4.5 MEZCLAS BITUMINOSAS EN CALIENTE 4.5.1 Definición

A corpus perspective on the data shows that 61 of 90 co-occurrences of ‘official’ and ‘language*’ are part of discussions about what the official language or languages of the EU are.66 These 61 lines discuss the EU languages with focus on two aspects: first, 44 concordance lines encompass uncontroversial conversations on whether particular languages are official EU languages, e.g. “Latin isn’t an official EU language”, “Turkish is an official language of Cyprus, but not of the EU” and “English isn’t the official language, it’s just the most commonly spoken one”. The latter example already leads to the second and particularly notable usage of ‘official’ as premodifying ‘language*’ – 17 lines are part of threads where Wikipedians focus on the EU’s language policy and the role of English.

English as the official EU language

The majority of these 17 lines are explanations of the EU’s multilingual policy, e.g. “[t]he EU has several official languages in which it conducts its business” and “it’s also possible to address any EU agency in any official language you want”. There is only one thread (encompassing six lines) where this multilingual approach to EU operations is challenged. First, this 2006 thread shows that the Wikipedia community reacts strongly against the claim that English is the official EU language. The thread’s initial statement is “In CBC Canada news on the March of 24 to 26 ask the EU put a Offical Language: Engish !” This ungrammatical and therefore slightly ambiguous statement can be interpreted as an argument from authority – it is at least interpreted as a claim by other Wikipedians as their responses in form of refutations of the claim show: e.g. “No it is not! The EU has 20 official languages, and soon even more” – here, the unhedged objection is emphasised by use of an exclamation mark.

66 _{The remaining lines occur as part of thread headings, give editing information and discuss Wikipedia}

source material or issues relating to EU symbols, e.g. the EU motto or the name of the institution in different languages.

While all responding editors object to the claim of English as the official EU language, one editor argues that English should be the only official EU language: “English should be the official language. We don’t need 20 official languages cos that’s ridiculous.”

Figure 29 English as the official EU language

The warrant hinges on the implicit data that there are indeed 20 official EU languages, i.e. by use of the warrant the poster acknowledges the existence of the EU multilingual policy even if they do not see the need for it or do not appreciate it. In turn, the warrant is backed by personal judgement only, namely of a variety of official languages as “ridiculous”. Moreover, in terms of social actor representation, the use of ‘we’ highlights the in-group status of the poster (as part of the EU) (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, p. 45), which might be intended to elevate the speaker’s expert status as resident/citizen of the EU and hence serve to legitimise the otherwise questionable argumentation.

The subsequent posting also deserves brief attention. Instead of discussing language, it passes judgement on the EU as a whole: “This is the EU we’re talking about. What makes sense has nothing to do with it.” In merely two sentences, the EU as a whole is represented in a less than favourable light: after pointing to the EU as main subject matter, the poster disparages the EU as a whole as irrational, illogical and non-sensible.

The last posting in this 2006 thread refutes the claim that English should be the official EU language and also makes reference to the preceding disadvantageous conception of the EU.

Oh, come on! As much as I would like to see English spreading in Europe, it’s tendentious to say that English alone should be the only official language. Having 20 official languages makes sense and perpetuates equality throughout the union. The initial exclamation can be interpreted as another instance of an editor rather forcefully objecting to the original claim about English as official language. Then, the poster implies

that, on a personal level, they would welcome “English spreading in Europe”. This personal agreement with the desire behind the original claim serves to strengthen the subsequent rebuttal since the poster refutes the claim irrespective of this personal preference. Moreover, the original claim is deemed “tendentious”. Since the NPOV (see 3.2 on Wikipedia policy) is a key goal of Wikipedian, suggesting that a fellow-Wikipedian does not adhere to this policy constitutes a profound challenge. Finally, the poster makes a rather POV statement himself/herself – they claim that the EU’s multiplicity of languages not only actually “makes sense” (and thereby reject the previous idea of ‘EU=irrational’ or at least ‘EU’s language policy=irrational’) and add a broader statement about this policy perpetuating ‘equality’ across the union, without any data to support this claim. Interestingly, the EU is here represented as a spatial entity – “throughout the union” implies that the EU has a geography. This phrasing also implies an understanding of the EU beyond its institutional body but as enveloping the people(s) of the EU. This posting marks the last instance of discussion on whether English should be the official language of the EU.

Generally, EU’s language policy is not particularly controversial and the majority of postings merely focuses on elucidating which languages are official EU languages. The only site of controversy is one thread when English is proposed as the sole official EU language and when the EU’s multilingual policy is ridiculed. However, the thread is concluded with the idea that EU multilingualism promotes equality.

In contrast to this focus on institutional language policy, 6.2.2 predominantly addresses how the Wikipedia community deals with language use amongst the people(s) of the EU and how the Wikipedians address the question of which language is used as a means of communication amongst EU residents.