languages in ‘‘the united nations of europe’’: debating a...
TRANSCRIPT
ORI GIN AL PA PER
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debatinga postwar language policy for Europe
Zorana Sokolovska1,2
Received: 21 September 2015 / Accepted: 8 September 2016
� Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016
Abstract The aim of this paper is to show that the current discourse on languages,
constructed as meaningful for Europe’s establishment and maintenance as a
geopolitical unit, is just the latest round in a much longer debate on managing the
diversity of languages taking place within the Council of Europe. From a critical
sociolinguistic perspective, this paper analyzes the debate on the ‘‘Establishment of
a European linguistic community based on the application of Anglo-French bilin-
gualism’’ that took place in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in
1953. This paper examines the emerging ideologies on Europe in the postwar period
and their interrelation with state ideologies through the lens of language ideologies.
I show the operationalization of languages as an instrument for reconciliation, for
establishing a European (linguistic) community, and for positioning it in the postwar
context. I highlight the terrains on which the opposition and alternative(s) to this
conception were constructed. Finally, I discuss to what extent this language ideo-
logical debate has inflected the development of the Council of Europe’s current
discourse on plurilingualism.
Keywords Ideologies � Council of Europe � Bilingualism � Language policy �postwar Europe
& Zorana Sokolovska
[email protected]; [email protected]
1 LiLPa - Faculte des Lettres, Universite de Strasbourg, 14 rue Descartes,
67084 Strasbourg Cedex, France
2 Institut de plurilinguisme, Universite de Fribourg, Rue de Morat 24, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland
123
Lang Policy
DOI 10.1007/s10993-016-9417-z
Introduction
‘‘If there is one language which Europe needs, that is plurilingualism.’’ This
statement appeared in a paper published online in 2014 by the Language Policy Unit
of the Council of Europe.1 This statement is also the leitmotiv of the discourse on
languages in and for Europe that has been produced and disseminated by the Council
of Europe (CoE) for decades now. The aim of this paper is to show that the current
discourse on languages, constructed as significant for Europe’s establishment and
maintenance as a geopolitical unit, is just the latest round in a much longer debate on
managing languages and their diversity within the CoE. This paper thus analyzes the
first language ideological debate that took place in the Parliamentary Assembly of the
CoE in the postwar period, in the year 1953, on the ‘‘Establishment of a European
linguistic community based on the application of Anglo-French bilingualism.’’ The
article focuses on the ideological articulation of the language question in Europe at
that time and the emerging initiative of establishing a European (linguistic)
community. The study shows the operationalization of languages as a means of
reconciliation and of the establishment of a peaceful community through commu-
nication and cooperation. It also points to the instrumentalization of languages for the
purpose of positioning Western Europe in the postwar period. At the same time, it
unveils how different languages and visions of supranational language policies were
used for promoting different ideological agendas of political positioning and what it
tells us about the current institutional discourse on languages in the CoE.
Languages had already emerged as a preoccupation in the early years of the
CoE’s existence as part of the debates on improving interstate cooperation. Indeed,
the CoE was the first platform for a cooperation based on shared humanist values
that was created, in the first phase, for Western European nation states in the wake
of World War II. The CoE thus broke with the ideology of difference and
superiority of states and peoples in the name of which the war was waged, aiming
for an interstate rapprochement and cooperation based not on those states’
differences, but on what they had in common. So since the first months of its
existence, the CoE started the construction of this ‘‘common’’ ground within the
debates on improving cooperation. The language question was raised within the
debates on setting and/or improving interstate cultural cooperation.
Within and since the development of the model of the European nation state in
the nineteenth century, languages have been considered as a distinctive mark of
different nation-states (Bauman and Briggs 2003). Following the CoE’s emphasis
on what European nation states have in common, languages had to become unifying
elements in the service of improving interstate cooperation. At the same time,
distinctive nation-state languages had to be preserved, as they were considered
constitutive of the diversity of languages. The interstate cooperation was to be
fulfilled while preserving the already existing diversity of languages. A commu-
nication solution thus needed to be found for a better interstate comprehension and
cooperation in spite of the diversity of languages.
1 The paper was a contribution to the celebration of the 60th anniversary of the European Cultural
Convention. http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/Source/Source2014/LPU-60ans_EN.pdf.
Z. Sokolovska
123
A solution for this situation was proposed in 1952: a first draft recommendation
for the ‘‘Establishment of a European linguistic community based on the application
of Anglo-French bilingualism’’ was tabled by a group of parliamentarians to the
Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE.2 The draft recommendation (Doc. 19, 1952)
emphasized the necessity of a common language to ‘‘establish a unity of outlook and
of culture as between the various Member States of the CoE, such as is essential to
the formation of any human community’’ and showcased the importance and
qualities of the French and English languages. The draft recommendation launched
an examination procedure, elaborating a second and third draft. Only the third one
was debated within the Parliamentary Assembly. The Parliamentary Assembly is the
highest authority to which the draft recommendation was submitted, providing the
conditions of possibility for the debate to take place in September 1953, a debate
which is the focus of this paper. The draft recommendation was debated but not
adopted.
Starting from the argument that institutional discourses on language issues are
fundamentally about other types of concerns and interests, which take place, for specific
reasons, within the scope of language (Cameron 1995; Duchene and Heller 2007), I raise
the question of which other kinds of issues and interests are related to the debate on
Anglo-French bilingualism and why language provides fertile ground for discussing
them. In particular, I will highlight the practices by which institutional and state actors
attempted to regulate language use, what they had to say on linguistic matters, and why
they said the sorts of things they did (Cameron 1995); the role and values attributed to
languages and bilingualism, by whom, with what interests, and what consequences; the
conditions under which language resources were made available and valuable and their
circulation and appropriation were encouraged (Heller 2011). My paper will thus
highlight the rise of the CoE as a privileged terrain for debating language diversity and
producing discourses aimed at equality by state actors whose specific interests reproduce
forms of inequality that were at the origin of the debates. Considering that the production
of ideas on European language diversity and plurilingualism that dominate current
debates are discursively—and thus ideologically—anchored in past debates (Blom-
maert 1999), my paper shows how a past language ideological debate can be meaningful
for understanding current ideological stances. Such a genealogical approach (Foucault
1971) allows one to grasp the continuity of the current CoE’s discourse on languages in
Europe in its relation to its discursive, thus ideological, anteriority (Duchene 2008), even
if terms of rupture (as the draft recommendation was not adopted).
