Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new framework strategy for multilingualism COM(2005) 596 final
Date: 2006-10-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European Union, competitiveness, economic development, globalisation, language teaching, multilingualism

C 324/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the
the European Economic and Social
Commission to the Council,

the European Parliament,

Committee and the Committee of the Regions — A new framework strategy for multilingualism

COM(2005) 596 final

(2006/C 324/24)

On 22 November 2005 the Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee,
under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 6 September 2006. The rapporteur was Ms Le
Nouail Marlière.

In view of the renewal of the Committee's term of office, the Plenary Assembly decided to vote on this
opinion at its October plenary session and appointed Ms Le Nouail Marlière as rapporteur-general under
Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure.

At its 430th plenary session, held on 26 October 2006, the European Economic and Social Committee
adopted the following opinion by 105 votes to one, with five abstentions.

1. Conclusions

2. Introduction: Summary of the Commission's communi-

cation

1.1

The EESC recommends that:

— the Commission should give the Member States precise indi-
cations 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.

In its communication, the Commission defines a new frame-
work strategy for multilingualism and reaffirms its own commit-
ment to multilingualism. This document is described as ‘the first
communication in the history of the Commission to tackle this
subject’. The communication examines various aspects of Euro-
pean policies on the subject and proposes a number of specific
actions.

The Commission calls upon the Member States to play their
role and to promote the teaching, learning and use of languages.
The Commission launches the event by bringing into operation
a new institutional
in 20
languages.

consultation portal,

available

In this initial policy document dealing with the subject of multi-
lingualism, the Commission sets out a new framework strategy,
backed up by proposals for specific actions in the social and
economic fields and in the field of relations with citizens. The
to
Commission is pursuing the following three objectives:
encourage language learning and to promote linguistic diversity
in society; to promote a healthy multilingual economy; and to
give citizens access to European Union legislation, procedures
and information in their own languages. The Commission draws
in
attention to the fact that the Barcelona European Council
2002 highlighted the need to promote the teaching of at least
two foreign languages. In the light of this call, the Commission
asks the Member States to take the following steps: to adopt
action plans for promoting multilingualism;
to improve the
the necessary
to mobilise
training of
resources for enabling pupils to learn foreign languages from
the earliest possible age; and to step up the teaching of subjects
through the medium of a foreign language. The Commission
that European enterprises need
draws attention to the fact
people skilled in the use of the languages of the EU and those
of its trading partners throughout the world and points out that
language-related sectors of the economy are undergoing rapid
development in most European countries; in the light of these
considerations, the Commission proposes a number of actions
the EU
designed to strengthen the multilingual aspect of

language

teachers;

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/69

economy. With regard to its own multilingual communication
policy, the Commission plans to strengthen the multilingual
nature of its many Internet sites and publications by setting up
an internal network with responsibility for ensuring that
linguistic practices are applied in a coherent way by the
Commission's departments. The Commission also proposes the
establishment of a High Level Group on Multilingualism, made
up of independent experts, to help it analyse the progress made
by the Member States. It makes two further proposals: to hold a
ministerial conference in the near future on the subject of Multi-
lingualism to enable the Member States to take stock of the
progress which they have made in this field; and to prepare a
new communication setting out a comprehensive approach to
multilingualism in the European Union.

3. General comments

3.1
The EESC endorses the Commission's initiative and notes
that this strategic framework is described as a new departure
and the communication is defined as the first policy document
on the subject of multilingualism. In this context, the many
references made to the former strategic framework (1) fall short
of what is required to provide a clear appraisal of this strategy.
In the EESC's view, it would be helpful if the Commission could
summarise the contribution which the new framework strategy
is expected to make in terms of added value and summarise its
comparative impact. Will an impact assessment be made, along
the lines defined in the inter-institutional agreement between
the European Commission and the EESC (2) and as part of the
drive to bring about legislative simplification and to simplify
governance? The EESC suggests that, by itself, the communica-
tion might fail to give the proposed measures the prominence
required by the Member States to enable them to approve the
programmes in question which are, furthermore, not binding.
Although the framework strategy has been requested by the
Council, harmonisation is required in order to make optimal
use of
the resources which may be allocated by both the
Member States and the EU itself. Such harmonisation can only
take place if there is a clear awareness of the measures which
have already been carried out by the Member States and the EU.

this

that

commitment has

The Commission ‘reaffirms [its] commitment’; the EESC
3.2
therefore notes
already been
expressed on an earlier occasion. The EESC notes that the state
of play as regards internal practice at the Commission with
regard to multilingualism does not give rise to unanimous satis-
faction both within the Commission's departments and in its
relations with outside bodies.

