• Carsten Hammer Andersen <chan96@sprog.auc.dk>
• Lars Christensen <lchr96@sprog.auc.dk>
• Mads Orbesen Troest <mads-AT-troest-DOT-dk>

© Copyright is retained by the three authors listed above, All Rights Reserved.

Comments are always encouraged! :-)

The project was converted and cross referenced to hypertext by Mads Orbesen Troest (phew!).
Current document revision is 1.02, last altered at the 19^th of June 1998.

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROBLEM FORMULATION
2. METHOD
   1. Synopsis
   2. Criticism of Sources
3. THE LINGUISTIC SITUATION IN THE EU (Lars Christensen)
4. ANALYSIS
   1. Choosing a Common Language
      1. Communicative Aspects (Mads Orbesen Troest)
      2. Cultural Implications (Carsten Hammer Andersen)
      3. Language & Cultural Imperialism (Carsten Hammer Andersen)
      4. Language Planning (Lars Christensen & Carsten Hammer Andersen)
   2. Opting for English?
      1. English as a World Language (Lars Christensen)
      2. Neutrality of English (Carsten Hammer Andersen)
   3. Opting for an International Auxiliary Language
      1. The Question of Neutrality (Mads Orbesen Troest)
      2. An IAL in Practice (Mads Orbesen Troest)
5. CONCLUSION
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
   1. Literature
   2. Periodicals
   3. EU Material
   4. Internet
7. APPENDIX
8. NOTES & REFERENCES

      In our contemporary society, this need is very prominent indeed. Concepts like global economy and global politics are becoming increasingly important, and current information technology has effectively removed most physical obstacles to instant communication with almost any part of the planet. Now, more than ever, it would seem desirable to have a common language understandable by the majority of the world.

      This study focuses on the need for a mutually intelligible language within the administration of the European Union (EU). Such a need is, of course, not restricted to this context, and many of the aspects discussed here should be transferable to other international connections. Within the EU, much effort and funds are constantly spent on translating between the languages of the participating nations, and when meetings are conducted, the problem of effective communication is a recurring one, involving a large number of interpreters. It would seem practical to adopt one language as the one officially used in EU contexts - and English would, being the current de-facto lingua franca, seem an obvious candidate. But is it an unachievable vision to imagine the use of a single language in EU administration, even within such a well-defined context? What were to happen, if an existing language, e.g. English, were to be "promoted" to a status of official language within this sector?

      The concept of a common international language is, in fact, not a new one. History documents, for example, how existing languages like Latin, and later Arabic, once achieved status of lingua francas; World Languages understood in most parts of the trading and cultural world of yore. These languages were the product of a need for mutual intelligibility between a number of different interacting communities. In the globalised world of today, this need is essential, and today such a world language also appears to exist in the English tongue.

      However, selecting an existing language to act as the official lingua franca internally in the EU might pose problems. Conflict invoked by the possible connotations of linguistic imperialism could be the consequence; the smaller speech communities of the Union might, in particular, feel disregarded - or even fear for the future of their native tongue. Larger speech communities may, on the other hand, feel that their respective language is the one most obviously suited for the task; thus hesitating to "yield" to another. The language subject has always been a notably sensitive one; the EU has, indeed, even deemed it necessary to articulate the official policy of supporting the linguistic diversity of the Community as early as 1958. These aspects will be discussed.

      Considering the potential problems connected with choosing an existing tongue, one alternative could be to opt for a constructed language, such as Esperanto. This idea of overcoming the language barrier through a forged interlingua is probably as old as civilisation, but history shows, however, that such auxiliary languages have failed notoriously in succeeding to establish themselves. How is it that these languages - which ought to be the perfect choice, considering the fact that they are not "owned" by any existing country, and hence free of potentially negative, cultural and imperialistic connotations - fail to be adopted in international political constructs; e.g. the EU? Some problems and merits of introducing an auxiliary language like Esperanto as the internal lingua franca of the EU will also be addressed.

      The major theme of this paper is, consequently, the discussion of problems arising from the introduction of an official administrative language within the EU.

2.1 Synopsis

The Linguistic Situation in the EU

      Since the foundation of the EEC in 1958, the number of member states in the Community has grown steadily from the initial 6 to the current 15. This has brought the number of official languages spoken in the EU from 4 to 11; a number likely to increase considering the probable future expansion of the Union. This large linguistic diversity seems likely to produce a range of problems - the most prominent of these will be identified in this chapter, and form the foundation of the later analysis in chapter 4. The background for establishing this problematic will primarily be formed by material from the EU.

Analysis

      This chapter contains the main focus of this paper; the discussion of possible ways in which to address the EU language problems established in chapter 3. Initially, the incentive for, and consequences of, introducing one common administrative language within the EU will be discussed, along with the EU's attitude to the language problem. This will be followed by an examination of the problems arising from either promoting an existing language to the internal EU lingua franca, or opting for an auxiliary. Detailed methods of each of these foci follow below.

Choosing a Common Language

      Through this chapter, the aim is to discuss some of the general consequences of introducing an administrative lingua franca.

      It would seem a communicative advantage to establish a common language, considering the amount of correspondence required to maintain and develop a construct like the EU. To what extent a lingua franca overcomes communicative problems will be discussed.

      One of the issues likely to cause resistance against such a language is language imperialism. The notion of language imperialism will be examined, and in order to do so, the role of language and national identity will also be touched upon.

Opting for English

      This chapter begins by briefly outlining the establishment of English as a de-facto World Language.

      Supposing English were chosen as a common language, it would be fair to assume that it would be met with a considerable amount of opposition. Perhaps not so much by smaller language communities as by other potential candidates for that role; i.e. French or German. This will be examined, and the result held up against the general attitude towards English, discussing whether this has played a role in the establishment of English as a lingua franca.

Opting for an International Auxiliary Language

      The alternative to "promoting" an existing language to the status of administrative EU lingua franca could be to introduce an international auxiliary language (IAL). Unlike any existing language, such an auxiliary tongue is allegedly free of emotional bonds, the possible fear of a negative cultural impact should thereby diminish. This chapter will question the extent of this neutrality in IALs, and discuss the importance of this aspect in an EU context.

      Planned IALs appear to have one noticeable flaw in particular: that they seem never to succeed in establishing themselves. Focusing on Esperanto, the most prevalent of constructed auxiliary languages, some problems of implementing IALs in practice will be identified.

2.2 Criticism of Sources

      Another thing to note is that sources applied in the debate regarding the introduction of one language or artificial international auxiliary languages tend to demonstrate either a strong pro or a strong contra view; it appears the debate over the feasibility of these languages is often quite heated. In official Esperanto sources, for example, the idealism of the community can often be detected.

      Certain sources from the Internet have been employed, and where the information derived from these is, of course, believed to be correct and from serious, permanent sites, the very dynamic nature of this global computer network poses a special requirement for caution. Since just about anybody with access to the net can publish their own "facts", care has been taken in selecting only sources from official or semi-official organs, or sources otherwise judged to be serious and stable. Furthermore, the very transient nature of the net is problematic; a source available today might, theoretically, be gone the next (especially from non-official sites). Hence, as a precaution, hardcopies of the applied material exists, in case of any used resources expiring or being altered on the network.

      The chart below illustrates how the number of official languages and language combinations have evolved from 1958 to the present day:

      One may note that the number of possible language combinations rises exponentially with the increase in the number of official languages in the Union. I.e. an addition of two official languages to the current eleven will increase the number of possible combinations from 110 to 156. It should, thus, come as no surprise that some, indeed prominent, problems are inseparably connected to the constant need for interpretation between the full range of languages.

      Hence, the fiscal question comes to play a significant role, whenever the problems of multilingualism are assessed. As far back as 1982, it was estimated that approximately 60% of the Parliament's, and about 33% of the Commission's, administrative expenses were due to the use of the then seven official languages.[2] There are also other expenses, like those of providing new buildings for the growing number of employees (many of whom are translators), the accommodation of existing buildings to allow room for interpreter booths and other facilities; and added to this, the increase in general operating costs (lighting, heating, etc.)

