Linguistic diversity in Europe: Strength or weakness?

Résumé du document

In 1919, after many debates, the British Prime Minister David Lloyd George concluded that the Versailles treaty would be written both in French and English. Since then, English has imposed itself in diplomacy, economic exchanges, Medias and so on. Nowadays, it seems that this language has gained a very important role. Despite this general tendency of the spread of English, the European Union has instituted a policy of linguistic diversity and refused to choose one language or another in the work of its institutions. The introduction of the Laeken Declaration illustrates this will: "At long last, Europe is on its way to becoming one big family, without bloodshed, a real transformation...a continent of humane values, of liberty, solidarity and above all diversity, meaning respect for others' cultures, languages and traditions" . There are now twenty-three languages recognized by the European Union. There is even a European commissioner devoted to multilingualism (Leonard Orban).

Extraits

[...] This seems to imply that as long as the EU will not reach a point of linguistic coherence, Europeans will not constitute a real people. To avoid this problem, some have envisaged that Latin could be the only language spoken in the EU institutions. The use of this language would have had the advantage to be almost neutral (which would not be the case of English for instance) and to make sense culturally. However, Latin is not being spoken anymore, and not understood either, which would cause even more tremendous problems for the democratic characteristic of the EU. [...]

[...] In this dystopia, he imagines a fictional language, the “Newspeak”, which is stated as being unique language in the world with a vocabulary that gets smaller every year”[4]. The basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, good thoughts and thought crimes) which reinforce the total dominance of the State. Similarly, Newspeak root words serve as both nouns and verbs. This allows further reduction in the total number of words. [...]

[...] Linguistic diversity can then be considered as a motor for the EU The modern idea of Europe since Kant is the idea of cosmopolitanism. Thus, languages have to remain diverse in the EU. In fact, the European construction does not function like the unification process of a Nation State. The EU has historically built itself as an association of Free States on the basis of their voluntary agreement. Therefore, the goal of Europe is not to create one uniform people, but on the contrary, to make different people live together, cooperate and exchange goods and ideas. [...]

[...] Basically, linguists afirm that languages reflect diverse visions of the world. What is frightening about the uniformisation of language is then that it might destroy ways of thinking, and even reduce the possibilities offered to human beings to think in diverse ways. The uniformisation of language could lead to the adoption of words that would not be used to think, but only to communicate. It could lead to the adoption of an empovered ready made language. The English language itself a cultural language, used in masterplays and major philosophical and literary writings should not be accused of representing a threat. [...]

[...] One question is whether we are defined by our language, or whether we define it. For instance, can we communicate the need for freedom, or organize a rebellion, if we do not have the words for either? Ludwig Wittgenstein agrees with George Orwell's thesis and affirms that "the limits of my language mean the limits to my world."[5] Then, the European language policy founded on the promotion of diversity seems to be a good idea because it protects the ability of people to think in diverse ways. [...]