Robert Phillipson
ensiÍy research efforts in
r supranational language
languages in EU institu)- and national language
rr minority languages and
historically different nart experience of colonial
les of explicitness of lan,' of discourses glorifying
nan 1996). Merging these
emanding. To exemplify:
rgualism differently from
tges, or speakers of a miclear evidence from emr substantially from EU
l theiÍ perceptions of the
EU institutions (Schlosssuch matters are seen by
eeks, as compared with
s and these only isolated
r a dai,ly basis, EU internembers of national parI by the European Culture European Parliament
18. at Oegstgeest in the
rf conferences and workact together at the launding and the wishes of a
relm, and imminent elecagreed (except for a sub:ant minority languages).
report "Which languages
s the papers given by exludiag Normand Labrie,
rg that this was written by
:sising postscript by Virhe conference under the
research needs are listed,
ď clarification:
side the EU institutions,benrtions,betweeninstitutions
decision-making.We need
201
European language policy: an unmet sociolinguistic challenge
more insights into the hierarchy of languages inside EU institutions. The consequences of future enlargements need to be assessed... (Mamadouh, 1999,161,)....There is much confusion on the terminologies in use to qualify languages. Terms as lingua franca, communcation language, language of
wider communication, national language, minority language, international language or post-national language, auxiliary language and artificial language, official language and working language,
etc are used quite loosely. Conceptual clarification is urgently needed to redefine definitions and
assess the position of the various languages in Europe (ibid., 164).
The survey also identified
supranational,
English
European
eliminating
a number
level),
of hindrances
other languages),
(such as lack of a public
sphere at the
(such as violations
of communication
rights, and
and many challenges,
both for research
and for rais-
threats
ing public awarenessabout languageissues.
If current trends basically suggestthat contemporary linguistic hierarchies are problematical (howevermuch hegemonicprocesseshave led to their acceptance),and that what is
at stake is important points of principle, of inequality and the denial of personal and natíonalrights,a critical sociolinguisticsought to be addressingsuch issues.This meansundertaking not merely well-informed,stringent,and insightful analysisof the presentstateof affairs,but the formulation of strategiesfor a more equitable linguistic order. In view of the
indisputable principle that member statesand their languageshave equal rights,and that
EU rhetoric proclaims diversity,this should not be too tall an order. Related work in critical
discourseanalysis,critical languageawareness,and critical foreign/secondlanguagepedagogy can serve as inspiration. Language planning clearly involves value judgements and
ethical principles which draw on human rights taw,combined with politicat agreementon
the type of society that languagepolicies can facilitate.If this can be undertakenin a polity
in transformation, such as south Africa, or in a state seeking to implement indigenous
people's rights such as Norway, should it not be possible in the EU? And would this not
serve to increase democraticpolicy formation and political legitimacyin a structurethat is
notably lacking in both?
3. The special case: English
The formulation of equitableEU languagepolicies needsto tackle head-onthe fact that the
power behind English is significantly greater than that behind any other language.This is
true in Europe and globally.It applies in many fields and activities.It is a fact,whetherEnglish is seen as a national, post-national,international or supra-nationallanguage,whether
analysisclassifiesthe usesof languageas being imperialist,post-imperialistor neither.Analysisof Englishin whatsomeseeas a "newworld order" presupposesagreementon the two
objectsin focus,the languageEnglish (and there are now books andjournals devotedto the
plurality of English languages,an issue that cannot detain us here), and the globalisation
processes that characterise the contemporary post-cold-war phase of aggressivecasino
capitalism,economic restructuring,McDonaldisation and militarisation on all continents.
There is a considerableliterature on both phenomena,on English in all its diversity,on how,
when and why the languageexpandedas it did. There is also much analysisof globalisation,
which Europeanisation is a continentalvariant of. By contrastthere is an alarming absence
202
Robert Phillioson
of literature that brings the two together(but see also Graddol 1997and Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas 1999).There are major limitations and shortcomingsin recent books on contemporaryEnglish as a "global language"(Crystal 1997),in which the coverageof EU languagepolicy is minimal and grosslymisleading (Phillipson 1999a),and English as a "postimperial language" (Fishman,Conrad & Rubal-Lopez, eds,1996),which contains a useful
but rather selectivesurveyof developmentsin the EU by Ammon, along with some perceptive reflections (see Phillipson 1996b).
What I will confine myself to here is to one general comment and to a considerationof
some of the evidencethat as English expands,usersof English as a secondlanguageare becoming verbal about their unequal communication rights.My general point is that policy
documentsand measuresby the British and French governmentsindicate unambiguously
that it is to the strategicand economicbenefit of thesestatesthat their languagesare at the
top of the EU hierarchy.English is further strengthenedby globalisation,which primarily
servesthe interestsof the US governmentand the transnationalcorporations,in the EU as
elsewhere.In principle, any languagecan be used for good or evil purposes,for liberation or
oppression.Essentially what needs unravelling is therefore what purposes English is serving in contemporary Europe, which interests benefit from present-daylinguistic hierarchies,and what the implications are for speakersof all EU languages.