3.3
The EESC notes the discrepancy and lack of equal treat-
ment between the Institutions, on the one hand, and European
civil society in all
its component forms (autonomous social
dialogue and civil dialogue), on the other hand. All the memos,
studies and documents which are both useful and necessary for
drawing up European legislation and holding consultations and
discussions on this legislation are produced and are available to
a disproportionate extent
in English. Likewise an increasing
number of internal meetings organised by the Commission are
held in English. In order to work as a Commission expert one
therefore has to speak English, and the same applies in the case
of persons wishing to represent civil society in Brussels. Further-
more, many of the statistical and qualitative studies referred to
in this opinion are available only in English (3).

(1) COM(2002) 72/ COM(2003) 449/ COM(2005) 24 of 2.2.2005 /

2005/29/EC/ COM(2005) 356/ COM(2005) 229 and 465.

(2) Protocol of cooperation between the European Commission and the

European Economic and Social Committee (November 2005).

(3) See footnotes [2], [12], [17], [19], [24], [25], [26], [30], [31], [32],

[37] in the communication under review COM(2005) 596.

A number of documents are not always available in the
3.4
language of the institutional rapporteurs or the players who are
usually consulted, which shows that the agreement on the use
of the three pivot working languages of the EU institutions is
far from being respected, whether at an institutional or at an
informal level; the upshot is that several interlocutors can easily
find themselves excluded from an increasing number of debates.
It is therefore not surprising to discover in the various statistical
studies presented that the sample of persons questioned prefer
to pursue their studies in English, since this is de facto the
language which is likely to be increasingly used when taking key
decisions. This is exactly the line of reasoning which has led
several generations of parents and governments to focus on the
learning of English as the preferred language and it has also
brought about the present situation.

3.5
Furthermore, the annex to the present communication
demonstrates that the ‘foreign’ language most commonly used
in the EU is not the one spoken by the largest mother tongue
group. The most commonly used language in the EU is said to
be spoken (and the term ‘said to be’ is employed because Euro-
stat does not specify the definition used with regard to the level
of knowledge or vocabulary deemed to be required before
people can be regarded as speakers of the language in question)
by 47 % of the sample of persons questioned, even though it is
apparently the mother tongue of only 13 % of them.

3.6
In the EESC's view, this situation represents a de facto
impediment to the right of citizens and their representatives, i.e.
the European Parliament and the consultative committees (EESC
and CoR), for direct and indirect democratic participation in
drawing up the rules that apply to them.
In reality, when
rapporteurs within the institutions, who as representatives of
civil society are asked to give their views as members of demo-
cratic, legal bodies and institutions, they are frequently only able
to grasp what the Commission is proposing at the price of
undue effort and guess-work. How can the fact that citizens
have, at no point, had proper access to information, be over-
looked? This situation is particularly illogical in the case of a
communication on this subject. Finding a way out of this collec-
intellectual and cultural predicament and this economic
tive,
dependence at
the expense of essential good participation
requires resources and a political will.

The EESC is therefore pleased to note that the Commission
intends to mitigate these problems by setting up a more effec-
tive portal; this portal does however concern multilingualism,
rather than all its communication. The objectives presented by
the Commission in the chapter entitled ‘Multilingualism in the
Commission's relations with citizens’ are not very clear when it
comes
the communication
might just appear to be an extension of Plan-D for Democracy,
Dialogue and Debate. Communicating in 20 official languages
does not change the nature of
institutional communication
which takes place retrospectively and is based on decisions in
which citizens do not participate; such communication does
not, in itself, strengthen public involvement.

to institutional communication:

3.7 Many observers have pointed out that the first pages of
the institutional portals or websites may contain documents
which appear to be multilingual but, on further consultation,
turn out to be available only in English.