Ideologies on linguistic diversity in Europe and its management and institution-
alization have already been the subject of investigation from several different
perspectives. Gal (2006, 2012) and Moore (2011, 2015) approach the institutional
standardization of diversity through the lens of language ideologies that contributed
to the creation of European nation-states. Truchot (2008) provides an overview of
the linguistic situation in Europe by examining the political, economic, and social
factors that have historically influenced languages and their usage in Europe.
Considering the deep entrenchment of the ideal of Nation-State in Europe, Wright
2 The CoE has two main organs: the Parliamentary Assembly (a consultative body) and the Committee of
Ministers (a decision-making body). I develop their interaction on p. 5.
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
(2000) investigates the linguistic dimension of the European integration. Using
critical discourse analysis methods, Krzyzanowski and Wodak (2011, 2013), Wodak
and Krzyzanowski (2011) and Suzanne Romaine (2013) also provide a critical
perspective on how language ideologies related to multilingualism are conceptu-
alized in the language policies of the European Union regarding its internal and
external communication. In their study on international agencies as new sites of
discourses on multilingualism, Muehlmann and Duchene (2007) have already
pointed to the fact that although these discursive spaces address language questions
on an international level, the nationalist perspective remains dominant and
continues to shape discourses on multilingualism Wright (2000).
Due to this first language ideological debate that took place within the
Parliamentary Assembly of the CoE, the Council could be considered as the first
European institutional discursive space where the language question was raised in the
wake of the Second World War. In this particular sociopolitical context, European
nation-states rehabilitated but also engaged themselves in the European construction.
In other words, European nation-states sought to reconstruct themselves politically
and economically as independent unities, but also in relation to each other. The latter
objective resulted in their engagement in the process of creating a shared European
economic and political space in the postwar period, supervised and controlled by the
winning powers. This paper thus examines the emerging ideologies on Europe as an
entity and their articulation with state ideologies through the lens of language
ideologies. The study of this particular debate allows me to focus on Europe in
particular, but also to situate it in the context of global politics.
I begin this paper with a brief historicization of the idea of the application of Anglo-
French bilingualism and present the form it has taken within the CoE. Next, I provide
an analysis of the construction of languages as an instrument for reconciliation and for
the establishment of a European (linguistic) community. In this section, I also highlight
the terrains on which the opposition and alternative to this conception were
constructed. Finally, I discuss to what extent this first language ideological debate
has influenced the development of the CoE’s discourse on plurilingualism.
The trajectory of the Anglo-French bilingualism initiative
The initiative for an Anglo-French bilingualism emerged in August 1951, when Jean-
Marie Bressand, a former area commander of the Resistance movement, launched Le
Monde Bilingue (‘‘The Bilingual World’’) and developed the framework of a linguistic
project whose main purpose was to maintain peace and unity in the world after the
horrors of World War II. When the association was founded, Bressand’s project had a
wider scope, aiming to generalize the teaching of one language for global communi-
cation to facilitate understanding between all peoples. But, given the complexity of the
project and his wish for an immediate solution, he later recommended the adoption of a
system that would, in theory, be less demanding: having people in English-speaking
countries learn French and those in French-speaking countries learn English, and letting
people in other countries choose one of the two languages in addition to their mother
tongue (Chevallier and Borga 1986).
Z. Sokolovska
123
The project for Anglo-French bilingualism in Europe was presented in several
institutional spaces on first a national and then an international level, attracting political
attention to the plan, which was immediately well received. In 1952, the Foreign Affairs
Committee of the French National Assembly adopted a report recommending the
establishment of Anglo-French bilingualism3; Andre Cornu, French State Secretary of
National Education and Fine Arts, presented his favorable opinion and a report to the
Council of Ministers in 1953; and last but not least, at the meeting of the Conference for
the Organisation of the Atlantic Community (Oxford, September 9–13, 1952), a motion
was unanimously adopted in the names of the fourteen representatives of the Atlantic
nations,4 recommending the use of French and English ‘‘to foster better understanding
between the New World and the Old’’ (Lahire 1954: 344).
In May 1952, Gerard Jaquet, who was both vice president of Le Monde Bilingue
and a substitute5 in the French delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, proposed the
project for discussion and adoption at the European level in the Parliamentary
Assembly of the CoE. The examination procedure of the draft recommendation took
place in the Committee on Scientific and Cultural Questions of the Parliamentary
Assembly and lasted for a year, during which the draft recommendation was amended
twice.6 On May 11, 1953, a large majority of the Committee on Scientific and Cultural
Questions expressed its approval of the proposed draft text in its third edition. With
thirteen votes to two and two abstentions, the text was adopted at the Commission
level. Following the institutional procedure, the rapporteur charged with studying the
issue drew up a report containing the draft recommendation and submitted it to the
Parliamentary Assembly for debate—which, if adopted, would be the last step before
the Committee of Ministers. The Committee of Ministers is the decision-making organ
of the CoE and adopts recommendations based on the recommendations made by the
Parliamentary Assembly. The Committee of Ministers’ recommendations are one of
the main forms of action of the CoE. As mentioned before, the draft recommendation
was not adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly and thus was neither examined nor
taken into consideration by the Committee of Ministers. The failure to adopt it is in this
sense revealing of a disagreement, and it conditions future discursive developments.
