Sunteți pe pagina 1din 231

Institutul European din Romnia

Proiect SPOS 2007 Studii de strategie i politici

Studiul nr. 6 MULTILINGVISM I DIALOG INTERCULTURAL N UNIUNEA EUROPEAN. O VIZIUNE ROMNEASC

Autori:
Radu CARP1 coordonator studiu Manuela NEVACI2 Mariana NICOLAE3 Camelia RUNCEANU4 Nicolae SARAMANDU5

Nu este destinat circulaiei cu excepia grupului de interes. Nici o parte din opiniile sau concluziile exprimate n acest material nu poate fi fcut public.

Bucureti Decembrie 2007


1
2

Conf. univ.dr., Facultatea de tiine Politice, Universitatea din Bucureti Cercettor tiinific III, dr., Institutul de Lingvistic Iorgu Iordan Alexandru Rosetti al Academiei

Romne
3 4
5

Conf. univ.dr., Facultatea de Relaii Economice Internaionale, Academia de Studii Economice, Bucureti Drd., Universitatea din Bucureti/Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Prof.univ.dr., Facultatea de Litere, Universitatea din Bucureti ; Institutul de Lingvistic Iorgu Iordan

Alexandru Rosetti al Academiei Romne

CUPRINS

1.

EFECTELE

EXTINDERII

UE

ASUPRA

DIVERSITII

LINGVISTICE I CULTURALE A. Peisajul lingvistic european prezentare B. Protecia local, regional i naional a limbilor n context european. Protecia limbilor regionale i minoritare C. Limbile oficiale ale statelor membre UE. Instituiile UE i provocarea multilingvismului cazul Parlamentului European D. Definirea normativ i non-normativ a valorilor comune europene. Interpretarea termenilor care desemneaz valorile comune europene n funcie de contextul lingvistic E. Probleme generate de echivalena lingvistic a termenilor folosii n documentele de baz ale UE n limbile oficiale

2. MULTILINGVISMUL N CONTEXT EUROPEAN A. Definiia multilingvismului B. Forme de diseminare a multilingvismului: educaie, sectorul audiovizual C. nvarea limbilor la diferite nivele de educaie (universitar, preuniversitar) i de formare/recalificare profesional D. Raportul public privat n nvarea limbilor

E. Rolul certificatelor de competen lingvistic pe piaa muncii european F. Promovarea limbii romne ca limb de studiu n statele membre UE G. Problema delocalizrilor n context multilingvistic

3. PROMOVAREA INSTITUIONAL A MULTILINGVISMULUI A. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului pe plan european B. Modaliti de promovare a multilingvismului n ntreprinderile care opereaz pe teritoriul UE C. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului n universiti D. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului n instituiile UE D. Grupurile de experi n domeniul multilingvismului nfiinate de Comisia European

4. DREPTURILE CETEANULUI EUROPEAN I INFLUENA MULTILINGVISMULUI A. Exercitarea drepturilor ceteanului european n context

multilingvistic : dreptul de a alege i de a fi ales la alegerile locale i pentru Parlamentul European, dreptul de a se adresa instituiilor UE i de a primi rspuns n limba proprie B. Discriminarea lingvistic folosit pentru restricionarea accesului pe piaa muncii ntr-un stat membru UE excepie de la principiul tratamentului egal ?
3

5. PROMOVAREA DIALOGULUI INTERCULTURAL N UNIUNEA EUROPEAN A. Definiia dialogului intercultural B. Programele UE destinate promovrii dialogului intercultural C. Relaia ntre dialogul intercultural i cel inter-religios. Metode de promovare a dialogului inter-religios pe plan european

6. N DIRECIA UNEI POLITICI EUROPENE A CULTURII ? A. Politici culturale i dreptul la cultur n context naional i european. Programele UE n domeniul culturii B. Motenirea cultural european i patrimoniul cultural european C. Un Institut European al Culturii eecul unei idei originale

7. RECOMANDRI 8. CONCLUZII

1.

EFECTELE

EXTINDERII

UE

ASUPRA

DIVERSITII

LINGVISTICE I CULTURALE A. Peisajul lingvistic european prezentare


n Europa, diversitatea lingvistic este o realitate a vieii cotidiene 27 de state membre, 23 de limbi oficiale i 60 de limbi minoritare; o mare varietate de limbi regionale i minoritare, precum i limbile vorbite de comunitile de imigrani. Motenirea lingvistic european reprezint o resurs care trebuie preuit. Ca suprafa, majoritatea statelor de pe continentul european sunt ri mijlocii i mici, cele mai mari fiind, n ordine, Federaia Rus, Ucraina, Turcia, Frana si Spania, dintre care Federaia Rus i Turcia au o mare parte a teritoriului n Asia. Partea european a Federaiei Ruse reprezint un sfert din suprafaa ei, iar cea a Turciei - numai 3%. Limbile din Europa n sens strict aparin, n marea lor majoritate, din punctul de vedere al nrudirii dintre ele, unei singure familii lingvistice: marea familie indoeuropean, care nsumeaz peste 95% din locuitorii Europei geografice. Aceasta deosebete Europa n sens restrns de celelalte continente (cu excepia Australiei), n care exist un mare numr de familii de limbi. Cel mai mare rol n definitivarea situaiei lingvistice actuale n Europa l-au avut, dintre popoarele migratoare care au contribuit la cderea Imperiului Roman, cele germanice i slave. Familia indo-european este cea mai important din lume, singura rspndit n epoca modern pe toate continentele. Vorbit i n Asia prin limbi autohtone, este reprezentat n celelalte continente prin limbi de import, vorbite n Africa si Oceania mai ales ca limbi secundare. Ea cuprinde aproximativ 150 de limbi, grupate n ramuri, dintre care unele reunesc limbi disprute: italic (reprezentat n principal prin latin, din care provin limbile romanice), iliric, traco-dac, .a.m.d. Printre limbile indo-europene actuale vorbite n Europa se numr dou limbi din ramura baltic, letona i lituaniana i patru limbi din ramura celtic: bretona, gaelica din Scoia/scoian, galeza i irlandeza. Limbile din ramura germanic, vorbite n partea de vest i de nord a

continentului (la est de Rin i la nord de Dunre, precum i n insulele britanice i n Scandinavia), sunt reunite n grupurile scandinav/septentrional (daneza, feroeza, islandeza, norvegiana, suedeza) i occidental (engleza, frizona - inclusiv varietile ei -, germana, idi - cu o genez i trsturi aparte - luxemburgheza i neerlandeza/olandeza, cu varianta flamand). Limbile romanice, vorbite preponderent n sudul i vestul Europei, sunt reunite n grupurile oriental (cuprinznd numai romna - singura limb romanic din Europa de Est, insul de latinitate ntr-o mare preponderent slav -, inclusiv dialectele ei sud-dunrene - aromn, meglenoromn i istroromn), italo-romanic (corsicana, italiana, monegasca, sarda), retoroman (friulana, ladina dolomitic, romana), galoromanic (franceza i dialectele d'ol, occitana - inclusiv gascona -, graiurile francoprovensale), iberoro-manic (portugheza i spaniola cu dialectele lor; galega; iudeospaniola - i ea cu o situaie special), catalana fiind o limb-punte ntre ultimele dou grupuri. Limbile din ramura slav, vorbite preponderent n estul si sud-estul Europei, sunt mprite n 3 grupuri: oriental (belarusa, rusa - care s-a extins i n Asia - i ucraineana), meridional (bulgara, macedoneana, srba, croata, slovena) i occidental (cauba, ceha, polona, slovaca, soraba), la care se adaug pomak, rusyn i ruteana. Limbile neindo-europene din Europa formeaz enclave printre cele indoeuropene; n afar de un numr relativ restrns de limbi mari, de cultur, cu rol de limbi de stat, majoritatea sunt vorbite n Federaia Rus (n special n partea ei asiatic) de un numr mic de locuitori, unele fiind pe cale de dispariie. Cele mai multe fac parte din familia uralic, numit astfel dup zona Munilor Urali, unde a fost probabil vorbit limba comun din care provin. Cele 20-30 de limbi din aceast familie, rspndite mai ales n nordul Europei i n nord-vestul Asiei, sunt grupate n dou sau trei ramuri: finougric, samoed, eventual i lapon (sau subordonat celei dinti). Din ramura finougric fac parte estona, finlandeza, ingriana, karela, komi(-permiak), komi(-ziriana), liuda, livona, maghiara, mansi, mari, mordvina, ostiaka, ud-murta, vepsa s.a., eventual i lapona; vota este aproape sigur disprut. Ramura samoed a familiei este reprezentat prin limbile nene i selkup. Familia altaic, vorbit n cea mai mare parte n Asia i n mic msur n Europa, cuprinde cteva zeci de limbi, grupate n dou ramuri principale: occidental sau turcic i oriental - cuprinznd, la rndul ei, grupurile mongol i tungus i unele limbi izolate.

Din aceast familie se vorbesc n state incluse n Europa limbile turcice altai, azer, balkar, bakir, ciuva, gguz, hakas, iakut, karaceai, karaim, karakalpak, kazah, kumk, nogai, sor, ttar, ttar din Crimeea, tofalar, turc, tu vin i uz-bek; din grupul mongol numai buriata i kalmka, iar din grupul tungus limbile even, evenki i nanai6. Cele aproximativ 40 de limbi caucaziene, vorbite pe cei doi versani ai Munilor Caucaz (situai ntre Marea Neagr i Marea Caspic, la limita geografic dintre Europa i Asia), sunt grupate n trei sau patru familii de limbi distincte: de sud/kartvelian (limbile georgian, laz, mingreliana, svan, zan), de nord-vest (limbile abazin, abhaz, cerkes i ubh - al crei ultim vorbitor a murit n 1992) i nakh-daghestanez, reunind, dup unele preri, familiile caucazian de centru-nord/(vei)nakh (limbile b, cecen i ingu) i de nord-est/daghestanez (aproximativ 26 de limbi: agul, ahvah, andi, arci, avar, bag-valin, bejitin, boliq, buduh, ceamalin, darghin, hinalug, hinug, hunzib, hvarin, kr, lak, lezghin, rutul, tabasaran, tindin, ahur, ez, udin). Limbile caucaziene se vorbesc n Azerbaidjan, Georgia (inclusiv n teritoriul nc n disput al Abhaziei) i n Federaia Rus. Unele nu au form scris sau au nceput s fie scrise relativ de curnd (cu excepia limbii georgiene, nu au existat dect ncercri sporadice de a scrie aceste limbi nainte de sec. 19). n perioada sovietic, 11 limbi caucaziene au primit statutul de limb literar, dreptul de a avea publicaii cu o scriere proprie i emisiuni de radio, mai puin de a fi folosite n nvmnt. Toi caucazienii din fosta Uniune Sovietic sunt bi- sau plurilingvi, cunoscnd, pe lng una sau mai multe limbi locale, i rusa. Basca este o limb neindo-european de origine incert, nencadrat n nici o familie lingvistic (dei a fost apropiat de diverse alte limbi, printre care i de cele caucaziene). Limbile paleosiberiene formeaz eventual un phylutn sau reprezint numai un termen generic, mai curnd geografic dect genealogic, nglobnd mai multe familii i limbi izolate, vorbite n nordul Asiei (n Federaia Rus - pe Lenisei, n peninsula Ciukotka, n Kamceatka i n insula Sahalin) de descendeni ai vechilor locuitori ai
6

Marius SALA, Ioana VINTIL RDULESCU, Limbile Europei, Editura Univers Enciclopedic,

Bucureti, 2001.

Siberiei (de unde i numele familiei). Cuprinde limbi pe cale de dispariie, cu un numr mic de vorbitori (muli bilingvi; unii i-au abandonat limba n favoarea rusei), dintre care nici una nu are statut oficial; cteva limbi din familie au disprut. Limbile paleosiberiene, dintre care menionm limbile ciukot, ghiliak, ket i koriak, nu par nrudite cu alte familii de limbi, dei au fost puse n legtur cu familiile altaic i sino-tibetan; dup unele preri, ar include familia eschimo-aleut (cuprinznd limbi considerate amerindiene n sens larg). Acum cteva secole aveau mai muli vorbitori i ocupau o arie mai mare, dar au fost separate unele de altele de limbile tunguse i turcice, devenind mici enclave. Exist diferene fonetice i lexicale ntre graiul brbailor i cel al femeilor, precum i deosebiri ntre vorbirea nomazilor i aceea a locuitorilor sedentari. Dintre limbile amerindiene n Europa se vorbete eschimosa, din familia eschimoaleut, a crei variant din Groenlanda este numit groenlandez. Dintre cele trei mari familii de limbi amerindiene, numai aceasta ar putea aparine marii familii eurasiatice, putnd fi nrudit cu unele limbi paleosiberiene, reprezentat n Europa prin maltez, araba cipriot, arab (cea mai important limb din ramur - ca limb imigrant), ebraica si arameic - limbi de cult - i siriac. Prin limbi imigrante sunt reprezentate i ramurile libico-berber, creia i aparine berbera, i cuitic, din care face parte somaleza. Familia austrotai, ramura kam-tai este reprezentat n Europa, ca limb imigrant, prin una din cele dou limbi mai importante ale ei, laoiana. Familia austro-asiatic, vorbit exclusiv n Asia de Sud-Est i cuprinznd 100-150 de limbi reunite n dou-ase ramuri, este reprezentat n Europa exclusiv prin limbi imigrante: cele dou limbi mai importante din ramura mon-khmer - khmer i vietnameza. Familia austronezian, anterior numit malaio-polinezian, are o diversitate considerabil, cuprinznd, dup unii autori, aproximativ 10% din limbile lumii. Cele mai multe (180-300) sunt vorbite n Oceania, unde totalizeaz ns un numr relativ mic de vorbitori. Aceast familie este reprezentat n Asia de Sud-Est de 120-200 de limbi, nsumnd un numr foarte mare de vorbitori. Familia austronezian prezint cea mai mare extensiune geografic actual de pe glob dup familia indo-european. Clasificarea ei intern este n continuare controversat: este mprit n mod tradiional n dou-trei ramuri, dintre care cele mai importante sunt cea indoneziana (contestat actualmente) i cea oceanic. Ramura indoneziana (occidental) are 200-250 de limbi, printre cele mai

importante numrndu-se javaneza i mai cu seam malaeza (inclusiv varianta indoneziana), vorbite i n Europa numai ca limbi imigrante. Familia dravidian este rspndit exclusiv n Asia (n sud) i cuprinde peste 20 de limbi preindo-europene aglutinante, care au fost mpinse spre sud de limbile indoeuropene din India, crora le-au servit probabil drept substrat. Printre cele mai importante se numr (amil, vorbit i n Europa ca lirnb imigrant. Familia sino-tibetan, vorbit prin limbi autohtone exclusiv n Asia (n centru i sud-est), este cea mai important familie din acest continent si a doua din lume ca numr de vorbitori dup cea indo-european; cuprinde, dup diverse estimri, 260-300 de limbi, dintre care multe sunt puin cunoscute, Cea mai important limb din familie, vorbit n Europa ca limb imigrant, este chineza. Din cele l050-1350 de limbi numite generic negroafricane sunt vorbite n Europa, exclusiv ca limbi imigrante, mai ales cteva, aparinnd n special familiei nigerokordofaniene i anume gruprii nigero-congoleze: din grupul Atlantic Occidental, bambara, dyula, maninka, soninke, soso din grupul mande, .a.m.d. Din cele de mai sus rezult c n Europa sunt reprezentate actualmente, desigur n msuri diferite, aproape toate familiile de limbi de pe glob, cu excepia familiilor australian, papua i khoisan. Din punct de vedere tipologic, majoritatea limbilor Europei aparin celor dou tipuri principale din clasificarea morfologic clasic a limbilor. Astfel, sunt n general (predominant) flexionare limbile din familia indo-european; dintre acestea, unele limbi moderne - de exemplu cele romanice - sunt mai analitice (exprim valorile gramaticale mai ales cu ajutorul prepoziiilor, auxiliarelor etc.) dect limbile clasice (latina, greaca), n timp ce altele i-au pstrat mai bine caracterul sintetic (exprim valorile gramaticale mai cu seam cu ajutorul unor morfeme care fuzioneaz), de exemplu germana - n comparaie cu engleza -, rusa, etc. Limbile afro-asiatice sunt limbi flexionare, ca i cele indo-europene. Trstura lor principal este aa-numita triteralitate - scheletul cuvntului este o rdcin format cel mai frecvent din trei consoane (singurele notate n scris); valorile gramaticale se exprim prin flexiune intern (alternane vocalice). Un numr de limbi sunt aglutinante - exprim fiecare valoare gramatical printr-un afix, care se ataeaz la radicalul cuvintelor.

B. Protecia local, regional i naional a limbilor n context european. Protecia limbilor regionale i minoritare
Limba oficial de stat nu se identific cu limba naional - prin care, n terminologia socio-lingvistic i n cea juridic actuale, spre deosebire de uzul curent, se desemneaz nu limba ntregii naiuni care triete ntr-un anumit stat, ci limba oricrei naionaliti al crei uz este recunoscut legal n statul n care triesc membrii si. n aceast accepie, un stat poate avea nu numai una singur, ci i mai multe limbi naionale. De altfel, nsui cuvntul limb are n aceast terminologie o accepie ntructva diferit de cea strict lingvistic, avnd n vedere n primul rnd funciile sociale ndeplinite de idiomul n cauz, i mai puin poziionarea sa de ctre lingviti n raport cu alte varieti apropiate - fie ele idiomuri nrudite sau varieti subordonate limbii n cauz din punctul de vedere al dialecto-logului. Limb, n acest sens, poate fi un idiom pe care lingvitii l consider numai o variant a unei limbi (de exemplu bosniaca) sau, uneori, chiar un dialect sau un grai (de exemplu groenlandeza). Unele limbi pot fi protejate numai pe plan local/regional, permise n dezbaterile parlamentare sau n justiie sau pot fi limbi naionale pentru a cror protecie s-au adoptat prevederi speciale, dar care nu sunt oficiale, n unele cazuri, calificarea drept limb oficial de stat nu acoper n toate rile exact aceeai realitate, mai ales n cazul unor state care au mai mult de o limb oficial: limbile co-oficiale ale aceluiai stat pot fi situate n principiu pe acelai plan din punctul de vedere al drepturilor care le sunt acordate sau pot fi supuse unei anumite ierarhii i avea un rol ntructva diferit, fie la nivelul funciilor ndeplinite, fie sub aspect teritorial. Astfel, n Belgia se vorbete de fapt de limbi oficiale la nivelul regiunilor, nu al ansamblului statului; n Elveia, romana are un statut n parte diferit de al celorlalte limbi oficiale, n Luxemburg, diversele limbi sunt n mare msur specializate pentru anumite funcii i domenii, n Olanda, frizona este considerat a doua limb oficial, dup neerlandez, .a.m.d. De aceea, calificarea limbilor drept oficiale la nivel de stat sau pe plan local/regional nu trebuie neleas n mod absolut, ci numai orientativ i relativ. De asemenea, data de la care un anumit idiom a dobndit statutul de limb oficial ntr-un stat sau altul nu este totdeauna precizat i

10

are uneori un caracter relativ, printre altele i deoarece noiunea de limb oficial a variat n timp. n Europa sunt 42 de limbi oficiale sau co-oficiale (considernd bosniaca, croata i srba limbi oficiale distincte). O caracteristic a rilor europene, care - n pofida frecventelor mutaii istorice sau a faptului c o seam dintre ele i-au (re)dobndit (relativ) recent autonomia - sunt n general state cu vechi tradiii, o constituie faptul c limba oficial este n acelai timp i limba majoritii populaiei autohtone (n ciuda efectelor, vizibile n fostele republici sovietice, ale unor strmutri deliberate de populaii tocmai n scopul slbirii elementului naional autohton). Aceasta deosebete statele europene de majoritatea statelor din Africa, America, Australia i Oceania - foste colonii care i-au dobndit relativ recent independena i care, din diverse considerente, au optat pentru o limb oficial exogen, de cele mai multe ori limba fostei sau fostelor puteri coloniale. 12 dintre limbile oficiale europene au acest statut n mai multe state independente din Europa: germana n cinci (Austria, Belgia, Elveia, Germania, Liechtenstein); n cte patru state franceza (Belgia, Elveia, Frana, Monaco) i italiana (Elveia, Italia, San Marino, Vatican), engleza n trei (Irlanda, Malta, Marea Britanic, la care se adaug un teritoriu neautonom, Insulele Normande), iar n cte dou state croata (Bosnia Heregovina, Croaia), greaca (Cipru, Grecia), neerlandeza/olandeza (Belgia - n varianta flamand -, Olanda); romna (Republica Moldova - unde este numit i moldoveneasc -, Romnia), rusa (Belarus, Rusia), srba (Bosnia - Heregovina, Serbia), suedeza (Finlanda - unde este numit actualmente naional -, Suedia), turca (Cipru, Turcia). 30 de limbi sunt oficiale n cte un singur stat independent din Europa: albaneza, armeana, azera, belarusa, bosniaca, bulgara, catalana (n Andorra, unde este numit i andorran), ceha, croata, daneza (n Danemarca, la care se adaug Insulele Feroe i Groenlanda), estona. Limbile minoritare sau regionale din Europa sunt : Limba pomeranian (pmrsczi jzk) este un grup al dialectelor lehitice, care a fost vorbit n timpul Evului Mediu n teritoriul Pomeraniei ntre fluviile Vistula i Odra. Rude mai apropiate ale ei sunt dialecte polabe i poloneze. Pomeraniana face parte n subgrupul limbilor slave de vest cunoscut sub denumirea limbile lehitice. Limbile

11

caubian (vorbit n voievodatul Pomerania din Polonia) i slovincian (disprut la nceputul secolului XX) sunt de fapt dialectele ei. Limbile polonez i polab de asemenea au multe trsturi comune. Rude mai ndeprtate sunt alte limbi slavice de vest: limba slovac, limba ceh, limba sorab de jos i limba sorab de sus. De asemenea, alte limbi slave au legturi cu limba polonez i sunt inteligibile ntr-o oarecare msur. Pe lng limbile din Irlanda, Spania i Marea Britanie, exist alte cteva limbi regionale vorbite n UE care nu au o recunoatere oficial la nivelul UE (dei n unele cazuri beneficiaz de recunoatere oficial n statele membre). Unele din acestea au mai muli vorbitori dect unele limbi oficiale, mai puin folosite. Limba frizon (Frysk sau Frasch) este o limb germanic vorbit de un grup mic etnic n partea de nord-vest a Europei. Friziana conine mai multe dialecte, considerate de ctre unii lingviti limbi separate. Majoritatea vorbitorilor acesteia triesc n provincia Frizia (Olanda) i n landul Schleswig-Holstein (Germania). Friziana este apropiat de limbile neerlandez i danez. De asemenea, friziana se nrudete ndeaproape cu limba englez, dar gradul de inteligibilitate reciproc ntre cele dou este redus. Mirandeza are un corp gramatical distinct (fonetic, fonologie, morfologie i sintax independente) datnd din perioada formrii Portugaliei (secolul XII). Rdcinile sale se gsesc n latina vorbit din nordul Peninsulei Iberice (portugheza provine din nord-vest). Este un dialect foarte bine pstrat al vechii limbi leoneze din Iberia de nord, care astzi se nrudete cu limba asturian, care, la rndul su, este considerat de muli ca fiind un dialect al limbii spaniole. Astzi mirandeza este folosit, mai mult ca a doua limb, de ctre 15 000 de persoane (dei pentru unii nc mai este limba primar) n satele municipalitii Miranda do Douro i n trei sate din municipalitatea Vimioso, pe o suprafa de 484 km, cu ramificaii n alte sate din municipalitile Vimioso, Mogadouro, Macedo de Cavaleiros i Bragana. Exist trei dialecte: mirandeza normal, mirandeza de grani i mirandeza Sendins. Cei mai muli vorbitori cunosc i portugheza sau chiar i spaniola Limba sard (n sard: limba sarda) este principala limb vorbit n Sardinia, Italia i este considerat a fi cea mai conservatoare limb romanic.

12

Datorit istoriei acestei insule care a fost izolat de continent pentru mii de ani i doar n vremurile recente a fost mai uor de comunicat cu continentul, a fost posibil s se menin anumite caracteristici ale limbii latine vulgare arhaice disprute n alte zone. Una din caracteristicile acestei limbi este lipsa cuvintelor de origine greceasc, care sunt prezente n toate celelalte limbi romanice. De asemenea, limba sard are i multe cuvinte care sunt mai apropiate de cele din limba romn dect de latin sau italian, dei influena acestor dou limbi exercitat asupra sarzilor a durat sute de ani. Limba retoroman este una dintre cele patru limbi oficiale ale Elveiei, ncepnd cu 20 februarie 1938. Limba retoroman face parte din subgrupa limbilor romanice reiene, alturi de friulian i ladin. Este o limb romanic vorbit de aproximativ 35.000 de persoane n cantonul Graubnden i care reunete mai multe dialecte cu deosebiri mari ntre ele: sursilvan, sutsilvan, surmiran, puter i vallader. O form unificat a limbii, standardizat de lingvistul Heinrich Schmid n 1982, poart numele de Rumantsch grischun. Lia Rumantscha (Liga Roman) este organizaia-umbrel pentru toate asociaile literare retoromane. Limba astfel standardizat are ns un nivel de acceptare relativ sczut, ceea ce face ca adesea vorbitorii diferitelor dialecte s se adreseze unul altuia n limba german, accelernd astfel declinul dialectelor retoromane. Friuliana sau limba friulian (furlan sau denumit cu afeciune marilenghe n friulian, friulano n italian) este o limb romanic aparinnd familiei limbilor rheiene, vorbit n regiunea Friuli-Venezia Giulia, situat n nord-estul Italiei. Friuliana numr aproximativ 600.000 de vorbitori nativi, a cror vast majoritate vorbesc i italiana. Friuliana este adeseori denumit i Ladina estic, ntruct ladina i friuliana sunt puternic nrudite. Spre deosebire de ladin, vorbit de mult mai puini vorbitori (circa 30.000), dar care a fost foarte conservativ, friuliana s-a ndeprtat de matca iniial, suferind influene multiple din partea limbilor care au nconjurat-o: germana, italiana, veneiana i slovena. Documente scrise n friulian sunt atestate nc din secolul al XI-lea, iar literatura n friulian, att poezie ct i proz, dateaz de la nceputul anilor 1300. n

13

secolul XX a existat un interes renscut crescnd pentru aceast limb rheian, care continu i azi. Limba ladin (Ladin, nume nativ n limba ladin, Ladino, n italian, Ladinisch, n german) este o limb rheian vorbit n Munii Dolomii din Italia, ntre regiunile Trentino-Alto Adige i Veneto. Fiind o limb rheian este foarte apropiat de retoromana elveian i de friuliana. Ladina vorbit n Valea Fassa (n ladin, Val de Fascia, n italian Val di Fassa) este la rndul su mprit n alte dou subdiviziuni, Cazt, vorbit n jumtatea de nord a vii i Brach care este vorbit n jumtatea sa sudic. Astfel, n Cazt, ap este ega, iar n Brach este aga. Limba ladin este recunoscut oficial ca limb minoritar avnd unele drepturi oficiale n regiunea Trentino-Tirolul de Sud, dar nu are statut oficial n provincia Belluno. n cadrul limbilor indo-euopene, limbile celtice sunt cele mai apropiate cu limbile italice, cu care formeaz ramura celto-italic. Limba breton (breton: Brezhoneg) este o limba celtic vorbit n nordul Franei, n regiunea Bretania (francez: Bretagner). Biroul European pentru Limbi mai puin Utilizate (The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages - EBLUL) este o organizaie non-guvernamental trans-naional care coopereaz ndeaproape cu UE i care are ca scop promovarea diversitii lingvistice n Europa, acordnd o atenie special limbilor minoritare i regionale. EBLUL are birouri n toate cele 15 state membre UE nainte de extinderile din 2004 i 2007 i n multe dintre statele care au aderat recent. EBLUL intenioneaz ca n viitorul apropiat s aib birouri n toate cele 27 de state membre UE7. EBLUL apr drepturile celor 46 milioane de vorbitori ai limbilor minoritare i regionale din Europa. Potrivit lui Markus Varasin, secretarul general al acestei organizaii, EBLUL se va ocupa nu numai de vorbitorii unor limbi pe cale de dispariie, ci i de comunitile lingvistice ale cror drepturi nu sunt respectate, cum ar fi ruii din Letonia. Ct privete alte limbi minoritare, Varasin a mai spus: o comunitate foarte important este cea a ungurilor din Romnia, Slovenia i Slovacia. Sunt mai multe limbi de acest gen, vorbite de milioane de oameni. Pe de alt parte, mai sunt i alte comuniti, precum cea a sorbilor, comuniti

http://www.eblul.org.

14

foarte mici, sau cea a italienilor din Slovenia8. n general ns, poziia EBLUL este c situaia n Europa de Est nu este mai proast dect cea din Europa Occidental atunci cnd vine vorba despre limbile minoritilor. Protecia limbilor regionale i/sau minoritare este realizat n cadrul Consiliului Europei, prin Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare9. Dat fiind faptul c 15 state membre UE (Austria, Cipru, Republica Ceh, Danemarca, Finlanda, Germania, Luxemburg, Marea Britanie, Olanda, Romnia, Slovacia, Slovenia, Spania, Suedia, Ungaria) au ratificat pn n prezent aceast Cart, prezentarea coninutului acesteia este important din perspectiva proteciei n cadrul UE a acestor limbi. Carta a fost semnat n 1992 i a intrat n vigoare n 1998. Scopul Cartei este s mbunteasc folosirea (att n context privat, ct i n viaa public) limbilor regionale sau minoritare n cadrul sistemelor de educaie, n justiie i n mass-media, s permit i s ncurajeze folosirea acestor limbi n context administrativ i economic, precum i n viaa social, pentru activiti culturale i n schimburile transfrontaliere. Carta este bazat pe respectarea deplin a suveranitii naionale i a integritii teritoriale. Relaia ntre limbile oficiale sau co-oficiale i cele regionale sau minoritare nu este conceput n termeni de antagonism. Dezvoltarea celor dinti nu trebuie s impieteze asupra cunoaterii i promovrii celor din urm. Carta nu stabilete o list de limbi vorbite n Europa care s corespund conceptului de limbi regionale sau minoritare. Sunt definii ns termenii folosii (art.1). Astfel, prin expresia limbi regionale sau minoritare se neleg limbile folosite n mod tradiional ntr-o anumit zon a unui stat de ctre cetenii acelui stat care constituie un grup numeric inferior restului populaiei statului sau limbile diferite de limba (-ile) oficial (-ale) a (ale) acelui stat. Prin aceast expresie nu se neleg dialectele limbii (-ilor) oficiale a (ale) statului i nici limbile migranilor. Prin expresia zon n cadrul creia o limb regional sau minoritar este folosit se nelege n sensul Cartei aria geografic n care aceast limb reprezint modul de exprimare al unui numr de persoane justificnd adoptarea diferite msuri de protecie i de promovare cele prevzute de Cart. Prin expresia limbi non-teritoriale se nelege n sensul Cartei limbile folosite de cetenii
8 9

http://www.divers.ro. Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare, Strasbourg, 5.12.1992, ETS no. 194.

15

unui stat care sunt diferite de limba (-ile) folosit (-ite) de restul populaiei statului, dar care, dei folosite n mod tradiional pe teritoriul statului, nu pot fi asociate cu o anumit arie geografic a acestuia. Obiectivele Cartei sunt urmtoarele: recunoaterea limbilor regionale sau minoritare ca o expresie a bogiei culturale a Europei; respectarea limbilor regionale sau minoritare n aria geografic n care acestea sunt vorbite; promovarea acestor limbi prin aciuni directe; facilitarea i ncurajarea folosirii acestor limbi, n form scris i oral, n viaa public sau privat; nvarea acestor limbi la ct mai multe nivele de educaie; promovarea schimburilor transfrontaliere n vederea promovrii acestor limbi; interzicerea oricror forme nejustificate de distincie, excludere, restrngere sau preferin legate de folosirea acestor limbi care pot dezcuraja sau chiar pune n pericol meninerea i dezvoltarea lor. n luna noiembrie 2007 Romnia a ratificat prin Legea nr. 282/200710 Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare. Conform Cartei, fiecare stat are obligaia s specifice n legea de ratificare fiecare limb regional sau minoritar la care se aplic anumite paragrafe din Cart, selecionate conform regulilor stabilite de ctre acesta. n cazul Romniei, acestea sunt: bulgar, ceh, croat, german, maghiar, rus, srb, slovac, turc, ucrainean. n Suedia exist cinci limbi care sunt recunoscute drept limbi minoritare finlandeza, menkieli, sami, romani i idi.

C. Limbile oficiale ale statelor membre UE. Instituiile UE i provocarea multilingvismului cazul Parlamentului European
10

M.Of. nr. 752/6.11.2007.

16

Exist limbi oficiale (inclusiv de facto, chiar dac nu sunt numite ca atare n Constituiile statelor respective) unice i co-oficiale; n categoria limbi oficiale sunt avute n vedere i limbile care au acest statut n teritorii neautonome dependente de state europene. Cifrele oferite de unele surse cu privire la numrul de vorbitori n alte state dect cele de origine sunt uneori nedifereniate pe limbi, referindu-se la un ntreg grup, de exemplu la limbile slave meridionale (Danemarca 39.000 vorbitori, Germania l.190.000, Suedia 116.000) sau la srbo-croat. Primul Regulament adoptat de Comunitatea European n 1958 stabilea ca limbi oficiale ale instituiilor sale germana, franceza, italiana i olandeza limbile rilor fondatoare: Germania, Belgia, Frana, Italia, Luxemburg i Olanda11. Odat cu fiecare extindere a Comunitilor Europene, au fost integrate limbile noilor state membre. n 1973 au fost adugate engleza, daneza i irlandeza, aceasta din urm doar ca limb a tratatelor, ceea ce nseamn c au fost traduse doar Tratatul de Aderare al Irlandei i textele fundamentale referitoare la aceast ar. Urmtoarele limbi care au cptat statutul de limbi oficiale au fost greaca, n 1981, spaniola i portugheza, n 1986, finlandeza i suedeza, n 1995, estona, maghiara, letona, lituaniana, malteza, polona, ceha, slovaca i slovena, n 2004. ncepnd cu 1 ianuarie 2007, dup aderarea Romniei i a Bulgariei, Uniunea European numr 23 de limbi oficiale, prin adugarea romnei i bulgarei. Tot de la acest moment, irlandeza a devenit limb oficial. Cu 23 de limbi oficiale sunt posibile peste 506 combinaii lingvistice, deoarece fiecare limb poate fi tradus n alte 22 de limbi. Pentru a face fa acestei provocri, Parlamentul European dispune de servicii complexe de interpretare, traducere i verificare a textelor juridice. De asemenea, au fost elaborate norme stricte pentru garantarea eficacitii acestor servicii i pentru meninerea unor costuri bugetare rezonabile. Ca regul general, traductorii traduc n limba lor matern texte dintr-o versiune original. ns, dup ultimele extinderi ale UE i creterea numrului de combinaii
11

Regulation no.1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, OJ P

17, 6.10.1958, p. 385.

17

lingvistice posibile, a devenit uneori dificil de gsit persoana care s stpneasc o anumit combinaie de limbi, n special atunci cnd este vorba de limbile cel mai puin rspndire la nivelul Uniunii Europene. Pentru traducerea textelor redactate n aceste limbi, Parlamentul European a creat, prin urmare, un sistem de limbi pivot, care presupune traducerea textelor mai nti n limbile cele mai utilizate (englez, francez sau german). n timp, i alte limbi comunitare (spaniola, italiana i polona) ar putea deveni limbi pivot. Parlamentul European dispune de: a) servicii de traducere; acestea numr aproximativ 700 de traductori, a cror sarcin este traducerea n toate limbile oficiale a mai multor categorii de documente, printre care: - documente de edin din perioada de sesiune i ale comisiilor parlamentare; ordini de zi, proiecte de raport, amendamente, rapoarte adoptate, avize, rezoluii, interpelri scrise i orale, procese-verbale i stenograme, informri adresate deputailor, etc.; - documente ale altor organe politice, precum adunrile parlamentare mixte alctuite din membri ai Parlamentului European i alei la nivel naional sau din statele tere; - decizii ale Ombudsmanului European; - comunicri cu cetenii i statele membre; - decizii ale organelor interne ale Parlamentului European (Biroul, Conferina preedinilor, Colegiul chestorilor). b) servicii de interpretare: principala sarcin a interpreilor din Parlamentul European este transmiterea cu fidelitate, n toate limbile oficiale i n timp real, a discursurilor rostite de deputai. Sunt prevzute servicii de interpretare pentru toate reuniunile multilingve organizate de ctre organele oficiale ale instituiei. Dac sarcina traductorilor este aceea de a produce diferitele versiuni lingvistice ale documentelor scrise, rolul interpreilor este de a face ca reuniunile s se desfoare ca i cum toi ar vorbi aceeai limb. Serviciul de Interpretare al Parlamentului European angajeaz n jur de 350 de interprei funcionari i poate recurge la o rezerv de aproximativ 2500 de interprei externi (interprei de conferin auxiliari), la care face adesea apel pentru a-i satisface nevoile. Se face apel la serviciile de interpretare, n special pentru:

18

- edinele plenare; - reuniunile comisiilor parlamentare, ale delegaiilor parlamentare i ale adunrilor parlamentare paritare; - reuniunile grupurilor politice; - conferinele de pres; reuniunile organelor interne de decizie ale Parlamentului (Biroul, Conferina n timpul edinelor plenare, n care interpretarea simultan se realizeaz n i din toate limbile oficiale ale Uniunii, sunt mobilizai ntre 800 i 1000 de interprei. Pentru celelalte reuniuni, interpretarea este asigurat, n general, n funcie de nevoi. n principiu, fiecare interpret lucreaz din limba surs spre limba sa matern. ns, avnd n vedere cele 506 combinaii lingvistice posibile, nu este ntotdeauna uor de gsit o persoan capabil s interpreteze folosind o anumit combinaie de limbi. n acest caz, se recurge la un sistem de tip releu care const n interpretarea dintr-o limb n alta, trecnd printr-o a treia, limba pivot. c) servicii pentru verificarea textelor juridice. Legislaia adoptat de ctre Parlamentul European se adreseaz unui numr de aproximativ 500 de milioane de ceteni; legislaia trebuie s fie identic i lipsit de orice ambiguitate n toate limbile. Verificarea calitii lingvistice i juridice a textelor ine de responsabilitatea juritilor-lingviti din Parlament. Parlamentul European dispune de o echip de aproximativ 170 de juriti-lingviti care au sarcina de a asigura conformitatea textelor n toate limbile comunitare. Activitatea lor const, n special, n: - verificarea calitii lingvistice i a conformitii juridice a textelor supuse la vot n cadrul comisiilor parlamentare i, ulterior, n edina plenar; - verificarea i nregistrarea amendamentelor depuse; - informarea i asistarea deputailor n toate aspectele teoretice i practice legate de proceduri, de la prima redactare a textelor i pn la adoptarea lor n edin plenar; - pregtirea listelor de vot pentru edina plenar. preedinilor etc.).

19

D. Definirea normativ i non-normativ a valorilor comune europene. Interpretarea termenilor care desemneaz valorile comune europene n funcie de contextul lingvistic
Dezbaterile din cadrul Conveniei Europene pentru Viitorul Europei din perioada 2002 2003 i, ulterior, din cadrul Conferinei Interguvernamentale din 2004 au fost ntrun fel diferite de cele care au avut loc de fiecare dat cnd s-a ncercat redefinirea compromisului ce face posibil construcia european. Noua abordare nu privete att chestiuni instituionale sau care in de eficientizarea comunicrii politicilor europene. Diferena specific se refer la valorile n jurul crora se construiete identitatea european, n condiiile n care Tratatul Uniunii Europene (TUE) face referire doar la valorile comune ale UE, fr a oferi o list a acestora. Voina politic de a avea definit o asemenea identitate este evident. n lipsa unei identiti europene, asumate de fiecare actor al spaiului comunitar, orice proiect politic ce dorete adecvarea instituiilor Uniunii Europene la realitile trans-naionale nu are anse de a fi pus n aplicare. Oricum am ncerca s definim identitatea european, nu se poate ajunge la o form care s ia n calcul identitile naionale, regionale, religioase i lingvistice care constituie astzi parte a unicitii unui continent. Pluralitatea limbilor, culturilor i a religiiilor, aflate n permanent dialog, care face ca orice poziie radical s rmn marginal, constituie fr ndoial baza de plecare pentru definirea unei identiti europene. ns tocmai aceast pluralitate reduce ansele de a ajunge la un compromis: dialogul intercultural i interconfesional a dus, de multe ori, la situaii conflictuale. Este imposibil definirea unei identiti europene la acest moment deoarece respectul alteritii este chiar esena proiectului european. Un prim pas ar fi, dup cum am amintit, definirea unui set comun de valori a cror asumare permite conturarea unei identiti europene. Aceast ncercare de a enumera valorile a avut loc: potrivit compromisului la care s-a ajuns n cadrul Conferinei Interguvernamentale n 2004, Tratatul de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa a inclus (art. 2) o referire la valorile comune europene. Acestea sunt : respectarea demnitii umane, a libertii, a democraiei, a egalitii, a statului de drept, precum i respectarea drepturilor omului. Acelai articol aduce o precizare suplimentar : aceste 20

valori sunt comune statelor membre ntr-o societate caracterizat prin pluralism, toleran, justiie i nediscriminare12. La Consiliul European din iunie 2007 s-a decis adoptarea unui Tratat de Reform care s includ amendamente la TUE i la Tratatul de nfiinare a Comunitii Europene (TEC), acesta din urm urmnd a fi denumit Tratat asupra funcionrii Uniunii13. Potrivit Concluziilor acestui Consiliu European, compromisul din 2004 n privina definirii valorilor comune europene va fi pstrat n viitoarea form a TUE (art.2), revizuit prin Tratatul de Reform dup ce acesta va fi ratificat de statele membre UE. Mai mult, la acelai Consiliu European s-a decis ca viitoarea form a art. 3 TUE s prevad c UE respect diversitatea cultural i lingvistic. Normativizarea unei liste de valori comune europene nu este suficient pentru a concluziona c viitoarea form a art. 2 TUE va face ca aceste valori s fie asumate de cetenii europeni. Este interesant de amintit n acest context c n primvara anului 2002 Preedintele Comisiei Europene din acea perioad, Romano Prodi a nfiinat un Grup de Reflecie pe lng Comisie cu scopul de a emite recomandri pe marginea dimensiunii culturale i spirituale a Europei. Acest Grup a fost coordonat de Krysztof Michalski de la Institut fr die Wissenschaften von Menschen din Viena i a reunit personaliti culturale din majoritatea statelor membre UE, cu experiene culturale i religioase extrem de diverse. Raportul acestui Grup14 a fost dat publicitii n octombrie 2004, ulterior deci ajungerii la un compromis pe marginea textului Tratatului de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa. Acest Raport atrgea atenia asupra faptului c definirea unei liste de valori comune europene nu este suficient pentru a ntri unitatea european i c
12

Pentru un comentariu al art. 2 din Tratatul de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa, vezi Radu

CARP, Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun , Editura Universitii din Bucureti, Bucureti, 2006, pp. 105-107.
13

Council of the European Union, Brussels European Council 21/22 June 2007 - Presidency Conclusions , Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislaw GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, Concluding Remarks on the

Brussels, 11177/07, CONCL 2.


14

Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe, Vienna/Brussels, October 2004 ; traducerea n limba romn a acestui Raport : Ce ine Europa la un loc ? Dilema Veche, nr. 56, 11 17 februarie 2005. Pentru un comentariu al acestui Raport, vezi Cornelia GU, Rolul valorilor culturale n fondarea unei comuniti politice europene, n Radu CARP (ed.) Un suflet pentru Europa. Dimensiunea religioas a unui proiect politic, Editura Fundaiei Anastasia, Bucureti, 2005, pp. 86-100.

21

ncercarea de a codifica o asemenea list se confrunt inevitabil cu o varietate mare de semnificaii naionale, regionale, etnice, sectare i sociale. Una dintre concluziile acestui Raport a fost c nu exist o list fix de valori europene. Raportul nu nega demersul codificrii valorilor comune europene dar atrgea atenia limitelor unui asemenea demers. Pe de alt parte, Raportul afirma c nu exist nici o ndoial asupra existenei unui spaiu cultural european dar acest spaiu nu poate fi definit i delimitat cu certitudine, deoarece cultura european nu este un fapt, ci un proces. Concluziile Raportului nu au putut fi luate n considerare n procesul de redactare a Tratatului de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa. Nu nelegem ns de ce nu s-a mai inut cont de aceste concluzii n 2007, n momentul n care s-a repus n discuie la Consiliul European din iunie ntreaga construcie normativ asupra creia se ajunsese la un compromis n 2004. Revenind la viitoarea form a art. 2 TUE, s nelegem oare c societatea despre care se face referire este cea european? Sau este vorba doar despre un model ideal de organizare social, n care amintitele valori fac posibil funcionarea instituiilor i solidaritatea cetenilor ? Aceast ambiguitate este, dup prerea noastr, pstrat deloc ntmpltor. Potrivit logicii viitorului text al TUE care va face parte din Tratatul de Reform, avem pe de-o parte valori universale care traduc la nivel european fundamentele democratice ale statelor membre i, pe de alt parte, pluralismul, tolerana, etc., al cror cmp de manifestare este cel naional. Au acestea din urm acelai statut de valori ? Rspunsul nu poate fi dect pozitiv, cu condiia ca aceast afirmaie s aib loc n cuprinsul unui text neutru din punct de vedere normativ. ns, dac inem cont c avem de-a face cu un corpus de norme cu valoare politico juridic, rspunsul trebuie nuanat. Cel puin unele dintre cuvintele incluse n a doua parte a viitoarei forme a articolului 2 TUE au o component religioas: pluralismul, tolerana i solidaritatea. n legtur cu conceptul de toleran i cu posibilele interpretri asociate acestui concept n funcie de un context lingvistic sau altul, este necesar s fie fcute unele precizri. Potrivit lui Jrgen Habermas, termenul german Toleranz a fost mprumutat din latin i francez abia n secolul XVI, ntr-o perioad a rzboaielor religioase. Acest termen avea o semnificaie restrns la tolerana fa de alte confesiuni religioase. Abia

22

ulterior, n secolele XVII i XVIII, tolerana capt o conotaie juridic i mai puin religioas. Originea religioas a termenului explic, potrivit lui Habermas, de ce limba englez face distincia ntre tolerance (ca form de comportament) i toleration (cu semnificaie juridic)15. A afirma despre concepte precum pluralismul, tolerana sau solidaritatea c intr n categoria valorilor comune europene care fac posibil crearea unei identiti europene ar fi nsemnat un mare risc: acela de a recunoate originea religioas, ndeosebi cretin a unor concepte definitorii pentru aciunea politic. A nu le enuna ca atare ar fi nsemnat deasemenea un risc, de a nemulumi reprezentanii unor state care recunosc religiei un rol nsemnat n spaiul public. n cele din urm, ca i n cazul Preambulului viitoarei forme a TUE, s-a mers pe varianta unui compromis. Este ns acest compromis, reflectat ntr-o formul ce se preteaz la multiple interpretri, cea mai adecvat cale pentru a ajunge la o identitate european ? Nu ne putem deocamdat lansa dect n avansarea unor ipoteze hazardate. n concluzie, este dificil de stabilit o list de valori comune europene printr-un text normativ acceptat de toate statele membre UE, deoarece exist diferene de interpretare a naturii acestor valori de la un context naional la altul, iar aceste diferene sunt determinate, n unele cazuri i de diversitatea lingvistic. Avnd n vedere aceste limitri, cum ar trebui interpretat art. 2 al viitoarei forme a TUE pentru a permite punerea n aplicare a acestor valori n ceea ce privete definirea unor politici comune europene bazate pe aceste valori ? Pentru a rspunde la aceast ntrebare, trebuie mai nti s remarcm faptul c nu s-a simit nevoia definirii valorilor comune menionate. Lipsa unor definiii nu face ns ca aceste valori s nu poat fi interpretate. Limbajul unui act normativ combin n general limbajul curent cu cel de specialitate juridic. Aceasta nu nseamn ns c termenii folosii de tratat cu privire la valorile comune europene pot fi interpretai n accepiunea lor obinuit. Aceti termeni, chiar n lipsa unei definiii normative a valorilor comune europene, trebuie interpretai prin raportare la context ansamblul acquis-ului comunitar, deoarece n cazul unui text cu valoare juridic sensul

15

Jrgen HABERMAS, Intolerance and Discrimination, I.CON, vol. 1, no.1, 2003, pp. 2-12 (varianta n

limba francez : De la tolrance religieuse aux droits culturels, Cits, 13, PUF, Paris, 2003, pp. 147-170).

23

cuvintelor este dat de contextul normativ16. Interpretarea prin raportare la contextul normativ se face prin utilizarea a dou metode specifice : noscitur a sociis (sensul unui termen este revelat prin asocierea altor termeni cu care este asociat ntr-un context normativ dat) i respectiv ejusdem generis (o aplicaie particular a metodei precedente ; potrivit acestei metode de interpretare, sensul termenului formulat general care completeaz o enumerare este limitat la termeni de aceeai natur cu cei care fac parte din enumerare)17. O alt problem care se pune n legtur cu ncercarea de normativizare a valorilor comune europene i care este legat de interpretarea acestor valori ntr-un context normativ mai larg este dac enumerarea folosit de viitoarea form a art. 2 TUE este limitativ. Nu exist n documentele oficiale UE o referire la alte valori comune europene dect cele prezentate mai sus, cu o singur excepie. ntr-o Comunicare a Comisiei din 200618 care reia o Decizie a Parlamentului European i Consiliului n privina Anului European al Limbilor 200119 se precizeaz c respectul pentru diversitatea lingvistic este o valoare fundamental a Uniunii Europene. Aceast excepie este doar aparent, ntruct o Comunicare a Comisiei nu face parte din contextul normativ la care trebuie raportat prevederea art. 2 al viitoarei forme TUE. Diversitatea lingvistic nu face parte prin urmare din valorile comune europene, din punct de vedere strict normativ. Acest lucru nu nseamn ns c respectul datorat diversitii lingvistice nu ar trebui s fie garantat prin msuri avnd o intensitate egal cu cele prin care trebuie garantate acele valori care sunt considerate a fi valori comune europene.

16

Mark VAN HOECKE, Definiiile legale i interpretarea legii, n (ed.) Drgan STOIANOVICI, Logica i Pentru detalii privind aceste dou metode de interpretare, vezi Pierre - Andr CT , Interprtation des Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic

dreptul, Paideia, Bucureti, 2006, p. 106 i urm.


17

lois, 2me edition, Yvon Blais, Montral, 1990, pp. 293-314.


18

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new framework strategy for multilingualism, Brussels, COM (2005) 596 final, 22.11.2005
19

Decision no. 1934/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the

European Year of Languages 2001 OJ L 232, 14.9.2000.

24

E. Probleme generate de echivalena lingvistic a termenilor folosii n documentele de baz ale UE n limbile oficiale
Efortul de traducere i adaptare lingvistic a legislaiei europene n limbile statelor membre cunoate, pe lng costurile financiare i de gestionare ale procedurilor complexe, o dificultate de ordin practic imediat. Pe lng polisemantismul cuvintelor n diversele limbi, traductorul are de a face i cu o evoluie istoric diferit, evoluie care este stocat n sensurile conotative ale termenilor n discuie. Chiar termenul de Constituie, folosit n Tratatul de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa, neratificat cu siguran i din motive de percepie cultural, este un concept politic exprimat lingvistic n mod diferit n statele membre UE, n funcie de evoluia istoric a societilor respective. Dificultile de traducere i, prin urmare, de interpretare ale valorilor comune europene, sunt legate i de faptul c ceea ce s-a numit construcia european reprezint un set de concepte care evolueaz continuu: Europa continu s se schimbe n timp, ideea european fiind diferit de la individ la individ, de la grup la grup20. Conceptul de stat de drept este redat n mod diferit n diverse limbi: tat de droit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, stato di diritto, dar ca rule-of-law n englez, traductorul legislaiei europene avnd nevoie nu doar de abiliti lingvistice pentru o redare corect a conceptului, dar i de cunotine juridice i istorice pentru integrarea lui n contextul juridic n care este utilizat i care, evident, difer de la stat la stat. Astfel, contextul poate fi unul juridic general, de drept penal, de drept european, referitor la politicile de aprare, dar i la izvoarele de drept sau la conceptul de stat, ceea ce face ca traductorul s aplice uneori proceduri complexe de referine ncruciate, triangulaie a definiiilor n diverse surse, pentru a avea sigurana redrii sensului corect avut n vedere de textul original. Astfel, ceea ce n limba romn este misiunea integrat a Uniunii Europene de sprijinire a statului de drept n Irak devine n francez mission intgre tat de droit de l'Union europenne pour l'Iraq, n italian missione integrata dell'Unione europea sullo stato di diritto per l'Iraq, n german integrierte Mission der Europischen Union zur Sttzung der Rechtsstaatlichkeit im Irak, variante relativ similare din punct de vedere lingvistic, dar cu accente diferite, pentru ca varianta n englez s fie foarte scurt:
20

Peter RIETBERGEN, Europe - A Cultural History, 2nd edition, Routledge, London, 2006, p. XXIX.

25

integrated rule-of-law mission for Iraq.21 Diferenele sunt datorate dezvoltrii istorice particulare ale conceptului n lumea anglo-saxon i n cea european. Astfel, la nivel general rule of law (domnia legii) nseamn c nimeni, indiferent c este reprezentant al guvernului, cetean particular sau reprezentant al vreunui grup de interese, nu este mai presus de lege i, ca atare, nu poate invoca privilegii speciale. Cu alte cuvinte domnia legii, clar reglementat n documente scrise, publice, se opune domniei oamenilor, arbitrar i capricioas. n abordarea european continental principiul domniei legii a fost frecvent asociat cu principiul statului de drept, dominat de gndirea juridic german i francez, pe cnd abordarea modern anglo-american presupune separarea puterilor, sigurana legal, principiul ateptrii legitime i egalitatea tuturor n faa legii. Dificultile de traducere ale textelor documentelor instituiilor UE sunt o realitate acceptat i recunoscut de toi purttorii de interese n acest domeniu vital, dar foarte sensibil, al mecanismului comunitar multilingv de comunicare. S-au dezvoltat proceduri care garanteaz calitatea traducerilor prin revizie, verificare i supraveghere i, n special, printr-un mecanism continuu de formare i informare a traductorilor. Consecvena i unitatea folosirii terminologiei este garantat de utilizarea unei tehnologii avansate care conine memoria traducerilor efectuate n ntregul sistem instituional comunitar precum i baze de date coninnd nucleul terminologic al UE. Dei Directoratul General pentru Traduceri (DGT) folosete pe scar larg i servicii externe de traducere, colaboratorii externi sunt monitorizai ndeaproape pentru asigurarea calitii i primesc o evaluare asupra calitii produsului oferit. Dar calitatea traducerilor este n direct legtur cu aspectele de redactare corect ale textului surs care, de cele mai multe ori, reprezint produsul unor experi care lucreaz n alt limb dect cea matern. Documentele elaborate de orice autoritate public ar trebui s fie caracterizate prin claritate i conciziune precum i prin folosirea unui limbaj exact i, pentru a evita dificultile de redactare ale experilor n diverse domenii de activitate, dar care nu au o pregtire n lingvistic sau n comunicare, DGT a nfiinat o Unitate de Redactare care are menirea s corecteze i s editeze limbajul textelor surs prin negocierea direct cu autorii textului original. Cu toate aceste msuri de asigurare a calitii traducerilor, exist n continuare probleme de redare a termenilor folosii de instituiile UE n limbile oficiale, probleme
21

IATE ID: 836800, http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/SearchByQueryResult.do.

