Welcome
CHTW_Page_01
LOST FOR WORDS The Need for Languages in UK Diplomacy and Security EX _Page_01
selfology.co/promo
Table of Contents

LOST FOR WORDS

The Need for Languages in UK Diplomacy and Security

Lost for Words

The Need for Languages in UK Diplomacy and Security

November 2013

Steering Group:

Dr. Robin Niblett (Chair) Professor Graham Furniss FBA Professor Clive Holes FBA

Rear Admiral Simon Lister CB, OBE Sir Ivor Roberts KCMG, FCIL

Professor Dame Helen Wallace DBE, CMG, FBA

Authors:

Dr Selina Chen & Anne Breivik

THE BRITISH ACADEMY

10 –11 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH

www.britac.ac.uk

Registered Charity: Number 233176

© The British Academy 2013 Published November 2013

ISBN 978-0-85672-610-1

Designed by Soapbox, www.soapbox.co.uk Printed by DG3

British Academy // Lost for Words  3

Terms of reference

  1. To assess how important languages are in enabling the Government to meet the UK’s public policy objectives in the areas of international relations and security.
  1. To establish how languages are used by the Government in meeting the UK’s public policy objectives in the areas of international relations and security.
  • To examine what arrangements are currently in place to meet the language needs of the relevant organisations, looking at both:
    • the structures in place to meet the immediate and short term requirements of the organisations; and
    • the evidence of a strategic approach to ensuring a sufficient capacity for long term strategically important languages.
  1. To assess the role of HEIs in maintaining the UK’s capacity for strategically important languages.

4

Contents

Foreword                                                                          6

Executive summary                                                            8

Introduction                                                                    14

Part one: Key findings                                                       19

Current Government approach to language capacity              20

Languages for diplomacy and international trade                  20

Languages for national security                                         29

Languages for law enforcement and tackling organised crime  32

Languages for defence                                                    35

Key issues                                                                       42

Language needs and the value of language skills                  42

Early and long term investment strategies                           43

Growing use of native speakers at home and abroad             45

Career progression and incentives                                     47

Cross-departmental collaboration and a strategic approach     47

A comparative perspective from the United States                50

Part two: Sustaining language capacity                               57

The wider context, sustaining language capacity

and expertise in the UK                                                      58

Language learning in schools                                            59

A persistent state of crisis: an overview of

HEI language provision, capacity and trends                        62

HEI contribution to language capacity and expertise

needs for diplomacy, security, and international engagement   65

Key issues                                                                       69

Funding reforms and tuition fees                                        69

Funding lesser-taught and minority language provision           72

Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subject funding           72

Decentralisation and the lack of strategic

co-ordination and planning                                                73

Recommendations                                                           74

5

Conclusion                                                                76

List of abbreviations                                                                78

List of contributors to inquiry                                                                80

About the Steering Group                                                                83

Foreword

Learning and speaking languages has long been a crucial aspect of the British diplomatic tradition: languages are a critical tool through which UK diplomats and external-facing staff in other government depart- ments can deepen their knowledge and build the trust that is necessary to promote and protect British values and interests internationally. As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Rt Hon William Hague MP, recently stated: “Diplomacy is the art of under- standing different cultures, and using this understanding to predict and influence behaviour. Speaking the local language is the essential first step in this process.”

In an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, language skills are gaining rather than losing their relevance. The Government needs to develop and demonstrate its understanding of foreign countries, their histories, ambitions, cultures, and political systems in order to drive UK diplomatic excellence and maintain national security.

Twenty-seven years ago, the Parker Report, Speaking for the Future, highlighted the need for Britain to maintain high quality centres of language teaching so that employees of British Government services, NGOs, media outlets and businesses would be equipped with sufficient cultural and linguistic expertise to interact successfully with foreign part- ners. This British Academy report, Lost for Words, is a first step towards understanding the current level of foreign language capacity among the departments and agencies that constitute the front line of UK diplomacy and security.

The report showcases some encouraging developments – both within government and language education – to ensure we have the linguistic capacity to maintain an influential voice on a global stage. The report also demonstrates, however, persistent deficits in foreign language skills that threaten our future capacity for influence. And it reveals the challenges that prevent the government and higher education institu- tions from bridging the language supply system to the diplomatic and security front line. The report concludes that there is much more to be done. If steps are not taken to reverse the current declining trend in language skills, Britain may indeed be in danger of becoming ‘lost for words’.

The production of this report required extensive research and review, including input from key users and suppliers of languages in public policy. I would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved in its production for their hard work – particularly the authors, Anne Breivik and Selina Chen. We are very grateful to the several higher education institutions, government representatives and experts for providing us with the evidence for this inquiry. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow members of the Steering Group for their commitment to the project: Sir Ivor Roberts; Professor Clive Holes FBA; Professor Dame Helen Wallace FBA; Professor Graham Furniss FBA and Rear Admiral Simon Lister.

We hope that this report will serve as a useful platform for a thorough review in the near future of the options available to government and the education sector to overcome the challenges we have highlighted and to take up the broad directions for policy that we have offered.

Dr Robin Niblett

Director, Chatham House Chair, Lost for Words Inquiry

Executive summary

  1. The ability to speak a foreign language is a key element in the formation of relationships, mutual cultural understanding, trust and networks that facilitate interaction and cooperation across borders and societies. The radically different landscape of international engagement and security that confronts Britain today means that language skills can no longer be regarded simply as an optional adjunct to those other skills needed by government employees working in outward-facing roles. Economic, technological, geo- political and societal shifts over the last few decades mean that language skills for diplomacy and national security are now needed across a growing number of government departments. This in

turn creates a premium for skills in a range of languages that are considered harder to acquire for speakers whose first language is English. How well-equipped a society and its government are in terms of languages skills should be regarded as a key indicator of how prepared they are to operate effectively within the fast- changing landscape of global engagement.

  1. Traditionally, foreign language skills within government have been viewed as essential for diplomacy, national security and However, the decline in language capacity over the last few years within certain areas of government has raised concern about our future capabilities. If steps are not taken to reverse the current decline in language skills, Britain may be in danger of becoming ‘lost for words’.
  1. The British Academy has longstanding concerns about the growing deficit in language skills within the United Kingdom. To our knowledge, there has never been a systematic review that examines how language capacity within the UK affects the Government’s ability to maintain diplomatic relations and deliver national security and defence. Therefore, this inquiry

focuses on the current standing of foreign language skills within the UK Government. Specifically, it seeks to gain a better understanding of:

  • the Government’s current capacity for foreign languages;
  • how this capacity serves the UK’s public policy objectives in international relations and security; and
  • how the Government’s current and future capacity can be sup- ported by wider language learning.
  1. This report draws on a formal consultation process, extensive desk research and informal interviews with a range of stakeholders.

In providing this preliminary overview, the report paves the way for further research and action, contributing to the case for a sustainable and strategically informed approach to the development and maintenance of language capacity in the UK.

Key findings

5.  Language needs and the value of language skills

  • Every government department and agency consulted for this inquiry acknowledged that language skills have

important benefits in enabling them to meet their objectives. However, government departments do not currently accord language skills the importance that the evidence indicates

is necessary.

  • Many government departments and agencies believe they can currently ‘do the job’ – though perhaps not as well – without language skills. While language skills frequently complement other important skills, and need not be essential in their own right, the rather lukewarm message such a response conveys is that languages are important but optional.
  • There are, however, signs of growing acknowledgement of the need and importance of languages amongst the departments consulted. It is clear that the lack of language skills among British officials and armed forces is both embarrassing and risks putting the UK at a competitive It was also acknowledged that cultural and linguistic skills will become increasingly important in the future. The newly established FCO Language Centre and the Defence School of Languages and Culture are potential beacons of commitment to language learning across government.

6. Early and long term investment strategies

  • Language learning is resource-intensive and it is clear that many departments would ideally want these skills to be acces- sible on demand. The procurement of language skills differs across departments with some, such as the Secret Intelli- gence Agencies, providing long-term investment in language training, while others make extensive use of contractors and interpreters on an ad hoc basis.
  • Some departments have taken steps to conserve and build on their investment in language training, through: maintain- ing databases of language skills, cross-agency skill sharing, retraining and refreshment opportunities, and investment in training and conservation of language-teaching

However, more could be done, and in a more uniform way, to get better value from investment in language training without incurring excessive structural inflexibility.

  • There are significant knock-on effects to the supply chain. Language scholarship is a long-term investment and should therefore not simply be regarded solely as the responsibility of the immediate Rather, the problem needs to be tackled in the round.

7.   Growing use of native speakers

  • It is clear that, across departments, existing language resources could be better utilised. Although there is a gen- eral awareness of the dividends arising from this aspect of multiculturalism, with native speakers used by many depart- ments, not enough is done to encourage or develop the skills of native or heritage speakers at the school The UK has a diverse population that provides a valuable pool of language resources, particularly for languages that are not commonly taught in schools.
  • Greater efforts could be made to reach out to native speakers working elsewhere within the wider Civil Service work- force, encouraging them to feel valued for their skills and

to volunteer information about their spoken languages. An engagement strategy of this kind could enable greater integra-

tion and allow government departments, particularly Home Office agencies, to reach into closed communities, potentially producing positive effects for community engagement and the prevention of terrorism.

8.  Career progression and incentives

  • This inquiry has found that not only are there insufficient incentives to encourage language learning, but there are also, in some cases, longstanding career disincentives to doing so. The perceived stigma attached to language learning remains an issue, despite the existence of various financial incentives to boost its professional profile.
  • Language skills and expertise are currently not an explicit part of the job appraisal process for key government departments. Language skills need to be incorporated into appraisals and job descriptions, as a way of giving recognition to their worth and of ensuring that language skills are afforded greater promi- nence in performance review systems.

9.  Cross-departmental collaboration and a strategic approach

  • The approach to identifying language requirements appears to be decentralised, not very strategically informed, and some- what opaque across the relevant parts of government. There appears to be little co-ordination across government to identify current language needs and no overall strategic approach to enable future needs to be met.
  • It is encouraging, however, that despite differing language needs, pressures on budgets are leading to some forms of increased The FCO’s Language Centre, for exam- ple, provides a significant opportunity for pooling resources, which should be made systematically available to the staff of other government departments and agencies.

10. Sustaining language capacity

  • The report also sets the above findings within the context of the wider infrastructure supporting language learning within schools and universities in the UK. The report concludes that the needs of government departments and agencies are not met by current university Not only is there a general

lack of appreciation and awareness by the departments regard- ing existing expertise within higher education institutions HEIs but, within HEIs themselves, there has been a marked decline in provision of many of the languages which have strategic importance for defence and diplomacy.

  • The fragility of provision for language learning within HEIs cannot be overestimated, and the new funding regime for higher education, introduced in 2012, provides a very different landscape that universities will have to navigate if language studies are to flourish. In the area of lesser-taught or minority languages, student demand is unlikely ever to reach levels that make such provision economically self-sustaining. Declining provision for the study of lesser-taught and minority languages poses a threat to the pool of UK expertise in these areas. However, universities are now exploring different ways to expand their language provision, in some cases by targeting such courses towards vocational ends and expanding joint degree offerings.

Conclusion

  1. The current apathy towards language skills across government and the perception that they may in fact be detrimental to an individual’s career development and advancement are particularly worrying. These concerns need to be addressed through the establishment of clear policies, strong leadership and significant incentives which recognise and support language learning across the board.
  1. It is also clear that the government will not be able to sustain or increase its language capacity without addressing the issue of diminishing supply. Government needs to work closely with all parts of the education system to develop policies that provide a consistent pathway for language learners from primary to tertiary levels. HEIs also need to be engaged to ensure that, where language capacity and expertise in strategically important, lesser- taught minority languages exists, it is supported and maintained.
  1. Ultimately, if no action is taken, language skills within government will continue to erode until there are neither the skills within government nor enough new linguists coming through the education system to rebuild its capacity and meet the security, defence, and diplomacy requirements of the UK. It is clear that these needs can no longer be sustained by individual initiatives within specific sectors. A strategic and consistent policy for languages needs to be developed across government, which addresses the supply, recruitment and development of individuals with language skills.

Main recommendations

  • There needs to be a cross-government strategy for language capac- ity that identifies the language capabilities and requirements of government, and supports the development of these skills.
  • This long-term plan needs to:
    • include a regular audit of language capabilities,
    • identify resource sharing opportunities,
    • provide reports on
  • Government and HEIs need to work together to provide a sustain- able and consistent pathway for language learners and highlight the value of language learning.
  • Language skills should be seen as a highly desirable asset for all government staff and not simply as the preserve of a cadre of lan- guage specialists.
  • Support for vulnerable languages needs to be strengthened, both within HEIs and also through increasing direct strategic connections and partnerships with government.
  • The diverse linguistic resources of the UK’s ethnic communities need to be mobilised, supported, and given public recognition through a certification of competence.

Introduction

Purpose and scope of the inquiry

Traditionally, foreign language skills within government have been viewed as essential for diplomacy, national security and defence. However, the decline in language capacity over the last few years within certain areas of government has raised concern about the UK’s future capabilities. This was highlighted most recently in the case made by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (FAC) for a renewed emphasis on language skills within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) – which warned

that without a more robust approach, the FCO risks not having enough people with the range of skills necessary for key diplomatic positions.1 If steps are not taken therefore to reverse the current decline in language skills, Britain may be in danger of becoming ‘lost for words’.

To date there has not been, to our knowledge, any systematic review of how language capacity within the United Kingdom (UK) affects the pursuit of policy objectives relating to international engagement and security. Through this report, the British Academy aims to provide the first step towards a more comprehensive review, exploring the use of, and demand for, languages within the relevant governmental and key public sector organisations that primarily focus on diplomacy and national security. This inquiry seeks to gain a better understanding of:

  • the current UK Government’s capacity for foreign languages;
  • how well this capacity serves the UK’s public policy objectives in the specific areas of international relations and security; and
 
  
  • how wider language learning contributes to the Government’s current and future capacity.

In providing this preliminary overview, the report will contribute to the case for a sustainable and strategically informed approach to the devel- opment and maintenance of language capacity in the UK – including by setting out ways in which UK Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can provide a more effective contribution.

It is our hope that this report can pave the way for further research and action, helping to generate a sustainable and co-ordinated strategic response that has for so long been lacking in relation to language skills in the areas of diplomacy and national security.

Methodology

The research for this report has been undertaken through a process of both formal consultation and informal interviews, including a consulta- tive forum held under the Chatham House Rule. The organisations that have been consulted include government departments and agencies, HEIs, language training providers, and interested third party experts – such as former government officials, business representatives, cultural organisations, researchers and commentators on international affairs.2 We received 60 consultation responses and held interviews with representatives from 14 organisations and experts, including: the FCO, the Defence Academy, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), and the Secu- rity and Intelligence Agencies (SIA).3 The interviews and consultation responses4 were complemented by extensive desk research drawing on, amongst other sources, parliamentary committee reports and previous major reports on language skills – including the Parker review, the Nuffield Inquiry, the Worton Report, and the British Academy’s own “Languages: State of the Nation” report.5

 
  
  • The Home Office did not formally respond to the consultation
  • The Security and Intelligence Agencies consists of GCHQ, MI5 and
  • The consultation questions and the interview briefing can be found on the Academy’s
  • Sir Peter Parker, Speaking for the future: a review of the requirements for diplomacy and commerce for Asian and African languages and area studies, London: University Grants Committee, 1986, British Academy, Languages: State of the Nation – Demand and Supply of language skills in the UK British Academy Report, February 2013

The importance of language skills for diplomacy, national security, and defence

The advent of new technology, economic globalisation, mobility, and the emergence of new forms of governance, actors, threats, and challenges have resulted in greater complexities in the interconnected- ness between people, places, and cultures. Major geo-political shifts over the last few decades mean that language skills for diplomacy and national security are now needed across a growing range of govern-

ment departments; creating a premium for skills in a range of languages that are considered harder to acquire for speakers whose first language is English.

The proliferation of regional and multilateral institutions over this period, and the rising importance of non-state actors, such as corporations and civil society organisations (so-called ‘track two’ diplomacy), mean that the practice of diplomacy has now become a more multi-faceted and demanding endeavour. At the same time, the globalisation of many traditionally domestic issues – the environment, health, trade, and eco- nomic policy – has eroded many of the boundaries between domestic and foreign policy.6

Traditional notions of armed conflict have also undergone major changes. Today, ethnic and regional conflicts usually have repercussions beyond their borders. Recent experiences of military interventions have also shown just how vital local engagement is to military success, and how challenging the task of post-conflict reconstruction can be. The national security agenda now encompasses a wider remit of post-con- flict peace building, as well as conflict prevention, involving the MOD, Department for International Development (DFID), as well as the FCO.

The post-9/11 era has transformed conventional notions of non-state threats to national security. As a result of the communication revolu- tion – made possible by advances in new technology and greater international mobility – there has been a diversification of the threats posed by terrorism, cybercrime, and organised crime, with networks becoming transnational. The expanded remit and resources devoted to the SIA, the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) and Home Office (HO) reflect the growing significance of these threats, and the need for

 
  
  • An example of this is the growing importance the FCO attaches to objectives in the areas of energy and the promotion of trade.

 

new approaches and skills to be developed to counter them. Greater international collaboration and overseas operations are now essential to counter the global nature of threats posed by terrorism and organ- ised crime.

The radically different landscape of international engagement and secu- rity that confronts Britain today means that language skills can no longer be regarded simply as an optional adjunct to those other skills needed by government employees working in outward-facing roles. There is a need and a market both for those who have specialist degrees in lan- guages and those with language competences however and wherever acquired. How well-equipped a society and its government are in terms of languages skills should be regarded as a key indicator of how pre- pared they are to operate effectively within the fast-changing landscape of global engagement.7 The report concludes with recommendations on how language skills within government departments and agencies can be better developed, and how a more strategic approach towards invest- ment in future language capacity involving UK HEIs might evolve.

Part one of this report sets out the inquiry’s findings on how well- equipped government departments and agencies are with regard to language skills in the key policy areas of diplomacy, national security, law enforcement,8 and defence. Drawing on the consultations, the report examines changes in language needs within each area, cur- rent practices for identifying language needs, and approaches to the provision of and investment in language skills across relevant parts of

government. The report shows that, currently, government departments do not accord language skills the importance that the evidence indicates is necessary, and display a degree of inconsistency and an ad hoc approach to the provision and maintenance of these skills.

Part two sets out the report’s findings on the state of the wider infra- structure supporting language learning within schools and universities in the UK, and its impact on, and connections with, the language needs of government. A key finding of the report is that the needs of government departments and agencies are not met by current university provision.

 
  
  • Some of these issues will be further explored in a forthcoming British Academy report in 2014 on the UK’s soft power assets.
  • By the end of October 2013, Member States are meant to be in compliance with the Direc-

tive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 on the right to interpreta- tion and translation in criminal proceedings, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:201 0:280:0001:0007:en:PDF.

 

Not only is there a general lack of appreciation and awareness by the departments regarding existing expertise within HEIs but, within HEIs themselves, there has been a marked decline in provision of many

of the languages which have strategic importance for defence and diplomacy.

The report concludes with recommendations on how language skills within government departments and agencies can be better developed, and how a more strategic approach towards investment in future language capacity involving UK HEIs might evolve.

Part one: Key findings

Current Government approaches to language capacity

Languages for diplomacy and international trade

The ability to speak a foreign language is a key element in the formation of relationships, mutual cultural understanding, trust, and networks

that facilitate interaction and cooperation across borders and societies.9 As such, language skills have traditionally played an important role

in facilitating the core objectives of diplomats in communicating and representing their governments.

With Britain’s military and economic influence on the wane since decolonisation, and the re-balancing of economic and political power away from the West, the value of languages and cultural awareness for successful relationship-building and influence cannot be overstated.

Despite this, the Government has not yet developed a consistent approach to ensure that its linguistic resources are adequate for responding to these major changes. Commercial diplomacy to promote trade is now a key focus of the UK’s foreign policy and the recently pub- lished International Defence Engagement Strategy – a joint MOD and FCO document – highlights the contribution that the non-operational work of the defence sector makes to the promotion of the UK’s influ- ence across the world.10 Yet, despite the growing demand for language skills, there has been a worrying decline, within both wider society

 
  
  • Studies have shown the importance of cultural sensitivity, understanding nuances and local contexts to successful mediation and influence, which can make a decisive difference to Raymond Cohen, Negotiating Across Cultures: Communication Obstacles in International Diplomacy, (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1991)
  • Ministry of Defence: International Defence Engagement Strategy, 13 Feb, 2013 gov.uk/govern- ment/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/73171/defence_engagement_strategy.pdf

and government, in language capacity and in training provision within specific departments.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Geographical expertise and foreign language skills have long been regarded as the hallmarks of the highly esteemed British diplomatic service. Yet in recent decades, these skills were de-prioritised within the FCO, as a result of diminished resources and a reorientation towards managerialism and the development of generic skills.11 Specifically,

the closure of the Language Centre in 2007 marked the low point of what had been a gradual decline in language skills amongst diplomats. According to evidence submitted to the FAC in 2011, many key FCO positions were no longer filled by personnel who spoke the local language.12 In April 2012, figures provided in response to a Parliamen- tary Question by Stephen Barclay MP showed that only 48 out of a total number of 1900 diplomats were in receipt of extra remuneration

because they are fluent in the language of their host country; while over 90% of diplomats received no extra money, indicating that they did not have GCSE equivalent language qualifications for their host country.13

The decline in language skills is especially noticeable for languages that are considered ‘hard to learn’, such as Arabic, Mandarin, and Korean.

Inadequate knowledge of Arabic has, for example, been suggested as a reason for the FCO’s failure to appreciate the significance of the developments leading to the ‘Arab Spring’.14 In 2010, it was reported that of the 161 British diplomats in Afghanistan, just three spoke Dari or Pashto with any degree of fluency.15 Nearer home, Britain’s ability to be influential within the European Union (EU) has not been helped by a disproportionately low number of British officials in the European Commission. A recent FAC report stressed that the UK’s share of the

EU population is 12.5% but UK presence among European Commission

 
  

staff has fallen from 4.8% in 2010 to 4.3% in June 2013. One reason that was cited in evidence, and subsequently acknowledged as the “largest barrier” by Baroness Warsi, Senior Minister of State for the FCO in Parliament, was a lack of suitable candidates able to meet the language requirements.16

There have, however, been recent significant developments that are seeking to address these deficiencies. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, William Hague, has pledged to reverse this decline through the ‘Diplomatic Excellence’ initiative which was launched in 2011. In the FCO, building up language capability is part of its wider ‘Diplomatic Excellence’ initiative to become the best Diplomatic Service in the world. It is explicitly acknowledged that British Diplomats will con- tinue to achieve wider access, deeper understanding and greater insight wherever they are posted when they speak and understand the local language. The aim of this initiative is to ensure that FCO diplomats have “an unrivalled knowledge among diplomats of the history, culture, geogra- phy and politics of the countries they are posted to, and to speak the local languages”.17 In addition, the ‘Diplomatic Excellence’ initiative supports

the FCO’s ‘Network Shift’ strategy: the FCO is currently expanding its dip- lomatic network across the world through investments in new offices and additional staff in emerging powers and growing economies. The FCO has stated that by 2015 it will have opened or upgraded up to 20 posts and deployed around 300 extra staff in more than 20 countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa. 14 posts have been opened or upgraded so far. The expansion of staff will entail greater reliance on the use of locally-engaged staff, and is expected to reach 70% of all overseas staff by 2015.18

The FCO’s language capability is underpinned by a global network of speaker slots (roles where the ability to communicate effectively in the local language is considered essential). Speaker slots include all Head of Post positions in the vast majority of non-English speaking countries and a wide range of political, commercial, and consular roles in Embassies overseas and Research Analysts in London.

 
  

Col 882

  • Rt Hon William Hague Foreign Secretary speech on diplomatic tradecraft, 17th October 2013, gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-speech-on-diplomatic-tradecraft
  • This will however, be at the expense of junior postings for British staff. Foreign Affairs Committee Fifth Report: FCO Performance and Finances 2011–12 House of Commons, Paras 40–52, publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/690/69009.htm

Before filling a speaker slot role, staff are required to undertake a period of full-time language training (either to refresh existing skills or learn a new language) in the UK and then immersion training in the relevant country. The re-opening of a Language Centre in the FCO’s main building by the Foreign Secretary in September 2013, provided a renewed focus and investment in language ability as a core diplomatic skill. In the Foreign Secretary’s words:

“We need more skilled diplomats on the ground in the places that matter, who are able to get under the skin of those countries, who are immersed in their language, culture, politics and history and who have access to decision-makers and can tap into informal networks of influence.”19

The new Language Centre is a state-of-the-art facility with 40 classrooms offering full, part-time and specialist training including a multi-media centre offering access to thousands of books and online material supporting over eighty languages.

Many stakeholders consulted for the purpose of this inquiry stressed the importance of the significant goodwill and positive perceptions cre- ated when an ambassador displays fluency in the local language. Sir Ivor Roberts, a former British ambassador to Yugoslavia, Italy, and Ireland, said that no envoy could do the job properly without speaking the local language:

“Your job is to represent Britain directly and not simply to filter your message through the foreign ministry or a national capital. Direct engagement through TV and radio is an essential part of your job. If you can’t give interviews in a foreign language, then you’re not able to do that”. 20

Despite several interviewees emphasising that UK diplomats who speak foreign languages usually do so to a high level, and the fact that FCO is ranked as a top performer amongst foreign services in its own internal benchmarking exercise, the FCO is unusual amongst English-

 
  

speaking foreign ministries in requiring neither a second language skill nor a language aptitude test as part of the recruitment process. The language skills of its intake, by its own admission, are below those of other comparable foreign ministries.

New entrants are required to take a Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT) shortly after they enter the diplomatic service, which is designed to provide a measure of an individual’s ability to learn a foreign language. MLAT scores (or qualifications) can then be taken into account when deciding on who should be recruited for a particular speaker position in an overseas post.

In the course of interviews, the FCO’s expressed view was that lan- guages were fundamental to its work and that language skills enabled diplomats to do their job better. Although much of the Department’s work could be done without language skills, they would enhance the quality of that work.

When the question was raised as part of this inquiry as to whether the FCO would consider making language skills mandatory (either at entry or in the course of a career), there was strong resistance for fear of deter- ring those who have other highly-developed diplomatic skills and would otherwise make excellent diplomats. The view was that the ability to recruit and train only the best would be artificially constrained if the FCO were able to pick only from the pool of the linguistically gifted or inclined.

FCO representatives also noted that a language requirement at entry is highly likely to have an adverse impact on the Department’s ability to

improve the socio-economic diversity of its intake, in light of the fact that state school pupils are far less likely to study languages than those from private schools. Instead, they are now considering a post-entry language requirement where staff are expected to reach a level of foreign lan- guage proficiency within five years of joining the service, not unlike the American approach detailed later in the report. To reach out to graduates, the FCO offers summer placements on its Future Talent Scheme (FTS) for a limited number of undergraduates who are studying a ‘hard lan- guage’ as a means of attracting applicants with critical language skills.21

While the FCO offers a language allowance for serving diplomats, the amount available has been substantially reduced. Language allowances

 
  

are paid to all officers in ‘speaker slots’ overseas who have passed within the last five years the appropriate examinations at the target levels set out in their job specifications. To encourage officers to main- tain their language skills, particularly in priority languages during their ‘home postings’, language allowances are also paid to officers in the UK who have re-qualified in hard’ languages such as Mandarin, Arabic or Russian. The FCO is currently reviewing its language allowances policy as part of wider work to strengthen language capability and is likely to place even more focus on those officers who to maintain their skills

in-between postings.

The FCO’s current criteria for job appraisal and promotion also do not feature any mention of language skills; a fact which led the FAC to conclude that the course being taken by the FCO is “somewhat at odds with the tone of speeches by the Foreign Secretary”, which spoke of the need to create a culture and a community where cultural knowledge and language skills were valued and expected.22 The FCO is, however, starting to address these issues. To support the implementation of the Diplomatic Excellence initiative, a Diplomatic Curriculum is being devel- oped. The Curriculum will reflect general civil service competencies, but will also be supplemented with more aspects that relate these to skills specific to diplomacy, including language skills. At the time of writing, the FCO has not yet decided whether the framework will be enforced or advisory.

The FCO has taken steps to improve the Department’s management information system which will enable it to better coordinate the skills cadre, and to track and pinpoint language skills that can be matched with needs. The consultations revealed that the overall information on available language resources has consequently much improved from two years ago. The FCO is also initiating a talent management system aimed at identifying linguistically-capable staff with potential, to offer them additional support and guidance as part of their professional skills and career development.

In the course of the inquiry, a prevailing view was that the current decentralised job appointment structures in the FCO means that those applying for a speaker slot (particularly with a harder-to-learn language)

 
  

may feel disadvantaged in the “promotion stakes”, due to having to invest the extra time in language learning. Some diplomats expressed concerns about being viewed as too “niche” if they spend long periods in a particular part of the world.23 To address this issue, the FCO has brought final decision-making about postings back to the centre. While the head of mission makes a recommendation, post-interview, regard- ing the appointment, the final decision now rests with an appointments board in London. This gives the FCO in London the ability to ensure a more strategic allocation of staff with valuable language skills and a stronger ability to plan for future allocation and provision.

The new FCO Language Centre

Given the impact that the closure of the FCO’s Language Centre had on language skills in 2007, the decision to reinstate it is a very welcome one, particularly in the light of the planned expansions of posts in

Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Respondents to the inquiry expressed serious concerns regarding the loss of expertise with the closure of the old centre, including the loss of teaching staff, who had years of experience of teaching languages in a way that addressed the specific needs of diplomats. The new Centre provides training for up to 1000

students, offers language training to other Whitehall staff, and refresher courses at lunchtime and after work to maintain and refresh the lan- guage skills of London-based staff. However, it will operate in a rather different way from the old one. In place of in-house staff, language training is outsourced to a single external provider. Some interviewees raised concerns about quality assurance and security of supply when contracting out provision in this way. The concern with streamlining provision through a single provider, as recent experience elsewhere in government has shown, is that the most effective staff may no longer be willing to work for providers on the terms offered. In light of the negative experience of the Ministry of Justice’s recent single provider contract with translators and interpreters, the need to monitor closely the effec- tiveness of the contracted provider to ensure that performance is not unduly compromised on grounds of cost would appear to be paramount.

By locating the Centre at the heart of its building in central London, the FCO aims to build a community of learners in its midst. In addition to full time language training, it will also be able to facilitate continuing non-job

 
  

specific language training through lunchtime and after-work classes and informal language exchanges. The challenge for the FCO remains to ensure that the impact of the Centre is felt outside its 40 classrooms so it can contribute to a culture of language learning across the Depart- ment and more widely across government.

