Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 493
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 493 January 2005
A reform for Eurospeak
As far as I recall, yesterday was my first time of buying the Wall Street Journal but a heading on the front page caught my eye. The column below explained how "words get in the way" of the European Union's attempt to raise its voice in the councils of the world. The discussion was not new, but it reinforced one again the futility and magnitude of the errors in the EU language policies. Unlike the United Nations, which relied upon the use of five official languages (Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian) until the oil-rich Arabs decided themselves to pay for a sixth, despite having nearly 200 members with many more languages. The EU, on the other hand, makes all the chief languages spoken in member-states official.
The EU offers speakers for its members two-way simultaneous interpretation and other facilities for full translation. The simplest calculation of direct pairs of languages to be translated shows how the EC has had to cope with servicing Community members. In 1951, at the outset, with four languages, 12 possible combinations could be needed for translation. With the arrival of Britain and two other members, six official languages meant 30 possible combinations. The rise was inexorable. One new language in 1981 added 12 new pairs to translate: two more in 1986 added another 30 and by 1995, with 11 tongues in use for 15 members, well over 100 language combinations had to be catered for.
The policy produces some immediate qualms. There is said to be a backlog of 60,000 EU documents awaiting translation. That is expected to increase to 300,000 by next year. Despairingly (or comically) the Commission is requiring each translator to process 40% more pages a year and vowing to write shorter documents in the future! But Catalans speaking their own language are more numerous than Danes with theirs, but they are not recognised by the EU. And the newcomers like Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians are each numbered in a few million, often no more numerous than the Catalans. And if Turkey is to be admitted, what about Kurdish, spoken by a substantial minority?
Crisis time has arrived: with the rise to 25 members, the EU uses 20 different languages and there are now 380 possible language pairs, including the near impossibility of finding Finnish-Maltese interpreters and translators (both because EU policy has been to differentiate the rather different task for the two specialisms). This already causes severe problems, but the impending arrival of two more member-states in 2007 or 2008 raises alarming prospects of a further 126 language combinations being required. And one more possible (Turkey) a few years later could add nearly 50 more. That way madness lies.
Here is an alternative proposal. Consider choosing a neutral, created, regular and straightforward language as the one official tongue, to be adopted within the two years that would otherwise require an additional 50% of expenditure on translation. Train 10 translators and ten interpreters for each country to use Esperanto (i.e. 500 specialists). That could be done in one year to a high enough standard since the language can be learnt within three months by a trained linguist and it might cost two million euros. (50 Esperanto teachers at 40,000 euros for a year). The annual cost of the 500 specialists would be a regular charge, perhaps a maximum of 20 million euros annually. At present there are nearly 3,000 interpreters and translators employed by the EC.
Thus the Commission would be paying for all translation and interpretation into and from the official language for the proceedings and work of the EU. All other language work would be done by the members for their own purposes, into and from Esperanto, which would not be very costly and would be straightforward to manage. The results would be immense savings of time, money and work, particularly of needless an useless repetition. Efficiency of the EU would be vastly improved and the simplicity of the process would ensure that it soon would be seen not only as popular but essential. It would also, incidentally, diminish the present nationalistic competition and linguistic politics accompanying the official business of translation. Having a language common and official would also aid the unity and coherence, of the EU, a highly important aim.
The Wall Street Journal's commentator recounts some stories of present predicaments. Documents have, for example, had to be translated, from Latvian to German through the intermediary of English; an EU programme for Maltese translators has been operating for several years and the Spanish government has asked for official language status for four regional languages, including Basque (there's a hot one!) and Catalan. But the coup de grace comes from the Irishman who wants the introduction of Gaelic, because he declares "my language comes first". And so say all of us: roll on the 550 pairs of translations!
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|