In the words of a Council official,
[EU English] works great, a lot better than proper English. . . . It is a much more simplified version of the language. . . . In reality, it’s not real English, it’s an international convention of words that are used in a certain context and with a certain meaning. A very simplified vocabu-lary, allowing for very rapid communication. . . . I think it’s a very short and crisp form of communication that we’ve developed. . . . We don’t really bother with the things that are unnecessary. . . . It’s a very barbaric use of English, no doubt, but a very predictable one . . . There’s a lot of standardized forms of communication. (#58; my emphases)
The idea that there is a particular kind of English used inside the European Union’s (EU) institutions is not new. Indeed, most people who have spent some time in Brussels’ “EU bubble” would intuit that there is something different about the way people speak English. Similarly, to readers out-side the EU institutions, EU texts often have an unfamiliar and sometimes strange quality. The most obvious aspect of EU English— but not the only one, as this chapter will show— is its vocabulary, a major component of which are terms that are specific to and closely associated with the EU.
Examples include the subsidiarity principle (which prescribes that the EU shall only take action when a given objective cannot be achieved by the member states), the Acquis Communautaire (the complete body of EU law), or comitology (the area of EU secondary legislation, which is enacted under
the executive duties of the Commission). A second category of EU vocabu-lary are words that have a particular meaning in the EU context that differs from their regular usage. Examples are the transposition of EU legislation (the process by which it is implemented in and by the member states) or the cabinet of a Commissioner (their private office or group of personal advisors), which is pronounced the French way (kabinɛ) in the EU institu-tions. The third category of EU vocabulary are words or phrases that are irregular but still intelligible to outsiders, for example the use of “aid” in the plural (“we seek to provide aids to victims of floods and other natural disasters”). Finally, there are terms that are used sufficiently out of order that their meaning is incomprehensible or misleading outside the EU con-text. Examples include the use of “delay” instead of “deadline” (“In order to meet the delay for translation, additional lawyer- linguists are added to the team”), the use of “eventual” instead of “possible” (“to avoid the even-tual imposition of fines, members states shall receive sufficient advance notice”), or the use of “elaborate” instead of “to draft” or “to write some-thing up” (“Additional background information shall be elaborated in due course”). EU English also involves unusual or irregular constructions, such as “with the aim to” (“Provisions are included in the regulation with the aim to reduce emissions from small vehicles”) or when the possessive form is replaced with “of” constructions (“there are major problems with the argument of Mr. Leclerc”).1
EU English has variably been referred to as Eurospeak (Bellier 1997;
McCluskey 2002; McArthur 2003; Phillipson 2003; Magistro 2013), EU language (Robinson 2014b), Eurorhetoric (Koskinen 2008), EU officialese (Creech 2005), an “EU sociolect” (Dollerup 2001), or Bruxellish (Chauden-son 2001). It is also sometimes called “Euro- English” (e.g., Balič 2016a;
Crystal 1999; McArthur 2003), which can cause confusion because that term more commonly denotes the English of nonnative speakers across Europe, as opposed to specifically in the EU and its institutions (Berns 1995; Jenkins, Modiano, and Seidlhofer 2001; Mollin 2006; Seidlhofer 2011). To avoid this confusion, I will use the term “EU English.”
For a similar reason, I refrain from using the term “lingua franca,”
which is frequently used loosely to describe EU English, but its precise meaning does not actually apply in the case of the EU.2 The term “lingua franca” refers to a communicative medium among speakers of different languages (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013, 388), and “English as a lingua franca” (ELF) thus to a communicative medium based on an “‘open source’
code of English” (Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer 2013, 391). However, a lingua franca is more spontaneous, flexible, and unstructured than EU English.
