—

the Commission should give the Member States precise indications about the links which could be established and additional measures which could be taken in the national plans, stressing that multilingualism or plurilingualism can help to promote cultural and political integration, and foster understanding and social inclusion;

—

in order to achieve long-term results, the language training on offer needs to be coordinated at EU level, with the potential pool of language skills spanning a wide range of languages;

—

multilingualism in the professional, cultural, political, scientific and social fields should be developed and promoted;

—

the experts involved in this work should be drawn not just from the ranks of specialists in social and scientific disciplines but should also include linguists, interpreters, translators, teachers and other language professionals;

—

greater account be taken of today's young and older adult generation in developing this action, via life-long learning and, when the Commission reaches the programming stage, through their cultural rights;

—

the Commission not only draws on university research but also on the work carried out by the networks of associations working in this area, and that it supports the grassroots initiatives taken within the civil society network.

a)

The status of languages: Languages may be classified as: official, working, Community, minority, dominant, languages used in various forms of exchange — cultural, scientific or commercial, institutional and diplomatic — languages in everyday use and languages for professional use (in the fields of health, education, construction, industry, fashion industry and arts, etc.). Respect for linguistic diversity, which the European Union recommends and defends, dictates that different and balanced solutions need to be proposed in order to respond to these situations and needs: a single proposal which treated the language issue solely in terms of education/jobs, or of ‘language use — new products market — internal market’ would miss the objective of ensuring that every EU citizen is able to speak two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue, and paradoxically could reduce the number of languages that are effectively mastered or spoken within the European cultural area. The EESC recommends that all professional, cultural, political and scientific use within its area be allowed and encouraged, and it supports the large number of grassroots initiatives that have originated within civil society. Accepting and supporting written or oral communication in the original language extends the public area of freedoms, without however necessarily requiring recourse to translation or interpretation. The issue of the number of languages in use is thus not contingent on language translation, interpretation or teaching costs.

b)

The degree of social power which is conveyed by the ability to use a given language or languages. Access to, and the distribution of, multilingual-learning resources determines to a certain extent social exclusion or inclusion and material or cultural poverty since language knowledge provides access to professional, social, and particularly, cultural and solidarity networks. The fact of belonging to a network also contributes towards greater individual autonomy, while constituting an aspect of integration in contemporary society. Some population groups will be excluded if an effort is not made, as of now, to extend multilingualism at all the relevant levels of society, including vulnerable or disadvantaged groups.

c)

Democracy: The EESC supports the recommendation to ensure that people are able to speak in or have a working knowledge of two foreign languages in addition to their mother tongue; however, how many people today have a realistic chance to achieve this in their lifetime? Even for the professional, political and economic ‘elite’ of the current adult generation, this is a difficult objective to attain in the framework of the 2004-2006 action plan Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity and the Culture 2007 programme (2007-2013) (9), both for EU and national institutions, but if the ambitious target of ‘every citizen’ is maintained, the EESC would stress the extent of the challenge involved. We know, for example, which foreign language has gained the upper hand at the earliest level of foreign language learning. The rare or less common languages (10) are known by a smaller number of people because, in these cases, language-learning starts at a later stage in school or university courses. The EESC thus supports the recommendation that people be given the opportunity to learn a foreign language from the earliest possible age, provided that the choice of languages on offer is devised as part of an overall framework, which should be the main issue to be addressed by the communication. What is at stake here is the future of the EU and the kind of society which we pass on to future generations.

d)

The survival of languages as Europe's linguistic heritage: Wanting to see a large number of people learn a second or third language is not the same as wanting to ensure the survival of a large number of European languages in Europe or the world. Whilst these two goals do not clash, they nonetheless require two separate approaches and means of implementation. In this particular context, the Commission's initiative in respect of standardisation, aimed at making the use of languages compatible with the new information and communication technologies, should take account of the danger of linguistic impoverishment if the efforts are concentrated disproportionately on this particular field (11). The EESC recommends that the experts involved in this work should be drawn not just from the ranks of specialists in social and scientific disciplines but should also include linguists, interpreters, translators, teachers and other language professionals. The abovementioned UNESCO declarations and conventions clearly demonstrate, among other things, that too few languages are already used on the internet, bearing in mind the global linguistic heritage, and further demonstrate that this limited use of languages has an effect both on the quality and the number of languages which still exist.

e)

Conservation of the use of minority and/or regional (or even local) languages in Europe should not be evaluated in terms of teaching-cost criteria. Not only — as supported by a large body of literature — does language teaching at a very young age foster an intellectual flexibility which develops cognitive capabilities that are useful for future learning, but it also serves as a bridge to learning sister or cousin languages. Thus, it is not enough simply to preserve the linguistic heritage by teaching a language at a very early age or by rehabilitating it in both private and public spheres; in order to survive, a language must be spoken and it needs to have the right conditions so that it can thrive in the public and social domain: it serves no purpose to learn languages at primary school if one has to give them up in the secondary years because no course is provided (12). Economic dynamics can be taken into account in education systems if the necessary links to other languages are developed and if the learning of a minority or regional language can be harnessed in the later school years as support towards a second language. To this end, the study of the links between languages is as vital as the number of languages spoken (13).