Locally engaged staff

Another significant way in which the FCO is boosting its language capacity in missions around the world is through the growing use of locally engaged staff. Staff recruited locally currently account for 66% of the FCO’s workforce, although the FAC noted that the actual percent- age, when expressed as a proportion of FCO staff working overseas, is

82.5%.24 Recruiting local staff is regarded as an affordable and quick way to ‘buy in expertise’, including language expertise, and is a widespread practice elsewhere in government, e.g. DFID and UKTI. As local staff

is employed on terms and conditions different from those of regular FCO staff, this trend is expected to continue since pressure on budgets remains acute. The FCO regularly reviews its ‘speaker slot’ footprint to ensure it is aligned to its foreign policy priorities and business needs.

For example, in support of its wider Network Shift strategy, once staff currently in training are in place, the FCO will have increased the number of speaker slots in Arabic and Mandarin by 40%, and Latin American Spanish and Portuguese by 20% from 2010 levels. To help

staff reach the required levels, the FCO has also recently implemented longer training times for those studying hard languages. Three-quarters of the FCO’s language training supports six core languages of Arabic, Mandarin, Russian, French, German and Spanish. Geographical policy departments covering countries that speak these languages encourage staff to join specific ‘cadres’ that promote them and the posts overseas where they are required. Once staff are qualified in a particular language they are encouraged to keep it fresh and use it for more than one post- ing during their career.

Whilst the use of locally engaged and contracted-out staff has a strong and understandably appealing economic rationale, given budgetary constraints, there are dangers from an overreliance on buying in outside skills. This may lead to an under-investment in domestic language capac- ity. Consequently, it is imperative that the FCO monitors the way that this trend impacts on language capacity and developmental opportuni-

 
  
  • Foreign Affairs Committee Fifth Report: FCO performances and finances 2011–12 House of Commons 19th March 2013, paras 41

ties for permanent UK staff, who may, as a result, be losing out in terms of early development and valuable experience and exposure.

International trade, investment and development

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), whose responsibilities cover trade, science and business, has an ongoing and regular need for language skills in some of its units. For example, the Europe, Trade and International sub-directorate deals with trade policy and its officials are required to understand dossiers prepared by mem- ber countries in their languages. Some posts therefore have language requirements and/or provide language training. Around 80% of those working within these posts are graduates who studied languages at university or acquired one through prior work experience.

The promotion of UK trade interests – promoting exports and encourag- ing inward investment – falls to UK Trade and Investment (UKTI), which brings together the work of the FCO and BIS. A considerable propor- tion of UKTI staff are based overseas and around 80% of these are local hires.25 Some of the UK’s overseas postings come with language requirements as part of the recruitment criteria. There is a limited

budget for language training, which is insufficient to train someone from scratch. Hence some 80% of UK international post-holders are people who have studied a language at university or acquired language skills through prior work experience. UKTI draws its staff from both BIS and FCO and is dependent upon the prior recruitment processes operat-

ing in these departments. The new FCO Language Centre will provide additional training resources for UKTI staff.

DFID, which also has a need for language skills for their work across 28 different countries, differs from most other government departments in that most of their advisers working abroad are highly specialised and externally recruited. Language needs and training are assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the country and the individual. The new FCO Language Centre is expected to become the main language training provider for DFID.

 
  
  • UK Trade & Investment, Annual Report and Accounts 2012–13 p 32, June 2013 London: The Stationery Office

Languages for national security

The rise of international terrorist threats post-9/11 and the growth of cyber-terrorism have meant that the intelligence services have had an expanded and ever more important role to play in safeguarding national security. As a result, they have benefited from increased resources over the last decade, with the agencies’ combined budgets almost tripling since 2001.26 Staffing numbers within the Government Communication Headquarters (GCHQ) alone have doubled since 9/11.

The need for advanced specialist language skills has traditionally been strongest within the SIA. GCHQ has long been the biggest employer of graduate linguists and has around 250 linguists covering a wide range of languages, who make up around 10% of its staff.27 MI5 estimates that about 100 of their staff use language skills in the course of their work. In addition to the growing need for greater language capacity, the range of languages sought has changed greatly from Eastern European languages to Mandarin, Farsi, Korean, Somali, West African languages and the many widely divergent regional Arabic dialects.

While the number of linguists employed by the SIA is relatively small, the impact of their work is of critical importance both to the UK Govern- ment and to the population as a whole. As representatives from the SIA stated, “the direction of an investigation can hinge on one phrase”. Therefore languages are essential when the UK is facing a diversifica- tion of threats from overseas.

Graduate linguist recruitment

The recruitment procedure for GCHQ graduate linguists is highly demanding and only a small proportion of applicants who sit the language test are accepted. However, at a time of increased demand for language skills, GCHQ has reported that it struggles to recruit enough high calibre linguists owing to fewer qualified applicants being available. GCHQ has expressed concern at the diminishing number and range of language courses offered by universities, particularly for rarer and more

 
  

esoteric languages.28 To address this linguistic skill shortage, GCHQ has increasingly started to recruit native speakers who do not necessarily have language degrees, but who speak their native language to degree level. GCHQ also re-trains existing staff in languages for which there is a current need.

The SIA have expressed grave concern at the continuing decline in the take-up of languages at schools and universities, and in particular at the steep decline in lesser-taught and minority languages. This has led

GCHQ to launch a schools engagement programme in their surrounding area under which GCHQ linguists go into schools to give taster sessions in rare languages. The programme is aimed at encouraging pupils to study languages for GCSE/A-levels and to consider studying languages at university. GCHQ regularly ensures it has a presence during university recruitment days and tends to target universities with ethnically diverse student intakes to reach those with diverse cultural experience and native language skills.

The SIA have also made clear their disquiet with the impact on the range of languages taught at school as a result of decisions made earlier this year by the Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board (OCR) exam board:29

“We are concerned that there may be a move away from offering qualifications in languages spoken by native speakers, as these qualifications not only allow speakers to develop their reading and writing skills and to learn about the grammatical structure of their language, but also demonstrate the value of having formally recog- nised native language skills. We would also support any initiative to increase the number of languages qualifications which cover native speaker or heritage languages”. 30

 
  
  • Galpin, Richard ”GCHQ teaches ‘future spies’ in schools” 8 March 2011 BBC News website www.bbc. uk/news/education-12675368
  • Whilst the languages studied within schools are predominantly the main modern European languages, there has until now been provision by which other language skills held by native or heritage speakers are rec- ognised and developed. The Asset Language Scheme provided national level accreditation for achievements in 25 different languages and helps motivate and reward language learning. Recent decisions to reform the Asset language scheme by the exam board OCR, however, will drastically reduce the range of languages that will qualify under that scheme.
  • Private

As discussed in Part Two of the report, reforms to the Asset Language Scheme, which aimed to recognise and develop native language skills amongst Britain’s diverse school population, will greatly reduce the range of languages that are examined and taught.

Contract staff

Owing to the kind of language capacity required and the difficulty in recruiting linguists, GCHQ and the other intelligence agencies now make increasing use of native speakers on a contract basis. Contract staff may be security cleared, but have a lower level of clearance than permanent staff. Native speakers who do not meet minimal require- ments by way of nationality/residence may also be brought in to work on individual cases from time to time at short notice. The increasing recruitment of native speakers on a contractual basis reflects the growing need for ‘street’ language skills in intelligence and security operations, particularly for counter-terrorism work.

Staff development

The ongoing investment by the SIA in the language skills of their staff reflects their view that languages are vital to their aims. GCHQ keeps a database of staff with language skills and has adopted a formalised mentoring system whereby new recruits are assigned to a senior linguist who will coach junior staff members to ensure they progress to higher levels of competency in their respective languages. Linguists are offered re-training if new languages are required for which there is

no existing capacity and the process from scratch to degree level takes 18 months of intensive training. Training is normally provided by long- standing external contractors using native speakers as tutors.

One of the benefits highlighted with recruiting non-language degree native speakers is that they are less likely to forget the language if it is not used for a few years, while language graduates will need regular refresher courses. However, it can be difficult to retrain native speakers in a different language, particularly if they have not learnt their mother tongue in a formal education setting. The SIA noted that non-graduate native speakers could benefit from short courses within HEIs to develop their reading, writing, and speaking skills, as well as learning about the grammatical structure of their native language.

Uniquely among the organisations consulted for this report, the SIA appreciated the need, and the difficulty, of ensuring the sustainability of supply and “surge capacity” particularly for rare languages. There

is therefore strong encouragement for senior linguists to take on teaching responsibilities, especially if they speak rare languages. It is worth noting that such development opportunities are not available to contract staff.

Career progression and incentives

Both GCHQ and MI5 incentivise language acquisition by paying their lin- guists a premium, with rare languages attracting the highest premium. However, interviewees reported that language skills and area expertise can present obstacles when it comes to long term career progression and staff retention. The traditional divide between “generalists” and “specialists” within the Civil Service often works to the detriment of specialist roles such as linguists, resulting in restricted opportunities

for upward promotion. Those linguists who “rebrand” as generalists in order to move on to managerial levels will often find themselves in posi- tions where their language skills are not utilised.

The SIA are now collaborating on an integrated approach to recruitment, as well as career progression and retention. Current plans reflect the desired move towards a single recruitment process, with joint vacancy advertisements and one language test across the SIA. This will enable agencies to share staff and allow for movement across agencies, so

as to offer a greater variety of interesting postings. The SIA also offer staff secondment opportunities within the UK, as well as with partner organisations in the United States (US) and Australia.

Languages for law enforcement and tackling organised crime

The blurring of the line between domestic and international govern- ment objectives can be clearly seen in the way that law-enforcement and crime-prevention has taken on global aspects. The Government’s strategy for tackling organised crime states that the international dimen- sions of organised crime are such that it is now viewed as a threat to UK national security.31 Responsibility for tackling serious and organised crime and counter-terrorism fall within the remit of the HO and its agencies, which has led to a demand for language skills within these organizations. While the HO did not formally respond to the consulta- tion, the report explores how languages are used by the Metropolitan

 
  
  • Home Office “Local to Global: Reducing the Risk from Organised Crime,” July 2011 gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/97823/organised-crime-strategy.pdf

Police Service (MPS), as well as in the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which was formally disbanded in October 2013, with its respon- sibilities being taken over by the National Crime Agency.

The MPS is responsible for law enforcement for Greater London which has one of the most ethnically and linguistically diverse populations

in the world. In addition, the MPS is also part of the national security infrastructure as the agency responsible for protecting London and the UK against the threat of terrorism. The MPS’s Counter Terrorism Com- mand (SO15) works closely with MI5 and other security and intelligence agencies to counter terrorist activities.

Following a review in 2008, the MPS identified the need to develop language skills within the force. It began to ask for information on recruits’ cultural awareness and language skills and recently established a language programme which provides language learning to officers across the service. The programme offers training and accreditation at two levels. Level 1 is a one-year course, built around specific policing tasks and mainly targeted at neighbourhood policing, while Level 2 is a longer course which includes formal assessment leading to a nationally accredited qualification and meet the requirements of specialist depart- ments such as SO15. The breadth of languages required by the MPS is matched only by the FCO and is reflected in the range of languages on offer at Level 1: Arabic, Mandarin, Farsi, French, German, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish and Vietnamese.32

To ensure that the language training provides a good return on investment, the MPS requires officers to submit a business case on application to the programme, outlining their requirement, their motiva- tion for learning and providing real examples of how their language will be put to use or how a lack of language knowledge has impacted on the outcomes of their work.

However, within the MPS minority ethnic groups continue to be under- represented, particularly at a senior level. Black and minority ethnic officers make up only 10.5% of the MPS,33 which may help explain the existence of a culture of reluctance amongst some officers to volunteer

 
  
  • Levels offer range from beginner to GCSE level, with a focus on conversational
  • Home Office, Police workforce, England and Wales, 31 March 2013 gov.uk/government/publica- tions/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march-2013/police-workforce-england-and-wales-31-march- 2013#police-officers

information on foreign language skills.34 The lack of diversity, cultural awareness and linguistic skills amongst a force that is responsible for policing a city where over 40% of its population are from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds can form barriers to building crucial relationships and trust with local communities.35 The Assistant Com- missioner for counter terrorism recently acknowledged that the MPS’s effectiveness in relation to counter-terrorism would be improved if “we had more people with certain language skills and were more reflective of London’s communities”. 36

The Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), which became part of the National Crime Agency this year, led on organised crime from 2007– 2012. As crime has become more globalised and criminal organisations operating in the UK are often foreign based, about 4% of SOCA’s staff

is stationed abroad, with the main areas of focus being Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, Africa, and Latin America. About half of the liaison offic- ers undertake language training, and the ability to speak Spanish was deemed essential for SOCA’s work in Latin America. However, for some regions the training is deemed to be too expensive and time-consuming to constitute a good return on investment. Staff were required to serve only two years (with the option of a third year) in a foreign posting and were unlikely to be returned to a previous posting for security reasons. While the aim was for liaison officers to reach a C2 level (operational), only 20% managed to achieved this, with the majority of staff getting to B2 (independent user). A representative from SOCA estimated that it cost the organisation £50,000 to train an officer full-time in Spanish for six months.

For SOCA’s UK based-work, language skills are mainly required for interception work. As with the Metropolitan Police, external interpreters are used extensively and account for a large part of SOCA’s language budget. It is expected that the language requirements and training provi- sions of NCA will remain similar to those of SOCA and the overseas

 
  
  • Home Office, Police Workforce England and Wales, 31 March 2013, published 18 July 2013
  • The Home Affairs Committee recently noted that it had been told that police “sometimes have a limited understanding of issues relating to ethnicity and sexual orientation, which has an impact on public trust in police services.” Home Affairs Committee Third Report: Leadership and Standards in the Police, House of Commons, 26 June 2013, para 191 publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/ cmhaff/67/6708.htm
  • Cressida Dick, “Uncorrected Evidence taken before the Home Affairs Committee: Counter Terrorism” Tuesday 4 June 2013, To be published as HC 231-i publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/ cmhaff/uc231-i/uc23101.htm

network stays in place. A growing focus on cyber crime across govern- ment means that there is an increased interest and requirement for Russian and Mandarin.

Languages for defence

For the British military, cultural knowledge and the ability to com- municate are now accepted as among the most important aspects in meeting the challenges of modern defence operations. As a recent Joint Doctrine Note stated: “The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, and most recently the International Defence Engagement Strategy, emphasise the importance of prevention, defence diplomacy (security cooperation) and the centrality of influence. Language is a critical enabler to each of these aspects”. 37 This is reflected in the MOD response to the consultation which states that: “Defence recognises that its objectives will be more quickly, effectively, efficiently and endur- ingly achieved if overseas activity is conducted in native languages”.

Until recently the British Defence Doctrine was relatively silent on the importance of languages (as opposed to cultural knowledge) and language skills were regarded as the preserve of specialists with a

preference for reliance on interpreters in the field.38 However a recently published Joint Doctrine Note has acknowledged that language capa- bility has not been sufficiently addressed in the past and that current approaches are not adequate for operational needs.39 The mission of the new Defence School of Languages and Culture (DCLC) reflects

the broadening focus on languages within the armed forces: “The Defence Centre for Languages and Culture (DCLC) is responsible for providing English and foreign language training in order to enhance the UK’s Defence and Security capability and to contribute to Defence Diplomacy.”40

 
  
  • Ministry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre) Joint Doctrine Note 1/13 Linguistic Support to Operations, March 2013 gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/180778/20131315-JDN113_Linguistic_Support.pdf
  • Ministry of Defence (Joint Doctrine and Concepts Centre), The Military Contribution to Peace Support Operations Joint Warfare Publication 3–50 (JWP3-50) 2nd Edition, 31st December 2012 s513, pp5–9 gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/43479/JWP350Ed2.pdf
  • Ministry of Defence, Joint Doctrine Note 1/13: “Linguistic Support to Operations “ March 2013
  • Statement on The Defence Centre for Languages and Culture’s website: da.mod.uk/colleges/ cmt/defence-centre-for-languages-and-culture

This change in approach is a direct result of the lessons learnt from the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns, particularly with efforts to combat counter-insurgencies in both countries. The nature of modern warfare means that hard military power is no longer sufficient to achieve outcomes and language capability is a key enabling part of a wider, more multifaceted approach to problem solving. In addition, language skills and cultural knowledge are also now deemed essential for the role of the military in carrying out follow-on peace-keeping work and conflict prevention.

Language expertise is not only important in strategic planning and intelligence monitoring. The ability of military officers and patrols to communicate with local communities during ground operations can help not only with local engagement but might also mean the difference between life and death. Over-reliance on native translators carries significant risks, both for patrols as well as, in some cases, for locals themselves.41 Language needs can be highly specific and exacting; getting the accent or dialect variation wrong can have significant consequences.

In the case of non-combat activities, the work of military attachés, capacity building exercises, and conflict prevention efforts are becom- ing increasingly important. The International Defence Engagement Strategy, a joint MOD and FCO document published in February 2013, highlights defence diplomacy, which is being proposed as a core MOD objective, as a key area of activity in meeting the Government’s objec- tives, including ‘influencing in support of UK national interests’ and ‘building international capacity and will’.42 Language and cultural skills remain central to this work. Ongoing defence diplomacy work in Libya, for example, includes a dedicated post-conflict task of ‘developing

and exploiting cultural understanding in order to exert influence in the extended battle space’.43

In military operations, reliance on civilian local linguists has evident drawbacks and presents moral and security limitations that, as recent

 
  

experience shows, incur huge risks for the locals themselves. Locally employed civilian linguists who have acted as interpreters for British Armed forces in Iraq have been objects of death threats directed at both themselves and their families, and in some instances have been tracked down and killed by Iraqi insurgents.44 As a result several hundred Iraqi interpreters and their families have been resettled in the UK through

the Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme (LESAS) which has now been closed.45 There is also some, though limited, provision for Afghan interpreters.

The MOD is now committed to ensuring a sufficient contingent capac- ity of linguists that can be force-generated when operations require linguistic support. It aims to establish the following:

“To meet high readiness requirements, a limited number of volun- teer regular personnel (from all Services) with existing language skills should follow a conventional career path, but be at variable readiness to support operational planning and initial operational deployments.”

Defence Operational Languages Support Unit (DOLSU)

The Defence Operational Languages Support Unit (DOLSU) is the Training Requirements Authority (TRA) responsible for sustaining and managing operational language capability in support of Joint Opera- tions. DOLSU works with all three services (army, navy and air force) to assess and determine what posts have essential language needs and to what level staff need to be trained. Key posts that require language competence are: defence diplomacy and engagement, defence intel- ligence, military linguists supporting current operations in theatre, capability development roles (e.g. industrial partnerships) and training and liaison roles.

DOLSU maintains a database of all MOD staff with language capabilities and carries out an annual review of requirements which serves as the

 
  

MOD’s main planning and forecasting tool. Once DOLSU has produced a statement of training requirements it works with the training delivery authority, now the Defence School of Languages and Culture (DCLC) to assess how training needs can be best delivered.

Recent changes to language training

The MOD has been experiencing a period of budget cutbacks which first began with the deep reductions in permanent military staffing following the Strategic Defence and Security Review in 2010. As a consequence there has been downward pressure on the provision of language training within the MOD. In 2011, the responsibility for the Defence School of Languages (DSL) located at Beaconsfield was transferred to the Defence Academy.46 Following a review of the DSL, responsibility for language training has been transferred to the Defence Academy, which has now established the Defence School of Languages and Culture (DCLC). This is located at the Defence Academy’s main campus in Shrivenham. In order to preserve built up expertise and continuity,

the majority of DSL teaching staff have been relocated to Shrivenham and continue to be employed on the same terms and conditions

as Burnham lecturers. While training in certain main languages are delivered in-house, training in other languages are outsourced to a commercial provider.

There continues to be pressure to outsource language provision in order to meet demands for cost savings, and the Defence Academy will review the current delivery model after two years. At the moment DCLC is working with the teaching staff to collate, review and formalise course syllabus with the aim of creating an overall defence syllabus

for languages.

DCLC currently provide in-house training in Arabic, French, Spanish and Russian. Dari and Pashto are also provided, although provision for

these languages will reduce as the UK withdraws from Afghanistan. All language trainees acquire a degree of cultural knowledge as part of their language training, which will be greater for defence attachés and cultural specialists. A 4–6 week phase of immersion training is also offered, mainly to defence diplomats and intelligence staff.

 
  
  • About 17,000 armed forces jobs are scheduled to be cut across the MOD, with the result that army numbers are forecast to fall from 101,000 to 82,000 by Ministry of Defense announcement, “Royal Navy and Army redundancy scheme details” 4 April 2011 www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/ DefencePolicyAndBusiness/RoyalNavyAndArmyReleaseRedundancySchemeDetails.htm

DCLC and DOLSU are currently considering if they can make use of the FCO language centre to meet some of their language training needs, although logistical issues of timetabling location, and costs associated with travel, accommodation and the need to conduct military training in parallel may limit the scope for this.

Languages in military operations

The role of the senior military linguist is now regarded as particularly key within the MOD’s approach to ground operations. Military linguists are rank and file soldiers who voluntarily take on the key language role within each major unit, and receive training to that end. Their role is distinct from those of the interpreters and translators, who are largely contract staff, as they have to be both UK nationals and possess significant military skills – i.e. to understand and be able to operate

in a military culture and to respond to high-stress situations. Military linguists act as agents for a principal (e.g. commander) and they need to be competent operators and apply their language skills in real-

life situations.

Most military linguists are trained from scratch, with those having language skills prior to entering the Armed Forces still requiring fur- ther training. The MOD uses the NATO STANAG 6001 scale to assess proficiency and the aim for military linguists is to reach level 3, which is equivalent to professional level.47 After the initial training, military linguists are also required to attend language training up to four weeks a year.

The MOD insists that all military linguists must be volunteers as intrinsic motivation is fundamental to learning languages. However, a key issue that emerged in conversation with the MOD was the existence of

a social stigma attached to language learning. This remains an issue despite the existence of various financial incentives to boost language learning. To encourage the declaration of skills, a basic language award scheme exists in which lump sum payments of £140-£2,300 are made for passing an exam.

 
  
  • However, as speaking and listening are deemed the most important aspects of their operational work, MoD expects military linguists to reach level 3 for these skills, with level 2 for reading and level 1 for This is referred to as a standardised language profile of 3321 Ministry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre) Joint Doctrine Note 1/13 Linguistic Support to Operations, March 2013 www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180778/20131315-JDN113_Linguistic_Support. pdf

A separate scheme for operational languages with qualifications awards between £1,800 and £11,700; less is awarded for requalifica- tion. Linguists in operational languages can also claim daily active use

allowance between £3.60 a day for a level 1 linguist on their first tour, to

£70.50 for a level 4 linguist on his or her fourth tour.48 These generous financial award schemes were put in place to overcome the perception that volunteering for language duties constitutes a career foul, and that language positions are of an inferior status. Due to the extensive nature of language training, a linguist can lose up to two years of operational experience that count towards promotions in the annual reporting cycle. Time spent in language training, which can take up to 18 months, tends not to be taken into consideration in the performance review system which assesses staff performance primarily on their operational experi- ence and how they perform in that field.

Flexible deployment and surge capability

The ability to generate language capacity quickly and flexibility to appro- priate standards is particularly important for defence forces and is a

key objective for MOD. For short term contingency operations, DOLSU relies on its database to identify staff with relevant language skills who can then be deployed at short notice. The creation of a reserve defence linguist pool has been mooted as a way of helping with early deploy- ment needs, that is, in the early stages of an operation that has been strategically committed to, where language training is in place but has not yielded fully-fledged linguists. The distributive training model that has been in use for Dari and Pashto, in which trainers are sent to units to train military personnel to teach others in the unit, is regarded as having worked well and could be replicated for future requirements.

The proposed reserve defence linguist pool may be facilitated by changes to recruitment policy within the Army that seek to boost representation from ethnic minorities. In a widely-reported speech last year, Major General Major Nick Carter said that 25% of forces recruited in 2020 are expected to be from minority ethnic groups as part of the Army 2020 reforms, with clear implications for a widened language pool.49 Co-ordination amongst service units and Defence Civil Service resources is likely to play a bigger role. The MOD is also

 
  
  • Lt Col Justin Lewis RE “Languages at War: A UK Ministry of Defence Perspective” in Footit and M. Kelly, eds, Languages and the Military: Alliances, Occupation and Peacebuilding, Palgrave MacMillan, July 2012
  • Tom Coghlan, “Army fights on the homefront for Muslim recruits” The Times, July 2, 2012 thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3462501.ece

looking at expanding the recruitment base for the Territorial Army to migrant communities that would bring relevant language skills and cultural knowledge, but have not traditionally been open to the army as a formal career path. However, MOD representatives have in conversa- tion acknowledged that certain barriers need to be tackled to overcome reluctance amongst some ethnic minorities to join the Armed Forces.

The MOD’s recent pronouncements on the role of language skills within military operations is a welcome and much-needed signal of their importance. However, it is clear that continuing concerted efforts will be needed to sustain the momentum. Within the context of continuing budget cuts, resourcing will also require innovation, ingenuity, and a strong commitment to change.

Key issues

Language needs and the value of language skills

This inquiry has posed the question of how important languages are considered to be in meeting the UK’s public policy objectives. All of the government departments and agencies consulted for this inquiry acknowledged that language skills have important benefits in enabling them to meet their objectives. The frequency of their use and scale

of their perceived importance, however, varies in accordance with the respective objectives and priorities of the departments. For some agencies, such as those forming the SIA, language skills are deemed to be essential to the delivery of their objectives – while for most of

the others, language skills range from being seen as important but not essential, to being useful in occasional circumstances.

It is clear that the current view on language skills does not send out a sufficiently strong message about their value. Many government departments and agencies believe they can currently ‘do the job’, though perhaps not as well without language skills. While language skills frequently complement other important skills, and need not be

essential in their own right, the rather lukewarm message that emerges from this inquiry is that languages are important but optional. This may explain a sense of indifference to the prior study of languages at school and university, and a benign neglect of the wider language infrastructure that enables these “non-essential” skills to be developed.

The position of Government departments would seem to mirror that of the business world generally, where employers do not stipulate language needs for fear of reducing the pool of applicants, a policy which in turn sends out the signal to students that language learning is not important. So long as languages are perceived as non-essential,

the necessary steps to reverse the current decline in language capacity seem unlikely to occur.

Nevertheless, there do seem to be signs of a growing acknowl- edgement of the need and importance of languages amongst the departments consulted. Many respondents both within and outside government felt that, overall, the language skills of British officials and armed forces were poor, and compared unfavourably with their counterparts abroad. There was a clear sense that this is both embar- rassing and risks putting the UK at a competitive disadvantage as, for

example officials miss out on the less tangible benefits that come with more effective communication and cultural understanding. It was also acknowledged that cultural and linguistic skills will become increasingly important in the future.

It is vital that leadership within each department finds ways to signal more strongly the importance of language skills if the UK is to be equipped in the future with the skills it needs to prosper. Some non- government respondents argued that, if the UK wishes to maintain global influence, a cultural shift is needed to improve language learning to levels that can meet the UK’s requirements. The general expectation should be that language skills are essential if diplomats are to perform to the highest level of professionalism.

Early and long term investment strategies

The procurement of language skills differs across departments with some, such as the SIA, providing long-term investment in language training while others make extensive use of contractors and interpreters on an ad hoc basis. In some cases, such as the MOD, the drawbacks of over-reliance on contracting out to interpreters have become clear.

Apart from the SIA and some parts of the MOD, no agency offers a dedicated career path for linguists, nor is there a specific recruitment strand for graduate linguists in the Civil Service. Therefore, a great deal of language training is from scratch, and supplementary training is often required to ensure that the requisite and appropriate command of the language is reached. In addition, language training is also sometimes provided where it is specific to the operational requirements of the job.

Language learning is resource-intensive and it is understandable that some departments avoid institutional investment, as it runs the per- ceived risk of not being able to deploy staff more flexibly. It is clear that many departments would ideally want skills to be accessible on demand and that it is difficult to justify investing a huge amount of resources on language training. Some departments have taken steps to conserve and build on their investment in language training, through maintaining databases of language skills, cross-agency skill sharing, retraining and refreshment opportunities, and investment in training and conservation of language-teaching expertise. However, more could be done, and in

a more uniform way, to get better value from investment in language training without incurring excessive structural inflexibility. A concern that emerged from the consultations was that the pressure to outsource language teaching would jeopardise the teaching expertise specific to the needs of departments such as the FCO and the MOD that had been built up over many years.

As many have observed, it is not possible to turn language capacity off and on again quickly. Language scholarship is a long-term investment for the individual, for the university system, and for society at large. Invest- ment should therefore not simply be regarded just as the responsibility of the immediate employer but needs to be tackled in the round. One compelling proposition is that on-the-job language training would be

far more efficient and far less costly if the trainee were already skilled in another language, or had prior experience of language learning, as this tends to shorten the process. A government representative from a department with a limited language training budget, noted that some of the best candidates they have had were joint degree holders, stating: “They are often the ones whom I can spend money on to do some pretty quick getting up to speed in Mandarin or Japanese, or some other area language, and also tend to be the ones who are motivated to do it”.50

The Nuffield Inquiry argued that an integrated pathway to language learning from an early age was necessary to bring about a step change in the level of language skills within the UK. This has been supported by evidence that language learning is easier and more effective if under- taken at a young age. It is noteworthy that the US feels hamstrung by its comparative lack of language investment in the wider infrastructure within society, and that more ambitious measures are consequently being adopted across US federal agencies in terms of training provi- sion and requirements. There is growing conviction that early language learning constitutes a form of investment that has not been sufficiently appreciated, and that attention to this stage could help to address many of the difficult decisions that can arise later. There is a strong efficiency case to be made here that a more co-ordinated, long-term approach to language capacity – that reaches into schools and universities – should be put in place.

 
  
  • Private seminar, British Academy forum held under the Chatham House rule, July 2011

 

Growing use of native speakers at home and abroad

The UK has a diverse population that provides a valuable pool of language resources, particularly for languages that are not commonly taught in schools. While there are currently no explicit attempts to recruit native speakers or heritage language speakers to the Civil Service as a whole specifically for their language skills, the SIA is increasingly recruiting native speakers for their language analyst roles. GCHQ now targets universities with ethnically diverse student bodies for their recruitment drives in order to attract native speakers that are non-language graduates, as long as they have degree level competency. The MPS has recognised the need for the workforce to reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of the communities they work with, although it continues to be some way off meeting this objective.

Census data taken in 2011 reveals that 13% or 7.5 million people resident in Britain were born abroad, and that about 7.7% or 4.2 mil- lion people had a main language that was not English.51 The range of languages spoken included, among others, Arabic, Kurdish, Pashto,

Serbo-Croat, Somali, and Tamil, reflecting to a degree the languages increasingly required both by the SIA as well as the FCO and the MOD.52

It is clear that across departments, language resources could be better utilised. Although there is a general awareness of the dividends arising from this aspect of multiculturalism, with native speakers used by many departments, not enough is done to encourage or develop the skills of native or heritage speakers at the school level. However, recent Depart-ment for Education (DfE) policy would appear to allow greater flexibility in the languages curriculum offered by schools. The Statutory Order laid before Parliament on 11 September 2013 coming into force on 1 September 2014 sets out quite clearly the meaning of a ‘foreign lan-

 
  

–language-in-england-and-wales–2011.html#tab-Main-language-in-England-and-Wales

  • Office of National Statistics Main Language by Local Authority. 4 March 2013, ons.gov.uk/ ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/language-in-england-and-wales-2011/rpt—language-in-england-and- wales–2011.html#tab-Main-language-by-local-authority

guage’ and a ‘modern foreign language’ for the purposes of sections 84 (A4) and 84 (4) of the Education Act 2002. It stipulates that any foreign language can be offered as a foundation subject in the National Curricu- lum in Key Stage 2, and any modern foreign language can be offered in Key Stage 3.53 Therefore, schools have the freedom to teach any modern foreign language that meets the needs of their pupils.

