Second-language teaching policies.

[Molly]

Language is more than a communication tool. It is a component of one's identity. That dimentison cannot be ignore in a debate on language policies and language rights.

It is easy to say language is a secondary or tertiary concern when the language one speaks is the dominent one. I doubt that English-speaking Quebecers would agree with you that language is a secondary issue when they are told by the government how much of it they can put on a sign, whether or not their children can be schooled in it, where they can or cannot get health service in their language.

You talk about segregation... What French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec have been fighting for and have obtained is NOT segregation; it is the tools to be fully members of society.

I freely admit that I have a difficult time to 'groc' such passionate language identity. I am 3rd generation Canadian, with grandparents who spoke neither French nor English, nor even any of the languages used in the homes of their neighbours. ALL set aside Babel and took up the lingua franca for the sake of understanding one another... and that's why that area is so very unilingual: they actually WANTED to communicate with one another.

I really don't 'get' the elevation of a tool to an identity-defining status . It strikes me as being as misguided as equating an occupation to identity, or a place of residence to identity, or even a brand loyalty to identity-- Lot's do it, but it is a proclamation of determination to maintain ones limitations as immutable-- not a thing to be proud of. Downright obtuse, in fact.

So I don't OBJECT to the learning of languages at all.. I applaud it. But I don't for one second think that if all Canadians moved mountains to the point of all becoming fully fluent in both English and in French that there would be one jot less tension between the province of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada-- between Canadiens and Canadians. Language is only one dimension of expressing far deeper-seated differences in worldview. We might focus on it, but it isn't the root. Tribalism is.

I'm glad that you bring up the notion of francophony outside Quebec, and in part, agree with your assertion... but would also suggest that the 'fight' would be unnecessary but for a fruitless clinging to a non-functioning, anachronistic relic of an old fight. The impracticality of such steadfastness is utterly staggering.

I know that's strong language... but I would not expect to live in English in Mexico, or in Germany, or in Sweden. Swedes and Mexicans and Germans do not come to dominantly anglophone areas of Canada expecting to live in either their langugae of origin, or in French.... Why then would folks who live in ... even if born and raised in... francophone outposts in the great anglophone sea of north america, have any expectation of thriving without learning to speak with their neighbours, or any expectation that their neighbours would move a mountain in order to more easily communicate with them?

Again, don't get me wrong-- I welcome those outposts and value them much more highly than my comments suggest, but do they, or the determination to preserve them, really make any sense at all?

[Machjo]

I freely admit that I have a difficult time to 'groc' such passionate language identity. I am 3rd generation Canadian, with grandparents who spoke neither French nor English, nor even any of the languages used in the homes of their neighbours. ALL set aside Babel and took up the lingua franca for the sake of understanding one another... and that's why that area is so very unilingual: they actually WANTED to communicate with one another.

I can fully understand that. Yet ironically enough, one article I'd read had used the exact same argument you are, titled 'French, a factor in social cohesion'. It talked about how different people from different nationalities could all communicate with one another if they all learnt French.

Clearly, if you're living in a community dominated by Enlgish, you'll learn English sooner or later. Or if you're living in a community in which there is no common language but everyone is struggling to learn English, again, English will become the common language.

But now imagine living in a community that's half English and half French, with many who know neither. At that stage, they might not be too sure anymore which of the two languages to learn. And because both communities are fairly large, the ideal environment to learn the other language might be lacking. As a result, both sides simply choose to segregate themselve. As soon as language shift occurs, though, we suddenly start to see one side having a growing acces to economic resources, while the other side's access dwindles. Sure the other side could try to learn the other language, but then that leads to another problem, with one group having to invest more in language learning while the other group develops more profitable skills. This naturally puts one group at an advatage and the other at a disadvantage, which results in resentment and thus tensions. It's the same the world over, and Canada is no exception.

Language is the key to all social interactions, economic, social, political, cultural, scientific and every other opportunity. It's not just a symbol, but the most important tool to determine one's opportunities in life. So you bet it's going to be an emotional issue. A fight over language is also a fight over access to economic resources, science, technology, information, news, culture, etc.. whether it's explicitely mentioned or not.