f)

Proximity: This term does not only imply making official and institutional texts accessible via the internet; it also means enabling EU citizens living in countries which are geographically in close proximity to get to know each other and to acquire a better understanding of their respective mother tongues and to engage in exchanges, since language is not just a channel of communication but also a representation of the world. Language shares this characteristic with other media, such as painting, music, the graphic arts, mime and dance, and the plastic arts. These same citizens must be enabled to learn and communicate in languages belonging to different linguistic groups, whilst respecting the cultures and identities which make up the European identity (and underlie European values). The EESC stresses the positive role of exchanges and twinning schemes mentioned by the Committee of the Regions (14) and stresses that, irrespective of the strategy involved, when it comes to learning languages, demand is just as necessary as supply. The motivation for learning languages should therefore be considered from other standpoints than solely that of how useful a language is (in terms of the economy and employment).

g)

Needs: Our needs in terms of cohesion and European identity do not involve just commercial aspects or identity aspects. There are also real needs for mutual understanding, which are felt by people who may or may not share the same geographical, social and cultural backgrounds. No impact assessment has been carried out to take stock of the way in which different aspects have been taken into account, including even minor aspects which may turn out to be important in the long term. The time frame in respect of supply and demand in the field of language training can be measured in terms of years and generations.

From a more general standpoint, the commitment expressed in the communication lacks a reference time frame: are we talking about a commitment in the past, the short-term future, the medium term or vis-à-vis future generations?

The same considerations apply in the case of the following aspects: humanitarian and cultural aspects; asylum and immigration; the needs and the role of local authorities in this field; and socio-economic aspects. The socio-economic partners (UNICE, the European Centre of Public Enterprise (ECPE/CEEP) and the ETUC), together with NGOs working in the field of human, social and cultural rights and universities and administrations, should all be consulted on an equal footing, thereby developing a strategy which, far from excluding them, is decided jointly with them and by them. This would guarantee the wide-ranging consensus that is required for these ambitious initiatives to succeed. The successful implementation of the Council's ‘1 + 2’ strategy (15) requires resources that transcend the institutional framework. The largest possible number of EU citizens must be able to participate and feel personally concerned.

The EESC approves the action framework to promote the teaching and learning of languages and observes that its success will depend on the support of those most immediately concerned with the issue, i.e. the teachers themselves and the students.

Accordingly, before embarking on new initiatives, the Commission and the Council should consolidate the strategy by ensuring that the general public and young people are more fully aware of the specific reasons which led them to choose the path of multilingualism, rather than promoting the use of a single common language, whether living or dead, modern or artificial.

The main reasons can be summed up as follows:

In view of the above, the EESC recommends that future measures take greater account of today's young and older adult generation, via life-long learning and, when the Commission reaches the programming stage, through their cultural rights.

Young people should be informed about and motivated to seek jobs involving multilingual or plurilingual 21st century media (18). More should be done to promote professions which require an in-depth knowledge of languages (linguists, interpreters, translators and teachers): one sure step towards achieving this is to recognise their social role and to involve the current practitioners.

As the Commission itself fully recognises, its recommendation to start learning languages at an early age requires resources and properly trained staff, and that parents support the diversified choice on offer.

The EESC also recognises the positive role of the family in promoting language learning at an early age and stresses the cultural support of ‘mixed’ culture families, such as when the parents come from different countries. These families generally have a culture of openness and tolerance extending over several generations, which has been confirmed by several European and Canadian studies.

h)

With regard to the chapter dealing with translators and interpreters, the EESC draws attention to the fact that needs do not arise solely in the institutional, professional and economic fields; the views of other stakeholders must also be heard. Social and cultural requirements deserve to be taken into account, both as basic human rights and as essential components of the internal market.

By way of example, everywhere one goes, one hears that translation and interpreting requirements cannot be met either because of a shortage of interpreters and translators or for financial reasons. In the light of this situation, the EESC proposes that consideration be given to the responsibilities of both the Member States and the EU in respect to the following aspects: provision of training for an adequate number of interpreters and translators; language diversification; the cost of providing training and paying salaries and costs linked to statutes. The EESC would refer, once again, to all the various aspects which it raised earlier in this document and would also point out that this sector is not the only one to suffer from a shortage of trained professionals; the demographic deficit cannot be blamed for all these shortages. The balance between supply and demand in this segment of the labour market has undoubtedly not been adequately foreseen, even though the European venture and successive EU enlargements, together with the issue of globalisation, would have provided scope for learning lessons from the past.

To sum up, the EESC recommends that the Member States make an active contribution towards shaping the future in this context and it endorses the views expressed by the Commission on this point.