911: I've run out of ideas / Je suis à court d'idées

No doubt you've noticed that I have in the past year or so been blogging less and less (hopefully I've at least maintained the quality you expect!). Admittedly, as I was completing my MA, I was a more active blogger, regularly interacting with and influenced by linguistic studies. This interaction was the primary force behind the thoughts and ideas I noted on this page.

It's been just over a year now since my MA has been defended and I fear I've just run out of juice.

And so what does a baby linguist do when he runs out of ideas? He creates more!

I am happy to report that I have been accepted to pursue doctoral studies in applied linguistics here in Toronto. I'm of course excited to be given this fantastic opportunity. I am truly looking forward to spending the next four to five years back in the saddle learning all that I can in the domain.

How does this affect you? Easy: more posts. I've been lucky to attract a sizable readership over the years (THANK YOU!), around 20 to 40 hits per day. And, well, I am not about to lose you now!

I am going to retire for the summer, or at least only post on really juicy stuff. But come September, when my brain is once again full of items for discussion, I will endeavour to discuss them and get your feedback.

Until then, friends, enjoy your summer/winter wherever you are. I look forward to your visits in the fall.

AP

-----

Vous avez sans doute remarqué que les contributions à mon blogue ont diminué petit à petit cette année (espérons que la qualité de mes textes ont toujours pu répondre à vos attentes !). J’avoue que j’étais un bloggeur plus actif à l’époque où je faisais mes études de maîtrise, car j’étais davantage engagé dans la linguistique et par ailleurs influencé par celle-ci. Cette interaction a effectivement constitué la principale source d’où naissaient les réflexions et idées que je partageais avec vous dans ce site.

Cela fait maintenant un peu plus d’un an que j’ai soutenu et terminé ma maîtrise. Je crains d’être actuellement à cours d’inspiration.

Alors que fait un bébé linguistique lorsqu’il perd son inspiration ? Bien, il en cherche une source nouvelle !

Je suis très heureux de vous annoncer que j’ai été admis à un programme doctoral en linguistique appliquée dans une université torontoise. C’est entendu que je suis ravi qu’on m’ait offert cette opportunité exceptionnelle, et j’ai bien hâte de m’adonner au cours des quatre ou cinq prochaines années à l’acquisition de tout ce qui a trait aux langues minoritaires, au français en Ontario, à l’enseignement des langues minoritaires, à l’obsolescence des langues, etc.

Vous vous demandez comment cette décision vous concerne ? La réponse : vous pourrez me lire plus souvent. Au fil des années, j’ai réussi à attirer un lectorat considérable (MERCI À VOUS TOUS ET TOUTES !), environ 20 à 40 visites par jour. Donc, je n’ai aucune envie de perdre les bijoux que j’ai cueillis !

Maintenant, je prends une petite pause jusqu’à l’automne prochaine, répit qui pourrait à l’occasion être interrompu par des contributions particulièrement intéressantes. À compter de septembre, quand ma cervelle aura été imprégné de nouvelles connaissances, je ferai de mon mieux pour vous les transmettre ici, dans le but de stimuler des discussions et de lire vos commentaires.

Sur ce, mes amis, je vous souhaite un bel été ou un bel hiver, où que vous soyez. Je me réjouis de vous retrouver en automne.

AP

Should Immigrants to Canada Pass a Language Proficiency Test?

I'm starting to see more and more heated discussion (see here for instance) regarding the government's proposal that prospective immigrants to Canada should be required to take a language proficiency exam, in either French or English, before their application is considered/approved. Actually, the matter is the subject of today's poll on the Toronto Star's webpage. (FYI, at present 82% of respondents agreed that language testing was necessary).

Of course, I'm in no position to offer sound political knowledge on the issue (perhaps Idealistic Pragmatist has something to add?), the advantages and disadvantages of such a test, for example. I would like however to touch upon some of the related linguistic issues of language proficiency testing (okay, and some political stuff too).

ISSUE 1. It appears that there is (until now) a form of avoiding the test if you already speak one of Canada's official languages. This consists of a sample of writing showcased in a letter, which subsequently serves as the text with which immigration agents can assess your language skills.

WORRY 1. Citing Danielle Norris from the Toronto Star (May 3, 2008), "Written submissions are lengthy to assess and visa officers are not language experts [...]" No kidding! I mean, is there a focus on form or a focus on forms? The former, I hope! I think for the benefit of applicants, a more objective way of assessing native-speaker proficiency is required. A telephone interview perhaps? (The possibility of a skilled worker being illiterate is probably nil, so the telephone would be a safe alternative.) I also question objectivity in grading these tests when other varieties of English or French are used. If the candidate departs on occasion from the norm, e.g. regionalisms, rather than a greater focus on standard language, does this affect the grade? And in the event telephone testing were possible, how would accent be judged?