On inequality in communicationthere is plenty of anecdotal evidence:
- Ranko Bugarski, a distinguishedYugoslav Professor of English and Linguistics,in a review of Crystal's book (1998)writes that "as a non-nativespeakerwho has used English
almost daily for decades I tend to get increasingly reluctant to engage in protracted
serious argumentwith native speakersover subtle non-professional- e.g. philosophical
or political - issues... I would not be surprisedto learn that other people in my category
have at times experienced a similar uneasiness".
- Ulrich Ammon (2000)reports that the use of English as the dominant languageof scientific communication is experienced by Germans as an additional burden. He has collected a range of typesof evidenceof inequality,such as reports of matchedguiseexperiments that indicate that in the medical world, texts in English are judged as superior to
texts in Dutch and Scandinavianlanguages,and information from professorsof English
in Germany,who report insecurity about the quality of their own manuscriptsin English,
which appearsto confirm Bugarski's suspicions.
- Yukio Tsuda's experienceas a Japaneseuser of English, and as an observer of inequality
between Japaneseand English in many contexts,has contributed to his elaboration of
two global languagepolicy paradigms,a Diffusion of English paradigm and an Ecology
of Languageparadigm,which is a productiveway of conceptualisingglobal languagepoliry trends (see Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas1996).One constituentof his Ecology of
Language paradigm is equality in communication.
- Some recent evidenceis from my own experiencein the summer of 1996during which I
attended two international conferences,a Language Rights conference in Hong Kong
(seeBenson, Grundy & Skutnabb-Kangas,eds,L998),and a languagepolicy syrnposium
in Prague as part of the Universal Esperanto Association 81st World Congress (see
Fettes& Bolduc, eds,1998).At the Hong Kong conference,English was virtually the sole
meansof communication.In the questiontime of one of the plenary sessionsa South Af-
European lorpage
pa
rican participant
than ideal. partio
lish. accepted ůe
ganisers The amt
thought. and the r
at the Esperanto
x-orld communic
number of Asia*
perience ofEspet
*'as a viúd and
utopian but a res
nationď and intel
and ineqútab|;_.
siolking well pro
- Lingústicinequa
guistic and cultur
gently needed if I
Much more evid
o Germanbusines
documents are p
age.
. Applications to t
but using one ofl
plication.
o EU inÍormation
lish with much tl
o InDenmark,whr
Danish politican
And so on - there i:
then is that the pror
ing consequences fr
this field are obvio
4. References
Abélěs'Marc (1999)l
Cultural Foundati<
Ammon,Ulrich (20fi
speakers? In Philli
Benson, Phil, Peter (
ber on linguistic ht
Bugarski, Ranko (19
ment,90-92.
Crystal, David (1997
SOCIOLINGUISTICA 1{U
Robert Phillipson
European language policy: an unmet sociolinguistic challenge
t97 and Phillipson & Skutes in recent books on con'h the coverage of EU lanl). and English as a "posti). which contains a useful
r. ďong with some percepand to a consideration of
a second language are beeneral point is that policy
s indicate unambiguously
I their languages are at the
lďsation, which primarily
corporations, in the EU as
purposes, for liberation or
t purposes English is servsent-day linguistic hieraruages.
el.idence:
sh and Linguistics, in a reaker who has used English
It to engage in protracted
sional - e. g. philosophical
-
o
o
ňer people in my category
o
rminant language of scienional burden. He has colts of matched guise experi
r are judged as superior to
foom professors of English
nl manuscripts in English,
s an observer of inequality
ruted to his elaboration of
, paradigm and an Ecology
alishg global language polnstituent of his Ecology of
mer of 1996 during which I
coďerence in Hong Kong
anguage policy symposium
Slst World Congress (see
nglish was virtually the sole
lenary sessions a South Af-
o
203
rican participant expressed surprise at why those whose competence in English was less
than ideal, particularly Asians who had great difficulty in expressing themselves in English, accepted the unequal communication rights imposed on them by the conference organisers. The answer was that the organisers, mainly British, had not given the matter any
thought, and the non-native speakers were too polite to protest. A couple of weeks later
at the Esperanto symposium it was amazíngto experience participants from a]l over the
world communicating confidently in a shared international language, among them a
number of Asians who were manifestly at no disadvantage. As this event was my first experience of Esperanto in action (with interpretation provided for us non-Esperantists), it
was a vivid and memorable way of seeing at first hand that Esperanto is not merely
utopian but a reality for those who have chosen to make it part of their lives, domestic,
national and international. The juxtaposition of the experience of English working badly
and inequitably - and for once this being discussed openly in public - and Esperanto
working well provides appetising food for thought.
Liaguistic inequality and policies of linguistic genocide are reducing human diversity, linguistic and cultural as well as other forms of biodiversity. Addressing such problems is urgently needed if humanity is not to suffer a catastrophic loss (Skutnabb-Kangas 2000).
Much more evidence could be adduced:
German businesses, politicians and administrators are on record as stating that when EU
documents are produced initially in only French and/or English, they are at a disadvantage.