The draft recommendation that was submitted for debate to the Parliamentary
Assembly was the following:
Report | Doc. 179 | 10 September 19537
Establishment of a European linguistic community based on the application of
Anglo-French bilingualism
3 Le Monde, «La commission des affaires etrangeres adopte un projet de bilinguisme franco-anglais»,
29.03.1952. Online archives. Accessed on 17.03.2016.4 They were: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway,
Portugal, United Kingdom, United States, Greece, Turkey.5 Replacement member of the Assembly entitled to vote and speak only if duly designated by the national
delegation.6 The examination of the amendments is beyond the scope of this paper.7 Council of Europe. Parliamentary Assembly. Fifth ordinary session (Third part), September 13–26,
1953. Documents, Working Papers. Volume V. Doc. 179–219. Pages 919–1234, pg. 927.
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
A. Draft Recommendation
The Assembly,
Considering that, of all the obstacles which stand in the way of the establishment
of closer relations between the citizens of the different European nations,
linguistic barriers are certainly among the most important;
Considering that a common language would stimulate the development among
the different Member States of that elementary understanding of one another,
which is essential to the formation of any human community;
Considering that the ‘Conference for the Organisation of an Atlantic Community,
meeting at Oxford from 9th to 13th September, 1952, unanimously adopted in the
names of the 14 representatives of the Atlantic nations a motion recommending
the use of French and English as a means of fostering better understanding
between the New World and the Old;
Considering that Anglo-French bilingualism appears to be the only solution which
is calculated to improve the relations between the Continental Community and the
other Member States and at the same time carry over that improvement into the
relations among all the countries of the Atlantic Treaty and of the free world,
Recommends to the Committee of Ministers that all Member States be invited
a. formally to recognise a common auxiliary language for everyday use, which will
be French or English according to choice, the adoption of both languages together
being optional, such languages to be taught on essentially practical lines and
without prejudicing in any way either the study of other modern languages or, in
a general sense, that diversity which makes for the wealth of European culture;
b. to ensure that this agreement in principle should be given practical effect as
soon as possible, so that both in French and English-speaking countries and in
all other Member States of the CoE instruction be given in either French or
English in such a way as to enable every pupil to attain proficiency in one or
other of these languages at some stage during his or her school career.
Simultaneously to the institutional discourse on rapprochement and creation of
conditions for a cooperative relationship among citizens, languages were conceived
as an ‘‘obstacle’’ to the comprehension and the creation of a ‘‘human community.’’
At the same time, the diversity of languages is seen as a contributor to the ‘‘wealth
of European culture.’’ The idea is to be able to understand each other in the diversity
of languages and to form a community while preserving this diversity. The proposed
solution by the group of parliamentarians, led by Jaquet, was Anglo-French
bilingualism, as a common means of communication that would allow the
establishment of a European linguistic community. The draft recommendation not
only contained a proposal for the spread of the idea of a common means of
communication in Europe with the aim of creating a community, it also presented
the practicalities of application of this means of communication: a set of modalities
that were to be implemented in the language-teaching domain.
After being adopted by the Committee, the report was debated at the CoE’s
Parliamentary Assembly. In the institutional context of the CoE, the principal task
Z. Sokolovska
123
of the Parliamentary Assembly is to debate the reports from its committees and to
adopt resolutions, make recommendations, and reach opinions based on the draft
texts prepared by those committees. This discursive space is the public scene of the
emergence, convergence, and divergence of interests defended by its members, who
must be members of the parliaments of the member states they represent and
appointed by their national parliaments. It is possible to see members sometimes
cohering as national delegations, and on other occasions, as political groups formed
within the Assembly (Evans and Silk 2012). This underscores the essential
interdependence of international institutions and nation-states: international insti-
tutions are composed of the states that run them, which consequently raises the
question of how to manage state interests within an interstate institution (Duchene
2008).
Bilingualism as a means of reconciliation and establishmentof community
When the debate on Anglo-French bilingualism took place in the Parliamentary
Assembly of the CoE, fourteen European states were members of the CoE.8 Among
all the parliamentarians present (fifty-five according to the final vote), eleven
parliamentarians took part in the debate in order to express their support or
opposition to the adoption of this draft recommendation at the level of the
Parliamentary Assembly:
Name Delegation Stance
Mr. Hollis UK Rapporteur
Mr. Edert German Federal Republic (GFR) Against
Mr. von Friesen Sweden For
Mr. Wendelaar Netherlands Against
Mr. Schmal Netherlands Against
Mr. Jaquet France For
Mr. Heyman Belgium Against
Mr. van Naters Netherlands For
Mr. Skadegaard Denmark For
Mr. Loughman Ireland For
Mr. Erler GFR Against
The analysis of this debate will highlight the operationalization of languages as
an instrument of communication with the aim of achieving reconciliation and
8 They were Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden,
United Kingdom, Greece, Turley, Iceland, and the German Federal Republic.
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
establishing a European community.9 This language operationalization is to be
situated among the more general discourse on improving interstate cooperation and
bringing European states closer in the postwar context. The idea is to bring closer
not only states (or peoples or nations isomorphically linked to these states), but also
individuals:
Mr. Jaquet (France): Can there be any doubt, Ladies and Gentlemen, that a
solid and lasting unification of Europe depends on whether there will be
greater mutual understanding between our peoples?
If we wish our peoples to judge not only how far they still differ but, more
important, how they can draw closer together, they must be given the chance
to say what they have to say without intermediaries. We must encourage direct
human contacts, which alone are of real value and ensure that mutual
understanding shall no longer be the prerogative of the privileged few. Then
we shall see the true birth of a European brotherhood and a European
consciousness.
[…]
The proposed solution seems to me to be an effective method of strengthening
unity between our nations. By giving our peoples a chance of understanding
one another more clearly, we shall move much more rapidly towards that
European unity which surely is the dearest hope of all of us.
Mr. Loughman (Ireland): I view this question from the point of view of the
ordinary man in the street. I think it is even more important that the man in the
street should be able to discuss questions with people who are foreign to him
[…] This proposal, offering to a citizen of any country in Europe such an aid
to travel in other countries provided he learns one language other than his
native tongue, is one which should be taken very seriously […]
Mr. van der Goes van Naters (Netherlands): it [the proposal] will be of great
advantage in contacts between Europeans who are now meeting here- and
elsewhere in ever increasing numbers. It is not simply a question of public
speeches but particularly of those more intimate personal contacts which are
made in small committees. As an opportunity for genuine reconciliation these
can never be replaced by all the knowledge and virtuosity of the interpreters
[…]
The focus is thus also placed on the language needs of the ordinary
European individual, living in a reconstructed postwar society that offers oppor-
tunities for travelling and working abroad and, most of all, opportunities for meeting
new people with whom understanding should be possible.
