FULL VERSION - European Commission - Europa

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Work group on Language Diversity and Social InclusionChair of the groupFAEY-Fundación Academia Europea de Yuste/European Academy of Yuste FoundationCo-chair of the groupEBLUL – Eurolang Brussels/European Office for Lesser Used LanguagesMembers EFIL - European Federation for Intercultural Learning FUEV- Föderalistische Union Europäischer Volksgruppen EEU -Eŭropa Esperanto-Unio EUROCLIO – European Association of History Educators ISSA-International Step by Step Association EFNIL - European Federation of National Institutions for Language EfVET - European Forum for Vocational Education and Training CMFE. Community Media Forum Europe Club de Madrid Brussels Office1 IntroductionThe importance of languages for social cohesion and inclusion as well as for overcomingintegration barriers has been closely followed by the European Commission within the lastyears. In its 2008 Communication on Multilingualism 33 , the Commission asked for thecreation of a Civil Society Platform to promote Multilingualism through intercultural dialogue.In the context of the 2009 European Year for Creativity and Innovation 34 , the EuropeanCommission underlined the importance of linguistic proficiency to promote social andindividual welfare. At the launch of the Civil Society Platform to promote Multilingualismthrough intercultural dialogue, the former EU Commissioner for Multilingualism, LeonardOrban, declared 35 : “The importance of languages in the pursuit of social cohesion andovercoming barriers to integration cannot be overstated”.Multilingualism (including sign language for deaf people and Braille alphabet for the blind)should be considered as a factor of integration in our societies. Understanding each other'slanguage and culture is vital in the process of promoting intercultural dialogue across bordersand removing the tenets of the ideological metaphor of “centre” and “periphery” (which isapplicable at different levels, from individual to supranational constructs).2 General considerationsEuropean societies are multicultural and multilingual. The multilingualism that alreadyprevails in some of the countries and regions is increasing further due to the high number ofmigrants, the EU principle of free mobility of citizen and the increased focus on mobility. Inthis context and according to other sources of information, such as the conclusions of the33Multilingualism: an asset for Europe and a shared commitment:http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/com/2008_0566_en.pdf34Council conclusions on promoting a creative generation: developing the creativity and innovative capacity of children andyoung people through cultural expression and access to culture (2009) :http://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.25380!menu/standard/file/Council%20conclu.pdf35Brussels, 23 October 2009:http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1574&format=HTML&aged=0&language=ES&guiLanguage=frCivil Society Platform on Multilingualism: 30Policy Recommendations for the Promotion of Multilingualism in the European Union 06/06/10 – FULL VERSION
latest Eurobarometer 36 on language use and competence in Europe, there is still a lot of workto do to foster multilingualism and its social inclusion perspective.According to the last Eurobarometer statistics on language use and competence in Europe 37 ,about 50% of EU citizen say they are able to maintain a conversation in at least onelanguage other than their mother tongue. Percentages vary among countries and socialgroups: 99% of the citizen from Luxembourg, 93% of Latvians and Maltese, and 90% ofLithuanians claim to know at least one language other than their mother tongue, whereas inHungary (71%), the United Kingdom (70%), Spain, Italy, and Portugal (64%) a great majorityspeak only their mother tongue. Men, youth and urban populations are more likely to speak aforeign language than women, elderly people and rural populations. These figures should betaken as a mere indicator of language competence since Eurobarometer statistics are basedon self-reporting, not on any objective testing. Kraus offers a more accurate image of thesituation, when he says:“The actual potential of English as a lingua franca is diminished for the present by thefact that only 20% of the 38% of EU citizen who claim to have a knowledge of Englishas a foreign language describe their ability as “very good” (i.e. less than 8% of thetotal). To put it bluntly, English may be a reliable medium for asking directions abroad,but that does not make it the linguistic cement of a transnational politicalcommunity”. 38Be that as it may, as pointed out some time ago by Ján Figel, former EU Commissioner forEducation, Training, Culture, and Multilingualism 39 : “Languages are what makes us humanand Europe’s linguistic diversity is at the core of its identity”. In fact, multilingualism has beena typical feature of our continent throughout its history. According to the EuropeanCommission, languages are a basic element for Europeans who wish to work, studyand live together 40 . Languages are at the core of the idea of unity in diversity, whichcharacterizes the European Union. In this context, we have to consider the increasinglymulticultural and multilingual nature of European societies not only because of themultilingualism that prevails in some of the countries and regions or because of the highnumber of immigrants, but also because of intensive exchanges (tourism, education,science, culture) favoured by the EU principle of free movement of citizen (implemented inpolicies