technological change has unbelievably accelerated; the explosive growth of communication and information networks annihilates its users. Every language community must become aware of its position in a ‘dynamic world system of languages’, characterised by vast and expanding differences in status and use. The future evolution of this system also depends on different factors (mediation by human/electronic translators, widespread plurilingualism, spreads of lingua francas) which bring about an interlingual world, characterised by: - Linguistic diversity - Integration, - Equity - Efficiency - Sustainability 25 It is said that in countries where English is widespread as a medium of education the level in the native language is declining. Grin thinks that the use of a language lets us obtain a “linguistic work”: if you no longer use a language to do things, the language and the community who used it start performing less worse in various endeavors. That's the reason why it is important to maintain the use of different languages in research and teaching. A research has been financed by the EU on the link between multilingualism and creativity: there seems to be a positive link between them, witnessing the fact that the preservation of multilingualism is important. Van Parijs stated that multilingualism and ELF should go hand in hand because they serve different purposes; so they seem not to be in contradiction. Grin thinks that this assumption sounds positive, however if you look more closely at the proposals, you'll find that they're often unconvincing. As a matter of fact, we have to consider a language as a “linguistic capital”, which is part of the “human capital”. If a language stops being used as an important language, then the human capital linked to it (literature, research, commerce, industry) would be downgraded. The solutions that Van Parijs proposes are risky for multilingualism. Do you think that the distinction that Van Parijs makes between “ethnos” and “demos” is weak? Grin believes that there are languages which we use for different purposes; however he also thinks that we use a linguistic competence which combines our skills in different languages (the use of words in another language; use of syntactic structures which are typical of another language), because it is difficult to separate distinctly languages. Van Parijs thought that the concept of “ethnos” is associated with the identity function of a language, while the concept of “demos” is associated with the communicative function of a language. Many people wouldn't like to live in a world where their mother tongue (their ethnos) has a role which is confined to local functions, while there is a lingua franca (demos) which is used in official occasions: this would mean that local languages would be downgraded, so the linguistic work would be less in this language, causing the downgrading of one's human capital. The distinction between ethnos and demos may be neat, but it shouldn't be used as a general organizing principle of the role of languages. English is spreading but multilingualism is increasing, also in domains which were once dominated by English. Grin doesn't want English to displace other languages; because of migration, the role of English is declining: nowadays it is easier to maintain multilingualism. However, despite the diversity that we have and the possibilities of contact with it, we still have a superficial experience with it because we can approach it through a linguistic medium (ELF). Multilingualism is an important linguistic policy, because it permits us to have a deep experience with diversity. How extended is the awareness of Europeans about this issue? Grin said that people are only asked clichéd questions (“do you like English?”), which have an obvious answer. However, if someone asked them more questions (“would it be a problem for you whether your mother tongue stopped being used?”), they would give more nuanced answers (people would even pay to protect their own language). 26 Is the fact that everyone would strongly protect his own language, but not other languages and multilingualism, a risk of a provincialism spreading in Europe? Multilingualism exists only if the majority tries to prevent the death of its own language: by protecting even one single language, you contribute to protect multilingualism. However, multilingualism is based also on other factors like coordination and measures, which ensure the compatibility of this with communication. Many people criticize EU linguistic policy because English is spreading more and more. They say that it isn't sustainable. Grin thinks that many of the statements made by politicians or in the media aren't to be considered because they ignore languages' dynamics. There are 2 opposite criticisms abut multilingualism: - The EU is schizophrenic because it keeps on talking about multilingualism, but then expects Europeans to use English as a medium (which sometimes is a bad idea, because it is different to express concepts in languages different from the mother tongue): Grin supports the multilingualism policy only if EU is effectively willing to promote it; he is against what a few people say (that multilingualism is a sham26) and suggests to promote multilingualism in combination with other instruments to make it sustainable - “Multilingualism is useless”: Grin thinks that unilingualism would be unfair because all the costs would be distributed on NNS countries and, even though all people would become Anglophone, the loss of diversity would be a loss for humanity; moreover, nowadays, costs of translation and interpretation are reasonable and we have to develop many effective strategies. (->EX: use of a bit of Esperanto; intercomprehension). Grin said that he prefers to remain extremely cautious about this situation. INTERVIEW II: WOLFGANG MACKIEWICZ Many people consider English as today's lingua franca and as the solution to communication problems. How do you judge it? Mackiewicz thinks that a lingua franca is necessary because people can't always be accompanied by interpreters or use translators. We have to see things in context: more often than before people end up using English. (buying tickets; meetings). Moreover there is also a “lingua academica” because more and more publications and researches are in English nowadays. People have to make an effort in order to be capable to express themselves in English, because this trend is there and it is irreversible. Many people think that this phenomenon downgrades the other national languages and that people will no longer be able to express themselves in their own mother tongue. Mackiewicz says that people should be “bilaterate”, so they should be able to speak a good English in international settings, and they should speak their mother tongue in national settings. We mustn't forget that ELF isn't a new phenomenon; the problem of English is that it has a simple grammar, so it is easy to put your own grammar and vocabulary in it, obtaining only nonsense. 27 ELF is no longer the same English as BrE. Mackiewicz says that at the beginning we taught languages by using a systematic approach (literature and culture are important); then we began to use a communicative approach (speaking became important). However, nowadays people have lots of possibility to speak languages: the problem nowadays is that they mix different languages; so, we went back to the systematic approach, in order to distinct between languages. As a matter of fact, even though English seems 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. 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 and 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. 