Quebec Images and Realities

[jbg]

Well, if there's no proof, then it's an opinion and should be treated as such.

In Canada a proof is a proof is a proof.

[Argus]

The jobs require people to be fluently bilingual, not French. A unilingual francophone would be just as likely to get the job as a unilingual anglophone, that is they wouldn't.

The point is that the people who decided all these civil servants had to be bilingual were Quebecers. Did they know that such a requirement would tilt the hiring process towards Quebecers? Of course they did. Do you honestly not think that was one of the reasons they did it?

Remember, we are NOT talking about jobs which have any contact with the public at all. When was the last time you saw a director general or an assistant deputy minister on television? Never. They are internal positions. Right now ALL high level positions in Ottawa require the highest level of bilingualism. As I've said before. What that means is that the advice and information the government of the day gets is going to be largely given to them by Quebecers. That is especially so as the boomers retire. They had benefit of language training. That language training no longer really exists. To qualify for it you have to already be a manager. And of course, getting to be a manager when you're not bilingual is almost impossible. Thus the people becoming managers now and over the past ten years have, to a very large extent, been Quebecers.

[cybercoma]

The point is that the people who decided all these civil servants had to be bilingual were Quebecers.

So?

Did they know that such a requirement would tilt the hiring process towards Quebecers? Of course they did.

Circular logic.

Do you honestly not think that was one of the reasons they did it?

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that it unfairly gives an advantage to Quebeckers. It gives an advantage to persons that have a particular skill: bilingualism. It's not a problem with the law that anglophones don't bother to become bilingual. Moreover, there's no certainty that a Quebecker will be bilingual. In fact, one could live a full and productive life in Quebec without learning a single word of English and there are many who don't learn.

Remember, we are NOT talking about jobs which have any contact with the public at all. When was the last time you saw a director general or an assistant deputy minister on television? Never. They are internal positions. Right now ALL high level positions in Ottawa require the highest level of bilingualism.

And internally, francophones and anglophones have every right to be able to work there, communicate with and be understood by the people in those positions. We have two official languages. So when you work in the federal service and have a staff, you need to be able to communicate with "employees" in both languages.

As I've said before. What that means is that the advice and information the government of the day gets is going to be largely given to them by Quebecers.

If it was such a major concern for anglophones, then they should get off their asses and learn French. Apparently there aren't people concerned enough that they're willing to do something about it.

That is especially so as the boomers retire. They had benefit of language training. That language training no longer really exists. To qualify for it you have to already be a manager. And of course, getting to be a manager when you're not bilingual is almost impossible. Thus the people becoming managers now and over the past ten years have, to a very large extent, been Quebecers.

Even so, it's still not a problem with the system. It's a problem with anglophones not bothering to get the skills that are required for the job.

Look, I've agreed with you in the past that I don't know if bilingualism is the best thing for Canada because you narrow down the pool of candidates for top positions significantly by requiring it. You're absolutely right. However, there doesn't seem to be any indication that this has been a problem. Things aren't so messed up that people are going, "maybe we need a bigger pool of candidates. Bilingualism is really limiting the quality of candidates." If they are, it's buried in the secret circles of Ottawa and certainly not public.

At the end of the day, in my opinion if it's such a huge issue for anglophones, then they should stop whining about it and start getting the skills needed to get into these positions and change things.

[WWWTT]

Any insights on the reality?

First off your thread is under the wrong subject.

What happens in Quebec is provincial jurisdiction,therefore provincial politics.

WWWTT

[Argus]

I fundamentally disagree with your opinion that it unfairly gives an advantage to Quebeckers. It gives an advantage to persons that have a particular skill: bilingualism. It's not a problem with the law that anglophones don't bother to become bilingual.