C 324/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

The EESC stresses that all languages are rightfully part of
3.8
the cultural human heritage and observes that imposing the use
of English for technical reasons rather than as a cultural asset
could be detrimental to it if, despite being widely used,
it is
poorly mastered. The EESC has taken its cue from this observa-
tion to set out, further below, specific comments on language
status and use.

it

The EESC notes that

3.9
there is an imbalance in the
restrained approach based on the economic aspects of multilin-
gualism (consumers, the information society, professions and
industries, and the knowledge-based economy) and that it could
be skewed more towards human, social, sociological, cultural
and political considerations.
is the case, as mentioned
If
during the press conference which launched this Commission
communication, that what lies at the heart of the difference
between human beings and other animals is language and the
exchanges between human beings which it gives rise to, then
the communication should duly bear in mind that human
exchanges are not solely geared to trade or the defence of
existing territory and its resources. The communication would
thus benefit from referring to the work carried out by UNESCO
in this field, with a view to putting forward positive recommen-
dations (4).

3.10
The EESC endorses the link between the Lisbon strategy,
its implementation, the European employment strategy and the
new framework strategy but proposes that the Communication
define in greater detail the concrete measures which have to be
taken (with more coordination between the Commission's
internal departments and the DGs responsible for employment,
culture etc.). The EESC asks the Commission to give the
Member States precise indications about the links which could
be established and the additional measures which could be
taken, stressing that multilingualism or plurilingualism can help
integration and foster
to promote EU political and cultural
understanding and social
impact assess-
ment should cover the number and quality of jobs that are
preserved or created and the real
impact on wages which is
expected to occur.

inclusion. A sectoral

for Member States to ‘establish
The EESC supports the call
national plans to give structure, coherence and direction to
actions to promote multilingualism…’ but observes that,
in
order to achieve long-term results, this must be coordinated at
EU level, in order to draw on a potentially much wider pool of
language skills.

Within the framework of the strategy aiming to create ‘the most
competitive knowledge-based [European]
economy in the
world’, it would seem appropriate — in order to ensure that the
European Union does not become constrained by its language
barriers — to think along the lines of
the full range of
languages present within the European Union and ensure that
this figure exceeds the number of languages currently available
and used within the internal market.

(4) UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, adopted on 2
November 2001; Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the
Diversity of Cultural Expressions (10 December 2005) — these
Conventions underline the need for linguistic diversity and diversity as
regards means of expression with a view to establishing diversity and
cultural pluralism as inalienable, universal rights which are inseparable
and interdependent. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights,
which was adopted in Barcelona at the World Conference on Linguistic
Rights held between 6 and 8 June 1996, and which was signed by 66
national and international NGOs and legal networks, must also be
mentioned.

The right of immigrants to learn the language of their host
country should be exercised in tandem with the right to main-
tain their own language and culture (5). The European Union
should consider these languages as additional human resources
in its quest towards ‘global competitiveness’. A number of enter-
prises have already contemplated these issues, but workers, trade
unions and targeted consumer associations should be involved
as well. Advantage should also be taken of support provided by
local authorities which have introduced concrete measures, such
as reception services aimed at promoting ‘integration’ and made
available in the languages most commonly spoken by recent
immigrants.

Another area of the economy which should be further
3.11
developed in the communication is that of the needs of workers
and ways of motivating them in the pursuit of their respective
occupations and in consultative bodies, such as the European
Works Councils. It is in the EESC's view regrettable that the
communication is able to envisage advocating harmonised
programmes which fail
these particular
needs. Such a wide-ranging communication should propose
areas which would provide enterprises and workers with both
the prospects and the means of becoming the principal agents
for building the most competitive knowledge-based economy in
the world, whilst fully respecting the remit of social dialogue
and fundamental rights (6).

to take account of

The EESC recognises that multilingualism makes the EU
3.12
special (7). Nonetheless, Europe is not
the only continent,
country or political entity where a large number of different
languages are spoken.

