From Babel to Brussels European Integration and the Importance of Transnational Linguistic Capital

Abstract

Globalisation and the political process of European integration opened the European Union member states to one another. As different EU member states have different languages, participation in globalisation and the process of European integration is dependent on Europeans’ ability to speak the languages of others. Those who speak multiple languages can more easily come into contact with citizens of other countries, conduct business and diplomacy, cooperate academically, organise protests across national boundaries, or enter into romantic relations with them. In short, they can socialise transnationally in a number of different dimensions. Those who only speak their native language are, in contrast, tied to their home country and can only take slight advantage of the perks of a united Europe and a globalised world. Possessing transnational linguistic capital is a deciding factor in whether or not someone can participate in an emerging European society; it becomes a new measure of social inequality, a resource that can either lead to societal inclusion or exclusion.The question central to our study is to what degree citizens in the twenty‐ seven EU member states possess transnational linguistic capital and how to explain the differences in multilingualism both between and within the member states. We present a general explanatory model for foreign language proficiency, create hypotheses from this model and test them empirically. Drawing on a survey conducted in twenty‐seven European countries it can be shown that the peoples’ ability to speak different languages can be very well predicted with the help of the different explanatory factors. We find that country size, the prevalence of a respondent’s native language, the linguistic difference between one’s mother tongue and the foreign language, and age affect language acquisition negatively, whereas a country’s level of education has a positive influence. Using Bourdieu’s theory of social class, we show that besides other factors a respondent’s social class position and the level of education are important micro‐level factors that help to increase a person’s transnational linguistic capital.One must put these results in the context of the state of the art. The analysis of multilingualism is a major topic in linguistics, psychology, and education. The societal conditions in which language learners are embedded are hardly taken into account in these studies. This would not be worth discussing any further if sociology was not relevant to multilingualism; but the contrary seems to be true. Our analysis shows that the neglected societal conditions are actually of central importance in determining transnational linguistic capital.

Full text



FromBabeltoBrussels
EuropeanIntegrationandtheImportanceof
TransnationalLinguisticCapital






JürgenGerhards


Author
JürgenGerhardsisprofessorofsociologyat the Freie UniversitätBerlin.His
main fields of interest are: comparative cultural sociology, European
integration, sociology of the public sphere. His most importantbook
publications include CulturalOverstretch?DifferencesBetweenOldandNew
MemberStatesoftheEUandTurkey (Routledge 2007); TheNameGame.
CulturalModernizationandFirstNames (Transaction Publishers 2005) and
ShapingAbortionDiscourse:DemocracyandthePublicSphereinGermanyand
theUnitedStates (Cambridge University Press 2003, together with Myra
MarxFerree,WilliamGamson,andDieterRucht).Hismostimportantarticles
includeEuropeanIntegration,EqualityRightsandPeople'sBeliefs(European
SociologicalReview2012, withHolgerLengfeld); WhynotTurkey?Attitudes
towardsTurkishMembershipintheEUamongCitizensin27European
countries (Journal of Common Market Studies 2011, with Silke Hans); Non
DiscriminationTowardsHomosexuality(InternationalSociology2010);From
HasantoHerbert:NameGivingPatternsofImmigrantParentsbetween
AcculturationandEthnicMaintenance(AmericanJournalofSociology2009,
with Silke Hans); FormsofCapitalandSocialStructureinCulturalFields:
ExaminingBourdieu'sSocialTopology(AmericanJournalofSociology1995,
with Helmut K. Anheier, and Frank P. Romo) as well as Mesomobilization.
OrganizingandFraminginTwoProtestCampaignsinWestGermany
(AmericanJournalofSociology1992,withDieterRucht).




Translation:ThemanuscriptwastranslatedfromGermanintoEnglishby
MaureenMetzger.
Layout&FinalEditing:IngaGanzer
FrontPicture:“TowerofBabel”(1563)byPieterBruegeltheElder
Citation: Gerhards, Jürgen (2012): From Babel to Brussels. European
Integration and the Importance of Transnational Linguistic Capital. Berlin
Studieson theSociology ofEurope (BSSE). No.28. Berlin:Freie Universität
Berlin.
Contact:JürgenGerhards,InstituteofSociology,FreeUniversityofBerlin,
Garystraße55,14195Berlin,j.gerhards@fu‐berlin.de.



FromBabeltoBrussels.EuropeanIntegrationandtheImportanceof
TransnationalLinguisticCapital

Summary
Globalisation and the political process of European integrationopenedthe
European Union member states to one another. As different EU member
stateshavedifferentlanguages,participationinglobalisationandtheprocess
of European integration is dependent on Europeans’ ability to speak the
languagesofothers.Thosewhospeakmultiplelanguagescanmore easily
come into contact with citizens of other countries, conduct business and
diplomacy, cooperate academically, organise protests across national
boundaries, or enter into romantic relations with them. In short, they can
socialise transnationally in a number of different dimensions. Those who
onlyspeaktheirnativelanguageare,incontrast,tiedto theirhomecountry
and can only take slight advantage of the perks of a united Europe and a
globalised world. Possessing transnational linguistic capital is a deciding
factorinwhetherornotsomeonecanparticipateinanemergingEuropean
society;it becomes a newmeasure of social inequality, a resource that can
eitherleadtosocietalinclusionorexclusion.
Thequestion central toour study is towhat degree citizensinthetwenty‐
sevenEUmemberstatespossesstransnationallinguisticcapitalandhowto
explain the differences in multilingualism both between and within the
memberstates.Wepresentageneralexplanatorymodelforforeignlanguage
proficiency, create hypotheses from this model and test them empirically.
Drawingonasurveyconductedintwenty‐sevenEuropeancountriesitcanbe
shownthatthepeoples’abilitytospeakdifferentlanguagescanbeverywell
predictedwiththehelpofthedifferentexplanatoryfactors.We find that
countrysize,theprevalenceofarespondent’snativelanguage,thelinguistic
differencebetweenone’smothertongueandtheforeignlanguage, and age
affectlanguageacquisitionnegatively,whereasacountry’slevelofeducation
hasapositiveinfluence.UsingBourdieu’stheoryofsocialclass,weshowthat
besides other factors a respondent’s social class position and the level of
educationareimportantmicro‐level factorsthathelp to increaseaperson’s
transnationallinguisticcapital.
Onemustputtheseresultsinthecontextofthestateoftheart.Theanalysis
ofmultilingualismisamajortopicinlinguistics,psychology,andeducation.
Thesocietalconditionsinwhichlanguagelearnersareembeddedarehardly
takenintoaccountinthesestudies.Thiswouldnotbeworthdiscussingany
furtherifsociologywasnotrelevanttomultilingualism;butthe contrary
seemsto be true. Our analysisshows that the neglected societal conditions
are actually of central importance in determining transnational linguistic
capital.











CONTENTS


Foreword:Whythisbookispublishedinopenaccess?.............................................. 6
Acknowledgements.................................................................................................................... 9

1.Settingthestage....................................................................................................................10
2.ConceptualFramework......................................................................................................21
2.1.WhatisLanguage?.......................................................................................................22
2.2LanguageProficiencyasHumanCapital.............................................................26
2.3TransnationalLinguisticCapitalanditsGrowingImportance.................47
3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety................................................................53
3.1NationBuilding,andLanguageStandardisation,WorldSociety
andtheRiseofEnglishasaHegemoniclinguafranca .........................................54
3.2EuropeanisationandGlobalisationofNationStateSocieties
inEurope..................................................................................................................................78
3.3EuropeanUnion’sLanguagePolicy.......................................................................97
4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital.........................................121
4.1WhoSpeaksHowManyLanguages?..................................................................122
4.2ExplainingDifferencesinTransnationalLinguisticCapital ....................133
4.3OutlookonHowtheCitizens’MultilingualismwillDevelop...................176
5.AnArgumentforanewLanguagePolicyintheEuropeanUnion ................182



AppendixA:TherelationshipbetweenLanguageandCulture ......................... 196
AppendixB:DescriptionofVariables............................................................................ 203
References.................................................................................................................................206

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS
6
Foreword:WhythisBookisPublishedinOpenAccess?

ThisbookisanEnglishtranslationoftheGermanwork“Mehrsprachigkeitim
vereintenEuropa. Transnationales sprachliches Kapital als Ressource in ei‐
nerglobalisiertenWelt”(Multilingualismin Europe. Transnationallinguistic
capitalasaresourceinaglobalisedworld),publishedin2010bytheVerlag
für Sozialwissenschaften. Literature that has appeared since 2010hasnot
been systematically considered for this translation. This omission includes
the2011workbyPhilippevanParijs‚“LinguisticJusticeforEuropeandthe
World”.
The English version will not be published by a publishing house, but will
insteadbemadeavailableasanopenaccesspublication.Itisthefirstofmy
books to be published this way. While the number of open accessjournals
has grown significantly, the publication of open access books has not
followedthesamepattern.Inthisrespect,thepublicationof“FromBabelto
Brussels”isaninterestingpersonalexperiment.
Ihavebeenmotivatedtopursuethismodeofpublicationforthefollowing
reasons.Firstly,a bookpublishedby a socialsciencespublishing housewill
cost,inpaperback,around€25‐30,whiletheopenaccessversionisavailable
toreadersforfree.Itisself‐evidentthatreaderswouldratherreadabookfor
free than pay for it. The internet also makes it possible for anyone with a
computer to access the book instantly, meaning not only that the book is
available at no cost, but also that there is also no waiting period before a
readerisabletoreadthetext.Librariesgenerallyonlyhaveone available
copyofagivenbook.Ifthiscopyisloanedout,potentialreadersmustwait
until the book is returned. Open access availability means thatmany
potentialcustomershaveaccesstothebooksimultaneously.
Secondly,mostauthorsofscientificbooksdonotearnanyincomefrom the
publicationofabookbyapublishinghouse.Thismeansthatauthorsdonot
makeanysignificantfinanciallosswiththeopenaccesspublicationof their
work.Financial incentivesare, moreover,not the main reasonwhy authors

Foreword:WhythisBookisPublishedinOpenAccess?

7
fromacademiawritescholarlybooks.Theywanttheirworktobereadby
others,andespeciallytoinfluencetheirpeers,aninfluencethatismanifested
incitations ofthe published work.Since the potential reach ofopen access
booksavailableontheinternetismuchgreaterthanthereachoftraditionally
publishedbooks,authorshaveaninterestinopenaccesspublication.
Thirdly, publishers are not only sellers who mediate between authors and
potentialreaders,theyalsoperformacheckingandcorrectingfunction,
selectingworks from alist ofsubmittedmanuscripts, commentingon those
manuscriptsandmakingsuggestionsforimprovement(allowingthe author
to revise and improve the text), typesetting the books and creating an
attractive layout. It is my impression, however, that publishers are paying
lessandlessattentiontothesetasks.Goodeditingof texts is largelyabsent,
andauthorsareincreasinglyexpectedtoedittheirownbookmanuscriptsso
thatpublishershaveverylittleworktodo.Thiswillmakeitincreasinglyless
attractiveforauthorstopublishtheirbooksthroughpublishinghouses.
The above arguments imply that open access publication is a win‐win
situationforbothauthorsandreaders.Notwithstanding,therearesignificant
advantagesinpublishingbooksthroughapublishinghouse.Inparticular,the
well‐known English language scientific publishers have established strong
reputations and have accrued a large amount of symbolic capitalinthe
academicfield,and this capitalistransferred tothebooksand especiallyto
theauthorswhopublishwiththesepublishers.Bookswhicharepublishedby
renowned publishers are regarded as important and significant simply by
virtueofthefactthattheyarepublishedbytheserenownedpublishers.For
the potential reader, the publishers, in this way, provide guidance. They
dividethelistofpublishedbooksintoimportantandunimportantworks,and
playaroleinstructuringthescientificfieldhierarchically.Thisincreasesthe
likelihoodthatbookswhicharedeignedtobeimportantwillberead.While
therateofhorizontaldiffusionofopenaccessbooksiscertainlymuchlarger
thanthatofbookswhicharedistributedbypublishers,verygoodpublishers
aremore influentialin the verticaland hierarchicalstructuring ofscientific
fields than the democratic market of open access publication. Whether

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

8
publishingviaopenaccesscanoffsettheadvantagesofpublishinghousesis
difficulttosay.IamcurioustofindoutwhetherIhavemadethe right
decisionbypublishingthisbookinopenaccess.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

9
Acknowledgements

Severalpeopleandinstitutionshavecontributedsignificantlytothesuccess
ofthisstudy.Helpfulcommentsonindividualchaptersandhintstorelevant
referenceswere provided by the following (in alphabetical order): Peter A.
Berger,JuanDíezMedrano,ClaudiaFinger,DavidGlowsky,MonikaHufnagel,
HartmutKaelble,JulianeKlein,HubertKnoblauch,StanleyLieberson,Richard
Münch,SebastianNix,ThomasRisse,JörgRössel,JochenRoose,Mike S.
Schäfer,Jürgen Trabant andGeorg Vobruba. MikeS. Schäfer alsosuggested
thetitleforthebook.
SpecialthanksshouldgotoMaureenMetzger,SilkeHans,IngaGanzer and
PaulDiMaggio.MaureenMetzgerdidaterrificjobintranslatingmostpartsof
theGermanmanuscriptintoEnglishandinsmoothingouttheoverlycomplex
Germansentences.SilkeHansactivelysupportedmeintheempiricalanalysis
andcommentedin greatdetailonthecoreempiricalchapter.IngaGanzeris
responsibleforlayoutandfinalediting.PaulDiMaggioreadthe entire
manuscriptverythoroughlyandmademanyexcellentsuggestionsfor
improvements, even though I was not able to implement all of his
suggestions.
The research cluster “Languages ofEmotion”,fundedbytheDeutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation), granted mea
sabbaticaltoundertakethework.Aninvitationtothe“CenterforEuropean
Studies”atHarvardUniversity,whichprovedtobeanexcellentworking
environment,gavemetheopportunitytobringthesereflections to fruition
onpaperinarelativelyshorttime.Andaninvitationtothe
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (Social Science Research
CenterBerlin)gavemetheopportunitytoworkontheEnglishtranslationof
theGermanmanuscript.
Berlin,September2012


  10








1.SETTINGTHESTAGE

Theworldtodayischaracterisedbyamultitudeofdifferentlanguagesandis
oftendepictedasaBabylonianconfusionoftongues,becauseitprevents
people from understanding those who speak a different language.This
attribution connects today’s multilingual world order back to theTowerof
Babel,oneoftheoldestmythsdescribinglinguisticdiversity.Themostwell‐
knownversionisfoundinanOldTestamentpassageinGenesis11:1‐9:
Nowthewholeworldhadonelanguageandacommonspeech.Asmen
movedeastward,theyfoundaplaininShinarandsettledthere.They
saidtoeachother,‘Come,let'smakebricksandbakethemthoroughly.’
Theyusedbrickinsteadofstone,andtarformortar.Thentheysaid,
‘Come,letusbuildourselvesacity,withatowerthatreachestothe
heavens,sothatwemaymakeanameforourselvesandnotbescattered
overthefaceofthewholeearth.’
ButtheLORDcamedowntoseethecityandthetowerthatthemen
werebuilding.TheLORDsaid,‘Ifasonepeoplespeakingthesame
languagetheyhavebeguntodothis,thennothingtheyplantodowillbe
impossibleforthem.Come,letusgodownandconfusetheirlanguageso
theywillnotunderstandeachother.’SotheLORDscatteredthemfrom
thereoveralltheearth,andtheystoppedbuildingthecity.Thatiswhyit
wascalledBabel–becausetheretheLORDconfusedthelanguageofthe
wholeworld.FromtheretheLORDscatteredthemoverthefaceofthe
wholeearth.

1.SettingtheStage

11
The Tower of Babel is but one of a number of tragic stories in the Old
Testament,suchastheexpulsionfromtheGardenofEden,fratricide,orthe
GreatFlood; thecause ofthese tragedies,however man’sstriving forGodly
power,issimilaracrossallstories.
TheTowerofBabelstorycontainsseveralinteresting sociological theorems
applicableto today’s linguisticconstellation. People whosettled in Babylon
wereacommunity,partiallysobecausetheyspokeacommontongue. The
importanceoflanguageintheprocessofidentityformationisunderlinedby
the consequences of God’s punishment: After their dispersal, the settlers
began to speak many languages; from one united people came many, and
eachspokeadifferentlanguage.Whereasacommonlanguageunifies and
strengthens communal identity, multiple languages divide and lead to a
segmentedstructureofdifferentcommunities.
Inadditiontolanguage’sidentity and community building function, it also
hasasocietybuildingfunction.Buildingacityandatowerthatreaches up
intotheheavensisonlypossiblepreciselybecausethepeoplespeakthesame
language.Theircommunallanguageallowsthem tocoordinatetheiractions
because they understand each other. Consequently, their plan for a large‐
scalesocietalprojectfailswhenGodtakesawaytheircapabilitytocoordinate
theiractionsbytakingawaytheirmeansofcommunication.Andindeed,one
canhardlyimaginehowalargeconstructionproject,suchascreating an
entiresociety,couldsucceedifthepeopleinvolvedcouldnotcommunicate
withoneanother.
OneofthethemesintheTowerofBabelstoryisthenaboutthesociologyof
language which reappears and is even further developed in the New
TestamentPentecostalstory.AfterthecrucifixionofJesusandfiftydaysafter
hisresurrectionatEaster,Jesus’followersaregatheredinJerusalemforthe
harvestfestival ofShavuot whenthe Holy Ghostdescends upon them,as is
told:

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

12
WhenthedayofPentecostcame,theywerealltogetherinoneplace.
Suddenlyasoundliketheblowingofaviolentwindcamefromheaven
andfilledthewholehousewheretheyweresitting.Theysawwhat
seemedtobetonguesoffirethatseparatedandcametorestoneachof
them.AllofthemwerefilledwiththeHolySpiritandbegantospeakin
othertonguesastheSpiritenabledthem.(Acts2:14)
ThemiracleofPentecostdoesnotundotheBabylonianconfusionoftongues;
peoplethusarestillspeakingdifferentlanguagesandarestill split into
different linguistic communities scattered across the Earth. Now it is the
followersofJesus whoaremultilingual andwho possess whatwewill later
calltransnationallinguisticcapital,meaningtheabilitytocommunicatewith
otherpeople in theirspecific native language.Because of thisability, Jesus’
followers were able to spread the word of God to different communities
aroundtheworld.Pentecostisthereforealsorightlycalledthe birthday of
theChurchasanorganisation,oneoftheearliestgloballyacting‘companies’.
TheabilityoftheLord’sfollowerstospeakforeignlanguagesallowedthemto
create a globalised society and to counteract its previously fractured and
scatteredstructure.
Eventhoughthepresentisveryfarremovedfrombiblicaltimes,wefindthe
sametension–thetensionbetweentheOldandtheNewTestamentsstories,
betweenaconfusionoftonguesandtheopportunitytocreateasocietythat
crosseslinguisticborders–whichformsthebasisofourpresentstudy.Our
analysisfocusesondevelopmentalprocessesthatbeganinthesecondhalfof
thetwentiethcentury.Politicalscientistsrefertoourcurrentworldorderas
oneof‘Westphaliansovereignty’,datingbacktothePeaceofWestphalia in
1648whichcreatednationstatesandestablishedinternalEuropeanborders.
The modern Westphalian political order consists of multiple internally as
wellasexternallysovereignstates,“containers”thatcoexistnext to one
another (Taylor 1994; Beck 1997). The Westphalian order has also
structuredtheinstitutionalisedlinguisticorderinsofarasmostnationstates
haveadifferentofficiallanguage;asarulenationalboundariesareatthe

1.SettingtheStage

13
same time language boundaries. Linguistic heterogeneity within a specific
country is rare whereas linguistic heterogeneity between nation states is
high as different countries usually speak different languages. This
constellationresemblesthepost‐Babylonianworldofpeoplescatteredacross
theEarth.Manypeopleinthisworldcannotunderstandeachotherbecause
theyliveintheirnational“container”andonlyspeaktheofficiallanguageof
theirhomecountry.
Withtheonsetofglobalisationtheconstellationbegantochange in a
fundamentalwayatthebeginningofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.
Theextent,frequency,andspeedofexchangebetweendifferentnationstates
and different world regions haveincreasedenormouslyoverthelast sixty
years.Globalisationhasprofundlychangedsocieties,bothsoftening
international borders and creating more opportunities for economic,
communicational, cultural, and political exchange. Europe witnessed
fundamentalchangesandisthereforethefocusofourstudy.The political
process of European integration opened the twenty‐seven European Union
memberstatestooneanotherthroughthecreationofasingleEuropean
marketandthroughfreedomofmovementforgoods,services,workers,and
financialcapital.Thecreationofacommonmarkethasadvanced cross‐
boundary economic processes and promoted inter‐European trade, value‐
addedchains,andtransnationalisationoffinancialcapital.
BothglobalisationandEuropeanisationofformerlyisolatednation state
“containers”open newopportunities for theEuropean people.Yet, because
different EU member states have different languages, participation in
globalisation and Europeanisation is dependent on Europeans’ ability to
speak the languages of others. Possessing transnational linguistic capital is
therefore a deciding factor in whether or not someone can participate in
thesetransnationalprocesses.Thosewho,likethefollowersof Jesus,speak
multiplelanguagescan moreeasilycome into contactwithcitizens ofother
countries and also interact, convert, conduct business and diplomacy,
cooperate academically, organise protests across national boundaries, or
enter into romantic relations with them. In short, they can socialise

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

14
transnationallyin anumber ofdifferent dimensions.Those Europeanswith
transnational linguistic capital, meaning that they are multilingual, are
thereforeinthepositiontobuildtransnationalrelationshipsandtotakepart
inEuropeanisationprocesses.Thosewhoonlyspeaktheirnativetongueare,
incontrast,tiedtotheirhomecountryandcanonlytakeslightadvantageof
the benefits of a united Europe and a globalised world. Transnational
linguisticcapitalthereforebecomesanewmeasureofsocialinequality in
today’sincreasingly globalisedandEuropeansocietyandisaresource that
caneitherleadtosocietalinclusionorexclusion.
Inadditiontotheconsequencesofmono‐andmultilingualismonthe
individuallevel,therearealsocollectiveconsequences.Societiesthatsharea
commonlanguageusuallyhavemorevibranttradewithoneanotherthando
nation states that speak different languages, as the transaction costs are
muchhigher inthelatter case.Therefore,a multilingualEuropeancitizenry
wouldcertainlyincreasetheoveralleconomicgrowthinEurope.The
allocation of resources within the European market would also improve
markedly were its participants multilingual. Insufficient foreign language
proficiencyisoneofthemostimportantreasonsfortheratherlowlevelsof
geographic inter‐EU mobility. An increase in such mobility, furthered by
multilingualism,wouldleadtoabetterbalanceofsupplyanddemandwithin
theEUandwouldhaveapositiveeffectoneconomicgrowthbothin
countrieswithbothlabourshortageandsurpluses.Inaddition,anincreaseof
inter‐EU mobility would lead to a better match between the skills of
employees’and open job positionswith particular qualifications offered by
employers(seeForschungsinstitutzurZukunftderArbeit2008).
Theemergence ofa Europeanpublic spherewould also profit from a more
multilingual citizenry (see Gerhards 1993, 2000). Political decisions are
increasinglybeingmadebyEUinstitutions,ratherthanbynational
governments,butthemediaremainfocusedonthenationallevel.TheFrench
people still inform themselves about happenings in France in the French
language,theGermansreadaboutwhatisgoingoninBerlininGerman,etc.
The consequence is that citizens are not well‐informed about EU‐level

1.SettingtheStage

15
decisions.OneofthemostimportantreasonsforthislackofaEuropean
publicsphereisduetothelanguageconstellation.CreatingaEuropeanpublic
sphere and getting citizens to participate in the project of European
integrationwouldbemucheasierifitspeoplecouldunderstandoneanother.
Since multilingualism has both individual and collective benefits, we are
curiousto see the degree to whichEuropeans speak foreign languages and
canthusreapthesebenefits.Wedonotassumethattransnationallinguistic
capitalisliketheHolyGhostvisitingJesus’followersonPentecost;rather,we
assumethatmultilingualismhas societalcauses.Thequestioncentraltoour
study is to what degree citizens in the twenty‐seven EU member states
possesstransnationallinguisticcapitalandhowtoexplainthedifferencesin
multilingualismbothbetweenandwithinthememberstates.Insodoing,we
differentiate between two types of transnational linguistic capital: the
numberoflanguagesapersonspeaks,regardlessofwhichlanguages those
are,andalsotheabilitytospeakEnglishwhichisthelanguage with the
highestcommunicativeuseintheEU.Beforeanswering thesequestions,we
mustconsidersomeconceptualaspectsoftherelationshipbetweenlanguage
and society; additionally, we will analyse the societal conditions at the
macro‐level that necessitate multilingualism. Finally, we will consider the
normativequestionofwhatkindofEUlanguagepolicywouldbebothsound
andjust.
Ourargumentfollowsassuch:Thesecondchapterdevelopsatheoretical
frame for the subsequent empiricalanalysis.Inthischapter,we briefly
describehowweunderstandlanguageingeneralandbywhich
characteristicsdifferentlanguages are defined.We then discussthe societal
functions of language and differentiate between community building and
societybuildingfunctions:acommonlanguagenotonlyenablesmorehighly
concentratedinteractions,butcanalsoservetobuildcommunity and
collective identity. This dual function also applies to multilingualism. I will
explain our understanding of transnational linguistic capital in more detail
usingPierreBourdieu’stheory.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

16
The third chapter is an analysis of the institutionalised language system in
Europe.Describingbasicsocietalconditionshelpsustounderstand why
transnational linguistic capital came to be such an important resource for
participating in the process of European integration. Three factors are
importanthere:(a) Incontrastto theUSA,there isnocommon languagein
the United States of Europe, but rather twenty‐three different official
languages.Linguistic heterogeneitywithin aparticular countryisveryrare,
becausemostmemberstatesonlyhaveoneofficiallanguage.Incontrast,
linguistic heterogeneity between states is very high, because there are
twenty‐three different languages among twenty‐seven states. Thethird
chaptercontainsamoredetaileddescriptionandexplanationofhowthis
linguisticsegmentationalongnationalboundariesdevelopedinthe 19thand
20thcenturies. The consequencesof this historicallyestablished system are
thatmultilingualismisanecessarypreconditionforeverytransnationaland
Europeanactivity,asthepeopleineachEuropeancountryspeakadifferent
language. (b) Multilingualism is not a meaningful resource in isolated
societieswithlittlecontacttotheoutsideworld,becausetheskillcannotbe
used very often. By increasing exchanges between different European
countries,globalisationandEuropeanisationhavechangedtheimportanceof
multilingualism radically. We differentiate several dimensions of
Europeanisation and globalisation, using several data sources to describe
theirdevelopment.ThefindingsshowthatEuropeansocietieshavenotonly
become more strongly interlinked, but also the degree of worldwide
interdependence has increased sharply due to globalisation. This
interdependent world presents citizenswithnewdemands,butalso with
newpossibilitiesthattheycannottakeadvantageofunlesstheylearnforeign
languages.(c)Thecreationofnationstatesshowsushowformerlylinguistic
heterogeneousentitiesbecamehomogenisedthroughpoliticalprocesses.Itis
thereforeimportanttotake acloserlook at theEU’slanguage policy,which
wedointhethirdsectionofthischapter.Incontrasttonationstates’policy,
EU’s language policy supports linguistic diversity of its members and
supportsswellastheexistingminoritylanguages.Hence,Europe’slinguistic

1.SettingtheStage

17
heterogeneity will not change in the short‐term due to the EU’s language
policy. This is another reason why multilingualism is a deciding factor for
participationinEuropeanisation.
Thefourthchaptercomprisestheempiricalcoreofthisstudy:Usingasurvey
conducted in the twenty‐seven EU member states, we analyse the
respondents’proficienciesinforeignlanguages.Untilnow,onlyNeilFligstein
(2008)inhis pathbreakingstudy“Euroclash” hasstartedto analyseforeign
language proficiency of European citizens. We go beyond Fligstein’s study
insofar as (a) we present a more general explanatory model, which(b)in
additiontoindividualcharacteristicsalsotakesmacrocontextsintoaccount
and(c)extendsthenumberofcountrieswhichareanalysed.Theempirical
resultsof ouranalysis showsthat multilingualismamong EU citizens is not
veryfaralong:MorethanhalfofEUcitizensdonotspeakaforeignlanguage
andtheir chances toparticipate inEuropeanisation processes aretherefore
onlylimited.However,theresultsalsoshowthatforeignlanguage
proficiencyvariesdramaticallybothbetweenandwithincountries:Whereas
overninety percent of people in the Netherlandsspeak a foreign language,
onlythirtypercentofHungariansdoso.
Noteveryforeignlanguageopensupthesamenumberofcommunicational
doors:Themorepeoplepotentialstudentsofalanguagecanreach by
learning that language, the higherthereturnsontheirlinguistic capital.
Therefore,knowledgeofaprevalentandwidelyspokenforeignlanguageisa
moreimportantresourcethanisknowledgeofalanguageonlyspokenbya
few.Wetherefore measuredthe numberof respondents whoare proficient
inEurope’smost‐widelyspokenlanguagewhichisEnglish:Almosthalfofthe
EuropeansspeakEnglish,buttherearealsovastlydifferentlevelsofEnglish
proficiencybetweenandwithincountries.InBulgaria,forinstance,84.6%of
thepopulationdoesnotspeakEnglish;intheNetherlands,thisnumberdrops
toonly12.4%.
The second part of chapter four looks into the question of why people in
certain EU member states possess high levels of transnational linguistic

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

18
capital and are able to speak English and why this is not the case in other
countries.Wefirstpresentageneralexplanatorymodelforforeignlanguage
proficiency which goes beyond Fligstein’s (2008) attempt to explain
multilingualism: Opportunities for learning a foreign language,thecosts
associatedwithsuchlearning,andthemotivationtoacquireanewlanguage
arethe three central elements weuse toexplain foreign language learning.
The societal conditions in which people are embedded affect these three
dimensionsandoftendeterminewhohasaccesstoacquiretransnational
linguisticcapitalandwhodoesnot.Wederivehypothesesfromthis
explanatorymodelandsubsequentlytestthem empirically.Wefind thatthe
sizeofacountryandtheprevalenceofarespondent’snativelanguageaffect
themotivationandthenecessityoflearningaforeignlanguagenegatively.A
country’s level of modernisation, especially its development ofthe
educationalsystem,hasapositiveinfluenceonforeignlanguageproficiency.
UsingBourdieu’stheoryonsocialclass,wealsoshowthatarespondent’s
socio‐economicclasspositionandthelevelofeducationareimportantmicro‐
levelfactorsthat helptoincrease aperson’stransnational linguisticcapital.
We also look into the effect of the respondents’ age, immigrant status, and
possible emotional connection to their native language. Overall, the results
showthatmanyfactorsthatinfluencesocialinequalitybetweenandwithin
countriesarethesamefactorsthatinfluencetransnationallinguisticcapital.
OnlycertaingroupsofcitizensoftheEuropeanmemberstates,
predominantlythosewhoarealreadyprivilegedthroughclass,educationor
otherwise,willbeabletoprofitfromEuropeanisation,astheyhaveoneofthe
central resources at their disposal: transnational linguistic capital. The
Europeanprojectis,inadditiontoallofitsothergoals,alsoaproject about
socio‐economicclass.
Our empirical results must also be interpreted within the context of other
academicdisciplines;languageandmultilingualismaremajortopics in
linguistics, psychology, and education, and publications on bi‐and
multilingualismfillentirelibraries(seeforexampleoverviewsbyWei2000;
Bialystok2001;Bhatia&Ritchie2006;Auer&Wei2007).Thesepublications

1.SettingtheStage

19
are dominated, however, by ever‐smaller questions about multilingualism
and evermore elaborate methodology. For example, researchers can show
which neurological processes accompany second language learning, which
cognitiveconditionsmustbeinplacebeforeonecanstarttoacquiremultiple
languages and can prove the influence of multilingualism on cognitive
development. There are studies that attempt to decipher the ageatwhich
childrencanmostquicklylearnasecondlanguage,whichlanguageprograms
producethebestresults,etc.Thesocietalconditionsinwhichtheselanguage
learnersareembeddedarehardlytakenintoaccountatall.Andsociologists
haveby and large withdrawnfrom researching languageand analysing the
conditionsofmultilingualism.
Thiswouldnotbeworthdiscussinganyfurtherifsociologywasnotrelevant
to language research and multilingualism; but the contrary is true. Our
analysisshowsthattheseneglectedsocietalconditionsareactuallyofcentral
importance in determining multilingualism. Determining whether someone
speaksEnglishdependslessonsomeone’scognitiveabilitiesthanitdoeson,
forexample,whetherapersoncomesfroman upper classfamilyinasmall,
Westerncountryorfrom aworkingclass family inaformer Soviet country.
Suchfactorsaretheactualdeterminantsofmultilingualismbutwhichhave
not been taken into account in previous analyses. Our study shows that
research on bi‐ and multilingualism and on language in general,isin
desperateneedofexpansionfromasociologicalperspective.
Inthefifthandlastchapterwediscussthenormativequestionofwhetherthe
currentEUpolicyofsupportingtwenty‐threeofficiallanguagesandfostering
minoritylanguagesisfair.Wearguethatthecurrentlanguagepolicyof the
EUisactingtoperpetuateinequalitiesincitizens’accesstotransnational
linguisticcapital,evenifunintended.ItwouldbepreferableiftheEUdidnot
onlyrecognisethedominanceoftheEnglishlanguage,butalsosupported
English as the linguafrancaofEurope,evenatthelikelyexpenseofother
national and minority languages. This suggestion not only contradicts the
EU’slanguagepolicyandideologyof“unityindiversity”,butalsocontradicts
the dominant paradigm among linguists and anthropologists who support

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

20
linguistic diversity. Hence, this chapter (and the Appendix) goes into a
lengthierdiscussionofwhya policythatfosterslinguisticdiversityis based
onratherweakarguments.
SupportingEnglishasalinguafrancawouldundoubtedlyfavourcountriesin
which English is already the official language. To compensate for this
asymmetry,we suggestthat the twenty‐sevenmember statesfund theEU’s
newlanguagepolicyatvaryinglevels.Thoselanguagecommunities whose
mothertongueischosenasalinguafrancahavetosubsidisethoselanguage
communitiesthathavetostudythelinguafranca.Disproportionatefinancial
supportisalsoanunderlyingfeatureofEUregionalpoliciesandthereforefits
intoapreexistingpolicymodel.


  21








2.CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK

Theprimarypurposeofthefollowingdiscussionconsistsofthedevelopment
ofaconceptualframeworkwhichshouldserveasaguidelinetotheempirical
studyinthefollowingchapters.Upuntilnowsociologyhaspaid little
attentionto theanalysis ofmultilingualism. Themajor sociological theories
donotoffer much helpwhenone isdevelopingatheoreticalframeworkfor
organisingempiricalresearchaimed atansweringthequestions formulated
intheintroduction.Theresearcherhastousehisownlodestar.Assistancein
developingatheoreticalframeworkcanbefoundforthemostpart in
research on economic and social migration and integration whichhas
analysedthewaymigrantslearnanewlanguage.Therefore,Iwilltieinwith
thestateofartinthisresearchfield.Iwillstartoutbygivinga definitionof
languageandindividuallanguages.InasecondstepIwilldiscussthecentral
social functions a language fulfils, whilst differentiating between the
influence of language on society building and on community building. If
language is used for processes of society building, I will use the term
instrumentallinguisticcapital; if language is used for community building
processes, that is, the formation of a collective identity, I will use the term
symboliclinguisticcapital.Inathirdstep,theseconceptswillbeappliedto
the ability to speak several languages. Under certain societal conditions,
whicharedealtwithintheliteratureundertheheadingofglobalisationand
Europeanisation, multilingualism becomes a central resource. Those who
have acquired transnational linguistic capital, in other words are
multilingual, are in a position to participate in transnationalprocessesand

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

22
Europeanisation,whilethosewhocanonlyspeaktheirnativelanguage are
limitedtotheirowncountryandcanonlybenefitinalimitedwayfromthe
advantagesofaunitedEuropeandaglobalisedworld.Tohavetransnational
linguisticcapitalatone’sdisposalisthusanewsourceofsocial inequality
withinadevelopingEuropeansociety.

2.1WhatisLanguage?

Mostdefinitionsoflanguageexplainlanguageasasystemofsigns, which
servestotransferinformation.Suchabasicdefinitioncontains different
crucialelements.The conceptoftransmission suggeststhatthere isatleast
one speaker and one recipient and that there is an exchange taking place
between them. Information is being exchanged. Information can be
statementsabout the worldor astate ofmind andfeelings,plans, intended
purchases, declarations of love, political speeches, etc. This exchange of
informationisconveyedbysigns.As Ferdinand deSaussure(1967)pointed
out, signs consist of two components: the indicated and the indicator. The
indicator has a material substratum, it consists of sounds/sound waves or
letters/pictures.Thesoundsorletters and pictures signify that which is
beingindicated.Itis,however,notidenticalwiththeindicated.RenéMagritte
refers to precisely this difference in his most famous painting“Latrahison
desimages”.Inthispicturethereisapipeunderneathwhichthewords“Ceci
n’estpasunepipe”(“Thisisnotapipe“),pointoutthattherepresentationof
an object is not identical with the original object itself. Theallocationof
particularsoundsorsignstoparticularmeaningsisalwaysarbitrary.There
isnoreasoninherenttotheindicatedastowhytheallocationisasitis;
consequentlytheallocationvariesfromlanguagetolanguage.The
arrangementofthelettersT‐i‐s‐c‐hindicatesanobjectinGerman, which
usuallystandsonfourlegsandatwhichonecansitinordertoeatorwrite.
Whatwecall“Tisch”inGermaniscalled“mesa”inSpanish,“table”inEnglish
and“stół”inPolish.

2.ConceptualFramework

23
The meaningful sounds and signs are combined with one another in
accordancewithasystemofrules,thusproducinglargerunits,phrasesand
sentences.1Theserulesarelaiddowninthegrammarofalanguage.
Therefore, a language consists in essence of grammar and vocabulary. By
speakingorwritingsentences–createdtroughwordsandgrammar–people
describe ‘things in the world’: They formulate declarations of love, express
intentions to buy things or take other actions. Thus, every communication
containsatriadicstructure:EgoindicatestoAltersomethingintheworld
with the help of sounds and signs.2Alterunderstandsthemeaningofthe
messageandonthisbasiscanmakehisownstatementswhichinturn are
understoodbyEgo.Basedonthismutualexchangehumanbeingsareableto
coordinatetheiractionsandcooperatewithoneanother.
Theability ofhuman beings tospeak isconnected withone of anumberof
conditions which extend from the anatomical to preconditions inthebrain
(veryclearlydelineatedin,forexample,Friederici2002;Fischer2008a).The
ability to produce differentiated sounds is dependent on a particular
anatomyofthemouthandthroatinwhichthepositionofthelarynxplaysan
importantrole.Incomparisontochimpanzeesthelarynxinhumanbeingsis
positionedmuchlower,therebyproducingalargerbutatthesame time
morefinelytunedvibrancywhichenablestheproductionofverydifferent
sounds, especially vowels. This is an anatomical foundation which apes,
closely related to sapiens, do not possess. I will not further discuss the
differentpre‐conditions which make humanspeech and,ultimately, writing
possible. What the different preconditions enable, however, is that each
humanbeing–insofarastheyarenotdisabledinanyway–learnstospeak
1 Iwillnotdealherewiththedivisionoflinguisticunits–phonem, morphem, word,
phrase, sentence, text – and its respective the sub‐disciplines (phonetics, morphology,
etc.);thelinguisticexplanationswillremainfewandarekepttothenecessary.
2 Michael Tomasello (2008) concludes that the oral communication of human beings
developed from gestures. Communication with gestures also demonstrates a triadic
structure.Beforetheycanspeak,childrenusetheirforefingerinordertoshowsomeone
withwhomtheyarecommunicatingsomethingintheworld.Thisgesture of showing
indicatesanobject;thepeopleinvolvedimmediatelyadoptthelineofvisionaswellasthe
sightandintentionoftheotherperson,thussharingwithhima common meaning.
Precisely this ability, according to Tomasello (2008: 331), is not possessed by
chimpanzees.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

24
and,indeed,almostautomaticallywithouthavingtobeexplicitlyencouraged
todoso.Theabilitytospeakisinborn(cf.Pinker1994followingonafterthe
worksofNoamChomsky).
Even though the general disposition to learn every language is given to all
humansalike,eachhumanbeinglearnsonlythelanguagewhichisspokenin
theirsurroundings(mothertongue).Consequently,theabilityto be able to
communicatewith others dependson whether ornot onespeaks the same
languageasthepersonwho isbeingspokento. Speakingthesamelanguage
means,accordingtoourdefinitionoflanguage,thatthespeakers give the
samesignificancetothesoundsandsequenceofsoundsandthesigns and
sequenceofsigns aswellas beingincommand ofthesame systemofrules
governing the combinations of words and sentences, that is, thesame
grammar.Ifthisis the case,theycancommunicatewithone another;ifnot,
then direct communication is scarcely possible. This is a fairly simple
definition of individual languages. All the different languageswhichexist
differ from one another through different grammars, different vocabulary
and, in part, through a differentsignsystem.German,Swedish, Japanese,
Russianetc.areindividuallanguages.
Thedifferencesbetweenthevariouslanguageswithrespecttogrammarand
semantics and, consequently, with respect to mutual understanding are
relative.Inordertodescribetherelationshipofthevariouslanguagestoone
another and to analyse language change, comparative linguisticsuses
conceptsfromevolutionarybiology(cf.Dixon1997;Mufwene2001).Several
languages create a genetic unit if they derive from a common previous
language,meaningthattheycanbetracedbackinthefamilytree of
languages to a common node. A genetic unit does not have to consist of
relatedlanguages,asitcanalsobeonelanguageifthelanguage we are
dealingwithisanisolatedone.Languageswhichhavethesameorigins,that
is,derivefromacommonoriginallanguage,belongtothesamefamily of
languages(cf.Lewis2009).German,English,French,Russian,Bulgarianand
Latvian belong, in contrast to Arabian, Chinese, Turkish, Hungarian and
Basque,tothesamefamilyofIndo‐Germaniclanguages.Asinrealfamilies,

2.ConceptualFramework

25
within the same extended family different languages also possess different
degrees of closeness in descent and common genes, that is to say different
degreesof overlapingrammar andin lexis.The distancebetweendifferent
individual languages influences the effort that has to go into learning the
otherlanguage.Thesmaller the distancebetweentwoindividual languages,
theeasieritistolearntheotherone.Iwillreturntothispoint below when
discussingthehypothesesregardingthelearningofforeignlanguages.
Weareconcernedherehowtodefineanindividuallanguage.Theconceptof
individual languages becomes imprecise when the degree of overlapping
betweentwolanguagesisextensive,asitwouldbewithtwoeggorevenone
egg twins. In these cases, from the linguistic point of view, it is usually a
matter of largely artificial, mostly political decisions, as towhetherone
speaksoftwoindividuallanguagesoroftwodialectsofthesamelanguage.
ThisistrueofNorwegianandSwedishorCroatianandSerbian.Norwegians
andSwedesontheonehandandCroatiansandSerbsontheothercan
understandeachothereventhoughofficiallytheirlanguagesare different.
Thisisbecausesocialgroups,suchasethniconesornations,frequently
definethemselvesbymeansofacommonlanguage.Thedifferencebetween
twolanguages,whichis,fromalinguisticpointofviewmarginal,isdefinedin
suchcasesassubstantiveinordertobeabletodistinguishone nation or
ethnicgroup from another nation. Iwill return to this symbolicfunction of
language for the definition of communities in more detail.3 At this point,
however, we can determine that individual languages are usually
distinguished by different grammars and lexis. These differences manifest
themselvespragmaticallythroughthefactthattwospeakerswhospeak
differentlanguages,cannot,oronlybarely,understandeachother.
Thefactthat actorsdonot possessacommon languagedoesnotmean that
theycannotinteractwithoneanother.However,thetransactioncostsofthe
interactionare extremely high compared to speaking the same language. A
3 Inaddition,thedifferencebetweenSerbianandCroatianisemphasisedthroughtheuse
ofanotherscript– LatinandCyrillic(cf.thecommentsinNicCraith(2008:25ff.)on the
politicalconstructionofthedifferencebetweenthesetwolanguages).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

26
translator is needed who speaks both languages. The transactioncosts
consistfirstlyinhavingtopayforthetranslation,secondlyin the time it
takesforthetranslation,whichslowsdowncommunication,andthirdly a
translation is always imprecise which in itself makes things more difficult
anddetractsfromcommunication.
Analternativetotranslationfortheparticipantsistotryto communicate
directlyandwithouttheuseoflanguage.Everyonewhohaseverbeenina
countrywherehe/shedoesnotspeakthelanguageandhastriedtofindout
thewaytothetrainstation,isawareofthehightransactioncostsinvolved.
Even a relatively simple communication, like asking for directions, is
practically impossible through mimicry and gestures, not only because the
subtletyofmimicryandgesturesislimited,butalsobecausethe
grammaticallycontrolledcombinationsofsignsareveryfew.PeterA.Kraus
(2004: 100) tells us of an occurrence in Belgium in 2001, in which a train
crash could not be avoided, because each of the railway employees
responsibleforsecurityspokeonlyeitherFlemishorFrench.

2.2LanguageProficiencyasHumanCapital

Whatisthesignificanceofknowledgeofoneorseverallanguages for a
society?Languageandlanguagecompetencecanbeunderstoodasaresource
orascapital whichcan be usedfor theorganisationof asocietyon theone
hand,andforcommunitybuildingontheother.Iflanguageisused for
processesofsocietybuilding,Ishallspeakofinstrumentallinguisticcapital,if
languageisusedforcommunitybuildingprocesses,Ishallspeakofsymbolic
linguistic capital. If competence in several languages is being discussed, I
shall refer to this as transnational linguistic capital and differentiate
analogously between an instrumental and a symbolic function of
transnational linguistic capital. These concepts are based on the work of
Pierre Bourdieu (1992; summarised in Loos 2000), who understands

2.ConceptualFramework

27
linguistic competence as capital and differentiates between the resource
functionontheoneandthesymbolicfunctionontheotherhand.4
However,neitherBourdieunorotherauthorsusetheconceptof
transnationallinguisticcapital.JustasalloftheworksofBourdieu adhere
largely to methodological nationalism(Beck&Grande2004)inthat they
analyseprimarilytheclassstructureofasocietyorganisedasanationstate,
sohisconceptoflinguisticcapitalalsorefersbyandlargetothenationstate.
Hence,Bourdieu’sconceptoflinguisticcapitalreferstofirstandforemostto
theelaborateknowledgeofthehigh,officiallanguageofacountry and the
ability to speak this language, which is usually dependent upon class
(Bourdieu1992). However, underthe condition of transnationalisation and
Europeanisation, new skills become important in order to be able to act
beyond the nation state “containers” (Taylor 1994; Beck 1997).
Multilingualismisoneofthese.

2.2.1LanguageasInstrumentalCapital
Asiswellknown,thebasicconceptofsociologyis,accordingtoMaxWeber,
theonecalledsocialaction.5Amutualreferenceofactorstoeachotherisan
interaction and leads to social relationships. Weber distinguishes between
twoformsofsocialrelationships:‘Vergesellschaftung’(societybuilding)and
‘Vergemeinschaftung’ (community building). Language fulfils a central
functionfortheprocessesofsocietybuildingaswellasforcommunity
building. I am adopting the two concepts, society building and community
building, from Weber, although he himself did not discuss the role of
languageineitheroftheseprocesses.
4 In the literature similar concepts can be found to indicate the same meaning. Peter A.
Kraus (2004) differentiates between an instrumental and an expressive function of
language.HartmutEsser(2006:52)describeslinguisticcompetenceinpartasaresource,
by means of which other socially relevant resources can be obtained. In addition, he
discusses the symbolic function of language. Language enables us to name things, to
createstereotypesandtodiscriminate.Finally,JochenRoose(2010:126) discusses the
practicalandthesymbolicmeaningoflanguage.
5 AccordingtoWeber“Actionis‘social’insofarasitssubjectivemeaningtakesaccountof
thebehaviourofothersandistherebyorientedinitscourse”(Weber1985:4).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

28
Weber defines a social relationship as “‘associative’ (Vergesellschaftung) if
andinsofarastheorientationofsocialactionwithinitrestson a rationally
motivated adjustment of interests (...)” (Weber 1985: 40f.). With the
definition “rationally motivated adjustment of interests” Weberisthinking
primarily of interactions motivated by economic interests. The concept of
society building is, however, to be much more broadly understood, as it
includesallformsofexchangebetweenpeoplewhoareinteractingwithone
another,amongotherthings,theexchangeofinformation,goods, shares,
sexual“services”orscientificknowledge.
Thefact that language makesinteraction between people possible,without
havingveryhightransactioncosts,ensuresthatitismorethan likely that
societybuildingwilltakeplaceamongthosewhospeakthesame language
rather than among those who speak different languages. Anyone who has
beentointernationalconferencesorwhohasbeeninamultilingualsituation
knowsthis problem fromfirsthand experience.People whospeak the same
languagetendtostarttalkingtoeachotherratherthantothosewhodonot.
Thosewhospeakthesamelanguagesitdownatthesametableandconverse.
Otherpeople,whoaresittingatthesametableanddonotspeakthe same
languageastherest,aremoreorlessexcluded.Frequentlycommunicationin
thesamelanguagebecomesmoreintenseandforceful.Thespeakersdiscover
amutual interestin eachotherand thosewho speakthe samelanguage sit
downtogetheratthenextmeetingagain.Theymeetmoreoftenandthusthe
interaction becomes increasingly intense between the communication
partners,excludingthosewho speakanotherlanguage.This isthefirststep
inthedirectionofsocietybuildingamongthosespeakingthesamelanguage.
Onthis basis and dependingon interests, intellectual,amorous or business
relationshipsoccur.Inthisrespectlanguagecanberegardedameans,afund,
whichmakestheestablishmentofasocietypossible.Thisdoesnotmeanthat
there are no societies which are not bilingual or trilingual. On the level of
interactive systems (friendship, partnerships, marriage) as well as on the
levelof entire nationstates (for instance,Switzerland, Canada,India, South
Africa),wefindsocietiesorganisedbypeoplewhodonotspeakthesame

2.ConceptualFramework

29
language.However,their occurrencepresupposes manymorepreconditions
andisthuslesslikely.
Howpowerfultheeffectoflanguageorratherdifferentlanguagesis,evenif
people live in a common nation state, is shown by the example of
Switzerland.Switzerlandhasexisted as alooseconfederation sincethe13th
century.Itwasfoundedinthepresentformasafederalstatein 1848.
German, French, Italian and Rhaeto‐Romance are its official languages. In
spiteofalongnationalunificationthelinguisticdivisionofSwitzerlandstill
shapesthebehaviourofitscitizens.Asanillustration,agoodexampleisthe
wayinwhichtheSwissusethemedia.6ThenationaltelevisionofSwitzerland
consistsoftwochannels,eachwithtwocompleteprogrammesforthethree
largelanguageregions(SF1andSF2forGermanspeakingSwitzerland,
TSR1 and TSR2 for French speaking Switzerland, and TSI1 and TSI2 for
ItalianspeakingSwitzerland).Inaddition,therearethebroadcastswhichcan
be received from abroad, primarily the television programmes from
Germany, France and Italy. The foreign broadcasting stations haveavery
highshare of theSwiss market.This lies ataround sixty‐fivepercentof the
audienceviewingtime(cf.Hasebrink&Herzog2009).Themediabehaviour
ofthe Swiss absolutely complies withthe linguistic divisionof Switzerland.
The Swiss German watch the Swiss German programmes and the German
programmeswhichcomefromabroad,theFrenchspeakingSwissturnonthe
French, and the Swiss Italian the Italian programmes. Based on the Swiss
television programmes alone, Daniel Beck and Bertil Schwotzer (2006: 26)
cometothefollowingconclusion:“ThemarketshareofSRGtelevision
programmes from other language regions is fairly low. In 2005 it was 0.7
percentintheGermanspeakingpart,intheFrenchspeakingpartitwas1.8
percentandinTicino4.1percent”.Theterm“fairlylow”seemstometobea
definiteunderstatement.ThefactisthatSwitzerlandisdividedintodifferent
6 Unfortunatelythereisnootherevidenceavailableontheimpact of the division of
languagesin Switzerland on theway its societyis organised.It would beinteresting to
learntowhatextentthelanguageboundariesinfluencetheeconomicboundaries,for
example,howpronouncedtradebetweenthedifferentlanguageregionsis.Aninteresting
indicatorwouldalsobetoknowthenumberofmarriagesacrossthelanguageboundaries
inordertostudytheeffectofthelanguagesontheprivatesphere.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

30
societiesbasedonlanguage.Ifweassumethatthemediahaveaconsiderable
influenceontheperceptionoftheworldwhichpeoplehave,thenthe Swiss
live,inpartatanyrate,indifferentworlds.
Theideathatacommonlanguagesignificantlyinfluencestheformationofa
society is strikingly confirmed by findings from the macro‐economy. In
economics there has been a long drawn‐out discussion on the influence
which a common language has on trade between different countries. The
conclusionsoftheempiricalstudiesareunequivocal:Countrieswhichspeak
the same language trade much more intensively with one another than
countries who do not (summarised in Melitz 2008). This fact remains the
sameevenwhenanumberofotherfactorswhichinfluencetradebetween
countries (for instance, the existence of a free trade area, common
membership in a political union, a common currency, common history and
culture,geographicaldistance,GNP,etc.)areexamined.Economists see the
reasonforthesefindingsinthemuchreducedtransactioncostswhich
sharingacommonlanguageinvolve.Obtaininginformationaboutapossible
tradingpartnerismuchsimplerandtocarryoutbusinessismucheasier.7
The correlation which has been described between language and the
organisation of a society can also be described from the perspective of the
individual.Knowledgeofthelanguagewhichisspokeninagroupis,fromthe
perspectiveoftheindividual,acentralresourceforparticipationinasociety.
Sincemostpeopleliveinthesocietyinwhichtheygrewupandconsequently
speak the language of this society as their native language, the linguistic
prerequisite for the formation of a society is a given. The importance of
languageforallformsofsocietybuildingbecomesclear,however,whenthis
prerequisiteisnotmetandwhentheparticipantshavelittlelinguisticcapital.
Thisistrue,forexample,formigrants,whobymovingfromonecountryto
anotheroften have to learna new language. This means that the capital of
their mother tongue is to all extents and purposes devalued at one blow,
7 Thiscorrelationhasbeenfurtherspecifiedinresearch,inthat on the one hand a
differentiationismadebetweenthedifferentgoodswhicharetobeexchanged,whileon
the other hand different figurations of overlap between differentlanguagesare
differentiated(cf.Melitz2008;Felbermayr&Toubal2010).

