Evaluation Report on the Public Basque Language Office (May 2010)

Four general inspectors from the French State recently presented a very favourable evaluation report on the Public Basque Language Office (OPLB) which they conducted in May of 2010. The Public Basque Language Office is the public structure which has been in charge of the policies in favour of Basque in the Northern Basque Country since the end of 2004 and also initiated a linguistic policy project in 2006.

Although they are not specialists in linguistic policy, these inspectors from the national education, culture and administration have carried out a particularly interesting job. The main objective of the evaluation was to study the adaptation of the OPLB to the tasks they were entrusted (p.12), by means of a general inspection to inform the public powers on future orientations. Recommendations are also made at the OPLB (Table of recommendations, p. 9-10) to guarantee the renewal of the structure in the new 2010-2016 period. The report examines many aspects: the operation of the structure, its status, finances, the participation of its founders, relationships with associations, etc. In this case, we are interested in the linguistic policy carried out by the OPLB.

The 2007-2010 linguistic policy project, A central objective: complete speakers. And a target audience: the young generations, identifies 12 "main challenges" are identified, 12 lines of work. These are shared out between the transmission of the language, the social use and vitality of the language ("strengthening the language"). The inspectors approved the principle of subsidiary put into practice upon seeing that the OPLB does not have the means necessary to work in all fields. According to this principle there will have to be an increase in the number of private agents associated and the network of Basque technicians, especially as support for activities in the sphere of social life (p. 10). The principle allows the great variety of agents to be taken into account and to implicate them in this policy.

Also, the means of the OPLB's activities should be increased to meet the all the challenges and respond to the demands; increase the means of linguistic engineering (p. 9). For that reason the professional team will quickly grow from 8 to 12 members. It is estimated that the objective that the OPLB set in 2006 will not be able to be fulfilled during the new 2010-2016 period. This is not at all surprising. We know. Those who work for minority languages know it: the improvements are never definitive. Great efforts are needed to recover the spheres of use or the functions that the minority language has lost to the dominant language, in our case French. And, if the minority language recovers or wins a field or a function, uninterrupted efforts must be made to conserve them. Advances are never definitive.

The inspectors also stressed that the OPLB's founding public members must mobilize themselves in their fields of competence to work harder in favour of Basque, and not be satisfied with being loyal members of the OPLB and leaving it with that job. They pointed out two lines of action which cannot be solved only at a local level (p. 9). On the one hand, the presence of Basque in public audiovisual media (apart from private radio associations in Basque and the Basque Government's television station, Euskal Telebista, there are few things of this type in Basque): «the insufficient place which Basque occupies in public audiovisual media» (p. 49). On the other hand, there is the education of the territorial agents. The public collectives of the Northern Basque Country contribute to a public organization (CNFPT) so that there agents can receive training throughout their professional career, but it is impossible in Basque. Therefore, the communities which desire it must also pay AEK so that their personnel can receive training in Basque. Of course, these public members of the OPLB (the French State, the region of Aquitaine and the Department of Pyrénées-Atlantiques) have much to do in their field of competence, beyond the two lines of work already indicated, from hospitals to social action through economic aids, since the public sphere is broader in France than in Spain. The inspectors also state that some organisations of the State should acquire certain knowledge on Basque and linguistic policy. In short, they should get more involved and not remain at a distance. These organizations' awareness of the challenges of linguistic policy would be an important aspect to improve (p. 49).

As the OPLB said (see my article), the inspectors emphasize that an equilibrium must be reached between the transmission (mainly by means of education in the Northern Basque Country) and its use; in addition to acting on the transmission of Basque, the OPLB must support the use of the language and not only among the young: «Transmission by means of education has limits and alone cannot guarantee the future of the language» (p. 21). The inspectors say that «the consolidation of use, apart from education, is, without a doubt, the greatest challenge» (p. 7). Of course, in my opinion, this is the main objective of linguistic policy; the first criterion of a language's objective vitality in a concrete linguistic community is its use. For that reason the different age and social groups must participate in one way or another, even if not everyone speaks the language.

Nevertheless, I have found some gaps in the report from a linguistic policy point of view. On page 46, following the supposition of the OPLB, the evaluation informs us that students must reach a competence level high enough so that later they can transmit the language to their children. We know that the current level of competence is not sufficient to be able to transmit the minority language to their children, although it is a sine qua non condition, especially when it has been learnt in school. Some social and psychological conditions must also be met.

On page 60, the inspectors state that the challenge is that those who have learnt Basque have the possibility, and even more, the eagerness to speak it. The objective is not very precise: the where, when and with whom the language is spoken. In this sense, the inspectors have given priority to "good cohabitation" over the "obligation" (p. 60). In some ways, and without expressly saying it, in its implicit vision of linguistic policy, it gives priority to French, the dominant language, since it is necessary while Basque is optional. For example, in schools where Basque immersion is practiced, the ikastolas, students must study French in addition to Basque. This point of view is not surprising for inspectors in the French State.

In any case, as it is, the evaluation report provides the OPLB with very interesting lines of action and strategic thoughts based on an external vision.


Jean-Baptiste Battittu Coyos
Linguist