and programmes such as Schengen, Erasmus, Socrates, the Bologna process). Oneof the main features of the multi-layered nature of European citizen today is their linguisticand cultural variety, indeed one of the most valuable parts of our common (or uncommon)European heritage, which is worth to preserve and promote. We need languages tounderstand each other, our neighbours, particularly in border regions, as well as our partnersinside and outside the EU.Promoting a “second mother tongue” reinforces multilingualism and intercultural dialogue,according to the conclusions reached by The Group of Intellectuals set up to advise theCommission on the contribution of multilingualism to Intercultural Dialogue 41 . Facilitatingintercultural dialogue through the learning of other languages is a key factor in thepromotion of social inclusion. It is not simply an anecdotal question of being able to36Special Eurobarometer 243/ Wave 64.3 – TNS Opinion & Social “Europeans and their Languages”- February 2006:http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc631_en.pdf37Special Eurobarometer 243/ Wave 64.3 – TNS Opinion & Social “Europeans and their Languages”- February 2006:http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/pdf/doc631_en.pdf38Kraus, Peter J., 2008. A Union of Diversity: Language, Identity and Polity-Building in Europe, p 155. Cambridge UniversityPress.39Ján Figel, Brussels, 22 November 2005 on the occasion of the launch of the new web portal of the EC to promote languagesin Europe.40http://europa.eu/languages/41A Rewarding Challenge - How the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe:http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/archive/doc/maalouf/report_en.pdf andhttp://europa.eu/rapid/ pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/08/129&format=HTML&aged=1&language=EN&guiLanguage=enCivil Society Platform on Multilingualism: 31Policy Recommendations for the Promotion of Multilingualism in the European Union 06/06/10 – FULL VERSION
Page 1 and 2: Civil Society Platform on Multiling
Page 3: 1.3 Post-Lisbon scenario: a "new ri
Page 8 and 9: languages, and on best practices in
Page 10 and 11: On Translation and Terminology*Full
Page 12 and 13: Recommendations1 EU language plan t
Page 14 and 15: Introduction“(The Union) …shall
Page 16 and 17: flower. The popularity of a garden
Page 18 and 19: Concern that multilingualism was be
Page 20 and 21: 1.6 Sub-group feedbackThe responses
Page 22 and 23: discrimination in favour of RMLs. S
Page 24 and 25: 3.3 Sub-group feedbackGroup members
Page 26 and 27: Slovenian or the RMLs. In this resp
Page 28 and 29: 5.3 Linguistic ObservatorySeveral o
Page 32 and 33: understand people from other cultur
Page 34: target groups are not exclusive amo
Page 39 and 40: 1 Defining the task of the Work Gro
Page 41 and 42: 2.2 Work methodologyWG1 was initial
Page 43 and 44: articles. 69 The only other languag
Page 45 and 46: education in European schools is ca
Page 47 and 48: The question of what role language
Page 49 and 50: trainees; Offer training mechanisms
Page 51 and 52: investigating expectations and asse
Page 53 and 54: learning. The key of course is the
Page 55 and 56: As a pedagogy this education promot
Page 57 and 58: mechanism to disseminate best pract
Page 59 and 60: 3 Education and training Mobility g
Page 61 and 62: In order to facilitate the circulat
Page 63 and 64: target groups (content creator or c
Page 65 and 66: Civil Society Platform onMultilingu
Page 67 and 68: WORKING GROUP ON LANGUAGE PLANNING
Page 69 and 70: (6.2) Linguistic rights for all EU
Page 71 and 72: cost-benefit analysis comparing Eng
Page 73 and 74: (a) Constantly insisting that its i
Page 75 and 76: Hicks, Davyth 2005 Cornish: languag
Page 77 and 78: WORKING GROUP ON LANGUAGE DIVERSITY
Page 79 and 80: 4.1 In which way do you think this
Page 81 and 82:
8 What should the European Union do
Page 83 and 84:
10 What are the most common barrier
Page 85 and 86:
Additional questions concerning lan
Page 87 and 88:
References 8EU official documentsEu
Page 89 and 90:
WORKING GROUP ON EDUCATIONANNEX 6.1
Page 91 and 92:
27. In which way are there constrai
Page 93 and 94:
8. On what topics is your instituti
Page 95 and 96:
Annex 6.4 GROUP MEMBERS′ POSITION
Page 97 and 98:
water, and one begins skiing on the
Page 99 and 100:
Cor van der Meer - Mercator Europea
Page 101 and 102:
supported study completed in 2006 (
Page 103 and 104:
Finally, one of the greatest challe
Page 105 and 106:
Marta Lottes - European Association
Page 107 and 108:
o More flexible provision of langua
Page 109 and 110:
) An international THEATRE YOUTH FO
Page 111 and 112:
Pasporta Servo http://www.pasportas
Page 113 and 114:
interpretation and reporting system
Page 115 and 116:
proficiency in a particular languag
Page 117 and 118:
of mediating competence. This will
Page 119 and 120:
Annex 6.5 BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLESBES
Page 121 and 122:
extended and systematic research on
Page 123 and 124:
BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLE 2: Laying see
Page 125 and 126:
- Bonjour, monsieur l’facteur, av
Page 127 and 128:
BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLE 3: Non formal
Page 129 and 130:
BEST PRACTICE EXAMPLE 4: Multiplica
Page 131 and 132:
Possible follow-up Project:The even
Page 133 and 134:
Foundation Holdler ‘68Main reason
Page 135 and 136:
dialogue.Possible follow-up Project
Page 137 and 138:
WORKING GROUP ON TRANSLATION AND TE
Page 139:
Sutton, Geoffrey, 2008. Concise Enc
show all

FULL VERSION - European Commission - Europa

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?