Three questions are central to language policy and planning (LPP):
GOALS: What linguistic situation is to be desired?
FACTS: What is the present linguistic situation?
MEANS: What can be done to get from (2) to (1)?
Language planners and policymakers generally pose these questions within a single familiar context, treating it for the sake of analysis as a closed system. However, like other aspects of social reality, the linguistic systems targeted for planning are never truly closed, but integrated within wider systems which ultimately encompass all of the interlinked channels of communication that constitute the modern world.
One consequence of this is that LPP tends to be short-sighted and highly fallible, particularly when similar assumptions are applied across a broad range of situations. As often happens in complex systems, answers which appear coherent and reliable under the assumption of closure turn out to lead to conflicts and contradictions as their consequences unfold and interact, so that the system as a whole responds in unforeseeable and often undesired ways.
In the present world, the LPP context is most frequently that of the nation-state, and the unplanned responses of the system are most visible at the subnational level (e.g. the accelerating loss of minority languages) and the international level (e.g. the growing dominance of English). My hope for LPP in the 21st century would be that it develop analytical tools which take account of the global linguistic system in all its complexity, and guide both the public and policymakers towards a more holistic, ecological approach to solving language problems.
"Interlingualism" is our name for a version of LPP that explores how these values might best be reconciled within the global linguistic system. To our knowledge, no one has formulated this objective in such general terms. Nonetheless, various linguistic schools or movements appear to be motivated at least partly by a vision of an interlingual world. In "The Challenge of Interlingualism" we identify five such visions, or ideas. Here is the list in a different order, with some of the relationships and contrasts highlighted:
These may not be the only models currently in the market, nor should they be taken to exclude one another. Indeed, one of the most interesting challenges of interlingualism is to consider how various combinations of these models might coexist or combine to form hybrid systems. An accurate description of the current linguistic regime of the United Nations, for instance, would show the offical Language Brokers policy coexisting and intermingling with World English and Plurilingualism. It appears that no one is advocating this as a long-term model for the UN, perhaps because it is not very neat. It may be, however, that studies on interlingualism can show that none of the "neat" models meets all five criteria in a satisfactory way. If so, the study of such hybrid systems may prove to be crucial for progress towards an interlingual world.
Most language use, like most of life, takes place unreflectively. Consequently, the student of language begins from a standpoint that is firmly embedded in a particular linguistic environment, many features of which may never come in for scrutiny. As disciplines develop, such background assumptions become incorporated into their analytical tools, rendering them still less amenable to examination and critique.
This fact about science in general, and the social sciences in particular, makes it dangerous to take any one description of reality at face value. Most statements about language and languages are ideologically screened; they are tailored to conform with a particular set of discursive norms. Interlingualism will need to take account of this fact, by comparing and contrasting descriptions at various system levels and from various perspectives.
One obstacle to the development of interlingualism may be the tendency of each interlingual idea to generate its own set of self-reinforcing data, its own institutional discourse (how often do experts in the fields of interpretation and translation [LB] and language technology [T], or in the fields of World English and Esperantism, talk seriously with one another?). One key objective of interlingualism must be to break down these barriers, encouraging the sharing of data and critiques. Let me sketch some of the fruitful exchanges that might result:
The Language Brokers model concentrates on the realities of expert translation between a wide range of human languages, including both its achievements and its limitations. Its knowledge provides high benchmarks for assessing both the Technologism model and the Plurilingualism model: how closely can machines, or regular language instruction, approximate the levels of performance deemed adequate by language professionals?
The Technologism model connects interlingualism with the present wave of technological change, encouraging us to examine its linguistic consequences and challenging models that rely on a static model of human communicative tools. It is critical of the cost and routine nature of much work under the Language Brokers model and regards the Esperantism model as useful primarily as a potential tool for its own uses.
The Esperantism model projects from a small working model of interlingualism onto a global vision. The working model deserves careful study from a variety of perspectives. The global vision points to the limited number of languages included in the Language Brokers and Technologism models, the inequalities generated by the World English model, and the unrealistic educational demands of both the Plurilingualism and World English models.
The World English model connects interlingualism with another global trend, the spread of English as a second language. Like Esperantism, it stresses the human desire to communicate directly and reciprocally, without the mediation implied by the Language Brokers or Technologism models, and is skeptical about the individual effort required by Plurilingualism. It dismisses the Esperantism model as economically unrealistic and psychologically naive.
The Plurilingualism model focuses attention on the reasons why many people learn and use languages other than English and will continue to do so. It criticizes the World English model as culturally hegemonic, the Language Brokers model as elitist, and the Technologism model as anti-humanist. Its relationship to the Esperantism model is ambivalent, sometimes assimilating it to the World English model, sometimes to the Technologism model, and occasionally treating it as fundamentally compatible.
Each of these types of expertise is valuable for interlingualism. Each tells us something important about the question that heads this section. Each poses important challenges to the other models. The student of interlingualism should engage with all of them.
Assuming that progress can be made in answering the first two questions confronting interlingualism, perhaps along the lines I have suggested, we would face the question of what to do with our new-found knowledge.
I believe that a better understanding of interlingualism would help to improve language policy in virtually every area. Some examples are:
As our knowledge of the interaction of linguistic systems improves, we may come to perceive humankind as co-extensive with a global linguistic ecosystem - the glottosphere, to coin a term. Interlingualism will then be seen to refer to a kind of linguistic environmentalism, founded on a profound respect for diversity, integration, equity, efficiency and sustainability. It took the environmental sciences several decades to move from the realm of general concepts to powerful models of global change. Interlingualism may require at least as long; but the benefits may be at least as great.
Send comments to Mark Fettes.