2.ConceptualFramework

31
becausetheyareunabletocommunicateintheirnativetongue.8Researchon
integrationhasshownboththeoreticallyandempiricallywhat an enormous
role language plays in the social integration of migrants.9 What are the
centralfindings?Knowledge andthecompetent useof thelanguage spoken
inasocietyisaspecificformofhumancapital.
10Agoodcommandofthe
languagecanbeusedinvariousspheresofsocietyandcanbethe mean
successforthosewhohavethislanguageattheirdisposal.11
(a)Educationandeducationaldegrees:People’s incomeand therecognition
theyenjoy from societyare largelydeterminedby theirprofessionalstatus.
Achieving an attractive professional status largely depends on the
educationaldegreesandqualifications.Forinstance,onecanonlybecome a
universityprofessor,adoctororalawyerifonehaspassedthe respective
universityexams.Abasicprerequisiteforachievingeducationaldegrees,and
theattractiveprofessionalpositionswhichtheyimply,isknowledge of the
languagespokeninasociety.Insufficientorbadlanguagecompetenceleads
tolackofsuccessinschool.Thiscountsnotonlyforthesubjects in which
languageitselfisexamined,butforothersubjectsaswell.Mathematicsand
physicsarealsotaughtinthenativetongueoftherespectivecountry.Those
whoare notin commandof the language,or onlypoorly, willconsequently
8 Thisisvalidonlytoalimiteddegreeforthosecasesinwhichthehostcountryhasalarge
groupofmigrantswhospeakthesamelanguage.
9 Hartmut Esser (2006) has summarised the theoretical and empiricalstandofthe
literatureverywellbyintegratingitintoageneraltheoryoftheexplanationoftrade.
Esser himself stands on the shoulders of elaborate research which I do not wish to
retracehere, whose theoreticalpremisesandempiricalfindingsbroadlyagree(cf.many
others,summarisedChiswick2007).
10 Humancapitalmeanspeople’sabilities, knowledge,experiencesandmotiveswhichthey
useinordertoearnmoney(Becker1993).
11 Theuseoflinguisticcapitaldependsonthestructureofeachindividualsociety,in other
words, the particular circumstances of a society. Hence, in a society of hunters and
gathererstheabilitytousebowandarrowwellcanbefarmoreimportantandcontribute
moretowardsabetter“income”and more respect from the other members of society
thantheabilitytoexpressoneselfinelaboratelanguage.Inpost‐industrialsocietiesthe
“bowandarrowskills”willnotbringanyspecialadvantages.It is here that language
abilitythatcomesfromtheparticularstructureofthissocietyisespeciallyrelevant.Esser
(2006:39ff.),inagreementwithSiegwartLindenberg(1989)andothers, concludesthat
allhuman beingsareconcernedtomaintainorimprovetheirphysical well‐beingandto
receiverecognitionfromotherpeople.Theycanonlyachievetheseuniversalgoalswhen
they achieve specific goals as defined by a specific society, whichinturnleadtothe
universalgoals.Thespecificgoals,orintermediategoods,aredifferentdependingonthe
typeofsociety.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

32
learnless,willgetworseresultsinexamsaswellasinclass,lowermarkson
theirreportcards, andlower qualifications.Asthe qualityofschoolleaving
certificatesinfluencestheentrancetothelabourmarketand to professions,
poor language abilities reduce the chances of achieving an attractive
professionalposition.
(b)Integrationintheemploymentmarketandprofessionalpositions: Good
knowledge of the language increases the possibility of attainingrecognised
school leaving certificates and the well‐paid, prestigious professional
positions which they lead to. In addition, the quality of knowledge of the
language has a direct effect on the probability of obtaining attractive
professionalpositions(cf.Esser2006:399ff.).Thedifferentprofessionsdiffer
inthedegreetowhichknowledgeofthelanguageisnecessaryforcarrying
out said profession. With physical work, the need for language skills is
considerablylowerthanwithworkinwhichcommunicationisatits heart,
for example, in the service and advisory sector. “The highest possible L1
competence,12whetherinFinnishorinItalian,isofnouseataproduct
adviceandconsultationinabankintheNetherlandsorFrancewhen the
customers only understand the language of the receiving country” (Esser
2006: 402). This is still the case when the person has a high educational
degree.Thereisalsoanotherfactorwhichexplainswhyweakcompetencein
thelanguagecanleadtodisadvantagesontheemploymentmarket.Language
competenceis frequently interpretedby employersas anindirect indicator
forotherprofessionallyrequiredskills.Onthebasisofweaklanguage
competence,whichis“ascertained”duringeachjobinterview enpassant,as
itwere,withouttests,itwillbeconcludedthattheapplicantdoesnotentirely
possessotherimportantqualificationseither(cf.Esser2006:207).
(c)Integrationandsocialcapital:Thosewhodonotspeakthelanguageofthe
countrytheyarelivinginatall,oronlybadly,donothavemuch chance of
gettingtoknowpeoplefromthiscountry.Contact,however,isaprerequisite
forintenserelationships,forfriendship,loveormarriage.Therefore,itisnot
surprisingthatthosemigrantswhodonothaveaveryextensiveknowledge
12 WithL1competenceEssermeanscompetenceinthemothertongue.

2.ConceptualFramework

33
ofthelanguageofthehostcountryarealsothosewhoarenotvery well
integrated.Socialrelationshipsoftendonotexistfortheirownsake.Theyare
socialcapital,astheyserveasthebasisforobtainingusefulinformationand
togetsupportinemergencysituations, thus in turn facilitating access to
othersocietalspheres(employmentmarket,schools,ordoctors).
(d)Politicalparticipation:Thesocietieswhichare atthe centreofthisstudy
arealldemocracies.Democracymeansthatthemakingofcollectivelybinding
decisions is coupled with the interests and decision making processes of
citizens.Suchalinkprimarilyresults by meansofelections.Citizensvote at
periodicintervalsforrepresentativeswhothenassumethepositions of
power and are authorised to pass and enforce binding decisions for the
citizensliving in oneterritory. However,at the sametime they canalso be
dismissedfromtheirpositionsofpoweratthenextelection,ifthecitizensdo
not feel that they are being represented well enough. Apart from voting in
elections citizens can attempt to influence political decisions or decision
makersbyactivelyworkingforpoliticalparties,interestgroups or social
movementorganisations.
Inalmostallcountriesthefranchiseiscoupledwithcitizenshipandinseveral
countries,forexample, theUSA,one canonlybecome acitizenwhenoneis
ablespeakthelanguageofthecountry.Therefore,inthesecountries the
chancetoparticipateinelectionsiscoupledwithlanguagecompetence.Also
inthosecountrieswherethisisnotthecaseimperfectlanguagecompetence
limitsthechancesforpoliticalparticipation.Inorderthatcitizenscandecide
who to vote for and change their minds at the next election or become
involvedinvariousinterestgroups,socialmovementsandparties,theymust
beabletoinformthemselvesaboutpolitics,therepresentatives and their
competitors. The debates and the exchange of information in the political
arena – in the mass media, party conferences and in the internet – are all
conductedintheofficiallanguageofeachcountry.Participation in the
politicalarenaandthusinthedemocraticopinionbuildingprocessdefinitely
depends on the ability to be able to understand and speak the language in
whichtheinformationisconveyedandinwhichthedebatesareconducted.If

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

34
this is not the case then one is more or less excluded from thedemocratic
process.Thus,theknowledgeofthelanguageinthecountryofresidenceisa
prerequisiteforpoliticalparticipation.13
The previous discussion should have shown that the knowledge ofthe
languagewhichisspokeninagroupisaverycentralresourceforbecoming
partofasociety.Italleviatesaccesstootherimportantresources
considerablyandthusthechancetoimproveone’sincomeandachievesocial
recognition. I have discussed this interrelationship using the example of
migrants, who have left their original language community and thus are
confrontedwithsurroundingsinwhichanotherlanguageisspoken,because
itillustratesverywelltheconnectionbetweenlanguageandparticipationin
a society. However, the connection between language competence and
chances of participation is also valid for speakers in the same language
community.Theycanbeincommandoftheir(mother)tonguetoagreateror
lesserdegree.Thebetterpeoplecanreadandwritethelanguagecodifiedas
theofficial language,themore likelythey areto achievehigher educational
qualifications,to bemore successfully placed in theemployment hierarchy,
toestablishconnectionstohigherclasses,andtoparticipatebetter in
politicalprocesses(Bourdieu1992;Bourdieu&Passeron1977).Theworkof
Basil Bernstein in the 1960s has already demonstrated that having the
appropriatelanguage competence isdependent upon socialclass.Bernstein
(1960, 1973) has proved that there is class specific language development
anduseoflanguage(restrictedversuselaborate),whichhasastrongimpact
onsuccessatschoolandconsequentlyhelpstoreproducetheclassstructure
of societies.14 Empirical research into education of recent years has
consistentlyconfirmedthesefindings.
13 The fact that the various factors mutually influence each other has not been discussed
here.Henceformanyprofessionsbecomingacitizenisanecessaryprerequisite.When,
however,citizenshipiscoupledwithlanguagecompetence,thishasadirectandindirect
influence on chances in the employment market. The same thing applies to social
integration insofar as having a network also improves chances on the employment
market.
14 Bernstein’sideashavebeencriticisedbyWilliamLabov(1966).On the basis of hisown
research, above all on the language of Afro‐American youths, Labov concludes that
different class dialects with reference to the breadth and differentiation of their
expressionarefunctionallyequivalenttoStandardEnglish.Thelanguageofthelower

2.ConceptualFramework

35
Is the connection between language competence and the chances of
participation in different fields of society also valid for learning a foreign
languageandpossessingtransnationallinguisticcapital?Formigrants,who
wanttogainafootholdinalinguisticcommunity,thereisagreatincentiveto
learn the new language. For people who live in a homogeneous linguistic
community,separatedfromotherspeechcommunities,thereisnoutility–at
leastnotinasociologicalsense–inlearningaforeignlanguage.Theycannot
improve their chances of participation and getting access to relevant
resourcesbylearningaforeignlanguage,sinceduetotheirisolatedposition
they cannot establish any social relationships at all with foreign speakers.
Undertheseconditionstransnationalspeechcapitalisworthless.
Should, however, the circumstances of a society be different, should we be
dealing with a globalised world with many‐faceted exchange relationships
between different countries speaking different languages, then foreign
language skills become useful capital, because they can now be used for
transnationalinteractions.Itispreciselythissituationwhichhascomeabout
sincethemiddleofthelastcentury,atthelatestsincethe1970s.Therelevant
transformationprocessesaretreatedintheliteratureundertheheadingsof
“globalisation,transnationalismandEuropeanisation”.BeforeIdiscussthese
alteredcircumstancesandthe significanceoftransnationallinguistic capital
inmore detail,I wouldlike toexamine moreclosely the secondfunctionof
language,namelyitsroleinidentityformationandcommunitybuilding.
Severalexamplesillustratethatinspiteoflanguage’sextensive utility for
getting access to relevant resources many people are not prepared to put
theirnativelanguage‘onthebackburner’,eventhoughthiswould bevery
advantageous.Alsothemassiveconflictsbetweendifferentspeech groups,
classisindeeddifferentfromStandardEnglish,butitisnotdeficient(differenceversus
deficithypothesis).StevenPinkerarguesinasimilarvein(1994: 28f.). However,froma
sociological perspective it does not matter whether linguists like William Labov or
cognitivepsychologistslikeSteveParker,followingChomsky,assumethatdifferentclass
dialectsareofequalvalue,becausetheyareonlydifferentsuperficialmanifestationsofan
identicaldeepstructure.When,inasociety,differentlanguagesareevaluateddifferently
andthisevaluationleadstothefactthatpeoplearemoresuccessfulinthatsocietyusinga
certainlanguage–asarulethestandardlanguage–thanwithanotherlanguage,thenthis
isasocialfact.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

36
arguing about the hegemony or autonomy of their languages, are hard to
understandwhenthefunctionoflanguageisreducedtotheinstrumental
dimensiononly(fromtheeconomicperspectivecf.Grin1994:32).Language
can become and very often becomes a group identity characteristic and
obtainstherebyanidentitybuildingfunction.Ifthisisthecasethengivingup
yourownlanguageandadaptingtoanewlanguagecanbecomeaquestionof
identity.

2.2.2LanguageasSymbolicCapital
“Arelationshipwillbecalled‘communal’(Vergemeinschaftung)ifandsofar
astheorientationofsocialaction–whetherintheindividualcase,onthe
average,orinthepuretype–isbasedonasubjectivefeelingofthe parties,
eitheraffectionalortraditional,thattheybelongtogether”(Weber1985:40).
The feeling of belonging to a group,theidentificationwithagroup can be
“produced” by various characteristics. Communities can constitute
themselvesonthe basisofa commonskincolour, similardescent,a similar
lifestyle or on the basis of a common language. A common language is of
specialsignificancehere(Lieberson1970:5f.).FirstofallIwillexplain,with
reference to the pertinent social psychological research, the systematic
connectionbetweenlanguageand communitybuildingandgroup identity.I
willthenillustratebymeansofseveralexamples,therolelanguageplaysfor
identification within different communities.15Sincethemechanismwhich
makeslanguageuniquelysuitedforthecreationofasenseofidentity is
usuallyimplied,butnotmadeexplicitinsociologicalandhistoricalliterature,
itseemstometobeworthwhiledevotingmoreattentiontosocial
psychologicalresearch.

15 The sociological interest in an analysis of the conditions for the genesis of community
feelings follows from the premise that communities have consequences relevant to
action.Ontheonehandacommunitysupportsthesolidarityofthemembersofthegroup
betweeneachotherindifferentactsofsolidarity.Ontheother,communitiesaredefined
by borders to other groups; community building frequently goes hand in hand with
defensiveactionstowardsothergroups,extendingfromprejudicetowar.

2.ConceptualFramework

37
2.2.2.1LanguageandCommunityfromthePerspectiveofSocialPsychology
(1) The socio‐psychological discussion on the factors which lead to the
creationofgroupidentityisstronglyinfluencedbytheworkofHenri Tajfel
andJohnC.Turnerandtheconceptofthe“MinimalGroupTheory” (Tajfel
1981;Tajfel&Turner1986;Billig&Tajfel1973).IntheexperimentsofTajfel
et al. the probands were divided into two arbitrary groups, which were
previouslynon‐existent.Thegroupswerenamedafterpainters,sothatthere
wasa Klee Group and aKandinsky Group. Next, people inthe groups were
askedtogivecertainsumsofmoneytotwopeople.Oneofthetwocamefrom
theKleeGrouptheotherfromtheKandinskyGroup.Thepeoplethemselves
werenotknowntotheotherprobands.Theyonlyknewthatthepersonwas
either a member of the Klee or the Kandinsky Group. There had been no
previouscontactbetweentheprobandsandtheotherswhoweretoreceive
the money. The Klee and the Kandinsky Groups were, therefore, not real
groupsbutexistedassuchonlyinthemindsoftheprobands.Theresultsof
theexperiments demonstrated thatthe probands gave those people higher
sumsofmoneythatweremembersoftheirowngroup,andgavemembersof
the strange group significantly less. From these findings the authors of the
studyconcludedthatanyarrangementofpeopleingroups,regardlessofhow
artificialtheyare,leadstothefactthatgroupsareconstitutedsimplyonthe
basis of the categorical allocation to a group only and that they favour the
membersoftheirowngroupasopposedtothoseofastrangegroup.If this
circumstanceisvalidforallcriteriaofcategorisation,thenitisalsovalidfor
language(Giles&Johnson1987).However,aretherefindingswhich go
beyondthis,whichdemonstratethatacommonlanguagecontributes more
thanothercriteriatogroupbuilding?
(2) To answer this question the recent work of Katherine Kinzler et al.
(Kinzleret al. 2007,2009; cf. thereference to earlier works which is given
there)is relevant. The groupof authors around Kinzler carriedoutseveral
experimentaltestsinwhichtheyattemptedtodemonstrate,whetherandto
whatextentthenativelanguageisacriterionwhichdefinesgroupbelonging
andleadstothefactthatpeoplepreferthosewhospeaktheirnativetongue

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

38
asopposedtothosewhodonot.TheinnovativeaspectofKinzler and co‐
author’sstudies is that theyhave proved theconnection between language
andgroup belonging,even forthe new born. In addition,they wereable to
prove that language, in contrast to other criteria, has a very special
importanceforthedefinitionofgroupbelonging.
(a)FivetosixmontholdbabieswatchedafilminwhichanEnglishspeaking
womanspoketothem.Thetestwasorganisedinawaythatinthe first
showingthefilmwasplayednormally.Inthesecondshowingwithasecond
womanthelanguagewasrunbackwards,creatinganartificiallanguage.Then
bothwomenwereshownbeingsilent.Thelengthoftimethechildrenlooked
atthewomenwasmeasured.Thewomanwhospokeintheirnativetongue
waslookedatsignificantlymoreoftenandlongerthanthewomanwhospoke
intheartificiallanguage.Thenativelanguage,therefore,hasaninfluenceon
thedegreeofattentionwhichsomeonereceives.
TheexperimentwasrepeatedbyusingEnglishandFrenchinsteadofthe
artificiallanguage;EnglishforbabieswhosenativelanguagewasEnglishand
FrenchforthosewhosenativelanguagewasFrench.Itwasdemonstrated
thatthebabiesclearlypaidmoreattentiontothepersonwhospokeintheir
nativelanguage.Inordertoanalysetheeffectofthenativelanguagenotonly
on attention, but also on behaviour, the following experiment was carried
out.Thebabies–nowtenmonthsold–watchedafilminwhichfirst a
womanspoketothemintheirnativelanguage,andtheninanotherlanguage.
Attheendofthefilmeachwomanheldasmallplushtoyintheir hands.
Directlyafterthefilmtheseplushtoyswerestandingonatableinfrontofthe
children.Thechildrenwereabletotakeoneofthem.Theytooktheplushtoy
whichearlierhadbeenheldinthehandsofthewomanwhohadspokentheir
languagesignificantlymoreoften.Thesefindingwereconfirmedinafurther
experiment. Some children at five years of age were shown photos of two
unknown children, while at the same time hearing one child speaking in
English,the other in French. Afterwards they were asked which ofthetwo
childrenshowninthephotostheywouldratherhaveasafriend. The
children chose significantly more often the child who had spoken in their

2.ConceptualFramework

39
nativetongue.Theresultsshowthatlanguagehasaclearinfluence on the
choiceofotherpeople,onthedegreeofattentionwhichpeopleenjoy,aswell
asonthepreferenceforpeoplewhospeakthesamelanguage.
(b) This, however, still has not answered the question as to what degree
languagehasaspecial,incomparisontootherfactorsperhapseven a
strongerinfluenceon the buildingof groups. Kinzleretal. (2009)havealso
put forward findings to answer this question. Five year old white children
lookedatpictures of otherchildren.Half ofthechildrenin the photoswere
black, the others white. Afterwards the children were asked which of the
children shown they would like to have as a friend. The majority of the
childrenchoseawhitechildsignificantlymoreoften–thatis,someonewith
thesame skin colour as themselves. In the second experiment the children
wereshownthesamephotos,onlythistimethechildreninthephotosspoke.
The white children spoke French, the black children spoke English. The
nativelanguageofthechildren,withwhomtheexperimentwascarriedout,
wasEnglish.Againthechildrenwereallowedto pickafriend.Thistimethe
blackchildrenwerechosenmuchmorefrequently;those,therefore,whoalso
spokeEnglish,buthadadifferentskincolour.Theinterestingthingabout
both experiments and their findings is that the different strengths of two
differentcategoriesweretestedsimultaneously.Untilthattime,researchhad
assumed that above all it was visual criteria which were used for the
classificationof“in‐groups”and“out‐groups”,suchas,sex,raceandage.The
experiment, however, demonstrates that language is obviously more
importantthan,intheAmericancontext,suchanimportantcriterionasskin
colour.
(3)Whylanguageplaysasignificantroleintheestablishmentof group
identityisnotenteredintobytheauthorsoftheexperiments.Thefollowing
hypothesis can help to give a causal reason for the correlative connection.
The fact that language can be used so effectively for the creation of
communities probably goes back to the fact that all experiencesof
socialisation which we make after birth occur through the medium of
language.Thefirstwordsamotherspeaks,theattentionwhichwereceivein

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

40
ourparentalhome,theentireprocess of cognitive and emotional
socialisation occur in the medium of language. We begin to think and to
communicate in our native language. Language becomes an immediate
componentofourpersonalhistory,therebyallowingustoobtain a
relationshipof the deepestintimacy withour ownlanguage,with itswords
andwithitssounds.
Itisexactlythisfactwhichmakesournativetongueespeciallysuitedforthe
processesofcollectiveidentitybuilding. In contrasttoothercriteriausedto
create collective identities, our native language is interwoventoagreat
degreewithpersonalexperiences,withourownhistoryandpersonal
identity.Itsignalisesthebelongingtothegroup,whichistheprimarygroup
forevery humanbeing. Kinzleret al. (2009), with reference totherelevant
literature,suggest thatseen froman evolutionarypoint of viewthiscanbe
combined with advantages. While the variance of physiognomy among
differentgroupstendstobelow,thisisnotthecaseforlanguage and
differentaccentsbywhichonecanrecogniseone’sowngroupasopposedto
groups of strangers. In addition to this, language in comparison to other
identity criteria, like wearing certain clothes, body painting or cultural
practices,cannotsimplybechangedandisaconstantindicatorofbelonging
toagroup.Usuallyitisnotpossibletospeakanewlanguagewithout an
accent,ifonehasnotlearntitbytheendofyouth.Thenativelanguagethus
remainsarelativelyconstantidentitymarker(Lieberson1981).
(4) The findings discussed up to now from experimental social psychology
havereferredtothesignificanceoflanguageinthecategorisationofpeople,
withoutthe peoplehaving furthercontact withone anotheron the basis of
the classification made. When, however, a common language is a central
criterionforgroupbuilding,thenasaruleconsequencesderiveinday‐to‐day
situations from this group building. Once chosen, the persons will interact
withoneanotherandtheydothisinoneandthesamelanguage.The
community building process based on a common language leads to a
concentration of interactions between the members of the community and
henceleadstoasocietybuildingprocess:Thechildreninthegroupwhohave

2.ConceptualFramework

41
chosentheirfriends willplaywith them,planto meetagain,they playwith
each other again, etc. Since the choice of friends occurs on the basis of a
commonlanguage, society buildingalso takes placein a commonlanguage.
The growing society building process strengthens in turn the community
feeling of the group members. Language, therefore, in comparison to other
criterianotonlyhasaspecialmeaningforbringingagroupintoexistence,it
forcesthepaceofthesocietybuildingprocessofthegroupandimpacts in
turnonthecommunitybuildingofthegroup.
(5)Letusassumethatforvariousreasonsthegroupwhichhasbeenformed
decidestodescribethemselvesasagroup,thatis,tonamefeatureswhichare
typicalofthemselves.Hencea level ofreflectionandself‐descriptioncanbe
addedtotheprocessofnormalgroupinteraction.Thegroupknowsthatitis
agroup,thatallmembersofthegroupspeakthesamelanguageandthatitis
this which differentiates it from other groups. It is very probable that the
members of the group, in order to describe their group identity, will have
recourse to the common feature of a linguistic identity. In this way the
communityhasconstituteditselfreflexivelyasalanguagecommunity.Ithas
becomeagroupwhichgainsitsidentityfactuallyaswellasreflexivelyfroma
common language. Political entrepreneurs can build on the possibility of
making a group identity through self‐description. History, particularly
descriptionsoftheriseofnationstates,hasprovidedmanyexamplesofhow
nationsasimaginedcommunitiesarecreatedby politicalelitesonthebasis
oflanguage.Iwillreturntothisatalaterpointwhendiscussing the
importanceoflanguageinthecreationofnationstates.
The arguments which up to now have been formulated with reference to
socio‐psychological literature have tried to make plausible why language,
besideshavingasocietybuildingfunction,alsohasacommunity building
function.Thisobviouslydoesnotmeanthatlanguageistheonly
characteristic by which communities can be constituted. It alsodoesnot
mean that linguistically heterogeneous groups cannot develop a group
identity; the characteristics of identity building are just different in these
cases.However,theexplanationsshouldhaveshownthatacommon

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

42
languageisoneamongseveralcharacteristicsthatissuitablefor(a)forming
communities and that (b) language – for the abovementioned reasons – is
especiallywellsuitedforfacilitatingtheprocessesofcommunitybuilding.
Onecanalsoformulatetheabovementioned connection between language
and community building, similar to that between language and community
building,from theperspective of theindividual. Knowledgeof thelanguage
whichisspokeninagroupandagoodcommandofit,fromtheindividual’s
pointofview,isnotonlyaresource,aninstrumentalcapital,butcanalsobe
importantfortheidentitybuildingofasociety.
Wehavenotyetaddressedthetypeofcommunitylanguagecanbe“used”for.
Historyandthe presentshowus that languagecanbe usedfordefining the
identity of nations, regions and classes. This can be illustrated by several
examples.

2.2.2.2LanguageandtheIdentificationwithvariousCommunities
NationandLanguage: The establishment of nation states is probably the
mostprominentexampleinhistoryoftheuseofacommonlanguage as an
identity marker for establishing a community. In almost all cases the
establishment of a nation state goes hand in hand with a policyto
homogeniseacountrylinguisticallyandtoestablishonesingle language
whichthen becomes theofficial language.16Theprocess ofestablishing one
singleofficiallanguageisnotonlyaninstrumentofnationstate society
building,butalsoamediumofcommunitybuilding.Thesinglelanguage
becomes an official language, as well as a national language and, thus, the
centralfeatureofanation’sidentity.Almostallnationstateshavedeveloped
institutionsforthepreservationandnurtureoftheirlanguage.Theyregulate
theusagebythewritingofdictionariesandthroughinstitutionswhosejobit
istomaintainthelanguage.Theybegintocanonisetheirnationalliterature,
preservefolksongsandfolkcultureanddescribetheiridentitybymeansof
their national language. The reverse side of the process of linguistic
16 Some of the smaller states in Europe, for example, Belgium and Switzerland, are
exceptions to this general rule; here the internal linguistic division became socially
institutionalised.

2.ConceptualFramework

43
homogeneity and the establishment of a common language as an identity
markerof the nationis the exclusionand repression ofminority languages
(cf. Mann 2001). I will go into the connection of nation state building and
linguistichomogeneityinmoredetailinchapter3.
RegionandLanguage:However,therearealsomanyexamplesinhistoryof
thenationallanguagebeingrejectedinordertoexpresstheidentityofasub‐
nationalunit.ThedivisionofBelgiuminWalloonandFlemishpartsispurely
a linguistic division and has a long history. The supremacy of French
speakingWallonia,whichhadsupportedthefoundationofaBelgianstatein
1831, increasingly aroused the resistance of Flanders and the Flemish
movement, which step by step won cultural and linguistic rights(cf.Kern
1997).ThedevelopmentwhichhastakenplaceinseveralregionsofSpainin
theeraafterFranco,orthe BalticstatesafterindependencefromtheSoviet
Union are further examples in the present day. The Basque region, Galicia
and Catalonia rose up against the dominance of the Spanish central state
after Franco’s death and developed their own regional autonomy.This
emancipation manifested itself in a number of different dimensions. In all
threeregionsthelanguageofeachhasbecomethecentralfeatureofregional
identification.Castilian, as a quidpro quo,was regardedas thelanguage of
thecentralpower,whichhadrepressedregionalautonomyforcenturiesand
its symbolic capital was increasingly devalued. Catalonia has been
particularly successful with its autonomy and language policies(cf.forthe
followingBerneckeretal.2007).DuringtheFrancoeratheofficialuseofthe
Catalonianlanguagewasforbiddenandinstructioninschoolstookplaceonly
inSpanish. Today thishas beenradically changed.Inparliament andin the
civilservice,Catalonianisspokenandstreetsignsarewritteninit.Themost
importantmeansoftransmissionforpassingonCatalonianaretheschools.A
policyof“immersion”hasbeenintroducedintheprimaryschools,theaimof
whichistoteachCatalonianas quickly as possible to those childrenwho do
notknowthelanguage.Todaytheuniversitiesarealsobeingtaughtmainlyin
Catalonian,whilethe media broadcastandprint initforthe mostpart,too.
Manyjobs,especiallyinthecivilserviceoftheCatalonianregion,requirethat

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

44
thepersonwhofillsthepositioncanalsospeakCatalonian.Havingagood
command of the Catalonian language, and especially being able to speak it
instead of Castilian has become a central mark of Catalonian identity. For
those who speak the language the competence itself ensures recognition
from their linguistic community. Kathryn A. Woolard and Tae‐Joong Gahng
(1990) in their study on the status of Catalonian were able to prove this
correlation.17
Similar developments can be demonstrated in the Baltic states after their
independence from the Soviet Union. Take, for instance, Latvia.Duringthe
SecondWorldWarthecountrywasoccupiedbyRussiaandintegrated by
force into Soviet Union. Between 1940 and 1990 the composition of the
populationchangedthroughimmigrationandresettlementand thenumber
of Russians increased exponentially. After the restoration of sovereignty in
1990Latvianbecametheonlyofficiallanguage.ThenewLatviansovereignty
and identity revealed itself in a corresponding linguistic policy which
upgradedLatvianinallareasofsocietytothedetrimentofRussian(cf. Nic
Craith2008:31ff.).ManypeopleinLatviawhosufferedundertheruleofthe
SovietUnionwerenotmuchinclinedtospeakRussian,inspiteofknowing
thelanguage,simplybecauseitwasthelanguageoftheoppressor.
SocialClassandLanguage:Forsocietiesinwhichonelanguageisspokenand
everyonelearnsthislanguagewiththeirsocialisation,itisneverthelesstrue
thatasaruletherearedifferentdialects,classdialectsand accentsinthese
societies. Even though the dialects in regard to oral and written language
skillsandthechancetocommunicateareequal,thisisfrequentlynotthecase
with the symbolic recognition accorded to the dialects. Together with the
processoflinguistichomogeneity,manynationstatesdevelopedahighlevel
language which was canonised by linguists and other academics. Pierre
17 TherearesimilardevelopmentsinGalicia,which,withitsaround2.7millioninhabitants,
isoneofthepoorestregionsinSpain.InJune2007thefollowingresolutionswerepassed
regarding the Galician language. (1) All communication with thecivilservicemustbe
madeinGalician.(2)InstructioninschoolsmustbeatleastfiftypercentinGalician.This
appliedto pre‐schoolaswellasforprimary,secondaryandadulteducation.Allsubjects
were to be taught in Galician including Physics, Biology, etc. (3) The teachers had to
provideproofofcompetenceinGalician,which,ofcourse,excludedmanyapplicantsfrom
otherpartsofSpain.

2.ConceptualFramework

45
Bourdieu (1992) has reconstructed this process for France and has shown
how it was possible for the elites to establish a single languageandto
delegitimiseotherlanguagesanddialects(Bourdieu1992;cf.alsoLoos2000;
fromtheperspectiveofahistoriancf.Weber1976).Commandofthehigh
level language is paired with high social recognition. Those who know it,
distancethemselvesfromthosewhodonot.Theycapitaliseontheir ability
byusingitassymboliccapital,gainingdistinctionbydistancing themselves
fromthecommonlanguageofthelowerclasseswithallits“vulgarity”
(Bourdieu& Passeron 1977: 119; cf.also Bourdieu 1992:43‐65).Aboveall
the schools and institutes of learning classify those people being able to
articulatewellinthehighlevellanguagewithhighsocialrecognition.
Thecommandofthehighlevellanguagenotonlybringsadvantages in
respect to qualifications, better chances on the employment market and a
higherincome(seetheremarksonthesocietybuildingfunctionoflanguage),
but it also signalises membership in the upper classes and helps to create
classes,thatis,totransferaclasspositionintoclassconsciousnessandclass
identity(Bourdieu1992:62ff.).18Researchinthepsychologyoflanguagehas
showninmanystudies thathighlevellanguage, whichisusuallyspoken by
the upper classes, is valued considerably more than class dialects (cf. the
literature overview in Giles & Billings 2004). The different evaluations of
language lead to consequences for its speakers. Landlords prefer speakers
whospeakthehighlevellanguage;thesameistrueforteachersinevaluating
children’sschoolwork.Forthesamecrimesjudgesgivemildersentencesto
those who speak the high level language well than to those who do not.
Finally,ithas alsobeenshown thatemployers, all otherthings beingequal,
aremoreinclinedtohirepeoplewhospeakthehighlevellanguagethannot.
Theexamplesillustratethatlanguagecanbe,andisusedasacentralfactorin
themakingofvariouskindsof collectiveidentities.Muchhistoricalresearch
demonstrateshowimportantandhowrelevantlanguagecanbeforthe
18 Thesituationisthesameformigrantswhochangenotonlytheir country,but also the
languagecommunity.Thelearningandthespeakingofthelanguageofthehostcountryis
notonlycombinedwith advantages in the society,whichwehave described above,but
alsowithanincreaseinrecognitionandsymboliccapital.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

46
construction of “imagined communities”. Socio‐psychological findings
provide plausible reasons why language is especially suited to serve as a
factor in the creation of communities. If people identify with a linguistic
communitytheyareoftenpreparedtobearahigh“price”forthedefenceor
fortheexpansion oftheirlinguistic community. Forinstance,migrants who
haveahighidentificationwiththeirnativetongueandregarditasoneofthe
majorfactorsoftheiroriginalidentity,andforthisreasonrejectthelanguage
oftheirhostcountry,willhavetoacceptdrawbacksineducation, in
integrationintheemploymentmarket,increatingnetworkswiththenatives
and in the extent of their political involvement. The people ofGalicia,who
possessahighidentificationwiththeirregionandthereforesupportthestate
educationpolicyofinstructingthechildreninGalician,willlimitthechances
of their children to have international communication and relationships to
oneregion,becauseGalicianisspokenbyonlyaveryfewpeople.
These examples demonstrate that the society and community building
functionsofalanguagecancontradicteachother.Iflanguageisanimportant
identitymarkerofagroupthenrelinquishingtheirownlanguagecanmean
the loss of their collective identity. Under these conditions instrumental
advantageswhichmightfollowfromadaptingtoanewlanguagewillbepaid
forbydisadvantagesinthesymbolicdimensionofidentityformation.
Thissituationisalsotruefortheacquisitionofaforeignlanguage.Peoplecan
identify positively or negatively with a foreign language. The stronger a
positiveemotionalidentificationwithalanguage,thegreateris the
willingnesstolearnitandviceversa.Thelevelofidentification with a
languageis,inturn, primarilydeterminedbythe levelofidentificationwith
thegroupwho speaksthis language.19 Thelevel of intensitypeopleidentify
withlanguages isconsequently determined by the collectiveidentities they
feelconnectedto.

19 TherejectionofEnglishbyasectionofthepopulationinGermanyaftertheSecondWorld
War is explained by the rejection of the Americans and the British as victors and as
occupiers;therejectionof Spanish in Catalonian isanexpressionoftherejectionof the
dominanceoftheSpanishcentralgovernment.

2.ConceptualFramework

47
2.3TransnationalLinguisticCapitalanditsGrowingImportance

Whenpeopleliveinasocietywhichislinguisticallyhomogeneousandcutoff
fromothersocietieswhichspeakdifferentlanguages,thereisnotmuchsense
inlearningaforeignlanguage.Theycanimproveneithertheirsocialnortheir
communalchancesthroughlearninganotherlanguage.However,the more
societies are interconnected with other societies, whose members speak a
foreignlanguage, the more valuableit becomes to be able to speak several
languages.Iwilldealinmoredetailinchapter3withthechanged
circumstanceswhichcreatethepotentialfortheuseofforeign language
skills.Atthispointitwillsufficetogiveashortsketchofthechanged
circumstanceswhichsupporttheargumentthatunderglobalisation and
Europeanisationthepossessionoftransnationallinguisticcapitalhasbecome
particularlyimportant. Nation statesocieties aredescribed intheliterature
as “container societies” (Taylor 1994; Beck 1997). This means that the
institutionsofasocietyremainrestrictedtotheterritoryofeachnationstate.
Even the various forms of interaction (from the exchange of goods to
marriage) dominantly take place within the nation state. Globalisation and
transnationalisation have increasingly subjected the national states to
change.Thisistrueaboveallforthecountrieswhicharemembers of the
EuropeanUnion.ThememberstatesoftheEUhavebeendefinitely made
“porous”inthelastfortyyears,insofarastheyhavetransferred a part of
theirsovereigntytotheinstitutionsoftheEuropeanUnion,whereby the
politicalareasforwhichtheEuropeanUnionandnotthenation states are
responsible have been expanded. This development, initiated by the EU
membercountriesthemselves,ofshiftinglegislativepowershasleadtoa
EuropeanisationofthesocietiesofthemembercountriesoftheEU,aswellas
toanincreaseinexchangeamongthem,thuscontributingtoaporosityofthe
nation state containers (cf. Münch 2001, 2008; Fligstein 2008; from the
historicalperspective cf. Kaelble 2005,2007). Above all the creation of the
Europeandomesticmarket,aswellasthefreedomofmovementof goods,
capital,servicesandlabourhasencouragedtrans‐bordereconomic
development,theincreaseandthegrowthofinnerEuropeantrade, the

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

48
growthofEuropeanvalueaddedchainsandthetransnationalisation of
capital(cf.Ambrosius1996;Hirst&Thompson1998;Fligstein&StoneSweet
2002; Fligstein & Merand 2002; Verwiebe 2004). However, European
societieshavebeen deeplyalterednot only byEuropeanisation,butalsoby
globalisation. Since the 1970s interregional economic, communication and
politicalexchangehasincreasedexponentially(seechapter3.2).
These structural changes have different consequences for the different
groupswithinasociety.Manyobservershavepointedoutthataboveallthe
upper class and especially high finance profit from globalisation and
Europeanisation (Beck 1997; Zürn 1998;Altvater&Mahnkopf1999;
Hartmann2007).Openbordersenablebusinessestowinnewmarketsandto
relocatetocountriesinwhichwagesandlabourcostsareconsiderably
cheaperthanintheirowncountry.Incomparisontobusiness,themobilityof
theworkforceismuchlower.Peoplearestronglyboundtotheirhome,their
family and their country. The differences in mobility lead to differences in
opportunitiesandincome.Whilecapitalitselfprofitsfromthechangedorder
ofthings,peopleveryoftenhavetobearthebruntofthedisadvantages,such
asreductionorstagnationinpay,adropintaxrevenueforthe state, or
higherunemployment.
Nevertheless, all work is not the same, as people are equipped in different
wayswithhumancapital;itdependsonadequatehumancapitalwhetherthe
process of transnationalisation and Europeanisation is connected with
advantagesordisadvantages.Multilingualismassumesanaddedimportance
underthe conditionsoftransnationalisation and Europeanisation.Sincethe
nationstatesusuallyspeakdifferentlanguages,trans‐borderexchangeisonly
madepossible,ormadeconsiderablyeasier,whenpeoplehavethenecessary
transnationallanguageskills.Havingthisresourcemakesitverymucheasier
tointeractwithpeoplefromothercountries,todobusiness,tocooperateon
scientific matters, to conduct political negotiations, to organise protests
beyondnationalborders,toenterintorelationships,etc.,inshort:tosocialise
transnationallyindifferentdimensions.Beinginpossessionoftransnational
languageskillsthusputsthosewhoaremultilingualinaposition to play a

2.ConceptualFramework

49
partintheprocessoftransnationalisationandEuropeanisationandtobuild
uptherequiredtransnationalrelationships.Thosewhoonlyspeak their
nativelanguage are confinedto their own country and cannot makeuseof
theadvantagesofaunitedEuropeandaglobalisedworld.Therefore,beingin
possession of transnational linguistic capital is a new source of social
inequalityinthecontextofadevelopingEuropeansociety.
IntheempiricalanalysesIwilldifferentiatebetweentwovariations of
transnationallinguisticcapital.Peoplepossesstransnationallinguisticcapital
when they speak various foreign languages regardless of which foreign
languagestheseare–alllanguageswillbetreatedequallyhere.However,the
usefulnessofalanguagevarieswiththeamountofcommunicationpartners
one can achieve through its knowledge. The number of potential
communication partners is calculated in turn from the sum of people who
speakthislanguageasamothertongueandthosewhospeakitasaforeign
language. Since this number of speakers is different depending on the
language,theutilityofdifferentlanguagesvaries.Theamount of people,for
instance, who speak Latvian or Finnish as a native or foreign language is
considerablylowerthanforthosewhospeakEnglish.Englishisthelanguage
withintheEU,aswewillsee,whichhasthehighestcommunicative value.
People possess – and this is the second variant – transnational linguistic
capitalwhentheyknowthelanguagewiththehighestlinguistic utility
(English).
Goodlinguisticcompetencecanbe,aswehaveseenabove,usefulforvarious
socialfields.Thisisalsovalid forpossessing transnationallinguistic capital
underthecircumstancesalreadyoutlined.
(a) Multilingualism opens up, first of all, educational possibilities and
providesthechancetoacquirequalificationswhichwillleadto better paid
work. The more and the better one knows different languages, so all the
better–ceterisparibus–themarkswillbethatonegetsinschool.Inaddition
andaboveall,multilingualismenablesentrancetoinstitutionsoflearningin
other countries, to pass exams there and to obtain qualifications, which,

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

50
when we think of American and British elite universities, have a better
reputation.
(b) Multilingualism improves access to better professional positions;
positions which are coupled with a high income and prestige. Ontheone
handaccesstotheemploymentmarketisfrequentlyconnectedwith the
acquisition of educational qualifications. If having transnational linguistic
capital leads to higher and better qualifications, then it is indirectly
connected to better access to better paid jobs. On the other hand
multilingualismisdirectlyconnectedtochancesontheemploymentmarket.
This is especially true in the European Union. The institutionalising of the
ruleonfreemovementhasgivenallcitizensoftheUnionthefreedomtoseek
work, to settle or to provide services in every member state. The rule on
freedom of movement is equally valid for the self‐employed (therightof
settlement).This legalexpansionof jobpossibilities caninfact onlybenefit
those who can speak several languages, because most foreign jobs require
knowledgeofthecountryofresidence’slanguage.Domesticfirmshavealso
internationalised their contacts, which has lead to a change ofthe
requirement profile for employees. International experience, intercultural
competenceandmultilingualismhavebecomecentralqualifications. The
sameis true forpolitics andthe politicalbureaucracy.“Even bureaucracies,
traditionally the stronghold of nation state self‐isolation, are today
incorporatedinnetworksofcommunicationandinformation.Manytechnical
committeesandadministrations(...)havetoconsultwithexpertsfromother
countriesinordertobeabletocorrectlyassesslegalaffairsandissues
resultingfrom this interweaving” (Mau2009: 69). It cannot be denied that
indeed their level of internationalisation has increased enormously (see
chapter 3.1). All in all one can assume that people who have transnational
competencesingeneralandtransnationallinguisticcapitalinparticularhave
bettercareerpossibilities.20
20Onthequestionastowhatextenttheelitesinvariouscountries are already
EuropeanisedseeMichaelHartmann(2007:195‐213,2009).

2.ConceptualFramework

51
(c)Thirdly,multilingualismimprovesthepossibilityofexpandingone’sown
network and hence the chance to internationalise social relations.
International networks are themselves in turn social capital, whichcanbe
usedtoexpandbusinessconnections,politicalcontactsandasaninformation
stockexchange.
(d) Finally, having transnational linguistic capital improves the chances for
political participation. Knowing foreign languages enables participation in
thepoliticallifeofanothercountry;onecanfollowthereportsinthemedia
better and get involved by joining parties and civil organisations. The
transnationalisationofpoliticalparticipationisespeciallyrelevantwithinthe
context of European integration. Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 the
citizensoftheEUposses,besidestheirownnationality,citizenship of the
Union,andtherebyobtaintherighttovoteinlocalelectionsintheEuropean
country where they are resident. However, they can only make use of this
legalrightwhentheyunderstandthelanguageofthecountryandcaninform
themselvesaboutthepoliticaldebateinthecountryconcerned.
(e)Apartfromtheinstrumentaluse,multilingualismhasasymbolicuse. As
we have seen, the symbolic use of language refers to identification with a
community,wherebythelanguagecanbeusedtoconstructvarious
communities(nation, region,class,etc.). Isuspect thathaving transnational
linguisticcapitalcanbeusedtocreateanewclassconsciousness.Peoplewho
are multilingual and can therefore be active in different countriesandin
differentlanguagesarerespectedbytheirfellowsforhavingthiscompetence.
Inthesamewayastheculturaleliteinthecountriesstage‐manages their
highlycultured wayof lifeas aneducated classthrough publicappearance,
distancing themselves from the middle classes, so the possession of
transnational linguistic capital enables people to present themselves as a
transnationalclassandtodistancethemselvesnotonlyfromthemiddleand
lower classes but also from the upper classes in their own countries, who
haveremainedpurelynational.Thusonecancapitaliseontheabilitytospeak
manylanguagesbycreatingsymboliccapitalandbydistancingoneselffrom

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

52
the “locals”.21 It is not difficult to imagine that the strategies to gaining
distinctiononthebasisofforeignlanguageskillsaremuchthesameasthose
which Pierre Bourdieu has described for the highly cultured life style. The
fact, that foreign language competence is a result of a learning process is
coveredandmultilingualismispresentedasasupposedlynaturalskill.Those
whodonotspeakanyforeignlanguageareregardedasbeingbackward.
Besides having a new class consciousness the new multilingual elite might
standout ashavingan alteredsolidarity withthe nation state.Adam Smith
formulatedasimilaridea150yearsagoinhisbook‘WealthofNations’:“The
proprietoroflandis necessarilyacitizenof theparticularcountryin which
hisestatelies(...).Theproprietorofastockisproperlyacitizenoftheworld,
andisnotnecessarilyattachedtoanyparticularcountry”(Smith1864:358).
Itispreciselythosepeoplewhoareoperatingtransnationally,integratedin
transnationalnetworks,whodissolvetheirtiestothenationstate.22Steffen
Mau, Jan Mewes and Ann Zimmermann (2008a/b) show, for example, that
people who have many foreign connections, who are embedded in
transnationalnetworks,aremorelikelytobecosmopolitanintheirattitudes
andhave positive attitudes towardsforeigners (Mau et al.2008a/b).23One
can assume that a transnational positionwillalsoleadtoanew tie to and
identificationwithinternationalorganisations,suchastheEuropeanUnion.I
willreturntothissubjectinchapter5againwithmyownbriefanalysis.

21 Empiricallywe know verylittle about thenewly developing transnationalclass, even if
therearesomepopularscientificspeculationsonthissubject.
22 SamuelP. Huntington(2004) describes inhis book on the changeinAmericanidentity
thereductioninthetiesoftheinternationalelitetotheUSAandseesinitadangerforthe
futureoftheUSA.
23 Beingcosmopolitanisdefinedbytheauthorsasfollows:“Cosmopolitanism,incontrast,is
conceived as a particular worldview characterised by the capacity to mediate between
different cultures, the recognition of increasing interconnectedness of political
communitiesandtheapprovalofpoliticalresponsibilityatthesupranationalandglobal
level”(Mauetal.2008b:2).


  53









3.FROMNATIONSTATESTOAEUROPEANSOCIETY

IntheprecedingchapterIhaveemphasisedthatitisonlyunder certain
contextual circumstances that foreign language proficiency becomes an
important human resource. Three factors are significant here, whichIwill
describeinmoredetailinthischapter.Thesefactorsaredeterminedbythe
macro‐structuralbackgroundconditionswhichmaketransnationallinguistic
capitalarelevantresourceinthefirstplace.
ThenecessitytospeakvariouslanguagesinordertointeractwithinEurope
isdependentupontherespectiveinstitutionalisedlanguageconstellation.In
theUnitedStates,forexample,Englishistheofficiallanguageinallthestates.
ItisnotnecessaryforthecitizensofMaineandIdahotospeak a foreign
languageinordertobeabletocommunicatewitheachother,asidefromthe
possibledifficultiesincommunicatingwith immigrants. IntheUnitedStates
ofEurope,however,thesituationisentirelydifferent.TheEUisamergerof
twenty‐sevensovereignstates.Asarulethereisonlyoneofficiallanguagein
each nation. A linguistically segmented structure organised according to
nationstatesisaconstitutivecharacteristicofEurope’slinguistic
constellation.A descriptionof thegenesis ofthis basicconstellation will be
thetopicofthefirstsection.
Aslongasthemajorityofinteractionandcommunicationoccurswithinthe
bordersofaparticularnationthereisnoneedtolearnaforeign language.
However,themoresocietiesinteractwithotherswhichspeakdifferent
languages, the more valuable it becomestospeakaforeignlanguage. In a

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

54
second step I will explain how the processes of Europeanisationand
globalisation have weakened and internationalised the borders of the
encapsulated societies of the EU – known as container societies–sothat
possessingtransnationallinguisticcapitalhasbecomearelevantresource.
The emergence of nation states is a perfect example of how formerly
linguisticallyheterogeneousstructuresbecamehomogeneousduetopolitical
decisions. It is for this reason that it is important to analyse the language
policiesoftheEuropeanUnionmoreclosely,whichIwilldointhethird
section.ThelanguagepoliciesoftheEUarecharacterisedbytwosignificant
features:ontheonehandtheacceptanceofthelinguisticheterogeneityofthe
EuropeanUnionandtherejectionofapolicyoflinguistichomogenisation,
andontheotherconsiderablesupportforEuropeancitizens’multilingualism.
InathirdstepIwillanalyseinmoredetailthepoliticaland ideological
backgroundofthesepolicies.
There is a general argument which underlies this chapter: The linguistic
orderisaparasiteonthesocialorder;ifthehost(socialstructure of the
world)changes, thenthe parasite(constellation oflanguages) changes.The
socialorderisinturnanorderwhichisstructuredhierarchically with a
centreandaperiphery;thestrengthsandweaknessesofindividuallanguages
reflectthehierarchicallystructureoftheworldorder.

3.1NationBuilding,andLanguageStandardisation,WorldSociety
andtheRiseofEnglishasaHegemoniclinguafranca

The need for people to speak different languages so that they can interact
with one another across Europe, and beyond, arises from the specific
institutionalisedlanguage constellation.If all theEuropean countries spoke
the same language, then the problem of mutual understanding would not
arise. This, however, is not the case, since the institutionalised order of
languages,thatis,theregimeoflanguagesinEurope,isorganisedaccording
tonationstatesand ishencelinguisticallysegmented.Within theindividual
nation states themselves, though, there is only very limited linguistic

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
55
heterogeneity,sincemostofthememberstatesrecogniseonlyonelanguage;
inter‐state heterogeneity, in contrast, is virtually one hundred percent,
because the twenty‐seven member countries have twenty‐three official
languages. In Section 3.1.2 I will explain precisely how this linguistic
constellationinEuropecameaboutasthenationstatesemerged.
Nationstatesthemselvesareembeddedinaninternationalorder,inaworld
society which allots to the various nation states very different statuses.
Inevitably, the varying levels of importance between the nationstatesgo
hand in hand with the varying importance of their languages. The factors
which are responsible for the worldwide dominance of English will be
discussedinasecondstep(chapter3.1.3).ThefactthatEnglishtodayisthe
languagemost widely disseminatedis the reasonwhy it isnot only a good
ideatolearnforeignlanguagesingeneral,butEnglishinparticular.Theideas
concerning the relationship between the global society and the status of
languagesarebasedprimarilyontheworkofAbramdeSwaan(deSwaan
1993,2001b).

3.1.1GeneralMechanismsofLanguageChange
Recentcomparativelinguisticshasemployedconceptsandtheories from
evolutionarybiology(cf.Dixon1997;Mufwene2001)toanalysenotonlythe
relationshipofdifferentlanguagestooneanotherbutalsotheir linguistic
changes.Inprincipal,threeconstellationscanbedistinguishedregardingthe
developmentofthevariouslanguagesinrelationtooneanother.
(1)Thejumpingoffpointofthedevelopment of languagesisaconstellation
inwhichthereareseveraldifferentlanguagegroupsspeakingdifferent
languagesinonearea,butwhicharenot,oronlytosomeextent,
interconnectedwithoneanother.Inthissituationthelanguagedevelopment
of the individual languages is influenced primarily by endogenous factors.
Theevolutionoflanguageisbasedontheconcretespokenlanguageandnot
ontheabstractsystemofrules,whichlinguistssupposetobethe common

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

56
elementsofalanguage,or,inotherwordsitsdeeperstructure.Languagesare
not spoken in a uniform manner by their speakers; there are constant
deviationsfromthestandardlanguage,becausetherearescarcely any
speakerswhospeakalanguageperfectly.Thismechanismofthe“imperfect
replication” of a language (Mufwene 2001: 193) leads to the constant
productionoflinguisticdeviations(poolofvariations).Thesevariationslead
totheemergenceofdialectsandoverseveralthousandyearsthisleadstoa
changeinthelanguage,somuchsothattheultimatechangedeviatestosuch
anextentthattheoriginallanguageanditsmutationhaveverylittleleftin
common.
(2) The development of languages is different when different groups of
speakersofvariouslanguagesareincontactwithoneanother.Dixon(1997)
distinguishes a special sub‐caseforthisconstellation.Withinaparticular
territory there exist several language groups with a similar size. If these
differentgroupsareincontactwithoneanotherthenchangesin the
languagescanbeputdowntointernalmutationsontheonehandandmutual
linguistic influences between the groups on the other; the changes are,
however,ofamoderatenature.Iftheconstellationsurvivesfor alongtime,
for instance, over several thousand years, and if exchange between the
(different)language groupscontinues, then thisleads toa slowadaption of
the languages to one another, so that they converge into a common
prototype. Dixon (1997) has demonstrated that the development of
languagesinAustraliauptoitsdiscoveryandcolonisationfollowed this
model.
(3) The constellation between various languages changes dramatically,
though,whenasituationofpunctuatedequilibriumoccurs.Theconcept of
punctuated equilibriums is a theory published by the American
palaeontologistsNilesEldredgeandStephenJayGouldin1972,whichstates
that biological development normally occurs slowly and through small
variationsinparticularphases.Changes,ontheotherhand,occur in an
explosive manner when the process is “punctuated” by exogenous events.
Dixonappliedthisideatotheanalysisofchangesinlanguages.Eventswhich

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
57
leadto a rapid change inthe language constellation are generally speaking
societal events, which alter the power and prestige between different
languagegroups.Thus,naturalcatastrophesorepidemicscandecimate the
numberofspeakersofaparticularlanguage,causingtherelativepowerof
otherlanguagegroupstoincrease,whichthenexpandatthecostoftheother
languages.Therefore,thechangesintherelativepowerofdifferentgroupsof
speakersareresponsibleforthefactthatsomelanguagesgainwhileothers
losesignificance.Thelanguages themselves react to social changes like
parasitestotheirhosts.Withtheexpansionordisappearanceofsocialgroups
(hosts),languages also expandor disappear (Mufwene2001: 192ff.). There
are many reasons for the power of a specific group, for example, military
might, conquest and the suppression of formerly foreign territories,
economicpowerthroughtheexpansionoftrade,aswellasreligious or
ideologicallymotivatedexpansion,constitutethemajordrivingforces.
Linguisticresearch onthe evolution of languages formsthe foundationand
pointofdepartureforsociologicalanalysis.Thetwofollowingdevelopments
areparticularlyimportantforourresearchquestion.Theriseofnationstates
inEurope and theirworldwide expansion as a type and a modelof how to
organiseasocietycanbeunderstoodasapunctuation,whichhas
fundamentallyalteredthehierarchyoflanguages,sothatontheonehandin
almostallnationstatesaprocessoflinguistichomogenisationwastriggered,
while on the other hand linguistic segmentation between the nation states
was institutionalised insofar as different nation states speak different
languages.
Atthesametimethenationstatesareembeddedinaworldsociety whose
structure gives varying positions of power to the different nation states.
Powerfulnationstates,orratherthosewhichwereinfluentialinthepastand
havelefttracesoftheirpowerbehindthem,suchasthecolonial powers,
determinetheinternationalhierarchyoflanguagesbecausetheirpositionof
world hegemony bestowed upon their individual languages a hegemonic
position.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

58
Forbothdevelopmentsitistruetosaythatsocietalinstitutionsprecedesand
determinesthelanguageconstellationandthehierarchyamongthe
languages. The number of individual languages which are spoken on this
earth, the dominance of some languages and the insignificance of others is
undoubtedly determined by the powerstructuresandthesocialorder of
institutions,whichdeterminethehierarchyoflanguageslikeapunctation.