I really don't 'get' the elevation of a tool to an identity-defining status . It strikes me as being as misguided as equating an occupation to identity, or a place of residence to identity, or even a brand loyalty to identity-- Lot's do it, but it is a proclamation of determination to maintain ones limitations as immutable-- not a thing to be proud of. Downright obtuse, in fact.

Language develops identity owing to the social bonds it establishes. Those who speak a common language can associate with one another. Those who cannot, cannot. As a result, a language community develops. The same doesn't apply to other skills. If I'm a profesional cook and you're a professional taxi driver, but we share a common languge, we can still communicate with one another even though you might not know how to cook and I might not know how to drive a car. Language is not just a job skill, but a social skill. It can determine whether I can call 911 or not, whether the police officer or paramedic will understand me, etc. It goes well beyond an ordinary job skill. it's a social skill required of all in all trades or professions and beyond.

So I don't OBJECT to the learning of languages at all.. I applaud it. But I don't for one second think that if all Canadians moved mountains to the point of all becoming fully fluent in both English and in French that there would be one jot less tension between the province of Quebec and the other provinces of Canada-- between Canadiens and Canadians. Language is only one dimension of expressing far deeper-seated differences in worldview. We might focus on it, but it isn't the root. Tribalism is.

Wow, now that I can agree with. Though I would say that the nature of the tensions would change. If all Canadians could speak both English and French, this would certainly put an end to the ethnic dimension of language tensions, but would then raise the economic dimension of it. After all, neither English nor French are easy to learn. To ensure universal success in these languages as second languages would involve such an investment in time and money on the part of our society, and would involve such an opportunity cost in learning other skills, that all Canadians would certainly arise together to oppose such a strategy. The same would certainly have occured in Indonesia or Malaysia following the same strategy.

But there is an alternative strategy, and that would be to create or adopt a lanuage designed to be easy to learn. This would allow all Canadians to become fluently bilingual in a common language with litlte investment in time and money on either side. That could be logistically manageable and would not require much sacrifice in opportunity cost either owing to the ease with which such a language could be learnt.

I'm glad that you bring up the notion of francophony outside Quebec, and in part, agree with your assertion... but would also suggest that the 'fight' would be unnecessary but for a fruitless clinging to a non-functioning, anachronistic relic of an old fight. The impracticality of such steadfastness is utterly staggering.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to here.

I know that's strong language... but I would not expect to live in English in Mexico, or in Germany, or in Sweden. Swedes and Mexicans and Germans do not come to dominantly anglophone areas of Canada expecting to live in either their langugae of origin, or in French.... Why then would folks who live in ... even if born and raised in... francophone outposts in the great anglophone sea of north america, have any expectation of thriving without learning to speak with their neighbours, or any expectation that their neighbours would move a mountain in order to more easily communicate with them?

Now I could agree to that in part, depending on our vision of Canada. If our vision excludes Quebec, then I could fully agree. English Canada would be English-speaking, and Quebec would be French-speaking. English Canada would forge ties with the English-speaking world while Quebec would forge ties with the French-speaking world. But if Canada includes Quebec, and we insist that we are one people, then we'd need to establish a common language to make this vision manifest, real. So in the end, this would really depend on our sense of patriotism. If our patriotism is limited to only English Canada or only French Canada, then you're right. Otherwise, a common language would be necessary.

To take Indonesia as an example. If we perceive it as over 300 separate nations, then a common langugage is not necessary. If we perceive it as one nation, then a common language is necessary to maintin its unity. Same with Canada. Without a common language, it is difficult to fully integrate Canada to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the nation's economic resources.

Again, don't get me wrong-- I welcome those outposts and value them much more highly than my comments suggest, but do they, or the determination to preserve them, really make any sense at all?

If English were easy to learn, we wouldn't even be debating this right now. All Quebecers would know English and so could fully access Canada's economic resources. Since english is difficult to learn, however, it becomes a gateway for the privileged who have the opportunities to learn it. The rest have but one way to react. If they fail to learn English, the alternative is to at least protect their own linguistic turf so as to maintain at least part of the economic pie for themselves, and that naturally leads to conflict. There is no other way arond it.

