Which, if any, countries on the continent of Europe will be among the first to adopt English as an added "official" language?
Apr 13th, 2005, 01:19 AM
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,924
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the end of this century, we may have completely different concepts and habits of society, government, states and countries, not to mention technological equipment, that could make the concept of an 'official' language redundant in the first place.
Or we might have choked on our own pollution or blown ourselves to kingdom come, of course.
Or we might have choked on our own pollution or blown ourselves to kingdom come, of course.
Apr 13th, 2005, 01:28 AM
#22
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brookwood mentions Finland, but no. Although most people know English it takes a lot more to make a foreign language an official language. English is official in Malta and India because of their colonial history. For the same reason Swedish is an official language in Finland, and everybody has to learn that.
It depends on the amount of people who speak the language as their mother tongue. And in that light, if Finland would ever have a third official language (or fourth, if Sámi counts) it would be Russian. There are ten times more native Russian speakers in Finland than there are English speakers.
English may be important internationally, but domestic need is what counts. Besides, every European country has protection of native language high on the priorities list. Even new loan words have difficulties to enter.
People may speak many languages, it doesn´t mean that those languages would have to become official.
It depends on the amount of people who speak the language as their mother tongue. And in that light, if Finland would ever have a third official language (or fourth, if Sámi counts) it would be Russian. There are ten times more native Russian speakers in Finland than there are English speakers.
English may be important internationally, but domestic need is what counts. Besides, every European country has protection of native language high on the priorities list. Even new loan words have difficulties to enter.
People may speak many languages, it doesn´t mean that those languages would have to become official.
Apr 13th, 2005, 02:45 AM
#23
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,657
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official languages generally get nominated when a country, or group of countries, have to converse with each other on matters of business/politics and have the problem of multiple languages being spoken within that area. When local sensitivities are concerned, it often makes poor sense to adopt just one of these languages as the 'official' language (you get into the whole argument about 'why should we speak your language, why not mine?). So picking an outside language, when a lot of people already have exposure to, makes great sense. This is what you see in India - English is an official language that helps unite diverse groups together, without creating a political storm.
The EU already has official languages, from memory I think it's French AND English, because more people English as a second language here than any other, and the French always get in a huff if their language is left out.
I can't see a single country adopting English as an official language to communicate to its own people, but I can see it pushed harder at schools as English is already an official language of the EU.
Here in the UK, Welsh is protected as an official language, and all government documents have to be translated into Welsh as well as English. Slightly daft is you ask me - enormous taxpayers expense.
I've produced a lot of literature for lawyers in England and Wales before now, all had to be translated into Welsh, but you can't tell me that there's ANY Welsh lawyers that don't speak English.
The EU already has official languages, from memory I think it's French AND English, because more people English as a second language here than any other, and the French always get in a huff if their language is left out.
I can't see a single country adopting English as an official language to communicate to its own people, but I can see it pushed harder at schools as English is already an official language of the EU.
Here in the UK, Welsh is protected as an official language, and all government documents have to be translated into Welsh as well as English. Slightly daft is you ask me - enormous taxpayers expense.
I've produced a lot of literature for lawyers in England and Wales before now, all had to be translated into Welsh, but you can't tell me that there's ANY Welsh lawyers that don't speak English.
Apr 13th, 2005, 03:53 AM
#24
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with most of the last few posts. just some comments:
>>>>
English may be important internationally, but domestic need is what counts.
>>>>
the ability to communicate and do business with and in other countries is nearly as important as businesses in the US needing to trade with companies in other states. it is the driver for personal and collective success in european countries.
i agree with most of what kate says however, i think it takes more than need or use to push languages as official. all european countries have a very strong need to communicate within europe with a single lang. most professional people in europe know english. however, no country has made english official (ok, malta). kate's example of welsh is perfect as it shows that the notion of offial language is highly political (both in terms of what is not made an official language and what is) and has little to do with the practical.
whilst we will see english as the "official language" for international bodies such as the EU or NATO or for projects in businesses, etc. we will probably not see it made official any time soon, if ever.
patrick, having spend a lot of time living and travelling in the US, i understand a lot about the culture. however, i never quite understood the threat that people see in spanish. (BTW, this is a bit off topic but i think the issue of spanish in the US influences a lot of american's perceptions of language use around the world).
maybe i'm misunderstanding but i think you posted your anecdote about hiring in south florida to show people that there is a threat here. these same type of anecdotes have been used by other types to scare people and make them feel that their position is threatened. however, why a threat? indeed, two countries (US and UK) enjoy significant privilege and advantage for "owning" english. it is non-english language that is under threat. what about the inroads of english into latin america? surely that is much greater than the spread of spanish in the US.