Greater efforts could be made to reach out to native speakers working elsewhere within the wider Civil Service workforce, encouraging them to feel valued for their skills and to volunteer information about their spoken languages. If done well, the objective of integrating migrants by encouraging them to speak English should not lead to the devalua- tion of their other language skills. An engagement strategy of this kind could enable greater integration and allow government departments, particularly Home Office (HO) agencies, to reach into closed communi- ties, potentially producing positive effects for community engagement

and the prevention of terrorism. In this regard, the Minister for Policing’s recent remarks that language requirements might form part of the recruitment procedure for police officers is a welcome one.54

One of the benefits highlighted with recruiting native speakers is that they are less likely to forget their language skills if they are not used for a few years, while language graduates may need regular refresher

courses. However, it can be difficult to re-train native speakers in a differ- ent language, particularly if they have not learnt their mother tongue in

a formal education setting. Moreover, the ad hoc and contractual nature of the way that many native speakers are employed means that they do not benefit from further investment in their development as translators or as potential language trainers. If native speakers undertake English language training, or acquire formal language education in their native language, they will be better equipped to carry out their jobs and more able to quickly learn and teach other languages.

 
  

Career progression and incentives

The difficulties in career progression faced by specialist linguists bear similarities to the general issues faced by all specialists within a Civil Service that is oriented towards generalist skills. Non-specialist linguists also find themselves potentially at a disadvantage in the promotion stakes due to the amount of time required for language training. In other cases such as the MOD, the orientation towards military skills leads to lower quality candidates presenting themselves for language training, and given rise to a perception that language positions are of an inferior status.

This situation is compounded by the fact that language skills and exper- tise are currently not an explicit part of the job appraisal process for key government departments, such as the FCO or the MOD. Specialist skills such as languages or area expertise can be a disadvantage, particularly in a time of restructuring, if it means that staff are not widely deployable to other roles.

This review has found that there are not only insufficient incentives to encourage language learning, but that there are also, in some cases, longstanding career disincentives to doing so. Language skills need to be incorporated into appraisals and job descriptions, as a way of giving recognition to their worth; and so it is clear that language skills should be afforded greater prominence in performance review systems. The changes initiated by the FCO in human resource management are very

welcome – but it is increasingly evident that the Department should con- sider making the Diplomatic Curriculum and its accompanying diplomatic skills, which are currently under development, a requirement for future job descriptions and integrate them into the performance review system.

Through the course of this inquiry, conflicting views on the effective- ness of financial incentives to encourage language learning have emerged. It is important that more research is conducted across govern- ment to determine whether financial incentives could have a real impact on language take-up.

Cross-departmental collaboration and a strategic approach

The language priorities of the departments and agencies which were interviewed vary hugely by type and level, but there are also large areas of overlap. In general, the approach to identifying language needs appears to be decentralised, not very strategically informed, and some- what opaque across these parts of government. There appears to be little co-ordination across government to identify language needs and no overall strategic approach to enable future needs to be met.

For these reasons, a more co-ordinated approach to language planning by gathering information on language needs, skills and training provi- sion across government would be extremely beneficial. A regular and consistent audit of language skills, particularly of minority languages, would be invaluable, and could help inform a more strategic approach to developing and sharing language capacity.

In addition, the current language skills deficit could be allayed by adopt- ing a more flexible way of working across government departments, allowing staff with language skills to be seconded for specific projects, such as engaging with hard-to-reach groups and communities in preventive work on terrorism, or criminal behaviour such as child sexual exploitation and trafficking.

There appears to be no cross-governmental body that currently undertakes this kind of active co-ordination. The now defunct cross- departmental group UK Interdepartmental Standing Committee on Languages (UKIDSCOL) provided a useful forum for sharing and feedback, and initiated some work with the Government Skills Agency (GSA) in 2009 on minority languages, but ultimately did not have suf- ficiently senior enough level representation to make much of an impact. It is worth noting that the joint work with the Government Skills Agency (GSA) issued in a valuable overview of cross department language requirements for certain minority languages and proposed a strategic collaboration with HEIs to assure their provision. However, the GSA was disbanded in 2010 and the report’s recommendations were not followed through.

The current locus of collaboration on languages is through a newly formed Cross-Whitehall Languages Focus Group which reports to the International Next Generation Human Resources group. The group brings together representatives from MOD, FCO, SIA, NCA, HMRC and the Metropolitan Police who are now collaborating on adopting a new modern language aptitude test developed by the Centre for Advanced Study of Language (CASL) at the University of Maryland across key government departments. While it is early days, it seems clear that the existence of such a group is much needed and that it possesses huge potential for making a substantial difference to language capacity within government.

It is also encouraging to see that despite differing language needs, the pressure on budgets is leading to some forms of increased collabora- tion. The FCO’s Language Centre provides a significant opportunity for pooling resources, which should be systematically available to enable other government departments and agencies to use the centre for their staff. Thus defence attachés from the MOD will be trained alongside their FCO colleagues; as would officials from, for example, NCA, the HO, DFID or BIS. However, there are accessibility issues for GCHQ and other parts of the MOD due to their geographical location outside of London, which means the extent of their participation may be limited.

5556575859

A Comparative Perspective from the United States

Over the last two decades, especially post-9/11, there has been a significant rise in demand for foreign language skills within the US Government on the grounds of national security. The responses of successive US administrations to these emerging security chal- lenges have required a high-level recognition of the need to develop a strategic approach to filling in language gaps at the federal and the state level for diplomacy, defence and national security.

The US Intelligence Community (IC), composed of sixteen intel- ligence agencies including the FBI, CIA and NSA,55 and the US Department of Defense (DoD) have thus invested in a series of initiatives over the last two decade to improve foreign language capacity. In August 2011, the Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta reaffirmed this commitment in a memorandum to key DoD lead- ers on the importance of language skills, regional expertise and cultural capability for meeting current and future national security needs, stating “Language, regional, and cultural skills are enduring warfighting competencies that are critical to mission readiness in today’s dynamic global environment”.56

The DoD-funded Defense Language and National Security Educa- tion Office (DLNSEO), an office created in 2012 after the merger of the longstanding National Security Education Program (NSEP) and the Defense Language Office,57 oversees policy regarding foreign language, culture and regional expertise for DoD personnel.58 The DLNSEO provides funding for nine educational initiatives to provide professionals with language and cultural skills for employment in the federal government service.59 However, there has been slow

 
  

6061626364

progress in improving DoD’s foreign language capacity: although more than 80% of the language-designated position (LDPs) in its workforce were filled by September 2011, “only 28% of these posi- tions within language requirements were filled with personnel at the required foreign language proficiency level”.60

The IC Foreign Language Program office (FLPO) was established to promote a number of government-funded initiatives to improve language capability of the IC workforce.61 However, there has been little improvement in foreign language capacity across the different IC agencies: a Congressional inquiry held in 2012 showed that just

61% of the US State Department’s ‘language-designated positions’ (LDPs) were held by fully qualified personnel in 2009, rising to 74% in 2012.62

There is a clear lack of a language learning infrastructure as the US university system is not producing enough graduates with language skills to meet national security needs, despite the existence of the Title 6 programmes63 This is also indicated by the US Government’s continued investment in automated translation research, such as the Broad Operational Language Translation Program (BOLT).64 Furthermore, relying on the language skills of native and heritage speakers to fill the short term gap is not a sustainable solution due to the overall demand for foreign language skills, the requirements for literacy and proficiency in English, as well as the high levels of security vetting required for federal employment.

 
  

6566676869

Addressing the lack of a prior learning infrastructure: noteworthy aspects of the US approach

Setting targets and increasing language requirements within careers

While foreign language proficiency is not a requirement of entry into the State Department, a number of measures have been introduced since November 2012 for specialist and generalist can- didates to the Foreign Service Institute (FSI). Bonus points are now available for specialist65 and generalist66 candidates offering certain levels of language proficiency in a selection of languages,67 with lower requirements set for more critical languages.68

Within the DoD, language and culture training has become manda- tory since 2010 for all soldiers, reservists and Army civilians before they are deployed overseas. According to the US Army, although a six-to-hour online course is mandatory for all prior to deployment, “each platoon or like-sized unit must have a language-enabled Sol- dier who has taken either the 100-hour online HeadStart program or a 16-week course”.69

As outlined in its strategic plan for 2011–2016, the DoD has estab- lished three key goals to build future capacity in language skills, regional expertise and cultural capabilities:

  • Identify, validate, and prioritize requirements for language skills, regional expertise, and cultural capabilities, and generate accurate demand signals in support of DoD mis-
 
  

Addressing the lack of a language learning infrastructure There is widespread acknowledgement that the lack of a learning infrastructure from K-12 through to postsecondary education is at the root of the problem. However, the Federal government has a limited role in education as it is seen as primarily a state and local responsibility.71 The American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) indicated in their most recent enrolment study that only 18.5% of all K-12 students,72 or 8.6 million students, were enrolled in a foreign language course in the US.73 At the time of the Modern Language Association enrollment survey in 2006, only 8.6% of college students were studying a foreign language course and less than 1% of college students were studying critical languages.74 It is therefore clear that too few students are studying both traditional and critical foreign languages from an early age.

These meagre enrollment levels and the resulting low language competencies have provoked a major shift in federal language assis- tance. While strengthening the federal language education system within the defense, intelligence, and diplomacy agencies, a series of direct federal investment in K-12 and higher education language programming was undertaken.

 
  
  • Department of Defense Strategic Plan for Language Skills, Regional Expertise and Cultural Capabili- ties: 2011 – 2016
  • US Department of Education, The Federal Role In www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role. html
  • K-12 encompasses all stages of primary and secondary education in the United States – from kinder- garten (K) through to twelfth grade (12).
  • Foreign Language Enrollments in K–12 Public Schools: Are Students Prepared for a Global Society? American Council on the Teaching of Foreign www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ReportSum- mary2011.pdf
  • Furman, N., Goldberg, D., Luisin, N. Enrollment in languages other than English in United States institutions of higher education, Fall 2006. New York: The Modern Language Association, 2008. mla. org/pdf/06enrollmentsurvey_final.pdf

In 2006, the National Security Language Initiative for Youth (NSLI-Y),75 a public school programme coordinated by the State Department, the Department of Defense, the Department of

Education, and the Director of National Intelligence, was launched to achieve several goals:

  • To improve the ability of Americans to engage with the people of Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin), Hindi, Korean, Persian (Tajiki), Russian, and Turkish-speaking countries through shared language;
  • To develop a cadre of Americans with advanced linguistic skills and related cultural understanding who are able to use their linguistic and cultural skills to advance inter- national dialogue and compete effectively in the global economy;
  • To provide a tangible incentive for the learning and use of foreign language by creating overseas language study opportunities for U.S. high school students;
  • To spark a lifetime interest in foreign languages and cul- tures among American youth.76

To improve language learning at the K-12 level, the NSLI estab- lished STARTALK in 2006, an initiative that funds summer school programmes in critical languages such as Arabic, Chinese, Hindi, Persian, Turkish, Swahili and Urdu.77

Despite acknowledging a pressing need for language skills for eco- nomic competitiveness as well as national security, the US Federal government finds itself to be disadvantaged vis-à-vis its European counterparts. It is facing a considerable challenge to turn the tide on the language gap, at a time when language needs are growing, despite the investment of substantial resources.

Cross-departmental collaboration

An Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) was formally estab- lished in 1973 to enable sharing and collaboration on language needs across US federal agencies. Although the roundtable has no formal status and relies on volunteer membership, more than forty different federal government agencies are usually represented at ILR meetings,78 which are held to exchange information on lan- guage use, language testing and other language-related activities.

 
  

Since 9/11, a number of structural developments have occurred within the IC, as well as in the DoD, to help foster coordination on language policy. Each IC member and each major component of the DoD now has a designated Senior Language Authority (SLA) or equivalent, namely a senior Civil servant or General Officer with responsibility for language policy and readiness.79

Within the IC, the Foreign Language Executive Committee (FLEX-

COM) meets on a monthly basis to coordinate policy and acts as the senior advisory body to the Assistant Director of National

Intelligence for Human Capital (ADNI/HC) on matters relating to the IC foreign language capabilities.80 It has a range of standing expert working groups on areas such as assessment and training.

Within the DoD, the DoD SLA, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness, chairs the Defense Language Steering Committee (DLSC), which acts as an internal governance body

and coordinates language policy.81 It has SLA representation from each of the four armed services (at the general officer level), the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and the military intelligence agencies (NSA, DIA, NGA).82

Heritage Speakers

In the last decade, a number of DoD-funded programmes have been established to support naturalised citizens and temporary citizens with critical language skills to improve their English language skills. Since 2006, the English for Heritage Language Speakers programme (EHLS) initiative, originally funded by NSEP, has been helping naturalised citizens with critical language skills to develop professional proficiency in English, offering full scholar- ships and providing advanced training for potential employment in federal services.83 In 2012, the Secretary of State also authorised the Military Accessions Vital to the National Interest programme (MAVNI), a pilot programme designed to provide a pathway to citi-zenship for non-citizens serving in the military with critical language skills.84 This pathway means that temporary residents with desired language skills that are recruited through MAVNI can be fast-tracked for US citizenship upon entry into the US Army.85

 
  
  1. www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/516041p.pdf
  1. www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5160_41.pdf www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/516041p.pdf

In 2006, the US has instituted the National Language Service Corps (NLSC), an organisation of language volunteers who serve as a pool of supplemental linguistic resources to US federal agencies. In

case of a national need, a regional emergency, or a national security requirement, NLSC’s members can assist a U.S. federal agency to fill foreign language needs at short notice with readily available mul- tilingual U.S. citizens.86 In 2013, the President signed the National Defense Authorization Act, establishing the NLSC as a permanent programme due to the success of the pilot programme.87 Although the corps currently consists of 4,000 citizens, it is expected that numbers will be boosted to 15,000 as the program is scaled up to serve the federal sector.88

 
  

Part two: Sustaining language capacity

The wider context: sustaining language capacity and expertise in the UK

Although the specific language skills required by government are usually more specialised, they must considered in the wider context of the UK’s current approach to language learning in schools and universities, as

this has a direct impact on language capacity and its sustainability. By language capacity, we mean communication involving the integration of linguistic with cultural skills. In this sense, there is a need both for spe- cialist linguists as well as those graduates with language competences, however and wherever acquired.

This part of the report explores the policies and practices that underpin language learning in the UK, from schools through to higher education institutions (HEIs), and how the current approach has an ascertainable effect on how well, and how efficiently, the Government’s language needs are met.

As noted in the introduction, the British do not have an impressive record when it comes to learning foreign languages, ranking near the bottom of the European league in the latest Eurobarometer survey of languages spoken and the level of foreign language competence.89

While on-the-job training or using native speakers can meet the short- term language requirements of government, a strategic approach is necessary in order to produce an efficient and sustainable supply of adequately skilled professionals. We therefore need to ensure that key language skills are acquired as a fundamental part of an individual’s education.

 
  
  • In a Eurobarometer survey 39% of people surveyed in Britain responded that they could have a conversation in a second language (only Italy and Hungary were lower) European Commission Special Eurobarometer 386 Europeans and their Languages June 2012 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ ebs/ebs_386_sum_en.pdf

The benefits of language learning are far wider than diplomacy and national security. However, our aim here is to assess the role played by schools and HEIs in laying the foundations to preserve the national capacity for strategically important languages. This section draws upon submissions to our online consultation from over 35 HEIs across the UK, as well as interviews and desk research.

Language learning in schools

The foundations provided by effective early language learning in schools offer the beginning of a pathway for students to go on to language learn- ing at tertiary level, and they sow the seeds for cultural inquisitiveness, awareness and interaction. Recent studies show that language learning in early life confers cognitive advantages and is more effective than language learning in later life.90 Although the range of languages taught at schools is largely limited to modern European languages, the disci- pline of learning a language and its structures makes learning additional languages much easier and further improves the learners’ grasp of their native language.91

Language learning policy in schools over the last two decades has been characterised by a lack of consistency and some major setbacks. Changes to the school curriculum in 2002 that came into force in 2004, making the study of a modern foreign language optional at Key Stage 4, had a profoundly negative effect on the take-up of language qualifica- tions. In an increasingly dominant culture of league tables and school targets in which languages were viewed as difficult, the period post- 2002 led to a significant decline in the numbers of students studying languages at GCSE and consequently at A-Level. The number of pupils taking GCSE languages has fallen from 78% in 2001 to 40% in 2011.92 As Michael Worton noted in 2009, “the absence of foreign languages post 14 sends out a powerful negative message…there remains no sense nationally or internationally that the UK is committed to multilin- gualism and thereby to informed intercultural interactions”.

 
  
  • Rocio Domingues and Silvia Pessoa “Early Versus Late Start in Foreign Language Education: Documenting Achievements”, Foreign Language Annals, VOl 38:4 pp473–483 scientificamerican.com/ article.cfm?id=bilingual-brains
  • “Bilinguals find it easier to learn a third language” Science Daily, Feb 1 2911 sciencedaily.com/ releases/2011/02/110201110915.htm

The removal of the statutory requirement to study a modern foreign language in 2002 has had a considerable but varied impact on many Higher Education (HE) language departments; in a response to our consultation, one university described it as ‘nothing short of disastrous for the country as a whole’. The Department of German at the University of Cambridge anticipated that the resulting decline in numbers of appli- cants and admissions in German would have very long-term effects, reducing the numbers of German research students, academic posts and teachers, as well as the areas of research covered in UK universi- ties. Furthermore, the proportion of students from the state sector applying to study languages remains worryingly low, with nearly a third of linguists in higher education coming from independent schools.93

There are some promising signs that this decline is being reversed at GCSE level.94 The introduction of compulsory language learning at pri- mary school from 2014 is a welcome move. And since the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc), a performance indicator measur- ing students’ achievements in five core subjects at GCSE level, (one of which is a language) there has been an increase in the number of stu- dents studying languages. However, there remain questions about how much language learning can be boosted in light of the current lack of a continued compulsory language pathway through to GCSE and A-Level. It remains to be seen as to whether the recent decision by the Depart- ment of Education (DfE) not to proceed with the proposal of replacing the GCSEs with the English Baccalaureate Certificate (E-BC) will reverse the increase in language take-up (if schools had been encouraging language study in anticipation of the E-BC). Moreover the proposals for changes in the accountability measures for schools coming into force from 201695 may prove problematic for uptake in languages.

 
  

While the EBacc performance measure will remain in its present form as one of four accountability measures that will be reported in the public domain, the introduction of the new progress measure, which assesses pupil progress and attainment by measuring their average grade in the best of 8 subjects, does not require that one of those eight subjects is a language. Pupils must study English and Maths, 3 further EBacc subjects, and 3 other high-value qualifications. This final group offers them a choice of further traditional academic subjects, such as art, music and drama, and vocational subjects, such as engineering and

business. It remains to be seen how this new measure will affect pupils’ choices of curriculum options post 14. A possible benefit of this reform is that some pupils could choose to study two languages. However, there could also be a decrease in those opting to study languages, depending on the status of the EBacc and how the tool is viewed by head teachers, Ofsted and the general public as an effective measure of overall school performance. For individual pupils, the instrumental value of languages at GCSE as a desirable asset for entry into the Sixth Form, Further or Higher Education may be controversial but would be worthy of consideration, if we are to redress the long-term language deficit in our schools and universities and in employment.

Notwithstanding the recent increase in the 2013 GCSE session, which may only be a temporary improvement, there remains a worry about take-up at A-level. There is concern that students avoid taking modern foreign languages at A-level due to the documented fact that relatively fewer A*s are awarded compared to other subjects. This leads to bright students thinking twice about doing language A-levels for fear of jeop- ardising their results and losing out on university places, and university language departments have reported that they struggle to recruit due to candidates missing their offers.96 In addition, there is a marked and growing discrepancy between language study in the state sector and the private sector (where language take-up is healthy and growing), reflecting a class divide that is also apparent at the HE level. This not only exacerbates differential access to employment opportunities in the workplace and reinforces disadvantage, but also deters government

departments such as the FCO from imposing stronger language require- ments at entry.

 
  

Britain’s culturally diverse population means that there are considerable linguistic resources amongst the school age population which could

be tapped and developed.97 The 2008 Annual School Census revealed that in London alone, over 40 languages were spoken by more than 1000 pupils, with Bengali, Urdu, and Somali being the top non-English languages spoken.98 Whilst the languages studied within schools

are predominantly modern European languages, the Asset language scheme has, until recently, allowed for the development and recognition of the other language skills of native or heritage speakers. The Asset language scheme provided national level accreditation for achievements in 25 different languages and helped motivate and reward language learning. However, OCR has now withdrawn all accreditation through the Asset Scheme. Following OCR’s decision, Speak to the Future – the campaign for languages – has announced that it will be working with national organisations, community leaders, schools and universities

to support the development of home language hubs. The objectives of these hubs will be to raise the profile of home languages and to strengthen provision of home language teaching and accreditation.

It appears from this inquiry that the DfE has no particular strategic policy for encouraging languages, or specific languages, at GCSE and A-Level. Rather, it believes that this is an area where HEIs have an influential role in shaping the A-Level choices of students. However,

HEI representatives told this inquiry that the GCSEs were a more pivotal point on which language learning decisions hinged, and that students

at this stage could not be expected to make key decisions relating to university choices.

A persistent state of crisis: an overview of HEI language provision, capacity and trends

That universities have a valuable role to play in contributing to and sustaining the linguistic and cultural expertise required to meet the country’s needs in the fields of diplomacy, trade, and defence has been consistently argued in various high level reports and commissions in the

 
  

post-war era.99 A common theme to these reports is the conclusion that the UK Government is uniquely placed to take a strategic approach to language provision in the light of Britain’s continuing and evolving needs by supporting the development of language capacity and area expertise in HEIs.

The Parker Report, which foresaw the need for strategic development of linguistic capacity, was a landmark report when it was published in 1986 and resulted in the creation of 45 new HE language posts in African

and Asian studies.100 It highlighted the need for Britain to maintain and nurture high quality centres of language teaching in order to equip employees of British government services, non-governmental organisa- tions, media outlets, and businesses with the cultural and linguistic expertise to facilitate successful interaction with foreign partners. The current situation however, is one in which Britain’s language deficit continues to be of concern, as the British Academy’s recent State of the Nation report detailed.101 The consultation for this report revealed widespread concerns about the further diminution of language capacity at HEI level.

Over the last 15 years, the numbers enrolled in specialist HE language programmes have declined, a phenomenon that began before the 2002 school reforms. While the total number of undergraduates increased

by 18% in the years 2001–2011, and those in the arts, humanities and social sciences by 26%, the numbers enrolled in modern foreign

languages showed only a 1% increase over the same period.102 UCAS acceptance data for the period 2002–2013 showed a decline in accept- ances for modern foreign languages of -9% and of -14% from 2011–12 to 2012–13. 103 A third of language departments in the UK closed in the period 2002–2009, with the majority of language departments now confined to the Russell Group universities. Since 2009, language depart- ments have continued to close and this decline looks set to continue. 104

 
  
  • Sir William Hayter, Report of the Sub-Committee on Oriental, Slavonic, East European and African Studies, London: University Grants Committee, 1961, The Nuffield Foundation Languages: the Next Genera- tion, 2000, Michael Worton, Review of modern foreign language provision in higher education in England HEFCE, Octobe
  • Many of these, however, have not been
  • British Academy, Languages: State of the
  • UCAS “Data reported for applications considered on time for 15 January deadline” ucas.com/ about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120130
  • UCAS, Briefing on Data on demand and supply for Higher Education subjects, Undergraduates in HE disciplines, table 2.2.2 hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/crosscutting/sivs/data/domicile/

confined to the Russell Group universities. Since 2009, language depart- ments have continued to close and this decline looks set to continue. 104

However, student demand for languages is still present; even if it may not be increasing to meet the levels that various reports have argued are needed to satisfy the nation’s requirements for trade, business, security, and diplomacy. There has been a consistent increase over time in the numbers enrolled in joint degrees.105 Consultation respondents reported that while enrollment in single honours degrees in languages on offer is expected to decrease, the trend towards combined degrees looks set to continue. A recent HE report on languages studied alongside a student’s main area of study for credit through University language centres, known as “Languages for All” or Institution-wide Language Provi-

sion (IWLP), showed that the demand for language learning remains buoyant.106

HE language provision also shows a mixed picture in relation to which languages are studied. On the positive side, Chinese, Japanese, and Arabic – the languages that the Parker Report was particularly con- cerned to promote – have seen an increased uptake, driven largely by student demand and the existence of generous outside funding. On the other hand, there is a serious decline in lesser-taught and minority

languages, amongst which are a number of “critical” languages that are important for strategic diplomatic and military objectives, as reflected in the current efforts of the SIA to recruit speakers of, among others, Farsi and Korean.

The most recent UCAS data shows a decline in acceptances to East- ern, Asiatic and African languages of -41% over the period 2002–3 to 2012–13.107 In the category of other non-European languages, a category which includes other Eastern Asiatic, African, American, and Australa- sian languages and excludes Mandarin, Modern Arabic, Japanese and South Asian studies, the decline over the same period is particularly dramatic at -70%. As the British Academy’s recent statements show, the challenges currently facing the advanced study of languages in HE give rise to concern for the future of specialist language provision.108

 
  
  • Daniel Boffey “Language teaching crisis as 40% of university departments face closure”, The Observer,

17 August 2013 www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/17/language-teaching-crisis-universities-closure

  • The University of St Andrews anticipate that they will be able to offer a partial degree in Persian language within three years, which will have to be taken in conjunction with another course, for example History or International Relations.
  • UCML-AULC Survey of Institution-wide Language Provision in Universities in the UK, February
  • UCAS, Briefing on Data on demand and supply for Higher Education subjects, Undergraduates in HE disciplines, table 2.2.3 hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/crosscutting/sivs/data/domicile/

HEI contribution to language capacity and expertise needs for diplomacy, security, and international engagement

Government departments and HEIs were consulted in order to under- stand the direct and indirect ways in which HEIs currently contribute to the Government’s language needs in the fields of diplomacy and national security, as well as the challenges facing language provision in HEIs. As Parker wrote, universities are the ‘guardians’ of the nation’s linguistic assets and it is important to understand how they currently fulfil this role.

Graduate linguists

HEIs have traditionally provided language graduates for posts within central government, the majority of which are situated within the SIA. Although the number of posts for which graduate linguists are specifi- cally required may form a small proportion of the total pool, the SIA states that only the very top-level linguists are recruited each year.109 The need to ensure a sustainable cadre of top quality linguists capable of passing security vetting means that the SIA, and GCHQ in particular,

have a strong vested interest in the health of language study at HE level. Any reduction in the numbers of language graduates is likely to affect the quality of applicants. They therefore maintain a proactive presence at university recruitment fairs and have noted an increased competition from private sector employers for linguists at these events.

Specialist expertise

HEIs are deep repositories of expertise on languages, histories and cultures, and produce research outputs and experts that can be useful for governments seeking to understand more about regions of particular interests. This knowledge base on languages, cultures, and societies that resides in HEIs is called on from time to time – though perhaps

not often enough – by government departments. Both the FCO and the MOD maintain networks with academic experts, who are invitedto advise and speak at seminars, although in the case of the FCO these are very much devolved and personal networks. Many HEIs have to advise and speak at seminars, although in the case of the FCO these are very much devolved and personal networks. Many HEIs have traditionally hosted visiting positions for government officials. Specialist institutes such as Chatham House also facilitate interaction between academics and government officials.

 
  
  • The British Academy is providing additional support to the British Institute for Persian Studies as part of its BASIS programme to train teachers of Farsi and broaden access to learning Farsi to researchers and
  • The average annual recruitment is around 60 entrants a

Because such interactions tend to be of an ad hoc and varied nature, it has been difficult to get an accurate sense of their scale and effective- ness. It is worth noting that several academics consulted for this report indicated that they did not feel that their linguistic and cultural expertise was called upon when relevant by the Government, and speculated that this may be due to lack of knowledge on the part of officials as to what expertise resides within HEIs.

Language-Based Area Studies Centres have been one effective way of facilitating knowledge transfer from HEIs to the wider policy com- munity, including government departments. The funding scheme was

initially set up in 2006 with the purpose of “creating a world-class cadre of researchers with the necessary language skills to undertake contex- tually informed research in the Arabic speaking world; China; Japan; and Eastern Europe, including areas of the former Soviet Union”.110 For example, the Centre for Advanced Study of the Arab World’s (CASAW)

teacher training programme has attracted teachers from, among others, the FCO and the MOD.

Whilst the perception amongst some Government representatives consulted for this inquiry was that HEIs possessed a unique and valu- able depth of expertise, many were not experienced in working with Government and found themselves disadvantaged vis-à-vis other private contractors on cost and other grounds when it came to bidding for con- tracts relating to language training and course design. There was also a sense that many academics were reluctant to work with certain depart- ments such as the MOD on personal, moral or ideological grounds.

Lesser-taught critical languages

The study of certain critical languages is increasingly concentrated in fewer and fewer universities. Institutions such as the School of Orien-

 
  
  • The initiative was initially funded by the AHRC (Arts and Humanities Research Council) together with ESRC (Economic and Social Research Council), HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) and SFC (Scottish Funding Council). Since 2011 the funding has been provided by the AHRC and the British

tal and African Studies (SOAS) have traditionally been the provider of the next generation of scholars or linguistic resources for the UK for African and Asian languages. The British Academy Sponsored Institutes and Societies (BASIS) also make a modest contribution through short courses and workshops, in particular the Council for British Research

in the Levant in Arabic and the British Institute of Persian Studies in Farsi. However, capacity in these languages has declined over the last 15 years. At SOAS for example, academic posts in language and culture dropped from 65 to 55 between 1998 and 2010.111 The loss of provision is a concern to those agencies such as the SIA who value high calibre linguists particularly in harder-to-learn languages.

Many of these languages – Farsi or Turkish to name but two – can lay claim to being strategically important. In the same way that Pashto in the context of Afghanistan became a national priority in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, a region such as West Africa, especially for exam- ple Nigeria, could emerge as one of geo-political significance for which knowledge of Hausa suddenly becomes invaluable – and the UK could find itself without the relevant linguistic and cultural experts to draw on.

The Nuffield inquiry in 2001 warned that national capability in many African, Asian, and East European languages was “extremely fragile”. Since then there has been further serious decline within HEIs in the pro- vision of languages such as Indonesian, Mongolian, Swahili, and Urdu. The range of language expertise in UK HEIs is shrinking, and in some departments, area studies are taught without languages. Consequently, some academics have told us that there is now no longer any “slack in the system”.

