Ana səhifə

Can english be regarded as a lingua franca


Yüklə 60.5 Kb.
tarix24.06.2016
ölçüsü60.5 Kb.
CAN ENGLISH BE REGARDED AS A LINGUA FRANCA

IN CENTRAL EUROPE?
Zsuzsa Hoffman

University of Debrecen, Hungary



1. English as a global language
In the present paper, my aim is to investigate the relationship between the English language and the Central European area from the linguistic point of view, more specifically from the perspective of sociolinguistics and contact linguistics.

It is commonplace that English is becoming more and more of an international language, as a result of a previously unprecedented worldwide growth and spread, which has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century. As early as 1780, the then to-be president of the United States, John Adams predicted the following: ”English is destined to be in the next and succeeding centuries more generally the language of the world than Latin was in the last or French is at the present age” (Adams 1852: 250). Present-day linguists also make similar and even stronger predictions about the revolutionary force of English being the global language. David Crystal (2004: 1) says: “The year 2000 marked the end of a decade of linguistic revolution. The new century must deal with its consequences”. David Graddol (1997: 39), similarly, talks about a dramatic change: “There will be, in the twenty-first century, a major shake-up of the global language hierarchy” – undoubtedly, this dramatic change is due to the growing global importance of English.

There are many possible ways of describing the present status of English. Most commonly, it is called an international language. It is also often referred to as a global or world language and of course a lingua franca. Other, largely synonymous terms used in the literature are international auxiliary language (Smith 1983: 1), critical language (Crystal 1998: 426), language of wider communication (Cseresnyési 2004: 144), link language (Berruto 2001: 73) and even language with a marketing value (Holden 1989: 3). De Swaan (2004: 15), in his economically and sociologically oriented theory, terms English a hypercentral language (the only such), which he places on top of his 4-level hierarchical model of the global language system.

Whatever we call the current status of English, it is beyond doubt that no language of wider communication has ever been shared by so many people and has been so widely distributed. In the present paper, I do not wish to analyse the causes and circumstances of English becoming an international language, I will rather take it for granted. The relevant question is rather whether this fact has an effect on the linguistic situation of the very area that is the focus of my present purpose, namely Central Europe.


2. The linguistic situation in Central Europe
First of all, what is Central Europe? This definition can be constructed from various perspectives (political, geographical, cultural etc.). Here I intend to define it roughly as those countries which had areas belonging to the greater Habsburg Empire. This choice may seem somewhat arbitrary but given the fact that the monarchy itself was a multilingual construct, we can conclude that far-reaching linguistic consequences can be detected up to the present day. During earlier centuries, a special kind of bilingualism was present in this area. German was the prestige language of bureaucracy, the court and the army, as well as of the aristocracy, which gradually gained importance besides and instead of Latin. On the other hand, the different national languages were spoken by the majority of the population (Szépe 2002: 28–29). However, it must be added that the individual national languages had different prestige values, e.g. Hungarian was a central language in the Carpathian Basin.

As a result of historical changes following the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, state boundaries today do not overlap with language boundaries, which raises an interesting but also delicate linguistic question. In Central Europe, the existence of “Sprachbunds” can be easily proved. As genetically and typologically different languages live next to each other and they are in constant contact, they can influence each other even structurally and typologically (Lewandowski 1990: 991). Suffice it to think of Slavic interferences in Hungarian phonology or the German influence on Hungarian phraseology.

Owing to the large number of bilinguals, language contacts are rather intensive in Central Europe. Michael Clyne (2003: 3) formulates the following general idea: “Languages in contact are, after all, the result of people in contact and of communities of people of different language backgrounds in contact”. In the case of Central European languages, intimate borrowing is much more frequent than the remote or cultural type (relying on the classical Bloomfieldian categories, cf. Eichhoff 1980: 63), as the languages in question are situated next to each other and borrowing here is the cumulative result of everyday personal contacts.