Now another option would be English-language reform. Some have promoted spelling reform. Some have promoted grammar reform, etc. That could be another option, but to do so would also break the link to classical literature, something many English-speakers would not be willing to do. This is why a planned auxiliary language would likely be the best bet.

[jbg]

What are your thoughts on this? Is Canada lagging behind other nations in the development of rational language policies?Could this negligence be the cause of a future collapse of our nation? Should we take steps now to address this issue? How important do you think a common language is in maintaining national unity?

I think all French-speakers should have to learn English as second language, and vice-versa.

[Machjo]

I think all French-speakers should have to learn English as second language, and vice-versa.

English is a compulsory second language in Quebec already, and French in Ontario. Yet the majority fail to learn their second official language in either province. The bottom line is that both languages are difficult to learn. As a result, beyond learning enough to pass tests, the endeavour remains fruitless in spite of all the resources invested in it. It's just logistically untenable. The second language needs to be easy to lern if we expect the whole populaiton to learn it well.

[CANADIEN]

I freely admit that I have a difficult time to 'groc' such passionate language identity. I am 3rd generation Canadian, with grandparents who spoke neither French nor English, nor even any of the languages used in the homes of their neighbours. ALL set aside Babel and took up the lingua franca for the sake of understanding one another... and that's why that area is so very unilingual: they actually WANTED to communicate with one another.

I really don't 'get' the elevation of a tool to an identity-defining status . It strikes me as being as misguided as equating an occupation to identity, or a place of residence to identity, or even a brand loyalty to identity-- Lot's do it, but it is a proclamation of determination to maintain ones limitations as immutable-- not a thing to be proud of. Downright obtuse, in fact.

Language is indeed a tool of communications. But it is, first, and foremost, a instrument of expression. This is how it is a component of identity. "Teachers" beating Aboriginal children for speaking their own languages in the residential schools understood it full well. They were not just trying to teach a more practical way to communicate, they were trying to assimilate the children.

I'm glad that you bring up the notion of francophony outside Quebec, and in part, agree with your assertion... but would also suggest that the 'fight' would be unnecessary but for a fruitless clinging to a non-functioning, anachronistic relic of an old fight. The impracticality of such steadfastness is utterly staggering.

I know that's strong language... but I would not expect to live in English in Mexico, or in Germany, or in Sweden. Swedes and Mexicans and Germans do not come to dominantly anglophone areas of Canada expecting to live in either their langugae of origin, or in French.... Why then would folks who live in ... even if born and raised in... francophone outposts in the great anglophone sea of north america, have any expectation of thriving without learning to speak with their neighbours, or any expectation that their neighbours would move a mountain in order to more easily communicate with them?

What is staggering is the assumption tha twe French-speaking Canadians are just "impractical" or "illogical" for wanting to retain what makes we Canadians. French is not Swedish, German or Spanish; it is one of Canada's languages. The first French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec did not come to predominently English-speaking areas but more often than not were already there when their English-speaking neighbours came in.

What is also staggering is the non-sense that wanting to be educated in one's Canadian language or to access government services in that langauge equates not wanting to learn the other main Canadian language. Go to Gravelbourg, Hearst or Caraquet; you will not find a lot of French-speaking people there who say that English as a second language is not a useful tool in the environment they're in. Actually, you might find a better mastery of French AND English among the younger generations, those who could be educated in their own language.

Again, don't get me wrong-- I welcome those outposts and value them much more highly than my comments suggest, but do they, or the determination to preserve them, really make any sense at all?

It makes sense to those who live in them, and the right of Canadians to make that choice makes sense.

[CANADIEN]

To take Indonesia as an example. If we perceive it as over 300 separate nations, then a common langugage is not necessary. If we perceive it as one nation, then a common language is necessary to maintin its unity. Same with Canada. Without a common language, it is difficult to fully integrate Canada to ensure that all Canadians have equal access to the nation's economic resources.

I wonder how Switzerland is surviving with its three official language and a fourth one being recognized on top of that.

If English were easy to learn, we wouldn't even be debating this right now. All Quebecers would know English and so could fully access Canada's economic resources. Since english is difficult to learn, however, it becomes a gateway for the privileged who have the opportunities to learn it. The rest have but one way to react. If they fail to learn English, the alternative is to at least protect their own linguistic turf so as to maintain at least part of the economic pie for themselves, and that naturally leads to conflict. There is no other way arond it.