The starting point in the operationalization of languages for creating an interstate
and interpersonal proximity is the identification of languages as ‘‘barriers.’’ This
conception of languages also appears in the introduction of the draft recommen-
dation that was the object of debate. Different speakers in the debate, whether
9 All excerpts are taken from the official translation of the Council of Europe (Doc. AS/SNR (5) 32—
PACECOM005015). The Council of Europe had/has two official working languages in which official
translation is provided: English and French.
Z. Sokolovska
123
supporters or opponents of the adoption of the draft recommendation, aligned
themselves with this conception of languages in Europe as ‘‘obstacles,’’ ‘‘barriers,’’
and ‘‘difficulties’’ for communication, comprehension, and thus rapprochement:
Mr. Edert (GFR): […] we all agree with the Committee that, of all the
obstacles which stand in the way of closer relations between the European
nations, linguistic barriers are the most important […]
Mr. Loughman (Ireland): There is little doubt that language difficulties, as
well as causing a multitude of complexities, hinder in a very positive way the
mixing of peoples - a mixing which is in my opinion essential if the aims of
the European Movement are to be achieved. A fundamental aim is ‘‘goodwill
and understanding’’ among the peoples of the European democracies. I can
imagine no greater barrier to this objective than that of language as it stands
to-day.
Mr. von Friesen (Sweden): Having been a supporter of this idea ever since it
was promoted, I think it is the most brilliant solution to a rather difficult
problem.
At the same time, drawing on the formulation of the draft recommendation
(Paragraph A, Doc. 179), the ‘‘diversity’’ of languages in Europe is identified as
a contributor to the ‘‘wealth of European culture.’’ One opponent and two promoters
of the idea of the application of Anglo-French bilingualism pick up on this
conception of diversity in the debate:
Mr. Edert (GFR): I believe - and I am happy to say that the Report also points
out - that diversity is fundamental to the wealth and development of European
culture. It may be that in order to form the United States of America it was
necessary to throw all the foreign newcomers into one big melting pot and to
ask them to learn English as the language of culture and of business. I think
that the United Nations of Europe will not be shaped in this way. The diversity
of cultures and of languages is the basis upon which cultural wealth will arise.
Mr. Hollis (United Kingdom): The wording of the Recommendation makes it
clear that it is not the intention of this Assembly in any way to prejudice the
study of other languages whose diversity is fundamental to the wealth and
development of European culture. With that re-assurance, I very greatly hope
that the Assembly will feel able to give its support to this Recommendation.
Mr. Jaquet (France): […] there can be no doubt that the veritable mosaic of
European languages is one of the most valuable, treasures of our cultural
heritage and must at all costs be preserved if we wish to avoid a decline in the
influence of our civilisation […]
The three parliamentarians propose a vision of languages as a part of European
cultural wealth and European culture—that is, as cultural elements to be preserved.
The diversity of languages is thus presented as a given, as a preexistent ‘‘common’’
that has to be preserved as it conditions the future. But still, it is important to be able
to communicate in this diversity to understand each other, to bring people closer,
and to cooperate.
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
In the discursive context of a preexistent diversity of languages that has to be
maintained and in which one should be able to communicate with each other in
order to cooperate, Anglo-French bilingualism is presented as a ‘‘practical solution’’
(Mr. von Friesen, Sweden) and a ‘‘remedy’’ (Mr. Jaquet, France), and English and
French as ‘‘useful’’ languages (Mr. Skadegaard, Denmark). It is also underlined that
‘‘the fundamental idea behind this resolution is that of efficiency’’ (Mr. van Naters,
Netherlands). Bilingualism is thus essentially conceived as an instrument of
communication and a means of ensuring comprehension and proximity. It is
conceived as a common means of communication amongst a group of people, and
thus as a unifying element of this people, as both the basis and the condition for the
establishment of a European (linguistic) community.
The parliamentarians conceived the language situation in Europe at that time as a
mosaic of languages belonging to territories that were both precisely geographically
delimited and linguistically homogeneous. These territories were categorized as
French-speaking countries, non-French-speaking countries, English-speaking coun-
tries, or non-English-speaking countries, and their citizens were assumed to be
intrinsically monolingual. Moreover, these territories lay to the east of the Iron
Curtain, on the other side of which the Russian language was spoken and another set
of political beliefs circulated. So the European linguistic community was to be
achieved on the territory of Western Europe, and on the (Western European) North–
South axis:
Mr. Skadegaard (Denmark): The English language is predominant in most
parts of the world. It is the language of the northern part of Europe. […] On
the other hand, the French language is predominant in the southern part of
Europe, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey and in parts of Western Europe. I do not
think that it would be possible in our general European discussions to find two
languages more useful than those recommended.
[…] I think that it would be most difficult to choose either the French or
English language because of the differences between them, one being Roman
and the other being Saxon. In my view it would be more practical if we were
to adopt the language used either in the southern part or the northern part of
Europe.
Mr. van der Goes van Naters (Netherlands): What is at stake? A regularisation
and standardisation which should appeal to every true European looking for
practical results.
Now the starting point of this system is the fact that there are some countries
and areas in Europe which find it easier to speak a Germanic language and
others where a Romance language is preferred.
Thus the real significance of this proposal is that it is quite sufficient to choose
one language from each of these two groups. In the first, the choice has fallen
upon English, as the most widely spoken language in the world; in the other
upon French, as a language which has exerted a powerful influence not only in
so-called Latin Europe but even in my own native country.
The North–South dichotomy is associated with the Germanic-Romance lan-
guages dichotomy in logic of complementarity. Consequently, English and French,
Z. Sokolovska
123
which are conceived as representative of these language groups were denoted as
representative of the Europe in which the linguistic community needs to be
established. The choice of two languages implied that there was room left for a
choice between these two languages (which is at the same time a limitation).
