Bilingual Nation

[DaSleeper]

You may be able to learn a language at any age, but to be able to speak without an accent is a different story......While I learned to write english early I only had occasion to converse in english in my early teens and to this day I can't loose the french accent in speaking enlish, while my grown up children, from very early age played with children of both language. Now grown up, in either language you can't tell if english or french is their main language......but first and foremost i am :canada:

 

[tracy]

The strategy you are proposing is already in use, and just look at the results (unless you're living in a bilingual environment of course, or your family is devoted to bilingualism.
.

The strategy I'm proposing isn't in widespread use and its generally successful where it is. I was in French immersion which meant that I took all my subjects at school in French until I was 10 when English started gradually being phased in. Everyone in my class was bilingual. It worked, even for the dumbest kids in the class. Children have a better ability to learn languages than adults do. It was easy for us to learn that language when we were young. I attempted to learn a language as an 18 year old exchange student and it was so much harder. More than a decade after that experience I can still speak French fluently despite never living in a French speaking area, but I can't say more than a few words in Czech despite being completely immersed in that language for over a year.

 

[Zzarchov]

A question for Smilingfish:

Does that mean you would support China giving up the Chinese characters and the Chinese Languages (Mandarin and Canton and the rest) to use the Latin Alphabet and learn English since it is used in far more countries (and rich ones to boot). No doubt it would be the same concept of "undoing babel" and would be a major benefit to the Chinese Economy.

 

[Machjo]

The strategy I'm proposing isn't in widespread use and its generally successful where it is. I was in French immersion which meant that I took all my subjects at school in French until I was 10 when English started gradually being phased in.

OK, you win this one. Where the resources are available, fine. But I'm sure you could imagine the critical teacher shortage that would be imposed by universal French imersion in English Canada and English imersion in French Canada. Already the federal government spends in the millions every year just to train civil servants! To introduce such a system would mean the hiring, training and transfer of massive numbers of Quebec teachers across Canada, away from their families. How many would acept? Or we could train local teachers. I've met French highschool teachers in BC who could barely hold a conversation in French far beyond the level they were teaching it at!

You must consider language shift as well. In Montreal until the 1960's many French-speaking parents sent their kids to English imersion. While it was fine as long as some people couldn't speak French, once they could all speak English, and inter-married with monolingual anglophones, French was simply rooted out of Montreal until the passing of Bill 101 which brought it back.

So even if we were all prepared to take a major tax hike, or cutting services to special education, sign language etc., we would still need to assess the end result. So we'd end up with a fluently bilingual French-English population leaving highschool. But how would they react afterwards. Let's say that out of habit people in the local area use English. A few decades out of highschool and for many French would already start to become rusty. In homogenous communities it might not even ever be heard outside the classroom. We must consider motivation too. And let's not forget not only potential language shift and its political fallout, but also language change creeping in through code switching. It is common for bilinguals sharing two common languages to switch between them even in mid-sentence at convenience. And remember, such a policy would create an entire nation bilinbual in the same two languages.

Or language conflict could settle down into peaceful diglossia. Diglossia is a form of common bilingualism in which different languages take on different roles. An example is Spanish and Quequa in Peru. French, for example, might settle down as the language of culture, and English, that of administration, for example. So how would we manage such diglossia.

Again, you're looking at individual examples. I'm fluent in French too, but that's radically different from being able to communicate with any Canadian in French. If that should happen, I might find myself anywhere in Canada having to make a decision on a daily basis as to which language to use in any given shop. And that could destabilize the current English-French language status.

Everyone in my class was bilingual. It worked, even for the dumbest kids in the class. Children have a better ability to learn languages than adults do. It was easy for us to learn that language when we were young. I attempted to learn a language as an 18 year old exchange student and it was so much harder. More than a decade after that experience I can still speak French fluently despite never living in a French speaking area, but I can't say more than a few words in Czech despite being completely immersed in that language for over a year

I'm not dehying the ability of a child to learn a foreing language, but I'd still found it easier as an adult. I'd learnt French as a child at home and school. And Esperanto at home from a textbook for six months, an hour a day. It's like my mother tongue now. Granted, mind you, that Esperanto is designed to be easy to elarn. But if we should take Chinese, though my vocabulary and grammar are still a little limited, not to mention characters, if I'm on the phone with a Chinese, there is no way he'll guess from my accent that I'm a foreigner. He will think I'm a local. Only my limited vocabulary and grammar might give me away. Bear in mind though that I've also studied phonetics. So no, an adult can learn pronunciation just fine.

Add to that that while I've lost much of my Persian, I can still put on a perfect accent in the few introductory phrases I still remember. I'd caused a few surprised heads to spin and look around for a Persian after giving a 'hale shoma che toure?'.

So again, the main problem is as before. It's not a question of whether or not a particular child can learn a foreign language if all the financial, time, and human resources necessary are available. The rich can afford that, and governments can provide it to some students. But if this were taken large scale, it would more than bust the government budget. This is simply not practicable on a national, but only on an individual, level.

Until the government recognizes this, we will continue with large monolingual populations in the contriside and more homogenous communities, as well as among those who can't afford extra training.

If we are looking at a more democratic yet sustainable system to ensure complete bilingualism across the nation without threatening local language stability, we need to look at what research in applied socio-linguistics can teach us as to how to balance individual bilingualism with national diglossia and realistic budget, political, pedagogical and other constraints.

