Abstract
Reviewed by: Tamara Scheer, Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Social Science History, Vienna, Austria
In Languages and the Military, the editors provide excellent case studies which raise hitherto undiscussed topics. The articles in the book do not simply stand alone; the editors analyse them and draw overall conclusions. Moreover, this collection is not the only outcome of their research – in 2012 they also published another edited volume together, Languages at War. In my own current field of research – the language question in the Habsburg army during the late nineteenth century up to the end of the empire in 1918 – there is still a lack of analytically-based studies which examine the issue both in the context of the main political questions of the Habsburg monarchy, and in a comparative context vis-à-vis other empires and states. Comparable academic efforts which provide ideas, analysis and suggestions are therefore to be welcomed.
The authors do not only cover fields where language mattered within the military world, they also deal with different regions, although it would have been good to have had examples from other historic multilingual entities such as Russia and the Ottoman Empire. Christopher Tozzi, Sylvie Kleinman, Franziska Heimburger, Justin Lewis, Simona Tobia, Diarmait Mac Giolla Chriost and James Taylor discuss the Anglo- and Francophone environments, while others such as Constandina Charalambous (Cyprus), Pekka Kujamäki (Finland), Louise Askew and Catherine Baker (Bosnia-Herzegovina), Maria Manuela Fernandez Sanchez (Korea), Peter Hare and Nicholas Fletcher (British peacekeeping missions e.g. in Afghanistan and Ethopia), and Petra Svoljsak (Slovene inhabited parts of the Habsburg Monarchy) consider other parts of the world.
The editors successfully contrast ‘real’ historical examples with more recent ones, where the ‘outcomes’ are not yet visible. The contributions bridge the gap between the late eighteenth century (Sylvie Kleinman) and the end of the twentieth century. Although many of them are concerned with historical cases, some authors work in other fields which help make the book interdisciplinary; for example, Linda Fitchett is a professional interpreter for international organizations and brings a perspective of the daily challenges of that work.
A broad range of sources have been used in preparing this volume, including institutional publications and (annual) reports, interviews, parliamentary discussions, documents of state institutions. This breadth makes the book particularly valuable for readers working on similar topics. From my own point of view, the book is useful and inspiring for its treatment of the overall question: to what extent does language matter when it comes to the military? This question impinges on several fields. How should translation be organized in relation to textbooks and instruction, including on-the-spot instruction? Who should be employed as interpreters – technically more competent foreigners or one’s own, less skilled, citizens? How should soldiers be trained in relation to the political goals to be achieved? How should armies communicate with their own multi-ethnic and multilingual soldiers and civilians, whether at home during peacetime, during wars and occupations or current peace-keeping missions – or when cooperating with another army or dealing with prisoners of war?
One important conclusion to draw is that the military and its languages can never be separated from the political framework of a (nation-) state or empire (6). Languages always pose both practical and political challenges – practical challenges for organizing institutions, and political challenges, especially in times of internal crisis and war, when language usage relates to questions of loyalties and identities. Even a practical knowledge of a language is not enough – the culture or cultures of those who speak it have to be taken into account to achieve positive results. Moreover, languages are often labelled either politically (as an enemy or allied language, as languages of loyalty and disloyalty, or as domestic and foreign) or practically (as more or less important languages, languages of command, or as local vernaculars). They may also be separated into standard languages and dialects, constitutionally accepted, unofficially tolerated, neglected or even forbidden (5, 16). The French revolution has often been seen as the starting point of the overall problem, when subjects became citizens with or without the right to use their native language in public or military service. Language has become the primary symbol of national affiliation and therefore a parameter for loyalty and identity in nation-states.