Teaching/training provision and infrastructure

Over the last twenty years, there has been a decline in HEI involvement in providing language training for government departments. Following the closure of the FCO language school in 2007, the language training available to staff in government departments was largely delivered by private contractors.

Although many universities reported that they currently provide bespoke training for government departments, there were few details about  the scale of this training or how much of this was language training as opposed to cultural, historical, and political awareness training. SOAS told us that, while the FCO training remained a high priority for them in terms of their mission, their Language Centre found it very difficult to compete with private contractors on cost grounds, owing to different employment contract arrangements.112

 
  
  • Private Seminar, British Academy July

HEIs nevertheless continue to make important and unique contributions to the infrastructure of language teaching. They train a huge proportion of the language teachers and researchers of tomorrow and also produce training and assessment materials for language teaching based on the research they do on language learning and pedagogical methods. The University of Westminster, for example, provides military language examinations for all UK military forces personnel who undergo defence language training, and assesses potential civilian interpreters who may work alongside military counterparts in various theatres of operation.113 HEIs therefore perform a continuing and important quality assurance role within the language learning industry.

 
  

Key issues

It is evident that UK HEIs offer highly relevant training in languages, culture and history to support government objectives within the fields of diplomacy and defence, but there is clearly room for a more significant and enhanced contribution to be made. At the same time, HEIs are fac- ing a number of challenges in maintaining and enhancing their traditional reserves of language expertise in order to contribute to the UK’s policy objectives in these fields.

Funding reforms and tuition fees

The new funding regime for higher education, introduced in 2012 provides a very different landscape that universities will have to navigate if language studies are to flourish. As part of the 2012 funding reforms, student fees are becoming universities’ main source of income as publicly funded direct teaching grants are reduced. While the HEFCE teaching grants accounted for 64.1% of teaching funding to HEIs in England in 2011–12, this is set to be reduced to 24.1% by 2014–15 according to a report from Universities UK.114 The expectation is that income from higher tuition fees (backed by publically funded student loans) should more than make up for this loss of teaching grants, with student demand now playing a far bigger role in determining available finances. Nonetheless the majority of universities are currently break- ing even or operating with surpluses and HEFCE forecasts that the

total income of institutions will rise by 2.8% in 2012–13 with continued growth until 2014–15.115

 
  

This anticipated rise in income is dependent on universities meeting their targets for student recruitment. Any fall in recruitment numbers will have a direct impact on institutions’ income. While in theory, an increase in income could potentially lead to HEI freedom to make strategic investments – including in language provision – financial uncertainty has led HEIs to cut costs and make efficiency savings in certain subject areas. Language departments have already been hit by

a cut in courses on offer, reductions in staff numbers, and even closures of entire departments.116

Concerns about funding for language study will remain so long as appli- cations to modern foreign languages continue to fall. According to data from UCAS, 4842 applicants were accepted onto MFL courses in 2012, down -14% from 2011. The trend continued in 2013, with a further 6% fall in applications from the previous year.117 While it is too early to say how far these numbers are a consequence of higher tuition fees, they also reflect the downward trend in MFL A-level entries.118 Findings from the consultation process reflect the on-going concerns about funding and the impact of higher tuition fees.

The fragility of provision for language learning within HEIs cannot be overestimated. Recently, the University of the West of England reported that language provision at undergraduate and master’s degree level, as well as its university-wide Language Programme for non-specialists, had been axed. In June 2013 the University of Salford decided to discontinue all of its current modern foreign languages programmes, with a view

to eventually closing its School of Humanities, Languages & Social Sci- ences.119 In his email to Salford University students, the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Martin Hall was clear that falling demand in applications for MFL degrees was a direct cause of the proposed cuts.120 However, over the past few months, the University has agreed to establish a joint task force to explore the feasibility of a new joint honours curriculum model for languages, and the consequent continuing viability of post graduate translating and interpreting.

 
  

There are also concerns that the year abroad, which is usually required as part of a four year conventional language will deter students and further contribute to a fall in applicants. To alleviate the impact of the additional costs associated with such exchange programmes, the Government has announced a tuition fee supplement of approximately

£2,250 per student.121

Some universities are now exploring different ways to expand their language provision, in some cases by targeting such courses towards vocational ends and expanding joint degree offerings.122 The University of St Andrews reported that it anticipates offering a partial degree in Persian, to be taken in conjunction with another course such as Inter- national Relations or History, within three years. Responses to the consultation also suggest that some universities are expanding their Languages for All provisions. Languages for All is an initiative to support language learning at university level which is not a compulsory part of a degree programme.123 This includes language courses taken for aca- demic credit as well as extra-curricular language classes. Languages for All courses are often delivered through University Language Centres.

One of the motivations for such an expansion is the increased competi- tion for students as the new funding regime sets in.124 In its submission to our consultation, the Association of University Language Centres (AULC) noted that the language training offered by its members responds to the employability demands of students, of the HEIs and of employers. However, it is worth noting that it does not provide the same degree of depth of cultural knowledge which comes with more in-depth academic specialist study.

 
  
  • Baroness Garden of Frognal: Keynote Speech, launch of Born Global policy research project, 23rd Sept
  • In response to a consultation, the University of Essex reported that it is now offering 19 undergraduate language degrees and four MAs – including a new Master degree in translation and interpreting, initially

in Chinese, French, German and Italian in the light of the persistently unmet need for qualified language professionals in the fields of translation and interpreting. The University of St Andrews reported that it anticipates offering a partial degree in Persian language to be taken in conjunction with another course such as International Relations or History within three years.

  • UCML-AULC Survey of Institution-Wide Language Provision in universities in the UK (2012–13).
  • From autumn 2012, all students at the University of Essex are offered the opportunity to learn a language for free in addition to their full-time studies, whatever their discipline. At Aston University all fee- paying undergraduate students are now entitled to two 10-credit language modules for free during their first year of study.

Funding lesser-taught and minority language provision

In the area of lesser-taught or minority languages, it is the case that student demand is unlikely ever to reach levels that make such provision economically self-sustaining. The gradual withdrawal of special factor funding over time has left some universities with no choice but to cross- subsidise these areas from block teaching grants, which also will end in 2013.

Declining provision for the study of lesser-taught and minority languages poses a threat to the pool of UK expertise in these areas. Capacity, once gone, is very difficult to rebuild, although it is not so costly to maintain at a basic level. In light of current budget pressures, the lack of student demand for studying languages such as Turkish and Farsi means that some universities offering courses in Farsi do not feel they can justify employing a full-time Persian language instructor, or offer these instruc- tors extended or permanent contracts.

It also emerged during the consultation that universities are increasingly reliant on philanthropy. In particular, the contribution made by overseas donors, such as the Iran Heritage Foundation, wealthy Middle Eastern governments, and the Chinese government-sponsored Confucius institutes, has become invaluable. One respondent made the point that the Chinese government now funds more Chinese language learning in the UK than the UK Government, and that this imbalance may give rise to potential strains on the neutrality/impartiality of the recipients.

Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subject funding

That languages fall into the category of areas and disciplines that are vulnerable and therefore need additional support has been recognised for some time. Following the publication of the Nuffield Report (2001), HEFCE set up the SIVS programme to support subjects deemed strategically important and vulnerable.125 As part of the SIVS programme of support,126 languages received £21 million of support between 2005 and 2012.

 
  
  • STEM: Chemistry, engineering, mathematics, and physics; modern foreign languages and related area studies, quantitative social science and land-based studies – subsequently removed in 2008.
  • A £350 million programme of work to support subjects considered strategically important and vulner- able was undertaken between 2005 and 2012.

Several respondents emphasised the inclusion of languages in the SIVS programme as vital for continued provision. In 2012 the HEFCE Board agreed a new policy approach to SIVS, through which it would continue to provide support for modern foreign languages. Support to date has

included: exemption from the adjustments to student number controls for 2012–13; a tuition fee supplement of around £2,250 for students engag- ing in a year of study or work abroad, from 2014–15 onwards, through

the Erasmus exchange programme or study abroad through another route; further investment into demand-rising activity in modern foreign languages (Routes into Languages programme) and ongoing engagement with the sector on innovation to sustain the supply of language provision whilst steps are taken to address concerns about demand.

Decentralisation and the lack of strategic co-ordination and planning

The Nuffield Inquiry warned in 2001 that higher education was a diverse and fragmented sector, which lacks both the will and the means to address UK-wide strategic issues in languages in a sustained way and called for a comprehensive language strategy to address that. 127 This looks unlikely to occur organically in the current climate where univer- sity Vice-Chancellors are increasingly taking decisions with an eye on student demand and financial viability, and therefore decisions about where residual government funding goes is further devolved.

However, certain Vice-Chancellors have shown that some UK universi- ties, if they are in a position to do so, can make decisions according

to scholarly importance and size of language community as to level of staffing provision and nature of provision. On the other hand, there is no reason to think that these decisions would necessarily reflect the strategic interests of government. The idea that a co-ordinated strategic approach which ties together the needs of government and ensures capacity across the HEI network to maintain a national language capac- ity in certain languages and geographical areas is a compelling one.

It could also lead to a more effective distribution of resources across different language families through encouraging consortia of universities and concentrations of focused expertise.

 
  
  • It noted that “There is an urgent need for a national strategy to plan the range of languages taught in higher education, to manage the integration of languages into all subject areas and to maintain a sufficient supply of language specialists.” Nuffield Foundation, Languages: the Next Generation”.

Recommendations

The recommendations below draw upon the findings of this inquiry as well as recommendations from existing British Academy reports, and parliamentary committees in this area. Some of these are more general than others, reflecting the statement in the introduction that this report is, in many senses, a prelude to further investigation.

Long-term strategic planning

  • To deliver consistent, sustainable, and efficient language skills within government, there needs to be a clear and concerted approach that is supported and implemented across government, including:
    • a regular, consistent cross-departmental audit of language needs and skills;
    • policies to develop and maintain existing language skills; and
    • recognition of language skills within development

Leadership and incentives for language learning within government

  • Ministers, senior civil servants, and human resources departments need to support and deliver these objectives. A robust structure

is vital to demonstrate leadership, monitor progress, and maintain accountability. A cross-Whitehall group should accurately assess needs, allocate resources, and engage with suppliers.

  • Incentives should be used both to encourage up-take of language learning and to dispel the perceived stigma that seems to surround time spent on language skills.

Investment in future capacity

  • The Government should work closely with HEIs to ensure that there is a sustainable and consistent pathway for language learners from primary to tertiary Support needs to be provided for language learning at every stage to maximise the opportunities from initial language learning opportunities to the taking up advanced language qualifications and the fostering of expertise.

Recognising developing language capacity in lesser-taught and minority languages

  • HEIs should ensure that they have the best structures in place to

co-ordinate the allocation of resources to preserve at least a basic or minimum capacity in particularly threatened languages.

  • The links between HEI provision and the needs of government departments should be identified and strengthened.
  • To ensure that surge language capacity for national security, diplo- macy and defence is maintained a strong commitment should be made to resourcing the study and maintenance of lesser-taught and minority languages.
  • The recognition, development, and certification of heritage language skills should be encouraged by developing a replacement for the Asset Language Scheme in community languages. This could be provided at FE and HE levels rather than at school level.
  • Government departments could also encourage and incentivise vol- untary disclosure of heritage language skills amongst employees.

 

Conclusion

The aim of this inquiry was to establish an initial understanding of the UK Government’s language capacity, how well it serves the UK’s diplo- matic, security, and defence objectives and how to provide a pathway that can be followed to secure and improve this capacity for the future.

It is clear that the language skills are recognised and utilised within the fields of defence and national security. The newly established FCO

Language Centre and the Defence School of Languages and Culture are potential beacons of commitment to language learning across govern- ment. However, there needs to be an assurance that teaching quality will not be compromised by cost and the use of contract providers and that valuable teaching expertise which is built up over time will be preserved.

Further, the report raises concerns about the source and supply of these skills in the future. Both funding pressures – within govern- ment and HEIs – and the diminishing number of graduates obtaining language qualifications have drained the linguistic resource pool. If this is not addressed it will have a detrimental impact upon recruitment for defence and national security.

The decline in diplomats with functional proficiency in the language of the country in which they work is also deeply concerning. While the re-opening of the FCO Language Centre, as well as the commitment

made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, is welcome, significant work is required to embed these changes and reverse this decline.

The current apathy towards language skills across government and the perception that they may in fact be detrimental to an individual’s career development and advancement are particularly worrying. These need to be addressed by establishing clear policies, strong leadership and significant incentives which recognise and support language learning.

It is clear from this inquiry that the government will not be able to sustain or increase its language capacity without addressing the issue of diminishing supply. The number of language graduates continues to decline and therefore the Government needs to work closely with all parts of the education system to develop policies that provide a consist- ent pathway for language learners from primary to tertiary levels. HEIs also need to be engaged to ensure that where language capacity and expertise in strategically important, lesser-taught minority languages exists, it is supported and maintained.

Ultimately, if no action is taken, language skills within government will continue to erode until there are neither the skills within government nor enough new linguists coming through the education system, to rebuild its capacity and meet the security, defence, and diplomacy requirements of the UK. It is clear that these needs can no longer be sustained by individual initiatives within specific sectors. A strategic and consistent policy for languages needs to be developed across govern- ment, which addresses the supply, recruitment and development of individuals with language skills.

List of abbreviations

AULC

Association of University Language Centres

BIS

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

BME

Black and minority ethnic

CASAW

Centre for Advanced Study of the Arab World

CASL

Centre for Advanced Study of Language

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

DCLC

Defence School of Languages and Culture

DfE

Department for Education

DFID

Department for International Development

DoD

(US) Department of Defense

DOLSU

Defence Operational Languages Support Unit

DSL

Defence School of Languages

E-BACC

English Baccalaureate

E-BC

English Baccalaureate Certificate

EU

European Union

FAC

Foreign Affairs Select Committee

FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation

FCO

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

FE

Further Education

GCHQ

Government Communication Headquarters

GCSE

General Certificate of Secondary Education

GSA

Government Skills Agency

HEFCE

Higher Education Funding Council for England

HEIs

Higher Education Institutions

HMRC

HM Revenue & Customs

HO

Home Office

HR

Human Resources

IWLP

Institution-wide Language Provision

LESAS

Locally Engaged Staff Assistance Scheme

MFL

Modern Foreign Languages

MI5

The Security Service

MOD

Ministry of Defence

MPS

Metropolitan Police Service

NCA

National Crime Agency

NLSC

National Language Service Corps

NSLI

National Security Language Initiative

OCR

Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations Board

SIA

Security and Intelligence Agencies

SIVS

Strategically Important and Vulnerable Subjects

SO15

Metropolitan Police Service’s Counter Terrorism Command

SOAS

School of Oriental and African Studies

SOCA

Serious Organised Crime Agency

UCAS

Universities and Colleges Admissions Service

UCL

University College London

UK

United Kingdom

UKIDSCOL

UK Interdepartmental Standing Committee on Languages

UKTI

UK Trade & Investment

US

United States

 

List of contributors to inquiry

Organisations and individuals interviewed for the report

  • BP
  • British Council
  • Charles Crawford, former HM ambassador to Poland
  • Defence Academy of the UK
  • Department for Education
  • Department for International Development (DFID)
  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)
  • GCHQ
  • Government Equalities Office
  • International Institute for Strategic Studies
  • Metropolitan Police
  • School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
  • SOCA
  • The Security Service (MI5)

Organisations which responded to the online consultation

Business, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders

  • African Studies Association of the UK
  • Alcantara Communications LLP
  • BBC World Service
  • Centre for Turkey Studies and Development (CTSD)
  • Chartered Institute of Linguists and IoL Educational Trust
  • EMAS UK Ltd
  • International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
  • Languages Sheffield
  • Oxfam
  • Primary Language awards
  • Society for Latin American Studies
  • Speak to the Future – the campaign for languages

 

Government and public bodies

  • Association for Chief Police Officers (International Affairs)
  • Bòrd na Gàidhlig
  • Department for Business Innovation and Skills (HR Directorate)
  • Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (Europe, Trade and International sub-directorate)
  • Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
  • Higher Education Funding Council for Wales (HEFCW)
  • International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • Scottish Funding Council
  • The National Register of Public Service Interpreters (NRPSI)

HEI and language providers

  • African Studies Centre (Oxford)
  • Association of School and College leaders
  • Association of South-East Asian Studies in the United Kingdom (ASEASUK)
  • British Association for Chinese Studies (BACS)
  • Council of University Classical Departments
  • Durham University
  • Imperial College (Department of Humanities)
  • La Academia
  • London Languages
  • Rosetta Stone
  • School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS)
  • Society for Italian Studies
  • Southampton University (Geography and Environment)
  • The Association of University Language Centres (AULC)
  • The Mary Glasgow Language Trust
  • UCL School of Slavonic and East European Studies (UCL SSEES)
  • UK Council for Area Studies Associations
  • University Council of Modern Languages
  • University of Cambridge (Department of East Asian Studies)
  • University of Cambridge (Department of German)
  • University of Edinburgh (Asian Studies)
  • University of Edinburgh (Centre for South Asian Studies)
  • University of Essex (Department of Language and Linguistics)
  • University of Essex (Department of Language and Linguistics)
  • University of Exeter (Department of Classics and Ancient History)
  • University of Leeds (Chinese Studies)
  • University of Manchester
  • University of Nottingham (Faculty of Arts)
  • University of Oxford (Faculty of Oriental Studies)
  • University of Sheffield (School of East Asian Studies)
  • University of Southampton (Centre for Languages, Linguistics and Area Studies)
  • University of Southampton (English)
  • University of Southampton (Modern Languages)
  • University of St Andrews (Institute for Iranian Studies)
  • University of Sterling (School of Languages, Cultures and Religions)
  • University of Surrey (Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences)
  • UWE, Bristol
  • White Rose East Asia Centre (University of Sheffield)

Individual respondents – HEIs and language providers

  • Dominic Parviz Brookshaw (Stanford University)
  • Roger Goodman, Head of Social Sciences and Professor of Japa- nese Studies, University of Oxford
  • Dr Russell Jones

About the Steering Group

Dr Robin Niblett

Robin Niblett became the Director of Chatham House (the Royal Institute of International Affairs) in January 2007. Before joining Chatham House, from 2001 to 2006, Dr Niblett was the Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Washington based Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). During his last two years at CSIS, he also served as Director of the CSIS Europe Program and its Initiative for a Renewed Transatlantic Partnership.

Most recently Dr Niblett is the author of the Chatham House Report Playing to its Strengths: Rethinking the UK’s Role in a Changing World (Chatham House, 2010) and Ready to Lead? Rethinking America’s Role in a Changed World (Chatham House, 2009), and editor and contribut- ing author to America and a Changed World: A Question of Leadership (Chatham House/Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). He is also the author or contributor to a number of CSIS reports on transatlantic relations and is contributing author and co-editor with William Wallace of the book Rethinking European Order (Palgrave, 2001). Dr Niblett is a frequent panellist at conferences on transatlantic relations. He has testified on a number of occasions to the House of Commons Defence Select Com- mittee and Foreign Affairs Committee as well as US Senate and House Committees on European Affairs.

Dr Niblett is a Non-Executive Director of Fidelity European Values Invest- ment Trust. He is a Council member of the Overseas Development Institute and a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Europe. He received his BA in Modern Languages and MPhil and DPhil from New College, Oxford.

Professor Graham Furniss OBE, FBA

Professor Graham Furniss OBE, FBA is a Professor of African Language and the Pro-Director for Research and Enterprise at the School of Orien-tal and African Studies (SOAS), University of London. His research and teaching has focused on popular culture and oral and written literature in Hausa, a major lingua franca of West Africa. He was the founding Presi- dent of the International Society for Oral Literature in Africa (ISOLA), and founding editor of the Journal of African Cultural Studies.

He is currently a Commissioner of the Commonwealth Scholarships Commission and a Trustee of the Britain-Nigeria Educational Trust. He chairs the British Academy Africa Panel, and is a former President of the African Studies Association of the UK. He chaired the steering com- mittees that produced The Nairobi Report: Frameworks for Africa-UK Research Collaboration in the Social Sciences and Humanities in 2009, and Foundations for the Future: Supporting the Early Careers of African Researchers in 2011, both published by the British Academy and the Association of Commonwealth Universities.

Professor Clive Holes FBA

Professor Clive Holes FBA has been Khalid bin Abdullah Al Saud Profes- sor for the Study of the Contemporary Arab World at the University of Oxford since 1997, having previously been Lecturer and then Reader in Arabic at the University of Cambridge.

He served for many years in the Middle East and North Africa as a cul- tural diplomat and speaks, reads and writes Arabic and French fluently. His research and writing range widely over the Arabic language, in par- ticular its spoken regional forms, and he has also published extensively on modern Arabic political poetry, composed in dialect, from Arabia, the Gulf, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt.

Rear Admiral Simon Lister CB, OBE

Rear Admiral Simon Lister is a Royal Navy Engineer Officer and will become Chief of Materiel (Fleet) and Chief of Fleet Support and promoted to the rank of Vice Admiral on 27 November 2013. Educated at the Royal Naval Engineering College at Manadon and the Royal Naval College Greenwich, Lister joined the Royal Navy in 1978. He was a marine engineer officer on the submarines HMS Valiant, HMS Odin in 1986 and then HMS Torbay, HMS Trenchant in 1993. He studied Russian and Polish at the Defence School of Languages in 1989, finishing as a First Class Interpreter in Russian. Based in Moscow, in the early 90’s he worked throughout the Soviet Union during the last days of that state and in Poland. He became Naval Assistant to the Chief Executive of the Ship Support Agency in 1994 and, after attending the Sloan Business

School in 1996, he worked in the Ministry of Defence until returning as Naval Attaché in Moscow in 2001. During his second tour in Russia, he was responsible for co-operation for submarine rescue, arctic environ- mental clean up, and military resettlement cooperation. On return from Moscow, Lister returned to engineering leadership, in the Ministry

of Defence, going on to be Commander, HM Naval Base Plymouth in 2005, Senior Naval Member on the Directing Staff at the Royal College of Defence Studies in April 2008 and Director, Submarines in 2009. He is the Senior Military Linguist and the Chief Naval Engineer Officer. He was awarded the OBE in 2001 and made CB in 2013.

Sir Ivor Roberts KCMG, FCIL

Sir Ivor Roberts is a former British diplomat and the President of Trinity College, Oxford since 2006. He joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as Third Secretary in 1968, serving in a number of postings in the Middle East, the Balkans, Western Europe, and the Pacific State of Vanuatu. He was appointed the first British Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from 1996 to 1997, British Ambassador to Ireland

from 1999 to 2003, prior to his final appointment as Ambassador to Rome from 2003 to 2006. In 2009 Sir Ivor was the major contributor to the

first new edition for thirty years of Satow’s Diplomatic Practice, widely regarded as the definitive handbook to international diplomatic practice.

Sir Ivor received his MA in Modern Languages from Keble College, Oxford, where he is an Honorary Fellow. He speaks fluent Italian, French and Spanish and passable Serbo-Croat, is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Linguists and Chairman of the Council of the British School in Rome.

Professor Dame Helen Wallace DBE, CMG, FBA

Helen Wallace is an Honorary Professor at the University of Sussex and was until summer 2013 a Professor in the European Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. She holds various advisory appointments. From 2001 to 2006 she was Director of the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European Uni- versity Institute, Florence. Previously she was Director of the ESRC “One Europe or Several?” Programme, and held posts at the Sussex European Institute, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the College of Europe.

She was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 2000, was Chair of the Political Studies Section from 2008 to 2011 and became Foreign

Secretary and an ex officio Vice President in July 2011. She became a Dame in January 2011.

Helen Wallace is a political scientist whose research has focused on the politics of European integration. Recent books include: Policy-Making in the European Union, 6th edn., coeditor with Mark Pollack and Alasdair Young, OUP, 2010. Visions, Votes and Vetoes: Reassessing the Luxem- bourg Compromise 40 Years On, co-editor with Jean-Marie Palayret

and Pascaline Winand, P.I.E. Peter Lang, Brussels, 2006. The Council of Ministers of the European Union, co-author with Fiona Hayes-Renshaw, 2nd edition, Palgrave, 2006.

The British Academy, established by Royal Charter in 1902, champions and supports the humanities and social sciences across the UK and internationally. It aims to inspire, recognise and support excellence and high achievement across the UK and internationally. As a Fellowship of over 900 UK humanities scholars and social scientists, elected for their distinction in research, the Academy is an independent and self-governing organisation, in receipt of public funding. Views expressed in this report are not necessarily shared by each individual Fellow.

In 2011 the British Academy launched a four year programme to support Languages and Quantitative Skills (L&QS) in the

humanities and the social sciences. Through the L&QS programme, the Academy demonstrates the value and importance of languages for the health and wellbeing of education, research, individuals and society at large.

ISBN 978-0-85672-610-1

THE BRITISH ACADEMY

10 –11 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AH

+44 (0)207 969 5200

Registered Charity: Number 233176

www.britac.ac.uk

 迷失的言語

 英國外交和安全對  語言的需求

 

 2013年11月

指導 小組：

羅賓·尼布萊特博士（主席）  格雷厄姆·弗尼斯教授 FBA 教授 克萊夫·霍爾斯 FBA

 海軍少將西蒙·李斯特CB，奧貝伊沃·羅伯茨爵士

海倫·  華萊士教授，CMG，亞馬遜物流

作者：

陳淑嫻博士  & 安妮·布雷維克

 英國學院

10 –11 卡爾頓 之家 露台 倫敦 SW1Y 5AH www.britac.ac.uk

註冊 慈善機構： 233176數量

© 2013 年 英國 學院 2013年11月出版

國際標準書號978-0-85672-610-1

設計：肥皂盒， www.soapbox.co.uk DG3印刷

英國 學院 – 迷失  在單詞  3

 職權範圍

  1. 評估語言在使政府能夠實現英國在國際關係和安全領域的公共政策目標方面的重要性。
  1. 確定政府如何使用語言來滿足 英國在國際關係和安全   領域的公共政策  目標。
  • 要研究目前 有哪些安排  可以滿足相關組織的語言需求，請同時考慮以下兩者：
    • 為滿足  組織的近期和短期要求而建立的結構;(二）
    • 確保    為具有長期戰略重要性的語言提供足夠的能力的戰略  方法的證據。
  1. 旨在評估 高等教育機構在維持  英國具有重要戰略意義的管道測量能力方面的作用。

4

內容

前言                                                                                       6                                                                                        

內容                                                                                   提要                                                                                       8                                                                                        

導 言                                                                                     14                                                                                        

第                                                                                  一部分：                                                                                主要                                                                               調查結果                                                                                     19                                                                                        

  1. 目前政府對語文能力採取的做法 20

                                                                                      外交                                                                                  和                                                                                  國際貿易                                                                                                                                                                           語言                                                                                     20                                                                                 

                                                                            國家安全語言                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             29                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                            執法                                                                                                                                                                           和                                                                                  打擊                                                                   有組織犯罪的語言                                                                                                                                                                       32                                                                                    

防禦                                                                               語言                                                                                                                                                                       35                                                                                    

                                                                                      關鍵問題                                                                                     42                                                                                        

語言                                                                                  需求                                                                                  與                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   語言                                                                                  技能                                                                                  的價值                                                                                  42                                                                                    

早期                                                                                     和                                                                                  長期                                                                                                                                                                           投資                                                                               策略                                                                                  43                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        國內外                                                                                                                                                                           對母語                                                                                  人士                                                                            的使用增加                                                                                     45                                                                                 

                                                                                  職業發展                                                                                  和                                                                                  激勵                                                                                  47                                                                                    

跨部門                                                                            協作                                                                                     和                                                                                                                                                                           戰略                                                                               方針                                                                                  47                                                                                    

                                                                                          來自                                                                                                                                                                                   美國的                                                                                                                                                                                   比較                                                                                      視角                                                                                         50                                                                                    

第二部分：維持語言能力                                                                                     57                                                                                        

 更廣泛的背景，維持語言能力

和   在英國的專業知識                                                          58

                                                                                                                                                                            學校                                                                            語言學習                                                                                     59                                                                                 

 持續的  危機狀態：概述  

HEI 語言 提供、 容量 和 趨勢                                          62

HEI  對語言能力和  專業知識的貢獻

 外交、安全和  國際參與的需求                                        65

                                                                                      關鍵問題                                                                                     69                                                                                        

資金                                                                               改革                                                                                     和                                                                                  學費                                                                                                                                                                       69                                                                                    

  1. 資助 少教 和                                                                              少數民族                                                                            語言                                                                               的規定                                                                                  72                                                                                    

具有戰略                                                                         重要性                                                                                     和                                                                                  弱勢                                                                           的受試者                                                                            資金                                                                                  72                                                                                    

權力下放 和  缺乏  戰略意義

協調 和 規劃                                                                  73

建議                                                                                     74                                                                                        

5

結論                                                                76                                                                  

                                                                    縮略語                                                                 清單                                                                   78                                                                  

                                                                                                                                        查詢                                                                 的                                                                 貢獻者                                                                名單 80                                                                  

                                                                    關於                                                                指導                                                                小組                                                                83                                                                  

前言

長期以來，學習和說語言一直是英國外交傳統的一個重要方面：語言是英國外交官和其他政府部門面向外部的工作人員    可以加深他們的知識並建立信任的關鍵工具，這是促進  和保護英國價值觀所必需的。 和國際利益。 正如   外交和聯邦事務    大臣威廉·黑格議員閣下最近所說：“外交是不同文化的藝術，並利用這種理解來預測和影響行為。 說  當地語言是這一過程中必不可少的第一步。

 

在一個日益多樣化和相互關聯的世界中，語言技能正在獲得而不是失去其相關性。 政府需要發展和展示其對外國，其歷史，野心，文化和政治制度  的理解，以推動英國的外交卓越性並維護國家安全。

二十七年前，派克報告《為未來而說話》強調，英國需要保持高品質的語言教學中心，以便英國政府服務，非政府組織，媒體和企業的員工能夠配備足夠的文化和語言專業知識，以便與外國部分成功互動。 這份英國學院的報告《  為文字而迷失》是了解   構成  英國外交和安全   前線  的部門和機構當前外語能力水準的第一步。

  該報告展示了一些令人鼓舞的發展 – 無論是在政府還是語言教育領域 – 以確保  我們有能力在全球舞臺上保持有影響力的聲音。 然而，報告也表明，外語技能的持續缺陷  威脅著我們未來的   影響力。  它揭示了

   這些挑戰阻礙了     政府和高等教育  機構將語言供應系統與外交和安全前線聯繫起來。  報告的結論是，還有許多   工作要做。如果不採取措施扭轉目前語言技能的下降趨勢，英國可能確實處於「迷失在文字中」的危險之中。