 

[McDonald]

Oh yeah, that's a real smart decision. Instead of having our children learn a beautiful, natural international language which is spoken by a quarter of our Canadian brothers and sisters within our own borders, let's have them learn an artificial DIY language which practiaclly nobody speaks (Esperanto). Bilingualism is not a waste of money, it is a cultural investment. There is nothing wrong with forcing children to do things for their own good. Parents and governments do it all the time, and learning French is something Anglophone Canadians need to do. It isn't hard, it's a question of effort, and if started at a young age, the learning process is effortless. Having a bilingual populace is an asset to all citizens. It gives our country yet another edge over the US. And why stop at French? Why not Spanish and/or German as well? They do it in Europe with enormous success. I've met few unilingual Western Europeans. The Irish all study Gaelic in school, and even if nobody speaks it, it's part of their culture and it helps them to learn other languages like (wait for it) FRENCH. This is why muti-national companies are putting their call centres in Ireland on a massive scale, because of their polyglotism.

 

[McDonald]

By the way, I am a fluently bilingual. I took my first French class in grade 12 of high school, and I am now 22. One can certainly learn a language in their normal school classes if they pay attention and make an effort. This is why they need to be made to. No one is asking every Canadian to speak both languages flawlessly with no accent, just to be able to easily accomodate anybody in either language and carry on a conversation without any major trouble. It's possible with the infrastructure we already have in our education systems, it just takes discipline and perhaps a different approach.

Your opposition to FSL seems to come more from your will to subject students to the study of Esperanto than to save money. Where do you propose to find teachers of Esperanto to put in every school in the country? And after Esperanto is learned, wih whom are the students supposed to speak it? And what about culture... very little in Esperanto. Literature, films, areas where native speakers live... these are virtually non-existant. The students might as well learn Welsh, another language spoken only by those who also speak English, but at least it has the beauty of a natural language and a culture behind it.

 

[Liberalman]

Bilingualism is in Canada’s laws.

This was a deal that was worked out by the government of the day to make this nation a reality.

If you remember the French settled this country about the same time the English did and they got along for years until England decided to take it all and the French resisted but in the end England won but they did give the right for French citizens of this country to be served in the French language and they let the French keep their French identity.

This is why the French and English were able to co-exist for this long.

Now the new Conservative party would rather change this because they are firm believers of breaking their promises.

Integrity and honesty ruled when Canada was a young nation and when they made promises to the French and the Aboriginals with their treaty they kept them and that is why Canada was able to live in peace all these years.

If you look at the American example they had treaties with their Indians but they decided to break them and herded them onto reservations by force.

This is one major reason why I don’t like the new Conservative party because they ran on honesty and integrity and all the Prime Minister can say when he broke one of his many promises is “So Sue Me”

The war of 1812 when Canada was at war with the Americans the French and the Aboriginals fought with the English to repel the Americans, the only reason they did this was because Canada kept their promises if they didn’t then America would have had this country as well.

 

[Johnnny]

ive been making honest attempts to learn french

 

[Unforgiven]

Yeah those bastards are always lying when their mouths are moving. I've noticed that the usual crowd so offended by Liberal broken promises are finding themselves preoccupied when it comes to those lying neocons. Typical of their sickly breed.

Bilingualism is in Canada’s laws.

This was a deal that was worked out by the government of the day to make this nation a reality.

If you remember the French settled this country about the same time the English did and they got along for years until England decided to take it all and the French resisted but in the end England won but they did give the right for French citizens of this country to be served in the French language and they let the French keep their French identity.

This is why the French and English were able to co-exist for this long.

Now the new Conservative party would rather change this because they are firm believers of breaking their promises.

Integrity and honesty ruled when Canada was a young nation and when they made promises to the French and the Aboriginals with their treaty they kept them and that is why Canada was able to live in peace all these years.

If you look at the American example they had treaties with their Indians but they decided to break them and herded them onto reservations by force.

This is one major reason why I don’t like the new Conservative party because they ran on honesty and integrity and all the Prime Minister can say when he broke one of his many promises is “So Sue Me”

The war of 1812 when Canada was at war with the Americans the French and the Aboriginals fought with the English to repel the Americans, the only reason they did this was because Canada kept their promises if they didn’t then America would have had this country as well.

 

[Machjo]

And, forcing the language in school, and some idiots wanting it REQUIRED for post-secondary education, is where I draw the line.

Forcing a language onto a society in the education system is wrong. I say make French an available course in every public school, but not mandatory. People who live in French areas will be inclined to take the course, while people in non-French areas, will have it as an option...
French areas... require gov. workers to know the lang. Education - KEEP IT OPTIONAL!

Do you feel the same about English as a REQUIRED subject in French schools?

 

[Machjo]

Oh yeah, that's a real smart decision. Instead of having our children learn a beautiful, natural international language which is spoken by a quarter of our Canadian brothers and sisters within our own borders, let's have them learn an artificial DIY language which practiaclly nobody speaks (Esperanto).

What does DYI mean? As for Esperanto, if the goeal is to make all Canadians able to speak a common language, it will be much easier to have all learn an easier language than have French Canadians try to learn English. The number of English speakers has no bearing on ones ability to learn it well if he's not exposed to it in his daily life. I've lived in parts of Quebec in which even the high school teachers couldn't speak English. So you've obviously not travelled much into non-English territory.



Bilingualism is not a waste of money, it is a cultural investment.

Oh come off it! When I was in Jr. middle school I spoke French better than my Frnehc teacher. This is a waste of taxpayer money and the student's time. Needless to say the school didn't know what to do with me so it just gave me 'free time' for one lesson a week! It wasted my time.


There is nothing wrong with forcing children to do things for their own good.

I fully agree. But to force a child to spend years of his life to lern a language he will never grasp is not in his own best interests. His wasting his time and our money. And what cultural value is there in spending years to fail to learn a language?


Parents and governments do it all the time, and learning French is something Anglophone Canadians need to do.

That's nice in theory, but how long have we been going at this now? Well over 100 years. If we were on the right track I'd assume we should have reached our goal by now. So what do we do, wait another 100 years?


It isn't hard, it's a question of effort, and if started at a young age, the learning process is effortless.

I found it easy enough, but then gain i was raised in a bilingual family. So what are you proposing, mandatory mixed marriages?