english is vital around the world and spreading like wildfire. Whilst those who wish to feed fear and hysteria love to make people think that spanish is taking over the US are missing the point. unfair hiring is a problem in many ways but i just don't see a trend of forcing english speakers out of the workplace. Second language (such as spanish) is always a benefit in the job market and when you live in a "border state" such as florida it is only natural. many americans living near the quebec border know and use french.
i don't think there is a real problem of spanish speakers coming to the US and refusing to learn english. of course, there are some but they are shooting themselves in the foot and it's not something for people to get angry about. surely, the hysteria is not proportionate to the real "problem" of this.
i've spent some time living in texas and the attitudes toward spanish were much healthier from my experience. people realise they live on the border of a huge spanish speaking country and have accepted dual language use for a long, long time.
>>>>
English may be important internationally, but domestic need is what counts.
>>>>
the ability to communicate and do business with and in other countries is nearly as important as businesses in the US needing to trade with companies in other states. it is the driver for personal and collective success in european countries.
i agree with most of what kate says however, i think it takes more than need or use to push languages as official. all european countries have a very strong need to communicate within europe with a single lang. most professional people in europe know english. however, no country has made english official (ok, malta). kate's example of welsh is perfect as it shows that the notion of offial language is highly political (both in terms of what is not made an official language and what is) and has little to do with the practical.
whilst we will see english as the "official language" for international bodies such as the EU or NATO or for projects in businesses, etc. we will probably not see it made official any time soon, if ever.
patrick, having spend a lot of time living and travelling in the US, i understand a lot about the culture. however, i never quite understood the threat that people see in spanish. (BTW, this is a bit off topic but i think the issue of spanish in the US influences a lot of american's perceptions of language use around the world).
maybe i'm misunderstanding but i think you posted your anecdote about hiring in south florida to show people that there is a threat here. these same type of anecdotes have been used by other types to scare people and make them feel that their position is threatened. however, why a threat? indeed, two countries (US and UK) enjoy significant privilege and advantage for "owning" english. it is non-english language that is under threat. what about the inroads of english into latin america? surely that is much greater than the spread of spanish in the US.
english is vital around the world and spreading like wildfire. Whilst those who wish to feed fear and hysteria love to make people think that spanish is taking over the US are missing the point. unfair hiring is a problem in many ways but i just don't see a trend of forcing english speakers out of the workplace. Second language (such as spanish) is always a benefit in the job market and when you live in a "border state" such as florida it is only natural. many americans living near the quebec border know and use french.
i don't think there is a real problem of spanish speakers coming to the US and refusing to learn english. of course, there are some but they are shooting themselves in the foot and it's not something for people to get angry about. surely, the hysteria is not proportionate to the real "problem" of this.
i've spent some time living in texas and the attitudes toward spanish were much healthier from my experience. people realise they live on the border of a huge spanish speaking country and have accepted dual language use for a long, long time.
Apr 13th, 2005, 04:19 AM
#25
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah now Kate has brought up an interesting issue. The EU now has as of last year with the entry of 3 more countries into the community- get this: 20 OFFICIAL LANGUAGES. Their multi-lingual costs are set to rise this year, I've read, to some 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. This enormous cost goes to translate each and every official document, European court case, parlamentary transcript, etc. into each of the official languages. EVERY DOCUMENT-20 LANGUAGES.
One can legitimately ask if one is European I think, what does all this accomplish. If more countries are added, the costs, labor, etc. will only increase. In an effort to maintain what has been drafted as a "fundamental right" to have each document available to the citizens in every language of the community, the EU is drowning in a sea of multi-lingualism, its very institutions and effectiveness threatened by running such a huge translation operation, (twice as large as the translation services operated by the UN, which has 6 official languages, btw).
The EU is now being described as a "Babel-like bureaucracy of gobbelty-gook," indeed how could it not be? There is a very real danger that the institutions of the EU could just grind to a halt under this impossible linguistic burden.
Here's an article on the subject:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0222_050222_translation.html
One can legitimately ask if one is European I think, what does all this accomplish. If more countries are added, the costs, labor, etc. will only increase. In an effort to maintain what has been drafted as a "fundamental right" to have each document available to the citizens in every language of the community, the EU is drowning in a sea of multi-lingualism, its very institutions and effectiveness threatened by running such a huge translation operation, (twice as large as the translation services operated by the UN, which has 6 official languages, btw).
The EU is now being described as a "Babel-like bureaucracy of gobbelty-gook," indeed how could it not be? There is a very real danger that the institutions of the EU could just grind to a halt under this impossible linguistic burden.