Another argument used to justify the adoption of two languages instead of one,
English or French, is the will to avoid ‘‘imperialism’’:
Mr. Jaquet (France): […] I do not think it right to choose a single common
language for this savours too much of a certain type of imperialism.
The will to avoid a type of imperialism enables on the one hand a distinction to
be made in terms of language, political practices, and policies from the other side of
the Iron Curtain and to associate the idea of bilingualism with the idea of liberty (of
‘‘choice’’):
Mr. Jaquet (France): […] the proposal is not ideal, we are told, for we are
asking States which speak neither English nor French to choose one or the
other, whereas they should adopt both if there is to be universal understanding.
But this is one of the main advantages of Anglo-French bilingualism
compared with a singles (sic) language system of the type now existing on the
other side of the Iron Curtain.
Following several years of research, official consultations and opinion polls,
we have arrived at a synthesis of views which takes account of special cases
and established educational systems.
Our findings are that the simultaneous teaching of French and English will
present no difficulties in some countries, whereas others would allow their
nationals a free choice - a perfect method of avoiding an overloaded
curriculum while ensuring instruction in both languages. It is a remarkable fact
that, if this formula were adopted, everybody could make himself understood
everywhere.
On the other hand, the will to avoid imperialism would more precisely be a will
to avoid the imperialism of the English language in Europe. Indeed, the very first
draft recommendation that Jaquet tabled (Doc. 19, 1952) indicated that
since the last war English has acquired a de facto privileged position in
Europe.
The central place that the English language started to occupy in language
teaching in the Western European countries was also brought up during the debate:
Mr. Jaquet (France): Let me take France as an example: Since the Liberation,
French secondary education has seen English sweep the floor before other
languages such as German and Italian.
Mr. Heyman (Belgium): I think I am correct in saying that even in Belgium
there is much more eagerness to learn English than there was in our youth. At
that time French was the only language taught, except in one part of our
Eastern provinces where, it was replaced by German owing to economic and
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
commercial links with Germany. Recently, however, English has become
established.
I am inclined to think that the same applies to the Netherlands. One has only to
listen to speeches by the Netherlands Representatives to realize that they speak
excellent English.
In this sense, the drafting of the motion could also be interpreted as an attempt to
control the expansion of English in Europe—while acknowledging its importance—
and thus helping to prevent the linguistic, political, and ideological dominance of
the United States. It could also be interpreted as a means of sustaining the hegemony
of French. The establishment of the Anglo-French community would create a terrain
for the official regulation of these two languages, for their coexistence and co-
practice.
The supporters of the draft recommendation aimed at the creation of a European
community in the sense of a group of Western European countries located both in
the North and South that would have Anglo-French bilingualism as a common
means of communication. The concept of one common language for one territory,
which was already considered the cradle of European culture (conceptualized as a
common heritage composed of state heritages) echoes Herder’s nineteenth-century
unifying concept of language (Woolard 1998; Wright 2000; Bauman and Briggs
2003). In this specific case, it is the establishment of a community on a European
level, ‘‘European’’ standing for Western, Northern, and Southwestern Europe. In
this sense, the necessary unifying component—according to the arguments made by
the promoters of Anglo-French bilingualism—would be the adoption of English
and/or French as a common means of communication. The European community
could be established by the direct understating of (one of) these common languages,
with institutionally standardized and regularized usage. The regularization and
standardization of the language situation in Europe, by normalizing and universal-
izing the usage of both English and French, could thus be viewed as an attempt to
implement a European language policy, a case in which authorities seek—by
whatever means necessary—to shape a sociolinguistic profile for their society and
reduce sociolinguistic complexity to a ‘‘workable’’ level (Blommaert 1996).
The CoE is in this way assigned the role of not just political but also linguistic
representative of the European community to be constructed, the idea of a bilingual
community on a European level being a replica of the institutional linguistic
functioning based on the official usage of English and French. However, the stakes
of the establishment of a community went beyond intra-European (and) linguistic
interests. The establishment of a European (linguistic) community was also
supposed to allow the member states of the CoE to be able to position themselves in
relation to the emerging ‘‘Continental community’’ (the European Steal and Coal
Community, ancestor of the European Union) and the Atlantic community, and also
to foster ‘‘better understanding between the New World and the Old’’ (Doc. 179):
Mr. Jaquet (France): Allow me for a moment to trespass beyond the confines
of the Council of Europe and voice the hope that Anglo-French bilingualism
may extend not only throughout free Europe but also to all the free nations of
the old and new worlds.
Z. Sokolovska
123
This also meets Bressand’s initial project, which was the adoption of a common
means of communication worldwide.
Oppositions and alternatives
The idea of establishing a European (linguistic) community, as conceived by the
supporters of the draft recommendation, was not favorably received by all
parliamentarians.
The representative of the German Federal Republic, Mr. Edert, speaking ‘‘on
behalf of […] German friends of all parties,’’ particularly insisted on the
consideration of the linguistic interests of the future members of the CoE coming
from Central and Eastern Europe, where German had historically been and still was
being taught, although it had been replaced in some countries by Russian.
Mr. Edert (GFR): I fear that the Committee has considered the problem from
one side only, namely, from the Western point of view […] But there is also an
Eastern Europe which will, in the future, it is hoped, be united to the West. In
the East, beginning from the River Elbe in Eastern Germany, Poland,
Hungary, Yugoslavia and all the countries which once belonged to the Crown
of Austria, German was the predominant language, whereas Russian is now
the predominant language. I learn that Yugoslavia, for instance, has just
introduced German as a language to be learned in the schools. I learn also that
Roumania (sic) established 542 new schools in which German is taught. In the
whole of Eastern Germany the children have learned Russian during the last
seven years, and I think that they will go on learning Russian even when
Eastern and Western Germany are reunited, at least in all the areas bordering
Russia.