Having a bilingual populace is an asset to all citizens.

I fully agree. Difference of language is a major contributor to the fall of Rome; those Greeks were the Quebec of the empire.

It gives our country yet another edge over the US.

Sure, if we can actually become bilingual!

And why stop at French?
It would be a good idea to master one foreign language before moving on to the next, wouldn't you think?

Why not Spanish and/or German as well?
Heck, why not adopt a 50L policy (fluency in 50 languages required for high school graduation, why not)?

They do it in Europe with enormous success.
I remember coming across an article last year (I'll keep looking for it and get back to you on it once I find it), and it found that there was quite a gap between professed and real bilingualism. In one survey, over fifty percent of Europeans professed knowledge of a second language (any second language), yet once given a test to prove basic competence (not even fluency) in claimed language, the percentage dropped 10%! And from my own experiences, I have a hard time believing their success when in Quebec most people don't successfully learn English (and this in an officially English-speaking country on an English continent)!

I've met few unilingual Western Europeans. The Irish all study Gaelic in school, and even if nobody speaks it, it's part of their culture and it helps them to learn other languages like (wait for it) FRENCH.
Good for them. Remember though that they usually speak English better than Irish, and if it weren't part of the curriculum, Irish would long have died! An equal comparison would be like me saying:

The occitan speaking people all study French. Well of course, they live in France and the government mandates French throughout the school system, not to mention similarities between languages. So it's a completely unfair comparison.

This is why muti-national companies are putting their call centres in Ireland on a massive scale, because of their polyglotism.

I'll look further into that. But remember Montreal has call centres due to its poliglotism too. But that doesn't mean all of Quebec is so. That city is so cosmopolitan it isn't even funny.

 

[Machjo]

ive been making honest attempts to learn french

Well according to some in this forum your failure is due to your lack of effort. And please don't come here saying this; some would rather ignore the truth.

 

[McDonald]

What does DYI mean? As for Esperanto, if the goeal is to make all Canadians able to speak a common language, it will be much easier to have all learn an easier language than have French Canadians try to learn English. The number of English speakers has no bearing on ones ability to learn it well if he's not exposed to it in his daily life. I've lived in parts of Quebec in which even the high school teachers couldn't speak English. So you've obviously not travelled much into non-English territory.

DIY is short for "do it yourself". And FYI, I live in the most francophone region in North America (Saguenay, QC - 99% Francophone) and I teach English to get by. Lacking full fluency, most people in the region can at least accomodate an Anglophone if not have a rather nice conversation with one. English language classes start here in grade 4.

Oh come off it! When I was in Jr. middle school I spoke French better than my Frnehc teacher. This is a waste of taxpayer money and the student's time. Needless to say the school didn't know what to do with me so it just gave me 'free time' for one lesson a week! It wasted my time.

Yes, I am sure that as someone growing up in a bilingual family, you had a better command of the French language than someone who (perhaps lacking the best accent of a native speaker) went to University for four years for French and probably spent at least a semester in a Francophone region. You come off it. Realise that perhaps, if what you say is true, you were a few steps ahead of the other people in your school.

I fully agree. But to force a child to spend years of his life to lern a language he will never grasp is not in his own best interests. His wasting his time and our money. And what cultural value is there in spending years to fail to learn a language?

You presuppose that children are natural failures and that French is some kind of super complicated language that only geniuses could possibly fathom. It isn't. Kids are smart, they just need discipline and encouragement.

That's nice in theory, but how long have we been going at this now? Well over 100 years. If we were on the right track I'd assume we should have reached our goal by now. So what do we do, wait another 100 years?

Surely a linguistic genius such as yourself ought to know that bilingualism is a policy that is only about forty years old, and French eduaction in the schools is administered provincially as are all subjects because the provinces each have a constitutional responsibility over their own education systems. Bilingualism has been a slow process, its policies have been administered rather conservatively, but even you couldn't be so blind as to say that we have made no progress at all. And besides, French is traditionally a subject taught to Anglo students no matter what country they live in. It's been replaced by Spanish in the States out of necessity, but all accross the world, Anglophones study French. It helps us gain a deeper understanding of our own language, seeing as how around 40% of our words come directly from it. Therefore, I ask you, given all this - why should Anglophone children in Canada not study French especially when it is also an official language of their own country? It's ludicrous that it shouldn't be taught. The Swiss will study at least one of the other national languages plus English in school, the Belgians do the same thing. Most Germans study English plus one other European language in school. Does it mean everybody is natively fluent in all the languages they study, no, but they do gain something from it.

It's important to broaden people's cultural horizons, and the point is not merely simple communication, it's culture. An Anglophone in English Canada can have an entirely different world opened up to him through learning French, a global language comprising many cultures. All of a sudden he can read books, watch films, watch TV, have conversations, even perhaps write a bit in French. This does not exist with Esperanto. To replace French/English language education with some made-up language that nobody speaks would be an insult to both communities and to our history as a country made up of two nations.[/quote]

So what are you proposing, mandatory mixed marriages?

Of course not, what a ridiculous suggestion.

I fully agree. Difference of language is a major contributor to the fall of Rome; those Greeks were the Quebec of the empire.

I do not agree. Back up that statement. The Roman Empire was a territory comprising hundreds of languages, and Latin (including the vulgar dialects thereof) and Greek were the dominant languages of the Western and Eastern provinces respectively. The duality worked quite well in the political sphere because the rulers of these provinces spoke both languages, because for a long time Greek (for example) was seen as the language of the educated in the West. And in the East, it was understood that Latin would be the language used for Imperial administrative purposes despite the fact that all other business was conducted in Greek.

Heck, why not adopt a 50L policy (fluency in 50 languages required for high school graduation, why not)?

There is quite a difference between my suggestion and this ridiculous example of sarcasm.

