Fraser Institute Publishes new study on Official Languages

[Machjo]

In any case, this is neither here nor there. My point was that in Canada, to achieve "fairness", we explicitly recognize our differences. In the US, to achieve "fairness", they choose to ignore these differences.

I'm all for recognizing differences if confomrant to justice. Otherwise, no. In Canada, it seems that recognition of differences must always legally entrench the privilege of the European side of our culture even though it has an advantage in the free market already! For instance, Ontario has the Catholic School Boards, thus giving Catholics even more advantage than they have already simply owing to their majority population. Jews, Muslims, and others, even protestants, are thus implicitely recognized as legally less equal.

Same applies to our language laws. English and French are major world languages already, even without government support. Yet the Fedral government supports TV5? Why not an equal international chanel for Canada's Inuits abroad? Of course I'm not suggesting that we do that, it would be too expensive for the few Inuit around the world outside of Canada. But then why do it for French and English when the private sector coud take care of them quite fine already? Government should not be entrenching advantages the majority has already! Where is the justice in that, unless we insist that some ethnic groups or language groups or religious groups are more equal than others?

[CANADIEN]

I know it's hard for downtowners to understand this. Not everyone wants to live around dirt and scum which is what downtown is. It's dirty, smoggy, smelly and full of undesirable people if we have to call them that. I'd rather not be harassed by beggars every time I leave my house, ty.

Downtown is more than just the sum of it's bad aspects. It's also vibrant with arts, music, and beauty. Depends how people chose to look at things.

[Machjo]

(...) artificial language do not work.

I wans't proposing this or that system. I was merely pointing out the relative efficiency and justice of various systems in theory. I'm sure you could agree to the following:

1. No official language: saves money on translation and language teaching, but will likely segregate language communities and eventually lead to the language hegemony of the larger language, likely to promote reaction from the minorities.

2. Make all languages official: Highly inefficient, extremely expensive, but at least just in principle.

3. official bilingualism: Gives French and English Canadians a distinct advantage over the Inuit and other minorities beyond what the free market itself would give them. Somewhat expensive, and enusres equality at least between Canada's two predominant European cultures, though not necessarily for the rest.

4. An easy-to-learn common auxiliary language: Somewhat inexpensive (though some spending on language education would still be needed), puts all language groups, be they European or indigenous, on an equal footing, and protects all languages from the hegemony of any others. So, regardless of how likely it is a scenario, we can't deny that it is a just scenario. A scenario needn't be likely for it to be just. It simply needs to be just in principle even if there is little popular support for it. After all, Official Bilignualism is popular, but that doesn't make it any more just.

[Machjo]

I know it's hard for downtowners to understand this. Not everyone wants to live around dirt and scum which is what downtown is. It's dirty, smoggy, smelly and full of undesirable people if we have to call them that. I'd rather not be harassed by beggars every time I leave my house, ty.

Strange, I chose to live downtown 'cause it's near work and saves on Canada's resources... and 'cause I've got plenty of good friends there. I'm a vegan non-smoking teetotaller who has given much of his time and money to the community (and intend to again, though this year is a little busy for me). One thing that irritates the hell out of me though is when a suburbanite drives his gasmobile to and from downtown evey day and insists on living in the burbs because he doesn't want to put up with the smog he's created with his gasmobile. If a suburbanite lives and works in the burbs, that's fine by me. But if he's polluting my air, then his complaining simply shows not only his ignorance of what he's contributed to, but also to his total lack of sensitivity to how his actions affect others, living in the burbs to escape his own dirt, leaving it for the rest to breathe in.

Now having said that, I happen to live near downtown in a mixed neighbourhood (business, residential, parks, multi-ethnic, etc.) and near a large park, so not much smog here considering. I should also say that most of my friends are not of European descent, and many, maybe most, fo them are also teetotallers, non-smokers, etc. And a few are vegan or vegetarian. They have various religions and don't mistreat their children. So cut the bigotry already.

[Machjo]

I know it's hard for downtowners to understand this. Not everyone wants to live around dirt and scum which is what downtown is. It's dirty, smoggy, smelly and full of undesirable people if we have to call them that. I'd rather not be harassed by beggars every time I leave my house, ty.