As House (2003, 557) describes, “each combination of interactants seems to negotiate and govern their own variety of lingua franca use.” Similarly, Hülmbauer and Seidlhofer (2013, 390) explain that English as a lingua franca “cannot be pinned down to certain features but has to be flexibly mobilized in ever- changing contexts of linguistic diversity.” When people enter the EU’s institutions, however, they are becoming part of a linguistic environment in which much of this “negotiating of meaning” has already taken place. This makes English language interactions inside the EU insti-tutions quite different from a spontaneous meeting of “a group of tourists in a seaside taverna” (Seidlhofer 2011, 18). Rather than having to establish a common basis for communication in each interaction from scratch, new arrivals in Brussels learn to adhere to the EU English that is already preva-lent inside the institutions, as discussed in more detail below. This does not mean that there is no need to adjust to particular counterparts’ language capacities, which of course can vary widely. Indeed, some of the spontane-ity and flexibilspontane-ity that is associated with lingua franca use does come into play inside the institutions; if there were no such flexibility and adaptation, EU English would not be particularly useful as a communicative medium, after all. For the most part, however, EU English is not “ad hoc”; instead, there is a “locally relevant” linguistic framework in place, including the
“customary conventions” that a lingua franca lacks (see Hülmbauer 2011;
Seidlhofer and Widdowson 2006).
A final point of conceptual and terminological clarification is warranted up front: I am entirely agnostic as to whether EU English constitutes a new variety, form, register, or genre of English, which is a point of contention among some analysts of language use in the EU. Vuorikoski (2005, 231), for example, concludes that speeches in the European Parliament (EP) ple-nary “share features that characterise the EP discourse as a specific genre”;
Bugarski (2009) and Pozzo (2012) consider EU English a “new variety”;
Tosi (2013) describes a “form of international English unmarked by cul-tural specificity”; and Robinson (2014b, 185) maintains that EU English is “its own particular language.” Others question these propositions (e.g., McCluskey 2002; Grzega 2005). Balič, for example, concludes that “a par-ticular variety of English . . . has not been developed within the EU institu-tions to date” (Balič 2016b, 103) and that EU English “must be regarded as EU jargon due to its technical, administrative or legal nature and not as a separate non- standard form of English for EU institutional settings” (Balič 2016a, 131). These conclusions follow neither obviously nor inescapably from her empirical results, however, which highlights one important chal-lenge with the comparison of text corpora to identify a new language vari-ety: there are no agreed upon parameters or criteria of what constitutes a
new “type” of English. As Mollin (2006, 100) puts it, “how different does it have to be to be different?” As a political scientist, I do not have the expertise to confidently take a position in this debate, and I defer to my colleagues in other fields. But whether or not EU English constitutes a new
“type” does not have a particular bearing on my argument or conclusions, because my ambitions are more modest. I merely seek to help establish that participants in EU politics use English in a particular way that enables and facilitates communication within the context of the EU’s core institutions, and what the consequences are of using EU English. Whether or not EU English constitutes a “new variety” or the like is secondary, in this regard, as long as it serves the pragmatic function of providing a common basis for interactions, collaborations, and transactions between EU actors.
This chapter looks closely at the use and characteristics of EU English, which my respondents describe as a standardized language shared by EU actors that is simple, neutral, and utilitarian in the sense that it involves a specialized, technical vocabulary and jargon that reflects the particular needs of its users. It also shows that EU actors, including native speakers, have to adjust to EU English upon arriving in Brussels and highlights the role of language service providers in disseminating EU English. It con-tributes to the limited number of empirical studies focused on identifying features of EU English by analyzing English- language oral interactions between policymakers in the European Parliament concerning one par-ticular legislative proposal. This analysis of spontaneous, natural speech in one of the EU institutions is, to my knowledge, the first of its kind and reveals that EU actors tend to use shorter words and sentences than their counterparts in two native- English legislative chambers. Their speech is, moreover, lexically less rich and lacks complexity: EU actors use English at a seventh- grade reading level on average, compared to the eleventh- grade reading level used by native English lawmakers elsewhere. The analyses also show that EU actors tend to use ideologically neutral language. These findings are notable and instructive, but far from definitive due to impor-tant data limitations; much additional research is warranted to confirm their robustness. Finally, the chapter considers the potential consequences of Brexit for the use of English inside the EU institutions.