I remember coming across an article last year (I'll keep looking for it and get back to you on it once I find it), and it found that there was quite a gap between professed and real bilingualism. In one survey, over fifty percent of Europeans professed knowledge of a second language (any second language), yet once given a test to prove basic competence (not even fluency) in claimed language, the percentage dropped 10%! And from my own experiences, I have a hard time believing their success when in Quebec most people don't successfully learn English (and this in an officially English-speaking country on an English continent)!

I wasn't saying that Europeans are natively multilingual, but most of them (especially the younger ones) can function well in more than one language.

Good for them. Remember though that they usually speak English better than Irish, and if it weren't part of the curriculum, Irish would long have died!

I know full well that English is by far the majority language in Ireland, but that has nothing to do with the fact that all students are required to study Irish to graduate from secondary school. And it really isn't the forced study of Irish which keeps it alive. It's the assertiveness of the population of native-speakers and the general feeling within the Irish population and the government to support those communities and help them to survive and expand. The situation of Irish Gaelic is a fascinating study.

An equal comparison would be like me saying: The occitan speaking people all study French. Well of course, they live in France and the government mandates French throughout the school system, not to mention similarities between languages. So it's a completely unfair comparison.

Not at all is it the same type of comparison. The Irish study the language native to their homeland, whether or not they speak it, despite the fact the English is the language spoken there. The Occitan are a non-sovereign minority surrounded by a French-speaking majority in the French Republic or in Monaco whose mother tongue is the minority language in question. The two situations are completely diffferent. I am talking about a sovereign people whose mother tongue is English who are made to study their native language in school (basically for the hell of it) but which helps them to undertand languages and to learn others... which they do.

I'll look further into that. But remember Montreal has call centres due to its poliglotism too. But that doesn't mean all of Quebec is so. That city is so cosmopolitan it isn't even funny.

I never pretended that all of Québec was bilingual. I know for a fact that it isn't, and I profit from that since I pay my rent by teaching English in private courses.

 

[Johnnny]

i didnt read much of anything lol, igot ADHD i cant read those long posts sometimes lol

i think that french should be taught to school kids and after grade 9 become an option. I also think that chinesse should be offered before spanish in school, cause i think canada has more chinesse speakers than spanish. That or punjabi. Thats my two cents

:canada:

 

[Machjo]

DIY is short for "do it yourself". And FYI, I live in the most francophone region in North America (Saguenay, QC - 99% Francophone) and I teach English to get by. Lacking full fluency, most people in the region can at least accomodate an Anglophone if not have a rather nice conversation with one. English language classes start here in grade 4.

I'd lived in Charlevoix for a year, and I'll tell you that the only people in town who could speak English were some of the local casino staff, many come from Chicoutimi, and the local high school English teachers (and maybe the local primary school ones too). Even one of the local high school English teachers, about to retire mind you, just knew the theory of the language. And that is in Canada.

I still remember my first day in that high school. I wa not new not only to that school, not only to that town, not only to that county, but even to the province; I'd just moved there a week earlier from BC! I erroneously assumed that these high school students, last year of high school might I add, would be fluent and just need a little brushing up.

Oh boy was I wrong. I walked into class, pretended I spoke not a word of French, and started introducing myself to them in completely fluent English! At native speed! Anyway, jaws dropped!

So I slowed down. The point is, though, all I was doing was introducing myself, my name, where I was from, just the basics! And with the teachers? In the teachers' room it was French all the way. I'd asked, and except for the English teachers, they'd all confessed that their English was rudimentary, and would allow for no more than the most basic of communication.

When I was in Quebec city one day, I'd asked for directions in French. Well, having lived in English Canada all my life, I'd still picked up a very slight English accent. So he switched to English (that was a kind act on his part though), but I could see that while he could express himself quite clearly, he still had to think alot and stumbled alot over his words to do so. And this is from someone living in Quebec's capital! I've also visited Roberval, and I can tell you that the average person couldn't communicate in English. Believe me, I'm always exploring language, and I'd pretended to not know French a few times just to test the waters. No, they cannot commmunicate in English.

Yes, I am sure that as someone growing up in a bilingual family, you had a better command of the French language than someone who (perhaps lacking the best accent of a native speaker) went to University for four years for French and probably spent at least a semester in a Francophone region. You come off it. Realise that perhaps, if what you say is true, you were a few steps ahead of the other people in your school.

I concede that I may have exaggerated, and it may be that he simply simplified his French for the benefit of all the other students. I can say however that few of my classmates, upon graduating from highschool, were functional in the language.

You presuppose that children are natural failures and that French is some kind of super complicated language that only geniuses could possibly fathom. It isn't. Kids are smart, they just need discipline and encouragement.

I do not presuppose that children are natural failures. i simply open my eyes and see the reality. Some students can learn difficult languages, others can't. If they could, I'm sure everyone in Canada would be bilingual by now. What's going on?

Surely a linguistic genius such as yourself ought to know that bilingualism is a policy that is only about forty years old, and French eduaction in the schools is administered provincially as are all subjects because the provinces each have a constitutional responsibility over their own education systems.

Yes, I was being sarcastic. And I realize that fourty years is still a very short time when we are talking about language acquisition policy. But even with that, look how far we've come. My experiences above weren't even from 10 years ago. My dad has lived with my mother for decades now, and still can't speak French well, despitre her having spoken to me in French since childhood.

Bilingualism has been a slow process, its policies have been administered rather conservatively, but even you couldn't be so blind as to say that we have made no progress at all.

Oh sure we've made progress, at a snails pace. Keep crawling snales, Hip Hip, Hurray!

And besides, French is traditionally a subject taught to Anglo students no matter what country they live in.

Australia has been pushing towards Asian languages in the last decades, and I would imagine NZ is going the same way. Of what use is French in that part of the world.

It's been replaced by Spanish in the States out of necessity, but all accross the world, Anglophones study French.

