 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 13 - 12:35 PM You're quite right, Charmion. My hubbie (speaks an Africanny-sort-of-French) says that Canadian Franch has a completely different accent to French French. They sussed me out as either a Brit or a French lady, neither of which would have been much welcomed then in Canada. But it begs the question, "Why on Earth have Expo 67, a festival of all the nations with Pavilions for each one, if you're not prepared to be friendly and welcoming to foreigners?" I'm so proud of us Brits, because after the Olympics, nearly all countries were very struck by our friendly welcome and openness to folk from other lands. But then, we have a long long tradition of immigration and incoming populations, especially in London. As to a Government promoting and pushing a second lingo, Wales did this very well. They spent a lot oin bilingual signs and all schools have to have Welsh as well as English during lessons. Nowadays, a goodly proportion there now speak this historic language and their culture is preserved. By the way, on what exactly would the 1.1 billion dollars be spent? Education, promotion, TV, publishing, training teachers? I'd be interested to know, as getting a language off the ground ain't easy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Apr 13 - 12:42 PM Two digressive stories. I was in Montreal on business in 1967-68, when Rene Levevesque and others were getting together to form what would become the Parti. One night I happened to be in the hotel where convention members were staying (hazy now about the constituents and details). Liquor was flowing, and members kept knocking on my door. I gave up on sleep and opened my door. I received an apology and an invitation to join in the "party." I ended up in drunken discussions, had a good time (I think) and and ended up in no condition to go to meetings the next day. I spoke no French, but it was not needed. Service in Montreal and Quebec City restaurants was often unfriendly, the waitstaff didn't like western Canadians and dining was uncomfortable. A few years later, I told my son, who had to go to Quebec on legal business, about my problems in restaurants. Being a lawyer with acting in his background, he put on his Texas accent and manners and had no trouble at all in getting good service. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:02 PM Just think, Q, this was forty-six years ago!! Isn't it incredible how the years flash past? Having 1.1 billion dollars to spend won't guarantee a result though. (To get back to the OP) We've had French lessons in schools here for decades, but people generally are either totally unable to remember a word, or use the odd phrase in a terrible, franglais accent. It makes me giggle to hear "Common vooze alley vooze?" asked of my husband. And as for 'Lez Mizzer Arbles', well...! Have any ideas been mooted by the Canadian Government as to how to implement this? The whole secret is Motivation. Without it, you're flogging a dead horse I'm afraid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Charmion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 01:48 PM The Cdn$1.1 Billion will not do any more good than the other billions we have flushed down that particular cultural hole since the Bi-and-Bi Commission filed its report back in the dear, dead days of the Pierre Trudeau's first term in office. As Eliza says, it's all about the motivation. Any federal civil servant will tell you that the second-language training provided to anglophones works rather differently from that offered to francophones. Francophones studying English learn to function adequately in a workplace highly tolerant of mangled pronunciation, spelling and syntax even from native speakers of the language of Shakespere and Sam Johnson. Anglophones studying French are flogged and driven through a program of drills until they can pass a highly nuanced examination that requires a mastery of civil service jargon and turns of phrase. Often, these tests require one to deliver a response that demands an analysis of workplace culture as much as of the nuances of French vocabulary. If you dislike the civil service culture (as I do), you will have difficulty with the test. I speak and read French well enough to work as a French-to-English translator, but I could never do better than a B grade on the oral comprehension or written expression components of these tests. Eventually, I quit playing that game and focussed my efforts on doing my job. In my opinion, anglophone Canadians see little benefit in learning French because they perceive little welcome from the other solitude. Too often, francophone interlocutors lose patience and switch to English, not willing to be cast in the role of language tutor when they are just trying to complete a commercial or bureaucratic transaction. Meanwhile, social interaction in mixed-language groups usually takes place in the language of the least-skilled -- usually (but not always) the anglophone in the room. The net result is a set of perverse incentives, and not a heck of a lot of bilingualism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 13 - 04:11 PM How many places in the world is putting a business sign out, or offering a menu in a eating establishment, in a language other than what the majority speaks, a crime? How does that create a "welcoming climate" to a person who speaks a different language, because they live in a place with a different language mix? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 02 Apr 13 - 05:24 PM Group conflicts must be solved at the precise points where they originate. If there are no such conflicts (as seemingly in Switzerland), people will see no reason to be too fussy about symbols. Conversely, ultra-correct symbols will not solve any conflict underneath. There are many good reasons for anglophones to learn French, not the least of which is that they learn a lot about their own language. The government should rethink (not "rething") their marketing strategy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:04 PM We have a super little children's TV show on the BBC Children's Channel Cbeebies called The Lingo Show. It's aimed at preschool children (ie under fives) and has little insect cartoon figures, one each day from certain countries such as Japan, China, France, Spain etc. It really encourages a love of languages, and doesn't attempt too much, just the odd phrase or word.I'd recommend a starting point like this, just getting people interested in all languages, then focusing in on French once the interest is there. Maybe some TV ads for adults with a phrase in French slipped in. None of this need cost a billion dollars! But I know from my experience with East Anglians that if the person is dead set against 'learning bloody French, what for, we're bloody English aren't we?' then you're onto a loser sadly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 13 - 06:26 PM Many good points, but few adress Q's original question... "I still would like to know if throwing over one billion dollars at bilingualism will "strengthen unity."" Allow me to give you the definitive answer. NO. A THOUSAND TIMES, NOOOOO! Now. Here is why. That BILLION dollars did not have to be spent. Who in their right mind would accept such an expediture? It was simply a way for the federal government to hide monies spent on other shit. ANd, of course, and as usual, to pay off friends of the government with contracts to, as I said, change all the signs in every federal building to be white lettering on black signs and then back again just before the next election (think I am shittin ya?... NO... I am NOT! Just like buying all new office furniture or paving roads or whatever the feds and provinces do just before an election... it's fuckin sickening!) Ya wanna do the two language thing, ya just say so and ya spend a few bucks. Ya wanna line the pockets of crooked politicians and their buddies, ya spend a billion bucks. Q has a point but it's misunderstood by Q and by most Canucks. It ain't rocket science. Seriously, HOW could $1B be justified for this simple endeavour? Bilingualism good... corruption bad. Hehehehe... I recall Q took me to task on the $1B on the reno of Parliament Hill. Same deal. Bullshit and corruption. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 02 Apr 13 - 07:02 PM Just wonder if the comment "There are many good reasons for anglophones to learn French, not the least of which is that they learn a lot about their own language." is just as true for learning any language, not just French? I suspect so? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 13 - 07:11 PM I suspect so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: gnu Date: 02 Apr 13 - 07:30 PM Q.... $10M on pandas from China + Harper flew a governent jet to TO so he could pet the fuckers? Harpers head rattles when he shakes it. A shitload of loose screws in there. Mine rattles in a different way when I shake it in disgust at the fuckin crap. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 02 Apr 13 - 07:50 PM Good politics, Gnu. Got to keep the Chinese purring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 02 Apr 13 - 08:02 PM Ed T, unfortunately I cannot present myself as totally impartial on that matter, because of my biographical link to France. And yes, German and Latin would be other good choices, for the goal of understanding the nature of English language. Who says you can learn only one foreign language? Just, Eliza, please don't tell pupils that they learn French to please the French. We don't bloody care. We learn English and other languages to gain an advantage over you lazybones. Serves you bloody right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Charmion Date: 02 Apr 13 - 09:10 PM It will no doubt come as a surprise to you lot of linguistic athletes, but most English-speaking people don't want to learn any more about their own language than they absolutely have to, let alone anybody else's language. I have worked as a writer and editor for 30 years, the last 13 in a military headquarters. My colleagues there were all well-trained and many were well-educated, but damned few had even a basic knowledge of the mechanics of grammar, and syntax was a black box of mystery. Those who had been through intensive second-language training had learned these concepts in French, and I could discuss the nuts and bolts