3.1.2NationStateBuildingandLanguageStandardisation
Whensociologistsand,indeed,laypeopletalkaboutsocietytheyareusually
thinking of societies as nation states, for example, the societiesoftheUSA,
Ghana,FranceorPeru.Evenincaseswherenonationstateexists, the
problemofthenon‐existenceofasocietyisdealtwithintermsofnationstate
categories.Themostprominentexample,whichwehear about onthenews
almostdaily,isthatofthePalestinians,whoarestrivingtoachievetheirown
nationstate.Eveninareasoflimitedstatehood,asinAfghanistan,theprocess
ofdisintegrationis discussedwith referenceto thenation state(cf.Risse&
Lehmkuhl2007). According toJohn W.Meyer,world societyconsists ofthe
structural isomorphism of different nation states (Meyer et al. 1997). To
understand societies as nation state societies is not an invention of
sociologists blinded by constructivism, and therefore not the result of a
methodological nationalism, but it has real substantive content. The world
societyisinrealitydividedinto,amongotherthings,nationstates.Atpresent
thereare193differentnationsstates(asrecognisedbythe United Nations)
intheworld.
Historicalresearchontheemergenceofnationstatesissoextensivethatan
overviewisnolongerpossible.Thefollowingshortsummarycannot do
justicetotheamountofscholarlyliteratureavailable,nortothediversityof
the different routes to nationhood. However, this is not our aim. From a
sociologicalpointofviewourpurposehereistodescribeasanidealtypethe
general relationship between nation building and language constellation
primarilywithreferencetotheEuropeannationstates.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
59
From an historical point of view organising societies as nationstatesisa
relativelyrecentdevelopment.Theprocessbeganinthe18
thcenturyand
acceleratedinthe19thand20thcenturies.Whatarethecentralcharacteristics
ofanationstate?Accordingtotheclassicaldefinitionofthe stateby Georg
Jellinek(“TheThreeElementsTheory”cf.Jellinek1905;cf.Hobsbawm1996:
516f.),astaterequirespoliticalpoweronthebasisofhavingthemonopolyof
physicalpower,aswellasexerciseofthispowerwithintheborders of a
territory and over the citizens inhabiting that territory. According to Max
Weber the state has “Anstaltscharakter” (institutional character) (Weber
1985:516f.):Firstly,it securesanddefinesthe borderswiththehelp ofthe
militaryandassumescontroloverallincomingandoutgoinggoods and
people(withreferencetothefollowingseeaboveallRokkan1999, 2000).
Tollbarriers,passportcontrolsandcustomsembodystateborder policies.
Secondly,thecreationofanationstateisconcurrentwiththeinstallationofa
systemofinstitutionsconfinedonlytothatterritoryaswellasthecreationof
aunifiedsystemoflawsandregulations.Thisincludesthecreation of a
nationwideadministration,whosewritrunstothefurthestcorner of the
nation,meaning the introductionof aunified system of registration (births,
deaths, etc.), as well as a national currency and a national legal system, a
nationaltaxsystem,thecreationandmaintainingofanationwidetransport
system (roads and rail), and a countrywide system of schools and
universities. A national territory is pervaded and unified by these
institutions,whilelocaland regional peculiaritiesareusuallysmoothed out.
At a later historical date, state rule reconnects to the will of the people it
governs through the establishment of democratic forms of government
withinthe national territoryand theemergence of an interventionist state,
which intervenes in the nationalsocietytoestablishfavourable conditions
forthemarketeconomyandtoensuresocialequalitythroughawelfarestate
(cf.Leibfried&Zürn2006).
The inclusion of the people who live within the territory of a state occurs
paralleltotheemergenceofnationalinstitutions.Thepeoplebecomecitizens
of their state, they allow themselves to be registered, recorded and

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

60
administeredascitizensoftheircountry.Theyhavetobeeducated
(compulsoryschoolattendance),areobligedtodefendtheircountryintime
ofwar,mustpaytaxes andexciseduties,inreturnfor whichtheyenjoythe
protectionofthe stateand freedomofmovement withinitsborders. Above
all,if it isa democratic state, they have the rightto elect theirgovernment
andcanclaimsocialwelfarebenefitsfromtheir(andonlytheir)country.
The unique nature of a nation state consists in the fact that the different
dimensions of the modern state overlap at the national level (Leibfried &
Zürn2007:10).Thecongruenceofterritory,populationandstatehoodinthe
abovementioned dimensions is, therefore, the constitutive characteristic of
the creation of nation states (Held 1995; Zürn 1998). In this respect the
descriptionofnationstatesascontainersocietiesencompassinganincrease
ininteractionisacorrectone(Taylor1994;Beck1997).
However, nation states are not only characterised by specific institutional
features, nation states are also characterised by a new type ofsenseof
community,byaspecificfeelingorsenseofbelongingfeltbyitscitizens.The
nationbecomesadominantobjectofidentificationforitscitizens and
competes with alternative objects of identification, such as religion, region,
ethnicity,orsocialclass(Anderson1991).
Historically and analytically two different combinations of state and nation
can be distinguished. In the first case the process of building a state takes
placeinitiallyandthenationcomeslater.CharlesTillyspeaksinthiseventof
“statelednationalism”.Inthesecondcase,anationalsocialmovement
precedes the state building process. Tilly describes this process as a “state
seeking”process.Theemergenceofastatecanfollowfromtheseparationof
aterritoryfromalargeroneorthroughtheintegrationofseveralterritories
intoanewnationstate(cf.Tilly1994:133f.).
The importance of some features for the collective identity of a specific
nationstateandthestatusgiventoonefeatureinfavourofanother varies
considerablyamongthenationstates(Weber1985: 242f.,528f.;Hobsbawm
1990). Many nation states put institutional characteristics at the heart of

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
61
their sense of identity. The rightswonwithcitizenship,thevalues of the
constitution, become the elements which are described as the special
characteristicsofthenationofwhichoneisproud(statenation).Asarulewe
aredealingherewithnationstatesinwhichthestateandtheapparatus of
power have already been established before the process of nation building
began(cf.here Hroch2005).Typical representativesofthe statenationare
the USA and France at the end of the 18thandthebeginningofthe19
th
centuries. Other nation states emphasise a common descent, a common
religionorcommonculturalvaluesatthecentreoftheirpersonalnarratives
(culturalnation).Veryoftenthesearenationswhichhavenotyetdeveloped
astate,and inwhichtheprocess ofcreatinga statefollowedthe processof
nationbuilding.24GermanyandItalyarefrequentlycitedastheidealtypesof
a cultural nation. Nevertheless, it is equally true that the so‐called state
nationsseektoestablishanumberofculturalelementsinorder to create
their identity. The USA, for example, sees itself as a nation within the
Protestanttradition;Americanscelebratetheirownhistory extensively asa
symbolofnationalunityaswellasreferringtotheEnglishlanguageasoneof
thecentralfeaturesoftheiridentity(cf.formanyothersHuntington2004).
Dramatic consequences for the linguistic order are bound up with the
emergence and expansion of nation states as the dominant form of society
andcommunity.InpracticallyallEuropeannationstates,butnotonlyhere,a
linguistichomogeneityisestablishedwhen onelanguageisdistinguishedas
theobligatorynationalandofficiallanguage.Otherlanguages,dialectsorthe
languagesofmigrantswhichhaveexisteduptothenaremarginalised and
24 Historical research has shown that according to each nation state and historical
constellation considerably different identity markers were used, so that possible
generalisationshavetobe treated withcaution(seeHobsbawm1990forthefollowing).
Inmanycountriesethnicityplaysanimportantroleasanidentitymarker (China,Japan
andKorea),inothersverylittle.InPolandandIrelandtheCatholic religion is an
important criterion for national identity, not, however, in France.Therearemany
countrieswhichlooktoalong(partiallyinvented)historyasacriterionfortheiridentity,
whileontheothertherearejustasmanyethniccommunitieswhichhavealonghistory,
liketheMapucheandtheAymaraIndians, that do not use it as a criterion for their
identityconstruction.Finally,inmanynationstatesacommonlanguageassumestherole
ofdefiningthenation,not,however,inSwitzerland,BelgiumorCanada.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

62
oftenrigorouslyrepressed(cf.thecomprehensivestudybyKamusella2009
onthedevelopmentofCentralEurope).25
SeveralofthesmallerEuropeanstates,forexampleBelgiumandSwitzerland,
areexceptionstothegeneralrule,sinceinthesecasestheinternallinguistic
cleavages were institutionalised, which has lead to a federal system of
institutions(Rokkan1999;Rokkan&Urwin1983).Inspiteofstateunitythe
internal linguistic cleavages of both countries define to a great degree the
behaviourofitscitizens,aswehaveseenfromtheexampleofSwitzerlandin
chapter2.Inthiscasewithinoneandthesamecountrythepossibilities of
mutual understanding are limited.ForBelgium,whichparticipated in the
Eurobarometer survey upon which our empirical analysis in chapter4is
based,thefollowingdistributionbecameevident.Fromthosewho speak
Flemishastheirmothertongue,70%alsospeakFrench,althoughonly27%
ofWalloonsspeakFlemish(owncalculations),whichmeansthat73%ofthe
WalloonscannotcommunicatewiththeFlemishintheirnativelanguage.
InSwitzerlandwhereasidefromRhaeto‐Romance,whichisspokenby very
fewpeople,therearethreemorelanguages.IwarWerlen(2008)reportsthe
followingdistribution.FromamongthosewhospeakGermanastheirmother
tongue,71%speakFrenchand32%Italian.OfthosewhospeakItalian as
theirnativelanguage,74%speakFrenchand65%German.IftheSwiss or
Belgianswanttocommunicatewitheachothertheyoftenhaveto resortto
thelanguagewhichthemajorityofthemspeakmostfrequentlybutwhichis
notoneofthenationallanguages,namelyEnglish.26
Thereasonwhyinmostcasestheprocessofnationstatebuildingwenthand
inhandwiththeprocessofestablishingonlyoneofficiallanguagecanbe
25Thetermofficiallanguageishereandinthefollowingnotto be understood as being
definedexplicitlyinthe constitution as theofficiallanguage. This is neither trueforthe
UKnorfortheUSA.ItisonlyintheconstitutionsofsomeUSfederalstatesthatEnglishis
expresslystatedastheofficiallanguageintheUSA.
26 For example, more Walloons speak English than Flemish. In the course of time the
numberofWalloonswhospeakFlemishhasevendeclined,whereasthenumberofthose
whospeakEnglishhasincreased.CommunicationbetweenWalloonsandtheFlemishby
meansofathird,foreign,languageisbecomingincreasinglylikely.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
63
tracedbacktothetwocentralfunctionsoflanguage:itssociety(a)andits
communitybuildingfunction(b).
(a)Thecreationofanationalsystemofinstitutions,thepermeationofsociety
with these institutions and the integration of citizens into this process are
made much easier, if the people living in the territory speak the same
language. The striving towards linguistic homogeneity had its origins in
Absolutism (Hroch 2005: 62ff.), since bureaucracy, legislation,andall
regulationscanbeverymuchmoreeasilyenforcedwhenthepeoplewhoare
subject to them speak the same language. The process of linguistic
homogeneitywascontinuedwiththeemergenceofnationstates.A school
and university system can be more easily founded when the language of
instructionisthesame.Transportsystemscanbebetterco‐ordinated when
thecoordinationcanrefertoaunifiedsystemofsigns,andtheintegrationof
the citizens into the democratic process is more easily achieved with
monolingualism. The enormous reduction of transaction costs which goes
handinhandwithmonolingualismisthemostimportantreasonwhy
processesofnationstatebuildingalmostalwayscoincidewiththeattemptto
determine,standardiseandimposeonelanguage(Hobsbawm1996:88).Put
another way, in those countries in which the emergence of a state and
societal integration were very advanced, the pressure to achieve linguistic
homogeneitywasverygreat,whereasinthosecountrieswhichwere less
socially integrated the level of linguistic segregation was higher. Miroslav
Hroch (2005: 65ff.) has used this argumentinanattempttoexplain why
Westernsocietiesweremorehighlylinguisticallyhomogenisedthanthoseof
theAustro‐HungarianEmpire.
(b)Atthesametime,andtoavaryingdegreeinthedifferentnationstates,
thesinglelanguagewhichhadbeendeclaredthenationallanguagebecamea
distinguishing marker of national identity. In chapter 2, I have already
pointedoutwhilereferringtosocial‐psychologicalliteraturethatlanguageis
particularlysuitedforthedevelopmentofacollectiveidentity.Infact,many
nationstatesdefinetheiridentity,althoughnotalone,throughtheirnational
language. To this end, they generally create institutions whichstandardise

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

64
andguardlinguisticusagebyimposingobligatorydictionariesandgrammar
books.Mythsabouttheoriginsofthelanguageare“invented”,thehistoryof
thelanguageiscanonisedanditsspecialqualitiesareadjured,furthermorea
national literature written in that language is considered as something
special. As historical research has demonstrated in detail, many of the
processesinthevariousnationstatesofEuropehavedevelopedinthis
manner.Thefusionofnationalidentityisalsoexpressedinthe names of
manynationstates(England/English,German/Germany,French/France,and
Spain/Spanish).Inthesecasestheverynomenclature indicatesthe factthat
language is a central distinguishing feature in the designationofnational
identity.
Europeisthecontinentinwhichtheemergenceofnationstatesnotonly
started,butwhereitwasalsotakentothefurthestdegree.Thisisshownin
the structure of the languages. Today Europe is the largest region in the
worldwiththefewestnumberofregionallanguages(cf.thedata in
Haarmann2006:326ff.).Thetimespaninwhichandthespeedatwhichthe
processofhomogeneitywasaccomplishedvariesconsiderablyfromcountry
tocountry.Unfortunately,itisquitedifficulttoobtainconcrete empirical
informationontheprocessoflinguisticchange.
27Iwould,however,liketo
mention at least one example from the extensive literature, even if it’s not
possible to draw conclusions for other countries from the case described.
LanguagechangeisrelativelywellresearchedinFrance.
The systematisation used by Dennis Ager (1996) to describe the rise of an
official language, which he applied to the developments in France and
England, is useful. Ager distinguishes four different phases, “Selection,
Codification,ElabourationandAcceptance”(Ager1996:29‐39,1997).
27 Thishastworeasons.Firstly,thesourcesforearlyperiodsaremuchworsethanfor the
present;secondly,therearedifferentdefinitionsofwhatconstitutesdeferentlanguages.
Forinstance,whenvariousauthorsassertthatinonecountryat aspecific timeonly a
percentageofthepopulationspokethelanguageoftheelitethenitisfrequentlynotclear
whether the population spoke another language from the elite or just a dialect. If the
latterwasthecasethencommunicationbetweentheeliteandthepopulacewould have
beenpossible.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
65
Thefirststepisthechoiceofonelanguageasastandardlanguagefromoutof
thenumberofspokenlanguagesinoneterritory.InFranceitisthedialectof
the Ile de France, Francien. The reasons for the rise of this and no other
languagearemany,buttheyareallassociatedwithfactorsofsocial power.
UndertheCapetians,ParisandtheIledeFrancegraduallyemerged as the
politicalcentreofFrance.Itwasheavilypopulatedandwealthy, and in
additionPariswastheculturalcentre,withtheroyalcourtasamagnetfor
literarypersonalitiesandwith the Sorbonneas a centreoflearning. In rural
areasofFrancethe regionallanguagesanddialectscontinuedto bespoken.
The regional elites, however, frequently assumed the prestigious dialect of
the Ile de France and functioned as intermediaries. The second step in the
establishment of a standard language consists in the codification of the
chosenlanguage. The codification ofthe French language is bound up with
thefoundationoftheAcademieFrancaiseintheyear1634.Itsmainfunction
wasthecodificationandthesafeguardingoftheFrenchlanguage by
publishingdictionariesandgrammarbooks.Thethirdstepinthe
establishment of an official language Ager calls “Elabouration”. This means
theadaptabilityofthelanguagetonew(technological)developmentsandthe
changesindictionariesand grammar.Finally,thefourth stepcomprisesthe
expansionandriseofthestandardlanguageatthecostofother spoken
languages.ThecomprehensiveriseofthestandardlanguageoccursinFrance
intheperiodbetweentheFrenchRevolutionandthebeginningof the 20th
century. Ager refers to various sources and concludes that the non‐French
speaking part of the population in France was forty‐six percent in 1764,
which decreases to twenty‐five percent in 1863 and disappears almost
entirelyinthefirstthirdofthe20thcentury(Ager1996:37).28
OneofthemainreasonswhytheriseofFrenchwaselevatedtoand carried
out as a political programme in the French Revolution lies in the political
28 The figures Ager presents deviate somewhat from the estimatesofEugenWeber.He
surmises that at the beginning of the Third French Republic (1871) half of the French
populationdidnotspeakFrenchatallor,ifso,toalimiteddegree(cf.Weber1976:70f.).
IncomparisontoItalythatwasstillahighquota.EricHobsbawm(1996: 88) mentions
thatatthetimeoftheunificationofItalyin1860onlyaround2.5%oftheItaliansspoke
Italianonadailybasis.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

66
ideasoftheFrenchRevolutionitself.Nexttotheintentionalcreation of a
national consciousness, the idea took hold that political enlightenment and
participation of the entire population was only possible when everyone
spokethesamelanguage.Theimplementationoftheprogrammetoeducate
the French citizens in a single language followed the establishment of a
mandatoryschoolsystem.WhiletheschoolsystemundertheAncienRégime
forthemostpartwasinthehandsofthechurchandwascarriedoutinthe
regional languages, in the Republic it became a matter of state. French
speakingteachersweresentintotheprovincesin order to teachtheofficial
language(Grillo1989;cf.alsoOakes2001:53‐64).
The reverse side of the coin of nation state homogeneity is the
marginalisation and repression of minority languages. They are banned to
the private sphere of life; there is no institutionalisation through
standardisation through dictionaries, safeguarding of the language, school
instructionofthepopulationintheminoritylanguages,useasanofficialform
ofcommunication,etc.Historyis,inaddition,richinexamples which
demonstrate with what rigour and brutality minority languages were
repressedin orderto establishthe conceptof asingle language.Duetothe
divisionofPolandattheendofthe18
th century, for example, 1.5 million
Poleswere annexed to Prussia.At first Prussiatried to integrate them in a
peacefulmannerandgavethemfarreachingrights(bilingualdecrees,Polish
parityasanofficialandlegallanguage,Polishschools).Thispolicywas
altered after the foundation of the German Reich in 1871 under Bismarck.
Among the language policy measures,werethegermanisationofPolish
names,the transfer of Polish teachers,the prohibitionof Polish asa school
subjectas well asPolish newspapers,and thefinalabolition ofPolish asan
official and legal language. Thus, language policy became “all the more
repressive,themoreevidentlyGermannationalismgrew”(Puschmann1996:
20).
After1922the South TyroleansinItalywerenottreatedmuchbetterunder
therisetopoweroftheFascists.InSouthTyrolItalianwasintroducedasthe
officiallanguage,Germanwasforbiddenasthelanguageofinstruction,place

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
67
namesandsometimesfamilynameswereItalianated,resettlementofItalians
wasenforced(Puschmann1996:22).
On other continents many examples can also be found which demonstrate
theconnectionbetweennationbuildingandtheoppressionofminoritiesand
their languages.29Taiwan,forexample,whichbelongedtoChina,was
secededtoJapanaftertheChinesedefeatintheChinese‐Japanese war. The
Japanesegovernment then introducedJapanese asthe officiallanguage and
severely suppressed Chinese. This policy was successful, for when Taiwan
wasreturnedtoChinain1945seventy‐onepercentofthepopulationspoke
Japanese.After 1945Chinese was reintroducedas theofficial languageand
thependulumswungintheotherdirection(cf.Chen1999:30ff.).
Examples of the oppression of linguistic minorities for the sake of the
creationofa nationalidentityextend intothepresent andaffectEurope, as
theconflictoverthelinguistrightsoftheKurdsinTurkeydemonstrates.The
emergenceofTurkishnationalismwithKemalismformedthemostimportant
foundationforthenewstatefoundedinthe1920s.Fromtheverybeginning;
a single Turkish language was the central element in the formation of an
identity.ThespecialnatureofTurkishwaslegitimatisedbytheso‐calledsun
linguistic theory. It was attempted to prove that Turkish was the original
language from which all other languages sprung (cf. Laut 2000).This
evidentlyabsurdtheorywastaughtatuniversities.ThestylisationofTurkish
intoanationallanguagemeantconverselythedelegitimisingand repressing
oftheexistingminoritylanguages.ThemassiveattemptoftheTurkishstate
tointegratetheKurdsintoTurkishsocietywenthandinhandwith the
suppressionoftheKurdishlanguage.TheofficialuseoftheKurdishlanguage
was forbidden for a long time and Turkish was the only language allowed.
Kurdishsurnamesandplace nameswereexchangedforTurkish names and
place names. Resettlements involving the deportation of Kurds and the
resettlementof Turkswere intendedto destroythe connectionof language
29 Cf.,forexample,theanalysisoftheconnectionbetweennationbuildingandthelinguistic
homogenisationin the four Latin AmericancountriesofArgentina,Brazil,Paraguayand
UruguaybyRainerEnriqueHamel(2003).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

68
andterritory.ItisonlyrecentlyandunderpressurefromtheEuropeanUnion
withinthenegotiationsforTurkishentrancetotheEUthatthishaschanged.
The cultural freedoms of the Kurdish minority have been somewhat
strengthenedbyallowingsomeuseoftheKurdishlanguage,Kurdishlessons
in private schools and Kurdish radio and television channels, although the
latterareveryrestrictedandhaveonlylimitedbroadcastingtime.
Theinstitutionalisedlinguisticconstellationexistinginthememberstatesof
theEuropeanUniontodayistheresultofthisbrieflyoutlined process of
nation state organisation of society and identity building. TheEuropean
Unionisamergeroftwenty‐sevenstateswhichsoonerorlaterhaveallgone
throughtheprocessofbuildinganationstate.Theresultsareasfollows:
 Ineighteenoutoftwenty‐sevenEUcountriesthereisonlyone
officiallanguage.
 Inafurthersixcountriesonlyoneofficiallanguageispermittedfor
the whole territory, in certain small regions, however, a second
officiallanguageisallowed.Thesecountriesare:Austria,Spain,
Italy,Finland,Slovakia,andtheNetherlands.
 The third group is made up of the few countries which have all
permittedtheuseoftwoorseveralofficiallanguages.Luxemburg,
Belgium,andMaltaareinthisgroup.
Thereforethetwenty‐sevennationstatecontainersoftheEUwhichareeach
characterisedbyaspecificinstitutionalorderhaveinmostcasesone single
language. The borders of the nation state institutional order are usually
identicalwiththoseofadiscretelanguage,which,onthewhole, gives the
languageorderaveryparticularstability.
Thenationstateasthedominantformofsocietalorganisationinthe19thand
20thcenturiescharacterisesgenerallyspeakingnotonlytheriseof a single
language to be spoken by all and the marginalisation and oppression of
minority languages, but also the relationship towards the languages of
migrants.Whilethenationallanguageand the minoritylanguagesformtwo
sidesofthesamecoinwithinanationstate,migrantsandtheirlanguagesdo

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
69
notmeritanyattentionatallwithinthehorizonofthisbinarycodification.
Thereare,forinstance,moreTurkishspeakinginhabitantsinthecountriesof
the EU than there are Luxemburgish, Maltese, Danish or Latish speaking
citizens (cf. Nic Craith 2008: 57f.), yet Turkish does not enjoy any official
status,neitherinthenationstatesnorontheEuropeanlevel.

3.1.3WorldsocietyandtheHegemonyofEnglish
Nationstateshavedifferentlevelsofimportancewithintheframeworkofthe
world society. Depending on size, military, economic and political power
someoccupyahegemonicposition,whileothersfindthemselveson the
periphery.The position of power of the differentnation stateshasadirect
influenceonthepowerpositionoftheirlanguagesintheinternationalorder.
Since the language constellation which has been institutionalised in a
territory can only be replaced by another at the expanse of enormous
difficultiesandtransactioncosts,itisnotonlythepresentdistribution of
powerbetweennationstateswhichisrelevant,butalsothatofthepast.
Theshadowofhistoryonthedominantrelationshipsbetweenlanguagesisa
particularly long one. Among other things this explains why the colonial
periodandthedistributionofpowerbetweenthecountriesduringthattime
affectsthe order oflanguages today. In the broadest sense of theword the
colonialperiodbeganwiththeconquestofPortugalandSpain,atthat time
knownasCastile,atthebeginningofthe15thcenturyandendedattheclose
oftheSecondWorldWar.ThefactthatSpanish30andPortuguese31arestill
theofficiallanguages in manycountries of theworldoriginatesintheearly
30 AsidefromSpainitself,Spanishistheofficiallanguageinthefollowingcountries:Central
and South America: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,CostaRica,
Panama,Venezuela,Colombia,Ecuador,Peru,Bolivia,Paraguay,Argentina,Uruguayand
Chile;NorthAmerica:theFederalStateofNew Mexico; the Caribbean:Cuba,Dominican
RepublicandPuertoRico;Africa:WestSahara(theofficiallanguagetogetherwithArabic)
andEquatorialGuinea.Moreover,SpanishisspokeninTrinidadandTobagoaswellasin
Morocco.
31 Apart from its country of origin Portuguese is the official language in the following
countries:SouthAmerica:Brazil;Africa:Angola,CapeVerde,GuineaBissau,Mozambique,
SaoTomeandPrincipe;Asia:EastTimorandMacau.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

70
days of European conquest. France had to cede all their colonies in North
AmericaandIndiatoBritainaftertheirdefeatintheSevenYearsWar(1763).
SubsequentlythecolonialactivitiesofFrancetookplaceprimarily in Africa
and Asia. Many of France’s former colonies have retained Frenchastheir
officiallanguageevenafterindependence.32
The success of British colonial policy (for the following Crystal 2003) has
beenparticularlyinfluentialonthepresentorderoflanguages. The British
Empirewascreatedinatimespanofoverthreehundredyears.Expansionist
phases of conquest alternated with peaceful periods in which trade and
diplomacy predominated. The rise of the British Empire began with the
settlement of the east coast of America in the early 17th century. The
inhabitantsofthethirteencolonies,whodeclaredthemselvesindependentin
1776,foundedtheUSAandextendedtheirterritoryatthecostofFrance,the
NetherlandsandSpaininthefollowingcentury,wereofBritishdescent.They
consequentlykeptEnglishastheirofficiallanguageafterindependencefrom
GreatBritain.ThefactthattodayCanadais predominantlyEnglish speaking
canalsobetracedbacktothepoweroftheBritishEmpire.Afterthedefeatof
France in the Seven Years War France had to cede its colonies in Eastern
CanadatoGreatBritain.33
In1770JamesCookreachedtheeastcoastofAustraliaandclaimed the
countryasaBritishcolony,callingit“NewSouthWales”.Inthecomingyears
theBritish continued toextend theirareaof influenceandsettled Australia
forthemostpartwithBritishconvicts,who,naturally,spokeEnglish. New
Zealand,althoughindependentatthebeginningofthe19thcentury,becamea
32 AsidefromFrance,Frenchistodaytheofficiallanguageinthefollowingcountries:Africa:
Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Cameroon, Republic of Congo,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Niger, Ruanda, Senegal,
Seychelles,Togo,Chad,andintheCentralAfricanRepublic;Europe:Belgium,Luxemburg,
Monaco,Switzerland; NorthAmerica:Canada;Asia, AustraliaandOceania:Comorosand
Vanuatu.Frenchisnottheofficiallanguageinallcases.Insome countries French is
common as the language of bureaucracy, above all in Africa: Equatorial Guinea, Ivory
Coast,Mauritius,Tunesia,AlgeriaandMauretania,inCentralAmerica(Haiti)aswellasin
AsiainLaosandinLebanon.
33 Englandallowedthe FrenchCanadiansinQuebecfreedomof religioninordertoensure
theirneutrality intheconflictwith thecoloniesinthefuture USAwhichwasdemanding
independence. It is this decision which leads to the fact that today Canada is partially
Frenchspeaking.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
71
colonyof the BritishEmpire in 1840, mainlyto forestall Frenchexpansion.
ThiswasfollowedbyalargemigrationofBritonstoNewZealand. Papua‐
NewGuineausedtobecalledBritish‐NewGuineaandat the endofthe19th
century was declared a British protectorate and then annexed. The small
islandsofOceaniasufferedasimilarfate.
British colonial influence also extended to Asia. The English had already
establishedtradingpostsontheIndiansub‐continentandinthe18thcentury
the British East India Company became the dominant power. British India,
whichtodayconstitutes India,Pakistan,Bangladesh andBurma(Myanmar),
wasthemostimportantcolonyofall.Theregionwasunderdirect British
colonialrulefrom 1858 to1947.Africa, whichwaslargelyunoccupied until
around1880,thenbecamethemainobjectofexpansionfortheEuropean
greatpowers.AfterlosingtheFirstWorldWar,Germanylostits African
colonies, so that together with France and Portugal Great Britain was the
dominantAfricancolonialpower.ManyoftheAfricanstateshave retained
Englishastheofficial language,evenaftertheir independence followingthe
SecondWorldWar.
In 1921, at the zenith of colonialism, the sovereign area of the United
Kingdomwasthirty‐sevenmillionsquarekilometres,roughlyaquarterofthe
earth’s surface. The total population was about 500 million, constituting
aroundaquarterofthepopulationaliveatthetime(Crystal2003:78). The
hegemonyoftheUnitedKingdomledtothehegemonyofitslanguage.Added
to this were the lost children of the British, the former colonies, who had
already made themselves independent, like the USA and Canada, who
continuedtospeakEnglish.Theconsequencesofthehistoricaldevelopment
forthehegemonicpositionofEnglisharestillwithustoday.Inthefollowing
countries, English is still the official language or in some cases the official
languagetogether with others:Africa: Nigeria,South Africa, Kenya,Uganda,
Botswana,Gambia,Mauritius,SwazilandandtheSeychelles;Asia: India,
Pakistan, the Philippines and Singapore; Australia and Oceania:Australia,
Papua‐New Guinea, New Zealand together with the island of Fiji,the
Solomon’s, Vanuatu, Samoa, Kiribati, Micronesia, Tonga, Marshall Islands,

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

72
Palau,NauruandTuvalu;Europe:UnitedKingdom,IrelandandMalta;
CentralAmerica: Bahamas,Belize, Barbados, Jamaica,Trinidad andTobago,
St.Lucia,St.VincentandtheGrenadine,Granada,AntiguaandBarbuda,
Dominicaaswell as St.KittsandNevis;North America:theUnitedStates of
AmericaandCanadaaswellasGuyanainSouthAmerica.Moreover,English
togetherwithotherlanguagesistheofficiallanguageofvariousinternational
institutions and organisations: the African Union (AU), the Organisation of
American States (OAS), the Union of South American Nations (USAN), the
EuropeanUnion(EU)andtheUnitedNations(UN).34
ThehegemonyofEnglishnotonlygoesbacktothecolonialdominanceofthe
UnitedKingdom,butalsototheriseoftheUSAasaworldpower and the
extension of its sphere of influence. The inevitable export of the English
languageinrelationtothisoccursnotonlyinoccasionalcasesthrough the
militaryoccupationofforeignareasandthroughforce,butthrough
mechanismswhichcanbecategorisedas“softpower”(Nye2004).Thereare
very many societal areas in which the USA plays a leading role and hence
determines communication in these areas with its language (cf. Crystal
2003).TheUSAisthecountryonEarthwhichfarandawayimportsthemost
goods,anditisoneofthethreecountrieswiththehighestvolumeofexports
worldwide. Other, above all smaller countries, which want to do business
with the USA, have an incentive to accommodate themselves to the USA’s
dominancebydoingbusinessinEnglish.
Furthermore,thefactthattheUSAistheleadingscientificnationisindicated
bythenumberofNobelprizeswhichhavebeenawardedtoAmerican
scientists,especiallyinthe periodfrom1945 to thepresent,or bythegood
ratingofAmericanuniversitiesintheworldwiderankings.Thisresultsinthe
fact that in many scientific areas the most important publications are in
English.Scientistsinothercountriesmust,iftheyaretoremaincompetitive,
34 Furthercountrieshaveanotherofficiallanguage,althoughtheyuseEnglishasameansof
communication:SomalilandinAfrica,Malaysia,IsraelandHongKonginAsia,Cyprusand
GibraltarinEuropeaswellasSt.MartininCentralAmerica.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
73
adapttothehegemonyoftheEnglishlanguage.ThedominanceofEnglishcan
besubstantiatedwithdatafromtwofieldsofscientificresearch.
Astable3.1illustratesthenumberofarticlesinchemistrypublished in
Englishwasalreadyhighattheendofthe1970s(62%);butthepercentage
ofarticleswritteninEnglishstillincreasedinthefollowingyearsandsumup
to82.5%in1998.
Table3.1:Scientific articlesin thefield ofchemistry indifferent languages
(1978to1998,in%)
19781982198719921998
English 62.3 67.6 73.0 79.3 82.5
Russian 19.5 16.5 12.0 7.6 3.1
Japanese 4.7 4.2 4.5 4.7 4.5
German 5.0 3.8 2.9 2.3 1.6
Chinese 0.3 1.7 2.7 3.2 5.9
French 2.4 1.6 1.1 0.6 0.5
Polish 1.1 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.3
Others 4.7 4.0 3.2 1.9 1.6
N363.196382.257384.141430.247559.009
Source:Laponce(2003):Basisofanalysis:“ChemicalAbstracts“
Figure3.1: Scientific articles in the field of sociology published in English
(1960to2007,in%)
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
1960-64 1965-69 1970-74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-89 1990-94 1995-99 2000-04 2005-08

Source:Ownsurveyandcalculation.Basis:“SociologicalAbstracts“;includedarearticlesof
„PeerReviewJournals“only.


FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

74
ThedominanceofEnglishisnotonlyacharacteristicfeatureofthesciences,
but also of the social sciences and the humanities. As Figure 3.1
demonstrates,thenumber ofEnglishwritten articles insociologyincreased
steadilyovertime.
The USA and the UK also the culture industry (books, periodicals, music,
audio‐visualmediaandart)dominates:in2002thegreatestexporterwasthe
UKwith8.5billiondollars,followedbytheUSAwith7.6billion.Thelargest
importer in 2002 was the USA with 15.3 billion dollars, twice the second
largestimportertheUK(7.8billion),followedbyGermanyinthirdplacewith
4.1billiondollars(UnescoInstitute forStatistics2005).Addedtothisis the
dominanceofEnglishinthe“WorldWideWeb”;inordertobewellinformed
itmakessensetounderstandEnglish.
ThedominanceofEnglishinmanyareasofsociety,ofwhichIhavegivenonly
a few examples, has no influence on the official languages chosen by the
nationstates,althoughitdoeshaveaninfluenceonthechoice of foreign
languageswhich are learnedby people inthese countries, orrather, which
areoffered and taughtby theinstitutes oflearning. One of thelast barriers
againstthe“softpower”of Anglo‐American poweranditslanguagewas the
Soviet Union. The member countries of the Soviet Union and the socialist
stateswhich werein its sphereof influencewere subject tothe hegemonic
positionoftheRussianlanguage.Thecitizensoftheso‐calledEasternBloc
generallylearned Russian as their firstforeign language,be it,becausethis
waswhattheschoolcurriculumoffered,orbeit,becausetheyhoped to
benefit from it. The collapse of the Soviet Union and its influence, the
independence of the Central and East European countries and their
increasing orientation towards Western Europe are reflected in a
reorientationintheirchoiceofforeignlanguages.Thefollowingtable,which
showsthepercentofpupilsinHungarywholearnvariousforeignlanguages,
illustrates this dramatically. Within seven years starting from 1989 the
numberofpupilslearningRussianhadsunkfrom81.3%to3.7%.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
75
Table3.2: Number of students studying different foreign languages in
Hungary(1989to1997,in%)
89/9090/9191/9292/9393/9494/9595/9696/97

ENG 34.2 41.2 47.4 53.0 56.3 58.1 60.2 61.8
GER 28.0 34.5 41.5 46.1 48.7 50.5 51.9 53.4
FRE 6.9 8.3 9.0 9.1 8.8 8.3 8.0 7.7
RUS 81.3 57.1 32.8 17.6 10.7 7.2 5.2 3.7
N 273.392291.779309.289322.912330.586337.301349.29936.395
Source:Fodor &Peluau(2003:85‐98). ThenumbersapplytoHighSchools;thecolumns do
notaddupto100%asthestudentscanchoosebetweenseveralforeignlanguages.

Theaboveeffectisanotherstrikingexampleofthe generalargumentwhich
underliesthischapter,whichisthatthelinguisticorder–expressed in the
terminologyofevolutionarytheory–is aparasiteonthesocial order;ifthe
hostchanges,thentheparasitechanges.Thesocialorderisinturnanorder
which is structured hierarchically with a centre and a periphery; the
strengths and weaknesses of individual languages reflect the hierarchically
structureoftheworldorder.
Thedominantpositionof Englishgoesbackto thedominantpositionof the
BritishEmpire,whichhasresultedinsomanynationstatesusingEnglishas
theirofficiallanguageandspeakingEnglishastheirnativetongue.Duetothe
veryhightransactioncostsofachangeoncealanguagehasbeen
institutionalised, the former colonies have generally kept the language of
their one time colonial rulers as their official language, even after their
independence. In India, for example, in which both Hindi and English are
officiallydesignatedintheconstitutionasthenationalofficiallanguages,the
plan was that English should lose its equal status with Hindi after 1965.
Primarily,theintendeddemotionofEnglishhadasymbolicfunctionandwas
supposedtoexpresstherejectionoftheoldcolonialorder.Sinceitwasclear,
however,thatgivingupEnglish would cost a very great deal, it was decided
torefrainfromcarryingouttheoriginalplan.
Secondly,thehegemonyofEnglishiscloselylinkedtothesuper power
positionoftheUSAsincetheSecondWorldWarandthepowerwhichithas

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

76
acquiredin many otherareas ofsociety.The dominanceof the USAhas the
effectof“softpower”,whichmakesitappropriateformanycountriestohave
Englishasthefirstforeignlanguage.Ifwelookatthetwotrains of
developmenttogether–nationstatebuildingandlinguistichomogeneity on
theonehand,thestructureoftheworldsocietyandthehegemonyofEnglish
ontheother,theysuggestthepictureofa“GlobalLanguageSystem” as
outlinedbyAbramdeSwaan(2001b).Thishasfourlevels:
(1)Therearemanylanguagesintheperipheryofthesystem usuallyspoken
byafewpeople,andwhichareinstitutionalisedtoalimiteddegree.Theyare
frequently not written languages, and are generally minority languages in
nationstates.Thenumberofperipherallanguagesisverygreat,eventhough
thenumberofspeakersisfairlylow(cf.thedatainCrystal2000:15). Asa
rulecommunicationbetweenthedifferentperipherallanguagesisnotdirect,
butoccursviatherelaystationofthecentralorsuper‐centrallanguages.
(2)Inthemiddleofthesystem,sotospeak,arethe official languagesofthe
nationstates,whichdeSwaantermsascentrallanguages.Thesedevelopedin
theprocessof nationalstatebuilding,are institutionalisedtoahighdegree,
andinsofar asthey are writtenlanguages, arecultivated andsupervised by
the nation states and in which education and public communication (the
media,literature)occur.Centrallanguagesareatthesameandinmostcases
a central characteristic of a nation state’s identity. In most cases the
establishmentofthecentrallanguageshasdisplacedtheminoritylanguages
to the periphery. The number of central languages is put by de Swaan at
aroundonehundred,henceincomparisontotheperipherallanguagesvery
few;however,thenumberofspeakersoftheselanguagesisataboutninety‐
fivepercentofthepopulation(cf.Crystal2000:15).
(3)DeSwann termsassupercentrallanguagesthecentrallanguageswhich
are the native languages in several nation states and are spoken in other
countriesbymanycitizensasforeignlanguages.Thenumberofsupercentral
languages is very low (Arabic, Chinese, English, French, German, Hindi,

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
77
Japanese,Malay,Portuguese,SpanishandSwahili),thenumberof speakers,
however,veryhigh.
(4)Onelanguagestandsoutfromthegroupofsupercentrallanguageseven
furtherandistermedbydeSwaanasahypercentrallanguage.Thelanguage
isEnglishandthisisbasedonthefactthatnotonlysomanypeople speak
Englishastheirfirstlanguage,buttherearealsomanywhofor the
abovementionedreasonshavelearnedEnglishastheirfirstsecondlanguage.
Englishisnotthemostwidelyspokennativelanguage.ItisChinese,orrather
Mandarin,with1.2billionspeakers.If,however,oneaddsupallthe people
whoeitherhaveEnglishastheirnativetongue,orwhoareabletospeakitas
eitherasecondlanguageoraforeignlanguage,thenonearrivesworldwideat
anestimatedfigureof1.5billionEnglishspeakingpeople,thatis,roughlyone
quarteroftheworld’spopulationin2000(Crystal2003:6).
Let us sum up briefly the conclusions of this chapter. The institutionalised
linguisticorderinEuropeconsistsofastructuredividedinto nation states
which are linguistically segmented. The inner‐nation state heterogeneity is
verylow,sincemostofthememberstateshavepermittedonlyone official
language, whereas the inter‐state heterogeneity is virtually atamaximum.
Thisstructureistheresultofanhistoricalprocess,whichiscloselylinkedto
the emergence and stabilisation of the European nation states.
Communication beyond the nation state containers is thus only possible
when people speak a foreign language that is spoken in the other member
countries.
Atthesametimewehaveseenthatnoteverylanguageisequallyimportant.
Powerfulnationstates,orthosewhichinthepasthadgreatinfluence,
determinetheinternationallinguisticorderinsofarastheirworldhegemonic
positiongrantstheirlanguagesahegemonicposition.Thedominantposition
oftheBritishEmpireandthatoftheUSAinthe20thcenturyhaveleadtothe
fact that a special predominance belongs to the English language.It istrue
thatinEuropeEnglishistheofficiallanguageinonlytheUK,Irelandand
Malta;theworldwideprominenceofEnglish,however,makesitthelanguage

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

78
whoseutility as a meansof communication is thehighest (de Swaan 1993,
2001a/b). People who want to communicate with other people in other
countries are well advised under these circumstances not only to increase
theirtransnationallinguisticcapitalingeneral,butabovealltolearnEnglish.
Thethesisthattheanticipatedutilityofcommunicationofaforeignlanguage
influencestheacquisitionofaforeignlanguagehasbeenputforward by
Abram de Swaan (1993, 2001/b). Peoplelearntheforeignlanguage with
whichtheycanreachthegreatestnumberofpartnerswithwhomtheywish
tocommunicate.

3.2EuropeanisationandGlobalisationofNationStateSocietiesin
Europe

Aslongasthenationstatesaresotospeakself‐sufficientcontainers,inwhich
thegreatestpartofexchangeisinternal,thereislittleincentivetolearnthe
languages of other countries. The more, however, societies are linked to
other societies which speak other languages, the more worthwhile it
becomestospeakseverallanguages.InthefollowingIwilldemonstratehow
European unification has affected the degree of interconnectedness of
EuropeanmemberstatesandhowEuropeansocietieshavebecome
transnational in the context of globalisation. In this account wereferto
numerous empirical findings and surveys and concentrate on a
systematisationofthefindings(e.g.Fligstein2008;Fligstein&Merand2002;
Fligstein&StoneSweet2002).
TheprocessoftheEuropeanisation of nationstatesocietieshastaken place
in four different dimensions whichareinterlinkedwitheachother: the
emergence of a European polity, territorial expansion of the EU, the
emergence of a single European social space, and Europeanisation of the
twenty‐seven EU member societies. In all of the dimensions an increase in
Europeanisation has taken place, even when this process has notbeen
straightforward. Time and again there were discontinuities, delays and
fallingsoff.Theshort‐termfluctuationscannotdisguisethefactthatthelong‐

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
79
termdevelopmentisinthedirectionofanincreaseinEuropeanisation(from
thehistoricalperspectiveseeKaelble2007).

3.2.1TheEmergenceofaEuropeanPolity
European integration manifests itself first of all in the establishment and
expansionofthedifferentpoliticalinstitutionsoftheEU,which have been
equippedwith sovereignauthority andhave assumedpart ofthe sovereign
rights of the nation states. Europeanisation on this level means that the
competences of the European institutions and their organisational power
wereextendedovertimeatthecostoftheparallelnationalinstitutions.This
processcanbeseeninalltheEuropeaninstitutionsandhasbeenextensively
delineatedinbooks on politicalscience(forothersKohler‐Koch etal.2004;
Wessels2008;Börzel&Risse2002).Iwouldliketogiveashortsummaryof
thefindingsforthemostimportantinstitutions.
TheEuropeanCouncil: The European Council is the committee of the EU
heads of state and government. Up until 1969 the heads of stateand
governmentonlymetonceremonialoccasions.In1969atasummitmeeting
inDenHaagconcretetopicswerediscussedforthefirsttime.Since this
meetingwas asuccess, similar ones were arrangedat irregularintervals in
thesubsequentyears.In1974itwasagreedthattheywouldmeeteveryfour
months.TheEuropeanCouncilwasfirstadmittedasaninstitutionoftheEU
in1987withtheSingleEuropeanAct.ThecentraltaskoftheEuropean
Councilconsistsintheformulationofgeneralpoliticalaims,initiativesforthe
furtherdevelopmentoftheEU,andinthesolvingofconflicts,whichatthe
ministeriallevel,thatistheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion,cannotbesolved.
Inactual fact,the European Council has becomeincreasingly aninitiatorof
impulsesforthefurtherdevelopmentoftheEU.Induecourse“theEuropean
Council developed from being a ‘Debating Club’ into an initiator of policy
programmeswithalastingeffectontheformationofseveralcentralpolicies
oftheEU”(Wessels2008:163).TheTreatyofLisbonrulesthattheEuropean
CouncilshouldnowofficiallybeanorganoftheEUmeetingfourtimesayear.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

80
CounciloftheEuropeanUnion:TheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion(councilof
ministers) is the most important decision making organ in the European
Union. It is composed of the representatives of each member state at the
ministerial level. One of its central tasks is to pass (together with the
Parliament)Europeanlegislation,tovoteontheprinciplesofeconomic
policy in the member states, to pass international agreements with other
statesoutsidetheEUandwithinternationalorganisations,toapprovetheEU
budget(togetherwiththeParliament)andtocooperate inthedevelopment
ofcommonforeignandsecuritypolicies.
Ifwelookatthedevelopmentofthecouncilovertheyearsthenweseethat
themember states havecontinuously expanded the legally fixed rightsand
dutiesofthecouncilandthepolicyfieldsforwhichitisresponsible(Wessels
2008:191).Theincreaseinimportanceofthecouncilbasicallytookplacein
theperiod from the foundationof the EU until 1990 and is to be seenin a
seriesof indicators:The numberof thecouncil formationshas increasedin
thetimementionedandtodaythereareninedifferentcouncilformations.35
Thenumber of meetings per yearand thoseof the various working groups
hasalsoincreased.Thenumberofpolicyareasinwhichindividualmembers
canbeoutvotedhasalsoincreased(cf.datainWessels2008:199,212).
TheEuropeanCommission:The presentEuropean Commission goes back to
the High Authority which was created within the framework of the
foundation of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1952. Its
dutywastoenforcetheresolutionsoftheECSC.TheHighAuthorityconsisted
ofeightmemberswhowereappointedbythemembercountriesandaninth
member which was elected by the Authority. With the founding ofthe
EuropeanEconomicCommunity(EEC)andofEURATOMin1958twonew
commissionswere established.In 1967the High Authority of theECSC and
EURATOM were combined to form the European Commission within the
35 Inordertopreventthenumberfromgettingoutofhand,theEuropeanCouncilofSeville
in2002decidedtorestrictthenumberofcouncilformationstonine.Atthesametimean
internaldifferentiationofthecouncilstookplace.Onecouncilformationincludesseveral
departmentalministerswhoareresponsiblefordifferentpolicyareas.Insofarthesheer
numberofcouncilformationsisstillnotagoodindicatorfortheexpansionoftheareasof
policyforwhichthecouncilisresponsible(cf.Wessels2008:199).

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
81
framework of the European Community treaty. The responsibilities of the
Commissionwereenlargedinthe AmsterdamTreaty(1999).Ithasthesole
righttointroducenewlegislation;itisresponsibleforupholdingthetreaties,
worksontheimplementationoftheresolutionsoftheCouncilof the
EuropeanUnionandtheEuropean Parliament andrepresentstheEUto the
outsideworld.Inaddition,theCommissionformulatesintheso‐calledWhite
andGreenBooksrecommendationsforactionstobetakenbytheCommunity
inparticularpolicyareas.Thenumberofrecommendationspassedhasrisen
considerably over the years (cf. the figures in Wessels 2008: 233). The
responsibilitiesoftheEUhavealsoprogressivelyincreasedovertime,while
theinstitutionitselfhasgrowntogetherwiththenumberofdirectors,
commissionersandcommitteesaswellastheadministrativepersonnelofthe
Commissionasawhole.
TheEuropeanParliament: At the founding of the ECSC in 1952 a
parliamentaryassemblyatEuropeanlevelalsomet,whichconsisted of
representativesofthenationalparliaments,butwhichonlyhadanadvisory
function.WiththefoundingoftheEECandEURATOMtheparliamentary
assembly of the ECSC was responsible for all three communities and was
enlargedto142members,althoughitwasnotgivenanynewresponsibilities.
WhentheEuropeanCommunityreceiveditsownfinancialresourcesin1971,
theparliamentaryassemblyparticipatedinthepreparationandadoptionof
thebudget,althoughnotinthesubsidiesforagriculture.Sincetheendofthe
1970stheEuropeanParliamenthasbecomeincreasinglyimportant.In1979
thefirst direct European electionstook place. In 1987 the Single European
Act brought an important expansion of responsibilities for the Parliament.
Fromthenonitwasinvolvedinthegenerallegislationandwasabletomake
officialamendmentstobills,evenwhenthefinaldecisionstill lay with the
EuropeanCouncil.This was changed,atleastin somepolicyfields, with the
MaastrichtTreatyin1992.Herethecodecisionprocedurewasintroducedfor
someareas.Finally,throughtheTreatiesofAmsterdamin1997andNicein
2001thecodecisionprocedurewasbroadened,sothatnowitwasapplicable
toamajorityofpolicyareaswithintheEuropeanUnion.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

82
EuropeanCourtofJustice:TheEuropeanCourtofJusticewasfoundedin1952
bytheTreatyfoundingtheECSC.Initially,itwasresponsiblefor disputes
withintheECSC’streaty.AfterthefoundingoftheEECandtheEURATOMin
1957theEuropean CourtofJusticewas responsible forsettlingalldisputes
onthebasisofthethreetreaties.ThedutiesoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice
haveincreasedwitheachexpansionofEuropeanlaw,sincetheunified
interpretationofEuropeanlawisthecentraltaskofthecourt.Inaddition,the
organisationofthecourthasbeenenlarged.In1989,theEuropeanCourtof
FirstInstancewasestablishedinordertoeasetheburdenonthe court.
Furthermore, since 2005 there also exists the court for the public sector,
which is responsible for disputes between the community and its officials
and employees. The institution, as well as the amount of jurisdiction, has
continuallyexpandedfromyeartoyear.
Withinthepolitical sciencesthere are twodifferent positionsregardingthe
interpretation of EU institutions. Intergovernmentalists emphasise that the
institutionsoftheEUareunderthecontrolofthegovernmentsofthenation
states,hencethatthenationstatesstillhavethelastwordinthecoreareasof
politics(Moravcsik 1993). Supranationalistsand Neofunctionalists have, on
the other hand, attempted to show that the institutions of the EU have
become independent powers, which have replaced the sovereignty of the
nationstates(StoneSweet&Sandholtz1998).Lookingatthedevelopmentof
the EU institutions over the years an Intergovernmentalist would certainly
agreethatthepoweroftheEuropeaninstitutionshasexpanded
exponentially. Even when some of the institutions, like the European
CommissionandtheCouncilofMinistershaveanintergovernmental
structure, it is still true for these institutions that the number of decisions
whereindividualcountriescouldbeoutvotedhasincreased.
Thefollowingfiguremakesthisclear.IntheCouncilofMinisters,initselfthe
prototypicalintergovernmentalinstitutionintheEU,therearedifferentrules
forvoting.Ifonelooksatthedifferentvotingrulesovertheyears,one sees
thattheshareofresolutionswhichhadtobecarriedunanimouslyisonthe

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
83
decrease.Thevetopowerofthemembercountriesis,therefore,increasingly
beingrestrictedinfavourofmajoritydecisions.
Figure3.2:DevelopmentoftheDecisionMakingProcedureintheCouncilof
Ministers36

Source:Wessels(2008:195)

3.2.2TerritorialExpansionoftheEU
Alongside the creation of supranational European institutions
Europeanisationmanifestsitselfinastep‐by‐stepterritorialexpansionofthe
EU’ssphereofcontrol,byenlargingthenumberofmemberstates. The
countries of Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxemburg and the
Netherlandswere,asiswellknown,thefoundingcountries.In1973 Great
Britain, Denmark and Ireland joined the community; Greece followed in
1981,PortugalandSpainin1986,in1990afterthereunificationofGermany
36 EuropeanCommunityforCoalandSteel,EEC–EuropeanEconomicCommunity, Single
EuropeanAct,TreatyontheEuropeanUnion,EuropeanConstitution.Everymemberstate
hasavotewiththesimplemajority.AccordingtotheSingleEuropeanActaqualified
majorityisachievedwiththemajorityofthemembers(14memberstates)or255(74%)
oftheweightedvotes(orientatedaccordingtothepopulationsofthememberstatesin
question)andon request, if 62%ofthe population in the EUarerepresented. With the
speciallyqualifiedmajoritydecision several sets ofrulesarecounted:qualifiedmajority
with72% ofthe members and65% of thepopulation, if decisionsarenotmadeatthe
proposaloftheCommissionortheForeignMinister(accordingtoArt.I‐25Treatyonthe
EuropeanUnion),qualifiedmajoritydecisions,withtheexceptionofthememberstatein
question(Quorum‐1),qualifiedmajoritydecisions,inwhichonlyagroupofcertainstates
areinvolved,as,forexample,theEuroGroup.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

84
theformerGDR,finally,in1995,Austria,SwedenandFinland.Atthecollapse
of the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence the chance for the EU to
expandintoEasternEuropearose.TheEUhasusedthischancetoexpandits
hegemonyatthecostof Russia.14yearslateron May1st,2004,ten,mostly
Central and Eastern European countries joined the EU (Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary and
Cyprus).In2007BulgariaandRumaniafollowed.
Therefore, since its foundation, the territory of the EU institutions has
continuallyexpanded.Forallthesecountriesitholdstruethat they are
subjecttothesamelawsandresolutionsoftheinstitutionsoftheEU.AllEU
legislation,whichisbindingforallmembercountries–Acquis
communautaire–,mustbeacceptedbyallcountrieswhichwanttobecomea
memberoftheEU,meaningthattheexpansionoftheEUrepresentsnotonly
aterritorialexpansion,butalsoanexpansionofthepowerofthe European
institutions.