26

cauzate n mod firesc de specificitatea fiecrei limbi, de evoluiile diferite ale societilor existnd n fiecare stat membru precum i de profilul cultural al multitudinii de grupuri care alctuiesc populaia UE. Pentru a evita traduceri corecte lingvistic, dar rupte de realitatea fireasc, cotidian a limbilor oficiale, DGT a creat un mecanism de verificare a calitii traducerilor prin aa-numitul test de localizare a mesajului22 prin care traductorii din Birourile Locale ale DGT menin contactul cu limba vie, local, colaboreaz cu universiti i alte instituii de formare pentru a face fa dezvoltrilor rapide din limbile vii, n evoluie, care reflect n modaliti proprii, dinamica excesiv a vieii n condiiile globalizrii. Acest test reprezint msura n care mesajele elaborate de instituii europene sunt nelese de publicul local din statele membre, testul devenind astfel o msur a legitimitii, transparenei i credibilitii proiectului european pentru cetenii europeni. O alt problem conex celor menionate mai sus este utilizarea conceptului de limb strin n discursul european. UE ncearc s-i standardizeze modul de numire a limbilor ne-materne ale cetenilor statelor membre, ceea ce pn recent se denumea, fr conotaii negative, limbi strine. Evident c n interiorul UE nu se poate vorbi despre limbi strine la nivel comunitar pentru c toate cele 23 de limbi oficiale au acelai statut, prin urmare termenul folosit este languages, limbi, conform portalului Languages and Europe23 (francez Les langues et lEurope) care este tradus n limba romn Multilingvismul i Europa24. Termenul limbi folosit singur are n romn conotaii relativ peiorative, iar valoarea sa neutr apare cnd este folosit n sintagma limbi strine. Language learning i Language teaching (francez Apprentissage des langues i Enseignement des langues) se echivaleaz pe versiunea romnesc a portalului cu nvarea limbilor strine i Predarea limbilor strine. Dac la nivel comunitar termenul languages este folosit aproape constant, cnd se fac referiri la persoane, ceteni europeni individuali sau la mobiliti, se continu folosirea sintagmei foreign language ca

22

Karl Johan LNNROTH, Translation practices in the Commission, CICEB conference Commitee of

the Regions, 21 September 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/translation/reading/articles.pdf/20060921_ciceb-translation_practices_en.pdf.


23 24

http://europa.eu/languages/en/home. Ibidem.

27

n descrierea competenelor cheie pentru25 nvarea permanent n care se face distincia ntre comunicarea n limba matern i comunicarea n limbi strine (communication in mother tongue i communication in foreign languages). Este interesant de remarcat c doar versiunea n limba romn pstreaz sintagma limbi strine, celelalte versiuni lingvistice prefernd forma fr calificativul strin resimit de unii ca nefiresc n interiorul unei comuniti de state membre cu limbi oficiale egale ca statut. Considerm c avem de a face cu un decalaj n utilizarea termenului limbi n suficiente contexte oficiale, neutre, n limba romn fa de alte limbi europene, dar uzajul frecvent l va face acceptat, aa cum se constat i din versiunea romneasc a Raportului Grupului la nivel nalt n materie de multilingvism n care avem ambele variante de utilizare. Din exemplul de mai jos26 se poate vedea cum acelai text are nuane diferite n variantele prezentate n limbi diferite, varianta n romn fiind mai puin precis27 din punct de vedere stilistic, dei mai aproape de varianta n limba francez, n condiiile n care limba de redactare a documentului a fost limba englez. O posibil explicaie este faptul c grupul de traductori de limb romn din cadrul DGT este de abia la nceputul adaptrii la cerinele formale ale redactrii textelor, fr stagii de formare similare cu echipele de traductori din limbile tradiionale, ntre care engleza i franceza sunt i limbi de lucru, respectiv de redactare ale documentelor de lucru i, ca atare, specialitii lucrnd n limbile respective particip constant la sesiuni de instruire n modaliti de redactare i editare de text. Pentru cei care redacteaz documente se organizeaz constant sesiuni de instruire n modaliti de redactare i editare de text, ceea ce duce la producerea unui text iniial mai clar, mai coerent i, prin urmare, mai uor de tradus ntr-o alt limb.
25

Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multishort_ro.pdf, p. 3,

for lifelong learning, OJ L 394, 18.12.2006.


26

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf, p.11, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multishort_fr.pdf , p.3.


27

Imprecizia variantei romneti vine din nevoia de a se folosi atribute acolo unde textul original nu face

acest lucru: cheia principal fa de the key, elementul decisiv, indispensabil fa de the crucial element schimbnd uor accentul de la creterea motivaiei n textul original la motivaia simpl in textul romnesc.

28

Motivaia

este o

Motivation

is

La motivation est apprentissage Renforcer des la

cheie, dac nu chiar cheia key, if not the key, to une clef, voire la clef, d'un principal, pentru o bun successful stpnire strine. este a limbilor learning. Motivaia language bon Enhancing langues. element the

celor learner motivation is the motivation de l'apprenant in est l'lment crucial pour desired raliser la perce dsire l'apprentissage des

care nv o limb strin crucial elementul decisiv, achieving indispensabil realizarea dorite n

pentru breakthrough in language de contextul (29 cuvinte)

performanelor learning across Europe. langues en Europe. (32 cuvinte)

nvrii limbilor n spaiul european. (38 cuvinte)

2. MULTILINGVISMUL N CONTEXT EUROPEAN A. Definiia multilingvismului


Multilingvismul este definit n sens restrns ca folosire alternativ a mai multor limbi; n sens larg, folosire alternativ a mai multor sisteme lingvistice, indiferent de statutul acestora: limbi distincte, dialecte ale aceleiai limbi sau chiar varieti ale aceluiai idiom. Multilingvismul este o consecin a contactului lingvistic. Termenul de multilingvism include bilingvismul i, de asemenea, trilingvismul. Exist tipologii diverse ale multilingvismului, care au n vedere criterii variate, de natur sociologic, psihologic i lingvistic. Sunt frecvente urmtoarele distincii:

29

a) n funcie de gradul de cuprindere social al fenomenului: multilingvism social (colectiv) - al unei ntregi comuniti; multilingvism de grup; multilingvism individual; b) n funcie de genez: multilingvism succesiv (secvenial) - limba a doua este nvat dup fixarea primei limbi (dup 3-4 ani) sau multilingvism tardiv - distincie similar cu precedenta, dar care permite identificarea unor subtipuri n funcie de vrsta la care este nvat limba a doua, a treia etc. Vorbitorul multilingv a achizionat cel puin o limb n timpul copilriei, aa numita prima limb, dobndit fr o educaie formal. Copiii care achizioneaz dou limbi de la natere sunt numii bilingvi simultani. Chiar i n cazul bilinvismului simultan, de obicei, una dintre limbi domin. Acest tip de bilingvism apare n mod obinuit la copiii crescui de prini bilingvi ntr-un mediu predominant monolingv sau la copiii crescui de prini monolingvi n ri n care se vorbesc limbi diferite. c) n funcie de relaia dintre limbi reflectat de uz: multilingvism compus - limbile sunt privite ca similare funcional, unitile lor aflndu-se ntr-o relaie de coresponden (cazul limbilor nvate la coal). Vorbitorii sunt, de obicei, flueni n dou sau trei sisteme lingvistice; multilingvism coordonat - limbile sunt separate funcional, considerndu-se c unitile lor exprim semnificaii parial sau total distincte (o limb este folosit n situaii oficiale: administraie, coal etc. cealalt - n familie, ntre prieteni etc.; e.g., cazul aromnilor din Grecia). Vorbitorii utilizeaz pentru fiecare limb o intonaie i o pronunare diferit, asociate unui comportament social diferit; d) n funcie de gradul de cunoatere: multilingvism simetric toate limbile sunt cunoscute n egal msur (situaie rar ntlnit); multilingvism asimetric - exist diferene de cunoatere; multilingvism receptor (pasiv) - una dintre limbi este neleas, dar nu este vorbit; multilingvism scris - una dintre limbi este neleas la lectur, dar nu i la audiie; multilingvism tehnic - una dintre limbi este cunoscut numai att ct o cer necesiti strict profesionale; e) n funcie de situaia politic dintr-un stat sau o comunitate supra-statal: multilingvism impersonal - caracteristic sistemului de guvernare dintr-un stat ai crui ceteni sunt monolingvi (cazul Belgiei); multilingvism personal - caracteristic pentru un stat al crui sistem de guvernare este monolingv, dar ai crui ceteni sunt plurilingvi; n acest caz, multilingvismul poate fi: natural - rezultat al unor cstorii mixte, al traiului ntr-o zon de frontier sau ntr-un mediu aloglot; voluntar (de promovare) -

30

determinat de dorina individului de a promova ntr-o societate transnaional multilingv (cazul Uniunii Europene); decretat (de concesie) - fondat pe autoritatea de stat, dar contravenind dorinei cetenilor (cazul minoritilor nemaghiare din Ungaria, nainte de primul rzboi mondial). Studiul multilingvismului permite identificarea i descrierea mecanismului i a consecinelor structurale ale contactului dintre limbi. Multilingvismul determin apariia unor fenomene de interferen la toate nivelurile structurii idiomurilor n contact, declannd procese de reorganizare a tiparelor structurale. Dei, de obicei, multilingvismul compus este asociat cu permeabilitatea la interferene, pe cnd cel coordonat este considerat etan, interferenele se produc n ambele cazuri, n procesul de constituire a diverselor limbi, multilingvismul i fenomenele de interferen determinate de acesta au avut un rol important. n mod obinuit la multilingvi apare schimbarea de cod (code switching). Conceptul de code switching desemneaz capacitatea individului de a trece de la o limb la alta, de la un dialect sau un stil la altele n cursul interaciunii verbale, sau, n termenii folosii de Carol Myers-Scotton, selectarea de ctre bilingvi a unor forme din embedded language (EL), n enunul matrix language (ML), n cursul aceleiai conversaii28. Se presupune c vorbitorul bilingv/multilingv poate s identifice intuitiv limbi matrice, ca aceea care permite amestecul unor elemente aparinnd alteia (EL) dar n acelai timp exist permanent posibilitatea schimbrii ntre ML i EL, n funcie de diveri factori exteriori, fie sincronic, n aceeai conversaie, fie diacronic, ca urmare a unei anumite evoluii istorico-politice a unei comuniti. Schimbarea (shift) corespunde asumrii unei identiti sau a alteia, motivat situaional, i este considerat ca reprezentnd un fenomen stabil pentru comunitile multilingve.

B. Forme de diseminare a multilingvismului: educaie, sectorul audiovizual


28

Carol MYERS SCOTTON, Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in codeswitching, Oxford

University Press, Oxford, 1993.

31

Interesul constant al UE pentru diseminarea multilingvismului iese cel mai clar n eviden n politicile europene adoptate i implementate de-a lungul timpului n acest sens. Astfel, nc din 1989 a fost lansat primul program cuprinztor de promovare a predrii i nvrii limbilor, Lingua. Anul 2001 a fost declarat Anul european al limbilor, iar la ncheierea lui Comisia European era invitat de Parlamentul European i de Consiliu s ntreprind aciuni ulterioare n vederea promovrii limbilor. Mai recent, comunicarea n alte limbi este inclus printre cele opt competene principale ale nvrii continue29. nc din 2002 s-a nfiinat un Grup de lucru pentru limbi30, reunind oficialiti responsabile pentru politicile din domeniul limbilor n statele membre, grup care se ntlnete regulat pentru a schimba informaii i defini bune practici. Comisia va continua s sprijine statele membre n eforturile acestora de a mbunti calitatea n predarea limbilor, de a extinde numrul altor limbi predate i de a promova coli cu orientri lingvistice. n ceea ce privete nvarea, sunt necesare aciuni suplimentare n vederea sporirii contientizrii importanei de a nva mai multe limbi, mpreun cu iniiativele de motivare a studenilor i a adulilor de a-i nsui limbile i prin intermediul nvrii informale, prin mijloace care reduc presiunea asupra programelor de nvare formal, i n acelai timp, ofer modaliti alternative eficiente de achiziie lingvistic. Dac majoritatea msurilor recomandate de Planul de aciune privind promovarea nvrii limbilor i a diversitii lingvistice au vizat iniial nvmntul primar i formarea profesorilor care s asigure dezvoltarea competenelor lingvistice n alte limbi, n prezent accentul se deplaseaz spre nvarea limbilor n rndul adulilor, spre extinderea sferei de pri interesate n vederea includerii sectorului de afaceri, spre formarea profesional continu i nvarea informal a limbilor prin intermediul mijloacelor media i al activitilor culturale31.

29

Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences n cadrul programului Education and Training 2010,

for lifelong learning, op. cit.


30

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/policy/expert_en.html.
31

Commission working document, Report on the implementattion of the Action Plan Promoting langauge

learning and linguistic diversity, Brussels, COM(2007) 554 final, 25.9.2007.

32

n domeniul audiovizualului, UE are un program specializat MEDIA 200732, care continu alte patru programe MEDIA (MEDIA I, II, Plus i Training), avnd ca obiective: consolidarea sectorului audiovizual al UE reflectnd patrimoniul i identitatea cultural europene, creterea circulaiei produselor audio-video n interiorul i dincolo de graniele UE i transformarea sectorului audiovizual european ntr-unul competitiv prin acces mai uor la finanare i utilizarea tehnologiilor digitale. Probabil ns c imaginea emblematic a UE n domeniul audiovizualului i pentru diseminarea multilingvismului n Europa i n lume este canalul de televiziune EuroNews33. EuroNews a fost creat n 1993, dar a devenit oficial canalul Comunitii Europene n februarie 2005, emind simultan n 7 limbi (englez, francez, german, spaniol, portughez i rus) 24 de ore, apte zile pe sptmn. EuroNews ajunge n peste 150 milioane de gospodrii din 78 de ri, fiind urmrit de 8 milioane de persoane zilnic, depind astfel audiena CNN i BBC i transformndu-se n canalul de referin pentru a urmri tirile referitoare la UE. Att programul MEDIA ct i EuroNews fac parte dintr-o strategie indirect, dar nu mai puin eficient, de promovare a multilingvismului prin aa-numitele metode informale de nvare ale limbilor i cunoatere a motenirii culturale europene. Este o deschidere important spre ceea ce se numete n englez edutainment, adic realizarea educaiei prin divertisment (en. entertainment), o modalitate din ce n ce mai utilizat pentru a motiva oamenii s nvee limbi, s cunoasc alte culturi, s porneasc n descoperirea propriei identiti prin cunoaterea identitii culturale ale altora. Pe lng turism, care este el nsui un motor de dezvoltare a multilingvismului, educaia prin divertisment este, se pare, unul din cele mai puternice i eficiente modaliti de motivare poate i pentru c oamenii simt nevoia de abordri de nvare non-formale, n care controlul strict i inhibativ al colii, s fie ocolit. Din acelai tip de strategii face parte i utilizarea Internetului care, pe de o parte, poate furniza sprijinul necesar n nvarea limbilor prin intermediul site-urilor web dotate cu materiale pedagogice, activiti de nvare asistate pe Internet, cri de instruire sau portaluri educaionale, dar pe de alt parte ofer ci de acces de tipul YouTube adaptate pentru promovarea aciunilor UE34, sub sloganul S ne bucurm de imaginile i sunetele Europei (Sharing the sights and sounds of Europe).
32 33 34

http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/docs/overview/media-en.pdf. Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/about/euronews_en.cfm. Cf. http://www.youtube.com/eutube.

33

Apare astfel n dezbatere un aspect interesant i totodat sensibil al diversitii lingvistice europene: unde se oprete interesul pentru promovarea acestei diversiti i ce rol ar trebui s aib instituiile comunitare n oferta de servicii lingvistice ctre cetenii statelor nemembre rezideni n UE, i a cror limb matern nu este limb a Uniunii? Ct de diferit ar trebui s fie acest tratament fa de limbile neoficiale ale UE? Consiliul Uniunii Europene recunoate limbile oficiale care coexist n anumite ri (limbile regionale) din cadrul UE. Statele membre pot finana n anumite limite prestarea unor servicii de traducere si interpretare n aceste limbi n cadrul instituiilor europene. Astfel, din raiuni n primul rnd practice, toate limbile neoficiale ale UE, inclusiv cele aproape 40 de limbi regionale, sunt tratate la acelai nivel ca limbile din afara UE. Exist cteva excepii prin care limbi regionale precum limbile catalan, basc i galiian au un statut intermediar prin care cetenii au dreptul s comunice cu instituiile UE n limbile respective, dar costurile de comunicare sunt acoperite de guvernul spaniol, cel mai adesea prin traduceri oferite chiar de el. Un alt aspect sensibil al modului de abordare a diversitii lingvistice este msura n care cunoaterea sau necunoaterea limbii oficiale devine o barier pentru rezidentul a crui limb matern nu este vorbit n statele membre ale UE. n contextul societii europene multilingve este greu de fcut recomandri care s acopere toate situaiile concrete existente. Acest lucru este reinut i subliniat chiar n Recomandarea Parlamentului European i a Consiliului pentru competenele principale ale nvrii continue35 care amintete, este adevrat doar ntr-o not de subsol, c limba matern nu este ntotdeauna o limb oficial a unui stat membru i c abilitatea de a comunica ntr-o limb oficial este o pre-condiie pentru asigurarea participrii depline a individului n societate. Aceeai discuie este valabil i pentru nvarea altor limbi pentru persoane care triesc n familii i comuniti bi- sau multilingve ntr-un stat membru a crui limb oficial difer de limba lor matern. Pentru aceste grupuri competena de a comunica ntro limb trebuie neleas, mai degrab, ca o competen de a vorbi o limb oficial iar nevoia, motivaia i raiunile sociale i/sau economice pentru dezvoltarea acestei competene n vederea integrrii vor fi diferite de cele de a nva o alt limb pentru a
35

Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong

learning, op. cit.

34

face turism sau a obine un loc de munc. Msurile prin care se rezolv astfel de situaii sunt lsate la latitudinea statului membru care va decide, n funcie de nevoile i circumstanele sale specifice, modalitile de abordare individuale.

C. nvarea limbilor la diferite nivele de educaie (universitar, preuniversitar) i de formare/recalificare profesional


Abordarea limbilor n cadrul sistemelor de educaie a statelor membre ale UE a fost considerat ntotdeauna important, dar n mod firesc au existat modaliti proprii pentru prezena n curricula instituiilor de nvmnt a studiului acestora. Un Raport 36 al Comisiei Europene sintetizeaz situaia din statele membre ale UE prezentnd situaia aplicrii politicilor n domeniul predrii limbilor ca urmare a planului de aciune Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity 2004-2006 (Promovarea nvrii limbilor i diversitatea lingvistic 2004-2006). Studiul relev c, dei nvarea limbilor este obligatorie n aproape toate rile participante de la vrste din ce n ce mai timpurii, varietatea limbilor oferite pentru studiu este, cu unele excepii, restrns, engleza ocupnd, destul de previzibil, locul nti. Progresul cel mai evident nregistrat a fost la nivelul nvmntului secundar, fr ns ca obiectivul de a se oferi dou limbi n oferta colar s fie atins peste tot. n privina nvmntului superior, acesta nu reprezint perioada n care studenii s-i dezvolte i s-i extind semnificativ abilitile multilingve n nici unul din statele membre cuprinse n studiu. La nivelul educaiei pentru aduli, care este segmentul cel mai dezvoltat al educaiei multilingve, nu s-a reuit nc realizarea unei structurri eficiente a aciunilor concrete, n ciuda fondurilor semnificative alocate i a iniiativelor concrete. nvmntul formal, mai ales cel la nivel teriar, nu are incluse programe coerente de educaie multilingv a adulilor, studiul unei limbi atunci cnd se face, rezumndu-se de cele mai multe ori, la englez ca fiind limba care ofer cele mai mari anse de mobilitate sau reconversie profesional.

36

Commission working document, Report on the implementation of the Action Plan Promoting language

learning and linguistic diversity, op. cit.

35

n Romnia studiul limbilor a fost ntotdeauna ncurajat oficial, iar n particular cunoaterea ct mai multor limbi, la nivele de performan avansat, a reprezentat un element de prestigiu social, lucru explicabil n primul rnd prin caracterul relativ zonal al utilizrii limbii romne. Oricum, sistemul romnesc de nvmnt primar i secundar a introdus nc din 1965 o ofert variat de studiu a limbilor de la vrsta de 8 ani (clasa a doua primar) pentru prima limb i de la vrsta de 12 ani pentru cea de a doua (clasa a asea primar), elevii i prinii putnd alege ntre englez, german, francez, spaniol i rus cu meniunea c oferta era mai variat n mediul urban i, mai ales, n oraele mari. Engleza a fost una din limbile cele mai populare, iar calitatea predrii n colile de stat a fost de cea mai bun calitate, cu variaiile fireti de la coal la coal 37. n nvmntul preuniversitar din Romnia, pentru diferitele segmente de populaie colar, s-au oferit n perioada 1996 2005 urmtoarele limbi fie ca prim limb de studiu, fie ca limb secund: englez, francez, german, rus, spaniol, italian, greac, japonez, portughez i norvegian38, ceea ce subliniaz nc o dat interesul att al oficialitilor, dar i al elevilor i prinilor pentru studiul limbilor. Multilingvismul nseamn nu doar utilizarea sau diseminarea limbilor de lucru ale UE, el reprezint, mai ales n ultima perioad, o strategie de promovare a limbilor regionale din Europa, ca reacie la percepia ceteanului european comun de pierdere a identitii culturale proprii. Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare este n prezent, aa cum am artat, ratificat de 15 state membre UE, ceea ce a dus la mbuntirea reprezentrii acestor limbi n zone n care anterior erau de abia tolerate. Cu toate acestea, primele generaii de migrani economici n noua ar gazd nu doresc ntotdeauna s solicite nvmnt n limba lor matern, iar ncurajarea multilingvismului n interiorul familiilor nu este ntotdeauna suficient de puternic. n ciuda faptului c nu exist suficiente date n acest sens, putem cita exemplul comunitilor de romni din Spania care au solicitat i au primit o ofert de nvare n limba matern, ofert sprijinit de autoritile ambelor state, respectiv Spania i Romnia.

37

Mariana NICOLAE, Training and development in transition: A Romanian Perspective, vol. IATEFL Pentru date statistice ce depesc cadrul prezentei discuii a se vedea Anuarul Statistic 2005, capitolul

TDTR 3, Whitstable, UK, 1998, p. 41.


38

Educaie, http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap8.pdf .

36

D. Raportul public privat n nvarea limbilor


Cererea mare de cunosctori de limbi pe piaa muncii din Romnia ca i mobilitatea crescut a forei de munc dup 1989 a produs mutaii semnificative n calitatea ofertei de limbi pe piaa educaional romneasc. Subfinanarea cronic a nvmntului romnesc a dus la o migraie important a profesorilor de limbi dinspre nvmnt ctre ali angajatori, de obicei, din mediul de afaceri, lsnd un gol destul de mare de personal calificat, gol resimit mai ales n zonele rurale sau cele urbane mai puin dezvoltate39. O privire general asupra ofertei instituionale de nvare a limbilor n Romnia evideniaz urmtoarele forme: n nvmntul pre-colar (grdinie) particular i de stat (unde cursurile de limbi se pltesc ns de prini); n nvmntul colar de stat; n nvmntul colar de stat cu profil bilingv, de nvare intensiv a limbilor; n nvmntul liceal particular (numrul liceelor particulare a crescut n mod semnificativ n ultimii ani (de la 8 n Romnia, 2 n Bucureti n 1997 la aproximativ 13 n Bucureti i peste 50 n ar40), coli particulare nfiinate de companii, organizaii, ambasade i institute culturale strine, coli particulare de limbi. Cu privire la numrul acestor coli este foarte greu de format o imagine din cauza lipsei unui studiu pe acest domeniu, dar innd cont de ofertele de cursuri care apar frecvent pe diversele canale de reclam i publicitate se poate presupune c numrul lor este foarte mare. n plus, una din metodele preferate de nvare sau consolidare a cunotinelor de limbi pe piaa romneasc rmne sistemul 1 x 1, respectiv cel cu un profesor particular.
39

continu criza de cadre didactice specializate la disciplina limbi strine. Numrul acestora este total al Inspectoratului colar Bucureti, http://www.gardianul.ro/2007/03/08/societate-

insuficient, nu numai la nivelul Capitalei, ci la nivelul ntregii ri (declaraie Marian Banu, purttorul de cuvnt c12/limba_straina_impusa_de_directorii_scolilor-s91162.html); o lips acut de profesori se nregistreaz la limbile strine. (declaraie Ladislau Konya, inspector colar general adjunct, http://www.gazetanordvest.ro/arhiva/2007/iulie/25iul/index_files/actualitatea.htm).
40

Mariana NICOLAE, Standards of Quality in Private Language Teaching The Romanian Situation, aspect of the European Union, Salonic, Grecia, 1997 i

conferina international Private Language Education in Europe. Its contribution to the multilingual and multicultural http://www.calificativ.ro/Informatii_utile_Lista_de_licee_particulare_autorizate__187.html.

37

Lipsa de date asupra furnizorilor de servicii lingvistice n Romnia, nu doar de cursuri de limb, este evident. i atunci cnd exist ele sunt fragmentate, de obicei pe tip de limb sau furnizor, mpiedicnd formarea unei imagini coerente, de ansamblu, cu privire la diversitatea ofertelor de pe pia. Este necesar iniierea unui studiu care ar contribui pe de o parte la cunoaterea situaiei romneti n vederea adoptrii de strategii de dezvoltare la nivel naional i, pe de alta, ar contribui la inserarea Romniei n peisajul european, prin contribuia la programele europene i colaborarea dintre diverii furnizori la nivel european.

E. Rolul certificatelor de competen lingvistic pe piaa muncii european


Mobilitatea forei de munc pe piaa european, dar i dincolo de ea, face tot mai acut necesitatea transparenei i transferabilitii calificrilor i competenelor profesionale. Certificarea competenelor lingvistice este un aspect de mare importan la nivel individual, dar i delicat la nivel instituional i chiar naional, activitatea de certificare fiind o surs important de venituri pentru instituia furnizoare. n prezent n Europa exist aproximativ 300 de certificate, exceptndu-le pe cele din cadrul sistemelor naionale de nvmnt, pentru 27 de limbi41. Certificatele au fost inventariate i descrise n 2006 ntr-un studiu intitulat Inventory of Language Certification in Europe, A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture efectuat de National Foundation for Educational Research din Marea Britanie. Comisia European a fost invitat s dezvolte un indicator european al competenei lingvistice (the European Indicator of Language Competence) care s utilizeze teste ale cror scoruri s fie bazate pe scala Cadrului european comun de referin pentru limbi (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages -

41

Jenny BRADSHAW, Catherine KIRKUP, Inventory of Language Certification in Europe, A Report to European Commission, Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2006,

the

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/inventory.pdf .

38

CEFRL). Acest Cadru, dezvoltat mpreun cu ALTE42, reprezint o orientare utilizat pentru a descrie progresele celor care studiaz limbi, principalul su obiectiv fiind acela de a oferi un cadru pentru metode de evaluare care s fie aplicabil tuturor limbilor din Europa. CEFRL const dintr-o scar cu ase niveluri pentru diferite abiliti lingvistice, mprite n trei categorii mari: utilizatorul de baz (A1-A2), utilizatorul independent (B1-B2) i utilizatorul foarte bun (C1-C2). Cele ase niveluri de referin sunt larg acceptate n statele membre drept standard pentru evaluarea competenei lingvistice a persoanei. Studiul privind certificatele de competen lingvistic n Europa a cuprins 31 de ri, incluznd i ri care nu sunt state membre, dar au participat n programele Socrates i Leonardo, punnd n eviden 37 de limbi naionale sau regionale care au potenialul de a avea certificate de competen lingvistic. Este vorba de certificate care se elibereaz pe baz de evaluare tinerilor i adulilor din orice ar i nu de cele care se dau cetenilor ca diplome naionale. Prin urmare, s-au avut n vedere certificatele dezvoltate pentru evaluarea competenei lingvistice a strinilor care intr ntr-o ar, i nu cele pentru examenele n limbi altele dect cea oficial care sunt nvate ca parte a sistemului de nvmnt din ara respectiv. Dei Romnia a fcut parte dintre rile care au reprezentat obiectul studiului, echipa de cercettori nu a putut gsi nici un fel de informaii cu privire la limba romn ca limb strin43. Considerm c este nevoie de un program de dezvoltare a unei proceduri de evaluare a competenei lingvistice a strinilor care vorbesc sau doresc s nvee limba romn i elaborarea unui certificat de competen lingvistic pentru limba romn ca limb strin. Acest lucru este de dorit att din punct de vedere ideal, ca parte a procesului de integrare a Romniei nu doar n UE, dar i din perspectiva bunelor practici internaionale care prevd n condiiile pieei globale a capitalului i forei de munc existena unor instrumente moderne de evaluare i de predare a unei limbi, dar i din punct de vedere pragmatic, ca o modalitate de a genera venituri. Este probabil ca Romnia s cunoasc n urmtorii ani o cretere a numrului de strini care vor dori s
42

ALTE - The Association of Language Testers in Europe (Asociaia examinatorilor competenei

lingvistice n Europa) este o asociaie alctuit din 31 de membri instituionali, reprezentnd 26 de limbi europene.
43

Jenny BRADSHAW, Catherine KIRKUP, op. cit., p. 10.

39

studieze sau s lucreze44 n organizaii aflate pe teritoriul su n cadrul crora limba de lucru este romna. Acetia vor avea nevoie de cursuri moderne, interactive de nvare a limbii romne dar i de teste de evaluare a competenei de comunicare n limba romn. Ambele situaii sunt deficitare nc pe piaa romneasc, dei cursurile de limb romn au nceput s fie elaborate i publicate n numr mai mare mai ales de edituri strine sau coli particulare de limbi. Certificarea ns rmne nc un deziderat, dei exist muli actori care ar putea s iniieze un program de studiere, descriere i elaborare de teste pentru limba romn de la universiti, institute de cercetare la entiti private. Romnia ca stat membru al UE trebuie s fie aliniat la bunele practici din domeniul multilingvismului i existena descrierii competenelor lingvistice pentru limba romn ca limb strin este o condiie important n acest sens.

F. Promovarea limbii romne ca limb de studiu n statele membre UE


Extinderile succesive ale Uniunii Europene, mobilitatea ridicat a cetenilor, precum i procesul de globalizare au contribuit la apariia unor noi valuri de imigraie i au sporit gradul de permutabilitate ntre limbi, culturi i credine n Europa. Pentru a face fa provocrilor generate de noile realiti, este necesar dezvoltarea dialogului intercultural care are o important component lingvistic, limba fiind cea mai direct

44

Se estimeaz c, n prezent, lucreaz n Romnia aproximativ 12.000 de persoane cu permise de munc, deficitul pieei de munc este apreciat la aproape 200.000 muncitori strini

dar

(http://www.romanialibera.ro/a101826/val-de-muncitori-straini-in-romania.html; http://www.hotnews.ro/Arhiva_noiembrie_2007/articol_1086894/-.htm). Patronatul i sindicatele din construcii, zona cea mai afectat de lipsa de personal, caut soluii pentru rezolvarea acestei situaii, sindicatele nfiinnd chiar un comitet sectorial pentru muncitorii migrani pentru ca eventualii lucrtori din construcii s aib forme legale de lucru i, eventual, s fie calificai prin coala de meserii. Acest lucru presupune n mod clar deschiderea unei piee importante pentru servicii lingvistice calificate i certificate avnd ca obiect limba romn ca limb strin, la diverse nivele de competen lingvistic.

40

expresie a fiecrei culturi. Pentru dialogul intercultural, cunoaterea limbilor - care se obine n primul rnd prin educaie - este esenial. Limbile se afl n centrul iniiativelor UE de ncurajare a educaiei, deoarece ele reflect diferitele culturi europene i, n acelai timp, ne ofer cheia pentru nelegerea lor. Promovarea limbilor n sistemele educaionale europene reprezint un aspect important al acestui portofoliu, a declarat purttorul de cuvnt a Comisiei Europene, Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen45. Comunicarea instituiilor UE cu cetenii pe care i servesc este o competen exclusiv supranaional, iar conform Comunicrii Comisiei Europene, adoptat n noiembrie 2005, statelor membre li se recunoate competena exclusiv n domeniul educaiei, dar acestea sunt invitate s se supun aa-numitei reguli a UE unu plus doi, prin care UE recomand statelor membre studierea, n plus fa de limba matern, a nc dou limbi. Minitrii educaiei din Romnia i Italia au decis prin semnarea unei Declaraii comune de intenie46 s pun n valoare rolul strategic al colaborrii dintre aceste state n domeniul educaiei. Acesta capt o importan strategic datorit necesitii construirii, pe mai departe, a unei Uniuni Europene bazate pe o cunoatere reciproc ntre popoarele sale. Prin aceast Declaraie, cei doi minitri au considerat c este oportun s se dezvolte ulterior, ntr-un cadru bilateral, perspectivele colaborrii ntre cele dou ri stimulnd, ndeosebi, angajarea direct a colilor i elevilor pentru orice form posibil de contacte i schimb de experiene. Cu referire la cadrul Uniunii Europene, este considerat oportun materializarea oricrei sinergii utile n scopul realizrii obiectivelor Strategiei Lisabona i, n mod deosebit, a celui privind promovarea n sistemele educaionale respective a obiectivului ce vizeaz cunoaterea reciproc tot mai aprofundat, ca instrument al unei educaii ctre democraie i cetenie activ, care s se regseasc, n plus, n nvmntul multilingvistic. n acest sens, s-a hotrt introducerea gradual, ncepnd cu anul colar 2007-2008, n unitile colare de toate nivelurile din Italia i Spania, n care sunt prezeni elevi de origine romn, de cursuri de limb, cultur i civilizaie romneasc. Aceast
45 46

http://www.guv.ro/presa/integrare/afis-doc.php?idpresa=197. http://www.edu.ro.

41

iniiativ coincide pe deplin cu orientarea de promovare, n sistemul colar italian i spaniol, a unei integrri tot mai depline i cu autentic caracter intercultural a elevilor, indiferent de originea lor. Selecia profesorilor care urmeaz s predea aceste cursuri s-a fcut prin concurs organizat de Ministerul Educaiei, Cercetrii i Tineretului (MECT) i Institutul Limbii Romne (ILR) n august 2007, potrivit unei Metodologii elaborate de MECT. Profesorii selectai la acest concurs au ncheiat un contract de colaborare cu MECT i ILR, urmnd a fi evaluai periodic n timpul anului colar de o Comisie de Monitorizare. Norma didactic a unui profesor angrenat n acest program este de 18 ore pe sptmn, ceea ce nseamn 2196 euro salariu brut. MECT finaneaz 32 de norme didactice ntregi. Orele de limba romn vor fi deschise i copiilor italieni sau spanioli care doresc s nvee romna. Manualele vor fi asigurate de MECT si vor fi unele speciale, programa fiind una nou, destinat exclusiv elevilor care studiaz n strintate. Ministrul romn al educaiei, cercetrii i tineretului a declarat c din 2008 vor fi elaborate manuale noi care sa cuprind noiuni de baz de limba romn, istoria romnilor i geografia Romniei. Ministerul Educaiei si tiinei din Spania i Ministerul Instruciei Publice din Italia au stabilit unitile colare n care se vor desfura aceste cursuri. Pentru anul colar 2007 2008, cursurile urmeaz a fi organizate n 31 de localiti spaniole i 3 italiene. n Italia, cursurile de limb, cultur i civilizaie romneasc se vor ine n uniti colare din Roma (12 ore/sptmn), Torino (18 ore/sptmn), Padova (8 ore/sptmn), localiti n care populaia romneasc este numeroas. n Spania, cursurile de limb, cultur i civilizaie romneasc se vor ine n uniti colare din Madrid (24 ore/sptmn), Guadalajara (16 ore/sptmn), Alcanar (8 ore/sptmn), Leida (24 ore/sptmn), Azunquena de Henares (6 ore/sptmn), Mollerussa (8 ore/sptmn). Autoritile spaniole i cele italiene pun la dispoziie sli de clas i calculatoare n unitile colare respective i asigur cursuri de formare pentru cadrele didactice selectate de MECT i ILR. Prin Anexa la Ordinul MECT nr. 1303 din 13 iunie 200747 s-a aprobat programa de curs opional, Limb, cultur i civilizaie romneasc, pentru elevii romni care studiaz n coli din afara granielor Romniei. Programa este structurat pe trei niveluri
47

Ibidem.

42

de studiu, urmnd modelul nvmntului preuniversitar: primar clasele I-IV; gimnazial clasele V-VIII; liceal clasele IX-XII. Programa i propune s favorizeze elevilor contactul cu limba, cultura i civilizaia romneasc, n scopul exersrii i mbuntirii comunicrii n limba matern, a cunoaterii unor momente importante ale istoriei romneti, a interiorizrii valorilor culturii i civilizaiei romneti i a dezvoltrii identitii proprii n contextul valorilor europene. Tema principal privete formarea poporului romn, abordat att din perspectiva informaiei istorice, ct i din cea a mitologiei populare (mituri i legende populare sau culte). Interesul pentru originea poporului romn este combinat cu interesul pentru locul de origine din care provin elevii sau prinii acestora, pe care vor fi ghidai s-l descopere din mai multe perspective, prin realizarea unor proiecte ce se vor derula pe tot parcursul colaritii. n domeniul limbii romne, programa propune abordarea pronunrii i scrierii corecte (cu o privire spre asemnri i diferene n aceast privin dintre limba romna i limba italian, respectiv spaniol). Programa propune, de asemenea, formarea i dezvoltarea unor abiliti i atitudini comunicative care s-i ajute pe elevi s comunice eficient n limba romna i s fie deschii pentru dialogul cu ceilali. Programa propune, de asemenea, o serie de teme care sunt de actualitate i de interes cultural. Perspectiva mbinrii unor elemente ce in de valorile tradiionale sau de patrimoniul naional cu aspecte ale Romniei contemporane va fi de altfel urmrit n toate programele opionalului de cultur i civilizaie romneasc. Utilizarea programei poate fi extins i la alte ri din Europa n care exist comuniti cu elevi romni care doresc s urmeze acest opional. Prin aceast program se dorete sprijinirea pstrrii legturilor afective ale acestor elevi cu Romnia, ara lor de origine, astfel, nct, la ncheierea nvmntului preuniversitar, fiecare absolvent s aib un orizont cultural deschis n care s gseasc puncte de sprijin pentru consolidarea capacitii de comunicare oral i n scris n limba romn, n vederea accesului nemijlocit la informaii de cultur i civilizaie romneasc. Totodat, aceast program dorete s motiveze elevii romni n contientizarea identitii naionale proprii, precum i pentru integrarea cultural n spaiul european. Obiectivele programei sunt:

43

- cultivarea limbii romne, ca limb de comunicare n spaiul romnesc i european i ca fcnd parte din trunchiul limbilor romanice; - asigurarea pstrrii particularitilor fonetice specifice limbii romne n comunicarea oral i eliminarea posibilelor contaminri cu limba rii de adopie; - asigurarea unei comunicri n scris corecte i expresive n limba romn, n vederea accesului direct la informaii despre ara de origine; - nelegerea valorilor fundamentale specifice spaiului cultural romnesc; - cunoaterea momentelor eseniale ale istoriei naionale i integrarea acestora ntre evenimentele importante la nivel european; - integrarea corect a valorilor romneti n universul valorilor general-umane i europene; - cunoaterea de ctre elevi a specificului naional romnesc i asigurarea conexiunilor cu elemente definitorii ale culturii rii de adopie. Ulterior, Guvernul Romniei a aprobat proiectul MECT privind predarea cursurilor de limb romn, cultur i civilizaie romneasc prin H.G. nr. 857/200748. Prin acest act normativ a fost scos n eviden faptul c acest proiect este pilot pentru anul colar 2007 2008, urmnd ca, n funcie de rezultatele obinute, s se ia decizia continurii sau nu a acestui proiect. O alt modalitate de promovare a limbii i culturii romne se realizeaz prin programele Socrates i Leonardo. Acestea au fost principalele programe implicate, dar i-au adus contribuia i programele de nfrire ntre localiti, de nvmnt on-line, de cultur, de tineret, etc.

G. Problema delocalizrilor n context multilingvistic


Comisia European a propus n octombrie 2005 n cadrul unei Comunicri intitulate Valorile europene ntr-o lume globalizat nfiinarea Fondului de Adaptare la Globalizare49, complementar fondurilor structurale, mai precis Fondului Social European. Iniiativa crerii acestui Fond a fost explicitat iniial pe larg ntr-un material al lui
48

M.Of. nr. 527/3.08.2007.

44

Loukas Tsoukalis, consilier special al Preedintelui Comisiei Europene, publicat n octombrie 200550 i apoi a fost oficializat n decembrie 2005 n cadrul summit-ului Consiliului European. Acestui Fond i-au fost alocate 500 milioane euro n scopul de a compensa efectele negative ale delocalizrilor asupra persoanelor angajate n munc n fiecare an (ntre 35.000 i 50.000 de persoane). Fondul a devenit operaional ncepnd cu 1 ianuarie 2007. Iniiativa nfiinrii acestui Fond aparine Franei, ara care se teme cel mai mult de efectele delocalizrilor. Chiar dac n prezent nu dispunem de studii i analize care s ne arate diversele consecine ale fenomenului delocalizrilor, considerm drept msur a solidaritii sociale la nivel european participarea tuturor statelor membre la susinerea acestui Fond pn ce vor fi stabilite aciuni clare pentru a sprijini ideea multilingvsimului ca mod de existen european. Frana este singurul stat membru UE care a aplicat la acest Fond, solicitnd 4 milioane euro pentru formarea profesional a 1000 de muncitori concediai de la firmele Renault i Peugeot. Ar fi fost de ateptat ca la acest Fond s aplice mai multe state. Slabele performane de pn acum pun sub semnul ntrebrii intensitatea efectelor globalizrii n UE. Se pare c pericolul delocalizrilor locurilor de munc n afara UE a fost exagerat. Se impune astfel o nou abordare asupra mecanismelor de funcionare ale acestui Fond, precum i asupra surselor sale de finanare. Sumele alocate acestui Fond ar putea fi direcionate pentru a sprijini n primul rnd educaia permanent i formarea profesional, ambele fiind dependente de gradul de cunoatere al limbilor, putndu-se astfel forma la nivelul instituiilor UE o legtur direct i funcional ntre problema multilingvismului i cea a delocalizrilor. Cultura este totodat un factor economic i un factor de integrare social 51, astfel c ntr-un context multilingvistic, delocalizrile nu pot fi privite doar ca un efect
49

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European values in the globalised world Contribution of the Commission to the October Meeting of Heads of State and Government , Brussels, COM (2005) 525 final, 20.10.2005.
50

Loukas TSOUKALIS, Why we need a Globalization Adjustment Fund, OJ L 63, 10.03.2000, p. 1.

http://www.gov.uk/files/kfile/Loukas-final.pdf.
51

45

strict al globalizrii, negative la nivelul statelor n care au avut loc concedieri masive. Chiar dac la o prim vedere, multilingvismul ar urma s accentueze efectele negative ale globalizrii, considerm c pe termen mediu i lung ele nu pot persista i chiar n prezent, ele par s aib numai efecte pozitive acolo unde limba oficial nu se situeaz printre limbile de larg circulaie. ntr-un context multilingvsitic precum cel european n care promovarea diversitii culturale i lingvistice constituie unul dintre obiectivele principale ale aciunilor comune n domeniul culturii, delocalizrile nu sunt una dintre formele cele mai frecvente de cunoatere reciproc ntre culturile i stilurile de via din statele membre UE. Astfel, trebuie avute n vedere stagiile efectuate ntr-o alt ar dect cea n care s-au format de lucrtorii din cadrul filialelor societilor din rile dezvoltate ale UE. Aceste stagii care implic deseori att nvarea unei limbi sau ameliorarea cunotinelor n limba respectiv, ct i contactul cu o alt cultur a muncii. Dac exist un risc legat de fenomenul delocalizrilor, el este unul care privete monopolul limbii unice, limba englez, att pe piaa muncii n Europa, ct i n cadrul spaiului public european52.

3. PROMOVAREA INSTITUIONAL A MULTILINGVISMULUI A. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului pe plan european


Multilingvismul este unul din conceptele cele mai dinamice ale discursului actual al Uniunii Europene care garanteaz diversitate cultural i lingvistic, tratament egal pentru popoarele i persoanele individuale ale Europei precum i dreptul cetenilor i diverselor entiti s interacioneze cu instituiile UE n oricare din limbile ei oficiale. Multilingvismul este difuz n ntreaga filozofie a construciei europene i este statuat, chiar dac nu i denumit astfel, nc din 195453, n Convenia Cultural European a
52

Vezi Bernard CASSEN, Revolta salariailor. mpotriva monopolului limbii engleze, Le Monde Convenia Cultural European, Paris, 19.12.1954, ETS no. 18, art. 2, Rezoluia nr. 2/69, An intensified

diplomatique varianta n limba romn, august 2007.


53

Modern-Language Teaching Programme for Europe, Recomandarea nr. 814/1977, Modern languages in

46

Consiliului Europei, pentru ca astzi s existe un comisariat care gestioneaz complexitile comunicrii la nivel instituional i individual ntr-o entitate cu 23 de limbi oficiale. La o prim vedere, termenul multilingvism, n accepiunea sa restrns, dat de contextul Uniunii Europene, pare foarte clar, avnd o utilizare larg n pres, documente i limbajul uzual, fiind n centrul unei dezbateri publice destul de emoionale ca, de altfel, majoritatea subiectelor referitoare la limb i identitate cultural dar el are, din punct de vedere pragmatic, trei niveluri de utilizare. Pe primul palier de utilizare, multilingvismul este abilitatea cetenilor UE de a comunica ntre ei. Responsabilitatea pentru predarea i nvarea limbilor se afl la nivelul autoritilor educaionale a statelor membre fiind o politic educaional n care Comisia nu are efectiv competene reale, dei este de datoria acestor autoriti s pun n aplicare iniiativa Comisiei, susinut de Consiliu, prin care se stipuleaz c toi cetenii trebuie s nvee cel puin dou limbi pe lng cea matern. Al doilea nivel de utilizare presupune dreptul cetenilor i purttorilor de interese din UE s comunice cu instituiile europene pentru a-i cunoate drepturile i a-i ndeplini obligaiile. n sfrit, al treilea nivel este cel intra-instituional i se refer la interaciunea din interiorul instituiilor UE. n vederea limitrii costurilor de traducere Comisia i desfoar activitile interne, de rutin, n limbile procedurale, respectiv englez, francez i german, recurgnd la multilingvism total doar n relaiile cu alte instituii UE, cu statele membre i cu publicul general. Karl-Johan Lnnroth, directorul general al Directoratului General pentru Traduceri (DGT), sublinia unul din paradoxurile ncercrii de a oferi anse egale tuturor limbilor oficiale, pe de o parte, i necesitatea de abordare pragmatic a regimului lingvistic n cadrul activitilor preparatorii, pe de alta: cu ct se folosesc mai multe limbi n activitile cotidiene, de rutin, cu att ntregul proces devine mai greoi i mare consumator de timp, mpiedicnd, n fapt, promovarea real a multilingvismului. De aceea marea majoritate a textelor traduse n cadrul DGT se fac nspre i dinspre cele trei limbi procedurale engleza, franceza i germana, n care se redacteaz documentele n cadrul activitilor permanente ale Comisiei i doar legislaia adoptat este tradus n
Europe, Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new framework strategy for multilingualism, op. cit.

47

toate limbile oficiale ale UE, ceea ce explic diferenele semnificative ntre numrul paginilor traduse n i/sau din cele dou tipuri de limbi. Astfel, n 2006 DGT a tradus 1.541.518 pagini din care, n funcie de limba surs, 72% a textelor originale au fost redactate n englez, 14% n francez i 2,7% n german. Dac se ia n considerare limba int, procentul textelor redactate n fiecare din limbile oficiale este relativ egal distribuit pentru limbile ne-procedurale (aproximativ 50.000 pagini per limb int), excepie fcnd din nou engleza (aproximativ 185.000 pagini), franceza (n jur de 160.000 pagini) i germana (cu aproape 145.000 pagini) ca limbi procedurale, de lucru n interiorul Comisiei54. n UE multilingvismul este promovat n mod direct, explicit, dar i n mod indirect prin politici i programe al cror scop primar este altul, dar care nu se pot derula dect presupunnd o cunoatere a mai multor limbi. Promovarea direct a multilingvismului are loc prin decizie politic materializat prin deschiderea la 1 ianuarie 2007 a portofoliului pentru multilingvism ca portofoliu separat, independent, menit s reflecte dimensiunea politic a conceptului n cadrul UE, avnd n vedere importana multilingvismului pentru educaie iniial, nvare continu, ocupare a forei de munc, justiie, libertate i securitate. Ulterior, promovarea direct a multilingvismului se face prin elaborarea i implementarea unei strategii coerente, pe termen lung, a noului domeniu care a fost decupat din portofoliul pentru Educaie, formare, cultur i tineret55 al Comisiei Europene. Pentru promovarea direct a multilingvismului Comisia European a aprobat un cadru strategic global privind multilingvismul care se refer la nvarea limbilor, la legtura dintre cunoaterea limbilor i economie, precum i la utilizarea limbilor de ctre ceteni i n cadrul instituiilor europene. Se subliniaz astfel natura orizontal a conceptului de multilingvism prin relevana sa fa de o band larg de arii politice, cu deosebire cele care se afl n centrul Strategiei Lisabona. Instituiile UE cele mai mult implicate n utilizarea i promovarea direct a multilingvismului sunt Directoratul General pentru Traduceri (DGT) i Direcia General Interpretare (DG Interpretare cunoscut anterior ca SCIC). Directoratul General pentru Traduceri (DGT) este cel mai mare serviciu lingvistic public din lume cuprinznd, dup
54

European Commission, Translating for a Multilingual Community, pp. 6-7, Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/figel/index_ro.htm.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/bookshelf/brochure_en.pdf.
55

48

extinderea din ianuarie 2007 aproximativ 2.500 de persoane din care aproape jumtate funcioneaz la sediul Directoratului din Luxemburg, cealalt jumtate la Bruxelles i aproximativ 50 de persoane n reprezentanele locale ale DGT, cu o producie de traduceri clasice, tiprite, de aproximativ 15 milioane de pagini. Costurile unei activiti de acest tip sunt foarte mari i reprezint aproximativ 1% din bugetul anual general al UE (conform cifrelor din 2005). DGT ofer, pe lng traducerea tradiional a documentelor, i servicii bazate pe dezvoltrile tehnologice cele mai recente ca traducere-web, maini de traducere, rezumate scrise sau orale, traducerea unor texte scurte, a sloganurilor, consultan lingvistic, redactarea de documente. Natura activitii de traducere i interpretariat s-a schimbat radical n ultimul deceniu fiind aproape n totalitate computerizat. De asemenea redactarea documentelor n cadrul Comisiei s-a schimbat foarte mult: de la redactri n proporie de 50% n francez i 1/3 n englez n urm cu 15 ani la utilizarea ca limb de redactare a limbii engleze n proporie de 70% i a mai puin de 20% a limbii franceze. Traducerea legislaiei europene n toate limbile oficiale ale UE este doar aparent o strategie de ncurajare a utilizrii limbilor statelor membre. De fapt, este unul din motoarele cele mai puternice de promovare ale multilingvismului deoarece reprezint un efort de traducere i adaptare a legislaiei europene la nivelul statelor membre pentru care se recruteaz specialiti n traducere att la nivel comunitar ct i la nivel local, naional. Efectul concret al acestei politici a fost o cretere semnificativ a numrului de vobitori multilingvi, pe de o parte, i de profesionalizare i specializare a celor care ofer acest serviciu, pe de alta. n Romnia traducerea acquis-ului comunitar se face sub coordonarea Institutului European Romn cu participarea unui numr mare de traductori, revizori, terminologi i juriti care, printr-un efort complex de colaborare i armonizare, sunt ateptai s ofere un produs avnd calitatea i stilul originalului i, n acelai timp, unitate terminologic n limba romn. O alt modalitate de promovare a dialogului multilingvistic pe plan european o reprezint nfiinarea birourilor locale pentru traduceri ale DGT56. Complexitatea activitilor de traducere, necesitatea de a cunoate situaiile locale, realitile lingvistice ale noilor state membre a dus la nfiinarea acestor birouri locale, dar i nevoia de a
56

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/external_relations/field_offices/maillist_en.htm#bucharest.

49

recruta resurse umane de o calitatea deosebit att pentru statele membre ct i pentru DGT. Lipsa relativ de personal suficient de bine calificat pentru a face fa cantitii dar, mai ales, calitii fluxului de traduceri cerute de multilingvismul instituiilor europene a condus la explorarea ideii de nfiinare a unui program de master pentru traductori57. ncepnd din 2008, Comisia European va nfiina un masterat european de traductori pentru a oferi un cadru ct mai adecvat pentru dezvoltarea unor competene ct mai diverse, dar i pentru a crea o sinergie a fondului de cunotine i bune practici care exist n diversele zone europene n domeniul traducerilor i interpretariatului. UE este un angajator important de traductori i un juctor major pe piaa european a traducerilor ceea ce justific interesul su fa de procesul de formare al traductorilor i fa de investiia n acest proces. Probabil c una din modalitile cele mai vizibile de promovare a multilingvismului este portalul Europa i multilingvismul prin care se anun c alegerea UE de a adopta multilingvismul n mod oficial drept instrument de guvernare este unic n lume. Pentru UE, utilizarea limbilor cetenilor ei este unul dintre factorii care contribuie la transparena, legitimitatea i eficiena ei58. Portalul ofer informaii eseniale i detaliate asupra modalitilor de promovare ale limbilor europene, avnd o structur clar pe arii tematice: Diversitate lingvistic, nvarea limbilor, Predarea limbilor, Traducere, Interpretare, Tehnologii lingvistice pe fiecare din ariile respective putndu-se urmri politicile, activitile, publicaiile, serviciile i noutile oferite de diversele instituii europene n domeniu. Pe de alt parte, acest portal reprezint i o modalitate simpl i clar de comunicare cu ceteanul obinuit, nesofisticat al UE, cel care se simte nstrinat de problematicile europene i neavnd nici un cuvnt de spus n procesele decizionale comunitare59. O alt modalitate direct de promovare a multilingvismului este prin derularea de proiecte finanate avnd ca scop cercetarea i identificarea anumitor aspecte considerate eseniale pentru predarea i nvarea limbilor ca modalitate de cunoatere a culturilor
57 58 59

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/external_relations/universities/master_curriculum_en.pdf. Cf. http://europa.eu/languages/ro/home. Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on a European Communication Policy,

Brussels, COM (2006) 35 final, 1.2. 2006.