You take the attitude that it's Anglos 'not bothering' to become bilingual, inferring that bilingual Francophones simply are more energetic and thus deserving of these jobs. But that ignores the reality that because they are the minority on a continent full of Anglos many, many Francophones HAVE to learn English. Further, because of the preeminence of Anglo culture flooding in around them many, many young Francophones learn English naturally. And so in a sense, becoming bilingualism is a natural advantage of them as a minority. You see the same in other countries. For that matter, the most bilingual people in Canada are actually anglos who grow up in Quebec. Again, as the minority, they are forced to learn the other language.

But there is no incentive whatever for the majority of Anglos to learn French since most will never encounter Francophones or French culture. There is nothing to inspire young Anglos except in a few geographical regions, to learn French naturally. And so, of course, they do not.

And internally, francophones and anglophones have every right to be able to work there, communicate with and be understood by the people in those positions

.

Utter nonsense. As far as I know, no other institution in the world has such rights. Certainly no private sector company would even consider such a thing.

Think about it. You post a job opening for a bilingual cashier in order to serve the customers of your store. You hire a Francophone who is fluent in English. But the first time you try to give them instructions they hold up their hand, shake their head, and insist that you only communicate with them in French. Moreover, all other internal staff who deal with them, they insist, must also do so in French. And, oh by the way, can they now have their bilingual bonus, sil vous plais?

When you hire someone specifically because they are bilingual, when you do so with the open acknowledement that you are going to be greatly narrowing the pool of applicants, and thus be hiring a less capable individual only for their bilingualism, how do you feel that individual is then owed the right to work in the language of their choice?

If it was such a major concern for anglophones, then they should get off their asses and learn French. Apparently there aren't people concerned enough that they're willing to do something about it.

You again make it sound like all that's involved is going to a brief night course, like one in flower arranging. We sent managers on full-time language training for over a year in order to pass these tests. They work their butts off all day, and study all night. And even so many of them fail to pass the tests.

In my experience, the only people who are truly bilingual are Francophones who grow up in a largely English milieu, or Anglophones who grow up in a French milieu. You can teach the other language to adults who grow up in unilingual areas, but aside from a few naturals, they'll probably never be very good at it. And they'll quickly lose it unless there is a continuing practical use for it.

Even so, it's still not a problem with the system. It's a problem with anglophones not bothering to get the skills that are required for the job.

In my experience, the problem with skills is the lack of them among managers. Maybe if we hired our managers for their ability to manager rather than their ability to say Je ne sais pas in both languages we'd be better off.

Look, I've agreed with you in the past that I don't know if bilingualism is the best thing for Canada because you narrow down the pool of candidates for top positions significantly by requiring it. You're absolutely right. However, there doesn't seem to be any indication that this has been a problem

.

You're on the outside and not looking in. I'm on the inside, and subject to it. My own manager is kind of, well, I won't say an idiot. He's a nice enough fellow. He's just extremely disorganized, which I think you might agree is likely not a good thing in a manager. His boss is a total ass-kissing jerk hated by all. Would either of them be in their jobs if they weren't bilingual? No. Would either be in those jobs if it weren't for the bilingual requirement limiting applicants? Probably not.

Both of them are Anglos, btw.

[jbg]

First off your thread is under the wrong subject.

What happens in Quebec is provincial jurisdiction,therefore provincial politics.

Thanks for the help. Not.

[Moonbox]

I've taken French. Have you? Any number of French teachers I've encountered have said that French is more complex to learn than English.

Argus man, I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. Growing up as a child, I was in French Immersion, and I learned English and French grammar at concurrently. I hate to say it, but despite English being my first language, I found French to be far more intuitive to write and conjugate. The verb conjugations are no harder in French than they are in English. Realistically, it's probably more efficient. In English I'd say, "I used to run." In French I'd say, "Je courais". Adding that extra, pointless little "used to" is not intuitive at all, although you might think so being a native English speaker.

Masucline and Feminine verbs in French have far more pronunciation differences, and then you have the various accents (the written ones).

