Esperanto in school?
February 4, 2009 - 7:22pm
Seeing that, according to Statistics Canada in 2006, only about 15% of Canadians identify themselves as being bilingual in French and English, and that about 8% of people in Nunavut know neither language well, do you think Canada's Ministries of Educaiton ought to allow schools to offer Esperanto as an alternative elective second-language, perhaps along similar lines to the Springboard2Languages project (http://www.springboard2languages.org/home.htm), as a way to make bilingualism accessible not only to the elites of Canadian society, but to all citizens?
What are your thoughts on this?
Esperanto is a language for nerds like myself to communicate in.
Go to lernu.net!
I believe that such a policy could hold promise on its own, but even be further enhanced by local governments that desire promoting the local indigenous language. For example, let's say that the local government of the City of Ottawa should adopt a policy giving hiring preference, all else being equal, to speakers of the local indigenous language (which I believe to be Algonquin in this region if I'm not mistaken), this would raise the market value of the language and thus encourage more people to learn it either as a first or second language.
In the long term, the freedom of schools to offer Esperanto as an alternative second language would help to promote it as a common second language in various parts of the country. At the same time, however, local policies such as the one proposed above would help to promote local indigenous languages as mother-tongues and possibly as second languages too. This combination would allow the indigenous peoples to develop their own languages while at the same time propagating a common second language that could put all Canadians, and perhaps all peoples, on an equal footing, whereby all people would need only learn two languages, one their own tongue, and the other the common second language.
At the international level, such a universal auxiliary language coudl also help to undermine the unjust language hegemony enjoyed by the current 6 official languages of the UN.
Esperanto is a language for nerds like myself to communicate in.
Go to lernu.net!
Saluton.
Could you perhaps keep your obsession to just one ridiculous thread?
Could you please stop stalking me? You'll notice that the content of the OP in this one is in fact different. To avoid any confusions, I'd decided to focus much more narrowly on education without integrating it into other policies. You'll also notice its focus on promoting indigenous languages.
If your idea of equality is 'speak what you want as long as it's English', fine by me.
I speak Esperanto like a native.
M.Spector:
Machjo: You have no interest whatsoever in the promotion of native languages. If you did, you would abandon your push for the expansion of the use of a eurocentric third language entirely alien to them and this country - which would only serve to further isolate aboriginal cultures and minimize open dialogue.
You have no interest whatsoever in the promotion of native languages. If you did, you would abandon your push for the expansion of the use of a eurocentric third language entirely alien to them and this country - which would only serve to further isolate aboriginal cultures and minimize open dialogue.
Oh my psychic friend. I support Esperanto based on the fact that it is designed to be easy to learn. I'd certainly be in favour of any other language that could fserve the purpose. In fact, Mandarin comes to mind. If we stripped it of its characters, used Pinyin, and got rid of a few exceptions such as meiyou, liang ge, and others, it would in fact be potentially quite easy to learn with few modifications. For example:
Chinese Pinyin - English
Wo shi I am
Ni shi You are
Ta shi He, she, it is
Women shi we are
Nimen shi you are
tamen shi They are
You'll notice that in Mandarin, the verb doesn't need to agree with person at all. You'll also notice that whereas in English we need to memorise the singular and plural pronouns separately, in Mandarin we just need to learn the plural indicator -men.
We find a similar logic with nubers.
Mandarin in Pinyin - English
shi ten
yi one
shi yi eleven
er two
shi er twelve
san three
shi san thirteen
si four
shi si fourteen
wu five
shi wu fifteen
liu six
shi liu sixteen
qi seven
shi qi seventeen
ba eight
shi ba eighteen
jiu nine
shi jiu nineteen
ershi twenty
sanshi thirty
sishi forty
wushi fifty
liushi sixty
qishi seventy
bashi eighty
jiushi ninety
You'll notice the following complications with English:
Eleven, twelve, and thirteen, fifteen, and eighteen (one t drops) must be memorized individually, and the suffix -teen replaces ten. Mandarin avoids these problems.
