The language challenge -- facing up to reality

Duration: 8 minutes and 27 seconds

Country: Switzerland

Language: English

License: Public Domain

Genre: Instructional

Producer: DANNIRÃ©alisations - Lausanne

Director: FranÃ§ois RANDIN

Views: 31,933 (3,030 embedded)

Posted by: dannirlsne on Oct 18, 2007

A former UN and WHO translator, who is also a psychologist -- Claude Piron taught for 20 years at the Psychology Department of the University of Geneva - shares his experience of international communication and discusses the international language Esperanto.

Report this video as offensive

Translate and Transcribe

Sign In/Register for dotSUB to translate this video.

Share

Embed Video
Embed normal player
Embed a smaller player
Advanced Embedding Options
Embedding Options

Size:

Language:

Embed Code
Embed transcript
Embed transcript in:
Invite a user to dotSUB

Your invitation to join dotSUB was successful

There was an error inviting that user to dotSUB

Video Transcription

Show in new window

The language challenge by Claude Piron
Facing up to reality
Hello!
I guess I'm being a bit presumptuous in daring to talk to you in English,
a language I always feel as foreign.
But I'm glad I have this opportunity
to testify about my language experience,
and I hope you'll be indulgent if my English
is not up to the standard you expect.
You see, I've worked for international organizations all over the world.
So, I know as an insider how communication works.
As well in large assemblies, as in small expert groups,
or in day-to-day contact with the population.
My approach to the language challenge may be somewhat unusual
in that I've been speaking Esperanto since my teens.
Esperanto is an international language that developed on the basis of a project
launched by a young man in Poland in 1887
and it has spread all over the world.
There are today people who speak it in more than 120 countries.
Mass media, politicians, most linguists and the man on the street ignore it completely!
But it lives and is in daily use in a segment of the world population.
Many people think that the language challenge is met by English,
but this is not true.
Native English speakers make up only 5% of the world population,
and non-natives capable of using it at a good level
represent only 5% more.
In continental Europe, 90% of the population
cannot understand a simple sample of everyday English.
When an average Pole with an average Italian or Korean or Portuguese
try to discuss in English, they'll look like aphasiacs.
As if they had suffered a stroke, and the language center in their brains had been damaged.
They constantly scan their mind for the right word.
Their pronunciation is poor.
They use gestures to make up for the lack of word.
They need a few repetitions to understand,
and very often they simply give up, because the exhaustion
of expressing themselves in a language they don't master is too strenuous.
Yet, they studied English for six or seven years
with four or five hours a week.
English teaching is a terrible waste,
and the reason is not the teaching methods or teachers are inadequate.
It's simply that English is not adapted to the demands of intercultural communication.
I've attended hundreds of international meetings held in English,
hundreds with simultaneous interpretation,
and hundreds in Esperanto.
The only really lively ones, the ones with equal participation of all,
the ones in which people can really be spontaneous
and at ease are the Esperanto one.
The language is so structured, that the form that comes to mind is the right form.
Six months of Esperanto brings you to a communication level
that you haven't yet reached after six years in another language, including English.
Esperanto is really cost-effective,
especially if in cost, you include time and effort.
I've spoken Esperanto with local residents in more than 50 countries,
from Japan to Brazil or the Netherlands to Uzbekistan,
and I've always found it extremely pleasant.
In Esperanto, you can be yourself.
In English, non-natives have to try and imitate a foreign model,
knowing that they'll never succeed perfectly.
The miracle of Esperanto is that you can keep your accent
and your way of forming your sentences,
and yet, everybody understands everybody,
and no one ever feels inferior, ridiculous, or simply foreign.
For instance, to express the idea: "I've learned it really quickly."
People will say according to their origin
and one century of use has proven that these differences
do not impair perfect, mutual understanding.
As a former UN translator, I can testify
that Esperanto is an excellent language for translation.
It's more precise than English,
and thus better suited to legal and scientific texts.
It lends itself very well to humor and to poetry,
and it's particularly good for expressing feelings and emotions,
thus the forms that come up spontaneously
have never to be inhibited by exceptions, complicated grammar,
or the lack of a consistent system of derivation.
In Esperanto, if you know how to say moon,
you don't have to learn lunar.
You form it yourself.
Just as
This possibility of freely combining invaluable elements,
a feature that Esperanto shares with Chinese,
gives you a rich and expressive vocabulary
without imposing too much work to memory.
Since 1985, there hasn't been a single day
without Esperanto being used for an international convention, conference,
or other encounter somewhere in the world.
It is widely used on the net
and there is an Esperanto version of Google, and one of Wikipedia.
A political will to promote it, would cure humankind
of the aphasia from which most of us suffer when we have to interact with foreigners.
Coordinated action by governments
to organize its teaching in all schools of the world,
and the recommendation to adults to devote to it
10 minutes a day for 3 months,
10 minutes, that's less than what you need to do a crossword puzzle or a sudoku,
would start a snowball process, which after a while
would completely change the language panorama of our planet.
Everybody would retain their mother tongues, but have at their disposal
a practical means of communicating with people from any country.
There would be more fairness for all people,
better mutual understanding in all fields,
and a much better use of taxpayer's money.
Economist François Grin has calculated
that if Europe adopted Esperanto, this would mean a saving of
per year, that is an annual saving of
Aren't all these facts worth being seriously considered and acted upon?
I thank you for your attention.