Multilingualism in Europe : A Paradigmshift from ‘mono’ to ‘multi’

Multilingualism in Europe : A Paradigmshift from ‘mono’ to ‘multi’

with special reference to Germany

presented by Prof. Dr. Neeti Badwe, 12^th October 2011, Mumbai

Introduction

This presentation is about the political ideologies and linguistic strategies in the 19^th and 20^th century Europe and the ensuing paradigm shift from mono-lingualism to multi-lingualism. The discussion will be concluded by briefly reviewing multilingual practice in our era.

European countries have come a long way from their foundation in the 19^th century till end of the 20^th century. It is almost a complete turn-around in their structural and ideological basis from the nation-state-hood to a member state of the EU. This becomes apparent if we see a broader picture of Europe at the end of 19^th century vis-à-vis that of at the end of 20^th century.   

Europe at the end of 19^th century

Romanticism, realism, modernism, imperialism and nationalism characterize the 19^th century. Most of the European states were formed during the 19^th century - either by unifying loose kingdoms like in the case of Italy and Germany or by achieving independence from trans-national empires like Austrian, Turkish or Russian. 19^th century inherited the legacy of “Liberty, equality, brotherhood” from the French (1789) and the American (1787) revolution. These paved the path for liberalism and national self-determination and led to uprisings and revolutions from Poland to Greece and Ireland to Bulgaria (1878). Greece obtained independence from Turkey in 1829, Belgium from the Netherlands in1831 and Hungary revolted against the Austrian rule to obtain autonomy in 1867. Alien rule was rejected and multinational monarchies were on the decline. Italy was unified in the year 1861 and Germany in 1871. Romania, Serbia, Montenegro freed themselves from the Ottoman empire in 1878 and Norway from Sweden in 1905. Thus new autonomous and sovereign states came into being during the 19^th century.

Nationalist ideology and the role of language

Nationalist ideology motivated people to unite and gave a definite direction to their resentment against the alien dynasties. National history and local culture were rediscovered. The most affective and effective means to create a national identity were common history, religion, ethnicity, culture and above all the language. Inspired by the romantic nationalism of Rousseau and Herder, local epics, legends and tales were rediscovered. Folklore was looked upon as a common cultural heritage. This also gave an impetus, e.g., to Grimm brothers to collect, so to say, ‘authentic German’ tales. The idea of ‘Volkstum’ or ‘folkhood’ evolved and helped in fighting the foreign rule.

Language proved to be the tool par excellence in uniting people. Language played a vital role in evoking the feeling of oneness and cementing unification. While addressing the German people in a series of speeches (1806), Johann Gottfried Fichte, a wellknown thinker, underscored the critical role of language in foundation of a nation. (see Kelly 1968 : 190 f.) According to him, speakers of one language ‘are joined to each other by a multitude of invisible bonds’ as they can understand each ‘more and more clearly’. He further states that ‘they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole.’ According to him the language draws a natural boundary between the states. Fichte also stresses that such a united folk with one language and culture is a prerequisite to make any progress. (Kelly 1968 : 197f.)  

Nationalism with these modern nation-states was clearly directed against the multi-ethnic, multi-nation empires. Nationalism became a political ideology for achieving common goals by and for autonomous people with a single culture. Popular national symbols like national flag or national anthem were created and they aroused deep emotions.

Nevertheless, nationalism was also reactionary in many ways. It called for return to the past and focused on the local history. Unity under cultural and historical criteria implied expulsion of the foreign. Thus, nationalism emphasized differences in a certain way. Nationalist doctrines like ethnocentrism as well as cultural and linguistic purity did not allow the minorities to be a part of national community. Non-native population could not enjoy equal rights. Nationalist ideology left little space for mutual recognition of ethnicities, races and free cooperation. This eventually led to extreme reactions like that of ethnic cleansing in Germany or Serbia as witnessed in the first half of 20^th century.

Europe had a strong tradition of linguistic nationalism, the tenet of which lay in the popular slogan of nationalism ‘one people, one language, one culture’.