Now another option would be English-language reform. Some have promoted spelling reform. Some have promoted grammar reform, etc. That could be another option, but to do so would also break the link to classical literature, something many English-speakers would not be willing to do. This is why a planned auxiliary language would likely be the best bet.

The "difficulty" in learning English or any other language does not primarily resides in its structure or rules. The key to learning a language properly is exposure to people who speak it and use it in daily life. Esperanto is apparently easy to learn, yet almost nobody speaks it.

[Machjo]

Canadien. I would not agree however that we should have a right to speak any particular language, but rather the freedom to do so. There is a difference. If it si a right, then all in Canada must learn it to provide us with services in it. If it is a freedom, we are free to use it, but no one else has an obliation to reciprocate. English and French together are a heavy burden on Canada's indigenous peoples, who were here long before we were. A common planned auxiliary language could alleviate them from that burden. I'm a stong believer in equality for all, including Canada's indigenous peoples. I think the only way to exercise that equality would be to require everyone to learn two language: one their own language, the second the common auxiliary language, a lanuage designed to be easy for all to learn. That is the only policy I can see that would truly be in conformity with the principle of justice.

[Machjo]

I wonder how Switzerland is surviving with its three official language and a fourth one being recognized on top of that.

Read Claude Piron, a former UN interpreter and now professor of psychology at the University of Geneva. According to him, many Swiss fail to learn their second-language too. They just live in isolation from one another. Bear in mind though that they also speak the languages of neighbouring countries. Swiss Germans can interact with Germans. Siss French with Frenchmen. Swis Italians with Italy, etc. Quebec is trapped if it fails to learn English, unless it crosses the Atlantic.

The "difficulty" in learning English or any other language does not primarily resides in its structure or rules. The key to learning a language properly is exposure to people who speak it and use it in daily life. Esperanto is apparently easy to learn, yet almost nobody speaks it.

Yet according to European research, those who do learn Esperanto in school are more likely to succeed than those who learn English or French. So clearly the internal structure of the language itself does in fact help in acquisition. The problem in Canada is that it is not recognized by our Ministries of Education as it is in the Italy, Poland, and Hungary. And our Ministries of Education compel pupils to learn certain second-languages, unlike the case in the UK and the US.

It is possible to learn a second-language well outside its environment if one of three conditions are met:

1. Motivation.

2. Full access to all the resources necessary to ensure success, including time, teachers, money, textbooks, videos, supportive parents, an ideal language environment, etc.

3. the language being studies is designed to be easy to learn.

1. above is not always within a person's control. 2. is not always available. 3. might not always be officially recognized. If we want to achieve full bilingualism in Canada, our Ministries of Education need to give our pupils more second-language options that can allow each pupil to exploit the 3 conditions above to the extent possible. This woud mean having to give schools more freedom to choose the second-language of their choice, or resources permitting, to make a common planned auxiliary language compulsory. In the short term, we wouldn't have enough teachers to make it compulsory and so would likely have to just introduce it as an option.

[CANADIEN]

Canadien. I would not agree however that we should have a right to speak any particular language, but rather the freedom to do so. There is a difference. If it si a right, then all in Canada must learn it to provide us with services in it. If it is a freedom, we are free to use it, but no one else has an obliation to reciprocate. English and French together are a heavy burden on Canada's indigenous peoples, who were here long before we were. A common planned auxiliary language could alleviate them from that burden. I'm a stong believer in equality for all, including Canada's indigenous peoples. I think the only way to exercise that equality would be to require everyone to learn two language: one their own language, the second the common auxiliary language, a lanuage designed to be easy for all to learn. That is the only policy I can see that would truly be in conformity with the principle of justice.

People have a right to speak and use whatever language they want... That right by itself does not entail an obligation for anyone to speak it as well. This is not to be confused with the right to receive government services and education in their own language.

As for the "let's just create a language that is easy to learn" argument... Sorry if I sound harsh, but it just does not make sense. A language is more than a set of sounds, characters and rules; retaining it takes more than simple rules, it takes contact with it in daily life. Constructed languages do not achieve that.