50

europene i de nelegere i, ulterior, de acceptare a diversitii nu doar programatic i politic ci, n mod deosebit, la nivel de practici curente, individuale. Aceste proiecte capt vizibilitate prin conferine i/sau adrese de Internet la care se pot accesa rezultate, dezbateri, etc. Conferina internaional organizat la Ljouwert/Leeuwarden (Frysln, Olanda) de Centrul de cercetare Mercator pe tema The Future of European Policy towards Multilingualism and Language Learning cu data de desfurare ntre 21 - 23 noiembrie 2007 a utilizat o gam larg de abordri: politici multilingve de nvare a limbilor, compararea de modele educaionale, dezvoltarea de standarde europene, rolul Cadrului comun de referin european, strategii inovative pentru nvarea limbilor, dezvoltarea durabil a multilingvismului, regiuni multilingve de succes, promovarea diversitii lingvistice i tehnologii noi pentru nvarea limbilor. O iniiativ care face parte din acelalai cadru de aciuni menite s sprijine promovarea direct a multilingvismului este proiectul EMILL (European Minority Languages Library)60 prin care s-a construit Digibyb - Biblioteca digital a limbilor europene minoritare (Digital Library on European Minority Languages)61 avnd ca scop stocarea i accesarea informaiilor referitoare la limbile minoritare din Europa. Proiectul se continu la un alt nivel prin crearea unui cadru european pentru o bibliotec digital avnd ca scop descrierea i inventarierea limbilor minoritare cu accent ns pe documente i date elaborate n limbi europene majore, de preferin n limba englez. Biblioteca european conine mai degrab informaii despre limbile respective, dect informaii n limbile respective pentru a depi cercul vicios al limbilor minoritare care trebuie s supravieuiasc n ciuda unui numr mic de vorbitori i dificultilor de promovare datorit costurilor ridicate. Un vector de for n promovarea direct a multilingvismului este proiectul de mare anvergur i vizibilitate IATE62, rezultatul colaborrii dintre Parlamentul European, Consiliul European, Comisia European, Curtea European de Justiie, Curtea de Conturi,
60 61

Cf.: http://www.emill.org/en. Pentru mai multe informaii, vezi: http://www.dbfrysk.org/en. IATE: http://iate.europa.eu, Terminologie Interactiv pentru Europa. Costurile generale de dezvoltare a

62

IATE ntre 1999 i 2003 au fost de 1,41 milioane euro, iar costurile anuale de ntreinere aferente anului 2007 sunt de 627.000 euro, fiind acoperite din bugetele tuturor instituiilor i organismelor participante ale UE.

51

Comitetul Economic i Social, Comitetul Regiunilor, Banca European de Investiii, Banca Central European i Centrul de Traduceri care au dezvoltat o baz de date unic pentru toat terminologia referitoare la UE n cele 23 de limbi oficiale. Aceast baz de date cuprinde Terminologia Interactiv pentru Europa i mbin bazele de date terminologice ale instituiilor i organismelor individuale ale UE ntr-o baz de date unic coninnd 8,7 milioane de termeni, 500 000 de abrevieri i 100 000 expresii, n toate cele 23 de limbi oficiale ale Uniunii. Existena IATE, n prezent cu acces liber i facil, dar utilizat de ctre serviciile de traducere ale instituiilor europene nc din 2005, reprezint un progres substanial n asigurarea unor standarde de calitate pentru comunicrile scrise din cadrul instituiilor i organismelor UE i, n acelai timp, asigur coerena i fiabilitatea terminologic indispensabile pentru producerea textelor clare i lipsite de ambiguitate necesare pentru garantarea att a validitii i transparenei procesului legislativ, ct i a comunicrii eficiente cu cetenii Uniunii. n calitatea sa de baz de date multilingv, IATE permite utilizatorului s caute un termen specific ntr-o limb surs i s gseasc termenii corespunztori ntr-una sau mai multe limbi int. Volumul coninutului pentru fiecare limb variaz, n funcie, n principal, de lungimea intervalului de timp n care fiecare limb a constituit o limb oficial a Uniunii dar, pe termen lung, administratorii IATE i propun de a atinge aceeai valoare a coninutului pentru toate limbile oficiale. Modalitile indirecte de promovare a multilingvismului sunt cele prin care sunt propuse politici i aciuni pentru dezvoltarea unor zone n care diferenele dintre UE i competitorii ei, n primul rnd SUA, sunt percepute ca importante. Internetul este unul din motoarele principale de dezvoltare ale multilingvismului la nivel global prin vizibilitatea pe care o d limbilor i culturilor minoritare, pe de o parte, dar i de ntrire a statutului englezei ca lingua franca a perioadei contemporane, pe de alta. In UE gradul de conectare i utilizare a tehnologiei informaiei (TI) este nc redus fa de SUA, de exemplu, cu diferene regionale acute.63 Crearea ariei europene a nvmntului superior (European Higher Education Area EHEA)64 pn n 2010, stabilit ca prioritate a
63

Gradul de penetrare pentru TI este de 54,2 % la un numr de utilizatori de 267.458.327 n septembrie Pentru mai multe date asupra concluziilor i recomandrilor Asociaiei Universitilor din Eropa

2007, cf. http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm.


64

[European University Association - EUA] a se vedea seminarul tematic Strengthening Higher Education

52

procesului Bologna pentru a crea o sinergie a tradiiilor de cercetare i predare a universitilor europene, i nu o uniformizare a sistemelor de nvmnt superior, este unul din vectorii eseniali de promovare i diseminare a multilingvismului. De asemenea societatea cunoaterii65, Programul Cadru 766 sunt ali vectori de promovare indirect, dar foarte eficient, a multilingvismului n Uniunea European.

B. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului n ntreprinderile care opereaz pe teritoriul UE


Fr ndoial c unul din vectorii eseniali ai diseminrii multilingvismului a fost i continu s fie domeniul economic, n special sfera comercial. Internaionalizarea pieelor reprezint o provocare din ce n ce mai evident nu doar pentru marii actori economici care oricum dispun de resursele materiale i umane pentru a face fa acestora, dar mai ales pentru cei mici i mijlocii care i propun tot mai mult s livreze mrfuri i servicii n ntreaga lume. Adaptarea produselor la cerinele pieelor locale i la profilul consumatorilor din zone specifice poate reprezenta uneori piatra de ncercare pentru capacitatea de adaptare i flexibilitate a firmei respective i, prin urmare, pentru capacitatea ei de supravieuire. Instrumentul principal de lucru n acest scenariu este limba deoarece comunicarea n limba local este considerat de majoritatea firmelor internaionalizate un aspect esenial al succesului. Multilingvismul este considerat, prin urmare, esenial pentru garantarea succesului n strategiile de internaionalizare i, n acelai timp, este considerat, o afacere bun deoarece permite dezvoltarea unor nie de pia extrem de profitabile.

and Research in South East Europe: Priorities for Regional and European Cooperation, http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_documents/SEE_Statement_Vienna_030306_Final. 1141985288957.pdf.
65 66

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/knowledge_society/index_en.htm. Cf. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html.

53

Concluziile unui studiu67 iniiat de UE pentru cercetarea

modului n care

companiile mici din Europa i-ar putea spori exporturile utiliznd o strategie mai proactiv cu privire la comunicarea multilingv sugereaz c exist un potenial substanial de dezvoltare internaional pentru companiile mici din Europa dac acestea ar investi mai mult n nvarea limbilor strine i ar elabora strategii lingvistice mai competitive. Dintr-un eantion de aproximativ 2.000 de companii exportatoare care au participat la studiu, 11% au declarat c au pierdut cel puin o oportunitate de afaceri ca urmare a existenei unor bariere de comunicare identificate. Pierderea medie pe companie n decursul unei perioade de trei ani a fost de 325 000 de euro. Acest lucru este semnificativ nu doar pentru cifra de afaceri a respectivelor firme, ci pentru contextul social european mai larg, mai ales din punctul de vedere al creterii economice i al locurilor de munc, innd cont de faptul c ntreprinderile mici i mijlocii din Europa asigur 67% din numrul total al locurilor de munc din sectorul privat, respectiv aproximativ 75 de milioane de posturi, iar n 2004, IMM-urile deineau aproape 58% din cifra de afaceri total a ntreprinderilor la nivelul UE-25. n mod clar, chiar i o mbuntire minim a performanei lor n ceea ce privete exporturile ar avea un impact enorm asupra creterii economice i locurilor de munc. Un sfert dintre ntreprinderile romneti care au fcut obiectul acestui studiu au estimat c au pierdut afaceri din cauza lipsei de competene lingvistice. Iat cum multilingvismul cunoate o evoluie semnificativ, de la concept cu valoare general educaional la vector al dezvoltrii economice ntr-o economie sofisticat, cu un sector important al serviciilor i deschidere spre piaa global. Analiza rezultatelor cercetrii a subliniat existena unei corelri directe ntre competenele lingvistice i succesul n export, evideniindu-se patru elemente ale gestionrii competenelor lingvistice care au efect asupra succesului n exporturi: existena unei strategii lingvistice n firm, utilizarea vorbitorilor nativi, recrutarea de personal cu abiliti lingvistice i folosirea translatorilor i interpreilor. Aceste strategii
67

Studiul ELAN (Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in

Enterprise) comandat de UE i efectuat de CILT (Centrul Naional pentru Limbi al Regatului Unit) n colaborare cu InterAct International i o echip internaional de cercettori, ofer o analiz practic asupra modului de utilizare a limbilor n IMM-urile din UE precum i asupra efectelor acestei utilizri asupra performanei n afaceri. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/elan-final-report_en.pdf.

54

sunt recomandate de cercettori ca putnd duce, n cazul aplicrii lor, la rezultate semnificative n ntreaga economie european. Multilingvismul constituie o industrie n sine i creaz un mare numr de locuri de munc. Acelai studiu a artat ca, dei limba engleza este pe primul loc ca 'lingua franca' pentru comerul internaional, exista o cerere din ce n ce mai mare pentru alte limbi. n timp ce o ptrime din societile intervievate i-au exprimat nevoia de a-i ameliora cunotinele de limba englez, o proporie similar i-a exprimat nevoia de a-i extinde cunotinele spre limba german sau francez, iar limbile spaniol i rus ocup un loc important n cadrul prioritilor. Numeroase ntreprinderi - n special cele mari - au pus accentul, de asemenea, pe interesul lor pentru limbile noneuropene, cum ar fi limba chineza, araba si urdu, datorita faptului ca acestea ncearc sa ptrund pe pieele noneuropene. Exist zone n care funcia de lingua franca este preluat de alte limbi, ca de exemplu rusa n multe pri din Europa de est, franceza n anumite zone ale Africii i spaniola n America Latin68. Reapariia limbii ruse ca limb n continu dezvoltare din punctul de vedere al cererii pe piaa lingvistic euroepan este un fenomen firesc, cauzat de evoluia relaiilor economice cu Federaia Rus. Importana relaiei cu aceast ar, al treilea partener comercial al UE, este subliniat de ntlnirea la nivel nalt UE - Federaia Rus din octombrie 200769. Se poate atepta, prin urmare, c nevoia de personal specializat n rusa de afaceri s fie n continu cretere n toate statele membre UE, inclusiv Romnia n viitorii ani i furnizorii tradiionali de specialiti n domeniu ar trebui s includ acest aspect n planul lor de dezvoltare strategic. Studiul a subliniat o constatare intuitiv pe care cele mai multe companii de succes au utilizat-o n strategiile lor de intrare pe pieele internaionale: faptul c parteneriatele pe termen lung n afaceri depind de stabilirea i dezvoltarea relaiilor de ncredere ntre cei implicai, relaii care nu se pot realiza fr o bun cunoatere cultural
68

Exist la nivelul ceteanului obinuit din statele membre occidentale ale UE percepia c n Romnia, ca

fost ar comunist, se vorbete rusa ca principal limb strin. n realitate, rusa este actualmente o limb relativ rar n Romnia din punctul de vedere al ofertei de traductori/interprei profesioniti i acest lucru este evident n special n domeniul economic. Pentru considerente istorice asupra predrii/nvrii limbilor strine n Romnia a se vedea Mariana NICOLAE, Training and development in transition: A Romanian Perspective, op. cit., p. 42.
69

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/focus/eu_russia_102007/index_en.htm.

55

i lingvistic a zonei int70. Pornind de la aceast constatare, multe companii mari au subliniat necesitatea operrii i cu limbi, altele dect cele europene, cum ar fi chineza, araba i urdu, deoarece, pe de o parte, aceste companii caut s se extind pe piee din afara Europei iar, pe de alt parte, migraia forei de munc, dar i cutarea de noi piee de desfacere pentru economiile asiatice, modific peisajul lingvistic european cu limbi considerate pn nu demult exotice. ntr-un discurs inut la Bucureti pe data de 22 iunie 2007 cu ocazia unei conferine organizate de Institutul European din Romnia i Reprezentana Comisiei Europene n Romnia Leonard Orban, Comisar european pentru multilingvism afirma, referindu-se la promovare a multilingvismului n ntreprinderi: Multilingvismul poate favoriza competitivitatea noastr, precum i ocuparea forei de munc. El reprezint un instrument fundamental pentru coeziunea social i dialogul intercultural, precum i pentru asigurarea unui spaiu pentru dialogul politic la nivel european71. Cu ocazia conferinei Business languages and intercultural skills72 desfurat la Bruxelles pe 21 septembrie 2007 s-a artat c, dei limba englez i va menine rolul de lingua franca n mediul comercial mondial, competenele lingvistice suplimentare, n combinaie cu competenele interculturale, pot furniza un avantaj competitiv. Cu acest prilej a fost lansat un Forum de afaceri privind multilingvismul, care va examina modalitatea n care se poate folosi operaional multilingvismul pentru a da valoare maxim rezultatelor ntreprinderilor. Acest Forum va fi prezidat de Etienne Davignon, preedinte al Consiliului Brussels Airlines. Forumul de afaceri va reuni directori ai ntreprinderilor care acioneaz n UE. Acetia vor identifica modul n care societile pot s utilizeze operaional gestionarea limbilor, ca parte a eforturilor acestora de a da o valoare maxim performanei lor economice. n conformitate cu un studiu realizat n Marea Britanie, numrul de persoane din lumea ntreag care nva limba englez va atinge aproximativ 2 miliarde n urmtorii 10-15 ani. Contrar convingerii comune, acest fapt este, n realitate, o veste proast pentru vorbitorii monolingvi de limba englez. Un studiu anterior realizat de CILT asupra impactului competenelor lingvistice asupra economiei Marii Britanii a artat c
70 71 72

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/elansum_en.pdf. Leonard ORBAN, Multingvismul valoare fundamental a Uniunii Europene, http://www.ier.ro. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/businesslangues/index_en.html.

56

societile britanice nregistreaz acelai volum de exporturi ctre Danemarca, cu o populaie de 5 milioane de locuitori, ca i ctre America Central i de Sud, cu o populaie de 390 de milioane de locuitori.

C. Metode de promovare a multilingvismului n universiti


Formarea ariei europene a nvmntului superior a fost i este un vector esenial de diseminare a multilingvismului n UE, mai ales prin programele de mobiliti SOCRATES-ERASMUS pentru studeni, programele de mobiliti pentru diversele categorii de cadre didactice universitare73, programele de cercetare din cadrul ariei europene a cercetrii cunoscute, n special, prin programele cadru acum operaional fiind PC774. ERASMUS75 este programul UE n domeniul nvmntului superior prin care se ncurajeaz cooperarea transnaional ntre universiti n vederea creterii calitii i a sublinierii dimensiunii europene a nvmntului teriar prin mai multe mobiliti, prin creterea transparenei i recunoaterii academice depline a studiilor i calificrilor programelor de licen i master pe ntreg cuprinsul UE. Fiind un program centrat pe activiti de mobiliti internaionale att la nivelul studenilor, ct i la cel al cadrelor didactice ERASMUS este unul din vectorii principali de promovare a multilingvismului n universiti. Aria de cuprindere a programului ERASMUS este impresionant dac avem n vedere c, de la lansarea lui n 1987, au beneficiat de bursele de mobiliti oferite prin program 1,2 milioane de studeni, iar n prezent sunt cuprinse n el 2199 de instituii de nvmnt superior din 31 de ri. Din anul 2007 ERASMUS a devenit parte integrant a programului de nvare continu76.

73

Programul Marie Curie pentru mobilitatea tinerilor cercettori, Cf. http://cordis.europa.eu/era/. Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/erasmus/erasmus_en.html. Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/europe_en.pdf.

http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/people/home_en.html.
74 75 76

57

D. Modaliti de promovare a multilingvismului n instituiile UE


Portofoliul multilingvismului are o dimensiune orizontal semnificativ, acionnd n strns legtur cu alte politici sau direcii de aciune ale Uniunii Europene, cum ar fi cultura, educaia, comunicarea, politica social, ocuparea forei de munc, justiia, libertatea i securitatea etc., contribuia sa la elaborarea i conturarea politicilor UE fiind profund, iar beneficiile vizibile n mod imediat mai ales la nivel individual. Dar i la nivel instituional beneficiile multilingvismului sunt evidente ntr-o construcie complex cum este Uniunea European. Promovarea multilingvismului n instituiile UE se realizeaz, n principal, prin cele dou direcii generale: Direcia General Traduceri (DGT) i Direcia General Interpretare (DGI). DGI este serviciul de interpretare i organizare de conferine al Comisiei Europene, respectiv serviciul poate cel mai direct implicat n activitile curente ale UE, asigurnd interprei pentru aproximativ 11.000 de reuniuni pe an, fiind astfel cel mai mare serviciu de interpretare din lume. Prin urmare, misiunea DGI este a face posibil comunicarea multilingv, element central al procesului decizional comunitar, prin asigurarea unor servicii de interpretare de calitate; asigurarea unor servicii eficiente de organizare de conferine, care cuprind i asigurarea asistenei tehnice i gestionarea proiectrii infrastructurilor moderne pentru conferine i participarea la punerea n practic a noii strategii a Comisiei privind multilingvismul77. DGI dispune de modaliti tehnice de realizare a misiunii sale deosebit de performante care includ tehnologii informatice multilingve cum ar fi chat-urile multilingve, webcasting cu ajutorul cruia conferina poate fi urmrit de la distan n oricare dintre limbile pentru care se asigur interpretare simultan n sala de conferin. Chat-urile multilingve sunt organizate de Comisia European pentru ca personalitile politice s interacioneze cu cetenii europeni pe Internet, prin intermediul unui program de chat. Aceste strategii de cretere a transparenei activitilor Comisiei sunt menite s ofere acces ceteanului european obinuit la dezbaterile politice care-l privesc, n ultim instan, n mod direct i, pe de alt parte sunt modaliti de comunicare
77

http://scic.cec.eu.int/europa/jcms/j_8/pagin-de-pornire.

58

intrainstituional prin care se caut eficientizarea comunicrii la nivel instituional european.

E. Grupurile de experi n domeniul multilingvismului nfiinate de Comisia European


Pentru o mai bun nelegere a rolului multilingvismului n UE, Comisia European a nfiinat, prin Decizia din 20 septembrie 2006, Grupul la nivel nalt n materie de multilingvism78. Acest Grup a fost compus din 11 experi: Barbara Cassin (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris), Abram De Swaan (Universitatea din Amsterdam), Rita Franceschini (Rector, Universitatea Liber din Bozen - Bolzano), Branislav Hochel (Universitatea Comenius, Bratislava), Hanna Komorowska (Universitatea din Varovia), Wolfgang Mackiewicz (Universitatea Liber, Berlin) Isabella Moore (Director - The National Centre for Languages, CILT), Barbara MoserMercer (Universitatea din Geneva) Josep Palomero (Vice preedinte al Academia Valenciana de la Llengua), Ineta Savickiene (Universitatea Vytautas Magnus, Lituania), Jaana Sormunen (YLE, Finlanda). nfiinarea unor astfel de grupuri ad hoc pentru a oferi consultan Comisiei este o practic des ntlnit (vezi cazul BEPA, analizat mai jos i cel al Grupului de Reflecie asupra Dimensiunii Culturale i Spirituale a Europei la care ne-am referit pe larg). Rezultatul activitii acestui Grup a fost un Raport publicat n 200779. Printre recomandrile acestui Grup se numr urmtoarele: nvarea limbilor are o valoare intercultural; aceast activitate genereaz beneficii pentru individ dar i pentru societate n ansamblu; Este necesar s se lanseze campanii de informare la nivel local, regional i al statelor membre UE pentru a scoate n eviden rolul nvrii limbilor;
78

High Level Group on Multilingualism. nfiinarea sa a fost anunat pentru prima dat nc din 2005 n

Comunicarea A new framework strategy for multilingualism (op. cit.). Acest lucru subliniaz importana real a conceptului pentru construcia european precum i preocuparea Comisiei Europene, pentru promovarea constant i coerent a multilingvismului.
79

High Level Group on Multilingualism, Final Report,

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf.

59

nvarea limbilor trebuie s fac parte din activitile de recreere, la fel ca i sportul; Sunt necesare eforturi pentru a atrage adulii n procesul de nvare a limbilor; Mass-media poate motiva nvarea limbilor pe scar larg prin metode care depesc metodele formale de educaie (edutainment); experiena finlandez poate fi util i pentru alte state membre UE;

Programele de televiziune care utilizeaz subtitrarea pot fi instrumente foarte eficiente pentru nvarea limbilor; Renaterea interesului pentru limbile regionale n Europa arat c limbile pot fi nvate n cazul n care exist o motivaie puternic; Comisia trebuie s ncurajeze crearea de reele locale i regionale de nvare a limbilor n statele membre UE; Emigranii trebuie s fie ncurajai s nvee limba statului UE pe teritoriul cruia se afl pentru a deveni mediatori ntre diferite culturi; Faptul c s-a decis ca traducerea operelor literare europene s fie finanat de Comisia prin programul Cultura 2007 va avea un efect benefic pentru promovarea multilingvismului;

UE trebuie s stabileasc un premiu care s fie oferit celor mai bune traduceri de texte literare sau non-literare; Comisia trebuie s investigheze posibilitatea de a utiliza Fondul Social European i Fondurile Structurale i de Coeziune pentru a sprijini nvarea limbilor; Comisia, de preferin n colaborare cu Parlamentul European i Consiliul, ar trebui s acorde un certificat european ntreprinderilor mici i mijlocii care au nregistrat rezultate de succes la export prin folosirea mai multor limbi i prin politici de management intercultural, inclusiv prin promovarea multilingvismului la nivelul angajailor;

Comisia ar trebui s ncurajeze i s sprijine dezvoltarea de programe europene/internaionale care s ofere calificri n domeniul traducerii 6i al interpretrii.

60

Dat fiind complexitatea problemelor aflate n dezbatere, Comisia European, ulterior publicrii acestui Raport, a simit nevoia s nfiineze un alt grup de experi n multilingvism. Prima reuniune a acestui al doilea Grup a avut loc pe data de 29 iunie 2007 i a fost prezidat de Comisarul Leonard Orban. Acest Grup urmeaz s elaboreze propuneri i recomandri privind modul n care limbile pot sprijini dialogul intercultural. Grupul va trebui s ofere consiliere privind contribuia la viitorul An european al dialogului intercultural 2008. Grupul este alctuit din 11 personaliti: Amin Maalouf, preedinte (scriitor, Liban), Jens Christian Grondahl (scriitor, Danemarca), Tullio de Mauro (lingvist, Italia), Jutta Limbach (preedint a Institutului Goethe, Germania), Jan Sokol (filosof, Republica Ceh), David Green (fost director al Consiliului Britanic, Marea Britanie), Jacques de Decker (scriitor, jurnalist, secretar permanent al Acadmie royale de langue et de littrature franaises de Belgique, Belgia), Sandra Pralong (expert pe probleme de comunicare, Romnia), Jorge Semprun (scriitor, Spania), Tahar Ben Jelloun (scriitor i poet, Maroc) i Eduardo Loureno (scriitor, filosof, Portugalia). Conform mandatului care i-a fost atribuit, contribuia grupului va consta n: Discutarea modului n care limbile pot facilita accesul la alte culturi i pot contribui la crearea unei societi europene bazate pe integrare; Identificarea modalitilor de sprijinire a dialogului intercultural n Europa, lund n considerare dimensiunea etic a unei societi multiculturale; Propunerea de strategii de comunicare a potenialului de dezvoltare pe care l prezint nvarea limbilor i reunirea limbilor i a culturilor, n perspectiva viitorului An european al dialogului intercultural 2008. S-a stabilit c acest Grup se va reuni de trei ori n cursul anului 2007. Concluziile elaborate n urma acestor reuniuni vor fi comunicate n cadrul unui eveniment public, care va avea loc n cursul anului 2008. Din analiza mandatului acestui Grup, se poate observa c perspectiva Comisiei este aceea c exist dou categorii de probleme care se afl n discuie i n legtur cu care acest Grup va trebui s ofere soluii. Prima categorie se refer la necesitatea unei mai bune nelegeri a rolului pe care multilingvismul l poate avea n integrarea european. Referitor la aceast categorie, terminologia utilizat poate genera confuzii: se vorbete de

61

dialog intercultural dar i de societate multicultural. O mai mare precizie terminologic se impune, deoarece multiculturalismul80 nu este echivalent cu dialogul intercultural i nici cu multilingvismul. Cu att mai mult aceast clarificare se impune cu ct conceptele circul fr contextul lor81, iar potrivit documentului82 propus de Comisia Biseric i societate a KEK i Comisia Bisericilor pentru Migrani n Europa (CCME) 83, redactat ca reacie la propunerile Consiliului Europei care a organizat pe tot parcursul anului 2007 o serie de consultri publice n vederea adoptrii unei Carte Albe pe tema dialogului intercultural, diferite concepte au diferite conotaii n diferite culturi i limbi84. n lumina consideraiilor cu privire la utilizarea termenului de societate multicultural neles mai degrab ca descriere a unei realiti sociale, ca un fenomen social i a problemelor asociate termenului [] care n multe cazuri a implicat un program politic, se constat preferina pentru o viziune alternativ asupra societii n context european, pentru termeni precum societate transcultural sau societate intercultural85. Astfel c termenul de diversitate este considerat mai apropriat tipului
80

Multiculturalismul face referire la o diversitate identitar, la o politic bazat pe identitate (identity

politics). Termenul are la baz conceptul de pluralism cultural, elaborat de Horace Kallen (prima dat n articolul Democracy versus the Melting-Pot, aprut n 1915 n The Nation, utilizat apoi n cartea Culture and democracy in the United States: Studies in the Groups Psychology of the American People, aprut n 1924 (reprinted 1970, Anro Press, New York) i John Dewey, redefinit n anii 1980, n contextul american, ntr-o ar de imigraie constituind nu un stat-naiune, ci o naiune de naionaliti, i desemnnd un pluralism mai puternic, putnd merge pn la un fel de separaie cultural. A se vedea (ralis par) Riva KASTORYANO, Laurent BOUVET, Christophe JAFFRELOT, Le multiculturalisme au coeur. Entretien avec Michael Walzer, Critique internationale, no. 3, printemps 1999, mai ales pp. 55-57.
81

A se vedea Pierre BOURDIEU, Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des ides, Actes CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, Comisia Bisericilor pentru Migrani n Europa - Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)

de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 145/2002.


82

http://www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSC-CCMEResponseCoEIntercultural.pdf.
83

a fost creat n 1964 cu scopul de a asigura asisten emigranilor prin intermediul bisericilor de pe continentul european.
84

CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op. Ibidem, p. 2.

cit., p. 5.
85

62

de societate bazat pe egalitate, iar intercultural o viziune care dorete s demonstreze c indivizii i culturile se afl ntr-un proces dinamic n care schimbrile se produc prin ntlnirile care se produc ntre acetia86. Se confirm n acest fel punctul de vedere al lui Immanuel Wallerstein potrivit cruia identitile, culturale i religioase, nu sunt omogene, ci sunt rezultatul schimburilor i interaciunilor la diferite niveluri, existente cu mult nainte de apariia fenomenului globalizrii i de sfritul Rzboiului Rece87. Mai mult dect a gestiona diversitatea, este vorba de a facilita i promova dialogul ntr-o societate care dorete s creeze oportuniti egale pentru o participare activ ct mai larg n sfera public. n prezent putem vorbi despre un proces de diminuare treptat a diversitii la nivel global, n condiiile adoptrii unor forme dominante (tradiii, limbi etc.); chiar dac diversitatea este mai vizibil la anumite niveluri88, diversitatea este recunoscut ca o provocare i este prezentat ntocmai sub formula unitate n diversitate89. n acelai document se propun explicaii pentru termenii nglobai n conceptul de diversitate cultural i n cel de dialog intercultural. Dialogul, sub diversele sale forme i n diverse contexte (simbolic, academic, spiritual, etc.) este definit ca un proces n care indivizi i culturi, pe baza respectului90 reciproc, se ntlnesc pentru a descoperi att similaritile ct i diferenele. Ceea ce distinge dialogul de orice alt form de interaciune este posibilitatea dat fiecruia dintre participanii la dialog de a se cunoate reciproc crend premisele auto-reflexivitii (poate de asemenea s schimbe percepia i prerea despre celellalt, la fel de bine ca i percepia despre sine)91. n dialogul intercultural centrul interesului l constituie cultura celuilalt ca i propria sa cultur, cu precizarea c orice dialog poate fi considerat intercultural. nelegem doar c este vorba
86 87 88

Ibidem. Immanuel WALLERSTEIN, Sistemul mondial modern, Meridiane, Bucureti, 1992. Cf. Gisle SAPIRO (ss. la dir.), La Traduction comme vecteur des changes culturels internationaux.

Circulation des livres de littrature et de sciences sociales et volution de la place de la France sur le march mondial de ldition (1980-2002), Rapport de recherche, Centre de Sociologie Europenne (CNRSEHESS), avec le concours du Ministre de la recherche, Paris, 2007.
89

CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op. De remarcat preferina pentru noiunea de respect, implicnd recunoaterea celuilalt, n locul celei de Ibidem., p. 5.

cit., pp. 4 i 7.
90

toleran; Ibidem, p. 6 i nota 11.


91

63

de o definiie larg a culturii, considerat un concept dinamic care include aspecte precum stilul de via, modul de lucru etc. Se precizeaz faptul c definirea conceptului de cultur impune luarea n considerare a diferitelor abordri privilegiate de sociologi, antropologi sau n cadrul studiile culturale. Dialogul intercultural este considerat n forma sa cea mai universal, care include, dar depete n bun msur dialogul strict intelectual. Cea de-a doua categorie n legtur cu care acest Grup va trebui s ofere soluii se refer la apariia unei strategii de comunicare care s vizeze aciunile concrete ale Comisiei referitoare la multilingvism, pornindu-se de la premisa c Anul european al dialogului intercultural trebuie s aib ca element central multilingvismul. Pentru fiecare categorie de probleme pe viitor ar trebui nfiinate grupuri consultative distincte. Din componena actual a Grupului se observ c au fost cooptate persoane cu competene referitoare la multilingvism dar i cu competene n comunicare. Disproporia ntre prima i cea de-a doua categorie de persoane este evident i va face ca strategia de comunicare s devin un obiectiv secundar al activitii acestui Grup. Grupul a fost constituit la iniiativa Comisarului european pentru multilingvism Leonard Orban, ns pe de alt parte Comisarul Jn Figel a declarat c iniiativa Anului european al dialogului intercultural i aparine i va contribui la realizarea ei92. n legtur cu mandatul Grupului, rmne de vzut dac acesta va funciona i dup ncheierea Anului european al dialogului intercultural. Din definirea acestui mandat lipsesc referiri la concluziile la care a ajuns primul Grup de experi. Grupul care funcioneaz n prezent va fi legat de aceste concluzii sau va putea s le infirme ? Rspunsul nu poate fi dect afirmativ, n absena unor referiri contrare explicite. Printre obiectivele acestui Grup nu este menionat problema dialogului interreligios - a crui importan este recunoscut de Comisia European - n condiiile n care, aa cum vom arta, Consiliul Europei are n vedere o strategie proprie pentru Anul european al dialogului intercultural, bazat pe legtura ntre dialogul intercultural i cel inter-religios.

92

Jn FIGEL, Developing a culture of cooperation in Europe: the role of the Churches , 3rd European

Ecumenical Assembly, Sibiu, 6 September 2007, http://www.eea.org.

64

n mandatul Grupului se menioneaz dimensiunea etic a unei societi multiculturale. Din modul de formulare al acestui obiectiv, se poate deduce c este vorba de societatea multicultural european i nu de o anumit societate multicultural din statele membre UE. Ce se nelege ns prin dimensiunea etic ? Este avut n vedere identificarea anumitor standarde care s permit funcionarea unei asemenea societi, a cror lips s determine imposibilitatea atingerii acestui obiectiv ? Pornind de la premisa c este dificil de stabilit standarde etice pentru o societate, misiunea Grupului va fi foarte dificil n privina atingerii acestui obiectiv din mandat.

4. DREPTURILE CETEANULUI EUROPEAN I INFLUENA MULTILINGVISMULUI A. Exercitarea drepturilor ceteanului european n context multilingvistic : dreptul de a alege i de a fi ales la alegerile locale i pentru Parlamentul European, dreptul de a se adresa instituiilor UE i de a primi rspuns n limba proprie
Orice cetean al UE are dreptul de a vota i de a candida la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European i la alegerile locale n statul membru UE n care i are reedina n aceleai condiii ca i cetenii acelui stat. Aceste drepturi au fost incluse n conceptul de cetenie european introdus pentru prima oar n Tratatul de la Maastricht din 1992 (art. 8b). Ele sunt menionate i n art. 39 din Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a UE, proclamat solemn la Consiliul European de la Nisa din 2000, integrat ca parte a doua n Tratatul de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa. De la data intrrii n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform, drepturile menionate vor fi incluse att n Tratat, ct i n Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale, ambele documente urmnd a avea aceeai valoare juridic.

65

Condiiile exercitrii dreptului de a vota i de a candida la Parlamentul European pentru cetenii UE care i au reedina n alt stat membru sunt stabilite de Directiva 93/109/CE93. Potrivit acestei Directive, cetenii UE i pot exercita drepturile n statul membru de origine sau n statul membru de reziden. Prin opiunea asupra locului de exercitare a acestor drepturi ntr-un stat, se pierde posibilitatea exercitrii aceluiai drept n alt stat. n acest scop, statele membre trebuie s schimbe informaii asupra cetenilor care doresc s-i exercite dreptul de a vota pentru Parlamentul European n alt stat membru dect cel de origine. Pe baza principiului tratamentului egal, cetenii UE care doresc s-i exercite dreptul de a vota la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European n statul de reziden trebuie s se bucure de aceleai drepturi de care se bucur i cetenii UE din statul de reziden i implicit pentru a participa pe deplin la viaa politic a statului de reziden, inclusiv dreptul de a se afilia unui partid din statul de reziden sau de a crea un partid n statul respectiv94. Aceste drepturi nu sunt ns garantate la acelai nivel n toate statele membre. Directiva solicit statelor membre UE s informeze n timp util i ntrun mod potrivit asupra felului cum i pot exercita drepturile pe care le au. Un stat membru nu i ndeplinete aceast obligaie acordnd rezidenilor aceleai informaii ca i cele pe care le ofer pentru proprii si ceteni95. Art. 14 al Directivei 93/109/CE permite derogri de la principiul tratamentului egal datorit problemelor specifice ale unui stat membru. Astfel, n cazul n care cetenii altor state membre rezideni ntr-un stat membru depesc 20 % din totalul populaiei, acel stat poate impune cerine legate de un termen minim de edere de la acordarea dreptului de reziden. Singurul stat membru UE cruia i s-a acordat o astfel de derogare este Luxemburg care a restricionat dreptul de vot la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European cetenilor dintr-un alt stat de origine rezideni pe teritoriul su pentru cei care rezidat n Luxemburg 5 din ultimii 6 ani care au precedat nregistrarea n listele electorale. Luxemburg aplic
93 94

OJ L 329, 30.12.1993. Communication from the Commission on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999

elections to the European Parliament Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament , Brussels, COM (2000) 843 final. 18.12.2000.
95

Ibidem.

66

aceast derogare nc de la primele alegeri directe pentru Parlamentul European din 197996. n momentul de fa, n Luxemburg proporia cetenilor UE dintr-un alt stat membru de origine care ndeplinesc condiiile pentru a fi nscrii n listele electorale la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European este de 32, 93 % din numrul total al cetenilor UE care i au reedina n Luxemburg, potrivit ultimului recensmnt din 200197. n Luxemburg nscrierea pe listele electorale folosite n cazul alegerilor pentru Parlamentul European este automat pentru cetenii luxemburghezi, iar n cazul rezidenilor din statele membre UE presupune un acord de voin din partea acestora. Luxemburg aplic n mod adecvat Directiva 93/109/CE, oferind informaii despre alegerile pentru Parlamentul European n limbile francez, german, portughez i italian. n cazul alegerilor pentru Parlamentul European din 2004, ca i n cazul alegerilor comunale din 2005, guvernul luxemburghez a desfurat o ampl campanie de informare a rezidenilor comunitari asupra drepturilor lor electorale. Rezultatul acestei campanii a fost c la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European din 2004 au fost nscrii pe listele electorale 11680 de rezideni comunitari, ceea ce reprezint o cretere de 19 % fa de precedentele alegeri din 199998. Sistemul practicat n Luxemburg poate constitui un exemplu pentru felul n care rezidenii comunitari ntr-un stat membru UE i pot exercita ntr-un context multilingvistic drepturile conferite prin cetenia european. Este de presupus c n viitorul apropiat i alte state membre UE se vor confrunta cu probleme similare celor existente n Luxemburg i vor trebui s iniieze campanii de informare n limbile vorbite de aceti rezideni. Aceast presupunere se bazeaz pe tendinele nregistrate de la un scrutin european la altul. Astfel, la alegerile din iunie 1999 pentru Parlamentul European
96

Legea din 25 februarie 1979 asupra alegerii directe a reprezentanilor Marelui Ducat de Luxemburg n

Parlamentul European ; aceast lege a fost modificat n Legea din 28 ianuarie 1994, ca urmare a Directivei 93/109/CE.
97

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on granting a derogation

pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the EC Treaty, presented under Article 14 (3) of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament , Brussels, COM (2003) 31 final, 27.01.2003
98

Philippe POIRIER, Les lections europennes au Luxembourg n Pascal DELWIT, PHILIPPE POIRIER,

Parlement puissant, lecteurs absents? Les lections europennes de juin 2004, Editions de lUniversit de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2005, p. 132 i urm.

67

participarea cetenilor care i au reedina n alt stat membru dect cel de origine a fost, n medie pentru cele 15 state membre, de 9 %, n cretere fa de alegerile din 1994 la care participarea s-a cifrat la 4,9 %. n toate statele membre, cu excepia Germaniei (care nu a aplicat integral Directiva 93/109/CE), numrul celor care i au reedina pe teritoriul acestor state a crescut99. La alegerile din 2004 pentru Parlamentul European numrul cetenilor UE cu rezidena n alt stat membru dect cel de origine a crescut, n principal datorit aderrii la UE a 10 noi state membre, la aproximativ 1 milion. Comisia considera nainte de aceste alegeri c este necesar un efort considerabil de informare din partea statelor membre n legtur cu posibilitile de exercitare a dreptului de a vota pentru alegerea Parlamentului European100. Mai mult, Comisia considera n plus fa de propriile sale aprecieri din 2000 c statele membre trebuie s utilizeze un sistem de scrisori direct adresate cetenilor rezideni cu drept de vot. Comisia considera deasemenea c aceste state trebuie s ofere informaii despre alegerile pentru Parlamentul European de fiecare dat cnd rezidenii se afl n contact cu autoritile locale sau naionale. Aceste state trebuie s faciliteze nregistrarea rezidenilor pe listele electorale doar prin trimiterea unui formular care s fie trimis prin pot i completat. n Cartea Alb asupra Politicii de Comunicare European din 2006101 Comisia European pornete de la constatarea c exist un deficit de comunicare ntre UE i ceteni. Potrivit acestui document, comunicarea este axat pe a transmite cetenilor ce este UE ; nu s-a acordat atenie punctelor de vedere exprimate de ceteni. Comisia a propus prin aceast Carte Alb o nou abordare : comunicarea centrat pe cetean i descentralizarea canalelor de comunicare ntre cetean i instituiile UE. Scopul declarat al Comisiei este acela de a se crea o sfer public european, deoarece n prezent aceast sfer public n care are loc viaa politic n Europa are o dimensiune n mare parte naional i mai puin european.

99

Communication from the Commission on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on measures taken

elections to the European Parliament, op. cit.


100

by Member States to ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the 2004 elections to the European Parliament in an enlarged Union, Brussels, COM (2003) 174 final, 8.4.2003.
101

Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on a European Communication Policy, op.cit.

68

Faptul c nu exist nc o sfer public european, iar acest fapt se datoreaz, printre altele, diversitii lingvistice a fost remarcat n literatura de specialitate nainte ca acest punct de vedere s fie recunoscut oficial de ctre Comisia European. Astfel, s-a afirmat c lipsete o infrastructur politic european [] nu exist o discuie public la nivel european privind eventuale politici europene alternative102. Un alt autor afirm dimpotriv c exist o sfer public la nivelul UE dar aceasta este format dintr-o multitudine de sfere publice naionale103. Potrivit unul alt punct de vedere104, apariia unei sfere publice europene este restricionat de preeminena caracterului naional i nu european al mass-media i de varietatea identitilor lingvistice i politice existente n Europa. Cercetrile empirice care pornesc de la premisa c varietatea lingvistic mpiedic apariia unei sfere publice europene105 au demonstrat veridicitatea acestei perspective. Potrivit Cartei Albe a Comisiei din 2006, cetenii UE pot nva chestiuni legate de politic prin intermediul sistemelor educaionale naionale i prin mijloace de comunicare naionale, regionale sau locale. Mass-media este n mare parte naional, din cauza barierelor de limb. Cetenii europeni au la dispoziie puine locuri n care pot discuta chestiuni de interes comun. Aceast Carte Alb identific unele soluii pentru crearea premiselor favorabile care s fac posibil apariia unei sfere publice europene ; problema exercitrii dreptului de vot al cetenilor unui alt stat membru n statul lor de reziden nu este menionat. Cu toate acestea, este evident c nivelul redus de participare al acestei categorii de ceteni europeni se explic i prin existena unor bariere lingvistice, iar modalitatea cea mai eficient pentru ridicarea nivelului de participare al acestei categorii de ceteni europeni este, aa cum demonstreaz exemplul luxemburghez, informarea asupra drepturilor pe care le au n limba practicat n statul lor
102

Fritz SCHARPF, Demokratie in der transnationale politik, n Ulrich BECK (ed.), Politik in der Marianne VAN DE STEEG, Does a public sphere exist in the European Union? An analysis of the

Globalisierung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1998, p. 232.


103

content of the debate on the Haider case, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 45, issue 4/June 2006, p. 610.
104

Hans Jrgen ABROMEIT, Mglichkeiten und Ausgestaltung einer europischen Demokratie, n Ansgar

KLEIN et al (eds.) Brgerschaft, ffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa, Leske & Budrich, Opladen, 2003, pp. 40-41.
105

Marianne VAN DE STEEG, op. cit., pp. 609-634.

69

de origine. La ora actual, muli dintre cetenii rezideni n alte state membre dect statul de origine nu sunt nscrii n listele electorale, n ciuda recomandrilor Comisiei ca procedura de nscriere s fie simplificat. Dintre cei nscrii n listele electorale, puini rezideni i exercit dreptul de vot, deoarece campania electoral se desfoar n limba statului respectiv ; partidele politice, chiar i n rile n care numrul rezidenilor este mare raportat la totalul populaiei, prefer s i construiasc o campanie electoral bazat pe probleme naionale i mai puin europene, ceea ce explic interesul redus al rezidenilor n ceea ce privete participarea la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European. Pe lng msurile de informare n limbile cunoscute de rezideni, este nevoie i de alte msuri specifice care s priveasc eliminarea barierelor lingvistice, cum ar fi imprimarea buletinelor de vot n aceste limbi, ncurajarea apariiei i diversificrii unor mijloace de informare referitoare la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European n mai multe limbi prin subvenii acordate n acest scop de Comisia European i/sau de Parlamentul European, etc.

B. Discriminarea lingvistic folosit pentru restricionarea accesului pe piaa muncii ntr-un stat membru UE excepie de la principiul tratamentului egal ?
Principiul tratamentului egal este unul dintre principiile de baz ale dreptului comunitar106. Acest principiu se regsete la nivelul tratatelor, dar numai sub forma enunrii obiectivului eliminrii inegalitilor ntre sexe (art. 3, alin.2 TEC) i sub forma interzicerii discriminrii pe baz de naionalitate (art. 12 TEC). Forma cea mai elaborat a acestui principiu este integrat n Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a UE. Potrivit acestui principiu, persoanele aflate n aceai situaie trebuie s fie tratate n mod similar.
106

Vezi Anthony ARNULL, The General Principles of EEC Law and the Individual, Leicester University

Press, Leicester, 1990; Koen LENAERTS, Lgalit de traitment en droit communuautaire: un principe unique aux appearances multiples, Cahiers de droit europen, 1991, pp. 3-41 ; Koen LENAERTS, Piet VAN NUFFEL, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005, p. 123 i urm.

70

Curtea de Justiie a Comunitilor Europene a extins formele de discriminare interzise n dreptul comunitar chiar n lipsa unei prevederi exprese a tratatelor, afirmnd c interzicerea discriminrii [] este o afirmare specific a principiului general al egalitii are este unul dintre principiile fundamentale ale dreptului comunitar i potrivit cruia situaiile similare nu pot fi tratate diferit, n afar de cazul n care diferenierea este n mod obiectiv justificat107. Acest principiu se aplic i n ceea ce privete accesul la un loc de munc pe teritoriul statelor membre UE. Astfel, orice cetean are dreptul de a desfura o activitate lucrativ n alt stat membru n aceleai condiii ca i cetenii acelui stat, aceasta fiind o form concret a interzicerii discriminrii bazat pe naionalitate. Accesul pe piaa forei de munc ntr-un stat membru UE nu poate fi restricionat prin cote sau prin impunerea de condiii discriminatorii. O singur discriminare este permis potrivit acquis-ului comunitar: cunoaterea limbii statului n care se dorete obinerea locului de munc. Aceast excepie de la principiul non discriminrii este admis potrivit art. 53 al Directivei 2005/36/CE asupra recunoaterii calificrilor profesionale108 : persoanele care beneficiaz de recunoaterea calificrilor profesionale trebuie s aib o cunoatere a limbilor necesare pentru practicarea profesiei n statul membru gazd (pe teritoriul cruia doresc s se angajeze). Exist o neconcordan ntre aceast prevedere i Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a UE. Astfel, potrivit Cartei, Se interzice orice discriminare bazat n special pe motive de [] limb (art. 21), iar potrivit art. 22: Uniunea respect diversitatea cultural, religioas i lingvistic. Este pentru prima oar cnd ntr-un text cu valoare de document oficial este interzis n mod expres discriminarea pe baze lingvistice ntre cetenii UE. Nu sunt menionate posibile excepii de la acest principiu. Dat fiind faptul c, din momentul intrrii n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform, Carta va cpta aceeai valoare juridic ca i tratatele institutive UE, i va face apariia o contradicie ntre prevederile Cartei care interzic orice discriminare lingvistic i prevederile Directivei 2005/36/CE care permit statelor membre s condiioneze accesul la un loc de munc pe motivul necunoaterii limbii statului membru n care se dorete angajarea. Datorit ierarhiei
107

Cazurile 117/76 i 16/77 Ruckdeschel, E.C.R. 1753, para.7. OJ L 255, 30.9.2005.

108

71

actelor normative din UE, prevederile Cartei vor prevala n faa celor incluse n Directiva 2005/36/CE. Drepturile de a alege i de a fi ales la alegerile locale i la alegerile pentru Parlamentul European sunt drepturi care fac parte din conceptul de cetenie european. Aceste drepturi, datorit diversitii lingvistice din Uniunea European, sunt din ce n ce mai des exercitate ntr-un context multingvistic, ceea ce a impus definirea unor soluii specifice de ctre instituiile UE. Exist i un alt drept subsumat ceteniei europene care, spre deosebire de cele de mai sus, este o form direct a respectrii diversitii lingvistice n UE : cel de a se adresa instituiilor UE n toate limbile oficiale UE i de a primi un rspuns n limba n care a fost redactat solicitarea. Acest drept a fost inclus n TEC (art. 21) prin Tratatul de la Amsterdam i preluat n Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a UE (art. 41, alin.4).

5. PROMOVAREA DIALOGULUI INTERCULTURAL N UNIUNEA EUROPEAN A. Definiia dialogului intercultural


Nu exist o definiie oficial a dialogului intercultural agreat la nivelul Uniunii Europene i totui UE folosete n documentele sale aceast expresie. Pentru a vedea care este semnificaia acestei expresii n contextul UE, singura alternativ este de a recurge la definiiile date dialogului intercultural de ctre organizaii care sunt considerate parteneri ai Consiliului Europei sau UNESCO, organizaii care, la rndul lor, nu folosesc n documentele lor oficiale o definiie a dialogului intercultural. O prim astfel de definiie este dat de Asociaia Internaional a Universitilor AIU, fondat n 1950 care grupeaz universiti din 150 de ri i care este partener UNESCO. AIU consider c ideea de dialog intercultural pornete de la premisa recunoaterii diferenelor i multiplicitii lumii n care trim. Aceste diferene exist nu doar n interiorul fiecrei culturi, ci i n relaiile ntre culturi. Pentru AIU, dialogul

72

intercultural este un proces care ncurajeaz identificarea limitelor care i definesc pe indivizi i care i face pe indivizi s interacioneze prin depirea acestor limite i chiar s le pun n discuie. Aceast definiie este dat de AIU pentru a sublinia c perspectiva dialogului intercultural poate fi mbogit prin acordarea unui rol mai important universitilor. Dialogul intercultural poate fi promovat prin materiile predate, metodele de predare i prin punerea n valoare a abilitilor studenilor109. O alt definiie este dat de Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, o reea de schimb de informaii n materie de msuri i instrumente n domeniul politicilor culturale i de tendine n cultur. Este vorba de o iniiativ a Consiliului Europei i a ERICarts (European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research Institutul European pentru Cercetare Cultural Comparat), aceasta fiind o instituie non-profit care sprijin centrele de cercetare din Europa. n viziunea Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, dialogul intercultural este un proces care implic un schimb de puncte de vedere, deschis i n spiritul respectului reciproc, ntre indivizi i grupuri cu origini culturale diferite. Scopurile dialogului intercultural sunt : dezvoltarea unei nelegeri a punctelor de vedere i practicilor diferite ; creterea participrii ; asigurarea egalitii ; ntrirea abilitilor creative. Msurile care pot fi luate pentru atingerea acestui scop sunt n aceast viziune instrumente strategice care promoveaz diversitatea cultural care rezult din interaciune social. Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe consider c dialogul intercultural la nivel naional trebuie s implice iniiative culturale publice i private care s aduc laolalt indivizi i grupuri care aparin comunitilor de imigrani i populaiei majoritare, cu scopul ca acetia s devin parte a unui proces de comunicare multi-direcional110. Definiia dialogului intercultural o regsim i ntr-un document citat mai sus111, propus de Comisia Biseric i societate a KEK i Comisia Bisericilor pentru Migrani n Europa (CCME), redactat ca reacie la propunerile Consiliului Europei care a organizat pe tot parcursul anului 2007 o serie de consultri publice n vederea adoptrii unei Carte Albe pe tema dialogului intercultural. Potrivit KEK i CCME, dialogul intercultural este
109 110 111

http://www.unesco.org/iau/id/index.html. http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/intercultural-dialogue.php. CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op.

cit., pp. 6-7.

73

o form de dialog a crui miz i subiect este cultura proprie i cultura celorlai. Factorii care fac posibil aceast form de dialog sunt deschiderea ctre cellalt i dorina de a asculta i a mprti idei. Un dialog intercultural de succes este caracterizat prin respect, ncredere, egalitate, curiozitate cultural i capacitate de schimbare. Gradul de succes al dialogului intercultural depinde de asemenea de relaiile existente ntre participani i de atmosfera dialogului care trebuie s fie una de ncredere reciproc. n viziunea KEK i CCME, este important dialogul intercultural ntre participani care mprtesc aceleai valori, dar i ntre cei care nu mprtesc valori comune, aceast ultim form de dialog fiind esenial pentru rezolvarea conflictelor.

B. Programele UE destinate promovrii dialogului intercultural


Primul Program Cadru al Comunitii Europene n domeniul culturii succede programelor Kalidoscope, Ariane i Raphal, ale cror obiective acesta le include112, constituindu-se ntr-o prim tentativ de raionalizare a aciunilor comunitare n domeniul culturii i de integrare explicit a culturii n actele i politicile comunitare113. Dar exigena coerenei i a raionalizrii presupune definirea conceptului de cultur pe baza cruia o politic cultural s-ar putea defini. Tocmai extinderea semnificaiei conceptului de cultur contribuie la inovaia pe care o aduce acest program n raport cu aciunile culturale precedente. Cultura nu mai nseamn doar cultura cult sau nalta cultur, ea nu mai este conceput doar ca o activitate subsidiar, ci ca o for motrice pentru societate, un factor de creativitate, de vitalitate, de dialog i de coeziune. n continuarea schimbrilor intervenite la nivel naional n definirea politicilor culturale i al adoptrii, n anii 1980, unei concepii mult mai largi asupra culturii care presupune

112

Despre dimensiunea cultur a construciei europene, despre statutul culturii la nivelul european naintea

adoptrii Programului Cultura 2000, dar i despre fundamentele acestui program, a se vedea Maria GINAR, Culture 2000, mise en place dune politique culturelle, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, vol. 7, no. 2/2007, pp. 75-83.
113

COM (1998) 266 final, p. 5.

