51996AC0692

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Decision on the adoption of a multiannual programme to promote the linguistic diversity of the Community in the information society` (96/C 212/04)

On 7 March 1996, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130 (2) and (3) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal.

The Section for Industry, Commerce, Crafts and Services, which was responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject, adopted its Opinion on 8 May 1996. The Rapporteur was Mr Pellarini.

At its 336th Plenary Session (meeting of 30 May 1996), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following Opinion by 67 votes to 3 with 2 abstentions.

1. Gist of the Commission document

1.1. If European citizens, businesses, and above all, SMEs are to take full advantage of the global information society, they will need multilingual facilities for creating, exchanging and accessing information, wherever they happen to be.

1.2. The opportunities are unlimited, but the realization requires dedicated and sustained efforts by developers and service providers.

1.3. The three lines of approach proposed in the present programme seek to create an environment which is conducive to the expansion of the language industries such as language engineering and translation industries.

1.4. Action Line 1: Supporting the construction of an infrastructure for European language resources

1.4.1. The Commission will lend its support to the launch of the activities of the European language resources association (ELRA), whose aims are to:

- compile an inventory of the language resources available to the Community;

- introduce mechanisms to ensure that such resources are disseminated throughout the Community;

- promote the application of common standards to ensure compatibility and quality certification.

1.4.2. The Commission will also, where necessary, make a financial contribution to expenditure involved in the introduction of concerted European action among the bodies concerned. Such action will, in particular, concern questions of standards, the dissemination of information and networking.

1.5. Action Line 2: Mobilizing and expanding the language industries

1.5.1. The aim of this action line is to spur the language industries into action by stimulating technology transfer and demand through a limited number of shared-cost demonstration projects which could act as a catalyst in certain key sectors.

1.6. Action Line 3: Promoting the use of advanced language tools in the European public sector 1.6.1. The aim of this action line is to encourage cooperation between administrations in the Member States and the European institutions in order to reduce the costs of multilingual communication in the European public sector.

1.6.2. A special effort will be made to bring the language tools for the new working languages up to the level of the others.

2. General comments

2.1. A Times leader referring to the death of the last speaker of Catawba noted that 'Another language has left the world, in a catalogue of mortality that passes unnoticed by all but a few [...] The disappearance of yet another is a cultural impoverishment at least as hurtful as the extinction of one of the world's species: more so, because while there are millions of species, there are only 6 000 languages, and half are expected to become extinct over the next century`.

2.2. This is a perfect example of the problems of multilingualism in general, and shows why the Commission's proposal can be endorsed.

2.3. In principle, we agree with the Commission's proposal, but although it does not establish the objective of a gradual cultural integration at European level, limits itself to encouraging the creation of instruments and technologies which might facilitate the mediated exchange of information.

2.4. Multilingualism may be very roughly broken down into the following 3 main aspects, listed in decreasing order of priority:

- enabling direct communication;

- facilitating understanding of mediated messages (translation, dubbing, interpreting, etc.);

- interpretation of dead and disused languages (of a historical and scientific nature, relevant to only small groups of people).

2.5. It is apparent from the wording of the proposal, particularly the three Action Lines of the programme, that the purpose is to fortify the technological-linguistic measures designed to facilitate take-up of information.

2.6. Although this is not inherently undesirable, as it is intended to encourage the expansion of the language industry, it does place the programme in the second category of aspects of multilingualism (facilitating the understanding of mediated messages), since it does not tackle the problem of language learning which is the priority factor in direct communication.

2.7. This is not to say that the programme is ineffectual, merely that it only deals with one facet of a broader issue, up to now only considered in rather restricted circles.

2.8. The Committee thus approves and endorses the objectives set out in the Commission proposal, but would however like the Commission, the Council and the Parliament to note that, in order to respect the terms of the Treaty regarding the economic and social cohesion of the EU more attention and action is required.

2.9. With 15 Member States the EU already has eleven working languages. The possible adhesion of other countries will broaden the range enormously within a few years.

2.10. Even if the utmost effort is made to simplify multilingualism, will it be possible to retain a high degree of cohesion and facilitate the free movement of people and goods, or in other words have a strong and unified Single Market?

2.11. If the possibility of enjoying fluent, two-way communication is the main challenge facing the world today, as economic, cultural and political globalization increases, then we will, by the turn of the century, have to address the need for European linguae francae.

2.12. Universal languages, offering unequivocal, accurate understanding of messages already exist: e.g. mathematical or technical-scientific languages, although these are restricted to specialists and, most importantly, they lack the subtlety of real languages.

2.13. For the vast majority of people, direct communication involving two or more languages requires at least one of the parties to have full spoken or written mastery of the language(s) involved.

2.14. Except where a political decision is made, or an approach imposed, the solution to the primary problem of easy, mutual communication emerges spontaneously over time, with the domination of one working language and through what might be described as natural selection based exclusively on the laws of the market.

2.14.1. Many examples can be found of the imposition of a language as a result of conquest and subsequent domination of earlier populations; almost all the European languages have been used in this way.

2.15. Such methods are today not merely impracticable, but entirely beyond the pale for ethical, historical and moral reasons; however, if the solution to the problem is not simply to be left to the luck of the draw, then a political decision is required.

2.16. There is a need for specific provision to be made allowing the majority of European citizens rapidly to master two or three Community languages, in particular by strengthening learning at school, which remains the principal means of language learning.

2.17. The usefulness of a shared working language entails the risk of linguistic standardization and excessive simplification produced by the dilution or loss of cultural values rooted in, and transmitted by, various languages which are gradually being pushed back.

2.18. If we do not want these values to be lost, then linguistic diversity must be preserved and safeguarded, since it sustains and bears the cultures, traditions, usages and customs which can enrich a multiethnic society. The political approach required to achieve this differs sharply from 'Indian reservation` attempts to ensure the survival of so-called minority languages.

2.19. Facilitating the capacity for mutual understanding between various languages, in part by boosting the use of technology, is therefore a worthwhile objective, although it is only a partial one, in that it cannot be dissociated from the main problem of European working languages which must be in a position to develop and expand at the same time.

Done at Brussels, 30 May 1996.

The President of the Economic and Social Committee Carlos FERRER