“What is the threat?” – this was the question raised by writer Ivan Landzhev regarding the bill on the Bulgarian language, which passed its first reading. The bill, submitted by Vazrazhdane, was approved by the National Assembly on November 4 with 153 votes “in favour.”
The bill provides for the mandatory use of standard Bulgarian in the public sphere. It allows transliteration into the Latin alphabet and restricts the use of foreign languages in signs, announcements and other forms of public communication. It also proposes the establishment of an Advisory Council on the Bulgarian Language to the Council of Ministers.
Landzhev: The bill does not address the real problems
Speaking on “This Morning,” Landzhev said that protecting a language presupposes the existence of a specific threat, but in his view no such threat had been convincingly identified. He listed low literacy, functional illiteracy, a limited vocabulary, poor reading habits and the inability to construct a logical argument as problems that the bill does not solve.
According to him, the quality of public and political speech in Bulgaria is poor. Landzhev said that some of these problems can be seen precisely in the National Assembly, which is at the same time trying to “protect” the Bulgarian language.
The writer described language as a resilient phenomenon that has outlived state borders and political periods. He noted that around 9 million people around the world speak Bulgarian, and recalled that the language survived centuries of Byzantine and Ottoman rule.
Questions about the new advisory council
Landzhev questioned the need for a new body, since the Institute for Bulgarian Language at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Education and Science and university departments already work on linguistic issues.
He asked what the exact functions of the Advisory Council would be, how it would be funded and whether it would duplicate the activities of existing institutions. In his view, the text is unclear and allows for broad interpretations.
The dispute over foreign-language signs
As an example, Landzhev pointed to the sign “National Assembly,” which he said was a correct translation and did not threaten the Bulgarian language. He asked whether transliteration into the Latin alphabet would replace translation or lead to the placement of additional signs.
“The Bulgarian language is not as fragile as the self-confidence of its self-appointed protectors.”The writer also expressed concern that ideological messages and greater scepticism towards Europe could be promoted under the guise of the ostensibly beneficial goal of protecting the language. He described this as his interpretation, rather than an established fact.
During the parliamentary debate, Krasimir Valchev said that the bill could be improved between its first and second readings. For now, the confirmed development on the matter is its passage at first reading.