We find similar logical aids in other words too:
Mandarin English
nan male
nv female
ren person
nanren man
nvren woman
hai child
zi indicates noun
haizi child
nvhai girl
nanhai boy
You can see how many words can be created from separate parts. The issue is not with whether we support this auxiliary language or that, but rather that whatever language is chosen be easy for the non-elite to learn. In this respect, we could even revise the English language itself to be easy to learn, or even one of the aboriginal languages.
I'd be open to any language as long as its grammar follows a logical grammar without exceptions and which forms words according to logical combinations.
Now if you have an idea even more conformant with justice, I'm all ears. After all, of what value is constant nagging if you cant' offer a solution. It's always easier to criticise others' attempts at offering solutions than it is to offer them yourself, as you well know.
By the way, have you ever tried to learn a second language to fluency yourself? You talk of respect for other coultures. Talk is cheap. Have you ever put in the effort to learn a seocn dlanguage to as to try to meet your interlocutors half-way, or have you spent your life having your communications handed over to you on an English platter to your taste?
Do you have any idea how difficult and time consuming it is to learn a second language?
FN languages must be promoted and taught and that French and English are not optional. Beyond that, I think sign language would be the next language to introduce. After that I don't believe there is room for hobby languages even if they are philosophically interesting--
If you are a linguist, by all means learn esperanto, latin, ancient Greek, Middle English and pig latin but please don't pretend to suggest that replacing French for English language Canadians with Esperanto is anything but an offensive as well as stupid idea.
LTJ, let it go. People are allowed to talk about Esperanto on babble. The other thread is maybe questionable, but this one isn't.
A Plan for the Improvement of English Spelling (by Mark Twain)
In Year 1 that useless letter "c" would be dropped to be replased either by "k" or "s", and likewise "x" would no longer be part of the alphabet. The only kase in which "c" would be retained would be the "ch" formation, which will be dealt with later.
Year 2 might reform "w" spelling, so that "which" and "one" would take the same konsonant, wile Year 3 might well abolish "y" replasing it with "i" and Iear 4 might fiks the "g/j" anomali wonse and for all.
Jenerally, then, the improvement would kontinue iear bai iear with Iear 5 doing awai with useless double konsonants, and Iears 6-12 or so modifaiing vowlz and the rimeining voist and unvoist konsonants.
Bai Iear 15 or sou, it wud fainali bi posibl tu meik ius ov thi ridandant letez "c", "y" and "x" -- bai now jast a memori in the maindz ov ould doderez -- tu riplais "ch", "sh", and "th" rispektivli.
Fainali, xen, aafte sam 20 iers ov orxogrefkl riform, wi wud hev a lojikl, kohirnt speling in ius xrewawt xe Ingliy-spiking werld.
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
Questionable or not, does that give the right to insult? As the other thread is progressing, I'm slowly starting to realise that a misunderstanding might have occured about my intentions. It might partially be my fault on two points:
1. I might not have explained myself clearly or concisely enough.
2. I lost my temper at being called a bigot out of the blue, so instead of focusing on the topic, I ended up expressing my anger resulting in further misunderstanding. That's why I decided to created a new thread on the topic.
Having said that, I'd like to say that to avoid these misunderstandings in futrue, instead of just throwing out venom at random, that it might pay to confirm any possible point of misunderstanding and that might avoid further misunderstanding. I'll take the blame for my mistake, but I would ask that peopel reserve insults to themselves on all sides.
Is that reasonable?
And on another point. To take an extreme example. Let's suppose I were a Nazi. Would it be more appropriate to just start insulting me or trying to learn why I think that way so that maybe you could gradually educate me? Just another point to ponder, especially since I'm new to thees forums and don't know where the landmines lie.
FN languages must be promoted and taught and that French and English are not optional. Beyond that, I think sign language would be the next language to introduce. After that I don't believe there is room for hobby languages even if they are philosophically interesting--
If you are a linguist, by all means learn esperanto, latin, ancient Greek, Middle English and pig latin but please don't pretend to suggest that replacing French for English language Canadians with Esperanto is anything but an offensive as well as stupid idea.
I'm certainly open to new ideas. With the rate of success being so low in our second-language courses, to the point that some native Canadians learn neither official federal language well, what would be your advice?
Is there any other country we coudl perhaps turn to as a model we could learn from?