      One could argue that the economic aspect of the matter of multilingualism should not be an issue (at least not the dominant one), as the official support for the Union's linguistic multitude is a fundamental part of the Community (hence article 1 from 1958). The language-related expenditures should, thus, be considered a "necessary evil", an unquestionable necessity. But there are other problems closely related to the use of the multitude of languages:

      It is inevitable that during the process of translation, a degree of accuracy is lost. This problem is particularly profound when speech is being translated in real time, as it is in the Parliament. Often, when rare language combinations - like, for instance, Finnish to Greek - are encountered, the translation is carried out through a "relay" (sometimes also called a "pivot"). This means that instead of translating directly from the language of the speaker, the translator is listening to a colleague translating to another language, and then translating this already second-hand edition into the target language. This process may be repeated again, until the language combination for which no direct interpreter is available is resolved. It should be obvious, then, that this poses a considerable risk of some amount of distortion of the content of the speech. The Danish parliament representative Jens-Peter Bonde describes the situation from an inside point of view; "the translations are imprecise", he says, and continues to state that the large number of languages within the EU cannot continue to function in practice.[3]

      Already in 1982, the then Director of Interpreters, Renée van Hoof, arrived at the conclusion that an expansion from 7 to 9 languages would make interpreting practically impossible. It would result in an even more outspoken use of relay interpretation, which would make the translations almost incomprehensible.[4] This is the current situation; the 11 languages of today are obviously making things very difficult. One can well imagine to what extent these problems might mushroom, if the number of member countries expands to a possible 26.

      Another aspect, though perhaps of more philosophical nature, is the practical elimination of rhetoric and eloquence. Observers witnessing the European Parliament at work, have also noticed a striking lack of humour. Humour, of course, is often lost through the translation process, and when not, the delayed laughter appears odd. This phenomenon was once humorously expressed in the line "The Danes are the last to laugh".[5]

      The EU is aware of the problem, and has produced a number of reports on the subject; among these the so-called Nyborg-report cited in this paper.[6] The Political Committee concluded back in 1980 that: "These conditions cannot continue forever!"[7] However, it seems the subject is treated with much caution, and it is difficult to see any official progress on the area since.

      One seemingly obvious way to address the problem would be the introduction of one common language; one administrative lingua franca within the EU. If all member states were to agree upon choosing such a language, it is thought that a number of advantages is likely to be gained. But it is, perhaps, equally likely that a number of new problems arise.

4.1.1 Communicative Aspects

Common Language, Common Mind?

      It seems there is a widespread notion that if only the states of Europe (and the rest of the world, for that matter) could speak in one tongue, they would all immediately be able to fully understand one another, thereby effectively removing communicative problems. Extreme, if ubiquitously disputed, versions of this opinion even go on to suggest that with the adoption of an international language, war and discord would be rendered virtually impossible.[8] The notion that the scores of languages in the world are what basically keep peoples from understanding each other is, of course, at least as old as the Biblical tale of Babel; and the dream of one perfect language uniting all of humanity can be found all over the world. In Umberto Eco's words:

      "The story of the confusion of tongues, and of the attempt to redeem its loss through the rediscovery or invention of a language common to all humanity, can be found in every culture." [9]

      But is it not, perhaps, somewhat naïve to believe that a common language would automatically mean one common, united mind - or at least a gross simplification of the whole process of negotiating meaning that the interaction through speech is?

      To make the assumption that speaking the same language will in itself solve the current problems of understanding would seem to erroneously juxtapose the concept of linguistic competence with that of communicative competence.[10] Or rather, perhaps, to overlook the communicative competence altogether, and equal the ability to communicate with Chomsky's basic idea of competence.[11] Supposing all representatives in the EU could be taught to produce grammatically and semantically correct speech in a common language - be it an existing tongue or an artificially created - it would still seem somewhat unlikely that the communicative gaps would thereby have been bridged once and for all. (George Steiner has e.g. noted the following about technically proficient Japanese students of English in another context: "So much that is being said is correct, so little is right".[12])

      What one must bear in mind is that the encoding and decoding of meaning to be transferred through interaction of speech (as through other media) will always involve certain assumptions and choices on the counterpart's behalf, by the respective sender and receiver.[13] Daily experiences in our mother tongue show how, even within one supposedly "homogenous" (to the extent possible) speech community, misunderstandings often take place. Such mistakes imply that language cannot be considered an independent, exact and invariable conveyor of meaning (and further imply that suppositions on the counterpart's behalf can also vary considerably in speech communities at a sub-national level). Speaking the same language, then, does not necessarily mean that people belong to the same speech community; or rather, it does not necessarily mean that people belong only to that speech community. However, language and culture are intertwined (see 4.1.3 for a discussion of this aspect), so in spite of the fact that other factors (such as interest group, gender, etc.) also determine the speech communities to which a person belongs, one may suggest that the cultural identity associated with one's mother tongue does still, to a large extent, provide an anchor block for most people. This is probably also why the EU is reticent when it comes to subjects like culture and language; the treaty articles on these subjects are notably vague.[14] Therefore, one might well suspect that the more varied the cultural background of each of the involved parties (i.e. the more different the assumptions on behalf of the counterpart), the larger the potential for misunderstanding; even in spite of a supposedly bridging tongue.

      This implies some general problems of intercultural discourse; the discussion of these will continue in more detail below, where some persistent linguistic dissimilarities likely to interfere with the mutual negotiation of meaning will be identified.

Linguistic Obstacles to International Understanding

      Stanley Rundle suggests that it must be noted "... that speakers of different languages possess somewhat different mental make-up and their thought processes do not run along exactly the same lines".[15] It does seem very likely that the fact that different cultures have different world-views - different ways of thinking, of structuring and coming to terms with their knowledge of the world - will also be reflected, to at least some extent, in that culture's particular language. Without going so far as to suggest a very deterministic, "Whorfian"[16] view on language, there are in fact, as we shall see, some indications that such a reflection may well be found:

      An examination of the taxonomies of various languages, for instance, reveals that not all cultures divide and classify their perceived reality in the same way.[17] If one culture partitions an abstract continuum in a way different from that of another culture, it becomes problematic to retain the precise speaker-intent during translation between the tongues. Eco also supports this view by maintaining that a language is a "holistic system" organising the totality of our vision of the world.[18] Taking a semiotic approach, he states that "[...] each language [...] organises the way in which we talk and think about reality in its own particular way, through a content-form".[19] Such taxonomic differences may be found between Indo-European (henceforth IE) languages - indeed, even between speakers of the same tongue - though the most pronounced cases will probably be found between IE languages and languages of non-IE affinity. Hence, this does not make it irrelevant in an EU context; it should not be forgotten either that not all of the languages spoken in today's Europe (e.g. Finnish (present member of the EU) or Estonian (likely future member)) are of IE "pedigree".[20]

      Pronounced structural differences can also be found between languages; within the group of IE languages (which does, after all, comprise quite a number of tongues) too. One of the more prominent of these is the word order in an utterance. On the IE language tree, for example, the word order of the Germanic branch is altogether different from that of the Romance branch. Rundle provides an example of this: "an oak-wood table" in English (specification from detail to general) would be "une table en bois de chêne" (literally "a table of wood of oak") in French; i.e. a reverse specification from general to detail.[21] This is a factor that may also play a part in communicating internationally. As Rundle says, having to mentally construct a sentence in a language with such fundamentally different structure requires some amount of "mental gymnastics" on behalf of the speaker foreign to that concept.[22]

      Finally, another - and perhaps the most overt - linguistic aspect where cultural differences show themselves in particular is through the pragmatic use of a given language. Knowing a language, one must argue, is not only knowing how to construct grammatically and semantically correct sentences (i.e. possessing competence in the "Chomskyan" sense). Words or phrases can convey a range of meanings depending on how, and in what situation, they are used. If a message is to be successfully conveyed, both sender and receiver must be able to appreciate any implied meanings. Consequently, different backgrounds can induce misunderstanding between the parties during the negotiation of meaning; as Cook-Gumperz have articulated the problem:

      "Many of the meanings and understandings, at the level of ongoing processes of interpretation of speaker's intent, depend upon culturally specific conventions, so that much of the meaning in any encounter is indirect and implicit. The ability to expose enough of the implicit meaning to make for a satisfactory encounter between strangers or culturally different speakers requires communicative flexibility." [23]

      This further suggests that the use of rhetoric and metaphors, which are also important pragmatic aspects of communication, in international discourse may be quite problematic as well.[24] Rundle proposes that an international language should be without idioms (or at least used without idioms) for this very reason;[25] it is, however, difficult to imagine the viability of a language devoid of these features. In fact, it is questionable whether we would at all be able to do without metaphoric interpretations of our surroundings. Peter Mühlhäusler supports this view by maintaining that our perception is not immaculate, hence we interpret the world through our respective culture-specific metaphors; particularly those aspects of the world that are not fully known to us. He proceeds to argue that, thus, "there is no culture-neutral boundary between what is literal and what is metaphorical".[26] This, again, poses a considerable problem for trans-cultural communication. We might easily imagine EU delegates speaking a common language, but still having difficulties appreciating the figures of speech used by a speaker from another country. Translating a Danish idiom like "there is no cow on the ice", for example, is likely to cause a great deal of puzzlement to other delegates, even if they speak "perfect English".

Consequences

      These above described linguistic differences between the varieties of spoken languages may seem academic, but they do suggest that merely agreeing upon a common administrative language in the EU - a language perhaps foreign to many or all of the participants - would not automatically resolve all communicative problems. The fact that different languages have different structures poses a considerable risk that features from one's mother tongue will be superimposed on the chosen lingua franca, thereby creating communicative "noise". One factor that may serve to reduce the influence of such noise, nonetheless, is the fact that the EU administration can be considered a speech community in itself. It is not impossible that the limited context in which the potential lingua franca would be used would improve intelligibility. However, such a constrained "Euroslang" is something the EU generally tries to avoid on the grounds that it might further alienation between the administrative construct of the Union and its citizens.[27]

      This does not necessarily mean that the introduction of an administrative lingua franca would hold no advantages over the present situation, however. One must keep in mind that the communicative problems identified in the above do already play an important role in the EU. Today, an immense number of interpreters manage the translation of codes; they are faced with these very issues each time one of the official languages has to be translated into another. This situation becomes particularly problematic when relay interpretation through several translators has to be used - it seems inevitable that the more steps the transmission of a speaker's intention has to go through, the more error prone the result will be. Speaking a common language could solve this particular problem, and at the same time drastically reduce the administrative costs.

      But taking the interpreters out of the loop by choosing an internal lingua franca is not a guarantee of more precise communication between EU delegates. One must consider the fact that interpreters are, after all, trained for that very job, whereas the linguistic capabilities of some EU delegates may be at a lower level. Rundle suggests that most people would probably do "the thinking and planning in their national languages" and only use the lingua franca as "a means of communication, a medium of translation".[28] This could in fact have the unfortunate consequence of aggravating the "language confusion" in the EU instead of improving it.

      Another potential scheme might present a situation in which the interpreters still come to play an important part, but where the amount of interpreters would be drastically reduced, as would the number of language combinations. In this scheme EU representatives could - depending on their respective proficiency in the lingua franca (in the EU Parliament, for example, "the man in the street" should be able to gain a post representing his country, without the requirement of specific language skills; this is a basic democratic right in the EU[29]) - either speak the common tongue themselves, or utilise an interpreter between their first language and the common. Thus, the need for being able to translate between all the currently possible language combinations would disappear.

      The latter arrangement would definitely have its merits over the present situation, though one must, however, not make the assumption that a Euro lingua franca will solve all problems. As Rundle aptly points out (though in a slightly different context, namely that of language teaching in general), such mutual intelligibility should not be considered the ends in itself, merely a means.[30]

4.1.2 Cultural Implications

      The outcome of a decision to establish a common language, assuming that an existing language were to be chosen, could then lead to a struggle between the countries of the EU. This would probably wind up as a struggle between the largest languages - German, English and French[32] (as will be dealt with in chapter 4.2) - and in the end all the other countries not chosen would, more or less, have to succumb to this language.

      Depending on the language chosen to be common it would be fair to assume that language imperialism will, to some extent, become a factor which has to be dealt with. It may seem questionable that such imperialism could be important in today's developed countries, further discussion will follow in trying to determine whether or not the problem is likely to emerge.

      In order to be able to use and accept a common language, language planning and teaching will play a huge role as the language has to be distributed to a large number of people from different cultures; one must bear in mind that the whole EU parliament would have to be taught the chosen language, before it can be called common.

      Once a common language is a reality, new problems arise. First of all, there would now be present a need for any new member of the EU parliament, as well as the current, to be able to speak and understand the given language. Second, there would be problems regarding the teaching of these members; should this education take place in the country from which the person originates, or should there be a certain central school teaching all members the same version of the common language? If such a school were to be useful, would it not require an immense amount of teachers, speaking the different languages of the different member countries? Of course, if an already well-established language - such as English - were chosen, this problem would be reduced by the fact that this language is already taught throughout Europe.

      This leads to a third problem which could be foreseen by the introduction of a common language, namely the cultural differences. The way a nation's culture is transmitted to its people is mainly through the education given in the public schools.

      This education is widely determined by the government's Ministry of Education and thus, historical and cultural heritage will be an important factor;[33] we do not have to look further than to our own country where history, social science and music are taught from the lowest grades to the final exams nine to ten years later. The school is instrumental in constructing our national identity, but one must appreciate the fact that identity is not something static.

      Where does this fit in the context of a common language of the EU then. The cultural barriers might be eliminated through the education planning of a given language so that it would be useful only within inter European trade and communication, but as Gaupta 1970 has put it:

      "A language learnt for commercial and diplomatic transaction cannot remain limited to that function. Those who intend merely to learn may end very probably by cultivating it." [34]

      So even with an education overseen by some kind of supervising organ it would be impossible to remove the individual's own cultural upbringing, after all it is the cultural ballast which enables one to maintain an identity and sense of belonging to a nation. Having said that it is also worth mentioning that in order to obtain a common language without cultural implications, it is crucial that the whole notion of belonging to a certain nation, i.e. one's national identity, is transferred to become a notion of belonging to a European community.

4.1.3 Language & Cultural Imperialism

      In order to do so, it is important to be able to understand what lies behind the notion of national identity, as this identity is usually believed to be a prerequisite for the whole range of notions of imperialism, including that of linguistic imperialism.

Language & National Identity

      National identity springs from a nation's history and culture, and it is something which every member of a given community can relate to.[35] It is considered vital by the society to preserve this anchor block of one's own heritage, just as it is to secure the future existence of it. Though, today, there may or may not be emerging a new trans-national European identity, and a notion of Europe as one entity instead of the nation state, it can hardly be refuted that national identity is still very important for many people. Even in EU contexts one can observe how member states become less willing to co-operate internationally, when national interests are at stake.[36] This may be considered an important obstacle to the introduction of a common language.

      National identity is not something entirely static, though. Rather, it could be considered a changing notion, which individuals create for themselves through life, reflecting their contemporary society and needs. Neither is the national identity the only identity a person has, as argued by A.D. Smith.[37] The people one meets can therefore have different ways of perceiving different things. The input one receives through various media equips one with a large amount of input; all these inputs will thus be processed individually by different people. Consequently, there is no "textbook solution" as to what constitutes national identity, but there are, of course, certain larger causes which must tie people together in a form of common consciousness; language is definitely one of these.

      Most people would, no doubt, be interested in being able to pass on their culture to the next generation through their mother tongue. But with a possible introduction of a common language, further alienation between the members of the EU parliament and their fellow countrymen is an outcome that might be expected; this alone could leave people with the impression that the EU is only something which concerns remote politicians. And that opinion does by no means invoke a common European consciousness, it merely strengthens the national consciousness already present in the different member countries.