Funny that, a British collegue of mine had studied German, not French, in high school

It helps us gain a deeper understanding of our own language, seeing as how around 40% of our words come directly from it.

Well, if our language is so difficult to learn that we need to learn another one to understand it, doesn't that tell you something?

Therefore, I ask you, given all this - why should Anglophone children in Canada not study French especially when it is also an official language of their own country?

The fact taht it is official doesn't change the fact that most fail to learn it. Just look around. This is a colossal waste of money and time.

It's ludicrous that it shouldn't be taught.

To make it compulsory is ludicrous. If the child can handle it, wonderful. But once you see it ain't going anywhere, let the kid learn something else. What do you want, a generation whose only memory of foreign language learning is having failed after half a decade, or even a decade, of study, to acquire a second language? If you want him to acquire a third language, he has to feel that he can do it. And failing his first language ain't the way to go about it.

The Swiss will study at least one of the other national languages plus English in school, the Belgians do the same thing. Most Germans study English plus one other European language in school. Does it mean everybody is natively fluent in all the languages they study, no, but they do gain something from it.

What exacly do you gain brom bare competence?

It's important to broaden people's cultural horizons, and the point is not merely simple communication, it's culture.

Culture comes through communication. I love reading Gibbon, Carlyle, the AV Bible, etc. That's culture. To be able to order a meal in a restaurant isn't culture, except at the most basic level.

I can read Guy de Maupassant and Moliere too. And I enjoy them. But if I'm going to read the Qur'an, it'll be Rodwell's, not the original, 'cause my Arabic ain't good enough yet. What will I do, run around and just say hello to everyone in Arabic and call it culture? I can read and sing some Arabic, and it's beautiful, especially the Qur'an and similar texts. But it only contains culture if I can understand it. Otherwise it's but a bunch of phonemes being pronounced by my throat.

Same applies to English. If all the person can do is give me directions, that is technical use, not culture. I've had plenty of the following conversations in China:

-Hello.
-Hello.
-I'm a student and I'm looking for an English friend to practice my English with for an exam next month.
-Pardon, mais je n'ai pas de temp pour ca. Si tu veut pratique ton anglais, fait ca en classe. Si tu veut faire un ami, oublie les examens, et soit sincere.
-What?
-Au revoir.

Now is that really the epitome of culture? People wanting to be friends for a test. Is this how low English drags the definition of friendship? If so, I want nothing of it.

An Anglophone in English Canada can have an entirely different world opened up to him through learning French, a global language comprising many cultures.

Sure he can, if he should reach fluency. But that's the catch.

All of a sudden he can read books, watch films, watch TV, have conversations, even perhaps write a bit in French.

Just like that? Again, you're putting the cart before the horse. he has to learn the language first, and that's the very issue we're discussing right now. Exceptions aside, most couldn't speak French to save their lives. So waht books are you talking about? Kid's books already available in English?

This does not exist with Esperanto.

Really? http://donh.best.vwh.net/Esperanto/Literaturo/literaturo.html

To replace French/English language education with some made-up language that nobody speaks would be an insult to both communities and to our history as a country made up of two nations.[/quote]

So it's preferable to maintain the current monolinugal status quo in the name of tradition? Now as for made-up languages, please define that. Have you got something against Bahasa Malaysia, perhaps the most spoken planned language in the world? Read u p on its history. It might surprise you just how far it can go.

The Roman Empire was a territory comprising hundreds of languages, and Latin (including the vulgar dialects thereof) and Greek were the dominant languages of the Western and Eastern provinces respectively. The duality worked quite well in the political sphere because the rulers of these provinces spoke both languages, because for a long time Greek (for example) was seen as the language of the educated in the West. And in the East, it was understood that Latin would be the language used for Imperial administrative purposes despite the fact that all other business was conducted in Greek.

From Gibbon:

"So sensible were the Romans of the influence of language over national manners, that it was their most serious care to extend, with the progress of their arms, the use of the Latin tongue... But in the provinces, the East was less docile than the West to the voice of its victorious preceptors. This obvious difference marked the two portions of the empire with a distinction of colours, which, though it was in some degree concealed during the meridian splendor of prosperity, became gradually more visible as the shades of night descended upon the Roman world."

Satisfied. Beautiful English he has too, no? But how many in Quebec's hinterland, learning English for 'culture', could enjoy such reading? I doubt many. So again, where's the culture beyond the superficiality of chit chat?


I wasn't saying that Europeans are natively multilingual, but most of them (especially the younger ones) can function well in more than one language.

To function well has nothing to do with culture, again. We are talking about technical communication here. I find the same in China. A colleague of mine had studied in Britain for four years, yet despite this she still cannot understand literary text. It's all limited to simplified English for the most part.

With Esperanto speakers on the other hand, they are quite fluent. Just listen to CRI. The English branch has foreigners on staff; the Esperanto branch has no need for it. Yet we could understand them just fine. Hond Lou Meng is beautifully translated into Esperanto by a Chinese himself. Normally people translate into their mother tongue, not from their mother tongue. But since Esperanto speakers can truly master it quickly, they can translate from with confidence. Lunyu is beautifully translated too by the way, and better than any English translation translated by native English speakers, compare Legge.


I never pretended that all of Québec was bilingual. I know for a fact that it isn't, and I profit from that since I pay my rent by teaching English in private courses.

It's nice to see that you profit from that. So when do you expect Quebec to be fully bilingual? Next year? In thirty years? Fifty? Or never? For how long must we wait?

Or why not switch to an easier language that anyone can learn with an investment of a mere 40 dollars and 100 hours of self instruction with a book and dictionary? Hmmm... It would certainly put lots of teachers and translators out of business. And God forbid we could then all understand one another. After all, to understand each other and be able to read literature! how terrible! Where's the culture in that? I thought culture lied in the process of learning till you either finally start to float, or you sink. Hey, It'll make a man out of you, eh.