編寫這份報告需要廣泛的研究和審查，包括公共政策中語文的主要使用者和提供者的投入。我想藉此機會感謝所有參與製作的人的辛勤工作 – 特別是作者安妮·佈雷維克和賽琳娜·陳。 我們非常感謝一些高等教育機構，政府代表和專家為我們提供這項調查的證據。最後，我要感謝指導小組其他成員對   該項目的承諾：伊沃爾·羅伯茨爵士、聯合國秘書長和指導小組成員。 克萊夫·霍爾斯教授;海倫·華萊士教授;格雷厄姆·弗尼斯教授FBA和海軍少將西蒙·李斯特。

我們希望這份報告將成為一個有用的平臺  ，在未來   徹底審查   政府和教育部門可用的選擇，以克服我們強調的挑戰，並採取我們提供的政策的廣泛方向。

 
  

 羅賓·尼布萊特博士

查塔姆學院院長，主席， 迷失 的 言語 調查

 
  

內容 提要

  1. 說外語的能力是建立關係，相互文化理解，信任和網路的關鍵因素，這些關係，相互理解，信任和促進跨國界和社會的互動與合作。 今天英國面臨的國際參與和安全格局截然不同，這意味著語言技能不能再簡單地被視為政府雇員在外向角色中所需的其他技能的可選輔助手段。過去幾十年的經濟、技術、地緣政治和社會變化意味著，越來越多的政府部門現在需要 外交和國家安全方面的語言技能。 這在

turn  為一系列語言的技能  創造了溢價，對於第一語言是英語的說話者來說，這些語言被認為更難獲得  。一個社會及其政府在  語言技能    方面的裝備水準應被視為一個關鍵指標，表明他們如何準備在快速變化的全球參與環境中有效運作。

  1. 傳統上，  政府  內部的外語技能被視為  外交、國家安全  和國防的關鍵。然而，        在過去幾年中，政府某些領域的語言能力下降，引發了   人們對我們未來能力的擔憂。如果不採取措施扭轉目前語言技能的下降，英國可能會面臨「迷失在文字中」的危險。
  1. 英國學院長期以來一直擔心英國境內語言技能的日益不足。據我們所知， 從未有過  系統審查，以研究英國境內的語言能力如何影響政府  維持外交關係和提供國家安全和國防的能力。 因此，此查詢

重點關注英國政府內外語技能的現狀。 具體而言，它    旨在更好地瞭解：

  • 政府目前的  外語能力;
  • 這種能力如何服務於英國在國際關係和安全方面的公共政策目標;和
  • 政府目前和未來的能力   如何通過更廣泛的語言學習得到支援。
  1. 本報告借鑒了正式的磋商進程、廣泛的案頭研究和與一系列利益攸關方的非正式訪談。

在提供這一初步概述時，該報告為進一步的研究和行動鋪平了道路，有助於為英國語言能力  的發展和維護提供可持續和戰略知情的方法  。

主要 發現

5.               語言需求和  語言技能的價值

 

  • 每個接受此調查的政府部門和機構 都承認語言技能

使他們能夠實現目標的重要好處。然而，政府部門目前並沒有給予語言技能以證據顯示的重要性。

 是必要的。

  • 許多政府部門和機構認為，他們目前可以在沒有語言技能的情況下“完成工作”——儘管可能還不盡如人意。雖然語言技能經常補充其他重要技能，並且本身不一定是必需的，但這種反應傳達的相當冷淡的資訊是，語言是重要的，但也是可選的。
  • 然而，有跡象表明，所諮詢的部門日益認識到 語文的必要性和重要性。很明顯，英國官員和武裝部隊缺乏語言技能既令人尷尬，也有可能使  英國處於  競爭劣勢。  人們還認識到，文化和語言技能在未來將變得越來越重要。 新成立的FCO語言中心和國防語言學校

 文化是整個政府  致力於  語言學習  的潛在燈塔。

6.               早期 和 長期  投資 策略

 

  • 語言學習是資源密集型的，很明顯，許多部門都希望這些技能在理想情況下能夠按需獲得。 各部門對語文技能的採購情況各不相同，有些部門，如秘密情報機構， 提供對語文培訓的長期投資，而另一些部門則臨時廣泛使用承包商和口譯員。
  • 一些部門已採取步驟，通過以下方式保存和擴大對 語言培訓的投資：維護語言技能資料庫、跨機構技能共用、再培訓和更新機會，以及對培訓和  保護  語言教學專門知識的投資。

然而，可以做更多的事情，並以更統一的方式，從  語言培訓投資中獲得賭注價值，而不會產生過度的結構靈活性。

  • 對供應鏈有重大的連鎖反應。語言獎學金是一項長期投資，因此不應簡單地將其視為 直接僱主的責任。 相反，  這個問題需要在  回合中得到解決。

7.                母語人士的使用  擴大

 

  • 顯然，在各部門之間，現有的語文資源可以得到更好的利用。雖然人們對多元文化主義這一方面產生的紅利有一種普遍的認識，但許多部門都使用母語人士， 但我  所做的還不夠  ，無法在學校層面鼓勵或發展母語或傳統人士的技能。  英國  擁有多元化的人口，提供了  寶貴的語言資源庫，特別是對於學校不常教授的語言。
  • 可以做出更大的努力  ，接觸在   更廣泛的公務員隊伍  中在其他地方工作的母語人士，鼓勵他們感到自己的技能和

自願提供有關其口語的資訊。 這種參與戰略   可以實現更大的整合

允許政府部門，特別是內政部機構，進入封閉的社區，為社區參與和預防恐怖主義產生積極影響。

8.                職業發展和激勵

 

  • 這項調查發現，不僅沒有足夠的激勵措施 來 鼓勵 語言 學習， 而且 在某些情況下，也長期存在職業抑制因素。儘管存在各種經濟激勵措施來提高其專業形象，但與語言學習相關的恥辱感仍然是一個問題。
  • 語言技能和專業知識目前不是主要政府部門工作評估過程的明確組成部分。 需要 將語文技能納入  考績和職務說明，以此作為承認其價值和確保在考績制度中得到更大程度的語言技能的一種方式。

9.               跨部門 協作 和  戰略 方法

 

  • 識別語言要求的方法似乎是分散的，不是很有戰略依據，並且在政府相關部門中有些不透明。 政府  之間   似乎  很少協調確定當前的語言需求，也沒有滿足全面戰略方法來滿足這些需求。
  • 然而，令人鼓舞的是，儘管語言需求不同，但預算壓力正在導致某些形式的 合作增加。 FCO 的語言 中心 為 考試 工作提供了一個重要的機會來彙集資源，這些資源應該系統地提供給其他政府部門和機構的工作人員。

10.          維持 語言 能力

 

  • 該報告還將上述發現納入了支持英國學校和大學語言學習的更廣泛基礎設施的框架。 該報告的結論是，目前的大學規定無法滿足政府部門和機構的需求 。 不僅   有 一般

   各部門對高等教育機構內現有的專業知識缺乏讚賞和認識，但在高等教育機構本身內部，許多對國防和外交具有戰略重要性的語言的提供明顯下降。   

  • 高等教育機構內部語言學習的脆弱性怎麼估計也不過分，2012年推出的高等教育新資助制度提供了一個非常不同的景觀，如果語言研究要蓬勃發展，大學將不得不駕馭它。在較少教授或少數民族語言領域，學生的需求 不大可能   達到  使這種提供在經濟上能夠自我維持的水準。為   研究較少教授的語言和少數民族語言提供條件，對英國在這些領域的專業知識構成了威脅。然而，大學現在正在探索不同的方法來擴大其語言提供，在某些情況下，通過將這種連續性針對職業目的並擴大聯合學位課程。

結論

  1. 目前，政府對語言技能的冷漠態度，以及認為這些技能實際上可能對個人的 職業發展  和晉陞有害的看法尤其令人擔憂。 這些問題需要通過建立明確的政策，強有力的領導和重要的激勵措施來解決，這些激勵措施全面認可和支援語言學習。
  1. 同樣清楚的是，如果不解決供應減少的問題，政府將無法維持或增加其語言能力。政府需要與教育系統的所有部門密切合作，制定政策， 為從小學到大學的語言學習者提供一致的途徑。高等教育機構也需要參與進來，以確保  在存在具有戰略重要性、較少授課的少數民族語言的語言能力和專業知識的情況下，得到支持和維護。 
  1. 最終 ，如果不  採取行動，政府的語言技能將繼續受到侵蝕，直到政府內部既沒有足夠的技能，也沒有足夠的新語言學家通過教育系統來重建其能力並滿足安全需求，

英國的國防和外交要求。顯然，這些需要再也不能通過具體部門內的個別倡議來維持。需要在整個政府範圍內制定一項戰略性和一致的語言政策，以解決  具有語言技能的個人的供應，招聘和發展問題。

主要 建議

  • 需要  有一個跨政府  的語言能力戰略，以確定政府的語言能力和要求，並支持這些技能的發展。
  • 這項 長期 計劃 需要 ：
    • 包括對語言能力的定期審核，
    • 識別 資源 分享 機會，
    • 提供有關進度的報告。
  • 政府和高等教育機構需要共同努力，為語言學習者提供可持續和一致的途徑，並突出語言學習的價值。
  • 語言技能應被視為所有政府工作人員非常理想的  資產，而不僅僅是語言專家骨幹的保留。
  • 需要加強對脆弱語言的支援，無論是在高等教育機構內部，還是通過增加 與政府的直接戰略聯繫和夥伴關係。
  • 英國少數民族社區的多樣化語言資源需要通過能力認證來動員，支援和給予公眾認可。

介紹

   調查的目的和範圍

傳統上，政府內部的外語技能  被視為外交、國家安全和國防的關鍵。然而，    過去    幾年  政府某些領域的語言能力下降引發了人們對英國未來能力的擔憂。 最近在外交事務特別委員會（FAC）提出的案件中強調了這一點，該委員會要求重新強調外交和通信辦公室（FCO）內的語言技能 – 該辦公室警告說

 如果沒有  更強有力的方法，  FCO      就有可能沒有足夠的  人具備關鍵外交職位所需的技能。1     如果不採取措施扭轉  目前語言技能的下降  趨勢，英國可能會面臨「迷失在文字中」的危險。

  據我們所知，迄今為止，尚未  對   聯合王國（聯合王國）境內的語言能力如何影響實現與國際參與和安全有關的政策目標進行任何系統的審查。 通過這份報告，  英國學院     旨在為  更全面的審查邁出第一步，探索相關政府和主要  公共部門組織中語言的使用和需求，  主要  關注外交和國家安全。 本調查    旨在  更好地瞭解：

  • 現任英國政府的  外語能力;
  • 這種能力在多大程度上服務於英國 在國際關係和安全  特定領域的公共政策目標; 和
 
  
  • 更廣泛的語言學習如何有助於   政府當前和未來的能力。

在提供這   一初步概述時，   該報告將有助於   以  可持續和戰略知情  的方式來發展和維持語言能力。英國 – 包括制定英國高等教育機構（HEI）可以提供更有效貢獻的方式。

        我們希望  這份報告能夠為進一步的研究和行動鋪平道路，幫助產生一種可持續和協調的戰略反應，這種反應長期以來在  語言   方面一直缺乏。 外交和國家安全領域的技能。

方法論

本報告的研究      是通過   正式磋商和非正式訪談過程進行的，包括  根據  查塔姆之家規則舉行的協商論壇。  諮詢過的組織包括政府部門和機構，高等教育機構，語言培訓提供者和感興趣的第三方專家 – 例如  前政府  官員，商業代表，文化組織， 國際事務的研究人員和評論員。2 我們收到了60份諮詢回復，並採訪了來自14個組織和  專家的代表，其中包括：  FCO、國防學院、國防部（MOD）以及經濟和情報機構（SIA）。3 訪談和諮詢答覆4 輔之以廣泛的案頭研究，其中包括委員會的報告和以前關於語言技能的主要報告，包括  派克審查、納菲爾德調查、  沃頓報告和   英國科學院自己的“語言：   國家狀況”報告。5

 
  
  • 內政部   沒有正式  回應  磋商活動。
  • 安全和情報機構由英國民事訴訟處、軍情五處和軍情六處組成。
  • 諮詢問題和  面試簡報可以在  學院的網站上找到。
  • 彼得派克爵士，     《為未來說話  ：亞洲和非洲語言和地區研究  外交  和商業要求的回顧》，倫敦：大學教育資助委員會，1986年，英國科學院， 語言：國家狀況 – 英國英國學院報告中的語言技能需求和供應   ，2013年2月

語言技能對外交、國家安全和國防的重要性

新技術的出現、經濟全球化、流動性以及新形式的治理、參與者、威脅和挑戰的出現，  導致      人、地方和文化之間的相互聯繫更加複雜。  過去    12月的重大地緣政治變化意味著，越來越多的政府現在需要外交和國家安全的語言技能。

部門; 為一系列語言的技能  創造溢價，對於第一語言是英語的使用者來說，這些語言被認為更難獲得。

     在此期間，區域和  多邊機構的激增，以及企業和民間社會組織等非國家行為者的重要性日益增加（所謂的“第二軌道”外交），意味著外交實踐現在已成為一項更加多方面和要求更高的努力。與此同時，許多傳統國內問題——  環境、健康、貿易和生態政策——的全球化已經侵蝕了國內政策與外交政策之間的許多界限。6

武裝衝突的傳統觀念也發生了重大變化。 今天，種族  和區域衝突通常在其邊界之外產生影響。 最近的  軍事干預經驗也表明，地方參與對軍事成功是多麼重要，衝突後重建的任務是多麼具有挑戰性。 國家安全議程現在包括更廣泛的衝突後建設和平以及預防衝突的職權範圍，涉及國防部、國際開發部（DFID）以及FCO。

后9/11時代已經將非國家威脅的傳統觀念轉變為國家安全。由於通信革命——由於新技術的進步和更大的國際流動性而成為可能——恐怖主義、網路犯罪和有組織犯罪所構成的威脅已經多樣化，網路犯罪和有組織犯罪也變得跨國化。 擴大的職權範圍和資源專門用於SIA，嚴重有組織犯罪局（SOCA）和內政部（HO）反映了    這些威脅日益增長的重要性，以及

 
  
  • 這方面的一 個例子   是，  FCO越來越重視能源和促進貿易領域的目標。

 為  應對這些挑戰而開發的新方法和新技能。   加強國際合作  和海外行動對於應對恐怖主義和器官犯罪所構成  威脅的全球性質至關重要。

 今天   英國  面臨的國際參與和安全性的截然不同的格局意味著，語言技能不能再簡單地視為政府雇員在外向角色中所需的其他技能的可選輔助手段。 對於那些擁有語言專業學位的人和那些具有語言能力的人來說，無論在哪裡獲得，都有需求和市場。一個社會及其政府在語言技能方面的裝備水準應被視為一個關鍵指標，表明他們在     快速變化的全球參與環境中有效運作的能力。7 報告最後就如何更好地發展政府部門和機構的語言技能  ，以及如何發展  一種更具戰略性的方法來  投資涉及英國高等教育機構的未來語言能力提出了建議。

本報告第一部分闡述了調查結果，即政府部門和機構在  外交、國家安全、執法、8 和國防等關鍵政策領域的語言技能方面裝備精良。根據這些結論，該報告審查了每個領域內語言需求的變化，確定語言需求的現行做法，以及提供和投資  相關   部分的語言技能的方法。

政府。    報告   顯示，目前，政府部門沒有給予語言技能以證據顯示是必要的重要性，並且在提供和維持這些技能方面表現出一定程度的不一致和臨時方法。

第二部分闡述了該報告對英國學校和大學  內支援語言學習的更廣泛基礎設施狀況的調查結果，  及其對政府語言需求的影響  和聯繫  。    該報告的一  個關鍵發現是，目前的大學規定沒有滿足政府部門和機構的需求。

 
  
  • 其中  一  些問題將在  2014年英國科學院即將發佈的關於英國軟實力資產的報告中進一步探討。
  • 到  2013 年 10  月底，  成員國應  遵守  《公約》。

歐洲   議會和   理事會2010年10月20日關於  刑事訴訟中的口譯和翻譯  權   的第2010/64/EU號法令，http://eur-lex。europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:201 0：280：0001：0007

     不僅各部門普遍  缺乏對高等教育機構內部現有專業知識的了解和認識，而且在  高等教育機構本身內部，許多高等教育機構的供應明顯下降。

 對國防和外交  具有戰略重要性  的語言。

該報告最後就如何  更好地發展政府部門和機構的語言技能，以及如何發展一種更具戰略性的方法來投資涉及英國高等教育機構的未來語言能力提出了建議。

第 一部分： 主要 發現

  1. 二. 目前政府對語文能力的態度

 外交和國際貿易  語言

 說  外語  的能力是    建立關係，相互文化理解，信任和網路的關鍵因素

 促進跨國界  和社會的互動與合作。9 因此，語言技能傳統上發揮了重要作用。

 促進   外交官溝通  和代表政府的核心目標。

隨著英國對非殖民化以來的軍事和經濟影響力的減弱，以及   經濟和政治權力從西方手中重新平衡   ，  語言和文化意識對成功建立關係和影響力的價值怎麼強調都不為過。

儘管如此，政府尚未開發出一致的應用程式，以確保其語言資源足以應對  這些重大變化。 促進貿易的商業外交    現在是  英國外交政策  的一個重點  ，最近公佈的國際防務參與戰略 – MOD和FCO的聯合檔 – 強調了國防部門的非運營工作對促進英國影響力的貢獻 遍佈全球。10 然而，儘管對語言技能的需求不斷增長，但在更廣泛的社會中，這種需求卻令人擔憂地下降。

 
  

和政府，在特定部門  內的語言能力和  提供培訓方面。

 外交和聯邦事務部

長期以來，地理專業知識和外語技能一直被視為備受尊敬的英國外交部門的標誌。 然而，  近  幾十年來，由於資源減少以及重新轉向管理主義和通用技能的發展，這些技能在FCO  中被取消了優先次序。11 具體而言，

2007   年語文中心的關閉標誌著外交官  語文滑雪人數逐漸下降的低點。根據2011年提交給FAC的證據，許多關鍵的FCO職位不再由講當地語言的人員填補。12   2012  年 4 月，在回答斯蒂芬 · 巴克萊議員的 Parliamen-tary 問題時提供的數字顯示，1900 名外交官中只有 48 人領取了額外報酬。

 因為他們  能流利地使用     東道國的語言;  而超過90%的外交官  沒有收到  額外的錢，這表明  他們沒有東道國的GCSE同等語言資格。12

 語言技能  的下降對於被認為「難以學習」的語言尤其明顯，例如阿拉伯文，普通話和韓語。  

例如，對阿拉伯語的瞭解不足被認為是FCO未能認識到導致“阿拉伯之春”的發展的重要性的一個原因。14 據報導，2010年，在   161名英國駐阿富汗外交官中，只有三人說達里語或普什圖語，流利程度高。15 在離家較近的地方，英國在      歐盟  （EU）  中具有影響力的能力並沒有得到歐盟委員會中不成比例的英國官員人數  的説明。 FAC最近的一份報告強調，英國的份額

歐盟人口為12.5%，但英國在歐盟委員會中的存在

 
  

 員工人數由2010年的4.8%下降至2013  年6月的4.3%  。在證據中引用的   一個原因是缺乏能夠  滿足語言要求的合適候選人，隨後被議會FCO高級國務部長  Baroness Warsi承認為“最大的障礙”。17

 最近出現了一些重大事態發展，正在尋求  解決這些缺陷。    外交和聯邦事務   大臣威廉·黑格（William Hague）承諾通過2011年啟動的“外交卓越”倡議來扭轉這種下降趨勢。 在   FCO 中，  建立語言能力是其更廣泛的“外交卓越”計劃的一部分，旨在成為世界上最好的外交服務。   明確   承認，英國外交官將不斷  努力實現更廣泛的訪問，更深入的理解和更深入的   洞察力，無論他們何時發言和理解。  當地語言。      該倡議  的目的是  確保FCO外交官“在  外交官   中對各國的歷史，文化，地理  科學和政治有無與倫比的瞭解。   他們被張貼到，並說  當地語言“ 17 此外，  「外交卓越」倡議支援

 FCO的「網路轉移」戰略：  FCO    目前正在  通過投資新辦事處和在新興大國和  不斷增長的      國家增加員工來擴大其遍佈全球的dip-lomatic網路經濟。  FCO     表示，到2015年，它將在亞洲  的20多個國家開設或升級多達  20  個員額，並部署約300名  額外員工。美洲和非洲。 到目前為止  ，已經  開設或升級了14個員額。    工作人員  的擴大  將更加依賴  使用當地僱用的工作人員，  預計  到2015年將達到所有海外工作人員  的70%。 17

 FCO的語言能力      以全球發言人插槽網路為基礎（在這些角色中，以當地語言進行有效  溝通的能力被認為是至關重要的）。 演講者        職位包括  絕大多數  非英語國家的所有職位負責人職位，以及在海外大使館的各種政治，商業和領事角色 和倫敦的研究分析師  。

 
  

科爾 882

  • 威廉黑格外交大臣閣下就外交貿易發表的講話，2013年10月17日，www.gov.uk/government/speeches/foreign-secretary-speech-on-diplomatic-tradecraft
  • 然而，這將以犧牲英國工作人員的初級職位為代價。外交 事務委員會第 五 次報告： FCO 績效 和 財務 2011-12 下議院， 第 40-52段，出版物。 parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmfaff/690/69009.htm

在填補  演講者職位之前，工作人員   必須在英國進行一段時間的全職語言培訓（以更新現有技能或學習新語言），然後在相關國家進行沉浸式培訓。           2013年9月，外交大臣在外交大臣主樓重新開放了語言中心，為作為核心外交技能的語言能力提供了新的重點和投資。用前任秘書的話說：

“我們需要更多在重要地點的當地熟練外交官，他們能夠深入瞭解這些國家的皮膚，沉浸在他們的語言，文化，政治和歷史  中，他們可以接觸到決策者，並能夠利用非正式的影響力網路。18

 

新的語言中心是一個最先進的設施，擁有40間教室，提供全面，兼職和專業培訓，包括一個多媒體  中心，提供  數千  本書籍和支援八十多種語言的在線材料。

 為本次調查而諮詢的許多利益攸關方強調，當  大使以  當地語言展示時，重要的善意和積極的看法非常重要。 前英國駐南斯拉夫、義大利和愛爾蘭大使伊沃爾·羅伯茨爵士說，沒有一個特使不能不講當地語言就能正確地完成這項工作：

“你的工作是  直接代表英國，而不僅僅是    通過外交部或國家首都過濾你的資訊。 透過  電視和廣播直接進行指導是  您工作的重要組成部分  。  如果你不能用  外語面試，那麼你  就不能這樣做。 21

 

儘管幾位受訪者強調，說   外語的英國外交官     通常會說  高水準，而且FCO在自己的內部基準測試中在外交服務中被評為表現最好的  國家。 練習，FCO在英語中是不尋常的 –

 
  

作為招聘過程的  一部分，  外交部既不要求第二語言技能，也不要求語言能力傾向測試。  它自己承認，其招生的語言技能低於其他類似的外交部。

新入境的螞蟻在   進入  外交部門    后不久就必須參加現代語言能力傾向測試（MLAT），  該測試旨在衡量個人學習外國語  的能力  語言。然後，在決定誰應該被招聘到海外職位的特定演講者職位時，可以考慮MLAT分數（或資格）。

    在採訪過程中  ，外交和爆炸物事務廳表示的意見是  ，語言是  其工作  的基礎，語言技能使外交官能夠更好地  完成工作。 雖然  新聞部  的大部分工作可以在沒有語文技能的情況下完成，但它們將提高這項工作的品質。

當作為本次調查的   一部分提出問題時，FCO     是否會考慮將語言技能作為強制性要求（無論是在入學時還是在  職業生涯中），  由於害怕阻止那些   具有其他高度發達的外交技巧，否則將成為優秀的外交官。 這種觀點認為，如果  FCO   只能從  語言上有天賦或有傾向的人  中挑選人才，那麼招募  和培訓最優秀人才的能力  就會受到人為的限制。

FCO代表還指出，入學時的語言要求    極有可能對  該部門的能力  產生不利影響。

   鑒於    公立學校學生學習語言   的可能性遠遠低於私立學校的學生，因此改善  了招生的社會經濟多樣性。 相反，他們  現在正在考慮  入職后語文要求    ，即工作人員   在加入該處后五年內  應達到外國語言能力水準， 與本報告後面   詳述的美國方法不同。 為了接觸   畢業生，  FCO為  有限數量的本科生提供未來   人才計劃（FTS）的暑期實習機會，這些本科生正在學習  「硬局域網」，以  吸引申請人  關鍵語言技能。22

雖然FCO為在職外交官提供語言津貼，但可用金額已大大減少。 語文津貼

 
  

支付給所有在過去五年內通過其工作規範中規定的目標級別的適當考試的“演講者職位”官員。 為了鼓勵官員在「公職」期間掌握他們的語言技能，特別是優先語言，  還  向在英國以普通話、阿拉伯文或俄語等硬性語言重新獲得資格的官員  支付語言津貼。 FCO目前正在審查其語言津貼政策，作為加強語言能力的更廣泛工作的一部分，可能會更加關注那些保持技能的官員。

在發佈之間 。

FCO目前的工作評估和晉陞標準也沒有提到任何語言技能;  導致FAC在FCO正在採取的課程中得出結論的一個事實是“與外交大臣的講話  語氣有些不一致”，該演講談到  需要創造一種文化和社區，在這個文化和社區中，文化知識和語言技能受到重視和期望。22 不過，FCO正開始處理這些問題。 為了支援執行外交卓越倡議，正在開發一門外交課程。 課程  將反映一般公務員  能力，但也將提供更多方面，這些方面與外交特有的技能有關，包括語言技能。在撰寫本文時，FCO尚未決定該框架是執行還是  提供諮詢。

消防處已採取步驟改進該部的管理信息系統，使其能夠更好地協調技能幹部，並跟蹤和查明可與需要相匹配的語言技能。 磋商表明，與兩年前相比，關於現有語文資源的總體資訊有了很大改善。 FCO還啟動了一個人才管理系統，旨在識別具有語言能力的有潛力的員工，為他們提供額外的支援和指導，作為其  專業技能和職業發展的一部分。

 在調查過程中，一種普遍的觀點是，   FCO目前分散的工作任命結構  意味著那些申請  演講者位置的人（特別是使用更難學習的語言）。

 
  

可能會在「促銷賭注」中感到不利，因為必須在語言學習上投入額外的時間。一些外交官表示擔心，如果他們在世界特定地區長時間停留，就會被視為過於“小眾”。23 為解決這一問題，聯邦事務部已將有關派駐的最後決定權交還給中心。 雖然特派團團長在面試后就任命問題提出建議  ，但  最後決定現在由  Lo ndon  的任命委員會作出。 這使倫敦的FCO能夠確保對具有寶貴語言技能的員工進行更具戰略性的分配，並具有更強的計劃未來分配和提供的能力。

 新的聯邦及殖民組織語言中心

鑒於  2007 年關閉FCO語言中心對語言技能的影響，  恢復該中心的決定非常受歡迎   ，特別是考慮到計劃擴大該處的員額。

亞洲  、拉丁美洲和非洲。對調查    的   答覆者對舊中心關閉后失去專門知識表示嚴重關切，包括失去教學人員，他們多年來在以滿足外交官具體需要的方式教授語言方面的經驗。 新中心提供多達1000人的培訓

 學生，為  其他白廳員工提供語言培訓，並在午餐時間和下班后提供進修課程，以保持和更新倫敦員工的語言技能。但是，它將以與舊方式完全不同的方式運行。代替內部工作人員，語言培訓外包給一個外部提供者。一些受訪者在以這種方式外包供應時對供應的品質保證和安全性表示關切。 正如最近在政府其他地方的經驗所表明的那樣，通過單一提供者精簡供應的關切  是   ，最有效的  工作人員可能  不再  願意按照所提供的條件為提供者工作。        鑒於  司法部最近與筆譯員和口譯員簽訂的單一提供者合同的消極經驗，似乎至關重要的是需要密切監測合同提供者的效力，以確保履約不會因費用問題而受到不適當的損害。

通過將該中心置於倫敦市中心其建築的中心，FCO     旨在在其中間建立一個學習者社區。     除了  全職語言培訓外，它還   將能夠促進持續的非工作。

 
  

 通過lunchtime和下班后課程以及非正式語言交流進行特定語言  培訓。 FCO面臨的挑戰仍然是確保該中心的影響在其40間教室之外感受到，以便它能夠   為整個  部門乃至整個政府的語言學習   文化做出貢獻。

當地 員工

FCO提高其在世界各地特派團的語言能力的另一個重要方式是越來越多地使用當地雇用的工作人員。當地徵聘的工作人員占  FCO工作力的66%，  儘管  FAC指出  ，實際年齡百分比（表示為在海外工作的FCO員工的比例）為

82.5%.24 徵聘 當地 工作人員  被認為是  一種 負擔得起的 、 快捷 的“購買專家ise”的方式，包括語言專業知識，並且是政府其他地方的普遍做法，例如英國國際發展部和英國貿易投資部。作為當地員工

受僱的條款和條件與聯邦事務部的正規工作人員不同，  由於預算壓力仍然很大，預計這一趨勢將繼續下去。 FCO定期審查其「發言人插槽」足跡，以確保其符合其外交政策優先事項和業務需求。

  例如，為了支援其更廣泛的網路轉移戰略，一旦目前正在  接受培訓的工作人員到位，  FCO將把阿拉伯文和普通話的發言者數量增加40%，拉丁美洲西班牙文和葡萄牙文的發言者數量將從2010年增加20%。  説明

工作人員達到要求的水準，FCO最近還為學習硬語言的人實施了更長的培訓時間。 FCO四分之三的語言培訓支援六種核心語言：阿拉伯文、普通話、俄語、法語、德語和西班牙文。涵蓋講這些語言的國家的地域政策部門鼓勵工作人員加入特定的「幹部」，以提升這些語言，並在需要他們的地方擔任海外職位   。 一旦員工  具備  特定語言的資格，  我們鼓勵他們  保持新鮮感，並在其職業生涯中將其用於  多個職位。

  雖然使用當地僱用和外包的工作人員有一個強大和可以理解的有吸引力的經濟理由，但鑒於預算限制，過度依賴  購買  外部技能存在  危險。 這    可能導致  國內語言能力投資不足。因此，FCO必須監測這一趨勢對語言能力和發展機會的影響。

 
  
  • 外交 事務委員會第五次報告：2011-12  年聯邦事務部的業績和財務狀況 下議院，2013年3月19日，第41段

    與英國永久員工的關係，因此，他們可能會  在早期發展以及寶貴的經驗和曝光方面  失去。

 國際貿易、投資和發展

 商業，創新和技能部（BIS）的職責涵蓋貿易，科學和商業，其一  些單位對語言技能有持續和定期的需求。例如，歐洲、貿易    和國際分局處理  貿易政策問題，其官員  必須  瞭解由成員國用其語言編寫的檔案。 因此，Some帖子具有語言要求和/或提供語言培訓。 在這些職位上工作的人中，約有80%是在大學學習語言或通過先前工作經驗獲得語言的畢業生。