      Furthermore, it would probably be difficult to convince the bulk of the citizens living in EU countries that the culture which they are a part of is only temporary, even if this may be the case. The future might phase out the importance of the nation state, and bring a European mass-culture with common language, monetary standard, etc.

      Another reason for the rise in interest concerning national identity if a common language were to be chosen is that every nation, no matter its size, would have a saying in the debate. The smaller speech communities find themselves equally as good as any of the large established languages. As mentioned above, the fear of some degree of language imperialism might thus be present, leading to an even more difficult decision process with cultural aspects to be taken into consideration.

      The influence of language is very much tied together with the cultural influence of the country from which the language stems, Phillipson puts it like this:

      "Linguistic imperialism is a primary component of cultural imperialism, though it must be remembered that cultural dissemination can also take non-linguistic forms (German music, Italian painting) and can occur in translation (ranging from highbrow works to Walt Disney comics)." [38]

      The immediate connotations which "imperialism" as such entail are of a highly negative character. Throughout history there have been several examples of suppression of native tribes all over the world, in the name of development of Western European countries. Native Americans destroyed by the white man's culture, the glorious Aztec and Maya cultures eliminated by European greed and diseases, Eskimo sealers reduced to drunken bums - the list is endless. So it is not strange that "imperialism" brings ill omen, when used among certain people.

      The above presented examples of the outcome of imperialism are mainly cultural, but as quoted above, Phillipson makes it clear that this is tied very much together with the linguistic imperialism (linguicism). He has the following to say about this:

      "Linguicism is the central concept here. Linguicism is distinct from other "-isms" such as sexism and racism, in so far as it is language rather than gender and race which is the crucial criterion in the beliefs and structure which result in unequal power and resource allocation." [39]

      This means that the areas taken over by a different culture would be distributed to the benefit of the "intruders"; furthermore, the existing language could be considered the language of the lower strata of society, as the people speaking it now would have to succumb to an entirely different set of cultural rules.

In Phillipson's words:

      "By attributing a population with certain characteristics in order to categorise and differentiate it as an Other, those who do so also establish criteria by which they themselves are represented. Linguicism involves representation of the dominant language, to which desirable characteristics are attributed, for purposes of inclusion, and the opposite for the dominated languages, for purposes of exclusion." [40]

      This attribution of characteristics can be introduced through education, Phillipson quotes Galtung: "In Galtung's terms, imperialism is effected by the penetration and the establishment of a bridgehead, for instance the establishment of a colonialist education system, within an exploitative structure".[41]

      What has been established here, then, is that through education planning - and to a wide extend cultural superiority - one people is potentially able to crush both the language and culture of another.

Consequences

      In a contemporary EU perspective, fear of "traditional imperialism" is not likely to emerge. However, some might fear a sort of cultural imperialism through an indirect subjugation of the nation's own culture. By introducing a common language within the EU parliament it is highly expectable that this language will come to play a significant role in all the other member countries, because in time there would be a need for certain professions outside the parliament to be able to master the common language (journalists, news reporters, company managers).

      It could then be expected that the different lines of work in time would face a prominent need for their employees to be able to master the common language, as many business transactions between member countries of the EU happen on a daily basis. Hence, the average citizen will also be inclined to learn that language, in order to be able to get a job. The question, then, is whether or not this indirectly enforced need to acquire the common tongue will inspire imperialistic notions.

      A pattern is now forming here; the common language introduced on a high level will then, with a fair amount of certainty, reverberate all the way through different groups of society. For the different countries this means that not only would they have to educate the present working force, but also that of the future. So, finally, the consequences of introducing a common language could also influence early educational levels, to meet the needs of the labour market. It might, then, be questioned whether it is at all possible to keep a lingua franca within the EU administration. This must be taken into consideration, when arguing that imperialism will not become a problem in the EU, because of the strict functional demarcation of the lingua franca.

4.1.4 Language Planning

      "Textbook writers face a wide variety of language problems in order to write a text which is appropriate for use in the educational system. They must make sure that the vocabulary used is within the comprehension of the student level for which it is intended, that the technical terms used are properly explained and that such terms correspond to common usage within the discipline. [...] In attempting to solve these problems, textbook writers may use a variety of resources. For problems of vocabulary, they may consult word lists for particular grade levels, technical terminology lists prepared by a language planning agency or by some abstracting organisation, or other textbooks." [42]

      Furthermore, cultural influence together with the individual human perception of the language must be reduced to a minimum so that misunderstandings concerning semantics will be avoided.

      For all of this to come true, the development of the language must be controlled from one central place; this could be a "European Language Centre" (somewhat similar to The Danish Language Board " Det Danske Sprognævn"), dictating what is officially right and wrong, based on studies of general trends in the language used in everyday life.

      It would be utopian to believe that all these factors, which play a part in the introduction of a common language, could be carried through, because there are too many places where personal factors can/will differentiate from the given norms of a language. Charles A. Ferguson states that "all languages change in the course of time", and that the users of a language will inevitably "evaluate the forms of the language(s) they use", i.e. there will always be present a personal influence on the language used by any individual, in the sense that some forms are likely to be regarded as "better" or "more correct" than others.[43] In order to successfully pursue the goals outlined above, it would - as already briefly mentioned - call for a serious planning of the language.

      "Language planning is a government authorised, long term, sustained, and conscious effort to alter a language's function in a society for the purpose of solving communication problems." [44]

      In his book "An Introduction to Sociolinguistics" Ronald Wardhaugh is introducing several aspects of language planning of which there are two major brackets: Status and Corpus planning.[45] Status planning changes the functions of a language. Languages have status in relation to different parameters, these could be - how widespread are they, who speaks them and in which context are they being used. An example would be if it were decided that a sole language were to be used in scientific journals. This language would have gained in status. The opposite would of course be the case for the languages that were excluded. They would have lost some of their status. Changing of status is often a slow process that is likely to encounter resistance. In a EU context it would therefore be imperative to carefully take into consideration the impact the alternation of status of the languages in question will have.

      Corpus planning is developing an existing language, or a variety of a language, to make it able to serve all the functions of a language within society. This planning may involve a number of matters such as adapting the language in order to make it useable in, for instance, government and court, and how to explore new sources of vocabulary, dictionaries and literature. To ensure the success of such a planning, one will be in demand of an educational system adequately geared to take care of a uniform teaching of the language.

Standardisation of Language

      In order to speak of a standardised version of a language, it would be appropriate to examine some of the problems that are connected to the concept of standardisation. Wardhaugh will be used as a source of information, as his general treatment of the issue proves to be valuable when one wants to acquire a general approach to the subject.

      Standardisation refers, as the term implies, to a standard edition of a language, a uniformity that enables the language to be used without the risk of communicative distortion and unintelligibility. Standardisation is a process that usually involves the development of a number of logistic related issues such as dictionaries, grammars, spelling books etc. Standardisation also requires a certain consensus as to what is in a language and what is not. According to Wardhaugh, English and French both honour these criteria and are therefore "[...] quite obviously standardised, Italian somewhat less so, and the variety known as black English not at all".[46] This paper is, of course, not a review of Wardhaugh's book, but it does appear a little odd when he later states: "It still may not be at all easy for us to define standard English because of a failure to agree about the norm or norms that should apply".[47] Wardhaugh is using Haugen, who has indicated that a number of steps must be followed, if a language is to become a standard. One of these has to do with norm. A norm has to be selected to constitute, what he calls codification and elaboration work, the former referring to the previously mentioned logistic matters, the latter to how they are used in i.e. education, administration, commerce, etc. "That norm is likely to be - or become - an idealised norm, one that users of the language are asked to aspire to rather than one that accords with their observed behaviour".[48] Choosing a norm may, indeed, prove a difficult task. The chosen norm will inevitably be associated with "supremacy" and the one, or those that have been discarded, with the lack of "power". It may come as no surprise that the norm that is normally chosen is the one that is associated with an elite, but attitude plays a major role though. If a group feels solidarity, it may be willing to overcome even great linguistic differences in order to arrive at a norm. The opposite may as well occur, when minor linguistic diversities prove an insurmountable obstacle because of lack of solidarity towards the group to whom the chosen norm belongs.