Oh, yes. I should also say that I like your signature. I'm pro-life too. That being the case, I'd rather live in society and see how I can help it than just isolate myself in my own coccoon sitting there and pointing fingers at those who are struggling. Being pro-life means being active in helping others, not just isolating myself from them. If I isolate myself, then I'm also responsible for my neighbour's abortion if I never tried to help to the extent possible. Being pro-life means sacrificing myself for the good of all. Otherwise, I'm among the guilty, not matter how I may vote once in a blue moon.

[Leafless]

(...) artificial language do not work.

Your own French language is seen as an artficial language by many Canadians, as it is kept alive with discriminatory federal and provincial policies and to date approx. 1- trillion dollars of tax payers money.

This is only relating to official bilingualism in the federal government and does include the multitude of federal and provincial subsidies given to Quebec and Francophones in other provinces to support the French culture and it's language.

If a group cannot linguistically influence it's language in Canadian society to the point of where it is freely recognized and supported, then it is a dead language and should be left alone to die.

[CANADIEN]

Your own French language is seen as an artficial language by many Canadians, as it is kept alive with discriminatory federal and provincial policies and to date approx. 1- trillion dollars of tax payers money.

Actually Leafless, most people don't speak leaflish, and they rely on the English language definition of the word artificial.

BTW, love your maths. 2 billions times 40 years equals 1 trillion. :lol:

If a group cannot linguistically influence it's language in Canadian society to the point of where it is freely recognized and supported, then it is a dead language and should be left alone to die.

Still not getting it, I see.

Edited May 16, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Machjo]

Your own French language is seen as an artficial language by many Canadians, as it is kept alive with discriminatory federal and provincial policies and to date approx. 1- trillion dollars of tax payers money.

This is only relating to official bilingualism in the federal government and does include the multitude of federal and provincial subsidies given to Quebec and Francophones in other provinces to support the French culture and it's language.

If a group cannot linguistically influence it's language in Canadian society to the point of where it is freely recognized and supported, then it is a dead language and should be left alone to die.

Wow, the respect for culture!

I may oppose official bilingualism, but with very different motives in mind. I just want a more efficient and just system. Sounds like your out to crush the opposition.

[Oleg Bach]

Does an Asian child going to school in British Columbia really need to take a mandatory course in French? - does someone in Toronto who's first language was Hindi - need or want to take French? We have one language and it is the language of the international community - ENGLISH....all appeasements should cease in regards to attempting to instill other languages into our system..including this dated idea that we have to be nice to France and their former colony of Quebec - I can not stand multi-culturalism - all cultures should practice and preserve their language within the house hold - and natural assimulation must take place as it did back in the 60s - forced assimulation is barbaric - and destroys personal familiar cultures - time to late nature take it's course - this social engineering simply does not work - all the problems we have today in this nation is because of some egg head professors who think they can re-design the world in their image - there experiments are a dismal failure.

[CANADIEN]

We have one language and it is the language of the international community - ENGLISH

We have two national languages, and they are English and French.

all cultures should practice and preserve their language within the house hold

As a Canadian, I'll decide where and when I use my language, thank you very much.

[Oleg Bach]

• 
  

We have two national languages, and they are English and French.

As a Canadian, I'll decide where and when I use my language, thank you very much.

There are not two languagesx in Canada - there is one offical one - English - There are two nations that exist under one roof in Canada and I admit to that - that Quebec is a nation and not a country - but in reality I will contratict myself - that Quebec IS a Country ---not a nation within a nation but a country jammed into the center of another country.

"As a Canadian" I was not attempting to oppress you - the point I was making is - if your first lanugage was Russian when you arrived here as an immigrant - you natually speak Russian within the house hold and you learn and speak English out side of the household - no government should force the rest of your neighbours to learn Russian to appease what is a not yet established culture... No French family no matter if extended into a "province" has the right to intrude on an English family or anyother - and FORCE others to speak their language - we must have a benchmark and a tuning standard as far as language - and that language is English.

[Machjo]

Actually Leafless, most people don't speak leaflish, and they rely on the English language definition of the word artificial.

Just a point about the meaning of the word artificial. Linguists are generally in agreement that all languages are, by definition, man-made and thus artificial. What many Canadians mean when they refer to an 'artificial' language is what linguists would generally refer to as a planned, or constructed, language, as opposed to an ethnic or ad-hoc language.

