https://en.ara.cat/languages/speaking-more-than-one-language-protects-against-accelerated-aging_1_5557539.html

A large-scale study of more than 86,000 individuals across 27 European countries finds that people who speak more than one language tend to exhibit slower biological ageing compared to monolingual individuals. The researchers show that multilingualism corresponds with healthier functional and cognitive profiles, and the effect increases with the number of languages spoken. While the study does not claim direct causation, it presents multilingualism as a strong “protective factor” alongside other health behaviours. (ARA)

This finding has major resonance for our field of multilingualism, language identity and language education.
For students of philology: your language practices are not just cultural or communicative—they may in fact contribute to long‐term cognitive and physical resilience. The study nudges us to reconceive multilingualism as public health as well as academic resource.
It also raises questions about inequality: if monolingualism correlates with faster ageing, then schools, policy-makers and educators may have a responsibility not only to teach languages but to embed multilingual practices in everyday life. Finally, from a research standpoint, this bridges language policy, neuroscience and lifespan studies—classic examples of interdisciplinarity our seminars promote.

• Given the study’s findings, how might language education in your region change? Should programmes emphasise active multilingual practice rather than just language knowledge?
• Do you see your own linguistic repertoires (e.g., Spanish + English + dialect) as a resource for cognitive ageing—or is multilingualism still framed only as a “skill” or “project”?
• What barriers might prevent multilingualism from being a realistic public health strategy (access, resources, ideology, socio-economic factors)?

https://www.tech.eu/2025/07/31/most-llms-ignores-baltic-and-eastern-european-languages-tildelm-is-the-solution/

Published on 31 July 2025, this Tech.eu article highlights how many large language models (LLMs) — such as those underpinning major AI tools — are heavily biased towards major Western languages like English, German and French, while Baltic and Eastern European languages (Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Czech etc.) are largely underserved. The article notes that although Europe has 24 official EU languages and over 80 spoken languages overall, the dominant models focus almost entirely on the major ones.
It introduces the Latvian initiative TildeLM, an open‐source large language model (30 billion parameters) developed for and by Baltic/Eastern European languages. The project benefits from EU-supercomputing resources and aims to deploy secure, customizable, multilingual AI that works for these less-represented languages, enhances digital sovereignty and supports translation/localisation demands.
Key quotes include: “The models often make basic mistakes … in languages with gendered cases or flexible word order like Latvian, Polish or Russian.” The article argues that language technology equality is a digital justice issue and that if European languages outside the major ones are ignored, then multilingualism suffers not socially only, but technically.

This article is richly relevant to our themes of multilingualism, language policy, identity and professional practice in translation/localisation. Here are some reflections:

• It brings the language-technology angle strongly into multilingualism: it’s not just about teaching languages, official recognition or sociolinguistic rights — it’s also about whether our digital tools work for every language. If your language is excluded from AI, data and services, then even though you speak it you may be excluded from the digital economy.
• The TildeLM initiative is a great example of language empowerment via technology. A small-language community (Baltic/Eastern Europe) is building infrastructure to redress the imbalance. That suggests a model for other minority/regional languages in Europe: if institutional recognition is slow, technological investment may still provide a path forward.
• For translation, localisation and professionalising modules: the article flags likely growth areas — e.g., terminological corpora, localised AI assistants, on-premises deployment of language models for smaller languages. If you are involved in training translators, localisers, or AI language services, this is a very hot field.
• From a policy perspective: this highlights the gap between official status (for example in the EU) and digital status. A language may be officially recognised, but if it lacks large digital corpora or AI support, it still remains at a disadvantage. The interplay of multilingual policy and digital infrastructure becomes vital.
• The sovereign-data angle is also noteworthy: the article mentions that many models are US/China‐based; deploying local models supports national or regional digital sovereignty. That means language policy merges with techno-policy.
• Finally, for Europe’s multilingual identity: this shows that the future of multilingualism isn’t only in schools or constitutions, but also in code, data, algorithms and infrastructure. To really respect linguistic diversity, you must respect technological inclusion too.

1. In your language or region, do you think AI tools (translation, voice assistants, chatbots) currently support your language well? If not, what are the most obvious gaps?
2. Would you prioritise building language-technology infrastructure (LLMs, corpora, localisation) for smaller/regional languages — or would you first focus on teaching and institutional recognition? How do you rank those priorities?
3. What role should the EU or national governments play in ensuring digital equality for minority/less-used languages? Should they fund open-source LLMs? Mandate language-model coverage? Support local training-data creation?
4. For professionals in translation/localisation: do you see this article as signalling new job-markets (for smaller languages, for AI integration) or simply highlighting continuing disadvantage? What actions would you suggest to capitalise on this field?