      A standardised version of a language can serve several purposes. It can unify individuals and groups, and it can serve as a marker of identity. It can give prestige to those who speaks it, and may therefore function as a goal for those who do not share that norm. As it is, hopefully, clear from the above, the standardisation process is one that attempts to either reduce or eliminate varieties or diversities in a language. But as a language is not a static thing, it evolves continually; hence:

      "That may be one of the reasons why various national academies have had so many difficulties in their work: They are essentially in a no win situation, always having to 'fix up' the consequences of changes they can not prevent and continually being compelled to issue new pronouncements on linguistic matters." [49]

Internationalisation of Language

      Another aspect of language planning is internationalisation of a language. This is an adoption of a non-indigenous language to be used in communication and trade, which is just what a major part of the EU is about. Planning a common language would thus seem to be a combination of both status and corpus planning and internationalisation. It would be fair to assume that any EU language is already a thoroughly developed language which is able to supply an ample vocabulary, though it should be kept in mind that a language is continually evolving, hence it is impossible to use the term "a fully developed language".

4.2 Opting for English?

      Until around the year 1600 English was spoken only in England, and then probably not by all the then seven million inhabitants. Between 1600 and 1750 explores, merchants, settlers, etc. went out from England and founded the colonies overseas. After 1750 and until ca. 1900 the colonies stabilised and prospered, and the large number of people who were not native speakers of English had to learn the language of the governing class, in order to benefit from the prosperity, or to survive. Learning English became a major activity. After 1900 till about 1950, the colonies started schools and education programmes that were directed towards an increasing number of indigenous people, who would be taught English. The latest, and still ongoing stage, began after the end of the second world war with the United States emerging as an economic super-power setting the agenda. One of the earliest examples of World English was the introduction of English as the language of international air-traffic control. Today, it is the telecommunication, computer and information technology, international media and pop-music; they are all dominated by English. English has become the language of the world.

"English vs. the People"

      If English were chosen as the administrative EU lingua franca, it should be prepared to face opposition; perhaps not so much by smaller language communities as by other potential candidates for the role. French, for instance, is notorious for its resistance towards English, with which it has long competed for achieving the status of world language. Therefore, a quite thorough study of the French attitude towards English will be conducted, as it is believed that France could act as a common denominator for all member states; similar studies could be applied to practically any European language.

      Until the late 19^th century French was the dominant international language of modern western Europe and, with the spread of empire, many other areas around the globe. French has long since succumbed to English in the race of becoming the leading world language. Even though it is generally acknowledged that English has come out on the top, French appears to have refused to roll over and accept the defeat.

      In his book "Linguistic Imperialism" Robert Phillipson touches upon the French opposition towards English. He refers to what he calls:

      "A recent official French study which sees the world wide extension of English as the imposition of a linguistic uniformity which is intellectually and spiritually cramping and a threat to cultural and creative values." [51]

      This study is credited the Haut Conseil de la Francophonie in 1986.[52] Phillipson is not addressing the English-French problem in detail, but he is reviewing two approaches concerning the language competition. One of these being Louis-Jean Calvet's "La Guere des Launges et les Politiques Linguistique". According to Phillipson, Calvet is critical to the French's attempts to protect the intrinsic structure of French. Calvet believes they are doomed to fail, as they fail to realise that the root of the problem is English.

      In the paper "World French takes on World English" Douglas A Kibbee is conducting a study of the English versus French schism.[53] At the beginning of his paper, Kibbee is quoting René Étiemble on the issue:

      "Treason, real betrayal, takes place every day, on the radio, on television, in advertising in storefront windows. If you are looking for high treason, there it is, and France will die from it now or in the near future." [54]

      The betrayal of course is French giving way to English.

      Kibbee is bringing forward a number of examples of how the "infection" with English has been a subject of discussion, but he also notes how the debate concerning "Franglais", the English in French, has been limited to involve a narrow circle of people, namely university language professionals, bureaucrats, creative writers, journalists and other intellectuals outside the university system. Kibbee also debates how some tend to see the problem of English in French as a problem originating from the USA, that it is the United States who is actively enforcing its language upon the world. A lot of American influence is invading France. American music, films, expressions in advertising, etc. According to Kibbee, not many of the 60 million inhabitants in France are able to escape this American influence, making it an indeed powerful fifth column of collaborators with this linguistic enemy. Therefore he wonders how it is possible for a very limited number of purists to be in possession of so much power. He asks: "How then do they command such a presence, in France and in the World's image of France?"[55] He goes on and provides a possible answer. The debate has been limited to "Qualified Expert Elites", regardless of the fact that the issues in question would affect everyone. The only participants allowed to enter the discussion are the before mentioned intellectuals, but "the excluded are clearly voting with their pocketbooks and wallets".[56]

      It may, perhaps, be due to a very influential French power elite of purists that it is, in general, difficult to escape the notion of a profound French "anglophobia"; a notion which also seems to dominate the common Danish perception of the French attitude towards English. Whenever this subject was brought forward among fellow students, there appeared to be a consensus to this attitude. This real, or perhaps imagined, threat that English poses to French, have lead to an interesting study by Jeffra Flaitz.[57]. The study is called "French attitudes towards the ideology of English as an international language".[58] Flaitz sets out to investigate the relationship between English as an international lingua franca and American culture and ideology. The paper begins by introducing a "subjective discourse" where some of the Power elite perceptions of the English/American threat are quoted. To mention a couple: "To borrow [words from another language] is a kind of treason".[59]

      "The French language finds itself in a position of psychological and technological inferiority compared to English, and with its former vigour weakened, is left contaminated from the inside." [60]

      A number of similar or closely related statements gave the impression that a massive dike was ready to stem the tide of English. This apparent opposition incited Flaitz to pose three questions:

1. Is the threat to France and French real or is it imagined?
2. Is the general public of the same opinion as the power elite?
3. Does English carry the ideological baggage of its native speakers or is it unrelated to world-view?

      Concerning question no. three it could be interesting to note that J. Fishman has implied that English is becoming increasingly neutral.[61] For a further discussion of this, please refer to chapter 4.2.2.

      In order to shed some light on the questions above, Flaitz had to conduct a number of empirical studies, as it turned out that very few studies had been executed to systematically assess the spread of English in France. This fact, of course, makes one wonder as to what foundation the purists are able to build their "cases" on. Flaitz would look at language borrowing; how French would borrow words from other languages. As it turned out there were currently (1993) 2,260 English words in the Dictionnaire des Anglicismes. Along with these figures goes the fact that 75% of all new foreign words introduced into French, come from English.[62] Hand in hand with these numerical hard facts, goes a multitude of books that are occupied with the English threat: Parlez - vouz Franglais?, l'Alienation Linguistique, Dictionnaire des mots sauvages to mention but three. Flaitz admits that the sheer number and their titles contribute to an emotional impact which lends reason to believe that French is being threatened, though the books do not necessarily substantiate claims of the English threat to French.

      Some interesting numbers concerning education showed that some 87% of French students from sixth through 12^th grade choose English as their first foreign language and 52% of all foreign language teachers are teachers of English.[63]

      An examination of the media television, radio, cinema and the press all showed a considerable use of English. The TV survey revealed that the average French TV viewer is exposed to one English word every three and a half minutes. On the radio approximately 40% of all signals received, were either English music or discourse. At the cinema it was found that over a three month period in Paris, 47% of the films showing, were of anglophone origin. 12 issues of Le Monde were scrutinised for English words, 254 were found. Finally the newspaper Le Figaro was examined regarding employment advertisements. Of the total of advertisements, 15% called for some proficiency in English, but 91% of the employers seeking candidates with foreign language competency, stipulated proficiency in English.

      Having thus compiled some data in order to try to establish how wide spread English appeared to be in French, Flaitz decided to examine whether this elite perception of English contamination was mirrored in the opinion of the general public. The results can be read from chart A on page 51. Chart B, page 51, shows how British and American English are perceived in terms of "appearance".

