European multilingualsim - disadvantage or advantage
It is no secret that Europeans don't share a common language like the Americans. In fact, we have 25 member states with 20 different languages. This comes because some member states share a language. German, for example, is spoken in Germany, Austria and parts of Liechtenstein, Belgium and Italy. French is spoken in France, Luxembourg, Belgium and Monaco. So, you see, we have 25 member states but "only" 20 languages. The question is, if this fact (the multilangualism) is good or bad for the Union. On the one hand, we get cultural enrichment from our many languages, on the other hand, fellow citizens should be able to communicate and understand each other. Therefore the European Parliament promotes multilingualism, which is a good thing in my opinion. Europeans should be able to speak their mother tongue and English fluent and two or three other languages. I would prefer English as the main language in Europe, because hardly the whole European population speaks and understands it more or less well. I think our different languages are not a disadvantage, they are an advantage, because these languages enrich our cultural variety. They inspire artists and thinkers in a much better way and they enable a great vocabulary, which allows Europeans to write and to think in a very accurate way and to express their thoughts very accurately. Americans don’t have such an advantage. They should be jealous because of our multilingualism. I personally speak German (my mother tongue), English (first foreign language) and French (second foreign language). The great economist and mathematician Reinhard Selten promotes European multilingualism and the artificial language Esperanto. Selten shared the Nobel prize for economy together with US mathematician J.F. Nash. Esperanto is a mixture of nearly all languages. Maybe this would be a good thing, to have Esperanto as the common EU language. Everybody would be happy: the French, The Germans, the Italians, nobody could argue against Esperanto. But honestly, I believe European multilingualism is a particular good thing.
posted by European patriot | 2:07 AM
3 Comments:
You write that you would prefer to have English "as the main language in Europe". I can't argue that a low-level pidgin English is perhaps at the moment the most pragmatic choice, but you overlook some very important factors i.a.:
1) the large and unfair financial benefits which accrue to the UK (and to all English-speaking countries) because of this unearned (and unmerited?) privileged position of English.
2) the consequent lack of any motivation whatsoever for native English-speakers to learn any other language, and the scandalous level of 2FL (in)ability among the general English-speaking population everywhere.
3) having English as the "international" language creates major social problems and is for example the main draw for illegal immigrants to the UK (witness the present situation at Sangatte/Calais, and the thousands of unassimilated immigrants already in the UK).
4) native English-speakers no longer possess a language of their own and thus must continually try to come up with new new and modish expressions to exclude others.
5) it is a myth that "everyone speaks English" (or wishes to!). I live in a large supposedly "English-speaking" city in Canada, but cannot communicate with one third of the people in my building, nor with local shopkeepers (even though I can get along in half a dozen languages).
The most rational, fair and democratic solution is "universal bilingualism" using a non-ethnic, non-territorial common, second language such as Esperanto constructed specifically for this purpose, and already in everyday successful use around the world. (Even Benedict XVI used it yesterday in his Christmas greetings - a fact strenuously ignored by the English-language media!)
Info: http://esperanto.memlink.ca
I agree mankso, universal bilingualism would seem to be the most politically acceptable solution. As Esperanto borrows heavily from mostly European languages, and was invented in Europe I think? it is probably the obvious choice. English really isn't an option as political in-fighting between nations within the union can be bad at the best of times, it is hardly likely that 26 states would accept the language of just one as their common tongue, and nor should they.
One of the big advantages of having Esperanto as the language of the state is that while the EU parliament and other institutions can be conducted in Esperanto, the lesser spoken languages such as Welsh, Gaelic and the various Spanish and French dialects would have the chance to flourish once again as common tongues of smaller communities, so the European diversity that is our strength would grow ever more diverse.
Dear European Patriot,
Hello! It has been a pleasure to follow your blog posts, updates, and experiences about traveling in the EU. The posts are very insightful.
I am currently working on a film that encapsulates the spirit of traveling in the US, titled "American Bear: An Adventure in the Kindness of Strangers," and thought your readers may be interested in learning about it?
American Bear centers on an exploration two filmmakers take on as they travel across the country for 60 days relying on nothing but the kindness of strangers for shelter each night. The insight that they shed on subjects such as community, trust, patriotism, and nature are very powerful. We were wondering if you would be interested in writing a post or doing a guest post about the film for the blog website? We are really trying to get the ideas and travel enthusiasm that you touch upon out to our audiences, and we would really appreciate the help.
Please feel free to check out our trailer at: www.AmericanBearFilm.com, post to our YourVoice section where sharing your travel experiences would be an amazing addition, or contact us at kindstranger6@gmail.com. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
AmericanBearFilm
Post a Comment
<< Home