[lg policy] Canada: Employees lose Via Rail language policy challenge

Sat Jun 19 10:47:41 UTC 2010

Re: 'Pakeha (non-Maori) speaks Maori: how wonderful', I see your point but this would only be the attitude among a very small proportion of New Zealanders, because:

a) some Maori don't appreciate Pakeha speaking Maori (bad experiences in the past, suspicion about motivations, feeling that Pakeha are trying to take over the language like they took over the land, discomfort about Pakeha being able to speak Maori when most Maori cannot, etc).  

b) many (perhaps most) Pakeha not only wouldn't view it as a 'wonderful' thing than Pakeha could speak Maori, because they see the language as 'useless', 'dying', 'only spoken by 0.00000001% of the world's population', etc, but would actually dislike it - because perceptions of the language being valued by other Pakeha would seem to signify some kind of a power shift in the status of this previously (and still) oppressed language, in comparison to English.  It's like the English Only movement in the USA - members of powerful groups often feel threatened by minority languages even when those languages pose no objective threat at all.  Resistance is a big part of the picture.

So the only ones who would actually think it 'wonderful' for a Pakeha person to speak Maori are a small proportion of non-Maori New Zealanders with positive attitudes towards the Maori language, and a certain proportion of Maori New Zealanders who think of the language as something that should be available to all.  For these people, sure, 'wonderful', for the rest the very opposite.  

Maybe this is particularly the case with national indigenous languages that have been caught up in power struggles with colonial majority languages for centuries - I expect more New Zealanders would find it cool for a New Zealander to be able to speak Bengali for example.

But I think this is a general phenomenon regarding the attitudes of majority language speakers towards minority languages, and it is more or less what I wrote my PhD about:

http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/handle/10063/687 

Julia

________________________________
From: Anthea Fraser Gupta <A.F.Gupta at leeds.ac.uk>
To: Language Policy List <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
Sent: Sat, 19 June, 2010 12:06:18 PM
Subject: RE: [lg policy] Canada: Employees lose Via Rail language policy challenge

Yes to both Julia and Stan. Most people learn languages because they need them, and therefore the languages of the powerful are more likely to be learned. Where multiple languages are needed, they get acquired.

But I don't agree that members of powerful groups lose power by speaking another language. On the contrary...

As a general rule, if a member of a  lower prestige group (say, a group associated with recent migration to a place, or an 'indigenous minority') speaks the boss language that's routine, but if a boss person speaks the lower group's language, that's praiseworthy. Compare, for example:

British Bengali speaks Bengali and English ("well, obviously")
White English person speaks Bengali and English ("wonderful -- how clever")

Maori speaks Maori and English ("well, obviously -- nice that they've kept their ancestral language")
Pakeha speaks Maori and English ("wonderful!").

Just supply your own examples.....

Anthea

*     *     *     *     *
Anthea Fraser Gupta (Dr)
School of English, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT
<www.leeds.ac.uk/english/staff/afg<http://www.leeds.ac.uk/english/staff/afg>>
*     *     *     *     *

________________________________
From: lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu [lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Julia deBres [juliadebres at yahoo.com]
Sent: 16 June 2010 06:58
To: Language Policy List
Subject: Re: [lg policy] Canada: Employees lose Via Rail language policy challenge

Isn't it just that members of powerful groups are less likely to accommodate linguistically to members of less powerful groups?

I'm not saying Francophones are powerless, but whatever the status of French in Quebec, French speakers are up against the huge national and international prestige of English, which gives them a reason to accommodate and English speakers a reason not to try to accommodate.

It seems the same everwhere:

On the national level, Maori New Zealanders are more likely to speak English than other New Zealanders are likely to speak Maori
On the international level, (I understand) Polish people are more likely to speak German than Germans are to speak Polish

<Less powerful group> is more likely to speak <powerful language> than <powerful group> is likely to speak <less powerful language>

And it's not just that the English speakers have less of an incentive to accommodate, it's also that they are likely to experience resistance to doing it - because part of being in the powerful group is working to retain that advantage and accepting a need to learn French would feel like letting a little part of that power go.

________________________________
From: Stan-sandy Anonby <stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org>
To: Language Policy List <lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>; Dave Sayers <dave.sayers at cantab.net>
Sent: Wed, 16 June, 2010 1:01:20 AM
Subject: Re: [lg policy] Canada: Employees lose Via Rail language policy challenge

Good points, Dave,

You're right. Language learning is difficult. Few people like language learning.

Just that the  French people, despite their anti-English laws, are far more bilingual than the anglophones. It's just as difficult for them to learn English as it is for us to learn French. And Quebec's laws make it very hard for them to go to English immersion schools. In English Canada, French immersion schools are free and ubiquitous. Yet Quebecois often learn English, and we very seldom speak French.

