Język. Komunikacja. Informacja, 2011, tom 6
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Język. Komunikacja. Informacja, 2011, tom 6 by Subject "Grupa Wyszehradzka"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Potreba zásadnej zmeny doterajšej jazykovej a kultúrnej politiky EÚ: výzva pre Vyšehradské krajiny (V4)(SORUS S.C. Wydawnictwo i Drukarnia Cyfrowa, 2011) Reinvart, Jozef[The Need for Radical Change in Traditional EU Language and Cultural Policy: A Challenge for the Visegrad Countries (V4)]. The European integration proc- ess at its beginning in 1957 was not built on a firm political basis, “a political union” of 6 founding countries. It aimed to create the conditions to develop a balanced integration process in three dimensions (economy, peace and culture). European integration began through development and cooperation in the economic dimension, i.e. from the economic superstructure. The other two dimensions (peace and culture) were left at the national level for fear of conflicts in the integration of foreign policy and security issues as well as linguistic, educational and cultural confrontations between the countries. Throughout more than 50 years of European integration language and cultural problems have substantially increase, and have not been tackled. The topics has been considered ‘explosive’, ‘emo- tional’ and became a taboo. The language policies of EU institutions are central to the European integration project, but have a low priority politically. The causes of language inequality and inefficiency, and possible solutions, have not being explored except as a side issue of cost-saving exercises resulting in limitation of the use of languages in interpretation and translation (national envelops). This passivity strengthens one language (English) at the expense of all other languages. But when the French or Germans insist on equal rights, they do not appear to notice that demographically smaller languages also have rights. The big countries have a tendency to “solve” them the easy way, so called “realistic and pragmatic way”, through an undemocratic and discriminatory limitation of the use of languages and language rights of citizens, mostly the smaller languages or languages of new EU member states. Although the European Commission endeavours to promote multilingualism (it has pub- lished two communications on multilingualism in 2005 and 2008 and a 3rd one is to be published at the beginning of 2012) and to give all EU official languages a significant in- ternational presence, the “new” member states are convinced that the way their languages have been treated in practice by “old” EU during the enlargement process and since 2004 proves that language equality is merely theoretical and the language hierarchy is evident at all communication level within the European Union. The reports of several expert groups exploring for the European Commission for promo- tion of multilingualism and language issues were reflected in the 2nd European Commis- sion’s communication. The recommendations have not been reflected appropriately bring- JOZEF REINVART34 ing language policy issues higher on the file of EU political priorities. Up to now it does not seem that there is a serious wish to engage with a more just and egalitarian manage- ment of multilingualism, a new common long-term language policy for unifying Europe. If these political sensitive issues and problems will not be discussed at political and expert levels as well as at European and national levels the multiple democratic deficits will mere- ly increase and risk having negative impacts on the whole European integration process. Different forms of language and cultural interactions between the EU system and member states as well as among them should be considered. They should aim at strengthening the involvement of civil society nationally and cross-nationally. There is a hope that recommendations of the Civil Society Platform on the promotion of multilingualism presented to the European Commission, advising an appreciable change in direction of present EU language policy, will be reflected in the 3rd European Commis- sion’s communication. The Platform in its report presents 12 priority recommendations for awareness raising of the EU’s linguistic diversity, improving language learning for achiev- ing the Barcelona objective (1+2 languages) and the removal of barriers to intercultural dialogue and social inclusion. Considering development of the cultural dimension (languages, education and cultural is- sues) of the European integration process, which has remained at national level one can conclude that there has been very little progress. The majority of EU member states do not have a language and cultural policy or strategy, or only have a partial policy, not a com- prehensive one. It is aimed more at national than at external EU language policy. What is missing is an external dimension in their language policies (relations with neighbouring countries, cooperation at regional and European level) for strengthening inter-ethnic coex- istence of citizens and cultural cooperation, European awareness, identity and citizenship. Language and cultural policies of EU member states differ in providing language and cultural rights to their citizens including national minorities and immigrants. Observing the development of the cultural dimension in two founding EU member states, Belgium and Luxembourg, both of which are multicultural and multilingual, it is pos- sible to conclude that they are going in very different directions. Up to now Belgium does not have either a cultural agreement between the two language communities (Flemish and francophone) nor a common language policy for the promotion of bilingualism in the country. Due to the absence of a fundamental political base and other common societal policies for building a common Belgian awareness and identity, which is so important for coexistence and cooperation of citizens. The country has gone from one political crisis to another over the past 4 years. Belgium is since last June without a federal government. The political negotiations are in deadlock and country is close to splitting apart. It is a negative model for other European countries. Luxembourg is a positive model for EU/Europe. Since the codification of the luxembourg- ish language (in 1984) it is promoting and planning its official language, which became the first language of the country and the identity language of all citizens of the country, includ- ing foreigners, who make up more than 40% of the population. Luxembourg is developing a cohesive cultural policy, integrating all citizens of the country, promoting luxembourg- ish awareness, identity and citizenship. It is a positive model EU and integrating Europe should follow. It is a challenge for the V4 countries to start cooperation in this politically sensitive area if they wish to ensure the equal position and development of their languages and cultures, both within their regional grouping and in the EU. They could become the initiators of a European political and expert discussion on seeking democratic and effective language and cultural solutions acceptable to all countries and their citizens, or a new common long-term language and cultural policy which could make a major contribution to unifying Europe, in respect of its diversity.Item Rolo de la planlingvo esperanto en Mez-Orienta Eŭropo(SORUS S.C. Wydawnictwo i Drukarnia Cyfrowa, 2011) Koutny, Ilona(Role of the Planned Language Esperanto in Central-Eastern Europe). After a short review of language usage in EU in different fields of international communication, the linguistic situation in the Visegrad-countries will be presented. The questions of costs, efficacy, neutrality and equality in communication will be treated. The avowed goal of multilingualism will be contrasted with the reality of ever expanding English usage. The planned language Esperanto – born in Eastern Europe – offers an alternate tool for egalitarian and cost-effective communication at different levels. Its role in the Central- Eastern European region will be analyzed in teaching, in examination system of the Com- mon European Framework of Reference for Languages and in practical relations between citizens and organizations (such as partner cities). Some Esperanto-related initiatives are manifested in the intercultural communication between people of all ages from grade school pupils to senior citizens. The efforts of Esperanto organizations in European policy (e.g. defense of linguistic human rights for individuals and minorities) also will be re- ported.