FOR A MORE UNITED AND STRONGER EUROPE: MULTILINGUALISM OR COMMON LANGUAGE?

Abstract

The emergence of a new multipolar world order will require greater European integration to the point of transforming the European Union into a true federation with national sovereignty. Is it possible to realise the United States of Europe while maintaining a multilingual policy with the equal adoption of 24 official languages, as is the case with the European Union today? Can a sense of national belonging be created in a Europe of 27 peoples even among people who do not speak the same language? For a future European federation, what could be the ideal common language to complement the national languages? What characteristics should it have? This article aims to provide some food for thought in an attempt to answer these questions.

 

The worrying and very dangerous situation that has arisen with the Russian invasion of Ukraine brings to the forefront the need for a decisive breakthrough on the future of the European integration project. In fact, we are at a crossroads: either Europe evolves towards a true European Federation, firmly anchored in Western values with a true European government, with a true single common foreign policy and with a European defence with European armed forces, or it is doomed to an inexorable decline with incalculable risks to its own safety. This is all the more true in view of the rise of a new multipolar world order in which new emerging powers, such as China, will increasingly play a leading role. The United States of Europe will increasingly be a necessity, a necessary stage in history if we want to ensure a better future of safety and prosperity for our children and grandchildren. It is becoming increasingly clear that if we want to prevent Europe from becoming a territory of conquest for others in the near future, we must push the integration process further. As Europeans, we are perfectly capable of being independent from everyone and of being Western allies as equals (and not subordinate to anyone) and of excelling in economics, security, technology, culture and science, and in all fields of civilised living, but for all this to be a concrete and tangible reality, we must make the European Union (EU) a true nation. But can Europe as a nation be realised without a common language alongside the national languages? The common language is one of the distinguishing features that makes a people or several peoples a single nation. Someone will object: what can we say then about Switzerland or Belgium, nations where there is no single common official language and where multilingualism prevails? The Helvetic Confederation is actually divided into four linguistic and cultural regions: German, French, Italian and Romansh and lacks a common national language to go with the local idioms. In addition to linguistic diversity, there is also religious diversity based on the coexistence of Protestant and Catholic cantons. Swiss national identity therefore does not stem from a common ethnic, linguistic and religious affiliation, but the strong sense of belonging that makes the Swiss a true nation is based on a common historical path, shared national myths, institutional foundations (federalism, direct democracy, neutrality) and orographic homogeneity (the Alps). We are therefore talking about a very peculiar reality, small in size (8.5 million inhabitants spread over an area of 41,000 square kilometres) and very old if we consider that Switzerland has existed as an independent state since 1291 (it is one of the oldest states in the world). The fact that the Helvetic peoples have shared a path of history and common values for more than seven centuries certainly creates a very strong sense of belonging that goes far beyond any linguistic and religious divisions. But how much of an obstacle could multilingualism be in creating a sense of belonging among the Swiss? Can we somehow get a measure of the ease of understanding between citizens of a state without a single common official language? Let us consider as an ‘index of mutual understanding’ in a nation composed of peoples speaking different languages the probability that taken at random any two citizens of the nation, these two speak a common language and thus understand each other. Obviously, the higher this index, the better. The calculation must also be made taking into account the knowledge of a second or third language (typically, but not only, English). Well, if we calculate the mutual comprehension index thus defined for Switzerland, we obtain 65%. This probability is high due to the widespread use of English and the fact that German is spoken by a significant majority of the population. If we also calculate this index for Belgium, another established multilingual reality, we find 67%. Again, this is a high value. If we consider the large federations such as the United States of America, Russia, Canada, Australia, Brazil and India, we see that they are all based on a common idiom, recognised as such, which in some cases complements local idioms. In these cases, the index of mutual understanding would be 100%. Speaking the same language that is known to everyone from birth constitutes a strong unifying element in these countries. The analysis carried out for Switzerland, Belgium and the large federations leads us to assume that a multilingual reality consolidating in a nation state should have a mutual understanding index of between 60% and 100%. And what about Europe? How does Europe stand from a linguistic point of view? Today, the European Union has 27 member states, 24 official languages and a population of around 450 million inhabitants. While multilingualism undoubtedly constitutes a cultural asset, it also represents a very high cost: according to the EU website, the current cost of maintaining multilingualism policy is EUR 1,123 million, or 1% of the EU's annual general budget. Beyond the economic costs of multilingualism, the lack of a common idiom alongside the national languages in any case constitutes a non-negligible vulnus for the European Union. The mutual understanding index calculated for the European Union, also taking into account the spread of English as a second language, is 22%, a very low value, well below the value obtained for Switzerland. It means that taking any two EU citizens at random, the probability that they understand each other when speaking is 22%. If one considers that the European Union is currently made up of 27 different peoples who speak 24 different languages and who in the past have often fought bitterly in bloody wars (since the Middle Ages there have been a hundred or so conflicts between the states that are now part of the EU), one can hardly think that it can be felt as a common homeland by relying solely on cultural, religious or ideological elements. It is clear that under these conditions it is very difficult to advance European integration towards a United States of Europe with the widespread consensus and convinced adhesion of European citizens. And this, precisely at a time when nationalistic regurgitations seem to be asserting themselves in all states, increasingly taking on sovereigntist and racist connotations that risk making us relive a sad and hateful past. If today the idea of a united Europe appears blurred and weak, it is precisely because the European institutions appear distant and are seen as an artificial and bureaucratic superstructure: something that comes from above and does not correspond to the convinced adherence of the peoples. It is therefore necessary to act on that factor that makes the popular masses in the European Union perceive their fellow European citizens as ‘foreigners’: the fact that they do not speak a common language. Linguistic diversity is still for many Europeans a strong obstacle to direct social relations between citizens of different nations and is what makes the citizens of other nations perceive each other as ‘foreigners’.The fact that we consider those who do not speak our language as ‘foreigners’ has deep roots in human history and psychology. There are several reasons why language becomes a distinguishing element between ‘us’ and ‘others’:
1. Cultural identity: language is one of the most obvious and distinctive aspects of a culture. By speaking the same language, people share a common way of seeing the world, expressing thoughts, emotions and traditions. Those who do not speak the same language may be perceived as outside this cultural community.
2. Communication and trust: Mutual understanding is fundamental to building relationships of trust and cooperation. When one cannot communicate in the same language, difficulties in communication emerge and this can create mistrust or a sense of foreignness.
3. Historical evolution: Historically, those who did not speak the local language were often associated with foreign groups, invaders or foreign merchants, creating an association between linguistic difference and geographical or cultural difference. In many ancient societies, foreigners were considered ‘barbarians’, a term that originally denoted those who did not speak the Greek language and whose language sounded like an indistinct ‘bar-bar’.
4. Social and community boundaries: Language creates a sense of belonging to a community or nation. Those who do not share the language are not perceived as part of the group, and this reinforces the distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’.

