Machjo

April 14, 2009

Irak in Translation — De l ’art de perdre une guerre sans connaître la langue de son adversaire .

(Iraq in Translation: on the art of losing a war without knowing the language of the adversary)

By Mathieu Guidère

ISBN 978-2-84724- 211-9.

To order in Canada (French version; English not yet available)

http://www.amazon. ca/Irak-translat ion-Guiire/ dp/2847242112

Though this book focuses on the Iraq war, it definitely raises grave concerns about our troops in Afghanistan. If the Canadian military is giving this situation no more thought than the US military is, then our soldiers are definitely being put in the way of more harm than is necessary.

Below is a translation of the introduction to the book on Amazon France

http://www.amazon. fr/Irak-translat ion-perdre- conna%C3% AEtre-adversaire /dp/2847242112

‘In every war, there is an original error. The U.S. mistake in Iraq was to believe that we could democratize a country without even knowing its language. That technology could replace man, that manipulation could substitute persuasion. In short, that we could win the hearts and minds by ignoring culture. This book offers a journey into the heart of the chaos in Iraq by following the footsteps of those who know it best: the auxiliaries, translators and interpreters who have worked or are still working for the Americans, but are seen and treated as "traitors" and "collaborators" by their countrymen. Those whom the Americans call “linguists” have paid the heaviest price in this war that never ceases to create victims. But these cultural intermediaries who are essential to the pacification of the country have been accused of treason and felony on both sides, on the part of Americans as on the part of Iraqis. Who are these auxiliaries of the U.S. military? Where are they from and what do they do? How are they recruited and what becomes of them afterwards? An investigation into a real scandal, this book explores the root reasons for the American failure in Iraq. It explains, from unedited and detailed investigation, why the coalition forces have never reached their first objective in this war: to win the hearts and minds against extremism and barbarism.’

The author of this book is a Professor at the University of Geneva, a specialist in multilingual strategic security and on the Arab world, once research director at the Special Military College of Saint-Cyr (France). He has published many books, including three on Al-Qaida.

And here are a few other comments on the book translated from another article:

“At the end of 2006, of 130,000 active US soldiers in Iraq, only 130 knew Arabic, but only at a rudimentary level.”

“There was only one interpreter for every company (around 150 men). This fact can be explained in part by the phrase: ‘Quite evidently, languages did not enjoy much interest in the superpower which had made English the chief language worldwide, and tended to satisfy itself with that.’”

‘According to a high-level CIA official, learning Arabic is not so easy: ‘it is easier to teach a pilot to fly a fighter jet than to speak Arabic with precision.’”

‘Private companies hired interpreters in Iraq and other Arab countries for the US army. The chief motive of most of these language auxiliaries for doing this particularly risky work was the ability to make much money. Among these ‘interpreters’ we often found taxi drivers, pizza delivery men, without a true knowledge of English: “Interpreters babbled in broken English and essentially communicated by signs with the soldiers.”’

“Most of the many Arabic speakers who were accepted to work as interpreters spoke English poorly; and most of the Arabic-speaking American soldiers or interpreters spoke Arabic poorly and had no knowledge of Arab culture, let alone Iraqi, which led to many misinterpretations and errors. Not only did US military personnel depend on the competence and trustworthiness of these interpreters, but journalists, prison guards, and the tortured too, whose fate could depend on only one word being misinterpreted on purpose or by mistake.’

‘Profiteers have been many and on both sides and in the most varied ways. Instead of receiving 6,000 USD as per contract with Titan, the chief US language enterprise in Iraq, some interpreters received only 1,500. As an anecdote, an Iraqi interpreter had exploited the naivety of newly arrived US soldiers on their travels. For example, to buy an Iraqi flag as a souvenir, the seller would asked for 5 dollars; the interpreter interpreted it as 45 dollar, and pocketed the difference.’

Unfortunately, the book is not available in English yet, but it appears to be yet another valuable addition to the collection of books showing how our governments must take second-language teaching policies more seriously than they have been.. This also raises questions concerning the state of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

April 14, 2009

I was wondering. Did you include a French-language message board too? Topics in English-language and French-language message boards can be quite different.

April 14, 2009

1) Do you consider your forum posts to be public information or a private conversation?

A public conversation.

2) Do you feel that I violated your privacy in reading and/or studying your posts?

No. If I intended for my conversation to be private, I would not conduct it in a forum.

3) Should I have asked for permission first?

Yes. I'm not offended by what you did at all, but asking permission would always be more polite. Whenever we're in doubt, it's preferable to be too polite than not polite enough.

4) Would it violate your privacy if I quoted your post in my paper?

