https://www.eeas.europa.eu/eeas/difficult-process-learning-speak-language-power_en (Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior)

In a 29 November 2024 blog post, former EU High Representative Josep Borrell reflects on his five-year mandate and argues that the European Union must learn to “speak the language of power” if it is to defend its interests effectively in a more dangerous and multipolar world. He notes that while the EU has strong institutions and normative power, it too often lags in agility, coherence and strategic action. (Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior)
Though the article is about geopolitics and power, it touches on language in a metaphorical but meaningful way—and links to our interest in multilingualism in several ways:

• The notion of “speaking the language of power” reminds us that language is not only a matter of communication, but also of agency, representation and influence. Multilingualism matters because if you cannot “speak the language” of institutions, you may be excluded from decision-making, from representation, or from the ability to shape policy.
• In the context of EU multilingualism, this implies that having many languages (and the capacity to use them) is not merely symbolic: it is part of the infrastructure of power, legitimacy and participation. Member states and citizens whose languages and voices are less present may find themselves outside the circles of influence.
• For professional fields (translation, localisation, language policy, multilingual education): if the EU is to strengthen its voice globally, the language-skills ecosystem inside the EU (including translation/interpreting, multilingual education, language technology) must be robust. Multilingual professionals become part of the “language of power” the EU needs.
• The article also indirectly raises questions about resource allocation, institutional structures, and how multilingual practices are embedded in governance. If the EU wants to act with power, the behind-the-scenes language infrastructure (translation, interpretation, multilingual staff, digital multilingual systems) must align with that ambition.
• Finally, from a policy-perspective: there is a gap between rhetoric (“Europe should speak with one strategic voice”) and practice (“member states still operate in 24+ languages, institutional delays, translation burdens”). Bridging that gap requires foresight, investment and professionalisation—precisely the domains our modules explore.

1. What do you interpret by “speaking the language of power” in the context of European institutions? Is it literal (languages, translation) or metaphorical (strategic discourse, influence)?
2. In what ways does multilingualism enhance or hinder an institution’s power and agility? Could fewer languages be more efficient? Or is multilingualism itself a strategic asset?
3. If you were designing a professional-training module for multilingual staff in the EU (translation/localisation/education), what skills would you prioritise to ensure that Europe can “speak the language of power”?

Would love to hear your take!

(https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/spain-grants-basque-catalan-and-galician-languages-parliamentary-status)

On 19 September 2023, Spain’s national parliament approved a reform allowing MPs to speak in the regional languages Basque, Catalan and Galician during debates — alongside Spanish. The change was part of a deal by the caretaker government to secure support from Catalan and Basque-region parties following an inconclusive election. The reform came with the promise of translation and interpretation systems. Some opposition parties, including the far-right, walked out in protest. The article notes that Spain continues to push these languages for recognition at EU level, yet faces resistance from other Member States over costs and precedent.
This is a noteworthy shift: from regional co-official languages being used locally and in autonomous community institutions to being formally recognised at the national legislative level. It signals a step in the “normalisation” of these languages in Spain’s public and political life.

From a European multilingualism viewpoint, a few aspects stand out:

• The move reflects the institutional recognition of linguistic diversity within a state: by enabling Basque, Catalan and Galician in national parliament, Spain is acknowledging that Spanish alone does not suffice for the full political representation of its multilingual society.
• However, the bump-up from national to EU level is yet uncertain: Spain is also pushing for these languages to become official in the European Union, but as the article shows others are wary. This illustrates the gap between “recognition in national law” and “recognition in supranational institutions”.
• From the perspective of translation, localisation and language professions: if these languages gain more institutional recognition (national + EU), then the demand for high-quality translation, interpreting, terminological corpora and multilingual digital services will grow. The fact that Spain promises to fund translation costs adds a concrete professional dimension: the shift is not purely symbolic.
• There is also the risk of precedent effects: as countries grant greater status to regional/minority languages, the institutional costs (translation, interpreting, published materials, digital services) mount. Other EU states and institutions are sensitive to this.
• Politically, the change is entangled with power-sharing deals and party support. That means language recognition is not only cultural/educational, but deeply political. Recognition can follow negotiation leverage, rather than pure linguistic rights logic.

1. What do you make of the idea that regional languages like Basque, Catalan and Galician are being empowered at national level? Does this strengthen or fragment national cohesion in your view?
2. If these languages were recognised at EU level, what professional or educational opportunities (translation, localisation, terminology, digital services) might open up — and what obstacles might appear?
3. Do you think recognition of languages in institutions should be driven by speaker numbers, historic use, identity politics, or economic/technical viability? Which criteria matter the most?

Would love to hear your perspectives!

(https://elpais.com/espana/2023-09-15/negociaciones-de-investidura-y-formacion-de-gobierno-en-directo.html)

On 15 September 2023, El País reported that Spain announced its willingness to assume the translation and interpretation costs required for recognising three of its co-official languages—Catalan, Basque (Euskera) and Galician—as official languages of the European Union. This proposal was tabled ahead of a meeting of EU ministers (Council of General Affairs) in Brussels. However, more than half of the EU member states raised concerns in preparatory sessions: they asked for more time to examine the legal, procedural and budgetary implications of expanding the number of official languages (then 24) and were reluctant to risk setting a precedent that might trigger many similar demands across Europe.

This development is particularly interesting for several reasons:

First, it shows how linguistic recognition and politics are tightly bound: Spain not only asserted the cultural-political importance of its co-official languages, but offered to pay the associated cost. That turns a symbolic request into a concrete institutional one, raising the stakes.

Second, from a multilingual EU perspective, the proposal reveals the tension between identity/recognition and institutional practicality. Expanding official languages means more translation, more interpretation, more administrative infrastructure—members rightly ask: where does it stop? Which languages qualify? How many? The fact that several countries prefer to delay rather than deny shows the complexity.

Third, for professional fields linked to translation, localisation and multilingual policy, this could be significant: if Catalan, Basque and Galician become official in the EU, we might expect growth in translation/localisation demand, terminological work, multilingual technologies tailored to those languages—especially given Spain’s willingness to carry the cost burden.

Finally, this case also acts as a mirror for lesser-used and regional languages elsewhere in Europe: if a large state like Spain puts forward this kind of proposal, what does it say about the prospects for other regional languages or minoritized languages? And how will EU institutions respond to the balance between linguistic diversity and administrative efficiency?

• Would you support the recognition of Catalan, Basque and Galician as official EU languages if you were making the decision? Why or why not?
• In your country or region, are there languages that could make a case for official EU status? What would be the barriers?
• From a practical perspective, what do you think is the greatest obstacle to expanding official languages in the EU: cost, precedent-setting, technical resources, or something else?

Looking forward to your thoughts!