Yet even that leads to confusion, since most languges involve some degree of planning, so perhaps looking at it as part of a spectrum would be more accurate. for example:

Ebonics: Minimal to no planning whatsoever.

English: Though the language developed in an ad-hoc manner for the most part, much of its scientific lexicon was developed by the Royal Society in the 1700's in a planned manner. Later, Style Manuals appeared, establishing the prescriptive norms of 'tandard' English.

French: Mostly ad-hoc in its development, but the French Academy has played a significant role in its development over the centuries none-the-less.

Turkish: Switched to the Roman Script under Ataturk, and the Turkish Academy has purged the language of many Arabisms and Persianisms and revived many archaisms, many of which have stuck through introduction in the school system.

Bahasa Indonesia: Developed prior to 1949 by a group of linguists, based on a regional pidgin, and incorporating words mainly from regional languages. Its grammar is strictly regulated by the govenment to avoid creeping exceptions to the rules.

Esperanto: Except for the roots, the language is planned by the Esperanto Academy. Yet even the roots must conform to Esperanto spelling or pronunciation rules.

Volapuk: Even its roots are considerably contorted.

We see the same with scripts and spellings:

English: Originally unplanned, with the ad-hoc spellings having since become convetionalized by dictionaries.

Chinese: On the mainland, the script has been somewhat simplified.

Korean: The current script was created by a group of scholars under the supervision of King Sae Jong the Great in the 1300's, which explains its extremely logical structure, learnable by a Westerne in a few hours.

So looking at it that way, even if we use the popular definition of 'artificial' as it applies to languages, that would still include most of the world's languages to varying degrees.

[Machjo]

Does an Asian child going to school in British Columbia really need to take a mandatory course in French?

Would it not make more sense to have him learn English plus his own language? That way, his teachers and parents would work together on a common objective, especially when we consider how difficult it is to learn a second language.

- does someone in Toronto who's first language was Hindi - need or want to take French?

Wouldn't Hindi and English mak more sense?

We have one language and it is the language of the international community - ENGLISH....all appeasements should cease in regards to attempting to instill other languages into our system..including this dated idea that we have to be nice to France and their former colony of Quebec - I can not stand multi-culturalism - all cultures should practice and preserve their language within the house hold - and natural assimulation must take place as it did back in the 60s - forced assimulation is barbaric - and destroys personal familiar cultures - time to late nature take it's course - this social engineering simply does not work - all the problems we have today in this nation is because of some egg head professors who think they can re-design the world in their image - there experiments are a dismal failure.

You obviously haven't travelled much, have you?I'd gone to a few international conferences, and you'd be surprised how many languages they had to interpret in because most didn't know English. English is an international language, but by no means the international language.

[CANADIEN]

• 
  

There are not two languagesx in Canada - there is one offical one - English -

There are two official languages.

Sorry, I forgot that trying to make any sense of what you write is an exercise in futility.

Edited May 16, 2009 by CANADIEN

[Machjo]

• 
  

There are not two languagesx in Canada - there is one offical one - English - There are two nations that exist under one roof in Canada and I admit to that - that Quebec is a nation and not a country - but in reality I will contratict myself - that Quebec IS a Country ---not a nation within a nation but a country jammed into the center of another country.

The federal government has two official languages, not one. And why should English be given any more of a priority than French. They're both imported languages imposed upon other languages. This historial overlap of languages over languages essentially makes Canada a multi-national and multi-lingual country whether we like it or not. This is not a new thing; Canada still has 64 Aboriginal languages within its borders, on tope of English and French. It was like this even before Canada was founded!

[CANADIEN]

Just a point about the meaning of the word artificial. Linguists are generally in agreement that all languages are, by definition, man-made and thus artificial. What many Canadians mean when they refer to an 'artificial' language is what linguists would generally refer to as a planned, or constructed, language, as opposed to an ethnic or ad-hoc language.

Yet even that leads to confusion, since most languges involve some degree of planning, so perhaps looking at it as part of a spectrum would be more accurate. for example:

Ebonics: Minimal to no planning whatsoever.

English: Though the language developed in an ad-hoc manner for the most part, much of its scientific lexicon was developed by the Royal Society in the 1700's in a planned manner. Later, Style Manuals appeared, establishing the prescriptive norms of 'tandard' English.

French: Mostly ad-hoc in its development, but the French Academy has played a significant role in its development over the centuries none-the-less.

