The Power of Language Language Policies of International Institutions

Home , Language politics

The Power of Language Language policies of international institutions

Svava Berglind Finsen

Lokaverkefni til MA-gráðu í alþjóðasamskiptum

Félagsvísindasvið

Júní 2016

The Power of Language Language policies of international institutions

Svava Berglind Finsen

Lokaverkefni til MA-gráðu í alþjóðasamskiptum Leiðbeinandi: Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir

Stjórnmálafræðideild Félagsvísindasvið Háskóla Íslands Júní 2016

Ritgerð þessi er lokaverkefni til MA-gráðu í alþjóðasamskiptum og er óheimilt að afrita ritgerðina á nokkurn hátt nema með leyfi rétthafa.

Reykjavík, Ísland 2016

Abstract Language is generally underrepresented within the discipline of international relations. The aim of this bibliographic research is to change that, and demonstrate how language can be viewed as an important and legitimate factor. To do that, this thesis examines the language policies of five international institutions, for example by reviewing the information available through the official websites of the institutions. Additionally, the thesis consults existing literature on the relationship between language and international institutions, and how languages can affect the power positions of their users. The implications of increased English use are also examined. Furthermore, a poststructuralist approach is used to explain the importance of language, and the behaviour of actors, within international institutions. The thesis finds that one of the greatest difficulties institutions face is choosing between equal representation of languages, and efficiency. Some institutions choose to focus on few official languages, while others commit to an inclusive policy and therefore offer robust interpretation and translation services. English has become a leading language for international communication and this is reflected in the status the language has within the institutions examined, and the apparent advantages that English users experience compared to those who do not have command of the language.

Útdráttur Tungumálum er vanalega ekki gert hátt undir höfði á sviði alþjóðasamskipta. Markmið þessarar heimildaritgerðar er því að sýna fram á mikilvægi umræðu um tungumál innan fræðigreinarinnar. Til þess að ná því markmiði fjallar þessi ritgerð um tungumálastefnur fimm alþjóðastofnana og skoðar meðal annars þær upplýsingar um tungumálanotkun sem eru til staðar á opinberum heimasíðum stofnananna. Þar að auki eru skoðaðar fyrirliggjandi heimildir sem fjalla um samband tungumála og alþjóðastofnana og hvernig tungumál geta haft áhrif á valdastöðu notenda. Einnig eru afleiðingar aukinnar enskunotkunar stofnana skoðaðar. Póststrúktúralísk nálgun er síðan notuð til þess að útskýra hegðun aðila og mikilvægi tungumálaumræðu innan alþjóðastofnana. Niðurstöðurnar sýna að eitt það helsta sem alþjóðastofnanir þurfa að kljást við í starfsemi sinni er hið erfiða val á milli jafnréttisstefnu þegar kemur að tungumálum eða hagkvæmni og skilvirkni, á kostnað fjölbreytni tungumála. Sumar einblína einungis á fá opinber tungumál, á meðan aðrar kjósa mörg opinber tungumál sem styrkja þarf með sterkri túlkunar- og þýðingarþjónustu. Enska er orðin leiðandi sem alþjóðlegt samskiptamál og má sjá áhrif þess í þeirri stöðu sem málið hefur innan stofnananna sem fjallað er um, og hvernig þekking á málinu getur gefið aðilum ákveðið forskot umfram þá sem ekki tala málið.

Preface When it came to choosing a topic for my final assignment I knew I wanted to connect it to my interest in languages. After finishing my BA degree in English language and literature I considered doing an MA in Applied Linguistics, before deciding on International Relations. By choosing to focus on language policies of international institutions I managed to combine these two interests and hopefully demonstrate how well they fit together. My instructor was Silja Bára Ómarsdóttir, Adjunct Lecturer at the Faculty of Political Science, and I am grateful for her help and encouragement. I would also like to thank my grandfather, Björn Ingi Finsen, for his comments, and my friends and family for their support throughout my studies. This 30 ECTS MA thesis is the final assignment of the International Relations MA program at the University of Iceland, written in spring term 2016.

Table of Contents Abstract ...... 4

Útdráttur ...... 5

Preface ...... 6

1 Introduction ...... 9

2 Theoretical background and literature review ...... 12

2.1 Linguistic background ...... 12

2.1.1 Identity issues ...... 13

2.1.2 Language and power ...... 15

2.2 The rise of English ...... 18

2.2.1 The spread of English as a language of power ...... 19

2.2.2 Linguistic imperialism ...... 20

2.2.3 English as a lingua franca ...... 21

2.2.4 The decline of French in the international arena ...... 23

2.3 Language policies ...... 24

2.3.1 Language policies within international institutions ...... 26

2.4 Poststructuralism ...... 27

2.4.1 Epistemology ...... 29

2.4.2 Origins of poststructuralism ...... 30

2.4.3 Textuality and context ...... 31

2.4.4 Language and poststructuralism ...... 31

2.4.5 Deconstruction ...... 32

2.4.6 Institutions and poststructuralism ...... 33

2.5 Summary ...... 34

3 Methods and data ...... 35

4 Efficiency versus equality ...... 38

4.1 The European Union ...... 38

4.1.1 Language policies in the EU ...... 38

4.1.2 The Parliament ...... 40

4.1.3 The Commission ...... 42

4.1.4 The Council and the Court of Justice of the EU...... 43

4.1.5 Language hierarchy within the Union ...... 44

4.1.6 Issues related to the EU’s language policies ...... 46

4.1.7 Possible futures for the EU ...... 48

4.2 The United Nations ...... 50

4.3 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization ...... 52

4.4 The Nordic Council ...... 55

4.5 The International Whaling Commission ...... 56

4.6 Summary ...... 57

5 Discussion ...... 58

5.1 The impact of language choice ...... 58

5.2 A poststructuralist viewpoint ...... 59

5.2.1 Hidden power and dichotomies ...... 60

5.2.2 A change in neutrality? ...... 61

5.3 Language policies: similarities and differences ...... 63

5.3.1 Language policy dilemmas ...... 65

5.4 Summary ...... 67

6 Conclusions ...... 68

7 References ...... 70

1 Introduction Language shapes the way people see the world and how they act on a daily basis. Language use and language choice still affect people to a varying degree. Some people rarely think about their language choices while for others the struggle for the right to use their mother tongue is constant. Language use has influenced power positions of people and states throughout history as various language policies have been implemented, sometimes forcefully. Language is not only a tool to express one’s point of view, it is also used to assert power and dominance in various situations. Language choice can therefore be a highly political and challenging decision. In recent decades, globalisation has made the world a smaller place with the emergence of advanced communications technologies, increased mobility and fast intercontinental travel. Even though technology has made communication easier than before, the language barrier still remains, whether talking about international businesses, diplomatic discussions or international cooperation. In the midst of this, one language has risen above the rest when the question of which language to use in an international arena has been posed; English. With the dominance of the United States in technological, academic, and cultural fields this is perhaps not surprising. A vast number of people in today’s world use English for communication and that number will only be increasing. It is important not to take these developments for granted and question the implications that will follow. While many believe that everyone understands English, or should be able to speak it, that does not necessarily have to be the case. Understanding better what lies behind the choice of a specific language, what status the language you speak can give you and what disadvantages you could experience depending on your language of choice matters when communicating on an international platform. Not only are these changes important to linguists who worry about to what extent this could lead to the loss of language diversity and the decline of minority languages, but they are also important to studies on international relations (IR). The influence of English has spread to international institutions and organisations and the consequences of this are varied. International institutions have various different approaches when it comes to language policies and language use within the institutional environment. It is therefore interesting to study why these policies were chosen and what consequences and implications these choices could have for the functioning of the institutions and the involvement of individual member states. It is evident that not all states or participants within international institutions are equal

and it is interesting to examine whether language plays a part in determining the power capabilities of international actors. Extensive work has been done on the general policy making of international institutions in the field of IR and politics, but the language factor has not been particularly prominent there. I however believe it is essential to study and understand the effect language choice and use can have on the workings of international institutions and decision-making within them. The aim of this thesis is to investigate the language policies of what I believe are the most influential international institutions, at least in Western Europe. These institutions are: the European Union, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, along with the Nordic Council and the International Whaling Commission. I am interested in seeing how detailed the language policies are, how important they are to the institutions, and where they are similar and where they differ. Inevitably the main focus will be on the European Union as it is the most researched institution, as regards research on language policies within international institutions. The EU is the organisation that over time has put the greatest effort into maintaining an equal language policy for the member states and therefore deserves the most attention. The EU has also had to face the biggest challenges because of this commitment to equal language treatment and this is worth examining. The goal is to see how the other large institutions, NATO and the UN, compare to the EU in this matter, and examine whether the differences have any effect on the work that is done within these institutions and the way member states behave. I furthermore hope to examine what part language plays in determining the influence and power states and actors wield within the institutions. In this thesis I will be working under the assumption that language itself has a political dimension and that it shapes, and is shaped by, its users’ ideas and beliefs. I furthermore assume that language use is shaped by the users’ relationships, identities, class, race, environment, and more as proven by countless linguistic studies and emphasised in every introduction to applied linguistics and sociolinguistics studies. I have always been interested in foreign languages and my previous academic background is in English language and literature. I therefore wanted to bring my previous experiences and interests into my current field of study and show how the two can be combined. Language has been underrepresented as an important and influential factor within international relations and with this thesis I hope to introduce more people to the fact that language choice does matter and that language can never be viewed as a neutral medium of communication. My aim is to change how language is generally viewed within the field of IR and to show how it can be

viewed as a legitimate and important factor that needs to be kept in mind when studying international relations, especially international institutions and organisations. To showcase these factors, I will be focusing on a few research questions which are centred on the topic of language policies of international institutions. They will help illustrate my arguments and emphasise the importance of language within international relations. My aim is to answer the following research questions: What are the language policies of international and regional institutions; where are they similar and where do they differ? To what extent does language affect actors’ power positions within international institutions? What are the effects and implications of the increased use of English within international institutions? I will start by looking at the existing literature in chapter two, exploring what research has already been done on these topics, looking at both linguistic theories and theories concerning to international relations. The third chapter provides an overview of my methods and data collection and explains how I approached the research. In the fourth chapter I will look at the different language policies of some of the most important international and regional institutions and organisations. Finally, in the fifth chapter I will discuss how the facts I present in the fourth chapter relate to the theoretical and linguistic discussion from the second chapter.

2 Theoretical background and literature review While this thesis is written in the Department of Political Science it relies heavily on examining linguistic issues to explain the behaviour of international actors. Before going further, it is therefore necessary to look at some of the basic aspects of applied linguistics and sociolinguistic, and how they can relate to issues of international relations. At first glance these two disciplines might not seem to have much in common, yet when examined closer there are many related issues that are important to both disciplines. With these first sections the relevance and importance of adding linguistic considerations into the discipline of international relations should become clear and the validity of the research questions should be made evident. First I will take a look at some background to applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, and then show how various linguistic theories and aspects can be applied to studies of international relations. Then I will focus on the position of English in today’s world and introduce the importance of language policies. Lastly I will mention how poststructuralist IR theory fits with my emphasis on language issues.

2.1 Linguistic background Language concerns everyone, both the general public and heads of states, politicians and bureaucrats. Issues related to language use and rights have led to various internal and external conflicts throughout history and this continues to be a controversial topic for many actors. It is thus surprising that more attention has not been paid to the language factor when examining international political discourse and international relations. The most important factor of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics is that language is not seen as a neutral system of communication. It is at its core highly political, both in use and in its structure, as Joseph (2006) has noted, and the field of applied linguistics has come to acknowledge this fact in the past decades (p. 1). Joseph (2006) has pointed out that some even argue that the origins of language itself are rooted in political reasoning and the need to form coalitions (p. 1). This idea that language itself has at its core a political dimension is shared by branches of applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and more fields outside the linguistics field, such as anthropology, while it is denied by most theoretical linguists who see the politics of language as a side effect not worthy of close study, according to Joseph (2006), who then added that linguistics is often said to be the most disputatious academic field (p. 2). This is clearly a debated topic that touches various disciplines and therefore deserves more attention. Language itself is a complex phenomenon. How you use it is shaped by who you are, where you are, where you have been, and to whom you are speaking. Your background will

affect your vocabulary and pronunciation, and register1 will change depending on the setting and to whom you are speaking (O’Grady, Archibald, & Katamba, 2011, p. 513). Most people are aware of how easily language can affect first impressions and shape one’s view of a person as a person’s language is one of their defining features. For example, if a person speaks in a broken language it is likely that some will automatically deem them less intelligent than a person who speaks the same language fluently (Hösle, 2005, p. 259). Phillipson (2003) noted an example from South Africa where a majority of white South African English speakers automatically dismissed those who spoke with non-standard English accents, or those who could not speak English, as less intelligent (p. 141). This is also present in academia and Joseph (2006) has stated that British academics who do not speak with a standard accent have been denied positions and are received worse than other candidates simply because of their northern accents. He additionally noted how difficult it was to look past English mistakes from his non-English students and judge them solely from their logic and argument instead of their English proficiency (p. 33). People change their register depending on to whom they are speaking and often do so to fit in. This is especially noticeable in Britain where using Received Pronunciation (RP) or Standard English, which are usually associated with the elite and the upper classes, instead of more local accents is often preferred when the intention is to sound more educated. Choosing the wrong type of style or register in a situation or addressing someone with the wrong deferential or familiar pronouns of address in some languages (such as vous and usted in French and Spanish respectively) can furthermore be offensive to the person being addressed. Joseph (2006) has explained that even in Belgium, an officially bilingual country, the choice between French or Flemish can be extremely sensitive ‘with the wrong choice likely to offend one’s interlocutor, and the right choice difficult to determine for anyone who has not been fully acculturated into the linguistic politics of any particular Belgian community’ (p. 10). Throughout the world there is additionally the politically charged choice between a former colonial or imperial language and the indigenous languages in post-colonial contexts.

2.1.1 Identity issues The language issue is often very important on a national and a personal level and this can easily spill over to foreign policy issues and the behaviour of actors on an international level.

1 O’Grady et al. (2011) have defined register as ‘[a] set of linguistic structures that is associated with a particular speech situation; it may carry an association with a particular style’ (p. 646) and style as ‘[t]he level of formality associated with a linguistic structure or a set of structures classified along a continuum between most informal to most formal’ (p. 649). 13

A person’s language is often strongly connected to their feelings of identity, self-image and belonging. It is therefore often a sensitive and difficult issue for many. Identity is a key issue for many disciplines and is important for discussion on both politics and linguistics. Identity issues can be very difficult to examine scientifically and this could partly explain the lack of academic exposure of language issues in the field. People choose which language to use, not only which register or style, depending on their identities and how they want to be perceived and with whom they want to identify. Romaine (1994) has explained how some British-born blacks of Caribbean ancestry deliberately adopt a different way of speaking because they identify more with black culture than with the culture of their white peers (p. 78). They change their language use to reflect their preferred identity, and this is not a one-off occurrence. This expression of identity can often be difficult when the identity one wants to project is not looked upon favourably by the majority or the ruling elite. Minority groups often have a more difficult time maintaining their languages and identities as the norms and values of the majority are pushed upon them and they are forced to adapt. Culture is also a concept closely related to the concept of identity, and language and culture are often mentioned in one breath. Van Els (2006) has noted that ‘the diversity of culture is practically always immediately related to the diversity of languages’ (p. 220). These issues will be discussed in more detail in the section on linguistic imperialism below. National pride and the need to identify with a specific culture may also lead people to claim that they are more proficient, or use the language more than they actually do, for example when they are filling in censuses, as Romaine (1994) argued has happened with Hebrew in Israel and Irish in Ireland (pp. 43-44). These languages are a large part of the identity and culture for many and admitting a lack of skill could be a delicate subject and a source of embarrassment. People could furthermore be reluctant to admit they do not use their language because of any disadvantage that might give them, or lack of respect or acknowledgement. People are not always honest and might be reluctant to admit that their language capabilities are restricting them. In her study on the European Parliament, Wright (2007) faced some difficulties. MEPs were sometimes negative towards her research and reluctant to discuss this topic with her, especially Nordic, Dutch, and German MEPs, further showing the delicate nature of the topic of language choice within the European Union (p. 158). Even with certain languages that are used in more than one country there can be problems, especially when it comes to identity, such as Canadian French, Brazilian Portuguese, and Austrian German. This has for example caused difficulties in the European Parliament when Brazilian interpreters have been used for

Portuguese speakers from Portugal who dislike this and do not feel that the language being used is their own language (Wright, 2007, p. 158). Despite the importance of the issue of language policies within the EU the Union seems particularly hesitant to bring language policy up for discussion. Van Els (2006) has argued that it is for example much easier to discuss the common currency than language policies (p. 202). The topic is so emotionally charged that it is treated as ‘very explosive’ (p. 204). Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have also noted that with the Lisbon treaty the EU moved away from equal veto power in exchange for a majority voting system on various topics. Still, they retained the individual state veto power for important issues such as foreign policy, defence, and perhaps surprisingly for linguistic policies, clearly demonstrating the importance of the topic, both at the EU level and the national level (p. 202).

2.1.2 Language and power Power is an important theme in discussions about international politics and international relations and it is also highly important to linguistic studies. Actors in power can use language to exert their influence. They can control the language use in their communities through various methods of language planning and by enforcing strict language policies. Talbot, Atkinson, and Atkinson (2003) have argued that ‘[l]anguage is crucial in articulating, maintaining and subverting existing relations of power in society, both on global, national and institutional levels and on the local level of interpersonal communication’ (pp. 1-2). It can give status, be used to oppress opponents, and spread ideals. Wright (2000) has argued that ‘[p]atterns of language use, particularly the rise and fall of lingua francas, reveal the changing balances of political power’ (p. 119). Over the centuries various languages, such as Greek, French, and Latin have had the status of a lingua franca in Europe and held great power throughout the continent. Their speakers could engage in educated conversations and participate in diplomatic negotiations across borders. Much changed with the rise of nationalism in Europe and the call for nations to be united under one language. Language traditions transformed as individual languages flourished when nations’ rulers and the common people started speaking the same languages (Wright, 2000, pp. 123- 124). Romaine (1994) has argued that ‘[u]sually the more powerful groups in any society are able to force their language upon the less powerful,’ and she uses the basic examples of Finland where the Saamis, Romanies and the Swedes are made to learn Finnish while at the same time the Finns do not need to learn their languages; and Britain where the English do not

have to learn Welsh or Panjabi while those speakers are expected to learn and use English (p. 33). Although these are very basic examples they explain a lot. Usually the language chosen as the official language for all citizens is the L12 of the most powerful individuals in a society as Ager (2001) has noted (p. 177). In these cases, Finnish and English speakers are the people who hold the most powerful positions in the respective countries. By being able to speak this language, the L1 of the powerful, speakers are automatically given an advantage in life. They have easier access to education, employment and various benefits. Still, the power that language holds is not always obvious. Talbot et al. (2003) have pointed out that ‘[h]egemony implies a hidden or covert operation of power. It refers to control through consent.’ This can also easily be applied to language: ‘[t]his winning of consent is achieved when arrangements that suit a dominant group’s own interests have come to be perceived as simply ‘common sense’, such as, for example, whose language we should speak and write’ (p. 2). This echoes the poststructuralist ideas that will be covered later in this chapter.

Colonies The relationship between power and language is easy to see when looking at colonial relationships. The colonial powers brought various things with them to the colonies, some good and some bad. What they usually brought was their language, or languages, and to a varying degree the colonial powers encouraged the natives to use these new languages. Most colonial powers believed they were doing the natives a favour and that the natives would benefit from their involvement and the adoption of a new and ‘better’ language (Spolsky, 2004, p. 83). One of the greatest examples of how power can be portrayed through language is the development of pidgin and creole languages in former colonies. Pidgin languages are simplified languages that are used for communication and are a mix of a local language and the language of the colonisers. Creole languages are a stable and more developed version of the pidgin languages and are used by children as an L1, or mother tongue. The power and influence of the colonisers pushed natives to adapt new languages in order to function better in their changed societies. Most of the pidgin and creole languages that have been thoroughly studied are based on European languages, in particular those of the former colonisers; Spanish, Portuguese, English, Dutch, and French. The fact that the majority of those are based

2 L1, or ‘first language’, is the language someone has learned from birth, also called ‘mother tongue’. This term is often used within linguistics. 16

on English shows how powerful the British Empire was in its time and how much it affected the colonised communities (Romaine, 1994, p. 169). This colonial relationship between language and power is not necessarily only bound by geographical location, it is a social phenomenon as well. Romaine (1994) has noted that a good example could be found in Jamaica, where the top of the social ladder spoke English and those at the bottom spoke Jamaican Creole (p. 19). Language also responds to market forces, as Wright (2000) has noted. She stated that elites interested in using language for political ends can only be successful when they have great economic strength behind them (p. 20). Clear examples of this include the colonial period in Europe. She added that language decay or domination therefore cannot be coincidental and that ‘[c]hoice of one language over another always reveals forces at play within and between groups’ (p. 20). By looking at language change one can therefore discern how power can shift, similar to the change surrounding the nationalist movements in Europe. Language does not change drastically over a short period of time unless some actor, local or outsider, wants it to and employs their power to make that happen. Simply put, as Talbot et al. (2003) have explained: ‘the principal dynamic which determines the status of any given language is that of power’ (pp. 6-7).

Soft Power Power does not have to be defined only in terms of capabilities and resources; it can be much more complex. It is important to take other aspects of power into account to get a more holistic picture of how it can be used. Even though states are in possession of extensive resources, a strong economy, social stability and a sizable population this is no guarantee of power and victory. The United States lost the Vietnam War despite having more power in the traditional sense, and furthermore they could not prevent 9/11, despite being the only superpower in the world as Nye (2004) has observed (p. 3). Nye (2004) has defined power as ‘the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes one wants’ (p. 2). There are various ways of doing this. On the one hand you can use force, inducement, or coercion to influence others, and on the other hand ‘you can attract and co-opt them to want what you want’ (p. 2). This is what he calls ‘soft power’ and it ‘rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others.’ You need people to buy into your values, and be attracted to your ideals, and you need to lead by example (p. 5). Power does not have to be a concept connected to coercion and commands; it can be used more delicately and subtly by appealing to shared values. It could then be argued that language use is an integral

part of utilising soft power influence. Ideas and concepts that define people and societies are often defined through the language being used. Nye (2004) has explained that many European nations have a strong cultural attractiveness and a part of that is because of the languages they speak; ‘Spanish and Portuguese link Iberia to Latin America, English is the language of the United States and the far-flung Commonwealth, and there are nearly 50 Francophone countries who meet at a biannual summit at which they discuss policies and celebrate their status as countries having French in common’ (pp. 75-76). France is additionally spending around one billion dollars every year to spread French civilization throughout the world (p. 76). While he noted that France’s soft power does not rest solely on the language use it is still likely that the wide spread use of the French language and culture, and English as well, contributes greatly to the countries’ respective soft power capabilities throughout the world.

2.2 The rise of English The dominating presence of the English language on the international stage is undeniable. Crystal (2003) for example noted that between 1995 and 1996 there were around 12.500 international organisations in the world and of the third that listed their official or working languages 85% of the first 500 (listed alphabetically) used English, with French next at 49%. Of those a third used only English, and English was the only language used for 90% of the Asian and Pacific organisations (pp. 87-88). In order to gain a better understanding of the language choices of international institutions it is therefore essential to look first at the role of English in today’s world, how the language has reached its position, and how it affects international communication and diplomatic relations. In past decades the English language has slowly been spreading throughout the world as the lingua franca of choice, not only at an interpersonal level, but also at an institutional level (Extra & Gorter, 2008, p. 3). Van Gelderen (2006) has noted that it is especially difficult to determine the number of English speakers in the world as various estimates differ on whether they include non-native speakers as well. Estimates range from 15% of the world’s population to 25%, or around 1.5 billion, and this is expected to rise rapidly in coming years (pp. 252- 253). According to House (2008), the number of non-native English speakers in the world is greater than the number of native English speakers, at the ratio of about 4 to 1 and rising (p. 67). This raises some interesting thoughts on who has the right to shape the English language, its policies and the future development of the language as a lingua franca within the international environment. The English being spoken today varies greatly throughout the

world depending on both location and its use. It can be used as a mother tongue and have an official status in a community; it can also be an official language used mainly for official purposes but rarely in the home; and finally, it can be used only for communication and have no official status (van Gelderen, 2006, pp. 252-253).

2.2.1 The spread of English as a language of power English has become a key component of international business and Wright (2000) has argued that English has become the current language of power as it is the language used by the most dominant players in the global market (p. 126). Knowledge of the language can facilitate access to valuable clients and customers throughout the world, and reduces the various costs of doing business on an international level. The language has been brought to its present position through various different channels. It was imposed on natives during the colonial period, spread with the power of the British Empire, and enhanced with the allied victory in the Second World War. Furthermore, English is utilised in matters of security throughout the world under the leadership of the United States and is prevalent in the influential Anglo-American scientific traditions, not to mention the global spread the language has achieved through culture and media (Wright, 2000, p. 126). House (2008) has claimed that in recent years the argument that English is taking over in various fields of knowledge and academia has grown louder and it has been maintained that ‘in certain fields of knowledge it might well become difficult if not impossible in the future to express scientific and everyday concepts in languages other than English’ (p. 77). It is thus clear that English is not only a lingua franca, it is also a lingua economica, as Phillipson (2003) has argued (p. 149). Ager (2001) has noted how the status of the English language is made clear when one looks at foreign language teaching. English speaking countries make money from teaching their language abroad while other countries have to spend money to get other people to learn their languages (p. 56). This is clearly because of the alleged power English speaking capabilities can give people all around the world and the value people see in the language. Additionally, as de Swaan (2001) has suggested that, ‘[n]ot only do more people learn English than any other language in the [European] Union, they are also more inclined to use it with confidence’ (p. 165) and that can be an extremely important feature for efficient international communication.

2.2.2 Linguistic imperialism There are many different views on the benefits or problems following the spread of English. Many believe that it helps give access to the global economy while others claim it is imperialistic and oppressive. Up to this point the arguments for the disruptive effect of English have traditionally been louder than the arguments of those who celebrate the spread of English. English has often been associated with what is called ‘linguistic imperialism’. Joseph (2006) has argued that Phillipson’s extremely influential 1992 book criticising English linguistic imperialism ‘did more than any other single work to put language and politics at the centre of the applied linguistics and English language teaching agenda’ (p. 51). In it Phillipson argued that teaching students in another language than their mother tongue was imperialistic, even though the motive of the education was to help students out of poverty. Despite being influential Phillipson has also been criticised by many for being too extreme (Joseph, 2006, p. 53). Joseph (2006) has noted that while the French preferred conducting the education of their colonial subjects in French the British were not adamant about using English when teaching in their colonies. He stated that it was likely that the British wanted to keep this language of power to themselves in order to prevent the colonial public from being able to take administrative jobs away from the young British men (p. 50), thus using language to assert their power over the locals. The British mostly offered primary education in the mother tongue with a slow transition to bilingual education as the subjects got older, and eventually used only English at higher levels, according to Spolsky (2004, p. 83). The result of this in the post-colonial period is that in the former British colonies there was usually enough infrastructure, literacy and knowledge to conduct education in the mother tongue after the British left, while in the former French colonies French continued to be the language of education even after the French had left (Spolsky, 2004, pp. 83-84). When criticising linguistic imperialism, it is important to keep in mind that the choice of language can be very difficult. People sometimes have to choose between honouring their heritage or a better future for their children, as Joseph (2006) noted. He continued by stating that ‘[t]he power of the great world languages and cultures, particularly the English language and American culture, exerts a hegemony that forces the hand of people in poorer countries’ (p. 51). By choosing to bring up their children using a language which has more power and potential future benefits, people might be facing the dilemma of sacrificing their heritage, culture, and history in return. While some would argue that the English language can grant

actors access to new markets they still need to acquire the language first and that is not always easy. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have maintained that the rise of the English language is leading to the disenfranchisement of a large part of the world population that does not have access to the language (p. 14). These people are being excluded from the global economy and would have a more difficult time adapting and developing to a changed world view where English would dominate. Spolsky (2004) has also criticised Phillipson’s linguistic imperialism arguments and argued that it was not the colonial language policy that was the main issue; it was the colonial situation and imperialism itself, not only the linguistic imperialism (pp. 84-85). This is certainly true, yet still the fact remains that language was used to gain a certain advantage and control over the people. Though that might not have been a conscious decision by the colonisers, at least to begin with, it became an inseparable part of much of the discussion on the colonies, their problems and possible solution of the problems the colonies were facing after colonisers left. Phillipson’s arguments that the spread of English is the result of the hard language policies of the British are additionally insufficient. While these policies were extremely important, the English language has still evolved since and developed a life of its own, especially as a lingua franca, without persistent British or US language policies.

2.2.3 English as a lingua franca English as a lingua franca (ELF) is used all around the world by a large variety of users. ELF is an interesting phenomenon as it is not exactly the same variant of English as native British or American English, or other native varieties. It is rather shaped in different ways by its different users throughout the world. It is important to note, especially in the wake of the discussion on linguistic imperialism, that most users of English as a lingua franca, or English as a second language, use the language because they want to, as House (2008) has argued (p. 68). Users see the advantage English gives them and willingly choose it over other languages in order to communicate with people outside their own linguistic communities. Similarly, Spolsky (2004) has claimed that English cannot be seen as imperialistic anymore, as the language does not need policy from native English speaking countries now as socioeconomic forces have given the language a life of its own, encouraged by the fact that the last remaining superpower, the US, uses the language (pp. 87-88). Learning a language could be seen as making an investment. One has to put in time and effort to master another language, but one can gain tremendously from that investment and gain access to otherwise inaccessible territories or markets. It is thus only

rational that people would invest in the language that is most likely to benefit them in the future as the language becomes more valuable and useful as more people learn to speak it (de Swaan, 2001, p. 27). This is clear in the case of English, but can also be applied to other languages, such as Mandarin, Arabic or Spanish, as their use has grown rapidly in the past decade. Because ELF can be viewed as a different variety than the English of native speakers, House (2008) even goes so far as to argue that when English is used as a lingua franca for communication ‘it is in principle neutral with the regard to the different sociocultural backgrounds of its users, and has thus undoubtedly great potential for international understanding’ (p. 68). House (2008) furthermore argued that ELF and the different mother tongue or L1 are never in competition, but supplement each other as the L1 is used for cultural identification and English is used for communication. She additionally claimed that using ELF for communication can strengthen the use of indigenous languages as the themes of identity and community grow stronger when the uniting factor of the nation or minority is the language, while ELF is used for communications with actors outside the group (p. 69). This is something that could possibly happen in the future within international institutions as the use of ELF grows. By viewing English spoken within international institutions as ELF instead of simply English as a foreign language, or as the native language of specific countries, power is being taken away from the language itself, and essentially its native speakers, theoretically allowing conversation on an equal ground. House (2008) therefore interestingly does not necessarily associate English with power and sees English more as an instrument (p. 80). House (2008) has thus argued that non-native speakers of English are at no disadvantage compared to native speakers and the results of her research showed that ELF users can have meaningful conversations (pp. 70-74). She wished to dismiss the commonly held idea that ELF users are at a disadvantage vis-à-vis native speakers. House (2008) furthermore argued that the users of English as L1, the native speakers, are losing their influence in today’s international world (p. 67). Phillipson (2003) has also noted that the mostly monolingual native English speakers might be at a disadvantage soon, as they have inadequate foreign language skills and the market value of English could drop as English skills spread even more widely (p. 148). Still, these views are not dominant and there are many that would argue that English is still an extremely powerful language and that its speakers possess a certain advantage within the international arena. For example, Adubato and Efthymiopoulos (2014) have stated that ‘[f]or those that wish to lead, command, administrate or work in an everyday

business to business environment, poor use of English can negatively affect the person and/or leader in operational/administrative purposes’ (p. 28). Consequently, Joseph (2006) has suggested that it should be logical that every international user of English ought to be regarded equally, as British and American English users typically are. Unfortunately, this is not the case and users of different varieties of English are often treated differently than speakers of native varieties of English. Good examples of this are found in Asia, for example in Hong Kong where speakers of what linguists call Hong Kong English, are sometimes seen as speaking worse English than speakers of Standard English, instead of being seen as speaking another variety of English. This has also been noted with the users of Singapore English (p. 37).3

2.2.4 The decline of French in the international arena While English is considered the leading language of today, French still remains an influential language which has a rich international history. According to Ager (2008) ‘[t]he French state has long considered the French language, and hence language policy, as of fundamental importance’ (p. 87). This comes from the fact that throughout the history of the French nation-state the French language has been heavily connected to the strong French national identity as a unifying symbol. Until recently French was an extremely powerful language, both throughout former colonies and through international cooperation and institutions, especially in the European Union and the United Nations. During the enlightenment French had become an elite lingua franca and it managed to retain its role as a language of diplomacy and negotiations between states in the Westphalian system (Wright, 2000, p. 124). Many have tried to estimate the number of French speakers in the world today. The OIF (Organisation internationale de la Francophonie) has claimed it is 200 million, including speakers in France, and the French Foreign Ministry has the number at 175 million and has claimed that the only language apart from English which is spoken on the five continents is French (Ager, 2008, p. 93). There are still many countries in Africa that have French as an official language and although there was a decrease in the use of French after the decolonisation period it still remains diplomatically, commercially and politically important throughout the continent, according to Ager (2008, p. 93). The French language has, similar to English in some places, become the language of the elite and the educated in many African

3 These varieties of English often follow different grammatical and linguistic rules than Standard English does but they are widely spoken as a first language and often have some official status. 23

countries, which also helps maintain its status (Ager, 2008, p. 108). In the eyes of the French colonisers they key to civilization was mastering the French language, which was to be the only language used for education and for official business (Spolsky, 2004, p. 83). France is extremely active in promoting the French language and culture all around the world. The OIF and The Alliance Française train teachers and civil servants, and they have helped with education and promotion of the French language in former colonies. They promote the use of French within international institutions and Ager (2008) has claimed that France has the largest cultural network in the world (p. 106). It is therefore clear that the French government and people take this issue very seriously as a lot of money is poured into these programs. The French are clearly concerned about their status as a global power and see the use of the French language as a vital factor in maintaining their status as a powerful state. Without all these institutions that help promote the French language and culture the status of French in the world today would undoubtedly be very different. Today the status of French as the language of the republic is ensured in their constitution, and the Toubon law in France protects French’s place in the French society as it requires all official information to be in French and bans the use of other languages, such as English, in advertisements and media. The law is regularly breached, which arguably could mean that the public is ignoring it, and it is regularly ignored in areas such as science, transport and manufacturing as the state turns a blind eye. Ager (2008) has argued that if this was not done then the French impression on scientific research would be negligible (pp. 102-107). Ager (2008) has also claimed that France is very active within the EU at promoting linguistic diversity and protecting the status of the French language and they see the advantage of these actions as being ‘the reduction of the hegemonic influence of international English’ (p. 106). Nevertheless, according to de Swaan (2001), ‘[w]henever English and French collide head on in an international setting, French loses the competition’ (p. 153).

2.3 Language policies The study of language policies is fairly new within the field of applied linguistics, which is itself a relatively new field within traditional linguistic studies. Ager (2001) has described language policies as being something which is officially planned and then carried out by those that are in power and have political authority, similar to other forms of public policies, ‘[a]s such, language policy represents the exercise of political power, and like any other policy, may be successful or not in achieving its aims’ (pp. 5-6). This is different from language planning which refers to language change movements brought on by unofficial actors not

acting with power from a society’s administration. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have argued that the importance of language policies is clear in today’s world as many of the world’s states have included language provisions in their constitutions (p. 18). Most international institutions also specify certain official or working languages that should be used within the institution. Spolsky (2004) has argued that language policies exist even though they are not made official by a ruling party as all social groups have unwritten rules concerning language use. Moreover, even though language policies are formal and written down there is no guarantee that the actual language use of the actors in question will correspond to the official policies (p. 8). This is evident when examining language behaviour in the European Union. Even though the official languages of all the member states should have equal status and opportunities within the institutional setting, the reality is that most communication, especially outside the formal settings of the Commission or the Parliament, is done in either French or English, as will be explored further in the following chapters (Spolsky, 2004; van Els, 2006; Wright, 2007). Language policies are created to achieve a variety of goals. The goal could be social cohesion and therefore a strict one language policy, the language of the elite, would be chosen for all official communication. This forces actors to use the language of the elite if they want to gain power in society. A more tolerant version is where the state allows other languages but only uses one language itself. There the aim is not cohesion but efficient management. Finally, there is the ideal mosaic state where multilingualism exists in harmony with the government (Ager, 2001, pp. 177-178). The fact always remains that language change is incredibly difficult to stop or alter and Joseph (2006) has noted that ‘[e]ver since being institutionalised as the ‘scientific’ study of language in the nineteenth century, linguistics has taken the position that any imposed authority in language is ultimately impotent in the face of the one authority that matters, namely, usage – what the people as a whole implicitly decides will be the course of their language’ (p. 9). That has not stopped people trying to influence language use through various efforts, such as language policies. All in all, language policies can be used for cohesion or division, though ultimately it is those in power who decide for what purpose the language policy is constructed.

2.3.1 Language policies within international institutions Choosing an official language can be very difficult, even for individual countries. In countries where the majority speaks only one language choosing the official language is not too difficult, while other countries may have various minorities with strong views on their language rights. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have noted the case of Spain, where Spanish is the native language for 73% of the population. Catalan, Galician, and Basque are also spoken in and their individual methods to gain recognition and status vary considerably, with many actors additionally wanting official EU recognition (p. 26). These types of conflicts can even lead to bloody battles as was seen in the breakup of Yugoslavia where linguistic issues mixed with issues of nationalism, civil war and ethnic hatred, as Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have noted (p. 25). One can therefore imagine the difficulties that follow choosing official languages for international institutions where individuals from various different cultures and backgrounds, often former enemies, need to come together and communicate efficiently. Talbot et al. (2003) have explained how important it is to keep language in mind when studying institutions and how it has different uses depending on different situations: Understanding the discourse of an organisation is now considered central to appreciating how power, identity, conflict and resistance interrelate within work settings. Language plays a central role in the everyday life of an organisation: the greetings and conversations people have in the corridors; debates that occur in meetings; verbal warnings given to employees [...] Moreover, organisations are not merely ‘out there’ but are constructed by this very language that routinely takes place between people. (p. 73) Even though the authors here focus mainly on local institutions the same arguments can be applied to international institutions, especially within their bureaucracies. One could even argue that language choice is more important within an international setting as there the decision is not only between registers and styles, but also between actual national languages which have different statuses within institutions. Joseph (2006) has argued that language choice within an institutional setting is especially difficult, particularly for institutions which have been set up by a colonial power. Choosing in which language to conduct official government business, communicate with citizens and educate them is not easy and can be highly debated in multilingual societies (p. 10). While the main goal of most international institutions is to increase cooperation between different nations or states on different topics and maintain a peaceful relationship, it is worth noting that some see multilingualism as a dividing factor and this is something that goes back

to the biblical story of the tower of Babel. Romaine (1994) mentions a speech made by media mogul Rupert Murdoch in 1994 where he suggested that ‘multilingualism was the cause of Indian disunity, and monolingualism the reason for the unity of the English-speaking world’ (p. 32). There are of course many examples where this does not apply although this is an interesting argument worth noting. There is an optimal degree of diversity which can be difficult to find. An institution has to be able to function efficiently without being too homogenous as too much diversity could lead to disunity. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) wonder for example whether the inclusion of Ukraine and Turkey in the EU would increase the diversity in the EU too much, to the point that a compromise between all members becomes impossible (p. 11).

Restrictive and non-restrictive language policies Language policies of international institutions can be both restrictive and non-restrictive, according to van Els (2006). A restrictive policy is where a single language or a small number of languages are chosen as the main working languages and other languages cannot be used. The chosen languages can be either national languages or artificial languages, such as Esperanto. An example of this is the UN with its six official languages. The non-restrictive policy is plurilinguistic with no restriction on language use and member states are allowed to use their own national languages. This type of policy is uncommon and the European Union is the best example of this (p. 216). Both models have their benefits and their problems. Using the non-restrictive methods presents the need for simultaneous interpreting and robust translation services. These always lead to some lag and misunderstanding and the cost is high, both in terms of time, efficiency and money. This policy does however give each member the chance to express themselves in their own language and promotes equality amongst members. The restrictive model’s main disadvantage is that the speakers of the few chosen official languages have an automatic advantage when it comes to expressing themselves and this can negatively affect other speakers who are forced to communicate in languages they may not be completely proficient in. On the other hand, this method is less expensive and there is less need for large translation services (van Els, 2006, pp. 226-228). The choice between these two approaches is one of the greatest dilemmas international institutions face today.

2.4 Poststructuralism Before going further, it is necessary to consider how this discussion could relate to international relations theories. It is difficult to examine and theorise about something both as 27

personal and instinctive for people as language is. Many people do not pay close attention to how they change the way they use language or change between languages and how those changes might affect their interlocutors. In order to give the importance of language the attention it deserves the main theoretical framework of this thesis will be based on poststructuralist ideas, as poststructuralism actively seeks to examine the way language affects the way we look at the world. Poststructuralism furthermore looks at how what is accepted as the norm came to be recognised as such. The theoretical framework will be used to illustrate how specific languages have come to be accepted as the norm within international institutions, how this has developed, and how languages can influence peoples’ views and actions. More popular IR theories emphasising hard material power, such as realism, are not applicable to this thesis as they see language as a neutral medium through which people can express their ideas. Poststructuralism rejects this approach and criticises the standard IR theories for their lack of focus on the social factor, identities, the effect of languages, and different situational interpretations of facts and texts. Poststructuralism brings philosophical concepts into the discipline of international relations and is often used as a meta-theory. Poststructuralism is also a constitutive theory rather than a causal explanatory theory, although it can be used to examine certain situations and analyse them. Smith (1996) has noted that even though theories are sometimes unreliable and cannot predict behaviour, they are important as they delineate the possibilities of human action and ‘define not merely our explanatory possibilities but also our ethical and practical horizons’ (p. 13). Poststructuralism entered the IR discipline in the 1980s through meta-theory and criticism of realist and neorealist theories (Campbell, 2010, p. 226). It is not a unified theory and there are several different approaches poststructuralists can take when addressing issues. They do, however, all share common themes; ‘they address the question of how knowledge, truth and meaning are constituted,’ as well as challenging the accepted norms of rationalism and positivism (Gregory, 1989, p. xiii). It has been argued that poststructuralism is not a theory of international relations, but rather an approach which ‘calls attention to the importance of representation, the relationship of power and knowledge, and the politics of identity in an understanding of global affairs’ (Campbell, 2010, p. 225). Nevertheless, it is helpful for the purposes of this thesis and useful in shedding light on the importance of critical thought within key topics of international relations and the relevance of the study of languages in a political setting.

2.4.1 Epistemology In order to understand the ideas behind poststructural arguments it is necessary to start at the beginning by examining poststructuralist epistemology, or methodology.4 Positivism has dominated the discipline of international relations for a long time and this has influenced the selection of topics in the field and how they have been researched. The empiricist epistemology of the rationalist leading theories of international relations, such as realism and liberalism and their neo-variants, has largely decided the way international relations have been studied traditionally. Critical, or reflective5, approaches to IR theory, such as poststructuralism, Critical Theory, feminism and more, have rejected the positivist focus of the discipline and have as such been labelled as post-positivist (Smith, 1996, pp. 11-12). Poststructuralists criticise positivism and its traditional view of knowledge and the emphasis on empirical, observable data and the belief that knowledge can only be determined by observations of repeated instances of a phenomenon. In essence, positivism in the social sciences is based on the methods of the natural sciences. It emphasises empirical verification and discoveries of causal relationships as a result of methodological observation and deduction. Hansen (2006) has explained how poststructuralists perceive causal relationships: Rationalists present causal epistemology as the unrivalled means through which knowledge can be generated; and many constructivists at least partially concur. Causal epistemology cannot, however, establish its privilege through reference to any objective truth as its own criterion for truth is enshrined within a historically situated discourse of knowledge, not in a trans-historical, trans- discursive universal objectivity. Poststructuralism’s break with causality is thus not a flaw within its research design but an ontological and epistemological choice. Adopting a non-causal, discursive epistemology does not, however, imply that analysis should be conducted without any epistemological or methodological principles. Rather, what is opened up is a discursive research agenda focused on the construction of identity and policy and the way in which the two are linked within political discourses. (p. 25) By emphasising the fact that causal relationships are not needed for a detailed and insightful analysis poststructuralism opens up the possibilities of reinterpreting and re-examining old norms and beliefs within IR. Because traditional theorists do not accept the methodology or

4 Smith (1996) does not consider positivism to be an epistemology, but rather a chosen methodology. He noted that within IR it has been treated as both. He additionally argued that the epistemology of positivism is empiricism (pp. 29-32). 5 Keohane (1988) uses the terms rationalist and reflective theories and they are also widely used in the literature. 29

epistemology of poststructuralists as valid, it has therefore been underrepresented in the discipline. Traditionally it was not accepted as providing ‘real’ knowledge (Smith, 1996, p. 34). This has changed somewhat and more and more theorists are including ideas of a post- positivist nature. According to Smith (1996), various post-positivist approaches exist and they all have different epistemologies. It is thus difficult to claim there is one post-positivist tradition, although they all oppose traditional IR theories (p. 35).6

2.4.2 Origins of poststructuralism In order to understand poststructuralism one additionally needs to understand how it developed past structuralism. Structuralism was largely influenced by the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure. He argued that the linguistic sign is constructed out of two parts, a concept and a sound-image which are intimately connected. The concept is the object or idea to which we are referring, and the sound-image is the sensory part of the sign, or the actual sound we make when referring to a particular concept. He calls these parts of the sign the signified and the signifier, respectively. The connection between these two aspects is arbitrary and we see this clearly in the fact that different ‘sounds’ refer to the same concepts in different languages. There are no natural or correct connections between the signified and the signifier and the meaning of a sign can only be determined from the signs around it (de Saussure, 1996, p. 177- 184). Language is thus an abstract system that constitutes our social reality, but does not reflect it. Poststructuralists build on Saussure’s ideas that meaning is not reflected by language, but rather produced within it, and that signs are given meaning through the use of the language and their relationship to other signs. Language is thus a social construction (Weedon, 1997, pp. 22-23). Weedon (1997) has explained that the poststructuralist move beyond Saussure does not believe that the meaning and the relationship between the signifier and the signified is fixed, ‘[t]he problem with [structuralism] is that it does not account for the plurality of meaning or for changes in meaning’ (p. 24). Poststructuralists put focus on the historical, social, and discursive context of the signs and how those can change the meaning of signs. Security means one thing for America and another thing for Europe. It means different things now than it did a hundred years ago and this should be taken into consideration when analysing specific instances. Weedon (1997) has noted that for Derrida7 ‘[s]ignifiers are always located in a discursive context and the temporary fixing of meaning in a specific

6 They differ in their approaches to objectivism (is objective knowledge possible?) and naturalism (can a single scientific method be used on both natural and social subjects?) according to Smith (1996, pp. 35-38). 7 A well-known French philosopher associated with poststructuralism. 30

reading of a signifier depends on this discursive context’ (p. 25). Poststructuralism is thus not anti-structuralist, it has simply developed structuralist ideas further.

2.4.3 Textuality and context The idea of textuality is related to this focus on specific contexts. Poststructuralists embrace all the different dimensions of a certain text, or situation, taking into account multifaceted meanings and historical dimensions. Intertextuality takes notice of how the texts we are reading are shaped by the norms of the society that produced them and the history of the work that came before them. Shapiro (1989) has noted how investigations of how the world is apprehended require inquiries into various pre-texts of apprehension, for the meaning and value imposed on the world is structured not by one’s immediate consciousness but by the various reality- making scripts one inherits or acquires from one’s surrounding cultural/linguistic condition. (p. 11) This pre-text includes historical styles, rhetoric, grammars etc. When analysing aspects of international relations it is thus important to always keep in mind the historical context, the discourse at the time, and dominant norms of a certain situation or topic. Shapiro (1989) added that when dealing with issues of textuality it is also important to raise questions about the language of the text itself and all the meanings and values it holds, adding yet another dimension that can be analysed (p. 14). Poststructuralists emphasise the need to assess phenomena with regard to their historical and social contexts and Shapiro (1989) has illustrated how rather than measuring attitudes to test propositions about what social and psychological characteristics account for various individual attitudes, political and otherwise, a discourse approach would encourage raising the question of how it is that the phenomenon of the ‘attitude’ found its way into the speech and writing practices and analyses of the political science profession. (p. 16) It can therefore be interesting to examine how certain languages and traditions came to be perceived and accepted as the norm within a multilingual international institution and how this can change through time.

2.4.4 Language and poststructuralism Language is essential to understanding poststructuralist theories. Poststructuralists often use the concept discourse, rather than language, as discourse, according to Shapiro (1989), ‘implies a concern with the meaning- and value-producing practices in language rather than

simply the relationship between utterances and their referents’ (p. 14). Poststructuralists view language not as a stable, transparent, non-biased medium, but rather as an aspect of the analysis itself. When language is being used it is always influenced by the speaker, the historical circumstances, and the situation at hand. Shapiro (1989) has argued that ‘a discourse approach treats language as opaque and encourages an analysis of both the linguistic practices within which various phenomena – political, economic, social, biological, and so on – are embedded and of the language of inquiry itself’ (p. 14). Hansen (2006) furthermore explained that ‘[t]o poststructuralism, language is ontologically significant: it is only through the construction in language that “things” – objects, subjects, states, living beings, and material structures – are given meaning and endowed with a particular identity’ (p. 16). Things and concepts cannot exist independently; they are always shaped by the users and circumstances and those conditions often change through time and differ by locations. For poststructuralists there is no material reality we can explain which is independent of discursive representation. Nevertheless, that does not necessarily mean that the material is not important; ‘it is rather that it is always discursively mediated, as Hansen (2006) explained (p. 22). Shapiro (1989) has described how ‘meaning is always imposed, not discovered, for the familiar world cannot be separated from the interpretive practices through which it is made’ (p. 11). We are therefore always interpreting the world, whether it relates to international relations or not, with all the connotations and the history of what other research has done before us.

2.4.5 Deconstruction Deconstruction is a term which is well known within the poststructural discourse. Deconstruction focuses on deconstructing paired binary concepts and exposing hidden hierarchies within the language. This can show how the binaries react to one another and how one aspect is always needed to define the other, such as a man being defined as not being a woman and good by not being evil. Poststructuralism can thus be used to reveal biases and sometimes unnoticed hierarchies. Poststructuralists criticise these inside/outside or good/bad binaries and instead focus on studying the cultural and social practices where these binaries were established. No identity should be taken as given and it is only constructed by what is excluded (Campbell, 2010, p. 234). There is power in all social relationships and poststructuralists look at where power is hidden, or where it is exercised without people being aware of it. Power is related to practices

of exclusion and it constrains and imposes limits. According to Campbell (2010) ‘[r]elations of power establish the limitations of self/other, inside/relation to outside, but without those limitations those notions of self/inside, other/outside would not exist’ (p. 234). Things are then defined by what they are not and poststructuralists seek to understand how these exclusions have come to be and how they are maintained. Hansen (2006) has furthermore argued that identity for poststructuralists is conceptualised as ‘discursive, political, relational and social’ (p. 5) and that it must always be perceived ‘through reference to something it is not’ (p. 6). Similarly, Foucault considered power and knowledge to be so closely related that he coined the term power/knowledge. He claimed that ‘each is always involved in the operation of the other’ and that ‘power is implicated in all knowledge systems, such that notions like reason or truth are the products of specific historical circumstances,’ according to Smith (1996, p. 30). Power lies in being able to influence actors’ perception of what is truth and what is right, as well as being able to shape the discursive practices and norms in a society or an institution, creating what is seen as ‘the inside’ or ‘the self’ and therefore creating the distinction of what is ‘outside’ or ‘other’.

2.4.6 Institutions and poststructuralism Institutions have their own discursive traditions. Not only are there specific languages that need to be chosen as working languages or official languages within international institutions but language is also used to define the goals and objectives of these institutions. While the spoken language itself is an extremely important factor, the language or discourse the institution uses to define its purpose is important as well. Institutions need to define their place in the international arena through language. They adopt certain traditions and create norms for the participants to follow. They set agendas and create forums where certain approaches are preferred to others and the institutional hierarchy can even be defined through language, whether intentionally or not. NATO, for example, went through a major change after the end of the Cold War as when the Soviet threat disappeared the main basis for the organisation’s existence was gone. Its discursive patterns changed as its definition of threats was redefined. Poststructuralism helps to illustrate this. By taking into account the historical circumstances and looking at the textuality of the situation, we can see that in a way the relationship between the signifier and the signified has changed. The concept of threat has changed for the institution and its meaning is modified. The NATO allies decided that there was a need to ‘transform the alliance to reflect the new, more

promising era in Europe’ and focus on crisis management (Caplan, 2004, p. 114). NATO needed to adapt its discursive patterns to the new world view in order to legitimise its involvement in new areas, such as humanitarian intervention (Hansen, 2006, pp. 22-23). Discourse patters thus changed in order to adapt to new realities.

2.5 Summary This chapter has shown how important language choice can be, both for individuals and institutions. Language can hold a certain power and this is important to keep in mind when discussing language use within international institutions. The information presented also illustrates how important English has become to international communications, and how the language has reached its current position of power in international society. The chapter covered the linguistic theoretical background that is necessary for further discussion on language and international institutions. In addition, it covered some of the previous research that has been done on the ways language can influence international relations. It is clear that the study of language is underrepresented within the discipline as the existing literature is limited. Therefore, the linguistic perspective has been emphasised, and the features that can be related to studies on international relations and international institutions have been highlighted. The chapter furthermore showed how well poststructuralist ideas fit with the topic of the thesis, and how this theoretical approach could be used to analyse the relationship between language and international institutions, which will be examined further in the fifth chapter.

3 Methods and data The topic of this thesis does not fall neatly into one methodological category and therefore my approach does not follow a specific methodology. The research is rather based on several ideas from different aspects of a qualitative approach. The thesis is based on examining what others have studied before and collecting the relevant data and facts to form a coherent explanation of the current language policies of international institutions and the effects language can have on international relations. This thesis is thus developed on the basis of traditional bibliographic research. If I would have had the resources and access to individuals within the different institutions, I would have liked to have conducted in-depth interviews with various actors, about how perceive the importance of language use within their institutions. However, that was beyond the scope of this thesis. Ragin and Amoroso (2011) have stated that ‘the qualitative approach mandates close attention to historical detail in the effort to construct new understandings of culturally or historically significant phenomena’ (p. 115). This is also emphasised in poststructuralist methods. Therefore, this fits closely with my emphasis on examining how English developed over time and how the language came to be viewed as the main language of communication in the international environment. Qualitative methods are furthermore used to advance theory and in-depth knowledge, from case studies for example, and they can provide ‘rich raw material for advancing theoretical ideas’ (Ragin & Amoroso, 2011, p. 115). This in-depth knowledge is achieved by studying the same things or phenomena in various different instances, as different aspects of the issue could become apparent when different cases are studied, according to Ragin and Amoroso (2011, p. 117). Thus, in order to achieve an in-depth knowledge of how language policies work and how they are generally treated within international institutions I believe it was necessary to study a few different international and regional institutions that also have different functions and operate on different levels. Gerring (2004) has defined a case study as ‘an in-depth study of a single unit [...] where the scholar’s aim is to elucidate features of a larger class of similar phenomena’ (p. 341) and this also can be applied to my research on the individual institutions, especially the European Union. Additionally, I wanted to approach my questions from a comparative point of view. According to Ragin and Amoroso (2011), a comparative approach is good for advancing theory as it focuses on ‘the causes of diversity and its emphasis on the systematic analysis of similarities and differences in the effort to specify how diversity is patterned’ (p. 142). This

was kept in mind when trying to understand why the language policies of the various institutions differed in many aspects. Many different sources from various disciplines had to be consulted in order to answer my research questions, both from within the fields of IR and linguistics. The information collected from previous research on the topic, mainly presented in the literature review chapter, was gathered through various books and journal articles on the topic of the relationship between linguistics and politics, often from a linguistic perspective. This information was available through various local libraries and online databases. Information about the language use and policies of the different institutions was sometimes difficult to find. For the most part, information about the official languages of the institutions, and their language policies, was gathered through the internet and the individual websites of the organisations. Generally, I was able to access primary sources that mentioned official policies on what languages should be used within the institutions, through treaties or Rules of Procedure found on the official websites. All the different institutions had some information about their language use and their language policies available online. This information was sometimes easily accessible, such as the information on the general EU policies, but was only mentioned briefly on some of the other websites, and often not emphasised at all. The information was often hidden away in small clauses of the institutions’ Rules of Procedure. Out of the institutions examined, the EU proved to have the most comprehensive information available. Still, when it came to information about language use within the specific EU institutions, such as the Commission, information was not easily available, and it was sometimes necessary to look at the secondary sources available in order to find the relevant information. Secondary sources were furthermore sometimes referenced in order to give additional information and insight into the actual language use within the different EU institutions. On the whole, secondary sources regarding the language policies of international individual institutions were rare. Information was generally only available on the EU and even then the information on the actual language use of the institution was usually not available, except in the case of the European Parliament, illustrating further how understudied this topic is. General information on the relationship between language and international institutions, and how language is represented within international relations was also limited. The books I consulted rarely focused solely on the topic of my thesis, focusing more heavily on the linguistic side of the topic, and therefore relevant chapters had to be carefully selected. The resources that did focus more on the Political Science aspects of the thesis generally only

mentioned the European Union and were not always up to date so it was necessary to seek confirmation about facts and figures through the official websites. By combining the resources from both disciplines I hope to have made the current status of research on this topic clear in the literary review chapter. Because language is not a large part of the discussion when it comes to theories of international relations the choice of poststructuralism as a theoretical approach was relatively easy as poststructuralism sees language as a key component of all discussion and research.

4 Efficiency versus equality This chapter examines the different language policies of a few select international and regional institutions and organisations. These institutions are, in order of appearance; the European Union, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Nordic Council, and the International Whaling Commission. These institutions were selected because they represent various different approaches and attitudes towards language policies and language use within an international environment, and they additionally have very different aims and goals. These institutions are also some of the largest and most important international institutions, at least in Western Europe. Most research on both the relationship between language and politics and language policies within international institutions has been done on the European Union, and the EU furthermore has the most extensive and inclusive policy. Therefore, the greatest focus will be on the European Union, and eventually on how the other institutions differ in their approaches.

4.1 The European Union

4.1.1 Language policies in the EU The European Union is highly concerned with languages and language use. Extra and Gorter (2008) have even claimed language diversity to be ‘a key property of Europe’s identity’ (p. 38). When the EU’s predecessor, the EEC, was created with the treaty of Rome in 1958 only four official languages were recognised; French, German, Italian and Dutch (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, p. 163). Over time the number of official languages has increased as new members have joined and the Union has expanded. Today the EU has 24 ‘official and working languages’ (European Commission, 2015). Two of the Directorate-Generals (DGs) within the Commission are focused heavily on language issues, the translating and interpreting DGs, as well as a large portion of the education DG (European Commission, 2016). Along with the 24 official languages there are a few regional languages that are co- official languages of the EU, such as Catalan and Welsh, which need special authorisation in order to be used (European Commission, 2015). The European Union claims that all these 24 languages are ‘official and working languages’. There is, however, a certain distinction between official and working languages, although this distinction is not specified in official regulations, according to van Els (2006). He has explained that ‘“official” is a quality that each EU language has and continues to have

under all conditions [and that] “working language” is a quality that may be assigned to a language, but which it does not need to have under all conditions’ (p. 211). In other words, all the languages are official languages and each official language can be used as a working language when needed. Working languages are the languages that are actually used in practice in specific scenarios and the choice and number of working languages changes depending on the situation at hand. The working language of many meetings is for example often only English, or sometimes French and English, and many languages are only used as working languages for special symbolic occasions. The general rule seems to be that ‘the more informal the meetings, the fewer languages are used’, with French and English being predominant (de Swaan, 2001, p. 173). The EU’s multilingualism policy includes two facets: ‘striving to protect Europe’s rich linguistic diversity’ and ‘promoting language learning’, and the EU has several programs devoted to those two facets (European Union, 2016b). The Union encourages its citizens to speak more than one language in general, preferably two in addition to their mother tongue, and encourages learning languages from an early age for a number of reasons. For example, the EU has claimed language knowledge will improve job and education prospects in the future; help people from diverse cultures understand one another; and help facilitate European trade. The language industry, translation, education, interpretation etc., is moreover one of the fastest growing areas of the economy (European Union, 2016b). This emphasis on language proficiency seems to be supported by the people of the EU as well, as shown in the 2012 Eurobarometer8 survey on languages where 84% of Europeans felt that everyone in the Union should be able to speak an additional language along with their L1 (European Commission, 2012, p. 109). Along with promoting multilingualism amongst its citizens, the EU also promotes multilingualism within the institutions and the bureaucracy of the Union itself. The main goal is for all the official languages to be treated equally within the Union. The EU treaties repeatedly mention multilingualism and the equality of all languages is constantly stressed (see Athanassiou, 2006). According to the various EU treaties the citizens of the European Union should be able to communicate with the EU institutions in their own national languages and receive answers in that same language. Documents and regulations that apply to all countries must also be made available in all languages. Legislative texts and EU regulations are published in all of the official languages except Irish (only Council and Parliament

8 The Eurobarometer surveys are public opinion surveys on various topics conducted by the European Commission. 39

regulations are currently translated into Irish) (European Union, 2016b). These documents are then only deemed valid when they are available in the national languages, according to van Els (2006, p. 211). Nevertheless, the individual institutions of the EU can have their own specific language policies.

4.1.2 The Parliament Of all the EU institutions the European Parliament (EP) is the most multilingual with all the official languages being used as working languages as well. The Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) have the right to use any of the official languages to express themselves and they have access to simultaneous interpretation. Parliamentary documents are also published in all of the official languages (European Parliament, n.d.-a). The EP runs an in-house translation service for the translation of all the relevant documents, including legislation, and it also runs an interpretation service for the MEPs to be used in all multilingual meetings (European Parliament, n.d.-a). Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have also pointed out that there is some flexibility on language choice within committee and delegation meetings for the EP as long as all the participants agree (p. 165). Despite these multilingual policies and measures taken by the EP research has shown that there is discrepancy between policy and practice within the parliament. Even though in theory all the official languages are equal and can all be used in practice, it appears that only a few select languages are actively being used in the parliament; English, French and German, with English dominating the field. Therefore, actors within the EP that are not proficient in English can be at a disadvantage within the EP and are increasingly facing difficulties when doing their job, according to Wright (2009, p. 94). Various factors influence what languages MEPs choose to speak within the EP. An important factor that seems to be influencing language choice within the EP is identity. As has been mentioned earlier, language and identity are closely related, especially when it comes to representation of community. National pride, for example, may encourage MEPs to speak their national language in the plenary. This can for example be seen in the different language patterns depending on the nationality of the president of the EP, as Codrea-Rado (2014) has showed. It has, however, also been noted that even though, for example, the Swedes, Danes and the Dutch speak their own language in the EP they will not necessarily use the simultaneous interpretation when they are listening to a speaker using English in the plenary. While they do not need to use their own language and could be speaking English, they choose their national language because they want to represent their nation (Codrea-Rado, 2014).

The increased use of English within the EP plenary and other EP activities has caused some concerns. First of all, smaller languages are being heard less and less within the EP plenary. Latvian, Maltese and Estonian were for example only spoken for an hour or less in the 12 plenary sessions of 2012 (Codrea-Rado, 2014). It is thus clear that the smaller languages are struggling, even within the most inclusive part of the EU. Still, even though translation and interpretation is available for the smaller languages, this does not mean that they are being used within the EP. Phillipson (2003) worries that with the increased use of English within the EP it will become difficult to justify spending time and money on interpretation from small languages, if they are not used regularly, as more and more people are choosing to speak the larger and more common languages (p. 134). Van Els (2006) has also argued that even though interpretation is used in the Parliament, MEPs tend to lose concentration during long sessions. He claimed that during these long sessions the listeners only listen to the languages they can understand, if only partly, and ignore the translations if they can. As a result, the speakers of minority languages can sometimes be ignored as few outside actors have knowledge of the smaller languages being spoken and the messages and arguments of the speakers of the smaller languages automatically go unheard (p. 227). Speakers can additionally overestimate their language competencies and choose to ignore the translation and interpretation services that are available. Phillipson (2003) has for example noted that Danes attending EU meetings often choose English rather than Danish to express themselves but often overestimate their English competency (p. 134). They are therefore inadvertently losing some of their ability to express themselves clearly, and can even cause misunderstanding. Following her research on language use in the EP, Wright (2007) described how native English speakers were divided into two camps. One group was acutely aware of the tendency to use English in the Parliament and made a deliberate effort to keep their language simple and generally avoided using terms that could lead to misunderstanding. The other group did not appear to be this linguistically aware and did not make an effort to make themselves easier to understand for the rest of the MEPs. They used archaic idioms, many complex metaphors and colloquialism as well as speaking very fast and were therefore not actively trying to facilitate understanding in the EP. She found that it was likely that those that relied solely on English and did not bother with learning different communication rules could be marginalised and out of the loop on some issues, therefore leading her to conclude that native speakers were not always at an advantage (Wright, 2007, pp. 152-154). Native French speakers were

found to be similarly divided into two groups, one militantly monolingual and the other taking a more pragmatic approach (p. 169). The EP is the EU institution which is the closest to the general public of the Union, not only because of its multilingualism but also because the MEPs are directly elected by the public. Despite this, public interest in the parliamentary elections has never been lower and that has caused many concerns (European Parliament, n.d.-b). People do not feel that they can have a say in the matters of the Parliament and trust in the EU institutions is diminishing along with a lack of interest and trust in politics in general, according to the post-electoral survey from 2014 (Directorate-General for Communication, 2014, pp. 4-5).

4.1.3 The Commission The Commission works closely with the EP when it comes to creating the rules and regulations of the European Union. According to House (2008) the Commission has three working languages; French, English and German, although it operates multilingually for public information issues (pp. 63-64). The three languages are used on a day to day basis when preparing drafts of official documents and for communication within the bureaucracy (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, p. 166). The Commission also has a robust translation and interpretation service that is separate from the parliamentary services. The Commission employs 1750 linguists and 600 support staff, along with 600 interpreters and 3000 freelance interpreters with 250 support staff in its interpretation services (European Union, 2016a). The DG Interpretation also services the European Council and other groups (DG Interpretation, 2015). The Commission’s Rules of Procedure do not mention any specific language rules, unlike those of the Parliament and the Council, as Athanassiou (2006) has observed (p. 20). Athanassiou (2006) has argued that the Commission has a more restrictive language regime than the other EU institutions. In practice mainly English and French are used, along with German on occasion, but the multilingual EU policy is followed for formal occasions and public forums with translation and interpretation services available (p. 20). He furthermore noted that English is mainly used for technical or economic discussion while French is used for law and cultural discussion (p. 20, footnote 80). The reason for the increased use of English within the EP plenary has been blamed on the Commission and its Commissioners. In the plenary sessions the MEPs discuss legislative issues and topics they receive from the Commission. The Commissioners mostly speak English and the material the MEPs receive from the Commission is in English as well.

Therefore, the discussion that follows between the two institutions is generally conducted in English (Codrea-Rado, 2014). Translating documents takes time and Codrea-Rado (2014) noted that the director-general for interpretation, Olga Cosmidou, has claimed that when Commissioners or their collaborators are pressed for time, or have different nationalities, they will prepare documents in English. Cosmidou also claimed that commissioners tend to speak in the language in which the documents are prepared as they find it easier.

4.1.4 The Council and the Court of Justice of the EU All the official languages of the EU can be used within the Council and the Council makes all documents available in all the official languages (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, p. 166). Interpretation is also provided and Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have stated that a system has recently been implemented where interpretation is provided upon request at preparatory meetings (p. 171). The Council does, however, have the ability to adapt its language use to specific situations and can decide to use only one language. Article 9 of the Council’s Rules of Procedure states that: Except as otherwise decided unanimously by the European Council on grounds of urgency, the European Council shall deliberate and take decisions only on the basis of documents and drafts drawn up in the languages specified in the rules in force governing languages. (European Council, 2009, p. 9) At informal Council of Ministers meetings, however, the working languages are usually only three; French, English, and the language of the current president, according to van Els (2006, pp. 211-212). COREPER9 also has a more specific language regime where English, French and German dominate (Athanassiou, 2006, p. 19 and footnote 75). It is also worth mentioning the Court of Justice, as unlike the other English focused institutions of the EU the Court deliberates in French only, and French is the language of its administration. Athanassiou (2006) has suggested that this is done to ‘avoid extensive cross- translation, while at the same time ensuring a consistent use of vocabulary which has overtime acquired its own Community law meaning, thereby also contributing to legal certainty’ (p. 22). The Court still allows the language of any case to be in any of the official EU languages, including Irish (Athanassiou, 2006, pp. 21-22).

9 The permanent representatives that prepare the work of the Council. 43

4.1.5 Language hierarchy within the Union The languages of the European nations are extremely varied. Many countries have speakers of minority languages, some of which have rights and many which have none. Extra and Gorter (2008) have explained that there exists a language hierarchy within the EU, and place English at the top as the lingua franca used for transnational communication. Next come the official state languages of the Union’s nations, then followed by regional minority languages, and finally immigrant minority languages (p. 3). Similarly, when discussing the hierarchy of languages within the internal operations of the Union’s institutions, Phillipson (2003) places English at number one, followed by French, German, and finally the rest of the official languages (p. 132). The national languages also have a varying degree of presence outside their individual borders which somewhat influences their positions. Some of these languages have spread through the continent as ‘foreign languages’ taught through secondary education and universities. Extra and Gorter (2008) have claimed that French, English and German stand out from the rest as these countries have strong institutional support and funding (p. 11). Germany has the Goethe Institute which promotes the study of German and aims to protect its status in the world. English has support from the British Council which is integral to UK foreign affairs, and English teaching is additionally an important source of foreign income for the UK (825 million euros in 2006 - 2007) (Extra & Gorter, 2008, p. 13). France is particularly strong in this field, as has been mentioned, and both the OIF and the Alliance Française are influential throughout the world, not only in promoting French, but also through other collaboration with French speakers (pp. 11-13). The presence and influence of these three countries, and their languages in Europe is undeniable. In the most recent language focused Eurobarometer, European citizens were asked what languages they believed were the most useful. 67% of respondents considered English to be one of the two most useful languages to know apart from their mother tongue, with German coming in second at 17%, and French third at 16% (European Commission, 2012, p. 69). What is notable is that while English has remained relatively stable (minus one point) since the last survey in 2005, French has gone down nine points and German five. Similar results were found when people were asked which two languages it would be useful for their children to learn for the future. English came up 79% of the time, with French and German following at 20% each (European Commission, 2012, p. 75). While English seems to be the dominating language within the EU, French is usually the second most used language. French was the most used language and had the highest number

of speakers in the Community, as a national and a second or foreign language, until the UK and Ireland joined in 1973 when the number of English users rose over the number of French users. With the accession of more countries the status of English only improved, especially when Finland and Sweden joined with their large number of English speakers (de Swaan, 2001, pp. 152-158). According to the 2016 report on the French language from the French ministry of culture and communication, the percentage of documents drafted in English in the EU Commission has risen from 45.7% in 1996 to 81% in 2014 and the French percentage has gone down from 38% to 5% (Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, 2016, p. 16). Even in the EP, the most multilingual EU institution, the language of drafted documents was English 61.84% of the time and French 23.77% of the time in 2014. Both languages had gone up since 2007, from 48.61% and 18.7% respectively. German was down to 2.55% from 7.7% and other languages went from 24.92% in 2007 to 11.84% in 2014 (Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication, 2016, p.17). Deciding which language to use at the EU level can be extremely difficult and the choice can have various consequences. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have noted for example that the legitimacy of decision-making could be affected, depending on the languages chosen, and that the language choice could ‘induce citizens who do not speak or understand those languages to refuse participation in the political process’ (p. 178). Additionally, some actors could be simplifying their language use deliberately in order to reach more people but losing depth and content by doing so (van Els, 2006, pp. 229-230). Phillipson (2003) has explained how working in one’s native language within the European Union setting can give one an advantage: When the groundwork is conducted in a single language, or perhaps two, with native and non-native speakers interacting, there is no equality of communication rights. Many documents are processed through an incredibly complex procedure of consultation and co-decision-making between the Council, Commission, and Parliament in a succession of phases. Members of the European Parliament from Scandinavia (and doubtless many others) are convinced that this gives native speakers of French and English an edge when it comes to setting agendas, for instance when chairing committees. The chair of a working party can decisively influence the final result, such as production of a policy paper, a linguistic advantage being converted into words that influence policy. (pp. 131-132)

The users clearly feel that language has power and that language choice can affect decision- making within the Union. Phillipson (2003) has furthermore noted how ‘[a]nyone who functions regularly in a foreign language knows how extremely challenging it is to express oneself with the same degree of complexity, persuasiveness, and correctness as in one’s mother tongue’ (p. 140). On the other hand, van Els (2006) has also explained that English speaking monolinguals can be at a disadvantage, as bilinguals or multilinguals are better able to empathise with others and are more flexible when communicating (pp. 237-238).

4.1.6 Issues related to the EU’s language policies Considering the EU’s ambitious goal of language equality in the Union it is not surprising that the EU has had to face some issues and criticism regarding its language policies. The number of languages and the need for translations can for example cause various difficulties within the EU and misunderstanding, slow reaction times and translation delays can lower the EU’s efficiency on various levels. The cost of maintaining the translation and interpretation services has also been heavily criticised. Translation issues Relay translations, translating first into one core language and then into the target language, are increasingly being used and they can cause misunderstandings which can lead to mistakes being made. Some actors who do not like or do not trust the relay translations even make an effort to make their speeches in French or English in order to make sure that they get their point across (Wright, 2007, pp. 157-158). Moreover, translations can delay the response time within the Union and delay the implementation of directives. The implementation of new financial regulations and transparency directives, for example, had to be delayed six months in 2004 because of the expansion of the EU and the need for translation into nine additional languages (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, pp. 164-165). Members who use smaller languages are furthermore at a disadvantage as it takes longer to translate documents into the smaller languages than the larger ones because often texts are translated into core languages first. This sometimes leads to the documents arriving too late to be studied thoroughly before meetings (Wright, 2007, p. 157). The interpretation of legal texts can also be a delicate task as EU law accepted in one language could be interpreted differently in another language. An example can be found in the European Court where the same article could be interpreted as though signatories were obligated to do something in one language, or should watch that it was done in another language. Theoretically all language versions were correct although the court found that the

interpretation of the original drafting language, English, as well as the language versions forming the majority, and the intentions of the original negotiating parties should prevail. Nevertheless, the courts do not have a clear policy on how to deal with these types of incidents (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, pp. 171-174). Misunderstanding can also happen within the individual institutions, such as the EP. As has been mentioned above, a lot of non-plenary EP activities are conducted in English, and/or French, and anyone who is not proficient in either language will face various problems (van Els, 2006, p. 219). Even though actors are using their native languages in the EP plenary in order to be able to represent their national pride, informal networking still goes on in English (Codrea-Rado, 2014). This can lead to exclusion, difficulties in communication, and the feeling of powerlessness. Phillipson (2003) has claimed that there are many complaints from within the EP about how texts are available only in English and in French and about how translations have too many errors (p. 120). Financial issues The EU needs robust translation and interpretation services in order to maintain its basic functions. The EU member states and citizens are allowed to use any EU language when communicating with the Union and have the right to receive answers in their preferred language. The Union also has to publish all official documents, rules and regulations in all of the official languages, although an exception can be made by the EU Council if the topic is of great urgency, according to Ginsburgh and Weber (2011, p. 171). The cost from these practices is obvious and with talks of further enlargement they will only increase as more languages will receive the status of official languages. New states applying for membership have had to translate the laws and documents of the Union into their language as well, and that includes 60.000 - 70.000 pages of what Spolsky (2004) calls ‘basic legislation’ (p. 53- 54). This is not cheap and increases the cost of joining the EU for potential members. Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have discussed in detail how having multiple official languages can be very costly. They claimed that when the EU had only 15 members it was spending 686 million euros every year on translations and interpretation with the unofficial estimates being even greater. The latest numbers they had available were from 2005 and put the cost at 1.123 million euros, with 2500 people employed, amounting to a tenth of the workforce within the European Commission (p. 163). Total numbers for money spent on interpretation and translation are difficult to find as these services are divided between the various EU institutions and services are provided by both contractors and regular staff. A translation centre in Luxembourg also handles translation

for various EU agencies10. According to the DG websites the estimated cost of the DG Translation is €330m a year (no year provided) while the estimated cost of DG Interpretation is €126m (numbers from 2014) (DG Interpretation, 2015; DG Translation, 2016). The DG Translation states that ‘[a]ccording to certain very rough estimates, the cost of all language services in all EU institutions amounts to less than 1% of the annual general budget of the EU. Divided by the population of the EU, this comes to around €2 per person per year’ (DG Translation, 2016).

4.1.7 Possible futures for the EU It is clear from the information presented above that English holds a special place within the European Union, both in theory and practice. The European trend is clearly pointing towards an ever increasing presence of English, both within the EU institutions and in the daily lives of European citizens, as seen in the Eurobarometer surveys. When deciding on the future of the language policies of the EU there are many things that need to be kept in mind. For many people within the EU the cost of losing the equality awarded by the multilingualism policies does not outweigh the benefits of improving efficiency and saving money. Scholars differ somewhat in their views on the future of the EU language policies. Spolsky (2004) has argued that because the spread of English is not under the control of the UK or the US this makes the future difficult to predict and has noted that the language institutions of countries such as France, Brazil, and Russia seem furthermore unsuccessful so far in their efforts of hindering the spread of English in their respective domains (p. 90). Spolsky (2004) has predicted that unless cheap and effective machine translation appears in the near future the EU’s translation and interpreting structure will collapse from pressure, leaving English as the language of choice (p. 90). Many will agree that English seems to be taking over as the EU language. However, recalling theories about ELF and the similar arguments of House (2008) and Phillipson (2003), van Els (2006) has argued that gradually, as the different speakers gain experience and the usage becomes more common, the native speakers will lose their advantage as the other speakers will shape the language and make it their own (p. 231). Phillipson (2003) has noted that native English speakers could nevertheless maintain their language advantage within the Union through the English teaching industry and translation services (p. 151). Van Els (2006) has argued that if the EU is going to abandon the multilingual non- restrictive model the best option would be to replace the many working languages with only

10 See http://cdt.europa.eu/EN/Pages/Homepage.aspx 48

one. It has also been suggested that French and English, and even German, should be made the working languages on the condition that the native speakers of those languages must use the other working language or languages, as Phillipson (2003) noted, although that choice has not been too popular (p. 122). Even though so far there have been no official changes to the EU’s language policies, Phillipson (2003) has noted a subtle policy change: During the process of negotiating for membership, a narrow language policy is being imposed. In effect, English has been made the key language. Thus the Multi-annual Financing Agreement [...] between the Commission and Poland stipulates that the agreement is drawn up in English and Polish, and only the English version is ‘authentic’, i.e. to be given legal weight in the event of a disagreement. (p. 123) This could be the first step towards reducing the number of working languages in the Union, or an overhaul of the Union’s language policies. Changing the EU’s language policies and the number of working languages cannot be done without support from the Council and an alteration of the EU charters and Phillipson (2003) has argued that this is highly unlikely to happen anytime soon as no country would willingly propose these changes and offer to have their rights restricted (p. 122). De Swaan (2001) has described the ‘vicious voting circle’ which prohibits any change to the Union’s language policies; while it is possible that members would support the reduction of language for economic reasons, no state would be ready to lose their own language and all actors would presumably support an ‘all languages’ approach instead of a ‘one language’ approach, except the native speakers of the chosen language (p. 167). It is still a possibility that more official languages will be added before there will be any change to the EU’s language policy. Turkey and many Balkan countries still remain as possible member states in the future, and languages such as Luxembourgish, Catalan, or Russian, which enjoy some national or regional status in today’s member states could become official EU languages. Turkish could even become an official language without Turkey joining the EU with the possible reunification of Cyprus (Ginsburgh & Weber, 2011, p. 163). Ginsburgh and Weber (2011) have argued that some type of standardisation should be sought. They have suggested that the translation regulations should be changed, and legislation and regulation should only be translated into a few core languages, with translation into smaller languages put in the hands of individual countries that could then perhaps be compensated for this as well. The equal language policy could still be implemented in the EP and in EU-citizen relations (p. 177). This would allow states to choose between utilising the

core translations or waiting for further translation and could save both time and money and increase efficiency in many places.

4.2 The United Nations In order to understand the impressive EU language policies and the vast support system that surrounds them, it is interesting to look at other international institutions, especially those that are restrictive, in the sense that there are only a few chosen official languages. The United Nations (UN) are very different from the European Union. Not only do the UN member states vastly outnumber those of the EU, but the structure and responsibilities are completely different. While the EU focuses on economic and political integration, the UN focuses on more diverse topics and global cooperation. The United Nations Charter, which was adopted in 1945, declared that human rights, fundamental freedoms, and equality should be respected and discrimination should be absent. With the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 language was included as one of the criteria that must not be discriminated against (Spolsky, 2004, p. 118). Unlike the EU wherein all the chosen national languages have equal status as official languages there are only six languages that have official status within the UN; Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish. These six languages are ‘both the official and the working languages of the General Assembly, including its committees and subcommittees, and of the Security Council’ (General Assembly, 2013, p. 1). They are also the official languages of the Economic and Social Council although English, French and Spanish are the only working languages there (General Assembly, 2013, p. 3). There have been some calls for more languages to be added, such as German, Hindi, Bengali and Portuguese which are all amongst the most spoken languages in the world (Lewis, Simons, & Fennig, 2016; NDTV, 2015). However, it still remains difficult to justify adding these languages as some of them are only spoken in small and isolated areas although the number of speakers is great. Of the six official languages only English and French have a special status as working languages within the UN Secretariat and they are used for communication between staff members on a daily basis (United Nations, 2015). According to van Els (2006) ‘[t]his means that verbal translations are only made into these two languages and that the administration is conducted in English and French (p. 217). While English and French are the working languages of the Secretariat additional languages are allowed as working languages in specific duty stations around the world (General Assembly, 2013, p. 3). The General Assembly also

encourages the use of non-official languages when appropriate, when the intention is to reach a wider or more specific audience, as well when the intention is to spread the message of the UN more widely around the world (General Assembly, 2013, p. 3). Delegates in the General Assembly are allowed speak in any of the six languages and simultaneous interpretation is provided in the other five languages for the audience to choose from. Delegates are also allowed to make statements in their own language, if the national delegation provides interpretation or translation in any of the six official languages as well (United Nations, n.d.). The Security Council also allows speeches in other languages if translation is provided, and allows for documents to be published in other languages if needed (Security Council, 1982). The same goes for ECOSOC (Economic and Social Council, 1992). Specialised agencies of the UN, such as UNESCO, are allowed to have their own official and working languages which do not need to match the six official UN languages. UNESCO for example uses the six UN languages as working languages and then adds Hindi, Italian and Portuguese as official languages in its General Conference (UNESCO, 2010, p. 42). According to the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management (DGACM), which is in charge of preparing for and planning all meetings, documentation is also sometimes made available in German, along with the six official languages (Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, 2016). The importance of multilingualism is emphasised within the UN as, according to the UN website, multilingualism ‘ensures increased participation of all Member States in the Organization’s work, as well as greater effectiveness, better outcomes and more involvement’ (United Nations, n.d.). The UN employs a large number of translators and interpreters, as well as other language professionals, all over the world and as with the EU the accuracy of translation and interpretation is very important to the UN. Each of the six languages furthermore have their own official language day where the individual languages are celebrated (United Nations, n.d.). The UN also has a special Coordinator for Multilingualism, appointed by the Secretary-General. In December 2015 Catherine Pollard of Guyana, who was the Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management, was appointed by Ban Ki-moon and she is ‘responsible for coordinating the overall implementation of multilingualism Secretariat-wide’ (United Nations, 2015). The UN additionally offers language courses in the six official languages with the Language and Communications Programme. The courses are available for a large number of the permanent UN staff. This ‘promotes linguistic balance and multilingualism within the Secretariat, provides the opportunity to learn the official languages of the Organization, and

enhances the ability to perform professional duties with greater linguistic competence’ (United Nations Language and Communications Programme, n.d.). Similar to the EU, the predominance of English is noticeable within the UN. Although all the six official languages are supposed to be equal, on many occasions there is clearly a majority that chooses English for communication and attention has been brought to this repeatedly by the speakers of the other five languages. For example, General Assembly resolution 61/266 from 2007 emphasises the importance of using all the official languages in the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat, and ‘eliminating the disparity between the use of English and the use of the five other official languages’ (General Assembly, 2007, p. 2). The General Assembly regularly emphasises the importance of equality between the languages as many feel that English has become the preferred language of choice for the UN.11 For example, Spanish speaking ambassadors openly complained to Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2001 over a growing language imbalance within the UN and the tendency to use only one language in regards to public information, especially on the UN website. Kofi Annan responded that although he believed it was important to improve the linguistic balance of the official languages, he believed that full parity between them was unachievable under present budgetary restraints (Annan, 2001).

4.3 The North Atlantic Treaty Organization NATO is vastly different from the two previous institutions. While the other institutions have focused on political and economic integration along with international cooperation on various issues, NATO is a specialised intergovernmental political and military alliance. NATO’s official purpose is ‘to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’, and NATO promotes democracy and encourages cooperation and consultation on security and defence issues (NATO, n.d.). Language equality is not something most people would therefore associate with NATO. There are currently 28 NATO members, the same number of members the EU has. However, unlike the EU, NATO has much fewer official languages; only English and French for the whole organisation (NATO, 1949, 2016). Official texts are made available in the two official languages although those documents and other NATO publications are often made available in other languages as well if the situation calls for it, or if the information is relevant

11 This has been discussed on multiple occasions, see for example this press release and meeting coverage on the UN website: http://www.un.org/press/en/2008/pi1828.doc.htm and http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/pi2126.doc.htm 52

to a specific location or mission (NATO, 2006, pp. 335-336). The NATO website is for example available in Russian and Ukrainian, along with English and French.12 Even though language equality and language policies are not deeply embedded in the NATO treaties, the organisation still emphasises the ability of its member states and their forces to be able to communicate efficiently. NATO chooses to focus on strengthening communication in a much smaller number of languages than the EU for example. Instead of focusing on the equality of languages and providing translation and interpretation services, NATO focuses on language teaching, reminiscent of the UN language courses. The NATO interpretation service is relatively small with 35 English/French interpreters, along with freelancers. Simultaneous interpretation is nevertheless provided for more than 2000 meetings every year. NATO is flexible with its language policies and also offers interpretation into other relevant languages when needed, such as Ukrainian, Arabic, Dari and Russian (NATO, 2015b). In 2015 more than 2500 meetings in Brussels required simultaneous interpretation into both the official languages and NATO partners’ languages (NATO, 2015d, p. 98). NATO also operates a translation service, which in 2015 was requested to translate 140 pages on average per day into the official languages and any other language required (NATO, 2015d, p. 98). Even though both French and English are the official languages of NATO, there is a certain emphasis on English, similar to the other institutions covered above. Since the mid- 1990s both the British Council and the US Defense Language Institute have been working on improving the English language skills of new and potential NATO members and partners, especially with former Warsaw Pact countries. Foreign language training of military personnel in those countries has often been lacking and therefore language training is deemed necessary (Crossey, 2005). The Peacekeeping English Project of the British Council has for example provided English language training services aimed specifically at military and security forces for over 38 countries (British Council, n.d.). Adubato and Efthymiopoulos (2014) have claimed that ‘[l]anguage skills are of utmost importance for interoperability at all levels and therefore an important tool for strategic, operational, tactical and every day deliverables’ (p. 26). Adubato and Efthymiopoulos (2014) have furthermore argued that ‘a perfect working use of English at NATO is a realistic strategic move’ and believe that increased and better English teaching will improve the

12 http://www.nato.int/ 53

quality of NATO communications, help actors engage their audience, and make knowledge more easily available (pp. 27-28). Mutual understanding is very important to NATO especially when it comes to standardisation of technical and military terms. NATO even runs a NATO Standardization Office (NSO) that is responsible for creating and maintaining standards within the organisation, not only linguistic standards but various military operational standards with the intent of increasing the effectiveness of the allied forces (NATO, 2015a, 2015c). Additionally, ‘NATO is the only international organisation where, once terminology is defined and approved by the North Atlantic Council, its use becomes mandatory throughout the organisation and its structures’ (NATO, 2015a). NATO Standardisation Agreements (STANAGs) help with NATO wide standardisation of various kinds. The STANAG relating to language standardisation describes language proficiency levels that members use when recruiting and when monitoring (BILC, n.d.-b; NATO Standardization Agency, 2010). Adubato and Efthymiopoulos (2014) have however argued that there is often discrepancy in evaluation from different countries (p. 29). The Bureau for International Language Coordination (BILC) works as NATO’s advisory body on issues relating to language training, testing, and education to promote interoperability and harmonisation in language policies among NATO and its partners (BILC, n.d.-a). Unlike the other institutions NATO chose to focus on teaching instead of interpreting and translating. The lack of English proficiency with member states’ representatives is still a major issue for the NATO administration and continued emphasis on language education is needed. Adubato and Efthymiopoulos (2014) have argued that ‘the linguistic capabilities and capacities of non-native speakers, used as tools for deliverables, whether administrative or operational are a severe shortcoming in NATO’ and that a better and more focused English language teaching is needed on the members’ part (p. 28). During their research they found that English language knowledge was lower than expected for many NATO professionals and many found working in English difficult (pp. 28-29). Crossey (2005) brought up an interesting issue relating to English use in an international setting in his discussion on NATO. He has noted that many non-native speakers find it difficult to understand the English spoken by native speakers. The variant of English spoken within an international setting is often not a national variety. It is rather a form of ELF, or international English, and the native speakers do not change their way of speaking to accommodate for that, instead often speaking with heavy accents that outsiders can find difficult to understand. Crossey (2005) emphasises the need to tailor the English that is taught

to NATO staff to their needs, focusing on specialised military jargon and less on professional business language and the emphasis of writing exercises. Crossey (2005) also noted that, according to a small study within NATO, some non-native speakers of English appear to be at a disadvantage compared to native speakers because of their lack of language skills, similar to what we have seen can happen in the EU. Native speakers are still often given more complex and important tasks and are more often chosen to speak on the behalf of a multilingual team. He argued that this could affect the self-esteem of non-native speakers and that this could lead to a reduction in the influence of national delegations.

4.4 The Nordic Council To contrast to the three large institutions mentioned above it is also helpful to look at how smaller and more localised institutions deal with language issues and policies. The Nordic Council is the official inter-parliamentary body of countries in the Nordic region, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Norway, also including the Faroe Islands, Greenland and Åland (Norden, n.d.-b). Official policies state that the languages of the Nordic countries should be treated equally at Council meetings and according to the Norden website ‘Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are the working languages for official Nordic co-operation. For meetings of the Nordic Council and Council of Ministers, an interpretation service is offered between Finnish, Icelandic and Scandinavian, but not between the Scandinavian languages (Norden, n.d.-d).’ Important documents are also translated into all the national languages (Norden, n.d.-a). The Nordic Council therefore operates an interpretation and translations department. This means that even though Finnish and Icelandic are not working languages, the language policy of the Council is still in part non-restrictive, as all the national languages have some rights. Generally, language is an important issue for the Council as it emphasises that the member nations’ ability to understand each other’s languages is one of the pillars of Nordic cooperation and that this increases mobility between the countries and brings their people closer together (Norden, n.d.-c). Around 80% of the population in the region have Danish, Swedish or Norwegian as their L1, and those speakers can usually understand each other (Norden, n.d.- d). The countries have also signed several agreements on cooperation on language issues and focus heavily on strengthening education in the Scandinavian languages for children and young people (Norden, n.d.-c). Language issues and cooperation are overseen by the Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research, along with the Nordic Council of Ministers for Culture. Some effort

goes into following up on the Declaration on Nordic Language Policy, which ‘defines priorities for each country’s national work on language policy’ (Norden, n.d.-c). This organisation is the first one mentioned that does not have English as an official or working language. Even though members do not always understand each other English has not been added as an official language, though in general the inhabitants of these countries are very proficient English speakers. The council focuses on maintaining the status of the regional languages, often actively protecting the languages from the influence of English. Still, the use of English has managed to make its way into the cooperation. The Nordic Youth Council was heavily criticised for choosing to use English as a working language, as members could not understand each other using only the official languages of the Nordic Council (Norden, 2008a, 2008b). The Council does also offer information in English on their website and some documents are published in English.13

4.5 The International Whaling Commission The International Whaling Commission (IWC) is another smaller organisation with a very specific focus. It is open for countries that formally adhere to the 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (International Whaling Commission, n.d.-a, n.d.- b). The International Whaling Commission has a very specific and specialised purpose compared to the other institutions that have been mentioned here. Nevertheless, it does note their language policy in its Rules of Procedure: English shall be the official language of the Commission. English, French and Spanish shall be the working languages of the Commission. Commissioners may speak in any other language, if desired, it being understood that Commissioners doing so will provide their own interpreters. All official publications and communications of the Commission shall be in English. Agreed publications shall be available in English, French and Spanish. (International Whaling Commission, 2014) (p. 8) English does receive a special treatment within the Commission as the only official language. The United States also has a specific purpose within the Commission. They act as ‘the depository nation for the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’ which means that nations that are interested in joining need to notify the US State Department specifically (International Whaling Commission, n.d.-b), perhaps also explaining the status of English within the Commission.

13 See for example: http://norden.diva-portal.org/ and http://www.norden.org/en. 56

4.6 Summary This chapter has covered the language policies of five different international institutions. These institutions have very different approaches when it comes to language policies and various attitudes towards the importance of equal language rights. The European Union and the Nordic Council are the two institutions that follow non-restrictive policies where all the official languages of participating nations have some rights, as working languages, official languages, or both. The UN chooses to limit its official languages to only six in order to increase the efficiency of the institutions, and avoid the massive costs that would follow a non-restrictive method. NATO and the IWC have the fewest official and working languages, and they also have the most specific function of the institutions covered. This chapter shows how limited the information about language use is within these institutions. Detailed descriptions of actual language use within the institutions are rare and for most of the institutions language policies and information about official languages are not prominently displayed or discussed. Despite this, the chapter has also shown how important language choice can be for actors within the institutions and how it can affect their work and the policy making of the institutions.

5 Discussion After taking a close look at the individual institutions and their attitudes towards languages and language policies it is important to connect that discussion to the theoretical discussion presented in the second chapter. This chapter will furthermore examine how this information can be used to answer the research questions from the introduction: What are the language policies of international and regional institutions; where are they similar and where do they differ? To what extent does language affect actors’ power positions within international institutions? What are the effects and implications of the increased use of English within international institutions?

5.1 The impact of language choice Along with answering the research questions, the aim of this thesis is to demonstrate that language is relevant to studies on international relations, and that it is a legitimate influence on behaviour within international institutions and organisations. After looking at the literature it should become clear that language can be extremely important to people, both in their homes and on an international platform. It is closely related to ideas of identity and nationality and is an inseparable part of cultural identification for many. Language also holds a great deal of power. As was mentioned in the literature review, powerful actors have the ability to set and enforce the language policies of their communities. Clear examples of this are found in the cases of the international institutions above. The most powerful and used languages within the European Union, for example, are the native languages of the three most powerful actors, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, and similar trends can be seen within the other institutions. It is no coincidence that English is the language chosen for international communication as it has the power of both the United States and the United Kingdom behind it. Being able to speak a language that has an official status can give users a certain power or advantage compared to those that do not have good command of the language, and the discussion on the institutions reflects this. For example, actors that did not have a good command of English, arguably the language of power within most of the institutions, faced difficulties when doing their jobs because of their lack of English skills, both within the EU and NATO. Important tasks were additionally given to native English speakers or those with a good command of English and non-native speakers and low proficiency speakers were left at

a disadvantage. Therefore, if actors want to have power and have a say in matters on an international level, English seems to be a requirement. Most people are familiar with being hesitant to use another language because of their lack of proficiency, or hesitating to let others know they did not understand what was being said. This can affect actors’ confidence and how they present themselves to others. In the light of all this the EP’s devotion to language equality is understandable. By emphasising the equality of languages within the Union, the EU is consciously trying to level the playing field, if not in practice then at least in theory.

5.2 A poststructuralist viewpoint When looking at the linguistic theoretical background and the poststructuralist theoretical framework it is easy to see how applied linguistics, sociolinguistics and international relations can work together. Firstly, because poststructuralism heavily emphasises the importance of language in research, and secondly because both disciplines recognise the fact that language is not a neutral and impartial medium. For other theoretical approaches within IR language is generally not regarded as a relevant or an important variable. Poststructuralist epistemology focuses on bringing a new perspective to international relations; focusing on a post-positivist epistemology instead of the traditional positivist view that has ruled IR theories for decades. Poststructuralism has also often been used as a meta-theory, used for criticising traditional methods and emphases of international relations. It is therefore a useful approach for the purposes of this thesis when calling attention to the lack of focus and research on linguistic policies and linguistic identities within IR. Poststructuralism helps demonstrate why language choices and policies should be considered when examining international institutions as it emphasises the fact that language can never be seen as neutral. Language is an inseparable part of international communication and a decision will always need to be made on what language to use when actors of different nationalities need to communicate. Each language chosen has a certain status within every situation, both organisational and personal. Every issue that is brought up within the institution is also shaped by the language being used. The institutions are moreover likely to be influenced by the history, traditions, and all the connotations of that particular language or languages. It is difficult to search for causal relationships when it comes to language choice as people and communities have very different ideas when it comes to the importance of language choice. Real knowledge can nevertheless be obtained by examining instances and phenomena by exploring the different identities actors have and the way they behave.

The poststructuralist emphasis on textuality demands that researchers take notice of the historical circumstances of the phenomena being examined. In today’s environment English does hold a special position and poststructuralists would also look at how this has come to be the case, why English was chosen and what consequences and connotations that can have. Many different events, actions and situations have led the English language to the place it holds today, as has been mentioned in the second chapter, and when looking at today’s international institutional activities it is necessary to take the languages being used into account, as well as recalling what led to those choices. It is therefore important to be familiar with the history of how English rose to fame within the international arena and also, for example, how French is slowly losing its influence. It is necessary to be aware of the power the native speakers hold and how this can affect other actors. The current language policies of institutions also need to be examined, how the attitudes towards language policies differ, and how specific languages are being treated within the institutions, in order to understand how international institutions function and how they work on a daily basis.

5.2.1 Hidden power and dichotomies Poststructuralism can help when explaining the differences of power in the relationship between proficient English speakers and non-proficient English speakers. In this thesis we have seen that there is a clear difference in the power positions of those that are able to speak English well and those that are not as those that can express themselves clearly in English are at an advantage. When trying to explain this, a poststructural approach will ask who has the power to determine the language that is supposed to be spoken, or the official languages, or whose language is seen as the logical choice. The most powerful actors are those that decide which languages to use and they have chosen English on numerous occasions. Poststructuralism also looks at how these powerful actors were chosen, and why English has come to be regarded as the ‘logical’ choice, and how it has reached its position. English made its way there for specific reasons, as explored in the second chapter, and these reasons are embedded in the language as it is used within the international institutions. Choosing to speak English when communicating on an international level has become the norm even though the interaction does not include any native English speakers. English speakers are in power and those that do not speak the language can be excluded from various activities. The English language speakers therefore represent ‘the inside,’ or ‘the self,’ while speakers who do not, or cannot, use English are ‘the outside,’ or ‘the other’.

A language can decide who should be included and who should be excluded. It provides the basis for the identity of many, simply by giving a name to various identities, whether it is for nations, tribes, or subcultures. The European Union has, for example, a certain identity although there are no rules on which actors should decide the components of this identity. It is possible then that the actors who control the language, or can use it well, therefore control which norms are accepted within the institutions and this is important to keep in mind when studying the behaviour of international institutions.

5.2.2 A change in neutrality? What may be considered surprising is that some scholars find that the power of the native speakers of the English language could be diminishing. They believe that as more and more people around the world choose to use English for communication the native speakers are slowly losing their uniqueness and the language losing its exclusivity. English as a lingua franca and international varieties of the language are taking over in the international arena and the native variants do not hold the same power anymore as they used to. Because of the vast number of English speakers worldwide the native speakers are no longer the only authority on the English language policies. It is possible that in the future the English language will be so common that people might stop associating it with the native cultures of the UK and the US, or other native English speaking cultures, and see it more as a language used for communication only. People are learning and using a more international variant of the language that is neither coloured by British or American language traditions. People are additionally no longer under as great a pressure to speak either the British variants or the American variants and English as a lingua franca has become more acceptable internationally. As was noted earlier, House (2008) has argued that English is a good option for a neutral language for communication, and that using ELF along with native languages can even strengthen the use of indigenous languages as they will be associated with community and identity while English will be associated with communication with outside communities. While her research can certainly be accurate, it can still be argued, as scholars focusing on linguistic imperialism would do, that ELF users and native speakers are not at the same level, at least not yet. Some of the examples House uses are from university student interactions and it could be reasonable to assume that university students in their free time are more forgiving and patient when it comes to dealing with ELF speakers, than highly trained bureaucrats within the EU or other international institutions who want to work quickly and efficiently.

House’s findings might therefore be accurate in certain situations while they cannot necessarily be rightfully applied universally. Poststructuralists would furthermore disagree with her view that ELF can be used as a neutral language. It is certainly likely that many would view it as a more neutral choice than native English variants, but claiming that it is essentially a neutral medium could be considered going too far. Still, the emergence of ELF as a neutral language for communication within the EU specifically does not necessarily seem too far-fetched. More and more actors within the EU are speaking and learning English every year as their second or third language and this trend is likely to continue in the near future. The development of the English language within the EU would be even more interesting to follow should the UK decide to leave the Union. Right now many would argue that the European Union is in a crisis, dealing with immigration issues and the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, as well as growing Euroscepticism. On top of that comes the possibility of Britain’s exit from the Union. All of these factors will have consequences and shape the future of the Union and it is possible that some actors might suggest reducing spending on interpretation and translations to save money to keep the Union going. Britain’s exit could moreover give an increased incentive to reduce the number of official languages and focus instead on using English as a working language. If Britain were to leave the EU that would mean the departure of the largest group of native English speakers, and arguably the most powerful. Although English would still be present as a national language for Ireland, this would nevertheless mean that the most used and most powerful language in the Union would no longer be the native language of an extremely powerful player, but rather a true lingua franca. With such a powerful user of the language gone it is likely that the language used would further develop as a language of its own, perhaps with even more French loan words. Native speakers, such as the Irish, would continue to lose any advantage they might have and the playing ground could level out. This would nevertheless still mean that the English users need to be proficient in order to be taken seriously and to work efficiently, as has been shown, but this would undoubtedly change the balance of power within the Union. While this neutral use of ELF might sound ideal there are still many that associate English with its native speakers and their cultures and the various connotations that follow, such as the language’s colonial past, its power through the world wars and consequent rise through technology and media. Arguments of linguistic imperialism are still loud within the linguistic

disciplines and the same goes for worries about the death and decline of small minority languages.

5.3 Language policies: similarities and differences After examining the different institutions, it was clear that language use and language policies are not a top priority for most actors within the selected institutions. Information on language policies was often difficult to find and little official data could be found on the actual language use within the institutions. This lack of emphasis is perhaps not surprising as the goals of the institutions are not language development or language cooperation, except on a very small level. The institutions that are covered in this thesis have very different approaches to language use and language policies. They were both non-restrictive, such as the EU and the Nordic Council, where the national languages of all the members are included; and restrictive, where only a few selected languages were used. All in all, the information was still sufficient to answer the most comprehensive research question: What are the language policies of international and regional institutions; where are they similar and where do they differ? In some ways it is difficult to compare the institutions because of their vast differences and because their emphasis on language equality varies so greatly. However, it is important to note that all the institutions do have some type of language policy, or at least a set of rules covering which languages should be used within the institution and in what languages documents should be published. Nevertheless, from the information available there seem to be great discrepancies between the official language policies of the institutions and their actual practices. While some languages may seem to have the same equal status on the surface they can be treated very differently when being used within the institution. One of the main differences between the institutions lies in the difference between the goals of the institutions and their legislative capabilities. The deep political and economic integration goals of the EU do not apply everywhere and therefore it is understandable that the official languages are fewer in order to increase efficiency and understanding. The General Assembly of the UN does not hold as much official power as most of the EU institutions do and the workings of the EU generally affect the lives of European citizens much more than the actions of the UN. People are perhaps more likely to accept that their language is not being represented within the General Assembly because of the apparent lack of power it holds.

The institutions also differ as regards to what extent they seek to maintain equality and how much effort is put into maintaining the equality of all the official languages. This difference can be explained in part by the different goals and emphases of the institutions, along with the membership number. Specialised institutions that nevertheless have numerous members, such as NATO and the IWC have a very small number of official and working languages as their focus is not necessarily on equality, but rather on a specific set of goals. The EU on the other hand has a wider focus. It is not only concerned with a single topic, such as military issues or whaling, but rather focuses on close economic integration and political cooperation and even aims for closer cultural integration on some levels. It is therefore understandable that an organisation such as the EU would strive to maintain equality on all fronts, including language. After examining these institutions above it becomes clear that the EU has the most inclusive language policy of the larger institutions. Because the different EU institutions are allowed to have different language policies they can appear to be quite complicated. The definition of official and working languages is intentionally kept vague so that this can be interpreted at will by the different actors although equality of language always remains the ultimate goal, at least officially. As we have seen, the European Parliament is the EU institution that is most committed to multilingualism and the equality of all the official languages. The MEPs are representatives of the general public of the EU, they are chosen by the public and they are their closest connection to the functioning of the EU. With recent treaties the EP has gained more and more power vis-à-vis the Council and Commission and plays an increasingly more important role in the running and governance of the European Union than it did before. Because of this close relationship with the public it is understandable that language is this important to the EP and the MEPs. By making sure that all languages are represented in the Parliament the EU is making sure that people feel that their voice is being heard within the Union and that their opinions matter. All this makes the EP an important institution, not only for the Union itself, but also for the EU public. Yet, as mentioned, this has not led to greater interest in the EP by the general public of the EU and is some cause for concern. The UN has some similar goals to the EU but the sheer number of participants stands in the way of a more equal language policy and thus only a few of the world’s most widely spoken languages are chosen as official languages. An effective functioning of the General Assembly would be impossible if the non-restrictive language policies of the EU were applied. Representing all the languages of over 190 states and supporting them through interpretation

services and translations would be near impossible, even though many of the UN member states speak the same languages. This is evident from the problems the EU is facing with only 28 members and some would argue that the EU is just on the verge of becoming too large to include all the official languages. It will therefore be interesting to see whether the EU’s language policies will change if more countries join in the near future. NATO’s policies are also interesting on a different level. Because it is such a specialised organisation language use becomes important for another reason. The highly specialised jargon and the delicate and specific military language require all members to have a good understanding of the language used within the organisation. NATO’s emphasis on strengthening the English capabilities of its members is therefore understandable. NATO’s choice of English over French is furthermore not surprising in the light of previous discussions on power and the decline of French and the rise of English, as well as the US supremacy when it comes to military and security matters.

5.3.1 Language policy dilemmas While the EU continues to spend money on translation and interpretation services, NATO has gone the route of spending money on teaching a single language, English, to its participating members. In the long term it could be argued that teaching English to the participants is more valuable than offering translations, not only in terms of saving money, but in terms of experience and increasing knowledge internally. The language knowledge is gained and maintained through the institution and helps with communication and cooperation, while within the EU the only actors that are gaining from the translation and interpretation services in the long term are the translators and interpreters themselves. On the other hand, choosing to restrict language use within the institution to one language and teach only one language to participants would cause a lot of tension within the fast growing industry of interpretation and translation services, not to mention worries over loss of identity and minority languages, along with maintaining the advantage native English speakers have. It could undoubtedly be argued that the value of maintaining equality between actors and the use of all languages, often small languages in many EU countries, is much greater than saving money by cutting down translation and interpretation costs and focusing on teaching one language. It is nevertheless easy to see why NATO has chosen to go down this path. As mentioned above, the translation and interpretation services do come with certain disadvantages, mainly the delay and time wasted on waiting for translations. There are also certain disadvantages of

simultaneous interpretations. The use of relay interpretation can lead to misunderstanding and the nuances of a speech or an argument can be lost when being interpreted on the spot through more than one language, and the same argument applies to written translations which often also use relay methods by translating first into a core language. By having only two working languages, and heavily emphasising the use of English, NATO is not only saving money, but also increasing its efficiency. This is especially important for NATO because of its specialised military focus, as has been mentioned. The technical terms and military jargon that follow the nature of NATO’s cooperation are extremely important to the organisation and by making all actors use the same language NATO is saving time by decreasing response time on the ground and increasing efficiency and understanding within the institution which can be crucial under pressure and can save lives. However, the disadvantages of this approach and the benefits of the EU method also become apparent when looking at the facts. It could be argued that the advantages given to native speakers of English are even more apparent in NATO than in the EU. While some would argue that English as a lingua franca is slowly changing into a more neutral language within the EU, in NATO English would appear to be more a language of power and not being specifically used as ELF. It is rather being used as the native language of the most powerful actor, or actors. This is perhaps understandable because of the incredible influence the United States still has on NATO policies and practices. In conclusion the biggest argument against equal language policies is efficiency. As has been shown there are various aspects of the non-restrictive EU language policies that can cause troubles with efficiency within the Union. By not focusing on a single language of communication, institutions risk losing time and money to interpretation and translation services which are not always needed. When actors are proficient in English, as is often the case in the EU for example, they do not necessarily need the services that are provided although they sometimes use them to portray their national identities. However, denying these services is not necessarily a viable possibility either. Many actors would still choose to hold on to translation and interpretation services as they would like to retain their right to use their native languages to maintain their national identities and would feel discriminated against if they were to lose this right. This is a dilemma that is not likely to be solved in the near future. Even though ELF would emerge as a more neutral and popular language of communication within the EU it would still be difficult for nations to drop the interpretation and translation services.

5.4 Summary This chapter showed how information about the five different institutions ties in with the information presented in the theoretical background and literature review. It additionally brought together the relevant information needed to answer the research questions from the introduction. All the institutions have some form of language policies that differ in their emphasis on language equality and the need for efficiency. Institutions with a narrower focus will likely choose fewer official languages to increase their efficiency, while institutions that emphasise cooperation and integration are more likely to include all official languages of participants. Language can furthermore affect the power positions of actors within international institutions to some extent. Being able to speak the official or working languages of an institution can give actors an advantage compared to those that do not speak these languages, as it makes working within the institution easier. Language can thus affect the power positions of users. Additionally, English has a unique place within many international institutions. It is the native language of very powerful international actors and is spoken as an ELF by many. English is often used more than other official languages within institutions and often plays a large role within them. Not being able to speak English will cause difficulties for actors who wish to participate in international discussion, even though other languages are allowed within the institutions. Although some have argued that ELF is a viable choice as a neutral language for international communication, most would still agree that this is not the case today, and that native English speakers still have an advantage compared to non-native speakers.

6 Conclusions Language is an integral part of everyday life, both for the general public and for all international institutions. Certain languages, such as English, hold special positions within international institutions. They carry an element of power which can affect decision-making and institutional policies. Institutions face the dilemma of choosing between a few select languages to increase efficiency and save money, and choosing multiple languages to maintain equality and avoid disenfranchisement. This is the problem at the core of all linguistic policy discussions, especially for international institutions. Language choice is difficult and has many implications. All languages come with a set of norms and values and are furthermore influenced by their native speakers and the language’s history. Therefore, language choice within institutions is a highly political and debated topic, even though this is not heavily reflected in the IR literature. There is still only so much that official language policies can achieve and accomplish. Language is notoriously difficult to control, and the same rules appear to apply to language use in individual countries and within international institutions. Language, with its close connections to identity and images of self-expression, will never be fully controlled by official rules or regulations. Rules can certainly be used to attempt to steer language use in the direction of, for example, equal treatment and respect on an official level, but ultimately language will develop on its own. I believe that in this thesis I have managed to answer my three research questions as well as achieving my aim of demonstrating how important language can be to international relations studies. The language policies of international institutions vary greatly. They can be restrictive and have only a few official languages; and they can be non-restrictive and seeking equality through an inclusive language policy. Their differences can partly be explained by the different aims of the institutions and their emphasis on equality and cooperation as well. I have also explained how language can affect the power positions of actors in an institutional setting, for example by noting the apparent advantages and disadvantages that come with language proficiencies. Finally, the effects and implications of the increased use of English were explored and they are closely related to the power that English speakers have in the international environment. When I started working on this thesis I had certain ideas and expectations about what I would discover. Even though I had expected that English would be a leading language within the various institutions, I thought I would come across even louder arguments against the

spread of the language. However, the literature I consulted was not focused only on linguistics, and therefore the arguments for preservation of minority languages and the prevention of language decline were not as loud as those I had encountered during my previous studies. The suggestion that the increased use of ELF, or a single language perhaps accompanied by language teaching, could be beneficial to international communication surprised me at first, although I have come to see the strength of those claims. I also expected that I would find that an equal language policy in the EU outweighed the importance of saving money, and perhaps increasing efficiency. I have since come to see certain benefits of reducing the number of official languages, especially as previous research has shown the faults of translation and interpretation services and how they can sometimes be unnecessary. This thesis has furthermore shown that there is a definite need for further and more detailed research on this topic. Research on language use within international institutions can shed light on hidden power positions and weaknesses within the institutional structure. Further research is needed to examine how the changing role of English will develop and whether ELF will develop into a more neutral language used in international discussions. The effects of ELF on national languages and conservation of smaller languages are also worth examining in the future, especially in the light of institutions such as the EU. It is my hope that more people will continue to combine linguistic research with the political sciences in the future.

7 References Adubato, M., & Efthymiopoulos, M. P. (2014). Capacity language building in NATO: Language skill as a crucial tool for interoperability at all levels. JAPCC Journal, 19, 26-30. Ager, D. (2001). Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Ager, D. (2008). French and France: Language and state. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 87-110). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Annan, K. A. (2001). Letter dated 18 June 2001 from the Secretary-General to the Permanent Representatives of Andorra, Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Spain, Uruguay and Venezuela to the United Nations: Note by the secretariat. General Assembly, A/56/176. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a56176.pdf Athanassiou, P. (2006). The application of multilingualism in the European Union context. Legal working paper series, 2, 1-36. Frankfurt: European Central Bank. Retrieved from https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scplps/ecblwp2.pdf BILC. (n.d.-a). Purpose of BILC. Bureau for International Language Coordination. Retrieved from http://www.natobilc.org/index.html BILC. (n.d.-b). Standardization. Bureau for International Language Coordination. Retrieved from http://www.natobilc.org/STANAG6001.html British Council. (n.d.). Peacekeeping English project. British Council. Retrieved from https://www.britishcouncil.org/partner/track-record/peacekeeping-english-project Campbell, D. (2010). Poststructuralism. In T. Dunne, M. Kurki, & S. Smith (Eds.), International relation theories: Discipline and diversity (3rd ed., pp. 223-246). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Caplan, L. S. (2004). NATO divided, NATO united: The evolution of an alliance. Westport, CT: Praeger. Codrea-Rado, A. (2014, May 21). European parliament has 24 official languages, but MEPs prefer English. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/education/datablog/2014/may/21/european-parliament- english-language-official-debates-data

Crossey, M. (2005). Improving linguistic interoperability. NATO Review: NATO and peace- building. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/review/2005/issue2/english/art4.html Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Saussure, F. (1996). From ‘Course in general linguistics’. In L. Cahoone (Ed.), From modernism to postmodernism: An anthology (pp. 177-184). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers. de Swaan, A. (2001). Words of the world: The global language system. Cambridge: Polity. Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. (2016). Functions of the department. Department for General Assembly and Conference Management. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/Depts/DGACM/functions.shtml DG Interpretation. (2015). What we do. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/scic/about-dg-interpretation/index_en.htm DG Translation. (2016, 18.02.16). Frequently asked questions about DG Translation. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/faq/index_en.htm Directorate-General for Communication. (2014). 2014 post-election survey: European elections 2014: Analytical overview. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2014/post/post_2014_survey_analit ical_overview_en.pdf Economic and Social Council. (1992). Rules of Procedure of the Economic and Social Council. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/pdf/rules.pdf European Commission. (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386: Europeans and their languages. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf European Commission. (2015). Official languages of the EU. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/languages/policy/linguistic-diversity/official- languages-eu_en.htm European Commission. (2016). Departments (Directorates-General) and services. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/about/ds_en.htm European Council. (2009). Rules of procedure of the European Council: Rules of procedure of the Council. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision- making/procedures/pdf/rules_of_procedure_of_the_council/rules_of_procedure_of_th e_council_en.pdf

European Parliament. (n.d.-a). About Parliament: Multilingualism in the European Parliament. European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/20150201PVL00013/Multilinguali sm European Parliament. (n.d.-b). Results of the 2014 European elections: Turnout. European Parliament. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/elections2014- results/en/turnout.html European Union. (2016a). EU administration - staff, languages and location. European Union. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/about-eu/facts-figures/administration/index_en.htm European Union. (2016b). Multilingualism. European Union. Retrieved from http://europa.eu/pol/mult/index_en.htm Extra, G., & Gorter, D. (2008). The constellation of languages in Europe: An inclusive Approach. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 3-62). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. General Assembly. (2007). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 16 May 2007: 61/266 Multilingualism. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/61/266&Lang=E General Assembly. (2013). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24 July 2013: 67/292 Multilingualism. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/292 Gerring, J. (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review, 98(2), 341-354. Ginsburgh, V., & Weber, S. (2011). How many languages do we need?: The economics of linguistic diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Gregory, D. U. (1989). Foreword. In J. Der Derian & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), International/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics (pp. xiii- xxi). New York, NY: Lexington Books. Hansen, L. (2006). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian war. New York, NY: Routledge. House, J. (2008). English as a lingua franca in Europe today. In G. Extra & D. Gorter (Eds.), Multilingual Europe: Facts and policies (pp. 63-86). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hösle, V. (2005). Philosophy and its languages: A philosopher’s reflections on the rise of English as the universal academic language. In W. M. Bloomer (Ed.), The contest of

language: Before and beyond nationalism (pp. 245-262). Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. International Whaling Commission. (2014). Rules of Procedure and Financial Regulations. Retrieved from https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3605&k= International Whaling Commission. (n.d.-a). History and purpose. International Whaling Commission. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/history-and-purpose International Whaling Commission. (n.d.-b). Membership and contracting governments. International Whaling Commission. Retrieved from https://iwc.int/members Joseph, J. E. (2006). Language and politics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Keohane, R. O. (1988). International institutions: Two approaches. International Studies Quarterly, 32(4), 379-396. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (2016). Summary by language size. Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Nineteenth edition. Retrieved from https://www.ethnologue.com/statistics/size Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication. (2016). Chiffres et données clés sur la langue française 2015. Retrieved from http://www.culturecommunication.gouv.fr/Politiques- ministerielles/Langue-francaise-et-langues-de-France/Actualites/Chiffres-et-donnees- cles-sur-la-langue-francaise-20152 NATO. (1949). Final Communiqué of the first Session of the North Atlantic Council. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17117.htm NATO. (2006). NATO handbook. Brussels: Public Diplomacy Division NATO. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/docu/handbook/2006/hb-en-2006.pdf NATO. (2015a). A common language for NATO and its partners. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_125041.htm NATO. (2015b). Employment at NATO headquarters: The NATO interpretation service. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/86888.htm NATO. (2015c). NATO standardization office. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_124879.htm NATO. (2015d). The Secretary General’s annual report: 2015. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160128_SG_Annua lReport_2015_en.pdf?utm_content=buffer3bb59&utm_medium=social&utm_source=t witter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

NATO. (2016). Member countries. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_52044.htm NATO. (n.d.). Basic points: A political and military alliance. North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Retrieved from http://www.nato.int/nato-welcome/ NATO Standardization Agency. (2010). STANAG 6001. Retrieved from http://www.natobilc.org/documents/LanguageTesting/NU- ST%206001%20NTG%20ED4.pdf NDTV. (2015, August 31). India Trying to Get 129 Votes to Get Hindi as UN Language: Sushma Swaraj. NDTV. Retrieved from http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-trying- to-get-129-votes-to-get-hindi-as-un-language-sushma-swaraj-1212876 Norden. (2008a). Criticism of English as working language. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/criticism-of-english-as-working- language/ Norden. (2008b). Nordic languages in the Nordic region!. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/news-and-events/news/nordic-languages-in-the-nordic- region/ Norden. (n.d.-a). Behind the Nordic Council: Order of Business: Part 9 Other provisions. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council/bag-om-nordisk- raad/the-nordic-council/order-of-business/part-9-other-provisions/ Norden. (n.d.-b). Behind the Nordic Council: The Nordic Council. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/nordic-council/bag-om-nordisk-raad/the-nordic-council/the- nordic-council Norden. (n.d.-c). Education and research in the Nordic region: Language co-operation. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/theme/education-and-research-in- the-nordic-region/language Norden. (n.d.-d). Facts about the Nordic region: Language. Norden. Retrieved from http://www.norden.org/en/fakta-om-norden-1/language/language/ Nye, J. S., Jr. (2004). Soft Power: The means to success in world politics. New York, NY: Public Affairs. O’Grady, W., Archibald, J., & Katamba, F. (2011). Contemporary linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Essex: Pearson Education. Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe?: Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.

Ragin, C. C., & Amoroso, L. M. (2011). Constructing social research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Romaine, S. (1994). Language in society: An introduction to sociolinguistics (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Security Council. (1982). Provisional Rules of Procedure: Chapter VIII: Languages. United Nations Security Council. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/rules/chapter8.shtml Shapiro, M. J. (1989). Textualizing global politics. In J. Der Derian & M. J. Shapiro (Eds.), International/intertextual relations: Postmodern readings of world politics (pp. 11- 22). New York, NY: Lexington Books. Smith, S. (1996). Positivism and beyond. In S. Smith, K. Booth, & M. Zalewski (Eds.), International theory: Positivism and beyond (pp. 11-44). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, B. (2004). Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Talbot, M., Atkinson, K., & Atkinson, D. (2003). Language and power in the modern world. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. UNESCO. (2010). Basic texts. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001874/187429e.pdf United Nations. (2015). Multilingualism: Secretary-general appoints coordinator for multilingualism. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/sg/multilingualism/index.shtml United Nations. (n.d.). Official languages. United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/sections/about-un/official-languages/index.html United Nations Language and Communications Programme. (n.d.). About us. United Nations Language and Communications Programme. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/depts/OHRM/sds/lcp/UNLCP/english/about.html van Els, T. J. M. (2006). The European Union, its institutions and its languages: Some language political observations. In R. B. Baldauf, Jr. & R. B. Kaplan (Eds.), Language Planning and Policy in Europe, vol. 2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland (Vol. 2, pp. 202-251). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters Ltd. van Gelderen, E. (2006). A history of the English language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Wright, S. (2000). Communicating across divides: Lingua franca in Europe. In S. Wright, L. Hantrais & J. Howorth (Eds.), Language, politics and society: the new languages department: Festschrift in honour of Professor D.E. Ager (pp. 119-129). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters ltd. Wright, S. (2007). English in the European Parliament: MEPs and their language repertoires. Sociolinguistica, 21, 151-165. Wright, S. (2009). The elephant in the room: Language issues in the European Union. European Journal of Language Policy, 1(2), 93-119.