Is Europe's language sector walking its talk? And why are we just using English to ask this question?
The main purpose of this document is to address a natural and logical question: given that the survey, the results presentation (27 March), and the debate (7 April) are all about multilingualism in Europe, particularly in the European language sector, then why is English the working language for all three?
At De Taalsector we would have liked to provide you with a completely multilingual format, but we are unable to do so due to several practical limitations. We are well aware of the inherent value of each language and the drawbacks of relying on any one language.
Terminology
The first limitation to consider is terminology.
The problem here is terminological ambiguity: key terms such as "language sector" and "language professional" lack universally accepted definitions. Any translation therefore entails interpretative choices, which can multiply the ambiguity. For instance, our French translators proposed a range of renderings, each reflecting a different conceptual framework, including: secteur des langues, secteur linguistique, industrie des services linguistiques, industrie langagière, among many others.
Language equality
If we were to apply the principle of language equality strictly, the only fully consistent solution would be to translate the survey into all the languages spoken in Europe and to provide an interpreting service for the results presentation and debate in each of those languages.
Any more limited approach – e.g. restricting translation or interpreting in the 24 official EU languages – would inevitably imply a political choice about which languages to prioritise. This is not a role we would wish to adopt.
In this context, using English as a working language represents the most pragmatic solution.
Automation
Automatic translation for the survey is not a viable option. Although less expensive and undoubtedly faster, it would not guarantee the quality required to safeguard methodological reliability.
Even machine translation with human post-editing would not resolve the core issue of terminological ambiguity.
In addition, machine translation does not guarantee the same quality across all languages, which could result in linguistic inequality.
Financial constraint
Finally, there is a clear financial constraint. Translating the survey, results presentation and debate even into the 24 official languages of the European Union would require financial resources that we simply do not have.
Quotes obtained from freelancers and translation agencies indicate a cost of approximately 300 euros per language for the survey alone, an amount that, multiplied by 24, illustrates the scale of the required budget.
Language policy in the survey
For the reasons outlined above, the survey questions are presented in English.
Nonetheless, respondents are free to answer the open-ended questions in any language they choose, so they can express their views in the language they feel most comfortable with.
Language policy for the online results presentation session (27 March)
English will serve as the working language for the presentation and discussion of the survey results.
However, we do not wish to limit participation only to those who are comfortable speaking English.
Therefore, participants are welcome to contribute in any language they choose. To ensure mutual understanding, contributions made in other languages will be translated, and responses will generally be given in English as the shared language of the session.
Read more about the survey results presentation?
Language policy for the debate (7 April)
As with the survey and the results presentation session, English will serve as the working language for the debate.
Before the debate begins, we will briefly and informally map out the languages participants can understand and/or facilitate. This will enable multilingual exchanges in which speakers can use languages other than English and participants can respond in different languages, provided that mutual comprehension is possible.
Contributions in languages other than English will in any case be briefly summarised in English to ensure that everyone can understand them.
Our aim is to create a space where multilingual communication practices can emerge naturally, with participants feeling free to experiment with creative ways of overcoming language barriers.
In conclusion
In conclusion, we are fully aware of the apparent paradox of conducting a survey on multilingualism in Europe’s language sector exclusively in English.
However, this decision was made after careful consideration.
It is precisely through initiatives like this that we hope to help create the conditions for a future in which projects about multilingualism can genuinely be conducted in multiple languages.