Happy to hear how you see the intersection of language, technology and policy — your thoughts matter!

https://commission.europa.eu/edl/european-day-languages-across-eu-2024-09-01_en

The European Commission marks 1 September 2024 as the European Day of Languages, emphasising its long-standing aim of promoting language learning and linguistic diversity across the European Union. The announcement highlights key messages: that multilingualism is a “treasure” for citizens, that every language counts, and that learning even a few phrases in different languages helps mutual understanding and cultural respect across Europe. The initiative encourages schools, universities, language-learners and the public to organise activities and share their stories using the hashtag #EDL2024.

The European Day of Languages remains one of the clearer concrete annual moments when multilingualism is publicly celebrated and promoted across EU-member states. A few reflections connected to our interests:

• This kind of official celebration helps keep multilingualism on the political agenda — reminding educators, policy-makers and the public that language diversity is more than a cultural nicety. It links to mobility, inclusion, education and identity.
• From the translation, localisation and language-technology perspective: such campaigns signal institutional recognition of language-value. That in turn may signal more funding, more visibility for less-used languages and potentially more professional opportunities to engage in multilingual projects around the EDL.
• The emphasis on “every language counts” is important: while we often focus on major European or global languages, this message invites us to include regional, immigrant and endangered languages. That aligns with broader themes in our modules — language rights, identity and diversity.
• On the other hand, one might ask: how much of such a celebration is symbolic, and how much leads to structural change (in curricula, funding, professionalisation, digital infrastructure)? The annual EDL is a great awareness-raiser — but without follow-through it may remain a “day” rather than a process.
• For students and professionals: participating in #EDL2024 via a blog post, local language-event, translation/localisation challenge or social-media piece could be a smart way to build visibility and connect with European-language networks.

1. Has your school/university or workplace participated in the European Day of Languages? What did you do and how did it feel?
2. If you could design one simple activity for #EDL2024 in your context (city, company, course), what would it be?
3. Beyond celebration, what concrete “next step” would you propose to ensure that the message “every language counts” translates into policy, curriculum, professional opportunities or digital-language inclusion in your region?

Looking forward to hearing your ideas and experiences!

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/29/which-are-the-most-studied-languages-in-eu-schools (euronews.com)

According to the data reported on 29 July 2025 by Euronews, across EU school systems English dominates as the most-studied foreign language: 96% of pupils in general education and 80% in vocational settings study English. (euronews) Among general (non-vocational) secondary education pupils, Spanish is the second most popular at 27.1%, followed by German at 21.2% and French at 20.8%; Italian trails at just 3.2%. (euronews) In vocational education the picture differs: German ranks second (18.1%) then French (14.1%), with Spanish much lower (6.6%). (euronews) The article also highlights stark disparities between countries: some nations see nearly 100% of general-education pupils studying two or more foreign languages, while others (e.g., Portugal ~6.7%, Ireland ~10.4%) fall far behind. (euronews).

This report reveals several important insights relevant to language policy, education and multilingualism in Europe:

1. The overwhelming dominance of English confirms that it remains the default foreign-language choice in European curricula. That’s unsurprising, given its institutional status, mobility value and global presence—but it also raises questions about linguistic diversity and pluralism.
2. The relatively strong showing of Spanish in general education (27.1%) suggests a shift: Spanish is not just a “third” language in Europe, but a serious second foreign-language option for many schools. That has implications for teacher training, materials, localisation and terminology work in Spanish.
3. The vocational education stats are noteworthy: German and French still dominate, while Spanish falls behind in that domain. That may reflect labour-market perceptions of German and French in certain European value-chains, or the way vocational language provision is structured regionally.
4. The country-by-country disparities are striking: in some EU states pupils regularly study two or more foreign languages, but in others the figure is extremely low. That has major implications for equality of opportunity, mobility, cultural literacy and the “European dimension” of schooling.
5. For professionals working in translation, localisation, language-technology and multilingual policy: the data suggest where demand is likely to grow. Spanish may become more sought after in general education contexts, while German & French continue strong in vocational tracks—so the language-profession market will reflect these divides.
6. One concern: high uptake of English may mean that the “one foreign language” effect persists (i.e., pupils stop at English and don’t proceed to second languages). And for true multilingual competence—one of the aims of EU policy—this may be limiting.
7. Finally, the data highlight the tension between policy and practice: while the EU often promotes multilingualism as a value (e.g., “mother tongue + two other languages”), in practice many pupils study just one. The discrepancy between ideal and reality remains large.