ISSUE 2. "All immigrants applying to come to Canada as skilled workers – even those who grew up speaking English or French – could soon be required to take a mandatory language test to prove proficiency in one of Canada's official languages [...]" (emphasis mine).

WORRY 2. Citing Stephen Harper from the Toronto Star (April 19, 2008), "[T]he backlog has passed 900,000, with wait times for processing averaging six years, giving Canada what he called "the dubious distinction of having the largest immigration backlog in the world." Given the volume of the backlog, and my desire to see immigrants come to Canada sooner than later, do we really need to test everyone, or do we need to test at all? I recognize the testing applies more specifically to skilled workers (it's probably safe to state here that there's no risk of admitting an illiterate dentist, nurse or school teacher!), but if they're skilled in their mother country and possess a post-secondary education, then they're clearly intelligent enough to take the necessary English or French language training in Canada to reach the level of required proficiency. So there's your remedy to the backlog!

ISSUE 3. Passing a language proficiency test in either French or English.

WORRY 3. Oh, this is a toughie. There are a number of areas in the world, parts of Europe, Africa, parts of the Middle East, a few island nations around the globe or even the odd Asian country, where the folk probably speak both French and English with relative ease. As concerns Russia, India, other parts of Europe, Asia in general, Australia, South America, to name a few, many speak English already or at least have achieved some degree of proficiency in English. The important thing to underscore here is that a prospective immigrant who can speak English, French or both is probably from a comfortable socio-economic position in his/her home country (if not of the elite, eg. Africa). In other words, he/she has benefited from access to these languages and are therefore in a better position to be admitted into Canada. My worry here is that perfectly competent skilled workers who were not afforded the same access to resources in English and/or French and who would love to immigrate to Canada are not applicable.

CONCLUSION. Scrap the linguistic proficiency test all together. It's inefficient and privileges the linguistic elite.

1. There are effectively no qualified government agents who can objectively assess a candidate's proficiency on paper. This is no different than me performing a medical exam.

2. Given point 1, it's safe to say no new resources (not in a conservative government, that's for sure!) will be dedicated to implement reliable telephone testing.

3. Due to the backlog of keen applicants, there's no time to deal with additional obstacles. Or rather, I think there are more important factors concerning a candidate that should be screened for (carrier of an infectious disease, criminal record).

4. Although a stretch, mandating a language proficiency test may set a scary precedent. It would be horrible to think that what may apply to only skilled workers now could in the future apply to all candidates. (Though let's assume the government isn't evil.)

5. Language proficiency testing excludes perfectly competent people from coming to Canada on the basis of their lack of instruction in French or English. These people deserve a chance too, and should not be discriminated against for such a matter. I believe that there should be instances where language training should be offered post- rather than pre-arrival (how to determine this, I don't know).

Everyone Speaks or Understands English?

This doesn't appear to be the case, or at least not so much in Bulgaria.

(The funny thing is, there's really no excuse here. The Internet could have made this girl's life a lot easier, had she done just a little research).

À la défense des français canadiens

Le magazine L'Actualité, source de nouvelles bien connue chez les francophones et francophiles canadiens, réserve dans chaque édition quelques pages au courrier des lecteurs.

Dans les éditions de février et avril 2008, un avocat nommé M. Jean-Pierre Latour, qui réside et exerce son métier à Ottawa, a soumis de méchants commentaires au sujet des français parlés au Canada, lesquels ont été publiés.

Il y a deux semaines, sur le babillard dans la cuisine située entre les éditeurs législatifs (mes collègues !) et les traducteurs législatifs (mes amis !), tous employés du Bureau des conseillers législatifs du ministère du Procureur général (Ontario), étaient affichées deux photocopies. Chacune de celles-ci constituait en une réponse soumise à l'Actualité par M. Latour. Celle du mois de février se lit comme suit :

La francophonie canadienne est la pire ennemie du français et du Québec. Le soi-disant français de la common law inventé à Moncton est une chambre à gaz de la langue française. C'est le chiac devenu loi. C'était pour la coutume française que Riel se battait, contre l'introduction de la common law au Manitoba. Démasquons ce génocide caché qu'est la rédaction française des lois fédérales, destinée à détruire le Code civil et la Charte québécoise et à faire de nous d'autres cadavres encore chauds, des dead ducks de la common law en chiac...

