European parliament working paper

Annex 3

Other material associated with the conclusions and recommendations of the Report

After the desk research and the interviews with the key players it should be kept in mind that the acceptance of and knowledge about regional and minority languages is (with the exception of a well-informed in-group) as good as inexistent. Because of a lack of sufficient information on these languages they are often considered to be useless side issues, and as a result they are not allowed as a working language within the EU or even in national institutions. By cutting the specific minority language related budget line the EU has abandoned a direct funding possibility of a valuable part of its cultural and language diversity, in spite of the fact that a positive discrimination in the form of extra programmes for those groups, notably the minority speech communities, is indispensable. Therefore it can, on the basis of this part of the Report, be concluded that:

(1) the future promotion of regional and minority languages demands a specific programme and

(2) future actions on regional and minority languages need to be embedded in an overall transparent multicentric language policy which does not exclude regional and minority languages.

In what follows recommendations are given that could help to counter the inadequacies that are highlighted in both conclusions. Parts of these recommendations draw on information obtained from both the desk research and the interviews.

Such a programme should also – in the course of the programmes on the various mother tongues as envisaged by EU-Commissioner Viviane Reding – be laid down as an appendix to the European Year of Languages. Concrete recommendations are as follows:

1. The programme must have common interfaces in a way with other EU-programmes. An example is the MLIS Programme that clearly displayed such overlaps. This proves to be the only way to generate synergic effects and to inter-link regional and minority languages with the majority languages in a more effective way. It is hard to understand why in the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF-FEDER)²¹⁷ no references are made to regional and minority languages.

2. The size of eligible projects has to be adapted to the reality of the social demand of small regional and minority language groups, which means that there is a need for smaller projects, for smaller but more numerous grants and for a regularity in the calls for proposals.

3. A true representation of the minority membership and recognised outside specialists should be included in both planning, administration and implementation of projects.

4. An up-to-date situational assessment of minority activities, services and needs should precede any project planning.

5. Experienced and qualified EU staff should be available to help to prepare and monitor the projects. This also means that training should be offered to local communities in coping with EU matters.
b. Recommendations for an over-arching multicentric European language policy
As stated in the Introduction to this Report, there is a clear need for the Union to take stock of the varied aspects of language policy and to integrate them into a coherent whole.

In view of a European language policy especially the interviews with the key players have made clear that the needs of the language groups in Europe are so heterogeneous that a single uniform language policy cannot please all ethnolinguistic and minority groups. Consequently the aim should be a multicentric language policy.

A possible way towards such a multicentric language policy is – in accordance with the findings of the Euromosaic-study - the concept of community development that was extensively influenced by contact linguistics. The concept of community development is strongly related to the minority-linked autochthonous linguistic and regional politics. The autochthonous minority speech communities are characterised by an economically and in many cases also a geographically marginal situation. But still they manage to develop their own dynamic. As a consequence of the decreasing importance of nation states these communities have to meet social responsibilities as an autonomous system. One of the major tasks of a multicentric language policy is to be found in the support of the further development of these communities as autonomous systems against the background of local, regional and global challenges. The European principles of subsidiarity, cross-border mobility and the promotion of peripheral areas make clear that regions in the course of their development are not only in need of administratively-differentiated concepts but also need such concepts that are directed towards an advancement of the collective awareness of the community. The concept of community development thereby consciously focuses on such domains as media, legislation, education, economy or advertising that are operationalised for a specific minority. By means of the involvement of language planning experts whose task it is to inform and train representatives of the communities the concept ultimately aims at a greater self-sustainment for the communities in question.

A corresponding language policy also aiming at strengthening communities should then follow some fundamental principles:

1. Many monolinguals think that in bilingual countries all citizens speak two languages. Bilingualism, however, can also mean that two languages exist side by side and enjoy - in theory, at least - the same status and the same rights. This, so-called institutionalised multilingualism is a consequence of the territoriality principle, where people living in a region declared monolingual by the authorities in charge are obliged to use the regional language, at least for official communication. The territoriality principle is to be distinguished from the individuality principle. The latter allows each speaker to use his or her mother or other tongue in all official and private domains, regardless of where he or she lives. With regard to EU-programmes this means that particularly programmes on the European level for economic regional development should match the needs of regional and minority languages in such a way that these languages have a chance of continuing to be, or recovering the status of, a language of business in their region.

2. Positive discrimination in favour of language minorities should become the focus of attention - an aspect, which could be most favourable for the language minorities of a future Europe. Positive discrimination means granting more rights and advantages to minorities than they would be entitled to according to the proportional system so that they can develop a linguistic reproduction potential, which is comparable to that of the majority. As far as asymmetric and particularly institutionalised multilingualism as described above is concerned, the structure of the educational system should, if necessary, explicitly promote the minority which should be given a chance to produce similar results as the majority. In practice, this might imply accepting smaller classroom numbers for speakers of smaller languages in schools, or providing salary bonuses to teachers confronted with special requirements. Minority students should enjoy more rights and advantages, because they are weaker in terms of social prestige and number. Un this way they will gain equal chances of advancement in the long run. A specific budget line for regional and minority languages could be easily derived from this.

Migrant and autochthonous groups, both territorial and otherwise, predominantly experience the same negative effects of a European environment, which has, in the past, granted comparatively poor status to their languages and cultures. They share a common disadvantage with respect to the dominant group and linguistic ideology in each country, and to this extent co-operation between these groups would seem to be in their common interest, with a view to the acknowledgement of linguistic rights. This kind of co-operation seems reasonable, given that similar disadvantages call for common solutions. The new, often socially defined minorities such as the aforementioned migrants, guest workers, returnees, persons repatriated, re-settlers, refugees, emigrants and trans-migrants undoubtedly find themselves at the heart of European politics. All these groups have produced a new consciousness among minority populations, and the spin-off for the autochthonous communities studied in this Report can only be beneficial. Other factors also play in favour of the regional or minority language communities:

 The impact of new trends such as a renaissance of dialects and minority languages;

 A new, regional consciousness, aimed at smaller units - like the ‘small is beautiful’ movements of the sixties and seventies -, which have succeeded in attracting more and more attention on the part of researchers, politicians and those in charge of cultural matters regarding socio-culturally significant minorities, which meanwhile strongly affects economic policy as well, is undisputable, if Europe is to be culturally viable.

In summary, the desk research and the interviews lead to the conclusion that in the main, and with notable exceptions, DG Education and Culture, in particular, is acting according to the principles of European diversity, but that the language question is not explicitly followed in most programmes on the European level. Little or no information can be obtained at the central European level for many such programmes, given that decision-making is brought down to the level of the Member State in application of the subsidiarity principle. The result is a situation of insecurity on the European and national level where information could be obtained and where decisions are made.

Therefore one of the tasks of the European Parliament could be to work towards the building up of a clear organisational structure for the promotion of regional and minority languages.