Characteristics of EU English
EU English is a key component of the EU’s multilingual regime that develops endogenously in response to the particular needs of participants in EU policymaking, rather than being imposed “from above.” After all,
English (whether the standard or EU kind) is not formally the main work-ing language inside the institutions. Its dominance is, instead, driven by linguistic pragmatism, and this pragmatism is also evident in the endog-enous development of EU English. In a multilingual context, Longman writes, “the temptation will always be to work in the most convenient manner” (Longman 2007, 198), and a simple, utilitarian form of English offers both convenience and efficiency. The endogenous evolution of EU English reflects, first, the reality that for most speakers of EU English the language is foreign. As discussed in chapter 4, the uneven competence of nonnative speakers imposes a simplicity on the language, since a higher- level version of English may exclude some actors and thus stand in the way of effective communication. Second, the competence of the EU in many technical policy areas encourages the formation of a professional EU jargon, much of which is in English (Bellier 2002, 104). Third, nonnative speakers introduce particular words, concepts, and syntax structures that reflect their own languages; the influence of French is particularly notable in this regard. Some such foreign influences are spontaneous and fleeting, while others become more widely adopted over time and even travel across languages inside the institutions. In the short term, foreign influence may simply be experienced as deviations from EU English, which are common-place in the halls of the EU institutions and thus considered acceptable.
Over time, however, such deviations can become integrated into EU Eng-lish (Jenkins, Modiano, and Seidlhofer 2001, 14). Finally, EU EngEng-lish arises out of the need for all language versions of EU legislation to be equally authentic, because certain concepts or expressions may become dominant in EU English not because they are the best “fit” in linguistic terms, but because they translate well into other languages. They may, for example, be less ambiguous than a linguistically more appropriate alternative. Along these lines, Robertson maintains that one reason why “EU texts look and feel odd and unfamiliar to native speakers” is “the way in which legislative texts are constructed” (Robertson 2011, 56), including the harmonization of terms across languages. This harmonization may happen when other languages are “put into the ‘mould’ of the source language text,” but also when the (usually EU English) source text is “bent” to “suit other lan-guages” (Robertson 2012b, 11– 12).
The nature of “EU English” was one of the most common points of discussion in my interviews with a large number of respondents, often without my prompting.3 Some of my respondents’ general descriptions are worth quoting at some length:
I would say that much of the communication in this Parliament is done through a, if you consider the English language as a band-width, it would be a very narrow portion of it that’s being used. So everybody speaks kind of the same English, which avoids up to a cer-tain extent problems and miscommunication, as long as you stay on professional topics, and on familiar topics. But once you go beyond that, the potential for miscommunication becomes much more. . . . It’s neutral, it’s simpler, and yet it’s made up of all this jargon. (#49) I think most of the people in the Commission use this Euro speak, which is a sort of written English that is technical. And because you tend to avoid misunderstanding, we all stick to the same expressions, the same words, and in the end it might be a very small number of words and verbs that we use. That would be a poor language, but at least we know we understand each other when we speak this.
Outside, this language does not exist . . . In the real world it doesn’t work. (#55)
The English that is spoken . . . tends to be a slightly, kind of bastard-ized version. . . . A rather particular form of English emerges, which is not quite, you know, it isn’t actually the English of the native speaker, but it’s perfectly adequate for the purposes for which it’s required. (#78)
One of the most common ways to describe EU English was by empha-sizing that it is not “real,” “normal,” or “British” English, or by highlight-ing the lower quality of the kind of English that is used inside the EU institutions (#41, 43, 51, 55, 56, 62, 66, 68, 70, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82, 83).4 Respondents thus emphasized, for example, that EU English does not have
“the same structure, the same vocabulary, the same meaning” as British English (#83), and that they “are conscious of the fact that it is not true English . . . but it is English that everybody understands” (#66). Indeed, one of the key features of EU English is that it includes systematic devia-tions from standard English that are taken for granted by its users. As one of my respondents put it, “you don’t notice [certain mistakes] as a mistake anymore. . . . You just kind of integrate that as normal speak” (#58). Balič (2016a, 2016b) investigates this proposition in more detail. Her survey of Commission officials asked respondents to indicate if several deviations from standard English identified in corpus- based analyses of EU texts were
acceptable or unacceptable use of English. The goal of the exercise was to establish if there is “a community of speakers who are not only developing and regularly using distinctly non- standard patterns of English but who are, moreover, genuinely and openly accepting them as ‘appropriate’ in their minds” (Balič 2016a, 138– 39). This is an important consideration, because the existence of a community that thinks of itself as speaking a particular variety is viewed by some as more meaningful than the exis-tence of “objectively identifiable linguistic features” (Seidlhofer 2011, 83).