 

[McDonald]

The suggestion that Esperanto should replace ESL/FSL classes in schools is proposterous, and it comes from wanting to propagate a planned language movement of which you are a part. I am not trying to knock Esperanto, it was a fine idea, but I'm not prepared to throw my own country's languages out the window for it. Both French and English are perfectly learnable languages, and also perfectly suitable subjects for every Canadian school. To call their teaching a waste of time and money just because not as many people are fluent in the other language as you would hope is exactly like saying that the teaching of mathematics is pointless if everyone can't be a brilliant mathemetician as a result.

Learning a language does open you up to other cultures, if only exposing you to something that you would otherwise never have known. Before learning French, I never knew of all the excellent films, music, literature etc... available to me. And now, not only can I communicate with people in my own country but I can also go to France, Belgium, Switzerland, North Africa, Lebanon, West Africa, many countries in the Carribean and in the Pacific Islands. With Esperanto I could maybe read a couple of novels (whether they're good or not I do not know) and talk to maybe the 100,000 people on Earth who speak it at conventions. I'm not knocking the idea of Esperanto, but truthfully it will never have the appeal of a natural language. Speaking of natural languages, Malay is one. It is not a planned language, it just has a highly standardised form to make communication between the island dialects easier. It itself is a natural language related to others.

I never said that Anglophones all over the world are required to learn French, I'm saying that traditionally, French has been the second language of choice for Anglophones. Look it up.

The problem is not that students in Canada are required too much to study French, the problem is that not enough emphasis is put on it. Anglo-Quebeckers are required heavily to learn French in school today, and the result has been that where practically no anglophones in Quebec spoke fluent French before the Quiet Revovlution, today about 66% can. As the old guard starts to die off, that number will creep up to near 100%. For some people, the French and English languages will be a necessity, for others it will be another subject in school like all the others, and I'm fine with that. It still isn't a waste of money to educate the population of a country in the official language they don't speak, even if they don't become totally fluent, they'll have some grasp of it one day when a francophone who's English is a bit shaky comes into contact with them, they can meet in the middle and get the point across. Canada has a responsibility to keep French alive in North America, because its a living language in our country and it is part of our history. The French language is an essential part of any well-rounded education for an English Canadian. That is why core French has been, is, and will continue to be a required subject in every school in English Canada.

And as far as Québécois are concerned, there are plenty of people who have good enough English. Just this afternoon I was in a café in downtown Chicoutimi listening to a waitress speak English to a new server who was an Anglophone, albeit with an accent but what do you expect? I get people all the time wanting to talk to me and practise their English, and yeah they make mistakes, but so do you when you write in French so probably when you speak it too. It's no big deal. People make mistakes in their own bloody language too.

 

[Zzarchov]

Collosal waste of money?

I'll go into my own experiences then.

Some high school things taught and how they have helped me:

Music: Zilch , and it is expensive requiring many very pricey instruments
Sports Teams: zilch, also, incredibley expensive
Art: Very Fun, but not once has it every benefited me.
Math: Useful, but I became a programmer, most people it was not.
Shop: No use yet, but I'll admit I may have a need one day. Also very expensive.
Chemistry: Useless, exceedingly expensive and dangerous, two kids got poisoned.
English: Useful to know grammar, much of it could be cut with no ill effect (literature)
French: Allowed me on two different contracts to deal with french contractors for basic commands, saved having to pay the wages of a translator.

So I will agree that French isn't very useful, but its more useful than Sports, Music, Art and Chemistry. Dump those and then we'll dump french.

 

[McDonald]

Ok, allow me also to apologise. I know you put a lot of work into learning Esperanto, and I respect that. I just don't think we need to jump the gun on our vision of bilingualism and jump to Esperanto. I like the idea of Esperanto and I would like to give it credit as a formidable accomplishment. I just don't want it to have to be the bridge between our two linguistic communities.

 

[Machjo]

The suggestion that Esperanto should replace ESL/FSL classes in schools is proposterous,
How so? I'm not necessarily a partisan of Esperanto per se, but of an easy to learn language. Esperanto is one candidate for such. English isn't.


and it comes from wanting to propagate a planned language movement of which you are a part.

Whether I am or not irrelevent to the topic at hand. That would be equivalent to saying that because a person is a member of US English Inc. he has nothing valuable to say about US language policy.

I am not trying to knock Esperanto, it was a fine idea, but I'm not prepared to throw my own country's languages out the window for it.

You obviously havn't been reading! When did I ever suggest you not learn your language? I'm confused by this statement.

Both French and English are perfectly learnable languages, and also perfectly suitable subjects for every Canadian school.

Thus the miserable faulure in our school system?

To call their teaching a waste of time and money just because not as many people are fluent in the other language as you would hope is exactly like saying that the teaching of mathematics is pointless if everyone can't be a brilliant mathemetician as a result.

Not at all alike. Lower-level maths is useful even if one doesn't attain a high degree of perfection in it. If I know no algebra, but can add and subtract, I can therefore calculate the cost of a product at the market. If I need higher-level maths, yet for whatever reason can't learn it, then I can always explain to another person, using clear language, what I want him to do an he could do the calculation for me.

If all I know is basic English, however, and get cought up in a legal case in English Canada, how will I communicate with my lawyer? Or if a car hits me and the paramedics arrive asking questions about what happend, pain, allergies, etc., how will we communicate? Algebra is not an issue when it comes to defending one's legal rights, or in an emergency situation. Language is a part of every aspect of our lives. I'm sure a Quebecois travelling through BC won't care about Shakespeare if he's hit by a car. At that stage technical usage is necessary. But in addition, being able to read original literature in a language is a bonus too. With English, he might have neither, whereas with an easier language, he might have both.

So you can try to squirm away from logic with words like 'preposterous', or I'm a member of some movement and so my words don't count. Those are copouts. Please present logical arguments.