   促進英國貿易利益 – 促進出口和鼓勵對內投資 – 屬於  英國貿易投資和投資局（UKTI），它將FCO和國際清算銀行的工作結合在一起。英國貿易投資總署有相當多的員工在海外工作，其中約80%是本地員工。25 英國的一些海外職位有語言要求，作為招聘標準的一部分。

 語言培訓的預算，  這不足以從頭開始培訓某人。因此，大約80%的英國國際職位持有人是在大學學習過一門語言或通過先前的工作經驗獲得語言技能的人。英國貿易投資局從BIS和FCO中抽調其員工，並依賴於先前的招聘流程運營 –

  在這些部門。 新的  FCO語言中心將為英國貿易投資局的工作人員提供額外的培訓資源。

  英國國際發展部  在28   個不同的國家/地區工作也需要  語言技能，與大多數其他政府部門不同，因為他們在國外工作的大多數顧問都是高度專業化的。   和外部招聘。語言需求和培訓根據國家和個人的具體情況進行評估。 新的FCO語言中心預計將成為英國國際發展部的主要語言培訓機構。

 
  
  • 英國貿易 與投資，  年度報告和帳目2012-13 p 32，  2013年6月倫敦：文具辦公室

 國家安全  語言

9/11后國際恐怖主義威脅的興起和網路恐怖主義的增長意味著情報部門  在維護國家安全方面發揮了越來越大    的作用。     因此，它們在過去十年中受益於資源的增加，自2001年以來，這些機構的總預算幾乎增加了兩倍。26 自9/11以來，僅政府通信總部（GCHQ）的人員編製就翻了一番。

傳統上，SIA對高級專業語言技能的需求最為強烈。 GCHQ  長期以來一直是研究生語言學家的最大僱主，擁有約250名語言學家，涵蓋多種語言，約佔其taff的10%。27 MI5估計，大約有100名工作人員在工作過程中使用語言技能。  除了  對更大語言能力的需求日益增長之外，所尋求  的語言範圍也發生了巨大變化，從  東歐語言到普通話、波斯語、韓語、索馬里語、西非語言和許多差異很大的區域阿拉伯語方言。

雖然SIA僱用的語言學家數量相對較少，    但他們的工作   對  英國政府和整個人口的影響  至關重要。正如SIA的代表所說，    「調查的方向可以取決於  一句話」。因此，當英國面臨來自海外的多樣化威脅時，語言是必不可少的。

研究生 語言學家 招聘

GCHQ研究生語言學家的招聘程式要求很高，只有一小部分參加語言測試的申請人被接受。 然而，在對語言技能的需求  增加的時候，GCHQ報告說，由於合格的申請人較少，它很難招聘到足夠多的高素質語言學家       。GCHQ對大學提供的語言課程的數量和範圍不斷減少表示擔憂   ，特別是對於  稀有和更多的語言課程。

 
  

深奧的語言。28 為了解決這種語言技能短缺的問題，GCHQ越來越多地開始招募母語人士，他們不一定擁有語言學位，但    母語水平達到學位水準。  GCHQ還用當前需要的語言對    現有員工進行重新培訓。

 SIA對  中小學和大學語言的接受率   持續下降，特別是較少授課和少數民族語言的急劇下降表示嚴重關切。 這導致了 

GCHQ在其周邊地區開展了一項學校參與計劃，根據該計劃，GCHQ語言學家進入學校，以稀有語言提供品酒課程。 該計劃旨在鼓勵學生學習GCSE / A-level的語言，並考慮在大學學習語言。 GCHQ定期確保在大學招聘期間有  存在感  ，並傾向於針對具有種族多元化學生入學人數的大學，以吸引具有不同文化經驗和母語技能的大學。

   SIA還明確表示，     由於牛津大學，劍橋和RSA考試委員會（OCR）考試委員會今年早些時候  做出的決定  ，他們對學校教授的英語範圍的影響感到不安：29

“我們擔心可能會遠離提供母語為母語的speakers所講語言的資格，因為這些資格不僅允許說話者發展他們的閱讀和寫作技能，並了解他們的語言的語法結構，而且還展示了擁有正式認可的母語技能的價值。 我們還支援任何增加語言資格數量的倡議，包括母語人士或傳統語言。 31

 

 

 

 
  

 

  • 加爾平，理查德 “GCHQ在學校教授’未來的間諜’” 2011年3月8日 BBC新聞網站bbc. co.uk/news/education-12675368
  • 雖然在學校  內學習的語言主要是  主要的現代歐洲語言，但  到目前為止，已經提供了本地或遺產所掌握的其他語言  技能。 揚聲器經過識別和開發。 資產語言計劃為25種不同語言的成就提供了國家級認證，並有助於激勵和獎勵語言學習。 然而，考試委員會OCR最近決定改革資產語言方案，這將極大地重新劃分符合該方案的語言範圍。
  • 私人 通信。

 正如報告  第    二  部分所討論的  ，資產語言計劃的改革旨在  識別和發展英國多元化學校人口的母語技能，這將大大減少所檢查和教授的語言範圍。

合同 工

由於所需的語言能力和徵聘語言學家的困難，GCHQ和其他移民機構現在越來越多地在合同基礎上使用母語人士。合同工作人員    可能已獲得安全檢查，但其清除程度  低於長期工作人員。 以  國籍/居住地不符合最低要求的母語人士  也可能在短時間內不時被請來處理個別案件。 在合同基礎上越來越多地招募母語人士，這反映出在情報和安全行動中對“街頭”語言技能的需求日益增加，特別是在反恐工作方面。

員工 發展

 新航   對工作人員  語文技能   的持續投資反映了它們的觀點，即語文對其目標至關重要。GCHQ擁有一個具有語言技能的員工資料庫，並採用了正式的指導系統，新員工被分配到一名高級語言學家，該語言學家將指導初級員工，以確保他們以   各自的語言提升到更高的  能力水準。 如果需要新的語言    ，  語言學家將接受再培訓

沒有現有的能力  ，從零開始到學位水平的過程需要18個月的intensive培訓。 培訓通常由長期的外部承包商提供，使用母語人士作為導師。

招募非語言學位母語人士的好處之一是，如果幾年不使用語言，他們不太可能忘記語言，而語言畢業生將需要定期的進修課程。 但是，用不同的語言    對母語人士進行再培訓可能很困難，特別是如果他們沒有在正規教育環境中  學習母語的話。  SIA指出，非研究生母語人士可以從高等教育機構的  短期課程中受益，以發展他們的閱讀，寫作和口語技能，以及瞭解其母語的語法結構。

在為本報告提供諮詢的組織中，SIA特別認識到確保   供應的持續能力和“激增能力”的必要性和  困難，特別是對於稀有語言。 那裡

因此，強烈鼓勵高級語言學家承擔教學責任，特別是如果  他們說罕見的語言。  值得注意的是  ，合同工作人員  沒有  這種發展機會。

 職業發展和激勵

 GCHQ和MI5都通過向他們的管理人員支付溢價來激勵語言習得，稀有語言吸引了最高的溢價。However，受訪者報告說，在長期職業發展和員工保留方面，語言技能和  領域專業知識可能會帶來障礙。 公務員制度中「通才」和「專家」之間的傳統鴻溝往往不利於語言學家等專家角色，導致機會受到限制。

向上晉升。那些為了進入   管理水準而“重塑”為普通主義者  的語言學家，往往會  發現自己處於語言技能沒有得到利用的境地。

  SIA現在正在  合作  採取綜合方法進行招聘，以及職業發展和保留。Current計劃反映了向單一招聘流程邁進的預期，在整個SIA中聯合招聘廣告和一種語言測試。 這將使各機構能夠共用工作人員，並允許跨機構流動，因此

 以提供   更多   有趣的帖子。  SIA 還     在英國以及  美國（US）和澳大利亞的合作夥伴組織提供員工借調機會。

  執法和打擊有組織犯罪  的語言

從執法和預防犯罪在全球方面採取的方式可以清楚地看到國內和國際治理目標之間界限的模糊。 政府  打擊有組織犯罪的戰略指出，有組織犯罪的國際規模現在被視為對英國國家安全的威脅。31 處理嚴重和有組織犯罪及反恐的責任屬於HO及其機構的職權範圍，這些組織對語言技能的需求迫在眉睫。 雖然HO沒有正式回應諮詢，但該報告探討了大都會如何使用語言。

 
  
  • 內政部“從本地到全球：降低 有組織犯罪  的風險”，2011年7月 gov.uk/ 政府/上傳/系統/上傳/attachment_data/檔/97823/有組織犯罪戰略.pdf

員警局（MPS）以及嚴重有組織犯罪機構（SOCA）  於2013年10   月正式解散，其責任由國家犯罪局接管。

 公安部  負責  大倫敦的執法工作  ，大倫敦是種族和語言最多樣化的人口之一。

在世界上。此外，公安部也是國家安全基礎設施的一部分，是負責保護倫敦和英國免受恐怖主義威脅的機構。 公安部的反恐委員會（SO15）  與軍情五處  和其他安全和  情報機構密切合作，打擊恐怖主義活動。

在2008年的審查之後，公安部確定需要在部隊內發展語言技能。它開始詢問有關新兵的文化意識和語言技能的資訊，最近  還設立了一個語言方案，為整個軍種的警官提供語言收入。 該計劃提供兩個級別的培訓和認證。1級是一個為期一年的課程，圍繞特定的警務任務建立，主要針對鄰里警務，而2級是一個較長的課程，包括正式評估，導致國家認可的資格，並滿足  SO15等專業部門的要求。 MPS要求的語言廣度僅與FCO相匹配，並反映在1  級提供的語言範圍中：阿拉伯文，普通話，波斯語，法語，德語，義大利語，波蘭文，葡萄牙語，俄語，西班牙文，土耳其語和越南語。31

為確保語文培訓提供良好的投資回報，公安部要求人員在申請  課程時提交商業案例，概述他們的要求、    學習  動機，並提供  如何運用語言  的真實例子 使用或    缺乏  語言知識如何影響  他們的工作成果。

然而，在公安部中，少數族裔群體的代表性仍然不足，特別是在高級職位上。黑人和少數族裔警官只佔公安部的10.5%，33這可能有助於解釋員警中存在  一種  不情願  的文化，所以我警官自願參加

 
  
  • 級別  範圍從初學者到GCSE級別，  重點是  對話技巧。
  • 英格蘭 和威爾士內政部，員警工作人員，2013年3月31  日gov.uk/government/publica/員警工作力 – 英格蘭和威爾士 – 31 – 三月 – 2013 /員警 – 工作力 – 英格蘭和威爾士 – 31 – 三月 – 2013#員警

有關外國語言技能的資訊。34  負責維持   城市  治安  的部隊缺乏多樣性、文化意識和語言技能，   該市40%以上的人口  來自黑人和少數民族  （BME） 背景可能會成為與當地社區建立重要關係和信任的障礙  。35 負責反恐事務的助理通訊團最近承認，   如果「我們有更多具有某些語言技能的人，而且  有更多的人，而且有更多的        人，公安部在反恐方面的效力將得到提高。反映倫敦的社區” 37

今年成為國家犯罪局一部分的嚴重有組織犯罪局（SOCA）   在2007年至2012年期間領導了有組織犯罪。隨著犯罪變得更加全球化，在英國運營的犯罪組織通常都是外國的，SOCA員工中約有4%。

駐紮在國外，主要地區是阿富汗，巴基斯坦，土耳其，非洲和拉丁美洲。 大約一半的聯絡官員接受了語言培訓，講西班牙文的能力被認為對SOCA在拉丁美洲的工作至關重要。然而，對於某些地區來說     ，運輸被認為過於昂貴和耗時，無法構成良好的投資回報。工作人員只被要求在國外任職兩年        （可選擇第三年），而且出於安全原因，不大可能回到原來的職位。雖然目標是讓聯絡官達到C2級別（操作），但只有20%   的人設法實現了這一目標，大多數  工作人員都達到了B2（獨立使用者）。SOCA的一份回復估計，該組織花費了50，000英鎊來培訓一名全職西班牙語軍官六個月。

對於SOCA的英國工作，攔截工作主要需要語言技能。 與大都會員警局一樣，外部內部部署被廣泛使用，並佔SOCA語言預算的很大一部分。    預計  NCA  的語言要求和培訓  方案將與SOCA和海外的類似。

 
  
  • 英格蘭、威爾士內政部，員警工作力 ，2013年3月31日，已發佈 2013年7月18日
  • 民政事務委員會最近指出，有人告訴警方「有時 對與種族和性取向有關的問題瞭解  有限，這對公眾對員警服務的信任有影響  。民政事務委員會第三次報告：員警  的領導和標準，下議院，2013年6月26日，第191段 publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/ cmhaff/67/6708.htm
  • Cressida Dick，“在內 政事務委員會面前採取的未經糾正的證據：反恐”，將於2013年6月4日星期二作為HC 231-ipublications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/ cmhaff/uc231-i/uc23101.htm

網路保持在  原位。   隨著對網路  犯罪的日益關注，對俄語和普通話的興趣和需求也越來越大。

 防禦語言

對於英國軍方來說，文化知識和通信能力現在被認為是應對現代國防行動挑戰的最重要方面之一。正如最近的一份聯合原則說明所述：“2010年戰略防禦和安全審查，以及最近的國際防務接觸戰略，都強調了預防，國防外交（安全合作）和影響力中心的重要性。語言是  這些方面  的關鍵推動因素」。 37 這  反映在  國防部對協商的回應中，其中指出：「國防部認識到，如果以母語開展海外活動，  其目標將  更快、更有效、更高效、更深入地實現」。

直到最近，英國國防學說對語言（而不是  文化知識）的重要性相對保持沉默，語言技能被認為是具有

 偏好  依賴  現場口譯員。38 然而，  最近發表的《聯合原則說明》承認，過去沒有充分處理語文能力問題，目前的做法不足以滿足業務需要。39 新國防語言文化學院（DCLC）的使命體現

  武裝部隊內部對語言的關注不斷擴大：“  語言  和文化防禦中心  （DCLC）  負責提供英語和外語培訓，以加強英國的國防和安全 能力並為   國防外交做出貢獻。39

 
  
  • 國防部（發展、概念和理論中心） 聯合 理論 說明 1/13 對行動的語言 支援，2013年3月 gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/ 檔/180778/20131315-JDN113_Linguistic_Support.pdf
  • 國防部（聯合理論和概念中心），《對和平支援行動的軍事貢獻》聯合作戰出版物3-50（JWP3-50），第2版，2012年12月31日，s513，第5-9頁www。uk/government/uploa/系統/上傳/attachment_data/檔/43479/JWP350Ed2.pdf
  • 國防部，聯合原則說明1/13：“對行動的語言支援” 2013年3月
  • 關於  國防語言  和文化  中心網站的聲明：da.mod.uk/colleges/ cmt/語言和文化國防中心

這種   方法的改變  是從伊拉克和阿富汗戰役中吸取教訓的直接結果，特別是在打擊兩國反叛亂的努力中吸取  的教訓。 現代戰爭的性質意味著硬軍事力量不再足以取得成果，語言能力是更廣泛，更多方面解決問題的關鍵  因素。 此外，語言技能和文化知識現在也被認為對軍隊在開展後續維持和平工作和預防衝突方面的作用至關重要。

語言專業知識不僅在戰略規劃和情報監測中很重要。 在地面行動中，軍官和巡邏隊與當地社區溝通的能力  不僅有助於  當地參與，  而且可能  意味著生與死之間的差異。過度依賴母語翻譯會帶來重大風險，無論是巡邏還是在某些情況下，當地人本身。41 語言需求可能非常具體和嚴格，如果口音或方言變音錯誤，可能會產生重大後果。

就非戰鬥活動而言，武官的工作、能力建設演習和預防衝突  工作越來越重要。    2013年2  月發佈的國防部和FCO  聯合檔《國際防務接觸戰略》強調，國防部正在  將其作為國防部的核心目標，作為國防部的一個關鍵領域。  滿足  政府要求的活動，包括“影響支持英國國家利益”和“建設國際能力和意願”。42 語言和文化技能仍然是  這項工作的核心。例如，利比亞正在進行的國防外交工作包括一項專門的衝突後任務，即“發展

 並利用文化理解，以便在   擴展的戰鬥空間中發揮影響力。42

在軍事行動中，依賴當地平民語言學家有明顯的缺點，並帶來道德和安全  限制，正如最近一樣

 
  

經驗表明，給當地人自己帶來了巨大的風險。 在當地僱用的平民語言學家  曾擔任駐伊拉克英國武裝部隊的口譯員，   他們一  直是針對自己及其家人的死亡威脅  的物件，在某些情況下還被伊拉克叛亂分子追查和殺害。 44 因此，數百名伊拉克人及其家人通過

當地僱用工作人員援助計劃（LESAS）現已結束。45 還為阿富汗口譯員編列  了  一些經費，儘管數額有限。

  國防部  現在致力於  確保有足夠的語言專家特遣隊能力，當行動需要語言支援時，可以強行產生。它旨在建立以下內容：

“為了滿足高準備要求，具有現有語言技能的有限數量的志願正規人員（包括所有服務人員）應遵循  傳統的職業道路，但要處於可變的準備狀態以支援  運營規劃。 和初始運營部署。

 

國防 作戰 語言 支助 股

國防作戰語言支助股（DOLSU）是訓練要求局（TRA），負責維持和管理作戰語言能力，以支援聯合行動。 DOLSU與所有三個軍種（陸軍，海軍和空軍）合作，評估和確定哪些職位具有必要的語言需求以及需要培訓到什麼級別的工作人員。需要語言能力的關鍵職位是：國防外交和接觸，國防情報，軍事語言學家，負責目前在戰區的行動，能力發展角色（例如工業夥伴關係）以及培訓和聯絡角色。

DOLSU維護著一個具有語言能力的所有MOD工作人員的資料庫，並對需求進行年度審查，作為

 
  

國防部的主要規劃和預測工具。 一旦DOLSU制定了  培訓要求聲明，它就會與  培訓提供機構（現在是  國防語言和文化學院  （DCLC））合作，以評估如何最好地滿足培訓需求。

  語言培訓的最新變化

 國防部一  直在經歷一段預算削減的時期  ，這首先是在2010年戰略防務和安全審查之後長期軍事人員的大幅削減。因此，在國防部內提供語言培訓方面存在下行壓力。2011年，位於比肯斯菲爾德的國防語言學校（DSL）的責任轉移到國防學院。46 在對《國防法》進行審查之後，對語言培訓的責任已移交給國防學院，該學院現已設立了國防語言和文化學院。 它位於什里文納姆國防學院的主校區。為了保持積累的專家和連續性，

 大多數  DSL教學人員  已搬遷到什里文納姆，並繼續以相同的條款和條件受雇

作為伯納姆講師。   雖然某些主要語言  的培訓  是在內部提供的，  但其他語言  的培訓則外包給商業供應商。

為了滿足節省費用的需求，繼續存在外包語文供應的壓力，國防學院將在兩年後審查目前的交付模式。在moment，DCLC正在與  教學人員  合作，整理，審查和正式確定課程大綱，目的是創建一個整體的防禦教學大綱

用於 語言。

DCLC目前提供阿拉伯文、法文、西班牙文和俄文的內部培訓。  還提供達里語和普什圖語，但規定

隨著英國從阿富汗撤軍，這些語言將減少。 所有語文學員在語文  培訓  中都獲得一定程度的  文化知識，這對國防武官和文化專家來說將  更加重要。還提供4-6周的沉浸式培訓階段，主要面向國防外交官和情報人員。

 
  
  • 計劃在整個  國防部削減約  17，000個     武裝部隊工作崗位，預計到  2020年軍隊人數將從101，000  人降至82，000人。   國防部公告，「皇家海軍和陸軍裁員計劃細節」 2011年4月4日 mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/ DefencePolicyAndBusiness/RoyalNavyAndArmyReleaseRedundancySchemeDetails.htm

DCLC和DOLSU       目前正在  考慮是否可以利用FCO語言中心來滿足他們的一些語言培訓需求，儘管時程表位置的後勤問題，以及與旅行，住宿和進行軍事培訓的需要相關的費用。 同時可能會限制其範圍。

 軍事行動  中的語言

高級軍事語言學家的作用現在被認為是國防部  地面行動方法中特別關鍵的角色。 軍事語言學家是     普通士兵，他們自願在每個主要單位中擔任關鍵語言角色，並為此接受培訓。    他們的角色與     口譯員和筆譯員的角色不同，口譯  員和筆譯員主要是合同工，因為他們必須既是英國國民，又擁有重要的軍事技能 – 即不站立並能夠操作

在軍事文化中，應對高壓力情況。軍事語言學家  充當  校長（例如指揮官）的代理人，  他們需要成為稱職的操作員，並將他們的語言技能應用於現實 –

生活 狀況s.

大多數軍事語言學家都是從頭開始接受培訓的，那些在進入武裝部隊之前具有語言技能的人仍然需要額外的培訓。 國防部使用北約STANAG 6001量表來評估熟練程度，   軍事語言學家的目標是  達到3  級，相當於專業水準。 47 在初步培訓之後，軍事語言學家還必須參加每年最多四周的語言培訓。

 國防部堅持認為，所有軍事語言學家都必須是志願者，因為內在動機是學習語言的基礎。然而，在與國防部的對話中出現的一個關鍵問題是存在

與語言學習相關的社會恥辱。儘管存在  各種經濟激勵措施  來促進語言學習，但這仍然是一個問題。 為了鼓勵  技能的申報  ，有  一個基本的語言獎勵計劃，其中通過考試一次性  支付  140-2，300英鎊。

 
  
  • 然而， 由於口語和聽力    被認為是  其作戰工作中最重要的方面，國防部希望軍事語言學家的這些技能  達到3級，而2級則達到3級。 閱讀和1  級寫作。 這被稱為3321國防部（Development，概念和學說中心）的聯合學說說明1/13對  行動的語言支援，2013年3月 gov.uk/ 政府/上傳/系統/上傳/attachment_data/檔/180778/20131315-JDN113_Linguistic_Support的標準化語言配置檔。 下載

一個單獨的操作語言計劃，資格獎勵在1，800英鎊至11，700英鎊之間; 對於  再認證，獎勵較少，操作語言的語言學家  也可以  聲稱每天積極使用

 1級語言學家  在第一次旅行中每天的津貼在3.60英鎊  之間，到

4級語言學家在第四次巡演中為70.50英鎊。48 這些慷慨的財政獎勵計劃是為了克服這樣一種看法，即      志願履行  語言職責構成職業上的污點，語言  職位是低級的。   由於  語言培訓的廣泛性，語言學家可能會失去長達兩年的運營經驗，這些經驗將  計入年度報告週期  的  晉陞。在語文培訓  中花費的時間可能   長達18個月，在業績審查制度中往往不予考慮，因為考績制度主要根據工作人員的業務經驗和他們在該領域的業績情況來評估工作人員的業績。

靈活的 部署 和 激增 能力

 快速  生成語言測量能力的能力以及符合適當標準的靈活性對於國防軍來說尤為重要，並且是

國防部的主要目標。對於短期應急行動，DOLSU依靠其資料庫來識別具有相關語言技能的員工，然後可以在短時間內部署這些員工。 建立後備國防語言學家庫已被提出，作為幫助滿足早期部署需求的一種方式，即在戰略上承諾的行動的早期階段，語言培訓已經到位，但尚未產生完全成熟的語言學家。  達里語和普什圖語一直  使用的分散式訓練模式，即訓練員被派往   部隊訓練軍事人員，以教導部隊中的其他人  ，被視為  工作良好，可以複製以滿足未來的需求。

擬議的後備國防語言學家庫可能因軍隊內部招募政策的改變而受到阻礙，這些政策旨在提高少數民族的代表權。尼克·卡特少將在去年的一次廣泛報導的演講中表示，作為    陸軍2020年改革的   一部分，  預計2020年招募的部隊中有25%來自少數民族群體，這對擴大語言庫有明顯影響。49 各服務單位和國防公務員資源之間的協調    可能會  發揮  更大的作用。 國防部  也是

 
  
  • 賈斯汀路易斯中校   在H的“戰爭中的語言：  英國國防部的觀點  ”。 步子和M. 凱利，編輯，語言與軍事：聯盟，佔領和建設和平，帕爾格雷夫麥克米蘭，2012年7月
  • 湯姆科葛籣，「軍隊在 前線為穆斯林新兵而戰」  ，《泰晤士報》，2012年7月2日。 thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3462501.ece

  考慮將領土軍隊的招募基礎擴大到移民社區，這些社區將帶來相關的語言技能和文化知識，但  傳統上  並沒有將軍隊作為正式的職業道路開放。 然而，國防部代表  在交談中承認，必須克服某些障礙，  以克服一些少數民族不願加入武裝部隊。

國防部最近關於語言技能在軍事行動中的作用的聲明是一個值得歡迎和急需的信號，表明瞭它們的重要性。然而，顯然需要繼續作出協調一致的努力，以保持這一勢頭。 在持續削減預算的背景下，資源配置還需要創新、獨創性和對變革的堅定承諾。

 關鍵問題

語言需求和  語言技能的價值

這項調查提出了一個問題，即語言在實現英國公共政策目標方面的重要性。所有接受調查的政府部門和機構都承認，語言技能在實現目標方面具有重要優勢。 它們的使用頻率和規模

然而，它們所認為的重要性因   各部門各自的目標和  優先事項而異。 對於一些機構，    例如成立  SIA 的機構，語言技能被認為是實現其目標的關鍵 – 而對於大多數

 其他人，語言技能的範圍從   被視為重要但不是必需的，到偶爾有用。

目前      關於語言技能的觀點並沒有   發出關於其價值的足夠強烈的資訊。許多政府部門和機構認為，他們目前可以“完成這項工作”，儘管如果沒有語言技能，可能就不那麼好了。 雖然語言技能經常補充其他重要技能，但nd不一  定是

從本質上講，從這次調查中  得出的相當不冷不熱的資訊  是，語言是重要的，但卻是可選的。 這也許可以解釋為什麼    對   學校和大學  先前  的語言研究  漠不關心，以及對更廣泛的語言基礎設施的良性忽視，這些基礎設施使這些“非必要”技能得以發展。

政府部門的立場似乎反映了整個商業世界的立場，僱主由於擔心減少申請人的數量而沒有規定語言需求，這一政策反過來又向學生發出信號，即語言學習並不重要  。  只要  語言  被認為是  非必要的，

  扭轉目前  語言能力下降的必要步驟似乎不太可能發生。

然而，似乎有跡象表明，所諮詢的部門越來越認識到語文的必要性和重要性。政府內外的許多受訪者都認為，總體而言，英國官員和武裝部隊的語言技能很差，與國外的同行相比不利。    有  一種明確的感覺是，  這既是尷尬的，也有可能使  英國處於競爭劣勢，因為

例如，官員們錯過了更有效的溝通和文化理解帶來的不太有形的好處。人們還承認，  文化和語言技能在未來將變得越來越重要。

至關重要的是，每個部門的領導層都能找到方法，更強烈地表明語言技能的重要性，如果英國將來要具備繁榮所需的技能。一些非政府受訪者認為，如果英國希望保持全球影響力，   就需要進行文化轉變，以將語言學習提高到能夠滿足英國要求的水準。   人們普遍的期望應該是  ，如果外交官要達到最高水準的專業水平，語言技能  是必不可少的。

早期 和 長期  投資 策略

語文技能的採購因部門而異，有些部門，如SIA，在語言培訓方面提供長期投資，而另一   些部門則臨時使用  承包商和  口譯員。在一些情況下，例如國防部，過度依賴外包給口譯員的弊端已經變得很明顯。

除了SIA和MOD的某些部分之外，沒有機構為語言學家提供專門的職業道路，也沒有為公務員制度中的研究生語言學家提供特定的招聘管道。 因此，   大量的語言培訓是從頭開始的，通常需要補充培訓   ，以確保達到必要和適當的語言指揮。此外，有時還提供    針對工作  業務要求的語言培訓。

語言學習是   資源密集型的，一些部門避免機構投資是可以理解的，因為它存在  無法更靈活地部署工作人員的風險。    很明顯，許多部門在理想情況下都希望技能能夠按需使用。

 並且   很難    證明在語言培訓上投入大量資源是合理的。一些部門已採取措施，通過維護   語言障礙資料庫、跨機構技能共用、再培訓和更新機會以及培訓和投資，來保存和擴大  對語言培訓的投資。 保護語言教學專業知識。但是，還可以做更多的事情，並且

一種更統一的方式，從語言培訓投資中獲得更好的價值，而不會產生過多的結構不靈活性。  磋商中出現的一個關切是，外包語言教學的壓力將危及專門針對FCO和MOD等部門需求的教學專業知識，這些部門已經建立了多年。

正如許多人所觀察到的，不可能很快地關閉和再次打開語言能力。 語言獎學金    是   個人，大學  系統和整個社會的長期投資。 因此，投資不應僅僅被視為直接僱主的責任，而需要在回合中加以解決。一個令人信服的主張是，在職語言培訓將是

如果受訓者已經熟練掌握了另一種語言，或者以前有過語言學習的經驗，那麼效率要低得多，因為這往往會縮短這個過程。 一位來自  語言培訓預算有限的部門的政府代表  指出，他們擁有的一些最好的候選人是聯合學位持有者，他說：“他們往往是我可以花錢做一些非常快速的普通話或日語或其他一些地區語言的人，   也  往往是  那些有動力去做的人」。51

  納菲爾德調查認為，  從  小到大一點的語言學習綜合途徑對於在英國  的語言   技能  水平進行  階梯式變化是必要的。   有  證據表明，如果在年輕時未被充分接受，語言學習會更容易，更有效。值得注意的是，美國對    社會更廣泛的基礎設施  相對缺乏  語言投資感到受阻，因此美國聯邦機構在培訓範圍和要求方面採取了更雄心勃勃的措施。   人們越來越  相信，早期語言學習是一種投資  形式  ，但還不夠充分。

 
  
  • 2011年7月，根據  查塔姆宮規則舉行的英國學院論壇私人研討會

對此表示讚賞，  對這一  階段  的關注可能有助於  解決以後可能出現的許多  困難決定。     這裡有  一個強有力的效率案例  ，即應該採取一種更協調，更長期的語言能力方法 – 延伸到  學校和大學 。

   國內外母語人士  的使用增加

英國擁有多元化的人口，提供了寶貴的語言資源庫，特別是對於學校不常教授的語言。 雖然目前沒有明確嘗試招募母語人士或傳統語言人士加入整個公務員隊伍，特別是他們的語言技能，但SIA正在越來越多地招募母語人士擔任他們的語言分析師職位。GCHQ現在以具有種族多元化學生團體的大學為招募目標，以吸引母語為非語言的畢業生，  只要  他們具有學位水準的能力。公安部已經認識到，工作力需要反映他們所合作社區的文化和語言多樣性，儘管距離實現這一目標還有一段路要走。

   2011年的人口普查數據顯示，英國    有13%或750萬居民在國外出生，大約7.7%或420萬人的主要語言  不是  英語。51 使用的語言範圍包括阿拉伯文、庫爾德語、普什圖語、