In short, language is not only a means of communication, but also a symbol of identity and belonging, and those who do not speak our language can easily be perceived as ‘foreigners’ because they do not share this important trait of our culture. Having a common language would certainly help to make us feel more European citizens, more united, and would help to create that sense of belonging that is an indispensable premise for the democratic construction from below of a truly united, strong and free Europe.
A common language would also foster the mobility of European citizens, both in employment and education. Students, professionals and entrepreneurs would have fewer obstacles when moving between countries, contributing to a more integrated and dynamic job market. It is important to emphasize that a common language should not supplant national languages, but coexist with them in a framework of multilingualism that enhances Europe's linguistic diversity. But what essential characteristics should a common European language have? Let us look at them in detail.

1) NEUTRALITY
It must not correspond to any of the national languages because otherwise it would be an expression of the domination of one national culture over the others. This excludes, for example, the adoption of English, which after Brexit is the national language of 1% of EU citizens (a minority) and is already the national language of some non-EU states (UK, USA, Canada, Australia, etc.).

2) CULTURALITY
It must have cultural roots that can be traced back to Europe's multi-millennial history. This aspect is important for it to be accepted as a common language.

3) SIMPLICITY
It must be an easy language to learn and therefore must be based on an essential grammar. Indeed, it is very important that people are enticed to study it and are incentivized by the ease of learning it. Moreover, this would also ensure its rapid dissemination, through schools, among the younger generations.

Some have proposed adopting Esperanto as the European language. This artificial language, born in the second half of the 19th century from the ingenious intuition of the Polish ophthalmologist of Jewish origin Ludwik Lejzer Zamenhof, certainly has the first and third characteristics, but not the second. Certainly, the fact that it has no solid, ancient historical roots, despite drawing on various world languages for the genesis of its words, makes Esperanto difficult to accept because it has no connotation specifically rooted in the history of European culture. A viable alternative could be Latin, which would meet requirements 1 and 2, but not 3. Indeed, while it is true that Latin has had a profound impact on European culture, so much so that even the Germanic languages have some terms of Latin origin and would therefore be more acceptable as a common European language, it is nevertheless too complicated both grammatically and syntactically. What could therefore be the solution? Adopt a new planned language (created specifically for this purpose) that has Latin as its starting point, but is based on a very simplified grammar and syntax. For this, a new language was designed, called Euriziano (www.euriziano.eu), consisting of a Latin base, but with a much simpler grammar and syntax, supplemented by Esperanto elements modified to express modern terms not found in classical Latin vocabulary. This new language would have all three characteristics to aspire to become the language of the European Union:

1) It does not correspond to any currently adopted national language;
2) It has cultural roots that draw on the Latin language, and thus its origins, albeit indirectly, go back to the sources of European civilization;
3) It is a very easy language to learn.

In order to achieve the rapid spread of a new common language, it would certainly be necessary to make its study compulsory (alongside that of the national languages and English) in all schools of all levels in the European Union. The main difficulty in this project would be the need to train teachers in a new language that has never been taught before. This would require a preparatory period of approximately two years before the introduction of teaching in schools to train the teaching staff dedicated to teaching the common language. In this hypothesis, if the new language were adopted now, within two or three generations (approximately a century), a common language spoken by 65% of the EU population could be achieved, which would bring the Union's mutual understanding index to levels close to those recorded for countries such as Switzerland or Belgium. I believe that it is important to resume the debate on multilingualism and the common European language by also involving the European (Commission, Parliament, Council) and national institutions, cultural and academic institutions (universities, schools, associations) and, above all, the citizens of the Union in the hope that this will create a greater awareness of the need to feel, as Europeans, all part of a common civilization and a common destiny.