3.2.3TheEmergenceofaSingleEuropeanSocialSpace
The newly created European institutions are not just there for their own
sakes.Their policieshave aneffect onthe memberstates andover time on
increasinglymorememberstates.Theyhaveanimpactonevermorepolicy
fieldswiththeaimofcreatingacommonEuropeansocialspace,whichisless
andlesslimitedbythenationstates.ThethenEECwasfoundedbytheTreaty
ofRomewiththepurposeofcreatingacommonEuropeanmarket.Moreover,
the creation of a common market is still the central goal of the EU. In this
respect most of the measures refer to the establishment of a common
economyof “Europe”.It would go beyond thescope ofthis bookto discuss
thisthirdareaofEuropeanisationadequately.Thefollowinglegislationisof
particular importance for the creation of a unified European social space,
whichthenelevates thequestion of knowinga foreignlanguageintoavery
importantone.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
85
Tariffreduction: The gradual reduction in tariffs begins within the EEC in
1959.The CustomsUnion cameinto powerin 1968,thereby abolishingthe
customsintradingwithinintheEECforgood.Acommoncustomstariffwas
establishedfortradewiththirdcountries.Theabolitionoftariffsreducedthe
transactioncostsfortradewithintheEU,whileatthesametimemakingthe
costoftrademorereadilycalculable.
SingleEuropeanMarket:Theabolition oftariffsleads toanimprovement in
theEuropeanexchangeofgoods,althoughnumerousnon‐customstrade
restrictions,suchasthedifferentproductionnormsorapprovalprocedures,
restricted free trade. A Single European Market was implemented with the
SingleEuropeanActin1987.Attheheartofthetreatyaretheso‐calledfour
freedoms:persons,goods,servicesandcapitalweretomoveasfreelywithin
theEUashadbeenthecaseuptothenwithinthenationaleconomies.
The freedom of movement of persons is of particular interest for our
researchquestion.AllcitizensoftheEUhavethefreedomtolookforworkin
everymemberstate,towork,tosettleortoprovideaservice.Thisregulation
includes, apart from the immigrant employee, marriage partners,children
undertheageoftwenty‐one aswellasfurtherrelatives in theascendingor
descending line, whom the employee is supporting. The freedom of
movementruleisalsovalidforself‐employedpeople(therighttoestablisha
business). Within the context of creating a common market, freedom of
movementwasextendedtothosewhowerenotgainfullyemployed,suchas
studentsandpensioners.Inaddition,themutualrecognition of professional
qualifications and the transference of rights to social benefits earned in
anothercountrywereagreedupon.Allthesemeasureshaveoneaim,which
istomakethenationstatecontainersmorepermeableforthecitizensandto
Europeanisethem.
Commoncurrency:WiththeintroductionoftheEuropean“currencysnake”in
1972 currency exchange rates in the EU were restricted, which wasafirst
step towards a common currency. In 1999 the Euro was introducedasthe
officialcurrencyforthenon‐cashpaymentsonthestockexchangeandin

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

86
2002ashardcashinelevenEUstates.TodaytheEuroistheofficialcurrency
in seventeen EU countries. It is also true to say that the common currency
makeseconomictransactionscheaperandmorereliable,becausetheyareno
longerdependentonchangesinthecurrencyexchangeratesandit thus
facilitatesEuropeantradeandmobility.
Removalofcontrolsonthemovementofpeople:Intheso‐calledSchengen
Agreement (1985) five European states decided to abolish controls on the
movementofpeopleatthecommonborders.Inthemeantime,twenty‐eight
countries have gradually joined this agreement. From among the EU
countriesonlytheUnitedKingdomandIrelandhavenotfullyjoined the
Schengen Agreement. For Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus only certain
regulationsfromtheagreementarevalid,butremovalofthebordercontrols
for these three countries has been delayed to a later date. In addition, the
agreementisvalidforthenon‐EUstatesofIceland,NorwayandSwitzerland.
WhilewithintheSchengenareasecuritycheckshaveceasedtoexist,people
atthebordersofnon‐EUstatesarecheckedintheusualway.
Commoncitizenship:WiththeTreatyofMaastrichtof1992eachcitizenofa
EU member country is at the same time a citizen of their country and the
EuropeanUnion.Apartfromtherighttofreedomofmovementintheentire
areaoftheEU,alreadydiscussedabove,citizenshavetheactiveandpassive
franchiseinlocal andEuropewideelectionsand therightto diplomaticand
consularprotection. Thesemeasures are alsointended toimprove mobility
withinEurope.Addedtothisisthesymbolicsignificancewhichisassociated
withcitizenshipintheUnion,inthatthedifferencesbetweenthenationstate
citizenshipsareEuropeanised.
Ifwelookatthedifferentlegislationsasawhole,weperceivethattheyareall
pointing in one direction. They are aiming at the possibility of a European
spaceofinteractionandcommunication,whichtranscendsandEuropeanises
thenationstates.Thisdoesnotmeanthattherearenomoreintra‐European
hindrances to Europeanisation. There are different taxation rates in the
memberstates,differentsocialstandards and implementing provisions for

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
87
the large amount of legislations. Problems with the recognition of pension
claimswhenmovingfromoneEUcountrytoanothershow,forexample,that
thenationstate containeris stillveryinfluential. Itis onlythat overtime it
has become less important through the process of Europeanisation. The
expansionsofthetreaties,legislationsandpolicyareashaveleadatthesame
timetoastrengtheningoftheEuropeaninstitutionsandtheirpower.

3.2.4Europeanisationofthetwenty‐sevenEUMemberSocieties
ThecreationofasystemofEuropeaninstitutions,theterritorialexpansionof
the sphere of control and the increase in jurisdiction to create a European
spaceofinteractionandcommunicationhashadanimpactonthe societies,
whichisthefourthdimensionofEuropeanisationthatwehavedistinguished
here.OurknowledgeaboutthelevelofEuropeanisationinthisdimensionis
considerablyless.Thishastworeasons.Firstofall,wearenotdealinghere
withtheorganisationofinstitutionsandcontractualresolutions,butwiththe
effects of the institutions and resolutions on societies and these are very
difficultto measure empirically. Secondly, the analysis of this dimensionof
Europeanisationisnotsomethingpoliticalscientistsareconcernedwithbut
fallswithintheareaofsociology.AndsociologyofEuropeanintegrationisin
comparison to political science research on the same topic much less
comprehensive. It has only recently taken off in the last few yearsandis
increasinglyputtingthehorizontalaspectofEuropeanisationinthecentreof
the discussion (cf. Bach 2000, 2008; Bartolini 2005; Crouch 1999; Delhey
2005; Díez‐Medrano 2003, 2008; Favell 2008; Fligstein 2008; Fligstein &
Merand2002;Gerhards1993,2007;Haller2008;Heidenreich2006;Hettlage
& Müller 2006; Lepsius 1990, 1991; Mau 2010; Mau & Verwiebe 2010;
Münch&Büttner2006;Vobruba2005,2008).
IhavetriedtocollectdatatomeasuretheEuropeanisationprocessinseveral
societalfieldsandhavefollowupotherauthorsandstudies(cf.Gerhards &
Rössel 1999; Fligstein & Merand 2002; Fligstein & Stone Sweet 2002;
Fligstein2008).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

88
Letusbeginwiththeareaoflaw.Oneindicatorformeasuringtheincreasein
importanceofEuropeanlaw,whichisoftenreferredtointheliterature
(Beckfield2006), is the so‐called preliminaryruling of the European Court.
The European Court is, among other things, responsible for the
interpretationoftheEUtreaties.Ifinoneofthemembercountries an
interpretationofEUlawisrequiredinacourtcase,thenthenationalcourt
cansubmitthedecisiontotheEuropeanCourt.Thenumberofthe
preliminary rulings indicates indirectly the amount of EU rulings, for the
morethereare,allthemorecantheycollidewiththenationallawofthe
membercountries.
Figure3.3:NumberofproceedingsforapreliminaryrulingoftheEuropean
courtofJusticeovertime(1961to2006)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006
Source:OwnsurveyonthebasisoftheEuropeanCourtofJustice(EuropäischerGerichtshof
2008).

Thecurveshowsclearlythatthenumberofpreliminaryrulingshasincreased
over time and thus also the degree of juridical pervasion of EUmember
countriesbyEuropeanLaw.
Withtheshiftofpoliticaldecisionmakingpowerfromthe member countries
totheinstitutionsoftheEuropeanUniontheconditionsforlobbying for
interestgroups and civil society activistshave changed. Ifthey wantto put

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
89
forwardtheirinterests,theyhavetolooktoBrusselsinsteadoftheirnation
states.And,infact,withthepassingoftimeaEuropeanisation of interest
groupshastakenplace(Fligstein2008:173).Figure3.4showsthenumberof
interestgroupswhichareregisteredwiththeEU.
Figure3.4:NumberofspecialinterestgroupsrepresentedinBrussels(1990
to2005)
0
500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
1990 1995 2000 2005

Source:Wessels(2008:281)

Intherelativelyshorttimespanoffifteenyearsthenumberof interest
groupsrosefrom1,954to2,843,anindicationfortheEuropeanisationofthe
pre‐politicalsphere.
Aswehaveseen,oneofthecentral goalsofEuropean politics istocreatea
Europeaneconomicspace.Thesuccessofthispolicycanbeseeninanumber
of indicators (cf. above all Fligstein 2008: 62‐88). A simple indicator for
measuring the level of Europeanisation in the economies of the member
countriesistheshareoftheinter‐EUexportsfromthetotalexportsoftheEU
countries. The following figure 3.5 shows the development for the period
from1980to2006.In1980theshareofinter‐EUexportswasalready56%;
thisincreased upuntil 2006 againto nearly69%. Almost 70%ofthetrade
withforeigncountriesundertakenbytheEUcountriesremainedwithin the
bordersofthemembercountriesoftheEU.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

90
Figure3.5:Shareofinter‐EUexportsinthetotalexportoftheEUMember
States(1980to2006,in%)
50
60
70
80
1980 1990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Source:OwncalculationonthebasisofEurostat(2002,2006,2009a).

WhetherandtowhatextenttheEuropeanisationofthemembercountriesof
theEUhasalsoaddedtotheintraEuropeanmobilityofpersonsisdifficultto
establish empirically and for several reasons (cf. Verwiebe 2008).37We
know, however, that the number of EU citizens who live in another EU
countryisquitelow,amountingtoabout1.5%forallEuropeancountriesand
varyingbetween0.5%inPortugalandFinlandontheonehand,and 5%in
BelgiumandCyprusontheother.InGermany2.5%ofthepopulationareEU
foreigners(Mau & Verwiebe 2010).Based on available data I have triedto
measurethe intra‐European mobilityfor eightcountriesin theEU (Austria,
Germany,Belgium,Ireland,theNetherlands,Portugal,SwedenandtheUnited
Kingdom)fortheperiodof1999to2006.Thefollowingfiguresaretheresult.
37 FormanyEUcountriestherearenoreliablefiguresonimmigrationoremigration.Ifdata
isavailablethenveryfrequentlyitisnotforaverylongperiodoftime,sothatlongterm
trends are difficult to determine. Additionally we are not interestedinmobilityasa
whole,butratherinintra‐Europeanmigration.Thismeansthatthecountryoforiginof
the immigrants has to be known in order toclassify them as European migrants, but
unfortunatelytheoriginsoftheimmigrantsarefrequentlynotgiven in the official
statistics. In spite of these limitations the following findings can be entered into the
balance.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
91
Figure3.6:ShareofNon‐EUCitizensProportionallytotheTotalPopulation
(1999to2006,in%)38
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source:OwncalculationonthebasisofdatafromEurostat(2009b)andOECD.Stat(2009).

TheshareoftheEUforeignersinthechoseneightcountriesisonthewhole
verylow.Itevensoutinitially,only toriseagainin2004totheprior,albeit
verylow,average.However,wealsoknowthatmobilityinothercountriesin
theEUisconsiderablyhigher than intheeightcountriesfor whichwehave
systematicdataforafairlylongperiodoftime.AftertheexpansionoftheEU
toEastern Europe there was amigration ofworkers aboveall from Poland
andtheBalticstatesprimarilytoEngland,IrelandandSweden,becausethese
countrieshadstipulatedatransitionalperiodfortheFreedomofMovement
Act(cf.Mau&Verwiebe2010:287).39
38 Included is the share of immigrants from EU‐15 in the total population of the target
countriesAustria,Belgium,Germany,Ireland,theNetherlands,Portugal,Swedenandthe
UnitedKingdom.ThedataislimitedtothechosencountriesasthedatafortheotherEU
memberstatesisincompleteornotavailableatall.
39 Steffen Mau and Roland Verwiebe (2010) have, due to the poor datasituationonthe
developmentofintra‐Europeanmobility,evaluatedthemobilitywillingnessofcitizenson
thebasisof aEurobarometersurvey.In2001/02as wellasin2005citizenswereasked
whethertheyintendedto movetoanotherEuropeancountryinthenextfive years. The
share of those questioned in EU‐15 countries was 1.5% in 2001 and 2.7% in 2005,
whereby people from the Baltic states, Poland, France, Ireland, Sweden and Finland
expressedanover‐averagewillingnesstomove.Inallthecountries(apartfromItaly)the
shareofthosewhoweremoremobilerosewithinthefouryearswhichlaybetweendates
ofthesurveys.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

92
Theresultdemonstratingveryweakintra‐Europeanmobilityislessvalidfor
onepart of the population,the students. However,even for thisgroup it is
not easy to obtain reliable data for the development of intra‐European
mobility.ManystudentsgotoanothercountrywiththeErasmusProgramme.
Figure3.7:NumberofErasmusstudents(1987/1988to2006/2007)
0
40.000
80.000
120.000
160.000
87/88
89/90
91/92
93/94
95/96
97/98
00/01
02/03
04/05
06/07

Source:OwncalculationonthebasisofdataoftheEuropeanCommission(2008).

Astheabovefigureshows,thenumberofErasmusstudentshasrisen in
barely 20 years from around 3,000 to almost 150,000 students per year.
However,thecurveexaggeratesthenumberofstudentsinaforeigncountry,
becausethenumber ofErasmus students isnot weighted bythenumber of
all students. It is not easy to obtain reliable figures on the relation of the
numberofstudentsabroadinEuropetothetotalnumberofstudentsovera
longerperiodoftimeandforseveralEuropeancountries.ForthreeEuropean
countries–Denmark,GermanyandSpain–Ihavedeterminedthenumberof
Erasmusstudentsinrelationtothetotalnumberofstudentsfromtheperiod
1998to2007.TheresultsareseeninFigure3.8.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
93
Figure3.8: Number of students in foreign countries of Europe (Erasmus)
proportionally to the number of students for countries Denmark,Germany
andSpain(1998to2007,in%).
0,8
0,85
0,9
0,95
1
1,05
1,1
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006

Source: Own calculation on the basis of data of the European Commission (2009) and
Eurostat(2009c).

Thenumberofstudentswhoarenotstudyingintheirowncountry but in
anotherEuropeancountrywiththehelpoftheErasmusprogrammeis,allin
all,verylow.Nevertheless,ithasrisenwithinnineyearsby20%,from0.84%
to 1.04%. Not taken into account here are students who have notgoneto
another European country with the Erasmus programme, as well asthose
who are abroad but not in a European country. The number of students
abroad,regardlessinwhichcountryorwhichprogrammehasorganisedtheir
stay,ishigherthanthefiguresshowninFigure3.8.In2005,2.9%ofGerman
studentsstudiedabroad,inFranceitwas2.5%andinEngland1.0% (cf.
Isserstedt&Link2008).
Ifwedrawupabalanceofalltheempiricalresultsthenitappearsthatintra‐
Europeanmobilityisverylow,anditappearsnottohavechangedverymuch,
exceptwithstudents.MobilityinEuropeis,therefore,muchlowerthan, for
instance,intheUSA.OneofthereasonsforthelowmobilitywithintheEUis
certainlythelanguagedifferencesbetweenthecountries.Iwillreturntothis
subjectlater.
BeforeIsumuptheresultsofouranalysisoftheprocessofEuropeanisation,
I would like to discuss briefly a second development, which has

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

94
fundamentallyalteredEuropeansocietiesandhaspromotedthenecessityof
learningforeignlanguages.

3.2.5GlobalisationoftheMemberStatesoftheEU
Europeansocietiesarenotonlymuchmorestronglyinterconnectedthrough
the process of European unification, but also have been transnationalised
beyondthebordersofEuropebyglobalisation.Underglobalisation we
understandtheprocessoftheincreasinglyworldwideintegrationindifferent
fieldsofsociety,forinstance,theeconomy,communication, culture,politics,
etc. (cf. Held et al. 1999). Europeanisation is a subsidiary oftheprocessof
globalisation, insofar as it concerns a transnationalisation process, which,
however,stopsatthebordersofEurope,whereastheglobalisation process
comprisestheincreaseofinterconnectionbeyondEurope.
There are countless publicationsnowavailableonglobalisation, a process
whichbeganinthe70softhelastcentury.Forthepurposesofanempirical
illustrationofthechangewhichhastakenplace,Iwillrestrictmyselfhereto
theanalysisofanindexonthedescriptionoftheprocessesofglobalisation,
which is frequently used in the literature, namely the KOF Index of
Globalisation(cf.Dreher2006).From1970to2006,theworkinggroupatthe
ETHZurichcollectedaconsiderableamountofempiricalinformationfroma
numberofcountriesmeasuringtheopeningorclosingofthedifferent
countriesintheworld.Theindicatorsareallocatedtothreesub‐dimensions
ofglobalisation:40
Politicalglobalisation:thenumberofembassiesacountryhas,thenumberof
memberships in international organisations, frequency of participation on
UNmissions,frequencyofco‐signingofinternationaltreaties
Socialglobalisation:number of foreigncontacts (telephone,letters,tourism,
foreignersinacountry),levelofinternationalinformation(Internetusers,TV
40 Cf.http://globalisation.kof.ethz.cg

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
95
users,newspapers),culturalproximity(numberofMcDonalds,number of
Ikeas,strengthofthebooksellingindustry)
Economicglobalisation: strength of economic exchange (exports, direct
investments,etc.),restrictionsonfreetrade(tax,hiddenobstacles,
restrictionsforforeigncapital)
Thedifferentindicatorsareenteredintothecalculationsofeachglobalisation
dimensionwith a different weighting(cf. Dreher 2006). Inaddition, on the
basisofthethreesub‐dimensionstheauthorshaveconstructedanaggregate
indexwhichamalgamatesallthreedimensions,thusattemptingtoshowthe
globalisation processes in total. The three sub‐dimensions are entered into
the calculations of the aggregate index with a different weighting. On the
basisofthedataavailableonlinetheprocessofglobalisationwascalculated
for nine member states (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and
theNetherlands,UnitedKingdom,DenmarkandIreland)fortheperiodfrom
1973to2006.Wehaverestrictedourselvestoninemembercountriesofthe
EU,becausethesehavebeenmembersoftheEUsincethesurveyoftheKOF
Index,andthuswehavearelativelylongperiodoftimeatourdisposal.
As the following figure shows in the period from 1973 to 2006 adramatic
globalisation process took place in all the nine member states.Thisistrue
above all for the areas of economical and social globalisation.Theareaof
politicshadalreadyreachedquiteahighlevelatthetimeofthefirstsurvey,
dipsintheperiodfromthemiddleofthe1980stothebeginningofthe1990s
duetotheterminationofthebipolarconstellationbetweenthe capitalist
WestandthesocialistEast,onlytoincreaseoverthebaselevelin theearly
yearsofthe1990s.


FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

96
Figure3.9:GlobalizationofnineEUMemberStates(1973to2006)
50
60
70
80
90
100
1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003
tota l globalisation
economicglobalisation
socialglobalisation
politicalglobalisation

Source:OwncalculationonthebasisofKOFIndexofGlobalization(ETHZ2009).

Letussummarisetheconclusionsofthischapter.Aslongasthe national
statesofEuropewiththeirsegmentedorderoflanguageswere closedunits,
therewaslittleattractiontolearnthelanguagesofothercountries.AsIhave
shown in this chapter, these conditions have changed. First of all,Ihave
attemptedtodemonstratehowthememberstateshaveEuropeanised,
therebydifferentiatingfourdifferent,althoughinterconnecteddimensionsof
Europeanisation, which are: the establishment of a European system of
institutions,theterritorialexpansionofthe sphere ofinfluenceandthereby
thenumberoflanguages,theincreaseinlegislationinorderto establish a
Europeanspaceofcommunicationandinteraction,andtheincrease in the
degreeofinterconnectednessoftheEuropeansocieties.Wesawfurtherthat
Europeansocietiesbecamenotonlymorecloselylinkedthroughthe
Europeanintegrationprocess,butthatalsothedegreeofworldwide
interconnectedness in the areas of economy, politics, communication and
culturehasincreasedthroughglobalisation.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
97
These developments result in the fact that entirely new demandsand
opportunitiesareavailabletopeople,ofwhichtheymakeonlyverylittleuse
though.ThemobilityofthecitizensofEuropeisverylowandconsiderably
lowerthan,forexample,thatoftheUSA,andovertheyearsithasnotrisen
verymuch.Thismayhaveseveralreasons.Firstofall,inspiteofaformal
righttofreedomofmovement,mobilityinEuropeinvolvesmany
disadvantagesandcosts,whichdonotexistintheUSA.Amongthesecostsis
thefactthatqualificationsacquiredinonecountry,whichshouldbeformally
recognisedinanother,are,inactualfact,frequentlytreatedasbeinginferior,
whichoftenleadstoareductioninincomeandalowerplaceinthelabour
market.Moreover,thissituationalsoappliestopensionsandsocialbenefits,
for,althoughthishasbeenlegallyregulated,theycanfrequently only be
transferredfromonecountrytoanotherwithdifficulties(cf.Mau&Verwiebe
2010). Finally, language skills are important. In order to workinanother
country,onegenerallyhastospeakthelanguageofthatcountryfluently.Itis
preciselythisprerequisitewhichmanypeopledonotpossess,aswillbeseen
inthe empirical analyses.Therefore, the chanceswhich have resultedfrom
thedevelopmentofEuropeanisationandglobalisationcanonlybeusedtoa
limiteddegree.

3.3EuropeanUnion’sLanguagePolicy

As we have seen in chapter 1, in the creation of their nation states the
membercountriesoftheEUhavegonethroughaprocessoflinguistic
homogenisation. The divided and segmented linguistic structure of Europe
results from this historical, still institutionalised inheritance organised
according to national states. At the same time the nation states of Europe
havebeenopenedupthroughtheprocessofEuropeanisationand
globalisation. Participation of the people in the areas which have newly
become transnational will be made easier, when they speak the languages
which are spoken in other countries. The emergence of the nation states
teaches us that politics has a decisive influence on the question of which

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

98
languagespeoplelearnandspeak.ConsequentlyIwillanalysemore closely
thelanguagepolicyoftheEuropeanUnioninthefollowing.
The language policy of the European Union is characterised by three
distinctive features (cf. Phillipson 2003: 105‐138; Castiglione&Longman
2007).IncontrasttothenationstatestheEuropeanUniondoesnotpursuea
policy of linguistic homogenisation by supporting a single linguafranca,
whichwouldbebindingfortheEuropeanUnion.TheEUacceptstheofficial
languagesofitsmembercountriesasitsownofficiallanguages. The
multilingualismof the EU is thereby a constitutive featureof the European
Union(1).TheEUnotonlyacceptstheofficiallanguagesofits member
countriesasitsownlanguages,butitalsoprotectsandsupportstheminority
languages spoken in the member countries, thereby supporting once more
the linguistic heterogeneity of Europe (2). At the same time, the European
Union supports the multilingualism of its citizens through a number of
programmes(3).IwilldescribeeachofthethreeaspectsoftheEUlanguage
policyandtrytoretracethereasonsastowhythelanguagepolicyhasturned
outthewayithas.

3.3.1TheLegitimacyoftwenty‐threeOfficialLanguages
WhiletheEUinmanypolicyareasstrivesforaunityandconvergenceofthe
memberstates–asinglemarket,asinglecurrency,asinglejurisprudence–
thisisnotthecasewhenitcomestolanguagepolicy.Theacceptance of
multilingualismwithintheEUisindisputablycontractuallydocumented.This
goesbackontheonehandtotheTreatyofRome,andontheother to a
Regulationfrom1958(cf.summarisedbyTruchot2003;Kraus2004:134ff.;
Ammon2006).Theprocedure for decidingonthelanguage question within
theEUisstatedintheTreatiesofRome.TheCouncilofEuropedecidesonthe
languagesunanimously.Thequestionofregulatingthelanguages,therefore,
belongstotheareaswhichmustbedecidedconcurrentlybetween all the
governments.Achangeinthepresentregulationsispractically impossible,
becauseeachofthetwenty‐sevenmembercountrieshastherightofveto.In

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
99
addition,mostofthemembercountriesplacegreatvalueonmaintainingthe
multilingual constellation. Consequently it is unimaginable that any one of
the member countries would voluntarily relinquish the right to have “its”
languageasanofficiallanguageoftheEU.
While the procedure for stipulating the official languages is codified in the
TreatiesofRome,sofarasregulationsdealingwithcontentareconcerned,
suchaswhichlanguagesareallowedinwhichcontexts,theseweredecidedin
RegulationNo.1fortheRegulationoftheLanguageQuestionfor the
EuropeanEconomicUnionbytheCouncilin1958.Originallyonlyfourofficial
languageswerementionedintheregulation.However,withtheexpansionof
the EU other official languages were included in the regulation. The
regulation consists of eight articles (Council of the European Economic
Community2007).
Article1 The official languages and the working languages of the
institutions of the Union shall be Bulgarian, Czech, Danish,
Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek,
Hungarian,Irish,Italian,Latvian,Lithuanian,Maltese,Polish,
Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and
Swedish.
Article2 DocumentswhichaMemberStateorapersonsubjecttothe
jurisdiction of a Member State sends to institutions of the
Communitymaybedraftedinanyoneoftheofficial
languagesselectedbythesender.Thereplyshallbedrafted
inthesamelanguage.
Article3 DocumentswhichaninstitutionoftheCommunitysendstoa
MemberStateortoapersonsubjecttothejurisdictionofa
MemberStateshallbedraftedinthelanguageofsuchState.
Article4 Regulations and other documents of general application
shallbedraftedintheofficiallanguages.
Article5 TheOfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnionshallbepublished
intheofficiallanguages.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

100
Article6 The institutions of the Community may stipulate in their
rulesofprocedurewhichofthelanguagesaretobeusedin
specificcases.
Article7 Thelanguagesto be used in theproceedingsoftheCourtof
Justiceshallbelaiddowninitsrulesofprocedure.
Article8 IfaMemberStatehasmorethanoneofficiallanguage, the
languagetobeusedshall,attherequestofsuchState,be
governed by the general rules of its law. This Regulation
shallbe binding inits entirety anddirectly applicableinall
MemberStates.
The language regulation of 1958 is still valid today. Therefore, the equal
treatmentofallEuropean(official)languagesisthefirstandcentralpurpose
oftheEUlanguagepolicy.Allthenationalofficiallanguagesofthemember
countriesaresimultaneouslytheofficial languages oftheEU.Oneexception
tothisisLuxembourgish,thegovernmentofthecountryhavingrelinquished
itsuseasan officiallanguageofthe EU. Toldtherearetwenty‐three official
languages for the twenty‐seven member countries: Bulgarian, Danish,
German, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, Greek, Irish, Italian, Latvian,
Lithuanian, Maltese, Dutch, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Swedish, Slovak,
Slovenian,Spanish,Czech,andHungarian.AsIhavealreadymentionedinthe
introduction, some languages are official languages in two countries at the
sametime(FlemishintheNetherlandsandinBelgium,FrenchinFranceand
inBelgium,GermaninAustriaandinGermany,GreekinCyprusand in
Greece); that is why the number of official languages (23) is not identical
withthatofthemembercountries(27).Hence,theEUremainswithregardto
itslanguageconfigurationsegmentedtoahighdegree.
PeterA.Kraus(2004:137)haspointedoutthattheEUpolicyofrecognition
of the official languages of its member countries differs from other
internationalorganisations.TheASEANstatesuse,forexample,onlyEnglish
as their official language, NATO, English and French. Although the United
Nationsisaworldorganisation,meanwhilewith193membercountries,only

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
101
sixlanguages are allowedas officiallanguages.TheseareArabian, Chinese,
English,French,RussianandSpanish.Thisregulationwaspassed by the
General Assemby in 1946. An official Language means that all documents
(draftresolutions,minutes,reports)arewrittenintheofficiallanguagesand
thatallmeetingsmustbetranslatedfromandintotheofficiallanguages.Two
ofthesixofficiallanguages–EnglishandFrench–arepermittedasworking
languages.Thismeans thatallinternal organisationalworkmust takeplace
(inoralaswellasinwrittenform)inbothoftheselanguages.
Theacceptance ofthe officiallanguages ofthe membercountries asofficial
languagesoftheEUandtherejectionofapolicypromotingalinguafrancais
connected with consequences for communication within EU institutions, as
the regulation of 1958 stipulates that all laws, documents and regulations
mustbewritteninallthetwenty‐threeofficiallanguages.Furthermore,
citizensandthenationalstatescanallturntotheEUintheir languageand
havetherighttoreceiveananswerintheirownlanguage.Theinformation
sheetsoftheEUarealsowritteninalltheofficiallanguages.
The rules of procedure decide the working language which the institutions
useinternally(Schumann‐Hitlzer&Ostarek2005:21).InthefollowingIwill
brieflydescribehow theindividual institutionsdealwith themultiplicity of
languages.Thisgivesusagoodideaoftheenormoustransactioncostswhich
areconnectedwiththeprincipleofmultilingualism.Thelanguageservicesof
theEUinstitutionscosttheEUaround1.1billionEurosperyear(Websiteof
theTranslationHeadOffice2007).
EUCommission: Since 2001 the Commission has used German, English and
Frenchasinternalworkinglanguages(Peterson&Shackleton2006: 61),
wherebyEnglish and Frenchare preferred(Ozvalda 2005: 66f.;Schumann‐
Hitzler&Ostarek2005:21).Itisonlyafterthedecisionmakingiscompleted
that translation into the other official languages occurs. The Directorate‐
GeneralforTranslationisresponsiblefortheCommissionandthe other
organsoftheEU,apartfromtheParliamentandtheEuropeanCourt(Mickel
& Bergmann 2005: 33). The Directorate‐General for Translation alone

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

102
employs 2,350 employees and has a yearly budget of around 280 million
Euros(Soriano2007).Itisthusthelargesttranslationservicein theworld.
RoundfifteenpercentofallthoseworkingfortheCommissionareemployed
bythelanguageservices(Michel & Bergmann2005:33).In ordertorelieve
the institutions’ translation services, the translation Centre for the
OrganisationsoftheEuropeanUnion(CdT)wasestablished.
TheEuropeanCouncil:Translationsaremadefromandintoallofficial
languages at all meetings of the European Council. All documents are
moreover presented to the Council in all official languages (Mickel &
Bergmann2005:32).
TheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion:AlldocumentsaboutwhichtheCouncilof
theEuropeanUnionconsultsaretranslatedintotheofficiallanguagesofthe
EU.AttheCouncil’smeetingstranslationsaremadefromandinto all
languages(cf.homepageoftheCounciloftheEuropeanUnion).However,at
all informal meetings it appears thatthe“3+1solution”(English, French,
Germanandthelanguageofthepresidencyofthecouncil)hasprevailed
(Ozvalda 2005). In the Committee of the Permanent Representatives
(COREPER) the three language regime is employed (English, French,
German).IntheCouncil’sworkinggroupstranslationsinallofficiallanguages
are made when a law is being prepared. In the majority of the groups
translationsaremadeinonlyfiveEUlanguages(English,French, German,
Spanish and Italian). In forty‐five groups nothing is translated and only
Englishand/orFrenchisspoken.IntheCouncilsworkinggroupsaso‐called
“market model” is employed, which means that the member states in
individualcasesdecidefororagainsttheirowntranslation,butshareinthe
costs (Mickel & Bergmann 2005: 32). While the Council of the European
UnioncanrelyfortranslationsontheDirectorate‐GeneralforTranslation,it
alsohasatitsdisposalitsownLanguageServicesoftheGeneralSecretariatof
theCouncilwithmorethan700translators.
TheEuropeanCourt: In cases to the European Court the language of the
complaintisthelanguageofthelawsuit,ifit’soneoftheEUofficiallanguages.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
103
Incasesdealingwithpreliminaryrulings,thelanguageofthenational court
invokedbytheCourtisthelanguageofthelawsuit.Inthesessions, the
hearings,ifrequired,aresimultaneouslytranslatedintothedifferentofficial
languagesoftheEuropeanUnion(WebsiteoftheEuropeanCourt). The
working language is only French (Weidenfeld 2006: 408). The European
Court has an Interpretation Directorate at its disposal. At the beginning of
2006 the Court’s Interpretation Directorate employed 796 people, who all
spokeaminimumofthreelanguagesandwerefullyqualifiedlawyers. This
constitutesroughlyforty‐fivepercentoftheCourt’spersonnel.
TheEuropeanParliament: The standing orders of the European Parliament
stipulate that all parliamentary documents must be written in all of the
officiallanguages.Furthermore,alloftheMEPshavetheright to speak in
theirofficiallanguageandtohave all the other official languages
simultaneously translated into this language. This is also the caseforthe
officiallanguagesofallthose presentincommitteeanddelegationsessions;
this,however,canbebypassedinexceptionalcaseswiththeagreementofall
thosepresent(Art.138RulesofProcedureoftheEuropeanParliament).The
EuropeanParliamenthasahighcommitmenttobeingpolyglot,forinstance,a
statement on the homepage explains that “As regards interpreting, the
EuropeanParliament differs from theother EU institutionsin so far as the
principle of ‘controlled full multilingualism’ is observed in its day‐to‐day
work“.Inordertoavoidbottlenecksinthetranslating,theEuropean
Parliamenthasintroducedasystemof“relaylanguages”,whichmeans„atext
isfirsttranslatedintooneofthemostwidelyusedlanguages(English,French
orGerman)andfromthereintotheminorlanguages.Othermajor
Communitylanguages (Italian, Polishand Spanish)could alsobecome relay
languagesinduecourse.”Theparliamentemploysitsowntranslationservice
withabout700translators.
Theaboveshortaccountsshouldbeenoughtomakeclearthattheprinciple
ofmultilingualismcomesatahighcost.Aboveall,thesecostsarefinancial,
buttheyarealsotemporal,sinceeverytranslationinvolvesdelays.Especially
inthecomposingofdrafts,whicharesupposedtobetabledintheparliament

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

104
byseveralMEPs,atranslationisdemonstrablytoocomplicatedandsluggish.
Thedraftsareconstantlychangingandtheresultofacloseinteractive
process (cf. Wright 2007: 161). The same is true for attempts to convince
other members of a particular position prior to a debate. This requires a
personalconversationwhichisobviouslymucheasierifthesamelanguageis
spoken. In addition to this, in parliamentary debates the liveliness of the
immediate exchange of arguments suffers greatly from being translated.
Finally, every translation carries the risk of mistakes being made. The
mistakeswhichariseandwhichareoftenfunnyarethenworthreportingin
the newspapers. In an article in the German weekly DIE ZEIT of June 17th,
1999,theauthorDanielaWeingärtnerreportedthefollowingexamples:“The
transports internationals routiers, abbreviated on the lorries to T.I.R. was
translated by a German MEP as Tir Transport. In the cabins thisbecame
Tiertransport(animaltransportsortransports des animaux).ABritishMEP
comparedthetempoinaheateddebatewithraftingonwildrivers,shooting
rapids.However,the Germantranslatorheard “rabbits”,atwhich aGerman
MEP, to the confusion of the speaker, wished “Waidmannsheil!” (Hunters’
Greeting!). And when the parliament wanted to appoint “A Commission of
Wisemen”(French:sages)inordertoinvestigateabusesintheCommission,
the “Drei Weisen” (“Three Wisemen” (trois sages) became the “Three
Monkeys”(troissinges)(Weingärtner1999).41

Excursus:LegalRegulationsandEmpiricalPractice
(1)EvenifdejurealltheofficiallanguagesofthemembercountriesoftheEU
enjoy equal status and only three working languages are permitted, in the
day‐to‐day practice of interaction within the institutions of the EU an
41 That the attempt to manage without translation and to communicate in English, even
whenEnglishisnotthespeaker’snativelanguage,alsodoesnotfunctionwithoutmishap
and can lead to amusing misunderstandings is illustrated by the following example. A
female,newlyappointedDanishminister,whowasparticipatinginaCouncilmeetingfor
thefirsttimeandhadtotaketheChairrightaway,openedthemeeting in English with
the remark that she was “not fully in command of things becauseshewasjustatthe
beginningofherperiod”(quoteinPhillipson2003:140).“Atthebeginningofherperiod”
meansthatshehadjustbeguntomenstruate.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
105
asymmetryin the useof differentlanguages has emerged.In thebeginning
phaseoftheEGcommunicationprincipallywasinFrenchandthat for the
following reasons (cf. Truchot 2003): French was the language which was
mostspokeninthesixfoundingcountriesandwastheofficiallanguage in
three countries (France, Belgium and Luxembourg), and the most widely
spoken foreign language in the other countries. The most important
institutions in the EU were and are located in Brussels and Luxembourg;
countriesinwhich Frenchisthe officiallanguage.The United Kingdomwas
notyetamemberoftheEU,henceEnglishwasnotanofficiallanguage.
Withtheadmissionofnewmembers English has increasingly become the
dominantlanguage(cf.Kraus2004:141ff.;Ammon2006).Inasurveycarried
outin1990among(high)officialsanddelegatesoftheEuropeanCommunity
(EC),MichaelSchloßmachercomestotheconclusion,that“Thelanguagesof
theofficialsintheECorgansareinallfunctionsEnglishandFrench,allthe
othersplayonlyamarginalrole”(Schloßmacher1994:112).Onthebasisof
different available data Claude Truchot (2003: 104) has retraced the
development of the languages in which the documents written by the
Commissionhavebeenformulated.Inthe periodfrom1986to1999aclear
increaseintheimportanceoftheEnglishlanguagecanbeseen.
Table3.3:LanguagesusedintextsbytheEuropeanCommission(in%)
Year French English German others
1986 58 26 11 5
1989 49 30 9 12
1991 48 35 6 11
1996 39 45 5 12
1997 40 45 5 12
1998 37 48 5 10
1999 35 52 5 8
Source:Truchot2003

ThedominanceofEnglishininternalcommunicationwillhaveincreased
enormouslysincetheadmissionoftwelveCentralandEasternEuropean
countriesin theyears from2004 to2007, whoselanguages becameofficial
languages.Atleastthiscanbeconcluded,ifAbramdeSwaan’s“Q‐Value

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

106
Theory”is takenas a basis.With themembership of thenew countriesthe
numberofthose who speakEnglishas theirnativetonguedid notincrease,
but the number of those who speak English and no other foreign language
increasedexponentially.Thisleadstothesimpleconclusionthat“The more
languages,themoreEnglish”(deSwaan2001b).
(2)Theconsequenceswhicharelinkedtothedominanceofcertainlanguages
withintheinstitutionsoftheEUhavenotbeenwellenoughresearched to
date.However,wecanassumethefollowingoutcomes.
(a) The dominance of certain languages disadvantages those persons and
interest groups as regards determining the political agenda, who do not
speaktheselanguageswellenough. In 1996astudyofthe networksamong
theMEPsrevealedthat“relationshipsweredictatedbylanguagecompetence,
that informal information flows were truncated by language barriers, and
thatnegotiationsinunofficial settingswasconstrainedforMEPswithnoor
little knowledge of English or French” (Wright 2000; quoted from Wright
2007: 151). The translation of working papers into minor languages takes
longer,comeslaterandthereby hinders preparation(Wright2007:157).In
additionithindersinformalnetworkingandthusinfluencesthechanceMEPs
haveto push their own interests through.This is true, for example, for the
Italian MEPs. “The Italians punch below their weight” (Wright 2007: 160)
becauseoftheirinabilitytospeakforeignlanguages.
(b)Thedominanceofcertainlanguagescanhaveaselectiveinfluenceonthe
recruitmentoftheMEPs.Thefactthatverygoodlanguageskillsincreasethe
chancesofachievingyouraimsleadstothefactthatinanticipation of this
fact MEPs, who have these skills, are nominated in the nation states. The
consequenceofthisisthatcertainpersons,forthemostpartthosewhoare
moreeducated,haveamuchbetterchanceofbecomingMEPs.Thisinturn
strengthens the “bias” which already exists at the level of national
parliaments so that the upper classes are clearly over‐represented in the
European Parliament. Seen from the democratic point of view, this is a
problematicalover‐representationofcertainclassesinasociety.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
107
EndofExcursus
The fact that the principle of the equality between official languages, or
ratherthethreeworkinglanguages,isbeingcontravenedonthequiet,hasin
thepastledtofrequentprotestsbythenationalgovernments.For many
membercountriesoftheEU,aboveallforthecountrieswhoselanguagesare
relativelywidelyspoken(German,French,ItalianandSpanish),examplescan
befoundwhichshowthatthenationalgovernmentsinsistthattheirlanguage
is not at a disadvantage (Ammon 2006). In 1999, the former Chancellor of
Germany,GerhardSchröder,sparkedoffamassiveconflictwiththeFinnish
Council Presidency at the time, because the latter did not want to allow
Germanastheworkinglanguageatameetingwiththeheadsofgovernment.
Schröderhadthreatenedtostayaway(Forsberg2000:14).
In 1999 the former President of France, Jacques Chirac, left theroomata
meeting of the heads of government of the EU in a fury, becauseaFrench
corporaterepresentativeaskedhimaquestioninEnglishandnotinFrench.
Chiraclater explained thathe hadbeen deeplyshocked thathiscompatriot
had spoken to him in a foreign language (cf. BBC 2006). The corporate
representativedefendedhischoiceoflanguagewiththefactthatmostofthe
peopleintheroomspokeEnglishandnotFrench.Onecanassumethat
Chirac‘sreactionwasbasedonhisconcerntoassertthesovereignty of
FrenchandnotbecausehepersonallydidnotunderstandEnglish,sinceasa
formerstudentatHarvardUniversityhemusthavebeenableto.
The German Bundesrat and Bundestag have repeatedly, and recently quite
sharply, reminded the Commission that German is to be treated on parity
withEnglishandFrench.ThelastrequestbytheBundestagin2008
regarding this matter was made by the Christian Democrats, the Social
Democrats,theGreensandtheLiberalstogether,soallthepartiesareunited
onthispoint.OnNovember17th, 2008a similar demand bythe Bundestag
addressedtotheCommissionwaspassedbyallitsmembers.
Animpressiveexampleofthesymbolicsignificanceofthelanguagequestion
inregardtonationalidentityisthatoftheIrish.AlthoughIrelandhasbeena

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

108
memberoftheEUsince1973,Irish(Gaelic)hasbeenanofficiallanguageof
theEUonlysince2007.ThenumberofIrishwhospeakGaelicineverydaylife
is low. The resuscitation of Gaelic as their own language can be regarded
moreasaprojectoftheeliteinanattempttodiscovertheirown history,as
distinctfromthatofGreatBritain’s.The“madness”whichisconnectedwith
thismightbestbeillustratedbythefollowing.OfthethirteenIrishMEPsonly
fourspeakIrishatall,andtheyusetheirlanguageinParliamenttosymbolise
their national uniqueness. The other Irish members have to learn their so‐
calledmothertongue.TheEuropeanParliamentoffersspecialcoursesinthis
subject(cf.Borovsky&Hartig2008).
Theseexamplesillustratehow importantitisto thenationstatesthat their
officiallanguageisrecognisedasanofficiallanguageoftheEU.Atthispoint
the question arises as to how the adherence to the principle of
multilingualism in the EU can be explained. The EU policy of treating all
existingofficiallanguagesofthemembercountriesasequalofficiallanguages
oftheEUcanbeexplainedbythefactthatthememberstatesoftheEUare
not prepared to give up their linguistic sovereignty. Why they are not
preparedtodoso?PoliticalSciencedifferentiatesbetweentheso‐called“high
politics”and“lowpolitics”(Hoffmann1966).Theareaswhichdirectlytouch
upontheheartofnationalsovereignty,forexample,foreignand defence
policy,countas“highpolitics”.Intheseareas,itholdstrue that the nation
statesarenot,oronlytoasmalldegree,preparedtodelegatesovereign
rights to supra‐national institutions. If they do this regardless, then they
usuallyretain the right ofveto for themselves, so as not to be outvoted by
othercountries. Theareas of “low politics” arethose policyareaswhichdo
notbelongtothecoreareasofnationstatepoliticsandwherethenation
statesaremoreinclined togiveupsovereignrights. Theintergovernmental
theoryofEuropeanintegrationinterpretstheestablishmentoftheEUbythe
distinction which I have outlinedaboveasprimarilyaprocessof the
integration of areas of “low politics” (Hoffmann 1966; Moravcsik 1993,
1998).

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
109
The fact that any attempt to evenperhapsreducetheofficialor working
languagesoftheEUmeetsmassiveresistancefromthenationstatesandthat
thenation stateshave kept forthemselves the right to vetoany attempt to
changethelanguageorder,indicatesthatlanguagepoliticsisanareaof“high
politics”,ormoreprecisely,anareaofinterpreted“highpolitics”. In the
language question we are not dealing with a subject which
intergovernmentaliststhinkofwhentheydiscussthecoreareasofthestate.
These areas are primarily the areas of policy concerned with security,
interests,resources,power,etc.,thatistosay,“hard”interests.Thelanguage
question is concerned, and here I refer back to the concepts explained in
chapter 2, not with the building of society but with the identity building
functionoflanguage,thatistosaythesymbolicdimension.Thenationstates
interpret their own national language as a central feature of their identity
and they attribute a very high significance to this interpretation, thereby
elevating the subject of linguistic sovereignty to one of interpreted “high
politics”.Andthemembercountriesarepreparedtoletthissymbolismcost
themsomething,astheenormouslyhightransactioncostscausedby
multilingualismdemonstrate.

3.3.2ProtectionandSupportofMinorityLanguages
NotonlydoestheEUaccepttheofficiallanguagesofthemembercountriesas
itsownlanguages,butitalso,evenifonlytoalimiteddegree, fosters the
minoritylanguageswhichexistinitsmembercountries,thussupportingthe
linguistic heterogeneity of Europe. The policy of protecting and supporting
the minority languages has, however, markedly less legal importance than
the policy of accepting the official languages, since minority languages are
neither official nor working languages of the EU. The protection of the
minoritylanguagesis,moreover,muchmorecontroversial.Whilethe
institutions of the EU and above all the European Parliament within the
contextofaworldwidedebateontheprotectionofminoritiestrytosupport
the rights of the minorities in the member countries, the member states,

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

110
especiallythosewhichhavelargelinguisticminoritieswithintheirterritorial
boundaries, are much more low‐key when it comes to fostering minority
languages.Theyinterpretsupportfortherightsofminoritiesas anattempt
toundermine thenational linguisticidentity. Thisconflict explainswhy the
supportforminoritylanguageswithintheEUendsupbeingsoambivalent.
However,ifwelookatthedevelopmentovertime,weseethattherehasbeen
adefiniteincreaseinthesignificanceoftheprotectionofminoritylanguages.
Thequestionsariseastohowtheprotectionofminoritylanguagesisbound
inlawandbywhatmeanstheminoritylanguagesarefosteredbytheEU(1)
andhowwecanexplaintheincreasingimportanceofsupportforthe
minoritylanguages(2)?
(1)Therearepointsinseveraltreatiesandlaws,whichcanbeinterpretedas
asummonstoactivelyprotectminoritylanguages.Onestatutorybasisupon
whichthepolicyof protecting minoritylanguagesrestsisArticle151 ofthe
MaastrichtTreatywhichmakesthepromotionof culture oneofthetasksof
theEuropeanUnion(Vizi2003:53).Itremainsopen,however,astowhether
the minority languages fall under the heading of culture. The Charter of
HumanRightsoftheEUin2000issomewhatmoreprecise.InArticle22 it
states,“TheUnionshallrespectcultural, religious and linguistic diversity”
(European Community 2000). Nevertheless, in the anti‐discrimination
regulations, languages as subjects of discrimination are not explicitly
mentioned,butonlyreligion,opinions,disability,ageandsexualorientation.
The legal lack of clarity opens up a leeway for interpretationswhichhave
beenmadedifferentuseofbythepoliticalplayersintheEU.
DuetotheinclusionofEasternEuropetheprotectionofminoritiesand the
minoritylanguagehasgainedincreasinglyinimportance(Heidbreder2004:
480). In this regard the EU has been accused of having a doublestandard,
particularly because the European Charta for Regional and Minority
LanguagesoftheCouncilofEuropeortheFrameworkConventionfor the
Protection of National Minorites were not signed or ratified by several
memberstates(Heidbreder2004a;Vizi2003:50),whileatthesametimethe

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
111
new member countries were being put under pressure to protect the
minoritiesandtheirlanguagesmoreenergetically.
The “key player” (Shuibhne 2007: 129) in minority language politics is the
European Parliament. In the 1980s the Parliament called upon the
Commissioninthreeresolutions(Arfe‐Resolutions1981and1983;Kuijpers‐
Resolution 1987) to protect minority languages (Shuibhne 2007: 129).
Obviouslysuchresolutionsarenotbinding,butneverthelessthefoundingof
the European Bureau for Lesser‐Used Languages (EBLUL) in 1981 (which
however was closed down some years later) and the report on linguistic
minoritiesbytheIstituto dellaEnciclopediaItaliana (1986)canbeascribed
totheseinitiatives(Shuibhne2007:129).Moreimportantly,though,asearly
as1988onemillionECUforthepromotionofminoritylanguageswere
includedinthebudgetbytheParliament(Vizi2003:56).However,theyearly
budgetofuptofourmillionEuroswasaxedbytheEuropeanCourtin2000
becauseofitsunclearlegalbasis,althoughalowersumunderanother
budgetary item still stands the minority languages in good stead (Strubell
2007:171).AsareactiontoMaastrichtandattheendoftheEuropeanYear
of Languages in 1994 and 2001 the Parliament repeated in further
resolutions the call for more protection for the minority languages, and
financial support as well as legislative initiatives in this matter (Shuibhne
2007: 130). The so‐called Ebner Report in 2003, in which the Parliament
calledyet again forpermanent financing andthe inclusion of “regional and
lesser‐usedlanguagesinlanguageeducationprogrammes”(Shuibhne2008:
127)isonesuchinitiative.
Primarily the Commission restricts itself to supporting projects and
organisations for the protection of minority languages. EBLUL, support for
minoritylanguagesduringtheEuropeanYearofLanguages,supportforthe
onlinenewsagencyEurolang,whichspecialisesinminoritylanguages,orthe
publicationofvariousstudieslikeEUROMOSAIC(1996)canbementionedin
thisconnection(Vize2003;cf.Grin&Moring2002;NicCraith2008).Inthe
“ActionPlan onLanguage Learning andLanguage Diversity”for 2004‐2006
theCommission explicitly includesthe minoritylanguagesfor thefirsttime

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

112
(Shuibhne 2008: 127). This is a very big step, because it means that the
CommissionistreatingtheofficiallanguagesoftheEUandthe minority
languages spoken within the EU on an equal basis in their supportforthe
multilingualismofthecitizens.
Atthesametimetherearereservationsfromseveralmembercountries
regarding a strengthening of the rights of the minority languages. This
manifestsitselfintherefusaltosupportthelegaldocumentwhichlaysdown
the most far‐reaching protection of the minority languages, the“European
CharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguages”oftheCouncilofEurope.Outof
thetwenty‐sevenmembersoftheEU,whichatthesametimearemembersof
theCouncilofEurope,eight(Belgium,Bulgaria,Estonia,Greece, Ireland,
Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal) have not signed the charter, seven have
signed the charter, but up to now have not ratified it (France,Bulgaria,
Luxembourg,Malta,Poland,RomaniaandtheCzechRepublic)andonly
twelve have signed and ratified it (Denmark, Germany, Finland, the
Netherlands,Austria,Sweden,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain,Hungary,theUnited
KingdomandCyprus).As we haveseeninthelast section,thenationstates
interpret their national language as a central feature of theiridentity,thus
making the language question a sphere of “high politics”. This framework
alsoinfluencestheinterpretationofthelegitimacyofminoritylanguagesand
becomes contentious for those countries which have large linguistic
minoritieswithintheirterritory.Countrieswhichhavenotsignedorratified
thecharterareafraidthatbyrecognisingtheminoritiesorminority
languages in their territory they will endanger their national unity. These
fearsarecertainly the mostimportantreasonwhy supportforthe minority
languagesintheEUissomoderate.However,ifweregardthedevelopment
inretrospectthenthetopicgainsmuchmoresignificance.Howcan we
explainthisdevelopment?
(2) The discovery of the topic of protection of minority languages is
embedded in a worldwide change in the perception and interpretation of
minorities and their languages. The changes are dealt with in academic
literatureandinpoliticsundertheheadingof“multiculturalism”.Supporters

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
113
ofamulticulturalpositiondepartfromtheideathatmostsocietiesconsistof
differentculturesandthatthedifferentculturesshouldberegardedasequal
bythepoliticiansincharge,recognisedandfostered,andthatitisnot
legitimatetoworktowardsasocietyinwhichtheculturesaresubsumedbya
majorityculture.Cultural differenceisexemplified by skincolour, ethnicity,
sex, religion, sexual orientation but also language (cf. for many others
Gutmann 2001 and the contributions in Joppke & Lukes 1999). Howthe
change in the perception of minorities and minority languages has come
aboutisdifficulttoexplain.Thatithashappenedthough,cannotbedisputed.
Will Kymlicka (2007) and Douglas A. Kibbee (2008) have delineated the
developmentoflawtowardsanincreaseintheprotectionofminorities.
While earlier efforts to institutionalise universal rights worldwide are
attemptstocodifyandenforcetherightsoftheindividual,for instance,
humanrights,achangehasoccurredsincethe80softhelastcentury. The
definitionoftherightsofminoritiesasgrouprightsisbecomingincreasingly
important;moreoverwearenotjusttalkingaboutthedefenceof minority
languages(defensiverights),butabouttheirsupportandpromotion.In1992
the UN passed the “Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
NationalorEthnicReligiousandLinguisticMinorities”,whichsupplementary
totheHumanRightsdealswiththerightsofminorities.Thestates declare
thattheywillprotecttheexistenceandthenational,ethnic,cultural,religious
and linguistic identity of the minorities in their territory. In 2001 UNESCO
passedthe“UniversalDeclarationonCulturalDiversity”.Thisgoesaboveand
beyondthepreviouslegislationinsofarastheminoritylanguagesarenotjust
concededdefensiverights,rightsthatis,whicharesupposedto protect the
speakersofminoritylanguagesfromoppression.
Bothagreementsaimtoprotecttheexistenceofnationalminoritiesandtheir
languages within the signatory states and to codify their equality. Minority
languages are interpreted as a cultural asset whose use should be
encouraged.Forexample,instructionfrompre‐schooltouniversityshouldbe
offeredintheminoritylanguages,justiceandpublicadministration should
authorisethem,andthemediashouldgivethemadequatespace.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

114
Intotalitcanbesaidthatovertimetheprotectionofminoritylanguageshas
beenextended inmany respects:(1) The subject has receivedconsiderably
morelegalandpoliticalattention,(2)theprotectionofminority languages
has developed from an individual right to a collective one, (3) minority
languages are not only protected, but they have also been actively
encouraged.Minorityrightshave developedfrompurelydefensive rights to
entitlements.42
Thelegislativedevelopments,ofwhichIhavegivenonlyabriefdescription,
areaccompaniedbyapublicdebateinwhichreasonsfortheprotectionand
nurture of minority languages are discussed. The spokesmen in the debate
arepoliticallyliberallegalexperts,sociologists,anthropologistsandlinguists
(cf. Krauss 1992; Hale 1998; Skutnabb‐Kanga & Phillipson 1995; Crystal
2000;Phillipson 2003; Kymlicka 2007; Nic Craith 2008).Those leading the
discussiononminorities,canbeinterpretedintermsofJohnW.Meyer’sneo‐
institutional theory as a “cultural otherhood”, who see themselves to be
‘disinterested’ actors, stemming from civic society and science, who advise
theactiveparticipantssuchastheUN,UNESCOandtheEU.These“cultural
others”arenotthemselvespoliticallyactive,butactinanadvisorycapacity.
“Thisisthepostureofthedisinterestedconsultant,moreconcernedwiththe
truththanhisowninterests”(Meyer2001:234).43
42Thedramaticincreaseintheimportanceoftheprotectionofminorities and their
encouragementisshownnotonlyinthestatutesquoted,butalsointheorganisationofa
numberofinternationalinstitutionsandfoundations,whodealwithminoritiesandtheir
languages.Monitoring systems weredeveloped, the endangeredlanguages,whichoften
havenowrittenform,arelistedaccordingtolinguisticcriteria,statisticsarecollectedon
theirdissemination andthe number oftheir speakers, etc. (cf. Crystal 2000: 91ff.).The
purposeofallthisistoinformthepublicandpoliticiansabouttheextentofthethreatto
minoritylanguagesandthenmovethemtointervene.
43Mostoftheauthorswhohavepublishedonthissubjectare,however, themselves
protagonists, who support the extension of the rights of minorities. The self
understandingoftheseauthorsisthattheirarticlesarescientificandanalyticalinnature,
whereas I would classify them as political and normative texts (cf. the critical
commentary on the literature by Kibbee 2003 and de Swaan 2004).Theacademic
backgroundwhichtheauthorsbringwiththemattractsaspecificaudience.Ironically,the
authors argue for the preservation and cultivation of exotic languages whereas they
themselvespublishintheworldhegemoniallanguageofEnglishinordertomaximizethe
receptionoftheirtextsandhencetheirownreputationintheacademic world (cf. the
cynicalremarksbydeSwaan2004onthismatter).