[…] Is it not possible that the Eastern European nations might see in this one-
sided recommendation - to put it diplomatically - a relic of Western
imperialism in regard to language? Might it not even prevent them from
joining us - in which case the Recommendation will do more harm than good.
It is hard to say whether Edert’s statement was aimed at postponing the decisions
on Anglo-French bilingualism, since he was opposed to it, or whether he firmly
believed in the unification of Europe, without limiting it to Western Europe, given
that this unification could be beneficial to reestablishing the importance of the
German language. Moreover, his intervention is the collective expression of an
opposition to the idea of Anglo-French bilingualism, made ‘‘on behalf of […]
German friends of all parties.’’ This opposition rejects the idea of Anglo-French
bilingualism, while it constructs the study of ‘‘all foreign languages’’ as an
acceptable solution, especially in the light of the aim of the future unification of all
European countries:
Mr. Edert (GFR): Believe me, there is no lack of good will in what I say. We
see this problem not from the national point of view but from the European
point of view, that is to say, including Eastern Europe. If the Council of
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
Europe would summon us to promote the study of all foreign languages, my
German friends would stand in the front rank to support the demand; but with
regard to this problem of bilingualism, my friends and myself feel that the
time is not yet ripe for a final solution, and we feel that this very complicated
and very delicate problem should be studied anew before we deal with it.
At the same time, he proposed Esperanto as an alternative:
Mr. Edert (GFR): […] From the point of view of all the countries speaking
neither French nor English, I must say that if a common auxiliary language for
every-day use is needed, choose one, not two.
Take basic English - if you like - take Esperanto, the only auxiliary language
for every-day use, so far as I can see. I do not speak Esperanto, I do not know
it, but I know that nearly 900,000 individuals a short time ago sent a petition to
the United Nations asking for the introduction of Esperanto. That petition was
signed by the President of the French Republic, by the Prime Minister of the
Netherlands and by many other bearers of famous names all over Europe and
the rest of the world. There must be som[e]thing in it, and I wonder why the
Committee has not considered this method of getting out of the difficulty.
This proposed solution indicates his individual preference for Esperanto, as he
put forward ‘‘the study of all foreign languages’’ in the name of ‘‘[his] German
friends [that] would stand in the front rank to support the demand.’’ Esperanto, as a
constructed language aiming to fulfill an auxiliary function, could correspond to the
‘‘common auxiliary language for everyday use’’ that the draft recommendation
encourages.10 The development of Esperanto was guided by its creator’s vision of a
reconciled and egalitarian humanity, beyond linguistically based nationalities that
he saw as the cause of much hostility in the world. The fact that a German
parliamentarian proposed this alternative solution in the postwar context could be
interpreted as a means of securing a place for Germany in an Esperanto-reconciled
and egalitarian postwar European context.
Both supporters and opponents of the idea of Anglo-French bilingualism
expressed opposition to Esperanto as follows:
Mr. Wendelaar (Netherlands): M. Edert had suggested that they should
recommend Esperanto; this was an attractive idea but there were many
difficulties. He pointed out that if an Italian and a Norwegian were both
speaking Esperanto they would probably find themselves in difficulties
because of their differing accents.
[…]
There was another difficulty with Esperanto, which was that its dictionary was
very small. […] Furthermore, it seemed unlikely that Esperanto was a good
language for literature; he knew of no good Esperanto writer and no good
Esperanto books.
10 Esperanto language was elaborated by Ludwig Zamenhof and presented in a brochure that was firstly
published in 1887.
Z. Sokolovska
123
Mr. Skadegaard (Denmark): With regard to Esperanto, I cannot see any
possibility of using this language. One can imagine the difficulties that would
arise in this Assembly if representatives of seventeen nations started speaking
to each other in Esperanto. We know the difficulty experience in using Latin.
We have our own pronunciation which makes it impossible to understand one
another in a dead language. Why, then, should we now introduce a new
language in addition to those which we have already instead of choosing living
languages when addressing one another?
Mr. Loughman (Ireland): I examined such proposals as Esperanto sympathet-
ically, but I could not see in them the seeds of success.
The opposition argument was constructed on the artificiality of Esperanto as a
language, hence reproducing ideologies of language as linked to cultural production
(and also arguably national identity) and ideologies of standardized language that is
characterized by a legitimate pronunciation.
Another question raised by the German parliamentarian was the one of the
preexisting inequalities in learning English or French for people who did not have
one of those two languages as their mother tongue:
Mr. Edert (GFR): But difficulties arise as soon as this principle is extended to
nations which are not beati possidentes - which cannot boast either French or
English as their mother tongue. If an Italian, for example, has acquired a
certain knowledge of one of the two languages, let us say French, to the extent
that he can order a dinner, and if the waiter, a Norwegian, has unfortunately
chosen the other half of the bilingualism, they will not understand a word; all
their efforts will have been in vain.
Mr. Wendelaar (Netherlands): […] if there were two subsidiary languages
then it was quite possible, as M[r]. Edert had pointed out, that cases where
understanding was impossible would arise.
The adoption of Anglo-French bilingualism would thus create conditions for
revalorizing English and French, which would lead to a differentiation of languages
in their utility, institutionally already considered since the first draft recommen-
dation in terms of ‘‘virtues’’ (qualites in the French version) and ‘‘privileged
position’’:
Considering that since the last war English has acquired a de facto privileged
position in Europe,
Considering that the French language, by virtue of its clarity, logic and
precision, remains a tool essential to the formation of a federation of States
uniting to defend a particular form of thought and culture and their own
conception of freedom (Doc. 19, 1952).
Given that this type of language differentiation plays a major role in the
constitution of social inequalities and the shaping of social reality (Philips 2004),
the discourse on Anglo-French bilingualism, aimed at equality, would pave the way
for new social inequalities. It would grant English and French the status of
legitimate languages (Bourdieu 1982) for everyday communication and accord
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
privileges while categorizing its legitimate or illegitimate speakers. Anglo-French
bilingualism could turn out to be a way of categorizing languages and speakers, and
thus a source of linguistic and social hierarchization, in opposition to the idea of
bringing individuals and states together.