Another aspect which makes the Central European linguistic scenario colourful is the existence of so-called intelligibility groups, that is the fact that speakers of genetically related languages mutually understand each other (Szépe 2002: 33). Cseresnyési (2004: 129) calls such languages collateral from the contact linguistic point of view and terms their speakers translingual. This is especially true of adjacent Slavic languages in the area, which obviously means that the common language of their communication will not be an international lingua franca but the speakers’ own languages, respectively.


3. Foreign language teaching traditions
Before discussing theoretical models of international communication, I would like to address the question of language teaching and learning traditions in the area. For centuries, knowledge of foreign languages was a constituent of the general culture of educated Eastern and Central Europeans (Fodor-Peluau 2003: 85). In the times of the Habsburg Monarchy, German was the first foreign language taught and its knowledge was considered to be essential in intellectual circles – even though one could also claim it was rather a second or third language than a foreign one – in view of a special kind of bilingualism that was present. Between the two world wars, German was still generally taught in most areas, alongside Latin, but the teaching of other, living languages (such as French, English and Italian) was also encouraged (Szépe 2002: 29). After World War 2, Russian was introduced as a compulsory foreign language in every Eastern European country, except for Romania, but it was confronted with general antipathy and lack of motivation. Today, foreign language teaching in the Central European countries still heavily depends on cultural traditions. For instance, in Hungary, Slovakia or the Czech Republic, German is spoken by a relatively high percentage of the population, thanks to their geopolitical situation, historical traditions and frequent contacts with German-speaking countries. Nevertheless, in Romania, French has always been much more widespread, the first foreign language at schools for a long time. This may be due to the fact that the two are closely related languages (Fodor-Peluau 2003: 86) and it also reflects the political orientation of modern Romania. French has been perceived by many in Romania as “the language of opening to the world” (ibid 95). As opposed to this, the French language in Poland is generally regarded as aristocratic and, therefore, German is seen as a more useful one (ibid 94). Today Russian is spoken primarily in Slavic countries. As for older members of the EU in Central Europe (like Austria or Northern Italy), English and French have long been the leading foreign languages.

In recent years, a new common feature has emerged in the language teaching policies of Central European countries: in all countries there has been a rapidly growing interest for English as a symbol of Western values, modern technology and culture. This tendency has been so strong that by now, English has become the highest priority foreign language among young learners in all of these countries (Fodor-Peluau 2003: 97).


4. Models of international communication
Based on the previously mentioned facts on language knowledge in the various Central European countries, one might predict certain tendencies pertaining to their pattern of international communication. Given the fact that in countries like Hungary, Slovakia or Poland, German is a relatively widespread foreign language (and still the leading one among members of the older generation), their respective residents are likely to communicate with each other in German. The same is true of French as a medium of communication between residents of Romania and Bulgaria. However, as bilingualism is fairly widespread in these areas, it is also a realistic possibility that one of the two languages directly in contact will be used in communication. For instance, the majority of Hungarian native speakers living in Transylvania will probably have some knowledge of Romanian so the common language of communication between these speakers and Romanians will be Romanian.

In language contact theory, however, this possibility cannot be considered as an example for the partner language model, because Romanians under such circumstances very rarely speak Hungarian. The partner language model is a powerful theoretical model, according to which both participants of a conversation should be able to communicate in the language of the partner. Nevertheless, its weaker version also allows the participants to use their native language, but in this case too, they are supposed to know the other one as well, at least passively (cf. Dürmüller 1996: 82, Dürmüller 1994: 51, Ammon 1994: 11). This model is also referred to as passive or receptive multilingualism and also as polyglot dialogue. It can work in bilingual regions (like in South Tirol) but if more than two languages are concerned, the situation proves to be too complex to be described by this model (as the case of Switzerland, for example) (Arntz 1997: 167). The partner language model is supported by the existence of so-called Euroregions, which are smaller areas with common economic, political and cultural interests. In these, ideally one of the local languages should be used as the common medium of communication. There is a general tendency in the whole of Europe today, whereby the importance of smaller regions is emphasized and thus, smaller (or lesser used) languages are becoming more and more self-assured (ibid 166).