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
115
There are two central arguments put forward by the “the others”forthe
encouragement and nurture of minority languages. I will presentthe
argumentswhileatthesametimecommentingonthemcritically.
Linguisticandbiologicaldiversity: The protection of diverse languages is
equatedtobiologicaldiversity.Article1of“TheDeclarationon Cultural
Diversity”adoptedbyUNESCOstates,forexample,that,“[a]sa source of
exchange, innovation and creativity, cultural diversity is as necessary for
humankind as biodiversity is for nature. In this sense, it is the common
heritageofhumanityandshouldberecognisedandaffirmedforthebenefitof
present and future generations”. This fundamental idea, that diversity of
languages is an asset to society and can have a positive effectonits
productiveness is formulated in various different ways. Douglas Kibbee
(2003)describesthispositionasthe“greentheoryofecologicalprotection”.
Thosewhosupportthedemandforlinguisticpluralitythinkthat the
protectionand supportof minorities and minority languagesis notonly an
ethicalimperativebutalsoanecologicalone.Thejustification for this
reasoningresultsfromtheassumptioninevolutionarytheorythatthereisan
advantage to the diversity of species. This suggests that under altered
environmentalconditions(forexample,anewdisease)diversityensuresthat
althoughmanyorganismswilldieout,otherswillsurvivepurelyonthebasis
of a different genetic make‐up. The genetic variation is, as it were, a
safeguard against risk, which under altered environmental conditions can
helptoensuresurvival.
Isthisargument,however,alsovalidforlanguages?Onlyifitcanbeproven
thatthevariousculturesarebasedondifferentlanguages,sothatadiversity
oflanguagesishencecausallyconnectedtoadiversityofcultures (which
then provides a variation pool of different forms of society) does linguistic
diversityconstituteanadvantage.However,ifitistruethatmoreorlessthe
same things can be expressed by all languages, then there is noactual
evolutionaryadvantageinhavingadiversityoflanguages.Theloss of a
particularlanguagedoesnotleadtothelossofculturaladvantages. This
bringsustothenextpoint.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

116
Linguisticdiversityasculturaldiversity: Language is interpreted as an
expression of culture. Different languages lead to differences in cultural
appropriation. Consequently the protection of minority languages is an
imperative,ifonewantstoprotectnotonlythelanguagesbutalso the
cultureswhicharecreatedbythelanguages.Thesupportersofanexpansion
oftheprotectionforminoritylanguagesconcludethattheprotection of
minoritylanguagesis,therefore,anethicalimperative(cf.Arzoz2008a).
However,literaturefromthefieldofcognitivepsychologydemonstratesthat
the influence of language on thought is very limited (for a more extensive
discussionofthisargumentseeappendix).Two conclusions resultfromthis
research:(a)Becausethoughtstakeplaceinaninnerlanguage,theinfluence
ofnaturalspeechonthoughtislow.(b)Everythingwhichpeopleexpressina
particular natural language can essentially be translated into another
language (Hunt 2001: 8320). What follows from this research is that it is
possibletoretain one’sownculture andwayof life, whileatthe sametime
notspeakingone’sownlanguage.Cultureandlanguagearesubstantially
decoupledfrom oneanother. Hence,cultural diversityis possiblewithouta
correspondinglinguisticdiversity(cf.Ladefoged1992).44Iwilldiscussthese
argumentsinmoredetailintheappendix.
WehaveseenthattheEuropeanpolicyofencouragingminoritylanguagesis
embeddednotonlyinthechangesininternationaljurisdiction,butalsointhe
hegemonial discourse on minorities, which I have outlined briefly. These
developmentsform,amongotherthings,theessentiallegitimacyforthelegal
developmentwithintheEU,whichIhavedescribedinmyfirstpoint, and
whichexplainswhytheprotectionofminoritylanguageshasbecome an
increasinglyimportantelementinEUpolicymaking.Ihaverestrictedmyself
primarily to presenting and interpreting EU policy. Whether or not such a
policymakesanysenseandwhichnormativestandardscanbeemployedin
44 There is a third argument that is important for the changed discussion on minorities
whichconcentrates on the issue of who isresponsible for the protectionof minorities.
Thesovereignrightsofthenationstatesarebeingincreasinglyquestionedinthisregard;
a shift of responsibility to international organisations is occurring; international
organisations are increasingly seen as being responsible to protect the rights of
minorities,evenagainsttheinterestsofthenationstates.

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
117
assessing language policies will bediscussedinthefinalchapter in more
detail.Thefew hintsIhave givenshouldhowever havemadeclear thatI’m
notconvincedthattheEUisfollowingtherightlanguagepolicy.

3.3.3SupportforMultilingualism
Iftheacceptanceandsupportformultilingualismandtheprotection and
nurturing of the minority languages are the first two primary goals of EU
language policies, then the principle of encouraging the multilingualism of
thepeopleofEuropeisthethirdcentralgoal.Accordingtothisplancitizens
should speak two of the languages spoken in the EU besides their native
languagewhereby allthe languagesare treatedequally. Whichfar reaching
goalstheEUispursuingwithitspolicyofencouragingthemultilingualism(a)
andwhatmeasuresisittakingtorealisethem(b)?
(a)Asintheencouragementoftheminoritylanguages,theencouragementof
multilingualism has an ideological underpinning. The following quote from
the former Commissioner for Multilingualism (this policy field has had its
own commissariat since 2007, but the post has been abolished later)
expressesverywellthegoalsoftheEU,whichcanalsobefound similarly
formulatedinmany other EUlegaldocuments: “The abilitytocommunicate
in several languages is a great benefit for individuals, organisations and
companies alike. It enhances creativity, breaks cultural stereotypes,
encouragesthinking‘outsidethebox’,andcanhelpdevelopinnovative
productsandservices.Theseareallqualitiesandactivitiesthat have real
economic value. Multilingualism alsohelpstomakepeoplemoremobile to
pursue learning opportunities or job vacancies abroad countries. It is
beneficial for individuals, business and competitiveness. By extension, it is
crucialforachievingtheover‐archingpolicyaimfortheEuropeanUnion:the
Lisbon strategy to create more jobs and growth. (…) The Commission’s
multilingualism policy aims to draw these various strengths together. In
particular, its objective is to encourage language learning andpromoting

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

118
linguisticdiversityinsociety,promoteahealthymultilingualeconomy,and
give citizens access to European Union legislation in their ownlanguages”
(Orban2007).
Thelegitimacyofapolicywhichencouragesmultilingualismisfuelled,asthe
quotationshows,bytwomotives,aculturalandaneconomicone.Through
themultilingualismofitspeoplefirstofalltheUnionwouldliketocontribute
to an improvement in mutual understanding and to the reduction of
prejudice. Secondly it understands multilingualism as an investment in the
improvementofthehumancapital ofitscitizens,whichwill enablethemto
bemobilewithintheEuropeanmarketandtoworkoutsideofthenation
states,thuscontributingtotheeconomicgrowthofEuropeasawhole(cf.
also Linsenmann 2006: 355; Mickel & Bergmann 2005: 100). Regarding
multilingualismitbehavesinthesamemannerasinmanyotherpolicyfields:
InthefirstinstancetheEUisaneconomicunion,andobtaininglegitimacyfor
non‐economic policies is usually achieved by economic arguments(cf.for
equality of the sexes and family policies Gerhards et al. 2009,for
environmentalpoliciesGerhards&Lengfeld2008).
(b)ThemeasureswhichtheEUhastakentoencouragethemultilingualismof
itscitizensarevariousandusuallyembeddedintheeducationpoliciesofthe
EUasawhole.Inthisconnection“Socrates”and“LeonardodaVinci” were
the most important programmes integrated into the “Life Long Learning
Programme”in2007.Thisisaproactiveprogrammeforencouraging
transnationalcooperation inthe field ofeducation. The EU hasgrantedthe
programmefrom2007to2013aroundsevenbillionEuros.Itintegratesfour
different,individual programmes (cf.Directorate Generalfor Educationand
Culture2008).
COMENIUSisaimed atvariouspre‐school institutionsandschoolsup tothe
endofsecondaryschoolaswellasatschooladministration,teachertraining
and in‐service training. Comenius supports the mobility of school children,
student teachers and teachers, thereby supporting the learning of modern
foreignlanguages.Schoolpartnershipsaresupportedandthemobility of

3.FromNationStatestoaEuropeanSociety
119
school children, assistant teacher situations for student teachers abroad as
wellasin‐servicetrainingcoursesforteachersabroad.
ERASMUSisdirectedatuniversitiesandsupportsthemobilityofstudents,
lecturersandotherteachersinhigher education. Universitystudyabroadis
supported,internshipsabroad, guestlecturers, theorganisationof mobility,
orintensiveprogrammesandpreparatoryvisits.
LEONARDODAVINCI is the programme for cooperation in vocational
education and training. Stays abroad in vocational education and training
institutionsaresupported,projectsforthetransferandforthedevelopment
of innovations, partnerships, networks, preparatory visits and contact
seminars. The target groups are vocational education institutions, such as
vocationalschools,externalandindustry‐wideeducationalinstitutions,
companies, management and labour and their organisations, professional
associationsandchambersofcommerce.
GRUNDTVIGistheprogrammeforgeneraladulteducation.Theprogrammeis
opentoallinstitutionsofadulteducationinthe member states.Thiscanbe
publicinstitutions,suchasauthorities,administrationandgovernment
offices or institutions under public or private sponsorship, like initiatives,
clubs,furthereducationcolleges or non‐governmental organisations. The
mobility of those employed in adult education is supported in the form of
individual further training, study partnerships for the cooperation of
institutions from different partner states, projects for the development,
testing and distribution of projects and networks for the further
developmentofspecificsubjectsandthemesinadulteducation.
All these programmes not only deal with the acquisition of a foreign
language,butneverthelesslearningaforeignlanguageisoneoftheircentral
goals.45 The concrete programmes are enlarged upon by other, more
45 Anevaluationoftheprogramme“LifelongLearning”establishedin2007withreference
totheaimedforsuccessisnotavailabletodate.However,thereareseveralfindingson
thesuccessof the pilot programmesintegratedintotheprogramme (cf. on thissubject
McCoshanetal.2008).


FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

120
symbolic initiatives for the encouragement of multilingualism. Hence, for
example, 2001 was declared the year of languages; yearly the 26th
SeptemberiscelebratedaslanguagedayandtheEuropeanLanguageSealis
given for innovative projects in connection with the learning of languages
andtheirteaching(Lutjeharms2007:113).
InalloftheeffortsoftheEUtoimproveforeignlanguagecompetence, all
member states languages are treated equally, including the minority
languages.TheEUdoesnotsupportanypolicyforthesupportof a lingua
francainEurope,ithasnopreferenceforaparticularforeignlanguage.
LearningoneofthesmallerlanguagesissupportedbytheEUjustasmuchas
thelearning of the morewidely spread languages. Once againthe question
must be posed here, as to whether this is a meaningful policy. Abram de
Swaan(2004)doubtsthisandinthelastchapterofthepresentwork,in
whichthenormativequestionofanappropriatelanguagepolicyisdiscussed,
Iwillagreewithhisargument.DeSwaansuggeststhatequalsupportforall
languageshasinthelong‐termpreciselythereverse,non‐intended effectof
supporting one language, namely English. “The more languages the better
remains the battle‐cry. But this multiplicity of languages actually subverts
diversity:themorelanguagesthatcompete,themoreEnglishwilltakehold.
Inthegeneralconfusionoftongue,inwhichnoindigenouslanguage can
predominate, English automatically imposes itself as the sold, obvious
solution.ThatiswhathashappenedinIndiaandSouthAfrica,inNigeria,and
in the European Union. The hegemony of English is being hastened and
consolidated by the promotion of a multiplicity of languages – the by
EuropeanCommission,forinstance”(deSwaan2004:475).


  121








4.EUROPEANCITIZENS’TRANSNATIONALLINGUISTIC
CAPITAL

The processes of Europeanisation and globalisation taking placeinthe
membercountriesoftheEuropeanUnionentailnumerousopportunities as
wellaschallengesforthepeopleofEurope.Inordertoparticipate in the
processofEuropeanisation,toworkinanothermemberstate,tostudythere,
tospendholidaysthere, to establishnewcontactsandto becomepolitically
involved,theyhavetobeproficientinthelanguageofthecountrytheylivein.
Transnationallinguistic capital, as measuredby theability tospeakforeign
languages, is therefore a deciding factor in whether or not a person can
participate in the process of Europeanisation. With this resource at one‘s
command, new options become available; those speaking their native
languageonly,aretiedtotheirhomecountryandcannottakeadvantageofa
unitedEurope.
InthefirstsubchapterIwilladdresstheissueofwhetherandtowhatdegree
the citizens in the twenty‐seven EU countries have transnational linguistic
capital available and to what degree they speak English, the most widely‐
spokenlanguageinEuropewiththehighestlevelofcommunicativeuse.For
this, I will analyse the 2005 Eurobarometer survey (Eurobarometer 63.4).
The results reveal wide‐ranging differences in the extent people posses
transnational linguistic capital not only among the twenty‐seven countries
butalsowithinthecountriesaswell.Therefore,inasecondstepIamgoingto
tacklethequestionofhowthesedifferencescanbeexplained.Thereto I
enunciateatheoreticalexplanatorymodelandtestitfirstwithbivariateand

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

122
then with multivariate analysis’. Until now, only Neil Fligstein (2008) has
analysed foreign language proficiency of European citizens. We will go
beyondFligstein’sstudyinsofaraswewillpresentamoregeneral
explanatory model which takes micro as well as macro contexts into
consideration.

4.1WhoSpeaksHowManyLanguages?

ThesurveyformingthebasisofthefollowinganalyseswasconductedinMay
and June 2005 by the Institute TNS Infratest on behalf of the European
Commission.Includedwerepeoplefifteenyearsandabovewhowere
surveyedinface‐to‐faceinterviews.Thesamplesizeamountstoabout500
persons in smaller (i.e. Malta, Luxembourg), and 1,000 persons in larger
countries.Aweightingofthedataaccordingtoage,gender,regionandsizeof
the place of residence ensures the representativeness for a country’s
population.Astheweightingalsoaccountsforthepopulationof the
respective states, the Eurobarometer results are representative for all
twenty‐seven member states. Such a weighting has been used in all the
followinganalyses.
Beforeturningtowardsthefindingsoftheanalysis,Iintendto define the
termoftransnationallinguisticcapitalanditsoperationalisation more
precisely. Up to now I have referred to transnational linguistic capital in
general.Multilingualismismanifestinfourdifferentabilitiesthatarejointly
connected:inunderstanding,speaking,readingandwritingalanguage.Both
ofthepassiveabilities(understandingandreading)areeasiertolearnthan
the two active ones (speaking and writing); writing a foreign language is
definitively the most difficult aspect of foreign language proficiency. The
empiricalanalysesreferonlytothespeakingofaforeignlanguage. Among
otherquestions the intervieweeswere asked inthe Eurobarometer survey,
“Whichlanguagesdoyouspeakwellenoughtohaveaconversationin?”The
answers to this question constitute the central dependent variable of our
study.Eventhoughthereisnoempiricalinformationavailableon the

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
123
abilitiestounderstand,readandwrite,onecanassumethatthosespeakinga
foreign language are also better able to understand, read and write the
respectivelanguagethanthoseforwhomthisdoesnotapply.
AscanbeseenfromthequestionnaireoftheEurobarometerforeign
languageabilityisnotmeasuredbyalanguagetest,butrather–asisthecase
formostlarge‐scalesurveys–byrespondents’ownsubjectiveself‐
evaluation. The question then arises as to whether self‐evaluation is an
adequatetooltomeasuretherespondents’“actual”linguisticcapabilityorto
whatdegreepeoplewronglyestimatetheirabilities.Severalstudiesindicate
thatself‐evaluationisagoodmeasureoflanguageproficiency.
Inhisstudyonmigrants’foreignlanguageacquisition,HartmutEsser(2006)
hasdedicated a wholesubchapter to this methodological question(chapter
7.6)andevaluatedallrelevantreferencesanddatasources,sothatIcanrely
onEsser’s argumentation. All inall Esser arrivesat the conclusionthat the
subjective self‐evaluation of language competence can indeed be used as a
replacementindicatorforanobjectivemeasurementofcompetence.
Thereare several studiesavailable in whichboth subjective self‐evaluation
and concrete language tests wereconductedformeasuringlanguage
proficiency. Although the correlation between the two measures deviates
acrossdifferentstudies,thefactthatthecorrelationliesbetween.58and.46
(Esser2006:527f.)showsthatthereisarobustcorrelationbetweenfactual
andperceivedlinguisticability.46
In his study Esser is interested in explaining migrants’ foreign language
competence.Hedevelopedamodeltoexplainforeignlanguagecapabilityand
appliedittoboth subjectiveself‐evaluationsofforeignlanguage proficiency
andthe results oflanguage tests. Bothmodel calculations showexactlythe
samecausalstructure,eventhoughtheexplainedvariancevaries in both
models.Withregardtoourquestionthisfindingmeansthatthesubjective
46 Christian Dustmann and Arthur van Soest (2001) have shown that the subjective self‐
evaluation can entail systematical false estimations. Especially beginners often
overestimatetheirfactual abilities; over time theself‐evaluationadaptstotheobjective
competence.Onthisbasistheauthorstriedtocalculateastatist ic correction that they
usedintheanalysis.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

124
evaluation of one’s own foreign language competence can by all means be
used as replacement measurement of the objective command of foreign
languages.Nomistakeisbeingmadeintermsofthestructureofthecausal
explanation when one uses self‐evaluation of language proficiency to
measure real language competence. Moreover, we assume that the self‐
evaluationmeasurementasitisusedinouranalysiswillnotleadtoanybias
inrespect to differences between countries, since it is implausible that, for
example Swedes overvalue their command of foreign languages, whereas
Polesundervalueit.
Table4.1showsthenumberofforeignlanguagesEuropeancitizensspeak.In
additiontothecategories“none”,“one”,“two”and“threeormore”,wehave
calculatedeachcountry’smeanandstandarddeviation(cf.forananalysisof
the foreign language competence in fifteen EU countries in Fligstein 2008:
147ff.). The term foreign language proficiency used in the table and the
followingexplanations requires somecomments. Includedare personswho
haveacquiredfurther languagesduringtheirlife,in additiontotheir native
languageandpersonswhohavegrownupwithtwoorevenmorenative
languages, due to the fact that two or more languages were spoken in the
familyorthedirectenvironment.


4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
125
Table4.1: Transnational linguistic capital in 27 countries of the European
Union(in%)
ForeignLanguages  
none one two

three Mean S
EU2751.327.115.16.60.770.93
Hungary 70.6 18.4 9.0 2.0 0.42 0.74
UnitedKingdom 70.0 20.4 7.5 2.1 0.42 0.72
Portugal 64.1 16.3 13.9 5.7 0.61 0.92
Spain 63.9 23.7 9.2 3.3 0.52 0.79
Italy 63.7 24.3 9.4 2.6 0.51 0.77
Romania 59.4 21.4 14.2 5.0 0.65 0.90
Ireland 59.2 24.9 12.9 3.0 0.59 0.82
France 55.5 27.8 12.8 3.9 0.65 0.85
Bulgaria 54.6 28.9 12.4 4.1 0.66 0.85
Poland 50.9 26.1 12.8 10.2 0.82 1.01
Greece 50.6 32.7 13.5 3.2 0.69 0.82
Austria 41.6 33.6 15.2 9.7 0.93 0.98
Germany 40.6 36.7 18.7 4.0 0.86 0.86
CzechRepublic 40.0 32.3 19.2 8.6 0.97 0.97
Finland 33.7 24.4 22.6 19.4 1.28 1.13
Slovakia 31.1 26.8 22.9 19.3 1.31 1.11
Belgium 28.9 22.5 25.5 23.0 1.43 1.13
Cyprus 27.8 52.8 13.9 5.6 0.96 0.81
Estonia 13.8 37.9 31.0 17.2 1.54 0.94
Denmark 12.6 25.2 35.3 26.9 1.77 0.99
Sweden 12.3 40.7 28.1 18.9 1.54 0.94
Slovenia 11.1 27.8 33.3 27.8 1.77 0.98
Lithuania 9.8 43.5 32.6 14.1 1.51 0.85
Netherlands 8.6 22.5 43.5 25.5 1.86 0.90
Latvia 6.6 49.5 34.1 9.9 1.47 0.76
Malta 4.8 33.3 42.9 19.0 1.74 0.86
Luxembourg 0.0 4.3 26.1 69.6 2.61 0.64
N=26,520

(1)OneoftheEuropeanUnion’sstatedgoalsisthatitscitizensshouldspeak
two foreign languages or more; however, the EU is far from reaching this
goal.OverhalfofEUcitizenscannotspeakanyforeignlanguageatall,about
one‐quarter speak at least one foreign language, and only fifteen percent
speaktwoormore.Forthemthenationstateisindeedacontainer, the
leavingofwhichinvolvesmanydifficultiesinunderstanding.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

126
(2) The results also show considerable differences between countries;
whereasalmosteverycitizeninLuxembourgandoverninetypercent of
citizensinLatvia,Malta,andtheNetherlandsspeakaforeignlanguage,this
percentageshrinkstoonlyone‐thirdincountrieslikeHungary,Portugal,
GreatBritain,and Spain.Because a numberof factorsact simultaneously to
reinforceorcontradictoneanother,itisnoteasytoexplaintherankingofthe
countries.PeoplelivingincountriesthatuseEnglishastheirnativelanguage
(like Great Britain and Ireland) have very low levels of transnational
linguisticcapital,whereascitizensofverysmallcountries (like Luxembourg
and Malta) have especially high levels. Higher levels of modernisation also
seemtopromotefluencyinmultiplelanguages,whichwillbediscussedlater
oninmoredetail.
(3)Finally,theresultsshowhighlevelsofvariancewithinanygivencountry.
Theaveragestandarddeviationis0.93ona0‐3scale.Thismeansthatthere
are citizens with high levels of transnational linguistic capital as well as
peoplewithoutanyineverygivenEUmemberstate.Theinternal variance
canbetracedbacktoeducational,class,andcohortdifferences, as we will
discussinthefollowingsections.
Iftheability tospeakseveral languagesisinterpreted asacentral resource
allowing participation in processes of transnationalisation and
Europeanisation, then the first empirical results show that this resource is
distributedveryunequally.AsIhaveexplainedinchapter2.1multilingualism
is connected with a multitude of advantages: It facilitates studying in
different countries and improves educational options, it enhances the
opportunitiesatthelabourmarketandmakesiteasierforcompanies, or
rathertheirmembersofstafftodevelopnewmarkets.Scholars’possibilities
toavailthemselvesofotherresearchers’findingsandtomakeavailabletheir
own in order to improve their reputation, is enhanced by having
transnational linguistic capital. Furthermore, multilingualism increases the
possibilities to mingle with potential acquaintances, friends and partners.
Additionallyitimproveschancesofpoliticalinvolvementinaworldwhichis
intheprocessofglobalisationandEuropeanisation.Finally,multilingualism

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
127
is connected with symbolic gratifications, since presenting oneself as a
multilingualspeakerindifferentsettingscanbeinterpretedasastrategyfor
defininganew,emergingtransnationalelite.Multilingualismisacapitalable
toincreaseone’sincomeandatthesametimeameansofdistinctionfrom
thosewhodonothavethesameresources.
Uptonowwehaveunderstoodtransnationallinguisticcapitalasreferringto
the number of foreign languages one speaks, fully independent of the
question of which concrete foreign languages these are. If however,
transnational linguistic capital is taken as a resource to communicate with
other people, this resource’s usability will be essentially dependent on the
numberofspeakerswhocanbereachedwiththatforeignlanguage. The
numberofcommunicationpartnerswithinreachiscalculatedfromthesum
ofalanguage’snativespeakersand the number of persons speaking this
languageasaforeignlanguage.Everylanguagestudiedbyapersonasforeign
language has a communicative value, a so‐called Q‐value (cf. deSwaan
2001a/b).
Luxembourgish, for example, is only spoken by about 300,000 native
speakersandveryfewnon‐nativespeakers,ascomparedtoGerman,whichis
spokenbyoveronehundredmillionEuropeans.LearningLuxembourgish,
therefore, has a much smaller effect on one’s ability to communicate with
other people than learning German would have. The following table shows
themost‐widelyspokenlanguagesintheEU.
Table4.2: Most widely spoken languages in 27 countries of the European
Union(in%)
ForeignornativelanguageOnlyforeignlanguage
English 45.9 33.8
German 28.7 1.4
French 22.4 10.8
Italian 14.9 2.4
Spanish 12.7 4.4
Russian 5.9 5.4
N26,47626,469


FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

128
Evenwhenthecitizens’nativeandforeignlanguageproficiencyisdistributed
across many languages, there are only five languages, be it as a native or
foreignlanguage,spokenbyovertenpercentofEUcitizens.Theselanguages
havethehighestcommunicativevalue(Q‐value),withEnglishbeingthemost
widely‐spokeninEurope,asistobeexpectedfollowingthelineofargument
inthelastchapter.Afterall,43.1%ofEuropeansareabletocommunicate
with one another in that language. Therefore, for EU citizens who begin
learningaforeignlanguageinordertocommunicatewithasmany other
peopleas possible it makes sense to choose English first.This is especially
truetakingintoconsiderationnotonlytheEuropeanlanguageconstellation,
butthenumberofpeoplewhospeakEnglishbeyondEurope.Aswehave
seeninchapter3.1Englishisthemostwidelyspokenlanguageintheworld,
either as native or foreign language. Compared to Chinese whichisthe
language that has the most native speakers, English is more widely spread
acrossdifferent regions of theworld. Moreover, it iseasier for most ofthe
speakers to study English rather than Chinese due to the fact that the
linguisticdistancebetweenmostlanguagesandEnglishislessthanbetween
theselanguagesandChinese.
IfpeopleoreducationalinstitutionsinEuropedecidetolearn, teach or
promoteaforeignlanguageandindoingsofollowtheprincipleofgainingthe
greatestpossiblebenefitintheformofthe reaching ofasmanyspeakersas
possible, they will probably decide in favour of English because this is the
predominant language in Europe. The degree to which the citizens of the
twenty‐seven EU member states speak Europe’s dominant language can be
seenintable4.3.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
129
Table4.3:Englishproficiencyin27countriesoftheEuropeanUnion(in%)
NoEnglish
proficiency
Englishas
foreignor
nativelanguage

Englishas
foreign
language
EU2754.145.933.8
UnitedKingdom 0.5 99.5 7.4
Ireland 0.5 99.5 6.0
Malta 4.8 95.2 90.5
Netherlands 12.4 87.6 87.3
Sweden 15.0 85.0 85.0
Denmark 15.8 84.2 83.5
Cyprus 27.8 72.2 72.2
Luxembourg 33.3 66.7 66.7
Finland 39.6 60.4 59.9
Slovenia 44.0 56.0 55.6
Austria 45.1 54.9 53.3
Belgium 48.2 51.8 51.7
Germany 48.9 51.1 50.8
Greece 56.1 43.9 43.5
Estonia 58.6 41.4 41.4
France 65.7 34.3 33.8
Latvia 65.9 34.1 34.1
Italy 70.7 29.3 28.6
Portugal 72.8 27.2 26.4
Romania 73.4 26.6 26.5
Poland 74.1 25.9 25.4
Lithuania 74.3 25.7 25.7
Slovakia 75.8 24.2 24.2
CzechRepublic 76.2 23.8 23.7
Spain 79.3 20.7 19.8
Hungary 83.8 16.2 15.9
Bulgaria 84.6 15.4 15.1

Atfirstglancethetableisnoteasytointerpret,becausethecountrieswhich
aresimilarintermsoftheircommandofEnglishdosofordifferentreasons.
Altogether, four groups emerge which differ in their level of English
competence (reference point of the interpretation is the central column
showingthepercentageofpersonswhospeakEnglisheitherasnativeoras
foreignlanguage):

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

130
ThefirstgroupconsistsofcountriesinwhichEnglishistheofficiallanguage
oroneofthem.Englishlanguageproficiencyisalmostonehundredpercent
inthesecountries(UnitedKingdom,Ireland,andMalta).
The secondgroupismadeupofsmall,highlymodernisedcountrieslike
Denmark,Sweden,Luxembourg,andFinland.Between60and87%ofpeople
inthesecountriesspeaksEnglish.
The thirdgroup contains countries in which 34 to 60% of the population
speaksEnglish.Therearehighlydevelopedcountries like Germany,Austria,
andBelgiuminthisgroup,aswellassmallerandlessmodernisedcountries
likeGreece,Estonia,andSlovenia.
Thefourthgroup,forwhichEnglishlanguageproficiencyliesbetween15and
35%,consists ofRomanic countries (France, Spain, Italy,and Portugal) and
manyEasternEuropeancountries(Latvia,Romania,Poland,Lithuania,
Slovakia,TheCzechRepublic,Hungary,andBulgaria).
Dividingthecountriesintothesegroupsgivesusseveralhintsastothe
causalfactorsthatmayhaveaninfluenceonEnglishlanguageproficiency,
likecountry sizeorlevel ofmodernisation, etc.Before turningtowardsthis
issue in the following chapter, I would like to analyse what people think
about the relevance of foreign languages. The fact that about half of the
citizens do not speak any foreign language might correspond to their own
wishes.IntheEurobarometersurveypeoplewereaskedhowmany
languagesoneshouldbeabletospeakintheEU.Table4.4presents the
percentageof interviewees sayingthat EUcitizens shouldhave atleastone
foreignlanguageattheircommand.
AstheresultsshowthereisaEurope‐wideconsensusthatpeopleshouldbe
proficientinatleastoneforeignlanguage.Allinall,ninetypercentofthe
respondentsagree tothat idea; thevariance betweenthe countriesis quite
small.ThefactthathalfofthecitizensofEuropedonotspeakasingleforeign
languageobviouslyderivesonlytoaminordegreefromtheirmotivationand
hencemusthavedifferentcauses.


4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
131
Table4.4:Numberofforeignlanguagesoneshouldlearn(in%)
Atleastone
foreign
language
Noforeign
language
N
EU2789.610.425,357
Cyprus 97.2 2.8 496
Greece 97.1 2.9 996
Poland 95.7 4.3 981
Lithuania 95.5 4.5 982
Latvia 95.5 4.5 979
Estonia 94.7 5.3 984
Denmark 94.7 5.3 1,017
Belgium 92.8 7.2 997
CzechRepublic 92.5 7.5 1,017
Sweden 92.3 7.7 1,038
Luxembourg 91.7 8.3 496
Netherlands 91.5 8.5 1,026
Spain 91.3 8.7 933
Hungary 90.5 9.5 980
Italy 90.3 9.7 971
Malta 90.0 10.0 478
Germany 89.4 10.6 1,522
Slovakia 88.6 11.4 1,015
Bulgaria 88.1 11.9 833
France 87.9 12.1 994
Slovenia 87.6 12.4 1,004
Portugal 86.6 13.4 919
Ireland 85.7 14.3 910
Romania 85.0 15.0 856
UnitedKingdom 84.5 15.5 984
Finland 84.1 15.9 1,011
Austria 82.7 17.3 938

In addition, citizens were asked which languages children should learn
besidestheownnativelanguage.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

132
Table4.5:Foreignlanguageschildrenshouldlearn
Mostoften
mentioned
Secondmost
oftenmentioned
Thirdmostoften
mentioned
EU27EnglishFrenchGerman
Belgium English French Dutch
Bulgaria English German Russian
Denmark English German Spanish,French
Germany English French Spanish
Estonia English Russian German
Finland English Swedish German
France English Spanish German
Greece English German French
UnitedKingdom French Spanish German
Ireland French German Spanish
Italy English French Spanish,German
Latvia English Russian German
Lithuania English Russian German
Luxembourg French English German
Malta English Italian French
Netherlands English German French
Austria English French Italian
Poland English German Russian
Portugal English French German
Romania English French German
Sweden English German Spanish
Slovakia English German French
Slovenia English German Italian
Spain English French German
CzechRepublic English German Russian,French
Hungary English German French
Cyprus English French German

Asthe resultsintable 4.5show, inall countriesin whichEnglish isnot the
nativelanguage,itisthelanguagethatisstatedmostoften.Luxembourgisan
exception. The reason for that might be that here the benefits from being
proficientinFrenchareindeedhigherthanbeingproficientinEnglish,since
alargepartofthepopulationspeaksFrenchandthecommandofFrenchis
especially useful taking into account the neighbourhood to, andtheclose
relationswith France. Thedistribution of languages being statedas second
andthirdforeignlanguagescomplieswiththeexpectationsthatderivefrom
thetheoryofcommunicativevalue.Ontheonehandpeopleprefer to learn

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
133
thoselanguagesthatarewidelyspreadacrossEuropeandtheworld.Onthe
otherhandtherearecharacteristicsspecifictocountriesaffectingtheforeign
language’s expected communication benefit. Thus, the large Swedish
minorityinFinlandmightbethecauseofthefactthatFinnsnameSwedishas
the second most important language. Similar reasons might explain why
peopleoftheBalticstatesgivehighprioritytoRussian.

4.2ExplainingDifferencesinTransnationalLinguisticCapital

Wehaveseenthatmultilingualismvariesconsiderablybetweenthecountries
as well as within the countries; the same applies to English asaforeign
language.InthefollowingIwill firstlypresenta generalexplanatorymodel
thatcanhelpusexplainthedifferencesinmultilingualism(chapter 4.2.1).
Second,wewillformulateconcretehypothesesthatstemfromthe
explanatory model and test them withabivariateanalysis.Thethird step
testsourhypotheseswithamultivariateanalysis.AsIaminterestedinboth
theexplanationofthelevel oftransnationallinguisticcapitalingeneral and
theexplanationofEnglishlanguageproficiency,thiswillbefollowedbytwo
separatesubchapters.Chapter4.2.2focusesontheexplanationofthelevelof
transnationallinguisticcapitalandchapter4.2.3ontheexplanation of
English.

4.2.1AGeneralModeltoExplainTransnationalLinguisticCapital
There are different theoretical approaches which have tried to explain
language acquisition. Hartmut Esser (2006: 65‐73) has recently presented
and summarised different approaches from linguistics, economics, and
sociology. He comes to the conclusion that most theories have avarietyof
commonalitiesamongeachother,bothintermsofthestatedfactors which
could explain foreign language proficiency as well as in terms of the

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

134
postulated causal mechanisms.47 Esser himself synthesises the different
theoreticalapproachesandlinkstheexplanationofforeignlanguage
acquisition with a general theory of social behaviour. Thereby he follows
other scientists who have tried to explain language and foreign language
acquisition and have proposed and tested similar explanatory models (e.g.
Lieberson1970,1981;Selten&Pool1991;Espenshade&Fu1997;Chiswick
& Miller 2001; van Tubergen & Kalmijn 2005; Van Parijs 2004, 2011;
Chiswick2007;Braun2010; Hans 2010).Iwillbase myownexplanationin
the following on Esser’s considerations. However, Esser is interested in
explainingtheconditionsofacquiringaforeignlanguagebymigrantsandnot
bynatives. Firstof all I will explainEsser’s generalmodel and nextdiscuss
thespecialconditionsofmultilingualismofnon‐migrants.
Esser’s explanatory model of foreign language acquisition by migrants
consistsfirstofallofanexplanatorycoremodellingthedecisiontostudy a
foreignlanguageasaninvestmentdecision,secondlyasthedeterminationof
those societal conditions which impact on the different dimensions of the
coremodeltherebyinfluencingthedecisiontoacquireaforeignlanguage.

(a)Generalexplanatorymodel:foreignlanguageacquisitionasinvestment
decision
(1)AccordingtoEsser,migrantswhoenteranewsocietybasicallyhavetwo
options in terms of the acquisition of the language of the immigration
country:Theycaneitherdecidetostudythenewlanguageortheycanstick
totheirmothertongueandnottrytoacquiretheforeignlanguage.Both of
thetwo alternatives form twopoles of a scale;between the poles different
degreesofinvestmentintheforeignlanguageacquisitioncanbelocated.
(2) If and to which degree actors invest in acquiring a foreign language
dependsonthequestionwhetherthe outcomeof theinvestmentminus the
costsarisingishigherthantheoutcomeoccurringwithoutinvestingin the
47 While the economic theories explain exactly the mechanisms and partly model them
mathematically, the other approaches remain to agreater extentimplicitlyformulated;
however,Esserbarelydetectssubstantialdifferences.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
135
acquisitionofaforeignlanguage. BeingfluentinEnglishmight,for example
helppeopletoachievebetterpositionsinthelabourmarketthanpeoplewho
donothavethiscompetence.ScholarswritinginEnglishandaccordingly
being able to publish in English journals achieve, for example,abroader
readership;thiscanleadtoamorefrequentcitationoftheirworkandthusa
higher reputation in the respective “scientific community”. Moreover, this
mightbringwithitbetterchancesformoreattractivejobpositionsincluding
ahighersalary.Ananalogicalsituationapplies,forinstance,totheprofession
ofsecretaries.InthepublicsectorinGermanysecretariesspeaking several
languagesareratedatahigherpaygroupthanthosenotfulfilling this
condition.Atthesametimetherearecosts,especiallytimecostsconnectedto
theacquisitionofforeign languages.Inorderto being abletowritewithout
mistakesinaforeignlanguagealongtimemustbespentonstudying this
language.Itishardtocalculatehowhighthesecostsareexactly.Referringto
the relevant literature Philippe Van Parijs (2004: 132), who has dealt
extensivelywiththeanalysisofforeignlanguages,statesthefigureof10,000
hoursasbeingneededinordertolearnalanguage(seealsoGrin2004;van
Parijs2011).Asspeculativeassuchanumbermightbeandaslittleaccounts
forindividualdifferencesinlearningaforeignlanguage,itexpressesthefact
thatacquiringaforeignlanguage is relatedtoconsiderablecosts.According
tothisassumption,investmentintheacquisitionofaforeignlanguagetakes
placeonlyiftheoutcomeoftheinvestment,minusthecostsarising,paysof
incomparisonnotdoingso.
(3)Whethertheinvestmentintheacquisitionofaforeignlanguageisworth
it, now depends on three general conditions: (a) on the opportunities, the
accesstofacilitiesforlearningalanguage,(b)onthemotivationtomakean
investmentinaforeignlanguageandfinally(c)onthecoststhemselves
(Esser 2006: 41; Chiswick & Miller 2001; van Tubergen & Kalmijn 2005;
summarisingChiswick2007;cf.alsoalreadySelten&Pool1991).48
48 Thethreefactorsarerootedinotherpropositionsofdimensioning.BarryR.Chiswikand
Paul W. Miller (2001) and later Frank van Tubergen and Matthijs Kalmijn (2005)
differentiatethe following factors:„Exposure“,being identical to the term used here of
opportunity,“efficiency”meaningcosts,and „incentives”referringtothetermusedhere

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

136
Access,orrathertheopportunitystructure,constitutesacentralprecondition
ofacquiringaforeignlanguage.If,forexamplethereexistscompulsory
schoolinginacountryandEnglishasfirstforeignlanguageisobligatoryfor
allstudents,amorefavourableopportunitystructureforstudyingEnglishis
available than if there is no obligation to learn a foreign language or if
Russianisthefirstcompulsoryforeignlanguage.
Even if the opportunities to acquire a foreign language are favourable, the
individualcanstillrefusetostudyaforeignlanguage.Motivationforlearning
aforeignlanguageisanotherfactorthatinfluencesacquisitionandcan,in
turn,beinfluencedbyanumberofotherfactors.Sociologistsare not only
interested in idiosyncratic, individual motives, but also in collective
preferences.Somecountriesandlanguagesareviewedashighlyprestigious;
somearenot.SeparatistCatalonians,forexample,maybemoremotivatedto
improve their Catalan rather than their Castilian Spanish; similarly, Iraqis
whoviewAmericantroopsasanoccupying force maybeaversetolearning
English,thelanguageoftheiroccupiers.
Lastly,the costsattached tolearning aforeign languageare important.The
lower the monetaryandnonmonetarycostsoflearning, the more likely
someone is to acquire a foreign language. For highly‐educated people with
previous learning experience, the cost required to learn a foreign language
would be less than for people with little education and few study skills.49
Moreover,thedifferentforeignlanguagesvaryintermsoftheeffortneeded
tostudythem.IfaSwedeoraGermanwantstolearnChinese,hewouldhave
tolearnanewsystemofcharacters,butnotifhedecidestolearnSpanish.
ThecostsoflearningSpanishforaGermanoraSwedearethereforesmaller
thanthecostsoflearningChinese.
of motivation. Later on Esser (2006: 73ff.) differentiates four factors decisive for the
acquisitionoflanguage:motivation,opportunity,costsandefficiency.Efficiencydescribes
the pace of learning a language. To me this seems to be a subsetofcosts–thefaster
someonelearns,thesmallerarehistimecosts;accordingly,thefactorisdiscountedhere.
49 Ofcourse,therespondent’seducationdoesnotonlyaffectthecostsofacquiringaforeign
language, but is above all connected with the opportunity structure as the foreign
languagetrainingispartoftheacademiccurriculum.Themorehighlyeducatedsomeone
is,themoretimeheorshehasspentineducationalinstitutions,thelongerheorshehas
beentaughtforeignlanguages.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
137
(b)Societalconditionsinfluencingforeignlanguageacquisition
This explanatory model only describes the general dimensions and
mechanisms of learning a foreign language. The opportunity structures,
motivation,andcostsofforeignlanguageacquisitionare,however,allfactors
whichindividualsonlyhavelimitedinfluenceover.Somepeoplegrowupin
post‐industrialsocietiesthatrequirestudentstolearntwoforeignlanguages;
othersfromlessmodernisedsocietiesattendschoolswhereforeignlanguage
education is still underdeveloped. Social class is also a factor that matters;
upper class or upper middle class parents who value foreign languages
impartthisvaluetotheirchildrenandcanalsobackuptheirconvictionwith
financial resources and by sending their children to an English language
boardingschoolsothattheycanlearnEnglishproperly.Incontrast,working
classfamiliesoftendo notvalueeducationand foreign languagelearningto
thesameextentasupperandmiddleclassparentsdo;andmayalsonothave
thefinancialresourcesto facilitatesuchlearning.Theseexamplesshowthat
opportunities, motivation, and costs are highly influenced by societal
conditions. However, these societal conditions which impact on foreign
languageacquisitionplayadifferentroleformigrantsthantheydofornon‐
migrants.
Migrantsofthefirstgenerationusuallystudythelanguageoftheimmigration
countryasadults andareable tospendmore orless effort onlearningthis
language.Sofarwearetalkingaboutpeoples’decisionseithertoinvestinthe
acquisitionofaforeignlanguageornot.Thesituationfornon‐migrantswho
learnaforeignlanguageisusuallydifferent.Theystudyforeignlanguagesin
the educational institutions of their countries. In some countries it is
obligatorytostartaforeignlanguageinthefirst,thirdorfifthgradeandtwo
years later another one. Partly also the choice of a specific language is
prescribed,inGermany,forexampleEnglish.Ofcourse,adultsalsostilllearn
foreign languages by attending adult evening classes, language courses
abroadorprivatelanguageschoolsathome;thepercentageofthosewhodo
so is small in comparison. Hence, for foreign language acquisition by non‐

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

138
migrantstheleewayformakingindividualdecisionsseemstobeessentially
smallerthanformigrantslearninganewlanguageasadults.Hence, the
assumption that language learning is an investment decision is not
completely appropriate. To a great extent the decision of the individual is
determinedbystructural factors.This,though, altersnothingabout thefact
thattheopportunities,thecostsandthemotivations affect foreignlanguage
acquisition.
In the following I will attempt to explain the probable effects of societal
conditionson the opportunities,motivation, and costs of learninga foreign
language. The differences in transnational linguistic capital between EU
memberstatesshownintable4.1,canbetracedbacktovarying societal
conditionsineachcountryaffecting opportunities,costsand/ormotivations
tostudyaforeignlanguage.Therefore,memberstatesstandasaplaceholder
forvaryingconstellationsofsocietalconditionsthatexistincertainsocieties
andthatinfluenceforeignlanguageproficiency.
Byrelatingsocietalconditionstothetheory’sexplanatorycore,forinstance
to the costs, opportunities and the motivation, we follow the Hempel‐
Oppenheimmodelofexplanationastheexplanandumisdeducedfrommore
general hypotheses and antecedent conditions. Thus, the accusation of
practicingsociologylimitedonlytotheformulationofad‐hochypothesescan
beavoided.Atthesametime,linkingsocietalconditionstoatheoreticalcore
makesahighergeneralisationofthefindingspossible.
Before I deduce different hypotheses and then test them empirically, two
preliminaryremarksareneeded.
(1) The empirical analyses are based on a secondary analysis of
Eurobarometerdata.Thiscanleadto either alackofappropriateindicators
for testing one’s own explanatory assumptions or the impossibility for
preciselyoperationalisingtherespectivetheories,meaningthatoneand the
same variable can be assigned to several theoretical constructs. These
general limitations of secondary analyses also partially apply toourown
analysis.Admittedly,mostoftherelevantvariablesareavailableinthedata

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
139
set,thoughinsomecasesthevariablescannotbeassignedpreciselytooneof
the three relevant factors of the general explanatory model only –
opportunity,motivation,costs–butcanaffectseveralofthesefactors.
(2)There aretwo potential waysof presentingand testingthe hypotheses.
Usually, the presentation is structured according to the core model of the
explanation by dealing with the three hypotheses one after the other and
subsumingtherespectivesocietalconditions under thesethreedimensions;
this is the theoretically “correct” approach since it complies toagreater
extent with the logic of theoretical deduction. An alternative presentation
deals with the societal conditions one after the other and explains to what
extent which societal parameter condition affects which dimension of the
explanatorymodel. Asin thiscase we are analysing some of the conditions
having an impact on different dimensions of the explanatory model at the
sametime,itseemstome,tobemorereaderfriendlyandcleartofollowthe
secondmethod.

4.2.2ExplainingTransnationalLinguisticCapital
Every EU citizen is a member of a particular nation state with particular
institutionalstructures,oneormoreofficiallanguages,anationalmedia,and
acertain population size.These macro‐contexts which are quitesimilarfor
everycitizenofanindividualnation,butdifferbetweennations, affect the
chancesofbeingmultilingual.Atthesametime,citizensofanygivencountry
differfromoneanotherintermsoftheirsocialclass,theirlevelofeducation,
and their age. These “individual” characteristics in turn influence the
probabilityofbeingmultilingual.Accordingly, the societalconditions,which
are able to explain the level of transnational linguistic capital, can be
arranged in macro‐level factors on the one hand and individual
characteristicsontheotherhand.Wewillfocusfirstonmacro‐levelfactors
that affect transnational linguistic capital and then discuss individual‐level
factors.Table4.6givesanoverviewoftheconditionsandtheireffectonthe
threedimensionsofourexplanatorymodel.Thetablereferstoaproposition

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

140
byHartmutEsser(2006:93f.),though,thecontentofthetable is different.
Thisisduetotworeasons.Firstofall,Esserfocusesontheexplanationofthe
acquisition of a foreign language by migrants; different conditions apply in
partthantothegroupofcitizensstudyingaforeignlanguageintheirnative
country. Secondly, Esser’s study is not internationally comparative.
Correspondingly,disparitiesbetweendifferentmacro‐contextsareirrelevant
tohim.50
I will discuss and test the differenthypothesesinorder.Soas to
operationalisetheexplanatoryfactors,newvariableswereformed,partially
relyingontootherdatasets.Theprecisedescriptionofthedifferent
variablesistobefoundintheappendixattheveryendofthisbook.
Table4.6:Theoreticalmodelexplainingtransnationallinguisticcapital
Opportunities

CostsMotivation
Macrolevelfactors
Multipleofficiallanguages + +
Prevalenceofnative
language
–
Countrysize –  –
Levelofmodernityand
education
+ – 

Individuallevelfactors
Respondent’sage – + –
Respondent’ssocialclass +  +
Respondent’slevelof
education(institutional
culturalcapital)
+ – +
Foreignbirthofthe
respondentandhis/her
parents
+  
Identificationwithnative
language
  –

50Moststudieswhichhaveanalysedthelanguageproficiencyofmigrantsfocusonone
countryandthuscannotanalysetheeffectofdifferentmacro‐contexts.Exceptionsarethe
survey by Barry R. Chiswik and Paul W. Miller (1995) and the verygoodanalysesby
FrankvanTubergenandMatthijsKalmijn(2005).

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
141
(a)Institutionalisedlanguageconstellationandnumberofofficiallanguages
As we had seen in the last chapter, most European countries became
linguisticallyhomogenisedasaresultofnationstatebuildinganddesignated
onelanguageastheofficiallanguage; Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, and
Ireland,however,havetwoofficiallanguages,andcitizensofthesecountries
aresometimesrequiredtolearnbothnationallanguages,eitherinschoolor
inotherenvironments.Theopportunitiesforlearningaforeignlanguageare
thereforemuch morepronounced in these countries thanin countrieswith
only one national language. Additionally, institutionally bilingual societies
mayhaveapositiveeffectonthemotivationofcitizenstolearnthesecond
language, because knowledge of both official languages would improve
accesstoabroaderlabourmarket,andincreasesocialandpoliticalnetworks,
etc.51
Table4.7: Number of official languages in a country and citizens’
transnationallinguisticcapital(in%)
Oneofficial
language
Twoormoreofficial
languages
Noforeignlanguage 51.8 25.1
Oneforeignlanguage 27.2 22.8
Twoforeignlanguages 14.8 22.8
Threeforeignlanguages 6.1 19.3
N23,5103,010
r=0,10***;Spearman’sRho=0,08***;Tau‐b=0,08***

Theresultsoftable4.7confirmourhypothesis,thatthepercentageofpeople
who speak multiple languages is higher in countries with institutionalised
multilingualismthanincountrieswithonlyoneofficiallanguage.

51 In Ireland bilingualism is indeed legally codified but is factuallynotpractisedbythe
population;onlyasmallpercentageoftheIrishspeaksGaelic;ifIrelandisclassifiedasa
monolingualcountrythestatisticcorrelationbecomesclearlystrongerinthetable.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

142
(b)Prevalenceofanativelanguageandthecommunicativevalueofaforeign
language
AsIhaveshowninchapter2.1,theprimaryfunctionoflanguageistoallow
people to communicate with one another; speaking the same language
increases the opportunities of cooperation and identification with other
people.Peoplewholiveinasocietywherealargenumberofpeople speak
thesamelanguagehavemoreopportunitiestocommunicatethandopeople
wholiveinsocietieswhereonlyasmallnumberofpeoplespeak their
language. This second group of people is therefore more likely tolearna
foreignlanguageinordertoincreasetheirabilitytocommunicatewithmore
people.52Inotherwords,thecommunicationalvalueofaforeignlanguageis
lowerforpeoplewhospeak(eitherasanativeorforeignlanguage) a
languagespokenbymanyandishigherforpeoplewhodonot.Thisislikely
tohaveaneffectonthemotivationtolearnaforeignlanguage(cf.deSwaan
1993;2001/b).53
Totestthishypothesis,thedifferentcountrieswereclassified into two
groups: countries whose language is spoken by either more than or fewer
than ten percent of the EU population (as either a native or a foreign
language).Ithenanalysedwhetherbothofthegroupsdiffersignificantlydue
totheirtransnationallinguisticcapital.Secondly,Icalculatedthemean
betweenthedegreeofprevalenceoftherespectivelanguageandthecitizens’
foreignlanguagecompetence.Theresultsofbothofthecalculations are
summarisedinthefollowingtable.
52 JochenRoose (2010: 129f.)shows thatinborder regions morepeopleareproficientin
thelanguage of the neighbouringcountrythanintherestofthecountry. He attributes
this to the higher benefit that is connected to the command of the language of the
neighbouringcountry.
53 Indoingsotheso‐called “Q value” of eachlanguageiscalculatedaccordingto acertain
formula:QiS=pi•ci=Pi/Ns•Ci/Ms.QiS:Communicationalutilityofthelanguageiin
theconstellationS.pi:Prevalenceofi,forinstance,thepercentageofthespeakersPofiof
thetotalnumberofthespeakersNintheconstellationS.Theprevalenceinformsabout
thenumberofspeakerswithwhomadirectcommunicationinthelanguageiispossible.
ci:Centralityofi,i.e.thepercentageofmultilingualspeakersChavingiintheirrepertoire
oflanguagesinrelationtoallmultilingualspeakersintheconstellationS. Centrality isa
measurefortheconnectionofIwithotherlanguagesintheconstellationS.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
143
Table4.8: Prevalence of a language and transnational linguistic capital(in
%)
Upto10%Over10%Mean
prevalence
Noforeign
language
37.4 59.4 20.8
Oneforeign
language
28.0 26.1 17.4
Twoforeign
languages
21.5 11.5 14.8
Threeforeign
languages
13.1 3.0 10.5
N17,3467,79825,144
r=‐0,27***;Spearman’sRho=‐0,25***;Tau‐b=‐0,24***;Eta=0,22***

Theresultsconfirmthehypothesis:Peoplewhoselanguageisprevalenthave
muchlowerlevelsoftransnationallinguisticcapitalthandopeople whose
languageisspokenbyfewerthantenpercentoftheEuropeanpopulation.
The mean values are to be interpreted as follows: The language of those
speaking three foreign languages is on average spoken by 10.5% of the
peopleintheEU(asforeignornativelanguage).Incontrast,thelanguageof
thosespeakingnoforeignlanguageisspokenby20.8%.Etacoefficientrefers
to the association between the mean values and transnational linguistic
capital,whereastheothermeasuresofassociationrefertothe relation
betweenthegroupingofthecountriesandmultilingualism.