4. Specific comments

4.1
The debates and the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages of the Council of Europe (8) must not hide
other issues, such as:

a) The status of languages: Languages may be classified as: offi-
cial, 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

(5) CoR opinion CdR 33/2006 adopted at its 65th plenary session, 14 June

2006, rapporteur: Mr Seamus Murray, point 2.7.

(6) Article 21 of The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union stipulates
that any discrimination based on the grounds of language shall be
prohibited and Article 22 stipulates that the Union shall respect
cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. There are already court cases
involving instances at the workplace where these rights, though guaran-
teed by national law, have not been respected (General electric medical
systems GEMS,
judgment of the Versailles Appeal Court, 2 March
2006, France).

(7) Point IV.2 of the communication.
(8) European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 5 November
1992, which was ratified by 21 members of the CoE, 13 of which are
EU Member States.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/71

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
and
have
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.

originated within civil

society. Accepting

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 contri-
butes towards greater individual autonomy, while consti-
tuting 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
including vulnerable or disadvantaged
groups.

society,

c) Democracy: The EESC supports the recommendation to
ensure that people are able to speak in or have a working
two foreign languages in addition to their
knowledge of
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
the 2004-2006 action plan Promoting
framework of
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 chal-
for example, which foreign
lenge involved. We know,
language has gained the upper hand at the earliest level of
foreign language
common
languages (10) are known by a smaller number of people
because,
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.

in these cases,

learning. The

rare or

less

d) The survival of

languages as Europe's linguistic heritage:
Wanting to see a large number of people learn a second or

(9) COM(2004) 469.
(10) ‘Minority languages’.

linguistic impoverishment

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
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.

if

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 heri-
tage by teaching a language at a very early age or by rehabili-
tating 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).

texts accessible via the internet;

f) Proximity: This term does not only imply making official
and institutional
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 represen-
tation 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

(11) Les processus de modernisation dans l'enseignement des langues pour
adultes (The process of modernisation in adult language teaching), thesis of
Ms Judith Barna, Charles de Gaulle University, Lille, France, 2005.
(12) Opinion of the CESR of Aquitaine-France, adopted at its plenary
session on 14 December 2005, Langues et cultures d'Aquitaine, rappor-
teur: Mr Sèrgi Javaloyes.

(13) Council conclusions on the European Indicator of Language Compe-

tence (OJ C 172 of 25.7.2006).

C 324/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

and twinning

schemes mentioned by

the strategy involved, when it comes

European values). The EESC stresses the positive role of
exchanges
the
Committee of the Regions (14) and stresses that, irrespective
of
to learning
languages, demand is just as necessary as supply. The motiva-
tion 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).

involve just commercial aspects or

g) Needs: Our needs in terms of cohesion and European iden-
tity do not
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 immi-
gration; the needs and the role of local authorities in this
field; and socio-economic aspects. The socio-economic part-
the European Centre of Public Enterprise
ners (UNICE,
(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,
from
thereby developing a strategy which,
excluding them, is decided jointly with them and by them.
This would guarantee the wide-ranging consensus that is
these ambitious initiatives to succeed. The
required for
successful
‘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.

implementation of

the Council's

far

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 immedi-
ately concerned with the issue, i.e. the teachers themselves
and the students.

embarking on new initiatives,

Accordingly, before
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:

(14) Abovementioned opinion, CdR 33/2006.
(15) Mother tongue and two foreign languages, Barcelona European
Council, 15-16 March 2002, Presidency Conclusions, Part I, point 43.

— Encouraging the use and propagation of a hegemonic
living language gives rise to unfair economic advantages
for
the main country of origin and can undermine
cultural rights and the world heritage.

— The cost of

learning and disseminating a scientifically
and artificially designed European language such as
Esperanto would be less (learning time and converting
the current language (16)) than that for a living language
but, to date, the political and cultural conditions in the
European Union have not been met (17).

— The compromise scenario which involves increasing the
number of languages that are spoken and used in the Euro-
pean geographical and political area needs to be consoli-
dated by increasing the number of people speaking them.

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.