Balič finds that almost all the deviations from standard English are rated as acceptable by both nonnative and native speakers among her respondents, although this finding has to be interpreted with some caution for the lat-ter group because of the small number of native English speakers in her sample (Balič 2016b, 131).
My respondents also emphasized the simplicity of EU English com-pared to regular English (#42, 49, 58, 62, 64, 66, 73, 81, 82), which is of course one of the key features that allows it to serve as a medium of com-munication among nonnative speakers (see also Ban 2009, 2013; Crystal 1999). Is is “simpler . . . more common sense” in the eyes of a national counselor (#62).
[EU English] is basic. . . . It’s not refined. . . . We usually do concen-trate on the substance, so what really counts between us is to under-stand what the others mean. We’re not going to listen so much, pay attention so much to the style, because we aren’t here for the style, we’re here for politics. (#82)
Nobody would venture to using very kind of colorful expressions. If you want to be understood by everyone, you have to speak relatively clearly and slowly. . . . If they want to be influential with everybody, they have to adapt to the way they speak. . . . I suppose it’s a kind of Esperanto type of English. (#64)
If I try to write my reports in Brussels- English, they will be, let’s say, two pages. If I try to write my reports in proper English, I might gain half a page. On the other hand, if I try to write them in any other language, I will gain at least another page. (#58)
Another characteristic of EU English highlighted in my interviews was the more limited vocabulary and specialized jargon it involves (#1, 27, 42,
46, 49, 56, 58, 62, 68, 69, 74, 76, 83). “Certain words mean something dif-ferent than they would in another normal context,” according to a national counselor (#76), in part because “sometimes there are even new words invented” (#62) and also because of the lingering influence of French (#56, 61, 75). One Mertens counselor explained that “you get this mix of English and French. . . . It’s become more or less like a new language. It’s so com-mon that . . . it doesn’t strike you as something strange” (#75). EU English is thus denationalized or acultural (see also Bugarski 2009; Tosi 2013).
Finally, EU English has been described as neutral or homogenized (Roberts 2006; Phillipson 2016), which is, in part, due to its being stan-dardized and shared across nationalities and ideologies. But it also results from the technical nature of much EU legislation, which “imposes certain language,” a former high- ranking Commission official explained (#51, also
#42, 51, 55, 72). The personal staffer of a Member of the EP (MEP) further elaborated this point:
What’s spoken here, the kind of English that’s spoken, . . . it’s a tech-nical language, one must say. It has particular terms that keep com-ing up, so that everybody pictures the same thcom-ing, even when they seem strange to an outsider. . . . This technical language that has developed is very helpful. It is a strange lingua franca that everybody knows how to handle. (#42)
Adjusting to EU English
New arrivals in Brussels do not immediately know how to handle EU English, however. They have to adjust and become familiar with reading, speaking, and writing it. “Brussels- speak takes time” as one interpreter put it (#6, also 39, 51, 55, 58, 62, 70, 81, 83).5 When newcomers first get to Brussels, “they come with an imported language, which restrains their possibility to exchange with the audience”; but very soon, they “develop another language. . . . The first concern for newcomers is to get integrated and to adopt the language style to be accepted by the mainstream; that’s almost a prerequisite,” according to a respondent who spent decades in the Commission (#51).6 What happens if they resist was conveyed by a cur-rent Commission official, who recalled others telling him that “we don’t understand” a new colleague who proved reluctant to change how he spoke (#55). To avoid such problems, “we need to stick to those words because
they’ve already been commonly accepted, so it’s easier to go with those”
(#70). This leads to “textual uniformity” (Tosi 2013, 9) and a standardiza-tion of language in the EU institustandardiza-tions.
For some respondents, adopting EU English happens organically and perhaps even unconsciously,7 while others describe making a deliberate choice. One national counselor from one of member states in central and
For some respondents, adopting EU English happens organically and perhaps even unconsciously,7 while others describe making a deliberate choice. One national counselor from one of member states in central and