• Do you think the near-universal study of English in EU schools is a strength (global connectivity) or a weakness (monolingual trap)?
• Considering the rise of Spanish in general education, what professional or educational opportunities do you foresee emerging in your region because of this?
• Which foreign language(s) would you prioritise if you were designing a secondary-school curriculum in your country — and why (labour market, culture, mobility, identity)?
• How might vocational education’s different language patterns (German/French strong, Spanish weaker) shape students’ future career and mobility prospects across Europe?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/28/spanish-minority-language-question-echoes-across-europe (euronews)

Published on 28 May 2025, the article highlights how Spain’s continuing push for three of its regional languages, Catalan, Galician and Basque, to be recognised as official languages at EU level sparked a broader conversation across Europe about minority and regional language recognition. Spain failed to secure unanimous support from all EU member states for such recognition, as fears of precedent-setting, cost and administrative implications loom. The piece reminds us that across Europe there are between 40 and 50 million speakers of some 60 regional and minority languages, yet only a few have official status at national level, and even fewer at the EU level. (euronews)

This article carries important implications for multilingualism, identity and institutional policy in Europe. A few reflections:

• The recognition of regional/minority languages at supra-national level is not just symbolic: it’s about equality, identity, access, representation. Spain’s efforts show that even widely spoken regional languages (millions of speakers) still face institutional resistance.
• The administrative & financial costs matter. The article points out how translation, interpretation and legal frameworks for official EU-language status are non-trivial. When member states hesitate, it is often because the ripple-effects extend to resources and precedent.
• For professionals in translation, localisation and multilingual education: this means that the potential market for languages like Catalan, Basque and Galician remains highly contingent on institutional decisions. If they gain recognition, we might see more demand for terminologies, translation tools, digital language services. If not, the status quo remains.
• From a broader European viewpoint: the article suggests that minority languages across Europe are watching. Spain’s case may serve as a test or signal for other regions. The question “if Spain succeeds, can we?” is live in many countries.
• There is a paradox: Europe promotes linguistic diversity as a value, yet institutional mechanisms (unanimity, cost burdens, translation infrastructure) slow down the implementation. The gap between rhetorical commitment and administrative rollout remains large.

1. What do you think – should languages like Catalan, Basque or Galician be granted full official status in the EU? Why or why not?
2. In your region/country, do you have minority or regional languages that could make a similar case for institutional recognition? What obstacles do they face?
3. How much weight should cost, translation infrastructure and precedent-setting carry when we talk about language recognition at the EU level — compared to identity, speaker-numbers or cultural rights?

Would love to hear your thoughts!

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/12/irish-pm-says-eu-must-challenge-hungarys-outrageous-vetoes-radio-schuman (euronews)

In an interview published on 12 May 2025, the Irish Prime Minister urges the European Union to address what he describes as “unreasonable exploitation” of veto powers by Hungary. (euronews) He argues that persistent vetoes are rendering the EU unworkable, especially when major issues such as enlargement and strategic decisions are blocked by a single state. The article also links Hungary’s position to opposition to Ukraine’s accession and to broader geopolitical consequences.

Though the focus of the article is institutional veto power rather than language or multilingualism, it nevertheless connects to our broader interest in European identity, governance and how institutional structures shape multilingual, multicultural Europe. A few relevant angles:

• The EU’s decision-making mechanisms (including language and translation frameworks) depend on the cooperation of member states. If vetoes stall processes, then the multilingual infrastructure of the EU may be stressed: fewer new accessions, fewer funding or development programmes, fewer language-policy innovations.
• The Irish PM’s comment signals that smaller or mid-size member states (like Ireland) are increasingly uneasy about dominance of larger or more obstructive members. In a multilingual Europe, this power asymmetry matters: languages of smaller states may have fewer allies and less institutional leverage.
• From a professional point of view for translation/localisation and multilingual education: stalled EU processes mean fewer opportunities for new languages, fewer expansions of institutional services, possibly less investment in expanding linguistic coverage.
• In terms of identity and politics: language is part of institutional inclusion. When the EU’s ability to welcome new members or agree common positions is blocked, the plurilingual, multi-cultural ideal of Europe is undermined by institutional gridlock.

1. How do you think veto-power gridlock at EU level affects multilingualism, language rights or language-policy developments?
2. Do you believe smaller member states should challenge the veto system in the EU? What would be the consequences for governance and for linguistic/cultural equity?
3. From your region’s perspective, could institutional paralysis in the EU reduce your language’s chances of being supported, recognised or integrated in EU frameworks?