The accents are a non-factor. All they do is make it more clear how you're supposed to pronounce something. As for the masculine and feminine part, you have something there. It's REALLY not hard to learn, but it's definitely not the most efficient way of doing things. That said, it's simply a matter of memorization and practice, and it's a LOT easier to learn than all of the rules and exceptions we have in terms of spelling, pronunciations and meanings. Then we get to our vocabulary and...well...that's a whole other story.

[bleeding heart]

There are damned few if any French clients of tourism facilities in the rest of Canada outside Ottawa.

New Brunswick.

[bleeding heart]

Think about it. You post a job opening for a bilingual cashier in order to serve the customers of your store. You hire a Francophone who is fluent in English. But the first time you try to give them instructions they hold up their hand, shake their head, and insist that you only communicate with them in French. Moreover, all other internal staff who deal with them, they insist, must also do so in French.

Please. I live in a (actually, the) truly bilingual region, and the Francophones simply do not behave this way. I've known them, worked with them (married them, even! )all my life.

I don't know how this Anglo predisposition for viewing the French as a bunch of entitled jerks came from; in my experience, it's flatly untrue.

[bleeding heart]

Argus man, I'm sorry, but that's complete BS. Growing up as a child, I was in French Immersion, and I learned English and French grammar at concurrently. I hate to say it, but despite English being my first language, I found French to be far more intuitive to write and conjugate. The verb conjugations are no harder in French than they are in English. Realistically, it's probably more efficient.

The great English/Polish writer Joseph Conrad (who learned English at 21, French a little later) made exactly the same point. He said French is more precise, and is arguably easier to learn.

[Moonbox]

Please. I live in a (actually, the) truly bilingual region, and the Francophones simply do not behave this way. I've known them, worked with them (married them, even! )all my life.

I don't know how this Anglo predisposition for viewing the French as a bunch of entitled jerks came from; in my experience, it's flatly untrue.

It's their long tradition of 'gimme' politics. In a province with some of the largest natural resource reserves, huge hydro power surpluses and large urban centres, Quebec has perennially still managed to be a have-not province and siphon billions away from the national purse.

[bleeding heart]

It's their long tradition of 'gimme' politics. In a province with some of the largest natural resource reserves, huge hydro power surpluses and large urban centres, Quebec has perennially still managed to be a have-not province and siphon billions away from the national purse.

Well, I've elsewhere expressed some agreement with you about Quebec.

But I'm talking about individual Francophones behaving like rude morons.

I doubt they have the market cornered in that particular realm.

[cybercoma]

It's their long tradition of 'gimme' politics. In a province with some of the largest natural resource reserves, huge hydro power surpluses and large urban centres, Quebec has perennially still managed to be a have-not province and siphon billions away from the national purse.

Being a have not has to do with a province's "fiscal capacity." It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of taxes they collect or the amount of money they spend.

[Moonbox]

Well, I've elsewhere expressed some agreement with you about Quebec.

But I'm talking about individual Francophones behaving like rude morons.

I doubt they have the market cornered in that particular realm.

Haha no. You're right.

[Argus]

Please. I live in a (actually, the) truly bilingual region, and the Francophones simply do not behave this way. I've known them, worked with them (married them, even! )all my life.

I don't know how this Anglo predisposition for viewing the French as a bunch of entitled jerks came from; in my experience, it's flatly untrue.

Please. It's the law. That's what the 'language of work' law is all about. All those people in Ottawa hired, for the most part, specifically because they are bilingual, have the absolute right to deal internally in every way, with everyone they encounter, in the language of their choice. Their supervisor must speak to them in their own language. So must HR staff, pay clerks, security guards, IT people, supply people, etc. etc.

The vast majority of bilingual positions are because of this, not to serve the public.

[Argus]

The great English/Polish writer Joseph Conrad (who learned English at 21, French a little later) made exactly the same point. He said French is more precise, and is arguably easier to learn.

For whom? Certain languages are quite easy to learn for the native speakers of certain other languages because of similarities. Others, not so much.

And one person here finding it easier to pick up as a child is essentially meaningless.