No. I view forums as means to promote ideas publicly. Granted, owing to the informality of forums, I sometimes take liberties in the following ways:

- Sarcasm.

- Hypothetical situations. I might throw an idea out even though I don't necessariy agree with it myself more as a way to test the waters before getting into more controversial issues, or just to learn more aobut the others in the forum in general.

- testing out ideas. I might throw out an idea even though I'm not sure myself whether or not I agree with it. Sometimes it's a way to explore my own ideas.

5) Would it violate your privacy if I referred to your username in my paper?

No. I view my identity under my user name to be a public identity, not necessairly reflective of my real identity. See my response to 4) above. I must say however that my public identity does reflect my private identity considerably, but may still express ideas at times that I don't necessarily agree with more as a way to explore ideas. Then again, i do do that in real life with friends too. So maybe my public identity does in fact reflect my private one to a considerable degree.

6) Would your opinion be different if my paper were to be published? (It won’t.)

No, it wouldn't.

7) Would your opinion be different if I were working for the government? (I’m not.)

No, it wouldn't.

April 13, 2009

'Founding' only means 'at one time, long ago'; does, and should have little bearing on the present. Time moves forward in a linear fashion.
Enforced language instruction in school is a different matter from official bilingualism. I don't really have a problem with the latter (except the manner in which it is executed and/or defended, at times), but the former is a rediculous waste of time and money. Languages will not be functionally learned without a willingness, if not eagerness, to learn them.

The resources that are now thrown away on demanding 'la plume de ma tante' from unwilling kids, who plan to forget the entirety of what little they may have absorbed as soon as the summer holidays hit, could be better spent providing much better, more functional--pointed, goal-oriented real, usable second- language classes for those who actually want to learn that particular skill, and plan to use it.

Let's aim for 10% learning a useful, enriching skill, instead of 100% learning a useless smattering of nothing.

I have two answers to that. The first is inspired by my sense of justice and idealism; the second, based on pragmatic considerations.

As for the first, if the rest of the world is making the effort to learn our language, we also have a moral duty to try to meet the rest of the world half-way by learning a second language ourselves. One possible solution could be to grant schools the freedom to teach a second-language of their choice. Some countries allow their schools to teach Esperanto, which is designed to be from 5-10 times easier to learn than any other language.

Pragmatically, though, languages other than Esperanto are difficult to learn, and Canada doesn't have enough teachers to teach Esperanto. Based on that consideration, I'd think it reasonable to prohibit a school from making a second-language compulsory unless it can guarantee a reasonable rate of success. if it can't do that, then it should not make any second-language compulsory.

However, if it is within the capacity of the school to guarantee a reasonable chance of success, then I'd say it ought to make a second-language compulsory. So essentially, I'd say that the question of whether to make a second-language compulsory, and which second-language to offer pupils, should depend on the circumstances of each individual school. And if the Ministry of Education can't guarantee a reasonable chance of success, then it forfeits its moral right to make second-languages compulsory itself.

April 12, 2009

operative words ... 'founding languages'.
No point in catastrophizing.

That'll be up to the kids to deal with, and they can probably already talk to each other in different languages and have it translated immediately, so no worries.

Non, pas de problème du tout.

April 12, 2009

Appeasing Quebec Is the correct answer in my opinion. I also believe that outside PQ english should be our official language, it's lopsided as hell right now. Quebec isn't really bilingual, even the House of Commons isn't bilingual.
As an old guy who may not be around to see it I think that the future will be a linguistic minefield.

Sooner or later our newest Canadians will be wanting in on the action, that should be fun.

I don't agree with X just appeasing Y. Appeasment is a way to cop out of daling with the root of a problem, whatever that might be.

Instead of just appeasing Y, X shoud try to find out what is the source of the problem that has led to the feeling that X needs to appease Y and deal with that instead. Appeasement just stalls the inevitable. If we want to progress and move on, we should deal with the root of problems, not just thei symptoms as appeasement does.

April 12, 2009

Another point. If official bilingualism is to be limited to government services, that is but a political platitude of no real substance. Do you honestly believe that a monolingual French Canadian will move to Vancouver to exploit this service if he can't find a job?

If Official Bilingualism was not about political maneuvering to bribe Quebec into remaining in Confederation, we would have recognized long ago that the only way to ensure real integration is to ensure that all Canadians share a common language. If, for example, all native English-speaking Canadians learnt French well, and all French Canadians likewise, and also all First Nations and Inuit, then they'd all be able to find work anywhere in the country, make friends anywhere and with any compatriot (even this very forum segregates monolingual French speakers to take an example of how segregated we are).