Stan

On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:57:31 +0100
Dave Sayers <dave.sayers at cantab.net<mailto:dave.sayers at cantab.net>> wrote:
>Tricky one this, and echoes many similar cases around the world. My main
>problem (from a purely academic point of view!) is the assumption that
>language learning is easy enough to do - and, more to the point, equally
>easy for everyone. I'm not just talking about the 'critical period' of
>language acquisition, but that some people are cognitively not as well
>equipped for learning second languages, either due to specific learning
>difficulties (which often go undiagnosed, e.g. dyslexia) or just through
>regular variation in the ability to learn languages, not to mention
>confidence in performing your newly acquired language.
>
>There's also a class issue of sorts here. Even if employees are
>supported in learning French (or whatever other language in other
>cases), I'm fairly sure there would be homework. Would that be easier or
>harder in a poor household, where there might be all sorts of other
>pressures? What about people who have responsibilities outside their
>working hours, like unpaid care? These kinds of details can be glossed over.
>
>Just to be clear, I'm not arguing on either side of this argument. As I
>understand it there are a good deal of monolingual francophones in
>Canada, which does create a more convincing case for requiring French
>language proficiency in certain jobs (unlike other cases where that
>rationale is missing, e.g. Wales). Still, I'd stick my neck out and
>suggest it's not always about disinterest or distaste towards language
>learning (though no doubt that's can be a factor).
>
>Dave
>
>
>--
>Dr. Dave Sayers
>Honorary Research Fellow
>School of the Environment and Society
>Swansea University
>d.sayers at swansea.ac.uk<mailto:d.sayers at swansea.ac.uk>
>http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers
>
>
>
>
>On -10/01/37 20:59,  wrote:
>> <pre wrap>
>> I'm Canadian. But on an emotional level, I just don't understand why
>> my fellow anglos fight so hard not to speak French. I'm sure Via gives
>> its employees all sorts of opportunity to learn the language. Why
>> isn't this viewed as a boon, a privilege?
>>
>> I guess it's for two reasons:
>> 1) Most people dislike learning languages that they really don't need
>> to use.
>> 2) Most people are only motivated to learn languages higher up the
>> prestige ladder.
>>
>> Stan Anonby
>>
>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:18:31 -0400
>>  Harold Schiffman <hfsclpp at gmail.com<mailto:hfsclpp at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> </pre><blockquote type=cite><pre wrap>
>> Employees lose Via Rail language policy challenge
>>
>> James Kosowan/Canwest News Service
>>
>>
>> Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2009
>>
>> OTTAWA -- Five Via Rail employees have lost a court battle claiming
>> they should not have to speak French to work on routes in Western
>> Canada because there are already enough bilingual employees to pick up
>> the slack. Federal Court Justice Luc Martineau dismissed the veteran
>> employees’ quest for financial compensation for the wages they say
>> they lost because they were denied the most senior service jobs. The
>> unilingual employees, who have all worked at Via for 24 years or more,
>> are based in Winnipeg and Vancouver.
>>
>> The workers unsuccessfully challenged Via’s requirement for
>> bilingualism for onboard service staff on the Western Transcontinental
>> route between Toronto and Vancouver, which mainly serves Canadian and
>> foreign tourists. “Via is an important instrument of government policy
>> in transportation, employment and promotion of linguistic duality and
>> bilingualism in Canada,” wrote Justice Martineau. A francophone
>> travelling in Western Canada should have the same entitlement to
>> service and emergency instructions in French, just as a unilingual
>> anglophone travelling in Quebec would expect service in English,
>> Justice Martineau said.
>>
>> The rulings were released Wednesday, less than one month after the
>> railway came under fire following complaints emergency evacuation
>> instructions had only been given in English, angering some francophone
>> passengers travelling from Toronto to Ottawa. Via, a federal Crown
>> corporation, adopted the bilingualism requirement for new employees in
>> 1986 and the staffers say they have missed out on promotions and some
>> were not given French language training to achieve bilingual status.
>> They also argued that 75% of employees on the Western Transcontinental
>> are bilingual, which ensures services can be provided in both official
>> languages without affecting the futures of the unilingual workers. The
>> judge noted that Via disputes the number.
>>
>> The employees were seeking, among other things, monetary compensation
>> for lost wages and pension benefits and damages for what some
>> described as “humiliation and embarrassment.”  The judge handed down
>> five separate rulings, but he noted they affected dozens of other
>> complainants. The five employees who challenged Via’s language policy
>> in court were Mark Collins, Brian Norton, Margaret Temple, and Wendy
>> Seesahai, who are all based in Winnipeg, and Brenda Bonner, who lives
>> in Vancouver. They were seeking varying amounts in compensation and
>> other damages. The highest claim came from Seesahai, who wanted
>> $150,000.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Employees+lose+Rail+language+policy+challenge/1976879/story.html#ixzz0qkaxeR94
>>
>> --
>> **************************************
>> N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to
>> its members
>> and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner
>> or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents.
>> Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal,
>> and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message.
>> A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well.  (H. Schiffman,
>> Moderator)
>>
>> For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to
>> https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/
>> listinfo/lgpolicy-list
>> *******************************************
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
>> lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu<mailto:lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
>> To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format:
>> https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
>> </pre></blockquote><pre wrap>
>>
>>
>> </pre></body>
>> </html>
>> </html>
>_______________________________________________
>This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
>lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu<mailto:lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
>To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu<mailto:lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu>
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lgpolicy-list/attachments/20100619/51078222/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list