Language purism was deeply rooted in nationalistic thinking. A well known romance scholar Hans Martin Gauger links foundation of the historical comparative linguistics itself to nationalist thinking (Gauger 2010: 117). As we know, such a comparative study started with the depiction of similarities in the classical languages Sanskrit, Latin and Greek by William Jones (1786) and Franz Bopp (1816). This led to investigation and reconstruction of morphological forms. In other words, it was a search for roots and purity of linguistic forms. Gauger states (2010: 126) that the nationalist linguistic consciousness and purism existed since much earlier times.

Gauger also points out that the German ‘Sprachnation’ (linguistic nation) existed much earlier than the German nation-state and prior to 1871, there was only ‘a political desire – and a linguistic community, a ‘Sprachnation.’ (ibid) Anja Stukenbrock in her book called “Sprachnationalismus” (Linguistic Nationalism) also confirms this. She further elaborates (2005: 9, translation by me) that

“Some German scientists distinguish linguistic and cultural patriotism of 17th and 18th centuries from the linguistic nationalism of 19th and 20th century. That is to say, politically harmless cultural patriotism of the Barock from political and military radicalization of Europe during the period from Napoleon (ruled 1804-15) to Nazi regime (1933-45). They want to separate the modern nationalism from its forerunners of the New Age.”

Stukenbrock (2005: 3, translation by me) also says, that German language has been an instrument (...) over centuries ‘for constructing and enhancing national identity’ and ‘to inculcate unity’.

To sum up, it is important to note that the language is not seen here as just a symbol to inculcate the national identity; it has played a far more important role in shaping the reality and as such, was vitally instrumental in the emergence of the nation-states. One believed that ‘language is nation’. ‘Linguistic patriotism’ and ‘cultural patriotism’ were the inspiring terms of that era. (see Stukenbrock 2005: 4 & 5)

Fear for contamination and concern for purity of language have been extremely important aspects of nationalist thinking. Language was not only used to assert political power and maintain political superiority, but homogenous language and culture were seen as the most essential factors for industrial growth as well as for social order.

New World order

Thus, the European cultural space was marked until the mid of 20^th century by modernism and nationalism with ensuing cultural hegemony. The world was perceived as divided in black and white blocks : East and West, colonized and colonizer, underdeveloped and developed, etc. One was highly susceptible and sensitive about hybridism, impurity, contamination of one’s culture or language. The modern man was occupied with the highest philosophical categories of modernity like Idea, Subject, God, Origin and proceeded in one direction with a clear goal in mind.

This scenario changed dramatically at the end of 20^th century. World War II didn’t only change the map of Europe, but of the whole Western Empire that was spread over the East. The nationalist movement in the East was primarily the movement for independence from colonial rule. Within a decade after the WW II most of the colonies achieved independence from the Western colonial powers.

Consequently, the decades of 60s and the 90s of the 20^th century proved to be the real turning points in the history of mankind - Firstly through mobility of masses and secondly through revolution in mass communication.

In the 60s the masses started moving towards the West. In the last four decades of 20^th century, Europe was confronted with foreign folks, cultures and languages on their own territory like never before in the recent history. In the vogue of these developments some new philosophical and sociological discourses like post-colonialism, postmodernism and post-structuralism emerged.

Huge changes were set off in the 90s by the electronic revolution and digital connectivity as well as by new economy, emerging markets and new marketing strategies. In the 90s one witnessed the Gulf war, disintegration of Soviet Union and foundation of the EU. All these factors together brought about a complete change in the world order and triggered a paradigm shift from ‘mono’ to ‘multi’.

Post-discourses

If one would closely observe the three post-discourses, one would notice that their emergence itself is based on the principle of laterality, simultaneity and co-existence. They criticise modernism,  structuralism and colonialism respectively, but they do not negate them. ‘Post’ neither means ‘after’ nor ‘anti’. Postmodernism does not reject modernism; post-structuralism is not directed against structuralism. Post-colonialism does not mean end of colonialism, on the contrary, if we look around, we realize, that it has far more continued in the form of neo-colonialism. Some goals of the modern era like equality and freedom continue to be valid and respected even today. 

