Influence of 24 EU official

languages on EU institutions in
the field of Translation and
Interpretation

Ilva Anspoka
Class: ES4E 1F
Student Number: 14042584
European Studies
The Hague University of Applied Sciences

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to document research conducted at The

Hague University of Applied Sciences on the influence 24 EU official
languages have on EU governing institutions, specifically in the field of
translation and interpretation. The central question of this research was:
How is translation and interpretation field for the EU institutions
influenced by the number of official languages? Desk research method
was used in order to answer this question. The research showed that
language diversity is an essential part of the European Union and
translation and interpretation is an important means of ensuring it.
Translation and interpretation field has three problems high costs,
different perception of certain terms and ideas based on diverse cultural
backgrounds, and inability to practically attain full linguistic equality in EU
institutions. It is recommended that further research is conducted to find
out how to improve existing conditions of language equality within the EU
and find new solutions to the problems in the translation field.

Contents
Introduction................................................................................................. 4
Methods....................................................................................................... 4
Results......................................................................................................... 5
Discussion................................................................................................... 7
Conclusion................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations....................................................................................... 9
List of references....................................................................................... 10
Annotated Bibliography............................................................................. 11

Introduction
As of July 1, 2013, European Union has 24 official languages. The
official motto of the EU is United in Diversity, and languages naturally
are a big part of it. To ensure the diversity and equality among the nations
and their citizens, the European Union has established a policy of
multilingualism that has to be applied to every EU institution. However,
along with equality this policy also has negative effects. Translation and
interpretation is an enormous field in the European Union and the costs of
ensuring an effective communication between EU citizens and the
governing bodies are on the rise with each new member state.
The sources mostly used in this report were articles and other
research reports written by scholars and economics professors at different
universities in EU and EEA. Financial factor is very important in translation
and interpretation field, therefore it was important to analyze the opinions
and findings of experts in economics.
Freedom of movement causes multilingualism to affect the lives of
every EU citizen and this process continues to increase with every passing
day. The purpose of this report is to summarize the positive and negative
aspects of having 24 official languages in the European Union, find out
how this number influences governing institutions, and specifically
translation and interpretation field inside the EU.

Methods
The author used desk research as the main research method for this
report. Articles were collected articles and other reports concerning the
subject of this paper and the facts were summarized to answer the
research questions. The sources used in this research were mainly articles
4

from different scholars, as well as official EU rules and regulations.

Afterwards, the found information was listed in the results section, and
was separated in positive aspects and negative aspects. The translation
and interpretation field was then examined and conclusions about how it
has been affected by the multilingualism policy were made. Lastly, the
findings were analyzed in the discussion section of the report and a final
conclusion was made.

Results
Desk research on EU official languages and the translation and
interpretation field has shown various pros and cons of the multilingualism
policy. By examining sources Author has summarized key points and
issues regarding this subject.
Article 22 in The Charter of Fundamental Rights of EU claims that
The Union shall respect cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. (EU
Charter of Fundamental Rights website, 2004). This means that every EU
citizen is entitled to respect with no discrimination of any kind within the
European Union, including their preferred language. To ensure equality
among EU citizens, all EU languages are considered equal.
Reports by the Committee on Culture and Education have identified
the need for action in certain areas and called on the Commission to
draw up measures aimed at recognizing the importance of, and
promoting, linguistic diversity in the EU. In the EP all EU languages
are equally important: all parliamentary documents are translated
into all the official languages of the EU and every Member of the
European Parliament has the right to speak the official language of
his or her choice (See Language Policy article by Gyrffi, EU
Parliament official website, 2014).

Politicians are also aware of the connection between language and

national identity. Grindheim and Lohndals (2006) report supports this
statement, claiming, that the Unions officials and politicians are
naturally aware of the relationship between identity and language, and
the effort put upon translation is a way of showing this, as well as its
cultural responsibility. (p. 11). They also propose an idea (Grindheim &
Lohndal, 2006, p. 13) that a common language is not necessary to build a
foundation of a common European identity, since the EU has not had a
primeval identity or a single language before. And in order to ensure the
unity and efficient communication between different nations and cultures,
successful translation and interpretation services are needed.
However,

many

disadvantages

involving

the

translation

and

interpretation field are also presented. The main issue found in sources is
the high translation costs. According to Fidrmuc and Ginsburghs report,
the annual cost of translating and interpreting in the EU with 20
official languages is estimated to reach 1045 million euros
(European Commission, 2005a,b). Assuming that all languages are
treated equally (i.e. each document or oral statement is translated
into all languages) and that all 20 languages are equally costly to
translate to and from, the average cost per language per year is 55
million. (2007, p. 10)
Another problem raised is the quality or translation and the
inevitable