of their writing with them using the French terms, an experience that seemed to add insult to injury. As the editor in the building, all that was my job, and there were days when I felt like a human reference book. I vividly remember an up-and-coming artillery captain with two university degrees who could not name the parts of speech, let alone parse and analyse a sentence. How was this man supposed to improve his writing skills when he could not understand basic instructions such as, "Use the active voice" or "Make sure pronouns match their antecedents in number, gender and case"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:59 AM Charmion, we all know that most people (of whatever mother tongue) do not want to learn things that those in power tell them to learn. Explanation of the reasons may or may not do the trick, and so will "artificial" motivations such as the insect cartoon figures mentioned by Eliza. Material incentives, including school marks and career opportunities, only work in their limited scopes and are counter-productive outside it, as you describe. Now what do youngsters actually like to learn, even if they do not see the direct usefulness? Best chances are with abilities that are seen as prestigious. There were times when knowledge of grammar was among these abilities - whence the derivation "glamour" (no belated April joke!), but those times are gone. Speaking and reading foreign languages, even dead ones, still has a certain prestige, which can be boosted by methods of modern marketing, or ruined by obviously political intentions of the authorities. Prestige is transported by visible examples of success. The Channel Islands are positively proud of their bilingualism, since it is perceived as an attribute of success and independence. Alsace used to be bilingual as well, but youngsters no longer want to learn German well (including the local dialect). Communication across the Rhine works alright in French or English. A desparate mayor said on TV: "Learn German, so that you can compete with Germans for the well-payed and prestigious jobs in Switzerland!" Now I cannot give any detailed advice to Canadians, but these mechanisms should be taken into account. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 06:48 AM I suspect if there an economic advantage to learn a language beyond your main one, many would encourage their children to do so. There is in New Brunswick, where the bilingual nature of the province (especially in the northern sections) provide that condition. In many other parts of Canada, there are fewer economic advantages, except some government jobs (even many government jobs offer free language training for some dual language jobs, even if they never use it at work). Beyond that, I suspect it depends on the culture of a country (some European areas are cited) and the interest of individuals and families. My observation is some adults excel at second language skills, while others less so. Possibly Charmion's experience in some military trades reflects past deficiences in education in some locations and demographics in areas of Canada? I would expect this has improved in more recent generations? I have not had a similar experience in the varied work I have had throughout my career. Additionally, my son is in the military, has a University degree and has excellent English skills (I know because I used to proof his essays). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 03 Apr 13 - 11:06 AM I suspect if there an economic advantage to learn a language beyond your main one, many would encourage their children to do so.Such an advantage may well be assumed in most cases. Many employers appreciate general language proficiency, even if they have no use for the particular language. For example, good marks in Latin are considered an indication for both logical and cultural competence, even outside Latin America ;-). Parents who are aware of that usually encourage their children to learn, but as with maths and other subjects whose economic advantage is unchallenged, this does not always suffice to motivate students permanently. Youngsters watch their society, notably their peer group, for what they declare important with their "body language". Maths often lack such support, and so do most languages. The role of money in our motivation is often overestimated, in particular if it is only being promised for a distant future. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:15 PM ""Such an advantage may well be assumed in most cases."" While that may be so in some locals, (I remain unsure if this assumption is broadly valid or not, as assumptions tend to be "soft" in nature), I don't believe that many in Canada - the area noted in the title, weigh this advantage as you indicate. I suspect that learning English as a second language has also declined in Quebec throughout the recent years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Charmion Date: 03 Apr 13 - 02:17 PM Oh, Grishka, you are so right. Monetary gain (through employment security, assured promotion and broader career choice) is the bait actually offered to most Canadians of both major linguistic groups to encourage them to learn the other official language. At the same time, however, the rhetoric around bilingualism is all about culture, national unity and national identity. Obvious hypocrisy typically undermines popular response to official policy, and anglophone Canadians' behaviour around learning French follows that pattern. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 03:08 PM The economic benefits in learning a second language differs, depending on where you live in Canada, which unlike many European countries, covers a huge distance east to west (and North to south). If you do not work (in association) with the federal government - which has some requirements, are a French teacher or translator, or work in tourism, there is a low economic advantage of speaking French in BC, Alberta, Sask, southern Ontario, much of Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland. Actually, speaking a language other than French may be more of an economic advantage in some of these areas. As gnu noted, the situation in officially bilingual New Brunswick, especially the northern areas differs, as does areas of Manitoba. I suspect there are also some economic advantages to speak English in Quebec, since many market sectors, and travel destinations, outside the province (and to the south), operate in English. Often the federal government minimizes their requirement, by listing jobs that require French as French non-essential, and training successful candidates through expensive government sponsored language training (IMO, with a dismal success rate). While government lists bilingualism as a priority, it imposes employment targets based on whether an employee is a Francophone or Anglophone (mother tongue), with no targets for those who are actually bilingual in practice. (Bbtw, I have experienced Anglaphones "murder" the French language after being certified under this program, and also Francophones who murder English after being certified as bilingual. IMO, there is a big divide (and, yes, also negative attitudes) in Canada when it comes to English and French use - and I do not see it limited to English Canada either. I suspect much of the negativity in both camps comes not from the languages themselves, but from Canada's history - and as I stated earlier, it also involves politics and economics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 03 Apr 13 - 04:22 PM Just to make that clear: I was talking about the economic impact of learning a suitable language, compared with being lazy. And I was talking about market value, not political incentives. And I was not specifically referring to the problems in Canada, of which I know too little. It is another quasi-material advantage to be able to understand all one's national politicians and other authorities on TV. Swiss citizens appreciate that (at least with respect to German and French - speakers of Italian and Rhaeto-Romance cannot expect to be understood nation-wide). That is a benefit of "national unity" for the individual citizen, as opposed to the anonymous "nation", behind which one may suspect political factions with their own interests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 04:31 PM Grishka, I suspect it is "confounding" to attempt to analyze the thread topic and the related Canadian situation from a European perspective. I see few problems that Canadians have understanding their politicians (should they choose to do so). Generally, most politicians represent those with a similar language profile. Additionally, senior politicians tend to speak both official languages (when they choose to do so) and translation services are readily available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: gnu Date: 03 Apr 13 - 05:44 PM Ed... "There is in New Brunswick, where the bilingual nature of the province (especially in the northern sections) provide that condition." Ed... "As gnu noted, the situation in officially bilingual New Brunswick, especially the northern areas differs..." Ahhhhhh... youse got MORE Acadiens than us in Nouvelle-Écosse! And, there are shitload more in SE NB than anywhere else. They are not the %age as in the north... but at about 1/3, well educated, prosperous, I still have to hammer on the fact the mother tongue of 1/3 of the population of Canada is French. Anyone who ignores that FACT is either historically uneducated or... whatever This is a country. JOIN IT! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 06:32 PM I guess it depends on what you define as an Acadian gnu. I was speaking about Francophone Acadians, not Anglophone Acadians that are certainly around the Maritimes in numbers, many with French accents, but not speaking a lick of French. The number of the former variety in NS are much smaller than in NB, and are mainly in Pubnico to Church Point in southwestern NS, and in smaller numbers in isolated parts of Cape Breton. BTW, Nouvelle Ecosse was only adopted as an official French version of Nova Scotia a few years back. The view was, that it should not be translated, as it is not English. In the main city, the % of francophones (Acadians and otherwise) is too small to have the city listed as officialy requiring federal bilingual services through the standard