Learning a language does open you up to other cultures, if only exposing you to something that you would otherwise never have known.

Again, tis applies only to those who learn the language successfully. I've met people who'de been stuudying Englihs for over a decade and still can't use it! So how does that allow for any cultural exchange beyond 'I hate English; I wanna give up!'?

Before learning French, I never knew of all the excellent films, music, literature etc... available to me. And now, not only can I communicate with people in my own country but I can also go to France, Belgium, Switzerland, North Africa, Lebanon, West Africa, many countries in the Carribean and in the Pacific Islands.

I fully agree with you here. For those students, like you and me, who CAN learn more difficult language, the option ought to be available. I can travel through China without an interpreter. Mingbai le ma? Wo ganjue ne bu mingbai.Ruguo, ni bu mingbai, wode Hanyu meiyou yong le, bu shi ma? Xiang yi Xiang ba!

But as you can see, if you know no Chinese, regardless of China's being such a large country, regardless of Chinese being spoken by so many people in the world, Chinese is useless to you. It is ony useful to yo IF and only IF you can learn it. If a student shows the interest and motivation for it, great. He can learn all the languages he wants. But as for the rest of the students, turn them to a language they can learn.

As for no one speaking Esperanto, no one knows for sure how many can speak it. But this might give you some idea of its range of use in science, government, radio, religion, commerce, and education:


The International Academy of Sciences (AIS) San Marino:

http://www.ais-sanmarino.org/

No one knows for sure how many people speak Esperanto, but it is used by China Radio International (China's BBC if you will):

http://esperanto.cri.cn/

Radio Italy:

http://www.international.rai.it/radio/multilingue/ram/esperanto.ram

Le Monde Diplomatique:

http://eo.mondediplo.com/

The official Cuban information agency:

http://www.cubanoticoj.ain.cu/

the official Chinese news agency:

http://www.chinareport.com.cn/index.htm

Radio Polonia:

http://www.polskieradio.pl/eo/

Vatican Radio:

www.radiovaticana.org

Religious organizations:

Christianity:

http://www.chez.com/keli/

Catholicism (approved officially by the Vatican):

http://www.ikue.org/
(You can also read the words of the late Pope John Paul II in the original Esperanto. He himself praised the language on more than one occasion, in both Italian and Esperanto itself for he himself could speak the language.)

Buddhist:

International: http://esperanto.us/Budhanaj/malgxusta_url.html
China: http://www.ebudhano.cn/
Japan: http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/jble/budhismo.html


Baha'i:
http://bahaaeligo.bahai.de/

Oomoto:
http://www.oomoto.or.jp/

Ŭonbulismo</B>
http://www.uonbulismo.net/


Commercial uses:

Google:

http://www.google.com/intl/eo/


You can read more about Esperanto here. By the way, Esperanto is one of Wikipedia's most used languages. It may not be near the top, but it has still surpassed many languages on there. Impressive for this kind of language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto

Education:

http://www.ilei.info/

By the way, the best free language-learning site I've ever come across was for Esperanto:

http://www.lernu.net/

It's a shame other language communities can't create a free site of the same quality with all the resources at their disposal. This site is completely interactive, allows students to learn on their own or work with others. Each word is 'clickable' on the spot, even in the bbs forums! Yo have access to pop music with exercises, etc.

And I nearly forgot, Espearnto TV:

http://www.internacia.tv/

And with all the problems going on with Iran, you might want to exchange ideas directly with them. There are Yahoo groups for practically every country, not to mention national organizations. Here is Iran's:

http://www.espiran.itgo.com

Can you do that so easily with English or French as your foreign language? Here in China, only those with master's degrees in English are competent enough to write contracts in my book. And even then, I've run into legal problems due to bad English on their part. Master's degrees in English. Think about it. The Chinese I've met who speak Esperanto are completely fluent. One of them teaches in a local university and is appalled at how the Chinese don't know their own grammar well since they spend so much time trying to elarn English for tests, and still can't speak it well. So much for the cultural element.

I'm not knocking the idea of Esperanto, but truthfully it will never have the appeal of a natural language.

You'd be surprised at the language loyalty it engender, primarily due to its 'interna ideo', the idea of language justice for all. Justice does have appeal for some.

Speaking of natural languages, Malay is one. It is not a planned language, it just has a highly standardised form to make communication between the island dialects easier.

Not planned? It relates to Bahasa Indonesia. Read its history. It is planned:

http://itotd.com/articles/310/bahasa-indonesia

It may not be planned to the same extent Esperanto it, but certainly more than French with its Academy Francaise. this is all relative. English is planend to a very small extent via prescriptive grammars such as Fowler's, or those of publishing companies. French a little more so via the Academy Francaise. Bahsa Indonesia, while it did start off as a natural trade pidgin, it had gone through considerable reform through commettees, not to mention that it is still a second language for most today. And it was adopted primarily as a rallying cry to unite a nation, though some still object to it. Esperanto is based on roots from many languages, organized in a logical manner. And Volapuk is even more planned in that it even modifies the roots to a considerable extent (vola = world, puk = speak).

So in the end, the question of planend versus ethnic really is not so black and white, but more of a spectrum. Who decides where along it we should draw the line?

It itself is a natural language related to others.

It depends on how you define 'natural'. According to some definitions, even English and french are not natural, but learned behaviour.

I never said that Anglophones all over the world are required to learn French, I'm saying that traditionally, French has been the second language of choice for Anglophones.

I'm well aware of that. And traditionally Southern Europe, and England for a short time, along with North Africa, were ruled by Caesars. So will we go back to the glories of the Roman Empire? Should we reinstate Latin? Tradition has nothign to do with logic, but rather sheepish mimicry.

Look it up.
Just read Gibbon's decline and fall. It was Latin, not French, if you really wanna be traditional. Hey, I believe in going to the roots. If you're gonna argue based on tradition, then get traditional will ya.