Seeing that Esperanto is now an elective second-language to fulfil graduation requirements in England, Italy, Hungary, Poland and Croatia, why could we not grant the same freedom to shcools in Canada, especially fro studetns who are less likely to go on to university? After all, we do not benefit, either cultrually or materially, from a language we fail to learn.
And yes, I fully agree that ASL, LSQ, and Gestuno should be legitimate alternative second languages to fulfil second-language requirements too. Certainly a sign language woud be more useful for a Canadian with a deaf friend or family member than the second official federal language would be. It would also make it easier for the deaf to make friends too.
And yes I agree that FN languages should be added as alternative languages too. But since those languages are so weak on the market, it makes it that even some FN don't bother to learn them anymore. The proposal I'd suggested concerning local governmetns I believe could possibly alleviate that problem. Also, comapred to FN languages, French and English need little help to survive.
And yes I agree that FN languages should be added as alternative languages too. But since those languages are so weak on the market, it makes it that even some FN don't bother to learn them anymore.
At least three of "those languages" are stronger than esperanto worldwide.
And yes I agree that FN languages should be added as alternative languages too. But since those languages are so weak on the market, it makes it that even some FN don't bother to learn them anymore.
At least three of "those languages" are stronger than esperanto worldwide.
But the quesstion is, are they learnable? For me, both English and French are useful because... wait for this, it might floor you... I know them! Had I failed to learn them, they would have been of no use to me whatsoever.
Now as for Esperanto, without a doubt it's not as useful as English or French, but it's still more useful for a person to be bilingual in English and Esperanto than to be monolingual. With students being free to learn Esperanto in Italy, Hungary, Poland, Croatia, and England, it can only grow. Why do you think their governments encourage this? Now the ball is in your court. Can you answer that question?
More ongoing resources need to be placed in second language education.
Schools need to be made to understand that this is not an optional, elective but a core subject.
Adults need access to second language education.
More immersion style opportunities need to be used rather than weak classroom methods.
More ongoing resources need to be placed in second language education.
Schools need to be made to understand that this is not an optional, elective but a core subject.
Adults need access to second language education.
More immersion style opportunities need to be used rather than weak classroom methods.
Once again, you deliberately ignore the point at hand. It is far more useful for a Canadian to be bilingual in Ojibwa and English than it is to be bilingual in esperanto and English.
Once again, you deliberately ignore the point at hand. It is far more useful for a Canadian to be bilingual in Ojibwa and English than it is to be bilingual in esperanto and English.
I do know Esperanto, though, and can say that schools in at least 5 countries that I know of can teach Esperanto to fulfil second language requirements for high school graduation, and the AIS San Marino requires all of its scholars to present their documents in both their respective mother-tongues and Esperanto, and it is funded by the Ministry of Education of San Marino. Add to that that a number of official news agencies and internet radio stations in Esperanto exist around the world, along with various Esperanto organizations, of a religious, political, commercial, and various other natures, along with various international conferences on various topics. So like every other language, Esperanto has its uses. But no, I'm not disputing that, just like Esperanto, Ojibwa has the advantage in its own domain, again, just like any other language.
And another point:
If I know English and Ojibwa, and you know French and Montagnais, you tell me how we're to communicate with one another.
Would it not be more efficient and just on a world-wide scale for me to know Englsih + language X, you know French + Lang X, an Ojibwa knows Ojibwa plus Lang X, and the Montagnais knows Montagnais plus Lang X, etc., with each of us being free to learn how ever many languages we want after that?
Of course this would be a long-term trend, but why not start now by giving schools more freedom to choose their seocnd language? When we force a student to learn French, we're also taking away his freedom to learn Ojibwe, Esperanto, Montagnais, etc. Is that equal?
Would it not be more efficient and just on a world-wide scale for me to know Englsih + language X, you know French + Lang X, an Ojibwa knows Ojibwa plus Lang X, and the Montagnais knows Montagnais plus Lang X, etc., with each of us being free to learn how ever many languages we want after that?
Pure conjecture. Lang X does not exist. And esperanto is not a reasonable candidate to fill its place. It is, in fact, after a century of artificial existence, pretty much a total flop.