Post-colonialism disapproves authoritative insistence, rejects the logo-centric and euro-centric great narratives. In this sense it intensifies the discourse of postmodernism. Post-structuralism is sceptical about the concepts like origin, binary opposition, static and fixed relation between the signifier and signified. It also rejects representation and recognizes multiple possibilities of writing and reading. It does not recognize the centre, but assumes a network, flattens vertical order and juxtaposes the elements. From the perspective of post-structuralism, nothing is clear or beyond doubt, permanent or stable. Everything is in flux, without a clear goal. It deconstructs the subject as well as the centre.  

Paradigm shift from ‘Mono’ to ‘Multi’

These discourses turn the world view of the modern era almost upside down. Clarity of borders and goals, purity of culture and language, striving upwards or going to the roots and the origin are denied by recognition of network, hybridity, horizontal movement and simultaneity. This means the peripheral, marginal or the minorities gain importance and their multi-fold small stories become audible. Texts are rewritten and are read against the grain. Our era has seen shifting of borders and emergence of overlappings and the ‘spaces-in-between’ (Bhabha). All these strategies claim to deconstruct the traditional power structures and flatten the differences. They mean to recognize multiplicity, diversity, alternatives, overlapping, hybrid forms or mixing of genres, and accept not only different perspectives, but even contradictions.

Thus, the postmodern age leads theoretically from ‚Mono‘-culture to inclusive ‚Multi‘-culture of our era. Though the post-discourses and their logically convincing exposition remain confined to, more or less, the elite academicia, the market strategies and economic policies have caused a compelling change in the ground reality. Economic and political circumstances are leading to mutual dependence and therefore, also to mutual recognition.

Diversity is looked upon as strength - and not only in the environmental context, but also in the social context. One realized that inbreeding is a weakening factor; diversity and inclusion should be the order of the day.  

Linguistic policy of the EU

So, advocacy for multi-lingualism and multi-culturalism is in-keeping with the contemporary trends. In spite of different historical background we see in different parts of the world the growing linguistic awareness. In the 2^nd half of the last century, countries independent of colonial yoke have reinvented their languages which were suppressed for a long time. We can also take examples of traditionally multilingual and small European nations like Great Britain, Belgium, Luxembourg or Switzerland. Scottish, Welsh, Irish people are proud of their own languages. Belgium has three official languages – Flemish Dutch, French, German and Luxembourg also has three – Luxembourgish, French, Geran. In Switzerland political or legal documents and all the information or instructions are published in four languages, i.e. French, Italian, German, Rato-romanic. Simultaneous to Unification of Europe we have also witnessed disintegration of nations like Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc. In all these cases the awareness about ethnic and linguistic identity has sharpened. Take examples like Bosnia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Herzegovina. All are vehemently protecting their ethnic and linguistic identity.

As Lüdi, a swiss scholar and many other linguists poit out, that multi-lingualism is natural while mono-lingualism takes roots only when it is imposed through political will. There are many countries in the world with more than one official language.

Preserving multilinguality and diversity of cultures is a conscious decision of the EU. Multiligualism forms the basis of linguistic policy of the EU. For students’ mobility, freedom of movement of the EU citizens, for trade, commerce and industry, it is necessary and beneficial to know more than one language. Since 2004 there is an EU-Commissioner for implementation of multilingualism and to promote lifelong learning of foreign languages. Not only the number of the recognized languages in the European Union has risen since then, but also the number of bi- and trilingual European citizens has grown. The slogan on the council of Europe’s website is “Language means business”. EU has taken several measures to support its multilingual policy. Since 2001 they are even celebrating 26^th September as the day of Languages in order to develop language capability across Europe. The contribution of Multilingualism to intercultural dialogue is also being increasingly recognized.

Practising multilingualism

After this brief presentation of linguistic history, ideologies and policies, we can now turn to the multilingual practice in our era as the concluding point.

Till about 1960s many scientists in the West stressed disadvantages and harm that bilingualism and multilingualism could cause. For a long time learning a foreign language was seen also as neurologically and psychologically challenging. However, the paradigm shift in evaluating individual multilingualism took place after 1960 (Lüdi 1996: 235) and many research projects thereafter pointed out positive aspects of bilingualism. The results of neuro-linguistc reseach have shown, that human beings with their psychological disposition can learn many languages without any problem (Ehlich 2007 : 242).