      Flaitz notes that few negative scores emerged from the analysis. The highest negative was no. 7 "If I absolutely had to leave France [...] I would like to live in England". He explains that many of the respondents categorically rejected the notion of leaving France thus, it could perhaps be the respondent's attachment to France rather than a negative attitude towards England. All in all, a positive attitude towards anglicism is evident, concerning both language and culture.

      The language attitude chart shows a general positive view of both British and American English, with a plus to British English though. This could validate the traditional European notion that British English is superior in terms of emulation. None of the languages were viewed in negative ways, though, which would clearly refute the stereotype of French attitudes towards English, as a language lacking beauty, integrity, etc. As a conclusive remark to this French/British investigation, it could be interesting to note how the results seem to substantiate the implication made by Fishman, as referred earlier in this chapter that English is becoming increasingly neutral in the context of lingual and cultural imperialism.

Consequences

      If English were introduced as a lingua franca within the EU, one could imagine that the question of mutual intelligibility would be brought forward. How is it possible to assure that a sentence expressed in English by an Italian to a Dutchman, is correctly perceived? Apparently, there already exists a problem within the EU. This problem has previously been thoroughly discussed in chapter 4.1.1, in its section on Linguistic Obstacles to International Understanding. Hence, a brief example will be presented to illustrate a very basic and, in the EU context, probably very vivid problem. The supposed advantage the British should have in an English conversation with, say, a Spaniard, is often lost because the British does not fully comprehend what could be a Spanish/English "translation" that has not foreseen the distortion translations of for instance idioms will do to the understanding of the speech. It would, though, be within a reasonable scope to regard the British as having an advantage, at least by the mere fact that they do not have to learn the language (as a foreign tongue). That the British are convinced that they have the advantage of negotiating in their mother tongue was expressed in an editorial in The Guardian 29^th of June 1986: "Just stick to English".[64]

      Again, if it were decided for English to be the language, would the European community then encounter some of the problems that are connected to the polemic, native speakers vs. non-native speakers (henceforth NS and NNS), with the English being NS and thus having an unfair advantage? In his contribution "English as an International Language".[65] Peter Strevens discusses the NS vs. NNS problem. The majority of the world's English users are NNS users and they speak and write variations of English that differ in detail from NS. According to Strevens, many NS speakers despise perhaps unconsciously the NNS variation, an attitude found also among teachers of English.

      "The basic reason for these native speakers' attitude is ignorance - a total lack of awareness of the existence of flourishing, effective, functional sometimes elegant and literary non native varieties of English." [66]

      A feasible way to assess this problem could be the introduction of a Standard English. Although Wardhaugh stated that English fulfilled the criteria of a standard language, and later noted that it may not at all be easy to define Standard English. He proposes that today there does exist a Standard English to the extent that there is a standard vocabulary and grammar that are very much the same all over the world.

      "There exists an unspoken mechanism, operated through the global industry of English teaching, which has the effect of preserving the unity of English in spite of its great diversity". [67]

      There are two components of English that are taught and learned without variation: the vocabulary and the grammar. The lexico-grammar and phonology vary. It would be unlikely for the grammar and vocabulary of, say, London City business-speech to be spoken with a Newcastle accent, and the other way around. "They are strictly local in their currency except for one single example, there is just one set of grammatical patterns and core vocabulary".[68]

      It is practically impossible to decide which way is the correct way to speak English. Strevens argue that every community must set its own targets and goals as there is apparently no academy or other authority that determines the norms of English. Herein lies perhaps the strength of English.

      It would be obvious for the EU to take advantage of this mechanism. Several European countries already have a long tradition of teaching English in the public schools. The former Danish minister of education, Bertel Haarder, once remarked that English had advanced from being the Danes' first foreign language to being their "second mother tongue".[69] Even the French "treason" is revealed by the numbers. (See the French/English study in this paper.) The risk of a stratification in the NS vs. NNS schism should also be minimal as the diversity of accents will be immense and the NS will be greatly outnumbered.

4.2.2 Neutrality of English

      The perception of English as a neutral language used all over the world stems from the lacking political interests today regarding the spread of the language: "In fact, the strength of English lies in the fact that it does not represent just one culture or one way of life alone [...]" as Vijay K. Bhatia puts it.[70]

      This means that the idea that, through English, influence from both the UK and the USA is present, no longer has any foundation in reality. English is an open language in the sense that it readily adopts expressions and single words from various other languages;[71] this means that it continually develops through the usage by different people. It is therefore possible for the individual societies using English to reform the language to fulfil present needs, without risking reprimands from some sort of supervising language control board, as no such board exists. Having said that, it is worth mentioning that no one can claim ownership of the English language, which is also why the neutrality emerges. English does not belong to a certain culture, as the British connotations have been stripped off. This allows for the above mentioned reforming of the language, in order to fit the given society's contemporary needs.

      By actively shaping the English language used in a given society, a gradual nativisation and acculturalisation will take place, as the specific variation of English is now unique in terms of cultural and linguistic traditions; i.e. understanding meaning and pronunciation. According to Kachru: "The English language has now ceased to be a vehicle of western culture; it only marginally carries the British and American way of life."[72]

      This adoption of English all over the world is a result of the openness which lies in the language, an openness existing because of the dynamic powers every language has, but because there is no superior organ trying to implement the "right" form of English on the rest of the English speaking world.

      When dealing with language globally there can be no doubt as to the fact that English is, by far, the global language of today's world. English is spreading to a huge diversity of people and it would seem possible to characterise all these different Englishes as being roughly uniform by the shared use of grammar and core-vocabulary (see chapter 4.2).

The Information Society

      Considering the information society of today, there can be little doubt that English has had an enormous impact. We are faced with the English language in all the different areas of this, such as radio, TV, the Internet and information technology in general. Literally speaking, we are daily being confronted with a great diversity of commercials and slogans in English. Even some commercials for Danish products are produced and broadcast in English for the Danish audience; the whole concept used by "Stimorol" chewing gum, for example. English today, then, is a societal omnipresence influencing our everyday lives.

      Is this spread of English something enforced upon us, or do we accept it because we consider English to be neutral? On the Internet, for example, it seems English is primarily considered a tool for cross-cultural communication.[73] As earlier shown in chapter 4.2, the general population of a country (France was used as an example here) does not necessarily feel threatened by some "cultural tag" attached to the language.

      Either way, whatever the feelings towards the English Empire and culture might once have been, it seems they are being phased out presently. The increasingly neutral status English has lead to a thaw in some of the countries formerly notoriously hostile towards it. English is now beyond "the charmed circle of anglo-American econo-political control".[74] Fishman explains that both the former Soviet Union and the Arab world as well as mainland China are beginning to introduce English "publications, films, radio and television programmes, literary programmes and educational opportunities".[75]

4.3 Opting for an International Auxiliary Language

      Some general considerations on the communicative feasibility of an IAL are very much the same as those described in chapter 4.1.1; please refer back to that section for further details on this matter.

4.3.1 The Question of Neutrality

      The basic, but not unproblematic, argument in favour of this view would be that, if every member state were to agree upon conducting all EU affairs in an IAL, no state would have the advantage of first-language (henceforth L1) knowledge and competence. In being a neutral, second tongue for all states, the IAL should, thus, be a language separated from the possible imperialistic, cultural, emotional and ideological connotations that are inevitably, in varying degree, tied to current languages.

      This argument is fundamental to many IALs, and can, for example, also be found in the official Esperanto Prague Manifesto of July 1996 (focus will be put on Esperanto later in this chapter). This manifesto states in its section 5 on Linguistic Rights:

      "The unequal distribution of power among languages is a recipe for constant linguistic insecurity, or direct linguistic oppression, for a large part of the world's population. In the Esperanto community speakers of major and minor, official and unofficial, languages meet on neutral ground, thanks to a reciprocal readiness to compromise. [...] We assert that the huge difference in power among languages undermines the guarantees, expressed in so many international documents, of equal treatment irrespective of language. [...]" [76]

      One of the prime arguments for introducing an IAL is, thus, that of its alleged neutrality, and this is also the argument EU has cited in several reports on the language problem in the Community.[77] This makes it interesting to start the investigation of the feasibility of an IAL in the EU by discussing to what extent such entirely emancipated language can possibly exist.

