|
Whoever is not acquainted
with foreign languages knows nothing of his own.
Johann
Wolfgang Goethe, German writer (1749-1832)
|
A language is always in danger when it isn’t part
of the school curriculum |
We ought to promote
trilingualism and save ‘small languages’ by teaching them, says linguist Joseph Poth
(Head of UNESCO’s Languages Division)
Is there a link
between language policy and the culture of peace?
Yes, they’re directly connected. When a minority mother tongue comes under attack,
its users feel uncomfortable and experience an inner conflict. And when people aren’t
at peace with themselves, they can’t be at peace with others. Languages are still
the only tools which allow us to communicate—to relate to and understand each other—whether
by writing, speaking or through the Internet. This idea of focusing on languages
as instruments of dialogue to tackle intolerance and violence has been the driving
force behind UNESCO’s Linguapax programme (see "defenders
of diversity")
for more than 15 years.
Isn’t the international community very slow in getting to grips with the language
question?
It’s coming round to it. Sixty-nine countries presented a draft resolution to the
United Nations General Assembly in December 1999 to promote respect for multilingualism.
UNESCO’s General Conference has just passed four resolutions
backing language diversity and multilingual education. The European Union and the
Council of Europe are planning a European Year of Languages in 2001 with UNESCO
backing. This is a good example of international co-operation because it involves
all languages, not just European ones. It will also mark the start of many other
projects around the world.
How do you explain this about-turn?
For several years now, the language question has been high on the world education
agenda. UNESCO member states are increasingly asking
us to help solve very complicated language problems and issues. Europe, along with
Asia and Latin America, has realized that the third millennium will be an era of
co-operation and and confederation and that the need to preserve identities will
have to be balanced with the demands of communication.
What’s the chief aim of international language policy?
To promote trilingualism in every society. This is a goal some countries achieved
a long time ago. Luxemburg, for example. If you tell Luxemburgers they can “afford
the luxury” of having three languages because they’re rich, they’ll tell you they’re
rich precisely because they’re rooted in trilingualism.
What are these three languages we have to learn?
Our mother tongue, obviously, a “neighbour” language and an international language.
UNESCO’s language policy replaces the standard idea
of a “foreign” language with the notion of a neighbour language, a language spoken
just over the border. We most often go to war against our neighbours, so we have
to learn their language, discover their needs and ambitions and know their culture
and values.
Minority languages are meanwhile steadily disappearing. How can they be saved?
A language is always in danger when it isn’t part of the school curriculum. Once
it’s given the status of a teaching language, even for just part of the curriculum,
a whole “rescue apparatus” is created and the language becomes alive again and is
saved.
Is monolingualism a handicap?
It’s always a great disadvantage. It means you only see the world through the
inevitably limited dimension of a single language, even if it’s a world language.
It’s also a factor of domination because people who can afford to stay monolingual
live in countries that have overwhelming political, economic and military power.
And it adds to “linguistic insecurity”, a new concept which reflects a very old truth.
Even at UNESCO, we see it regularly at international
gatherings. Delegates who speak minority languages often don’t speak up. They have
very good ideas but don’t dare to express them because they feel uncomfortable using
Unesco’s official languages. People whose mother tongue is an international one are
very privileged. It’s quite unfair.
|