La deuxième, soit celle de l'édition de mars 2008 et dont le titre est "Le chiac est à Montfort", se lit ainsi :

La plupart des francophones de l'Ontario sont des "chiacophones", comme au Nouveau-Brunswick. Parmi les vrais francophones, il a surtout des Québécois. Monfort est un lieu ou s'expérimente l'anéantissement linguistuqe de la langue et du cerveau au moyen du "français normalisé de la common law", une langue qui n'est pas du français, mais du chiac de Moncton ("Montfort le miraculé"). La syntaxe française est anéantie sous le couvert de mots français qui ne veulent rien dire. Ainsi, les lois ontariennes ne sont compréhensibles que dans la version originale anglaise; la version française est à contresens de l'anglais, ou bien elle n'a aucun sens. Petit à petit, les neurones des usagers de ce français normalisé sont neutralisés.

Dans un monde parfait, j'aurais eu le temps de formuler des réponses défendant à la fois l'excellent travail que font mes amis et collègues (nous sommes tous impliqués dans la mise en disponibilité des versions françaises des textes législatifs à l'intention de la population ontarienne) et la cause francophone en Ontario et ailleurs au Canada. J'ai pris une décision : j'ai répondu uniquement aux commentaires visant les propos de M. Latour quant à sa définition de "francophone". J'ai fait parvenir, par voie électronique, mes commentaires au magazine L'Actualité. S'ils sont publiés dans une édition future, tant mieux ! Sinon, vous et mes collègues et amis de bureau seront les seuls à les lire.

Et je me cite :

Pour faire suite aux commentaires de M. Latour, publiés dans les éditions de février et avril, concernant l’article intitulé Montfort le miraculé.

Vous qualifiez à tort le français ontarien de chiac. Tout d’abord, dites-vous qu’il est absolument inutile de comparer ces deux variétés de français : elles n’ont pas suivi le même chemin d’évolution et connaissent des passés fort distincts. Si elles revêtent à présent quelques traits en commun, tels leur origine française, leur statut de langue minoritaire et leur lutte vis-à-vis de la dominance anglaise, il n’en reste pas moins que leur situation sociolinguistique actuelle diffère de façon très marquée.

Par ailleurs, il est insensé de laisser croire que ceux qui s’expriment soit en chiac soit en français ontarien sont exclus de la communauté francophone à laquelle appartiennent les « vrais » francophones, donc mis à l’écart de ce cercle privé de gens dont le français est moins influencé par la langue de Shakespeare. Il n’existe, et il n’existera jamais d’ailleurs, ni vrai francophone ni faux francophone. Vous commettez ainsi une faute grave en présumant que le titre de « francophone » ne devrait être accordé qu’en fonction de la compétence linguistique ! Ne serait-il pas préférable de traiter ces variétés de français comme étant égales à toute autre langue vivante ? Elles possèdent toutes deux des raisons d’être et des usages communicatifs manifestement valides. La preuve ? Il vous suffit d’observer leurs locuteurs qui, eux, reconnaissent quotidiennement à la fois l’utilité et l’efficacité de leur code parlé.

Il est vrai que le chiac et le français en Ontario affichent des signes d’influence provenant de l’anglais. Il s’agit là d’un fait incontestable que personne ne peut nier. Si je pouvais vous écouter parler, en qualité de linguiste, je vous assure que je parviendrai à détecter des traces d’anglais dans vos belles phrases d’avocat, des petits riens qui passent souvent inaperçus dont vous ignorez peut-être l’existence. Aucun locuteur d’une langue minoritaire au Canada n’est à l’abri de ce phénomène.

Avez-vous fait des études relativement à la survie des langues en contact ? Que savez-vous au sujet des langues menacées ? Ne lancez pas çà et là des critiques mal conçues, mais estimez plutôt merveilleux le fait que les locuteurs au sein de la francophonie canadienne aient pu s’adapter au fil des années à leur monde sans cesse changeant, entourés de plus en plus par l’omniprésence anglaise ! Le bilinguisme—qui implique d’emblée l’interférence—est signe d’adaptation. Pour résultat : le chiac, imbibé par une syntaxe et un lexique mixtes, recèle à l’heure actuelle des vestiges d’un bon français acadien; et le français ontarien, pour sa part, préserve et reflète en grande partie ses origines québécoises. Malgré toute épreuve, ils se forgent heureusement un avenir. Et en dépit de la pression écrasante exercée par la majorité d’abandonner, de rejeter et d’enfouir dans les profondeurs de temps passés leur langue ancestrale, l’ensemble des francophones minoritaires au Canada (non classés en caste, merci !) sont engagés à continuer de transmettre leur français aux prochaines générations, comme ils l’ont toujours fait.

