Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 508
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 508 January 2006
The bottom line?
When it comes to language and the pros and cons of different choices personal and official, world citizens have a great deal at stake. Only if we are fortunate enough to be raised in an environment where learning a second or third language comes easily; or can afford to have five or six years of higher education, may any of us hope to become perfectly fluent in a second language. Without such fluency many avenues of advancement are closed. So language and education policies become matters of consequence to all of us.
It is often said that in the end it is financial reckonings are the arbiters of political decisions. The bottom line is profit - or loss - and the rulers of this world always make their momentous choices on the basis of their expectations of those results. Is it true? The expense and implications of language policies are a good test. The costs of translation in international organizations are tremendous, so any serious ways of cutting them should be guaranteed to be pursued and policies adjusted accordingly. We shall see.
Bearing in mind how frequently the costs of publicly-financed projects escalate out of all proportion it is worth having very serious looks at the European expenditure on translation. A useful reminder of the insouciance with which governments treat the spending of public money and the delusions that accompany that process is given in a report by Joseph Stiglitz on the cost of the war in Iraq. George W Bush initially gave a figure of $200 billion as the figure for the project. This has been raised by the Republican administration one estimate but only by 10 or fifteen per cent. According to the Nobel economics prize-winner and his collaborator, the real cost will be over $2 trillion, i.e 10 times as much as Bush was predicting.
A report edited by a Swiss professor of education. Francois Grin, has recently appeared. It concerns mass-communication in the European Union and runs to well over 120 pages. A summary in Esperanto with excerpts sets out the main points and is revealing. The good professor considered three possible plans for methods of mass-communication in the European Union and their consequences. The implications of his report and its conclusions are momentous.
The editor is professor of the Economics of Translation and Interpretation in Schools and Colleges and Deputy Director of the Geneva Department of Public Education, consultant on language politics and politics of education for the official Swiss and foreign organisations of international and non-governmental organizations. His report comes from the French Haut Conseil de l’Evaluation de l’Ecole, written in French, which in itself is significant, knowing as one does how francophones are as chauvinist about language as are the anglophones.
Three (very) different plans are considered in detail in the report as follows: (1) English only; (2) Multi-lingualism; (3) Esperanto. The comparisons between the three plans are not concerned with the consequences or the efficiency of the plans, but only with comparing their effectiveness and justice. Considering the novelty of the analytic framework and the absence of sufficient data, the estimates can be only approximate. This appears to be the first time that anyone has made at attempt to estimate how much the use of English benefits the anglophones and their organisations financially.
The chief results of the comparison of the three plans are summarised:
1. English only
(i) The United Kingdom gains a minimum of 10 billion euros each year by the current predominance of English;
(ii) taking the multiplier effect of that sum; and also the return on capital which the anglophone countries can invest elsewhere, from the privileged position of their language, it comes to 17 or 18 billion euros;
(iii) that sum would become higher, if that predominance should a become a priority, recognized by other member-states, particularly in their education policies. The sum does not take into account the symbolic advantages enjoyed by native-born anglophones but the inequality of the situation would be worsened by the conflicts within their own languages occasioned by the dominance of English.
2. Multi-lingualism
The multi-lingual plan, which can in practice take three different forms, does not reduce the costs, but only the inequalities amongst the speakers of different languages. However, it also has too many certain risks of instability to be a lasting possibility.
3. Esperanto
The Esperanto Plan emerges as the most advantageous, with 85% of Europeans benefiting; and altogether their financial gain would be some 25 billion euros yearly. That benefit would not even mean a loss to Britain, because the accrued savings in cutting costs of translation and interpretation would probably outweigh any other changes. In the short term the usual response of refusal in relation to Esperanto prevents inhabitants of the Union from obtaining these advantages. It can, however, be recommended in the longer term and in the timepspan of one generation.
The linguistic dominance of English would be very bad for French and the also for all non-anglophone states of the European Union in five ways:
i) a near-monopoly in the business of translation and interpretation into English for the anglophone countries;
ii) the saving of time and money by the anglophone members because all the non-native speakers have to strive to express themselves and accept messages in that language;
iii) the saving of time and money for the anglophones not needing that;
iv) the return on money that the anglophones can use because they do not have to make the investment in education for languages;
v) the over-ruling position that anglophones have in trading currencies owing to conflicts developing within English circles; the existence of such negative are little-known.
It is necessary to stress that a long-term strategy would need to be employed and that the co-operation of the member-states would be essential for the education and the teaching of Esperanto. Because it is known that such a course can arouse passionate opposition, based upon prejudice and lack of understanding, the report does not suggest it. However, within one generation, in the case of choosing Esperanto there would be the effect of diminishing inequality and linguistic injustice.
In 2006 a saving of more or less than 25 billion euros would be from a budgeted sum of 116.55 billion, i.e. over a fifth. It would also mean a policy benefiting 23 of the 25 member states where they presently spend over 26 billion euros every year on an education system that still leaves 85% of the citizens of Europe in a position of inferiority. Although not easy, the problem is soluble if the framework of analysis is changed: to the great benefit of tax-payers. of social justice; and of the diversity of their languages and cultures.
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|