Here's an article on the subject:
news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/02/0222_050222_translation.html
Apr 13th, 2005, 05:05 AM
#26
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ten new countries joined the EU last year. Three more (Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia) are set to join in 2007.
I don't think that it's unreasonable to allow people in every EU state to be able to read EU legislation and information in their own language. Why shouldn't they have that right?
And I'm afraid it's a myth that *every* document gets translated into each of the official languages. A lot of documents are circulated in French and/or English and/or German, which are the three "working" languages of the EU.
Also, not all the official languages of a country have become official languages of the EU (e.g. Welsh).
I don't think that it's unreasonable to allow people in every EU state to be able to read EU legislation and information in their own language. Why shouldn't they have that right?
And I'm afraid it's a myth that *every* document gets translated into each of the official languages. A lot of documents are circulated in French and/or English and/or German, which are the three "working" languages of the EU.
Also, not all the official languages of a country have become official languages of the EU (e.g. Welsh).
Apr 13th, 2005, 05:26 AM
#27
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No one said all the languages of Europe are official languages of the EU, but if there are 20 languages, with 1 1/2 BILLION dollars being spent thus far on translation services, something is very very wrong here-that's an impossible burden, not to mention the problems with the quality of the translations-there are thousands of examples of that--it's a very inefficient use of appropriations that could better be used to improve the living and working conditions of its citizens, partic. those of the former Eastern bloc.
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:07 AM
#31
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In response to Spygirl, I agree that the amount of paper used and the number of documents being translated in the EU could be reduced substantially. Certain translation tasks could also be more effectively automated.
However, I personally don't see what's so negative about there being 20 official languages. Indeed, I see it as a positive thing for the countries involved.
The EU and the UN are very different organisations, and it's unsurprising that their translation needs are different.
Quality of translation is a different matter altogether, that affects any multilingual organisation - not just the EU. Who's to say that UN interpreters don't make mistakes?
Also, I'm not sure how viable it would be to use the extra funds (saved by cutting back on translation into every official language) to raise living conditions in Eastern Europe if nobody in those countries can understand the EU legislation.
I would imagine that there is also a chance that if the legislative/normative documents weren't available in Estonian or Latvian or whatever, those countries' administrations would end up having to bear the cost of translation themselves.
However, I personally don't see what's so negative about there being 20 official languages. Indeed, I see it as a positive thing for the countries involved.
The EU and the UN are very different organisations, and it's unsurprising that their translation needs are different.
Quality of translation is a different matter altogether, that affects any multilingual organisation - not just the EU. Who's to say that UN interpreters don't make mistakes?
Also, I'm not sure how viable it would be to use the extra funds (saved by cutting back on translation into every official language) to raise living conditions in Eastern Europe if nobody in those countries can understand the EU legislation.
I would imagine that there is also a chance that if the legislative/normative documents weren't available in Estonian or Latvian or whatever, those countries' administrations would end up having to bear the cost of translation themselves.
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:16 AM
#32
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the purposes of the EU, created in 1958, was to better the lives of its citizens through a social, political, economic framework (but, it must be added, the primary purpose was to create a superpower to balance that of the US). If the EU can't conduct its work because it has become over-burdened with the impossible task of translating every official document of the EP and the European Court into all these languages (and possibly more to come), if it's proposed Constitution runs to 200 pages (each page translated into 20 lang.) then it's defeating its purpose, and truly has become a bureaucratic quagmire that is incapable of effectuating positive economic or social change for its citizens.
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:31 AM
#33
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The EEC was set up in 1957. The EU was created in 1992 with the Treaty of Maastricht.
http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm
http://www.europa.eu.int/abc/history/index_en.htm
Apr 13th, 2005, 06:54 AM
#36
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments about English and Spanish in the USA. My mother, who still lives in Texas, has 32 years of teaching experience and two masters degrees (elementary education and child psychology). However, the Dallas school district passed a resolution a few years ago that all school counselors must be fluent in Spanish, so she had to switch to a private school.
Apr 13th, 2005, 08:11 AM
#38
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,602
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't have to say what to do about it-it doesn't really affect me as I'm not a citizen of the EU..There are plenty of bureaucrats in Brussels, however, and I'm sure, in a 1,000 years or so, they'll come up with something, or simply expire trying!
And acc. to Wikipedia, the Treaty of Rome creating the now EU was signed in 1957, but implemented in 1958.
And acc. to Wikipedia, the Treaty of Rome creating the now EU was signed in 1957, but implemented in 1958.
