[lg policy] Quebec: Consensus on language needs modernizing

[Harold Schiffman]

Consensus on language needs modernizing

The problem with language policy in Quebec today -well, OK, one of the
problems -is that it's often more cheap politics than sound policy.
Sovereignist leaders know they can stir up votes by stirring up
emotions over language. Accordingly, we hear an endless self-serving
drumbeat of nationalist alarmism about French being "in danger," at
least in Montreal. In his thoughtful essay on the facing page Tuesday,
our colleague David Johnston pointed out that this "problem" is really
a by-product of the success of Bill 101, and of free choice among
francophones, and of something that's happening in metropolitan areas
around the world.

None of these factors can, or should, be reversed. Let's look at them
one by one to see why not: First, the paradox: Montreal is becoming
(slowly and slightly) more English, in a sense, because Bill 101 has
made it, well, incontournable to speak French if you work or live
here. Anglos who resented or resisted left long ago. Those who
remained began demanding more and better French immersion in the
schools. And as the established anglophone community became more
bilingual, out-migration dwindled.

Add some inflow from elsewhere in Canada (where French in schools has
improved) plus some inflow of anglophones from the U.S. and overseas
(whose kids go to French school), and you get a growing anglo
population -of people who speak more and better French!

Second, free choice: Francophone families are leaving Montreal Island
at a much higher rate than anglophone/allophone families, and so
Montreal Island is now just under 50 per cent francophone, although
the metropolitan area is still solidly two-to-one francophone. The
reasons for "franco flight" are a topic for another day, but surely
language by itself is not paramount, or even high on the list.

Third, a global phenomenon: Globalization has an unofficial "official
language" and we all know what it is. Head offices, branch plants,
international organizations, research networks, academic institutions,
global trade, all demand a workforce that can speak English, plus
other languages. As Johnston noted, refusing to be a global metropolis
is just stupid. Fortunately we believe that more and more francophones
are coming to see that English is today an opportunity more than a
threat. Naturally, francophones want their language and culture to
endure and flourish. The challenge is to find the "sweet spot" where
Quebec can have the best of both worlds, and to explain that to the
public.

Unfortunately this is not a campaign anglophones can carry out. But we
believe that increasingly, francophones are sensing the wisdom
expressed well by Gaetan Frigon, former boss of the Societe des
alcools du Quebec and of Loto-Quebec, in a piece in La Presse last
month: Francophones, he wrote, now must "put aside the idea that
English is the symbol of British domination, and embrace English,
since it has become the only international language." The alternative,
he said, would be a "francophone ghetto with no future."

How can Quebec move to a more sophisticated consensus on language?
Brent Tyler, in a French-language radio appearance last week, argued
that instead of restrictive policies, the government should seek ways
to bolster the prestige of French. That would certainly be more
promising than the mean-spirited Bill 115, and far better than what
the Parti Quebecois is talking about, with increasing vindictive
stridency, such as closing English CEGEPs to most francophones and
allophones. And what kind of panic-mongering led the PQ's Pierre Curzi
to try to equate Bill 103/115 with the War Measures Act?

By continuing to fight the last war, the sovereignists are turning
their backs on the way the world is changing. But they can't keep
peddling false fears forever.


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Consensus+language+needs+modernizing/3740371/story.html#ixzz13lVpBdIq

-- 
**************************************
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
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list