塞爾維亞 – 克羅埃西亞文，索馬里文和泰米爾語，在一定程度上反映了    SIA   以及FCO和  MOD越來越需要的語言。 51

顯然，在各部門之間，可以更好地利用所有資源。 雖然人們普遍意識到  多元文化主義    這一方面產生的紅利，但許多部門都使用   母語人士，但在學校一級鼓勵或發展母語或傳統人士的技能方面做得還不夠。   但是，最近離開 –

 
  

–英格蘭和威爾士的語言–2011.html#tab-英格蘭和威爾士的主要語言

  • 國家統計局主要語言由地方當局 2013年3月4日，ons.gov.uk//rel/census/2011-人口普查分析/英格蘭和威爾士的語言-2011/rpt—英格蘭和威爾士的語言–2011.html#tab-主要語言-由地方當局

  教育（DfE）政策  似乎  允許學校提供的語言課程具有更大的靈活性。 2013年9月11日提交議會並於2014年9月1日生效的法定命令非常明確地規定了“外國局域網”

guage“和”現代外語“，用於   2002年《教育法》第84（A4）和84（4）條的目的。  它規定，任何外語         都可以作為關鍵階段2  的國家庫里庫的基礎科目提供，並且可以提供任何現代外語。 在關鍵階段 3 中。53 因此，學校   可以自由地教授任何符合學生需要的現代外語。

  可以作出更大的努力，接觸     在更廣泛的公務員隊伍中在其他地方工作的母語人士，鼓勵他們感到自己的技能受到重視，並自願提供有關其口語的資訊。如果做得好，通過鼓勵移民說英語來融入社會的目標不應   導致他們  其他語言技能的貶值。  這種參與策略  可以實現更大的整合，並允許政府部門，特別是內政部  （HO）機構，  進入  封閉的通信關係，可能對社區參與產生積極影響。

 和防止  恐怖主義。   在這方面，警務部長  最近說，語言要求可能成為警官徵聘程式的一部分，這是一個即將到來的評論。53

    招聘  母語人士的好處之一是，如果幾年不使用，他們不太可能忘記他們的語言技能  ，而語言畢業生可能需要  定期複習

課程。 但是，        很難用   不同的語言    重新培訓  母語人士，特別是如果他們沒有學習母語

 正規的教育環境。 此外，  許多     母語人士  的就業方式的  臨時性和合同性質  意味著他們不會從進一步投資  其發展中受益。 翻譯或作為潛在的語言培訓師。如果母語人士接受英語語言培訓，或以母語接受正規語言教育，      他們將  更好地開展工作  ，更能快速學習和學習其他語言。

 
  

 職業發展和激勵

專業語言學家在職業發展方面面臨的困難與  面向  通才技能的公務員制度中所有專家面臨的一般問題相似。 非專業語言學家也發現自己在晉陞風險方面處於不利地位，因為語言培訓需要花費大量時間。在國防部等其他情況下，以軍事技能為導向導致低素質的候選人參加語言培訓，   這引起了    一種認為  語言職位地位低下的看法。

       由於   語言  技能和經驗目前不是      關鍵政府部門（如FCO或MOD）工作評估過程的明確組成部分，這種情況變得更加複雜。諸如  語文或領域專門知識等專業技能   可能是  一個不利因素，特別是在改組  時期，如果   這意味著工作人員不能廣泛地部署到其他角色。

該綜述        發現，  不僅沒有足夠的激勵措施來鼓勵語言學習，而且  在某些情況下，也長期存在職業抑制因素。 語言技能      需要  納入評估和職務說明，作為承認其價值的一種方式; 因此   ，很明顯，語言技能應該在績效考核系統中得到更大的重視。 FCO  在    人力資源管理方面發起的變化非常

歡迎 – 但  越來越明顯的是    ，  該部應該  將外交課程及其  相應的外交技能（目前正在開發中）作為 未來的職位描述，並將其   整合到性能審查  系統中。

在這次調查過程中，出現了關於鼓勵語言學習的經濟激勵措施的有效性的相互矛盾的觀點。       重要的是，在各省進行更多的研究，  以確定財政激勵措施是否會對語言吸收產生真正的影響。 

跨部門 協作 和  戰略 方法

 接受採訪的  部門和機構的語言優先事項因類型和級別而異，但也有很大的

重疊區域。   一般來說，  識別語言需求的方法似乎是分散的，不是很  有戰略意義，並且有些 – 在政府的這些部門之間是不透明的。  政府之間  似乎很少協調  確定語言需求，也沒有採取總體戰略方法來滿足未來的需求。

 由於這些原因，      通過收集有關整個政府的語言需求，技能和培訓部門的資訊，對語言規劃採取更加協調的方法將是非常有益的。對語言技能，特別是少數民族語言的技能進行定期和一致的審計將是無價的，並  可能有助於為發展和分享語言能力的  更具戰略性的辦法提供資訊。

  此外，  目前的語言技能不足可以通過  採用一種更靈活的跨政府部門工作方式來緩解，允許具有語言技能的工作人員被借調到具體專案，例如與難以接觸到的團體和社區一起參與   恐怖主義或犯罪的預防工作。   兒童性剝削和販運等行為。

目前似乎沒有一個跨政府機構進行這種積極的協調。 現已解散的跨部門小組英國跨部門語言常設委員會（UKIDSCOL）為分享和宣傳提供了一個有用的論壇，並於2009年與政府技能局（GSA）就少數民族語言開展了一些工作，但最終沒有足夠  高級的代表來產生很大   的影響。  值得注意的是  ，  與  政府技能   局（GSA）的聯合工作對某些少數民族語言的跨部門語言要求進行了有價值的概述，並提議與高等教育機構進行戰略合作，以確保這些要求的提供。然而，GSA於2010年解散，報告的建議沒有得到落實。

目前在語言方面的合作地點是通過新成立的跨白廳語言焦點小組進行的，該小組向國際下一代人力資源小組報告。 該小組彙集了來自國防部，FCO，SIA，NCA，HMRC和大都會員警局的代表，他們現在正在合作採用由馬里蘭大學語言高級研究中心（CASL）開發的新的現代語言能力傾向測試。 雖然現在還處於早期階段，但似乎很明顯

非常需要這樣一個群體的存在，並且它具有對   政府內部  語言能力產生重大影響的巨大潛力。

  我還令人鼓舞地看到，儘管語言需求不同，但預算壓力正在導致某些形式的合作增加。 聯邦及恐怖分子事務處的語言中心為彙集資源提供了重要機會，應系統地利用這些資源，使其他政府部門和機構能夠  將中心用於其員工。 因此，國防部的國防武官將與他們的FCO同事一起下雨，來自NCA，HO，DFID或BIS的官員也是如此。 但是，由於  GCHQ和MOD其他部分的地理位置在倫敦以外，因此  存在  可訪問性問題，這意味著他們的參與程度可能有限。

5556575859

 來自  美國的  比較視角

在過去的二十年裡，特別是在9/11之後，美國政府內部對外語技能的需求顯著增加，理由是國家安全。 美國歷屆政府對這些新興的安全挑戰的反應  要求  高層認識到       需要  制定一種戰略方法來填補聯邦和聯邦的語言空白。 國家一級的外交、國防和國家安全。

 美國情報界（IC）由包括    聯邦調查局，中央情報局和國家安全局在內的十六個情報機構組成，55  以及美國  國防部（DoD）因此投資了  一系列   過去二十年來  提高外語能力的舉措。 2011年8月，   國防部  長萊昂·帕內塔（Leon Panetta    ）在與國防部主要負責人的備忘錄中重申了這一承諾，內容涉及語言技能、區域專業知識   的重要性。以及   滿足當前和未來  國家安全需求的文化能力，並指出“語言，區域和文化技能是持久的作戰能力，對於當今  充滿活力的全球環境中的任務準備至關重要“。55

國防部資助的國防語言和國家安全教育辦公室（DLNSEO）是2012年在長期國家安全教育計劃（NSEP）和國防語言辦公室  合併后成立的辦公室，57負責監督國防部人員的外語，文化和區域專業知識的政策研究。58 DLNSEO為九項教育計劃提供資金  ，為專業人員提供在聯邦政府服務中就業的語言和文化技能。59 然而，一直很慢

 
  

6061626364

在提高國防部外語能力方面取得進展：儘管到2011年9月，其勞動力中超過80%的語言指定職位（LDPs）已經填補，但“在語言要求範圍內，只有28%的職位是由達到所需外語水準的人員填補的”。61

IC外語項目辦公室（FLPO）的成立是為了促進一系列政府資助的舉措，以提高   IC勞動力的語言能力。61 然而，     不同IC機構的   外語能力幾乎沒有改善：  2012年舉行的國會調查  顯示，只是

2009年，美國國務院61%的“語言指定職位”（LDPs）由完全合格的人員  擔任，2012年上升至74%  。61

  儘管存在Title 6計劃，   但    由於缺乏   語言學習基礎設施，美國大學系統  顯然缺乏足夠的語言技能畢業生來滿足國家安全需求。  美國政府對自動化翻譯研究的持續投資也表明瞭這一點，例如廣泛的操作語言翻譯計劃（BOLT）。64 此外，依靠母語和傳統人士的語言技能來填補學期的空白並不是一個可持續的解決辦法，因為對外語技能的總體需求、識字和英語熟練程度的要求，以及聯邦就業所需的高水準的安全審查。

 
  

6566676869

 解決  缺乏  先前學習基礎設施的問題：美國方法的值得注意的方面

設定目標並增加職業生涯中的語言要求

雖然外語能力不是進入國務院的必要條件，但自2012年11月以來，已經採取了一系列措施  ，為外交服務學院（FSI）的專家和通才可以提供教學。現在，專家65和通才66 候選人均可獲得獎勵積分，這些候選人在一系列語言中提供一定程度的語言能力，67 對更關鍵的語言設置了較低的要求 69

在國防部內，自2010年以來，所有士兵，預備役人員和陸軍文職人員在部署到海外之前，語言  和文化培訓已成為一項義務。 根據美國陸軍的說法，儘管在部署之前，所有人都必須參加六小時的在線課程，但“每個排或類似規模的單位必須有一個支持語言的Sol-dier，他已經  參加了   100小時的在線HeadStart計劃或16周的課程”。68

 正如其   2011-2016  年戰略計劃所述，國防部制定了三個關鍵目標，以建立未來語言技能、區域專業知識和文化能力的能力：

  • 識別  、驗證語言技能、區域專業知識和文化能力的要求並確定其優先順序，並生成支援 DoD 錯誤  所需的資訊信號。
 
  
  • 建立，加強和維持一支 綜合部隊，  結合語言技能，區域專業知識  和文化能力，以滿足支持國家安全目標的現有和新出現的需求。
  • 加強語言技能、區域專門知識 和文化能力，以提高  互操作性並  建設合作夥伴的能力。71

 人們       普遍承認，從K-12到高等教育，缺乏學習基礎設施是問題的根源。然而，聯邦政府    在教育中的作用有限，因為我認為主要是  州和地方的責任。71 美國外語教學  委員會（ACTFL）  在其  最近的  入學研究中指出，在美國，只有18.5%的K-12學生（72或860萬學生）參加了外語課程。73   在2006年現代語言協會招生調查時，只有8.6%的大學生在學習外語課程，只有不到  1%的大學生  在學習關鍵語言。74  因此，我很清楚，太少的學生從小就學習傳統和批判性外語。

這些可憐的入學率和由此產生的低語言能力引起了   聯邦語言學的重大轉變。 在加強國防，情報和外交機構內的聯邦語言教育系統的同時，對K-12和高等教育語言程式設計進行了一系列直接的聯邦投資。

 
  

2006年，國家安全青年語言倡議（NSLI-Y），75  由國務院，國防部，國防部協調的公立學校  計劃

教育和國家情報    總監的成立是為了實現幾個目標：

  • 提高   美國人通過共用語言與阿拉伯文，中文（普通話），印地語，韓語，波斯文（塔吉基語），俄語和土耳其語國家人民  接觸的能力;
  • 培養一支具有高級語言技能和相關文化理解能力的美國人骨幹隊伍，他們能夠掌握自己的語言和文化技能，以促進國際對話並在全球經濟中有效競爭;
  • 通過為U  創造海外語言學習機會，為學習和使用外語提供切實的激勵。 高中生;
  • 激發美國青年對外   語和文化的  終生興趣。75

為了改善   K-12級別的  語言學習，NSLI於2006年建立了STARTALK，  該倡議  為阿拉伯文，中文，印地語，波斯語等  關鍵語言的暑期學校計劃提供資金。 土耳其文、斯瓦希里語和烏爾都語。78

儘管美國聯邦政府承認    迫切需要語言技能來提高生態競爭力  和  國家安全，但與歐洲同行相比，美國聯邦政府發現自己處於不利地位。 在語言需求  不斷增長的     時候，儘管投入了大量資源，但它面臨著扭轉  語言差距的巨大挑戰。

跨部門 協作

機構間語言圓桌會議（ILR）於1973年正式成立，旨在實現美國聯邦機構之間語言需求的共用和協作。 雖然  圓桌會議沒有

 
  

 正式地位和  依靠志願者會員資格，四十多個不同的聯邦政府機構通常代表ILR會議，78這些會議旨在交換有關語言使用，語言測試和  其他語言相關活動的資訊。

自9/11以來，   IC  內部以及國防部內部發生了許多結構性發展，以説明  促進  語言政策的協調。國際文化局的每個成員和國防部的每個主要組成部分現在都有一個指定的高級語言管理局（SLA）或同等機構，即一名高級公務員  或一般官員，負責語言政策和準備工作。78

 在IC內部，外語執行委員會（FLEX-

COM）每月舉行會議，協調政策，並擔任  國家   助理主任的高級諮詢機構

 人力資本情報（ADNI / HC），涉及與IC外語能力有關的  事項。80 它在評估和培訓等領域設有一系列  常設專家工作組。

 在國防部內部，  國防部蘇丹解放軍，   國防部負責準備事務的副助理部長，擔任國防語言指導委員會（DLSC）主席，該委員會是一個內部治理機構。

 並協調語言政策。81 它      從    四  個武裝部隊（將軍級）、參謀長聯席會議、國防情報部副部長辦公室  和軍事情報機構（NSA、 迪亞，新煙消音）。81

傳統 演講嘉賓

  在過去十年中，已經建立了    許多國防部資助的計劃，以支援入籍公民和具有關鍵語言技能的臨時公民，以提高他們的英語水準。

 
  
  • 歷史， 政府 機構間 語言 圓桌會議。govtilr.org/IRL%20History.htm
  • 國防部指令41E，2005 年 10 月 21 日，5 月 27 日合併變更 1， 
  1. www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/516041p.pdf
  1. www.fas.org/irp/doddir/dod/d5160_41.pdf www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/ corres/pdf/516041p.pdf

語言技能。   自2006年以來，最初由NSEP   資助的遺產語言使用者英語計劃（EHLS）計劃一直在説明具有關鍵語言技能的入籍公民發展英語專業熟練程度，提供完整的學者船，併為 聯邦服務業的潛在就業機會。83 2012年，國務卿還批准了“對國家利益至關重要的軍事加入”計劃（MAVNI），這是一個試點計劃   ，旨在為花旗  提供途徑。

 為在  軍隊中服役的非公民提供關鍵語言技能。84 這條途徑意味著，通過MAVNI  招募的具有所需語言技能的臨時居民在進入美國陸軍后可以快速獲得美國公民身份。 86

 2006年，  美國  成立了  國家語言服務團（NLSC），這是一個由語言志願者組成的組織，作為   美國聯邦機構的補充語言資源庫。 在

  在國家需求，  區域緊急情況或   國家安全要求的情況下，NLSC的成員可以協助美國聯邦機構    在短時間內用現成的多拼貼美國公民來滿足外語需求。86 2013年，總統簽署了《國防授權法》，由於試點計劃的成功，將NLSC確立為一項永久性計劃。87 雖然該軍團目前由4，000名公民組成，但隨著該計劃擴大到為聯邦部門服務，預計人數將增加到15，000人。87

 
  

第二部分：維持語言限制

 更廣泛的背景：維持英國的語言能力和專業知識

   雖然  政府  要求的特定語言技能通常更專業，但必須在英國目前學校和大學的語言學習方法的更廣泛背景下  進行考慮，因為

這對語言能力及其可持續性有直接影響。通過語言能力，我們指的是涉及語言與文化技能  相結合的溝通。   從某種意義上說，    既  需要專業語言學家，也需要那些具有語言能力的畢業生，無論在哪裡獲得。

     該報告的這一部分探討了  從學校   到高等教育機構（HEI）的英國語言學習基礎的政策和做法，以及當前方法如何發揮作用。  對政府語言需求的滿足程度和效率有可確定的影響。

 正如引言中所指出的，英國人在  學習外語    方面沒有令人印象深刻的記錄，在   最新的歐洲晴雨錶  語言調查和外語能力水準中排名接近歐洲聯賽  的底部。88

雖然在職培訓或使用   母語人士可以滿足  政府的短期語言要求，但為了產生有效和可持續的供應，有必要採取戰略方法。

 
  
  • 在歐洲晴雨錶調查中，39%的英國受訪者回應說，他們可以用第二語言進行對話（只有義大利和匈牙利更低）歐盟委員會特別歐洲晴雨錶386名歐洲人和他們的Languages 2012年6月 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ ebs / ebs_386_sum_en.pdf

熟練的專業人員。 因此，我們需要  確保獲得關鍵的語言技能，將其作為個人教育的基本組成部分。 

語言學習的好處遠遠大於外交和國家安全。然而，我們在這裡的目的是評估學校和高等教育機構在為  保持  國家戰略重要語言能力   奠定基礎方面所發揮的作用。  本節  借鑒了英國超過35家高等教育機構向我們的在線諮詢提交的內容，以及訪談和案頭研究。

  學校語言學習

      學校有效的早期語言學習   所提供的基礎為學生提供了通往語言   的途徑的開始 在高等教育階段學習，他們播下了文化好奇心，意識和互動的種子。最近的研究表明，早期生活中的語言學習具有認知優勢，並且比晚年的語言學習更有效。90 雖然學校教授  的語言範圍  主要限於現代歐洲語言，但學習一門語言  及其結構的範疇使學習其他語言變得更加容易和進一步改善。  學習者對母語的掌握。92

過去二十年來，學校的語言學習政策的特點是缺乏一致性和一些重大挫折。   2002   年對學校課程的修改於2004年生效，使現代外語的學習成為關鍵階段4的可選語言，  對    語言      的學習產生了深遠的負面影響。 品質。在日益佔主導地位的排行榜和學校目標文化中，語言被視為困難的時期，2002年後的時期導致在GCSE學習語言的學生人數大幅下降，從而在A-Level學習語言。 學生人數

 
  

學習GCSE語言  的比例從2001  年的78%下降到2011年的40%。92 正如邁克爾·沃頓在2009年所指出的，“14后沒有外語發出了一個強有力的負面資訊……在國內或國際上，英國致力於多線制，從而致力於知情的跨文化互動，仍然沒有意義。

 

2002年取消了學習現代外語的法定要求，對許多高等教育（HE）語言系產生了相當大的影響。在回應我們的諮詢時，一所大學將其描述為“對整個  國家  來說不是災難性的”。 劍橋大學  德語   系預計，由此產生的德語應用語和入學人數的下降將產生非常長期的影響，減少德國研究生，學術職位和教師的數量，以及英國大學涵蓋的研究領域。此外，國有部門申請學習語言的學生比例仍然低得令人擔憂，高等教育中近三分之一的語言學家來自獨立學校。92

有一些有希望的跡象表明，這種下降正在GCSE水準上得到扭轉。94 從2014年起，瑪麗小學開始引入必修語言學習，這是一個受歡迎的舉動。此外，英語學士學位（EBacc）的引入是衡量學生在GCSE級別五個核心科目（其中一門是語言）中成績的成績的績效指標，學習語言的學生人數有所增加。然而，鑒於目前缺乏持續的強制性語言途徑，直到GCSE和A-Level，語言學習可以提升多少仍然存在問題。教育系（DfE）最近決定不繼續以英語學士學位證書（E-BC）取代GCSE  的提議是否會扭轉語言學習的增加（如果學校一直在鼓勵語言學習以期待E-BC）的提議，還有待觀察。此外，由2016 95年度起生效的有關改變學校問責措施的建議，在語文方面可能難以接受。

 
  

雖然EBacc績效衡量標準將保持目前的形式，作為將在公眾domai n上報告的四項問責措施之一  ，但引入新的進步衡量標準，通過衡量學生在8門科目中的最佳成績來評估學生的進步和成就     ，並不  要求其中之一 八個科目是一種語言。學生必須學習英語和數學，3門其他EBacc科目和其他3個高價值資格。 最後一組為他們提供了進一步的傳統學術科目的選擇，如藝術，音樂和戲劇，以及職業科目，如  工程和

商。  這項新措施將如何影響      14歲以後學生對課程選項的選擇還有待觀察。這項改革的一個可能好處是，一些學生可以選擇學習兩種語言。然而，選擇學習語言的人也可能減少，這取決於EBacc的狀態，以及該工具被校長，Ofsted和   公眾視為衡量學校整體  表現  的有效指標。 對於個別學生來說，    GCSE   語言作為進入六年級，進一步或H igher教育  的理想資產的工具價值可能是有爭議的，但如果我們要糾正我們學校的長期語言缺陷，那麼值得考慮 大學和就業。

儘管2013年GCSE會議最近有所增加，這可能只是暫時的改善，但仍存在對A-level的採用的擔憂。 有人擔心學生避免在A-level上學習現代外語，因為有記錄的事實表明，與其他科目相比，授予的A *s相對較少。     這導致聰明的學生在做語言A-level時會三思而後行，因為害怕結果的糟糕  和失去  大學名額，大學語言部門報告說，由於候選人錯過了他們的offer，他們很難招聘。96 此外，國有部門和私營部門（在私營部門，語言學習是健康和不斷增長的）的語言學習之間存在著明顯且日益擴大的差異，這反映了在高等教育一級也很明顯的階級鴻溝。   這不僅加劇了工作場所獲得  就業機會的差異，加劇了劣勢，而且還阻礙了政府的發展。

  像FCO   這樣的部門在入境時強加更強的語言要求。

 
  

英國  文化多元的人口意味著  學齡人口中有相當多的語言資源，可以

被挖掘和開發。97 2008 年年度學校普查 顯示，僅在倫敦，就有1000多名學生講40多種語言 ，  其中孟加拉語 、烏爾都語 和 索馬里 語是  使用最多的 非英語語言。98 在學校學習語言時

Asset語言方案主要是現代歐洲語言，直到最近，   它才允許發展和  認可母語或遺產消費者的其他語言技能。 Asset語言計劃為     25種不同語言的成就提供了國家級認證，並有助於激勵和獎勵語言學習。但是，OCR現已撤銷通過資產計劃進行的所有認證。在OCR做出決定後，“與未來交談”（語言運動）有一個公告，它將與國家組織，社區領袖，學校和大學合作

 以支援   家庭語言中心的發展。  這些中心的目標是提高母語的形象，並加強對母語  教學和認證的附加條件。

從這次調查中可以看出，DfE沒有特定的戰略政策  來鼓勵GCSE和A-Level  的語言或特定語言。相反，它認為這是一個高等教育機構在塑造學生A-Level選擇方面具有影響力的領域。然而

HEI 代表 告訴 本次 調查 ，  GCSE  是  語言學習十進位所依賴的更關鍵的點，學生

 在這個階段，不能  指望  做出與大學選擇有關的關鍵決定。

持續的危機狀態：HEI語言提供、容量和趨勢概述

大學在促進和維持滿足該國在  外交，貿易和國防   領域的需求所需的語言和文化專業知識方面可以發揮寶貴的作用，這在各種高級別  報告和委員會中一直被爭論。

 
  
  • 區域語言網路 「同一個城市的世界：倫敦居民的語言技能以及為什麼我們需要   充分利用他們的才能」 2008年4月 2007年，倫敦大約40%的學齡兒童的第一語言不是英語 rln-london.com/pdf/world_one_city_report.pdf
  • 蜜雪兒馮·安，露絲·盧普頓，查理·格林伍德·迪克·威金斯 倫敦的語言，種族和教育，“DoQSS工作檔10-12，定量社會科學系 – 倫敦大學教育研究所。

戰後時代。99      這些報告的一  個共同主題是   ，聯合王國政府具有獨特的地位，可以根據英國持續和不斷變化的需求，通過支持語言提供，採取戰略性辦法。 高等教育機構  的語言能力和  領域專業知識。

 派克報告  預見到  需要對語言能力  進行戰略發展，在1986年出版  時  是  一份具有里程碑意義的報告，導致在非洲設立了45個新的高等教育職位。

和亞洲研究。100 它強調，英國需要維護和培育高品質的語言教學中心，以便為  英國政府服務、非政府組織、媒體和企業的員工提供文化和語言學專業知識，以促進與外國合作夥伴的成功互動。 然而，目前的情況是英國語言缺陷繼續令人擔憂的問題，正如英國學院最近的國情咨  文報告所詳述的那樣。  101 本報告的結局表明，人們普遍擔心高等教育機構一級的語言能力進一步下降。

在過去15年中，參加高等教育專業課程的人數   有所下降，這種現象始於2002年學校改革之前。 而本科生總數增加

  2001-2011年為18%，藝術、人文和社會  科學為26%，  現代外國入學人數為26%。

在同一時期，語言僅增長了1%。102 UCAS在2002-2013   年期間的接受度數據顯示，從  2011-12  年到2012-13年，  現代  外語的接受度下降了-9%，下降了-14%。 103  2002-2009年期間，英國三分之一的語言系關閉，現在大多數語言系都關閉了        

 
  
  • 威廉海特爵士，《東方、斯拉夫、東歐和非洲研究小組委員會報告》，倫敦：大學教育資助委員會，1961年，納菲爾德基金會語言：  下一個屬，2000年，邁克爾·沃頓，《審查英格蘭高等教育現代外語的提供》 HEFCE，2009 年 10 月。
  • 然而，其中許多  尚未  被替換。
  • 英國 學院， 語言： 國家狀況  。
  • UCAS“ 1月15日截止日期準時審議  申請的數據”ucas.com/ about_us/media_enquiries/media_releases/2012/20120130
  •  UCAS，    高等教育學科、高等教育學科本科生  需求和供應數據簡報，表2.2 www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/crosscutting/sivs/data/domicile/

僅限於   羅素集團的大學。 自2009年以來，   語言部門  繼續  關閉，這種下降似乎將繼續下去。 103

然而，學生對語言的需求仍然存在。即使它可能沒有增加以滿足   各種報告  所認為   的水準，  以滿足  國家對貿易，商業，安全和外交的要求。 隨著時間的推移，聯合學位的入學人數持續增加。105名諮詢受訪者報告說，雖然以   多種語言  提供  的單一榮譽學位的入學率預計將  減少，但合併學位  的趨勢  似乎將繼續下去。  HE最近  一份關於語言的報告，該報告與學生的主要學習領域一起學習，通過大學語言中心獲得學分，稱為“全民語言”或Institition範圍的語言證明 –  

錫永（IWLP）表明，  對語言學習的需求仍然旺盛。107

HE語言規定也顯示了   與研究哪些語言有關的混合情況。從積極的一面來看，中文、日文和阿拉伯文——派克報告特彆強調   要推廣的這些語言  ——已經增加了  接受度，這主要是由學生的需求和慷慨的外部資金推動的。 另  一方面，  受教育程度較低的人和少數族裔人數嚴重減少。

 語言    ，其中包括一   些對戰略外交和軍事目標很重要的“關鍵”語言，這反映在SIA目前招募說話者  的努力中。 其中包括  波斯語和韓語。

最新的UCAS數據顯示，在2002-3年至2012-13年期間，對東亞語言，亞洲語和非洲語言的接受率下降了-41%。107   在其他非歐洲語言的類別中，這一類別包括其他東亞、非洲、美洲和澳大拉-西亞語言，不包括普通話、現代阿拉伯文、日語和南亞研究，同期的下降尤為顯著，為-70%。正如英國科學院最近的聲明所顯示的那樣，

 
  
  • 丹尼爾 博菲 “語言 教學 危機， 因為 40% 的 大學 部門 面臨 關閉”， 《 觀察家報》，

 2013年8月17  日 www.theguardian.com/education/2013/aug/17/language-teaching-crisis-universities 關閉

  • 聖安德魯斯大學預計，他們將能夠在三年內提供波斯語的部分學位  ，這  必須與另一門課程  一起  進行，例如  歷史或國際關係。
  • UCML-AULC 對英國  大學   全校語言提供的調查，2013年2月。
  •  UCAS，    高等教育  學科、高等教育學科本科生需求和供應數據簡報，表2.3 www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/crosscutting/sivs/data/domicile/

高等教育  語言   高級研究  目前面臨的挑戰引起了人們對專業語言提供未來的關注。109

HEI對外交，安全和  國際參與的語言能力和專業知識需求的貢獻

諮詢了政府部門和高等教育機構，以充分瞭解高等教育機構目前對政府在外交和國家安全領域的語言需求做出貢獻的直接和間接方式   ，以及  提供   語言所面臨的挑戰。 在高等教育機構中。正如派克所寫的那樣，大學是國家語言資產的“守護者”，瞭解它們目前如何履行這一職責非常重要。

語言 學家

傳統上，高等教育機構為中央政府內的職位提供語言畢業生，    其中大多數位於  SIA  內  。雖然需要專業語言學家的職位數量可能佔總人數的一小部分，但SIA規定，每年只招聘最頂級的語言學家。109  需要  確保能夠通過安全審查的高品質  語言學家   隊伍的可持續能力   ，這意味著SIA，特別是GCHQ，

 對   HE水平  語言學習  的健康有強烈的既得利益。語言畢業生人數的任何減少都可能影響申請人的品質。 因此，他們積極主動地參加大學招聘會，並注意到私營部門雇主或語言學家在這些活動中競爭加劇。

 專業知識

  高等教育機構是語言、歷史和文化專業知識的深厚寶庫，產生的研究成果和專家對尋求更多地瞭解   特定利益地區的政府非常有用。 這種關於高等教育機構中的語言、文化和社會的知識庫不時被調用——儘管也許

不夠頻繁 – 由政府部門。FCO和MOD都與受邀的學術專家保持著網路。

 
  
  • 英國科學院正在  向  英國波斯研究所  提供額外支援，  作為其BASIS計劃的一部分  ，以培訓波斯語教師並擴大學習機會。 波斯語給研究人員和專業人士。
  • 平均每年招聘   約60名參賽者  。

在研討會上提供建議和發言，儘管就FCO而言， 這些 是非常  分散 的個人  網路。 許多 高等教育機構 都有

傳統上為政府官員舉辦訪問職位。 查塔姆研究所等專業機構也促進了學術界和政府官員之間的互動。

由於這種相互作用往往具有臨時性和可變性，因此很難準確瞭解其規模和有效性。   值得注意的是  ，  為本報告諮詢的幾位學者表示，他們  並不認為  他們的語言  和文化專業知識在相關時受到《公約》的呼籲。政府，          並推測這可能是由於  官員對高等教育機構中有哪些專業知識缺乏瞭解。