Today bi- or multilingualism is seen without any doubt as advantageous. However, how far multilingualism is really practised in the EU? Ehlich, Linguistic professor and scholar,  observes Though the official EU policy maintains that each EU citizen must learn two foreign languages, some fear that this goal has remained unfulfilled to a large extent. (Ehlich 2007 : 245)

As Ehlich further points out, even Swiss are very rarely multilingual, though Switzerland has been a multilingual country. There are only some „Weltbürger“ (World Citizens) who would use another language, and that is generally English. The same can be probably said also about the EU.

In this context it is interesting to see the German linguistic policy. It remains, more or less, confined to the development, maintenance, documentation, channelization, spreading and promoting of German language in and outside Germany.

Looking back to India, multiliguilalism has been practised since times immemorial. Choice of language has always been domain specific. Indian national identity has never been linked to one language, one culture or one religion (Annamalai 2001 : 131). In no Indian state there is any legal restriction on the medium of education. It is even recommended that a child should, as far as possible, get its primary education in the mother tongue (Annamalai 2001 : 130).

Today there is a general consensus on advantages of Multilingualism. But there is still a lot of scope to undertake research and to engage with some basic questions: Has Europe become more inclusive and tolerant towards other languages and cultures? Should one look at the languages of immigrants as a problem or opportunity? How far is multilinguality essential or helpful in integration of immigrants?  

Further questions like : How far do Hindi films and film songs promote multilingual practice in India? Should culturally hybrid sociolects, code mixing and code switching be seen as positive or negative? Is frequent code switching hazardous to linguistic and psychological growth? Little is known about the consequences.

How is multilingualism practised and performed in Europe and India? How far flexibility of social identity is linked with different languages spoken around? How far can learning foreign languages in the school help promote multilingual practice? These and many more problem areas could be investigated fruitfully for the better intercultural understanding.

Literaturverzeichnis

1. Addresses to the German Nation by Fichte (Reden an die deutsche Nation (1808)) trans. R. F. Jones and G. H. Turnbull, New York: Harper & Row: In George Armstrong Kelly (ed.) 1968. 
2. Bhabha, Homi 1994 : The Location of Culture, dt. übers. von M. Schiffmann und J. Freudl, 2000: Die Verortung der Kultur, Tübingen.
3. E. Annamalai : Annamalai, E. 2001 : Managing Multiculturalism in India, Political and Linguistic Manifestations, Language and Devolopment Vol. 8., Sage publications India Pvt. Ltd., New  Delhi.
4. Ehlich, Konrad (2007): „Mehrsprachigkeit – machbar? Verantwortbar? Umsetzbar?“  in Jahrbuch DaF 33, 240-250.
5. Gauger, Hans-Martin 2010: „Nationalism as a Factor in the Birth of Linguistics and Linguistic Criticism“, in Lange, Claudia; Schaefer, Ursula; Wolf; Göran (eds): Linguistics, ideology and Linguistic Nationalism, Peter Lang, Fran/M, u. a., S. 117 – 132.
6. Hügli, Anton; Lübke Poul (Hg.) 1998 (1992): Philosophie im 20. Jh. Bd. I, rowohlt.
7. Kotthoff, Helga 2010: „4.6 Fremdsprachen, Mehrsprachigkeit und Interkulturalitä“ in : Straub, Jürgen; Weidemann, Arne; Weidemann, Doris (Hg.) : Handbuch interkultureller Kommunikation und Kompetenz, S. 498 – 505.
8. Lüdi, Georges (Basel) 1996:  ein Lexikon-Artikel zur “Mehrsprachigkeit” S.233-245. In : Hans Goebl (Hg.) : Kontaktlinguistik : ein internationales Handbuch, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Bd. 12. 1996.
9. Münker, Stefan; Roesler, Alexander 2000: Poststrukturalismus, Metzler.
10. Said 1978: Orientalism, dt. 1979: Orientalismus, Fischer TB,
11. Stukenbrock, Anja 2005: Sprachnationalismus. Sprachreflexion als Medium kollektiver Identitätsstiftung in Deutschland (1617 – 1945), Göttingen.