On the other hand, Europe is also facing the opposite trend: a strong concentration on only a few big languages (in De Swaan’s terms, supercentral ones), especially on hypercentral English, the most common lingua franca. In international communication, it is referred to as the lingua franca model, which suggests that one language is placed hierarchically above the others by regulations of language policy (Dürmüller 1996: 74–78). Whereas English is the only realistic candidate to be the lingua franca in Europe in general, the same is not necessarily true of Central Europe, because of the previously mentioned existence of collateral languages and local lingua francas (German or even French can be considered to be such in certain areas). In spite of such local forces, it is an unquestionable fact that because of its growing global and European importance and popularity among learners, English is increasingly becoming the language of international communication in Central Europe as well. According to Joshua Fishman’s theory (1994: 68–69), speakers of smaller languages often choose English as the common medium, as “it puts them on a more equal footing”, neither using their own preferred language. And since Central European languages are not supercentral ones, this can be regarded as a typical context where the international use of English is spreading. He even argues that in such cases, English may prove to be “the lesser of two evils” in certain sensitive contexts. Furthermore, the lingua franca model for Central Europe fits into the framework of contemporary tendencies in the European Union. Theoretically, all languages have equal rights in the EU but as the number of official languages is growing (at present, it is 23), it automatically triggers the opposite process: the more languages that are present, the more English is used in practice (De Swaan 2004: 157).
5. A new kind of diglossia with English?
The previous point can be summed up with the question: is hypercentral English a potential threat for language harmony and multilingualism or does it offer a practical alternative for international communication? The answer is both and neither at the same time. The linguistic situation in Central Europe is far too complicated for one to be able to state that either one or the other model can be applied perfectly to its description. In my view, there is no real contradiction between using and supporting a lingua franca (e.g. English) in one field in a country and opting for multilingualism in other fields. Also, using other languages as a means of international communication because of local peculiarities need not be in conflict with a general support for English. On the contrary, English and the national languages can, and should, live next to each other, mutually supporting one another. The same idea can also be formulated and interpreted as referring to the whole of Europe as “English is necessary but not enough” (Salverda 2002: 7).

Some sociolinguists speak of a new diglossia situation in Europe: English as a high variety (used in the fields of economy, politics etc.) and the national languages as low varieties (idem 6). De Swaan also mentions this phenomenon, however, he does not call it diglossia but a new kind of bilingualism (De Swaan 2004: 164). If we stick to the original, Fergusonian definition of diglossia, then De Swaan’s approach seems to be more adequate, for diglossia usually implies the use of two, functionally different varieties of the same language. In present-day Europe, the national languages still prevail in most domains of life, and the spheres in which they and English are used, are largely fixed. However, in the areas of fashion, music, entertainment, sports or advertising there is a strong competition between English and the national languages (De Swaan 2004: 164). This delicate balance should not be disturbed and as long as English does not make inroads into the domains of the national languages, this special situation will be maintained. National languages are not threatened and this unique kind of bilingualism (or diglossia) will not be disturbed because the European states strongly support national languages and consequently, European languages are too powerful to be degraded to a low variety. Even though English is becoming more common as a language of international communication in Central Europe, the new member states of the EU (especially because of their generally lower competence in English) have not reached a point yet at which we could speak about new diglossia (Lindstedt 2005: 53). However, in countries such as Austria or Switzerland, it is slowly becoming a living reality in certain fields.

The problem of a lingua franca versus national languages is often described with a metaphor from physics: that of centripetal and centrifugal forces. The general spread of English is determined by centripetal forces, which further strengthen the communicative value and attractiveness of English itself. On the other hand, there are also centrifugal forces operating, which support national languages (Spolsky 2004: 90). It is due to centrifugal forces that national languages will not be lost. Furthermore, the loss of linguistic diversity is also impeded by a strong individual and national linguistic identity, as every nation has a great need to establish and maintain a kind of “imagined community” (Joseph 2004: 30). The two types of forces, centripetal and centrifugal, affect Central European languages at the same time but the existence of an ideal proportion of the two ensures their relative balance.
6. Summary
When investigating international communication in Central Europe, Szépe (2002: 36) distinguishes three linguistic levels: the global linguistic space (with international English), the European linguistic space (which also includes German and French as supercentral languages), as well as the Central European linguistic space (with the individual national languages). It is important to emphasize that these levels are not alternatives to each other but coexist above one another. While we have seen that global English is inevitably present in Central Europe, it is also challenged by regional lingua francas like German or French. It is at the level of global English where cultural lexical borrowing takes place. Parallel to these two upper layers, local languages also play an important role, whose presence in international communication is described by the partner language model. This bottom layer is of special importance in Central Europe as this is the level of direct personal interaction between speakers of different native languages and as such, this is where intimate borrowing takes place.

