Supranational uses

A 1991 study (Labrie, 1993) showed that for communication among themselves 63% of Commission officials used French and 33% English. However, for contacts with officials or experts from the Member States, the figures were 22% French and 31% English for oral communication and 6% French and 59% English for written communication.

Vast areas of semi-internal and external communication have opened up and are continuing to grow with the implementation of the Single Act in 1993, the extension of responsibilities as a result of the Treaties of Maastricht in 1992 and Amsterdam in 1997, the enlargement of 1995 and that anticipated over the next few years.

The European Commission wields an increasing number of administrative and managerial responsibilities: single market, common agricultural policy, programmes. These areas of communication usually fall outside the official linguistic arrangements and even the internal arrangements. The actual linguistic practices in those areas are not very well known but English is believed to be very widely used. This happens with the increasingly numerous working meetings attended by representatives of the Member States. It also happens in the case of meetings of experts: the institutions organise some 4,000 meetings every year, 75% of which do not have simultaneous interpretation.

Many reports are commissioned from consultants, who are generally asked to work in English. Programmes, too, tend to be administered in English. For relations with non-member countries, French is used with French-speaking Africa, Spanish with Latin America and English with large parts of the rest of the world. Relations with the institutions of individual states are normally conducted in the languages of those states. Because of the time needed for translation, however, the primary texts are often circulated just as they were drafted, in French and English. Reports by experts and consultants circulate in the language in which they were drafted.

English is not a mandatory supranational language. But there is a tendency to make it so. This is very clearly the case in the EU institutions despite genuine efforts to encourage plurilingualis m. In the many other institutional co-operation bodies which are appearing in Europe it is found that use of that language is regarded as automatic, even though no other mode of communication has been investigated. Thus, in Eurocorps (the intergovernmental body for military co-operation) in Strasbourg, communications not involving the command of troops tend to be conducted in English although the question has never actually been discussed. Generally speaking, it is English that is used in administering the aid and assistance programmes for the central and eastern European countries.

Observers have also remarked that English enjoys a special status in the international operations in the former Yugoslavia. As Gret Haller, the ambassador and mediator in Bosnia, has pointed out on the strength of her experience there, no one listens to what you say if you do not speak English because English is the language of power and, by speaking another language, you show you have no power (Council of Europe, 2001). It is therefore reasonable to suppose that the tendency to use English as a lingua franca is not motivated by practical considerations alone.

Suggested questions for the round-table discussion:

􀂃 What do you think are the main problems of lecturing in a foreign language?

􀂃 What kind of problems do students encounter when communicating with each other through a lingua franca?

􀂃 Are the problems lingua franca speakers face generally problems of grammar (syntax), vocabulary or pronunciation?

􀂃 Do you think speakers in lingua franca settings get irritated by issues that do not interfere with communication?

􀂃 Do you think people in lingua franca settings have prejudices against any aspects of each other’s English?

􀂃 Do students’ language backgrounds matter when they are assigned group-work projects? Is this relevant and should it be taken into consideration?

􀂃 How can we ensure that teachers’ and students’ language skills are adequate for English-medium education?

􀂃 What type of remedial work can be carried out for lecturers and students who operate in lingua franca settings?