74

recunoaterea diversitii culturale i a necesitii comunicrii i schimbului ntre grupuri sociale114. Cultura 2000 este primul program ce vizeaz aprofundarea dimensiunii culturale a construciei europene prin crearea unui instrument unic de orientare i de finanare pentru cooperarea cultural115 la nivel european. Cu toate acestea, cultura nu se constituie nc drept categorie a aciunii comunitare, ci doar ca una dintre dimensiunile construciei europene. Aa cum se precizeaz n Decizia nr. 508/2000/CE a Parlamentului European i a Consiliului din 14 februarie 2000 ce stabilete Programul Cultura 2000, acesta din urm reprezint o prim etap ctre instituirea unei politici europene n domeniul culturii116. Ideile ce stau la baza instituirii unui program cadru n domeniul culturii la nivel european au drept scop ultim s contribuie la integrarea dimensiunii culturale n politicile Comunitii, conform articolului 151, paragraful 4, din Tratat [TEC]117 cu mijloacele puse la dispoziie de politicile interne ale rilor i n conformitate cu principiile de subsidiaritate i de proporionalitate enunate n articolul 5 al Tratatului118. Astfel, n vederea aplicrii programului Cultura 2000 dar i a altor programe i aciuni comunitare ce privesc domeniul cultural, competena revine Comisiei Europene, dar n cooperare cu statele membre119, cu posibilitatea includerii unor proiecte complementare finanate prin alte programe comunitare. Ceea ce nu trebuie ns ignorat este ndeosebi faptul c principiul subsidiaritii implic ns i o form de parteneriat public-privat care nu aparin ns n mod exclusiv sferei private
120

114

Henri GIORDAN, Dmocratie culturelle et droit la diffrence, Documentation franaise, Paris, 1982

in Vincent DUBOIS, La politique culturelle. Gense dune catgorie dintervention publique, Belin, Paris, 1999, p. 280.
115

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 2. La acea vreme i la acea vreme i rile asociate din Europa central i OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 2, paragraf 10. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p.1. Conform art. 5 TUE, competena Comunitii se instituie acolo unde obiectivele aciunii avute n vedere OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 3. Radu CARP, Proiectul politic european - de la valori la aciune comun, op. cit., p. 92.

oriental, Cipru, dar i alte ri care ar semnat acorduri de asociere sau cooperare n domeniul culturii.
116 117 118

pot fi realizate cu o mai mare eficacitate la nivel comunitar. A se vedea OJ C 321, 29.12.2006, p. 46.
119 120

75

nelegem c importana central acordat dezvoltrii unui spaiu cultural comun popoarelor Europei, deschis i divers este o consecin direct a cadrului legislativ european n care se desfoar aciunile culturale ntruct reuita unei aciuni comune n domeniul culturii depinde de realizarea unor modaliti noi de aciune a cooperrii culturale conform unei abordri verticale n care cele trei sectoare culturale beneficiaz de aciuni distincte conforme cu specificul activitii, dar i a unei abordri orizontale care i propune fie s iniieze aciuni ce privesc diverse sectoare culturale, fie s susin aciuni culturale n care alte programe sau politici comunitare i-ar putea aduce aportul. Cele trei domenii culturale menionate de Programul Cultura 2000 contribuie la nelegerea terenului de aplicabilitate a unei politici culturale la nivel european: un prim sector cultural se refer la artele spectacolului i artele vizuale, arhitectura, dar i cultura destinat copiilor sau artele n spaii neconvenionale; un alt domeniu cultural privete de aceast dat cartea, lectura i traducerea; un al treilea domeniu are n vedre patrimoniul cultural de importan european, inclusiv patrimoniul intelectual i non-intelectual. n pofida recunoaterii unor domenii difereniate n materie de cultur n funcie de mijloacele de expresie adoptate, dar i de actorii culturali implicai n fiecare dintre aceste sectoare n strns legtur cu gradul lor de instituionalizare, se poate remarca o anume convergen a modurilor de promovare a celor trei sectoare culturale: cooperarea dintre diverii actori culturali (indivizi sau instituii); politica dialogului i schimburile cu alte culturi ale lumii; formarea, perfecionarea i mobilitatea acelora care i desfoar activitatea ntr-un domeniu cultural; ncurajarea creaiei n sens larg ca modalitate de integrare social; accesul publicului larg la diversele forme culturale121. n ceea ce privete aciunile culturale ce privesc domeniul crii i al traducerii, se ncurajeaz cunoaterea mutual a creaiei literare (culturale) i a istoriei popoarelor Europei122 prin sprijinul acordat activitilor de traducere a operelor literare i operelor de referin, n special n limbile europene de circulaie restrns sau aparinnd unor culturi minoritare n Europa123.

121 122 123

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, Anexa II, p. 8. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 2 i p. 8. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 1.

76

Deloc ntmpltor faptul c accentul cade ndeosebi pe dezvoltarea i valorizarea unui spaiu cultural comun, a crei existen este recunoscut nc din 1992124: valorizarea spaiului cultural comun europenilor prin intermediul evidenierii caracteristicilor culturale comune; respectul i promovarea diversitii culturale; creativitatea ca surs de dezvoltare durabil n cadrul spaiului cultural comun 125. Prin valorizarea spaiului cultural european comun se nelege c obiectivele programului Cultura 2000 privesc favorizarea cooperrii ntre creaii, actori culturali, promotori privai i publici, aciuni alte reelelor culturale i ali parteneri ca i ntre instituii culturale ale statelor membre i ale altor state. Astfel, dezvoltarea spaiului cultural comun, ca scop principal al programului, sunt contextul necesar i condiie pentru ndeplinirea obiectivelor acestuia, precum: promovarea dialogului cultural i cunoaterea mutual a culturii i a istoriei popoarelor Europei, promovarea creaiei, difuzrii transnaionale a culturii i a mobilitii artitilor, creatorilor [], ct i a operelor, punndu-se accent pe tineri, persoanele dezavantajate din punct de vedere social i pe diversitatea cultural, valorizarea diversitii culturale i dezvoltarea unor noi forme de expresie cultural, mprtirea i valorizarea, la nivel european, a motenirii culturale comune de importan european [] conservarea i salvgardarea acestei moteniri culturale, luarea n considerare a rolului culturii n dezvoltarea socioeconomic, promovarea unui dialog intercultural i a unui schimb mutual ntre culturile europene i non europene, recunoaterea explicit a culturii ca factor economic i factor de integrare social i de cetenie, mbuntirea accesului i participarea a unui numr ct mai mare posibil a cetenilor Uniunii Europene la cultur126. Afirmarea rolului social al culturii se afl n strns legtur cu valorizarea diversitii culturale. Vocaia social a proiectului cultural se traduce n aciuni menite s duc la extinderea publicului i favorizarea accesului la cultur (i la instituii culturale), dar i prin includerea acelor grupuri sociale mai puin vizibile n cadrul spaiului cultural. Prin obiectivele pe care i le stabilete i prin aciunile preconizate, Programul Cultura 2000 conciliaz democratizarea cultural (accesul unui public ct mai larg la instituii i la
124 125 126

Vezi Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 75. COM (1998) 266 final, p. 11. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, pp. 2-3.

77

opere, la ceea ce numim nalta cultur) i democraia cultural127 (recunoaterea i promovarea diversitii culturale). Pentru atingerea obiectivelor stabilite, Programul preconizeaz trei tipuri de aciuni culturale: aciunile specifice, novatoare sau/i experimentale, ce privesc acele evenimente sau proiecte constituite n parteneriat sau sub forma unor reele i care reunesc reprezentani ai mai multor state membre (cel puin trei); aciuni n cadrul acordurilor de cooperare cultural transnaional, structurate i multianuale n care actori culturali din cel puin cinci state stabilesc o cooperare durabil; evenimente culturale cu o dimensiune european sau internaional avnd drept scop valorizarea diversitii culturale i pentru a contribui la aprofundarea dialogului intercultural i internaional128. Noutatea pe care o aduce Programul Cultura 2000 const n adecvarea unor aciuni la specificul activitilor culturale crora li se aplic i la inserarea altor forme de expresie cultural dect cele tradiionale. Cooperarea multianual ntre operatori culturali din diferite state membre este forma cea mai adecvat pentru valorizarea diversitii culturale i a multilingvismului ct i pentru difuzarea i circulaia ideilor n spaiul european, pentru dezvoltarea dialogului intercultural. Astfel, operatori culturali din diferite state membre, diferite de instituiile culturale naionale, pot crea, n virtutea susinerii pe care o au din partea Comunitii Europene, acele reele transnaionale sau relaii interculturale cel puin la fel de importante ca i colaborrile dintre instituiile culturale naionale sau cadrul oferit de cooperrile dintre Comunitatea European i alte instituii supranaionale precum Consiliul Europei sau UNESCO129. Proiectele care se desfoar pe o perioad suficient de ndelungat i care reunesc profesioniti ai culturii din mai multe state membre pot promova multilingvismul i prin folosirea a cel puin dou limbi europene, dintre care una poate fi folosit de-o manier pasiv. n evaluarea dar i susinerea acestor proiecte ce se desfoar ntre parteneri culturali din mai multe
127

n COM (1998) 266 final, p. 5 se precizeaz c fiecare cetean din Europa trebuie s aib dreptul s OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, pp. 5-6. Jacques RIGAUD, Europe Horizon Culture, Revue du March commun, no. 376, mars 1994 in Pamela

accead la cultur i s-i exprime creativitatea.


128 129

STICHT, Culture europenne ou Europe des cultures ? Les enjeux actuels de la politique culturelle en Europe, LHarmattan, Paris, 2000, pp. 60-61.

78

state membre ar trebui poate favorizat o astfel de msur care ar consta n folosirea a ct mai multor limbi europene fie ea pasiv, astfel dialogul intercultural ar avea drept obiect nu doar un schimb de idei, ci i un schimb ntre diverse tradiii lingvistice. nelegem c spaiul cultural european comun are la baza tradiiile, idealurile i aspiraiile comune130, caracteristici culturale comune, respectul i promovarea diversitii culturale, creativitate131; el se constituie ns de-o manier dinamic n baza unui dialog intercultural permanent ntre popoarele Europei n cadrul cooperrii dintre organisme i operatori culturali i instituii culturale ale statelor membre132. Dac prin dezvoltarea unui spaiu public european se poate ntrevede riscul unei omogenizri lingvistice n Europa, estomparea sau dispariia unor tradiii lingvistice poate fi contracarat sau mcar atenuat tocmai prin crearea unor reele ntre parteneri culturali din diferite ri europene sau printr-o politic editorial care s favorizeze publicaii sau ediii bilingve, n felul acesta acele texte care sunt concepute ntr-o limb naional, minoritar sau regional ar avea anse mai mari de a fi cunoscut i eventual recunoscut n afara spaiului cruia i se adreseaz n prim instan. Am putea spera ca o astfel de politic editorial susinut de programele comunitare n domeniul culturii, dar i de programele ce privesc cooperarea dintre diverse state membre, ar putea atenua dominaia acelor texte redactate n limba englez n sfera publicaiilor cu circulaie european.

C. Relaia ntre dialogul intercultural i cel inter-religios. Metode de promovare a dialogului inter-religios pe plan european
n Europa problema multilingvismului nu poate fi separat de cea a dialogului intercultural, deoarece diversitatea lingvistic este strns legat de cea a culturilor, ea
130 131 132

Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislaw GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, op. cit. COM (1998) 266 final, p. 11. Ibidem, p. 5.

79

putnd fi considerat una dintre modalitile de producere/formare a diversitii culturale133. La rndul ei, diversitatea cultural a Europei se afl ntr-o legtur puternic cu cea religioas, pornind de la premisa c bogia motenirii religioase europene a influenat pozitiv formarea culturilor europene, iar religia este i astzi o parte important a acestor culturi. Exist o legtur strns ntre religie i cultur : religia este parte a culturii, iar cultura influeneaz modalitile de exprimare ale religiei134. Din acest motiv, exist o incontestabil dimensiune religioas a dialogului intercultural. Preambulul viitoarei forme a TUE confirm aceast legtur ntre religie i cultur prin faptul c include o referin la motenirea cultural i religioas a Europei. Cele dou tipuri de moteniri nu pot fi separate ; o referin doar la motenirea cultural ar fi fost insuficient. Dialogul ntre religiile prezente n spaiul european are o ndelungat tradiie. Uniunea European nu ar fi avut cum s ignore acest dialog i s nu trateze cultele religioase ca i parteneri a cror consultare este necesar n vederea oricrei aciuni a instituiilor europene. Din acest motiv, Tratatul de instituire a unei Constituii pentru Europa a prevzut n art. I-52 c dialogul ntre UE i religii trebuie s fie deschis, transparent i constant, prevedere care va fi preluat i n viitoarea form a TUE, parte a Tratatului de Reform135. Avnd n vedere c este vorba de o norm care nu este nc n vigoare, se pune ntrebarea dac acest dialog exist deja i care sunt formele sale concrete de manifestare. La nivelul Comisiei Europene exist un Birou al Consilierilor de Politic European (BEPA)136, un grup ad hoc care furnizeaz expertiz Preedintelui Comisiei i
133

Cf. Gisle Sapiro n cadrul colocviului internaional Pour un esapce europen de la production et de la

circulation des produits culturels et scientifiques, organizat de Reeaua european ESSE (Pour un espace des sciences sociales europen) i Centrul Marc Bloch, cu sprijinul Comisiei Europene, Berlin, noiembrie 2007.
134

CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op. Pentru comentarii ale art. I-52, vezi: Radu CARP, Controverse teologico-politice n cadrul Uniunii

cit., pp. 6-7.


135

Europene n (volum coordonat de) Miruna TTARU CAZABAN, Teologie i politic. De la Sfinii Prini la Europa unit, Anastasia, Bucureti, 2004, p. 298; Gerhard ROBBERS (ed.), State and Church in the European Union, 2nd edition, Nomos, Baden Baden, 2005, p. 586.
136

Date despre BEPA pot fi gsite la adresa http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/policy_advisers/index_en.htm.

80

diferitelor servicii ale Comisiei. Actualul Preedinte al Comisiei Europene a integrat fostul Grup al Consultanilor de Politici (GOPA) n BEPA. Una dintre activitile GOPA era de a furniza expertiz pe domeniul implicaiilor dialogului dintre religii i UE. Aceast direcie de aciune nu mai este considerat a fi prioritar pentru actualul BEPA. Considerm c n cadrul BEPA ar trebui s existe un grup de experi distinct care s se ocupe de problematica religiei n Europa, pornind de la rezultatele pozitive ale fostului GOPA n domeniul religiei i de la necesitatea de a da o form concret tipului de dialog formalizat n art. I-52. Acest articol reprezint cea mai nou i mai cuprinztoare referire a dialogului ntre UE i religii. Originea sa nu se regsete ns doar n cadrul dezbaterilor din timpul Conveniei Europene pentru Viitorul Europei din 2002 2003 sau al Conferinei Interguvernamentale din 2004. Prima dat cnd ntr-un document oficial al UE religiile au fost tratate ca partener de dialog al instituiilor UE este dat de apariia Cartei Albe a Guvernanei Europene, lansat de Comisia European n 2001137. Potrivit acestei Carte, conceptul de guvernan european se refer mai ales la crearea i garantarea unui cadru general de consultare a instituiilor UE cu organizaiile societii civile, printre care se numr i religiile. Astfel, potrivit acestei Carte : societatea joac un rol important permind cetenilor s i exprime preocuprile i furnizndu-le serviciile care corespund nevoilor populaiei. Bisericile i comunitile religioase aduc o contribuie specific. Ulterior apariiei acestei Carte Albe, Comisia a elaborat o Comunicare prin care enuna principiile relaiilor dintre Comisie i partenerii si de dialog i consultare 138. Chiar dac este recunoscut faptul c nu exist la nivel european o definiie a expresiei organizaii ale societii civile, n acest document sunt date cteva exemple de astfel de organizaii, printre care se numr i comunitile religioase. n afar de cultele religioase recunoscute n fiecare stat membru UE, exist i organizaii religioase la nivel european care sunt implicate n diverse forme de dialog cu
137

Commission of the European Communities, European Governance. A White Paper, Brussels, (2001) Communication from the Commission, Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue

428 final, 25.7.2001.


138

General Principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission , Brussels, COM (2002) 704 final, 11.12.2002.

81

instituiile UE. Cele mai importante dintre acestea sunt : Conferina Bisericilor Europene (KEK) care grupeaz mai multe Biserici cretine (anglican, protestante, ortodoxe, unele confesiuni catolice - n afar de cea romano-catolic) ; COMECE Conferina Episcopatelor din Comunitatea European care grupeaz episcopatele romano-catolice de pe teritoriul UE. Unele Biserici, n afar de apartenena la KEK sau COMECE, au considerat c este necesar s aib o form intensificat de dialog cu instituiile UE, motiv pentru care au propriile lor reprezentane la Bruxelles pe lng aceste instituii. Astfel, exist o Reprezentan a Bisericii Evanghelice din Germania, Reprezentane ale Bisericii Ortodoxe a Greciei (din 1998), a Bisericii Ortodoxe a Romniei (din 2006) i un Birou permanent al Patriarhiei Ecumenice (din 1995). Pe lng COMECE, Biserica RomanoCatolic acioneaz n dialogul cu instituiile UE i prin intermediul organizaiei Caritas Europa care are un birou la Bruxelles. Nu numai Bisericile cretine se afl n dialog cu instituiile UE, ci i organizaii care reprezint religiile iudaic sau musulman i au o prezen concret la Bruxelles : Centrul Evreiesc de Informare, Centrul Rabinic European, Consiliul European al Comunitilor Evreieti, Liga de ntrajutorare a Asociaiilor Musulmane din Europa, Forumul Tineretului i al Studenilor Musulmani Europeni, etc.139 KEK, mpreun cu Consiliul Conferinelor Episcopale Europene (CCEE) care reunete Conferinele Episcopale Romano-Catolice din statele europene (nu numai cele care fac parte din UE) au organizat pn n prezent trei Adunri Ecumenice Europene: Basel, 1989, Graz, 1997, Sibiu, 2007. n 2001 KEK i CCEE au adoptat la Strasbourg documentul Charta Oecumenica Principii de Aciune pentru Cooperarea ntrit dintre Biserici n Europa140. Comisia European ia din ce n ce mai mult n considerare importana Adunrilor Ecumenice Europene. Astfel, la cea desfurat la Sibiu au participat Preedintele
139

Toate aceste organizaii religioase sunt analizate pe larg n Teodor BACONSKY, Radu CARP, Ioan I.

IC jr., Anca MANOLESCU, Elena TEFOI, Bogdan TTARU CAZABAN, Pentru un cretinism al noii Europe, seria Boltzmann, vol. III, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2007, p. 305 i urm.
140

Textul Charta Oecumenica poate fi consultat pe pagina de web a KEK (http://www.cec-kek.org). Pentru

un comentariu al Charta Oecumenica n limba romn, vezi Ioan Vasile LEB, Reflecii privind Constituia European i Charta Ecumenic, n Sandu FRUNZ (coord.), Pai spre integrare. Religie i drepturile omului n Romnia, Limes, Cluj Napoca, 2004, p. 107 i urm.

82

Comisiei Europene, Jos Manuel Barroso, precum i comisarii europeni pentru Educaie, Pregtire, Cultur i Tineret (Jn Figel) i pentru Multilingvism (Leonard Orban) care au subliniat n discursurile lor rolul religiei n promovarea dialogului intercultural pe plan european. Aceast legtur strns ntre religie i dialogul intercultural poate fi mai bine pus n valoare n viitor. Alte organizaii pan-europene au realizat deja importana acestui deziderat. Astfel, aa cum am artat, Consiliul Europei a organizat pe tot parcursul anului 2007 o serie de consultri publice pe tema dialogului intercultural, n vederea adoptrii unei Carte Albe pe aceast tem, iar n cadrul acestor consultri s-au implicat i organizaii religioase cu vocaie european. Uniunea European promoveaz dialogul cu religiile prezente pe continentul european, neavnd ns competene n vederea promovrii dialogului inter-religios. Acesta din urm este promovat de organizaiile religioase cu care UE menine un dialog. Cu toate acestea, este dificil de trasat n practic o linie de demarcaie clar ntre dialogul UE cu religiile i dialogul inter-religios, pentru a vedea care sunt limitele de intervenie ale UE141. n orice caz, linia de demarcaie este mai uor de stabilit n cazul UE dect n cel al Consiliului Europei. Religiile accept implicarea Consiliului Europei n dialogul inter-religios mai mult dect pe cea a UE i datorit motivului c intervenia Consiliului Europei se rezum la instrumente de soft law i nu se acioneaz prin stabilirea de norme imperative sau politici publice n domeniu. Considerm c, n vederea Anului European al Dialogului Intercultural 2008, Comisia European trebuie s aib o relaie mai strns cu organizaiile religioase care sunt recunoscute ca parteneri de dialog ai instituiilor UE. Felul n care Consiliul Europei privete relaia ntre dialogul intercultural i cel inter-religios poate fi o surs de inspiraie. Construcia n viitor a acestei relaii este afectat de o singur constrngere, aceea ca aciunile UE i cele ale Consiliului Europei s nu se suprapun, ci s se adnceasc relaia de complementaritate existent n prezent.

141

Punct de vedere prezentat n discuiile cu Radu Carp de Michael Weninger (ex-consilier al Preedintelui

Comisiei Europene i fost director al GOPA) i Dieter Heidtmann (KEK) n cadrul conferinei internaionale Die Kirchen und die politische Kultur Europas. kumenische Perspektiven, organizat de Institut fr Sozialethik, Universitt Wien, 23-24 noiembrie 2007.

83

6. N DIRECIA UNEI POLITICI EUROPENE A CULTURII ? A. Politici culturale i dreptul la cultur n context naional i

european. Programele UE n domeniul culturii


Dezvoltarea capitalismului a determinat o schimbare a raportului fa de obiectul i practicile culturale; noi valori proprii societii de mas 142 au determinat redefinirea conceptului de cultur. Apariia i dezvoltarea unei societi informaionale (telecomunicaii i mass-media), rolul tot mai mare acordat televiziunii (imaginii i sunetului) care implic o uniformizare, ar putea fi contracarat prin promovarea diversitii culturale i a unui dialog intercultural cu acces la alte forme i manifestri culturale dect acelea caracteristice televiziunii. Se poate afirma c ntrzierea cu care s-au dezbtut i elaborat tipuri de aciune la nivel european n domeniul culturii poate fi neleas dac lum n considerare modul n care acest tip de intervenie public a aprut la nivel naional. ntruct politica cultural elaborat n Frana este una dintre referinele cele mai importante n domeniu, considerat a fi una dintre primele politici culturale elaborate n Europa, dar i una dintre politicile culturale care a suscitat cele mai multe critici n condiiile n care intervenia statului este una important, unul dintre puinele studii avnd ca obiect de analiz tocmai condiiile n care cultura devine categorie de intervenie public poate constitui o baz pentru nelegerea ideii unui proiect cultural comun european. nainte de a putea defini un anume tip sau tipuri de aciune n domeniul culturii i pentru a se ajunge la definirea unei politici culturale, se impune necesitatea definirii conceptului de cultur143. Ori obiectul nsui al interveniei este unul problematic i variaz n funcie de istoria naional i de sistemul administrativ i politic al fiecrui stat: Kulturpolitik german desemneaz un ansamblu de activiti artistice, educative, sportive i de divertisment; politica cultural francez cu o dimensiunea sa profund social i susinnd ecumenismul cultural public; politica cultural italian a bunurilor publice care vizeaz conservarea patrimoniului cultural i n care cultura nu constituie un domeniu unificat al aciunii
142 143

Vezi Hannah ARENDT, La crise de la culture, Gallimard, Paris, 1972. Vincent DUBOIS, op. cit., p. 227.

84

publice; cultural policy britanic mpreun cu alte industrii culturale; politica cultural belgian structurat n jurul preocuprilor de natur lingvistic144, etc. De asemenea, modul n care spaiul social dedicat culturii (rolul i misiunea creaiei) s-a structurat, mpotriva oricrei forme de autoritate, mpotriva oricrei tutele, face ca ideea constituirii unei politici culturale s fie susinut conform idealului su original, acela de a contribui la dezvoltarea valorilor umane prin ncurajarea creaiei i de a face din cultur un instrument de nelegere reciproc i de apropiere ntre diverse grupuri sociale. Dreptul la cultur apare n cadrul mai larg al formrii statului-naiune n rile occidentale i micrii de democratizare din acest spaiu. n cadrul Declaraiei Drepturilor Omului i Ceteanului se afirm principii precum, egalitatea politic i social a tuturor cetenilor, respectul opiniilor i al credinelor, dar i libertatea cuvntului i a presei. Iar dreptul la cultur este considerat ca venind n prelungirea drepturilor civice145, chiar dac conceptul de cultur este nc n mare msur eterogen. Dreptul la cultur este proclamat i de Declaraia Universal a Drepturilor Omului (1948) ca drept la viaa cultural146. Chiar dac dreptul la cultur este garantat la nivel internaional, nu toate constituiile statelor membre UE l recunosc ca atare. Motivul este acela c multe constituii au fost redactate ntr-o perioad n care existena acestui drept nu era recunoscut, iar modificrile ulterioare nu au inut cont de apariia i dezvoltarea acestui drept. De asemenea, n unele ri, cultura nu este domeniu de competen al statului, fiind reglementat la nivel regional sau local sau pur i simplu revine se consider c exist n legtur cu cultura doar responsabiliti ale domeniului privat i nu ale autoritilor statale. Aceast situaie apare ndeosebi atunci cnd este vorba de o structur a statului de tip federal (aa cum este cazul Germaniei, unde asociaiile culturale din anii 1960 i 1970 i-au dovedit eficiena, dar i n cazul belgian unde singurul domeniu ce revine competenei statului este acela cu privire la dreptul de autor). Am putea vorbi de o tendin existent n acest sens i n rile est-europene n anii 1990, dar cu o dezvoltare mai accentuat n anii 2000.

144 145 146

Ibidem, p. 8. Alain RIOU, Le Droit de la culture et le droit la culture, ESF, Paris, 1993, p. 231. Ibidem, p. 31.

85

Din constituiile celor 27 de state membre gsim referine la cultur doar n 12 constituii. Nu ntotdeauna ns aceste referine privesc dreptul la cultur n forma sa cea mai concret, aceea de acces la cultur. Dreptul la cultur este garantat n aceast form doar n 5 constituii: Constituia Republicii Cehe garanteaz dreptul de acces la bogiile culturale, n condiiile legii (art. 34). Constituia Poloniei garanteaz libertatea de a se bucura de produsele culturale (art. 73); Constituia Portugaliei prevede c fiecare are dreptul la cultur; statul nu este singurul care are obligaia de a garanta acest drept, ci i organizaiile non guvernamentale (asociaiile i fundaiile culturale, colectivitile culturale, asociaiile de aprare a patrimoniului cultural, organizaiile cetenilor i ali ageni ai culturii) cu care statul trebuie s colaboreze (art. 73). Este dealtfel singura constituie a statelor membre UE care consider c statul nu este singurul responsabil pentru asigurarea dreptului de acces la cultur. Constituia Romniei garanteaz deasemenea n mod expres accesul la cultur, printr-o modificare operat n 2003 (art. 33). Constituia Slovaciei garanteaz tot n condiiile legii accesul la bogia cultural (art. 43). Observm c garantarea acestui drept este de dat recent, cea mai veche referin fiind cea din Constituia Portugaliei, norma citat mai sus datnd din 1976. Dat fiind aceast particularitate, este de presupus c n viitor mai multe constituii europene vor include dreptul de acces la cultur n categoria drepturilor fundamentale. Alte constituii ale statelor membre UE nu se refer la acest drept dar au referine la cultur, n general la protecia patrimoniului cultural care este vzut ca fiind o obligaie exclusiv a statului. Astfel, Constituia Bulgariei prevede c statul sigur conservarea tuturor monumentelor naionale istorice i culturale (art. 23), Constituia Greciei include o prevedere similar (protecia mediului cultural constituie o obligaie a statului art. 24), iar potrivit Constituiei Lituaniei statul susine obiectele de patrimoniu cultural dar i cultura (art. 42). ntr-un singur caz garantarea la nivel constituional a culturii este vzut n corelaie cu pstrarea identitii culturale a naiunilor care compun un stat: potrivit Constituiei Finlandei autoritile publice asigur nevoile culturale ale populaiilor vorbitoare de suedez i finlandez pe baze egale (art. 17).

86

Constituia Letoniei privete cultura ntr-un mod oarecum asemntor cu cazul Portugaliei, fiind bazat pe ideea c nu doar statul, ci i cetenii i societatea n ansamblul ei au responsabiliti constituionale, diferena fiind aceea c aceste responsabiliti comune sunt necesare pentru a asigura protecia mediului cultural (art. 43) i nu a accesului la cultur. Constituia Suediei este singura constituie a statelor membre UE care privete dreptul la cultur ca parte a libertii de informare, garantat constituional (art. 13). Constituia Maltei se rezum la a face o referin extrem de general din care rezult anumite obligaii pentru stat n materia culturii, fr a meniona care ar fi acestea (statul promoveaz dezvoltarea culturii art. 8). Cele mai multe obligaii care revin statului din punct de vedere constituional n materia culturii le regsim n Constituia Romniei. Potrivit aceleiai prevederi citate, statul trebuie s asigure pstrarea identitii spirituale, sprijinirea culturii naionale, stimularea artelor, protejarea i conservarea motenirii culturale, dezvoltarea creativitii contemporane, promovarea valorilor culturale i artistice ale Romniei n lume. De asemenea, se prevede c libertatea persoanei de a-i dezvolta spiritualitatea i de a accede la valorile culturii naionale i universale nu poate fi ngrdit. Se remarc faptul c este singura constituie care se refer la conceptul de cultur naional, celelalte constituii ale statelor membre UE referindu-se doar la cultur n general. Considerm c promovarea dialogului intercultural n Europa poate fi fcut i din perspectiva generalizrii dreptului de acces la cultur n constituiile statelor membre UE. Dialogul ntre culturi crora li se acord garanii constituionale ferme la nivel naional se poate dezvolta mult mai uor dect n situaia n care diferitele culturi ale Europei nu se bucur de atenia cuvenit din partea legiuitorului constituant. La nivel european, abia odat cu Tratatul de la Maastricht este prevzut intervenia Comunitii Europene n domeniul culturii. Cu toate acestea, chiar i n Tratatul de la Roma existau mijloace pentru aciuni n sectoare precise ale sferei culturale, precum regimul fiscal al fundaiilor culturale sau dreptul de autor; art. 36 prevede dreptul la cultur rezervat ns strict domeniului patrimonial. n decursul anilor 1980, pentru armonizarea pieei interne, se iau un numr de decizii n ceea ce privete preul crii, drepturile audio-vizualului i modul de impozitare al obiectelor de

87

antichitate. Cooperarea cultural inter-statal este prezentat drept dimensiunea cea mai important a Comunitilor Europene, n special n Actul Unic Europen (1987). Tratatul de la Maastricht inoveaz prin aplicarea principiului subsidiaritii i a codeciziei n domeniul culturii. Astfel, n articolul 128 consacrat culturii este specificat faptul c noul sistem ofer posibilitatea minitrilor culturii din statele membre, reunii la nivelul Consiliului, s adopte msuri de ncurajare dup ce n prealabil a prezentat proiectele sale Parlamentului European, care particip la luarea deciziilor prin procedura de codecizie, ca de asemenea i Comitetul Regiunilor. Comisia European are de asemenea dreptul s propun recomandri care trebuie votate n unanimitate de ctre Parlament i de ctre Comitetul Regiunilor. Principiul subsidiaritii aplicat domeniului culturii a fost deseori considerat ca fiind o piedic n elaborarea unei politici culturale comune. Cu toate acestea, s-a afirmat de asemenea intenia de a crea structuri proprii Uniunii, n conformitate cu aplicarea principiului subsidiaritii i de a contribui la contientizarea din partea statelor membre a importanei acestui principiu n scopul valorizrii dimensiunii culturii n construcia european pentru a evita orice blocaj la nivelul deciziei. n articolul 128 se afirm angajamentul Uniunii Europene n ceea ce privete salvarea i valorizarea patrimoniului cultural, cu accent pe diversitatea culturilor naionale i regionale, n cadrul cooperrii UE cu statele membre, cu posibilitatea acordat Uniunii de a interveni n sectoare ale culturii precum: cunoatere i difuzarea culturii i a istoriei europene; conservarea i salvarea patrimoniul cultural; schimburilor culturale ne-comerciale; creaia artistic, literar i audio-vizual. Un alt obiectiv al UE l constituie favorizarea cooperrii cu state tere i cu organizaii internaionale competente n domeniul culturii. Potrivit Tratatului de la Maastricht, pot fi verificate efectele pe care alte decizii din alte domenii ale politicii comunitare le pot avea asupra culturii. nelegem astfel c aspecte ale culturii apar n cadrul altor domenii de intervenie ale UE fr ns a se afirma necesitatea ca domeniul culturii trebuie protejat (sau mcar efectele posibile pe care le poate suferi) de logici economice care pot avea un impact negativ asupra funcionrii mecanismelor proprii. De remarcat afirmarea acestui angajament care confirm faptul c dimensiunea cultural nu beneficia nc la acea dat de un cadru normativ special. n continuarea prevederilor articolului 128, ntr-o Declaraie a Comisiei

88

Europene din 1992147 prioritile n domeniul culturii sunt stabilite n conformitate cu instituirea a dou axe. Este vorba de o prim ax, orizontal, care implic cooperarea cu experi i specialiti n domeniu, la nivel naional sau regional pentru a favoriza integrarea dimensiunii europene a culturii n politicile UE, dar i n politicile statelor membre; crearea de noi reele interculturale; ameliorarea dialogului intercultural la nivel naional, regional i local totodat cu accent pe diversitatea cultural; ncurajarea creaiei artistice i a dialogului ntre artiti; ncurajarea traducerii pentru a facilita, ntreine i crea noi schimburi culturale. Cea de-a doua ax privete aciunile specifice i cele prioritate din domeniul culturii: ntocmirea unui document sau a unui program care s regrupeze toate msurile ce trebuie luate n vederea conservrii i salvrii patrimoniului cultural; elaborarea unui program n domeniul crii i al lecturii. Odat stabilite obiectivele, Comisia European a adoptat programe destinate unor sectoare culturale precise, care prevedeau criteriile i modalitile de selecie a proiectelor culturale, precum i bugetele alocate n conformitate cu obiectivele ce urmau a fi ndeplinite. Au fost adoptate cteva programe ncepnd cu 1993 pe o durat de trei ani, restructurate ulterior ntre 1995 i 1996, cu scopul intensificrii schimburilor culturale ntre statele membre dar i cu alte state nemembre, fiecare program avnd o aplicabilitate ntr-unul din sectoare activitilor culturale. Programul Kalidoscope se aplic domeniului creaiei i promovrii ea cunoaterii i difuzrii culturii i a vieii culturale a popoarelor europene cu accent pe cooperarea inter-statal: pentru proiectele artistice i culturale derulate n parteneriat sau sub form de reele fiind vorba de parteneri din cel puin dou state membre i din cel puin un stat nemembru; pentru proiectele de mare anvergur este nevoie de parteneri din cel un stat nemembru i din cel puin trei state membre. Programul Ariane se aplic domeniului de carte i de lectur, dar i celui consacrat traducerii. Programul Raphal este destinat domeniului salvrii i valorizrii patrimoniului cultural. Toate cele trei programe vor fi regrupate ncepnd cu 1 ianuarie 2000 ntr-un singur program cadru, Cultura 2000 (iniial pe o perioad de patru ani i ulterior prelungit pn la finele lui 2006). ncepnd cu 1998, la iniiativa Consiliului prin adoptarea unei decizii cu privire la viitorul aciunilor n domeniul culturii, Comisiei i se
147

Das neue Kulturkonzept der Gemeinschaft, Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat, das Europische

Parlament und den Wirtschafts und Sozialausschu, Brssel, 1992 in Pamela STICHT, op. cit., p. 54.

89

cere s studieze posibilitile elaborrii unei abordri directe, globale i transparente pentru aciunea cultural n cadrul Comunitii i s prezinte propuneri care s duc la instituirea unui instrument unic de programare i de finanare148. Consultrile iniiate cu privire la crearea unui Program Cadru n domeniul culturii - Comisia European organizeaz astfel la nceputul lui 1998 Forumul Cultural al Uniunii Europene care reunete reprezentani ai Parlamentului European, ai statelor membre, ai Comisiei, dar i organizaii funcionnd n sectorul cultural149 -, dezbaterile cu privire la intervenia Comunitii n materie de cultur, demonstreaz diferenele dintre politicile culturale naionale, dar i dintre ideile cu privire la gradul de intervenie recomandabil n domeniul culturii. Tratatul asupra funcionrii Uniunii, rezultat din modificarea TEC prin Tratatul de Reform va include la art. 6 prevederea potrivit creia cultura intr n categoria aciunilor de sprijinire, coordonare sau complementare aciunii statelor membre.

B. Motenirea cultural european i patrimoniul cultural european


Din primul paragraf al articolului 151 TUE, dedicat culturii, nelegem c aciunile comunitare n domeniul culturii au ca obiect culturile statelor membre i diversitatea (cultural) naional i regional, dar i motenirea cultural comun:
Comunitatea contribuie la rspndirea culturii statelor membre n respectul diversitii lor naionale i regionale, prin punerea n eviden a motenirii culturale comune.

Obiectivul primului Program Cadru elaborat n domeniul culturii, Cultura 2000 se nscrie n aceast problematic ca fundament al unei politici culturale la nivel european: diversitate cultural naional i regional, dar i motenire cultural comun150. Acestea din urm sunt considerate deseori ca fiind baza pentru posibilitatea
148 149 150

OJ C 305, 7.10.1997, p. 1. Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 72. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, paragraful 6, p. 1; Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 78. Autoarea consider c marea

provocare a programului Cultura 2000 pare s fie astfel punerea n aplicare a acestei idei fundamentale i

90

definirii unei identitii europene, aa cum rezult din Raportul Grupului de Reflecie asupra Dimensiunii Culturale i Spirituale a Europei:
Cultura european, spaiul deschis mereu supus redefinirii, nu formeaz nici ea de la sine unitatea european. Aceast unitate solicit o dimensiune politic i deciziile care decurg din ea. Dar cultura comun european e ceea ce d politicii posibilitatea de a transforma Europa ntr-o entitate politic unitar
151

Ceea ce se poate spune cu siguran este c aceast diversitate cultural care traduce o pluralitate a tradiiilor naionale, dar i a unor tradiii regionale, constituie una dintre resursele cele mai importante ale Europei. Ea trebuie tratat ca o bogie n contextul actual, acela al globalizrii. Dar diversitatea cultural, ca trstur specific a Europei, nu se situeaz nicidecum n contradicie cu o motenire cultural comun la nivel european. Dar nici diversitatea cultural european i nici motenirea cultural comun nu pot fi puse pe deplin n valoare i conservate n absena unei politici culturale la nivel european, fr definirea termenilor ce stau la baza unei identiti culturale europene i fr o instituionalizare a schimburilor culturale europene n contextul globalizrii. Termenul de motenire cultural din art. 151 TUE, reluat ca unul dintre obiectivele programului Cultura 2000152, rmne nedefinit n dreptul comunitar. n cadrul programului Cultura 2000, termenul de motenire cultural comun apare pentru prima dat nsoit de o precizare; atunci cnd se pune problema conservrii i salvrii acesteia, ea trebuie s fie una de importan european153. Prin urmare, putem afirma c motenirea cultural comun, ca i de asemenea diversitatea lingvistic,

a priori paradoxale (traducerea noastr).


151

Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislaw GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, op. cit. Aici cultura, n sensul su

larg, este considerat temelia necesar fundamentrii construciei politice i definit ca fiind acea societatea civil european aflat n centrul identitii politice.
152

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 3 : le partage et la mise en valeur, au niveau europen, lhritage culturel

commun dimportance europenne; la diffusion du savoir-faire et la promotion des bonnes pratiques en ce qui concerne la conservation et la sauvegarde de cet hritage culturel.
153

Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 79. Autoarea afirm c expresia patrimoniu cultural de importan

european este folosit n ideea crerii unui sentiment de apartenen la acelai trecut.

91

tind a fi considerate valori comune europene154, chiar dac nu sunt menionate ca atare n viitoarea form a TUE, parte a Tratatului de Reform. Considerm necesar definirea termenului de motenire cultural comun n dreptul comunitar, ca o msur de clarificare a termenilor ce stau la baza unei viitoare politici culturale europene. Unul dintre neajunsurile programului Cultura 2000 este tocmai sensul neclar al acestei moteniri culturale comune, cu att mai mult cu ct sensul termenului de cultur folosit n cadrul programului este mult mai larg 155. Identitatea cultural european bazat pe o motenire cultural comun156 n sensul larg al mprtirii unui trecut comun, dar i a pe diversitii culturale i lingvistice, nu poate rmne dect o utopie, un deziderat n lipsa definirii acestor termeni i a constituirii lor n valori comune europene. Identitatea european se definete n prezent doar pe baza valorilor politice europene i nu pe cele culturale: drepturile omului, valorile democratice, valoarea vieii umane, solidaritatea social. Noiunea de identitate european apare n Tratatele de la Maastricht, Amsterdam i Nisa n cadrul dispoziiilor consacrate libertii, securitii i dreptului, ca i n cadrul dispoziiilor ce privesc politica extern i de securitate: identitatea european se definete n opoziie cu state tere i accentul cade pe identitatea naional a statelor membre. Dimensiunea cultural nu particip la definirea identitii europene; n Declaraia solemn asupra Uniunii Europene adoptat la Stuttgart n 1983157 n domeniul culturii se insist pe cooperarea

154

Dominique POULOT, Le patrimoine culturel, une valeur commune de lEurope, Relations

internationales, Division et unit de lEurope, printemps 1993, no. 73, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Genve, pp. 43-62 in Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 79. Patrimoniul cultural este aici definit ca ceea ce revendicm ca fiind al nostru i, n virtutea concepiei perenitii unui corpus de tradiii, de idei, de amintiri etc. legat de situri naturale i de artefacte umane n snul unei comuniti, presupune o intervenie atunci cnd este vorba de a asigura conservarea i inteligibilitatea acestei moteniri.
155

Remarcm asocierea unor teme actuale precum mediul natural sau urban n manifestri ce au ca

preocupare principal discuiile despre patrimoniul cultural. Vezi http://www.patrimoineculturel.com despre Salonul Patrimoniului Cultural ce are loc la Paris ntre 8 i 11 noiembrie 2007.
156

Ca i identitatea naional, care presupune mprtirea, printre altele, a unui trecut comun. Cf. Annehttp://www.franceurope.org/pdf/declaration_solennelle.pdf.

Marie THIESSE, La cration des identits nationales. Europe XVIIIe-XXe sicle, Seuil, Paris, 1999.
157

92

inter-statal n scopul afirmrii i valorizrii motenirii culturale158. n 1973, este adoptat prima declaraie cu privire la identitatea european comun culturilor naionale (nou state membre la acea vreme), Declaraia asupra identitii europene; identitatea european comun se construiete pe baza valorilor i principiilor comune, concepii de via asemntoare statelor membre, iar orice naiune european care mprtete aceleai idealuri este invitat s participe la construcia european159. Dezvoltarea unui spaiu cultural comun popoarelor Europei prin evidenierea valorilor culturale drept element cheie al identitii lor i al apartenenei lor la o societate fundamentat pe libertate, democraie, toleran i solidaritate ar permite participarea activ a cetenilor europeni. Dac identitatea european se construiete n strns legtur cu principiile i drepturile fundamentale menionate n tratate i n Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale a UE, totui valorile culturale rmn slab definite i, cu toat importana acordat diversitii i exprimat n art. 22 al acestui ultim document Uniunea respect diversitatea cultural, religioas i lingvistic , Carta are totui o valoare simbolic ct vreme nu se face o referire la acest text n cadrul tratatelor existente160. Situaia va fi ns diferit dup intrarea n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform. Viitoarea form a Tratatului asupra funcionrii Uniunii, rezultat al revizuirii TEC prin Tratatul de Reform, va include printre alte modificri i prevederea potrivit creia Uniunea recunoate drepturile, libertile i principiile stabilite n Carta Drepturilor Fundamentale care va avea aceeai valoare ca i Tratatele. Aceasta nseamn c, de la data intrrii n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform, respectul datorat diversitii culturale, lingvistice i religioase va avea aceeai valoare normativ ca i celelalte prevederi ale acestui Tratat. Motenirea cultural european sau cultura comun european i are fundamentul n valorile i principiile comune tuturor culturilor naionale aparinnd Uniunii Europene. Identitatea cultural european rmne imposibil de definit i doar simbolic afirmat. Ea este totui considerat ca aflndu-se la baza identitii politice europene. Se evit totui
158 159 160

Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 82. Parlement Europen, Bulletin 1973/74, no. 46/73, pp. 8-9 in Pamela STICHT, op. cit., p. 46. Cf. Dominique REYNI, Bruno CAUTRS (dir.), LOpinion europenne, Presses de la Fondation

Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 2001; de asemenea Radu CARP, Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun, op. cit., p. 10 i pp. 66-68.

93

utilizarea termenului de identitate tocmai datorit specificului construciei europene, existena trsturilor culturale comune aparinnd unei istorii comune, ca i existena diversitii culturale. A se recurge i a aplica termenul de patrimoniu cultural definit de UNESCO nu i mai gsete justificarea atunci cnd este vorba de a contribui la identificarea unui spaiu cultural european. Sintagma patrimoniu cultural european circul deja n documentele oficiale161, necesitnd n continuare un cadru normativ n dreptul comunitar. Patrimoniul cultural european ar trebui ns s includ i diversitatea lingvistic ca bogie a Europei, astfel el ar putea avea ca punct de plecare definiiile i dispoziiile stabilite de UNESCO cu privire la patrimoniul cultural i natural, dar i cele care privesc patrimoniul cultural imaterial162, innd cont de faptul c activitatea de cooperare cu instituii supranaionale, precum UNESCO i Consiliul Europei, a contribuit la armonizarea politicilor naionale n domeniul culturii. n programul Cultura 2000, accentul este pus tocmai pe valorizarea diversitii culturale, cu precizarea expres c se acord o atenie deosebit salvgardrii poziiei culturilor minoritare i a limbilor cu circulaie restrns n Europa, fiind precizat i colaborarea i coordonarea aciunilor comunitare n domeniul culturii cu aciunile organizaiilor internaionale cu competen n domeniul culturii163. Dac programul Cultura 2000 formeaz cadrul coordonrii aciunilor comune ale statelor membre n domeniul culturii la nivel european pentru a contribui la dezvoltarea unui spaiu cultural comun european i la integrarea dimensiunii culturale n politicile Comunitii164 n concordan cu respectarea i promovarea diversitii

161

Grecia i Frana sunt la originea unei iniiative care are drept scop s propun o nou viziune asupra

patrimoniului cultural european contribuind la constituirea unui Catalog al Monumentelor Patrimoniului cultural european (traducerea ne aparine). Vezi http://www.canalacademie.com/Le-patrimoine-europeenrevisite.html.
162

Vezi http://portal.unesco.org pentru definiia patrimoniului cultural mondial i pentru cea a

patrimoniul cultural imaterial sau viu. Mai precis, intereseaz din aceast perspectiv Convenia privind protecia patrimoniului mondial, cultural i natural (Paris, 16 noiembrie 1972), Convenia pentru salvgardarea patrimoniului cultural imaterial (Paris, 17 octombrie 2003), dar i Convenia asupra proteciei i promovrii diversitii expresiilor culturale (Paris, 20 octombrie 2005).
163

OJ L 63, art. 7, p. 3

94

culturilor sale165, el nu exclude dialogul cultural cu alte culturi din statele nemembre ale UE166. Pentru a evita orice form de autarhie, politica cultural european trebuie s aib n vedere nu doar dezvoltarea dialogului intercultural european, dar i favorizarea schimburilor culturale cu alte ri din afara UE.

C. Un Institut European al Culturii eecul unei idei originale


n 1995 a existat iniiativa crerii unui institut care s regrupeze toate institutele naionale de la Bruxelles urmnd a fi semnat Declaraia de intenie n vederea crerii unei case europene a culturii de ctre toi directorii institutelor naionale n care se acord prioritate parteneriatului cu o consecin direct asupra autonomiei acestor institute167. Iniiativa regruprii n aceeai cldire (Place Plagey, Bruxelles) a institutelor culturale naionale a aparinut preedintelui Fundaiei pentru Arte de la Bruxelles. Instituia creat a fost denumit Maison europenne de la Culture (Casa European a Culturii). n pofida rezervelor exprimate de directorii institutelor naionale, cooperarea n domeniul culturii i-a demonstrat eficiena, astfel c a aprut propunerea semnrii unei Carte de ctre toi directorii n acord cu guvernele de provenien. Dar ceea ce urma s se numeasc Dclaration dintention en vue de la cration dune maison europenne de la Culture nu a fost niciodat semnat. Eecul oficializrii unei asemenea iniiative promitoare nu a mpiedicat continuarea i aprofundarea cooperrii dintre institutele
164

Decision no. 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2000 Articolul 151, paragraful 4 TUE. OJ L 63, art. 7 : Pays tiers et organisations internationales, p. 3 i p. 8 : encourager la coopration

programme OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, paragraful 7, p. 1.


165 166

internationale en vue du dveloppement de nouvelles technologies et de linnovation dans les diffrents domaines relevant du patrimoine culturel; encourager la coopration avec les pays tiers et les organisations internationales comptentes.
167

Pamela STICHT, op. cit., pp. 109-111. Autoarea menioneaz realizarea unui interviu cu directorul

Institutului Goethe din Bruxelles care i-a permis obinerea unor informaii n vederea evalurii posibilitilor de realizare ale unui asemenea proiect precum crearea Institutului European al Culturii.

95

culturale pe anumite proiecte, i uneori n colaborare cu ali parteneriat dect instituiile naionale. Federarea institutelor culturale naionale implica gestionarea unui fond comun, conducerea urmnd a fi asigurat prin rotaie de unul dintre directorii institutelor naionale, conform principiului aplicat la nivelul Consiliului European, iar deciziile cu privire la aciunile i manifestrile fiind luate de reprezentanii insitutelor culturale naionale n cadrul unor edine comune. Trebuie menionat ns c domeniile limbii i al informaiei rmneau ns n atribuiile stricte ale institutelor culturale naionale168. Iniiativa constituirii unei instituii europene destinate culturii i continuarea cooperrii strnse dintre anumite institute culturale naionale (uneori chiar coabitarea acestora)169 poate constitui baza pentru crearea viitorului Institut Cultural European care ar trebui s reprezinte de asemenea cultura european n exterior avnd drept obiective principale prezervarea diversitii culturale i lingvistice europene ca bogie a culturii europene i dialogul intercultural, crend astfel premisele pentru dezvoltarea unui spaiu cultural european170. Un progres n realizarea unui Institut European al Culturii l constituie stabilirea unei mai cooperri ntre instituiile culturale ale statelor membre ale UE stabilite n ri tere, inclusiv institute culturale i echivalentele sale n aceste ri drept obiectiv n promovarea culturii171. nc o dat, cultura este considerat din perspectiva relaiilor externe ale UE, ct vreme o astfel de structur ar determina stabilirea unor obiective i aciuni comune ar avea drept scop promovarea Europei172. n Comunicarea Comisiei intitulat O agend european pentru cultur ntr-o lume

168 169

Ibidem, p. 110. Discuie avut de Camelia Runceanu cu Vincent Dubois cu ocazia colocviului internaional Pour un

espace europen de la production et de la circulation des produits culturels et scientifiques , organizat de Reeaua european ESSE (Pour un espace des sciences sociales europen) i Centrul Marc Bloch, cu sprijinul Comisiei Europene, Berlin, noiembrie 2007.
170

Conform concluziei Raportului Grupului de Reflecie asupra dimensiunii spirituale i culturale a Europei

(analizat mai sus), un spaiu comun cultural european exist, deci cu att mai probabil punerea n comun a unor iniiative culturale ale institutelor culturale ale statelor membre, dar i a altor organisme, actori culturali sau interlocutori reprezentativi n domeniu din statele membre UE.
171 172

OJ C 287/2, 29.11.2007. Franois ROCHE, La Crise des institutions nationals dchanges culturels en Europe, LHarmattan,

Paris, 1998.

96

globalizat173 n cadrul seciunii dedicate relaiilor externe ale UE, se precizeaz c iniiativele recente ale Comisiei au n vedere o cooperare cu i ntre instituiile culturale ale statelor membre n scopul difuzrii unor mesaje importante despre Europa, identitatea sa i experiena sa cu privire la crearea unor modaliti de comunicare ntre diferite culturi, ceea ce este presupune o diplomaie cultural174, vzut ca o contribuie a UE la cultur175. Programe comunitare, proiecte pilot, proiecte simbolice i specifice, aciuni comune n domeniul culturii (sectorul informaiei, comunicrii i al audio-vizualului, incluse), toate acestea formeaz coninutul unei viitoare politici culturale care ns nu poate exista fr o coordonare eficient a proiectelor comune n domeniul cultural care s creeze efecte pe termen lung. Fr instituii nu putem vorbi de o politic, fie ea i n domeniul culturii. Iar favorizarea dialogului intercultural i interaciunea ntre societile civile ale statelor membre, nscris ntre obiectivele specifice ale agendei europene a culturii, ar trebui avut n vedere nu doar ca element indispensabil n relaiile internaionale, ci i n perspectiva coordonrii aciunilor naionale n domeniul culturii n interiorul UE i stabilirii bazelor pentru o politic cultural la nivel european. Pentru a nelege posibilitatea crerii unei astfel de instituii care ar coordona activitile culturale la nivel european, trebuie s existe n prealabil un cadru normativ care s prevad definirea clar a valorilor culturale comune, dar i un set de obiective culturale comune sau partajate176 la nivelul UE care s demonstreze existena, dincolo de interesele naionale, regionale sau locale, a unor interese comune n strict legtur cu evoluiile sociale i politice n contextului globalizrii. Toate acestea ar duce la o reevaluare a obiectivelor politicilor culturale naionale i mai departe, a rolului statuluinaiune n domeniul culturii.
173

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, on a European agenda for culture in a globalized world, COM (2007) 242 final, 10.5.2007.
174

De remarcat apariia termenului de diplomaie cultural, deseori criticat ca fiind posibil de aplicat doar

n anumite condiii, n funcie de organismele care asigur politica culturala. Vezi Franois ROCHE, La diplomatie culturelle dans les relations bilatrales, mars 2006, http://www.sens-public.org/article.php3? id_article=235
175 176

COM (2007) 242 final, p. 7. COM (2007) 242 final, p. 6.

97

7. CONCLUZII
Primul capitol prezint extensiv peisajul lingvistic contemporan, modaliti de protecie a limbilor, provocarea pe care multilingvismul o adreseaz instituiilor UE, definirea normativ i non-normativ a valorilor comune europene i problemele generate de echivalena lingvistic a termenilor folosii n documentele de baz ale UE n limbile oficiale. Capitolul unu propune mai multe concluzii: (a) definirea conceptului de identitate european este practic imposibil n acest moment, esena proiectului european fiind chiar respectul alteritii. (b) din punct de vedere strict normativ, diversitatea lingvistic nu face parte din valorile comune europene, dar respectul acordat diversitii lingvistice trebuie subliniat prin msuri avnd o intensitate egal cu cele prin care sunt garantate acele valori care sunt considerate a fi valori comune europene. (c) dei mecanismul comunitar multilingv de comunicare instituional este complex, s-au dezvoltat proceduri care garanteaz calitatea traducerilor prin revizie, verificare i supraveghere rolul semnificativ n acest sens revenind mecanismului continuu de formare i informare a traductorilor. Capitolul doi prezint forme de diseminare a multilingvismului n domeniile educaiei i n sectorul audiovizual, trece n revist aspecte legate de nvarea limbilor n nvmntul universitar i preuniversitar, face referiri la raportul public privat n nvarea limbilor i prezint rolul certificatelor de competen lingvistic pe piaa muncii european. Concluziile sunt urmtoarele: (a) importana comunicrii n alte limbi pentru UE este dat de includerea ei printre cele opt competene principale ale nvrii continue; (b) n UE multilingvismul este promovat n mod direct, explicit, prin portalul Europa i multilingvismul, dar i n mod indirect prin politici i programe al cror scop primar este altul, dar care nu se pot derula dect printr-o cunoatere a mai multor limbi;

98

(c) exist o real i evident lips de date asupra furnizorilor de servicii lingvistice n Romnia ceea ce impune iniierea unui studiu pentru cunoaterea situaiei romneti. Acest studiu va contribui la adoptarea de strategii de dezvoltare la nivel naional i la inserarea Romniei n peisajul european, prin contribuia la programele europene i facilitarea colaborrii dintre diverii furnizori la nivel european; (d) Romnia, ca stat membru al UE, trebuie s fie aliniat la bunele practici din domeniul multilingvismului prin generarea unui program pentru descrierea competenelor lingvistice pentru limba romn ca limb strin i dezvoltarea/adoptarea unui certificat recunoscut internaional de competen lingvistic. Capitolul trei, Promovarea instituional a multilingvismului, concluzioneaz c: (a) multilingvismul este difuz n ntreaga filozofie a construciei europene fiind statuat ca pricipiu nc din 1954 n Convenia Cultural European a Consiliului Europei; (b) modalitile practice de promovare a multilingvismului n UE s-au dezvoltat n timp pe cele trei paliere de utilizare ale termenului de multilingvism la nivelul cetenilor, la nivel instituional i la nivel intra-instituional. Capitolul patru abordeaz Drepturile ceteanului european i influena multilingvismului propunnd dou concluzii: (a) discriminarea lingvistic folosit pentru restricionarea accesului pe piaa muncii ntr-un stat membru UE poate reprezenta o excepie de la principiul tratamentului egal; (b) inexistena unei sfere publice europene duce la necunoaterea i dezinteresul fa de drepturile cetenilor europeni. Este prezentat propunerea Comisiei pentru o comunicarea centrat pe cetean i descentralizarea canalelor de comunicare ntre cetean i instituiile UE. Capitolul cinci, Promovarea dialogului intercultural n Uniunea European, ofer o sumar trecere n revist a dificultilor legate de definirea dialogului intercultural, prezint programele UE destinate promovrii dialogului intercultural i analizeaz metode de promovare a dialogului inter-religios pe plan european, cu accent pe relaia ntre dialogul inter-religios i cel intercultural. Concluziile propuse sunt: (a) spaiul cultural european comun se constituie ntr-o manier dinamic n baza unui dialog intercultural permanent ntre popoarele Europei;

99

(b) dezvoltarea spaiului public european are loc nu printr-o omogenizare lingvistic, prin estomparea sau dispariia unor tradiii lingvistice n Europa, ci prin crearea unor reele ntre parteneri culturali din diferite ri europene, a unor politici editoriale menite s favorizeze publicaii sau ediii bilingve care s atenueze astfel dominaia textelor redactate n limba englez; (c) Uniunea European promoveaz dialogul cu religiile prezente pe continentul european, neavnd ns competene n vederea promovrii dialogului inter-religios; (d) religiile accept implicarea Consiliului Europei n dialogul inter-religios mai mult dect pe cea a UE, datorit faptului c intervenia Consiliului Europei se rezum la instrumente de soft law, de influenare, i nu se acioneaz prin stabilirea de norme imperative sau politici publice n domeniu. n capitolul ase, n direcia unei politici europene a culturii ?, autorii subliniaz modificrile aprute n lume prin dezvoltarea unei societi informaionale. Se propune o discuie asupra definirii conceptelor de cultur, motenire cultural i a modalitilor de abordare ale politicilor de garantare ale dreptului la cultur n rile membre. Capitolul propune urmtoarele concluzii:
(a) diversitatea cultural european reprezint o pluralitate a tradiiilor naionale,

dar i a unor tradiii regionale, constituind una dintre resursele cele mai importante ale Europei, care se cere tratat ca o bogie n contextul actual al globalizrii; (b) este necesar definirea conceptului de motenire cultural comun n dreptul comunitar ca o msur de clarificare a termenilor ce stau la baza unei viitoare politici culturale europene; (c) n prezent valorile culturale rmn slab definite, cu valoare simbolic, dar de la data intrrii n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform respectul datorat diversitii culturale, lingvistice i religioase va avea aceeai valoare normativ ca i celelalte prevederi ale acestui Tratat; (d) dei identitatea cultural european se afl la baza identitii politice europene, ea rmne imposibil de definit i doar simbolic afirmat. (e) ncercarea de constituire a unui Institut European al Culturii a fost un eec, dar fr instituii nu se poate vorbi de o politic nici mcar n domeniul culturii.

100

(f) este necesar un cadru normativ care s prevad definirea clar a valorilor culturale comune i elaborarea unui set de obiective culturale la nivelul UE care s demonstreze existena unor interese comune n strict legtur cu evoluiile sociale i politice n contextul globalizrii.

8. RECOMANDRI
1. Pentru a promova mai bine diversitatea lingvistic n cadrul Uniunii Europene, este necesar ntrirea colaborrii ntre instituiile UE i Biroul European pentru Limbi mai puin Utilizate (EBLUL - The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages). Limbile minoritare i/sau regionale se afl n atenia Consiliului Europei, ns Uniunea European va trebui s se implice mai mult n protecia acestor limbi, pstrnd relaia de complementaritate ntre cele dou instituii. O modalitate concret de colaborare ntre EBLUL i instituiile UE este realizarea unui dicionar al limbilor regionale i/sau minoritare vorbite n statele membre UE, precum i instituionalizarea acestui tip de colaborare. 2. Semnarea pe data de 10 octombrie 2007 a dou acorduri ntre Republica Moldova i Comunitatea European - Acordul privind facilitarea regimului de vize i Acordul privind readmisia persoanelor aflate n situaia de edere ilegal - a generat reacii diverse n Romnia dar i la nivelul Parlamentului European cu ocazia discutrii acestora, ca urmare a meniunii c sunt ncheiate i n limba moldoveneasc. Comisarului european pentru multilingvism i s-a reproat faptul c ar fi trebuit s combat recunoaterea acestei limbi care este n realitate

101

inexistent, n aa fel nct meniunea c respectivele acorduri sunt semnate n limba romn s fie suficient. Lipsa unei asemenea reacii este generat de faptul c nu este foarte clar n prezent din punct de vedere normativ dac n realitate competena UE se rezum la limbile oficiale ale statelor membre sau se extinde i la limbile statelor extra-comunitare, n msura n care exist acorduri bilaterale cu aceste state n legtur cu care exist obligaia de a preciza ce fel de versiuni lingvistice pot produce efecte juridice. Comisia European ar trebui s reflecteze mai aprofundat asupra raportului ntre limbile sale oficiale i limbile statelor extracomunitare cu care are ncheiate diferite tipuri de parteneriate i mai ales asupra formelor n care se concretizeaz acest raport, mai ales c multe dintre aceste limbi ale statelor extra-comunitare sunt recunoscute drept limbi minoritare i/sau regionale de multe din statele membre UE. Recomandm redactarea unui studiu care s priveasc exclusiv aceast tem, comandat de Comisia European, iar pe baza acestui studiu s se defineasc ulterior o poziie oficial a UE n aceast problem. 3. Este de ateptat ca n urmtorii ani Romnia, la fel ca i alte state membre UE, s cunoasc o dinamic a numrului de strini care vor dori s studieze sau s lucreze n organizaii publice sau private aflate pe teritoriul su n cadrul crora limba de lucru este romna. Aceste persoane vor avea nevoie de cursuri moderne, interactive de nvare a limbii romne, precum i de teste de evaluare a competenei de comunicare n limba romn. Ambele opiuni se afl nc ntr-o etap incipient. Considerm c este nevoie de dezvoltarea unei proceduri de evaluare a competenei lingvistice a strinilor care vorbesc sau doresc s nvee limba romn. Pentru definirea acestei proceduri este necesar un efort inter-instituional care s implice att ministerele interesate (MJ, MIRA, MECT, MCC), ct i centrele universitare care ar trebui s dedice mai multe eforturi n direcia cercetrii impactului diversitii lingvistice asupra pieei muncii. Este deasemenea necesar definirea elementelor care s fie subsumate unui certificat de competen lingvistic pentru limba romn. Acest deziderat este necesar att din perspectiva alinierii Romniei la soluiile de succes practicate n alte state membre UE, ct i din perspectiva

102

alinierii la bunele practici existente pe plan internaional care prevd - n condiiile pieei globale a capitalului i a liberei circulaii a forei de munc - existena unor instrumente moderne de evaluare i predare a unei limbi. Aceast recomandare este valabil i pentru alte state membre UE care se afl n cutarea unor soluii pentru evaluarea competenei lingvistice a strinilor att resortisani comunitari, ct i extra-comunitari. 4. n condiiile unei mobiliti ridicate a cetenilor romni n interiorul UE, protecia limbii romne nu mai poate fi fcut prin mijloace exclusiv naionale. Prezena unor numeroase comuniti de ceteni romni n state membre UE precum Spania sau Italia a dus la identificarea unor soluii prin care limba romn s fie studiat i n aceste ri ca parte a curriculei colare. Studierea limbii romne la acest nivel nu va duce la separarea pe motive lingvistice a comunitilor de romni de mediul lingvistic n care acetia se afl, ci va ntri dialogul intercultural, n msura n care instrumentele de predare se vor dovedi cele adecvate. Soluia studierii unei limbi oficiale UE care nu este de circulaie internaional (cazul limbii romne dar nu numai) ntr-un alt stat membru UE este deocamdat ntr-o etap incipient, nefiind definite mecanisme de intervenie ale UE, ci exclusiv bilaterale (acorduri ntre ministerele de resort). Considerm c, odat cu amplificarea fenomenului circulaiei forei de munc pe teritoriul UE, instituiile UE vor trebui s gseasc o form prin care s faciliteze predarea unor cursuri de limb matern, n paralel cu eforturile fcute de statele ai cror ceteni doresc acest lucru. Intervenia UE n acest domeniu va trebui s fie subsidiar aciunii acestor state membre, ns pentru punerea n aplicare a principiului subisidiaritii n acest caz este necesar un efort de reflecie aprofundat. 5. Dei nvarea limbilor este n Romnia o activitate cu rezultate pozitive, nu exist pn n prezent un studiu tiinific integrat, accesibil, asupra situaiei reale din domeniu, cu identificarea clar a furnizorilor de servicii lingvistice, profilul consumatorului i, mai ales, potenialul pieei pentru aceste servicii. Aceast constatare este valabil dealtfel i pentru alte state membre UE. innd cont c Grupul la nivel nalt n materie de multilingvism recomand Comisiei Europene n 103

Raportul final s ncurajeze crearea reelelor locale/regionale pentru nvarea limbilor n statele membre, compuse dintr-o varietate de furnizori i s sprijine colaborarea acestora la nivel european, recomandm elaborarea unui astfel de studiu la nivel naional pentru identificarea furnizorilor din Romnia, ca parte a unei evaluri mai ample a situaiei existente pe plan european. Acest studiu disponibil pe Internet i n alte limbi ar oferi date despre Romnia potenialilor parteneri furnizori de servicii lingvistice doritori a atrage Romnia n proiecte de parteneriat. Dintre aceste proiecte ar trebui s aib prioritate la finanare din partea UE mai ales cele care pun accent pe metode de educaie de tip edutainment. 6. Cea mai concret form, vizibil pentru ceteanul european, prin care UE promoveaz multilingvismul ca valoare comun european este dat de recunoaterea a 23 de limbi oficiale. Multilingvismul a stat la baza crerii Comunitilor Europene prin faptul c, nc de la nceputul construciei europene, nu s-a adoptat varianta definirii i impunerii unor limbi procedurale, de lucru, ca n cazul altor organizaii supranaionale. Promovarea acestui atribut trebuie s stea i n continuare la baza oricrei aciuni comune pe plan european care urmrete respectarea diversitii lingvistice. n prezent, gestionarea multilingvismului a devenit din ce n ce mai dificil i mai costisitoare, activitatea de traducere i de interpretare angrennd un numr impresionant de funcionari care activeaz n cadrul instituiilor UE. Pentru a face fa acestei provocri, n multe situaii este preferat utilizarea limbilor procedurale, de lucru (engleza, franceza, germana). Oficiali ai UE au subliniat paradoxul multingvismului la ora actual : cu ct se folosesc mai multe limbi n raporturile dintre instituiile UE i n relaia acestor instituii cu cetenii, cu att ntregul proces devine mai dificil de gestionat i mai consumator de timp, ceea ce duce, n cele din urm, la o dificultate real de promovare a multilingvismului. Linia de demarcaie ntre eficien i respectarea diversitii lingvistice n cadrul UE este dificil de trasat n acest moment. Este ns imperativ necesar s se traseze o asemenea linie de demarcaie. Pentru a ajunge la acest rezultat, recomandm o prim msur care const n demararea unui proces de monitorizare iniiat de Comisia European care s stabileasc situaiile n care

104

recursul la limbile procedurale, de lucru este imperios necesar i cazurile n care, dimpotriv, se impune o mai strict respectare n practic a principiului egalitii tuturor celor 23 de limbi oficiale ale UE. 7. Problema multingvismului n Uniunea European nu poate fi separat de cea a dialogului intercultural, deoarece diversitatea lingvistic este strns legat de cea a culturilor. La rndul ei, diversitatea cultural din cadrul UE se afl ntr-o puternic corelaie cu cea religioas. Bogia motenirii religioase europene a influenat pozitiv formarea culturilor naionale europene, precum i crearea unui spaiu comun cultural european. Preambulul Tratatului Uniunii Europene, n forma n care este integrat n Tratatul de Reform, confirm aceste legturi prin referina deopotriv la motenirea cultural i la cea religioas a Europei. Recomandm ca relaia ntre multilingvism, dialog intercultural i dialog inter-religios s fie pus n valoare cu ocazia aciunilor care vor marca anul 2008 drept An European al Dialogului Intercultural, n condiiile n care alte organizaii pan-europene, cum ar fi Consiliul Europei, au realizat importana promovrii la parametri compatibili a celor dou tipuri de dialog. Faptul c prin Tratatul de Reform dialogul ntre religiile prezente pe continentul european i UE va fi instituionalizat trebuie s genereze aciuni concrete prin care legtura ntre dialogul intercultural, interreligios i multilingvism s sporeasc n vizibilitate. Aciunile UE i cele ale Consiliului Europei nu trebuie s se suprapun, ci este necesar s se adnceasc relaia de complementarite existent n prezent. Anul European al Dialogului Intercultural nu trebuie s fie promovat prin aciuni formale care s pun n prim plan actori instituionali crora le lipsete n fapt dispoziia de a intra ntr-un dialog real, ci trebuie s constituie o ocazie pentru a avea o reflecie aprofundat asupra originilor i viitorului diversitii culturale, lingvistice i religioase n Europa. 8. Promovarea n spaiul comunitar i extra-comunitar a culturilor naionale din statele membre UE, precum i a limbilor oficiale folosite n aceste state se face n prezent prin intermediul institutelor culturale naionale (British Council, Institutul Cervantes, Institutul Goethe, Institutul Francez, Institutul Cultural Romn, etc.). Nu exist o form instituional de promovare a tuturor limbilor oficiale UE prin 105

intermediul institutelor culturale. n condiiile n care UE consider cultura drept domeniu de intervenie, ceea ce nseamn c statele membre UE au dreptul de a-i stabili propriile direcii de promovare a culturii naionale dar, n acelai timp, exist suficiente mijloace de aciune la nivelul UE (cum ar fi de exemplu programul Cultura 2000), considerm c se impune definirea unei strategii comune europene pentru a defini posibile atribuii ale institutelor culturale naionale care s fie promovate n comun. Eecul iniiativei crerii unui Institut European al Culturii nu nseamn c acest proiect nu trebuie s fie n continuare n atenia celor care gestioneaz culturile naionale i a responsabililor culturii din cadrul Comisiei Europene. Pe viitor, orice iniiativ trebuie s porneasc de la concluzia exprimat n Raportul Grupului de Reflecie asupra dimensiunii spirituale i culturale a Europei care consider c exist un spaiu comun cultural european. Pentru ca acest spaiu s aib o conotaie concret pentru ceteanul european, iniiative de genul Institutului European al Culturii ar trebui s fie puse pe alte baze ca pn acum, pornindu-se de la necesitatea promovrii n comun, la nivelul institutelor culturale naionale, a diversitii lingvistice i implicit a multilingvismului, urmnd ca de abia ulterior s se treac la urmtoarea etap (n funcie de succesul eventual al celei dinti) : crearea instrumentelor pentru promovarea n interiorul i n exteriorul UE a acelor trsturi comune, europene ale culturilor naionale.

106

BIBLIOGRAFIE
1. CRI I ARTICOLE Hannah ARENDT, La crise de la culture, Gallimard, Paris, 1972 Anthony ARNULL, The General Principles of EEC Law and the Individual, Leicester University Press, Leicester, 1990 Teodor BACONSKY, Radu CARP, Ioan I. IC jr., Anca MANOLESCU, Elena TEFOI, Bogdan TTARU CAZABAN, Pentru un cretinism al noii Europe, seria Boltzmann, vol. III, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2007 Ulrich BECK (ed.), Politik in der Globalisierung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1998 Pierre BOURDIEU, Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des ides, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, no. 145/2002 Radu CARP, Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun, Editura Universitii din Bucureti, Bucureti, 2006 Radu CARP (ed.) Un suflet pentru Europa. Dimensiunea religioas a unui proiect politic, Editura Fundaiei Anastasia, Bucureti, 2005 Pierre - Andr CT, Interprtation des lois, 2me edition, Yvon Blais, Montral, 1990

107

Pascal DELWIT, PHILIPPE POIRIER, Parlement puissant, lecteurs absents? Les lections europennes de juin 2004, Editions de lUniversit de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2005 Vincent DUBOIS, La politique culturelle. Gense dune catgorie dintervention publique, Belin, Paris, 1999 Sandu FRUNZ (coord.), Pai spre integrare. Religie i drepturile omului n Romnia, Limes, Cluj Napoca, 2004 Maria GINAR, Culture 2000, mise en place dune politique culturelle, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, vol. 7, no. 2/2007 Jrgen HABERMAS, Intolerance and Discrimination, I.CON, vol. 1, no.1/2003 (varianta n limba francez : De la tolrance religieuse aux droits culturels, Cits, 13, PUF, Paris, 2003) Margot HORSPOOL, Over the rainbow: Languages and law in the future of the European Union, Futures, vol. 38, no.2/March 2006 (ralis par) Riva KASTORYANO, Laurent BOUVET, Christophe JAFFRELOT, Le multiculturalisme au coeur. Entretien avec Michael Walzer, Critique internationale, no. 3/1999 Ansgar KLEIN et al (eds.) Brgerschaft, ffentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa, Leske & Budrich, Opladen, 2003 Koen LENAERTS, Lgalit de traitment en droit communuautaire: un principe unique aux appearances multiples, Cahiers de droit europen, 1991 Koen LENAERTS, Piet VAN NUFFEL, Constitutional Law of the European Union, 2nd edition, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2005 Karl Johan LNNROTH, Translation practices in the Commission, CICEB conference Committee of the Regions, 21 September 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/translation/reading/articles.pdf/20060921_cicebtranslation_practices_en.pdf. Karl Johan LNNROTH, From global to local: multilingualism in action, http://ec.europa.eu/translation/reading/articles/pdf/20060919_commission_head_of_repre sentations_en.pdf

108

Carol MYERS SCOTTON, Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in codeswitching, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993 Mariana NICOLAE, Training and development in transition: A Romanian Perspective, vol. IATEFL TDTR 3, Whitstable, 1998 Dominique REYNI, Bruno CAUTRS (dir.), Lopinion europenne, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 2001 Peter RIETBERGEN, Europe - A Cultural History, 2nd edition, Routledge, London, 2006 Alain RIOU, Le droit de la culture et le droit la culture, ESF, Paris, 1993 Gerhard ROBBERS (ed.), State and Church in the European Union, 2nd edition, Nomos, Baden Baden, 2005 Franois ROCHE, La Crise des institutions nationals dchanges culturels en Europe, LHarmattan, Paris, 1998 Marius SALA, Ioana VINTIL RDULESCU, Limbile Europei, Editura Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 2001 Gisle SAPIRO (ss. la dir.), La Traduction comme vecteur des changes culturels internationaux. Circulation des livres de littrature et de sciences sociales et volution de la place de la France sur le march mondial de ldition (1980-2002) , Rapport de recherche, Centre de Sociologie Europenne (CNRS-EHESS), avec le concours du Ministre de la recherche, Paris, 2007 Pamela STICHT, Culture europenne ou Europe des cultures ? Les enjeux actuels de la politique culturelle en Europe, LHarmattan, Paris, 2000 (ed.) Drgan STOIANOVICI, Logica i dreptul, Paideia, Bucureti, 2006 (volum coordonat de) Miruna TTARU CAZABAN, Teologie i politic. De la Sfinii Prini la Europa unit, Anastasia, Bucureti, 2004 Anne-Marie THIESSE, La cration des identits nationales. Europe XVIIIe-XXe sicle, Seuil, Paris, 1999 Loukas TSOUKALIS, Why we need a Globalization Adjustment Fund, http://www.gov.uk/files/kfile/Loukas-final.pdf Marianne VAN DE STEEG, Does a public sphere exist in the European Union? An analysis of the content of the debate on the Haider case, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 45, issue 4/June 2006

109

Immanuel WALLERSTEIN, Sistemul mondial modern, Meridiane, Bucureti, 1992

2. RAPOARTE COMANDATE DE INSTITUIILE UE Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislaw GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, Concluding Remarks on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe, Vienna/Brussels, October 2004 (traducerea n limba romn: Ce ine Europa la un loc ? Dilema Veche, nr. 56, 11 17 februarie 2005) Jenny BRADSHAW, Catherine KIRKUP, Inventory of Language Certification in Europe, A Report to the European Commission, Directorate General for Education and Culture, 2006, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/inventory.pdf CILT (The National Centre for Languages)/InterAct International, ELAN - Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in Enterprise) http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/elan-final-report_en.pdf Jean-Claude BEACCO, Reviving Multilingual Education for Europe,

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/policy/report/beacosum_en.pdf High Level Group on Multilingualism, Final Report, http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf

3. DOCUMENTE OFICIALE ALE INSTITUIILOR UE Regulation no.1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, OJ P 17, 6.10.1958

110

Decision no. 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2000 programme OJ L 63, 10.3.2000 Decision no. 1934/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the European Year of Languages 2001 OJ L 232, 14.9.2000 Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning, OJ L 394, 18.12.2006 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on granting a derogation pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the EC Treaty, presented under Article 14 (3) of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament, Brussels, COM (2003) 31 final, 27.01.2003 Commission working document, Report on the implementation of the Action Plan Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity, Brussels, COM (2007) 554 final, 25.9.2007 Commission of the European Communities, European Governance. A White Paper, Brussels, (2001) 428 final, 25.7.2001 Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on a European Communication Policy, Brussels, COM (2006) 35 final, 1.2. 2006 European Commission, A Field Guide to the Main Languages of Europe, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/bookshelf/2007_field_guide_en.pdf European Commission, Translating for a Multilingual Community, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/bookshelf/brochure_en.pdf Communication from the Commission on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 elections to the European Parliament Right of Union citizens residing in a Member State of which they are not nationals to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament, Brussels, COM (2000) 843 final, 18.12.2000 Communication from the Commission, Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue General Principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, Brussels, COM (2002) 704 final, 11.12.2002

111

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on measures taken by Member States to ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the 2004 elections to the European Parliament in an enlarged Union, Brussels, COM (2003) 174 final, 8.4.2003 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, European values in the globalised world Contribution of the Commission to the October Meeting of Heads of State and Government, Brussels, COM (2005) 525 final, 20.10.2005 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new framework strategy for multilingualism, Brussels, COM (2005) 596 final, 22.11.2005 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, on a European agenda for culture in a globalized world, COM (2007) 242 final, 10.5.2007 Council of the European Union, Brussels European Council 21/22 June 2007 Presidency Conclusions, Brussels, 11177/07

DOCUMENTE OFICIALE ALE CONSILIULUI EUROPEI Convenia Cultural European, Paris, 19.12.1954, ETS no. 18 Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare, Strasbourg, 5.12.1992, ETS no. 194 Rezoluia nr. 2/69, An intensified Modern-Language Teaching Programme for Europe Recomandarea nr. 814/1977, Modern languages in Europe CONVENII UNESCO Convenia privind protecia patrimoniului mondial, cultural i natural, Paris, 16 noiembrie 1972 Convenia pentru salvgardarea patrimoniului cultural imaterial, Paris, 17 octombrie 2003

112

Convenia asupra proteciei i promovrii diversitii expresiilor culturale, Paris, 20 octombrie 2005

The European Institute of Romania


Project SPOS 2007 Studies for strategies and policies

Study no. 6 MULTILINGUALISM AND INTERCULTURAL DIALOGUE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION. A ROMANIAN PERSPECTIVE

Authors: Radu CARP177 - study coordinator Manuela NEVACI178 Mariana NICOLAE179


177 178

Associate professor, SJD, Faculty of Political Sciences, University of Bucharest Junior researcher, Ph.D., The Linguistic Institute Iorgu Iordan Alexandru Rosetti of the Romanian Academy 179 Associate professor, Ph.D., Faculty of International Business and Economics, the Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies

113

Camelia RUNCEANU180 Nicolae SARAMANDU181


Not to be circulated except within the group of interest. No part of the opinions expressed in this material may be made public.

Bucharest December 2007 CONTENTS

1. THE

EFFECTS

OF

EU

ENLARGEMENT

ON

LINGUISTIC

AND

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

A. The European linguistic landscape a presentation B. Local, regional and national protection of languages in the European context. Protection of regional and minority languages. C. The official languages in the EU Member States. EU institutions and the challenge of multilingualism the case of the European Parliament D. Standard and non-standard definition of common European values. Interpretation of terms that designate common European values depending on the linguistic context E. Issues generated by the linguistic equivalence of terms used in official languages in the basic EU documents

180 181

Ph.D. candidate, University of Bucharest / Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris Professor, Ph.D., Faculty of Arts, University of Bucharest; The Linguistic Institute Iorgu Iordan Alexandru Rosetti of the Romanian Academy

114

2. MULTILINGUALISM IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT A. Definition of multilingualism B. Multilingualism in education and the audio-visual sector C. Learning languages in various education cycles (university, pre-university) and professional formation/reconversion D. Public private relationship for language learning E. The role of linguistic competence certificates on the European labour market F. Promoting the Romanian language as study language in the EU Member States G. Outsourcing in multilingual contexts

3. INSTITUTIONAL PROMOTION OF MULTILINGUALISM A. Methods of promoting multilingualism at European level B. Means of promoting multilingualism in companies operating on the European territory C. Methods of promoting multilingualism in universities D. Methods of promoting multilingualism in EU institutions E. Expert groups in the field of multilingualism created by the European Commission 4. EUROPEAN CITIZENS RIGHTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF

MULTILINGUALISM A. Exercising European citizens rights in multilingual context: the right to elect and run for office in local elections and for the European Parliament, the right to address the European institutions and to receive an answer in own language

115

B. Linguistic discrimination used for restricting access to the labour market in a EU Member State exception to the principle of equal treatment?

5. PROMOTING INTER-CULTURAL DIALOGUE IN THE EUROPEAN UNION A. Definition of inter-cultural dialogue B. EU programmes dedicated to the promotion of inter-cultural dialogue C. The relation between inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogue. Methods of promoting inter-religious dialogue at European level

6. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN POLICY OF CULTURE? A. Cultural policies and the right to culture in national and European context B. European cultural heritage and European cultural patrimony C. A European Institute of Culture the failure of an original idea

7. RECOMMENDATIONS 8. CONCLUSIONS

116

1. THE EFFECTS OF EU ENLARGEMENT ON LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY A. The European linguistic landscape a presentation
Linguistic diversity in Europe is a reality of everyday life 27 Member States, 23 official languages and 60 minority languages; a great variety of regional and minority languages, as well as the languages spoken by immigrant communities. The European linguistic heritage is a resource that should be valued. In terms of area, most states on the European continent are medium and small size countries, the largest being, in this order, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Turkey, France and Spain, of which the Russian Federation and Turkey have a great share of their territory in Asia. The European part of the Russian Federation accounts for one quarter of its area and that of Turkey only 3%. Strictly speaking, the greatest majority of European languages belong, from the point of view of their relatedness, to a single linguistic family: the large Indo-European family, which account for 95% of the population of the geographic Europe. In a restrained sense, this is what distinguishes Europe from the other continents (with the exception of Australia), where there is a great number of language families.

117

The greatest role in the final linguistic situation in Europe is incumbent on the migration of peoples that contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire, namely the Germanic and Slav ones. The Indo-European family is the most important in the world, the only one that spread on all continents in the modern era. It is also spoken in Asia through indigenous languages, it is represented on other continents through imported languages, it is spoken in Africa and Oceania especially as secondary languages. It comprises about 150 languages, grouped in branches, of which some contain extinct languages: the Italic language (represented mainly by Latin, at the origins of the Romanic languages), the Iliric, the Traco-Dacian and so on. Among the Indo-European languages currently spoken in Europe there are two languages of the Baltic branch the Latvian and the Lithuanian and four of the Celtic branch: the Breton, the Gaelic in Scotland, the Scottish, the Gaelic and the Irish. The languages of the Germanic branch, spoken in the Western and Northern parts of the continent (to the East of the Rhine and to the North of the Danube, as well as in the British isles and in Scandinavia) are reunited in the following groups: Scandinavian/Septentrional (the Danish, Feroise, Islandic, Norwegian, Swedish) and Occidental (the English, Frisone - including its varieties German, Yiddish with a particular genesis and characteristics Luxemburguese and Neerlandese/Dutch, as the Flemish variant). The Romanic languages, spoken mainly in the South and West of Europe, are reunited in the oriental group (including only the Romanian, the only Romanic language in Eastern Europe, as an island of Latinity in a mainly Slav sea, with its dialects South to the Danube Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and IstroRomanian), the Italo-Romanic group (the Corsican, Italian, Monegasque, Sard), the Retoroman (the Friuline, Dolomitic-ladine, Romansh), the Galo-Romanic group (the French and its dialects Oil, Occitan including the Gascoigne and the Franco-provence speaks), the Ibero-Romanic group (the Portuguese and Spanish with their dialects, the Gaelgue, the Iudeo-Spanish with a special situation), the Catalane being a bridgelanguage between the last two groups. The languages of the Slav branch, spoken mainly in Southern and South-eastern Europe, are divided into three groups: the oriental one (the Byelorussian, Russian which spread out to Asia too and the Ukrainian), the Southern one (the Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian) and the Western one (the Cashube, Czech, Polish, Slovac, Sorabe) and the Pomak, Rusyn and Ruthene.

118

The non-Indo-European languages of Europe are enclaves within the IndoEuropean ones; beside a small number of great languages of culture, being statelanguages, most of them are spoken in the Russian Federation (especially in its Asian part) by a small number of inhabitants, some of them almost extinct. Most of these languages are part of the Uralic family, named after the Ural Mountains, where probably a common language of origin had been spoken. The 20-30 languages in this family, spread out mainly in Northern Europe and the North-western part of Asia are grouped in two or three sub-branches: fino-ugric, samoede, possibly lap (or sub-ordinated to the former one). In the fino-ugric branch are the Estonian, the Finnish, the Ingrian, the Karelian the Komi(-permiak), the Komim(-zirian), the Liuda, Livonian, Hungarian, Mansi, Mari, Mordvine, Ostiak, Ud-murt, Vesp etc., possibly the Laponian too, the Vota being almost certainly extinct. The Samoed branch of the family is represented by the Nenets and Selkup languages. The Altaic family, spoken mainly in Asia and to a small extent in Europe, includes some tens of languages, grouped in two main branches: the Western or Turkish one and the Oriental one the latter including the Mongolian and Tungus groups, as well as some isolated languages. Languages of this family are spoken in States included in Europe such as Turkish-Altaic, Azeri, Balkar, Bashkir, Chiuvash, Gagaouse, Hakash, Yakutian, Karachai, Karaim, Kara kalpak, Kazakh, Kumar, Nougai, Sora, Tatare, Tatare of Crimea, Tofalar, Turkish, Tu-vine, Uzbek; of the Mongolian group only the Buriat and the Kalmuk, and of the Tungus group the Even, Evenki and Nanai languages182. The approximately 40 Caucasian languages, spoken on the two slopes of the Caucasus Mountains (situated between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, at the geographic limit between Europe and Asia) are grouped in three or four families of separate languages: Souther/Kartvelian (the Georgian, Laz, Mingrelian, Svan and Zan languages), North-Western (the Abazine, Abkhaz, Cerkese and Ubah languages the last speaker of the latter died in 1992) and Nakh-Dageuestanese, grouping according to some sources the Centre-North/(Vei) Nakh Caucasian (the Bats, Chechen and Ingush languages) and the North-Eastern/Daguestanese families (about 26 languages: Agoul,
182

Marius SALA, Ioana VINTIL RDULESCU, Limbile Europei [The languages of Europe], Editura

Univers Enciclopedic, Bucureti, 2001.

119

Achvach, Andi, Arci, Avar, Bag-valine, Bejitine, Boliq, Buduch, Chamaline, Darghine, Chinalug, Hinug, Hunzib, Chvarshine, Krats, Lak, Lezghine, Rutul, Tab saran, Tin dine, Tsahur, Tsez, Udine). The Caucasian languages are spoken in Azerbaijan, Georgia (including the disputed territory of Abkhazia) and in the Russian Federation. Some dont have written form or relatively recently started being written (with the exception of the Georgian language, there had been only sporadic attempts to write in these languages before the 19th century). In the Soviet era, 11 Caucasian languages were granted the status of literary languages, the right to issue publications in own writing and to have radio broadcasting, but not to be used in education. All Caucasians in the former USSR are bilingual or multi-lingual, beside one or more languages knowing also Russian. The Bask is a non-Indo-European language of uncertain origin that are not included in any linguistic family (though being close to other various languages, among which the Caucasian ones). The Paleosiberian languages may form a possible phylunt or represent only a generic term, ,ore geographic than genealogic, including several families and isolated languages spoken in Northern Asia (in the Russian Federation on the Yenissey, on the Tchiukotka Peninsula, in Kamcheatka and on Sakhalin Island) by the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of Siberia (hence the name of the family). It contains languages endangered by extinction, spoken by very few people (many of them bilingual; some have abandoned their language for the Russian), none of them having official status; several languages of the family are already extinct. The Paleosiberian languages, of which we mention the Tchukot, Ghiliak, Ket and Koriak, dont seem to be connected to other language families, though they have been related to the Altaic and Sino-Tibetan families; according to certain opinions, they would include the eschimo-aleuth family (which includes languages considered Amerindian in a broad sense). Some centuries ago they used to be spoken by many people and occupied a larger area but they had been separated from each other by the Tungus and Turkic languages, becoming small enclaves. There are phonetic and lexical differences between the male and female speak and distinction between the language of the nomads and that of the sedentary inhabitants. Of the Amer-Indian languages, the Eskimo of the eskimo-aleuth family is spoken in Europe, its Greenland variant being called Greenlandese. Of the three big Amerindian

120

language families, only this one could belong to the big Euro-Asian family, related to certain Paleosiberian languages and represented in Europe by the Maltese, the Cypriote Arabic (the most important language of the branch as an immigrant language), the Hebrew and the Aramaic languages of cult and the Syriac. As immigrant languages are represented also the Lybic-Berber branches, to which belong the Berber and Cushitic, including also the Somalese. The Austrorai family, the Kam-tai branch, is represented in Europe as an immigrant language through one of the two of its important languages the Laotian. The AustroAsian family, spoken exclusively in South-East Asia and containing 100-150 languages, is represented in Europe exclusively through immigrant languages: two of the more important of the Mon-Khmer the Khmer and the Vietnamese. The Austronesian family, formerly known as Malayo-Polynesian, has a considerable diversity, and includes according to certain authors approximately 10% of the world languages. Most of them (180-300) are spoken in Oceania where there are very speakers. This family is represented in Southeast Asia by 1220-200 languages, with a large number of speakers. The Austronesian family shows currently the largest geographic extension in the world after the Indo-European family. Its internal classification is still controversial: it is being traditionally divided into two or three branches, of which the most important are the Indonesian (currently contested) and the Oceanic one. The Indonesian (Western) branch has 200-250 languages, the most important of which being the Javanese and Malayan (also the Indonesian variant), also spoken in Europe but only as immigrant languages. The Dravidian family is spread exclusively in Asia (in the South) and contains over 20 Preindo-European agglutinated languages that were pushed southwards by the IndoEuropean languages of India which they used as substratum. Among the most important is the Amil spoken also in Europe as immigrant language. The Sino-Tibetan family spoken through autochthonous languages exclusively in Asia (in the Centre and the Southeast) is the most important family of that continent and the worlds second after the Indo-European one in terms of speakers; it contains 260-300 languages of which many are little known. The most important language of the family spoken in Europe as immigrant language is the Chinese.

121

Of the 1050-1350 languages generically known as Negro-African are spoken in Europe only as immigrant languages, especially certain ones belonging to the NigerianKordofanian family namely to the Nigerian-Congolese group: of the Atlantic Occidental group, the Bambara, Dyula, Maninka, Soninke, Soso of the Mande group and so on. It results from the above that almost all of the worlds language families are currently represented in Europe, certainly to various extents, with the exception of the Australian, Papua and Khoisan families. From the typology point of view, most of the European languages belong to the two main types of the morphological classification of languages. Consequently, the flexionary languages of the Indo-European family prevail; of these, certain modern languages for instance the Romanic ones are more analytical (expressing grammar values mostly with prepositions, auxiliaries etc.) than the classic ones (the Latin, Greek), whereas other languages kept their synthetic character (expressing grammar values mainly with fusioning morphemes), such as the German as compared to the English, the Russian etc. The Afro-Asian languages are flexionary, as well as the Indo-European ones. Their main feature is the so-called tri-laterality the skeleton of the word being a root consisting in most cases of three consonants (the only ones written down); the grammar values are expressed by internal flexion (vocal alternances). A number of languages are agglutinated each grammar value being expressed by an affix that is attached to the root of words.

B. Local, regional and national protection of languages in European

context. Protection of regional and minority languages


The official language of a State is not identical with the national language by which in the current socio-linguistic and judicial terminology is designated, as opposed to the current use, not the language of the whole nation living within a State but the language of any nationality that is being legally recognized in the State in which its

122

members live. In this meaning, a state may have not only one but several national languages. As a matter of fact, in this terminology the word language has a meaning somewhat different of the linguistic one, due mainly to the social functions the respective idiom is endowed with and less to the position the linguists give to it in relation to other close varieties be these related idioms or varieties subordinated to the respective language from the dialectologues point of view. The language, in this sense, may be an idiom that the linguists consider just a variant of a language (e.g. the Bosnian) or sometimes even a dialect or a speak (e.g. the Greenlandese). Some languages may be protected only at local/regional level, permitted in parliamentary debates or in court or may be national languages, the protection of which is stipulated by special provisions, not officially adopted; in certain cases the quality of official state language does not cover the same reality in all countries, especially in the case of states that have more than one official language: the co-official languages of the same State may be in principle on equal footing in terms of rights bestowed upon them or may be hierarchised, having somewhat different roles, either in terms of functions, or territorial coverage. In Belgium for instance, we have to deal with official languages at regional level, not at country level as a whole; in Switzerland, the Romansh has a somewhat different status of the other official languages; in Luxemburg, the various languages are to a great extent specialized for certain functions and domains; in The Netherlands, the Frizone is considered the second official language after the Neerlandese etc. Therefore, the qualification of languages as official languages at State level or at local/regional level should not be understood in an absolutistic way, only in an orienting and relative way. Further more, the date when a certain idiom was granted the status of official language in a certain state is not always specified and sometimes it has a relative character, due inter alia to the fact that the notion of official language has varied in time. There are 42 official or co-official languages in Europe (considering the Bosnian, the Croat and the Serb as different official languages). A characteristic feature of the European countries is that, despite the frequent historic changes or their recently (re)gained autonomy, they are on the whole states of long-time tradition and the official language is in the same time the language of the majority of the native population

123

(despite the forcible displacement of people with the aim to weaken the national native element, the consequences of which being visible in the former Soviet republics). This makes the difference between the European States and most states in Africa, America, Australia and Oceania which have opted, out of various considerations, for an exogenous official language, mainly the language or the former colonial powers. A number of 12 of the official European languages have this status in several independent States of Europe: the German in five States (Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Liechtenstein); the French in four States (Belgium, Switzerland, France, Monaco); the English in three (Ireland, Malta, Great Britain and the un-autonomous territory the Normand Isles) and the Croat in two states (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia), Greek (Cyprus, Greece), the Neerlandese/Dutch (Belgium in its Flemish variant, the Netherlands), the Romanian (the Republic of Moldova - where it is also called Moldavian -, Romania), Russian (Byelorussia, Russia), Serb (Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia), Swedish (Finland, where it is currently national, Sweden), Turkish (Cyprus, Turkey). There are 30 official languages in Europe, each in an independent country: the Albanese, Armenian, Azeri, Belarus, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Catalane (in Andorra, where it is also called Andorran), Czech, Croat, Danish (in Denmark, and also in the Faeroe Islands and in Greenland), Estonian languages. The minority and regional languages of Europe are: The Pomeranian (pmrsczi jsk) is a group of the lehitic dialects that were spoken in the Middle Ages on the territory of Pomerania between the Vistula and the Oder rivers. Its close relatives are the Polab and Polish dialects. The Pomeranian is part sub-group of the Western Slav languages known as lehitic languages. The cashubian (spoken in the Pomerania Voivodship of Poland) and the Slovintchian (which disappeared in the early 20th century) languages are in fact its dialects. The Polish and Polab languages have also many common features. Distant relatives are other Western Slav languages: the Slovac, Czech, Inferior and Superior Sorab languages. Meanwhile, other Slav languages are related to the Polish language and can be understood to a certain extent. Beside the languages of Ireland, Spain and Great Britain, there are some other regional languages spoken in the EU that are not officially recognized at EU level

124

(though in some cases they have official recognition in the Member States). Some of them have more speakers than the less used official languages. The Frisone language (Frysk or Frasch) is a Germanic language spoken by a small ethnic group in the Northwestern part of Europe. The Frisian contains several dialects, which some linguists consider separate languages. Most of its speakers live in the Frisia province (The Netherlands) and in the Schleswig-Holstein land (Germany). The Frisian is close to the Neerlandese and Danish languages. It is also closely related to the English language, but the reciprocal degree of intelligibility between the two is small. The Mirandese has a distinct grammatical corpus (independent phonetics, phonology, morphology and syntaxes) dating back to the period of the creation of Portugal (the 12th century). Its roots can be found in the Latin spoken in the North of the Iberian Peninsula (the Portuguese originated in the North-West). It is a well preserved dialect of the ancient Leonese language of Northern Iberia, related today to the Asturian language, which in turn is considered by many as a dialect of the Spanish language. Currently, the Mirandese is being used more as a second language by some 15 000 individuals (though for some it still is a primary language) in the villages of the Miranda de Douro municipality and in three villages of the Vimioso municipality, in an area of 484 km2 with ramifications in other villages of the Vimioso, Mogadouro, Macedo de Cavaleiros and Bragana municipalities. There are three dialects: the Normal Mirandese, the Frontier Mirandese and the Sendins Mirandese. Most speakers know Portuguese and even Spanish. The Sard language (In Sard: limba sarda) is the main language spoken in Sardinia, Italy and is considered to be the most conservative Romanic language. Due to the history of this island, for thousands of years isolated from the continent and only in recent years establishing better communication with it, certain characteristics of the archaic vulgar Latin had been preserved, while in other areas they disappeared. One of the characteristics of this language is the lack of words of Greek origin that are present in all other Romanic languages. Moreover, there are many words in the Sard language that are closer to the Romanian language than to the Latin or Italian, though those two languages exerted their influence on the Sards for hundreds of years.

125

The Retoroman language is one of the four official languages of Switzerland as of 20 February 1938. The Retoroman language is part of the Retsian Romanic languages together with the Friulian and the Ladin. It is a Romanic language spoken by about 35.000 individuals in the Graubnden canton and contains several very different dialects: Sursilvan, Sutsilvan, Surmiran, Puter and Vallader. A unified form of the language as standardized by the linguist Heinrich Schmied in 1982 is called the Rumantsch grischun. Lia Rumantscha (The Romansh Ligue) is an umbrella organization for all the Retoroman literary associations. But the standardized language enjoys a rather low level of acceptance and, as a consequence, the speakers of its various dialects address each other in German, which accelerates the decline of the Retoroman dialects. The Friuline or the Friulian language (furlan or affectionately called marilenghe in Friulian, friuliano in Italian) is a Romanic language belonging to the family of Rhetsian languages, spoken in the Region of Friuli-Venezia-Giulia in North-eastern Italy. The Friulian has approximately 600.000 native speakers most of them speaking also Italian. The Friulian is frequently called the Eastern Ladine, as the Ladine and the Friulian are closely related. Unlike the Ladine, spoken by fewer people (about 30.000) but very conservative, the Friulian departed from its initial source and was subject to multiple influences from the surrounding languages: German, Italian, Venetian and Slovene. Documents written in Friulian in the 11th century and the Friulian literature, both poetry and prose, date back to the early 1300. The 20th century witnessed an increasing interest for this Rhetsian language which still continues. The Ladine language (Ladine native name in Ladine language, Ladino, in Italian, Ladinisch in German) is a Rhetsian language spoken in the Dolomite Mountains in Italy, between the regions of Trentino-Alto Adige and Veneto. As a Rhetsian language it is very close to the Swiss Retoroman and the Friulian. The Ladine spoken in the Fassa Valley (in Ladine Val de Fascia, in Italian Val di Fassa) is further divided in two subdivisions, Cazt spoken in the Northern half of the valley and Brach in its Southern part. In Cazt water is ega and in Brach is aga.

126

The Ladine language is officially recognized as a minority language, having certain official rights in the Trentino-South Tirol region, but does not have official status in the Belluno province. Among the Indo-European languages, the Celtic languages are the most related to the Italic languages, forming the Celto-Italic branch. The Breton language (in Britany: Brezhoneg) is a Celtic language spoken in the North of France in the Britany Region (in French: Bretagner). The European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages EBLUL is a nongovernment transnational organization cooperating closely with the EU, aiming at the promotion of linguistic diversity in Europe with special attention given to the regional and minority languages. EBLUL has offices in all 15 EU Member States prior to the 2004 and 2007 enlargements and in many States that joined recently. In the near future EBLUL intends to open offices in all 27 EU Member States 183. EBLUL protects the rights of the 46 million minority and regional language speakers in Europe. According to Markus Varasin, Secretary General of the organization, EBLUL will take care not only of the speakers of endangered languages but also of the linguistic communities whose rights are not respected, such as the Russians in Letonia. As concerns other minority languages, Varasin added: a very important community is that of the Hungarians in Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia. There are several languages of this kind, spoken by millions of people. On the other hand, there are also other communities, such as that of the Sorbs, very small communities or that of the Italians in Slovenia184. On the whole, EBLUL holds the view that where minority languages are concerned the situation in Eastern Europe is not worse than that in Western Europe. Within the Council of Europe the protection of regional and/or minority languages is carried out through the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages185. Since 15 Member States have already ratified this Charter (Austria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Luxemburg, Great Britain, The Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Hungary), presenting its
183 184 185

http://www.eblul.org. http://www.divers.ro. The European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, Strasbourg, 5.12.1992, ETS No.194.

127

contents is important in the perspective of the protection of those languages by the EU. The Charter was signed in 1992 and came into force in 1998. The aim of the Charter is to improve the use (both in private and public life) of regional and minority languages in the education systems, in court and in the media, to allow for and to encourage the use of these languages in administrative and economic contexts, as well as in social life, in cultural activities and in cross-border exchanges. The Charter is based on the full respect of national sovereignty and of territorial integrity. The relationship between the official or co-official languages and the regional or minority ones is not seen as being antagonistic. The development of the former should not impede on the knowledge and promotion of the latter. The Charter does not establish a list of languages spoken in Europe that would match the concept of regional or minority languages. However, the used terms are defined (Article 1). The expression regional or minority languages means languages traditionally used in a certain area of a state by the citizens of that state, constituting a group numerically smaller than the rest of the states population or languages different from the official language(s) of that state. This expression does not mean dialects of the official language(s) of the state. The expression area in which a regional or minority language is used means, according to the Charter, the geographic area in which this language is the mode of expression of a number of individuals that justifies the adoption of various measures of protection or promotion - those stipulated by the Charter. By the expression non-territorial languages the Charter means languages used by the citizens of a state which are different from the language(s) used by the rest of the states population that despite being used on the states territory cannot be associated with a specific geographic area of its territory. The objectives of the Charter are the following: to recognize regional and minority languages as the expression of the cultural wealth of Europe; to respect regional and minority languages in the geographic area they are spoken; to promote these languages through direct actions;

128

to facilitate and encourage the use of these languages in written and oral form, in public and private life; to learn these languages at as many levels of education as possible; to promote cross-border exchanges with a view to promoting these languages; to ban all unjustified forms of distinction, exclusion, restraining and preference linked to the use of these languages that may thwart or even endanger their maintenance and development.

In November 2007 Romania ratified the European Charter of Regional and Minority languages by Law no. 282/2007186. According to the Charter each State has the obligation to specify in the law on ratification each regional and minority language to which certain paragraphs of the Charter are applicable, as selected in accordance with the rules established by it. In the case of Romania these are the Bulgarian, Czech, Croate, German, Hungarian, Russian, Serb, Slovak, Turk, Ucrainean languages. In Sweden there are five languages recognized as minority languages: the Finnish, Menkieli, Sami, Romani and Yiddish languages.

C. The official languages in the EU Member States. EU institutions and the challenge of multilingualism the case of the European Parliament
There are single official languages and co-official languages (including de facto ones, even if they are not specified as such in the Constitutions of the respective States); in the category of official languages are also included the languages that hold this status in non-autonomous territories dependent on European states. Figures available from certain sources for the number of speakers in other states than the states of origin are sometimes non-differentiated by languages, referring to a

186

M.Of. nr. 752/6.11.2007.

129

whole group, for instance to the Southern Slav languages (Denmark 39 000 speakers, Germany 1 190 000 speakers, Sweden 116 000) or to the Serb-Croat. The first Regulation adopted by the European Community in 1958 established the German, French, Italian and Dutch as official languages of its institutions the languages of the founding states: Germany, Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg and the Netherlands187. With each enlargement of the European Community the languages of the new Member States were integrated. In 1973 the English, Danish and Irish were added, the latter only as language of the treaties, meaning that only the Treaty of Irelands Adhesion and the fundamental texts referring to this State have been translated. The next languages gaining the status of official languages had been the Greek in 1981, the Spanish and Portuguese in 1986, the Finnish and Swedish in 1995, the Estonian, Hungarian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Czech, Slovak, Slovene languages in 2004. As of 1st January 2007, after the joining of Romania and Bulgaria, the EU has 23 official languages by adding Romanian and Bulgarian. On the same date Irish became official language. The 23 official languages allow for 506 linguistic combinations, as each language may be translated in another 22. To cope with this challenge, the European Parliament has at its disposal complex services for interpretation, translation and checking of the judicial texts. In addition, strict standards were adopted in order to guarantee the efficiency of these services and to maintain the budget costs within reasonable limits. As a rule, the translators translate texts of an original version in their mother tongue. However, after the last enlargements and the increase of the possible linguistic combinations, sometimes it became difficult to find the person mastering a certain combination of languages, especially when it comes to languages less spread out at EU level. Therefore, to translate the texts drafted in those languages the European Parliament created a spindle system, meaning the texts are firstly translated into the most used
187

Regulation no. 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community,

OJP 17, 6.10.1968, p. 385.

130

languages (English, French or German). In the future other community languages (Spanish, Italian and Polish) might become pivot languages. The European Parliament has at its disposal: a) translation services; they comprise about 700 translators whose task is to translate in all official languages several categories of documents, among which: documents of the meetings during the sessions and of the parliamentary commissions; agendas, draft reports, amendments, adopted reports, opinions, resolutions, written and oral interpellations, minutes and shorthand reports, briefings to the deputies etc.; documents of other political bodies, such as the mixed parliamentary sessions joined by nationally elected individuals and from third countries; decisions of the European Ombudsman; communications to citizens and the Member States; decisions of the European Parliaments internal bodies (the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents, the College of quaestors). b) interpreting services: the main task of the interpreters of the European Parliament is to transmit with fidelity in all official languages and in real time the speeches delivered by the deputies. There are interpreting services for all multilingual meetings organized by the official bodies of the institution. While the task of translators is to produce the various linguistic versions of written documents, the role of the interpreters is to smoothen the proceedings of the meetings so as if all were speaking the same language. The Interpreters Service of the European Parliament employs about 350 interpreting officers and may resort to a reserve pool of about 2.500 external interpreters (auxiliary conference interpreters), who they resort to when in need. The interpreting services are called upon especially for: the plenary sessions; the meetings of the parliamentary commissions, of the parliamentary delegates and of the parity parliamentary meetings; meetings of the political groups; press conferences;

131

meetings of the internal decision making bodies of the parliament (the Bureau, the Conference of Presidents etc.).

During the plenary sessions when simultaneous interpretation is done into and from all the official languages of the EU a number of 800 1000 interpreters are being mobilized. For other meetings, interpretation is assured as a rule according to need. In principle, each interpreter works from the source language towards his/her mother tongue. However, as there are 506 possible linguistic combinations, it is not always easy to find a person capable to interpret by using a certain combination of languages. In this case, a relay system is used, namely interpreting from one language into another passing through a third one - the pivot language. c) legal text checking services. The legislation adopted by the European Parliament addresses a number of about 500 million citizens; the legislation should be identical and without any ambiguity in all languages. Checking the linguistic and legal quality of texts is within the competence of the legal experts-linguists of the Parliament. The European Parliament has at its disposal about 170 jurist-linguists having the task to ensure the conformity of texts in all community languages. Their activity consists mainly of: checking the linguistic quality and the judicial conformity of the texts to be adopted by the parliamentary commissions and subsequently in the plenary sessions; checking and registering the presented amendments; informing on and assisting in all theoretical and practical issues related to procedures, from the first draft of the texts to their adoption in plenary sessions; preparing the election lists for the plenary session.

D. Standard and non-standard definition of common European values. Interpretation of terms that designate common European values depending on the linguistic context

132

The debates in the European Convention for the Future of Europe in 2002-2003 and later in the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004 were somewhat different from those that took place each time when attempts were made to re-define the compromise which enables the European construction. The new approach is mainly related not to institutional matters or issues pertaining to the efficiency of communicating European policies. The specific difference is related to the values around which the European identity is being built, while the Treaty of the European Union (TEU) includes only references to the common values of the EU without providing the list of those. Obviously there is a political will to define such an identity. Without a European identity endorsed by each of the actors in the community space, any political project aiming at harmonizing the institutions of the European Union with the transnational realities is doomed to failure. Any attempt to define European identity cannot provide a form that would take into account the national, regional, religious and linguistic identities that represent the unique character of a continent. The plurality of languages, cultures and religions, in a continuous dialogue excluding any radical position, are obviously the founding ground of the definition of a European identity. However, this plurality is the factor that reduces the chances to reach a compromise: the inter-cultural and interreligious dialogue has often leads to conflicting situations. Currently it is impossible to define a European identity since the respect of the difference is the very essence of the European project. A first step would be, as we mentioned, the definition of a common set of endorsed values to outline a European identity. This attempt to list the values has already taken place: according to the compromise reached during the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004, the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe included (in Article 2) a reference to the common European values. These are: respect of human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the state of law, and the respect of human rights. The same provision contains an additional specification: these values are common to the Member States in a society characterized by pluralism, tolerance, justice and nondiscrimination188.
188

For comments of the Article 2 of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe, see Radu CARP,

Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun [The European political project from values to common action] , Editura Universitii din Bucureti, Bucureti, 2006, pp. 105-107.

133

The European Council of June 2007 decided to adopt a Reform Treaty that would include amendments to the TEU and to the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC), the latter to be called the Treaty on the functioning of the Union189. According to the Conclusions of this European Council, the compromise of 2004 for the definition of common European values will be maintained in the new form of the TEU (Article 2), as revised by the Reform Treaty after its ratification by the EU Member States. Moreover, at the same European Council it was decided that the new form of Article 3 TEU should stipulate that the EU respects cultural and linguistic diversity. Standardization of a list of common European values is not sufficient to conclude that the new form of Article 2 TEU would lead to its endorsement by European citizens. In this context it is worth mentioning that in spring 2002 the President of the European Commission at that time, Romano Prodi, created a Reflection Group by the Commission with the aim to formulate recommendations related to the cultural and spiritual dimension of Europe. The Group was coordinated by Krysztof Michalski of the Institut fr die Wissenschaften von Menschen in Vienna and included cultural personalities from most EU Member States having the most varied cultural and religious experiences. The Report of this Group190 was published in October 2004, after a compromise reached on the text of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. The Report pointed to the fact that the definition of a list of common European values is not sufficient for strengthening the European unity and the attempt to codify such a list is inevitably conflicting with the great variety of significances national, regional, ethnic, sectarian and social. One of the conclusions of the Report was that there is no fixed list of European values. The Report

189

Council of the European Union, Brussels European Council 21/22 June 2007 Presidency Conclusions, Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislav GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, Concluding Remarks on the

Brussels, 11177/07, CONCL 2.


190

Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe, Vienna/Brussels, October 2004; translation into Romanian of this Report: Ce ine Europa la un loc? [What keeps Europe alltogether?] , Dilema veche nr. 56, 11-17 februarie 2005. For comments on this Report, see Cornelia GU, Rolul valorilor culturale n fondarea unei comuniti politice europene [The role of the cultural values in the establishment of a European political community], in Radu CARP (ed,) Un suflet pentru Europa. Dimensiunea religioas a unui proiect politic [A soul for Europe. The religious dimension of a political project], Editura Fundaiei Anastasia, Bucureti, 2005, pp. 86-100.

134

did not deny the attempts to codify common European values but drew attention to the limitations of such an approach. On the other hand, the Report asserted that there is no doubt that a European cultural space does exist but this space cannot be positively defined and delimited, because European culture is not a fact but a process. The conclusions of the Report could not be taken into account while the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe was drafted. However, we cannot understand why they were not taken into consideration in June 2007, when at the European Council the entire standardized construction resulted from the compromise of 2004 was again brought to the fore. Coming back to the future form of Article 2 TEU, should we understand that the society in discussion is the European one? Or it is just an ideal model of social organisation, where the values in question enable the functioning of the institutions and the solidarity of citizens? In our opinion, it is not by chance that this ambiguity has been maintained. According to the logic of the future of the TEU that will be part of the Reform Treaty, on one hand we have universal values that translate at European level the democratic foundations of the Member States and on the other hand, pluralism, tolerance etc., acting at national level. Do the latter have the same status of values? The answer can be but affirmative, provided that this assertion be placed within a neutral text from a normative point of view. However, if we take into account that we deal with a corpus of norms of political-judicial value, the answer should be refined. At least some of the words included in the second part of the future form of Article 2 TEU have a religious component: pluralism, tolerance and solidarity. As concerns the concept of tolerance and the possible interpretations associated to it depending on one or another of the linguistic contexts, some remarks should be made. According to Jrgen Habermas, the German term of Toleranz was borrowed from the Latin and French in the 16th century in the period of religious wars. This term had a meaning restrained to the tolerance towards other religious confessions. Only later in the 17th and 18th centuries tolerance gained a judicial connotation and less a religious one. The religious origin of the term explains, according to Habermas, why the English

135

language makes a distinction between tolerance (as a form of behaviour) and toleration (with judicial meaning)191. To assert that concepts such as pluralism, tolerance or solidarity are part of the category of common European values that enable the creation of a European identity would have been a great risk: the risk to recognise the religious, particularly, Christian, origin of certain concepts that define political action. Not to state them as such would also have been a risk, that of dissatisfying certain States which bestow on religion a significant role in public life. Finally, as was the case with the Preamble of the future form of TEU, a compromise was chosen. But is this compromise, reflected in a formula subject to multiple interpretations, the most suitable way to reach a European identity? For the time being we can only formulate hazardous hypotheses. In conclusion, it is difficult to establish a list of common European values in a legal text accepted by all EU Member States, because there are differences in interpreting the nature of these values in one or another of the national contexts, and in some cases these differences are also determined by linguistic diversity. Taking into account these limitations, how should Article 2 of the future form of TEU be interpreted so as to allow for the implementation of these values when defining common European policies based on these values? To answer this question, we should notice in the first place that no need was felt to define the mentioned common values. The lack of definitions does not impede on their interpretation. As a rule the language of a legal act is a combination of everyday language and the specialized legal language. It does not mean that the terms used in the treaty concerning the common European values might be interpreted by their common meaning. Even in the absence of a legal definition of common European values, these terms should be interpreted in relation with the context the whole acquis communautaire, because when it comes to a text of judicial value the meaning of words is given by the legal context192. Interpreting in relation to the legal context may be done by two specific methods: noscitur a sociis (the meaning of a term is revealed through its
191

Jrgen HABERMAS, Intolerance and discrimination, I. CON, vol. 1, no. 1, 2003, pp. 2-12 (French Mark VAN HOECKE, Definiiile legale i interpretarea legii [Legal definitions and the interpretation

language version: De la tolrance religieuse aux droits culturels, Cits, 13, PUF, Paris, 2003, pp. 147-170).
192

of law] , in (ed) Dragan STOIANOVICI, Logica i dreptul [The logic and the law] , Paideia, Bucureti, 2006, p. 106 and seq.

136

association with other terms in a given legal context) and respectively ejusdem generis (a particular application of the previous method; according to this method of interpretation, the generally formulated meaning of the term which completes an enumeration is limited to terms of the same kind as those which are part of the enumeration)193. Another issue arising in relation with the attempts to standardise the common European values and which is linked to the interpretation of these values in a broader legal context is whether the enumeration used by the future form of Article 2 TEU is a limiting one. There are no other official EU documents referring to other common European values that those presented above, with a single exception. In a Communication from the Commission in 2006194, which reiterates a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the European Year of Languages 2001195 it is specified that the respect for linguistic diversity is a fundamental value of the European Union. This exception is only apparent, as a Communication from the Commission is not part of the legal context to which the provisions of Article 2 should be related in the future form of TEU. Consequently, linguistic diversity is not part of the common European values, in strict legal sense. It does not mean that the respect due to linguistic diversity should not be guaranteed by measures of equal intensity as those which would guarantee the values considered to be common European values.

E. Issues generated by the linguistic equivalence of terms used in official languages in the basic EU documents
The effort of linguistic translation and adaptation of the European legislation into the languages of Member States, beside the costs of financing and managing complex
193

For details on these two methos of interpretation see Pierre - Andr CT, Interprtation des lois, 2me Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic

edition, Yvon Blais, Montral, 1990, pp. 293-314.


194

and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new framework strategy for multilingualism, Brussels, COM (2005) 596 final, 22.11.2005.
195

Decision no. 1934/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 on the

European Year of Languages 2001 OJ L 232, 14.9.2000.

137

procedures, encounters an immediate practical difficulty. Beyond the poli-semantism of words in various languages, the translator faces also the different historic evolution, an evolution stored in the connotative senses of the respective terms. Even the term Constitution used in the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe that was certainly not ratified due to cultural perceptions too, is a political concept differently expressed in the Member States, depending upon the historic evolution of the respective societies. The difficulties of translation and, hence, of interpretation of the common European values are also linked to the fact that what was called European construction represents a set of concepts in permanent evolution: Europe keeps changing over time, the European idea differing from one individual to the other, from one group to the other196. The concept state of law is rendered in various ways in different languages: tat de droit, Rechtsstaatlichkeit, stati di diritto, but as rule-of-law in English, the translator of European legislation needing not only linguistic abilities but judicial and historic knowledge too, so as to integrate it in the judicial context in which it is used and which obviously is different from one State to another. Thus the context may be a general legal one, of penal law, of European law, with reference to defence policies but also to the sources of law or to the concept of state, all of which requires from the translator to apply sometimes complex cross references, a triangulation of the definitions in various sources, to be sure that he/she is rendering the correct meaning intended by the original text. For instance what in Romanian is misiunea integrat a Uniunii Europene de sprijinire a statului de drept n Irak in French becomes mission integre Etat de droit de lUnion Europenne pour lIraq, in Italian missione integrate dellUnione europea sullo stato di diritto per lIraq, in German integrierte Mission der Europischen Union zur Sttzung der Rechtsstaalichkeit im Iraq, relatively similar variants from linguistic point of view but with different emphases, the English variant being very short: integrated rule-of-law in Iraq197. The differences are due to the particular historic development of the concept in the anglo-saxon world and in Europe. Thus, at general level rule of law means that nobody, irrespective of being a government representative,
196 197

Peter RIETBERGEN, Europe A Cultural History, 2nd edition, Routledge, London, 2006, p. XXIX. IATE ID: 836800, http://iate.europa.eu/iatediff/SearchByQueryResult.do.

138

private citizen or representative of a group of interests, is above the law and therefore cannot prevail himself/herself of special privileges. In other words, the rule of law clearly regulated in written public documents is opposed to the arbitrary whimsical rule of people. In the European continental approach the principle of rule of law has been frequently associated with the principle of state of law dominated by the German and French legal thinking, while the modern Anglo-American approach implies separation of powers, legal security, the principle of legitimate expectation and equality of all in front of the law. The difficulties in translating the texts of documents of the EU institutions are a reality accepted and recognized as such by all stakeholders in this vital but very sensitive domain of the multilingual community mechanism of communication. Procedures were developed that guarantee the quality of translation through revision, checking and survey and in particular through a continuous mechanism of training and information of the translators. The consequence and unity in using the terminology is guaranteed by using an advanced technology that contains the memory of translations performed in the entire institutional system of the community and data bases containing the core terminology of the EU. While the Directorate-General for Translation (DGT) utilises also on a large scale external services for translation, the external collaborators are closely monitored with a view to ensuring quality and are given an evaluation on the quality of the product delivered. But the quality of translations is directly linked to the issue of correct drafting of the source-text, which in most cases is the product of experts working in a language different from their mother tongue. The documents prepared by any public authority should be characterized by clarity and concision and by the use of an exact wording; in order to avoid the drafting difficulties of experts in various fields of activity, as they do not possess special linguistic or communication skills, the DGT has created a Drafting Unit with the task to correct and edit the language of source-texts after direct negotiations with the authors of the original text. Despite all these measures for assuring the quality of translations, there are problems of rendering into the official languages the terms used by the EU institutions, problems stemming naturally from the specificity of each language, the different evolution of societies in each Member State, and the cultural profile of the many groups that make up the population of the EU. In order to avoid translations that

139

are linguistically correct but detached from the natural everyday reality of the official languages, the DGT created a mechanism for checking the quality of translations by the so-called localisation test of the message198 through which the translators of the local offices of the DGT maintain contact with the live, local language, collaborating with universities and other institutions of training, in order to cope with the rapid development of live languages, in evolution, reflecting in particular ways the excessive dynamics of life under globalization. This test represents the extent to which the messages prepared by the European institutions are understood by the local public of the Member States, the test becoming a measure of the legitimacy, transparency and credibility of the European project for the European citizens. Another issue connected to the ones mentioned above is the use of the concept foreign language in the European speaks. The EU is striving to standardize the way the non-mother-tongues of citizens are called in the Member States, of what until recently used to be called without negative connotation foreign language. It is obvious that inside the EU at community level there could not be foreign languages, because all the 23 official languages have the same status, therefore the term languages is being used according to the portal Languages and Europe199 (in French Les Langues de lEurope) which is translated into Romanian as Multilingvismul i Europa200. The term limbi has in se pejorative connotations, and its neutral value appears when used in the syntagm limbi strine. Language learning and Language teaching (in French Apprentissage des langues and Enseignement des langues) have as their Romanian equivalent on the portal Invarea limbilor strine i Predarea limbilor strine. If at the EU level the term languages is constantly used when reference is made to persons, individual European citizens or to mobilities, the syntagm foreign languages continues to be used when describing key competences for lifelong learning201, where distinction is made between communication in mother tongue and communication in foreign languages. It is worth
198

Karl Johan LNNROTH, Translation practices in the Commission, CICEB Conference Committee of http://europa.eu/languages/en/home. Ibidem. Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences

the Regions, 21 September 2006.


199 200 201

for lifelong learning, OJ L 394, 18.12.2006.

140

noting that only the Romanian version keeps the syntagm foreign languages, the other linguistic versions preferring a variant without the qualifying foreign which is considered by certain persons as being unnatural within a community of Member States having equal status official languages. We consider that there is a gap between using in Romanian the term languages in many official neutral contexts and other European languages, but the frequent use makes it accepted as wee can also see from the Romanian version of the Report of the High Level Group in matters of multilingualism, where we have both variants of use. It can be seen in the example below202 that the same text has different nuances in variants presented in different languages, the Romanian variant being less precise203 from a stylistic point of view, though closer to the variant in French, albeit the language in which the document had been drafted was English. A possible explanation is the fact that the group of translators in Romanian language from the DGT has only started to adapt themselves to the formal requirements of text drafting, without training sessions similar to the translator teams from traditional languages, among which English and French are also working languages and respectively languages for drafting the working documents and, consequently, the specialists who work in the respective languages constantly participate in sessions where they are instructed on how to draft and edit texts. Instructing sessions are constantly organized for those who draft documents on ways of text drafting and editing, which results in the production of a clearer more coherent initial text, easier to translate in another languages. Motivaia este o cheie, dac nu chiar cheia principal, pentru o bun stpnire a limbilor strine. Motivaia celor care nv o limb strin este elementul decisiv, indispensabil pentru realizarea performanelor dorite n contextul
202

Motivation is a key, if not the key, to successful language learning. Enhancing learner motivation is the crucial element in achieving the desired breakthrough in language learning across Europe. (29 words)

La motivation est une clef, voire la clef, d'un bon apprentissage des langues. Renforcer la motivation de l'apprenant est l'lment crucial pour raliser la perce dsire de l'apprentissage des langues en Europe. (32 words)

Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multishort_ro.pdf, p. 3

for lifelong learning, OJ L 394, 18.12.2006.


203

141

nvrii limbilor n spaiul european. (38 words)

2. MULTILINGUALISM IN EUROPEAN CONTEXT


A. Definition of multilingualism Multilingualism is defined in a restrained sense as the alternative use of several languages; in a broad sense, the alternative use of several linguistic systems, irrespective of their status: separate languages, dialects of the same language or even varieties of the same idiom. Multilingualism is a consequence of linguistic contact. The term multilingualism includes bilingualism and also tri-lingualism. There are various typologies of multilingualism that take into consideration various criteria sociological, psychological and linguistic. The following distinctions are frequent: a) depending on the social scope of the phenomenon: social multilingualism (collective) of an entire community; group multilingualism; individual multilingualism; b) depending on the genesis: successive (sequential) multilingualism the second language is learned after the fixation of the first one (after 3-4 years) or late multilingualism a distinction similar to the previous one but which allows for the identification of sub-type by the age at which the second, the third etc. language is learned. The multilingual speaker acquired at least one language during childhood, the so-called first language learned without a formal education. Children acquiring two languages at birth are called simultaneous bilingual. Even in case of simultaneous bilingualism there is one dominating language. As a rule this type of bilingualism appears in children 142

raised by bilingual parents in a predominantly monolingual environment or in children raised by monolingual parents in countries where different languages are spoken. c) depending on the relationship of languages as reflected in use: compounded multilingualism languages are considered functionally similar, their units being in a relationship of correspondence (the case of languages learned in school). The speakers are usually fluent in two or more linguistic systems; coordinated multilingualism the languages are functionally separated, considering that their units express partially or totally distinct significations (one of the languages is being used in official situations: administration, school etc., the other one in family, among friends etc.; e.g. the case of Aromanians in Greece). The speakers use a different intonation and a different pronunciation, associated with a different social behaviour; d) depending on the degree of knowledge: symmetrical multilingualism all languages are known to the same extent (a rarely encountered situation); asymmetrical multilingualism there are differences in knowledge; receptor multilingualism (passive) one of the languages is understood, but not spoken; written multilingualism one of the languages is understood in reading but not in hearing; technical multilingualism one of the languages is known only to the extent required by strict professional need; e) depending on the political situation in a State or in a super-state community: impersonal multilingualism characteristic to the governance in a state with monolingual citizens (the case of Belgium); personal multilingualism characteristic in a State where governance is monolingual but its citizens are plurilingual; in this case, multilingualism may be: natural resulting from a mixed marriage, life in a frontier region or in an aloglot environment; voluntary (promoting) determined by the individuals wish to get promoted in a multilingual transnational society (the case of the European Union); decreed (by concession) based on the State authority but contrary to the citizens wishes (the case of non-Hungarian minorities in Hungary before World War One).

143

The study of multilingualism allows for the identification and description of the mechanism and structural consequences of the contacts between languages. Multilingualism induces the emergence of phenomena of interference at all levels of the structures of idioms that are in contact, bringing about reorganizing processes of the structural patterns. Albeit, usually, composed multilingualism is associated with permeability to interferences, while the coordinated one is considered impervious, interferences take place in both cases; within the process of formation of various languages multilingualism and the phenomena of interference it determines have played an important role. Usually, multilinguals present code switching. The concept of code switching designates the individuals capacity to switch from a language to another, from a dialect or style to other ones in the course of a verbal dialogue or, as Carol Myers-Scotton formulated, in the course of the same conversation the bilinguals select certain forms from the embedded language (EL) for the matrix language (ML)204. One can assume that the bilingual/multilingual speaker may intuitively identify matrix language as the one that allows mixing in elements belonging to another one (EL) and meantime there is always the possibility of changes from ML to EL, depending on various external factors either synchronic, during the same conversation, or diachronic, resulting from a certain historic-political evolution of a community. The shift corresponds to the endorsement of one or another of the identities motivated by various situations and is considered a stable phenomenon in multilingual communities.

B. Dissemination forms of multilingualism: education, the audio-visual sector


The permanent interest of the EU for the dissemination of multilingualism is most clearly expressed by the European policies adopted and implemented over time. Thus, as early as 1989 the first comprehensive programme LINGUA for promoting language
204

Carol MYERS SCOTTON, Duelling languages: Grammatical structures in codeswitching, Oxford

University Press, Oxford, 1993.

144

learning and teaching was launched. Year 2001 was declared the European Year of Languages, and at its end the European Commission was invited by the European Parliament and by the Council to undertake further actions with a view to promoting languages. In recent years, communication in other languages is included among the eight main competences of lifelong learning 205. In 2002 a Working Group for languages was created206, including officials responsible in the Member States for policies in the domain of languages, a group having regular meetings for information exchange and definition of good practices. The Commission will continue to support Member States in their efforts to enhance the quality of language teaching, to increase the number of taught languages and to promote linguistically oriented schools. As concerns learning, additional actions are necessary in order to increase awareness of the importance to learn several languages, along with the initiatives of motivating students and adults to acquire languages through informal learning, through means that reduces the pressure on formal learning and meanwhile provides efficient alternatives for linguistic acquisitions. While most measures recommended by the Action Plan for promoting language learning and linguistic diversity initially concerned primary education and training of teachers who would ensure the development of linguistic competences in other languages, currently emphasis is put on adult language learning, on the enlargement of its scope, including stakeholders from the business environment, on lifelong professional training and on the informal learning of languages through the media and cultural activities207. In the audio-visual field the EU has a specialized programme MEDIA 2007 208 that continues four other MEDIA programmes (MEDIA I, II, Plus and Training) having as its objectives: to consolidate the audiovisual sector of the EU reflecting the European
205

Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences Within the programme Education and Training 2010,

for lifelong learning, op. cit.


206

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/policy/expert_en.html.
207

Commission working document, Report on the implementation of the Action Plan Promoting language http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/media/docs/overview/media-en.pdf.

learning and linguistic diversity, Brussels, COM (2007) 554 final, 25.9.2007.
208

145

patrimony and cultural identity; to increase the circulation of audio-video products within and beyond EU boundaries and to transform the European audiovisual sector in a competitive one by facilitating access to financing and by utilizing digital technologies. However, most probably the emblematic image of the EU in the audiovisual domain and in disseminating multilingualism in Europe is the television channel EuroNews209. EuroNews was created in 1993 but became the official channel of the European Community in February 2005, broadcasting simultaneously in 7 languages (English, French, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian) 24 hours daily and seven days weekly. EuroNews reaches over 150 million households in 78 countries being watched daily by 8 million people; it exceeds the audience of CNN and BBC and became the reference channel for news from the EU. Both the MEDIA programme and EuroNews are part of an indirect strategy but nonetheless efficient in promoting multilingualism through the so-called informal methods of language learning and of getting aware of the European cultural heritage. It is an important opening towards what the English call edutainment, i.e. achieving education through entertainment, a means more and more used to motivate people for language learning, for knowing other cultures, for the discovery of own identity through knowing the cultural identity of others. Beside tourism, which in itself is a driving force for the development of multilingualism, education through entertainment seems to be one of the most powerful and efficient means of motivation, maybe also because people feel the need of a non-formal learning method avoiding the strict and inhibitive control of school. The use of Internet is part of the same type of strategies, which on one hand may provide the necessary support for language learning through the web-sites with pedagogical materials, the computerized learning activities on the Internet, the instruction books or educational portals and, on the other hand, provides access to YouTube adapted for the promotion of EU activities210 under the slogan Sharing the sights and sounds of Europe. Thus an interesting and also sensitive issue of the European linguistic diversity enters the debate: where does the interest for the promotion of this diversity stop and what is the role of the community institutions in the provision of linguistic services to
209 210

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/avservices/about/euronews_en.cfm. Cf. http://www.youtube.com/eutube.

146

citizens of non-Member States residing in the EU and whose mother tongue is not one of the EU languages? How different should be the treatment of non-official EU languages? The European Council recognizes the official languages that co-exist in certain countries of the EU (the regional languages). The Member States may finance within certain limits the provision of translation and interpretation services into these languages within the European institutions. Therefore, out of practical considerations in the first place, all nonofficial languages of the EU, including almost 40 regional languages are being treated at the same level as the languages from outside the EU. There are a number of exceptions for regional languages such as the Catalane, the Bask and the Galician, which have an intermediate status through which citizens have the right to communicate with the EU institutions in the respective languages, but the costs of communication are covered by the Spanish Government with the translations it offers. Another sensitive issue of dealing with linguistic diversity is the extent to which the knowledge or the lack of knowledge of the official language becomes a barrier for the resident whose mother tongue is not spoken in the Member States of the EU. In the context of the multilingual European society it is difficult to make recommendations that would cover all the actual situations. This aspect is mentioned and even stressed in the Recommendation of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences for lifelong learning211, which notes, even if only in a footnote, that mother tongue is not always an official language of a Member State and that the ability to communicate in an official language is a pre-condition to ensure the individuals full participation to society. The same discussion is valid for learning other languages by persons living in bi-lingual or multi-lingual families and communities in a Member State having an official language which is different from their mother tongue. For these groups the competence to communicate in a language should be understood rather as a competence to speak an official language, and the necessity, motivation and social and/or economic reasons to develop this competence for integration would be different from those when learning another language to practice tourism or to obtain a job. The measures for solving these

211

Recommendation no. 2006/962/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on key competences

for lifelong learning, op. cit.

147

kinds of situations are left with the Member State which would decide on the individual approaches, according to its needs and specific circumstances.

C. Learning languages at various education levels (university, preuniversity) and professional formation/reconversion
Tackling languages within the education systems of the EU Member States has always been considered important, but naturally there were particular ways in which their learning had been present in the curricula of education institution. A Report of the European Commission212 makes a synthesis of the situation in the EU Member States, presenting the situation of the implementation of policies for language teaching as issued from the action plan Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity 2004-2006. The study reveals that, though language learning is compulsory in almost all countries from increasingly lower ages, the variety of languages offered for study is, with some exceptions, limited, the English being predictably in the first place. The most visible progress was registered at the secondary education level, without reaching in all institutions the objective of providing two languages. As concerns high education, this does not represent the period when the students would significantly expand their multilingual abilities in any of the countries included in the study. At adult education level, which is the most developed sector of multilingual education, an efficient structuring of concrete actions has not been reached yet, despite the significant funds allocated and the concrete initiatives. The formal education, especially at tertiary level, does not include coherent programmes of adult multilingual education, the study of a language when effected being mostly limited to the English as the language that offers the most chances for mobility and professional reconversion. In Romania the study of languages was always officially encouraged, in particular knowledge of several languages at advanced performance levels, and was a factor of social prestige, a fact that could be explained mainly by the relative territorial defined
212

Commission working document, Report on the implementation of the Action Plan Promoting language

learning and linguistic diversity, op. cit.

148

character of the use of Romanian. Anyway, as early as 1965 a varied offer of language learning had been introduced in the Romanian system of primary and secondary education from age 8 (second degree) for the first language and from age 12 for the second language (sixth degree); children and parents may choose between English, German, French, Spanish and Russian languages, noting that the offer is larger in the urban areas and especially in big cities. The English has been one of the most popular languages, and its teaching in public schools was of the highest quality, with normal variations from one school to another213. Over the period 1996-2005, in pre-university education in Romania the offer for the first or second study language, for various segments of school population, included: English, French, German, Russian, Spanish, Italian, Greek, Japanese, Portuguese and Norwegian214, which stresses once more the interest of both officials and students and parents for language study. Multilingualism does not only mean the use and dissemination of working languages of the EU but also represent, in particular in recent years, a strategy of promotion of regional languages in Europe as a reaction to the European lay-people perception of loosing their own cultural identity. As we mentioned, the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages, is currently ratified by 15 EU Member States, a fact that resulted in a better representation of those languages in an area where previously they were merely tolerated. However, the first generations of economic migrants in the new host-country do not always wish to request education in their mother tongue, and families do not always encourage multilingualism strongly enough. Despite the fact that there are not sufficiently relevant data, we can mention the example of Romanian communities in Spain, requesting and being granted an offer to learn their mother tongue, an offer that was supported by the authorities in both states, Spain and respectively Romania.

D. Public private relationship for language learning


213

Mariana NICOLAE, Training and development in transition: A Romanian Perspective, vol. IATEFL For statistical data that exceed the framework of this presentation see Anuarul Statistic 2005 [The

TDTR 3, Whitstable, UK, 1998, p. 41.


214

Statistical Yearbook 2005] , chapter Education, http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap8.pdf.

149

High demand for language speakers on the labour market in Romania and the increased mobility of the labour force after 1989 resulted in significant changes in the quality of language offers on the Romanian educational market. The chronic underfunding of the Romanian education system triggered an important migration of language teachers from education to other employers, usually in the business environment, leaving a rather huge gap of qualified personnel, a gap which is being felt mostly in rural areas or in less developed urban areas215. A general overview of the institutional offer in Romania for language teaching reveals the following forms: in public and private pre-school education (kindergarten; where language fees are paid by the parents); in state school education, in state-schools with bi-lingual profile of intensive language learning; in private lyceum education (the number of private high-schools increased significantly in the recent years from 8 in Romania, two in Bucharest in 1997 to about 13 in Bucharest and over 50 at country level216), private schools created by companies, organisations, embassies and foreign cultural institutes, private language schools. As concerns the number of these schools, it is difficult to have a picture due to the lack of studies in the domain, but taking into account the offer of courses appearing in advertisement channels, it may be assumed that their number is very high. Moreover, on the Romanian market one of the preferred ways of learning and consolidating ones language knowledge is still the 1x1 system, i.e. with a private teacher.

215

The crisis of teachers specialized in foreign languages continues. The number of teachers is tottaly

insufficient, not only at the level of Bucharest, but also at the level of the entire country (statement of Marian Banu, spokeperson of the Bucharest School Inspectorate, http://www.gardianul.ro/2007/03/08/societate-c12/limba_straina_impusa_de_directorii_scolilors91162.html); A profound lack of teachers is at the level of foreign languages (statement of Ladislau Konya, Deputy General School Inspector, http://www.gazetanord-vest.ro/arhiva/2007/iulie/25iul/index_files/actualitatea.htm).
216

Mariana NICOLAE, Standards of Quality in Private Language Teaching The Romanian Situation , aspect of the European Union, Thessaloniki, Greece, 1997 and

International Conference Private Language Education in Europe. Its contribution to the multilingual and multicultural http:/www.calificativ.ro/Informatii/utile/Lista_de_licee_particulare_autorizate_187.html.

150

Lack of data concerning providers of linguistic services in Romania, not only language courses, is obvious. Even when they exist, they are fragmented, usually on language and provider type, hampering the creation of a coherent overview on the diversity of offers on the market. A study should be initiated which on one hand would contribute to knowing the situation in Romania in order to adopt development strategies at national level and, on the other hand, would contribute to Romanias insertion in the European landscape through European programmes and collaboration with various European service providers.

E. The role of linguistic competence certificates on the European labour market


Labour mobility on the European market and beyond requires an acute need for transparency and transferability of professional skills and competences. Certification of linguistic competences is an issue of great importance at individual level but also sensitive at institutional and even national levels, the certification activity being an important source of revenue for the providing institution. In Europe there are currently about 300 certificates for 27 languages, with the exception of those within the framework of national education systems217. The certificates were inventoried and described in 2006 in a study entitled Inventory of Language Certification in Europe, A Report to the European Commission Directorate General for Education and Culture carried out by the National Foundation for Educational Research in Great Britain The European Commission had been invited to develop a European indicator of linguistic competence (the European Indicator of Language Competence) using tests with scores based on the scale of the Common European Framework of Reference for

217

Mariana NICOLAE, Standards of Quality in Private Language Teaching The Romanian Situation , aspect of the European Union, Salonic, Greece, 1997 and

international conference Private Language Education in Europe. Its contribution to the multilingual and multicultural http:/www.calificativ.ro/Informatii/utile/Lista_de_licee_particulare_autorizate_187.html.

151

Languages CEFRL. This Framework, together with ALTE218, represents an orientation used to describe the progress of language learners, its main objective being to offer a framework for evaluation methods applicable to all languages in Europe. CEFRL consists of a six level scale for various linguistic abilities, divided in three major groups: the basic user (A1-A2), the independent user (B1-B2) and the very good user (C1-C2). The six levels of reference are largely accepted in the Member States as evaluation standard of the linguistic competence of an individual. The study on language competence certificates in Europe included 31 countries, among which also non-member states that participated in the Socrates and Leonardo programmes, revealing 37 national or regional languages with a potential to have language competence certificates. These are certificates that are issued after evaluating young people and adults from any country, not certificates that are issued to citizens as national diplomas. Therefore, these are certificates developed to evaluate the language competence of foreign individuals who enter a country and not those issued for language exams in languages others than those learned as part of the education system of the respective countries. Though Romania was among the countries included in the study, the research team could not find any information on Romanian as a foreign language219. We consider that we need a programme for the development of a procedure to evaluate the language competence of foreigners who speak or wish to learn the Romanian language and for the issuance of a language competence certificate for the Romanian language as a foreign language. This is an ideal requirement, part of the integration process of Romania in the EU and also in the perspective of international good practices which require under the terms of the global market of capital and labour force the existence of modern tools for evaluating and teaching a language but also from a pragmatic point of view as a means of generating income. In the years to come, Romania would presumably witness a growing number of foreign individuals who would wish to study or work220 in organisations on its territory where the working language is
218

ALTE The Association of Language Testers in Europe is an association with 31 institutional members, Jenny BRADSHAW, Catherine KIRKUP, op. cit., p. 10. It is estimated that currently there are 12.000 persons working in Romania with working permits, but the on the labour market is estimated at nearly 200.000 foreign workers

representing 26 European languages.


219 220

deficit

152

Romanian. They would need modern interactive courses of learning Romanian. There still is a deficit on the Romanian market in both situations, albeit Romanian language courses started to be prepared and published in greater number especially by foreign publishers or private language schools. However, certification is still a wish despite the great number of actors in universities, research institutes and private entities, who could initiate study programmes, describe and prepare tests for the Romanian language. Romania as a Member State of the EU should be in line with good practices in the field of multilingualism and drafting language competences for the Romanian language as a foreign language is hence an important condition.

F. Promoting Romanian language as study language in the EU Member States


The successive enlargements of the European Union, the high mobility of citizens and the globalization process have contributed to the emergence of new waves of immigrants and increased the permutability of languages, cultures and confessions in the EU. To cope with the challenges generated by the new realities it is necessary to develop an intercultural dialogue with an important linguistic component, the language being the most direct expression of every culture. Knowledge of languages is essential for the intercultural dialogue and it can be acquired mainly through education. Languages are in the focus of EU initiatives in encouraging education, because they reflect the different European cultures and, in the same time, they offer the key for understanding them. Promotion of languages in the European education systems is an
(http://www.romaniallibera.ro/a101826/val-de-muncitori-straini-in-romania.html); (http://www.hotnews.ro/Arhiva_noiembrie_2007/articol_1086894/-.htm). The entrepreneurs associations and the trade unions in building, the area most affected by lack of personnel, are looking for solutions to solving this situation; the trade unions even created a sectoral committee for migrant workers, so as the potential construction workers have legal working papers and possibly be qualified in vocational schools. This clearly requires the opening of an important market of qualified linguistic services and the creation of certificates for the Romanian language as a foreign language, at various levels of language competence.

153

important aspect of this portfolio, declared the speaker of the European Commission Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen221. Communication of EU institutions with the citizens they are serving is an exclusively supra-national competence, and according to the Communication of the European Commission, adopted in November 2005, Member States are recognized as having exclusive competence in the field of education, but they are invited to comply with the so-called rule of the EU one plus two, by which the EU recommends to the Member States to study another two languages in addition to mother tongue. The ministers of education in Romania and Italy decided, by signing a common Declaration of Intent,222 to valorise the strategic role of collaboration between the two States in the field of education. It is of strategic importance due to the need to further the European Union construction based on the reciprocal knowledge of its peoples. By this Declaration, the two ministers considered that it is desirable to subsequently develop, in a bi-lateral framework, the perspectives of collaboration between the two countries, especially stimulating the direct engagement of schools and students in any possible form of contacts and exchange of experience. With reference to the framework of the European Union, it is opportune to materialize any useful synergies towards the achievement of the Lisbon Strategy goals and, in particular, that of promoting in the education systems the objectives related to a more thorough reciprocal knowledge, this being a tool of education for democracy and active citizenship that should be also present in multilanguage learning. Therefore, it has been decided to gradually introduce, as of the academic year 2007-2008, Romanian language, culture and civilisation courses at all levels in Italy and Spain where there are students of Romanian origin. This initiative fully coincides with the orientation to promote in the Italian and Spanish school systems the full authentic intercultural integration of students, irrespective of their origin. The selection of teachers who will teach these courses has been done through competition organized by the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth (MERY) and the Institute of Romanian Language (IRL) in August 2007, in accordance with a
221 222

http://www.guv.ro/presa/integrare/afis-doc.php?idpresa=197. http:/www.edu.ro.

154

Methodology prepared by the MERY. The teachers selected at the competition signed a contract of collaboration with MERY and IRL and they would be periodically evaluated during the academic year by a Monitoring Committee. The teaching norm of a teacher included in this programme is of 18 hours per week and a gross salary of 2.196 Euros. MERY finances 32 full academic norms. Romanian language hours will be available also for Italian and Spanish children who wish to learn Romanian. The manuals will be provided by MERY; they will be special ones, having a new programme to the intention of students studying abroad. The Romanian minister of education, research and youth declared that in 2008 new manuals will be edited so as to include basic notions of Romanian language, history and geography. The Ministry of Education and Science in Spain and the Ministry of Public Instruction in Italy designated the education units into which these courses will be taught. For the academic year 2007-2008 the courses will be organized in 31 Spanish localities and in 3 Italian ones. In Italy the courses of Romanian language, culture and civilisation will be held in school units in Rome (12 hours/week), Torino (18 hours /week), Padova (8 hours/week), cities where there are numerous Romanians. In Spain, the courses of Romanian language, culture and civilisation will be held in school units in Madrid (24 hours/week), Guadalajara (16 hours/week), Alcanar (8 hours/week), Leida (24 hours/week), Azunquena de Henares (6 hours/week), Mollerusa (8 hours/week). The Spanish and Italian authorities provide classrooms and computers in the respective school units and ensure training courses for the teachers selected by MERY and IPL. As per Annex to the Order of MERY no. 1303 of June 2007 223 the programme of the optional course Romanian language, culture and civilisation for Romanian students learning in schools outside Romanias borders was approved. The programme intends to facilitate the contact of students with the Romanian language, culture and civilisation with a view to exercising and improving communication in their mother tongue, to getting acquainted with the important episodes of Romanian history, to assimilating the values of Romanian culture and civilisation and
223

Ibidem.

155

to developing own identity in the context of European values. The major theme is related to the formation of the Romanian people, from the perspective of both historical information and popular mythology (popular or cult myths and legends). The interest for the origin of the Romanian people is combined with the interest for their place of origin or of their parents, as they would be able to discover from several perspectives through projects developed during the school year. In the domain of Romanian language, the programme intends to deal with correct pronunciation and writing (having regard also to the similitude and the differences between the Romanian and Italian, respectively Spanish languages). The programme also has in view to tackle a number of themes of current and cultural interest. The perspective of combining elements of traditional values or of the national patrimony with the contemporary aspects of Romania would be aimed at in all programmes of the optional course Romanian language, culture and civilisation. The use of the programme may be extended to other countries in Europe where there are Romanian student communities willing to attend this optional course. Through this programme it is intended to support the affective links of these students with Romania, their country of origin, so that at the end of the pre-university education each graduate has an open cultural horizon, on which to rely in consolidating his/her oral and written capacity of communication in Romanian language in order to gain direct access to information on Romanian culture and civilisation. Moreover, this programme wishes to increase the awareness of Romanian students of their own national identity and of their integration in the European cultural space. The objectives of the programme are: to cultivate the Romanian language as communication language in the Romanian and European space and as part of the body of Romanic languages; to ensure the preservation of the phonetic features specific to the Romanian language in oral communication and to eliminate possible contaminations from the language of the adoption country; to ensure a correct and expressive written communication in Romanian in order to grant direct access to information in the country of origin; to understand the fundamental values specific to the Romanian cultural space;

156

to get acquainted with the essential moments of the national history and to integrate them among the important events at European level; to correctly integrate Romanian values in the universe of general-human and European values; to get acquainted with the Romanian national specificity and to ensure the connexion with the defining elements of the adoption countrys culture.

Subsequently, the Government of Romania approved the MERY project on teaching Romanian language, culture and civilisation by Government Decision no. 857/2007224. In this legal act it is emphasised that the project is a pilot one for academic year 2007-2008 and that later, depending on the results obtained, to decide on its followup. Another way to promote Romanian language and culture can be achieved through the Socrates and Leonardo programmes. These were the main programmes involved but the programmes of localities twinning, on-line learning, of culture, for youth etc. have had also a significant contribution.

G. The issue of outsourcing in multilingual context


The European Commission in a Communication entitled European values in the globalised world of October 2005 proposed the creation of a Globalisation Adjustment Fund225 complementary to the structural funds, specifically to the European Social Fund. The initiative to create this Fund was initially made broadly explicit in the paper of Loukas Tsoukalis special councillor of the President of the European Commission, published in October 2005226 later being made official in December 2005 at the summit of
224 225

M. Of. No. 527/3.08.2007. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, European values in the globalised world Contribution of the Commission to the October Meeting of Heads of State and Government, Brussels, COM (2005) 525 final, 20.10.2005.
226

Loukas TSOUKALIS, Why we need a Globalisation Adjustment Fund,

http://www.gov.uk/files/kfile/Loukas-final.pdf.

157

the European Council. 500 million Euros were allocated to this Fund with the aim to compensate the negative effects incurred by employees delocalised each year (between 35.000 and 50.000 persons). The Fund became operational as of 1 January 2007. The initiative of creating this Fund belongs to France, the country most afraid of the effects of outsourcing. While we do not have studies and analyses on the various consequences of the outsourcing phenomenon, we consider that supporting this Fund is a measure of social solidarity, until further clear actions would be taken to support the idea of multilingualism as a European way of existence. France is the only Member State applying to the Fund and requesting 4 million Euros for professional training of 1.000 workers fired from the Renault and Peugeot companies. One would have expected more states to apply to the Fund. The low performances so far cast doubt on the effects of globalisation on the EU. It seems that the dangers of outsourcing outside the EU have been exaggerated. Therefore a new approach is needed for the functioning mechanisms of the Fund, and its sources of funding. The amount allocated to the Fund might be directed to supporting lifelong learning and vocational training, in the first place, both being dependent upon the degree of language knowledge; at the level of EU institutions a direct and functional link might be created between the issues of multilingualism and outsourcing. Culture is both an economic factor and a social integration factor 227, therefore in a multilingual context outsourcing cannot be considered as a mere outcome of globalisation with negative effects in the states where massive lay-offs took place. Even if at a first glance multilingualism would enhance the negative effects of globalisation, we consider that they would not persist in the medium and long term and even now they seem to have only positive effects in countries where the official language is not one of wide circulation. In a multi-linguistic context as the European one where promoting cultural and linguistic diversity is one of the main objectives of common actions in the cultural field, outsourcing is one of the most frequent forms of mutual knowledge between cultures and lifestyles in the EU Member States. We have in view the terms that employees of company branches of developed EU countries carry out in other countries. These terms sometimes involve learning another language or enhancing knowledge in the
227

OJ L 63, 10.03.2000, p. 1.

158

respective language, as well as contact with another work culture. If there is a risk involved by the outsourcing phenomenon it is the monopoly of a unique language, the English, both on the European labour market and in the European public space228.

3. INSTITUTIONAL PROMOTION OF MULTILINGUALISM A. Methods of promoting multilingualism at European level


Multilingualism is one of the most dynamic concepts of the current EU speech that guarantees cultural and linguistic diversity, equal treatment for peoples and individuals of Europe, and to citizens and various entities the right to interact with the EU in any of its official languages. Multilingualism is diffused throughout the entire philosophy of the European construction and had been statutory, even so not under this wording, since the 1954 European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe229; today there is even a branch of the European Commission which manages the complex issues of communication at institutional and individual levels in an entity with 23 official languages. At first glance, the term multilingualism seems very clear in the narrower sense of the EU context, being widely used in the media, documents and everyday language, being the focus of rather emotional public debates, as are most issues related to language and cultural identity; but pragmatically speaking the term has three levels of utilisation. At the first level of use, multilingualism is the ability of EU citizens to communicate among themselves. Responsibility for teaching and learning languages
228

See Bernard CASSEN, Revolta salariailor. mpotriva monopolului limbii engleze [The riot of

employees. Against the monopoly of English language], Le Monde diplomatique, Romanian version, August 2007.
229

European Cultural Convention, Paris, 19.12.1954, ETS no.18, Article 2, Resolution no. 2/69, An

intensified Modern-Language Teaching Programme for Europe, Recommendation no. 814/1977, Modern languages in Europe, Communication from the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions A new framework strategy for multilingualism, op. cit.

159

stays with the education authorities of the Member States like the education policy in which the Commission has no actual competences however it is the obligation of these authorities to implement the initiative of the Commission supported by the Council stipulating that all citizens should learn at least two languages beside their mother tongue. The second level of use presumes the right of citizens and of EU stakeholders to communicate with the European institutions, with a view to acknowledging their rights and fulfilling their obligations. Finally, the third level is the intra-institutional one and refers to the interaction within the EU institutions. In order to limit the costs related to translations the Commission carries out its internal, routine, activities in the procedural languages, English, French and German respectively, resorting to total multilingualism only in its relationships with other EU institutions, with the Member States and with the public at large. Karl-Johan Lnnroth, Director General of DGT stressed one of the paradoxes of the attempt to grant equal chances to all official languages, on one hand, and the need for a pragmatic approach of linguistic matters within the preparatory activities, on the other hand: as more languages are used in the everyday routine activities, the more lengthy and time-consuming the process, hampering actually the promotion of multilingualism. This is why most texts translated within the DGT are done to and from the three procedural languages English, French and German in which the documents are drafted during the permanent activities of the Commission and only the adopted legislation is translated in the official languages of the EU, which explains the significant difference between the number of pages translated in and/or from the two types of languages. Thus, in 2006 the DGT translated 1.541.518 pages of which, depending on the source language, 72% of the original texts had been drafted in English, 14% in French and 2.7% in German. Taking into consideration the target language, the percentage of texts drafted in each of the official languages is relatively equally distributed for the non-procedural languages (approximately 50.000 pages per target language), with the exception of English (about 185.000 pages), French (about 160.000 pages) and German (almost 145.000 pages) as procedural working languages within the Commission230.
230

European

Commission,

Translating

for

Multilingual

Community,

pp.

6-7,

http://ec.europa.eu/translation/bookshelf/brochure_en.pdf.

160

Multilingualism within the EU is promoted directly, explicitly, and in an indirect way through policies and programmes that primarily have another aim, but cannot be developed but on the presumption of knowing several languages. The direct promotion of multilingualism is performed by political decision as materialized in the opening on 1st January 2007 of the portfolio for multilingualism as a separate independent portfolio, aiming to reflect the political dimension of the concept within the EU, with regard to the importance of multilingualism in initial education, lifelong learning, job creation, justice, freedom and security. Further, the direct promotion of multilingualism is carried out through the elaboration and implementation of a coherent long term strategy for the new domain that has been cut out of the portfolio for Education, training, culture and youth231 of the European Commission. For the direct promotion of multilingualism the European Commission approved a global strategic framework on multilingualism referring to language learning, to the relationship between knowing languages and the economy, and also to the use of languages by citizens within the European institutions. This way is stressed the horizontal nature of the concept multilingualism by its relevance for a large array of policies, in particular those at the core of the Lisbon Strategy. The EU institutions the most involved in the use and direct promotion of multilingualism are the Directorate-General for Translations (DGT) and the DirectorateGeneral for Interpretation (DG Interpretation formerly known as SCIC). The Directorate General for Translations (DGT) is the largest public linguistic service in the world including, after the enlargement of January 2007, approximately 2.500 persons of which almost half work at the HQ of the Directorate in Luxemburg, the other half in Brussels and about 50 persons in the local offices of DGT, with a production of classical printed translations of about 15 million pages. The costs of an activity of this size are very high and represent about 1% of the annual general budget of the EU (according to figures of 2005). Beside the traditional translation of documents, the DGT also provides services based on the most recent technological developments such as web-translation, translating machines, written or oral summaries, translation of short texts, of slogans, linguistic consultancy, document drafting. The nature of translation and interpretation activity has
231

Cf. http:// ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/figel/index_ro.htm.

161

radically changed over the last decade being almost completely computerized. Meanwhile, document drafting within the Commission has very much changed: from drafting 50% in French and 1/3 in English 15 years ago to the use of English with a share of 70% and less than 20% of French. The translation of European legislation in all official languages of the EU is only apparently a strategy of encouraging the use of the languages of the Member States. In fact, this is one of the most powerful driving forces promoting multilingualism, as it represents a translation and adaptation effort of the European legislation at the level of the Member States, for which specialist translators are recruited both at community and local, national levels. The actual result of this policy has been a significant increase of multilanguage speakers, on one hand, and the enhanced professionalism and specialization of those offering this service, on the other hand. In Romania the translation of the acquis communautaire is performed under the coordination of the Romanian European Institute with the participation of a great number of translators, revisers, terminologists and jurists who in a complex effort of cooperation and harmonisation are expected to provide a product with the same quality and style as the original and, meanwhile, with the unitary terminology of the Romanian language. Another means of promoting multilingual dialogue at European level is represented by the creation of field offices of the DGT for translation232 . The complex character of translation activities, the need to be acquainted with the local situations of the new Member States were the reasons for creating these field offices, and also the need to recruit human resources of high quality both for the Member States and for DGT. The relative scarcity of staff sufficiently well qualified to cope with the quantity and especially the quality of translation flows as required by the multilingualism of European institutions has lead to exploring the idea of creating a masters program for translators233. As of 2008 the European Commission will create a European masters degree for translators in order to provide a more adequate framework for the development of competences as diverse as possible, and to realize a synergy between the knowledge fund and good practices that already exist in various European areas in the field of
232 233

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/external_relations/field_offices/maillist_en.htm#bucharest. http://ec.europa.eu/ dgs/translation/external_relations/universities/master_curriculum_en.pdf.

162

translation and interpretation. The EU is an important employer and a major player on the European market of translations which justifies its interest for the training of translators and for investing in this process. Most likely one of the most visible ways of promoting multilingualism is the portal Europe and multilingualism announcing that the choice of the EU to officially adopt multilingualism as a governing tool is unique in the world. For the EU, using the language of its citizens is one of the factors contributing to its transparency, legitimacy and efficiency234. The portal provides essential and detailed information on the ways of promoting European languages, with a clear structure on thematic fields: Linguistic diversity, Learning languages, Teaching languages, Translation, Interpretation, Linguistic technologies; on each thematic field one can find policies, activities, publications, services and news provided by various relevant European institutions. On the other hand, this portal represents a simple and clear way to communicate with the lay unsophisticated citizen of the EU, feeling alienated by the European issues and not having a say in the community decision making processes235. Another direct way of promoting multilingualism is through the development of projects that aim at researching and identifying certain essential aspects for teaching and learning languages as a means of getting acquainted with and understanding European cultures and, subsequently, accepting diversity not only politically and as a programme but, especially, at the level of current, individual practice. These projects become visible in conferences and/or web-sites where outcomes, debates etc. can be accessed. The International Conference organized in Ljouwert/Leeuwarden (Fryslan, The Netherlands) by the Research Centre Mercator on The Future of European Policy towards Multilingualism and Language Learning between 21-23 November 2007 used a large array of approaches: multilingual language learning policies, comparing education models, developing European standards, the role of the Common European Reference Framework, innovative strategies for language learning, sustainable development of multilingualism, successful multilingual regions, promoting linguistic diversity and new technologies for language learning.
234 235

http://ec.europa.eu/languages/ro/home. Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on a European Communication Policy,

Brussels, COM (2006) 35 final, 1.2.2006.

163

An initiative of the same framework of actions aiming to support the direct promotion of multilingualism is the project EMILL (European Minority Languages Library)236 through which the Digibyb the Digital Library of European Minority Languages was built237, having as its goal to store and provide access to information related to minority languages in Europe. The project has a follow-up on another level by the development of a European framework for a digital library aiming to describe and inventory minority languages, with emphasis on documents and data elaborated in major European languages, preferably in English. The European library would rather contain information on the respective languages not information in the respective languages, in order to transcend the vicious circle of minority languages in their struggle to survive despite the small number of speakers and the difficulties linked to the high cost of promotion. A major driving force of direct promotion of multilingualism is the high scope and visibility project IATE238, an outcome of the collaboration between the European Parliament, the Council of Europe. The European Commission, the European Court of Justice, the Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of Regions, the European Investment Bank, the Central European Bank and the Centre for translations, all of which developed a unique data base for the entire terminology referring to the EU in all 23 official languages. This data base contains the Interactive Terminology for Europe and combines the terminology data bases of individual institutions and bodies of the EU in a unique data base with 8.7 million terms, 500.000 abbreviations and 100.000 phrases in all 23 official languages of the Union. The development of IATE presently freely and easily accessible but used by the translation services of the EU as early as 2005 represents a significant success in ensuring quality standards in the written communication of EU institutions and bodies, meanwhile guaranteeing the coherence and reliability of terminologies in producing clear and unambiguous texts, that would ensure the validity

236 237 238

Cf. http://www.emill.org/en. For more information see: http:/www.dbfrysk.org/en. IATE: http://iate.europa.eu, Interactive Terminology for Europe. The overall costs for developing IATE

between 1999 and 2003 were of 1.41 million Euros, and the annual cost of maintenance for year 2007 is of 627.000 Euro covered by the budgets of all institutions and bodies participating in the EU.

164

and transparency of the legislative process and of the efficient communication with EU citizens. As a multilingual database IATE enables the user to search a specific term in a source language and to find the corresponding terms in one or several target languages. The volume of content for each language is varying, depending mainly on the period of time in which each language became official language of the EU, but in the long term the IATE administrators aim at reaching the same content value for all official languages. The indirect ways to promote multilingualism are those through which policies and actions are proposed for the development of areas where the differences between the EU and its competitors, the USA in the first place, are perceived as being important. The Internet is one of the major engines in developing multilingualism at global level, through the visibility it grants to minority languages and cultures, on one hand, and by strengthening the status of the English language as the contemporary lingua franca, on the other hand. The degree of access and use of information technology (IT) within the EU is rather low as compared to the USA, for instance, with dramatic regional differences239. The development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)240 by 2010, established as a priority of the Bologna process for creating the synergy of research and teaching in European universities and not the uniformity of the higher education systems, is one of the main driving forces in promoting and disseminating multilingualism. Meanwhile, knowledge society241 and the 7th Framework Programme242 are other very efficient vectors of indirect promotion of multilingualism.

B. Methods of promoting multilingualism in companies operating on the European territory


239

The degree of IT penetration was 54.2% for 267.458.327 users in September 2007, cf. For more data on the conclusions and recommendations of the European University Association EUA

http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa.htm.
240

see the thematic seminar Strengthening Higher Education and Research in South East Europe: Priorities for Regional and European Cooperation, http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_documents/SEE_Statement_Vienna_030306_Final.1 141985288957.pdf.
241 242

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/knowledge_society/index_e.htm. Cf. http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/home_en.html.

165

Undoubtedly one of the essential driving forces for disseminating multilingualism was and still is the field of economy, especially the domain of commerce. Internationalisation of markets is a more and more obvious challenge not only for the big economic players who anyway dispose of material and human resources to cope with it, but mainly for the small and medium size ones who strive to provide goods and services to the whole world. Adapting the products to the demands of the local markets and to the consumers profile in specific areas may sometimes be the shibboleth of the adapting capacity and flexibility of the respective company and therefore for its survival capacity. Language is the major working tool in this scenario, as communicating in local language is being considered by most internationalized companies as a major factor for success. Multilingualism is therefore considered essential in guaranteeing success, being meanwhile a good business enabling the development of extremely profitable market niches. The conclusion of a study initiated by the EU243 on researching the ways in which small European companies might increase exports using a more proactive strategy for multilingual communication suggests that there is a substantial potential of international development for small companies in Europe provided they invest more in foreign language learning and they develop more competitive linguistic strategies. From a sample of about 2.000 exporting companies participating in the study, 11% declared that they have lost at least one business opportunity due to an identified communication barrier. The average loss per company over a period of three years had been of 325.000 Euros. This finding is significant not only in terms of the companies turnover, but especially in terms of economic growth and job creation, having in view that in Europe small and medium size enterprises provide 67% of the total number of jobs in the private sector, respectively about 75 million jobs, and in 2004 SMEs accounted for 58% of the total
243

The ELAN study Effects on the European Economy of Shortages of Foreign Language Skills in

Enterprise commissioned by the EU and carried out by CILT ( National Centre for Language in the United Kingdom) in collaboration with InterAct International and an international team of researchers provides a practical analysis of the way languages are being used in SMEs in the EU and of the effects of this use on business performances (http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/elan-finalreport_en.pdf).

166

turnover of enterprises at the EU-25 level. Obviously, even a small improvement of their performance in terms of exports would have a tremendous impact on economic growth and number of jobs. A quarter of the Romanian enterprises that were subjected to this study estimated having lost businesses due to the lack of language competences. This is how multilingualism undergoes a significant evolution, from a concept with overall education value to a riving force of economic development in a sophisticated economy with an important service sector and an opening up to the global market. The analysis of the results of the research emphasizes the existence of a direct correlation between language competences and successful exports, revealing four factors in managing language competences with impact on successful exports: the existence of a language strategy in the company, use of native speakers, recruitment of staff with linguistic skills and use of translators and interpreters. These strategies are recommended by the researchers as leading, when applied, to significant results in the entire European economy. Multilingualism is an industry in itself and creates a great number of jobs. The same study showed that even so English keeps holding the first place as lingua franca in international trade, there is a more and more wide demand for other languages. While one quarter of the interviewed companies have expressed the need to improve their knowledge in English language, a similar share expressed the need to expand knowledge in German and French languages, and Spanish and Russian also hold an important pace among the priorities. Numerous enterprises especially the big ones emphasized their interest for non-European languages, such as Chinese, Arab and Urdu, due to the fact that they try to enter non-European markets. There are areas where the lingua franca function is overtaken by other languages, as for instance the Russian in several parts of Eastern Europe, the French in certain areas of Africa and the Spanish in Latin America244. The emergence of the Russian language in continuous development is related to the increasing
244

At the level of lay-citizen in the Western Member States of the EU there is a perception that in Romania,

being a former communist country, Russian is being spoken as the main foreign language. Actually, Russian is presently a rather scarce language in Romania from the point of view of professional translators/interpreters and this situation is obvious in the economy in particular. For historic considerations related to the teaching/learning of foreign languages in Romania see Mariana NICOLAE , Training and development in transition: a Romanian Perspective, op. cit., p. 42.

167

demand on the European linguistic market and a natural phenomenon due to the evolution of economic relations with the Russian Federation. The importance of relationships with this country, the fourth commercial partner of the EU, is stressed by the summit EU Russian Federation of October 2007245. It is therefore to be expected that the need of specialized personnel in business-Russian would constantly grow in all EU Member States in the next years, inclusively in Romania, and the traditional providers of specialists in the domain should include this consideration in their strategic development plan. The study stressed an intuitive finding that most successful companies have used in their strategies to accede to international markets: the fact that long term partnerships in business depend on the establishment and the development of mutual relations between the parties involved, relations that cannot be established without a good cultural and linguistic knowledge of the target area246. Proceeding from this finding, many big companies emphasized the need to operate in languages other than the European ones, such as Chinese, Arab and Urdu, because on one hand these companies strive to expand on markets outside Europe and, on the other hand, labour force migration and search for new sales markets for the Asian economies, introduce changes in the European linguistic landscape with languages that where not long ago considered exotic. In a speech delivered in Bucharest on 22 June 2007 at a conference organized by the European Institute of Romania and the Office of the European Commission in Romania, Leonard Orban, European Commissioner for multilingualism stated when referring to the promotion of multilingualism in companies: Multilingualism may support our competitivity and job creation. It represents a fundamental tool for social cohesion and inter-cultural dialogue, and creates an area for political dialogue at European level247. At the conference Business languages and intercultural skills248 held in Brussels on 21 September 2007 it was shown that, though the English language will keep its role of lingua franca in the international commercial environment, additional language skills
245 246 247 248

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/focus/eu_russia_102007/index_en.htm. Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/elansum_en.pdf. Leonard ORBAN, Multilingualism a fundamental value of the European Union, http://www.ier.ro. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/businesslanguages/index_e.html.

168

combined with intercultural skills may provide a competitive advantage. On this occasion a Business forum for multilingualism was launched that would examine the way in which multilingualism might be operationally used so as to maximize the achievements of enterprises. This Forum will be chaired by Etienne Davignon, chairman of the Board Brussels Airlines. The business forum will include CEOs of companies operating in the EU. They would identify the way in which companies might use language management operationally as part of their effort to maximize economic performance. According to a study carried out in Great Britain, the number of persons around the world learning English would reach approximately 2 billion in the next 10-15 years. Contrary to the conventional wisdom this is actually bad news for the monolingual English speakers. A previous study carried out by CILT on the impact of linguistic skills on the economy of Great Britain showed that British companies register the same volume of exports to Denmark with a population of 5 million inhabitants as to Central and South America with a total population of 390 million inhabitants.

C. Methods of promoting multilingualism in universities


The creation of higher education area in Europe has been and is an essential driving force for the dissemination of multilingualism in Europe, especially through the mobility programmes for students SOCRATES ERASMUS, the mobility programmes for various categories of university academics249, the research programmes within the European area of research in particular through the Framework programmes, currently the FP7250. ERASMUS251 is the EU programme for higher education through which transnational cooperation between universities is encouraged with a view to enhancing the quality and to stressing the European dimension of tertiary education through increased mobility, transparency, full academic recognition of studies and skills, of BA
249

The Marie Curie Programme for the mobility of young researchers, Cf. http://cordis.europa.eu/era/. Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/erasmus/erasmus_en.html.

http://cordis.europa.eu/home_en.html.
250 251

169

and Masters programmes on the whole territory of the EU. As a programme focused on international mobility, both for students and academics, ERASMUS is one of the main driving forces for the promotion of multilingualism in universities. The scope of the ERASMUS programme is impressive if we consider that since its launch in 1987 1.2 million students benefited of the mobility grants provided by the programme, and at present 2,199 higher education institutions of 31 countries are included in it. As of 2007, ERASMUS became an integral part of lifelong learning252.

D. Methods of promoting multilingualism in EU institutions


The multilingualism portfolio has a significant horizontal dimension, acting in close relation with other policies or direction of actions of the EU, such as culture, education, communication, social policy, labour, justice, freedom and security etc., having a thorough contribution to the elaboration and outlining of EU policies, its benefits becoming immediately visible in particular at individual level. Meanwhile the benefits of multilingualism are obvious at institutional level too, in such a complex construction as the European Union. The promotion of multilingualism in EU institutions is achieved mainly through two general directorates: the Directorate-General for Translations (DGT) and the Directorate-General for Interpretation (DGI). The DGI is the interpretation and conference organising service of the European Commission, i.e. the service most directly involved in the current activities of the EU, providing interpreters for about 11,000 meetings annually, being the biggest interpreting service of the world. Therefore, the mission of DGI is to enable multilingual communication as a core element of the community decision making process, by ensuring qualitative interpreting services; providing efficient services for conference organization which also include provision of technical assistance and management of modern infrastructure for conferences, as well as

252

Cf. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-learning/europe_en.pdf.

170

participation in the implementation of the new strategy of the Commission for multilingualism253. The DGI has at its disposal the technical means for completing its mission of high performance that include multilingual information technologies, such as multilingual chats, web casting that enable to follow at distance the conference proceedings in any of the languages that are simultaneously interpreted in the conference room. Multilingual chats are organized by the European Commission in order for political personalities to interact with European citizens on the Internet through a chat programme. These strategies aiming to increase the transparency of the Commissions activities are meant to provide access for European citizens to the political debates that are of interest for them and, on the other hand, are ways of inter-institutional communication for an increased efficiency of communication at European institutional level.

E. Expert groups in the field of multilingualism created by the European Commission


For a better understanding of the role of multilingualism in the EU, the European Commission created by its Decision of 20 September 2006 a High Level Group on Multilingualism254. This Group includes 11 experts: Barbara Cassin (Centre national de Recherche Scientifique, Paris), Abraham de Swaan (University of Amsterdam), Rita Franceschini (Rector, Free University of Bozen Bolzano), Branislav Hochel (University Comenius, Bratislava), Hanna Komorowska (University of Warsaw), Wolfgang Mackiewicz (Free University Berlin), Isabella Moore (Director The National Centre for Languages, CILT), Barbara Moser-Mercer (University of Geneva), Josep Palomero (Vice-president of the Academia Valenciana de la Llengua), Ineta Savickiene (University Vytautas Magnus, Lituania), Jaana Sormunen (YLE, Finnland).
253 254

http://scic.cec.eu.int/jcms/j_8/pagin-de-pornire. High Level Group on Multilingualism. Its creation had been announced for the first time in 2005 in

Communication A new framework strategy for multilingualism (op. cit.). It stresses the actual importance of the concept for the European construction and the European Commissions concern to constantly and coherently promote multilingualism.

171

The creation of such ad hoc groups to provide consultancy to the Commission is a frequent practice (see the case BEPA, analyzed below and that of the Reflection Group on the Cultural and Spiritual Dimension of Europe we referred to extensively). The outcome of the Groups activity was a Report published in 2007255. Among the recommendations of the Group are the following: Learning languages has an intercultural value; this activity generates benefits for the individual and also for the society as a whole; It is necessary to launch information campaigns at local, regional levels and at the EU Member States level in order to stress the role of language learning; Language learning should be included in the recreation activities just as sports; Efforts should be deployed to attract adults in the language learning process; The media might motivate large scale language learning through methods going beyond formal education methods (edutainment); the Finnish example may be useful for other EU Member States too; Television programmes with dubbing may be very useful tools for an efficient language learning; The revival of interest for regional languages in Europe shows that languages may be learned when there is a strong motivation; The Commission should encourage the creation of local and regional networks for language learning in the EU Member States; Emigrants should be encouraged to learn the language of the EU State on the territory of which they are in order to become mediators between various cultures; The decision to finance the translation of European literary works by the Commission through the programme Culture 2007 will have a beneficial effect on promoting multilingualism; The EU should create an award to be granted to the best literary or nonliterary translations;
255

High Level Group on Multilingualism, Final Report,

http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/multireport_en.pdf.

172

Commission should investigate the possibility to use the European Social Fund and the Structural and Cohesion Funds in supporting language learning; The Commission, preferably in collaboration with the European Parliament and the Council, should issue a European certificate to small and medium size enterprises that were successful exporters due to the use of several languages and through intercultural management policies, also promoting multilingualism among their employees;

The Commission should encourage and support the development of European/international programmes that would offer qualifications in translation and interpretation.

Taking into account the complexity of the issues under debate, after the publication of the Report the Commission deemed necessary to create another group of experts in multilingualism. The first meeting of this second group took place on 29 June 2007 and was presided over by Commissioner Leonard Orban. The Group is expected to elaborate proposals and recommendations on the ways languages might support intercultural dialogue. The group should provide counselling on the contribution to the coming European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008. The group consists of 11 personalities: Amin Maalouf, president (writer, Lebanon), Jens Christian Grondahl (writer, Denmark), Tullio de Mauro (linguist, Italy), JUtta Limbach (chairperson of the Goethe Institute, Germany), Jan Sokol (philosopher, Czech Republic), David Green (former director of the British Council, Great Britain), Jacques de Decker (writer, journalist, standing secretary of the Acadmie Royale de langue et de literature franaises de Belgique, Belgium), Sandra Pralong (communication expert, Romania), Jorge Semprun (writer, Spain), Tahar Ben Jelloun (writer and poet, Morocco) and Eduardo Loureno (writer, philosopher, Portugal). In accordance with its mandate, the contribution of the group will consists of: Debating the way in which language may facilitate access to other cultures and might contribute to the development of a European society based on integration;

173

Identifying ways to support intercultural dialogue in Europe, taking into account the ethical dimension of a multicultural society; Proposing communication strategies for the development potential of language learning and the combination of languages and cultures, in the perspective of the coming European Year of intercultural dialogue 2008.

It was established that the Group will meet three times during 2007. The conclusions of those meetings are going to be communicated in the framework of a public event that will take place in year 2008. Analyzing the mandate of the Group, it could be noticed that the Commission holds the view that there are two categories of issues in discussion for which the Group should provide solutions. The first category is related to the necessity of a better understanding of the role multilingualism may have in European integration. With reference to this category, the terminology that is being used might create confusions: we talk about intercultural dialogue but also about multicultural society. A more precise terminology is required, because multiculturalism256 is the equivalent neither of intercultural dialogue, nor of multilingualism. This clarification is all the more necessary as concepts circulate without their context257, and according to the document258 proposed by the The church and society

256

Multiculturalism refers to a diversity of identities, to an identity based policy (identity politics). The term

is based on the concept of cultural pluralism, developed by Horace Kallen (for the first time in his paper Democracy versus the Melting-Pot, published in 1915 in The Nation, later used in the book Culture and democracy in the United States: Studies in the Groups Psychology of the American People , published in 1924 (reprinted 1970, Anro Press, New York) and John Dewey, redefined in the 1980s in American context, in an immigrant country which is not a nation-state but a state of nationalities and designating a stronger pluralism, which could lead to a certain cultural separation. See (ralis par) Riva KASTORYANO, Laurent BOUVET, Christophe JAFFRELOT, Le multiculturalisme au Coeur. Entretien avec Michel Walzer, Critique internationale, no. 3, printemps 1999, in particular pp. 55-57.
257

See Pierre BOURDIEU, Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des ides, Actes de la CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue

recherche en sciences sociales, no. 145/2002.


258

http://www.cec-kek.org/pdf/CSC-CCMERResponseCoEIntercultural.pdf.

174

Commission of KEK and the Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)259, drafted as a reaction to the proposals of the Council of Europe that organized during year 2007 a number of public consultations in order to adopt a White Paper on intercultural dialogue, various concepts have different connotations in different cultures and languages260. In the light of the considerations related to the use of the term multicultural society understood rather as a description of a social reality, as a social phenomenon of the problems associated to the term [] that in many cases involved a political programme, preference is given for an alternative vision on society in European context, for terms such as transcultural society or intercultural society261. Therefore, the term diversity is considered more appropriate for the type of society based on equality, and intercultural is a vision aiming to demonstrate that individuals and cultures are in a dynamic process in which changes occur by the meeting of those262. This confirms the point of view of Immanuel Wallerstein according to whom cultural and religious identities are not homogenous, but are the result of exchanges and interactions at various levels, pre-existent long before the emergence of globalization and of the end of the Cold War263. More than just managing diversity, we should deal with facilitating and promoting dialogue in a society that aims to creating equal opportunities for an active and large participation in the public sphere. Currently we witness a gradually diminishing process of diversity at global level, as dominant forms are being adopted (traditions,

259

Churches Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME) was created in 1964 with the aim to ensuring CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op. Ibidem, p. 2. Ibidem. Immanuel WALLERSTEIN, Sistemul mondial modern [The modern social system] , Meridiane,

assistance to emigrants by the churches on the European continent.


260

cit. p. 5.
261 262 263

Bucureti, 1992.

175

languages etc.); even if diversity would be visible at certain levels264, diversity is seen as a challenge and is presented in the phrase unity in diversity265. The same document offers explanations for the terms included in the concept cultural diversity and in that of intercultural dialogue. Dialogue in its various forms and in various contexts (symbolic, academic, spiritual etc.) is defined as a process in which individuals and cultures meet, based on mutual respect 266, to discover both similarities and differences. What makes dialogue different from any other form of interaction is the possibility given to each of the participants in the dialogue to get to know each other, creating the premise for self-reflection (he/she might also change the perception of the other, as well as of himself/herself)267. In the intercultural dialogue the focus of interest is the culture of the other as well as the own culture, with the specification that any dialogue may be considered intercultural. We understand that it is a broad definition of culture, considered a dynamic concept which includes aspects such as life styles, working habits etc. It is to be stressed that when defining the concept of culture various approaches of sociologists, anthropologists have to be taken into account, as well as those elaborated in cultural studies. Intercultural dialogue is considered in its most universal form which includes but goes well beyond the strictly intellectual dialogue. The second category the Group has to give answers to is the emergence of a communication strategy related to the concrete actions of the Commission for multilingualism, starting from the assumption that the European Year of intercultural dialogue should have multilingualism in its focus. In the future, for each category of issues, distinct consulting groups should be created. As the actual composition of the
264

Cf. Gisle SAPIRO (ss. la dir.), La traduction comme vecteur des changes culturels internationaux.

Circulation des livres de littrature et de sciences sociales et volution de la place de la France sur le march mondial de ldition (1980-2002) Rapport de recherche, Centre de Sociologie Europenne (CNRSEHESS) avec le concours du Ministre de la recherche, Paris, 2007.
265

CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op. The preference for the notion respect, implying acknowledgement of the other, instead of

cit., pp. 4 and 7.


266

tolerance.
267

Jan FIGEL, Developing a culture of cooperation in Europe: the role of the Churches, 3rd European

Ecumenical Assembly, Sibiu, September 2007, http://www.eea.org.

176

Group reflects, persons with competences in multilingualism but also in communication were included. There is a striking discrepancy of shares between the first and the second category of persons, a fact that would relegate communication strategy as a secondary objective of the Groups activity. The Group has been formed at the initiative of the European Commissioner for multilingualism Leonard Orban, but on the other hand Commissioner Jan Figel has declared that the initiative of the European Year of intercultural dialogue is his and he intends to contribute to it268. As concerns the mandate of the Group, it is to be seen whether it would function after the closure of the European Year of intercultural dialogue. The definition of its mandate does not include the conclusions reached by the first Group of experts. The currently acting Group would be bound by those conclusions or could refute them? The answer is but affirmative in the absence of explicit references to the contrary. Among the objectives of this Group the issue of inter-religious dialogue is not mentioned the importance of it being recognized by the European Commission as the European Council intends to devise its own strategy for the European Year of intercultural dialogue, based on the links between the intercultural and inter-religious dialogue. In the mandate of the Group there is a mention on the ethical dimension of a multicultural society. By the way this objective is formulated one can assume that it is related to the European multicultural society and not to a certain multicultural society in the EU Member States. What is meant by ethical dimension? Is it about identifying some standards that would allow the functioning of such a society, the absence of which resulting in the impossibility of reaching this objective? On the assumption that it is difficult to define ethical standards for a society, the mission of the Group will be a very difficult one when endeavouring to reach this objective of its mandate.

4. EUROPEAN CITIZENS RIGHTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF MULTILINGUALISM


268

Jan FIGEL, Developing a culture of cooperation in Europe: the role of the Churches, 3rd European

ecumenical Assembly, Sibiu, 6 September 2007, http://www.eea.org.

177

A. Exercising European citizens rights in multingual context: the right to elect and to stand in to receive reply in own language
Each citizen of the EU has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament and at the local elections in the EU Member State of his residence under the same terms as all citizens of that State. These rights are part of the concept of European citizenship included for the first time in the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 (Article 8b). They are also mentioned in Article 39 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, solemnly proclaimed at the European Council of Nice in 2000, integrated in the second part of the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. As of the enforcement date of the Reform Treaty, the rights mentioned above will be included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, both documents having the same judicial force. The terms of exercising the right to vote and stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament for EU citizens with residence in another member State are defined in Directive 93/109/EC269. According to this Directive, EU citizens may exercise their right in the Member State of origin or in the Member State of residence. By opting for the place of exercising these rights in one State, they loose the possibility to exercise the same rights in another State. Therefore, Member States should exchange information about citizens wishing to exercise their right to vote for the European Parliament in another State than the State of origin. According to the principle of equal treatment, EU citizens wishing to exercise their right to vote for the European Parliament in a State of which they are not nationals should benefit of the same rights as the citizens of that State and implicitly of full participation in the political life of the State of residence, including the right to join a party in the State of residence or to create a party in the State of residence270. However, these rights are not guaranteed at the same level in all Member States. The Directive requests EU Member States to inform in due time and due course
269

to local elections and to the

European Parliament, the right to address the EU institutions and

OJ L 329, 30.12.1993.

178

about the way they could exercise the rights they have. A Member State has to comply with this obligation and provide the same information for residents as for its own citizens271. Article 14 of Directive 93/109/EC allows for derogation from the principle of equal treatment in case of specific problems in a State. For instance, in case the non-national residents share exceeds 20% of the total population of a State, that State might require a minimum term of residence for granting the right for residents. The only Member State being granted such an derogation was Luxemburg, where the right of non-national residents to vote at the elections for the European Parliament was subject to a minimum 5 years of residence during the last 6 years preceding the registration on the voting lists. Luxemburg applies this derogation since 1979272, the date of the first elections for the European Parliament. At present, the share of EU citizens from another State of origin in compliance with the terms to be registered on the voting lists for the European Parliamentary elections is of 32.93% out of the total EU residents in Luxemburg, according to the last Census of 2001273. Nationals in Luxemburg are automatically registered on the voting lists for the European Parliament, but registration of residents from EU Member States is subject to an agreement of will. Luxemburg applies adequately Directive 93/109/EC providing information on elections for the European Parliament in French, German, Portuguese and Italian. At the 2004 elections for the European Parliament and at the communal elections of 2005 the Luxemburg Government deployed a vast campaign for informing community residents on their voting rights. As a result of this campaign, 11,680 community residents
270

Communication from the Commission on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999

elections to the European Parliament Right of Union citizens in a Member State of which they are not nationals to stand in elections to the European Parliament, Brussels, COM (2000) 843 final, 18.12.2000.
271 272

Ibidem. Law of 25 February 1979 on direct election of representatives of the Great Duchy of Luxemburg in the

European Parliament; this law was amended By Law of 28 January 1994 as a result of Directive 93/109/EC.
273

Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and to the Council on granting a derogation

pursuant to Article 19 (2) of the EC Treaty, presented under Article 14 (3) of Directive 93/109/EC on the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections to the European Parliament , Brussels, COM (2003) 31 final, 27.01.2003.

179

were registered on the voting lists, accounting for a 19% increase as compared to the previous elections in 1999274. The system practiced in Luxemburg may be an example for the way in which community residents in an EU Member State can practice the rights they are granted by European citizenship in a multilingual context. It is foreseeable that in the near future other EU Member States will be confronted with problems similar to those in Luxemburg and would have to initiate information campaigns in the languages spoken by residents. This assumption is based on the tendencies registered from one election to the next. Thus, at the elections of 1999 to the European Parliament the participation rate of citizens in a State in which they are not nationals had been of 9%, an increase from 4.9% in 1994. In all Member States, with the exception of Germany (where Directive 93/109/EC has not been applied) the number of non-national residents has increased275. At the 2004 elections to the European Parliament the number of non-national residents further increased, mainly as a consequence of the EU enlargement with 10 new Member States, reaching about 1 million. Before these elections the Commission considered that a substantial effort of information is needed in the Member States on the possibilities of exercising the right to vote at the European parliamentary elections276. Moreover, the Commission considers that in addition to its own estimations of 2000, Member States should utilize a system of letters addressed directly to citizens with voting right. The Commission considers also that these States should provide information on the elections to the European Parliament whenever residents come in contact with local or national authorities. These States should facilitate the registration of residents on the voting lists by simply sending out by mail forms to be filled in.

274

Philippe POIRIER, Les lections europennes au Luxembourg, in Pascal DELWIT, Philippe POIRIER,

Parlement puissant, lecteurs absents ? Les lections europennes de juin 2004, Editions de lUniversit de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, 2005, p.132 and seq.
275

Communication from the Commission on the application of Directive 93/109/EC to the June 1999 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on measures taken

elections to the European Parliament, op. cit.


276

by the Member States to ensure participation of all citizens of the Union to the 2004 elections to the European Parliament of an enlarged Union, Brussels, COM (2003) 174 final, 8.4.2003.

180

In the White Paper on a European Communication Policy of 2006 277, the European Commission proceeds from the finding that there is a communication deficit between the EU and the citizens. According to this document, communication is focused on conveying to citizens what is the EU; no attention has been paid to the points of view expressed by the citizens. By this White Paper the Commission proposed a new approach: communication focusing on the citizen and decentralisation of communication channels between citizens and EU institutions. The declared aim is to create a European public sphere, since at present the public sphere in which political life takes place in Europe has more of a national dimension than a European one. The lack of a European public sphere, a fact due among other reasons to linguistic diversity, was noticed by the specialised literature before being officially recognized by the European Commission. It was stated that there is no European political infrastructure [] there is no public debate at European level on possible alternative European policies278. Another author alleges to the contrary that there is a public sphere at EU level but it is made up of a multitude of national public spheres 279. According to another point of view280 the emergence of a European public sphere is constrained by the preeminence of the national character in the media and by the great variety of linguistic and political identities that exist in Europe. Empirical research conducted on the assumption that linguistic diversity hampers the emergence of a European public sphere281 confirmed the validity of this perspective. According to the 2006 White Paper of the Commission, EU citizens might learn about issues related to politics through the national education systems and through the national, regional or local communication means. The media are mainly national due to language
277 278

Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on a European Communication Policy, op. cit. Fritz SCHARPF, Demokratie in der transnationale politik, in Ulrich BECK (ed.), Politik in der Marianne VAN DE STEEG, Does a public sphere exist in the European Union? An analysis of the

Globalisierung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, 1998, p. 232.


279

content of the debate on the Haider case, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 45, issue 4/June 2006, p. 610.
280

Hans Jrgen ABROMEIT, Mglichkeiten und Ausgestaltung einer europischen Demokratie, in Ansgar

KLEIN et al. (eds.) Brgerschaft, Offentlichkeit und Demokratie in Europa, Leske & Budrich, Opladen, 2003, pp. 40-41.
281

Marianne VAN DE STEEG, op.cit. pp. 609-634.

181

barriers. European citizens have few places at their disposal where to discuss issues of common interest. The White Paper identifies certain solutions that would create favourable pre-conditions for the emergence of a European public sphere; the issue of citizens from another Member State exercising their voting right in the State of residence is not being mentioned. However, it is obvious that the low rate of participation of this category of European citizens is due to the existence of a language barrier too, and the most efficient way to increase their participation rate, as demonstrated by the example of Luxemburg, is to inform on their rights in the language of their State of origin. At present, many non-national citizens are not registered on the voting lists, despite the recommendations of the Commission to simplify the procedures. From those on the voting lists only a few exercise their right to vote, because the electoral campaign is going on in the respective States language; political parties build election campaigns on national issues rather than European ones, even in countries where there is a high share of resident population as compared to the total population; this explains the low interest of residents to participate in the election at the European Parliament. Beside information in languages known by the residents, other specific measures are necessary to eliminate language barriers, such as printing ballots in those languages, encouraging the development and diversification of means of information on the European Parliament in several languages by subsidies granted for this purpose by the Commission and the European Parliament, etc.

B. Linguistic discrimination used for restricting access to the labour market in a EU Member State exception to the principle of equal treatment?

182

The principle of equal treatment is one of the basic principles of EC law282. The principle is included in the treaties, but only as exposition of the objective of eliminating inequalities between sexes (Article 3, para. 2 TEC) and of banning discrimination by nationality (Article 12 TEC). The most elaborate form of the principle is integrated in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to this principle, individuals being in the same situation should be treated similarly. The EC Court of Justice has extended the banned discrimination forms in the community law despite the lack of an explicit provision in the treaties, stipulating that banning of discrimination [] is a specific form of the general principle of equality which is one of the fundamental principles of EEC Law and according to which similar situations cannot be treated in different ways, except when differentiation is objectively justifiable283. This principle is also applied where access to a job on the territory of EU Member States is concerned. Therefore, any citizen has the right to deploy a profit making activity in another Member State under the same terms as the citizens of that State, this being a concrete form of banning discrimination by nationality. Access to the labour market in a Member State cannot be restricted by quotas or by imposing discriminating conditions. According to the acquis communautaire only one discrimination is permitted: knowledge of the language of the State in which a job is requested. This exception to the principle of non-discrimination is admissible in accordance with Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC on recognition of professional skills284: individuals benefiting of the recognition of professional skills should possess knowledge of the languages necessary for practicing the profession in the host Member State (on the territory of which they wish to be employed).

282

See Anthony ARNULL, The general principles of EEC Law and the Individual , Leicester University

Press, Leicester, 1990; Koen LENAERTS, Lgalit de traiment en droit communautaire: un principe unique aux apparences multiples, Cahiers de droit europen, 1991, pp. 3-41; Koen LENAERTS, Piet VAN NUFFEL, Constitutional law of the European Union, 2nd edition, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 2005, p. 123 and seq.
283 284

Cases 117/76 and 16/77 Ruckdeschel, E.C.R. 1753, para. 7. OJ L 255, 30.09.2005.

183

However, this provision does not tally with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. According to the Charter Any discrimination based on any ground such as [] language [] shall be prohibited (Article 21), and according to Article 22: The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. It is for the first time that in a text with value of official document linguistic discrimination between EU citizens is expressly banned. There is no mention of possible exceptions to this principle. Due to the fact that as of the enforcement of the Reform Treaty the Charter will have the same judicial value as the founding EU treaties, there would be contradiction between the provisions of the Charter that ban any form of linguistic discrimination and the provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC that allow Member States to subject access to a job to the knowledge of the language of the State where the job is. Due to the hierarchy of EU legal acts, the provisions of the Charter will prevail over the provisions of the Directive 2005/36/EC. The rights to vote and to stand in as a candidate at local elections and at the European Parliament are rights integrated in the concept of European citizenship. Due to the linguistic diversity of the European Union, these rights are increasingly exercised in a multilingual context, a fact that required the definition of specific solutions by the EU institutions. There exist another right subsumed to European citizenship, which unlike the ones mentioned above, is a direct form of respecting EU linguistic diversity: to address EU institutions in all official languages of the EU and to receive answer in the language in which the request was drafted. This right has been included in TEC (Article 21) by the Amsterdam Treaty and included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 41, para. 4).

5.

PROMOTING

INTERCULTURAL

DIALOGUE

IN

THE

EUROPEAN UNION A. Definition of intercultural dialogue

184

There is no official definition of the intercultural dialogue accepted at the European Unions level, though the EU makes use of this phrase in its documents. The only way to reveal the significance of this phrase is to resort to the definitions of intercultural dialogue given by the partner organisations of the Council of Europe or the UNESCO, organisations that do not use either a definition of intercultural dialogue in their official documents. A first definition is given by the International Association of Universities IAU founded in 1950 and reuniting universities from 150 countries and a partner of UNESCO. IAU considers that the idea of intercultural dialogue stems from the premise of recognising the differences and multiplicities of the world we live in. These differences exist not only inside each culture but also in the relations between cultures. For IAU, intercultural dialogue is a process which encourages the identification of the limits that define individuals and that makes them to interact by overcoming these limits and even by questioning them. This definition is given by the IAU in order to stress the idea that the perspective of intercultural dialogue may be enhanced by granting a more important role to universities. Intercultural dialogue may be promoted by the teaching materials, the teaching methods and by turning to account students abilities285. Another definition is given in the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe, a network of information exchange on measures and tools in the field of cultural policies and cultural trends. It is an initiative of the Council of Europe and the ERICarts (European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research) a non-profit organisation supporting research centres in Europe. According to the Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe intercultural dialogue is a process involving an open exchange of points of view, in mutual respect, between individuals and groups of different cultural origins. The aims of the intercultural dialogue are: developing an understanding of different points of view and practices, increasing participation, ensuring equality; strengthening creative abilities. The measures to be taken for reaching these objectives are, according to the Compendium strategic instruments that promote cultural diversity as the outcome of social interaction. The Compendium of Cultural Policies
285

http://www.unesco.org/iau/id/index.html.

185

and Trends in Europe considers that intercultural dialogue at national level should involve public and private cultural initiatives which would bring together individuals and groups belonging to immigrant communities and to the majority population, with a view to including them in a process of multi-direction communication286. We also find a definition of intercultural dialogue in a document quoted above287 as proposed by the Church and Society Commission of KEK and the Commission of Churches for Migrants in Europe (CCME), drafted as a reaction to the proposals of the Council of Europe which organised through year 2007 a series of public consultations before the adoption of the White Paper on intercultural dialogue. According to KEK and CCME intercultural dialogue is a form of dialogue where the stake and the subject is the own culture and the culture of others. The terms that enable this kind of dialogue are opening up to the other and the wish to listen and share ideas. The main characteristics of a successful intercultural dialogue are respect, trust, equality, cultural curiosity and capacity for change. The degree of success of the intercultural dialogue also depends on the existing relationships between the participants and the atmosphere of the dialogue, which should be of mutual trust. According to KEK and CCME, intercultural dialogue between participants sharing the same values is important but so is between those not sharing common values, the latter form of dialogue being essential in conflict solving.

B. EU programmes dedicated to the promotion of intercultural dialogue


The first Framework Programme of the European Community for culture is a follow-up to the programmes Kaleidoscope, Ariane and Raphael, including the objectives

286 287

http://www.culturalpolicies.net/web/intercultural-dialogue.php. CSC/CCME response to the Council of Europe White Paper consultation on Intercultural Dialogue, op.

cit. pp. 6-7.

186

of those programmes288, and is an attempt to rationalise community actions in the domain of culture and to explicitly integrate culture in the community actions and policies289. However, the requirement of coherence and rationalisation presupposes a definition of the concept culture that would in turn define a cultural policy. It is the extension of the concept of culture that would contribute to the innovation brought about by this programme as compared to the previous cultural actions. Culture is not merely the educated culture or high culture, it is no more conceived of as a mere subsidiary activity, but as a driving force for the society, a factor of creativity, of vitality, of dialogue and cohesion. As a follow-up to the changes that occurred at national level in the 1980s in defining and adopting cultural policies, there is a broader view on culture involving recognition of cultural diversity and the necessity of communication and exchange between social groups290. Culture 2000 is the first programme aiming to enlarge the cultural dimension of the European Construction by creating a unique tool of orientation and funding for cultural cooperation291 at European level. However, culture does not represent as yet a category of community action but only one of the dimensions of the European construction. As it is stipulated in Decision 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 February 2000 on the Programme Culture 2000, the latter represents a first stage towards the development of a European policy in culture292. The ultimate aim of the ideas on which the development of a framework programme for culture at European level is conceived is to contribute to the integration of the cultural
288

On the cultural dimension of the European construction, on the statute of culture at European level

before the adoption of the Programme Culture 2000 and on the groundworks of this programme, see Maria GINAR, Culture 2000, mise en place dune politique culturelle, Romanian Journal of European Affairs, vol. 7, no. 2/2007, pp. 75-83.
289 290

COM (1998) 266 final, p. 5. Henri GIORDAN, Dmocratie culturelle et droit la diffrence, Documentation franaise, Paris, 1982

in Vincent DUBOIS, La politique culturelle. Gense dune categorie dintervention publique, Berlin, Paris, 1999, p. 280.
291

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000. p. 2. At that time in the EU countries and the candidate countries of Central and

Eastern Europe, Cyprus and other countries that signed association or cooperation agreements in the domain of culture.
292

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000. p. 2, para. 10.

187

dimension in community policies, in accordance with Article 151 para. 4 of the Treaty (TEC)293 through means provided by the domestic policies of countries and in accordance with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality stated in Article 5 of the Treaty294. Therefore, competences for implementing Culture 2000 and other culture related programmes and community actions stay with the European Commission but in cooperation with Member States295, with the possibility to include complementary projects financed by other community programmes. However, one should not overlook the fact that the subsidiarity principle involves also a form of public-private partnership that not exclusively belongs to the private sphere296. It is our understanding that the crucial importance attached to the development of a diverse and open common cultural area for Europes peoples is a direct consequence of the European legislative framework in which the cultural actions take place, as the success of a common action in culture depends on the implementation of new ways of actions in cultural cooperation by a vertical approach, in which the three cultural sectors benefit of separate actions according to their specificity, and by a horizontal approach aiming to initiate actions that concern various cultural sectors or to support cultural actions with the contribution of other community programmes or policies. The three cultural domains mentioned in the Culture 2000 programme contribute to the understanding of the scope of a cultural policy at European level: a first sector is related to the performing arts and visual arts, architecture and also to the culture for children or arts in unconventional spaces; another cultural domain is related to publishing, reading and translating; the third domain is concerned with the cultural patrimony of European importance, including the intellectual and non-intellectual patrimony. Despite the fact that different cultural domains are recognised according to the means they are expressed by and to the cultural actors involved in each of the sectors in close relation with their
293 294

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000. p. 1. In accordance with Article 5 TEU, competences of the Community are being developed in areas where

the objectives of the intended actions may more efficiently be achieved at community level. See OJ C 321, 29.12.2006, p. 46.
295 296

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p.3. Radu CARP, Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun [The European political

project from values to common action] , op. cit., p. 92.

188

degree of institutionalisation, a certain convergence may be noted in the way the three cultural sectors are being promoted: cooperation between the various cultural actors (individuals and institutions); a policy of dialogue and exchanges with other world cultures; training, perfecting and facilitating the mobility of those engaged in a certain cultural domain; encouraging creation in a broad sense as a means of social integration; granting access for the public at large to various forms of culture 297. As concerns cultural actions for publishing and translation, mutual knowledge of literary productions (cultural) and of the history of Europes peoples are encouraged298, by support granted to translation activities of literary works and reference books, in particular in European languages of a lesser circulation or belonging to the minority cultures in Europe299. It is not by chance that emphasis is being put on the development and valorisation of a common cultural area, the existence of which had been recognised as early as 1992300: valorisation of the cultural area common to Europeans by emphasising the common cultural characteristics; respect and promotion of cultural diversity; creativity as a source of sustainable development within the common cultural area 301. By valorisation of the common European cultural area it is understood that the objectives of the programme Culture 2000 are related to favouring cooperation between creations, cultural actors, private and public developers, cultural networks and other partners, as well as between cultural institutions of the Member States and of other states. Therefore, the development of a common cultural area, the main goal of the programme, represents both the necessary context and the condition to achieve the objectives of the programme, such as: promoting cultural dialogue and mutual knowledge of the cultures and of the history of Europes peoples, promoting creation, transnational dissemination of culture and mobility of artists, creators [], and of works, with emphasis on young people, socially disadvantaged individuals and cultural diversity, valorisation of cultural diversity and development of new forms of cultural expression, sharing and valorising at European level the common cultural heritage of European importance []
297 298 299 300 301

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, Annex II, p. 8. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 2 and p. 8. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 1. See Maria GINAR, art.cit., p. 75. COM (1998) 266 final, p. 11.

189

preservation and safeguard of this cultural heritage, taking into account the role of culture in socio-economic development, promoting intercultural dialogue and mutual exchange between European and non-European cultures, explicit recognition of culture as an economic factor and as a factor of social integration and citizenship, improving access to culture and participation of the greatest possible number of EU citizens to culture302. Stating the social role of culture is closely related to valorising cultural diversity. The social vocation of the cultural project is reflected in actions aiming to enlarge and facilitate access to culture (and to cultural institutions), and by including in the cultural area the less visible social groups. By its objectives and proposed actions the Culture 2000 programme reconciles democratisation of culture (access for a large public to institutions and works, to the so-called high culture) and cultural democracy303 (recognition and promotion of cultural diversity). In order to reach these objectives, the Programme proposes three types of cultural actions: specific, innovative and/or experimental actions, related to events or projects developed in partnership or as networks and which include the representatives of several Member States (at least three); multi-annual, structured actions within transnational cultural cooperation agreements involving cultural actors from at least five states establishing a sustainable cooperation; cultural events with a European or international dimension aiming to valorise cultural diversity and to contribute to the strengthening of intercultural and international dialogue304. The novelty of the programme Culture 2000 consists in matching the actions with the specificity of cultural activities they are applied to and in integrating other forms of cultural expressions than the traditional ones. Multi-annual cooperation between the cultural operators of the various Member States is the most suitable means for valorising cultural diversity and multilingualism, for disseminating ideas in the European space and for the development of intercultural dialogue. This way cultural operators from various Member States and different national cultural institutions may develop, by virtue of the support given by the European Community, transnational networks or intercultural
302 303

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, pp. 2-3. In COM (1998) 266 final, p. 5 it is stipulated that each citizen of Europe should have the right to accede OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, pp. 5-6.

to culture and to express their creativity.


304

190

relationships at least as important as the collaboration between the national cultural institutions or the framework provided by the cooperation between the European Community and other institutions such as the Council of Europe or the UNESCO 305. Projects developed over a sufficiently lengthy period of time bringing together culture professionals from several Member States may promote multilingualism by using at least two European languages, one of which used in the passive mode. Such a measure could be favoured when evaluating and supporting this kind of projects carried out by cultural partners of several Member States and using as many European languages as possible even though in a passive way; then the intercultural dialogue would focus not only on an exchange of idea but also on exchange between various linguistic traditions. Our understanding is that the European cultural area is based on common traditions, ideals and aspirations306, common cultural characteristics, respect and promotion of cultural diversity, creativity307; however is takes shape in a dynamic way through a permanent intercultural dialogue between Europes peoples in the framework of cooperation among cultural bodies and operators and cultural institutions in the Member States308. If the development of a European public space might involve the risk of linguistic homogenisation throughout Europe, of diminution or disappearance of certain linguistic traditions, it might be countered or at least alleviated by creating networks between cultural partners in different European countries or by a publishing policy that would favour bilingual publications; this way texts conceived in a national, minority or regional language would have increased chances to be recognised beyond the space they primarily address. We could hope that such a publishing policy supported by cultural community programmes of cooperation between different Member States might alleviate the domination of texts drafted in English within the European publications.

305

Jacques RIGAUD, Europe Horizon Culture, Revue du March commun, no. 376, mars 1994 in Pamela

STICHT, Culture europenne ou Europe de cultures ? Les enjeux actuels de la politique culturelle en Europe, LHarmattan, Paris, 2000, pp. 60-61.
306 307 308

Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislaw GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, op. cit. COM (1998), 266 final, p. 11. Ibidem, p. 5.

191

C. The relation between cultural and inter-religious dialogue. Methods for promoting inter-religious dialogue at European level
The issue of multilingualism in Europe cannot be separated from the issue of intercultural dialogue, as linguistic diversity is closely related to that of cultures, being one of the means of producing/creating cultural diversity309. European cultural diversity is strongly linked to the religious one, on the assumption that the wealth of European religious heritage has had a positive influence on the formation of European Cultures, and religion today is an important part of those cultures. There is a close link between religion and culture: religion is part of the culture, and culture exerts its influence on religious expressions310. For this reason there is an indisputable religious dimension to the intercultural dialogue. The Preamble of the future form of the TEU confirms the link between religion and culture by inserting a reference to the cultural and religious heritage of Europe. The two heritages cannot be separated; a single reference to the cultural heritage would not have been sufficient. The dialogue between religions present in the European space has a lengthy tradition. The European Union could not ignore this dialogue and not treat religious cults as partners, whose consultation is necessary in all actions of the European institutions. For this reason the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe stipulated in Article I-52 that the dialogue between the EU and the religions shall be open, transparent and regular, a provision which will be included in the future form of the Treaty as part of the Reform Treaty311. Taking into account that we talk about a norm that is not yet enforced,
309

Cf. Gisle Sapiro in the international colloquium Pour un espace europen de la production et de la

circulation des produits culturels et scientifiques, organised by the European Network ESSE (Pour un espace des sciences sociales europennes ) and the Marc Bloch Centre, with the support of the European Commission, Berlin, November 2007.
310 311

CSC/CME response to the Council of Europe White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue, op. cit., pp. 6-7. For comments on Article I-52 see: Radu CARP, Controverse teologico-politice n cadrul Uniunii

Europene [Theologico-political controversies within the European Union] in (volume coordinated by) Miruna TTARU CAZABAN, Teologie i politic. De la Sfinii Prini la Europa unit [Theology and politics. From the founding fathers to the united Europe], Anastasia, Bucureti, 2004, p. 298; Gerhard

192

the question is whether this dialogue already exists and which its actual forms of manifestation are. At the level of the European Commission there exists a Bureau of European Policy Advisers (BEPA)312 an ad-hic group which provides expertise to the President of the Commission and to different services of the Commission. The current President of the European Commission integrated the former Group of Policy Advisers (GOPA) in BEPA. One of the activities of GOPA is that of providing expertise concerning the implications of the dialogue between religions and the EU. This line of action is not considered a priority for the present BEPA. We think that there should be a distinct group of experts within BEPA dealing with the issue of religion in Europe, starting by the positive results related to religion of the former GOPA and the necessity to give a concrete shape to a formalised dialogue as in Article I-52. This provision represents the most novel and comprehensive reference to the dialogue between the EU and religions. Its origin may be found not only in the debates of the European Convention on the Future of Europe of 2002-2003 or in the Intergovernmental Conference of 2004. The first official document in which religions had been treated as partners of dialogue of the EU institutions was the White Paper on European Governance, launched by the European Commission in 2001313. According to the White Paper the concept of European governance makes reference mostly to the creation and guarantee of a general framework of consultation between EU institutions and the civil society, among which with religions. The White Paper stated: society plays an important role in enabling citizens to express their concerns and in providing the services they need. Churches and religious communities bring a specific contribution. After the publication of the White Paper, the Commission published a communication in which it stated the principles underpinning the relations between the Commission and its partners of dialogue and consultation314. Even if it is generally recognised that at European level there is no definition of the phrase organisations of the
ROBBERS (ed.), State and Church in the European Union, 2nd edition, Nomos, Baden Baden, 2005, p. 586.
312 313

Data on BEPA may be found at http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/policy_advisers/index_en.htm. Commission of the European Communities, European Governance, A White Paper, Brussels (2001) 428

final, 25.7.2001.

193

civil society, the document gives a number of examples of such organisations, among which the religious communities. Beside the religious cults recognised in each EU Member State, there are at European level certain religious organisations involved in various forms of dialogue with the EU institutions. The most important are: the Conference of European Churches (KEK) that includes several Christian Churches (Anglican, Protestant, Orthodox, certain Catholic confessions except the Roman-Catholic); COMECE the Commission of the Bishops Conferences of the European Community reuniting the Roman-Catholic episcopates within the EU space. Beside their affiliation to KEK and COMECE, certain Churches deemed necessary to have an intensified dialogue with the EU institutions, sending to Brussels their own representatives. Therefore, there is a Mission of the Evangelical Church of Germany, Representation of the Church of Greece (as of 1998), of the Orthodox Church of Romania (from 2006) and a Standing Bureau of the Ecumenical Patriarchy (from 1995). Beside COMECE, the Roman-Catholic Church acts in its dialogue with the EU institutions through the organisation Caritas Europa with an office in Brussels. Not only the Christian Churches have established dialogue with the EU institutions but organisations representing the Judaic and Muslim religions have also a concrete presence in Brussels: the Judaic Information Centre, the Rabbinic European Centre, the European Council of the Jewish Communities, the League for Mutual Help of the Muslim Associations of Europe, the Forum of European Muslim Youth and Students etc.315. KEK together with the Council of the Bishops Conferences (CCEE) reuniting the Roman-Catholic Bishops Conferences in the European States (not only the EU Member States) have up to now organized three European Ecumenical Assemblies: Basel 1989, Graz 1997, Sibiu 2007. In 2001 KEK and CCEE adopted in Strasburg the document
314

Communication from the Commission, Towards a reinforced culture of consultation and dialogue

General Principles and minimum standards for consultation of interested parties by the Commission, Brussels, COM (2002) 704 final, 11.12.2002.
315

All these religious organisations are analyzed in detail in Teodor BACONSKY, Radu CARP, Ioan I.

IC jr., Anca MANOLESCU, Elena TEFOI, Bogdan TTARU CAZABAN, Pentru un cretinism al noii Europe [For a Christianity of the New Europe] , Boltzmann series, vol. III, Humanitas, Bucureti, 2007, p. 305 and seq.

194

Charta Oecumenica principles of action for a consolidated cooperation between Churches in Europe316. The European Commission gives more and more consideration to the importance of the European Ecumenical Assemblies. The President of the European Commission Jos Manuel Barroso, and the European commissioners for Education, Training, Culture and Youth (Jan Figel) and for Multilingualism (Leonard Orban) who participated at the Assembly in Sibiu underlined in their speeches the role of religion in promoting intercultural dialogue at European level. The close link between religion and intercultural dialogue might better be valorised in the future. Other pan-European organisations are already aware of the importance of this desideratum. As we mentioned, the Council of Europe organized throughout year 2007 a series of public consultations on intercultural dialogue, with a view of adopting a White Paper on the issue, and religious organisations of European vocation were also involved in the consultations. The European Union promotes dialogue with the religions present on the European continent but does not have competences in promoting inter-religious dialogue. The latter is promoted by the religious organisations with which the EU sustains a dialogue. However, in practice, it is difficult to delineate the dialogue of the EU with religions from the inter-religious dialogue, in order to find out where the limits of the EU interventions are317. Anyway, it is easier to establish the demarcation line in the case of the EU than in that of the Council of Europe. Religions are more ready to accept the involvement of the Council of Europe than of the EU in inter-religious dialogue; the reason is that the interventions of the Council of Europe are reduced to soft law tools and do not involve the establishment of imperative norms or public policies in the domain.
316

The text of the Charta Oecumenica may be consulted on the web site of KEK (http://www.cec-kek.org).

For comments on Charta Oecumenica in Romanian see Ioan Vasile LEB, Reflecii privind Constituia European i Charta Ecumenic [Reflections on the European Constitution and the Charta Ecumenica] , in Sandu FRUNZ (coord.) Pai spre integrare. Religie i drepturile omului n Romnia [Steps towards integration. Religion and human rights in Romania], Limes, Cluj-Napoca, 2004, p. 107 and seq.
317

Point of view presented by Michael Weninger (former counselor of the President of the European

Commission and former director of GOPA) and Dieter Heidtmann (KEK) in discussions with Radu Carp at the international conference Die Kirchen und die politische Kultur Europas. kumenische perspektiven, organized by the Institut fr Sozialtehnik, Universitt Wien, 23-24 November 2007.

195

We consider that in preparing for the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008 the European Commission should establish stronger relations with religious organisations that are recognised as dialogue partners of the EU institutions. The way the Council of Europe tackles relationship between intercultural and inter-religious dialogue may be a source of inspiration. The future construction of this relationship is affected by a single constraint: the actions of the EU and the Council should not overlap, while the present relation of complementarity should become stronger.

6. TOWARDS A EUROPEAN POLICY OF CULTURE? A. Cultural policies and the right to culture in national and European context. EU programmes for culture
The development of capitalism brought about a change in the relation to culture as object and cultural practices; new values of the mass society318 induce the redefinition of the culture concept. The emergence and development of the information society (telecommunication and media), the increasing role of television (of image and sound) involving uniformity, might be countered by the promotion of cultural diversity and of an intercultural dialogue with access to other cultural forms and manifestations than those characteristic for television. It may be stated that the delay with which various types of actions in culture were debated and developed at European level may be understood considering the ways in which these types of public interventions have emerged at national level. Cultural policy in France is one of the main references in the domain and one of the first cultural policies developed in Europe, but also one of the cultural policies that aroused most criticisms due to the important intervention of the state; one of the few studies analyzing the conditions in which culture becomes a category of public intervention may be the basis for understanding the idea of a common European cultural project. Before defining a certain type or types of actions in culture and in order to reach a definition of cultural policy, it
318

See Hannah ARENDT, La crise de la culture, Gallimard, Paris, 1972.

196

is necessary to define the concept of culture319. The very subject matter of the intervention is questionable and varies depending on national history and on the administrative and political system of each State: Kulturpolitik in German designates a set of artistic, educational, sports and entertainment activities; French cultural policy has a strong social dimension and supports public cultural ecumenism; Italian cultural policy is that of public goods aiming to preserve the cultural patrimony, culture not being a unified domain of public action; British cultural policy together with other cultural industries; Belgian cultural policy structured around linguistic concerns320, etc. Meanwhile, the way in which the social space dedicated to culture has been structured (the role and mission of creation) against any form of authority, any patronage, is reflected by the idea of developing a cultural policy in accordance with its original ideal, that is to contribute to the development of human values by encouraging creation and transforming culture in a tool of mutual understanding by bringing together various social groups. Right to culture emerges in the broader framework of the formation of Statenations in Western countries and of the democratic movements in that space. The Declaration of Individuals and Citizens Rights states principles such as political and social equality of all citizens, respect for opinions and faiths, and freedom of speech and press. Right to culture is considered as deriving from civic rights321, even if the concept of culture is grossly heterogeneous. Right to culture is proclaimed also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as right to cultural life322. Even if right to culture is guaranteed at international level, not all EU Member States recognise it as such. The reason behind it is that many constitutions had been drafted in a period when the existence of this right was not recognised, and later amendments did not take into account the mergence and development of this right. Moreover, in certain countries culture is not a domain of state competence, being regulated at regional or local level and competences lie with the private sector and not with the authorities. This is mostly the case in states with federal structures (as is the case
319 320 321 322

Vincent DUBOIS, op. cit., p. 227. Ibidem, p. 8. Alain RIOU, Le droit de la culture et le droit la culture, ESF, Paris, 1993, p. 231. Ibidem, p. 31.

197

of Germany where the cultural associations of the 1960s and 1970s proved to be efficient, and also the case of Belgium where the only domain of state competence is that of copyright). We might also detect similar trends in East European countries in the 1990s with more emphasis in the 2000s. Of the 27 constitutions of the Member States we can find references to culture only in 12. These references do not always relate to the right to culture in its most concrete form i.e. access to culture. Right to culture is guaranteed in this form only in 5 constitutions: the Constitution of the Czech Republic guarantees right of access to cultural wealth as by law (Article 34); the Constitution of Poland grants freedom to enjoy cultural products (Article 73); the Constitution of Portugal stipulates that each individual has right to culture; the State is not the only one obligated to guarantee this right but non-government organisations too (cultural associations and foundations, cultural communities, associations for the preservation of cultural patrimony, citizens organizations and other cultural agents of culture) with which the State should cooperate (Article 73). This is the only constitution of an EU Member State which considers that the State in not the sole responsible in ensuring right to culture. The Constitution of Romania guarantees also explicitly access to culture by an amendment introduced in 2003 (Article 33). The Constitution of Slovakia guarantees also as by law access to cultural wealth (Article 43). We could notice that the guarantee of this right is a rather recent provision, the earliest reference being made in the Constitution of Portugal in 1976. Due to this fact, one can assume that in the future more European Constitutions would include right of access to culture among the fundamental rights. Other constitutions of EU Member States contain no references to this right but to culture, as a rule to the protection of the cultural patrimony which is seen as the exclusive obligation of the State. The Constitution of Bulgaria, for instance, stipulates that the state ensures preservation of all national historic and cultural monuments (Article 23); the Constitution of Greece includes a similar provision (the protection of the cultural environment is an obligation of the State Article 24), and according to the Constitution of Lithuania the State supports objects of the patrimony but not culture (Article 42).

198

There is one case in which guaranteeing culture at constitutional level is seen in correlation with the preservation of cultural identity of the nations that compose a state: according to the Constitution of Finland public authorities ensure the cultural needs of Swedish speaking and Finnish speaking populations on equal basis (Article 17). The Constitution of Latvia considers culture in a way somewhat similar to that of Portugal, based on the idea that not only the State but the citizens and the society in its whole have constitutional responsibilities; the difference is that these common responsibilities are needed to ensure the protection of the cultural environment (Article 43) and not access to culture. The Constitution of Sweden is the only one that regards right to culture as part of the freedom of information as guaranteed constitutionally (Article 13). The Constitution of Malta is limited to a very general reference to certain obligations of the State in culture, without naming them (the State promotes the development of culture Article 8). The greatest number of obligations assumed constitutionally by the State with reference to culture can be found in the Constitution of Romania. According to the already quoted reference, the State should ensure the preservation of spiritual identity, protection and conservation of cultural heritage, development of contemporary creativity, promotion of cultural and artistic values of Romania in the world. It is also stipulated that the freedom of the individual to develop his spirituality and to have access to national and universal cultural values cannot be restricted. It is to be noted that this is the only constitution making reference to national culture; the other constitutions of the EU Member States referring to culture in general. We consider that promoting intercultural dialogue in Europe may also be pursued by generalising the right of access to culture in the constitutions of the EU Member States. The dialogue between cultures that are granted firm constitutional guarantees at national level may more easily develop than in the situation in which the different cultures of Europe are not given the proper attention by the constitutional legislator. At European level, the intervention of the European Community had been only stipulated when the Maastricht Treaty was drafted. However, even in the Treaty of Rome there were means for action in well defined sectors of culture, such as the fiscal regime of

199

cultural foundations or the copyright; Article 36 stipulates right to culture but strictly reserved to the domain of patrimony. During the 1980s, with a view to harmonising the internal market, a number of decisions had been adopted related to book process, audiovisual rights and taxation of antiquities. Inter-state cooperation is declared as the most important dimension of the European Communities, in particular in the Unique European Act (1987). The Maastricht Treaty introduced an innovation by applying the principle of subsidiarity and co-decision in the field of culture. Article 128 dedicated to culture specifies that the new system provides the opportunity for the ministers of culture in the Member States, within the framework of the Council, to adopt measures of encouragement after presenting their projects to the European Parliament as participant in the co-decision and to the Committee of Regions. The European Commission has also the right to propose recommendations to be voted in unanimity by the Parliament and the Committee of Regions. Applying the principle of subsidiarity to culture has been often considered as an obstacle when elaborating common cultural policies. Nevertheless, the intention to create own structures of the Union for culture in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity has been also expressed, in order to raise the awareness of Member States as to the importance of this principle, to valorise the cultural dimension of the European construction and to avoid any hindrance in decision making. Article 128 states the commitment of the European Union to safeguard and valorise the cultural patrimony, with emphasis on the diversity of national and regional cultures, within the cooperation of the EU with the Member States, granting the Union the opportunity to intervene in certain sectors of culture, such as: knowledge and dissemination of European history; preservation and safeguard of cultural patrimony; non-commercial cultural exchanges; artistic, literary and audio-visual creation. Another objective of the EU is related to facilitating cooperation with third states and with competent international cultural organisations. According to the Maastricht Treaty, the effects on culture of other decisions in certain domains of community policies may also be checked. We understand, therefore, that aspects of culture emerge in other intervention domains of the EU without stating the necessity to protect the domain of culture (or at least the possible effects that could be incurred) from the economic logic with negative impact on its own functioning

200

mechanisms. It is noteworthy that this commitment confirms the fact that at the time the cultural dimension did not possess a special framework of norms. A Declaration of the European Commission in 1992323 completes the provisions of Article 128 by establishing the priorities in culture according to two axes. The first axis, the horizontal, means cooperation with experts and specialists in the domain at national or regional level aiming to facilitate integration of the European dimension of culture in EU policies and in that of the Member States; to create new intercultural networks; to enhance intercultural dialogue at national, regional and local level, with emphasis on cultural diversity; to encourage translations in order to facilitate, maintain and create new cultural exchanges. The second axis is related to specific and priority actions in culture: drafting a document or of a programme including all necessary measures for the conservation and safeguard of the cultural patrimony; drafting a programme for publishing and reading. After establishing the objectives, the European Commission adopted programmes dedicated to precise cultural sectors with selection and eligibility criteria of cultural projects, and allotted budgets in accordance with the objectives to be achieved. Starting in year 1993 a number of three-year programmes have been adopted, subsequently restructured in 1995 and 1996, aiming to enhance cultural exchanges between Member States and with other non-Member States, each programme dedicated to a specific sector of cultural activities. The Kalidoscope programme is applied in the domain of creation, promotion of knowledge and dissemination of culture and cultural life of European peoples, with emphasis on inter-states cooperation: partners from at least two Member States and one from a non-Member State are required for artistic or cultural projects developed in partnership or as networks; for large projects partners from at least one nonMember State and from at least three Member States. The Ariane programme is dedicated to the domains of publishing and reading, and also translation. The Raphael programme is applied to safeguard and valorise cultural patrimony. All three programmes were regrouped as of January 2000 in a single framework programme Culture 2000 (initially for a period of four years, later extended up to the end of year 2006). As of 1998, at the initiative of the Council which adopted a decision on the future of actions in culture, the
323

Das neue Kulturkonzept der Gemeinschaft, Mitteilung der Kommission an den Rat, das Europaische

Parlament und den Wirtschafts und Sozialausschuss, Brussels, 1992 in Pamela STICHT, op. cit., p. 54.

201

Commission is requested to study the possibilities to develop a direct, global and transparent approach for cultural action within the Community and to resent proposals leading to the institution of a single programming and financing tool 324. The consultations initiated on the creation of a Framework Programme on culture the European Commission organised in early 1998 a Cultural Forum of the European Union which brought together representatives of the European Parliament, of the Member States, of the Commission and also of organisations of the cultural sector325 the debates on the intervention of the Community in cultural issues, bear witness to the differences between national cultural policies, and between ideas related to the recommended degree of intervention in culture. The Treaty on the functioning of the Union as resulting of the amendment to TEC by the Reform Treaty will include in Article 6 the provision by which culture is part of the category actions of support, coordination and complementary to the actions of Member States.

B. European cultural heritage and European cultural patrimony


From the first paragraph of Article 151 of TEU dedicated to culture we understand that EU actions in the field of culture deal with cultures of the Member States, national and regional (cultural) diversity and common cultural heritage:
The Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the Member States, while respecting their national and regional diversity and at the same time bringing the common cultural heritage to the fore.

The objective of the first Framework Programme for culture Culture 2000 is integrated in the above framework as a basis for a cultural policy at European level: national and regional diversity and the common cultural heritage326. The latter are often

324 325 326

OJ L 305, 7.10.1997, p. 1. Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 72. OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, paragraph 6, p. 1; Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 78. The author considers that the

great challenge of the Culture 2000 programme seems to be the implementation of this fundamental and a priori paradoxical idea (our translation).

202

considered as an opportunity to define European identity as resulting from the Report of the Reflection Group on the Cultural and Spiritual Dimension of Europe:
European culture, a space always prone to re-definition, does not by itself create European unity. This unity requires a political dimension and decisions there from. But common European culture is what gives policy the opportunity to transform Europe in a unitary political entity327.

What could be with certainty asserted is that cultural diversity reflecting the plurality of national traditions and of certain regional traditions is one of the most important resources of Europe. In the present context of globalisation it should be tackled as a wealth. But cultural diversity as a specific feature of Europe is in no way opposed to the common cultural heritage at European level. But neither European cultural diversity nor common cultural heritage could be fully valorised and preserved without a cultural policy at European level, without defining the terms which underpin European cultural identity and without institutionalising European cultural exchanges in the context of globalisation. The term cultural heritage in Article 151 TEU included in the programme Culture 2000 as one of its objectives328 is still not defined in the community law. Within the programme Culture 2000 the term common cultural heritage is for the first time accompanied by a specification; the issue of its preservation and conservation should be one of European importance329. Therefore, we may assert that common cultural heritage as well as linguistic diversity tends to be considered as

327

Kurt BIDENKOPF, Bronislav GEREMEK, Krysztof MICHALSKI, op. cit. Here culture in a broad

sense is considered the necessary foundation to substantiate political construction and defined as the European civil society which is at the core of political identity.
328

OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, p. 3: Le partage de la mise en valeur au niveau europen, lhritage culturel

commun dimportance europenne; la diffusion du savoir-faire et la promotion des bonnes pratiques en ce qui concerne la conservation et la sauvegarde de cet hritage culturel.
329

Maria GINAR, art. cit. p. 79. The author states that the phrase cultural patrimony of European

importance is used with a view to creating a feeling of belonging to the same past.

203

common European values330 even if they are not mentioned as such in TEU as part of the Reform Treaty. We deem necessary to define the term common cultural heritage in the community law, as a measure for clarifying the terminology which would underpin a future European cultural policy. One of the shortcomings of the programme Culture 2000 is just the unclear meaning of this common cultural heritage, all the more so as the meaning of the term culture used in the programme is broader 331. European cultural identity based on a common cultural heritage332 in the broad sense of sharing a common past and also on cultural and linguistic diversity can remain but a utopia, a desideratum, if those terms are not defined and are not included in a set of common European values. European identity is currently defined only on the basis of European political values and not on the cultural ones: individual rights, democratic values, value of human life, social solidarity. The notion of European identity was included in the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice Treaties within the provisions dedicated to freedom, security and justice, and in the framework of provisions related to foreign policy and security policy: European identity is defined as opposed to third countries and the emphasis is put on national identity of the Member States. The cultural dimension does not participate to the definition of European identity; the Solemn Declaration on the European Union adopted in Stuttgart in 1983333 on culture emphasises inter-state cooperation for asserting and valorising cultural heritage334. In 1973 the first declaration on the common European
330

Dominique POULOT, Le patrimoine culturel, une valeur commune de lEurope, Relations

internationales, Division et unit de lEurope, printemps 1993, no. 73, Institut Universitaire des Hautes Etudes Internationales, Genve, pp. 43-62 in Maria GINAR, art.cit., p. 79. The cultural patrimony is defined here as what we claim as being ours and by virtue of the conception of the perenity of a corpus of traditions, ideas, memories etc. linked to natural sites and human artefacts within a community, implies an intervention when it comes to ensuring the preservation and lisibility of this heritage.
331

We note the association of current themes such as natural and urban environment in events concerned

mainly with the cultural patrimony. See http://www.patrimoineculturel.com on the Showroom of the Cultural Patrimony that took place in Paris between 8-11 November 2007.
332

Just as national identity, which implies sharing, among other things, a common past. Cf. Anne-Marie http://www.franceurope.org/pdf/declaration_solennelle.pdf. Maria GINAR, art. cit., p. 82.

THIESSE, La cration des identits nationales. Europe XVIIIe-XXe sicle, Seuil, Paris, 1999.
333 334

204

identity of national cultures (at the time by nine Member States), the Declaration on European identity, was adopted; European common identity should be built upon common values and principles, similar lifestyles in Member States, and any European nation which shares these ideals is invited to participate in the European construction335. The development of a common cultural space of Europes peoples by emphasising cultural values as key elements of their identity and their belonging to a society based on freedom, democracy, tolerance and solidarity would allow the active participation a European citizens. Even so European identity is being built in close relation with the fundamental principles and rights mentioned in the treaties and in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, cultural values are weekly defined and despite the emphasis put on the importance of diversity and expressed in Article 22 of the latter document the Union respects cultural, religious and linguistic diversity; the Charter has a symbolic value, as long as no reference is made to this text in the existing treaties336. The situation would be different after the Reform Treaty would come into force. The future form of the Treaty on the functioning of the Union, resulting from the revision of TEC by the Reform Treaty, will include among other changes the provision by which the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties. The European cultural heritage or the common European culture is grounded in the values and principles common to all national cultures within the European Union. It is, however, impossible to define European cultural identity; it can only symbolically be stated. Yet, it is considered as one of the fundaments of European political identity. However, the use of term identity is being avoided, in particular due to the specificity of the European construction, to the existence of common cultural features, of a common history and to the existence of cultural diversity.
335 336

Parlement Europen, Bulletin 1973/74, no. 46/73, pp. 8-9 in Pamela STICHT, op. cit., p. 46. Cf. Dominique REYNIE, Bruno CAUTRES (dir.), LOpinion europenne, Presse de la Fondation

Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 2001; also Radu CARP, Proiectul politic european de la valori la aciune comun [The European political project from values to common action], op. cit., p. 10 and pp. 66-68.

205

It is not justifiable anymore to resort to and apply the term cultural patrimony defined by UNESCO when speaking about the contribution to the definition of a European cultural space. The phrase European cultural patrimony is already circulating in official documents337, further needing a community law framework. However, the European cultural patrimony should include also linguistic diversity as a wealth of Europe and in doing so it could start from the definitions and provisions established by UNESCO for natural and cultural patrimony and from those related to non-material cultural patrimony338, taking into account that cooperation with supra-national institutions such as UNESCO and the Council of Europe contributed to the harmonisation of national policies on culture. In the programme Culture 2000 particular emphasis was put on valorising cultural diversity with the express mention that a special attention should be given to safeguarding the position of minority cultures and languages with a limited circulation in Europe, and to the collaboration and coordination of cultural actions with the actions of international organisations of culture339. The programme Culture 2000 creates the framework for the coordination of the common actions of the Member States in culture at European level in order to contribute to the development of a common European cultural space and to the integration of the cultural dimension into Community policies340 in accordance with the respect and promotion of the diversity of its cultures341; however, it does not exclude cultural dialogue with other cultures in the non-member states of the EU342. In order to avoid any form of autarchy, European cultural policy should have in view not only to develop
337

Greece and France are at the origin of an initiative aiming to propose a new vision on the European

cultural patrimony, contributing to the development of a Catalogue of Monuments of the European Cultural Patrimony (our translation). See http://.canalacademie.com/Le-patrimoin-europeen-revisite.html.
338

See http://portal.unesco.org for the definition of world cultural heritage and for imaterial or living

cultural heritage. To be more precise, in this perspective, of interest are Convention on the world cultural and natural heritage (Paris, 16 November 1972), Convention on the safeguard of non-material cultural heritage (Paris, October 2003) and Convention on the protection and promotion of the diversity of cultural expressions (Paris, 20 October 2005).
339 340

OJ L 63, Article 7, p. 3. Decision no. 508/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the Culture 2000 Article 151, paragraph 4 TEU.

programme OJ L 63, 10.3.2000, paragraph 7, p. 1.


341

206

European intercultural dialogue but also to facilitate cultural exchanges with countries outside the EU.

C. A European Institute of Culture the failure of an original idea


In 1995 there had been an initiative aiming to bring together all national institutes in Brussels, a Declaration of intent for the creation of a European house of culture with the intention to be signed by all the directors of national institutes, partnership being of priority with direct consequence on the autonomy of these institutes343. The initiative to regroup in the same building (Place Plagey, Brussels) the national cultural institutions belonged to the president of the Foundation for Arts in Brussels. The institution created has been named Maison Europenne de la Culture (European House of Culture). Despite the reluctance expressed by the directors of the national institutes, cooperation in culture proved efficient; this is how the proposal to sign a Charter by all directors with the agreement of their respective Governments came to the fore. But what should have been a Declaration of intent for the creation of a European house of culture was never signed. The failure to formalise such a promising initiative did not thwart the continuation and strengthening of the cooperation between the cultural institutions on certain projects and occasionally in collaboration with other partners than the national institutes. The federation of the national cultural institutes would have involved managing a common budget, and a rotating leadership by one of the directors of the national institutes, similar to the principle applied by the Council of Europe, the decisions concerning actions and events being made by the representatives of the national cultural

342

OJ L 63, Article 7: Pays tiers et organisations internationales, p. 3 and p. 8: encourager la coopration

internationale en vue du dveloppement de nouvelles technologies et de linnovation dans les diffrents domaines relevant du patrimoine culturel; encourager la coopration avec les pays tiers et les organisations internationales comptentes.
343

Pamela STICHT, op. cit., pp. 109-111. The author mentions an interview given by the director of the

Goethe Institut in Brussels, which enabled her to obtain information for evaluating the possibilities to implement a project such as the creation of a European Institute for Culture.

207

institutions in common meetings. It should be mentioned that the domains of language and information would have stayed with the national cultural institutions344. The initiative to create a European institution for culture and the continuation of close cooperation between certain national cultural institutions (sometimes even their cohabitation)345 may represent the basis for the creation of a future European Cultural Institute which would represent European culture outside Europe, having as its objectives the preservation of European cultural and linguistic diversity as wealth of the European culture and of the intercultural dialogue; it would also be the premise for the development of a European cultural space346. A progress in creating a European Institute for Culture is the development of cooperation between the cultural institutes of the EU Member States established in third countries, including the cultural institutes and their equivalents in those countries347. Once more, culture is viewed in the perspective of the external relations of the EU, as long as such a structure would establish common objectives and actions aiming to promote Europe348. In the Communication from the Commission entitled A European agenda for culture in a globalised world349, in the section dedicated to the external relations of the EU, it is stated that the recent initiatives of the Commission pursue a cooperation with and between the cultural institutions of the Member States, with a view to disseminating important messages about Europe, its identity and experience in creating means of communication between different cultures,
344 345

Ibidem, p. 110. Discussion of Camelia Runceanu with Vincent Dubois at the international colloquia Pour un space

europen de la production et de la circulation des produits culturels et scientifiques, organised by the European Network ESSE (Pour un espace des sciences sociales europen) and the Centre Marc Bloch with the support of the European Commission, Berlin, November 2007.
346

According to the conclusion of the Report of the Reflection Group on the spiritual and cultural

dimension of Europe (analised above), there exists a European cultural space, therefore it is all the more likely to bring together the cultural initiatives of cultural institutions in the Member States and also other bodies, cultural actors or representative discussion partners in the domain from the EU Member States.
347 348

OJ L 287/2, 29.11.2007. Franois ROCHE, La crise des institutions nationales dchanges culturels en Europe, LHarmattan, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European

Paris, 1998.
349

Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions, on a European agenda for culture in a globalised world, COM (2007) final, 10.5.2007.

208

which is the pre-condition of a cultural diplomacy350 as contribution of the EU to culture351. Community programmes, pilot projects, symbolic and specific projects, common actions in culture (including information, communication and audio-visual sectors), all these are the contents of a future cultural policy; however, it cannot exist without an efficient coordination of common cultural project with long term effects. Without institutions we could not talk about policy, not even a cultural one. Therefore, facilitating intercultural dialogue and interaction between the civil societies of Member States one of the specific objectives of the European agenda of culture should be taken into consideration not only as an indispensable element in international relations but also in the perspective of coordinating national actions in culture within the EU and of establishing the fundament of a cultural policy at European level. In order to understand the possibility to create such an institution coordinating cultural activities at European level, a prior framework of norms should be created, including a clear definition of common cultural values and a set of common cultural objectives or shares at EU level, demonstrating the existence, beyond national, regional or local interests, of common interests closely related to the political and social evolution in the context of globalisation. All the above would induce the re-evaluation of national cultural policies and the role of nation-state in culture.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The first chapter presents extensively the contemporary linguistic landscape, ways of protecting languages, the challenge addressed by multilingualism to the EU institutions, normative and non-normative definition of common European values and
350

We should note the emergence of the term cultural diplomacy often critised because it could be used

only under certain terms, depending on the bodies dealing with cultural policy. See Franois ROCHE, La diplomatie culturelle dans les relations bilatrales, mars 2006, http://www.sen-public.org/article.php3? id_article=235.
351

COM (2007) 242 final, p. 7.

209

issues generated by the linguistic equivalence of terms used in official languages in basic EU documents. Chapter one proposes several conclusions: (a) at present, it is practically impossible to define the concept of European identity, the very essence of the European project being the respect of difference. (b) from a strictly normative point of view, linguistic diversity is not part of the common European values, but the respect of linguistic diversity should be stressed by measures of the same intensity as those that guarantee the values considered to be common European values. (c) despite the complexity of the multilingual institutional communication mechanism, procedures were developed that guarantee the quality of translations by revision, checking and supervising, the mechanism of continuous training and information of translators playing a significant role in this process. Chapter two presents forms of dissemination of multilingualism in education and the audio-visual sector, reviewing aspects related to language learning in pre-university and university education, references being made to the relation public private in language learning and stressing the role of language competence certificates on the European labour market. The conclusions are the following: (a) the importance for the EU of communicating in other languages is due to its inclusion among the eight main competences of lifelong learning; (b) within the EU, multilingualism is promoted directly, explicitly, through the portal Europe and multilingualism and also indirectly through policies and programmes that have other primary objectives, but cannot be developed without knowledge of several languages; (c) in Romania there is a real and evident lack of data on linguistic service providers, a situation requiring the initiation of a study on the Romanian situation; the study would contribute to the adoption of a development strategy at national level and to the integration of Romania in the European landscape, in European programmes and facilitate collaboration between various providers at European level. (d) Romanian as an EU Member State should be in line with the good practices in multilingualism by generating a programme describing language competences for

210

Romanian as a foreign language and developing/adopting an internationally recognised language competence certificate. Chapter three, Institutional promotion of multilingualism, reached the following conclusions: (a) multilingualism is diffused through the entire philosophy of the European construction, having been stated as a principle as early as 1954 in the European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe; (b) practical ways to promote multilingualism in the EU were developed over the years on three levels on which the term multilingualism is being used citizens level, institutional level and intra-institutional level. Chapter four tackles the rights of the European citizen and the influence of multilingualism, proposing two conclusions: (a) linguistic discrimination used in a Member State to restrict access to the labour market may represent an exception to the principle of equal treatment; (b) the lack of a European public sphere leads to the lack of knowledge and lack of interest for European citizens rights. The proposal of the Commission for a citizen centred communication and decentralisation of communication channels between citizens and EU institutions is presented. Chapter five, Promoting intercultural dialogue in the European Union, provides a brief review of the difficulties linked to the definition of intercultural dialogue, presents EU programmes dedicated to intercultural dialogue and analyses methods to promote inter-religious dialogue at European level, with emphasis on the relationship between the intercultural dialogue and the inter-religious one. The proposed conclusions are: (a) the common cultural European space is developing in a dynamic way on the basis of a permanent intercultural dialogue between Europes peoples; (b) the development of a common cultural European space is unfolding not by linguistic homogenisation, by the blurring or extinction of linguistic traditions in Europe but through the creation of networks between cultural partners from different European states, through publishing policies aiming to favour publications or bi-lingual editions that would alleviate the domination of texts published in English language;

211

(c) the European Union promotes dialogue with the religions present on the European continent without having competences to promote inter-religious dialogue; (d) the religions are more inclined to accept the involvement of the Council of Europe in inter-religious dialogue than that of the EU, due to the fact that in its interventions the Council of Europe uses soft law tools of influence and does not act by establishing imperative norms or public policies in the domain. In chapter six, Towards a European policy of culture?, the authors stress the changes that have occurred in the world by the development of the information society. A discussion for the definition of the concepts culture and cultural heritage is proposed, and on the ways to address the policies that guarantee right to culture in the Member States. The chapter proposes the following conclusions: (a) European cultural diversity represents the plurality of national traditions, and also of certain regional traditions, being one of the most important resources of Europe that has to be treated as a wealth in the present context of globalisation; (b) it is necessary to define in the community law the concept of cultural heritage, as a means to clarify the terms that underpin a future European cultural policy; (c) presently, cultural values are loosely and rather symbolically defined but, when the Reform Treaty would come into force, respect due to cultural, linguistic and religious diversity would have the same normative value as the provisions of the Treaty; (d) though European cultural identity underpins European political identity, it is still impossible to define it and is only symbolically stated as yet; (e) the attempt to create a European Institute of Culture has been a failure, but without institutions no policy can be devised, not even in culture; (f) it is necessary to have a normative framework that would stipulate a clear definition of common cultural values and would formulate a set of cultural objectives at the level of the EU, demonstrating the existence of common interests closely related to the social and political evolutions in the context of globalisation.

8. RECOMMENDATIONS

212

1. For a better promotion of linguistic diversity within the European Union it is necessary to strengthen collaboration between EU institutions and the European Bureau for Lesser-Used Languages (EBLUL). Minority and/or regional languages are in the focus of the Council of Europe, but the European Union should get more involved in protecting these languages, keeping the complementary relation between the two institutions. A concrete way of collaboration between EBLUL and European institutions would be the creation of a dictionary of regional and/or minority languages spoken in the EU Member States, and the institutionalisation of this collaboration. 2. The signing on 10 October 2007 of two agreements between the Republic of Moldova and the European Community Agreement on facilitating visa conditions and Agreement on re-admission of individuals with illegal residence generated diverse reactions in Romania and also at the level of the European Parliament during the debates, due to the mention that the documents were drafted in Moldovan language. The European commissioner for multilingualism was remonstrated for not combating the recognition of this language which in fact does not exist; the mention that the respective agreements were signed in Romanian would have been sufficient. Lack of such a reaction is generated by the fact that at present it is not sufficiently clear from a normative point of view whether the competences of the EU actually refer to the official languages of the Member States or reaches out to the extra-community states too, as far as there are bilateral agreements with those states with the obligation to specify which kind of linguistic versions should have judicial effects. The European Commission should reflect on the relationship between its official languages and the languages of extra-community states with which it established various types of partnerships and on forms taken by these relations, especially knowing that some of the languages of extra-community states are recognised as minority and/or regional languages by many EU Member States. We recommend the elaboration of a study exclusively dedicated to this issue, commissioned by the European Commission, a study that would underpin the subsequent definition of an official position of the EU in the matter.

213

3. It is to be expected that in the coming years Romania, as many other EU Member States, would face a growing number of foreign nationals wishing to learn or to work on its territory in public or private organisations in which Romanian is the working language. These individuals will need modern, interactive courses for learning Romanian language, and evaluation tests of their competence of communication in Romanian. Both options are still in an early phase. We consider that it is necessary to develop a procedure for the evaluation of language competence of foreign nationals who speak or want to learn Romanian. In order to define this procedure an inter-institutional effort is needed that would involve the interested ministries (Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Reform of the Administration, Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs), as well as university centres, the latter dedicating more efforts to study the impact of linguistic diversity on the labour market. It is also necessary to define the elements subsumed to a certificate of language competence for Romanian language. This desideratum is necessary both in the perspective of assimilating the successful solutions practiced in other EU Member States, and in the perspective of being in line with good practices on international level, which require in terms of a global market and freedom of movement of labour force the development of modern tools of evaluation and language teaching. This recommendation is valid for other EU Member States too in search of solutions for evaluating the language competence of foreign nationals both within and outside the Community. 4. Considering the high mobility of Romanian citizens within the EU, the protection of the Romanian language cannot be pursued by exclusively national means. The existence of numerous communities of Romanian citizens in EU Member States, such as Spain or Italy, resulted in the identification of solutions through which Romanian language would be studied in those countries as part of the school curriculum. The study of Romanian language at that level would not result in linguistically separating Romanian communities from the linguistic environment in

214

which they live, but would strengthen intercultural dialogue, if the teaching tools will prove adequate. The solution to study an official EU language which is not of international use (the case of Romanian, but not only) in another EU Member State is in an early stage as yet; EU intervention mechanisms not being yet defined, there are only bilateral agreements (between the responsible ministries). We consider that as labour force movements on the EU territory would expand, EU institutions should find a means through which to facilitate teaching courses in mother tongue, in parallel with efforts made by their States of provenance. The intervention of the EU in this issue should be subsidiary to the action of those Member States, but for the implementation of the principle of subsidiarity in this case an effort of deep reflection is needed. 5. Although language learning in Romania is an activity yielding positive results, there is no integrated, scientific, accessible study as yet on the actual situation, clearly identifying the linguistic service providers, the profile of the consumer and, in particular, the potential of the market for this type of services. This finding is also valid for other EU Member States. Taking into account that the High level Group for Multilingualism recommended to the European Commission in its Final Report to encourage the creation in the Member States of local/regional language learning networks consisting of a variety of providers and sustain their collaboration at European level, we recommend the preparation of such a study at national level, to identify providers in Romania as part of a broader evaluation of the existing situation at European level. The study made accessible on the Internet also in other languages would provide data on Romania to potential language service providers willing to attract Romania in project partnerships. Among these projects, priority to the EU financement should be given for projects that emphasise education through edutainment. 6. The most concrete and visible form of education for the European citizen by which the EU promotes multilingualism as a common European value is the recognition of 23 official languages. Multilingualism had been at the basis of the

215

creation of the European Communities, due to the fact that at the very beginning of the European construction the alternative of a defined and obligatory procedural working language was not adopted, as was the case with other supra-national organisations. The promotion of this attribute should further stay at the basis of all common actions at European level in the respect of linguistic diversity. At present, managing multilingualism has become more and more difficult and costly, the translation and interpretation activities involving an impressive number of employees working within the EU institutions. To cope with this challenge, use of procedural working languages has precedence in many situations (English, French, German). EU officials stressed todays paradox of multilingualism: the greater the number of languages used in the relations between EU institutions and in the relations of those institutions with citizens, the more difficult and time consuming becomes the management of the whole process, which ultimately results in the real difficulty to promote multilingualism. Presently, it is difficult to draw the separation line between efficiency and respect of linguistic diversity within the EU. However, it is imperiously necessary to draw such a line of demarcation. To reach a result, we recommend as a first measure, that the European Commission initiate a monitoring process establishing the situations in which resorting to procedural working languages is absolutely necessary and the cases in which the strict respect in practice of the equality of all 23 official languages of the EU is mandatory. 7. The issue of multilingualism in the European Union cannot be separated from that of intercultural dialogue, for linguistic diversity is closely linked to that of cultures. In turn, cultural diversity within the EU has strong correlation with the religious one. The wealth of European religious heritage has had a positive influence on the development of European national cultures, and on the creation of a common European cultural space. The preamble of the Treaty of the European Union, in the form integrated in the Reform Treaty, confirms these links by referring both to the cultural heritage and the religious heritage of Europe. We recommend that the relationship between multilingualism, intercultural dialogue and inter-religious dialogue be valorised on the occasions that will mark year 2008 as the European

216

Year of Intercultural Dialogue, noting that other pan-European organisations such as the Council of Europe, are aware of the importance of promoting both types of dialogue at compatible parameters. The fact that by the Reform Treaty dialogue between the religions present on the European continent and the EU will be institutionalised should generate concrete actions through which the link between intercultural dialogue, inter-religious dialogue and multilingualism would gain more visibility. The actions of the EU and of the Council of Europe should not overlap each other, but the existing complementarities should be strengthened. The European Year of Intercultural Dialogue should not be promoted by formal actions bringing to the fore institutional actors with no appetite to be engaged in a real dialogue, but should be an occasion for a deeper reflection on the origins and future of cultural, linguistic and religious diversity in Europe. 8. Promotion in the community and extra-community spaces of the national cultures of EU Member States, as well as of the official languages used in those States is performed at present by the national cultural institutions (the British Council, the Cervantes Institute, the Goethe Institute, the French Institute, the Romanian Cultural Institute, etc.). There is no institutional form to promote all official languages of the EU by cultural institutes. The EU considers culture as being an intervention domain, meaning that EU Member States have the right to establish their own promotion lines for their national cultures; meanwhile, at EU level there are sufficient means of action (such as the programme Culture 2000). We consider that it is necessary to define a common European strategy, establishing the possible competences of the national cultural institutions and promoting them in common. The failure of the initiative to create a European Institute of Culture does not mean that the project should not be in the attention of those who manage national cultures and of those responsible for culture within the European Commission. In the future all initiatives should proceed from the conclusion expressed in the Report of the Reflection Group on the spiritual and cultural dimension of Europe, which considers that there exists a common European cultural space. To give for the European citizen a concrete connotation to this space, initiatives such as a European

217

Institute of Culture should be founded on grounds differing from the former ones, starting from the need to promote in common, at the level of national cultural institutes, linguistic diversity and implicitly multilingualism; only later should they proceed to the next stage (depending on the possible success of stage one): creating the tools for the promotion within and beyond the EU the common European features of national cultures.

Multilingvism i dialog intercultural n Uniunea European. O viziune romneasc - rezumat -

Studiul Multilingvism i dialog intercultural n Uniunea European. O viziune romneasc propune o viziune interdisciplinar asupra temei de cercetare abordate dinspre domeniile de activitate ale autorilor, respectiv tiine politice, lingvistic i comunicare de afaceri, fiind unul din primele studii academice asupra multilingvismului n Romnia ca stat membru al UE. Studiul abordeaz aspectele majore ale cercetrii structurndu-se n urmtoarele capitole: prezentarea efectelor extinderii Uniunii Europene asupra diversitii lingvistice 218

i culturale n capitolul unu, o discuie asupra multilingvismului n context european n capitolul doi, n capitolul trei o prezentare sintetic a promovrii instituionale a multilingvismului n UE, n capitolul patru analizarea unor aspecte legate de drepturile ceteanului european i influena multilingvismului asupra lor, promovarea dialogului intercultural n UE n capitolul cinci i se ncheie cu o ntrebare referitoare la existena unei direcii n vederea lansrii unei politici europene a culturii n capitolul ase, ntrebare care i gsete parial rspunsul n interiorul capitolului respectiv, dar i n recomandrile pe care autorii le fac. Primul capitol prezint extensiv peisajul lingvistic contemporan subliniind c n Europa sunt reprezentate n prezent, n grade diferite, aproape toate familiile de limbi de pe glob, cu excepia familiilor australian, papua i khoisan. De asemenea, capitolul unu face distincia ntre limba oficial de stat i limba naional prin care se desemneaz limba oricrei naionaliti al crei uz este recunoscut legal n statul n care triesc membrii si, n aceast accepie un stat putnd avea mai multe limbi naionale. Modul de protecie local, regional i naional a limbilor este prezentat prin activitile unei organizaii non-guvernamentale transnaionale, Biroul European pentru Limbi mai puin Utilizate, dar i prin prevederile Consiliului Europei, reglementate prin Carta European a Limbilor Regionale sau Minoritare. Instituiile UE i provocarea multilingvismului cazul Parlamentului European, definirea normativ i non-normativ a valorilor comune europene i interpretarea termenilor care desemneaz valorile comune europene n funcie de contextul lingvistic, precum i problemele generate de echivalena lingvistic a termenilor folosii n documentele de baz ale UE n limbile oficiale sunt aspecte prezentate pe larg n capitolul unu al studiului. Este ncercat i o definire a conceptului de identitate european, dar complexitatea situaiilor implicate face imposibil definirea unei identiti europene la acest moment, considerndu-se c respectul alteritii este chiar esena proiectului european. Autorii demonstreaz c, din punct de vedere strict normativ, diversitatea lingvistic nu face parte din valorile comune europene, recomandnd ns ca respectul acordat diversitii lingvistice s fie garantat prin msuri avnd o intensitate egal cu cele prin care sunt garantate acele valori care sunt considerate a fi valori comune europene.

219

Tot n capitolul unu autorii trec n revist dificultile de traducere ale textelor documentelor instituiilor UE i prezint mecanismul comunitar multilingv de comunicare instituional. S-au dezvoltat proceduri care garanteaz calitatea traducerilor prin revizie, verificare i supraveghere i printr-un mecanism continuu de formare i informare a traductorilor. Dup definirea multilingvismului n prima parte a capitolului doi, se prezint forme de diseminare a multilingvismului n domeniile educaiei i n sectorul audiovizual, se trec n revist aspecte legate de nvarea limbilor n nvmntul universitar i preuniversitar, se fac referiri la raportul public privat n nvarea limbilor i se prezint rolul certificatelor de competen lingvistic pe piaa muncii european subliniindu-se c importana comunicrii n alte limbi este inclus printre cele opt competene principale ale nvrii continue. Grupul de lucru pentru limbi, nfiinat nc din 2002 n cadrul programului Education and Training 2010, reunete oficialiti responsabile pentru politicile din domeniul limbilor n statele membre i se ntlnete regulat pentru a schimba informaii i defini bune practici. Autorii evideniaz faptul c n UE multilingvismul este promovat n mod direct, explicit, prin portalul Europa i multilingvismul, dar i n mod indirect prin politici i programe al cror scop primar este altul, dar care nu se pot derula dect printr-o cunoatere a mai multor limbi. Printre strategiile indirecte de promovare a multilingvismului prin edutainment sunt programele MEDIA i postul de televiziune EuroNews. Tot n capitolul doi sunt analizate modaliti de promovare a limbii romne ca limb de studiu n statele membre UE i se concluzioneaz c exist o real i evident lips de date asupra furnizorilor de servicii lingvistice n Romnia, iar atunci cnd exist, ele sunt fragmentate mpiedicnd formarea unei imagini coerente, de ansamblu, cu privire la diversitatea ofertelor de pe pia. Autorii recomand iniierea unui studiu care ar contribui att la cunoaterea situaiei romneti n vederea adoptrii de strategii de dezvoltare la nivel naional ct i la inserarea Romniei n peisajul european, prin contribuia la programele europene i facilitarea colaborrii dintre diverii furnizori la nivel european. Romnia, ca stat membru al UE trebuie s fie aliniat la bunele practici din domeniul multilingvismului i existena descrierii competenelor lingvistice pentru limba romn ca limb strin i, prin urmare, dezvoltarea/adoptarea unui certificat

220

recunoscut internaional de competen lingvistic, este o condiie important n acest sens. Autorii abordeaz problema delocalizrilor n context multilingvistic discutnd i analiznd nfiinarea Fondului de Adaptare la Globalizare, complementar fondurilor structurale, mai precis Fondului Social European. n capitolul trei, Promovarea instituional a multilingvismului, se prezint metode de promovare a dialogului multilingvistic pe plan european subliniindu-se c multilingvismul este difuz n ntreaga filozofie a construciei europene i este statuat ca pricipiu nc din 1954 n Convenia Cultural European a Consiliului Europei, modaliti de promovare a multilingvismului n ntreprinderile care opereaz pe teritoriul UE, metode de promovare a multilingvismului n universiti i n instituiile UE precum i aspecte legate de grupurile de experi n domeniul multilingvismului nfiinate de Comisia European. Autorii discut i prezint cele trei paliere de utilizare ale termenului de multilingvism la nivelul cetenilor, la nivel instituional i la nivel intrainstituional. Capitolul patru abordeaz Drepturile ceteanului european i influena multilingvismului, prin analizarea i discutarea exercitrii drepturilor de a alege i de a fi ales la alegerile locale i pentru Parlamentul European, dndu-se ca exemplu sistemul practicat n Luxemburg pentru felul n care rezidenii comunitari ntr-un stat membru UE i pot exercita ntr-un context multilingvistic drepturile conferite prin cetenia european i campaniile de informare n limbile vorbite de aceti rezideni iniiate de ara gazd, dreptul ceteanului european de a se adresa instituiilor UE i de a primi rspuns n limba proprie. Este discutat un aspect interesant al principiului tratamentului egal, fiind semnalat faptul c discriminarea lingvistic folosit pentru restricionarea accesului pe piaa muncii ntr-un stat membru UE poate fi o excepie de la acest principiu. De asemenea, autorii discut existena i exercitarea acestor drepturi pe fundalul existenei sau mai degrab al inexistenei unei sfere publice europene care ar trebui s faciliteze preocupri fa de dimensiunile europene i mai puin ngust naionale ale problematicilor dezbtute. Este prezentat propunerea Comisiei pentru o comunicarea centrat pe cetean i descentralizarea canalelor de comunicare ntre cetean i instituiile UE.

221

Capitolul cinci, Promovarea dialogului intercultural n Uniunea European, ofer o sumar trecere n revist a dificultilor legate de definirea dialogului intercultural, prezint programele UE destinate promovrii dialogului intercultural i analizeaz metode de promovare a dialogului inter-religios pe plan european, cu accent pe relaia ntre dialogul inter-religios i cel intercultural. Autorii trec n revist programul cadru Cultura 2000 cu cele trei domenii principale de aciune: (a) artele spectacolului i artele vizuale, arhitectura, cultura destinat copiilor sau artele n spaii neconvenionale, (b) cartea, lectura i traducerea i (c) patrimoniul cultural de importan european, inclusiv patrimoniul intelectual i nonintelectual, subliniind faptul c n pofida acestui instrument unic de orientare i de finanare pentru cooperarea cultural la nivel european, cultura nu se constituie nc drept categorie a aciunii comunitare, ci doar ca una dintre dimensiunile construciei europene, reprezentnd o prim etap ctre instituirea unei politici europene n domeniul culturii. Concluzia care se propune este c spaiul cultural european comun are la baz tradiiile, idealurile i aspiraiile comune, respectul i promovarea diversitii culturale, creativitate, constituindu-se ntr-o manier dinamic n baza unui dialog intercultural permanent ntre popoarele Europei. Autorii propun o abordare care privete dezvoltarea spaiului public european prin care se sper nu o omogenizare lingvistic, estomparea sau dispariia unor tradiii lingvistice n Europa, ci crearea unor reele ntre parteneri culturali din diferite ri europene, a unor politici editoriale care s favorizeze publicaii sau ediii bilingve prin care s se promoveze opere concepute ntr-o limb naional, minoritar sau regional care ar avea ansa de a fi cunoscute i eventual recunoscute n afara spaiului cruia li se adreseaz n prim instan, atenund astfel dominaia textelor redactate n limba englez n sfera publicaiilor cu circulaie european. n abordarea analizei modului de promovare a dialogului inter-religios pe plan european se subliniaz c Uniunea European promoveaz dialogul cu religiile prezente pe continentul european, neavnd ns competene n vederea promovrii dialogului interreligios. Autorii remarc faptul c religiile accept implicarea Consiliului Europei n dialogul inter-religios mai mult dect pe cea a UE, explicnd acest lucru prin faptul c intervenia Consiliului Europei se rezum la instrumente de soft law, de influenare, i nu se acioneaz prin stabilirea de norme imperative sau politici publice n domeniu. Autorii

222

recomand ca, n vederea Anului European al Dialogului Intercultural 2008, Comisia European s aib o relaie mai strns cu organizaiile religioase care sunt recunoscute ca parteneri de dialog ai instituiilor UE, cu atenia necesar pentru ca aciunile UE i cele ale Consiliului Europei s nu se suprapun, ci s se adnceasc relaia de complementaritate existent n prezent. n capitolul ase, n direcia unei politici europene a culturii ?, autorii subliniaz modificrile aprute n lume prin dezvoltarea unei societi informaionale care poate duce la uniformizare prin concentrarea publicului, dar i a decidenilor, asupra televiziunii, i subliniaz rolul pozitiv al promovrii diversitii culturale i a unui dialog intercultural cu acces la alte forme i manifestri culturale dect acelea caracteristice acestui mediu de comunicare n mas. Se propune o discuie asupra definirii conceptului de cultur, motenire cultural i a modalitilor de abordare ale politicilor de garantare ale dreptului la cultur n rile membre, subliniindu-se c diversitatea cultural european reprezint o pluralitate a tradiiilor naionale, dar i a unor tradiii regionale, constituind una dintre resursele cele mai importante ale Europei, care se cere tratat ca o bogie n contextul actual al globalizrii. Autorii consider necesar definirea conceptului de motenire cultural comun n dreptul comunitar ca o msur de clarificare a termenilor ce stau la baza unei viitoare politici culturale europene. Dup o analiz a statutului dimensiunii culturale n definirea identitii europene, autorii concluzioneaz c valorile culturale rmn n prezent slab definite, cu valoare simbolic, cu meniunea ns c de la data intrrii n vigoare a Tratatului de Reform, respectul datorat diversitii culturale, lingvistice i religioase va avea aceeai valoare normativ ca i celelalte prevederi ale acestui Tratat. Concluzia capitolului este c dei identitatea cultural european se afl la baza identitii politice europene, ea rmne imposibil de definit i doar simbolic afirmat. n privina constituirii unui Institut European al Culturii, autorii studiului prezint dificultile unei astfel de construcii instituionale i eecul acestei idei, atrgnd, ns, atenia asupra faptului c fr instituii nu se poate vorbi de o politic nici mcar n domeniul culturii i recomandnd crearea unui cadru normativ care s prevad definirea clar a valorilor culturale comune i elaborarea unui set de obiective culturale comune sau partajate la nivelul UE care s demonstreze existena, dincolo de

223

interesele naionale, regionale sau locale, a unor interese comune n strict legtur cu evoluiile sociale i politice n contextului globalizrii. Studiul se ncheie prin formularea a 8 recomandri cu privire la: ntrirea colaborrii ntre instituiile UE i Biroul European pentru Limbi mai puin Utilizate; raportul ntre limbile oficiale UE i cele extra-comunitare, mai ales cele care au statut de limbi regionale i/sau minoritare; definirea unor proceduri de evaluare a competenei lingvistice a strinilor care vorbesc sau doresc s nvee limba romn (recomandare valabil i pentru alte state membre UE aflate n situaii similare); promovarea limbii romne ca limb de studiu n statele membre UE n care triesc importante comuniti romneti (recomandare care, la nivel european, se traduce prin necesitatea de a defini forme prin care instituiile UE s faciliteze, pe baza principiului subsidiaritii, predarea limbilor materne pe teritoriul altor state membre n care se gsesc un numr important de vorbitori ai acestor limbi); necesitatatea elaborrii unui studiu care s pun n eviden furnizorii de servicii lingvistice, att n Romnia, ct i n alte state membre UE, precum i necesitatea de a pune accent pe metode de educaie de tip edutainment; demararea unui proces de monitorizare iniiat de Comisia European care s stabileasc situaiile n care recursul la limbile de lucru se impune cu necesitate i cazurile n care se impune respectarea strict a principiului egalitii limbilor oficiale; relaia dintre multilingvism, dialog intercultural i inter-religios care ar trebui s fie pus n valoare cu ocazia Anului European al Dialogului Intercultural 2008; continuarea iniiativelor de punere n valoare a spaiului comun cultural european de genul Institutului European al Culturii, pornindu-se de la promovarea multilingvismului n interiorul i n exteriorul UE prin intermediul unor aciuni comune ale institutelor culturale naionale.

224

Multilingualism and intercultural dialogue in the European Union. A Romanian perspective


summary -

The study Multilingualism and intercultural dialogue in the European Union. A Romanian perspective proposes an interdisciplinary vision of the research approached from the fields of activity of the authors, political science, linguistic and business communication respectively, and is one of the first academic studies on multilingualism in Romania as an EU Member State. The study tackles the major aspects of the research structured in the following chapters: presentation of the EU enlargement on linguistic and cultural diversity in 225

chapter one, a discussion on multilingualism in European context in chapter two, in chapter three a synthetic presentation of the institutional promotion of multilingualism in the EU, in chapter four an analysis of certain issues related to the European citizens rights and the influence of multilingualism thereupon, promoting intercultural dialogue in chapter five and comes to an end by asking the question as to whether there is a direction towards launching a European cultural policy in chapter six, a question that finds a partial answer within the respective chapter and in the recommendations made by the authors. The first chapter presents extensively the contemporary linguistic landscape, stressing that at present in Europe are represented, to various degrees, almost all language families of the world, with the exception of the Australian, Papua and Khoisan families. Meantime, chapter one distinguishes between official state-language and national language as the language of each nationality having legal status in the State its members reside; in this acceptation a state might have several national languages. Ways of protecting local, regional and national languages is being presented by the activities of a transnational non-government organisation, the European Bureau of Lesser-Used Languages, and also through the provisions of the Council of Europe, as regulated in the European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages. EU institutions and the challenge of multilingualism the case of the European Parliament, the normative and non-normative definition of common European values and interpretation of terms designating common European values depending on the linguistic context, as well as the problems generated by the equivalence of terms used in EU basic documents in the official languages, are extensively presented in chapter one of the study. There is also an attempt to define the concept of European identity, but the complexity of situations involved makes it impossible to define at present a European identity, considering that the respect of alterity is the very essence of the European project. The authors demonstrate that, from a strictly normative point of view, linguistic diversity is not part of the common European values and recommend that the respect of linguistic diversity be guaranteed by measures of equal intensity as the values considered to be common European values. In chapter one the authors also review the difficulties linked to the translation of the documents of EU institutions and present the multilingual community mechanism of

226

institutional communication. Procedures have been developed that guarantee the quality of translations through revision, checking and supervising and through a permanent mechanism of training and informing of translators. After having defined multilingualism in the first part of chapter two, forms of dissemination of multilingualism in education and in the audio-visual sector are presented, issues related to language learning in university and pre-university education are being reviewed, references are made to the relation public-private in language learning and the role of language competence certificates is presented, emphasising that the importance to communicate in other languages is included in the eight major competences of lifelong learning. The Working Group for languages, established in 2002 within the programme Education and Training 2010, brings together officials responsible for language policies in Member States and holds regular meetings to exchange information and define good practices. The authors point out that multilingualism in the EU is directly and explicitly promoted through the portal Europe and multilingualism, and also indirectly through policies and programmes with other primary aims but that can be developed only if knowing several languages. Among the indirect strategies of promoting multilingualism through edutainment are the programmes MEDIA and the Euronews TV channel. Chapter two also contains an analysis of the ways to promote Romanian language as a study language in the EU Member States and draws the conclusion that there is an actual and obvious lack of data on linguistic service providers in Romania and, when they exist, are fragmented and hamper the development of a coherent general image of the diversity of offers on the market. The authors recommend the initiation of a study that would contribute both to reveal the Romanian situation with a view to adopting a development strategy at national level and to integrating Romania in the European landscape, by its contribution to the European programmes and by facilitating collaboration between various providers at European level. Romania as an EU Member State should be in line with good practices in multilingualism; an important pre-condition would be the description of linguistic competences for the Romanian language as a foreign language and from there the development/adoption of an internationally recognized language competence certificate.

227

The authors tackle the issue of outsourcing in multilingual context, discussing and analysing the development of the Adjustment Fund for Globalisation, complementary to the structural funds, in particular to the European Social Fund. In chapter three, Institutional promotion of multilingualism, methods of promoting multilingual dialogue at European level are presented, stressing that multilingualism is diffused throughout the whole philosophy of the European construction and has been one of the statutory principles of the European Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe in 1954; ways of promoting multilingualism in enterprises operating on EU territory, methods of promoting multilingualism in universities and in EU institutions, as well as aspects linked to the groups of experts in multilingualism created by the European Commission. The authors discuss and present the three levels of use of the term multilingualism at citizens level, at institutional level and at intra-institutional level. Chapter four tackles European citizens rights and the influence of multilingualism by analyzing and discussing the rights to vote and to stand as a candidate at local elections and at the European Parliament; the system practised in Luxemburg is presented as an example of the way in which community residents in an EU Member State can exercise, in a multilingual context, the rights bestowed on them by European citizenship, with information campaigns in languages spoken by the residents initiated by the host country, the right of the European citizen to address EU institutions and to receive the answer in his/her own language. An interesting issue related to the principle of equal treatment is pointed out, namely the fact that using linguistic discrimination to restrict access to the labour market of an EU Member State may be an exception to the principle. Meanwhile, the authors discuss that the existence and practice of these rights in the framework, or rather lack of a framework, of a European public sphere that should facilitate granting European dimensions, as against the narrower national ones, to the issues under debate. The proposal of the Commission for a citizen centred communication is presented, and for decentralizing the communication channels between the citizen and EU institutions. Chapter five, Promoting intercultural dialogue in the European Union, offers a short review of the difficulties linked to the definition of intercultural dialogue, presents

228

EU programmes dedicated to the promotion of intercultural dialogue and analyses methods of promoting inter-religious dialogue at European level, with emphasis on the relation between inter-religious and intercultural dialogue. The authors present a review of the programme Culture 2000 with its three main fields of action: (a) performing arts and visual arts, architecture, culture for children and arts in unconventional spaces, (b) printing, reading and translating and (c) cultural patrimony of European importance, including intellectual and non-intellectual patrimony, stressing the fact that, despite this unique tool of guidance and financing cultural cooperation at European level, culture has not yet become a category of community action, just one of the dimensions of the European construction, a first phase towards the institution of a European policy for culture. The proposed conclusion is that a common European cultural space has at its foundations the common traditions, ideals and aspirations, respect and promotion of cultural diversity, creativity, forming in a dynamic way the basis for a permanent intercultural dialogue between Europes peoples. The authors propose an approach concerning the development of a European public space by which, not linguistic homogenisation, blurring or extinction of certain linguistic traditions, but hopefully creation of networks of cultural partners from various European countries would be created; publishing policies facilitating publications or bi-lingual editions to promote works conceived in a national, minority or regional language would get a chance to be known or possibly recognised beyond the space they address in the first place, alleviating this way the dominance of English texts in the domain of publications throughout Europe. When analysing the way inter-religious dialogue is being promoted at European level, it is emphasised that the European Union promotes dialogue with religions present on the European continent, without having competences to promote inter-religious dialogue. The authors note that religions are more inclined to accept the involvement of the Council of Europe in inter-religious dialogue than that of the EU; this is due to the fact that the intervention of the Council of Europe is limited to soft law tools of influence and does not imply the establishment of imperative norms or public policies in the domain. The authors recommend to the European Commission, in view of the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008, to strengthen its relations with the religious

229

organisations recognised as dialogue partners of the EU institutions, paying due attention to avoid the overlapping of EU actions and those of the Council of Europe and to further deepen the existing relations of complementarity. In chapter six, Towards a European policy for culture?, the authors emphasise the changes that occurred in the world by the development of an information society, which could lead to uniformity by concentrating on television both the public and the decision makers; they stress the positive role in promoting cultural diversity and intercultural dialogue through access to cultural forms and manifestations that differ from the ones characteristic for that mass-media. A discussion is being proposed on the definition of the concept culture, cultural heritage and on the ways to tackle the right to culture in the Member States, stressing that European cultural diversity is made of the plurality of national traditions and also of regional traditions, being one of the most important resources of Europe and as such needing to be treated as a wealth in the present context of globalisation. The authors consider that it is necessary to define the concept cultural heritage in community law, as a measure towards the clarification of terms underpinning a future European cultural policy. After analysing the status of cultural dimension in the definition of a European identity, the authors conclude that cultural values are weakly, just symbolically defined as yet, noting that after the enforcement of the Reform Treaty, respect due to cultural, linguistic and religious diversity would have the same normative value as the other provisions of the Treaty. The conclusion of the chapter is that while European cultural identity stays at the foundations of European political identity, it cannot possibly be defined just symbolically asserted. As concerns the creation of a European Institute for Culture, the authors of the study present the difficulties of such an institutional construction and the failure of the idea, meanwhile drawing attention to the fact that without institutions there is no policy, not even in culture; they recommend the creation of a normative framework clearly stipulating common cultural values and the development of a set of common or shared objectives at European level that would demonstrate common interests closely linked to social and political developments in the context of globalisation, reaching beyond national, regional or local interests. The study comes to an end by formulating eight recommendations : to strengthen collaboration between EU institutions and the European Bureau for Lesser-Used

230

Languages; to establish the relation between official EU languages and the extracommunity ones, in particular those having regional and/or minority status; to define evaluation procedures of language competence for foreign nationals speaking or wishing to learn Romanian (a recommendation valid for other EU Member States in similar situations); to promote Romanian as a study language in EU Member States where significant Romanian communities live (a recommendation that at European level means defining institutional forms which would facilitate, on the principle of subsidiarity, the teaching of mother tongues on the territory of other Member States where there is an important number of individuals speaking those languages); the necessity to have a study to identify linguistic service providers both in Romania and in other Member States, and the necessity to emphasise education methods such as edutainment, to start a monitoring process initiated by the European Commission in order to establish the situations in which resorting to the working languages is a necessity and the cases in which strict respect of the principle of equal treatment of official languages is mandatory; the relations between multilingualism, intercultural dialogue and inter-religious dialogue to be valorised in the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue 2008; to continue the initiatives of valorisation of the common European cultural space, such as the European Institute for Culture, starting with the promotion of multilingualism within and outside the EU through common actions of the national cultural institutes.

231