30 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 is not irrelevant. Also the exposure to materials written in English is important to learn it. In order to spread English through media, 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 pernicious. Secondly, by spreading only subtitled products, people will then prefer regional products in their own language; so getting rid of dubbing would promote local products. Nevertheless, it is true that the spreading of English facilitates direct access to English culture. On the other hand, however, people now express more in English than before. To promote even more English, we should not be ashamed of speaking it, even if we have a strange accent: by doing this, we can enrich English language. This means that there are different Englishes: BrE, AmE, New Zealand English and so on. Paradoxically, NNS are advantaged while speaking in international contexts, because they can understand what means speaking to people which belong to different cultures. They can make jokes which can be understood only by people sharing the same culture. However, in certain situations it seems that having a good command of the language is very important, so NS are advantaged. 31 Van Parijs states that of course this is true. There is only one solution to this problem: promoting competence in English among NNS. In the long term, NNS will become NS and they will be advantaged because they will be able to speak also another language, so they will be (at least) bilingual. On the contrary, NS will be monolingual. This doesn't mean that multilingualism will take place: multilingualism would be difficult to maintain, because we tend to use either our mother tongue or the language that is best known by the person who can speak less well (maximin-driven choice); this language will be English. Multilingualism can only be expected to be maintained by exceptional cases. In Belgium, for example, people should learn French, Dutch and English. English will become more than an asset: it will be the precondition to do everything. Also multilingualism could be an asset: it can be an advantage for what concerns economic and social relationships. It is said that using lingua franca is a sign that you want to underline that you don't belong to the same community. Van Parijs says that a lingua franca may be more impersonal, but this doesn't mean that you can't create relationships with it: indeed, it can be a great contribution to the quality of personal relationships. Talking about ELF, you can choose it to talk with other NNS because it is a neutral ground; this can be used to signal that you don't want to impose your own language, but that you want to be a peer with the other interlocutor because you both make an effort to speak a language which is difficult for you. This choice of ELF is essential in the EU context, because, as De Swaan said, “the more languages, the more English”. Is this convergence towards English a natural development or an ideal? It is both. There is an interaction between the probability-sensitive learning (people choose to learn languages that they think that will be more useful than other languages) and the maxi-min driven choice. English is the maxi-min language, the only language which the majority can speak a little bit: this is why it is spreading so quickly, mainly in the younger generations, which choose to learn it (probability-sensitive learning). This is a consequence of the maxi-min dynamics. This spread of English should also be accelerated and English democratized, in order to let everyone learn it. There is a concern about young researchers losing the ability to speak about their fields of study in their mother tongue. Van Parijs thinks that as far as scientific progress is concerned, this shouldn't matter. However, having a common language has great advantages, but it also has 2 problems (the problems that also Latin had: they led to the abandon of it) which are: - Only people who have the possibility to study can speak English: this system would exclude lots of people (people who can't afford English courses) by education - The knowledge that is developed in universities should be known by everyone: the more you use a national language, the more it is possible. This is why we have to push to spread English from an early age. There is a connection between the spread of English and democracy, intended in two senses: the spread of English through all the social classes is needed to make the functioning of supranational entities (EU) more democratic, in order to let people take part in it. 32 Don't you think that people would accept even less the EU if the common language were only English and there were no multilingualism? Van Parijs thinks that it would be more accepted. As a matter of fact, multilingualism is only an illusion, because only with the use of a common language you can make people feel closer to the EU. ELF is important to communicate in a cheap and effective way. ELF shouldn't, however, replace national languages. Our need is the combining of ELF and national languages: we should make people learn at least a little bit of English, as people belonging to a country have to learn its mother tongue. There are some separatists that think that the only use of ELF and of their local language is sufficient for them and want to separate from their country (Catalonia); however, this separation will never be completed as far as Euro is their common currency. Machine translation is improving rapidly. Can it be the solution for communication problems? Van Parijs thinks that it is not possible, because we need 2 machines: the first recognises what is said and puts in in a written form; the second translates the written form. However this is hard even in the best acoustic conditions, because we have expressions which can't be translated properly in another language (colloquial expressions; foreign words). Moreover we would have to wait a lot of time. With written texts it is less difficult, but we should still check the way we write, including the creation of neologisms or the use of proper names. Nowadays we witness the spread of multilingualism, even in traditionally monolingual countries (the USA, where Spanish is spreading) and on the Internet, which is side by side with the spread of English: is this a two-way development? Van Parijs says that, for what concerns traditionally monolingual countries, the situation is not as it seems. Of course Spanish is spreading, however, it is because Hispanics come to the USA. So, alongside with the spread of Spanish, we have to say that there is a spread of English-learning. Moreover, the USA have never been a monolingual country, because migrants came from countries which had different mother tongues. The difference is that nowadays they can maintain their mother tongue because of technologies. This doesn't mean that the USA are becoming bilingual. For what concerns the Internet, material in English is diminishing. However, we should say that Japanese material is read only by Japanese people, Finnish material by Finnish people and so on. On the contrary, English material is still read by everyone who knows a little bit of English. How do you judge the EU linguistic policy? Van Parijs thinks that an implicit policy is developing in Europe: English will be further and further democratized, and the more people will be able to speak English, the faster documents will be written only in English. English will replace multilingualism. However, courage is needed to do this. Moreover, there is a risk that EU Members, not worried because of language 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.