Turkish: Switched to the Roman Script under Ataturk, and the Turkish Academy has purged the language of many Arabisms and Persianisms and revived many archaisms, many of which have stuck through introduction in the school system.

Bahasa Indonesia: Developed prior to 1949 by a group of linguists, based on a regional pidgin, and incorporating words mainly from regional languages. Its grammar is strictly regulated by the govenment to avoid creeping exceptions to the rules.

Esperanto: Except for the roots, the language is planned by the Esperanto Academy. Yet even the roots must conform to Esperanto spelling or pronunciation rules.

Volapuk: Even its roots are considerably contorted.

We see the same with scripts and spellings:

English: Originally unplanned, with the ad-hoc spellings having since become convetionalized by dictionaries.

Chinese: On the mainland, the script has been somewhat simplified.

Korean: The current script was created by a group of scholars under the supervision of King Sae Jong the Great in the 1300's, which explains its extremely logical structure, learnable by a Westerne in a few hours.

So looking at it that way, even if we use the popular definition of 'artificial' as it applies to languages, that would still include most of the world's languages to varying degrees.

If we start talking about the level of planning involved in the evolution of a lnaguage, then everything is artificial.

When thinking about Esperento or the "build-up" second language you have been alluding to, pthe term "artificial" may not be the moost appropriate describer. These are languages that have no foundation in a culture and a society that uses it in its daily life. Esperento has not caught up because of that.

Of course, leafless uses the term "artificial" in a diffrent sensse, meaning something that has no place in Canada. But that's another matter.

[Argus]

The federal government has two official languages, not one. And why should English be given any more of a priority than French.

Well, let's see. There are about 34 million people in this country. About 27 million speak English and about 7 million speak French. Of the French, probably 2 million or so speak English fairly well. So the federal government can communicate effectively with 29 million out of 34 million people by using only English. That would seem to be ample reason why English should be prioritized.

But to repeat, of the 2 billion odd dollars spent by the government, very little goes to providing services in French. The vast majority goes to programs meant to help develop, preserve, and extend the French language. More money goes to a variety of festivals and organizations dedicated to celebrating and expanding French. It also goes to programs which help to protect French in small communities, and to bring in French speaking immigrants to those small communities to prevent their numbers from dropping below a marginal rate (there is no such program to bring English immigrants into small English communities in Quebec of course).

[Machjo]

If we start talking about the level of planning involved in the evolution of a lnaguage, then everything is artificial.

When thinking about Esperento or the "build-up" second language you have been alluding to, pthe term "artificial" may not be the moost appropriate describer. These are languages that have no foundation in a culture and a society that uses it in its daily life. Esperento has not caught up because of that.

Of course, leafless uses the term "artificial" in a diffrent sensse, meaning something that has no place in Canada. But that's another matter.

As for Leafless, I get the impression that his objection to Official Bilingualism has nothing to do with matters of efficiency and justice, but rather with a case, mild or otherwise, of zenophobia.

Now getting back to the issue of 'artificial', indeed all languages are articial by definition. If we're talking about planned languages, then that will vary along a spectrum.

As for culture, this is another point of contention between linguists and some politicians. Most linguists will acknowledge that a culture does not necessarily have to be ethnic (many politicians reject this notion). Even Klingon has a culture based on the people who speak it. no, it may not be a 'national' culture, but a culture it is none-the-less. The same would apply to Bahasa Indonesia by the way. Though the language is generally defined as a naturalistic planned language, and is spoken by but a small percentage of Indonesians as a mother-tongue, mostly in its more comopolitan centres, we can't say that it doesn't have a cultrure. It might not be an ethnic culture or a native culture, but it it is their national culture none-the-less. In fact, it would be insulting to suggest that because Bahasa Indonesia is spoken mainly as a common second language that it therefore has no culture. It may be a second language for most Indonesians, but it is the common language of all Indonesians and the one most Indonesians choose to write their national literature in.

Same with the Korean script, by the way. Koreans are mighty proud of this invention of theirs, already recognized by UNESCO as a significant part of our world's scientific heritage. We can't say that the Korean script has no culture because it was a constructed script. Again, it would be an insult to Koreans to suggest so.

