Fraser Institute Publishes new study on Official Languages

[Smallc]

Yeah....lets just stick to what we have now...you seem to be chasing a non issue.

[Machjo]

Based on your idea that numbers are all that counts, you're saying that failure to learn French or English is more useful to a person than success in Esperanto.Without a doubt success in English or French is more useful than success in Esperanto, but then you're fialing to consider success rates too. Clearly we have to count that in the equation too. Looking at it that way, one has a greater chance of putting his Esperanto to use than his English or French.

Une autre question pour vous, Smallc: connaissez-vous le français?

[Machjo]

Yeah....lets just stick to what we have now...you seem to be chasing a non issue.

It's a non-issue that threatens Canadian unity too. Generally speaking, unilinguals on both sides are less likely to support federalism than bilinguals on either side. With Bill 101, the rate of bilingualism in Quebec among native French-speakers has been declining, which will likely cause the sense of disconnect from English Canada to grow. Of course we might survive as some highly decentralized federation, but then we'd be almost like two separate nations altogether/ Then again, you might be right. We do act like separate nations already anyway.

[Machjo]

Yeah....lets just stick to what we have now...you seem to be chasing a non issue.

Mais je suis curieux; connaissez-vous le français? Nous pourrions discuter ce thème en français si vous le pouvez.

[Smallc]

Une autre question pour vous, Smallc: connaissez-vous le français?

I'm learning French, if that's what you mean. I'm not that far along though...especially when it comes to writing.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

I'm learning French, if that's what you mean. I'm not that far along though...especially when it comes to writing.

Well, could you function in a typical French-language internet discussion forum from Quebec?

[Smallc]

English unilinguals are very much in support of federalism. There are a certain percentage of french unilinguals that don't feel loyalty to Canada, and there are others in Quebec (just like in any province) that feel loyalty to the province before the country, but I don't see this as a detriment to Canadian unity. Before the sponsorship scandal, separatist sentiment in Quebec was at less than 25%. It is now at about 35% and by all accounts I have seen, it's falling. There is also the fact that last Canada day, Quebecers gave CAnada an approval rating of 78%. There is no real unity issue right now. Language is not really that big of an issue.

[Smallc]

Well, could you function in a typical French-language internet discussion forum from Quebec?

No, I couldn't. The school I went to didn't have any type of French language option whatsoever.

[CANADIEN]

And so far, Canadien, you have only been able to challenge the idea of a common auxiliary language through sarcasm. Can you come up with legitimate arguments against it or are sarcasm and rhetoric the best you can do?

Sarcasm aside, please critique the following in a rational manner, proving rationally, but through rhetoric and innuendo, that it couldn't work

Feel free to call it sarcasm, or lack of rationality as much as you want. One does not need to look further than the case of esperanto to know that constructed languages do not work. Less than two million people over the plantet, and no country or major international institutions. Nowhere in the world will you find any society where it is commonly used in daily life, or even as a second language.

There is a fundamental reason for this, the same why the idea that all we need to do is to find a language "easy to use" and adopt it as the "second language for all" usually does not work - retention of a second language is not function of how "simple" or "easy" it is, but of how much exposure, how much practice one has.

You claim you want rationality. It begins with offering ideas that are actually based in reality.

[Machjo]

I'm just asking these questions to emphasize just how segregated Canada really is. If you can't function in the language, then you essentially cennot know anything about French Quebecers' minds except what is translated into English, and not all of it is.

On the one hand, it's not important if we can just each live our lives and ignore each other. On the other, what's the point of being a nation if that's how we're going to be? Symbolically, it is significant. There is no point in being one nation if we don't even feel like compatriots. Most English Canadians on a French-language site would likely feel not like compatriots, but foreigners.

[Smallc]

I'm just asking these questions to emphasize just how segregated Canada really is. If you can't function in the language, then you essentially cennot know anything about French Quebecers' minds except what is translated into English, and not all of it is.

They have these wonderful internet translators now that can allow anyone to read any major language. Language doesn't have to be a barrier to unity and it doesn't have to result in segregation.

[Machjo]

Feel free to call it sarcasm, or lack of rationality as much as you want. One does not need to look further than the case of esperanto to know that constructed languages do not work. Less than two million people over the plantet, and no country or major international institutions. Nowhere in the world will you find any society where it is commonly used in daily life, or even as a second language.

There is a fundamental reason for this, the same why the idea that all we need to do is to find a language "easy to use" and adopt it as the "second language for all" usually does not work - retention of a second language is not function of how "simple" or "easy" it is, but of how much exposure, how much practice one has.