Besides, the actual position put forth is that learning french to the same degree is insufficient. I.e., that a francophone can speak heavily accented, somewhat ungrammatical English and be considered fluent, while an Anglo, speaking heavily accented, and somewhat ungrammatical French will often not be.

[jbg]

Being a have not has to do with a province's "fiscal capacity." It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of taxes they collect or the amount of money they spend.

And what is that supposed to mean? Isn't "fiscal capacity" related to the ability to collect taxes somehow?

[cybercoma]

And what is that supposed to mean? Isn't "fiscal capacity" related to the ability to collect taxes somehow?

Yes. It has to do with ability to collect taxes, not the actual taxes they collect. Otherwise, every province will just set their tax rate to 0 and collect from the fed. So, like I said, it has nothing to do with the amount of taxes they collect. It does have to do with their ability to collect tax though.

[Moonbox]

For whom? Certain languages are quite easy to learn for the native speakers of certain other languages because of similarities. Others, not so much.

And one person here finding it easier to pick up as a child is essentially meaningless.

English is considered a very difficult language to learn for the vast majority of backgrounds. For someone with perhaps a French or German background, that might not be the case, because English shares common characteristics with both (English is almost a French/German hybrid). Other than that people from around the world generally find English to be very difficult. French is FAR more structured, has a tighter vocabulary and pronunciations are way more intuitive. In English, there are all sorts of strange little exceptions that need to be memorized, an ENORMOUS vocabulary with a plethora of words meaning almost the exact but only suitable in certain context (I don't run very good, I run very well, which is also where I get my water from) and these are things that French generally manages to avoid.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Moonbox

[Argus]

English is considered a very difficult language to learn for the vast majority of backgrounds. For someone with perhaps a French or German background, that might not be the case, because English shares common characteristics with both (English is almost a French/German hybrid). Other than that people from around the world generally find English to be very difficult. French is FAR more structured, has a tighter vocabulary and pronunciations are way more intuitive. In English, there are all sorts of strange little exceptions that need to be memorized, an ENORMOUS vocabulary with a plethora of words meaning almost the exact but only suitable in certain context (I don't run very good, I run very well, which is also where I get my water from) and these are things that French generally manages to avoid.

French has no rules, as far as I've been able to determine. Or, rather, for every rule there are dozens, if not scores of exceptions. It has more tenses, and the grammar is far from intuitive, in fact, it's largely opposite to English grammar. You don't say the blue sky, as in English. You say the sky blue. As for words that are similar, French has words which are spelled exactly the same, but have different meanings sometimes, but not always based on the accents. Serviette, for example, could be a towel or a briefcase. The verbs and verb conjunctions change much more as well, depending on the subject (I, you, he, she, they). In any event, it's not easy for English speaking adults to learn. I can attest to that personally, and the number of people we send away for full-time language training who fail the tests after a year is also quite strong evidence.

[cybercoma]

French has no rules, as far as I've been able to determine.

This is completely incorrect.

Or, rather, for every rule there are dozens, if not scores of exceptions.

There are by far more exceptions in English. This is so well-known that it's common knowledge.

It has more tenses,

HERE is a table of English tenses. There are 17.

HERE is a table of French tenses. There are 20.

Yeah there's more. Three more.

and the grammar is far from intuitive, in fact, it's largely opposite to English grammar.

Now go take a look at those tenses. French is comparatively more easy to conjugate in those tenses with a more regular pattern than what you see with the English tenses. In English there are by far way more compound verbs and verb phrases that are highly irregular.

In any event, [French is] not easy for English speaking adults to learn.

I'm sure it's not easy for a French-speaking adult to learn English either.

I can attest to that personally, and the number of people we send away for full-time language training who fail the tests after a year is also quite strong evidence.

And can you attest personally to a number of French-speaking people who knew absolutely no English whatsoever and had to be sent away to learn it? Can attest to them?