(c)Countrysizeandforeignlanguagecompetence
A language‘s degree of prevalence is often connected with the size of a
country,insofarasthelanguagesofsmallercountrieshavealowandthoseof
biggercountriesahighdegreeofprevalence.Butthesizeofacountrycan
also affect the level of transnational linguistic capital in another way. The
smalleracountryisthebroaderisitsinternationalinterconnectedness.This
hasanimpactontheopportunitystructureaswellasonthemotivation to
acquire a foreign language. There are several arguments available in

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

144
literaturewhichmakethiscorrelationplausible(cf.tothefollowing
particularlyGeser1992).
Geometricallyspeaking,thecircumferenceofasurfaceincreasesmoreslowly
than does its interior area. This means that a small country (with a small
interiorarea)hasahigherthanaverageboundarylength(circumference)
withitsneighbours.Thisfactalonealreadyincreasestheprobability of
externalcontacts.AsisusuallythecaseinEurope,whenanational border
alsomarksachangeinlanguage,countrysizehasapositiveeffectonforeign
languageacquisition.Thusthesizeofacountryaffectstheopportunity
structureofacquiringaforeignlanguage.Thisisespeciallytrue for small,
economically modern societies. The probability of finding trading and
communicationpartnersinone’sown(linguisticallyhomogeneous)societyis
muchlowerinsmallcountriesthanitisinlargecountries.Thesmallcountry
size motivates internationalisation. That is why small countries’ economies
tendtobemoreinternationallylinkedthanlargercountries(cf.Katzenstein
1985). In turn the exchange with other countries becomes easierwhen
peoplespeaktheothercountry’slanguage(cf.vanTubergen&Kalmijn2005:
1419).
Thereisanotherreasonwhythesizeofthecountryprobablyhasanimpact
onthecitizens’commandofforeignlanguages.Peopledonotonly learn a
foreign language at educational institutions and via the directcontactto
peoplespeakingthat language.People also tendto learnlanguages through
themedia,andthetranslationandthedubbingofforeignmediaisonlyworth
theexpenseif theaudienceis of acertainsize. Iftheaudience size issmall,
thenforeignmediatendstobeleftinitsoriginallanguageandisdistributed
with subtitles. The cost for the dubbing of movies is about eleven times
higherthanthecostof subtitling (VanParijs2004:128,2011).Accordingly,
the share of media products distributedintheoriginallanguage is
considerably higher in small countries compared to that in big countries
(Kilborn1993;Hasebrink&Herzog2009).Peoplereceivingforeign‐language
mediaproducts willthereby improvetheir foreignlanguageproficiency (cf.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
145
Mitterer & McQueen 2009). The size of the country therefore affects the
opportunitystructureforforeignlanguagelearning.
Inordertotestthehypothesisoftherelationbetweenthesizeofacountry–
operationalisedbythenumberofinhabitants–andtheleveloftransnational
linguisticcapital,Icarriedouttwocalculations.Ontheonehand the
countrieswereclassifiedintodifferentgroupsaccordingtotheirsizeandthe
percentagedrelation with the foreignlanguage competence wascalculated.
Ontheotherhandthemeanvalueofthepopulationwasrelatedto the
foreign language proficiency. The results of both of the calculations are
summarisedinTable4.9.
Table4.9:Countrysizeandtransnationallinguisticcapital(in%)
Upto5
Mio.
5to11
Mio.
11to35
Mio.
Over35
Mio.
Mean
popu
lation
Noforeign
language
26.5 41.2 39.5 56.5 47.4Mio.
Oneforeign
language
36.3 26.8 24.3 27.3 46.8Mio.
Twoforeign
languages
25.2 19.4 24.2 12.2 40.7Mio.
Threeforeign
languages
11.9 12.6 12.0 4.0 30.4Mio.
N5,53410,3274,0556,6042,6520
r=‐0,20***;Spearman’sRho=‐0,20***;Tau‐b=‐0,18***;Eta=0,18***

Againtheresultsconfirmthehypothesis.Thelargeracountryisthehigheris
thepercentageofpeoplewhodonotspeakaforeignlanguage.56.5%ofthe
citizens in countries with more than 35 million inhabitants do not speak a
foreign language, whereas the percentage in countries of up to 5 million
inhabitants is only 26.5%. The average population of a country of those
speakingthreelanguagesamountsto30.4millioninhabitants.In contrast,
the size of the population in countries where no one is speaking a foreign
languageis47.4million.


FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

146
(d)Modernityandtransnationallinguisticcapital
The twenty‐seven EU member states differ in their levels of modernity.
AccordingtotheHumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI),ameasureoftenusedin
literatureformeasuringacountry’sdegreeofmodernity,Bulgaria and
Romania are the least modernised EU societies, as compared to Sweden,
Finland, Ireland, and the Netherlands which have the highest scores.54Up
untilthe presentday we do not knowexactly whichfactors haveadvanced
modernisation and how the causal relations between different factors are
determined.Theoutcomeoftheprocessofmodernisationisthedevelopment
ofasocietythatcanbedescribedbyasetofcharacteristics,whichtogether
formasyndrome(cf.Norris2002:20ff.).DanielBell(1973)distinguishestwo
phases of the modernisation process. Modernisation in the senseof
industrialisationimpliesthattheindustrialproductionofgoodsbecomesthe
dominant field of production with factories and formal organisations
becoming the dominant units of production. Goods and services are
distributedviamarkets,thedegreeoftheproduction’smechanisationishigh,
thelevel of educationrises, as doesurbanisation. Bell (1973) identifies the
second phase of modernisation as post‐industrialisation. Post‐
industrialisation is connected with an increasing importance oftheservice
sector, which hence becomes the dominant field of production. Technology
and scientific development increasingly gain relevance, a society’s level of
education rises significantly. Above all the increasing importance of
educationduringthemodernisation processrepresentsanimportant factor
for explaining the level of transnational linguistic capital. In the context of
modernisationitbecomesmanifestinavarietyofindicators:
First of all, the percentage of people included in the educational system
increases while the illiteracy rate and the percentage of thosenothaving
attended school become marginal. Secondly, the length of training is
graduallylengthened andthirdly – interrelatedwith that– theshareofthe
population attending higher institutions of learning increases continuously.
54 The HDI involves the real GNP per capita, the level of education and the average life
expectancy.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
147
Part of the improvement of education within the context of processes of
modernisationistheimprovementofforeignlanguageproficiency.Themore
andthe longer peopleremain intheircountries’ institutionsof learning the
better their education should be (ceteris paribus). Since foreign language
learningis apart of institutionalisededucation inall EUcountries, one can
expect that a country’s level of modernisation affects the foreign language
proficiency of its citizens. The educational system therefore creates
opportunities for foreign language acquisition: People living in a country
with a highly developed educational system will have more and longer
opportunitiestoacquireknowledgeinforeignlanguagesthanpeoplelivingin
acountrywithalessdevelopededucationalsystem.55
Inaddition,educationallevelscanimpactthecostsassociatedwithlearninga
foreignlanguage.Aspeoplebecomegenerallybettereducated,theyaremore
inclinedtolearnanewsubjectarea(suchasaforeignlanguage)andtodoso
morequickly.Thedurationandintensityoftheeducationiscloselyrelatedto
ageneralimprovementofstudytechniqueswhichthenreducethetime one
hastospendonacquiringanewlanguage.
In order to measure a country’s modernity the HDI can be used. A more
specific and therewith better operationalisation of the hypothesis is to
directlymeasurethelevelofdevelopmentofthedifferenteducational
systems of the twenty‐seven EU countries. For that purpose different
measurescanbeused.Weusedthemeasureof“yearlyexpenditureonpublic
and private institutions per full time pupil”, as measured in Euros PPS
(Purchasing Power Standard). This measure considers two reasonable
assignments of absolute measures of educational expenditures: on the one
hand the relation of expenditures to the number of trainees, ontheother
hand differences concerning the price level in the different countries by
taking into consideration purchasing power parities. With the help of
55 Frankvan Tubergenand Matthijs Kalmijn (2005) aswell asHarmut Esser (2006:114)
argueinasimilarwayintermsoftheacquisitionofthelanguage of that country into
whichmigrantshaveimmigrated.Peoplefromcountriesoforiginorregionswithahigh
levelofmodernityhaveadvantagesinacquiringanewlanguagecomparedtopeoplefrom
countrieswithalowlevelofmodernity.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

148
purchasing power parities the educational expenditures expressed in
nationalcurrencies are convertedinto a common artificial currency, the so
calledPPS.
Accordingtothiscalculation,DenmarkandAustriaspentover8,000 Euros
oneducationperpupilannually,andGreatBritain,Sweden,andthe
Netherlandsinvestedover7,000Euros.These countriesformthetopofthe
listintheEU.BulgariaandRomania,incomparison,investedlessthan2,000
EurosperpupilandthusbringuptherearwithintheEU.
Ihavecarriedouttwocalculationsinordertotestthecorrelationbetweena
country’slevelofmodernity,respectivelyitsinvestmentineducationandthe
levelof transnational linguisticcapital. Ontheone handthe countrieswere
divided into three groups of modernity, with regard to educational
expenditures. Then the percentage of people who speak none, one, two or
three foreign languages was calculated. Secondly, the mean value between
the degree of modernity or the educational expenditures and theforeign
languagecompetencewasassessed.
Table4.10:Levelofmodernization(HDI)andtransnationallinguisticcapital
(in%)
LowMiddleHighMeanHDI
Noforeign
language
51.6 48.7 53.0 0.918
Oneforeign
language
25.6 31.1 24.9 0.919
Twoforeign
languages
14.6 15.7 14.8 0.919
Threeforeign
languages
8.2 4.5 7.3 0.917
N8,1637,68210,67526,520
r=‐0,01;Spearman’sRho=‐0,02*;Tau‐b=‐0,01*;Eta=0,02

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
149
Table4.11:Expenditureoneducationandtransnationallinguisticcapital(in
%)
Low

MiddleHighMean
Expendit.
inEuro
Noforeign
language
49.1 58.7 43.9 5,554
Oneforeign
language
26.5 25.3 29.4 5,660
Twoforeign
languages
15.4 11.8 18.6 5,721
Threeforeign
languages
9.0 4.2 8.0 5,632
N7,14910,7178,15026,016
r=0,06***;Spearman’sRho=0,08***;Tau‐b=0,07***;Eta=0,04***

Theresultsinbothofthetablescometosimilarfindings:Thereisnostrong
correlationbetweenacountry’sdegreeofmodernitywithrespect to the
amountofeducationalexpenditureontheonehand and itscitizens’foreign
languageproficiencyontheotherhand.Althoughtheassociation measures
for the correlation of educational expenditures and transnational linguistic
capital point into the right direction, thus supporting the hypothesis, the
correlationisratherweak(evenifitissignificantbasedonthehighnumber
ofcases).
Whatcouldbethereasonsfortheweakrelationshipbetweenmodernisation
and educational expenditure on the one hand and transnational linguistic
capitalontheother?Modernisationlevelsandeducationalexpendituresare
probablycounteractedbyotherfactorsthataffectforeignlanguage
acquisition.Forexample,theUnitedKingdomisoneofthetopfourcountries
intermsofeducationalexpenditures,butEnglishisalsoitsofficiallanguage
(sothe communicational valueof aforeign language is comparatively low).
TheoppositeistrueinRomania,Bulgaria,andtheBalticcountries: these
countriesspendtheleastoneducation,butthelanguagesspokenthere are
notparticularlywide‐spread(sothecommunicationalvalueofaforeign
languageisespeciallyhigh).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

150
(e)Ageandtransnationallinguisticcapital
ThememberstatesoftheEUhaveexperiencedaprocessofsocial change
since its founding in the 1950s. Two aspects of social change are of great
importanceformultilingualism.Ontheonehand,tyinginwithwhat was
discussedabove, the level of modernity has risen in all societies,especially
the population’s level of education insofar as the duration of training was
extendedandthequotaofpersonswithhighereducationalachievementhas
gradually increased. To give an example: The school system of the Federal
RepublicofGermanyisstructuredinatripartiteway.Allchildrenenterinthe
sameprogram,butattheageoften,theygotooneofthreetypesofschools
(secondarygeneralschool,intermediateschool,grammar school).Thetrack
thattheyenterdetermineswhichtypeofschooltheycangonext, and
whether they will go to a university. The percentage of thirteen year old
pupils attending the highest level (grammar school = Gymnasium)was
twelvepercentatthebeginningofthe1950s,twentypercentatthebeginning
of the 1970s and thirty‐three percent in 2004. The percentage of pupils
attendingthelowestlevel(secondarygeneralschool=Hauptschule)
decreasedrapidlyfromeightypercentatthebeginningofthe1950stoabit
morethantwentypercentin2004(StatistischesBundesamt/FederalStatistic
Office2008).56Thequotaoffirst‐yearstudents(percentageofanagecohort
beginning its studies at a university) has increased enormously during the
same period. Similar developments can be observed in the other European
countries.
Notonlytheduration of studyandtraininghas extended overtimeandthe
level of education has risen, European societies also have become more
Europeanisedandglobalisedaswehaveseeninchapter3.2;thenumberof
political,social,andeconomictiestoothersocietieshasrisenovertime.Both
changes of the macro‐structural context should have an effect on the
multilingualismofdifferentagecohorts.Onaverage, oldergenerationshave
56 http://www.destatis.de/jetspeed/portal/cms/Sites/destatis/Internet/DE/Content/
Publikationen/Querschnittsveroeffentlichugen/Datenreport/Downloads/
Datenreport2008,property=file.pdf

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
151
had lower levels of education, less transnational experience, and fewer
opportunities to learn foreign languages than have younger cohorts.
Moreover, the increasing processes of Europeanisation and globalisation
mightaffectthemotivationtoacquireaforeignlanguage.Younger
generations,incontrast,see both thenecessityof and the advantageswhich
learningaforeignlanguagebringswithit.
Inadditiontothiscohorteffect,wealsoassumethatthereisalife‐longeffect
onforeignlanguageproficiency.Thosewhostudyaforeignlanguage as a
studentmayforgetthatlanguageduringtheirlifetime,especiallyiftheyhave
noopportunitytouseitastheyage.Additionally,theexpenditure of time
(cost)oflearninganewlanguageincreaseswithageasthepaceoflearning,
theabilitytoimitateandmemorydeclineswithage.Forallthesereasonswe
assume that younger people have a higher level of transnational linguistic
capitalthanolderpeople.
I have grouped respondents into six age groups and analysed whether the
youngercohortshaveahigherlevelofforeignlanguageproficiencythanthe
oldergenerations.Inadditionameancomparisontestwasconductedandthe
averageageofthosewasanalysedwhohavenone,one,twoorthreeforeign
languages at their command. The findings reveal clearly: Younger
generations have higher levels of transnational linguistic capital than have
oldergenerations.Thepercentageofthosewhospeakatleastone foreign
languagehasmorethandoubledfrom33.5%ofthoseabove55yearsoldto
68.7%ofthe15‐24yearsold.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

152
Table4.12:Ageandtransnationallinguisticcapital(in%)
15
24
25
34
35
44
45
54
55
64
65+Mean
age
Noforeign
language
31.3 39.1 49.6 54.4 59.3 71.3 50,3
Oneforeign
language
33.6 34.2 28.1 25.8 24.0 17.9 41,5
Twoforeign
languages
25.8 19.1 14.8 13.8 11.3 6.9 38,3
Threeforeign
languages
9.3 7.5 7.5 6.0 5.4 4.0 40,8
N3,4474,1584,6744,4734,2235,53526,510
r=‐0,24***;Spearman’sRho=‐0,26***;Tau‐b=‐0,22***;Eta=0,28***

(f)Socialclass,classfractions,occupationsandmultilingualism
The descriptive findings show that transnational linguistic capital levels
differnotonlybetweenthetwenty‐sevencountries,butalsowithin
individualcountries.AllEUsocietiesareclasssocieties, andweassumethat
the economic class of a person’s parents and of the person him or herself
influence that person’s levels of transnational linguistic capital.57
Unfortunately,thedatasetdoesnotcontainanyinformationabout the
respondents’parents.Thusthepossibilitiestotestthehypothesiswhichwill
bespecifiedfurtheron,arequietlimited.However,ifoneaccepts the
followingassumptiontheimpactoftheparents’economicclasspositionon
the respondents’ foreign language competence can be operationalised in a
valid way at least rudimentarily. Sociological class analysis emanates from
theassumptionthattheparents’classpositiongreatlyaffectstheirchildren’s
chances in terms of education, the future income, the occupation and life
style. Hence, a permanent reproduction of a society’s class structure takes
placemediatedbytheparentalhome.Thestrengthofthereproductionofthe
classesvariesbetweenthedifferentcountries(cf.Erikson&Goldthorpe
1992).If classpositions are, however,at leastpartially passedonfromone
57 TheinfluenceofeconomicclasscanhelpexplainnotonlydifferinglevelsofTLCwithina
particularcountry,butalsobetweendifferentcountries.Ifthe upper class in a society
tendstospeakmoreforeignlanguagesthandolowerclasses,andiftheupperclassin
CountryAislargerthaninCountryB,thenthenumberofmultilingualpeopleinCountry
AwillbelargerthaninCountryB.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
153
generation to the next, then information concerning the respondents’ class
affiliationcanbeinterpretedasanapproximatemeasurementoftheparents’
classposition.
Differenttypologiesdescribingtheclassstructureofa society are discussed
intheliterature.IwillrefertoPierreBourdieu’stypology,asIhavealready
defined the term transnational linguistic capital by referring to Bourdieu’s
work. A society’s class structure results from the aggregation of capitals
ownedbypersonsandtheassignmentofpersonswiththesameendowment
ofcapitaltothesameclass.Asiswell‐known,Bourdieudistinguishesthree
classesthatdifferfromeachotherduetotheamountofcapital (the upper
class,themiddleclass andthelowerclass).Within thesethreeclassesclass
fractionsareplaced thatareidentifiedby differentcompositionsof cultural
and economic capital (Bourdieu 1984, 1983). Bourdieu not only names
classes and class fractions in an abstract way, but describes them in detail
indicatingconcreteoccupations.Thisisimportantforourempiricalanalysis,
asthedatasetcontainstheoccupationsoftherespondents.Theupperclass
dividesintoaclassfractionwithalotofculturalcapitaland a group with
littleculturalcapital.Thepropertyowningclass composed ofself‐employed
posseseshigheconomicbutarelativelylowculturalcapital.Thiscontraststo
the educated class, where the cultural capital dominates the economic.
According to Bourdieu, the educated class consists of professors and other
academic occupations. The middle class or the petite bourgeoisie is
composedofthoseinthemiddleoccupationalpositions,primarilyinmiddle
management. The petite bourgeoisie is divided further into the declining
petite bourgeoisie with little or shrinking economic and cultural capital,
whileamiddlevolumeofbothcapitalformscanbeheldbytheexecutive
petite bourgeoisie. The new petite bourgeoisie endowed with middle
volumesofcapitalexistsasacomplementaryclasstothenewbourgeoisie.
ThelowerclassisnotfurtherdifferentiatedbyBourdieubutiscomposedof
lowskilledandmanualworkers.
Thedata set doesnot include informationon income and property, sothat
the operationalisation of economic capital is not immediately possible. The

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

154
interviewees were asked for their occupation which was also used by
Bourdieuinordertodescribetheclassesandclassfractions.58Thefollowing
occupationalgroupswereformedfromthedifferentcategories:
 Professionals (either employed or self‐employed) including
doctors,architects,lawyers,etc.
 Higher and middle management including directors, managers,
departmentchiefs,engineers,teachers,etc.
 Entrepreneurs,theself‐employedincludingshopandbusiness
owners,self‐employedcraftsmen,etc.
 Skilledwhitecollarandskilledworkers
 Unskilledwhitecollarandunskilledworkers
Iexpectthatalloccupationalgroupshaveahigherleveloflinguisticcapital
thanthereferencegroupofunskilledwhiteandbluecollarworkers.
Secondly, I assume that the middle class of skilled white collar and skilled
workers have a lower level of linguistic capital than the entrepreneurs,
higherandmiddlemanagementandtheprofessionals.Finally,Iact on the
assumption that there is a difference between the professionalsandthe
higherandmiddlemanagersonthe onehandandtheentrepreneurson the
otherhand.Allthreegroupsbelongtotheupperclass,butformtwodifferent
fractions within this upper class.Theentrepreneursarethosewithahigh
levelofeconomicbut arelativelylowlevelofculturalcapital.59Thereverse
capitalstructureappliestotheothertwogroups.AccordinglyIassume that
the entrepreneurs have a lower level of transnational linguistic capital
comparedtotheprofessionalsandmanagers.
58 Ifintervieweeswerenotemployedatthattime–becausetheykept house, wereretired
orunemployed–theywereaskedfortheirformeroccupation.Inafirststeptheanswers
concerningthecurrentandtheformeroccupationwerecombined.
59 Due to the fact that the category does not only include entrepreneurs but also “small”
self‐employed, people like craftsmen, who Bourdieu would assign to the petite
bourgeoisie,theoperationalisationisabitdiffuse.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
155
Iactontheassumptionthattheclasspositionoftherespondents’parents(1)
aswellastheirownclassposition(2)impactsontheleveloftransnational
linguisticcapital.
(1) The higher the class of the respondent’s parental home, the more the
parentswillhaveprobablyinvestedinthechild’seducation.Educational
investmentsincludethecreationofopportunitiesforeducationaswellasthe
instilling of the belief that education is an important aim in life. Foreign
languagesarepartoftheseeducationalinvestments.Inthisrespectitcanbe
assumed that the parents’ class position affects the endowment of the
children with transnational linguistic capital. Charlotte Büchner (2004)
showsinheranalysisoftheSocio‐EconomicPaneldatathatstudentshaving
attendedschoolabroadorhavingstudiedtheremainlycomefromparental
homesoftheupperclassanduppermiddleclass.Furthermore,theexpected
differences concerning the endowment with transnational linguistic capital
between the class fractions of the upper class can be influenced by the
parentalhome.Whiletheself‐employedtendtopromotetheirchildren’s
practical, technical and scientific competences, the educated class tend to
invest in a humanistic education including foreign languages. The symbolic
useoftransnationallinguisticcapitalmightplayanadditionalrolehere(see
theretochapter 2.1).Multilingualpeople receiveother peoples’respect due
to this competence. Similar to the cultural elites in the countries who
celebratethemselvesbydemonstratingtheirhighculturallifestylesinpublic
settings,thusseparatingthemselvesfromlowerclassesandtheclassfraction
ofthose who havemuch economic but littlecultural capital, ahigh level of
transnational linguistic capital enables to present oneself as part of an
emergingtransnationalclassthusachievingahigherlevelofrecognitionand
distinction.
Having different transnational linguistic capital due to the parental class
affiliation affects in turn the chances to achieve a certain class position, as
multilingualism increases the possibility of achieving better occupational
positionsinahigherclass.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

156
(2) The class position reached by the respondent opens up different
opportunities of practising foreign language competence. If unskilled
workersandwhitecollarworkershave learned foreignlanguagesatall,the
probabilityofthemhavingtheopportunitytouseandpractisetheseismuch
lower than that of executive managers and professionals. Moreover, we
assumethattheclassfractionoftheself‐employedhavefewerpossibilitiesto
useand improvean existingknowledgeof foreignlanguages thaneducated
classes.
The empirical results (Table 4.13) confirm our expectation that all
professionalgroupsincomparisontothereferencegroupofunskilledwhite
andbluecollarworkershavehigherlevelsoftransnationallinguisticcapital.
Furthermore,themiddleclassislessmultilingualthanarealltypesofupper
classrespondentswhich alsoconforms toBourdieu’shypothesis.Thereisa
cleardifferencebetweentheprofessionalandmanagerialclassontheone
handandtheself‐employedontheother.ThisresultsupportsBourdieu’s
notion that there are different class fractions in the upper class.
Entrepreneursandself‐employedareagoodexampleoftheclasswithmore
economiccapitalbutlessculturalandlinguisticcapital.
Table4.13:Socialclassandtransnationallinguisticcapital(in%)
UpperClassMiddleClassLower
Class
 Professio‐
nals,Aca‐
demics
Higherand
middle
manage‐
ment
Self‐
employed
orentre‐
pre‐neurs
Skilled
blueand
white
collar
workers
Unskilled
blueand
whitecollar
workers
Noforeign
language
29.3 32.8 52.8 55.5 70.6
Oneforeign
language
31.1 34.7 25.6 26.6 19.7
Twoforeign
languages
25.2 22.2 13.2 12.5 6.7
Threeforeign
languages
14.4 10.3 8.5 5.4 2.9
N1,6893,3461,59012,9222,960
r=‐0,11***;Spearman’sRho=‐0,14***;Tau‐b=‐0,12***


4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
157
(g)Institutionalisedculturalcapital(education)andmultilingualism
AccordingtoBourdieuasociety’sclassstructureresultsfromtheaggregation
ofcapitalsholdbypeople.Theeconomicandtheculturalcapital are the
centralresources forthe formationofthe classstructure. Unfortunatelywe
donothaveanyinformationonthepeoples’incomeandproperty,butwedo
have some on their institutionalised cultural capital. This is composed of
educationoreducationalqualificationsawardedtoapersonbya society’s
educational institutions. As foreign languages are usually imparted via
educationalinstitutionsit can beassumedthat theinstitutionalisedcultural
capitalhasapositiveimpactonone’sleveloftransnationallinguistic
capital.60 There are three arguments in favour of this assumption. Higher
education means a longer period spent in educational institutions. As
languageteachingispartofschooleducation,onecanassumethatthelonger
arespondentattendsschool,themoreexposureshe/hehastobothalengthy
anddemandingforeignlanguagecurriculum.Notonlydoeseducationaffect
theopportunitystructureforlearningaforeignlanguage,butalsomotivation
todoso(Esser2006:110).Institutesofhighereducationinparticularconvey
themessagethatlearningaforeignlanguageisculturallyvaluable inandof
itself. Finally, education can also influence the cost of learning a foreign
language, in that general study techniques improve with the length of a
person’s education; this is reducing the time investment necessary for
learninganewlanguage.
Itisnoteasytosurveyeducationalachievementsintwenty‐sevencountries
withdifferenteducationalsystemsinacomparativeway.However, the
Eurobarometercontainsa variablewhich makes arough comparisonofthe
educational achievements possible in spite of the different educational
systems.Theintervieweeswereaskedfortheirageatthetimetheyfinished
theireducation.Theolderarespondentwas attheendof hiseducation,the
higherhis educationalachievement, thehigher his institutionalisedcultural
capitalandthebetterhistransnationallinguisticcapital.
60 The foreign language proficiency gained at the educational institutions can then again
lead to the increase of institutionalised cultural capital in the form of educational
qualifications.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

158
Atfirsttherespondentsweredividedintothreeeducationalgroupsinorder
toanalysewhetherthosewithhigherlevelsofeducationweremore
proficient in foreign languages than those with lower levels ofeducation.
Secondly, the average age at the end of the education of those who speak
none,one,twoorthreeforeignlanguageswascalculated.
Thehypothesisisconfirmedbyouranalysis.Moreover,acomparisonofthe
findingsofthe differentbivariateanalyses thathavebeen carriedoutupto
now shows that institutionalised cultural capital has the strongest effect of
thevariablessofaronmultilingualism.
Table4.14: Institutionalized cultural capital (education) and transnational
linguisticcapital(in%)
LowMiddleHighMean
education
inyears
Noforeign
language
80.7 54.0 25.6 16.6
Oneforeign
language
14.9 28.6 34.1 18.9
Twoforeign
languages
3.2 12.3 26.4 20.4
Threeforeign
languages
1.2 5.1 13.9 21.0
N5,66212,0315,86923,562
r=0,40***;Spearman’sRho=0,41***;Tau‐b=0,37***;Eta=0,43***

(h)Respondents’ortherespondents’parents’internationalheritageand
transnationallinguisticcapital
Uptonow,wehaveassumedthatcitizensoftheEUmemberstateswereborn
andraisedinthecountrywheretheycurrentlyliveandthattheylearnedthe
languageofthatcountryastheirnativelanguage.Suchanassumption
ignoresthefactthatsomecitizenshavetransnationalexperience, such as
beingborninonecountryandlatermovingtoanother.Duetothesegmented
languagestructure,migrationtoanothercountryusuallymeansmoving to
anotherlanguage,andpeoplewhomovetoanewcountryareoften
confrontedwiththenecessityoflearninganewlanguage.Onecantherefore
expectthatpeoplewhohavemovedtoanothercountryspeakmore

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
159
languagesthanthosewhohavenot.Thefollowingtabledividesrespondents
intotwogroups:thosewhowereborninthecountrytheycurrentlylive in
andthosewhowereborninanothercountry.
Table4.15:Respondents’countryofbirthandtransnationallinguisticcapital
(in%)
BorninlandBornabroad
Noforeignlanguage 53.1 19.5
Oneforeignlanguage 26.1 44.2
Twoforeignlanguages 14.6 23.3
Threeforeignlanguages 6.2 13.0
N 25,1571,333
r=0,14***;Spearman’sRho=0,15***;Tau‐b=0,14***

Theresultsconfirm thehypothesisthat respondentswhohave moved from
one country to another speak more foreign languages than do those who
havenotlefttheirnationalcontainer.Thisistruenotonlyfor the
respondents themselves, but their parents’ transnational experience
probably also has a positive effect on speaking several languages. Parents
whoemigratedfromanothercountryusuallyspeaktheirnativelanguage at
homeinthenewcountryandalsoencouragetheirchildrentolearn their
nativelanguageasalinktotheirheritage.
Children whose parents have not migrated have to a lesser degree the
opportunityto be brought up bilingually.This hypothesis is also confirmed
bythedatadisplayedinthefollowingtable.Personshavingatleastone
parentwhowasbornabroadspeaksignificantlymoreoftenoneor several
foreignlanguagesthanpersonswhoseparentsarebothnatives.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

160
Table4.16:Parents’countryofbirthandtransnationallinguistic capital(in
%)
Bothparentsborn
inland
Atleastoneparent
bornabroad
Noforeignlanguage 54.0 27.6
Oneforeignlanguage 25.9 37.2
Twoforeignlanguages 14.1 23.6
Threeforeign
languages 6.0 11.5
N23,7052,742
r=0,15***;Spearman’sRho=0,16***;Tau‐b=0,15***


(i)Identificationwithcountryoforiginandtransnationallinguisticcapital
As I have discussed in chapter 2.1, language not only impacts on society
buildingprocesses but alsoon identityformation. Languageisquite oftena
group’smostimportantfeatureofidentity.Iftherespectivenativelanguage
isafeatureofidentityofagrouptheinfluenceandthestudyingofaforeign
languagemaybeinterpretedasadetractionorevenlossoftheir own
collectiveidentity.Inthiscasethemotivationtoacquireaforeignlanguageis
low.Theoppositemayalsobetrue;thestrongerone’spositiveemotional
identificationwithaforeignlanguage,thehigherthatperson’smotivationto
learnitandviceversa.Thedegreeofidentificationwithalanguageisagain
cruciallydeterminedbytheextentofidentificationwiththegroupspeaking
thatlanguage.
Duetothedataavailableatestofthecorrelationbetweenidentificationand
multilingualism is possible only to a limited degree. In terms of the
dependent variable we do not have any information on the degreeof
motivationforlearningaforeignlanguage.ThoughIassumethat foreign
languageproficiencyitselfcanpartiallybetracedbacktothemotivationfor
acquiringtheforeignlanguageinthefirstplace.Furthermore,wearelacking
information on the identificationwiththedifferentforeignlanguages.
However, information on the identification with the native language is
indirectly available. The interviewees were asked to what degree they
identifiedwiththeirhometown,theirregionandtheircountry.Theresponse

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
161
optionsrangedfrom“verystrong”and“fairlystrong”to“notverystrong”and
“not strong”. The three different objects of identification form together a
syndromeofattitudes.Thosewhofeltstronglyattachedtotheircountryalso
feelstronglyattachedtotheirhometownand their region.Duetothat,ina
firststepIhaveformedanadditivescaleoutoftheresponses to the three
questions(Crombachsalpha=.79).Thenewvariablemeasuresthedegreeof
national and sub‐national identification. Indeed therewith we have not
operationalisedtheidentificationwithacountry’slanguage.Asthelanguage
inquestionveryoftenisacentralfeatureoftheregionorthe country, I
assume that the identification with the country or a sub‐national unit also
measuresidentificationwiththelanguagespokenthere.Takingthisbridging
assumptionasgiven,we can nowtesttheexpectedcorrelation between the
degreeofnationalandsub‐nationalidentificationandthecitizens’
multilingualism. Table 4.17 shows the results in terms of the correlation
betweenthedegreeof identificationwiththecountry andmultilingualism61
ontheonehand,andthedifferencesbetweenthemeanvaluesinthedegree
ofidentificationwiththecountry/theregion/thehometownbetweenthose
peoplespeakingnone,one,twoorthreeforeignlanguagesontheotherhand.
Table4.17:Identificationwithcountryoforiginandtransnationallinguistic
capital(in%)
Very
strong
Fairly
strong
Notvery
strong
Not
strongMean
Noforeign
language
55.6 47.9 39.3 35.5 8.43
Oneforeign
language
25.7 28.6 30.5 26.1 8.04
Twoforeign
languages
13.2 16.6 19.0 26.4 7.82
Threeforeign
languages
5.6 6.9 11.2 12.0 7.54
N 15,8138,6781,65926426,273
r=0,11***;Spearman’sRho=0,11***;Tau‐b=0,10***;Eta=0,16***

61 The findings in terms of the correlation between the degree of identification with the
placeofresidence,ortheregionandmultilingualismlookquietsimilar.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

162
Corresponding to our theoretical expectation it emerges that those
respondentswhoidentify stronglywiththeircountryoforiginandthe sub‐
nationalunitsoftheircountrygenerallyspeakfewerlanguagesthandothose
whohaveaweakeridentificationwiththeircountryoforigin.

(j)Multivariateanalysis
InthefollowingIwilltesttowhichdegreethebivariateresultsbearupunder
a multivariate testing. Multivariateanalysisallowsustocompare the
differing strengths of individual factors that help explain transnational
linguisticcapital. In additionwe can prove if certain independentvariables
affectothers.Thusitcanbeassumedforexamplethatapartofthe effects
stemming from the respondents’ class position can be traced back to
education as education affects class position. Table 4.18 showstheresults
fromsevendifferentlinearregressionmodels.
Additionallythreemorecalculationswereconductedforallmodels.(1)The
dependent variable is strictly speaking not a metric, but an ordinal one.
Correspondingly “ordered logit” regressions were calculated. (2) As the
dependent variable is skewed to the right, we have conducted additional
logistic regression analyses questioning whether someone speaksaforeign
language at all or not as dichotomous dependent variable. The findings of
bothcalculationsare identicalto thoseofthe linearregressionanalyses. As
the linear regression analyses are a bit easier to interpret I decided to
presentonly those. (3) Furthermore, we have estimated multilevelmodels.
Also here the results do not differ from the simple regression models. We
therefore decided to represent only the results of the linear regression
analysis,whichareeasiertounderstand.
Iwill discuss onlywhether andtowhat extentthedifferent hypothesesare
confirmed and will not repeat the explanation of the causal mechanism
accounting for the correlation between independent and dependent
variables,asthishasalreadybeencoveredwithinthediscussion of the
bivariatefindings.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
163
Thefirstmodel(Table4.18)takesseveralcontextvariablesintoaccountthat
could explain the level of transnational linguistic capital: the size of the
country,thedegreeofprevalenceofthenativelanguageandthe question
whetherthereareseveralofficiallanguagesinacountryornot.Asthebeta‐
coefficients show, all theoretical expectations are confirmed. Respondents
fromsmallercountries,countrieswithmultipleofficiallanguages, and
countrieswith non‐prevalent languages speak moreforeign languagesthan
dorespondentsforwhomtheseconditionsdonotapply.
Table4.18:Explainingtransnationallinguisticcapital(linearregressions)
Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model5

Model6

Final
Model
Multipleofficial
languages
0.088**
*
0.054**
*
Countrysize 0.032**
*
     ‐
0.085**
*
Prevalenceof
Language
0.220**
*
‐
0.275**
*
Professionals,
academics
0.242**
*
0.234**
*
0.078**
*
  0.108**
*
Higherand
middle
management
 0.294**
*
0.294**
*
0.105**
*
  0.143**
*
Entrepreneurs,
self‐employed
0.122**
*
0.120**
*
0.050**
*
  0.048**
*
Skilledworkers  0.162**
*
0.145**
*
0.041**
*
  0.054**
*
Age   0.166**
*
0.066**
*
  ‐
0.059**
*
Institutional
culturalcapital
   0.359**
*
  0.301**
*
Educational
expenditures
   0.039**
*
  0.204**
*
Bornabroad
(respondent)
    0.070**
*
 0.049**
*
Bornabroad
(parents)
    0.097**
*
0.080**
*
Identification
withcountryof
origin
‐0.135‐
0.051**
*
R² 0.067 0.067 0.094 0.186 0.022 0.018 0.285
N19,70819,70819,70819,70819,70819,70819,708
*p<0,05;**p<0,01;*** p<0,001,(a)Standardisedregressioncoefficients,(b)Reference
group:unskilledworkers.




FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

164
The second model looks at respondents’ occupational position and as
expected,allgroupshavehigherlevelsoftransnationallinguisticcapitalthan
dounskilledworkers.Also,peoplefromthemiddleclassarelesslikelytobe
multilingualcomparedtothetwosectionsoftheupperclass.Acomparison
ofthedifferentclasssectionsoftheupperclassrevealsthat professionals
andmanagement are moremultilingual than theself‐employed and middle
managementwhichconformstoBourdieu’shypothesis.Theself‐employed
arethose withmore economic butless culturaland transnational linguistic
capital.
The third model includes age, and the fourth includes institutional cultural
capital(education) and nationaleducational expenditures.62 As signs ofthe
coefficents indicate all hypotheses are confirmed: Countries with higher
national educational expenditurestendtohaverespondentswithhigher
levels of education and better foreign language proficiency. Younger
respondents also have more transnational linguistic capital. A comparison
betweenModels3and4showsthattheageeffectalmostdisappearswhen
one takes education into account, because younger respondents tend to be
bettereducated.Includingeducationalsoreducestheexplanatorystrengthof
occupationontransnationallinguisticcapital(compareModels2and4).This
alsoconformstoBourdieu’sunderstandingofeducationasadetermining
factorin class position. Finally,education increases the overall explanatory
power of the model from nine to eighteen percent and therefore has the
strongest effect on multilingualism. All in all Bourdieu’s assumptions are
confirmedbytheanalysesverywell.Theleveloflinguisticcapital is
essentially determined by the respondents’ class position and their
endowmentwithcapital.
Model 5 shows that respondents who or whose parents were born abroad
havehigher levels of transnationallinguistic capital.The expected negative
effectof identificationwith one’s country of origin isalso confirmedby the
62 Inthebivariateanalysis,weusedtwoindicatorsformodernity:theHumanDevelopment
Indexandthenationaleducationalexpenditures.Becausethesetwoindicatorsarehighly
correlatedwithoneanother,welimitedouranalysisheretonational educational
expendituresalone.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
165
multivariate analysis in Model 6. Finally, the last model accounts for all
theoreticallybasedinfluencingfactors.TheR2 value is28.5%,whichproves
thatthesevariablespredictmultilingualismverywell.Moreover,Model7
alsoshowsthatallofourtheoreticalassumptionswereconfirmed.
Institutional cultural capital, national educational expenditure, and the
prevalenceofthecountry’sofficiallanguagehavethestrongestinfluenceon
transnationallinguisticcapital.63

4.2.3ExplainingEnglishProficiency
Inaddition to being interested intransnational linguistic capital ingeneral,
wearealsospecificallyinterestedinexplainingtheascertaineddifferencesin
citizens’English language proficiency,because Englishis the language most
widelyspokenamongEuropeans,beitasnativeorforeignlanguage. Since
the ability to speak a certain foreign language is a special case of foreign
languageproficiencyingeneral,manyoftheaforementionedhypothesescan
alsobeused toexplainEnglish languageproficiency.64Hence,Iamgoingto
discussonlyverybrieflythosehypothesesthatcanbetransferredandtotest
them not in a bivariate but only in a multivariate analysis. I will pay more
attentiontothenewhypotheseswhichrefertoEnglishinparticular.Table
4.19givesanoverviewofthedifferenthypothesesforexplainingEnglishasa
foreignlanguage.Thenewlyaddedhypothesesarehighlighted.
63 Comparing the results of Model 4 with those of the comprehensive model it becomes
obvious that the impact of the educational expenditures becomes stronger in the
comprehensivemodel.Thisisduetothefactthatthenationaleducationalexpenditures
correlate positively with the country size and the prevalence of the language; thust he
effectoftheeducationalexpendituresisunderestimatedinModel4.
64 Here we can abandon a testing of the correlation between the number of official
languages and multilingualism.With regard toEnglish thisapplies only toMalta. Malta
used to be a British colony from 1800 to 1964; at Malta English is the second official
languagebesideMaltese.Accordingly,almost allMaltesespeakEnglish,asisalsoshown
intable4.3.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

166
Table4.19:TheoreticalmodelexplainingEnglishproficiency
OpportunitiesCostsMotivation

Macrolevelfactors
Prevalenceoflanguage   –
Countrysize –  –
Levelofmodernizationand
education
+ – 
Exsocialistcountry–  –
Linguisticdistancebetween
nativelanguageandEnglish
+ 
Selfperpetuatingdynamicinthe
useofEnglish
+  +
Individuallevelfactors
Respondent’sage – + –
Respondent’ssocialclass +  +
Respondent’seducation
(institutionalculturalcapital)
+ – +
Foreignbirthoftherespondent
andhis/herparents
+  
Identification with originative
language
  –

Ihaveassumedthatthecommunicativevalueofaforeignlanguage one
wantstolearnislowerforthosewhosemothertonguehasahighdegreeof
prevalencethanforpeoplewhoselanguageisonlyrarelyspoken. This
hypothesis should also apply to English as foreign language. Those whose
languageisspokenbymanyarelessmotivatedtostudyEnglishthan
speakersofsmalllanguages.AsimilareffectonEnglishproficiencyislikelyto
stem from a country’s size. I have discussed several causal mechanisms
whichcouldmakeplausiblewhyin smaller countries not only the
opportunitystructurebutalsothemotivationtolearnaforeignlanguageare
morefavourableinsmallerthaninbiggercountries.Thiscorrelationshould
alsoandaboveallapplytothelearningofEnglishwhenoneconsidersthat
manymoviesaremadeinEnglishandthatinsmallcountriestheseareoften
shownintheoriginalversionduetohighdubbingcosts.Ihaveassumedthat
a country‘s degree of modernity and especially the development of its
educational system affects its citizens’ foreign language proficiency. The
moremodernandthebroaderandbetterdevelopedtheeducationalsystem,

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
167
the better is the education in foreign languages including English and the
morecitizensareabletospeakEnglish.
Englishproficiency is a specific transnationallinguistic capital.Insofarasit
can be assumed that the hypotheses I have deduced from Bourdieu’s class
theoryalsoapplytotheEnglishproficiencywecansaythatpeoplefromthe
upperclasseswillmoreoftenbeabletospeakEnglishthanpeoplefromthe
lower classes and that within the upper class the class fraction of the
educated class will more often be proficient in English than the self‐
employed.Andalsotheinstitutionalisedculturalcapitalshouldhaveastrong
impact on the citizens’ command of English, as those who have enjoyed a
longerandbettereducationareasarulemorelikelytohavestudiedEnglish.
TheprobableinfluenceofageonEnglishproficiencycanagainbeinterpreted
asacohorteffect.Ontheonehandtheschoolleavingagehasbeenraisedand
thelevelofeducationhasbeenimprovedintheEuropeancountries over
time;on theother handthe degreeof international interconnectedness has
clearly increased. For the different generations this means that they have
experienced different levels of education and faced different international
experiencesandchallenges.Accordingly,theoldergenerationswillhavehad
feweropportunitiestostudyEnglishcomparedtotheyoungercohorts.
Furthermore,itmaybeassumedthatthosewhowerebornorwhoseparents
wereborninanEnglishspeakingcountryandtodayliveinanothercountry
speakbetterEnglishthanthosenotsharingthisimmigrantbackground.Asin
thesurveyrespondentswerenotaskedinwhichspecificforeigncountrythey
oroneoftheirparentswereborn,thecorrelationcannotdirectlybe tested.
ButasthegroupofpersonsborninanEnglishspeakingcountryisasubsetof
thosebornabroadalltogether(andthatiswhathasbeensurveyed), the
information as to whether the interviewee or one of his parentswasborn
abroadcanbeusedasanapproximationmeasureofthetheoreticalconstruct.
The correlation between the respondent’s, or the respondent’s parents’
immigrantbackgroundandEnglishproficiencyshouldbeweakerthan the
onebetweenimmigrantbackgroundandgeneralmultilingualism.Andfinally

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

168
I assume that the readiness to study English is rather held back than
stimulatedby astrong identification withnational andlocal units and with
therespectivenativelanguage.
Themultivariateanalyseswillallowustotestwhetheralltheseassumptions
can be confirmed empirically. Beside these general hypotheses there are
three additional theoretical expectations that are particularly relevant for
explainingcompetenceintheEnglishlanguage.

(a)BipolarworldorderandEnglishproficiency
Weassumethatacountry’spositionduringtheworldorderoftheColdWar
(as either East or West) will influence the degree to which its citizens are
proficientinEnglish.SocialistEasternandCentralEuropeanmemberstates
were,until1989,undertheinfluenceoftheSovietUnion,wheretheRussian
languageheldhegemonicpower.Russianwasoftenamandatoryforeign
language(cf.theexplanationinchapter3.1).TheRussianEmpirewasmeant
toprotectpeoplefromtheadvanceofEnglish.Therefore,Iassume that
peoplelivinginacountrywhichusedtobelongtotheSovietsphere of
influence speak less English than people living in a country which used to
belongtotheWesternsphereofinfluence.Wedonotthinkthatthisbipolar
world order influenced transnational linguistic capital as such, but rather
thatitaffectedthechoiceofaparticularforeignlanguage.Wethereforelimit
thefollowinganalysistorespondentswhospeakatleastoneforeign
language.
Table4.20:Ex‐SocialistcountryundEnglishproficiency(in%)
EnglishproficiencyNonexsocialistcountryExsocialistcountry
No 17.8 46.7
Yes 82.2 53.3
N8,6656,749
r = ‐0,30***; Spearman’s Rho = ‐0,30***; Tau‐b = ‐0,30***. The analysisislimited to those
whospeakatleastoneforeignlanguage.


4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
169
The findings in the table confirm our theoretical expectation. English
proficiencyofthosespeakingatleastoneforeignlanguageisalmost thirty
percent higher in the Western countries than in the socialist countries
formerlyinthe Soviet sphereofinfluence. The correlationshouldnot apply
anymoreoratleasttoalesserdegreeafterthecollapseofthebipolarworld
order.CentralandEasternEuropeancountriesquicklyorientedandopened
themselveswestwardafter1990andmanybecamefullmembersoftheEUin
2004 and 2007. This hypothesis can be tested by analysing the English
proficiencyofdifferentagecohortsseparately.Wedividetherespondents
intotwoagecohorts: thosewho,in 2005,wereundertwenty‐fiveyears old
and those twenty‐five and over. Again I limit the analysis here to those
speakinganyforeignlanguage.
Table4.21:Ex‐SocialistcountryandEnglishproficiencyfortwoagecohorts
(in%)
Youngerthan25years
Englishproficiency Nonex‐socialist
country
Ex‐socialistcountry
No 8.3 16.9
Yes 91.7 83.1
N1,3801,198
r = ‐0,13***; Spearman’s Rho = ‐0,13***; Tau‐b = ‐0,13***. The analysisislimited to those
whospeakatleastoneforeignlanguage.

25yearsorolder
Englishproficiency Nonex‐socialistcountry Ex‐socialistcountry
No 20.1 57.6
Yes 79.9 42.4
N7,2855,548
r = ‐0,36; Spearman’s Rho = ‐0,36; Tau‐b = ‐0,36***. The analysis is limited to those who
speakatleastoneforeignlanguage.

ThedifferenceinEnglishlanguageproficiencybetweenWesternandformer
Soviet countries is notably smaller among respondents twenty‐five and
younger.Thisfindingagainconfirmsthethesisoftheimpactof thebipolar
worldorderonthepopulation’sEnglishproficiency.Whereasthedifference
between citizens from Eastern and Western societies is 37% for the older
cohort,itisonly8.6%intheyoungergroup.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

170
(b)LinguisticdistanceandtherespectivecostofEnglishlanguageacquisition
AsIhavediscussedinchapter2.1,comparativelinguisticsdividesindividual
languagesintolanguagefamilies.Withinandbetweenlanguagefamiliesthere
are different degrees of proximitymeasuredbytheoverlapinlexicon,
phoneticsandgrammar,etc.Thedistancebetweenanativelanguagethatone
alreadyspeaksandanewlanguageonewantstolearnaffectstheeffortone
hastoputintostudyingtheforeignlanguage.Thesmallerthedistance
between two individual languages, the higher therefore the interference
betweenthe nativelanguage, oran alreadylearned language, anda foreign
language one intends to learn, the easier it is to study the new language.
Linguistic distance therefore influences the costs involved in learning a
foreign language. And the higher the costs of acquiring a language are, the
smalleristheprobabilitythatforeignlanguageacquisitionwilloccur or be
successful. This anticipated relationship between linguistic distance, the
costsandtheprobabilityoflanguageacquisition has been proven inseveral
studies which have analysed migrants’ language acquisition (cf.Carliner
2000; Chiswick & Miller 2001, 2004; van Tubergen & Kalmijn 2005;
concerninglanguageacquisitioninborderareasoftheEUcf.Roose2010).
InafirststepthedistancebetweenthedifferentlanguagesspokenbytheEU
citizensandEnglishwasdeterminedusingaclassificationthathasalsobeen
used by other scholars (van Tubergen & Kalmijn 2005; Roose 2010). The
respectivelanguageclassificationshavebeenpublishedinbookform,butare
alsoavailableonline(cf.Lewis2009).65EnglishisanIndo‐Europeanlanguage
andbelongstothegroupoftheGermanicandthesub‐groupoftheWestern
Germaniclanguages.AllotherlanguagesthanEnglishhavebeendividedinto
twogroups,onegroupwithalargeandtheotherwithasmalldistancetothe
Englishlanguage.66Thefindingsofthefollowingtable(theanalysisisagain
65 http://www.ethnologue.com
66 PeoplespeakinganativelanguagethateitherdoesnotbelongtothemaingroupofIndo‐
GermaniclanguagesorthatbelongstothemaingroupofIndo‐Germanicbutnottothe
sub‐groupofGermaniclanguageswereassignedthevalue“1”.People speaking a native
languagethatbelongstothegroupofIndo‐Germaniclanguagesandeithertothegroupof
Germaniclanguagesor to thesub‐group of WesternGermaniclanguages have received

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
171
limitedtothosespeakingatleastoneforeignlanguage)confirm our
hypothesis:People speakinga languageas nativelanguage whoselinguistic
distance to English is smaller are significantly more often able to speak
EnglishthanpeoplespeakinganativelanguagewhosedistancetoEnglishis
larger.
Table4.22: Linguistic distance between native language and English and
Englishproficiency(in%)
CloseFar
No 8.1 36.2
Yes 91.9 63.8
N4,97210,253
r=‐0,31***;Spearman’sRho=‐0,31***;Tau‐b=‐0,31***

(c)InherentmomentumintheriseofEnglish
Foreveryonecurrentlybeginningtolearnaforeignlanguage,itisrationalto
chooseEnglish, because English,being the mostwidely‐spoken languagein
Europe,hasthehighestcommunicativevalue.Thisdecision to learnEnglish
leadstoanincreaseinthenumberofEnglishspeakers.Forthosewhodecide
tolearn a foreignlanguage in thefuture, it becomeseven more sensibleto
chooseEnglish,becausethenumberofEnglishspeakerswillhave grown
evenmore.Thisprocess explainswhysmall differencesbecomelargerover
time. Similar phenomena are discussed in economics under the keyword
“network externalities” (cf. Katz & Shapiro 1985). Computer users have to
decidebetweenthesystemsoftwarebyAppleandtheonebyMicrosoft.The
decisiononcemadeincreasesordecreasesthenetworkofusersofaspecific
system,therebyinfluencingthesubsequentdecisionsoffutureusers.
WecangetanideaofthedynamicofthegrowthofEnglishwhenwecompare
thedifferentgenerationsofourrespondents.Aswesawabove,thenumberof
citizenswhospeakaforeignlanguageatallhasincreasedwithevery
generation,so this analysis onlytakes into account those respondents who
thevalue“0”.ForthefirstgroupthedistanceoftheirnativelanguagetoEnglishisbigger
thanforthesecondgroupandthereforealsotheeffortforstudyingEnglish.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

172
speakatleastoneforeignlanguage.Thatway,wecanseehowintimeEnglish
hasdisplacedotherforeignlanguages.
Table4.23:Age and Englishproficiency (%; onlythose who speakat least
oneforeignlanguageareincluded)
1524253435444554556465+
No 11.2 18.1 21.5 33.9 39.7 49.5
Yes 88.8 81.9 78.5 66.1 60.3 50.5
N2,5782,8172,9302,6092,2182,259
r=0,28;Spearman’sRho=0,28***;Taub=0,25***;Eta=0,31***

The changes between age groups are considerable: Within forty years, the
percentage of English speakers (among those who speak any foreign
languages)hasrisenbyovertwenty‐eightpercent.

(d)MultivariateAnalysis
Similar to our explanation of transnational linguistic capital in general, we
willnowtestifourhypothesesaboutEnglishinparticularwithstand a
multivariateanalysis.Iwilllimitthefirstanalysistothosepersonsspeaking
at least one foreign language and analyse the impact of the three factors
influencingpeoples’Englishproficiencydiscussedabove.ThusIwillfocuson
theexplanationwhyEUcitizensspeakEnglishandnootherforeignlanguage.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
173
Table4.24:ExplainingEnglishproficiency(logisticregressions)
Model1

Model2Model3Model4Total
Model5
Ex‐Socialist
country
0,245*** 1,059   
Ex‐Socialist
country*
Age>25
0,149***   0,264***
Linguistic
Distance
  0,435***  0,414***
Age    0,962*** 0,956***
Constant 4,663*** 4,663*** 10,651*** 15,058*** 111,153***
Nagelkerke
R²
0,117 0,169 0,137 0,114 0,338
N15,22215,22215,222 15,222 15,222
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0,01; *** p < 0,001 (a) Excluded are those whospeakEnglishastheir
mother tongue and those who do not speak a foreign language. (b) Depicted are
unstandardisedeffectcoefficients(oddsratios):>1:positiveeffect,<1:negativeeffect,=1:no
effect.

Inordertoanswerthesequestionsfivelogisticregressionswere calculated.
InafirststepIhaveconsideredwhetherarespondentcomesfrom an ex‐
Socialist or Western country. Because this variable’s effect is only valid for
older generations, we did a second calculation with a dichotomous age
variable(ofwhethertherespondentwasolderoryoungerthantwenty‐five
years).Comparing theresults inModel 1with thosein Model2 shows that
thepoliticalsystemoneusedtobelongtoaffectstheprobabilityofspeaking
English,butthiscorrelationonlyappliestooldergenerations. The third
model analyses the impact of the linguistic difference between his/her
country’s native language and English and the probability that the
interviewee speaks English. Those speaking a native language withabig
distancetoEnglishhave onlyforty‐threepercenttimes as greatachance of
beingproficientinEnglishas thosespeakinganativelanguage withasmall
distancetoEnglish.Inthefourthmodeltherespondent’sagewastakeninto
consideration. Each year a respondent ages decreases the chance of being
abletospeakEnglishbythefactorof0.96.Thelastmodelincludes all
independent variables. The effect of the theoretically derived variables
persistsforallfactors,anexplainedvarianceofalmostthirty‐fourpercentis

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

174
morethansatisfying,andthethreeindependentvariablescaneasilyexplain
theEnglishproficiencyofthoseinterviewed.
English is one foreign language among others; accordingly, those factors
whichexplaintheleveloftransnationallinguisticcapitalshouldalsohavean
impact on the specific language of English. The following analyses include
thosefactorsabletoexplaingeneralforeignlanguagecompetence,aswellas
thoseabletoexplainthespecificcompetenceofspeakingEnglish.Ilimitthe
analyses to the calculation of three different models. In addition, we have
estimated multilevel models. Also here the results do not differ from the
simplelogisticregressionmodels.Wethereforedecidedtorepresentonlythe
resultsofthelogisiticregressionanalysis,whichareeasiertounderstand.
Model 1 in Table 4.25 includes all variables from the regression analysis
whichwereusedtoexplainthegeneraltransnationallinguistic capital
(excludingthenumber ofofficial languages).Theresults areverysimilar to
thosefromtable4.18.Allvariablesthatinfluencelevelsoftransnational
linguisticcapitalare alsohelpful inexplainingEnglish languageproficiency.
Theexplanatorypowerofthedifferentvariablesisalsosimilarbutwithone
exception. The respondent’s foreign heritage has the opposite effect than
expected.Thoserespondentswhowereborninadifferentcountryfromthe
onetheycurrentlyliveinarelesslikelytospeakEnglishthanarethosewho
werebornandstillliveinthesamecountry.Inanothercalculation (not
shownhere)we foundthateducationallevel neutralise theeffect of foreign
heritage. Respondents born abroad are generally from less‐modernised
countrieswithless‐developededucationalsystems.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
175
Table4.25:ExplainingEnglishproficiency(logisticregressions)
Model1Model2TotalModel
Countrysize 0.994***  0.998
Prevalenceoflanguage 0.979*** 0.938***
Professionals,
academics
5.607***  5.478***
Higherandmiddle
management
5.838*** 5.943***
Entrepreneurs,self‐
employed
2.349***  2.695***
Skilledworkers 2.275*** 2.473***
Age 0.966***  0.961***
Institutionalised
culturalcapital
(education)
1.233*** 1.269***
Nationaleducational
expenditures
1.791***  1.302***
Bornabroad
(respondent)
0.772* 0.777*
Bornabroad(parents) 1.019  1.112
Identificationwith
countryoforigin
0.959*** 0.963***
Linguisticdistance  0.581*** 0.382***
Ex‐socialistcountry 1.786*** 
Ex‐socialist
country*Age>25
 0.240*** 0.431***
Constant 0.002*** 1.457*** 0.058***
NagelkerkeR² 0.401 0.124 0.462
N18,08318,08318,083
*p<0,05,**p<0,01,***p<0,001
(a)ExcludedarethosewhospeakEnglishasmothertongue.(b)Depicted are
unstandardisedeffectcoefficients(oddsratios):>1:positiveeffect,<1:negativeeffect,=1:no
effectc)Referentialcategoryfortheprofessionalgroupsisthegroupofunskilledworkers.