[Machjo]

People have a right to speak and use whatever language they want... That right by itself does not entail an obligation for anyone to speak it as well. This is not to be confused with the right to receive government services and education in their own language.

As for the "let's just create a language that is easy to learn" argument... Sorry if I sound harsh, but it just does not make sense. A language is more than a set of sounds, characters and rules; retaining it takes more than simple rules, it takes contact with it in daily life. Constructed languages do not achieve that.

If recognized by a ministry of education, they could. And looking at Bahasa Indonesia, at least one has.

[Molly]

LOL For someone so fixed on language, Machjo, you certainly have little respect for the integrity of them!

I cringed at the suggestion that 'structured reform' would 'break the link with classical literature'. It would do a lot more than that! It would break the link with much of the moment-to-moment communication capacity of that language!

I concur, Canadien, that an artifical vector language is a waste of everyones time. A grand theory, but why anyone would be interested in taking up such a sad, dead, uninteresting thing as a artificial language is beyond me. There are so many rich, live ones available.

BTW, as per your suggestion of exploration of outpost francophone communities, I am intimately familiar with the community of Gravelbourg in particular. I have appreciated the positive side of its existence, cheered that community's success, and in particular, enjoyed the benefits of access to the impressive resources there -- but have also darned well resented the incredibly disproportionate share of education $ spent there; the outright defamation of the anglophone larger community with regard to local issues; the preferential treatment of that community with regard to government- both federal and provincial- services....

The coin has two sides. We mere anglophones in the vicinity would not have had access to any of those resources-- the hospital, the amazing sport facilities, the fascinating 'cultural events'-- if that (outpost) communtiy was not so very richly rewarded for being 'special'.

[cybercoma]

The only way to achieve any kind of stable union would in fact be to establish a common second language.

You're right that a common second language would foster patriotism and unity, but it's not possible to achieve. The language of world commerce and media is English. A common second language would be useless in an increasingly integrated and globalized world. What will happen is that after a number of generations, that language may be the only one spoken in Canada because English and French would be extraneous where everyone speaks "language C". I'm not sure it's very practical, or even desirable. Especially considering it would have to be taught in school and most people French or English would avoid using it because the communities are not integrated enough. For all intents and purposes, the French are in Quebec and English everywhere else. What opportunity would people have to use a third option? Unless you wanted a federal government job, you would have no need for it. I suppose all Federal documents could be in the third language, but that would be rather dictatorial and nonsensical. The best thing for Canada and Quebec is sovereignty association. The problem is in the packaging of that idea. It hasn't been presented properly.

[cybercoma]

I think all French-speakers should have to learn English as second language, and vice-versa.

They do, but most don't have the opportunity to develop the language because it is unnecessary. If you live somewhere that is densely populated with French, you speak French. If you live somewhere that's densely populated with English, you speak English. It's not all that common that there is an equal proportion of each language in a particular area. If that were the case, bilingualism would be important and people would be able to develop both languages (which I've noticed is the case in many parts of New Brunswick, but no where else).

[Smallc]

You may like to think that Quebec can be who it wants WITHIN Canada,

It can indeed be who it wants within Canada. And it will. You think this experiment is failing...I don't.

[Smallc]

Now you're just lying.

Oh, and I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you didn't like patriotism or nationalism...which I do understand are different things....perhaps it's only patriotism you don't like.

[CANADIEN]

BTW, as per your suggestion of exploration of outpost francophone communities, I am intimately familiar with the community of Gravelbourg in particular. I have appreciated the positive side of its existence, cheered that community's success, and in particular, enjoyed the benefits of access to the impressive resources there -- but have also darned well resented the incredibly disproportionate share of education $ spent there; the outright defamation of the anglophone larger community with regard to local issues; the preferential treatment of that community with regard to government- both federal and provincial- services....

The coin has two sides. We mere anglophones in the vicinity would not have had access to any of those resources-- the hospital, the amazing sport facilities, the fascinating 'cultural events'-- if that (outpost) communtiy was not so very richly rewarded for being 'special'.

Less we forget. Wanting to maintain one's own Canadian language is a form of defamation towards the English=speaking larger community. And an education as well as government services in our country two national languages is special treatment.