To ask you but a simple question: have you ever had the chance to exchange ideas with a monolingual French-speaking Canadian, or a Canadian who knew neither English nor French?

I have exchanged ideas with monolingual French-speaking Canadians, but only thanks to my knowledge of French. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for Nunavummiut who speak neither English nor French, not face to face, nor online. I don't know their language, and obviously English and French are too difficult for them too. Not because they're stupid, but becaue English and French are genuinely difficult languages. Certainly it would not be fair to expect them to learn Englsih or French any better than Englsih and French speakers learn one another's languages. But at least they need to learn only one, the Nunavummiut must learn two, in addition to the mother tongue. A clear disadvantage for them.

April 12, 2009

I agree about Nunavut. In fact, Canada has many founding languages - Indigenous languages, French, English. I agree that Nunavut should have its own official language, the language of its people.

Nunavut has 4 official languages: English, French, Innuinaqtun, and Inuktitut. So even if we removed French and English, some of them might still not be able to communicate with one another.

And yes, official bilingualism is about providing service in the founding languages.

But is it fair that if a monolingual French speaker needs help in Vancouver, or a monolingual English speaker in Quebec city, we shall provide him with services in that language. But if he's a monolingual speaker of Inuktitut, we don't. How is he supposed to participate in our society?

Add to that that, government services aside, while a monolingual English speaker has access to about 75% of the nation's economic resources in terms of employment opportunities, a monolingual Quebecer has access to only about 25%, and a monolingual Nunavummiut, but a fraction.

It is NOT about how many anglophones learn French. That has nothing to do with it.

They're still very much related. To give a monolingual Quebecer access to government services in Vancouver is really nothing more than a symbolic platitude. In reality though, it won't serve him much. He won't be able to find a job, any more than the monolingual English-speaker in Quebec.

From that standpoint, though I don't agree with every aspect of Bill 101, it does have some merits. It recognizes that to just give monolingual anglophones in Quebec access to govenrment services is not enough. It recognizes that if that monolingual anglophone wants to become a full participant in every aspect of Quebec society, a common language is needed. Interpreters and translaters can't be there holing his hand 24/7.

Also, teaching English-French bilingualism in school and providing English-French interpreters and translaters in Canadian society is a redundancy. If they al succeeded in learning their second language, then there would be no need for translators and interpreters. In that respect, Official Bilingualism as a permanent strategy is an acknowledgement that the education system has failed.

April 12, 2009

Not to mention the questions this raises about the co-ordination of educational policies Canada-wide, when most Quebecers can't speak English, most English Canadians can't speak French, and many of Canada's Innuit can speak neither.

April 12, 2009

What is the purpose of official bilingualism, majcho?

I'm guessing the real answer is to try to bribe Quebec into staying in the Canadian Federation.

However, I believe that the more PC answer would be to give equal access to government services to all English and French speakers across Canada.

But if that's the case, what about those who know neither English nor French? In Nunavut, about 8% of the population speaks neither English nor French. And considering that they've been on that land even before Columbus was born, why should we have more access to these services than they do?

April 12, 2009

According to Statistics Canada in 2006 (http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo15-eng.htm), only about 12% of Ontarians know French in spite of the fact that French is compulsory in all Ontario schools.

According to Scott Reid, Canada's Official Bilingualism policy is costing Canada about 16 billion dollars per year (though we don't know the costs for Ontario specifically). In spite of all the money spent of Official bilingualism, including second-language teaching in schools, over many years, 12% is still the rate of success we've achieved in Ontario.

Looking at other countries, the rate of success there is not high either. In Western Europe, it's estimated at about 6% for English. In India, 4%.

One difference between us and Europe, however, is that while we have chosen to keep silent on the issue, some European countries have started to take the issue more seriously, and taken action as a result. In Italy, the Ministry of Public Instruction had taken the following policy shift as earlyas 1993:

http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf

Hungry had followed suit as early as in 2000, Poland and Croatia in 2001, and England in 2005:

http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm

US schools and some Australian schools are becoming increasingly experimental in this field too.

Considering how increasingly important bilingualism is in the age of globalization, what should the second-language teaching policies of our elementary and secondary schools be?

Should we just continue making French compulsory and accept the low success rate? (Quebec exhibits a low success rate in English too by the way, as do many other regions of the world)

Should the Ministry of Education just increase spending on second-language learning, providing however much funding as is necessary to make Ontario succeed where others have failed?

Do we allow more easier language options for schools and pupils to choose from which might be more within their grasp?

Do we just no longer require pupils to learn a second language at all?

Or is there some other solution?

April 12, 2009