errors

made

by

either

machine

translators

or

human

proofreaders. In order to increase the speed of translation process and

alleviate the costs, documents in the European Parliament are first
translated from the original language into six so-called pivot languages
English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish, and afterwards
translated into other official languages (Grindheim & Lohndal, 2006, p. 13
- 14). The use of relay translation helps to increase effectivity and reduce
expenses, however it also creates a high probability of a change in the
6

meaning of the text (Grindheim & Lohndal, 2006, p. 14). Another aspect of
this problem, albeit minor, is the different meaning certain terms or
concepts may have in different languages and cultures. As Grindheim and
Lohndal state,
even if the European Union adopted one language as its main
language, this would not stop politicians and other opinion makers
of interpreting their own meaning of different concepts. A well
known example is the way different parties uses various words when
describing their opponents and the way liberalism is interpreted at
the right and at the left in many party systems. (2006, p. 15)
The third problem mentioned in the sources is the unequal use of
languages in practice. A study done by Fidrmuc, Ginsburgh and Weber
(2007) suggests that the EU institutions have adapted three most popular
languages as procedural languages, namely English, French and German.
The vast majority of all EU documents are prepared in English (62
percent in 2004), French (26 percent) and German (3 percent), with
the remaining languages accounting for some 9 percent of all
inputs. In February 2005, the Commission went even further by
suggesting to limit the automatic translation of its press conferences
to English, French and German, which raised immediate protest by
Italian and Spanish officials and journalists. (Fidrmuc, Ginsburgh and
Weber, 2007, p. 9)

Discussion

The laws and regulations of EU demand equality among citizens

without any discrimination. In order to ensure this equality, the official
language of every European Union member state is also the official
language of EU. Furthermore, all languages are considered equal and each
citizen has the rights to communicate with the government in their
preferred language. According to the article written by Miklos Gyrffi on
the official website of European Parliament, EU is deliberately trying to
maintain the diversity among nations by popularizing different languages
and stimulating language learning. The European Union is trying to raise
awareness of the fact that Europe is multilingual, as well as promote
acceptance of different cultures and languages. Since English is the lingua
franca of the world, and also of Europe, people are reminded that there
are also other European languages that are useful to know, and other
cultures that could be interesting to explore, and over time, accept. A
study by Grindheim and Lohndal also indicates a more scientific reason
behind these actions. One of the ideas of their research is that language
diversity in the EU is essential to creating and maintaining a European
identity. Therefore, it is not necessary to adapt only one language
throughout the Union in order to create a sense of European citizenship.
On the contrary, since the concept of European identity is new and has no
historical basis (there has never been one single language or culture for
all current EU member nations), these authors emphasize the necessity of
translation and interpretation as means of spreading European ideas
among different nationalities and further developing the sense of
European identity, while also allowing each nation to retain their own
individual national identity.
Translation and interpretation is a key factor in ensuring a successful
communication among EU member states, as well as citizens. However,
the high number of official languages also creates many problems. For
instance, one of the major issues the EU is struggling with is high
translation and interpretation costs. As Fidrmuc and Ginsburgh state in
their report, the costs of translation services reach as high as 1045 million
euros per year, which means on average 55 million per language per year.
8

It needs to be noted that this report has been written in year 2007, which
only means that the translation expenses have increased over the last
decade, since the number of official languages has now reached 24. The
EU is trying to solve this problem by doing two-step relay translations, as
Grindheim and Lohndal state in their study, but a permanent solution for
this problem is unlikely to be achieved, since equality among member
states and the rights of the citizens need to be maintained above all
problems.
Relay translations also raise additional problems. Since the final
version of the text has been translated once or even twice, there is a high
chance that the initial meaning of the original text has changed, as
Grindheim and Lohndal explain in their research. They also further the
idea - assuming that after undergoing the process of translation the text
has still retained its full original meaning, politicians and government
officials come from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and their
perception of certain terms and concepts may still differ from each other.
This, however, is not a major issue, since it is still possible to effectively
communicate, even if some minor setbacks occur from time to time.
Another problem mentioned in the used sources is the unequal use
of languages in the EU institutions. In theory all languages enjoy equality
in the EU, however, in practice that is not always the case.

Fidrmuc,

Ginsburgh and Weber state in their research that European Union

institutions have adapted three most frequently used languages English,
French and German as the procedural languages, and most documents
and oral seminars within the EU institutions are conducted in these
languages. It can be assumed that this is a way of combating the financial
problem of translation field. As stated earlier, the EU is deliberately
stimulating language learning among citizens, which should prove that
many people, including politicians, are bilingual or multilingual. Therefore
the need for translation services to and from less popular languages is
reduced. Nevertheless the inequality between language use in the
institutions remains.
9

Conclusion
The positive aspects of having 24 official languages are equality
among all European Union citizens and the opportunity to bring all
European nations together through linguistic and cultural diversity under
one identity. Translation and interpretation is a key factor in ensuring
these goals are reached. At the same time the European Union faces
many problems with translation and interpretation services. Three main
issues are high expenses, different perception of certain terms and ideas
based on cultural background, and inability to practically attain full
linguistic equality in EU institutions.