You claim you want rationality. It begins with offering ideas that are actually based in reality.

Since the idea is to adopt an auxiliary language, it doesn't matter if it is used in daily life. What matters is if it is used in an inter-linguistic context between people who have no common language. On that basis, Esperanto has proven very successful in that various conferences on various subjects are available in thelanguage, again considering how little government support there has been for it.

And as for requiring a learning environment, tht's not ture. If the language is easy enough to learn, then we can dispense with the need for a learning environment, something we can't do with English or French.

As for reality, tell me, what barrier is there beyond simple public opposition? That aside, it would prove more successfult than English or French simply owing to its ease of lerning.

[tango]

A quick google provides the following information:

1/

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-A...10-APP-1-19.pdf

For example, in 2008, more than 2.2 billion web pages were viewed

on www.irs.gov, and more than 39.2 million taxpayers checked

their refund status by accessing "Where's My Refund?" in English

or Spanish on the IRS website.

Hmm ... seems the US gov does provide Federal services in two languages.

It's not a perfect model of melting-pot unilinguality after all!

2/

Many countries have more than 1 official language.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html

What's your beef machjo? This topic is getting just a bit overworked.

Is this your research for the Fraser Institute?

I'm a researcher too.

Fraser Institute falsified the data on their first education study.

It was worse than crap: It was blatant lies and numbers manipulated to tell the propaganda story that was pre-determined and in no way derived from the data.

They ignored the cautions and caveats put on the data by the agency that produced it, and blatantly falsified it.

The Fraser Institute is a collection of political hacks who hire unqualified and unethical number crunchers to tell them what they want to hear.

Don't expect me to take them seriously. The Fraser Institute is a racist blight on the face of the earth, and an embarrassment to REAL professional researchers.

[CANADIEN]

Since the idea is to adopt an auxiliary language, it doesn't matter if it is used in daily life. What matters is if it is used in an inter-linguistic context between people who have no common language. On that basis, Esperanto has proven very successful in that various conferences on various subjects are available in thelanguage, again considering how little government support there has been for it.

And as for requiring a learning environment, tht's not ture. If the language is easy enough to learn, then we can dispense with the need for a learning environment, something we can't do with English or French.

As for reality, tell me, what barrier is there beyond simple public opposition? That aside, it would prove more successfult than English or French simply owing to its ease of lerning.

Just plain common sense. Esperento has no used in daily life.

We are not talking about intellectuals exchanging two or three notions and then translating it the moment they're back home because they know full well virtually nobody uses it in the real world. We are talking about the language to be used to communicate with the government, buy stamps, access employment insurance, get medicial treatment. If we go outside of the government sphere, we talking about the language on cereal boxes, business signs, the one you use when asking for direction.

Nobody uses it ffor that purpose, because it has no connection with the real world, where languages are anchored in culture and identity.

The "let's adopt esperanto as our common second language" will not work, because it is the first language of virtually nobody.

[Machjo]

The "let's adopt esperanto as our common second language" will not work, because it is the first language of virtually nobody.

Neither was Bahasa Indonesia until the Indonesian government decided to promote it. Before that, it was but a trade Pidgin. It's only after the government decided to promote it actively that it has since gained a native-speaking population in its more cosmopolitan centres (and even today, most don't speak it as a mother tongue, Bahasa Indonesia not being used much within individual communities, reserved mainly for inter-linguistic communication only). Also, until the government got involved in it, though the Pidgin was widespread, it was used exclusively for basic commercial transactions. It's only owing to government invovlement that it acquired the vocabulary necessary for industrial, military, legal, scientific, literary, political, religious, philosophical, academic, and other pursuits.

According to your logic, the government should take an exclusively reactionary approach to policy, and should never become pro-active; it should always wait for something to becomes successful on its own before finally acknowledging it, but should never take steps to make things happen.

Had Indonesia followed the same logic you are, Bahasa Indonesia would likely only be starting to become more developed today, and would likely not have seen the success it has until another generation from now.

[Machjo]

A quick google provides the following information:

1/

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2010-A...10-APP-1-19.pdf

For example, in 2008, more than 2.2 billion web pages were viewed

on www.irs.gov, and more than 39.2 million taxpayers checked

their refund status by accessing "Where's My Refund?" in English

or Spanish on the IRS website.

Hmm ... seems the US gov does provide Federal services in two languages.

It's not a perfect model of melting-pot unilinguality after all!