Aujourd’hui, le français hors Québec continue à survivre. C’est un défi en soi, une chose à célébrer même ! À quoi bon les critiques venimeuses comme les vôtres ? À quoi cela sert-il de ridiculiser ceux qui s’efforcent de maintenir leur français, sans égard à sa structure. Soutenons-les.

Is French immersion a good use of school resources?

According to a survey in yesterday's Toronto Star, 53% answered no to the question "Is French immersion a good use of school resources?" and slightly less than half answered yes, 47%.

I was--not surprisingly--hoping for a greater percentage for the "yes" vote, especially for Ontario. Though I must consider in the "no" response a certain percentage of the population who is just anti-French period.

The results of this survey, along with a variety of other past events here in Canada, have made me begin to think that something truly frightening is happening in Canada as concerns English-French / French-English bilingualism. Something I might even qualify as disturbing, so much so that it has woken me from my unnecessarily long blog hiatus and incited me to share a few remarks on the issue.

Bilingualism has received much media attention in the past year or so. The Commissioner of Official Language Graham Fraser has slammed the conservative Harper government for its weak position on bilingualism, as witnessed after the Court Challenges Program was dismantled and the Standing Committee on Official Languages was muzzled and paralyzed (see here and here too). In addition, a multiplicity of attacks have rightfully been directed at the Canadian Armed Forces for their disrespect of French speaking military recruits (here too). The list goes on.

When I see a government show, at best, a mediocre degree of interest in its country's linguistic duality, it's no wonder 53% of respondents viewed French as a wasted resource in the educational context.

At the same time the survey was published, so too was an article entitled Bilingual, but only inside the classroom. The article provides a narrow-minded account of the benefits of French schooling in Toronto. The one line that strikes me is

It would seem that the dream of Pierre Elliott Trudeau and so many well-meaning parents is dead; a bilingual, bicultural Canada simply does not exist.

For starters, this type of negativity does not help the cause. I also think the reference to a dead dream is dead wrong. Linguistic planning takes time, and lots of it (though I admittedly worry about the use of French in Montréal). Bilingualism cannot develop over night. What we must do is continue to offer French education, to the greatest extent possible, in all provinces and territories, and pressure the federal government to increase accessibility to information in French everywhere, not just in federal parks, museums and passport offices. "But the demand isn't there," some say. Oh, bullshit!

There is little opportunity to speak French outside the classroom and they are not always understood when they do; there is little incentive to keep studying the language into university; the job market might value language aptitude but rarely requires someone to speak French every day.

In Toronto opportunities to speak French are numerous. I've spoken French at farmers markets, craft sales and even on the metro with complete strangers. When you're using adolescent high schoolers as the base data source, you have to consider that 1) perhaps there aren't a lot of opportunities to speak French for this age bracket and 2) high school students generally avoid anything school related outside of school! So to say that opportunities are limited is absurd. Si on veut, on peut.

Moreover, it is also absurd to claim that there is "little incentive to keep studying the language into university". I just do not have the time nor the blog space to document the number of amazing opportunities that I have taken advantage of now and in the past because I learned French: 6 weeks in Jonquière, QC; 3 months in Québec City; 8 months in Chicoutimi, QC; a BA in French and an MA in French Linguistics; and numerous lucrative bilingual positions in Alberta and Ontario, from translating to teaching. When I finished my BA in 2000, I got a job making $42K a year--a dream salary for any new graduate. And when I finished my MA this year, I started making $52K, and I hadn't even finished yet!

And I really don't understand the reference to frequency of French use in the workplace. I personally have never been hired in a bilingual position and not had other bilingual coworkers to talk to in French. Again, another generic, if not false, assertion.

It is absolutely true that there has been "an unrealistic expectation of what French immersion should do". It is too often assumed that French schooling will create pseduo-franco students. I wrote a paper on minority education and learned that early French immersion students in Canada achieve, by grade 6, native-like abilities in written and oral comprehension (Lapkin, S., Swain, M., Argue, V. (1983)), though do not score so high when speaking or writing (both skills being exceptionally difficult, even for super advanced second language speakers). I'd say that's a pretty good start at the very least. And to call attention to the "whispered English [floating] through the air" is laughter inducing. Show me any bilingual person--high school student or not--who DOES NOT code switch and I'll give you my next year's salary.