Recommendations
Further research may prove useful in order to find out how the
issues regarding translation and interpretation can be addressed, and how
the solutions already in effect can be improved to ultimately reach the
highest translation efficiency, lowest possible costs and full equality
among all official languages within the European Union.

10

List of references
1. Fidrmuc J., Ginsburgh V. (2007). Languages in the European Union:
The quest for equality and its cost. European Economic Review; 51
(2007) 1351 1369.
2. Fidrmuc J., Ginsburgh V., Weber S. (2007). Ever Closer Union or
Babylonian Discord? The Official-language Problem in the European
Union. CORE Discussion Papers; 2007/20.
3. Grindheim J.E., Lohndal T. (2006 ). Lost in translation? European
Integration and Language Diversity. Kristiansand: Agder University
College
4. Article 22 on EU Charter of Fundamental Rights website.
Retrieved

on

October

10

from:

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=29
5. Gyrffi M. (2014, April). Language policy. Retrieved on October 10
from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?
ftuId=FTU_5.13.6.html

11

Annotated Bibliography

1. Grindheim J.E., Lohndal T. (2006 ).

Lost in translation? European

Integration and Language Diversity. Kristiansand: Agder University

College
This report summarizes the key factors that constitute European
identity and proposes languages as an important aspect. It also mentions
various problems occurring in the field of translation and interpretation for
the EU. This report also includes statistical data collected in the last
decade among EU citizens about issues concerning EU citizenship and
general affairs. This source is well-structured and both authors have not
only investigated the aspect of languages in the EU, but have also taken
into consideration the diversity in Europe, which contributes to creating
and maintaining European identity. The statistical information on which
this report is based has been taken from Special Eurobarometer. Special
Eurobarometer are surveys conducted by European Commission in order
to find out the public opinion about different subjects. Therefore the
information sources used in this research can be deemed credible.
The authors of this report Jan Erik Grindheim and Terje Lohndal are professors working in different universities in Norway, namely Agder
University College, University of Bergen and University of Oslo and work in
fields relevant to Europe and language studies. Despite Norway not being
one of EU member states, considering Norway is a member state in the
European Economic Area, and it is geographically a part of Europe, both
authors should not have any political or economic biases. Therefore this
source can be considered credible.
2. Fidrmuc J., Ginsburgh V. (2007). Languages in the European Union:
The quest for equality and its cost. European Economic Review; 51
(2007) 1351 1369.

12

While giving a detailed summary of the language policy currently

adapted and in use in the EU institutions, this research also provides a
detailed insight in translation and interpretation field from a more
economical perspective. In this report Fidrmuc and Ginsburgh focuses
on computing the costs of translation and interpretation, as well as
offering alternatives for reducing these expenses.
Both authors Jan Fidrmuc and Victor Ginsburgh have both worked
as professors in Economics in prestigious universities, respectively,
Brunel University and Universit Libre de Bruxelles. Their names are
also affiliated with other reputable universities. The research is done in
their field of expertise, which should indicate that this article is a valid
source of information.
3. Fidrmuc J., Ginsburgh V., Weber S. (2007). Ever Closer Union or
Babylonian Discord? The Official-language Problem in the European
Union. CORE Discussion Papers; 2007/20.
This source addresses the multilingualism problem within the EU
institutions and its main aim is to determine the optimal number of official
languages. Upon concluding that six languages would be the most
reasonable number, authors proceed to examine the possibility of
linguistic reform, taking into account relevant treaties and laws, to reach
the solution proposed in their research.
This research has been done by two authors of the previous source
Jan Fidrmuc and Victor Ginsburgh together with Shlomo Weber, who is a
Canadian professor of Russian descent in the New Economic School in
Moscow, Russia. This report is a collaboration between Economics
professors from different cultural backgrounds, which adds a new
perspective on the European multilingualism problem and perhaps offers
differentiated solutions. The fact that one of the authors is not associated
with EU educational institutions or is not originally from one of the EU
member states may lead to bias, however that is not a reason to disregard
this article. Overall this report is well-structured, the subject is sufficiently

13

researched and the optimal conclusions have been reached, all of which
indicates that this resource is logical and valid.
4. Article 22 on EU Charter of Fundamental Rights website.
Retrieved

on

October

10

from:

http://www.eucharter.org/home.php?page_id=29
According to the About this site section on the website, this page was
created by JUSTICE, which is an independent human rights and law
reform organization. This site was created specifically to summarize the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, so this website has no interpretation
of the content, only summary. Therefore this source can be considered
credible.
5. Gyrffi M. (2014, April). Language policy. Retrieved on October 10
from:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/displayFtu.html?
ftuId=FTU_5.13.6.html
The article was written by a Hungarian journalist Miklos Gyrffi and posted
on the official website of the European Parliament as a summary of the EU
language policy, which proves the validity of this source.

14