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'
Date: 1996-05-30
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: action programme, cultural pluralism, information policy, multilingualism













EUR-Lex - 51996AC0692 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



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'  


Official Journal C 212 , 22/07/1996 P. 0019 





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