2/

Many countries have more than 1 official language.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0855611.html

What's your beef machjo? This topic is getting just a bit overworked.

Is this your research for the Fraser Institute?

I'm a researcher too.

Fraser Institute falsified the data on their first education study.

It was worse than crap: It was blatant lies and numbers manipulated to tell the propaganda story that was pre-determined and in no way derived from the data.

They ignored the cautions and caveats put on the data by the agency that produced it, and blatantly falsified it.

The Fraser Institute is a collection of political hacks who hire unqualified and unethical number crunchers to tell them what they want to hear.

Don't expect me to take them seriously. The Fraser Institute is a racist blight on the face of the earth, and an embarrassment to REAL professional researchers.

A-tu une meilleure source alors?

[Machjo]

And you'd be hard-pressed to prove that François Vaillancourt and Olivier Coche, who'd presented this for the Fraser Institute, are anti-French bigots. And what about François GRIN (http://www.fraserinstitute.org/commerce.web/product_files/OfficialLanguagePolicies.pdf)? Though his study was on adifferent topic (a comparison of the economic impact on the EU of various second-language learning policies), it was similar in that it had identified many inefficiencies in the system which could be remedied via alternative systems. So is he a racist bigot too? By the way, may own mother tongue is French too, and I speak to my mom in French all the time whenever I speak to her. So I guess I hate my own language too?

[Machjo]

Actually, if Official Bilingualism has been so successful, why don't we carry on this discussion in French? I'm ready for it.

[Smallc]

Actually, if Official Bilingualism has been so successful, why don't we carry on this discussion in French? I'm ready for it.

Since the goal of official bilingualism is not to get us all to learn both languages, it's success can't be measured in such a way.

Edited May 17, 2009 by Smallc

[Machjo]

Since the goal of official bilingualism i not to get us all to learn both languages, it's success can't be measured in such a way.

Fair enough. I guess in some ways the failure of Provincial Ministries of Education even reinforces the argument in favour of the need for Official Bilingualism I suppose. It's just a shame though that the argument in favour of a federal government policy should be based on the failure of provincial government policies, which just shows how little interaction there really is between governments to co-ordinate their efforts along a common goal.

So as inefficient as Official Bilingualism is, and inasmuch as the need for it results from a failure on the part of provincial Ministries of Education, we can';t deny that as long as that failure at the provincial level continues, so will the need for Official Bilingualism.

[Smallc]

They are trying to increase the rate of bilingualism among graduates, which according to The Privy Council for Canada was 24% in 2003 (and I'm more likely to believe them than the Fraser Institute that thinks everything is a waste of money if it isn't one of their priorities). New Brunswick ths year made the goal of boosting their bilingual graduate rate from 34% to 70% within 4 years. There are efforts being made, and they should result in progress.

[Smallc]

as long as that failure at the provincial level continues, so will the need for Official Bilingualism.

That's not what it's about. It's about the equal status on English and French in the federal government. It's not unique in Canada, as Quebec has 1 official language, New Brunswick 2, Yukon 2, Nunavut 3, and NWT has 11. Each has as many official languages as needed to serve a majority of their citizens.

[tango]

A-tu une meilleure source alors?

No. It's your proposition and up to you to find something to support it. The Fraser Institute does not qualify, in my experience.

My point is official bilingualism is working just fine to provide services to people, and that's necessary in Canada.

Similarly, in the US it is necessary to provide federal services in Spanish.

There simply is no issue to discuss.

[Machjo]

They are trying to increase the rate of bilingualism among graduates, which according to The Privy Council for Canada was 24% in 2003 (and I'm more likely to believe them than the Fraser Institute that thinks everything is a waste of money if it isn't one of their priorities). New Brunswick ths year made the goal of boosting their bilingual graduate rate from 34% to 70% within 4 years. There are efforts being made, and they should result in progress.

When you say graduates, are you referring to university graduates, or high school graduates. Either way, I'll believe it when I see it. I live in Ottawa, the Capital of our country, and I meet local English-speakers daily who can't speak French! And believe me, I've tested people at times just out of curiosity. We'll see if New Brunswick can pull it off where the Ottawa-Carleton Schoolboard has failed.

[Machjo]

That's not what it's about. It's about the equal status on English and French in the federal government. It's not unique in Canada, as Quebec has 1 official language, New Brunswick 2, Yukon 2, Nunavut 3, and NWT has 11. Each has as many official languages as needed to serve a majority of their citizens.

Nunavut 4.