So what's to be done? Let me briefly summarize this. Do not be discouraged and assume French immersion represents poor use of school resources. Do not let yourself be seduced by articles claiming French immersion is failing because students whisper English in class. Do not believe, not for a fraction of a second, that there is even one disadvantage to learning French in Canada. Do not follow into the current federal government's negligent behaviour regarding French in Canada. Do not give up on a bilingual, bicultural Canada.

I have experienced, lived and witnessed the benefits of being a bilingual Canadian. Absolutely nobody is going to convince me that French in this country is useless or passé.

Enduring Voices: Saving Disappearing Languages

National Geographic has a wonderful page dedicated to the hundreds of the world's languages that are facing imminent death. By their report, 2 languages are lost every month. Here you can find an interactive map which offers information on numerous threatened languages on each continent. The page starts off with some background information surrounding the catastrophic fate of threatened languages, and explains the impact of their loss:

Losing Our World's Languages

Every 14 days a language dies. By 2100, more than half of the more than 7,000 languages spoken on Earth—many of them never yet recorded—will likely disappear, taking with them a wealth of knowledge about history, culture, the natural environment, and how the human brain works.

National Geographic's Enduring Voices Project strives to preserve endangered languages by identifying language hotspots—the places on our planet with the most unique, poorly understood, or threatened indigenous languages—and documenting the languages and cultures within them.

Just to give you an example, if you click on the Central Sibera tag of the interactive map, you'll discover a language called Tofa, which is "now spoken by fewer than 30 people, all quite elderly. Traditionally, the Tofa people herded reindeer, hunted, and gathered. Their language includes complex classifications that allowed reindeer herders to pack a density of meaning into a single word. For example, the word döngür means 'male domesticated reindeer in its third year and first mating season, but not ready for mating.' Now most of the Tofa people speak Russian, which has no equivalents for words like döngür."

I don't know how many chances in life I personally would ever have need for a word describing a male domesticated reindeer in its third year and first mating season, but not ready for mating. Nevertheless, I appreciate Tofa's conciseness and, on occasion, wished English could be as concise.

I encourage you to visit the page and see what National Geographic is doing in the fight against language loss.

Linguistic karma: Y thorn

I'm currently reading James Essinger's Spell Bound: The Surprising Origins and Astonishing Secrets of English Spelling. Although my linguistic interests pertain mostly to French, I do have to say this book provides for some really fascinating reading about English orthography. Plus, it was a gift from my great friend Sandra, so how could I just let the book collect dust?

While on my way home on the semi-trusty Toronto subway, I found a few passages (p. 102) that explained an orthographic practice I had just (eerily) observed for the first time last week at a cemetery in Salem, Massachusetts.

Take a look at this picture:



If you can't discern the writing, it says:

HERE LYETH BURIED
Ye BODY OF
FRANCIS WAINWRIGHT SEN.
AGED 76 YEARES
DECEASED Ye 19 of MAY
1699

Were you like me and reading "yee" for "Ye"? Well then you too are wrong. According to Mr. Essinger, who previously describes in some detail the use of eth (ð) and thorn (ƥ),

The "Y thorn" is occasionally found in print as late as the 18th century, when it was finally entirely superseded by th. But it was sometimes seen in handwriting in the 19th century.

You can see examples of the Y thorn today on gravestones dating until around the first decade of the 19th century. The Y thorn survived on gravestones a little later than it did in print. This was probably because stonemasons carving gravestones found the Y thorn useful as it took up less space horizontally than th. They often made the word "the" by carving the Y thorn in the bottom half of the space available for the word and then by adding an e in the top half of the space.

By the early 19th century, the Y thorn had by and large vanished from gravestones. But it still survives today in one context: It is used to create an impression of mock antiquity in the names of pubs, restaurants and cafes which, no matter how new they might be, wish to appear venerable, traditional and archaic. When you see a sign saying, for example, "Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" (here the extra e's and the doubled p consonant contribute to the impression of spurious antiquity), the "Ye" does not mean "ye" (the old plural form of "you", still used in some hymns and carols) but is in fact our old friend the Y thorn. And so here "Ye" means, simply, "The" and should be pronounced like that.

Destiny made it that I discover "Ye" and the linguistic explanation of it within a week. This after an unsuspecting discovery at a graveyard in Salem, MA, of all places. Spooooooooky.