      Operating with a term like a "neutral" language is not unproblematic; something advocates of IALs seem to pay notably little attention to. The question "a neutral language for whom?" must be raised; the idea of what constitutes a neutral language is, perhaps, not that universal. Different peoples - including those of the EU - do not necessarily have the same view on that matter - in chapter 4.2 it was, for example, discussed how English might not inspire negative connotations of imperialism in some countries, whereas these connotations might be present in others.

A Contemporary Extra-European Tongue

      Focusing on neutrality within the EU, an IAL could, in theory, be any language not spoken as an L1 by any of the member states; it would not necessarily have to be a constructed language, though this is the usual connotation of an IAL.

      However, if one were to opt for a contemporary extra-EU tongue, a problematic situation much similar to that of selecting a current European tongue (discussed in chapter 4.2) would probably recur very soon. Perhaps the problem might not be prominent between the EU members, but it must be borne in mind that the EU does not only have internal relations to tend to. In choosing a contemporary language, one would still have to provide a reasonable argument for favouring that particular tongue over other candidates, as the adoption of one such language would inevitably imply the suppression of others, as Stanley Rundle has put it.[78] Apart from the language-genealogical question of neutrality, the selection of an extra-European language for the role of lingua franca might, consequently, negatively influence other international relations, and though this paper focuses on an administrative IAL within the EU, it is probably fair to assume that the EU would never adopt a scheme that might potentially bring about such problems.

Reviving a Classical Tongue

      Another historical approach to establishing a neutral lingua franca has been to discuss the revival of extinct classical languages, like Latin or Greek, in simplified, updated forms. Peculiar as this idea might seem, serious examples of this can, in fact, be found as late as the 1920^s; not that far from the foundation of what was to become the EU.[79]

      There are, of course, numerous problems connected with the attempt of reviving extinct languages for this purpose. A current lingua franca must be able to reflect the needs and requirements of our contemporary society; Latin, for instance, would have to be revised (and simplified) to a degree where it could hardly be called Latin any longer, if it were to meet today's conditions. As Rundle states: "Latin died because it no longer served its purpose",[80] and it seems fair to argue that only contemporary languages are guaranteed to meet contemporary demands. Another flaw could be the fact that the classical languages traditionally denotes another form of oppression; namely intellectual superiority.[81] It would not do to opt for an IAL that could imply this to some; this could promote the alienation problems that the Union already experiences to some extent.[82] Apart from the just mentioned inadequacies, these classical languages also suffer from a genealogical neutrality point of view. One could, for instance, argue that Latin would clearly favour the Romance Indo-European branch of languages in Europe.[83]

An Artificial Auxiliary Tongue

      Seen in the light of the above, the most feasible way to establish a neutral IAL would then seem to come from an artificially constructed language. Not having to select a language linked to a specific culture, but being able to deliberately avoid such obstacles to neutrality, would ideally remove any imperialistic connotations. This solution would, at the same time, provide the opportunity to create a lingua franca sufficiently structured and simplified in grammatical terms, so as to further its acquisition. However, it appears that the extent of neutrality may even be disputed amongst the most likely candidates of artificial IALs.

      History documents how a surprisingly large number of such IALs have been constructed (several hundreds from 1850 to World War II alone[84]), and how most of those not stillborn soon died out. Umberto Eco has dedicated an entire book to the subject, and it does little more than provide an overview of "the search for the perfect language" (which is also the title of his book).[85] Due to the vast number of IALs, this paper can but discuss a few examples. First, one of the artificial IALs that did not succeed in establishing itself will be briefly described; then one that, perhaps surprisingly, actually did to a certain extent:

Volapük

      In 1879 Johann Martin Schleyer created the language Volapük (which literally means "world-speak"[86]) - and it was probably the first artificial IAL to gain some degree international support.[87] In spite of his purposeful intentions to make this language a true world language (he even tried to avoid phonemes causing problems in some speech communities; thus /r/, for example, was omitted on the grounds that this sound caused difficulties for old people, children and Chinese speakers[88]) the cultural neutrality can be questioned seriously.

      The problem here is that Schleyer had chosen to build his language on English (heavily lexically influenced by German);[89] this fact can be argued to clearly favour the Germanic branch of European languages. Ironically, it turned out, however, that Volapük, in spite of all its creator's good intentions, ended up being "[...] difficult for all speakers, irrespective of their original tongue" instead, as Eco aptly puts it.[90] Consequently, it soon died out after a brief period of interest.

Esperanto

      Among the hundreds of IALs, the most well-known (certainly the most successful) is, perhaps, Esperanto (meaning "one who hopes"[91]). This agglutinative language was constructed by Dr. Ledger Ludwik Zamenhof in 1887;[92] it has a simple grammar of 16 basic rules, and a vocabulary based on common Indo-European roots, privileging Romance languages, followed by Germanic and then Slavic, where no common root could be identified.[93] What is particularly interesting about Esperanto, though, is the fact that it is still "alive", and doing rather well more than a hundred years since its creation. Though being far from the world language its creator and supporters hoped for, it does have an (perhaps optimistically[94]) estimated 2 million speakers world wide.[95] It even has its own body of original literature, and most world literature has been translated into the language.[96] This relative success of Esperanto would make it the most obvious candidate for a potential artificial lingua franca inside the EU; it has proven its viability and overcome the "teething troubles" conceiving a new IAL would almost certainly face. In fact, some EU reports have considered Esperanto,[97] even though it is generally considered improbable that this language will prevail due to the logistics connected to establishing it.[98]

      However, in more than one way, Esperanto does not qualify for its own alleged neutrality. It has already been suggested that the language clearly favours the Indo-European lexicon (in the order Romance, Germanic, Slavic); this genealogical preference seems to be a recurring property of all a posteriori languages, the fact that they usually base their vocabulary on a well-established existing (often IE) language.

      But Esperanto has another "flaw" in that it does not appear to be as entirely ideologically independent as it likes to claim.[99] Zamenhof originally also published a pamphlet in Esperanto advocating "international brotherhood" (homaranism),[100] and though most people would probably see this as a positive idea, an IAL will not be truly neutral, if one also has to conform to certain ideologies. According to Eco, some Esperantists were aware of this problem, and argued that Esperanto should be free of such dogmas.[101] However, when reading a recent (July 1996) declaration like The Prague Manifesto (which sections cover, among other things, principal declarations on democracy, linguistic rights and human emancipation), it becomes apparent that there are still some definite political aspects of the language.[102] That Esperanto does indeed seem to have an implied ideological mission is also demonstrated by the fact that it has its own symbol (and flag); a pentagonal green star, where green symbolises hope and the five points symbolise the five continents.[103]

Consequences

      In an EU context, these ideological aspects are not likely to be considered something obstructing the potential use of Esperanto, however. Indeed, it would seem to go rather nicely with the Community's own ideology of unity.

      What this discussion would like to point out is not that total neutrality is an absolute prerequisite for an administrative lingua franca, but that one should be aware of the immense difficulties tied to operating with a term like "neutrality", and using it as a prime argument for preferring one tongue over another. It will, of course, always be questionable whether one could ever take all languages and cultures into consideration, or forge an auxiliary language entirely without ideological connotations.

      This could seem to counter the most often cited argument for introducing an artificial IAL as lingua franca; yet, even if IALs cannot be truly neutral, they might still be considered at least more neutral than the alternative of selecting an existing tongue.

4.3.2 An IAL in Practice

Simplicity and Restrictions

      Esperanto has, as mentioned in the previous chapter, a core of 16 grammatical rules, and a sworn objective of simplicity. Indeed, suggested revisions to Esperanto was scorned by its creator, who argued that:

      "Esperanto might accept enrichments and lexical improvements, but it must always remain firmly attached to what we might call the 'hard core' as set down by its founder in Fundamento de Esperanto". [104]

      When it comes to vocabulary, one source states that the core vocabulary of stems holds 12,000 words.[105] The agglutinative nature of the language does, however, make it possible to derive a wide range of words from the same stem; the newest Esperanto-Danish dictionary contains 30,000 words.[106] This might not seem like very much (a standard dictionary of present-day Danish holds 60,000 words) considering the fact that the language is also being actively used for literary purposes (one cannot help but wonder to what extent Shakespeare is done justice in this tongue).