Finally, the considered practicalities for setting up the instrument of commu-
nication and for the establishment of a European linguistic community did not win
unanimous support among the opponents. The opposition was particularly expressed
in opposition towards the idea of learning a foreign language at primary school.
This highlights the contemporary conception of language learning in primary school
as a difficulty and an overload for the pupils:
Mr. Edert (GFR): […] we doubt - and that is the other point on which we
principally differ from the majority of the Committee - a doubt already
mentioned by Mr. Hollis, whether any language, either French, or English, or
German or Russian, will become a common auxiliary language for every-day
use if it is taught in the elementary schools, because each of these living
languages is too difficult. The great mass of the population in every country
will not be able to learn a second language which they can use in every-day
life.
Mr. Wendelaar (Netherlands): replied that11 as the Recommendation said that
all pupils should, (sic) be proficient in one of these languages this would, in the
case of the Netherlands, include pupils in primary schools; he thought that this
was asking too much. He was afraid that most pupils in primary schools would
be incapable of learning French or English up to the standards required - it was
hard enough to teach them Dutch - and this was not surprising considering that
many of them were only at school for six or seven years.
Mr. Heyman (Belgium): […] the first task of elementary education is to give
pupils a thorough knowledge of their mother tongue, and there can be no
question of teaching them a second language until this knowledge is well
advanced.
This conception of early language learning as a difficulty could also provide an
explanation of why plurilingualism was not encouraged as a communication
solution in this specific sociohistorical moment. The conception of ‘‘living
languages’’ as ‘‘too difficult’’ (M. Edert, GFR) justifies his proposal for learning
Esperanto (p. 14).
The CoE’s lack of expertise in the (language) education field was also
underlined, especially by the rapporteur:
Mr. Hollis (United Kingdom): We [several Commission members] did not feel
it was our business as the Council of Europe to take an opinion one way or the
other on this purely technical question of how and at what stage this education
in languages should take place. We felt that it might well be that the
educational experts would think it was within our province to urge the
adoption of measures which in general would help international amity, but that
11 Official translation of the interpretation of this intervention.
Z. Sokolovska
123
it was beyond our province to attempt in any kind of way to dictate to them the
details of that method of education.
Mr. Heyman (Belgium): […] I would suggest that the teaching profession be
consulted.
Mr. Hollis (United Kingdom): We are not educational experts, and we shall
make ourselves look ridiculous if we try to dictate to the educational experts at
what precise stage in their scholastic career children should be taught
languages. […] we have left this vague on purpose, because we considered
that that matter was one for the educational authorities, rather than the Council
of Europe, to settle.
To sum up, the opposition to bilingualism as a communication solution to the
diversity of languages in Europe was concerned with rejecting the conception of
languages only as an instrument of communication; refusing to accept English and
French, and finally a mistrust regarding pupils’ capacities to learn a foreign
language in primary school. The lack of expertise in the CoE on the language-
teaching field was also highlighted (a domain in which the institution would invest
considerably from the 1960s onward (Sokolovska 2016)). With thirty-one votes in
favor, forty-one against, and four abstentions, the motion was referred back to the
Committee on Scientific and Cultural Questions for further study. Jaquet proposed
two other drafts of the motion, which were not accepted. It was impossible to reach
an agreement as to which language(s) should be adopted as an auxiliary means of
communication, and at which educational level the language(s) should be taught. As
a consequence, after one last discussion and vote on quitting the debate (eleven
votes for, two against, and one abstention), the Committee decided to withdraw the
draft recommendation and to request the Chairman to ask the Assembly to have it
removed from the agenda.
Conclusions
The motion for recommendation and the ensuing debate on the ‘‘Establishment of a
European linguistic community based on the application of Anglo-French
bilingualism’’ are symptomatic of the early emphasis placed by European states
on regulating and managing language issues in Europe and aiming at the
improvement of interstate cooperation in the postwar period. The postwar context
was used as a justifying argument for the need for a supranational language policy
based on the idea of a means of communication common to a group of individuals,
who, united by this common element, would form a European (linguistic)
community. For this aim, Anglo-French bilingualism was conceived as a means
for reconciliation and as a means for establishing a community, while preserving the
diversity of languages, which was conceived as cultural wealth.
For the supporters of Anglo-French bilingualism, the establishment of a
European (linguistic) community would regroup Western, Northwestern, and
Southwestern Europe. Those would be represented by the emblematic languages of
two major language groups on that territory, Germanic and Romance. The creation
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
of this community would at the same time allow the CoE’s member states to
position themselves as a united community in relation to other established or
emerging political and economic blocs, notably Eastern Europe and the United
States. While seeking to avoid linguistic and political imperialism by proposing
both English and French as a common means of communication, the proposal on the
application of Anglo-French bilingualism can be seen as an attempt to implement a
means of controlling the increasing imperialism of English and as a means of
maintaining the existing, but decreasing, imperialism of the French language.
The opponents of the idea of Anglo-French bilingualism expressed their
disapproval for the idea of the establishment of a (linguistically) restricted
community; they put forward the argument that this would create unequal
conditions for speakers whose mother tongue was neither English nor French and
rallied against the modalities of the application of bilingualism, specifically the need
to start learning a foreign language at primary school. This part of the discussion
created the terrain for problematizing the expertise of the CoE in the field of
education.
If the application of Anglo-French bilingualism was perceived not only as a mere
communication solution but also as a political solution for controlling English and
maintaining French, then the encouragement of the study of ‘‘all foreign
languages’’—or even Esperanto, as suggested by the German parliamentarian—
would be a political solution for maintaining all languages on an equal footing.
Following this line of thought, the preservation of European linguistic diversity
would not only be meaningful for its contribution to the safeguarding of European
cultural heritage, but it would also constitute a way for nation-states to preserve
their distinctive mark and a terrain for pursuing their linguistic and political
interests. One can conclude that the consistent reproduction of nation-state interests
puts into question (or even sets aside) the interests of a European community as a
geopolitical unit. The debate is also an indicator of the place of English teaching and
learning in Europe. Although the contemporary concern with the hegemony
of English teaching and learning in Europe in the context of the new globalized
economy may seem recent, this case shows that it had already emerged as a
preoccupation and object of control in the 1950s.