基於語言的地區研究中心一直是促進知識從高等教育機構向更廣泛的政策交流（包括政府部門）轉移知識的有效途徑。 資助  計劃是

最初    成立於  2006年，目的是「建立一支具有必要語言技能的世界級研究人員隊伍，以便在阿拉伯文世界中進行知情研究;中國;日本;和   東歐，包括前蘇聯地區“。110 例如，阿拉伯世界高級研究中心（CASAW）

教師培訓方案  吸引了來自外交部和國防部等機構的教師。

雖然一些接受調查的政府代表認為，高等教育機構擁有獨特而寶貴的專業知識，但許多人在與政府合作方面沒有經驗     ，發現自己在  成本  和其他原因    方面與私人承包商相比處於不利地位。 投標  與語言培訓和課程設計相關的摺頁冊。 還有一種感覺是，許多學者不願意在個人，道德或意識形態的基礎上與國防部等某些部門合作。

較少教授 的關鍵 語言

  對某些關鍵語言  的研究越來越集中在越來越少   的大學裡。  奧林  學院等  機構

 
  
  • 該倡議 最初由  AHRC（藝術與人文研究委員會）  與ESRC（經濟和社會研究委員會），HEFCE（英格蘭高等教育資助委員會）和SFC（蘇格蘭資助委員會）共同資助。 自2011年以來，資金一直由  AHRC和  英國學院提供。

tal和非洲研究（SOAS）傳統上一直是英國非洲和亞洲語言的下一代學者或語言資源的提供者   。  英國學院贊助的機構和社會（BASIS）也通過短期課程和研討會，特別是英國研究理事會，做出了微薄的貢獻。

在阿拉伯文的黎凡特和波斯語的英國波斯研究所。然而，這些語言的容量在過去15年中有所下降。   例如，在亞非學院，1998年至2010年間，語言  和文化領域的學術職位從65個下降到55個。111 失去   供應是諸如SIA等機構所關切的問題，這些機構重視高素質的語言學家，特別是使用更難學習的語言。

其中許多語言 – 波斯語或土耳其文，僅舉兩例 – 可以聲稱具有戰略重要性。同樣，在    9/11恐怖襲擊  之後，  阿富汗  背景下的普什圖語成為國家優先事項，  西非等  地區，特別是對於 對於奈及利亞來說，它可能成為具有地緣政治意義的一個，對豪薩語的瞭解突然變得無價 – 英國可能會發現自己  沒有  相關的語言和文化  專家可以借鑒。

2001年的納菲爾德調查警告說，許多非洲、亞洲和東歐語言的國家能力“極其脆弱”。從那時起，     高等教育機構對印尼語，Mong   olian，斯瓦希里語和烏爾都語等語言的親願景進一步嚴重下降。英國高等教育機構的語言專業知識範圍正在縮小，在一些部門，區域研究在沒有語言的情況下教授。 因此，一些學者告訴我們，現在不再有任何“系統鬆弛”。

教學g/培訓 提供 和 基礎設施

  在過去的二十年中，     HEI  參與為政府部門提供語言培訓的人數有所下降。在2007年關閉FCO語言學校后，政府部門工作人員可獲得的語言培訓主要由私人承包商提供。

儘管許多大學報告說，他們目前為政府部門提供定製培訓，但很少有細節

 這種培訓  的規模  或其中有多少  是語言培訓，因為

 
  
  • 私人研討會，英國學院，2011年7月。

反對文化，歷史和政治意識培訓。亞非學院告訴我們，雖然就他們的使命而言，FCO培訓仍然是   他們的首要任務  ，但他們的語言中心發現，由於雇傭合同安排不同，很難以成本為由與私人承包商競爭。111

 儘管如此，高等教育機構  繼續為語言教學的基礎設施做出重要而獨特的貢獻。 他們培訓  了未來很大一部分  語言教師和研究人員，並根據他們對語言學習和教學方法的研究，為語言教學製作培訓和評估材料。 例如，威斯敏斯特大學為所有接受國防語言培訓的英國軍隊人員提供軍事語言考試，並評估可能在各個戰區與軍事同行一起工作的潛在文職口譯員。因此，113所高等教育機構在語言學習行業中發揮著持續而重要的質量保證作用。

 
  

 關鍵問題

顯然，英國高等教育機構在語言、文化和歷史  方面提供高度相關的培訓，   以支援  政府在外交和國防領域的目標，但顯然還有做出更重要和更大貢獻的空間。      與此同時，高等教育機構在維持和加強其傳統的語言專業知識儲備  方面面臨著許多  挑戰，以便為英國在這些領域的政策目標做出貢獻。

資助 改革 和 學費

2012年引入的新的高等教育資助制度提供了一個非常不同的景觀，如果語言研究要蓬勃發展，人們將不得不  駕馭這種景觀。 作為2012年資助改革的一部分，隨著公共資助的直接教學補助金的減少，學生費用正在成為大學的主要收入來源。 雖然HEFCE教學補助金佔2011-12年英格蘭高等教育機構教學經費的64.1%，但根據英國大學的報告，到2014-15年，這一比例將降至24.1%。114 人們的期望是，來自較高學費（由公共資助的學生貸款支援）的收入應該足以彌補這種教學補助金的損失，即學生需求現在在決定可用資金方面發揮著更大的作用。儘管如此，大多數大學目前都在收支平衡或盈餘運營，HEFCE預測

  2012-13年，機構的總收入  將增長2.8%，持續增長至2014-15年。116

 
  

這種預期的收入增長取決於大學能否實現招生目標。 招聘人數的任何下降都會對機構的收入產生直接影響。 雖然從理論上講，收入的增加可能會導致HEI自由進行無極投資 – 包括語言提供 – 但財務不確定性導致HEI在某些主題領域削減成本並提高效率  。 語言 系  已經  受到

 削減  提供的課程，減少  員工人數，甚至關閉整個部門。115

     只要  對現代外語的應用繼續下降，對語言學習資金的擔憂就會繼續存在。 根據  UCAS的數據，2012年有4842名申請人被MFL課程錄取，比2011年下降了  -14%。 這一趨勢在2013年繼續，申請量比上一年進一步下降了6%。117 雖然現在說這些數位在多大程度上是學費上漲的結果還為時過早，但它們也反映了  MFL A-level入學人數的下降趨勢。118  諮詢過程的調查結果反映出對資助的持續關注及學費上漲的影響。

高等教育機構內部語言供應的脆弱性怎麼估計也不過分。 最近，   西  英格蘭  大學報告說，本科生和碩士學位的語言提供以及全校範圍內針對非專業人員的語言課程已被削減。 2013年6月，  索爾福德大學決定  停止其目前所有現代前語言課程，以期

最終關閉其人文，語言和社會科學學院。119 副  校長馬丁·霍爾（Martin Hall）教授    在給索爾福德大學學生的電子郵件中明確表示，MFL學位申請需求下降是擬議削減的直接原因。 120 然而，  過去    幾個月來，  大學已同意成立一個聯合專責小組，探討新的語文聯合榮譽課程模式的可行性，以及由此引起的  職位的持續可行性。 研究生翻譯和口譯。

 
  

   還有人擔心，國外的一年，通常是四年傳統語言的一部分，會阻止學生，並進一步導致申請人的下降。  為紓緩與該等交流計劃有關的額外費用的影響，政府已宣佈    補發  學費約

 每名學生2，250英鎊。120

一些大學現在正在探索不同的方法來擴大其語言提供，在某些情況下，通過將此類課程針對職業目的並擴大聯合學位課程。122 聖安德魯斯大學報告說，它預計在三年內提供部分波斯語學位，與另一門課程，如國際關係或歷史課程一起學習。對諮詢的回應還表明，一些大學正在擴大其“所有人的語言”附加條件。 全民語言   是一項  支援大學語言學習的倡議  ，  這不是學位課程的必修部分。123 這包括為獲得aca-demic學分而修讀的語言課程   以及  課外語言課程。所有課程的朗格年齡通常通過大學語言中心提供。

124 大學語言中心協會（AULC）在提交我們的諮詢時指出，其成員提供的語言培訓回應了學生，高等教育機構和僱主的就業能力要求。 然而，   值得注意的是  ，它沒有   提供  與更深入的學術專家研究相同的文化知識深度。

 
  
  • 弗羅尼亞爾男爵夫人花園：主題演講，  Born全球政策研究項目啟動，2013年9月23日。
  • 在 回應  諮詢時，埃塞克斯大學報告說，它現在提供19個本科語言學位和四個碩士學位 – 包括一個新的翻譯和口譯碩士學位，最初

中文，法文，德文和義大利文，鑒於在翻譯和口譯領域對合格語言專業人員的持續未得到滿足的需求。 聖安德魯斯大學報告說，它預計將在三  年內提供  波斯語  的部分學位，並與另一門課程（如國際關係或歷史）  一起學習。

  • UCML-AULC 對英國大學  全校語言提供的  調查（2012-13）。
  • 從2012年秋季開始，埃塞克斯 大學的所有學生除了全日制學習外，還有機會免費學習一門語言，無論他們的學科是什麼。   阿斯頓大學所有付費    的本科生  現在有權在第一年免費獲得兩個10學分的語言模組。 

資助 受教育程度較低的 語言和 少數民族 語言 的提供

在較少教授或少數民族語言領域，學生  的需求   不大可能  達到使這種提供在經濟上能夠自我維持的水準。    隨著時間的推移  ，特殊因素資金的逐步撤出使  一些大學關係別無選擇，只能從整體教學補助金中交叉補貼這些領域，這也將於2013年  結束。

 對  較少教授和少數民族語言  的研究  經費的減少對   英國在這些領域的專業知識構成了威脅。 能力一旦消失，就很難重建，儘管維持在基本水準上並不昂貴   。    鑒於  目前的預算壓力，學生對學習土耳其語和波斯語  等語言的需求不足，這意味著一些大學沒有提供波斯語課程，認為他們沒有理由僱用全職波斯語  教師，或者提供這些 續約或永久合同。

 在諮詢期間還發現，大學  越來越依賴  慈善事業。  特別是     伊朗傳統基金會、富裕的中東政府和中國政府資助的孔子學院等海外捐助者所作的貢獻，已經變得非常寶貴。一位反對者指出，中國政府現在在英國資助的中文學習比英國政府多，這種不平衡可能會對接受者的中立性/公正性造成潛在的壓力。

戰略性地影響和脆弱的主題資金

語言屬於易受攻擊的領域和學科類別，因此需要額外的支持，已經認識到了一段時間。在《納菲爾德報告》（2001年）發表之後，HEFCE制定了SIVS方案，以支援被認為具有戰略重要性  和脆弱性的主題。125 作為SIVS支助方案的一部分  ，126種語言在2005年至2012年期間獲得了2100萬英鎊的支助。

 
  
  • STEM： 化學、 工程、 數學 和 物理; 現代 外 語 和相關 領域 研究，定量社會科學和陸基研究 – 隨後在200年刪除8。
  • 2005年至2012年期間，實施了一項5億英鎊的工作方案，  以支援  被認為具有戰略重要性  和易受攻擊性的主題。

一些答覆者強調，將  各種語文  納入   SIVS方案對繼續提供這些語文至關重要。  2012   年，HEFCE董事會就  SIVS的新政策方法達成一致，通過該方法，它  將繼續為現代外語提供支援。 迄今為止的支援  有

包括：  免除  2012-13年  學生人數控制的調整;      從2014-15年起，在國外學習或工作一年的學生的學費  附加費約為2  ，250  英鎊，通過

 伊拉斯謨交流計劃或通過  另一條途徑出國留學;  進一步投資於    現代外語的需求上升活動（語言之路   計劃），並繼續與  該部門進行創新合作  ，以維持  供應 語言提供，同時採取措施解決有關需求的c一次性問題。

權力下放和缺乏戰略協調 和 規劃

 納菲爾德調查在2001年警告說，高等教育  是一個多樣化和分散的部門，缺乏以可持續的方式解決英國範圍內的語言戰略問題的意願和手段，並呼籲制定一項全面的語言戰略來解決這個問題。 127  在目前的氣候下，這看起來不太可能有機地發生，因為大學副校長越來越多地著眼於學生的需求和財務可行性來做出決定，因此關於剩餘政府資金去向的決定進一步下放。

然而， 某些 副C漢賽爾 已經 表明 ， 一些 英國 大學，如果他們有能力這樣做，可以根據

語言社區的學術重要性和規模，包括人員配置水準和提供性質。另一方面，我沒有理由認為這些決定必然會反映政府的戰略利益  。 一  種協調的戰略方法將政府的需求聯繫在一起，並確保整個  HEI 網路有能力在某些語言和地理區域保持國家語言能力的想法是一個令人信服     的想法。

它還可以通過  鼓勵大學聯盟  和集中集中重點專業知識，導致在不同語言家庭之間更有效地分配資源。

 
  
  • 它 指出，「迫切需要  制定一項國家戰略，以規劃高等教育中教授的語言範圍，以管理將語言納入所有語言。 學科領域   並保持  足夠的語言專家供應。納菲爾德基金會，語言：下一代“。

 

 

 

 

 

 

建議

以下建議借鑒了這次調查的結果以及英國科學院現有報告和該領域議會委員會的建議。     其中一些報告比其他報告更為籠統，反映了導言中的說法，即本報告在許多意義上是進一步調查的前奏。

長期 戰略 規劃

  • 為了在政府內部提供一致、可持續和高效的語言技能，需要在整個政府中得到支持和實施的明確和協調的方法，包括：
    • 對語言需求和技能進行定期、一致的跨部門審計;
    • 發展和維護  現有語言年齡技能的政策; 和
    • 在發展目標範圍內識別語言技能。

政府內部語言學習的領導力和激勵措施

  • 部長、高級公務員和人力資源部門 需要支持和實現這些目標。結構堅固

 對於展示領導力、監控進展和  保持問責制至關重要。跨白廳團隊應準確評估需求，分配資源並與供應商互動。

  • 應該使用ince ntives來鼓勵語言學習的提升 ，並  消除似乎圍繞著花在語言技能上的時間而產生的恥辱感。

  對未來產能的投資

  • 政府應與高等教育機構密切合作，確保從小學到高等教育的語言學習者有一條可持續和一致的途徑。 需要    為每個階段的語言學習提供支援，以最大限度地利用從最初的語言學習機會到   掌握高級語言資格和培養專業知識的機會。

認識到在較少教授和最少語言中發展語言能力

  • 高等教育機構應確保 它們擁有  最好的結構  ，以便

協調  資源分配，以至少   保留特別受威脅語言的基本或最低能力。

  • 應確定和加強HEI供應與 政府部門需求之間的聯繫。
  • 為確保為國家安全、二元制和國防提供激增的語言能力，應作出堅定承諾，為 學習和維護較少教授的少數民族語言提供資源。
  • 應通過開發社區語言的資產語言計劃的替代來鼓勵對遺產語言技能的認可，發展和  認證  。 這可以在FE和HE級別提供，而不是在學校級別提供。
  • 政府部門  還可以鼓勵和激勵員工全面披露傳統語言技能。

結論

 這項調查的目的是初步了解英國政府的語言能力，  它如何為英國的二元性，安全和  國防目標服務，以及如何  提供一條可以遵循的途徑  。確保並改善這種  能力，以備將來使用  。

很明顯，語言技能在國防和國家安全領域得到認可和利用。  新成立的聯邦物流中心

語言中心和  國防  語言與文化學院是整個政府致力於語言學習的潛在燈塔。 但是，        需要   保證  教學品質不會因成本和合同提供者的使用而受到損害，並且將保留隨著時間的推移而積累的寶貴教學專業知識。

此外，報告還對這些技能的未來來源和供應提出了擔憂。無論是政府內部還是高等教育機構的資金壓力，以及獲得語言資格的畢業生人數的減少，都耗盡了我們  的語言資源庫。   如果不    解決這個問題，將對國防和國家安全的徵聘  工作產生不利影響。

在其工作所在國  的語言方面具有職能熟練程度的  外交官人數的下降也令人深感關切。  同時重新開放FCO語言中心，以及承諾

 由   外交和聯邦事務大臣做出的，是受歡迎的，需要做大量的工作來嵌入這些變化並扭轉這種下降。

   目前，政府  對語言技能的冷漠態度，以及  認為這些技能實際上可能對個人的職業發展和晉陞有害的看法尤其令人擔憂。   這些問題需要通過制定明確的政策、強有力的領導和重要的激勵措施來解決，這些激勵措施可以識別和支援語言學習。

從這次調查中可以清楚地看出，如果不解決供應減少的問題，政府將無法維持或增加其語言能力。   語言畢業生人數繼續下降，因此政府需要與  教育系統的所有pas密切合作，制定政策，   為從小學到大學的語言學習者提供一致的途徑。高等教育機構也需要參與進來，以確保在存在具有戰略重要性、授課較少的少數民族語言的語言能力和專業知識的情況下，它得到支持和維護。

最終，如果不採取行動，政府內部的語言技能將繼續受到侵蝕，直到政府內部既沒有技能，也沒有足夠多的新語言學家通過教育系統，重建其能力並滿足英國的安全、國防和外交要求。顯然，這些需要再也不能通過具體部門內的個別倡議來維持。 需要在整個行政部門制定戰略性和一致的語言政策，以解決具有語言技能的個人的供應，招聘和發展問題。

 縮略語清單

奧勒克

 大學語言中心協會

之二

 商業、創新和  技能部

斷續器

黑人 和 少數族裔

卡薩瓦

   阿拉伯世界  高級研究中心

中科院

高  等  語言研究中心

中央情報局

 中央情報局

斷續器

 國防語言文化  學院

斷續器

  教育部

英國國際發展部

 國際發展部

國防部

（美國） 美國 國防部

多爾蘇

國防 作戰 語言 支助 股

斷續器

國防  語言學校

電子圖書館

 英語學士學位

電子不列顛哥倫比亞省

英語 學士學位 證書

歐盟

 阿拉伯聯合大陸（19）

外交事務委員會

外交事務特別委員會

聯邦調查局

 聯邦調查局  

斷續器

外交和聯邦 事務部

鐵

繼續 教育

斷續器

政府 通訊 總部

全球教育學院

  普通中等教育證書

總務局

政府 技能 機構

赫菲克

  英格蘭高等教育資助委員會

高校

 高等教育機構

英國皇家郵輪公司

英國 稅務 海關 總署

河

家庭 辦公室

人力資源

 人力資源

斷續器

 全院語言提供

萊薩斯

本地 聘用 員工 援助 計劃

斷續器

現代 外 語

軍情五處

 安全域

國防部

  國防部

議員

大都會 員警局

美國大學體育總會

國家 犯罪 局

斷續器

國家語言服務 團

新南威爾士州

 國家安全語言倡議

光學字元識別

牛津、劍橋和 RSA 考試 委員會

新航

 安全和情報機構

斷續器

具有戰略 重要性 和 易受傷害 的科目

氧化硫15

大都會 員警局  反恐  司令部

亞非學院

 東方與非洲研究學院

索卡

嚴重 有組織犯罪  局

烏卡斯

大學 和 學院 招生 服務

倫敦大學學院

 倫敦大學學院

英國

 大不列顛及北愛爾蘭聯合王國

英國

聯合王國部門間語文常設委員會

英國貿易投資局

英國 貿易 與 投資署

我們

 美國

  調查貢獻者名單

 接受  報告採訪的組織  和個人

  • 英國石油公司
  • 英國 文化協會
  • 查理斯克勞福德，前英國駐 波蘭大使
  •  英國國防學院
  •  教育部
  • 國際發展  部
  • 外交 和 聯邦 事務部
  • 斷續器
  • 政府 平等 辦公室
  • 國際 戰略研究所
  • 大都會 員警局
  • 東方和非洲研究  學院
  • 索卡
  • 安全域 （MI5）

  回應  網上諮詢的組織

企業、 非政府組織 和其他  相關 利益攸關方

  •  英國非洲研究協會
  • 阿爾坎塔拉 通信 有限責任公司
  • 英國廣播公司 全球 服務
  • 土耳其研究與發展  中心
  • 特許語言學家協會 和IoL教育信託
  • 艾瑪斯 英國 有限公司
  • 國際 戰略   研究所
  • 謝菲爾德語言
  • 樂施會
  • 主要 語言 獎
  • 拉丁美洲  研究學會
  • 與未來對話 ——   語言運動

 政府和公共機構

  • 首席警官  協會（國際事務）
  • Bòrd na Gàidhlig
  • 商業創新與技能部（人力資源司）
  • 商業、創新與技能部（歐洲、貿易和國際分局）
  • 外交 和 聯邦 事務部
  • 英格蘭  高等教育資助委員會
  • 威爾士  高等教育資助委員會
  • 國際勞工組織  （勞工組織）
  • 蘇格蘭 資助 委員會
  • 國家  公共服務  口譯員登記冊（NRPSI）

高等教育 和 語言 提供者

  • 非洲 研究中心 （牛津）
  • 學校和學院領導協會
  • 聯合王國東南亞研究協會
  • 英國 中國研究  協會
  • 大學古典系理事會
  • 杜倫 大學
  • 帝國理工學院（人文系）
  • 學術
  • 倫敦 語言
  • 羅塞塔 石碑
  • 東方和非洲研究  學院
  • 義大利研究學會
  • 南安普頓 大學 （地理 與 環境）
  • 大學語言中心  協會
  • 瑪麗格拉斯哥語言信託基金會
  • 倫敦大學學院斯拉夫與  東歐研究  學院
  • 英國 地區研究協會理事會
  • 大學現代語言委員會
  • 劍橋 大學 （  東亞  研究系）
  • 劍橋大學（德語系）
  • 愛丁堡大學（亞洲研究）
  • 愛丁堡 大學 （  南亞  研究中心）
  • 埃塞克斯大學（  語言和語言學系）
  • 埃塞克斯大學（  語言和語言學系）
  • 埃克塞特大學（  古典與  古代歷史系）
  • 利茲大學（中國研究）
  • 曼徹斯特大學
  • 諾丁漢大學（藝術學院  ）
  • 牛津大學（  東方學院）
  • 謝菲爾德大學（   東亞研究學院）
  • 南安普敦大學（語言、語言學和地區研究中心）
  • 南安普敦大學 （英语）
  • 南安普敦大學（現代語言）
  • 聖安德魯斯大學（  伊朗研究所）
  • 斯特林大學（  語言、  文化和宗教學院）
  • 薩里大學（  藝術與人文科學學院）
  • 烏威大學， 布裡斯托爾
  • 白玫瑰東亞中心（謝菲爾德大學）

個人 受訪者 – 高等教育 機構和 語言 提供者

  • 多米尼克帕維茲·布魯克肖（斯坦福大學 ）
  • 羅傑古德曼，牛津大學社會科學系主任兼日本研究教授
  • 羅素鐘斯博士

 關於指導小組

 羅賓·尼布萊特博士

羅賓·尼布萊特於2007  年1月成為查塔姆研究所（皇家國際事務研究所）院長。 在加入查塔姆研究所之前，從2001年到2006年，Niblett博士是華盛頓戰略與國際研究中心（CSIS）的執行副總裁兼首席運營官。在CSIS的最後兩年中，他還擔任CSIS歐洲計劃及其“更新跨大西洋夥伴關係倡議”的主任。

最近，Niblett博士是查塔姆研究所報告的作者，該報告發揮  其優勢：重新思考  英國在不斷變化的世界中  的角色（查塔姆之家，2010年）並準備  領導？ 《重新思考美國在變化的世界中的角色》（查塔姆出版社，2009年），以及《美國和  改變的世界：  領導力問題》的編輯和撰稿人（查塔姆研究所/Wiley-Blackwell，2010年）。他還是CSIS關於跨大西洋關係的一些報告的作者或撰稿人，並且是《重新思考歐洲秩序》（Palgrave，2001）一書的作者和共同編輯。Nibl ett博士經常參加  跨大西洋關係會議。 他曾  多次向下議院國防委員會和外交事務委員會   以及美國參議院和眾議院歐洲事務委員會作證。

 Niblett博士是富達歐洲價值投資信託的非執行董事  。他是海外發展研究所的理事會成員，也是世界經濟論壇歐洲全球議程理事會的成員。他擁有牛津大學新學院的現代語言學士學位以及哲學碩士和博士學位。

 格雷厄姆·弗尼斯教授OBE，亞馬遜物流

  格雷厄姆·弗尼斯OBE教授，FBA是非洲語言教授，  也是奧林學院  研究與企業的副主任。

塔爾和非洲研究（亞非學院），倫敦大學。他的研究和教學重點是豪薩語的  流行文化  以及口頭和書面文學，豪薩語是西非的主要通用語   。      他是國際  非洲口頭文學學會（ISOLA）的創始成員，也是《非洲文化研究雜誌》的創始編輯。

他   目前是  英聯邦獎學金委員會  的專員和英國 – 奈及利亞教育信託基金的受託人。 他是   英國科學院非洲小組   的主席，   並且是英國非洲研究協會的前任主席。 他主持了  指導委員會，該委員會於2009年出版了《內羅畢報告：非洲 – 英國社會科學和人文科學研究合作框架》和  2011  年出版了《未來基礎：支援African研究人員的早期職業生涯》，這兩份報告均由英國科學院和 英聯邦大學協會。

 克萊夫·霍爾斯教授亞馬遜物流

 克萊夫·霍爾斯教授  自1997  年以來一直是牛津大學當代阿拉伯世界研究的哈立德·本·阿卜杜拉·沙特教授，此前曾在劍橋大學擔任阿拉伯文講師和讀者。

他曾在中東和北   非擔任外交官多年，     能說流利的阿拉伯文和法語。他的      研究和寫作範圍廣泛，包括  阿拉伯文，包括口語  區域形式，  他還  發表了大量關於現代阿拉伯語政治詩歌的文章，包括 方言，來自阿拉伯，海灣，約旦，伊拉克和埃及。

 海軍少將西蒙·李斯特 CB， OBE

海軍少將西蒙·李斯特（Simon Lister）是皇家海軍工程兵軍官，將於2013年11月27日成為裝備（艦隊）司令和艦隊支援司令，並晉陞為海軍中將。李斯特在   馬納頓   皇家海軍工程學院  和格林威治皇家海軍學院接受教育，於1978年加入皇家海軍。他是1986年「英勇號」號、「奧丁」號潛艇的  一名海洋工程師，1993  年又是“托貝”號“戰壕”號潛艇的一名海軍工程師。 他於  1989  年在朗瓜格斯國防學校學習俄語和波蘭語，並獲得了俄語一級口譯員的資格。 90  年代初，他以莫斯科為基地，在蘇聯的最後幾天和波蘭工作。 1994年，他成為船舶支援局局長的海軍助理，並在參加仕龍業務后成為海軍助理。

 他於1996  年上學，  在   國防部工作，直到2001年回到  莫斯科擔任海軍武官。 在第  二次俄羅斯訪問期間，他負責潛艇救援，北極環境凈化  和軍事安置合作的合作。 回到  莫斯科后，李斯特回到了該部的工程領導崗位。

國防部長，2005年任普利茅斯海軍基地指揮官，  2008   年4月     擔任皇家國防研究學院指揮參謀部高級海軍成員，2009年擔任潛艇主任。  他是  高級軍事語言學家和  首席海軍工程官。 他於2001年獲得OBE，並於2013年獲得CB。

 艾弗·羅伯茨  爵士

 伊沃·羅伯茨爵士   是  前英國外交官，自2006年起擔任牛津大學三一學院院長。 他於   1968  年加入  外交和聯邦事務部擔任三等秘書，在  中東，  巴爾幹半島，  西歐和太平洋國家擔任過多個職位。 瓦努阿圖。    1996年至1997年，他  被任命為  第一任英國駐南斯拉夫  聯盟  共和國大使，英國駐愛爾蘭大使。

 1999年至2003年，2003    年至2006年最後一次被任命為駐羅馬大使。  2009年，伊沃爾爵士是《公約》的主要貢獻者。

薩托《外交實踐》三十年來的第一版，被廣泛認為  是國際外交實踐的權威手冊。

Ivor爵士在牛津大學基布爾學院獲得現代語言碩士學位，  並在那裡獲得榮譽院士。  他能說流利的義大利語、法語和西班牙文，並且能及格為塞爾維亞-克羅埃西亞文，是特許語言學家協會的會員和羅馬英國學校理事會主席。

海倫·  華萊士教授，CMG，亞馬遜物流

海倫·華萊士（Helen Wallace）是薩塞克斯大學的名譽教授，直到2013年夏天，他一直是倫敦政治經濟學院歐洲研究所的教授。她擔任過各種顧問職務。從2001年到2006年，她是佛羅倫薩歐洲大學學院羅伯特·舒曼高級研究中心主任。此前，她是ESRC「一個歐洲還是幾個歐洲？計劃，並在蘇塞克斯歐洲研究所，  皇家  國際事務   研究所和歐洲學院任職。

她於2000年當選為英國科學院院士，   2008  年至2011  年擔任政治研究科主任，並成為外國人。

 2011   年7月任秘書兼當然副主席。 她  於2011年1月成為一名女爵。

海倫·華萊士是一位政治學家，她的研究  重點是  歐洲一體化的政治。最近的書籍包括：  歐盟的政策制定，第6版，與馬克·波拉克和阿拉斯代爾·楊共同編輯，OUP，2010年。 願景，投票和否決權：重新評估  盧森堡 – 布爾格妥協40年後，與讓 – 瑪麗·帕萊雷特共同編輯

和帕斯卡琳 ·維南德，彼得·安，布魯塞爾，2006年。 《  歐洲聯盟部長理事會》，與菲奧娜·海耶斯-倫肖合著，第2版，帕爾格雷夫，2006年。

  英國科學院於1902年根據皇家憲章成立，宣導  和支援   英國和國際上的人文科學  等。 它    旨在激勵，認可和支持英國  和國際上的卓越和高成就。作為由900多名英國人文學者和社會科學家組成的獎學金，該學院因其在研究方面的傑出表現而當選，是一個獨立的   自治組織，  接受  公共資金。 本回復中表達的觀點不一定由每個研究員分享。

 2011年，英國學院啟動了一項為期四年的計劃，以支持語言和定量技能（L&QS）

 人文和社會  科學。 通過  L&QS 計劃，學院展示了   語言對  教育，研究，個人和整個社會的健康和福祉的價值和重要性。

國際標準書號978-0-85672-610-1

 英國學院

10 –11 卡爾頓 之家 露台 倫敦 SW1Y 5AH

+49 （0）7121  9300-0

註冊 慈善機構： 233176數量

www.britac.ac.uk

↓
Table of Contents

TIME TABLE

2022.09.24
Fall Promotion Begins on Sep 24th, 2022
2022.10.15
Fall Promotion Ends on Oct 15th, 2022

Self Care

On Air

Read, Hear or Watch the Rising Channels

Take notes and hold the line.

Watch more

On What Matters

Skin Conditions & Care

Treat yourself

Take a Moment for You

BOOK YOUR SELFOLOGY DAY
selfology.co
LinkedIn
YouTube
Facebook
Instagram
© Copyright 2007 to 2024 Φ selfology® 自我生態®