Michele Gazzola

The evaluation of language regimes : theory and application to multilingual patent organisations

Building on existing analytical frameworks, this book provides a new methodology allowing different language policies in international multilingual organisations (or “language regimes”) to be compared and evaluated on the basis of criteria such as efficiency and fairness. It explains step-by-step how to organise the evaluation of language regimes and how to design and interpret indicators for such evaluation. The second part of this book applies the theoretical framework to the evaluation of the language policy of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) division of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO). Results show that an increase in linguistic diversity of the language regimes of patent organisations can both improve the efficiency of the patent system and lead to a more balanced distribution of costs among countries. This book is a resource for scholars in language policy and planning and for policy-makers in the international and European patent system.

Chapter 17. Assessing efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication: Theory and application through indicators

As shown in several chapters of this book, actors confronted with the need to communicate in a multilingual context use a variety of strategies. These strategies may be more or less directly influenced by the language policies adopted by the public or private sector institutions in which they operate. Such policies may also be extremely diverse. Whether we are referring to actual language practices or explicit language policies, they can prove more or less multilingual. Assessing the relative merits of “more” or “less” multilingual practices and policies presupposes that we have a set of criteria which we can use as a basis for comparing them with each other. This chapter is devoted to the development of such criteria on the basis of the core principles of policy analysis, as it is applied to a host of other questions ranging from education planning to the provision of health services and environmental protection. We first show how the standard criteria of efficiency and fairness can be constructed and used with reference to language. We then infer from this analytical framework a matrix for the generation of a system of indicators of efficiency and fairness in multilingual communication. Examples of indicators, which can be “populated” with data, are provided in the appendix.

Multilingual communication for whom? Language policy and fairness in the European Union

This article compares the effectiveness and the fairness of four alternative policies aimed at managing multilingual communication in the European Union. The current multilingual regime, based on the formal equality among the official languages of the European Union Member States disenfranchises only a small percentage of residents. On the contrary, an English-only language policy would exclude 45% to 79% of adult residents in the 25 countries for which data are available, depending on the indicator used. A language regime based on English, French and German would disenfranchise 26% to 49% of residents, whereas a regime based on six languages would bring the shares of the excluded population down to 9–18%. In addition, results show that economically and socially disadvantaged individuals are less likely to speak languages other than their own native tongue, and therefore they are much more likely to be adversely affected if the European Union stops using their language. The current full multilingual policy of the European Union based on translation and interpreting not only is (and will be for the foreseeable future) the most effective language policy among the alternatives examined; it is also the only one that is truly inclusive at a relatively reasonable cost. The British withdrawal from the European Union is likely to increase rather than decrease the importance of a multilingual language policy.

An Economics Approach to Language Policy and Linguistic Justice

The essay gives an overview of how language planning and language policy can be motivated and analyzed by economic methods. It is discussed what type of value language-related goods possess and what type of goods they are, treating properties like degrees of rivalry, exclusion, and shielding. It is argued that allocation and distribution issues associated with language-related goods provide a justification for language policy and planning.

Language Policy and Innovation. An Evaluation of the Language Regime of the PCT System

This article provides an evaluation of the language policy of the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). It focuses on the reform occurred in 2008, when the Korean language was given the status of a language of publication of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Results show that the 2008 reform entailed an average reduction of at least 54 percent in the costs of access to the PCT procedures for Korean-speaking applicants, and it generated aggregate savings for them of about €24 million between 2009 and 2011. The additional costs borne by the International Bureau of WIPO due to the reform were €2.3 million. The new language policy has led to a more balanced distribution of admission and interaction costs among applicant countries. It is likely that the 2008 reform brought about a transfer of information costs from Korean-speaking countries to English-speaking countries and inventors fluent in English as a second language, but this effect was offset by exogenous factors. Finally, adding the Korean language is likely to have had a positive impact on the cost-effectiveness of the language policy of the International Bureau of WIPO. It is estimated that between 2009 and 2011 the reform increased the number of International patent applications from Korean-speaking applicants by about 21.6 percent, and that the extra fee income collect-ed by the International Bureau after the reform was enough to cover its extra translation costs. Our results suggest that more multilingualism in international organisations can be at the same time more cost-effective and fairer than monolingualism if comprehensive and adequate notions of cost and benefit are used.

Ten Years of EU Support for Regional or Minority Languages: A Financial Assessment

The aims of this paper is to provide an information base that at the service of scholars, language planners, and other users as part of broader, yet systematic assessments of the extent of EU support for small languages. This paper provides a general overview of EU interventions in favour of RMLs, an overview on support measures and figures for the 1994-2000 period, and support measures for the period after 2000 -- namely, after the suspension of the specific budget line for RMLs.

Language Policy and Linguistic Justice in the European Union: The Socio-Economic Effects of Multilingualism

This article addresses the question of the effectiveness and the fairness of the language policy of the European Union, by carrying out a comparative analysis of four alternative language regimes. A monolingual language policy based on English only, a trilingual language regime founded on English, French and German, and finally an oligarchic language policy including six official languages are compared to the status quo, that is, a multilingual language regime based on the formal equality among the official languages of the EU Member States. Using statistical analysis and data provided by Eurostat, this article shows that multilingualism is (and will be for the foreseeable future) by far the most effective language policy for the external communication of the EU. Further, results reveal that a drastic reduction in the number of official and working languages of the EU would have regressive effects among EU citizens, as it would be significantly detrimental to Europeans with a low level of education and income, and to the elderly. The empirical evidence provided in this article supports the claim that a multilingual language policy can contribute to the social cohesion in the EU.