The same aplies to Esperanto. No, it's culture is neither national nor ethnic, but a culture it is none-the-less, along with its own book publishing industry! It is a cosmopolitan culture, but who are we to dictate what kind of culture constitutes a culture, and what kind doesn't. All languages have a culture, whether ethnic, national, religious, cosmopolitan, fictional (as is the case with Klingon, though like I said, fictional or not, it's still a culture by definiton, along with tis own literature, translated or otherwise), or otherwise.

[Leafless]

Actually Leafless, most people don't speak leaflish, and they rely on the English language definition of the word artificial.

Definition of 'artificial' -Not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes.

BTW, love your maths. 2 billions times 40 years equals 1 trillion.

????????????

Still not getting it, I see.

Communist inspired corrupt language policies are only supported by CANADIEN'S.

[Machjo]

Well, let's see. There are about 34 million people in this country. About 27 million speak English and about 7 million speak French. Of the French, probably 2 million or so speak English fairly well. So the federal government can communicate effectively with 29 million out of 34 million people by using only English. That would seem to be ample reason why English should be prioritized.

But to repeat, of the 2 billion odd dollars spent by the government, very little goes to providing services in French. The vast majority goes to programs meant to help develop, preserve, and extend the French language. More money goes to a variety of festivals and organizations dedicated to celebrating and expanding French. It also goes to programs which help to protect French in small communities, and to bring in French speaking immigrants to those small communities to prevent their numbers from dropping below a marginal rate (there is no such program to bring English immigrants into small English communities in Quebec of course).

So in other words, those who don't know English should willingly forfeit their democratic right to government information?

Now as for money that goes to things other than translating official federal government documents, I fully agree with you on that. The only money the government shold be spending on languages should be limited to translating official federal documents to make them accessible to the citizenry, nothing more. The govenrment's mandate should be to make democratic access to information available to its indigenous national minorities, not in unnecessary arts and entertainment. The only exception might be involving languages currently recognized by UNESCO to be threatened with extinction.

[Machjo]

Definition of 'artificial' -Not arising from natural growth or characterized by vital processes.

Precicely, and that's why professional linguists classify all languages as artificial by definition. Language can only exist if passed on from parents to child through nurture, or if created. Otherwise, we're not going to find language where man has never been. Look under a rock; See any language?

[Leafless]

We have two national languages, and they are English and French.

Which means on a federal level only and has nothing to do with the actual spoken languages in Canadian provinces.

What language that is spoken officially in a province is provincially controlled and does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

Unilingual French Quebec is proof of that.

All majority English speaking provinces should take note and make English the official language before it is to late. Save your English speaking jobs and the English speaking culture from French cultural aggression via their corrupt language policies.

[lictor616]

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.we...agePolicies.pdf

According to this study:

Governments spending up to $1.8 billion every year to meet federal bilingualism requirements.

It would be fascinating to know how much was spent to maintain other diversity related policy demands... Managing affirmative action alone I hear costs 1.8 billion yearly... just managing it.. never mind the costs of lost productivity, court cases, lawyer fees etc...

[g_bambino]

So in other words, those who don't know English should willingly forfeit their democratic right to government information?

I don't believe Argus mentioned anything of the sort. If there was one official language only, all immigrants would be required to know it in order to become citizens. If someone chose to raise their child in an all-officially-English Canada, yet teach them only some other language, then, such is their choice. But they should therefore be aware of the consequences. In other words, it is not a right to have a country accomodate your chosen language, it is a duty for you to know and understand the country's language. I, for one, certainly wouldn't expect to immigrate to Brazil, let's say, and then demand that I have services provided to me in English only. Rather, I'd expect I would have to learn Portugese, and that my children would learn the same in school, whether or not I chose to also teach them English at home.

[Machjo]

Which means on a federal level only and has nothing to do with the actual spoken languages in Canadian provinces.

What language that is spoken officially in a province is provincially controlled and does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

Unilingual French Quebec is proof of that.

All majority English speaking provinces should take note and make English the official language before it is to late. Save your English speaking jobs and the English speaking culture from French cultural aggression via their corrupt language policies.

Leafless, you embarrass me. Why? Because I agree with much of what you sa, but for totally different reasons.

I do agree that it would make sense for a provincial government to adopt an official language of administration, if for no other reason than that it promotes efficiency within the administration.

I get the impression, however, that your motivation is totally other, based mainly on zenophobia. Sad, really, and truly shameful that I must agree with someof your ideas while simultaneously distancing myself from your motives.