The problem is not that students in Canada are required too much to study French, the problem is that not enough emphasis is put on it.

Fine. You volunteer your money for it. But keep taxes out of it. Why should I pay more money towards it when I'm aware of a more efficient solution. If you want the government to reinstate the horse and buggy, fine. But I'd rather government offices use the internet. Maybe not very traditional, but much more efficient wouldn't you think?

Anglo-Quebeckers are required heavily to learn French in school today, and the result has been that where practically no anglophones in Quebec spoke fluent French before the Quiet Revovlution, today about 66% can.

Anglo-Quebecers do not compare with Anglo-Albertans now do they? They can actually use the language in their daily lives, and so that reinforces the learning in the classroom. There is no way you will ever get the entire population of Charlevoix to be fluent in English without massive investment in English lessons. They would have to even sacrifice quality in other areas such as maths and sciences, and maybe even French, to find the time in school to elarn it. or the other option is to go Chinese and have them go to school six days a week, shorter holidays, longer school days, etc. Fine, you donate the the money then. I'll root for ya.


As the old guard starts to die off, that number will creep up to near 100%.

So people have to die off to accomplish a task? We're talking about humans here.

For some people, the French and English languages will be a necessity, for others it will be another subject in school like all the others, and I'm fine with that.

I'm not fine with that. What we learn in school ought to be of use outside school, otherwise it
s a waste of human potential. Instead let him excel at whatever he will learn. If he ikes languages, let him specialize in it and be the best he can be at it. Fo rthe rest, then then excel at maths, or sciences, etc. To do that, just them learn an easy second language instead. This will free resources for the advancement of civilization.

It still isn't a waste of money to educate the population of a country in the official language they don't speak, even if they don't become totally fluent, they'll have some grasp of it one day when a francophone who's English is a bit shaky comes into contact with them, they can meet in the middle and get the point across.

Talk about aiming at mediocrity! If you're going to learn a language, learn it well. If you can't learn it well, then learn an easier language... well! Whatever you do, do it well. Whatever you learn, learn it well! What's the mesage we send our students when we're willing to put up with horse and buggy mediocrity all in the name of tradition when the excellence of the computer can propel us forward?

Canada has a responsibility to keep French alive in North America, because its a living language in our country and it is part of our history.

I fully agree. But to ahve everyone learn English well would require such a vast investment of time on the part of the student, where will he find the time to develop his own language? An easier second language can free him of that time so that he can then develop his own language. Even here in China, even I (and my Chinese is not that good) pick up errors in people's native grammar. A professor friend of mine lamented the same. Many Chinese today don't know their own grammar well. Yet they spend hours every day trying to elarn English. Now there we see their priorities. Assimilation should not be the goal. Clear and precise high level communication in the most efficient manner possible ought to be.

The French language is an essential part of any well-rounded education for an English Canadian.

Says who? I can speak French and English, and Esperanto, and can read a little Arabic and Persian. A fat lot of good that did me when I came to China, eh. So what constitutes a persons' well-rounded education will vary according to circumstances. Certainly a Canadian living in BC and who's about to inherit his father's trans-atlantic company would be better off learning an Asian language, no? Don't forget, the world is much smaller today than it ever was. Canada is just a little speck of dust on the map.

That is why core French has been, is, and will continue to be a required subject in every school in English Canada.

That's really useful in Vancoucer.

And as far as Québécois are concerned, there are plenty of people who have good enough English. Just this afternoon I was in a café in downtown Chicoutimi listening to a waitress speak English to a new server who was an Anglophone, albeit with an accent but what do you expect? I get people all the time wanting to talk to me and practise their English, and yeah they make mistakes, but so do you when you write in French so probably when you speak it too. It's no big deal. People make mistakes in their own bloody language too.

No big deal? Have you ever had to sign international contracts? Legal implications.

NOw as for that waitress, wonderful. Chicoutimi is not the smallest town in Canada either. You're picking people and saying, look, he can speak it. Wonderful. But we're not talking about he and she, but rather about an entire population, including those living in small town Quebec. It's a democracy, remember. We have no caesars anymore.

 

[Machjo]

Ok, allow me also to apologise. I know you put a lot of work into learning Esperanto, and I respect that. I just don't think we need to jump the gun on our vision of bilingualism and jump to Esperanto. I like the idea of Esperanto and I would like to give it credit as a formidable accomplishment. I just don't want it to have to be the bridge between our two linguistic communities.

I'd just read this after my last post.

Let me clarify a few things. Thoug I can speak Esperanto like a native speaker, I'd only invested 100 hours on it along with a grammar at 20 dollars and a dictionary at 20 dollars. No sweat. Arabic? Persian? Years. I'm still studyig them. French. Years, was completely fluent at one point, still am, but losing it here in China. Oh well. Chinese, years, though I can express myself quite well, thanks.

As for Esperanto as a bridge, here's how I look at it. For people like you and me who CAN learn both French and English, then go for it. As for those who can't, then they could learn Esperanto. So for people like you and me, we wouldn't even notice the change; we could still switch between Canada's official languages.

The only time we might notice a change would be when we are with those who can't speak both. Then here's how things would change. Unlike the situation now where the only option is to have an interpreter, we would then have an alternative option. Either we all switch to Esperanto (or whatever the agreed-upon easy language would be for the nation) or, if everyone could agree, an interpreter could still be used. Though it would seem ludicrous to use a French English interpreter when a common third language would already exist. A Latin of the poeple if you will. So appropriate for a non-elitist democracy, don't you think?

As for the rest of us, we's just continue with French and English. As for government, it could still show preference for French and English, but when stuck switch to Esperanto to save money. But it would no longer need to spend large sums of money to train the public service in languages. these tax savings could go to provide education to the poor in Afghanistan. Now that's real culture.