Breaking through the language barrier

Date: 11/04/1996

THE European Union's army of interpreters and translators, whose job it is to keep the wheels of communication turning, will have their work cut out to cope with the additional burdens which will be placed on them when the EU expands to let in more members.

Working in nine official languages in a 12-nation club was difficult enough, with a total of 27 interpreters needed at every meeting of the Council of Ministers to handle the 72 linguistic combinations possible. These days, 33 interpreters are required at such meetings to cope with the 110 possible combinations now that two more official languages have been added to the tally.

And, as European Voice reveals in a special report this week, the numbers will reach staggering proportions - with at least 60 interpreters needed to cope with more than 300 linguistic combinations - in a Union of 20 or more member states.

Despite occasional mutterings to the contrary, most recently by former French European Affairs Minister Alain Lamassoure, the vast majority of EU politicians argue that it would be politically impossible to limit the number of official Union languages.

The political sensitivity of this issue cannot be underestimated. The slightest suggestion that the current system should be reviewed always sparks an immediate outcry, amid fears that any change would pose a severe threat to the Union's much-cherished cultural diversity.

This is understandable and there are no easy answers.

But that should not deter EU governments from conducting a thorough review of the way the system works to see what, if any, changes could be made to ease the burden on the EU's linguistic services.

Even minor changes could produce vital savings in time and money.

While few would countenance any suggestion that limits could be placed on the number of languages in which the Union's treaties, legislation and other official documents are produced (why should any member state sign up to a legal document written in anything other than its mother tongue?), it might be possible to reduce the number of 'working' languages used for background documents and at least some meetings between member states.

After all, the European Commission already limits the number of working languages used at meetings between its officials to just three - German, French and English - without apparent difficulty.

Former Commission President Jacques Delors argued vehemently that multilingualism was the price which had to be paid for a truly open and democratic Union, and the EU's linguists are quick to point out that their services only swallow up 2&percent; of the Union's overall budget.

Both are right, but the cost to the EU taxpayer will rise significantly as the Union expands to take in more members, as will the logistical problems faced by the men and women who work in its interpretation and translation services.

To take just one example, the addition of two extra languages to the list in January last year demonstrated that finding enough interpreters and translators well-versed in unusual combinations of languages is no easy task.

It will become immeasurably more difficult when the search for linguists with a good enough command of, say, Polish and Finnish or Hungarian and Portuguese gets under way.

Against this backdrop, it is clear that EU governments cannot simply bury their heads in the sand and hope the problem will go away. It will not and something must be done to stop the decibel-level in the Union's Tower of Babel rising to deafening proportions.