In conclusion, we can claim that in the mirror of multilingualism and the growing presence of global English in Central Europe, we may have to reinterpret earlier views and models of language contacts, especially those of areal ones.



Works Cited

Adams, C. F., ed. The Works of John Adams. Boston: Little Brown, 1852.

Ammon, Ulrich. The present dominance of English in Europe. With an Outlook to Possible Solutions to European Language Problems”. Sociolinguistica 8 (1994): 1–14.

Arntz, Reiner. Passive Mehrsprachigkeit — eine Chance für die kleinen Sprachen Europas“. Sociolinguistica 11 (1997): 166–177.

Berruto, Gaetano.Italienisch”. Sociolinguistica 15 (2001): 72–95.

Clyne, Michael. Dynamics of Language Contact: English and Immigrant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Crystal, David. A nyelv enciklopédiája. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 1998.

---. The Language Revolution. Cambridge: Polity, 2004.

Cseresnyési, László. Nyelvek és tipológiák. Avagy a nyelvek antropológiája. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó, 2004.

De Swaan, Abram. A nyelvek társadalma. A globális nyelvrendszer. Budapest: Tipotex, 2004.

Dürmüller, Urs. “Multilingual Talk or English Only? The Swiss Experience”. Sociolinguistica 8 (1994): 44–64.



---. Mehrsprachigkeit im Wandel. Von der viersprachigen zur vielsprachigen Schweiz. Zürich: Pro Helvetia, 1996.

Eichhoff, Jürgen.Aspects of German Borrowing Into American English” Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt. Ed. Nelde, Peter Hans. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980: 63–68.

Fishman, Joshua A. “‘English Only’ in Europe? Some Suggestions from an American Perspective”. Sociolinguistica 8 (1994): 65–72.

Fodor, Ferenc and Sandrine Peluau. “Language geostrategy in eastern and central Europe: Assessment and perspectives”. Languages in a Globalising World. Eds. Maurais, Jacques and Michael A. Morris. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003: 85–98.

Graddol, David. The Future of English? London: The British Council, 1997. Holden, N. J. “Toward a functional typology of languages of international business”. Language Problems and Language Planning 13/1 (1989): 1–8.

Joseph, John E. “Linguistic identity and the limits of global English”. Speaking from the Margin. Global English from a European Perspective. Eds. Duszak, Anna and Ursula Okulska. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang, 2004: 17–33. Lewandowski, Theodor. Linguistisches Wörterbuch 1–3., Heidelberg–Wiesbaden: Quelle&Meyer, 1990.

Lindstedt, Jouko. “Uusia kieliä vai lisää englantia? Itäisen Keski-Euroopan maat Euroopan unionissa”. Monikielinen Eurooppa. Kielipolitiikkaa ja käytäntöä. Eds. Johansson, Marjut and Riitta Pyykkö. Helsinki: Gaudeamus, 2005: 48–57.

Salverda, Reiner. “Language diversity and international communication”. English Today 71, 18/3 (2002): 3–11.

Smith, Larry E. “English as an international auxiliary language”. Readings in English as an International Language. Ed. Smith, Larry E. Pergamon Press, 1983: 1–5.

Spolsky, Bernard. Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Szépe, György. Nyelvpolitika – Pannóniából nézve” Közép-Európa: egység és sokszínűség. A Nyelvek Európai Éve zárókonferenciájának előadásai. Ed. Gadányi, János and Pusztay, János. Szombathely, 2002: 27–40.

.






Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət