Las tesis de Belgrano Escuela de Lenguas y Estudios Extranjeros Maestría en Traducción EUROPE IN 12 LESSONS: THE IMPACT OF EU LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION POLICY ON SUCCESSIVE EDITIONS OF AN EU BOOKLET Christina Thorngreen Director de tesis: Professor Douglas Town Resumen Esta tesis examina cómo el predominio actual del inglés se relaciona con la política de comunicación general de la UE. Algunos estudios anteriores y la evidencia anecdótica muestran que el inglés se está convirtiendo en el principal idioma de trabajo de la UE y que el francés se usa cada vez en menor medida. En este trabajo de indagación, el folleto de la Comisión Europea "Europa en 12 lecciones" sirve como estudio de caso. Incluye un estudio longitudinal, como así también un análisis retórico de las cuatro ediciones en francés e inglés publicadas entre 1997 y 2014. Los cambios en estas ediciones y las entrevistas con dos de los principales agentes en la producción de la publicación indican que las instituciones europeas se están alejando de un estilo de escritura académico con frases largas y complejas, que caracteriza a lenguas latinas, para acercarse a un estilo de comunicación anglosajón más secillo para el lector. De manera oficial, todas las 24 lenguas de la UE tienen igual importancia. Sin embargo, el creciente euroescepticismo y los críticos como el lobby Open Europe, que acusan a la UE de un 'déficit democrático', pueden contribuir a que el inglés se vuelva su lengua principal. Este trabajo sostiene que los cambios observados en "Europa en 12 lecciones", con el tiempo y entre los dos idiomas, son indicadores del cambio en la política de comunicación general de la UE, que busca facilitar la lectura y ayudar a las instituciones a comunicar sus beneficios a los ciudadanos. Asimismo, la tesis concluye que el folleto no es puramente informativo, sino que el autor intenta cada vez más persuadir al lector de que la UE es la mejor respuesta para el futuro de Europa. Abstract This thesis examines how the current predominance of English relates to the EU’s overall communication policy. Previous studies and anecdotal evidence show English is becoming the EU’s primary working language and French is becoming less prominent. This thesis takes the European Commission’s booklet ‘Europe in 12 lessons’ as a case study. It includes a longitudinal study as well as a rhetorical analysis of four editions of the French and English versions published between 1997 and 2014. The changes in both language editions and interviews with two of the main agents in the production of this booklet suggest the EU institutions are moving away from the academic writing style with long and complex sentences that characterises Latin languages, to a more reader-friendly, Anglo-Saxon communication style. Officially, all 24 of the EU’s languages have equal importance. However, growing Euroscepticism and critics such as the Open Europe lobby, who accuse the EU of a ‘democratic deficit’, may contribute to English becoming the EU’s main language. This thesis argues that the changes observed in ‘Europe in 12 lessons’ over time and between the two languages are evidence of the change in the EU’s overall communication policy, which aims to be more reader-friendly and help the institutions communicate the EU’s benefits to citizens. The thesis further concludes the booklet is not purely informative but that the author increasingly seeks to persuade the reader the EU is the best answer for the future of Europe. 2 Acknowledgements As the saying goes – ‘no (wo)man is an island’. This is particularly true when completing such a long and complex task as writing a master’s thesis. It is for this reason that my deepest gratitude goes out to all of those who have accompanied me on this learning journey, shared their wisdom and care, and without whom the work described here would not have been possible. In particular, I wish to thank: My interviewees, David Monkcom and Morten Espelund, for taking the time to share their real-life insights with me and for making this thesis really come alive. It was a privilege to meet you. Professor Douglas Town, for your enthusiasm, your advice and guidance, and for being so responsive. My peers, María Cecilia and Mirta, for exchanging your knowledge, tips and tricks with me, and for always being there for me. Without your support, this would have been impossible. My dear friends, Anne, Christina, and Marion, for your expert knowledge, for your guidance, and for our many conversations on this topic. Ichiko, for encouraging me to go outside of my comfort zone. My sister, Tania, for all your encouragement, your pep talks, and for understanding. Gerónimo, for your unwavering and loving support and for your pride and belief in my abilities. 3 Tabla de contenido Resumen .................................................................................................................................... 2 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................. 3 Tabla de contenido ................................................................................................................... 4 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7 1) Literature review ................................................................................................................. 9 Part 1 – Translation in the EU institutions .................................................................................... 9 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 9 EU language policy ........................................................................................................................ 9 EU communication policy ............................................................................................................ 10 Campaigns for clearer writing ...................................................................................................... 11 Euroscepticism ............................................................................................................................. 12 Part 2 – Translation theory ............................................................................................................ 13 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 13 Linguistic factors .......................................................................................................................... 13 Skopos theory & text typology ..................................................................................................... 14 Text parameters ............................................................................................................................ 15 Discourse analysis ........................................................................................................................ 15 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 16 2) Methodology ....................................................................................................................... 16 Mapping out the methodology ....................................................................................................... 16 Longitudinal study .......................................................................................................................... 17 Description of the analysis ............................................................................................................. 18 Interviews ....................................................................................................................................... 19 Study limitations ............................................................................................................................. 19 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 20 3) Rhetorical analysis ............................................................................................................. 21 Political discourse analysis ............................................................................................................. 22 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 23 4) Findings – Part 1 – Changes in the original French booklet ......................................... 24 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 24 Chapter 1 – A brief history of European integration / Why the European Union? ................. 25 Rhetoric ........................................................................................................................................ 25 Removals ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Layout .........................................................................................................................................