Model2considersthevariablesreferringonlytotheexplanationofEnglish.
Persons whose native language has a higher linguistic distance to English,
havea0.38timesgreaterchanceofspeakingEnglishthanpersons whose
native language has a low distance to English. The same applies to older
personsfromtheformersocialistcountries.
Finally, Model 3 includes all variables at the same time. The effects of the
variablesfromModel1and2persistsothatalmostallofourhypothesesare
confirmed.Lookingatthecontextvariables,weseethatrespondents are

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

176
morelikelytospeakEnglishiftheycomefrom(a)smallercountries, (b)
countrieswith a non‐prevalentlanguage, (c) countries that highly investin
education,(d) countrieswith anofficial languageclosely relatedto English,
and (e) countries that were not part of the Soviet Union. However, the
countrysizevariableisnotsignificant.Furthermore,respondentswhohavea
weakidentificationwiththeirhomecountryaremorelikelytospeakEnglish
thanarethosewhoarestillstronglylinkedtotheircountryof origin, and
also,presumably,theirnativelanguage.
Our expectation about social class and English is also confirmed, since in
comparisonto thereference groupof unskilled bluecollar andwhite collar
worker,all other groups are significantly more likelyto speakEnglish.The
difference between professionals and managers as compared to the self‐
employedshows the differencebetween twosub‐groupsof theupper class.
Finally,ourhypothesisthatyoungerand more educatedrespondentswould
bemorelikelytospeakEnglishthantheelderlyandthelesseducatedisalso
confirmed. The total model explains forty‐six percent of the variance in
Englishlanguageproficiencyandthereforehasoutstandingexplanatory
power.

4.3OutlookonHowtheCitizens’MultilingualismwillDevelop

Onthebasisofasurveyanalysisintwenty‐sevencountriesoftheEUIhave
analysedthepeoples’foreignlanguagecompetence.Theanalysisshowsthat
thecitizens’foreignlanguageproficiencyisfarfromgood.More than fifty
percent of the citizens do not speak any foreign language at all; for this
reasontheirchancesoftakingpartintheprocessofEuropeanisationarevery
limited.Moreover,theanalysesrevealthecompetencesofmultilingualism
varysignificantlybetweenandwithinthecountries.InHungary70.5%ofthe
populationdoesnotspeakasingleforeignlanguage,intheNetherlandsonly
8.6%donot.
Not every language enables the same communicative chances. The more
peoplecanbereachedwithaforeignlanguage,thehigheristherateofreturn

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
177
ofthecorrespondinglinguisticcapital.ThatiswhyIhavedetermined the
number of speakers proficient in English throughout the twenty‐seven EU
countries, as English is the most frequently spoken language inEurope:
ScarcelyhalfoftheEUcitizensareabletocommunicateinEnglish. Again,
herehugedifferencesarisewithinthe countriesandbetweenthecountries.
In Bulgaria 84.6% of the population does not speak English, in the
Netherlandsthereareonly12.4%.
Why do people in some countries of the EU have such a very good
endowmentoftransnationallinguisticcapitalandareabletocommunicatein
Englishandwhyisthatnotthe case inothercountries?Inordertorespond
tothatquestion,Ihavefirstdevelopedageneralmodeltoexplain foreign
languageproficiency.Theopportunitiesforacquiringaforeignlanguage,the
coststhatareconnectedwithstudyingaforeignlanguageandthemotivation
tolearnaforeignlanguagearethethreecentralelementsofthe core
explanatorymodel. The societalconditions people areembedded in impact
on these three dimensions and determine who has transnational linguistic
capital,orwhospeaksEnglishandwhodoesnot.Thehypotheses deduced
from the explanatory model have then been empirically tested. It appeares
thatboththepeoples’multilingualismandtheabilitytospeakEnglishcanbe
verywellpredictedwiththehelpofthedifferentexplanatoryfactors.
Thesefindings have to be interpreted in thecontext of the generallevel of
research. Analysing peoples’ multilingualism is the domain of linguists,
psychologists and educationalists(cf.thesummarizingoverviewinWei
2000; Bialystok 2001; Bhatia & Ritchie 2006; Auer & Wei 2007). In their
analyses they focus above all on the cognitive, partially neuro‐mental pre‐
conditions of multilingualism, on the analyses of the impact of
multilingualismonthecognitivedevelopmentandtheanalysisofthefamily
andschoolconditionsandconsequencesofmultilingualism.Onlythebroader
societal conditions people are embedded in are not considered in these
analyses. In contrast, our findings show that it is exactly these neglected
societal conditions which essentially affect multilingualism. It is therefore

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

178
urgent that research on bilingualism and multilingualism must be
supplementedbyasociologicalperspective.
Every explanation always implies a prognosis. If the societal conditions
change,thiswillhavetheanticipatedeffectson the independent variable,in
thiscasetransnationallinguisticcapital.Inwhichdirectionswillthesocietal
conditions change and how will this impact on the level of transnational
linguisticcapital?Adiscussionofpossiblechangesoftheexplanatoryfactors
indirectly summarises again the most important findings of the causal
analysis.
(a)Iftheuseofaforeignlanguageincreases,sodoesthemotivationtolearn
that language. Since the 1970s nation state societies have increasingly
openedtheirbordersduetotheprocessoftransnationalisation.Wehadalso
seen that the process of transnationalisation manifests itself above all as a
process of increasing Europeanisation. The level of interconnectivity
betweenthedifferentmember statesoftheEU hasincreasedtremendously
over time. The increasing interconnectedness of interactions becomes
apparent in quiet different dimensions, ranging from the increase of the
exchange of goods and services to collegiate exchange to the increase of
politicalinterdependence.Astherearedifferentlanguagesspokeninthe EU
member states, participation in this process of transnationalisation and
Europeanisationisonlypossiblewiththeabilitytospeakotherlanguages.As
the process of transnationalisation progresses, transnational linguistic
capitalwillbecomemoreimportantandalsoincreasesthemotivationofEU
citizens to learn foreign languages.AllEuropeancountrieswill,
metaphoricallyspeaking,becomesmallerastheybecomemoreandmore
linked with other nations. This increases the pressure to acquireaforeign
languageproficiently.ThisprocessofintegrationthroughoutEuropeandthe
worldinmanysocietalfields–economy,culture,communication,andpolitics
–will continuein thefuture as thecauses ofthis processremain powerful.
Technological innovations having enormously facilitated worldwide
communication and transport continue as do also the politics oftrade

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
179
liberalisation and global trade. This will be accompanied by anincreasing
needofforeignlanguageproficiencyingeneral,andofEnglishinparticular.
(b)GlobalisationandEuropeanisationpositivelyinfluencepeople’smigration
patterns.Weassumethatinthefutureintra‐Europeanmigrationandalso
immigrationintoEuropewillincreaseratherthandecrease.Thismeansthat
childrenaremorelikelytogrowupinfamilieswithparentswhowereborn
in another country. Our empirical analysis shows that this often leads to
childrengrowingupbilingually.
(c)The process ofimproving educationin theEU is alsofar fromover and
hasbeenatthe forefront ofthepoliticalagenda at boththecountryand EU
level.PartofthemeasuresintermsofeducationpolicyistheLisbonAgenda
of the European Union that was adopted at the special summit ofthe
European Heads of State and of Government in the year 2000 in Lisbon. It
was the declared aim of the differentmeasurestomaketheEUthe most
competitive and most dynamic economic region in the world within ten
years. The EU emphasised that knowledge and the innovations emanating
from it are the EU’s most important advantages in global competition.
Accordingly,education policy as a meansof thepromotion ofa knowledge‐
based society is given special relevance (Münch & Bernhard 2009). An
increaseininvestmentineducation,theimprovementandlengthening of
mandatory schooling and an increase in the number of people obtaining a
highereducationalqualificationaretheEU’scentraleducational goals.
Becauseofthisfocus,therehasbeenanoticeablechangeoverthelastseveral
years in terms of educational levels, data is available for nine European
countries (Denmark, Germany, Finland, Greece, the Netherlands, Austria,
Poland,Slovakia, and Sweden)from 1995to 2007regarding the numberof
people,who,afterfinishingtheirsecondaryeducation,wentontobegina
universitydegree.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

180
Figure4.1:ShareofpersonshavingstartedstudyingafterschoolinnineEU
countries(in%)
20
30
40
50
60
1995 2001 2003 2005 2007

Source:OECD(2009)

Thepercentageofpeopleininstitutionsofhighereducationrosefromthirty‐
fiveto fifty‐nine percent.Because education hasa positiveeffect onforeign
languages (and specifically English),weexpectthatlevelsoftransnational
linguisticcapital andof English languageproficiency haveincreased during
thelastfewyearsandthattheywillcontinuetodoso.
(d)Thestructureoftheworld societyhas–atleastinEurope–changedso
dramatically since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the integration of
Eastern and Central European countries in the post‐Cold War world order
that there is hardly any foreseeable alternative to continuing market
liberalisationandwesternisation.Anewbipolarworldorder–asinthetimes
oftheColdWar–isunlikely.Anewcleavagestructuremightdevelopthough,
orhasalreadydeveloped,inrudimentalformsbetweenWesternandIslamic
countries, as well as between Western countries and China. However, it
cannotbepredictedthatitwilldivideEurope.Insofaraswecan see the
demandformultilingualismwillincreasefurtherandEnglishwillremainthe
unchallenged hegemonic language. The exponential growing increase in
China’s economic and political significance and the fact that Chinese is the
nativelanguagewiththehighestprevalencewillcertainlyincrease the
communicative value of Chinese for communication outside of Europe, but
notforcommunicationwithinEurope.

4.EuropeanCitizens’TransnationalLinguisticCapital
181
(e) In addition, there is the inherent momentum in the rise of a foreign
languageandaboveallthespreadofEnglish.ThedominanceofEnglishhas
motivatedmanyEuropeanstolearnEnglish,thelanguagewiththe highest
communication value, thereby furtherraisingboththenumberofEnglish
speakersanditscommunicativeuse.This processseems unlikelyto stopin
thenearfuture.
(f)ItisalsounlikelythatthecurrentclassstructureinEuropean societies
willdisappear.Thus,theinequalitiesintermsofthelevelof transnational
linguisticcapitalwithinthesocietieswillsurvive. Thismeansthatmembers
oftheupperclasseswillbemoreproficientinmoreforeignlanguagesthan
willbe thosein themiddle andlower classes, and within a particular class,
thosesub‐groupswithhigherculturalcapitalwillhaveespeciallyhighlevels
oftransnationallinguisticcapital.
Iftheseexpectationsprovetobecorrect,wecanexpectan“elevator effect”
for transnational linguistic capital, whereby foreign language and English
proficiency will improve across Europe, even though differences between
classes,educationallevels,agegroups,countrysize,andlinguisticprevalence
willremainconstant.


  182








5.AN ARGUMENT FOR A NEW LANGUAGE POLICY IN
THEEUROPEANUNION

AsIhavesummarisedtheargumentandtheempiricalfindingsinthe
introductionaswellasattheendofeachrespectivechapter,thereisnoneed
todrawanotherbalanceattheendofthebook.Instead,intheconcluding
remarksIwillfocusonthepoliticalimplicationsofourresultsbyaskingwhat
asoundandatthesametimejustlanguagepolicyforEuropecanlooklike.
According to John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” (1971), justice isthefirst
virtueofsocialinstitutions.OneofRawl’sessentialtheoreticalassumptionsis
the maxim of equal opportunities: Everybody should have the same
opportunitiestoachievesocialstatusinasociety.Forthispurpose,asociety
needsrulesandregulationsensuringthatpeoplewiththesameabilitiesand
talentscanindeedachievethesamepositions.AlthoughRawlshasmadethis
claimprimarilytoinstalljusticewithinanationstate,onecanalsoapplyhis
argumentstoEuropeandthelanguagepolicyoftheEuropeanUnion.
TheprocessofEuropeanintegrationhasopenedupthememberstatesofthe
EUtoeachother andsetsthefoundations fortheemergenceofa European
society.ForeignlanguageskillsandespeciallyEnglishproficiencyarecentral
resourcesofthepeoples’participationinaEuropeansociety.Thosespeaking
severallanguagescanbenefitfromtheEuropeaneconomicmarket;theycan
improvetheirjobopportunitiesaswellastheirincome;itiseasierforthem
togetintocontactwithcitizensofothercountries,tocooperateeconomically
orscientifically,toconductpoliticalnegotiations,to organiseprotestevents
orto enter romanticrelationships beyondnationalborders, etc.Those only

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
183
speakingtheirmothertongueareconfinedtotheircountries,unabletotake
advantage of a united Europe and a globalised world. Possessing
transnationallinguisticcapitalisthusasourceofsocialinequality in the
contextofadevelopingglobalisedandEuropeansociety.
Inturn,theabilitytospeakdifferentlanguageslargelydependsonthesocial
positionapersonhasattainedandis,asourempiricalanalysis has shown,
ratherunequallydistributed.Particularlypeoplefromlargercountries,from
lessdevelopedsocietiesandfromthe lowerclasseswithlittleeducationare
significantly less well‐endowed with transnational linguistic capital. This
contradictsthe idea of equal opportunities for allEuropean citizens. If itis
notdesirablethatonlytheupperclasses,thecitizensfromwealthycountries,
andthe big companiesthat can afford translators areable to participatein
the process of Europeanisation, then the people from lower classes and
persons from the less developed countries will have to be provided with
adequatelanguageproficiency,sothattheyhavethesameopportunitiesto
participateinaEuropeanisedandglobalisedsociety.
Thislack of fairness,due to differentforeign languageskillsalsoappliesto
the different fields of science and scholarship. From my point of view,
research in German humanities and social sciences are quite often
qualitatively on the same level as American research in many respects.
However,thefactthatthefindingsaremostlypublishedinGermanprevents
themfrombeingrecognisedthroughouttheworld.Thelanguagedifferences
manifest themselves in the extent of distribution of the research results,
whichthenisreflectedinthemostfrequentlyusedperformanceandranking
indicatorsforresearch,thecitationindices.Theplaceofbirthandhencea
scientist’s or scholar’s mother tongue thus determine the evaluation of the
quality of his or her research, although the language of publication reveals
nothing about the quality of a historicalstudy,apoetryanalysis or a
methodologicallyelaboratedanalysisofsurveydata.Inorderto make the
sameconditionsofcompetitionpossibleforallresearchandtherebyachieve
equalopportunitiesasapreconditionforajustsocietyitself,peoplemustbe
enabledtocommunicateinoneandthesamelanguage.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

184
Toachievethisaimtherearetwodifferentoptionswhichonecan choose
from: the promotion of the citizens’ multilingualism in generalorthe
promotion of a linguafrancainEurope.AsEnglishisthelanguagethatis
mostdistributedworldwideitistheonlylanguageunderconsideration.Iwill
argue that it is reasonable not only to enforce the acceptance of the
dominance of English as linguafranca, but also to actively promote it
politically,evenatthecostofotherlanguagesandoftheminoritylanguages
spokeninEurope.InsodoingIwillpartlyleavethefieldofempiricalanalysis
andmoveintothefieldofnormativedeliberation.Hereempiricalevidenceis
lessimportantthangoodargumentsthatmustbededucedandsubstantiated
inanormativelyplausibleway.
(1)Asbecameobviousinchapter3.3,theEuropeannationstates,althoughto
a different degree, pay keen attention to the maintenance of the status of
theirrespectivelanguageas an officiallanguageinsidetheEuropean Union.
Theyareonguardagainstanydisadvantagetotheirownlanguageandeven
try to foster the growing influence of this language. The European Union
acceptsinitslanguagepolicytwenty‐three official languages and does not
pursueapolicyoflinguistichomogenisation.Onthecontrary,besides the
officiallanguagesitsupportstheminoritylanguagesin Europe.Atthesame
timetheEUisawareofthefactthataunitedEuropewillonly become a
united Europe of all its citizens, if they are able to communicate across
nationalborders.Thatiswhyitpromotesthemultilingualismofitscitizens.
Itwantseverycitizentobeabletospeaktwoforeignlanguages.Therebyall
Europeanlanguagesaretreatedandsupportedequally.Forthepromotionof
multilingualism, the EU has taken a variety of measures as we have seen
above. Will this policy contribute to the improvement of communication
throughout Europe, thereby increasing the citizens’ opportunities for
participatingintheirEurope?
ActinguponthelanguagepolicyoftheEU,peopleinthetwenty‐seven
countries will study different foreign languages at one time, by means of
which the bilateral communication opportunities should improve
significantly. But a Europe without linguistic boundaries will not be

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
185
attainable in this way. A German studying Flemish, a French speaking
Spanish and a Pole being able to speak Latvian have each increased their
transnational linguistic capital, but that does not mean that they can
communicate with each other. Themorelanguagesexist,thegreater is the
varietyof possible languagecombinations people canchoose from,andthe
smalleristhelikelihoodoftwopeoplewhomeetwillhavechosenthesame
foreign language. Philippe Van Parijs (2004: 122f.) has calculated possible
combinationsfordifferentnumbersofmothertonguesandhasshownthatin
aEuropeoftwenty‐threeofficiallanguagesthefreechoiceoftwo foreign
languages cannot materially increase the probability that Europeans can
communicatewitheachother.Thevarietyoflanguageswhicharespokenin
theEuropeanParliamentillustratesthisconstellationandthesetofproblems
connected with it, as we have seen in chapter 3.3. Van Parijs (2004, 2011)
concludesthatpoliticsshouldfurtherenforceandfosterthetrend that has
alreadybeenempiricallydeterminedanyway,namelythatEnglishhastaken
holdaslinguafranca.67
WhataretheadvantagesofacommonforeignlanguageinEuropeandwhich
counterargumentshavetobeconsidered?Inordertofindananswertothat
question,wehavetakenargumentsbyVanParijs(2011)andhaveadded
somefurtherpoints.
(2)Sincethesocalledfreedomofmovementrulehasbeeninforcethelegal
preconditions have been in place for all EU citizens to settle with their
spousesandchildreninanymembercountryandtoworkthere.Thisoption
israrelyexercised.Aswehaveseeninchapter3.2,intra‐Europeanmobilityis
verylow.Oneofthemainreasonsforthislowmobilityisinsufficientforeign
languageskills.AgoodproficiencyofthelanguagespokenbymostoftheEU
citizensisapreconditionforbeingabletomakeuseoftheoptionsofmobility
inEuropeandthroughouttheworld.Inchapter2.1wehavediscussed
severaladvantageswhichareconnectedwiththepossessionoftransnational
67 VanParijs(2004, 2011)discussestwomorealternatives toEnglishaslinguafranca:the
introduction of Esperanto as a commonlanguage and the improvement of translations
withthehelpofmodernsoftwaredevelopment.Hearrivesattheconvincingconclusion
thatnoneofthemcanbeapracticablepossibility.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

186
capitalingeneralandEnglishproficiencyinparticular.Multilingualism,and
especiallythecommandofEnglish,allowsstudyinginothercountries, the
taking of exams there and the acquiring of respective certificates of
education. Secondly, English proficiency improves the chances of getting a
better job. The Europeanisation and globalisation of economy and politics
havealteredtheprofileofrequirementsforjobs.International experience
and the command of English have become pivotal aspects in one’s
qualifications. Persons having this competence can benefit fromthe
opportunitiesofaninternationallabourmarket.Thirdly,Englishproficiency
improvestheextensionofone’ssocialnetworkandinternational social
capital. In turn, international social capital itself is a resourcethat,among
otherthings,can beused fortheextension ofbusinessconnectionsand the
exerciseofpoliticalinfluence.Finally,goodEnglishproficiencyalsoimproves
the chances for political participation, involvement in the political life in
anothercountryandinatransnationalpublic.Thetransnationalisation of
politicalparticipationisespeciallyimportantinthe context oftheEuropean
integration.SincetheTreatyofMaastrichtin1992thecitizensoftheEUhold
notonlytheirnational,butalsoEUcitizenship.However,theycanonlyutilise
the associated legal possibilities, if they are able to communicate Europe‐
wide.
(3)Animprovementofthecitizens’commandofEnglishwouldnot only
entailadvantagesforindividualsinthedescribeddimensions,butwouldalso
have positive collective effects. Based on the possibility to communicate in
onelanguageandthetherebyreducedtransactioncosts,theinternal and
externalEuropeantradewouldbeconsiderablyfacilitated.Thisagainwould
raise European economic growth significantly. Geographical mobility being
facilitatedbytheproficiencyofEnglishwouldresultinabetter balance of
laboursupplyanddemandforlabourwithintheEUandagainwouldhavea
positiveeffectoneconomicgrowth(cf.ForschungsinstitutzurZukunft der
Arbeit2008).
Moreover,theemergenceofaEuropeanpublicwouldprofittremendouslyby
oneforeignlanguagebeingsharedbyallEuropeancitizens.Aswehaveseen

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
187
inchapter3.2,the political decisionmakingprocesseshavebeen constantly
Europeanised;collectivelybindingdecisionsarebeingmademorefrequently
byEUinstitutionsinsteadofnationalgovernmentsandparliaments. The
development of a European public is lagging behind this process,since the
mediacoveragecontinuestobewidelyattachedtothenationstates.Thus,for
example,thePolesinformthemselvesmostlyinPolishabouttheircountry’s
politics,theFrenchconcentratetheirattentiononwhatishappeningintheir
countryusingtheFrenchlanguage.Asaconsequence,thecitizensofEurope
arenotsufficientlyinformedaboutdecisionsmadebytheinstitutionsofthe
EU,althoughtheyaredirectlysubjecttothesedecisions.Oneof the most
importantreasonsforthisdeficitofaEuropeanpublicsphereistobefound
in the language problem (Gerhards 1993; Kielmannsegg 1996: 55; Grimm
1994: 44; Scharpf 1999: 674; Pérez‐Diaz 1998: 221; Schlesinger 1999).
Consequently,the emergence ofa European public sphere and the citizens’
participation in the European integration process would become
considerably easier, if the peopleofEuropecouldcommunicatewith each
otherandifthenewscoverageas well as discussions about theEuropean
integrationprocesscouldtakeplaceinacommonlanguage.68
68 ThethesisthattheexistenceofaEuropeanpublicsphere’sdeficitcaninthefirstplacebe
ascribedtothelanguageproblemhasnotremainedunchallenged.ReferringtoGadamer’s
hermeneutics Cathleen Kantner (2004) has tried to show in her analysis that
communication is also possible between two people not speaking a common language.
NicoleDoerr(2008,2009)showsinheranalysesofdiscussionsofgroupswhoprepared
the European Social Forum and the World Social Forum, that despite multilingualism
deliberativeprocesseshavebeenpossible.Analysingtheconditionsoftheemergenceofa
European public Thomas Risse (2010) references Cathleen Kantner’s thesis and alike
concludesthatthediversityoflanguagesdoes not hinder the emergenceof a European
public.However,theconclusionstheauthorshavedrawnunderestimatethefundamental
significance of a common language for every form of communication. Of course
communicationalsoworksviagestures and facial expressionsandcertainlytranslators
canbehired.Yet,takingintoaccountthetwenty‐threelanguagesoftheEU,thisturnsout
toberathercomplicated.Thetransactioncostsofcommunicationthatisnotconductedin
one language are tremendously high. Insofar we do not have to discusswhethera
commonlanguageisanessentialpreconditionforaEuropeanpublicsphere.Butwhatin
myopinion isundeniableisthe factthatitwould tremendouslyfacilitateand accelerate
theemergenceof a European publicsphere.And this precisely isthepivotalargument:
Startingfromtheassumption derived from theories ofdemocracythatan expansion of
theEuropeanpublicsphereisdesirable,thisaimwillbemoreeasilyachievedifEuropeis
linguisticallyunitedinacommon foreign language. Every citizen studying a different
foreign language will not dissolve the Babylonian confusion of languages in Europe.
Thereby the bilateralcommunication will improve, but not the chance of a uniform
communicationinsidethewholeofEurope.Thiswillonlybepossible, if everybody

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

188
There is one additional argument which brings the idea of a Europe being
linguistically united through the English language even closer to the
Habermasian idea of a European public sphere (Habermas 2004a/b). The
unifiedlanguagecommunityofEuropehasthechancetodevelopa“demos”
withoutbeingan“ethnos”atthesametime(VanParijs2004:118).Formost
ofthecitizensofEurope,theEnglishlanguageisnotafeatureofahistorically
grown community with a clear territorial reference, but a medium of
communication being widely exempt from historical ballast that is often
connectedwithnationallanguages.Inadditiontothat,theimplementationof
English as a dominant foreign language that has occurred until today is, at
leastinEurope,nottheresultofanexpansivelanguagepolicybytheBritish
ortheAmericanswantingtoimposetheirmothertongueonothercountries.
Itistheresultofa“soft‐power”constellationandmanysmall decisions of
individualsmutuallyenforcingeachother.Thisallowsfortheassumption
thattherewillbelittleresentmenttowardsEnglishaslinguafranca,as the
languageitselfisnotassociatedwithclaimstothepowerofacountry,
therebyprovokingfearofheteronomy.However,onecanassumethat the
institutionalisation of English as linguafranca would symbolically enhance
those who speak English as a mother tongue. The way in which this
inequalityregardingthereputationoflanguagescanbecompensatedfor,will
bediscussedbelow.
(4) As I have argued in chapter 1 and as we can learn from the processof
nationbuilding,acommonlanguagenotonlyfacilitatesastructural
integrationofsociety,butalsocontributestoidentityformationandidentity
building.Thisalsoappliesforhavingdifferentlanguagesatone’scommand.
Proficiency in foreign languages enables people to make transnational
experiences,to interact with people of differentcultures and thus to get to
knowdifferentwaysoflifeandsocieties.
69Thisleadstothecognitive
speaksthesameforeignlanguage;andthiscanunderthegivencircumstancesand the
dynamicofthedevelopmentonlybetheEnglishlanguage.
69 Thebroadeningofhorizonbygettingintouchwithotherculturescanalsobeinfluenced
bymedia usage.PippaNorrisandRonald Inglehart(2009:171ff.)foundout,thatpeople
followingthenewsshowhighertrustratesinpeoplefromothercountriesandother
religions.

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
189
broadeningofone’shorizon.Thus, the peoples’bondstotheir ownnational
“container” and the sub‐national units soften and openness for new bonds
developsbeyondthenationstate.
Robert Putnam (2007) has shown in a deliberative and methodologically
sound analysis, that there is a negative relationship between the level of
ethnicheterogeneityofasocietyandthelevelof trustbetweenthecitizens.
Thecorrelationbetweenthetwofactorsisrobustandstatisticallysignificant,
evenwhenone controlsfor many otherfactors whichinfluencethe levelof
trust (cf. also Newton & Delhey 2005). In contrast, people living in ethnic
homogeneous societies are more trustful and more open minded. Trust is
insofarimportantfortheintegrationofasocietyasitisapreconditionforthe
development of social capital, people’s involvement in the civil society and
thesolidaritybetweenthepeople(cf.alsoVanParijs2008:29).70
Quite often ethnic heterogeneity goes hand in hand with linguistic
heterogeneity. Hence, one can conclude that the relationship between
ethnicity and trust also holds true for the relationship between linguistic
heterogeneityandtrust.Tobeabletospeakthelanguagesofother people
willincreasetheprobabilityoftheemergenceoftrust,solidaritybetweenthe
peopleandtheidentificationwithone’ssociety.
Thesupposedeffectofforeignlanguagesonthebroadeningofhorizonsand
the development of trust and transnational identification is a relevant
question,especiallyfortheEU.Surveyresearchhasshownquiteoften, that
European citizens identify themselves first and foremost with their nation
state,theirregionandtheirtownandthatidentificationwithEuropehasnot
increasedovertime,althoughtheEuropeanintegrationprocesshasspeeded
uptremendously(cf.Noll&Scheuer2006;Roose2007).
70TheresultsofPutnam’sanalysisarediscussedcontroversiallyintheliterature.More
recentlyWillKymlicka(2009)hassummarisedthedebateandsupplementeditwiththe
resultsof hisownresearch.Thenegativerelationshipbetweenethnicheterogeneityand
trustissupportedbyotherstudies.However,thereseemstobenostatisticallysignificant
correlation between ethnic heterogeneity and the level of solidarity measured by the
amountofsocialexpenditure,whereasthegrowthofethnicheterogeneityhasanegative
impactonsocialexpenditure(cf.Kymlicka2009).

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

190
Ourdataallowsustotestatleastrudimentarilywhetherhaving
transnational linguistic capital has an impact on the citizens’ identification
with Europe and the support of theEuropeanunificationprocess. In the
surveyanalysedbyus,thecitizensinthetwenty‐sevenEUcountries were
askedwhetherandtowhichdegreetheyfeltattachedtoEurope.
Table5.1:TransnationallinguisticcapitalandidentificationwithEurope(in
%)
AttachmenttoEurope Proficiencyinforeignlanguages
 none one two three
Notatall 9.3 6.3 4.9 3.1
Notthatmuch 26.5 23.2 20.7 19.5
Fairly 42.0 46.5 47.3 48.1
Strongly 22.2 24.1 27.0 29.3
N10,1577,4375,2293,122
r=0.10***,Rho=0.10***,Tau‐b=0.08***(p<0.001)

Asdisplayedintable5.1,thosespeakingseverallanguagesalsofeelattached
toahigherdegreetoEurope.Thesamecorrelationappliestothosespeaking
English.TheyalsofeelmorestronglyattachedtoEuropethanthosewhodo
not speak English as a foreign language. These findings persistina
multivariateanalysisaswell.Besidestheproficiencyinforeignlanguagesand
in English we included a variety of other variables influencingthe
identificationwithEurope(cf.Fuchsetal.2009).
Infurtheranalysesweconsideredtheimpactofforeignlanguageproficiency,
orratherEnglishproficiency,onthesupportoftheEuropeanunification
processandonthefearsofthelossofanationalidentity(tablesarenot
presented here). The results show that those who are multilingual are in
favouroftheEUasaninstitution,andsupportafurtherdeepeningoftheEU,
andareatthesametimeculturallyopen‐mindedandshowlowtendenciesto
excludeforeigners.Theseresultsareconfirmedinamultivariateanalysis.In
addition,thesefindings correspondto thoseof Steffen Mau,Jan Mewesand
AnnZimmermann(2008a/b)whocouldshowthattransnationalexperiences
can foster cosmopolitan orientations. As a result, multilingualism and the

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
191
proficiencyinEnglishnotonlybringaboutadvantagesinintegratingcitizens
structurallyintoanemergingEuropeansociety,butalsosymbolically.
(5)The factual implementationof Englishas linguafrancaandthepleadto
politically support this process also leads to inequalities between the
differentlanguages.Languagesare,accordingtoAbramdeSwaan (2001b)
publicgoods.Andasinanypublicgood,thequestionremainshowtomanage
itsproductionwithouthavingsomeparticipantspayingallthecosts for it,
while others, even if unintentionally, profit from it as free riders without
takingashareinthecosts.InthecaseoftheintroductionofEnglishasa
linguafrancathosespeakingEnglishasamothertonguewouldbethefree
riders,astheydonothavetostudyanewlanguagethemselves.
Consequently,thosehavingtostudyEnglish asaforeignlanguagewould be
thosehavingtopaythecoststoproduceacommongood.71
Inaddition,English nativespeakers would becomeprivileged whenEnglish
becomes the official linguafranca of the European Union. They will have
advantagesonthelabourmarket,astheyspeakthelinguafrancabetterthan
thosewhohavestudieditasaforeignlanguage;theycanbetterexpresstheir
position in political and public debates and therefore become more
influential;theywillmoreeasilybuildupinternationalnetworksandwillbe
abletotransferthissocialcapitalintootherformsofcapital,etc.72
How can these anticipated inequalities be compensated for? Different
solutionsarediscussedintheliterature.JonathanPool(1991)cameforward
withthebestknownproposalthathemodelledmathematically.The basic
71 Ontheotherhand,investmentsinanewforeignlanguagearealsoofadvantageforthose
havingmadetheinvestment,astheynowhavetwolanguagesattheircommandandcan
capitalisethisbilingualism.
72 Van Parijs (2004) points out another inequality that would beconnectedwiththe
preferential treatment of English (see also Grin 2004). The preferential treatment of a
language does not only lead to better chances for the speakers of that language to
transform their language proficiency into other capitals. It also allows for the
enhancement of their symbolic capital, insofar their language’s prestige obtains more
acceptance.VanParijsmakessomesuggestionshowtoreducetheseexpectedeffects:(a)
“Demystification”: It should be noted that English is nothing butthedialectofsome
Germanicbarbarianshavingsettledacrossthecanal,sothereisnothingspecialaboutthe
Englishlanguage.(b)“Ritualaffirmation”:InthewaythePopeissuestheEasterblessing
in all languages of the world, the European Union should take care that in all public
ritualsmultilingualismissupportedsymbolically.

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

192
ideaisthattheintroductionofalinguafranca is connected with costs and
benefitswhicharedispersedtodifferentdegreesamongthedifferent
language groups. In order to achieve an equitable solution those language
communities whose mother tongue is chosen as a linguafrancashould
subsidisethose language communities that have to studythe linguafranca,
uptothepointatwhichcostsandbenefitsoftheforeignlanguageacquisition
evenout(VanParijs 2007:74,2011).The exactamountthat wouldhaveto
bepaidascompensationpaymentishardtodefineasforthispurpose a
multitudeofparametershavetobeincluded(morepreciselyVanParijs2007,
2011;Grin2004:199).
However,thefundamentalideaisextremelyappealing,asitpresentsa way
torefutetheargumentthattheintroductionofalinguafrancawillleadtoan
unequalandthusunjustburdenforthedifferentlanguagecommunities.And
itshowsthatanefficientandatthesametimefairlanguagepolicy in a
multilingualunionisinprincipalpossible.TheEuropeanUnionasapolitical
institution has the power and the possibilities for implementing such a
policy.Toadifferentdegreethetwenty‐sevencountrieswouldhavetotakea
shareinfinancingthislanguagepolicyoftheEUandrespectively the
resources would have to be distributed disproportionally to the countries.
ThosecountriesinwhichEnglishproficiencyisthelowestwouldhavetoget
thegreatestsupport.Thisideaofadisproportionalsupportisthereby
absolutelycompatiblewiththeEU’sfundamentalphilosophyofanintegrated
Europeandotherpoliticalmeasurements.
Regional policy could act as an example for the language policy. With
structural funds the EU aims at the adjustment of economically weaker
regions in order to contribute to the convergence of regions and member
countries.Inthefirstinstance,convergencemeansthesupportofgrowthand
employmentinregionsandmemberstateswiththebiggestbackwardness.
Growthandemploymentshouldbeachievedbyanimprovementofhuman
resources,innovationandtheadvancementoftheknowledgebasedsociety.
AEuropeanlanguagepolicycouldbelegitimisedbasedexactlyonthesegoals.
Itisaninvestmentinthehumancapitalofpreciselythosecitizens who

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
193
cannotadequatelyparticipateintheprocessofEuropeanisationduetoalack
ofproficiencyinEnglish.
VanParijs(2004:129)furthersuggestsameasurementthatwouldprobably
enhance the command of English in the population without any input of
resources. We have seen in the empirical analyses, that people in smaller
countries speak better English than people in countries with a large
population; this difference partially depends on the fact that in smaller
countries many movies and TV programmes are shown in the original
languagewhichinmanycasesisEnglish,whereasinlargercountriesnearly
allofthefilmsaredubbed.Thisisduetothefactthatthecostsfora
translationwould betoo high consideringthe relativelysmall demand.The
reception of movies in the original version supports the acquisition of the
languageinwhichthemovieisshown.SincemostofthemoviesareofAnglo‐
Americanorigin,subtitlingleadstotheimprovementoftheEnglishlanguage
proficiency. Though, Van Parijs’ (2004) proposal to ban the translation of
movies by law will neither be politically possible, nor is it legal, as such a
directionwouldcontradicttheprinciplesofafreemarket,which are
extensivelyprotectedbythelawsoftheEU.However,almostallcountriesin
theEUeitherhavepublicorstate‐runbroadcastingservices.Hence,member
states of the EU could mutually commit themselves to ensure, that their
publicbroadcastingservicesshowapartoftheirprogrammesandespecially
theyouthprogrammesintheoriginalversionsandlanguages.Thatwouldbe
ameasureinfavouroftheimprovementofforeignlanguageandEnglish
proficiency,asnotonlywoulditcostnothing,butevensavethe dubbing
costs.
(6)Theargumentsgivensofarshouldhavemadeclearthatacommonlingua
francawouldcertainlyacceleratetheEuropeanisationofthesocieties of
Europe, positively influence the economic growth, abet the emergence of a
European public sphere, improve the peoples’ equal opportunities to
participateintheprocessofEuropeanisationandenhancethecitizens’
identification with the European project. At the same time policiescanbe

FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

194
found in order to balance inequalities connected with the choice of a
languageaslinguafranca,asthelastparagraphhasshown.
TheweightiestargumentagainstthesupportofEnglishaslinguafrancaofa
unitedEuropeisraisedbythosewhoregardthedominanceofonelanguage
notonlyasadangertotheotherlanguages,butalsototheircultures,asthey
think languages and cultures are strongly interwoven. Thus, critics of a
dominanceofEnglishinterpretashiftinthediversityoflanguagesasashift
of dominance in the cultures. According to them the dominance of English
wouldatthesametimebeconnectedwiththedominanceofAnglo‐American
world views and values, as languages impose limits on the ways in which
speakersconceptualisetheworld.Everylanguageleadstoaunique
interpretationandconceptionalisationoftheworld;hence,different
languagesleadtodifferentcultures(cf.forexamplePhillipson2003).Richard
Münch(2004)particularlyregardsthefunction‐specificEnglishspokenbya
transnationalelitelikeofficialsinindustry,bybureaucratsandmanagement
consultantstobeathreat.Accordingtohimthislanguageconveysaspecific
ideologyofEuropeasaneo‐liberalproject.
Thisideaofthelinguisticfoundationofculturesrepresentsthe hegemonic
viewamonglinguistsandanthropologiststhatmanyinternational
organisationsaswellastheEUhaveadopted(cf.forexampleCrystal 2000;
Phillipson2003; Nic Craith2008). That does not necessarily meanthat the
hypothesisisplausible.
Firstly,thepromotion of Englishas a linguafrancaforallEuropeanswould
not mean that the linguistic sovereignty of the nation states inside the
countriesisbeingattacked.Thecountries’mothertongueswillbepreserved;
they will only be complemented by an accelerated promotion of aforeign
language.
Secondly,thecurrentresearchhardlysupportsthethesisoflanguagehaving
animpactonthinkingandtheconceptionalisationoftheworld.Iwilldiscuss
therelationship betweenlanguage and worldviewsmore extensivelyin the
appendix (in addition see Gerhards 2011; Nunner‐Winkler 2011). Modern

5.AnArgumentforaNewLanguagePolicyintheEU
195
cognitive psychology (Fodor 1975; Pinker 1994) states that thinking takes
placeinaspecialmentallanguage.Becauseofthat,theimpactofnatural
languagesonthinkingislowsothateverythingpeopleexpressinacertain
naturallanguagecaninprincipalbetranslatedintoanotherlanguage.Butif
languageandculturearenotthatintimatelyconnectedwitheachotherasis
often implied in the literature, this has consequences for eventual political
conclusions.Thus, one key argumentagainst a uniform foreign language in
Europeisrefuted,oratleastreduced.PhilippeVanParijsbrieflysummarizss
asfollows:“Thereisnothingintrinsically ‘pro‐capitalist’, or ‘anti‐poor’, or
‘market‐imperialist’abouttheEnglishlanguage,justasitisnotbecauseMarx
wroteinGermanthatthereissomethingintrinsically‘anti‐capitalist’or‘pro‐
proletarian’ or ‘state‐fetishist’ about the German language. Like all other
languagesintheworld,EnglishandGermanhavethemeansofexpressing
negation, so that whatever Marx wrote in German you can also deny in
GermanandwhateverBushsaidinEnglishyoucanalsodenyinEnglish”
(VanParijs2004:138).
Almost all arguments we have discussed support the idea of not only
enforcingacceptanceofthedominanceofEnglishaslinguafrancainEurope,
butpromotingitinapoliticallyactiveway,evenatthecostsofthesupportof
otherlanguages.ThestoryoftheTowerofBabelfromtheOldTestament
withwhichwestartedourstudyteachesuswhatgreatadvantagesacommon
languageprovides.TheEuropeansshouldnotbeafraidofthejudgement
fromabovewhensettingaboutthefurtherdevelopmentoftheEuropean
project.AcommonforeignlanguagewouldtremendouslyaccelerateEurope’s
developmentondifferentlevelsandwouldbringthepeopleinEuropecloser
together.



  196
AppendixA:TherelationshipbetweenLanguageandCulture

Inchapter3.3wehaveseenthattheprotectionoflanguageshas received
considerablymorelegalandpoliticalattentioninthelastthirtyyears.Andin
thelastchapterwehaveseenthatthereisalargegroupofscholars and
politicianswhocriticisethedominanceofEnglishasalinguafranca.Thereis
a central argument put forward for the encouragement and nurture of
different languages and against the dominance of one language: The
protection of diverse languages is equated to biological diversity. Different
languages lead to differences in cultural appropriation. Consequently the
protectionoflanguagesisanimperativeifonewantstoprotectnotonlythe
languagesbutalsothecultureswhicharecreatedbythelanguages.
Thisideaispoliticallyofgreatsignificance.Thoseauthorswhothinkthatthe
culture of a society is mediated largely by language are also those who
complainaboutthedeclineofindividuallanguages,especiallythe smaller
languagesandopposeagainstthedominanceofonehegemoniclanguage.To
themthelossofalanguageisalsothelossofacultureandforthisreasonis
interpretedasaveryspecialsacrifice(seeCrystal2000;foracriticalviewde
Swaan2004).Aswehaveseeninchapter3.3theEuropeanUnionhasmade
thispositionitsown. Itis,therefore,worthwhiledealing alittlelongerwith
thethesisthatlanguageshapestheconstructionofrealitywhileconsidering
atthesametimethecurrentresearchinthisarea.AsafirststepIwillbriefly
discuss the central arguments and examples which speak for the thesis
followedbythecriticalobjectionstoit.
(1) In 1770, the influential writer and philosopher of Weimar Classicism,
Johann Gottfried Herder, submitted a treatise “On the Origins of Human
Speech”tothe“ElectoralBrandenburgSocietyofSciencesandHumanties”in
replytoaninvitationbytheacademyitself,bymeansofwhichanargument
withintheacademywassupposedtobereconciled.Theargumentwasabout
whetherlanguagewaseitherofhumanorofgodlyorigin.Inthesecondpart

Appendix
197
of the treatise Herder deals with the question of the relationship between
history,societyandlanguage. AccordingtoHerdera specific languageleads
toaspecificworldview.Andbecausetherearemanylanguagesintheworld
thishasledtodifferentcultures.“Eachnationhasitsownstore of such
thoughtswhichhavebecomesigns,thisisitsnationallanguage: a store to
whichfor centuriesthey havecarried (...) the thoughts ofan entirepeople”
(Herder1984:76).WilhelmvonHumboldtfollowedHerder’sidea:“Through
the mutual dependence of thoughts and words on one another it becomes
absolutelyclearthatlanguagesarenotactuallyameanforshowingthetruth
whichhasalreadybeenrecognised,butfarmore,todiscoverthatwhichhas
notyetbeenrecognised.Thedifferenceisnotoneofsoundandsignsbutofa
diversityofworldviews”(Humboldt1963:262;seealsoTrabant2007).73
ThisideaofHerderandHumboldtisthenlaterdevelopedfurtherbyEdward
Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf (cf. summarised Hunt & Agnoli 1991; Hunt
73 The idea that language is crucial for the worldviews people hold seems also to be the
basic assumption in sociological thinking. AlfredSchütz, Peter L. Berger and Thomas
LuckmannhavetakenHumboldt’sideathathumanbeings’perceptionofandadaptionto
the world is conveyed by language and have developed a theory of language‐based
constructionofsociety.Everyoneisbornintoaworldwhichalreadyexists.He/shelearns
inthiscommunityhowtomasteramultitudeofsituations.Schützcallsthisunquestioned
knowledge as “recipe knowledge” (Schütz 1955/2003a: 122). At the same term each
personisbornintoaspecificlanguagecommunity.Theexistinglanguageisnotaneutral
mediumofcommunication.Itstructurestheknowledgeaboutsociety,thusaffectingthe
construction of social reality. “The existent languageis a system of existing experience
schemasthatderivefromtheidealisationandanonymisationoftheimmediatesubjective
experience. These typifications of experience which are removed from subjectivity are
sociallyobjective, wherebythey become asocietal given‘apriori’”(Schütz&Luckmann
2003:318). These typifications of experienceare largely mediatedbylanguage (Schütz
1972: 63f.). Thus, for example, the “Du” and the “Sie” in German mark the difference
betweentheprivateandthepublicspheres.Forexample,thejargon of the individual
sciencesrepresentsa linguistic objectivity which prescribestothepersonsactingin the
fieldhowtheyshouldbehave.Therefore,languagehasapowerwhichendowsknowledge
andreality(Berger&Luckmann1969/1987:163).Itispreciselythisideathatknowledge
about society is substantially knowledge which is mediated by language and that
typifications are linguistic normalisationswhich the authors express repeatedly. Alfred
Schütz has illustrated the great effectiveness of the typification of experience and its
dependenceonlanguageforthepurposesofcopingwithdailylifewith theexample of
strangers(Schütz1972).Forthosepeoplewhohavemovedfromonesocietytoanother,
thetypifiedexperienceswhichtheyhavealreadylearnednolongercount.Theynolonger
havethe knowledge which allowthem to typify situations.Theyno longer either know
thehorizonofmeaningconnectedtocertainwordsandsentencesnortheconnotationsof
wordsinwhichpastexperiencesarestored(Schütz1972:64).Preciselythispervasionof
languageandworldlyexperiencemakesitsodifficultforthestrangers to get their
bearingsin thenewsociety,simplybecausejustlearningthe newwordsandsyntaxofa
new language is never enough. To this day the theory of the linguistic construction of
realityisthedominantideainphenomenologicalsociology.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

198
2001).Thebasicthesisstatesthatthenativelanguagewhichwehavelearned
byspeakingdeterminesourthoughtandthecognitiverepresentationofthe
world.Accordingly,itisassumedthatdifferentlanguageslead to different
viewsof the world.Edward Sapir (1921)departed fromthe thesis thatthe
linguistic categories were a necessary prerequisite of the world view.
Somethingthatcannotbeprovidedforbylanguagecannotbeperceived.
Thisradicalviewoftherelationshipoflanguageandcognitiverepresentation
hasbeen,accordingtoHunt(2001:8320),falsifiedbypsychologicalresearch,
since there are more than enough examples which show that people even
without the appropriate linguistic categories are able to categorise in a
differentiatedmanner.Apopularexampleintheresearchisthe analysisof
colour perception (cf. Berlin & Kay 1999). Hunt (2001) reports onastudy
whichwascarriedoutwithanethnicgroupinNewGuinea,theDani. The
members of this group possess onlytwolinguisticcategoriesto describe
colour,namelylightanddark.Nevertheless,thepeopleareabletodiscerna
numberofdifferentcolours.
IncomparisontohisteacherSapir,BenjaminLeeWhorf(1956)developeda
more moderate thesis on the relation between language and cognitive
representation,inasmuchashestartsfromthepremisethatlanguage
influences but not determines thought. His examples refer, among other
things,toFranzBoas’example,whichhasbeentakenoverandfrequently
quotedintheliteratureofthemanywordswhichtheEskimos use for snow
andtheanalysisoftheideasoftheHopiIndiansregardingspaceandtime.74
There is now much empirical evidence to support the correctnessofthis
moderate thesis. Three examples should be mentioned very briefly (cf. the
presentation in Hunt & Agnoli 1991; Hunt 2001; for further examples cf.
Werlen 2002; Boroditsky 2003, 2011; Nunner‐Winkler 2011; cf. also the
contributionsinGumperz&Levinson1996):
74 OfficiallyEskimoshavefourwordsforsnow:aput(snowonthe ground), qana (falling
snow),piqsirpoq(driftingsnow)andqimuqsuq(snowdrift)(cf.Werlen2002:385).


Appendix
199
(a)InSpanishtherearetwodifferentversionsoftheverb“tobe”.Whilethe
verb“ser”isusedtodescribethingswhichonealwayshas,theverb“estar”is
usedforthose thingswhichonehas temporarily. Onesays,for example“Yo
soyunhombre”(Iamaman),but“Estoyenmiofficinal”(Iaminmyoffice).
Thiswayofexpressingdifferentiationslinguistically,whichexistsneitherin
GermannorinEnglish,enablesSpanishchildrentodifferentiatebetweenthe
permanentandthetemporaryqualitiesofobjects;anabilitywhichchildren,
inwhoselanguagesthiswayofdifferentiatinglinguisticallydoesnotexist,do
nothavetothesamedegree.
(b)Therearelanguagesinwhichthewordsfornumbersareconsecutively
conjugated. This is not true for German and English, for instance. The
numbers“eleven”and“twelve”haveaspecialstatusinasmuchastheyarenot
compoundwordsof“ten”plus“one”or“ten”plus“two”.Onlyafter the
numbersthirteenandfourteenthenamesofnumbersarecompoundwords.
Mandarinisdifferent.Studieshaveshownthatpupilsinwhoselanguagethe
laynumbersdonotfollowinaconsecutivelylogicallinguisticmannerhave
moreproblemsinmathswiththenumericalorderwiththe“non‐logically
derived” names of numbers than pupils in whose language the numerical
sequenceiscompletelylogical.HuntandAgnoli(1991)interpret these
findingsasanexampleofthefactthatthelinguisticcategoriesofthoughtare
hereinfluencingtheonesthatareoperatingmathematically.
(c)Inmanylanguagesthere isadifferencebetweenstateand nation.While
the concept of the state denotes the political administration and the
governmentofacountry,theconceptofnationreferstoculturalunityofa
society.InChinesethereisnolinguisticdifferencebetweenstateandnation.
This non‐existent differentiation in the language has led to considerable
misunderstandingsbetweenthePeople’sRepublicofChinaandTaiwan.The
People’s Republic of China accepts the existence of two states and the fact
thatcooperationexistsbetweenthetwostates.Chinaclaims,however, that
thereisonlyoneChinesenationandthatTaiwanisapartofthatnation.The
fact that in Chinese there is no way to distinguish linguisticially between
state and nation has led to conflicts between the two countries. Hence the

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

200
People’s Republic reacted aggressively to Taiwan’s request thattherebea
twostatesolution,thinkingtheyweresuggestingatwonationsolution(Hunt
2001).
(2) Let us now look at the contra‐arguments to the idea of the linguistic
constructionofreality.TheWhorfhypothesishasbeencriticisedbyscholars
from the field of cognitive psychology. Accepting Noam Chomsky’s work,
JerryFodor(1975),inhismuchquotedmonograph,startsfromthepremise
that thought takes place in a special mental language (“mentalese”). This
mentallanguageisauniversalone,whichallpeoplepossess.Everyoperation
inthismentallanguagecanbetranslatedintoanaturallanguage.Afewyears
later Steven Pinker put forward arguments in a similar vein (1994) in his
essay “The Language Instinct”, which is based on a great deal of empirical
research.75Twoconclusionsresultfromthebasicassumptions:(a)Because
thoughtstakeplaceinaninnerlanguage, the influenceofnaturalspeechon
thoughtislow.(b)Everythingwhichpeopleexpressinaparticularnatural
language can essentially be translated into another language. In this
connection Hunt speaks of an “intertranslatability hypothesis” (Hunt 2001:
8320).Thisdoesnotmeanthattranslationiseasy.Frequently,onelanguage
doesnotpossessthewordwhichanotherlanguagegivestothesamethought.
Atthispointagreatdealofeffortgoesintowritingaroundthe idea or
describingit.Thegreateffortwhichtranslatinginvolvesshouldnot,however,
disabuseusoftheideathattranslationisnotinprinciplepossible.
If we interpret the abovementioned three examples in the light of this
assumptionfromcognitive psychologythen one canassumethat thereis in
factalanguageinfluence onthought,however, thisinfluenceis limited.The
difference between “ser” and “estar” in Spanish can be expressed by other
languages,even ifit isa bitmore complicatedand involvescircumlocution.
Thelinguisticallyillogical laynumbersinmany languagesmayhaveasmall
impactonnumeracy, thisimpact,however, willnotbe verygreat.The non‐
existenceofthedifferencebetweenstateandnationinMandarinmayleadto
75 Pinker(1994:55‐82)dealswithWhorf’sideasatmorelength.Inthelightofmorerecent
researchhecomestotheconclusionthatWhorf’sthesiscanberegardedasfalse.

