"Inte antingen eller, utan mycket mer en mosaik av möjligheter" : Svenskan som EU-språk 20 år senare
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Sweden joined the European Union in 1995, and thus, in 2020, has been a member of the union for a quarter of a century. Entering the EU was a major political event in the history of Sweden, and it had consequences for many spheres of society, including linguistic matters. Membership meant that Swedish became one of the official languages of the EU, and hence a part of the union’s large translation and interpreting services. But did that mean that Swedish representatives could use Swedish when working in various EU bodies? And if not – what languages were used instead? Did English suffice, or could only polyglots represent Sweden in the EU? To answer such questions, in 1999 I conducted surveys with Swedish MEPs, with delegates of the Economic and Social Committee and of the Committee of the Regions and finally with civil servants working at the Swedish Government Offices, regarding their use of different languages in various settings. I have now repeated these surveys, in order to see what has happened during the two decades that have passed since I did my first inquiry. Many things have changed in the course of this time, both within Sweden and within the EU, and it is interesting to compare the situation now and then. This time around, I also supplemented the surveys with interviews with translators and interpreters working in various EU bodies in Brussels and Luxemburg. The results show that the use of English has generally increased. This holds for both reading and writing. When speaking, too, the Swedish delegates often employ English. Only in the most formal setting, i.e., the plenaries, is Swedish the most frequently used language. With respect to interpretation, however, I found a small upturn of the delegates’ choosing to listen to Swedish. The increased use of English in most settings in the EU institutions furthermore means that the difference between the politically elected representatives and the civil servants – where my earlier study showed a much higher usage of English in the latter group – has now disappeared. Especially in the interviews with the interpreters, it is suggested that the Swedish delegates today have a more strategic and pragmatic approach to the choice of language and in a more conscious way vary what language to employ according to the situation, as compared to the situation 20 years ago when there was more of an either-or attitude regarding this. The results of the surveys give some support for this, but this question should be investigated further. However, if true, this might be a reflection of a more common societal trend where switching and even mixing languages according to pragmatic considerations has become a less controversial phenomenon.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».