The debate—and most certainly the failure to adopt the draft recommendation—
provided a first argument against the very idea of one common language of
communication in Europe for the next period of language debates within the CoE.
Another argument was the failure of the debates on teaching Esperanto that emerged
in the second half of the 1950s in the Parliamentary Assembly, building on the lack
of compromise on the choice of a living language during the debates on Anglo-
French bilingualism. The end of the 1950s marks the end of the debates on
promoting a unique common means of international, i.e., intra-European
communication. Since the beginning of the 1960s, the CoE has invested in a
discourse on pluralization and diversification in relation to language teaching and
learning. In this regard, the analysis of this debate brings to light the early stages of
the process of construction and legitimation of the CoE’s historical predilection for
a discourse on language diversity and on developing individual plurilingual
competences as a part of the discourse on unifying Europe. In the light of past
Z. Sokolovska
123
logics, today’s concept of plurilingualism, defined as a degree of communicative
ability developed in a number of languages over the lifetime and according to one’s
needs12, could be nuanced and be interpreted as a win–win linguistic solution,
allowing nation-states to keep their prerogatives by encouraging the study of their
official languages and allowing individuals to have, theoretically, unlimited freedom
in choosing other languages to learn. The analysis of this debate also constitutes a
contribution to the understanding of a specific historical moment and the shaping of
language ideologies in a postwar context, from a Western European perspective. It
highlights the way in which language ideologies were articulated with the initiative
of an equality oriented state and European (re)construction, while at the same time,
they were a terrain for (re)producing language/linguistic and social inequalities.
Acknowledgments I would like to express my special gratitude to Alexandre Duchene, Bonnie
McElhinny and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on the previous draft of this article. A
warm thank you to Dominique Huck and Alfonso Del Percio for the discussions that nourished my
reflection.
References
Bauman, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity language ideologies and the politics of
inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Blommaert, J. (1996). Language planning as a discourse on language and society: The linguistic ideology
of a scholarly tradition. Language Problems and Language Planning, 20(3), 199–222.
Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is Open. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp.
1–38). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire: l’economie des echanges linguistiques. Paris: Fayard.
Cameron, D. (1995). Verbal hygiene. London: Routledge.
Chevallier, J. M. & Borga, C. (1986). «Du ‘monde bilingue’ a l’education bilingue». La Revue
administrative, 39e Annee, No. 231 (MAI JUIN 1986, pp. 264–70). Presses Universitaires de
France.
Duchene, A. (2008). Ideologies across nations: The construction of linguistic minorities at the United
Nations. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Duchene, A., & Heller, M. (2007). Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defense of
languages. London: Continuum.
Evans, P., & Silk, P. (2012). The Parliamentary Assembly: Practice and procedure (11th ed.). Strasbourg:
Council of Europe Publishing.
Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications for the study of practices and
publics. Social Anthropology, 14(2), 163–181.
Gal, S. (2012). Sociolinguistic regimes and the management of ‘Diversity’. In M. Heller & A. Duchene
(Eds.), Language in late capitalism: Pride and profit (pp. 22–37). New York: Routledge.
Heller, M. (2011). Paths to post-nationalism: A critical ethnography of language and identity. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2011). Political strategies and language policies: The European Union
Lisbon strategy and its implications for the EU’s language and multilingualism policy. Language
Policy, 10, 115–136.
Krzyzanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2013). Dynamics of multilingualism in post-Enlargement EU
institutions: Perceptions, conceptions and practices. In A.-C. Berthoud, F. Grin, & G. Ludi (Eds.),
Exploring the dynamics of multilingualism: The DYLAN project Multilingualism and diversity
management (MDM) (Vol. 2, pp. 205–231). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
12 Council of Europe. Education and Languages, Language Policy http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/linguistic/
division_EN.asp? (last accessed September 28, 2016).
Languages in ‘‘the United Nations of Europe’’: debating a…
123
Lahire, F. (1954). «Ethique bilingue». La Revue administrative, 7e Annee, No. 39 (JUIN 1954,
pp. 343–45). Presses Universitaires de France.
Moore, R. (2011). Standardisation, diversity and enlightenment in the contemporary crisis of EU
language policy. Working Papers in Language and Literacies, 74, 1–31.
Moore, R. (2015). From revolutionary monolingualism to reactionary multilingualism: Top-down
discourses of linguistic diversity in Europe, 1794-present. Language and Communication, 44,
19–30.
Muehlmann, S., & Duchene, A. (2007). Beyond the nation-state: International agencies as new sites of
discourses on bilingualism. In M. Heller (Ed.), Bilingualism: A social approach (pp. 96–110).
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Philips, S. (2004). Language and social inequality. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic
anthropology (pp. 474–495). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Romaine, S. (2013). Politics and policies of promoting multilingualism in the European Union. Language
Policy, 12, 115–137.
Sokolovska, Z. (2016). Imagining Europe’s linguistic diversity in the Council of Europe’s parliamentary
assembly. Language & Communication. doi:10.1016/j.langcom.2016.07.004.
Truchot, C. (2008). Europe: L’enjeu LINGUISTIQUE. Paris: La Documentation Francaise.
Wodak, R., & Krzyzanowski, M. (2011). Language in political institutions of multilingual states and the
European Union. In B. Kortmann & J. V. D. Auwera (Eds.), The languages and linguistics of
Europe a comprehensive guide (pp. 621–639). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Woolard, K. (1998). Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, & P.
Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–49). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Wright, S. (2000). Community and communication: The role of language in nation state buildingnad
European integration. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Zorana Sokolovska has a PhD in sociolinguistics at the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) and the
University of Strasbourg (France). Her main research interests are language ideologies, institutions and
discourse, language and power, and plurilingualism. Together with Alfonso Del Percio, she co-edited a
special issue of Language and Communication, entitled ‘‘Discourses of diversity’’, to be published in
2016.
Z. Sokolovska
123