procedure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 07:11 PM ""I still have to hammer on the fact the mother tongue of 1/3 of the population of Canada is French. Anyone who ignores that FACT is either historically uneducated or... whatever This is a country. JOIN IT!"" Firstly, gnu most of us are fortunate to lve in a country where we are free to speak whatever language we wish, and are seen as "no less Canadian" for doing so. Hopefully, I misunderstood your last message that some may see as suggesting differently? Before you drop your "educated hammer" on others, I suggest you check the factual francophone make-up of Canada from the 2006 Census. It is not one third, as you state, but is somewhere between 20 and 25 percent mother-tongue Francophone speakers. What is significant is the decrease in Francophones outside of Quebec - According to the 2006 Census, "4.1% of the population outside Quebec have French as their mother tongue, down from 4.4% in 2001". Interestingly, bilingual New Brunswick, where Francophones make up 33%, had the largest drop in Francophones of any province between 2001 and 2006. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 07:12 PM Here is a link to the 2006 Census I mentioned below: 2006 Census |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 03 Apr 13 - 07:31 PM gnu, belopw is some info. on Francophone numbers and communities in NS. You will see that the percentage is a mere 4 Percent, as opposed to 33 percent in New Brunswick. Also stated in one site is "Nearly 30% of Nova Scotia's Francophones were born outside the province. For the most part, they are Acadians from the other Atlantic provinces, especially New Brunswick". Francophones in NS Francophone communities in NS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 03 Apr 13 - 09:01 PM Of Alberta's 3.5 million, only 2% (61,000) list French as the mother tongue. Wikipedia |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 04 Apr 13 - 06:46 AM Ed T, 03 Apr 13 - 04:31 PM: I suspect it is "confounding" to attempt to analyze the thread topic and the related Canadian situation from a European perspective.Certainly true, and the same with, say, attempting to analyze the situation Belgium from a Swiss perspective. My points, not related to any particular continent, are:
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: GUEST,Grishka Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:15 AM P.S.: Looking at other countries, and/or back in history, will normally not lead you to a correct analysis directly, but it can help a lot to test a proposition. Very often the answer is "It ain't necessarily so!" As a Canada-related example, you may remember Michael Moore comparing the gun topic (another Mudcat pet) between the USA and Canada. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Ed T Date: 04 Apr 13 - 07:21 AM It would certainly not be inpolite to do so, Grishka. Your posts and knowledge are most welcome. It is just complex, given the countries English-French history (remnants of the early conflicts remain behind the scene). Some of the resistance goes beyond the normal personal, cultural and social benefits of having a multi language profile. The reality of geography, a changing society from immigration (many having a mother tongue that is neither French nor English) and the cultural and econimic influence from English neighbours are added factors. Some aspects of language in Canada relates to political unity. But, it is also a double sword, that has been and is used for the opposite purpose. If government spends a few dollars, will it make a major impact on human behaviour trends? IMO, it would not be an effective use of dollars. IMO, it is like trying to stop the power of the ocean on coastline erosion. Will more Canadians embrace multi-languages in the far future? Likely so. But, it may not be prediminately English-French, as the benefits of learning other languages increase. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: gnu Date: 04 Apr 13 - 08:51 AM As usual, Ed is write and I am wrong. Thanks for your time and for your effort in this regard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Charmion Date: 04 Apr 13 - 09:44 AM As usual, Ed, a masterful summing up. Would that we were all so careful and balanced in our argument. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Canada bilingualism- $1.1 Billion From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 04 Apr 13 - 12:17 PM Ed's summary is perhaps the best answer we'll get. In Griska's post in favor of learning languages, when I was in research, I had to understand the content of articles published by peers in Russian, German, French. We had the service of translators, but service was slow and expensive. Moreover, most translators were expert only in conversational language; they made mistakes when they attempted scientific translations. I was adequate in scientific German (studied at university), but I had to pick up a bit of Russian in order to tell if work in that language was pertinent to my own work. Never did learn any conversational speech in these languages, but I wished I had- especially when attending foreign symposia. Now, Chinese and Spanish seem to be the most important. |