Appendix
201
political irritations should the difference between the two concepts be
important. However, once the linguistic source of the irritation has been
realisedtheproblemcaneasilybesortedoutthroughcircumlocution.
EvenHunt,whoinactualfactisasupporterofWhorf’shypothesis,saysatthe
endofhissurveyoftheliteratureontheeffectoflanguageonperceptionsof
theworld:“Theeffectsaregenerallyrathersmall,buttheyoccureverydaya
speakeruseslanguage.Whetherornotlanguageexertsanimportantcontrol
onthoughtdependsuponhowonedefines‘important’”(Hunt2001:8324).If
onetriestospecify“important”moreclosely,onecomestotheconclusion
thattheinfluenceoflanguageontheconstructionofrealityisnotverylarge.
(a)Itmayberightthatinthedifferentlanguagestherearedifferentterms
whichlead todifferencesin cognitiverepresentation. Onecannot, however,
conclude from examples that world views are fundamentally different in
different languages. The linguistic differences must be compared to the
linguisticsimilarities.Ifonedoesthisbyusingadictionaryonewillseethat
therearewordsfor mostthingsin theworldinthe differentlanguages,the
overlapbetweenlanguage andtheworld indifferentlanguages istherefore
relativelyhigh.
(b)Inthosecasesforwhichthisisnottruethesamecontentcanusuallybe
describedbycircumlocution.If in onelanguagethereisnospecial wordfor
thedifferenttypesofsnow,thenonecandescribethesnowwithotherwords
(“dry”, “wet”, etc.). The differencesinvocabularyonlymeanthat in one
languagetherearehigherlinguistictransactionscosts–meaningthatonehas
tousemorecircumlocutions–not,however,thatitistotallyimpossible.
(c)Thefeasibledifferencesbetweendistinctlanguagesdependonthefamily
similarityofthelanguages.Themoresimilarthelanguagesare,thelesslikely
itisthattherewillbedifferencesinworldviews.Whorfhimselfhasindicated
thatthe“standardaverageEuropeanlanguages”haveamoreorlesssimilar
history and therefore will not be very much different from one another in
theircognitiverepresentationofthe world (cf.inthiscontextWerlen2002:
384).Thiswasoneofthereasonswhyhechoselanguageswhichbelongedto

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

202
anentirelydifferentlanguagefamily,forinstance,theHopilanguage,inorder
tosupporthisthesis.Thelanguageswhichareatthecentreofouranalysisall
belongtothesamelanguagefamily.Inaworldinwhichweareincreasingly
interwoven with each other the experiences of human beings will become
ever more similar and the differences between different language
communitieseverless.
(d)Finally, onecan assumethat the differencesbetween variouslanguages
depend on the field which the languages are referring to. Mathematical
derivatives can probably be translated into all the languages in the world,
becausetheorderofthesymbolsandthemeaningassociatedwiththemare
perfectlyclear.Inprivatelifeorinliterature(inparticularpoetry),whichdo
not allow a speaker to use long circumscriptions in order to express
something for which there is no word in one of the languages, it might be
moredifficult.Ifthereisnowordforspecialfactsandcircumstances (like
“Heimat” or “Weltschmerz” in German) then this cannot be said directly,
maybenotevenfeltorthought.
Allinall,theseremarkswereintendedtoshowthattheassumptionthatthe
constructionofsocialrealityisalinguisticoneandalsodifferentaccordingto
each language is not sustainable. It may be the right way to describe the
exception,butnottherule.Thispointisimportantwhenitcomes to the
normativequestionofwhatagoodlanguagepolicyshouldbelike.Oneofthe
central arguments brought forward against the introduction of acentral
language or a linguafranca, emphasises the point that not only the other
languages,butalsothecultureofthespeakersoftheselanguages,wouldbe
threatened.If,however,languageandculturearenotascloselyboundtoone
anotherastheliteratureassumes,thenthishasconsequencesforthepolitical
conclusionsinregardtolanguage.








Appendix
203
AppendixB:DescriptionofVariables

Variable Values Description Datasource
Foreign
language
proficiency
0=none
1=one
2=two
3=threeor
more
numberofforeign
languagesin
whichapersonis
abletohavea
conversation,due
toself‐
assessment
EB63.4
English
proficiency
0=no
1=yes
abilitytohavea
conversationin
English–self‐
assessment
EB63.4
Multilingual
country
0=no
1=yes
countrywith
morethanone
officiallanguage

Prevalenceof
nativelanguage
0%to100%

shareofEU
population
speakingthe
languageas
foreignoras
nativelanguage
EB63.4
Linguistic
distance
0=verylow
1=low
2=high
3=veryhigh
linguisticdistance
betweennative
languageand
Englishaccording
totheaffiliation
tothesame
familyof
languages
http://www.ethnol
ogue.com
Countrysize 0,399to82,5

populationin
million
Eurostat
Acountry’s
levelof
modernization
0,805to0,956
<0.87=low
0,87‐0,939=
middle
≥0,94=high
Human
Development
Index2004:gross
domesticproduct,
lifeexpectancy,
literacyrate,
enrolmentratio;
metricallyand
categoricallyused

http://hdr.undp.org
/en/statistics

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

204
National
educational
expenditure
1436to8093
<3700=low
3700‐6299=
middle
≥6300=high
educational
expenditureper
yearandstudent
inEuroPPS;
metricallyand
categorically
used;for
multivariate
analysisin1000
EuroPPS
Eurostat
Ex‐socialist
country
0=no
1=yes
country
classification
accordingtothe
situationof1989

Age 15to97 ageoftheperson
inyears
EB63.4
Classfractions ineachcase
0=no
1=yes
dummyvariables
for(a)
professionals,(b)
higherand
middle
management,(c)
entrepreneurs,
self‐employed,
(d)skilled
workers,white
collar(e)
unskilledworkers
EB63.4
Institutionalize
dcultural
capital
14‐25
≤15=low
16–20=
middle
≥21=high
ageattheendof
theeducationin
years,max.25
years;metrically
andcategorically
used
EB63.4
Identification
withcountry
1=verystrong
2=fairly
strong
3=notvery
strong
4=notstrong
aperson’s
identification
withthecountry
ofresidence
EB63.4
Identification
withcountry,
regionandcity
1to10
1=notstrong
10=very
strong
additiveindex–
theperson’s
identification
withcity,region
andcountryof
EB63.4

Appendix
205
residence;
metricallyand
categoricallyused
Countryof
birth
0=inthe
countrywhere
respondentis
nowliving
1=different
country
thepersons’
countryofbirth
EB63.4
Parents‘
countryof
birth
0=bothinthe
countrythe
respondentis
nowliving
1=atleastone
parentin
another
country
theparents’
countryofbirth
EB63.4


  206
References
Ager, Dennis (1996): LanguagePolicyinBritainandFrance. New York/
London:Cassell.
Ager, Dennis (1997): Language,CommunityandtheState:Linguistic
DevelopmentsinEuropeanNationStates.Exeter:IntellectBooks.
Altvater,Elmar & BirgitMahnkopf (1999): GrenzenderGlobalisierung.Öko
nomie,ÖkologieundPolitikinderWeltgesellschaft.Münster:Westfäli‐
schesDampfboot.
Ambrosius,Gerold(1996):WirtschaftsraumEuropa.VomEndederNational
ökonomien.Frankfurta.M.:Fischer.
Ammon,Ulrich(2006):LanguageConflictsintheEuropeanUnion.OnFinding
aPoliticallyAcceptableandPracticableSolutionforEUInstitutions
that Satisfies Diverging Interests. InternationalJournalofApplied
Linguistics16:319‐338.
Anderson,Benedict(1991):ImaginedCommunities:ReflectionsontheOrigin
andSpreadofNationalism.London:Verso.
Arzoz, Xabier (2008a): Introduction: Respecting Linguistic Diversity in the
EuropeanUnion.InXabierArzoz(Ed.):RespectingLinguisticDiversity
intheEuropeanUnion.Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjaminsB.V.,
1‐16.
Arzoz,Xabier(2008b):TheProtectionofLinguisticDiversitythroughArticle
22oftheCharterofFundamentalRights.InXabierArzoz(Ed.):
RespectingLinguisticDiversityintheEuropeanUnion. Amsterdam:
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.,123‐144.
Auer, Peter & Li Wei (2007): HandbookofMultilingualismandMultilingual
Communication.Berlin:deGruyter.
Bach,Maurizio(2008):EuropaohneGesellschaft.PolitischeSoziologiedereu
ropäischenIntegration.Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfürSozialwissenschaf‐
ten.
Bach, Maurizio (Ed.) (2000): DieEuropäisierungnationalerGesellschaften.
Sonderheft40derKölnerZeitschriftfürSoziologieundSozialpsycholo
gie.Opladen:WestdeutscherVerlag.
Banting,Keith,RichardJohnston,WillKymlicka&StuartSoroka(2006): Do
Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State? An Empirical
Analysis.InKeithBanting&WillKymlicka(Eds.):Multiculturalismand
theWelfareState:RecognitionandRedistributioninContemporary
Democracies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,49‐91.
Bartolini, Stefano (2005): RestructuringEurope.CentreFormation,System
BuildingandPoliticalStructuringbetweenNationstateandthe
EuropeanUnion.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
BBC (2006): ChiracupsetbyEnglishaddress(24.03.06), URL.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4840160.stm (Accessed on
August10th2012).
Beck,Daniel&BertilSchwotzer(2006):Fernsehnachrichtenineinemmehr‐
sprachigen Land. Eine Langzeitanalyse von Tagesschau, Téléjournal
undTelegiornale.MedienwissenschaftSchweiz1&2:25‐33.

References
207
Beck,Ulrich&EdgarGrande(2004):DaskosmopolitischeEuropa.Frankfurta.
M.:Suhrkamp.
Beck,Ulrich (1997):WasistGlobalisierung?IrrtümerdesGlobalismus–Ant
wortenaufGlobalisierung.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.
Becker,Benjamin(2008):TrendsinderSprachpolitikundSprachenpolitikder
EuropäischenUnion.UnpublishedMasterthesis.InstitutfürSoziologie.
FreieUniversitätBerlin.
Becker,GaryS.(1993):HumanCapital:ATheoreticalandEmpiricalAnalysis,
withSpecialReferencetoEducation. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Beckfield,Jason(2006):EuropeanIntegrationandIncomeInequality.
AmericanSociologicalReview71:964‐985.
Bell,Daniel(1973):TheComingofPostindustrialSociety:AVentureofSocial
Forecasting.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Berger,PeterL.&ThomasLuckmann(1969/1987):DiegesellschaftlicheKon
struktionderWirklichkeit.EineTheoriederWissenssoziologie. Frank‐
furta.M.:FischerVerlag.
Berlin, Brent & Paul Kay (1969): BasicColorTerms:TheirUniversalityand
Evolution.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Bernecker, Walther L., Thorsten Eßler & Peter A. Kraus (2007): Einekleine
GeschichteKataloniens.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.
Bernstein,Basil(1960):Language andSocialClass:A ResearchNote.British
JournalofSociology11(3):271‐76.
Bernstein, Basil (1973): Class,CodesandControl(Vol.1&2). London:
Routledge&KeganPaul.
Bhatia,TejK.&WilliamC.Ritchie(2006):HandbookofBilingualism.Oxford:
BlackwellPublishing.
Bialystok,Ellen(2001):BilingualisminDevelopment:Language,Literacyand
Cognition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Billig,Michael&HenriTajfel(1973):SocialCategorizationand Similarityin
IntergroupBehaviour.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology3:27‐52.
Boroditsky, Lera (2003): Linguistic Relativity. In Lynn Nadel (Ed.):
EncyclopediaofCognitiveScience.London:MacMillanPress,917‐921.
Boroditsky,Lera(2011):HowLanguageShapesThought.ScientificAmerican
February2011:63‐65.
Borovsky, Anna & Falk Hartig (2008): Irisch für Parlamentarier. Über die
WiederbelebungderirischenKulturdurchdieEU‐Sprachpolitikund
die Abstimmung zum EU‐Reformvertrag. Ein Gespräch mit Jim Hig‐
gins. Kulturaustausch. ZeitschriftfürinternationalePerspektiven 111:
71.
Börzel,TanjaA.&ThomasRisse(2002):EuropäisierungunddieTransforma‐
tionderNationalstaaten.InVolkerH.Schneider(Ed.):Entgrenzte
Märkte–grenzenloseBürokratie?EuropäisierunginWirtschaft,Recht
undPolitik.Frankfurta.M.:Campus,86‐110.
Bourdieu,Pierre&Jean‐ClaudePasseron(1977):ReproductioninEducation,
Society,andCulture.London:Sage.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

208
Bourdieu,Pierre(1983): ÖkonomischesKapital, kulturelles Kapital,soziales
Kapital.InReinhardKreckel(Ed.):SozialeUngleichheit.Sonderband2
derSozialenWelt.Göttingen:OttoSchwarz&Co.,183‐198.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1984): Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementof
Taste.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1992): LanguageandSymbolicPower. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Braun, Michael (2010): Foreign Language Proficiency of Intra‐European
Migrants:A Multilevel Analysis. EuropeanSociologicalReview26(5):
603‐617.
Büchner,Charlotte(2004):InvestitioninHumankapital:Auslandsaufenthalte
vonSchülern.DIWWochenbericht45:709‐712.
Carliner, Geoffrey (2000): The Language Ability of U.S. Immigrants:
Assimilation and Cohort Effects. InternationalMigrationReview 34:
158‐182.
Castiglione,Dario&ChrisLongman(2007):TheLanguageQuestioninEurope
andDiverseSocieties:Political,LegalandSocialPerspectives. Oxford:
HartPublishing.
Chen, Ping (1999): ModernChinese.HistoryandSociolinguistics.
Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Chiswick, Barry R. & Paul W. Miller (1995): The Endogeneity between
Language and Earnings: International Analyses. JournalofLabour
Economics13:246‐88.
Chiswick,BarryR.&PaulW.Miller(2001):AModelofDestination‐Language
Acquisition: Application to Male Immigrants in Canada. Demography
38:391‐409.
Chiswick, Barry R. & Paul W. Miller (2004): Linguistic Distance: A
QuantitativeMeasureoftheDistanceBetweenEnglishandOther
Languages.DiscussionPaperNo.1246.Bonn:InstitutefortheStudyof
Labour.
Chiswick,Barry R.(2007): TheEconomicsofLanguage:AnIntroductionand
Overview.JulianSimonLecture(IV).Bonn:IZA–InstitutefortheStudy
ofLabour.
Council of the European Economic Community (2007): RegulationNo1
determiningthelanguagestobeusedbytheEuropeanEconomic
Community. URL: http://eur‐
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
CONSLEG:1958R0001:20070101:EN:PDF (Access on August 10th
2012).
Crouch, Colin (1999): SocialChangeinWesternEurope. Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Crystal, David (2000): LanguageDeath. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Crystal, David (2003): EnglishasaGlobalLanguage. Cambridge/New York:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
DeSaussure, Ferdinand (1967):GrundfragenderallgemeinenSprachwissen
schaft.Berlin:DeGruyter.

References
209
De Swaan, Abram (1993): The Evolving European Language System: A
Theory of Communication Potential and Language Competition.
InternationalPoliticalScienceReview14(3):241‐256.
De Swaan, Abram (2001a): The Language Constellation of the European
Union.InMartinKohli&MojcaNovak(Eds.):WillEuropeWork?
Integration,EmploymentandtheSocialOrder. London, New York:
Routledge,170‐181.
DeSwaan,Abram(2001b):WordsoftheWorld–TheGlobalLanguageSystem.
Cambridgeetal.:PolityPress.
De Swaan, Abram (2004): Endangered Languages, Sociolinguistics,and
LinguisticSentimentalism.EuropeanReview12(4):567‐580.
Delhey,Jan(2005): Das AbenteuerderEuropäisierung. Überlegungenzuei‐
nemsoziologischenBegriffeuropäischerIntegrationundzurStellung
derSoziologiezudenIntegrationStudies.Soziologie34:7‐27.
Díez‐Medrano, Juan (2003): FramingEurope.AttitudestoEuropean
IntegrationinGermany,SpainandtheUnitedKingdom. Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Díez‐Medrano, Juan (2008): Europeanisation and the Emergence ofa
European Society. IBEIWorkingPaperNo.12. URL.
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1086084(AccessedonAugust10th2011).
Díez‐Medrano, Juan (2011): The Present and Future of Social Classes. In
Adrian Favell & Virginie Guiraudon (Eds): TheSociologyofthe
EuropeanUnion.Basingstoke:Palgrave,28‐50.
Dixon,RobertM.W.(1997):TheRiseandFallofLanguages.Cambridge/New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Doerr,Nicole(2008):DeliberativeDiscussion,Language,andEfficiencyinthe
WorldSocial ForumProcess. Mobilization:AnInternationalQuarterly
13:395‐410.
Doerr, Nicole (2009): Language and Democracy ‘in movement’:
Multilingualism and the Case of the European Social Forum Process.
SocialMovementStudies8:149‐165.
Dreher,Axel(2006):DoesGlobalisationAffectGrowth?EvidencefromaNew
IndexofGlobalisation.AppliedEconomics38(10):1091‐1110.
Dustmann, Christian & Arthur van Soest (2001): Language Fluencyand
Earnings:EstimationwithMisclassifiedLanguageIndicators.Reviewof
EconomicsandStatistics83(4):663‐74.
Eldredge, Niles & Stephen J. Gould (1972): Punctuated Equilibria: An
AlternativetoPhyleticGradualism.InThomasJ.M.Schopf(Ed.):
ModelsinPaleobiology.SanFrancisco:Freeman,CooperandCompany,
82‐115.
Erikson,Robert & John H. Goldthorpe (1992): TheConstantFlux:AStudyof
ClassMobilityinIndustrialSocieties.Oxford:Clarendon.
Espenshade, Thomas J. & Haishan Fu (1997): An Analysis of English‐
Language Proficiency among U.S. Immigrants. AmericanSociological
Review62(2):288‐305.
Esser, Hartmut (2000): Soziologie.SpezielleGrundlagen.Band3:Soziales
Handeln.Frankfurta.M.:Campus.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

210
Esser, Hartmut (2006): SpracheundIntegration.DiesozialenBedingungen
undFolgendesSpracherwerbsvonMigranten.Frankfurta.M.:Campus.
ETHZ (2009): KOFIndexofGlobalisation. URL: http://globalization.
kof.ethz.ch(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Europäischer Gerichtshof (2008): C–RechtsprechungsstatistikendesGe
richtshof. URL: http:// http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/
application/pdf/2012‐06/ra2011_statistiques_cour_de.pdf (Accessed
onAugust10th2012),23‐24.
EuropeanCommission(2008):TimeseriesErasmusStudentMobility(number
ofoutgoingstudents):1987/88–2006/07.URL:http://ec.europa.eu/
education/programmes/llp/erasmus/stat_en.html (Accessed on
August10th2012).
European Commission (2009): Annex1:OutgoingErasmusStudentsfrom
1987/1988to2007/2008. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/
erasmus/doc920_en.htm(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
EuropeanCommunity(2000):CharterofFundamentalRightsoftheEuropean
Union. C 364/1. URL: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/
text_en.pdf(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Eurostat (2002): AußenundIntrahandelderEuropäischenUnion–Statisti
schesJahrbuch–Daten19582001.Luxemburg:AmtfüramtlicheVer‐
öffentlichungen der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. URL.
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details
/publication?p_product_code=KS‐CV‐02‐001(AccessedonAugust10th
2012).
Eurostat(2006): ExternalandintraEuropeantrade–StatisticalYearbook–
Data19582005.Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsofthe
European Communities. URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS‐
CV‐06‐002(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Eurostat(2009a):ExternalandintraEuropeantrade–StatisticalYearbook
Data19582007.Luxembourg:OfficeforOfficialPublicationsofthe
European Communities. URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/
portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS‐
GI‐08‐001(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Eurostat (2009b): Bevölkerung(Jahresdurchschnitt)nachGeschlechtundAl
ter. URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/popu
lation/data/database(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Eurostat (2009c): AnzahlderStudierendennachISCEDStufe,AlterundGe
schlecht. URL: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?
dataset=educ_enrl1tl&lang=de(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Favell, Adrian & Guiraudon, Virginie (Eds.) (2010): SociologyofEurope.
Basinsgstoke:Palgrave.
Favell,Adrian(2008):EurostarsandEurocities:FreeMovementandMobility
inanIntegratingEurope.Oxford:Blackwell.
Felbermayr,GabrielJ.&FaridToubal (2010):CulturalProximityandTrade.
EuropeanEconomicReview54:279‐293.

References
211
Fischer, Julia (2008a): DieEvolutionderSprache. Reihe: Bertha Benz‐
Vorlesung, Nr. 25, Gottlieb Daimler‐ und Karl Benz‐Stiftung Laden‐
burg.
Fischer,Julia(2008b):ZurEvolutiondermenschlichenSprache–einVergleich
derKommunikationvonMenschundTier. Manuskript zu einem Vor‐
tragvorderGesellschaftDeutscherNaturforscher(20.‐22.09.08).
Fligstein,Neil& FredericMerand (2002): GlobalisationorEuropeanisation?
Changesin theEuropean Economy,1980‐ 2000. ActaSociologica 45:
7‐22.
Fligstein,Neil&AlecStoneSweet(2002):ConstructingPolitiesandMarkets:
AnInstitutionalistAccountofEuropeanIntegration.AmericanJournal
ofSociology107:1206‐1243.
Fligstein,Neil(2008):Euroclash.TheEU,EuropeanIdentity,andtheFutureof
Europe.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Fodor, Ferenc & Sandrine Peluau (2003): Language Geostrategy inEastern
andCentralEuropa: Assessmentand Perspectives. InJaquesMaurais
& Michael A. Morris (Eds.): LanguagesinaGlobalisingWorld.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,85‐98.
Fodor,Jerry(1975):TheLanguageofThought.Cambridge:ThomasCrowell.
Forsberg, Tuomas (2000): A Friend in Need or a Friend Indeed? Finnish
Perceptionsof Germany’sRoleintheEUandEurope.WorkingPaper.
TheFinnishInstituteofInternationalAffairsNr.24.
ForschungsinstitutzurZukunftderArbeit(2008):GeographischeMobilitätin
derEuropäischenUnion.Mobilisierungihrersozialenundökonomischen
Vorteile.BerichtfürdieEuropäischeKommission–GDBeschäftigung,
sozialeAngelegenheitenundChancengleichheit.URL.
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=de&catId=89&newsId=3
85(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Friederici,AngelaD.(2002):WiewirSpracheverstehen–NeuronalePräzisi‐
oninRaumundZeit.InMax‐Planck‐Gesellschaft(Ed.):Jahrbuchder
MaxPlanckGesellschaft. Leipzig: Max‐Planck‐Institut für neuropsy‐
chologischeForschung,43‐53.
Fuchs,Dieter,IsabelleGuinaudeau&SophiaSchubert(2009):NationalIden‐
tity,EuropeanIdentityandEurosceptism.InDieterFuchs,RaulMagni‐
Berton&AntoineRoger(Eds.):Eurosceptism.ImagesofEuropeamong
MassPublicsandPoliticalElites. Opladen/Farmington Hills: Budrich,
91‐114.
Gerhards,Jürgen&HolgerLengfeld(2008):TheGrowingRemitoftheEUin
ClimateChangePolicyandCitizens’SupportAcrosstheUnion.Journal
ofEuropeanSocialPolicy18:337‐341.
Gerhards,Jürgen&JörgRössel(1999):ZurTransnationalisierungderGesell‐
schaft der Bundesrepublik. Entwicklungen, Ursachen und mögliche
FolgenfürdieeuropäischeIntegration.ZeitschriftfürSoziologie28(5):
325‐344.
Gerhards,Jürgen(1993):WesteuropäischeIntegrationunddieSchwierigkei‐
ten der Entstehung einer europäischen Öffentlichkeit. Zeitschriftfür
Soziologie22:96‐110.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

212
Gerhards,Jürgen(2000):Europäisierung vonÖkonomieund Politik unddie
Trägheitder Entstehungeiner europäischenÖffentlichkeit. InMauri‐
zioBach(Ed.):DieEuropäisierungnationalerGesellschaften.Sonderheft
40derKölnerZeitschriftfürSoziologieundSozialpsychologie.Opladen,
277‐305.
Gerhards, Jürgen (2007):CulturalOverstretch?TheEnlargementofthe
EuropeanUnionandtheCulturalDifferencesbetweenOldandNew
MemberStatesandTurkey.London/NewYork:Routledge.
Gerhards, Jürgen (2010): Transnationales linguistisches KapitalderBürger
undderProzessdereuropäischenIntegration.InMonikaEigmüller&
Steffen Mau (Eds.): GesellschaftstheorieundEuropapolitik.Sozialwis
senschaftlicheAnsätzezurEuropaforschung.Wiesbaden:VerlagfürSo‐
zialwissenschaften,213‐244.
Gerhards,Jürgen(2011): DerKultderMinderheitensprachen.Leviathan 39:
165‐189.
Gerhards,Jürgen,MikeS.Schäfer&SylviaKämpfer(2009):GenderEquality
intheEuropeanUnion:TheEUScriptanditsSupportintheMember
States.Sociology43(3):515‐534.
Geser, Hans (1992): Kleinstaaten im internationalen System. KölnerZeit
schriftfürSoziologieundSozialpsychologie44:627‐654.
Giles, Howard & Andrew C. Billings (2004): Assessing Language Attitudes:
SpeakerEvaluationStudies.InAlanDavies&CatherineElder(Eds.):
TheHandbookofAppliedLinguistics.Oxford:Blackwell,187‐209.
Giles,Howard&Patricia Johnson(1987):EthnolinguisticIdentity Theory:A
SocialPsychologicalApproachtoLanguageMaintenance.International
JournaloftheSociologyofLanguage68:69‐99.
Grillo, Ralph D. (1989): DominantLanguages.LanguageandHierarchyin
BritainandFrance. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Grin, Francois & Tom Moring (2002): SupportforMinorityLanguagesin
Europe(FinalReport).URL:http://ec.europa.eu/education/
languages/pdf/doc639_en.pdf(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Grin, Francois (1994): The Economics of Language: Match or Mismatch.
InternationalPoliticalScienceReview15:25‐42.
Grin, Francois (2004): On the Costs of Cultural Diversity. In Philippe van
Parjis(Ed.):CulturalDiversityversusEconomicSolidarity.Brussels:De
Boeck Universitè, 189‐202. URL: http://www.uclouvain.be/cps/ucl/
doc/etes/documents/FrancquiBook1.pdf (Accessed on August 10th
2012).
Gumperz, John & Stephen Levison (Eds.) (1996): RethinkingLinguistic
Relativity.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Gutmann,Amy(2001):MulticulturalimandIdentityPolitics.Cultural
Concerns. In Neil J. Smelser & Paul B. Baltes (Eds.): International
EncyclopediaoftheSocialandBehavioralSciences.Amsterdam:Else‐
vier,10175‐10179.
Haarmann,Harald(2006):WeltgeschichtederSprachen.VonderFrühzeitdes
MenschenbiszurGegenwart.München:C.H.Beck.

References
213
Habermas,Jürgen(2004a):IstdieHerausbildungeinereuropäischenIdenti‐
tätnötigundistsiemöglich?Inibid.DergespalteneWesten.Kleinepo
litischeSchriftenX.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp,68‐82.
Habermas,Jürgen(2004b):Der15.Februar – oder:WasEuropasverbindet.
Inibid.DergespalteneWesten.KleinepolitischeSchriftenX.Frankfurta.
M.:Suhrkamp,43‐51.
Hale, Ken (1998): On Endangered Languages and the Importance of
Linguistic Diversity. In Leonora A. Grenoble & Lindsay J. Whaley
(Eds.): EndangeredLanguages:LanguageLossandCommunity
Response.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,192‐216.
Haller,Max(2008):EuropeanIntegrationasanEliteProcess:TheFailureofa
Dream?London:Routledge.
Hamel, Rainer Enrique (2003): Regional Blocs as a Barrier Against English
Hegemony? The Language Policy of Mercosur in South America. In
JaquesMaurais&MichaelA.Morris(Eds.):LanguagesinaGlobalising
World.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,111‐142.
Hans, Silke (2010): AssimilationoderSeggretation?Anpassungsprozessevon
EinwandereninDeutschland. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fürSozialwissen‐
schaften.
Hartmann, Michael (2007): ElitenundMachtinEuropa.Eininternationaler
Vergleich.Frankfurta.M.:Campus.
Hartmann,Michael(2009):DietransnationaleKlasse–MythosoderRealität?
SozialeWelt60(3):285‐304.
Hasebrink, Uwe & Anja Herzog (2009): Mediennutzung im internationalen
Vergleich. In Hans‐Bredow‐Institut (Ed.): InternationalesHandbuch
Medien.Baden‐Baden,131‐154.
Heidbreder,EvaGabriele(2004): Minderheitenschutzinder neuenEU:Bei‐
trittskriteriennachdemBeitritt.Osteuropa54:473‐83.
Heidenreich, Martin (Ed.) (2006): DieEuropäisierungsozialerUngleichheit.
ZurtransnationalenKlassen undSozialstrukturanalyse. Frankfurt a.
M./NewYork:Campus.
Held,David(1995):DemocracyandtheGlobalOrder.FromtheModernState
toCosmopolitanGovernance.Stanford:UniversityPress.
Held,David,AnthonyMcGrew,DavidGoldblatt&JonathanPerraton(1999):
GlobalTransformations.Politics,EconomicsandCulture.Stanford:Stan‐
fordUniversityPress.
Herder,Johann Gottfried (1984): Überdie neuere deutsche Literatur.Frag‐
mente. In Wolfgang Pross (Ed.): HerderundderSturmundDrang,
17641774.München:CarlHanserVerlag.
Hettlage,Robert & Hans‐Peter Müller(Eds.) (2006): DieeuropäischeGesell
schaft.Konstanz:UVK.
Hirst, Paul & Grahame Thompson (1998): Globalisierung? Internationale
Wirtschaftsbeziehungen,NationalökonomienunddieFormierungvon
Handelsblöcken.InUlrichBeck(Ed.):PolitikderGlobalisierung.Frank‐
furta.M.:Suhrkamp,85‐133.
Hobsbawm,Eric J.(1990): NationsandNationalismsince1780:Programme,
Myth,Reality.Cambridge:UniversityPress.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

214
Hobsbawm, Eric J. (1996): Are all Tongues Equal? Language, Culture and
NationalIdentity.InPaulBarker(Ed.):LivingasEquals.Oxford/New
York:OxfordUniversityPress,85‐98.
Hoffmann, Stanley (1966): Obstinate or Obsolete? The Fate of the Nation
StateandtheCaseofWesternEurope.Daedalus95(3):862‐915.
Hroch,Miroslav(2005):DasEuropaderNationen.DiemoderneNationsbil‐
dungimeuropäischenVergleich.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.
Humboldt,Wilhelmvon(1963):UeberdieVerschiedenheitdesmenschlichen
SprachbauesundihrenEinflussaufdiegeistigeEntwicklungdesMen‐
schengeschlechts[1830‐1835].InWilhelmvonHumboldt(Ed.):Werke
infünfBänden,III,SchriftenzurSprachphilosophie. Darmstadt: Wis‐
senschaftlicheBucEdesellschaft,368‐756.
Hunt,Earl&FrancaAgnoli(1991):TheWhorfianHypothesis:ACognitive
PsychologyPerspective.PsychologicalReview98(3):377‐389.
Hunt,Earl(2001):LanguageandThought:TheModernWhorfianHypothesis.
InNeilJ.Smelser&PaulB.Baltes(Eds.):InternationalEncyclopediaof
theSocialandBehavioralSciences.Amsterdam:Elsevier,8320‐8325.
Huntington, Samuel P. (2004): WhoAreWe?TheChallengestoAmerica’s
NationalIdentity.NewYorketal.:Simon&Schuster.
Isserstedt,Wolfgang&JudithLink(2008):InternationalisierungdesStudiums.
DeutscheimAusland,ausländischeStudierendeinDeutschland.Ergeb
nisseder18.SozialerhebungdesDeutschenStudentenwerksdurchge
führtdurchHISHochschulInformationsSystem. Herausgeben vom
BundesministeriumfürBildungundForschung.BonnundBerlin.URL.
http://www.studentenwerke.de/pdf/Sonderbericht_Internationalisie
rung.pdf(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Jellinek,Georg(1905):AllgemeineStaatslehre(2.Auflage).Berlin:Haering.
JoppkeChristian & Steven Lukes (Eds.) (1999):MulticulturalQuestions. Ox‐
fordUniversityPress:Oxford.
Kaelble, Hartmut (2005): Eine europäische Gesellschaft? In Gunnar Folke
Schuppert,IngolfPernice&UlrichHaltern(Eds.):Europawissenschaft.
BadenBaden:Nomos,299‐330.
Kaelble,Hartumut(2007):SozialgeschichteEuropas.1945biszurGegenwart.
München:Beck.
Kamusella, Tomasz (2009): ThePoliticsofLanguageandNationalismin
ModernCentralEurope.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.
Kantner, Cathleen (2004): KeinmodernesBabel.KommunikativeVorausset
zungeneuropäischerÖffentlichkeit.Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfürSozial‐
wissenschaften.
Katz Michael L. & Carl Shapiro (1985): Network Externalities, Competition,
andCompatibility.AmericanEconomicReview75(3):424‐440.
Katzenstein,PeterJ. (1985):SmallStatesinWorldMarkets:IndustrialPolicy
inEurope.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Kern,Rudolf(1997):SprachenundVölkerBelgiens.InGerdHentschel(Ed.):
ÜberMuttersprachenundVaterländer.ZurEntwicklungvonStandard
sprachenundNationeninEuropa.Frankfurta.M.:PeterLang,63‐101.

References
215
Kibbee,DouglasA.(2003):LanguagePolicyandLinguisticTheory.InJaques
Maurais&MichaelA.Morris(Eds.):LanguagesinaGlobalisingWorld.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,47‐57.
Kibbee, Douglas A. (2008): Minority Language Rights: Historicaland
ComparativePerspectives. InterculturalHumanRightsLawReview3:
79‐136.
Kielmannsegg, Peter Graf (1996): Integration und Demokratie. InMarkus
Jachtenfuchs&BeateKohler‐Koch(Eds.):EuropäischeIntegration.
Opladen,47‐71.
Kilborn,Richard(1993):‘SpeakmyLanguage’.CurrentAttitudesto
TelevisionSubtitlingandDubbing.Media,CultureandSociety15:641‐
660.
Kinzler,KatherineD.,EmmanuelDupoux,&ElisabethS.Spelke(2007): The
Native Language of Social Cognition. ProceedingsoftheNational
AcademyofSciencesoftheUnitedStates104(30):12577‐12580.
Kinzler, Katherine D., Kristin Shutts, Jasmine DeJesus & Elizabeth S. Spelke
(2009):AccentTrumpsRaceinGuidingChildren’sSocialPreferences.
SocialCognition27(4):623‐634.
Kohler‐Koch,Beate, Thomas Conzelmann& MichéleKnodt (2004):Europäi
scheIntegration–EuropäischesRegieren.Wiesbaden:VerlagfürSozi‐
alwissenschaften.
Kraus,PeterA.(2004):EuropäischeÖffentlichkeitundSprachpolitik–Integra
tiondurchAnerkennung.Frankfurta.M./NewYork:Campus.
Krauss,MichaelE.(1992):TheWorld’sLanguagesinCrisis.Language68(1):
4‐10.
Kymlicka, Will (2007): MulticulturalOdysseys.NavigatingtheNew
InstitutionalPoliticsofDiversity.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Kymlicka, Will (2009): The Multicultural Welfare State. In Peter A. Hall &
Michele Lamont (Eds.): SuccessfulSocieties:HowInstitutionsand
CultureAffectHealth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 226‐
253.
Labov,William (1966): TheSocialStratificationofEnglishinNewYorkCity.
WashingtonD.C.:CenterforAppliedLinguistics.
Ladefoged,Peter(1992):AnotherViewofEndangeredLanguages.Languages
68:809‐811.
Laponce, Jean (2003): Babel and the Market: Geostrategy for Minority
Languages.InJaquesMaurais&MichaelA.Morris(Eds.):Languagesin
aGlobalisingWorld.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,58‐63.
Laut,JensPeter(2000):DasTürkischealsUrsprache?Sprachwissenschaftliche
TheorieninderZeitdeserwachendentürkischenNationalismus.
Wiesbaden:OttoHarrassowitz.
LeGalès,Patrick(2002):EuropeanCities,SocialConflictsandGovernance.Ox‐
ford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Leibfried, Stephan & Michael Zürn (2006): Von der nationalen zur post‐
nationalenKonstellation.InStephanLeibfried&MichaelZürn(Eds.):
TransformationendesStaates?Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp,19‐65.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

216
Lepsius,M.Rainer(1990):DereuropäischeNationalstaat:ErbeoderZukunft.
In M. Rainer Lepsius (Ed.): Interessen,Ideen,Institutionen.Opladen.
WestdeutscherVerlag,256‐268.
Lepsius,M.Rainer(1991):NationalstaatoderNationalitätenstaatalsModell
fürdie Weiterentwicklung derEuropäischen Gemeinschaft.InRudolf
Wildenmann(Ed.):StaatswerdungEuropas?OptionenfüreineEuropäi
scheUnion.Baden‐Baden:Nomos,19‐40.
Lewis,M.Paul(Ed.)(2009):Ethnologue:LanguagesoftheWorld.Dallas,Tex.:
SIL International. URL.http://www.ethnologue.com (Accessed on
August10th2012).
Lieberson, Stanley (1970): LanguageandEthnicRelationsinCanada. New
York:JohnWiley&Sons.
Lieberson, Stanley (1981): Language and Ethnic Relations: A Neglected
Problem.Inibid.LanguageDiversityandLanguageContact.Essaysby
StanleyLieberson(selectedandintroducedbyAnwarS.Dil).Stanford:
StanfordUniversityPress.
Lindenberg,Siegwart (1989): Choice andCulture: The BehaviouralBasis of
CulturalImpactonTransactions.InHansHaferkamp(Ed.):Social
StructureandCulture.Berlin:deGruyter,175‐200.
Linsenmann, Ingo (2006): Die Bildungspolitik der Europäischen Union. In
Werner Weidenfeld (Ed.): EuropaHandbuch. Gütersloh: Verlag Ber‐
telsmannStiftung,332‐341.
Loos, Eugène (2000): Language Choice, Linguistic Capital and Symbolic
DenominationintheEuropeanUnion.LanguageProblems&Language
Planning24(1):37‐53.
Lutjeharms, Madeleine (2007): Mehrsprachigkeit und Spracherwerbaus
BrüsselerSicht.Muttersprache117(2):110‐123.
Mamadouh, Virginie (2002): Dealing with Multilingualism in the European
Union:CulturalTheoryRationalitiesandLanguagePolicies.Journalof
ComparativePolicyAnalysis4:327‐345.
Mann,Michael(2001):GlobalisationandSeptember11.NewLeftReview112:
51‐72.
Mau, Steffen & Roland Verwiebe (2010): EuropeanSocieties.Mapping
StructureandChange.Bristol:PolicyPress.
Mau, Steffen (2009): Who are the Globalizers? The Role of Education and
EducationalElites.InHellmuthLange&LarsMeier(Eds.):Globalizing
Lifestyles,ConsumerismandEnvironmaltalConcern–theCaseofthe
NewMiddleClasses.Berlin/NewYork:Springer
Mau, Steffen (2010): SocialTransnationalism.LifeworldsbeyondtheNation
State.London/NewYork:Routledge
Mau,Steffen,JanMewes&AnnZimmermann(2008a):Diesseitsundjenseits
nationaler Grenzen. Intergruppenkontakte und xenophile Einstellun‐
gen.SchweizerischeZeitschriftfürSoziologie34(4):507‐531.
Mau,Steffen,JanMewes&AnnZimmermann (2008b):CosmopolitanAttitu‐
des through Transnational Practices? GlobalNetworks:AJournalof
TransnationalAffairs8(1):1‐24.
McCoshan,Andrew,NeilMcDonald,RuthSantos&NicolaHall(2008): Joint
ReportontheFinalEvaluationofSocratesII,LeonardodaVinciIIand

References
217
eLearning–AFinalReporttotheDirectorateGeneralforEducationand
CultureoftheEuropeanCommission. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/
education_culture/evalreports/training/2007/joint/joint_en.pdf
(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Melitz, Jacques (2008): Language and Foreign Trade. EuropeanEconomic
Review52:667‐699.
Meyer,JohnW.,JohnBoli,GeorgM.Thomas&FranciscoO.Ramirez(1997):
WorldSocietyandtheNation‐State.AmericanJournalofSociology103:
144‐181.
Meyer,John.W.(2001):TheEuropeanUnionandtheGlobalization of the
Culture. In S.S. Andersen (Eds.):InstitutionalApproachestothe
EuropeanUnion.ProceedingsfromanARENAWorkshop. Oslo:
UniversityofOslo,CentreforEuropeanStudies,227‐245.
Mickel,Wolfgang&JanBergmann(2005):HandlexikonderEuropäischenUni
on.BadenBaden:Nomos.
Mitterer, Holger & James M. McQueen (2009): Foreign Subtitles Help but
Native‐Language Subtitles Harm Foreign Speech Perception. Public
LibraryofScience ONE 4(11): e7785. URL: http://www.plosone.org/
article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007785 (Accessed on
August10th2012).
Moravcsik, Andrew (1993): Preferences and Power in the European
Community: A Liberal Intergovernmentalist Approach. Journalof
CommonsMarketStudies31(4):473‐524.
Moravcsik, Andrew (1998): Theorizing European Integration. In Andrew
Moravcsik(Ed.):TheChoiceforEurope.SocialPurposeandStatePower
fromMessinatoMaastricht.Ithaca/NY:CornellUniversityPress,18‐
85.
Mufwene, Salikoko S. (2001): The Ecology of Language Evolution.
Cambridge/NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Münch,Richard&StefanBernhard(2009):DieLissabonStrategiederEUals
hegemonialesLiberalisierungsprojekt(unpublishedManuscript).
Münch,Richard&SebastianBüttner (2006): Die europäische Teilung der
Arbeit. Was können wir von Emile Durkheim lernen? In Martin Hei‐
denreich (Ed.): DieEuropäisierungsozialerUngleichheit.Zurtrans
nationalenKlassen undSozialstrukturanalyse. Frankfurt a. M./New
York:Campus,65‐107.
Münch, Richard (2001): OffeneRäume.SozialeIntegrationdiesseitsundjen
seitsdesNationalstaats.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.
Münch,Richard(2004):VonderFamilieeuropäischerNationenzureuropäi‐
schenGesellschaft?DieReproduktion kulturellerVielfaltindereuro‐
päischenMehrebenengesellschaft.InKonradEhlich(Ed.):Germanistik
inundfürEuropa.TextedesMünchnerGermanistentages2004. Biele‐
feld:AesthesisVerlag,117‐135.
Münch, Richard (2008): DieKonstruktionderEuropäischenGesellschaft.Zur
DialektikvontransnationalerIntegrationundnationalerDesintegrati
on.Frankfurta.M./NewYork:Campus.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

218
Newton,Ken&Delhey,Jan(2005):PredictingCross‐nationalLevelsofSocial
Trust:GlobalPatternorNordicExceptionalism?EuropeanSociological
Review21:311‐27.
NicCraith,Máiréad(2008):EuropeandthePoliticsofLanguage.Citizens,Mig
rantsandOutsiders.Houndmills:PalgraveMacmillan.
Noll,Heinz‐Herbert&AngelikaScheuer(2006):KeinHerzfürEuropa?Kom‐
parative Indikatoren und Analysen zur europäischen Identität der
Bürger.InformationsdienstSozialeIndikatoren35:1‐5.
Norris, Pippa & Ronald Inglehart (2009): CosmopolitanCommunications.
CulturalDiversityinaGlobalisedWorld. Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Norris,Pippa(2002):DemocraticPhoenix.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Nunner‐Winkler, Gertrud (2011): Kult der Minderheitensprachen oder Er‐
ziehungzurMehrsprachigkeit.Leviathan39:187–193.
Nye,JosephS.(2004):SoftPower:TheMeanstoSuccessinWorldPolitics.New
York:PublicAffairs.
Oakes,Leigh(2001):LanguageandNationalIdentity.ComparingFranceand
Sweden. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
OECD (2009): EducationataGlance. URL: http://www.oecd.org
/document/24/0,3343,en_2649_39263238_43586328_1_1_1_1,00.ht
ml#4(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
OECD.Stat(2009): InternationalMigrationDatabase. URL:http://stats.oecd.
org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=MIG(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Orban, Leonard (2007): LanguagesintheEU. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/
commission_barroso/orban/policies/policies_en.htm(access:May17,
2010).
Ozvalda, Margit (2005): Sprach‐ und Sprachpolitik der EU: Planung, Praxis
undPrognosen.EUWorkingPapers2:61‐80.
Pérez‐Diaz,Victor(1998):ThePublicSphereandaEuropeanCivilSociety.In
Jeffrey C. Alexander (Ed.): RealCivilSocieties.Dilemmasof
Institutionalization.London:Sage,211‐238.
Peterson, John & Michael Shackleton (Eds.) (2006): TheInstitutionsofthe
EuropeanUnion(2.Auflage).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Phillipson,Robert(2003):EnglishonlyEurope?ChallengingLanguagePolicy.
London/NewYork:Routledge.
Pinker,Steven (1994):TheLanguageInstinct:TheNewScienceofLanguage
andMind.London:Penguin.
Pool,Jonathan(1991):TheOfficialLanguageProblem.TheAmericanPolitical
ScienceReview85(2):495‐514.
Puschmann, Claudia (1996): Zur historischen Dimension der Sprachunter‐
drückunginEuropavom18.bis20.Jahrhundert.InKarinBott‐
Bodenhausen (Ed.): UnterdrückteSprachen:Sprachverboteunddas
RechtaufGebrauchderMinderheitensprachen. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter
Lang,15‐31.
Putnam, Robert (2007): E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Communityinthe
Twenty‐firstCentury.ScandinavianPoliticalStudies30(2):137‐174.

References
219
Rawls, John (1971): ATheoryofJustice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Risse,Thomas&UrsulaLehmkuhl(2007):GovernanceinRäumenbegrenzter
Staatlichkeit: Anmerkungen zu konzeptionellen Problemen der ge‐
genwärtigenGovernance‐Diskussion.InMarianneBeisheim&Gunnar
Folke Schuppert (Eds.): StaatszerfallundGovernance(Schriftenzur
Governance‐Forschung,Band7),Baden‐Baden:Nomos,144‐159.
Risse, Thomas (2010): ACommunityofEuropeans?TransnationalIdentities
andPublicSpheres.IthacaNY:CornellUniversityPress.
Rokkan, Stein & Derek W. Urwin (1983): The Survival of Distinctiveness:
SourcesofPeriphalIdentity.InSteinRokkan&DerekW.Urwin(Eds.):
Economy,Territory,Identity.PoliticsofEuropeanPeripheries.London:
Sage,66‐117.
Rokkan,Stein (1999):StateFormation,NationBuilding,andMassPoliticsin
Europe.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Rokkan,Stein (2000):Staat,NationundDemokratieinEuropa (DieTheorie
Stein Rokkans aus seinen gesammelten Werken rekonstruiert und
eingeleitetvonPeterFlora).Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.
Roose, Jochen (2007): Europäische Identifikation: Ein Mechanismus für die
AkzeptanzvonZumutungendereuropäischen Integration. InWerner
Weidenfeld& Julian Nida‐Rümelin (Eds.):EuropäischeIdentität:Vor
aussetzungenundStrategien.Baden‐Baden:Nomos,123‐149.
Roose, Jochen (2010): VergesellschaftunganEuropasBinnengrenzen.Eine
vergleichendeUntersuchungzudenkulturellenVoraussetzungender
europäischenIntegration. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Sapir,Edward(1921):Language,anIntroductiontotheStudyofSpeech.New
York:HarcourtBrace.
Scharpf, Fritz W. (1999): Demokratieprobleme in der europäischen Mehr‐
ebenenpolitik.InWolfgangMerkel&AndreasBusch(Eds.):Demokra
tieinOstundWest.FürKlausvonBeyme. Frankfurt a.M.:Suhrkamp,
672‐694.
Schlesinger,Philip(1999):ChangingSpacesofPoliticalCommunication:The
CaseoftheEuropeanUnion.PoliticalCommunication16:263‐279.
Schloßmacher,Michael(1994):DieArbeitssprachenindenOrganenderEu‐
ropäischen Gemeinschaft. Methoden und Ergebnisse einer empiri‐
schenUntersuchung.Sociolinguistica8:101‐122.
Schumann‐Hitzler, Gerhard & Marina Ostarek (2005): Europahandbuch
2005/06.Institutionen,Organisationen,Ansprechpartner(9.Auflage).
Köln:Heymann.
Schütz,Alfred&ThomasLuckmann(2003):StrukturenderLebenswelt.Kon‐
stanz:UVK.
Schütz,Alfred (1955/2003a): Symbol, Wirklichkeitund Gesellschaft. In Hu‐
bertKnoblauch,RonaldKurt&Hans‐GeorgSoeffner(Eds.):Alfred
SchützWerkausgabeBandV.2.Konstanz:UniversitätsverlagKonstanz,
117‐219.
Schütz,Alfred(1972):DerFremde.Inibid.GesammelteAufsätzeBd.2.Studien
zursoziologischenTheorie.DenHaag:MartinusNijhof,71‐84.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

220
Schütz,Alfred(1974):DersinnhafteAufbaudersozialenWelt.Frankfurta.M.:
Suhrkamp.
Searle, John (1969): SpeechActs.AnEssayinthePhilosophyofLanguage.
Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Selten, Reinhard & Jonathan Pool (1991): The Distribution of Foreign
LanguageSkillsasaGameEquilibrium.InReinhardSelten(Ed.):Game
EquilibriumModels.Berlin:Springer,64‐84.
Shuibhne,Niamh Nic (2007):Minority Languages,Lawand Politics.Tracing
ECAction.InDarioCastiglione&ChrisLongman(Eds.):TheLanguage
QuestioninEuropeandDiverseSocieties:Political,LegalandSocial
Perspectives.Oxford:HartPublishing,123‐147.
Shuibhne, Niamh Nic (2008): EC Law and Minority Language Policy: Some
RecentDevelopments.InXabierArzoz(Ed.):RespectingLinguistic
DiversityintheEuropeanUnion. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
Publishing,123‐144.
Skutnabb‐Kangas,Tove&RobertPhillipson(Eds.)(1995): LinguisticHuman
Rights.OvercomingLinguisticDiscrimination.Contributionstothe
SociologyofLanguage67.Berlin/NewYork:MoutondeGruyter.
Smith,Adam(1864): AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthof
Nations.Edinburgh:UniversityPress.
Soriano, Mónica Garcia The Directorate‐General for Translation at the
European Commission. URL:
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/work
withus/candidatecountries/documents/dg_translation_structure
_strategy_en.pdf(AccessedonAugust24th2012).
Srubar,Ilja(2005):SpracheundkulturelleKopplung.DasProblemderSpra‐
cheinLuhmanns Theorie. KölnerZeitschriftfürSoziologieundSozial
psychologie57(4):599‐623.
StatistischesBundesamt [FederalStatistic Office](2008): Datenreport2008.
URL.
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Datenreport/Downloads
/Datenreport2008.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (Accessed on August
10th2012).
Stone, Alec Sweet & Wayne Sandholtz (1998): Integration, Supranational
Governance, and the Institutionalization of the European Polity. In
WayneSandholtz&AlecSweetStone(Eds.):EuropeanIntegrationand
SupranationalGovernance.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1‐26.
Strubell, Miquel (2007): The Political Discourse on Multilingualism in the
EuropeanUnion.InDarioCastiglione&ChrisLongman(Eds.):The
LanguageQuestioninEuropeandDiverseSocieties:Political,Legaland
SocialPerspectives.Oxford:HartPublishing,149‐183.
Tajfel, Henri & John C. Turner (1986): The Social Identity Theory of
IntergroupBehaviour.InStephenWorchel&WilliamG.Austin(Eds.):
PsychologyofIntergroupRelations.Chicago:Nelson‐Hall,7‐24.
Tajfel, Henri (1981): HumanGroupsandSocialCategories. Cambridge:
UniversityPress.
Taylor,PeterJ. (1994):The State AsContainer.TerritorialityintheModern
World‐System.ProgressinHumanGeography18(2):151‐162.

References
221
TheBible(2012):OnlineParallelBible,URL.http://www.bible.cc(Accesssed
July8,2012).
Tilly,Charles (1994): Statesand Nationalism inEurope, 1492‐1992. Theory
andSociety23(1):131‐46.
Tomasello, Michael (2008): OriginsofHumanCommunication. Cambridge:
MITPress.
Trabant,Jürgen(2007):ÜberdieAktualitätdesSprachdenkensWilhelmvon
Humboldts.InBrunhildeWehinger(Ed.):PluraleLektüren.Studienzu
Sprache,LiteraturundKunst. Festschrift für Winfried Engler. Berlin:
editiontranvía,13‐27.
Trabant,Jürgen(2008):WasistSprache?München:Beck.
Truchot, Claude (2003): Languages and Supranationality in Europe: The
Linguistic Influence of the European Union. In Jaques Maurais &
MichaelA.Morris(Eds.):LanguagesinaGlobalisingWorld.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,99‐110.
UnescoInstituteforStatistics(2005):InternationalFlowsofSelectedCultural
GoodsandServices. 1994‐2003. Annex I, Tabelle II‐4, S. 66. URL.
http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/cscl/IntlFlows_EN.pdf
(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Van Parijs, Philippe (2004): Europe’s Linguistic Challenge. Archives
EuropéennesdeSociologie45(1):111‐152.
Van Parijs, Philippe (2007): Tackling the Anglophone’s Free Ride. Fair
LinguisticCooperationwithaGloballinguafranca.InUlrichAmmond
&Augusto Carli (Eds.):TowardsMoreLinguisticEqualityinScientific
Communication.SpecialIssueofAILAReview.Amstedam/Philadelphia:
AILA,72‐86.
VanParijs,Philippe(2008):LinguisticDiversityasCurseandasBy‐product.
In Xabier Arzoz (Ed.): RespectingLinguisticDiversity.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia:JohnBenjamins,17‐46.
Van Parijs, Philippe (2011): LinguisticJusticeforEuropeandtheWorld.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Van Tubergen, Frank & Matthijs Kalmijn (2005): Destination‐Language
ProficiencyinCross‐NationalPerspective.AmericanJournalofSociolo
gy110(5):1412‐1457.
Verwiebe, Roland (2004): TransnationaleMobilitätinnerhalbEuropas.Eine
StudiezudensozialstrukturellenEffektenderEuropäisierung. Berlin:
editionsigma.
Verwiebe,Roland(2008):Intra‐EuropeanMigration.IsaNewTransnational
EuropeanMiddleClassEmerging?MigrationLetters6:1‐19.
Vizi, Balázs (2003): Die Europäische Union und die Minderheitensprachen.
BegegnungenSchriftenreihedesEuropaInstitutsBudapest (21): 49‐
69.
Vobruba,Georg(2005):DieDynamikEuropas.Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfürSozi‐
alwissenschaften.
Vobruba,Georg(2008):DieEntwicklungderEuropasoziologieausderDiffe‐
renznational/europäisch.BerlinerJournalfürSoziologie18(1):32‐51.
Weber,Eugen (1976):PeasantsintoFrenchmen.TheModernizationofRural
France,18701914.Stanford:UniversityPress.

  FROMBABELTOBRUSSELS

222
Weber,Max(1985):WirtschaftundGesellschaft.Tübingen:J.C.BMohr.
Wei,Li(2000):TheBilingualismReader.London:Routledge.
Weidenfeld,Werner(Ed.) (2006):EuropavonAbisZ(9.Auflage).Baden‐
Baden:Nomos.
Weingärtner, Daniela (1999): Capito? Verstanden? Compris? DieZeit
(17.06.1999).URL: http://www.zeit.de/1999/25/199925.reden_euro
pa_xml(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Werlen,Iwar(2002):DasWortenderWelt.InD.AlanCruseet.al.(Ed.):Lexi
kologie.EininternationalesHandbuchzurNaturundStrukturvonWör
ternundWortschätzen.Berlin/NewYork:deGruyter,380‐391.
Werlen, Iwar (2008): SchlussberichtSprachkompetenzendererwachsenen
BevölkerunginderSchweiz.SprachenvielfaltundSprachkompetenzin
derSchweiz. Nationales Forschungsprogramm NFP 56. Bern. URL.
http://www.nfp56.ch/d_projekt.cfm?Projects.Command=details&get=
13&kati=2(AccessedonAugust10th2012).
Wessels, Wolfgang (2008): DaspolitischeSystemderEuropäischenUnion.
Wiesbaden:VSVerlagfürSozialwissenschaften.
Whorf, Benjamin Lee (1956): Language,Thought,andReality. Cambridge:
MITPress.
Woolard,KathrineA.&Tae‐JoongGahng(1990):ChangingLanguagePolicies
andAttitudesinAutonomous Catalonia.LanguageinSociety19:311‐
330.
Wright,Sue (2000): CommunityandCommunication:theroleoflanguagein
nationbuildingandEuropeanisation.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.
Wright, Sue (2007): English in the European Parliament: MEPs and their
LanguageRepertoires.Sociolinguistica21:151‐165.
Zürn, Michael (1998): RegierenjenseitsdesNationalstaates.Globalisierung
undDenationalisierungalsChance.Frankfurta.M.:Suhrkamp.