Applications to the EU can in principle be submitted in any of the 11 official languages
but using one of the "lesser used" languages may well serve to delay and prejudice an application.
EU information on the internet clearly reflects a pecking order of languages, with English with much the sharpest beak.
In Denmark, where I hapen to live, there are many hilarious and often obscene stories of
Danish politicans saying things in English that they had not intended.
And so on - there is masses of soft data, but how come there is so little hard data? My claim
then is that the processes that we Europeans are involved in will have and are already having consequences for the evolving linguistic map of Europe, and that the research needs in
ůis field are obvious and immense.
.Í' References
.{bélěs,Marc (1999)Multiculturalism and multilingualismin the European institutions'In European
Cultural Foundation 1999,19-117.
-{mmon,Ulrich (2000)Towardsmore fairnessin internationalEnglish: Linguistic rights of non-native
speakers?In Phillipson(ed.),111-116.
Benson, Phil, Peter Grundy & Tove skutnabb-Kangas (eds.)(1998)Language sciences,specialnumber on linguistic human rights,2011.
Bugarski, Ranko (1998)Review of Crystal 1991.Iournal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,90-92.
Crystal, David (1997)English as a global language.Cambrid,ge:Cambridge University press.
204
Robert Phillipson
de Swaan, Abram (1999) The European constellation of languages. In European Cultural Foundation
1999,13-24.
European Cultural Foundation (1999) Which languages for Europe? Report of the conference held at
Oegstgeest, the Netherlands, 8-11 October 1998. Amsterdam: European Cultural Foundation.
Fettes, Mark & Bolduc, Suzanne (eds.) (1998) AI lingva demokratio; Towards linguistic democracy;
Vers la démocratie linguistique, Proceedings of the Nitobe Symposium of International organizations, Prague, 20-23 July 1996, Rotterdam: Universala Esperanto-Asocio.
Fishman, Joshua A., Conrad, Andrew & Rubal-Lopez, Alma (eds.) (1996) Post-imperial English:
Status change in former British and American colonies, 1940-1990. Berlin & New York: Mouton de
GruyteÍ.
Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Relations (1996) The Hague Recommendations Regarding the Education
Rights of National Minorities & Explanatory Note,The Hague: Foundation on Inter-Ethnic Relations.
Graddol, David (1997) The future of English? London: The British Council.
Grin, Franqois (1996) Economic approaches to language and language planning. International lournal
of the Sociology of Language,121, special issue.
Labrie, Normand (1993) La construction linguistique de la Communauté Eufopéenne. Paris: Champ1on.
Mamadouh, Virginie (1999) Concluding remarks. In European Cultural Foundation 1999, 155-I7I.
Phillipson, Robert (1999 a) Voice in global English: unheard chords in Crystal loud and clear, Review
article on Crystal 1997. Ap plied Linguistics, 2012:265J7 6.
Phillipson,Robert(1999b)ReviewofFishman,Conrad&Rubal-Lopez(eds.)1996.
Language,75l2,
165-168.
Phillipson, Robert (ed.) (2000) Rights to language: equity, power and education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Phillipson, Robert & Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1996) English only worldwide, or language ecology.
T ES O L Quarterly, 3013,429452.
Phillipson, Robert & Tove Skutnabb-Kangas (1999) Englishisation: one dimension of globalisation,
English in a changing world, AILA Review,13,17-36, ed. David Graddol & Ulrike Meinhoff.
Quell, Carsten (1997) Language choice in multilingual institutions: A case study at the European Commission with particular reference to the role of English, French and German as working languages.
Multilingua 1,6/I,57-:76.
Schlossmacher, Michael (1996) Die Amtssprachen in den Organen der Europiiischen GemeinschaftFrankfurt a.M. et al.: Lans.
Schiffman, Harold (1996) Lňguistic culture and language policy. London: Routledge'
Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove (2000) Linguistic genocide in education - or worldwide diversity and human
rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
de Varennes, Fernand (2000). Tolerance and inclusion: The convergence of human rights and the work
of Tove Skutnabb-Kangas. In Phillipson (ed.),67-:71,.
\atalia
Trosc
Russischspn
Bereich Rul
Die Zukunft det
schen Probleme
die I ánder aus c
bleme klar gew<
MeinBeitrag
staatsspÍache d
Ru8landeinmu
tegangen werde
Ókonomische
chenVeriinderu
riert. Die Bedeu
lem der offiziell
sich etabliert- sc
ýaltet. Dabei gc
kbensstile, Pre
Das áuBert si<
Ien Geschehens
charakteristisch
der 60-80er Jat
-Niemandseiger
tungslosigkeit".
Viele Menscb
man oft das Gefi
klar, wie stark in
kenswert ist, dď
ist, sondern aucl
von O. Lang (I-a
kultur im interni
dort,2L-23.O
Nicht ohne G
Grundlage der e
lem die der Mas
war der kognitir
tiertes Interpret
sorgte fiir ein eir
Ganze der mon
SOCIOLINGUISTICA
14/2OOO