1.1 Rationale of the Book and Research Gap
Multilingualism has always existed in society and politics at all levelsāfrom the Ancient World, the Ottoman and Habsburg Empires, to nineteenth-century France, to todayās Belgium, Switzerland, Canada and South Africa. In contemporary societies, it includes new modalities and communication spaces. The link between multiple (and sometimes competing) languages in political argumentation and the ensuing questions of access, language status, language choice, translation and interpreting in political deliberation are central in the identity and construction of contemporary publics. Multilingualism also constitutes an integral part of post-national citizenship, in which political argumentation may defy linguistic barriers. Todayās ānewā nomadic citizens are characterised as polyglots travelling in between languages, in a permanent stage of (self-) translation (Meylaerts 2013, p. 540). In this way, multilingualism affects both the social construction of cosmopolitan civic identities and the actual conduct of democratic politics, with new concepts of citizenship and new forms of deliberation.
Linguists and political researchers have pointed out the tension between the multilingual reality and a monolingualist ideology in the way contemporary democracies function (Doerr 2012, 2018; Pym 2013; Piller 2012 and others). āEmergent publicsā (Angus 2001; Koller and Wodak 2008), ācounter-publicsā (Fraser 1993, 1995) and diasporic public spheres are no longer defined solely by their agonistic nature but also by the way this is expressed through their (choice of) language. Multiple languages representing multiple cultures signify multiple competing rationalities in essentially agonistic public spheres. Power differentials in these multilingualāphysical and virtualāpublic spheres are not rooted in status, education or access, for instance, but instead on the language chosen for communication. In cases where a lingua franca is used, the power differentials are clearer between competent and non-competent speakers of that language. In diasporic public spheres, power differentials may also derive from different stages of integration.
Against this backdrop, this volume aims to make a contribution to the relatively underexplored area of the interplay between multilingualism and politics, in the context of contemporary socio-political developments. It focuses on multilingualism as a key element of the social construction of contemporary public spheres. The 14 chapters of this edited collection study multilingualism both as a concept and as a phenomenon through the interdisciplinary lenses of languages and politics and, more specifically, the combination of politics, sociology, sociolinguistics, language policy, translation and interpreting studies. With this in mind, the volume is divided into two main sections: (a) āMultilingualism in Politicsā, which draws on politics, sociology, interpreting studies and discourse studies and focuses on European Union (EU ) institutions and the UK; and (b) āThe Politics of Multilingualismā, which draws on sociolinguistics, language policy, education and minority languages, and includes case studies from the rest of the world.
1.2 Themes and Contents of the Book
The first section, on Multilingualism in Politics, revisits the topic of multilingual publics and political translation. It uses case studies from multilingual debates in the European Parliament (EP ) to show the effects of linguistic diversity on deliberation, and examines how multilingualism and European identity affected the Brexit campaign. It also looks at migrant publics and specifically Somali peopleās experiences in terms of language and belonging in Scotland, and at communicative practices in Assisted Voluntary Returns (AVR) encounters.
Strani critically revisits the nexus between multilingualism and politics in academic scholarship and in contemporary societies in Chap. 2. She starts with a good overview of the literature on multilingualism in/and politics, focusing on multilingual publics, including migrant, diasporic and minoritised publics, translation and citizenship practices, and translation and activism. In defining multilingualism, she moves beyond the distinction between its individual and social variants, beyond any references to language competency and beyond āreified conceptions of languageā (Strani, this volume). Following Blommaert, LeppƤnen, and Spottiās (2012) conception of multilingualism as not something that people have or can acquire but as a social practice, Strani argues that multilingualism can be a source of legitimation and emancipation. She also urges us to rethink our definition of language and its role in conferring legitimacy to its speakers, in constructing publics, in making political statements, declaring alliances and practising citizenship. A broader, dynamic and porous definition of language as something that changes and is influenced by its socio-political and linguistic environment leads to a definition of multilingualism that includes ābroken languagesā (Buden et al. 2011 on heterolinguality), urban languages (metrolingualism) and other sociolinguistic variants.
This chapter then looks at multilingual publics in the contemporary context of the multilingual condition (Kramsch 2009), considering the work of Doerr (2018) on Political Translation and its emancipatory role in contemporary democratic processes, Baker (2016), CarcelƩn-Estrada (2018) and others on translation and activism, and Meylaerts (2018) on the politics of translation in multilingual states. The work of political scientist Patrizia Nanz (2007) on the role of language in the construction of a European public sphere is also examined. Strani emphasises the role of translation as a political act in bridging inequalities (cf. Doerr 2018) and being a citizen. She concludes by urging scholars and practitioners to join existing efforts in decolonising multilingualism (Phipps 2019 and others) and broaden research beyond the European or Western focus, and beyond spoken languages.
The following three chapters focus on multilingualism in the European Parliament. Mos looks at the politics of multilingualism in the European Parliament and scrutinises the European Unionās claim of linguistic diversityāenshrined in its motto āunited in diversityā. In his study, Mos builds on recent advances within the critical-constructivist school of International Relations to argue that this results in norm contestation over the meaning and scope of linguistic diversity as a value. Such semantic vagueness, Mos argues, creates an opportunity for minority rights activists to push for greater recognition and protection of minority languages by the EU. These actors interpret linguistic diversity in a broad manner to incorporate minority languages (which include signed languages). However, the ambiguous meaning of linguistic diversity similarly empowers their opponents, Mos argues. Nationalist or statist actors offer a narrower interpretation, arguing that linguistic diversity covers only the official languages of the 28 member states. Both sides claim to uphold the value of linguistic diversity, but they seem to contest its true meaning.
Starting with the importance of language for the construction of identity and of linguistic diversity in a supranational institution such as the EU, Mos analyses the following data in attempting to show how political representatives in Brussels try to use the ambiguity of linguistic diversity to their advantage: (1) debates on relevant resolutions of the European Parliament, especially the 2013 Resolution on Endangered Languages and Linguistic Diversity; (2) the activities of the European Parliament Intergroup for Traditional Minorities, National Communities and Languages; and (3) interactions between Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and civil society organisations such as the European Language Equality Network, the Network to Promote Linguistic Diversity and the Federal Union of European Nationalities. Mosās analysis of his fieldwork and collected data shows that everyone appears to be a champion of linguistic diversity inside the European Parliament. However, the study shows that whereas minority rights activists use this value in order to motivate Brussels to act where their national governments will not, their opponents instead interpret in a way that helps them maintain the domestic status quo.
SzabĆ³ also looks at multilingualism in the European Parliament in Chap. 4, but foc...