(16) L'enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique

(Teaching foreign languages as public policy), François Grin, 2005.

internationalism and that

(17) Grin, 2005, cf. abovementioned work, footnotes 59 and 84 ‘it has
been forgotten that a large number of states had, at the time of the
League of Nations, supported the introduction of Esperanto as an
international language, and that UNESCO, at its plenary sessions in
1984 and 1985 adopted resolutions in favour of Esperanto. At the
time (September 1922), France, which had banned teaching and
advertising [Esperanto] on the grounds that it was a dangerous
instrument of
it would diminish the
strength of the French language on the international scene’ had
rejected the document. Moreover, Mr Umberto Eco, who held the
European Chair at the Collège de France, Paris, delivered his inau-
gural lecture on ‘the quest for a perfect language in the history of
European culture’ in 1992.
The EESC would like to point out that the so-called dead ancient
languages have gradually ceased to be taught. Nonetheless, over and
above the issue of researching which lingua franca (common language)
would potentially best respond to the requirements of contemporary
European society, these languages provided the foundation for easier
mutual understanding between Europeans, given that a large number
of European languages — Indo-European and Finno-Ugric — have
their roots in these languages; furthermore, knowledge of these
ancient languages is a help when learning other languages.

(18) There are several definitions of plurilingualism and multilingualism.
For some, plurilingualism defines the personal skill of being able to
speak several languages, whereas multilingualism refers to the social
environment of a given geographical area where several languages are
in use (European Conference on Plurilingualism, 2005). For others, the
inverse is true (Grin, 2005). The Commission considers that multilin-
gualism refers to both individual skills and the community.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 324/73

As the Commission itself fully recognises, its recommenda-
tion 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 gener-
ally have a culture of openness and tolerance extending over
several generations, which has been confirmed by several
European and Canadian studies.

arise

solely in the

h) With regard to the chapter dealing with translators and inter-
preters, the EESC draws attention to the fact that needs do
not
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 diversifica-
tion; 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 docu-
ment 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 globa-
lisation, would have provided scope for learning lessons
from the past.

Brussels, 26 October 2006.

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.

Lastly, the EESC urges the Commission to collate the
4.2
information which it has or could have at its disposal as regards
follow-up to the earlier
language policies pursued by the
Member States in order to be in a position to make an appraisal
of the actions to which it is committing the Member States.

the

The EESC acknowledges

4.3
efforts made by the
Commission and endorses its intentionally innovatory approach.
It supports linguistic diversity in its role as an instrument for
promoting cultural, social and political diversity and pluralism,
and is aware of the counter-productive risk that the use of a
limited number of
languages will be further institutionalised.
The EESC expects that, in connection with the next communica-
tion announced on this subject, a broader consultation of civil
society players will be carried out.

the Commission's

The EESC endorses

4.4
to
increase support for university research on higher education
under the 7th research framework programme and suggests
drawing not only on the university research but also on the
work carried out by the networks of associations that are
involved in the area (19).

initiative

In the Appendix to this opinion, the EESC sets out the proceed-
ings of the European Conference on Plurilingualism, which was
held in November 2005 by civil society organisations (20)
in
Institutes (21). The
conjunction with the Forum of Cultural
conference drew up a European Charter on Plurilingualism,
which was posted on the ASEDIFRES website for debate. This
association intends to present the charter to European parlia-
mentary and institutional representatives. In its role of ‘bridge
between civil society and institutions’, the EESC supports and
encourages such initiatives, as they constitute identified good
practice.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

(19) For example: Linguamón — Casa de les Llengües (House of
Languages), an organisation with the aim of protecting languages in
danger of extinction, linguamon@linguamon.cat; Babel, which is an
organisation that brings together translators and interpreters working
within international and regional social forums on a voluntary basis;
ASEDIFRES www.europe-avenir.com, the association which co-orga-
nised the European Conference on Plurilingualism held in November
2005.

(20) Details of participants, results and records of proceedings are posted

on the website mentioned in footnote 20.

(21) The forum comprises the following members: Alliance française,
Swedish Institute, Italian Language and Culture Centre, University of
London Institute in Paris, Camoes Institute, Cervantes Institute,
Finnish Institute, Goethe Institute, Hungarian Institute and Dutch
Institute
http://www.forumdeslangues.net.