      As for the practical application of the language, an Esperanto textbook has the following to note:

      "[...] one cannot translate directly from one's mother tongue to Esperanto, one has to render the meaning in an easily understandable and logical form. The best Esperanto style is that which with the fewest means provides the most harmonious expression of the thought to be conveyed." [107]

       Hence, the question whether this enforced simplicity in some way restricts the expressive continuum arises. As Esperanto is not a language restricted to a very narrow context - e.g. within the EU - it must be able to fully express all thoughts and objects of the contemporary society. Therefore, as Eco also warns,[108] it must be able to adapt new words and concepts as time passes, without jeopardising its simplicity; this might seem somewhat paradoxical, at least problematic.

Standardisation and Natural Evolution

      In the quote from the previous section, regarding the practical use of Esperanto, one may note that it appears a somewhat lax definition, if the IAL is to be free of cultural transmissions as those described in 4.1.1. According to Eco:

      "The supporters of an IAL have neither paid attention to the problem of linguistic relativism, nor ever been worried by the fact that different languages present the world in different ways, sometimes incommensurable. They have usually taken it for granted that synonymous expressions exist from language to language [...]" [109]

      This inevitably raises the prominent problem of language planning (discussed in 4.1.4). Living languages have demonstrated a tendency to evolve continuously (not unlike biological mutations); to maintain an IAL that remains mutually intelligible might, thus, seem futile in the long run. Protagonists of Esperanto claim that this will not be a problem, because the language is an auxiliary tongue; hence untouched by such factors as parallel development.[110] Rundle, however, argues that there are already a developing number of inconsistencies in Esperanto:

      "[...] many national organisations have added extra roots to fill certain gaps. These additions usually arise through the desire to make an Esperanto word resemble a word which is already in international use, rather than to make a word from Esperanto roots already available." [111]

      Indeed, it seems hard to accept that a world language should be able to evade natural development; at least in its spoken form. It is true, however, that the current information society makes it easier to uphold such standards; totally decentralised speech communities can now easily exist, as most geographic locations on earth can be reached instantaneously, right from one's own home. It is, of course, very hard to predict the ultimate linguistic outcome of the information society because it is a relatively new phenomenon. On the other hand, one might still suggest that the reason that Esperanto does not suffer overly much from parallel evolution is because it as yet has failed to become widely established. In this point of view, Esperanto's success is, so to speak, due to its failure.

Establishment and Education

      Establishing an IAL seems, perhaps, like one of the most problematic obstacles to the "lingua francafication" of a language like Esperanto. It seems unlikely the status quo will be broken, if no political incentives to support and implement the language; as Eco states: "Success, in other words, can only follow from a display of international political will."[112]

       It may merely be a question of getting the application of the language above a certain threshold; if one meets other persons likely to speak Esperanto, the larger the incentive for oneself to learn it will be. This utilitarian attitude to language is essential throughout Europe, according to Rundle;[113] the average citizen is, of course, likely to learn the language(s) that are of most practical use (influenced also by geographical proximity) to that individual. It has further been argued, e.g. by the French author Joseph-Marie Degérando, that the bulk of a population does really have much use for a lingua franca: "[...] travellers, scientists and merchants (those who needed a common language) were always a minority in respect of the mass of common citizens [...]".[114] Where this argument was put forward before the information society became a fact, it probably still has some truth in it.

      Of course, this paper does not really address the problems of introducing an IAL in all the member states of the EU. However, as it has already been suggested, merely introducing an administrative lingua franca within the EU would mean a functional linguistic separation; as Mark Fettes argues, this implies what he calls "a sort of Euroelite",[115] which might further alienation between the bureaucracy and the common citizens.

      One way to meet these potential problems would be through language education of the average citizen; something that would probably have to be done eventually anyhow, to comply with the basic democratic rights of the Community. This suggests, however, that it may not be possible to restrict the IAL functionally; it is bound to have some effect on the lives of the ordinary population as well. This is a question that will have to be examined further, before seriously considering implementing an IAL.

      "The most important [obstacle to communication] in the modern world is undoubtedly the great diversity of languages [...] In the long run, it seems almost unavoidable that the civilised world will adopt some one language of intercommunication [...]" (Sapir, 1931) [116]

      Having assessed a range of general aspects regarding the introduction of a lingua franca, some main points present themselves:

      First of all, agreeing on one tongue does not automatically resolve communicative problems. Languages and cultures are structured in a variety of ways, and people do, consequently, not use language in the same manner. This inevitably poses the risk that pragmatic features from one speaker's first language - idioms, for example - will be superimposed on the lingua franca, thereby rendering it difficult for the receiver to understand, in spite of the fact that speaker and listener speak the same language. Linguistic competence is not the same as communicative competence.

      Introducing a common language will also have some inevitable cultural implications. Cultures do still to a wide extent associate themselves with their language, though there can be differences at a sub-national level, and though a trans-national culture may be emerging. Promoting one language over one's own mother tongue could, thus, be felt to collide with one's national identity, thus leading to the notion of linguistic imperialism. This obstructs the successful implementation of a lingua franca.

      Languages tend to develop, therefore an immense machinery of language planning would be required, lest non-standard varieties of the lingua franca evolve. Whether it is at all possible to rein a living thing like a language can be questioned. The study showed that planning a language is a process consisting of a number of facets, each requiring considerable effort. The conclusion must be that it is possible to plan a common language theoretically, but it seems virtually impossible to control the individual human influence on this language in reality.

      The above conclusions suggest that it is virtually impossible to successfully implement a lingua franca. However, restricting the sphere to an administrative tongue within the EU, many of the problems will be attenuated.

      Communicative problems due to different pragmatics would persist, but perhaps not be so prominent due to the functional demarcation of the language. Whether this functional separation can be maintained in the long run is, however, doubtful, as it would further alienation between citizen and bureaucracy, and as the common tongue might reverberate to the member states.

      Notions of "traditional" linguistic imperialism are likely to be of little practical importance, as long as a suitably neutral language can be found for the role.

      English seems an obvious candidate, because of its de-facto status of World Language. It turns out that the English language may, in fact, not spawn imperialistic connotations in other member states; even those reputed to be against it (exemplified by the French). It seems English is becoming increasingly neutral. Opting for a language like English would also have the clear advantage that the educational systems concerning English teaching are already well-established in the majority of the member states.

      Another obvious aspirant for the role of lingua franca is an artificial IAL like Esperanto. Esperanto has proven to be fully functional in today's society, and it is sufficiently neutral and emotionally unencumbered in the sense that it is no one's language. However, if the EU were to opt for Esperanto, the present language teaching systems would have to be adapted to the teaching of Esperanto. This alone would seem an almost insurmountable task requiring vast amounts of funds and work; at least compared to the other alternative of opting for English. A probable argument against Esperanto could then be: "Why bother, when we have English?"

      If the EU were to decrease the number of official languages, it would have to be to one common tongue. Reducing the number to, say, the three larger (English, French and German) would to a higher degree imply a linguistic hierarchy than if one language were chosen on the grounds of international neutrality.

      It would seem possible (and feasible), then, to implement English as an administrative lingua franca; hence one may ask why the EU seems so reluctant to seriously address the described language problem. It could appear that the EU is hampered by the untouchable principal decision of multilingualism. One is tempted to subscribe to the notion that a likely cause for this reluctance is that changing the paragraph of 1958 would collide with the basic democratic idea of a multilingual Europe. Therefore, the EU might simply be waiting for the problem to solve itself, in the sense that it seems likely that English will continue to spread as the commonly acknowledged language of the World. By avoiding to officially "promote" one language to the status of lingua franca, even though it may well be a de-facto world language, one is guaranteed not to provoke any latent ideas of linguicism.