We need a less romantic explanation of why, with few exceptions, states promote their national language against encroachment by foreign languages. A non-romantic, public-choice sort of approach may work better.
Seizing an opportunity to promote the French language after Brexit, French president Emmanuel Macron wants to change the main language of the European Union government from English to French (see Wall Street Journal, June 14, 2018). This raises the question of why states generally protect their national language.
One can imagine that the state—that is, the politicians and bureaucrats who run it—love the national language and want to protect it in order that their own subjects as well as foreigners be able to enjoy it. The French language has a long literary history and is (of course) beautiful. Who wouldn’t want others to learn it? This aesthetic and altruistic argument, however, may not be persuasive for creole or more localized and skimpy languages that don’t allow their speakers to participate as efficiently in the cultural adventure of mankind. Anyway, why would the average French politician and bureaucrat be concerned about the ability of others, even their fellow citizens, to read Charles Baudelaire, Marcel Pagnol, or Émile Faguet?
We need a less romantic explanation of why, with few exceptions, states promote their national language against encroachment by foreign languages. A non-romantic, public-choice sort of approach may work better.
When a national subject—call him a citizen if you wish—speaks one or many foreign languages and especially a lingua franca like English is today, he gains an improved ability to move to other countries if he wants to escape obligations or prohibitions that his own government imposes on him. The cost of exit is lower. If, on the contrary, he speaks only his own state’s official language and it is not the lingua franca, the cost of exit is higher; the national state thus gains a powerful means of keeping its clientele captive. Language is a sort of invisible Berlin Wall enhancing the national state’s capacity to levy taxes and mold society as it wishes. Hence, we would expect national states—or regional quasi-states such as Québec—to promote their languages at the expense of other languages.
This theory seems to fit reality better than the romantic theory of the language-loving state. For instance, it explains why the state imposes the majority’s language on minorities, not the other way around. Except in cases where the theory of collective action à la Mancur Olson applies, the support of the majority is more useful than that of the minority. “When the state cannot please everybody,” writes Anthony de Jasay, “it will choose whom it had better please” (see my review of his book The State on Econlib).
That the US state does not, and did not historically, promote English (except through public education) testifies to its more liberal outlook (“liberal” in the classical sense). The same can be said about Switzerland or (at the federal level) Canada. But are we sure that the American or Canadian state would not actively promote English if this language was just a local language and not, unfortunately for them, the lingua franca of the world? The US state uses other means to keep its clientele captive. World-wide taxation of income is a powerful one. Nationalist propaganda, which is on the rise, is another way to keep the subjects at home. Making the latter hated all over the world offers expanded possibilities (for the state).
The French state’s effort to keep its clientele linguistically captive will continue to be negated by the lower cost of communications brought by the internet and by inexpensive international travel. The young in France realize that speaking English opens opportunities and makes them more mobile in the world. But note that less open borders work in the other direction and strengthen the power of political authorities over their domestic clienteles, which may explain why national states are moving in that direction.
READER COMMENTS
Jon Murphy
Jun 16 2018 at 8:28am
Your post reminds me of Adam Smith’s essay on language: “Considerations on the First Formation of Languages.” Forgive me as it’s been a little while since I read it (so readers should take what I say here with a grain of salt), but if I recall he makes the argument that one of the reasons why the English language is so popular is because it is relatively simple compared to other languages of the day.
If my memory is correct, then this might suggest that the French’s efforts to preserve their language, to keep it uniquely French and prevent its metamorphosis, may actually hinder the likelihood of it becoming a major language (although it is still used in diplomatic affairs, I believe). If the preservation of the language keeps it complex, might that work against your theory since learning other languages might be relatively easier?
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 16 2018 at 11:02pm
@Jon: It is true that, grammatically, English is a relatively simple language compared with French. Interestingly, though, and perhaps strangely, everything that can be said in French can be said in English—at least as far as rational discourse is concerned. But note that English has always been simpler than French. Also, the influence of the French government on the French language is very limited. The influence of writers and authors, though, is more important than in English—which may explain why French resists political correctness better.
Thomas L. Knapp
Jun 17 2018 at 9:21am
Interesting piece, but I’m mainly commenting to gripe about two deficiencies in the new format:
The RSS feed no longer shows who the author of a particular piece is; and
Once once clicks through, there’s no obvious posting date on the article itself.
Of course, I can find out who the author is by clicking through FROM the RSS feed, and I can figure out when the article was published AT the RSS feed, but it seems to me that both of these pieces of information are useful enough to appear in both places.
SaveyourSelf
Jun 17 2018 at 1:47pm
Interesting post.
Pierre Lemieux wrote, “…it explains why the state imposes the majority’s language on minorities, not the other way around.”
This may be untrue. In several states in the USA (where I lived growing up), taking a foreign language in high school was required. We already spoke English and took English classes, so we were required to take a non-English–ie. minority–language by the State.
The point about a local language acting as a barrier to movement is interesting. To say this is the motivation for modern French efforts to play politics with their language seems unlikely.
Perhaps the most interesting tid-bit in this article is the question raised in the background of why English displaced French first as the language of commerce, then as the language of science, and finally as the language of diplomacy. I propose it has nothing to do with the language, and everything to do with the differences in the predominant model of rationing practiced by the English and the French over the last several hundred years. The modern efforts of the French, in this light, are misguided. Their understanding of causality is backwards.
Jon Murphy
Jun 17 2018 at 3:33pm
I had a similar requirement, but note the languages were meant to supplement, not replace
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 17 2018 at 8:46pm
“To say this is the motivation for modern French efforts to play politics with their language seems unlikely.”
Intentions are better deduced from actual actions than from virtuous pronouncements.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 17 2018 at 8:48pm
@SaveyourSelf: “To say this is the motivation for modern French efforts to play politics with their language seems unlikely.”
Intentions are better deduced from actual actions than from virtuous pronouncements.
Richard
Jun 17 2018 at 5:09pm
“This theory seems to fit reality better than the romantic theory of the language-loving state. For instance, it explains why the state imposes the majority’s language on minorities, not the other way around. Except in cases where the theory of collective action à la Mancur Olson applies, the support of the majority is more useful than that of the minority. “When the state cannot please everybody,” writes Anthony de Jasay, “it will choose whom it had better please” (see my review of his book The State on Econlib).”
Huh? That theory fits the romantic theory just as well as it does what you call the public choice theory. In a world where everyone wants their language to dominate, the majority should usually win.
Romantic theory is better able to explain why France promotes French but Germany has accepted the encroachment of English after the unfortunate events of the middle of the last century.
Theodore Sternberg
Jun 17 2018 at 8:02pm
Nice try but implausible. I don’t know of any cases where a government, or even broad public opinion, ever objected to citizens learning foreign languages. (Maybe Tokugawa Japan..?) The issue is with people who don’t know the national language in the first place, creating cultural ghettos.
Pierre Lemieux
Jun 17 2018 at 8:25pm
@SaveyourSelf: I did mention that the US state had been more liberal, perhaps because English is the lingua franca anyway. Secondly–partly because of that, partly because of inefficient teaching of second languages–I suspect that fewer students actually become proficient in a second language in America than in many other countries. What do you mean by “predominant model of rationing”?
Jacques Delacroix
Jun 24 2018 at 3:06pm
Interesting. Supposing that Spanish becomes the majority language in California (where I live) which is not sure to happen but could happen soon, supposing, should I expect the state of California to try and replace English with Spanish?
Comments are closed.