But the French-speaking inhabitants of Gravelbourg are "special" indeed - they are supposed to ask permission before being treated like the Canadians they are.

Edited April 20, 2009 by CANADIEN

[jbg]

English is a compulsory second language in Quebec already, and French in Ontario. Yet the majority fail to learn their second official language in either province. The bottom line is that both languages are difficult to learn. As a result, beyond learning enough to pass tests, the endeavour remains fruitless in spite of all the resources invested in it. It's just logistically untenable. The second language needs to be easy to lern if we expect the whole populaiton to learn it well.

Quebec shows its attitude towards English, whether as a second language or otherwise by laws just about outlawing its public use in the province.

[BubberMiley]

Quebec shows its attitude towards English, whether as a second language or otherwise by laws just about outlawing its public use in the province.

That is 100% correct, and their attitude towards English is that it is an overwhelming force on the North American continent and must be artificially repressed in Quebec for French to survive there as the language of business.

[Machjo]

Quebec shows its attitude towards English, whether as a second language or otherwise by laws just about outlawing its public use in the province.

I don't agree with Quebec's Bill 101 fundamentally (i.e. I believe that there are more just means of achieving its alleged objectives). Having said that, however, I do believe that short of a radical restructuring of our language laws overall, Bill 101 is necessary to counterbalance the hegemonic effects of English. In fact it's thanks to Bill 101 that French-speaking Quebecers today are finding it easier than before to find work in Montreal. In the 60s unless you knew English Montreal's job market was pretty much off limits.

[cybercoma]

It can indeed be who it wants within Canada. And it will. You think this experiment is failing...I don't.

Not to split hairs, but I don't think there's any problem at the moment. What I think is that the experiment will eventually fail. I may be wrong. Perhaps we can be the rare case where our arrangement works peacefully forever.

[cybercoma]

Oh, and I'm sorry. I was under the impression that you didn't like patriotism or nationalism...which I do understand are different things....perhaps it's only patriotism you don't like.

Thank you. I appreciate the apology. Not many people on message boards are willing to do that. I'm not saying that I don't like either though. I'm saying that nationalism and patriotism are potential sources of conflict. There is always the global identity option where patriotism and nationalism are outmoded forms of identity. Not that I think people should give up their culture.

You know, the problem is I don't know what I believe.

[cybercoma]

That is 100% correct, and their attitude towards English is that it is an overwhelming force on the North American continent and must be artificially repressed in Quebec for French to survive there as the language of business.

This is the exact reply I was going to give to jbg. I understand the American ideal is liberalism and laissez-faire economics, but there are very valid reasons for the limitations set by Quebec.

[Smallc]

You know, the problem is I don't know what I believe.

I think that's my own problem some of the time as well. That and I sometimes let my emotions get the best of me (though I try not to).

[Machjo]

Thank you. I appreciate the apology. Not many people on message boards are willing to do that. I'm not saying that I don't like either though. I'm saying that nationalism and patriotism are potential sources of conflict. There is always the global identity option where patriotism and nationalism are outmoded forms of identity. Not that I think people should give up their culture.

You know, the problem is I don't know what I believe.

That depends on how one understands those terms. Here's how I define those terms:

nationalism: a belief in the moral superiority of one nation over another

patriotism: love of one's country

According to the definitions above, I would not call myself a nationalist but a patriot. But then what does that mean. I can love all of my friends and family members, and even my fellow man. So clearly love for one does not necessarily have to come at the expense of love for another. Based on the definition of patriotism above, one could be a patriot and still love all other countries just as much as he loves his own.

Additionally, if I love a person, I want what's best for him. That might mean being frank and honest with him, or giving him tough love. I might even call the police on him if he does bad, not because I hate him but for his own good, to teach him and make him a better person. Based on the definition of patriotism above, we could extend all of these traits to a country too.

In WWII Hasegawa Teru fought on the Chinese side against the Japanese Imperial Army. They called her a traitor, but in her mind her decision to fight on the Chinese side stemmed from her Japanese patriotism. Since her country was wrong, she felt that by fighting against her own country's imperialism, she would be protecting her country from itself.

Patriotism can be a complex thing.

[cybercoma]

I think you're confusing nationalism with imperialism.