[cybercoma]

What you're absolutely right about, Argus, is that English-speaking Canadians do not learn French because they don't need to. When they do learn it, they don't keep it up through regular practice by reading French newspapers, watching French television, listening to French radio, posting on French message boards, or speaking with French people. They simply have no need to do this. I refuse to believe that there is something inherently more difficult about learning French than learning English. In fact, I've heard a couple scholars of linguistics here in NB say that English is an inherently MORE difficult language to learn. The difference is the will and ability for people to practice these second languages. Francophones have more will and opportunity to practice English. It's not that English is easier. So, having said that, francophones that learn English have gained a skill that many anglophones do not have: bilingualism. But it's not because it's inherently easier for them. It's because they learn it and anglophones don't because they don't seem to think they need to.

Oh and then they come onto message boards and complain about how unfair rules about bilingualism are because they're the majority.

[Moonbox]

French has no rules, as far as I've been able to determine. Or, rather, for every rule there are dozens, if not scores of exceptions.

Okay saying French has no rules is just silly. As for exceptions, every language has them, but English has far more.

It has more tenses, and the grammar is far from intuitive, in fact, it's largely opposite to English grammar. You don't say the blue sky, as in English. You say the sky blue.

No offense intended, but I'm assuming you haven't done a lot of schooling in other languages. I only say that because it's very common for people who haven't to make comparisons like the one above. Blue sky vs Ciel bleu doesn't mean the languages are opposite. I eat a lot is Je mange beaucoup and has the exact same sentence structure in English and French.

As for words that are similar, French has words which are spelled exactly the same, but have different meanings sometimes, but not always based on the accents. Serviette, for example, could be a towel or a briefcase.

French has some too yes, but the differences are almost always contextual rather than completely different meanings. Feuille is a leaf, but it's also a sheet of paper (leaf of paper). Voler is fly, but it's also steal (fly away with your stuff). Devoir means "to have to" but it can also mean your homework, or duty. You get the picture. There are also all sorts of examples of various verb conjugations that end up being other words. Tu bois (you drink) and bois (wood). Again, however, context eliminates the confusion.

The verbs and verb conjunctions change much more as well, depending on the subject (I, you, he, she, they).

This is true, but it's consistent and eventually makes pretty good sense. English, however, often doesn't. Why do we say: I come, you come, he comes, we come, they come. Those sorts of things, which English is full of, are so confusing, and so inherently illogical to a non-native speaker that they'll likely struggle with it for years.

In any event, it's not easy for English speaking adults to learn. I can attest to that personally, and the number of people we send away for full-time language training who fail the tests after a year is also quite strong evidence.

Hey no argument. It's difficult for ANY adult to learn ANY other language. That's why children at school get language training. Their minds are more malleable and don't yet have any concept of how things "should be". That's not really the argument. The argument is that for someone with no English or French background, English would be the harder language of the two. Both would certainly be a struggle, because learning a new language as an adult almost always is, but English more so.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Moonbox

[bleeding heart]

French has no rules, as far as I've been able to determine. Or, rather, for every rule there are dozens, if not scores of exceptions. It has more tenses, and the grammar is far from intuitive, in fact, it's largely opposite to English grammar. You don't say the blue sky, as in English. You say the sky blue.

???

The "blue sky" is not more sensible or "intuitive" than the "sky blue."

One is not more clear or more useful or more aligned with the observable world than is the other.

[bleeding heart]

This is true, but it's consistent and eventually makes pretty good sense. English, however, often doesn't. Why do we say: I come, you come, he comes, we come, they come.

That's a really great example, because "agreement" is one of the more difficult bits of English grammar to learn.

Hey no argument. It's difficult for ANY adult to learn ANY other language. That's why children at school get language training. Their minds are more malleable and don't yet have any concept of how things "should be".

Yes. According to linguists, children possess something akin to actual genius (comparative to adults) for acquiring language. For most poeple, the skill becomes, literally, physically more difficult (when we think of the contruction of pathways in the brain) as we get older.

And, yes, there are, relatedly, learned barriers as well.