Would love to hear your reflections!

https://www.brusselstimes.com/1464390/europes-language-revolution-more-visible-than-ever (Brussels Times)

Published 28 February 2025, the article argues that Europe is undergoing a “language revolution” unlike any in recent decades. According to the piece, the latest Eurobarometer survey reveals major shifts in Europe’s linguistic landscape: increased mobility, migration, digital connectivity and education are all changing which languages are spoken, how many are spoken, and how multilingual many citizens now are. The article suggests that the traditional view of monolingual nations is giving way to a more complex multilingual reality across Europe. (Brussels Times)

This is a fascinating article for anyone interested in multilingualism, identity and policy in Europe. A few reflections:

• The idea of a “language revolution” is compelling because it situates multilingualism not as a niche topic but as a broad societal transformation — linked to migration, digitalization, education and identity.
• For language policy and education, this implies that multilingual competence is becoming more common, expected and maybe even necessary. It raises the bar for translation, localisations, multilingual digital services and educational design.
• From the perspective of professionalising translation/localisation: if Europe is increasingly linguistically diverse, then the demand for language services, terminologies, multilingual AI, localisation will increase — especially for less-studied languages or mixed repertoires.
• However, transformation doesn’t mean uniform improvement: the article hints at inequalities and diverging linguistic experiences between countries and within countries (e.g., urban vs rural, migrant vs native languages). So we must ask: is the “revolution” equally benefiting all languages and all communities, or just reshuffling which ones are dominant?
• The metaphor of revolution is interesting, because it emphasises speed, scale and break with past models — yet in language policy we often talk about gradual change, maintenance, preservation. So it suggests that we must adopt more dynamic models for language strategy.

– What changes have you observed in your country/region in the last 5-10 years in terms of how many languages people speak, use or learn?
– Do you think Europe is prepared (institutionally, educationally, technologically) for this “language revolution” — or is policy lagging behind practice?
– If you were advising a multilingual-services company or translation/localisation business, what language-skill strategies would you prioritise now given this transformation?

Would love to read how you see the “language revolution” in your context!

(https://www.ft.com/content/1827fca9-256b-4095-a9d9-aabff05b471e)

Published 27 January 2025, the Financial Times piece argues that in the EU’s labyrinthine institutional machinery, there exists a kind of unofficial “25th language” — the language of acronyms. With 24 official languages already recognised in the European Union, the article argues that ministers, officials and translators often grapple not just with multilingual translation and interpretation, but with a dense layer of abbreviations (DG EAC, EEAS, JHA, EMFAF, ERDF, CERV… etc). This acronym-heavy discourse creates an additional barrier to understanding and participation, even for fluent speakers of the official languages. (Financial Times)

Although this piece is framed somewhat wittily, it touches deeply on issues of accessibility, multilingualism and institutional inclusion in Europe. A few reflections:

• The metaphor of an “acronym language” underscores that multilingualism is more than just translating from English to French to German etc. It’s also about navigating institutional culture — if you don’t understand the shorthand, you may be excluded from policy discussions regardless of your language competence.
• From a translation/localisation perspective, this highlights a non-linguistic yet linguistic-adjacent dimension: ensuring that translation is not only of words but of codes, abbreviations, acronyms and institutional jargon. That means translators and localisers need awareness of the “institutional dialect” of the EU as well as language pairs.
• In terms of language policy, the article flags a subtle but important barrier to genuine multilingualism: even if you provide translations in many languages, the structural complexity of the institution (e.g., acronym-rich texts) remains a bottleneck for participation. So policy should not only look at “how many languages” but “how accessible in each language”.
• For professionals and educators working in multilingual EU contexts, this signals that language training must include “institutional literacy” — teaching not only the language, but also the institutional conventions, abbreviations and culture in which the language is used.
• More broadly, for identity and power: the “acronym language” could be seen as a form of elite code, accessible mainly to those inside the EU machinery. This raises questions about democratic multilingualism: if citizens speak an official language but still cannot follow the discourse because of institutional jargon, then linguistic equality is partial.

1. Have you ever experienced difficulty not because the language of a document was foreign to you, but because it was filled with acronyms/jargon you didn’t know? How did that impact your participation or understanding?
2. Do you think translation/localisation in multilingual institutions should explicitly address acronym-jargon decoding (e.g., glossary of abbreviations)? Why or why not?
3. From a language-training perspective: if you were designing a course for students working in EU institutions or localization of EU content, would you include “institutional acronym literacy” as a module? What might it look like?

Looking forward to your reflections — especially if you’ve worked in multilingual institutional settings!