No, Lang X doesn't exist. But I wanted to emphasize what though I support Esepranto, it's not really Esperanto per se that I support, but its qualities, which could potentially be found in certain other languages.
As for Esperanto being a flop, Italy added it to the curriculum in 1993, Hungary and Poland in 2000, and Croatia in 2001. As for England, I'm not too sure, but it would seem recently too. So Esperanto might not be major, but what direction would you say it's heading in?
Machjo,
I think we are agreed that Esperanto could be an alternative second or third or fourth, etc language choice for those who want to.
So what's the issue?
Somebody has to be forced to? (not!)
Some other language program has to go? (not!)
What is it exactly that you are proposing, other than somebody offer Esperanto somewhere where people want it?
1. I might not have explained myself clearly or concisely enough.
2. I lost my temper at being called a bigot out of the blue, so instead of focusing on the topic, I ended up expressing my anger resulting in further misunderstanding. That's why I decided to created a new thread on the topic.
You missed point #3, the most pertinent of the reasons for the 'welcoming' you received here. You introduced yourself with an attack on the bilingual institutions of this country, supporting yourself with lies and hatemongering from the well-known fascists at the CTF. Even when their "facts" were clearly discredited, you continued to insist that their fabricated "research" was the best available.
For future reference, there lie the landmines you might wish to avoid.
Machjo,
I think we are agreed that Esperanto could be an alternative second or third or fourth, etc language choice for those who want to.
So what's the issue?
Somebody has to be forced to? (not!)
Some other language program has to go? (not!)
What is it exactly that you are proposing, other than somebody offer Esperanto somewhere where people want it?
Wonderful. And again, I apologize for the misunderstanding in the beginning. It just shocks me that while this policy shift had occured in Italy as early as in 1993, in Poland and Hunagry as early as in 2000, and in Croatia as early as in 2001, that Canada, especially with its having four official languages shared among its federal and territorial governments, with not all Canadians speaking either official language, that Canadians have proven so slow at recognizing the benefits of giving schools the freedom to offer an easier second language as an alternative, especially in a Country like Canada where post-secondary education is not guaranteed for all. After all, even Statistics Canada has proven that both English-French bilingualism has proven out of reach of 85% of Canadians, and that both have proven out of reach of 8% of Nunavummiut. How Canada cannot recognize this is beyond me.
The other thing that I think had lead to further misunderstanding was my tackling too many issues at once. Honestly, I wouldn't mind shifting funds from official bilingualism to helping Canada's indigenous languages. After all, French and Englsih are in no need of protection in comparison. But I agree that I should have kept bilingual services as part of a separate thread.
The other thing was I'd I was taken aback by sudden venom spewed at me, and so reacted more in shock than reason.
1. I might not have explained myself clearly or concisely enough.
2. I lost my temper at being called a bigot out of the blue, so instead of focusing on the topic, I ended up expressing my anger resulting in further misunderstanding. That's why I decided to created a new thread on the topic.
You missed point #3, the most pertinent of the reasons for the 'welcoming' you received here. You introduced yourself with an attack on the bilingual institutions of this country, supporting yourself with lies and hatemongering from the well-known fascists at the CTF. Even when their "facts" were clearly discredited, you continued to insist that their fabricated "research" was the best available.
For future reference, there lie the landmines you might wish to avoid.
The CTF study was the best available because it was the only research available! Though there may be bias in it, it is valid to consider not only direct spending, but also spinoff costs of government policy. Though the CTF study might be quesitonable in its numbers (though we have yet to prove either way that it is biassed, to be fair, if you beleive in that), it is still a valid basis for future research (i.e. counting spinoff costs and not just direct costs). After all, any government law, even if it doesn't involve direct government spending, could still force the private sector to carry more costs. That is a legitimate question at least, and no other research (In Canada) has ever taken that factor into account. That being the case, as imprecise as the CTF study might be, it's still worth looking at it as a model for future research that doesn't limit itself only to surface costs. Profesosor Grin did this for the European Union. Does that make him a Fascist too?
To take another example. I remember a quote from Hitler once saying that the German people had to care for their children, the future generatin of Germany. Of course we can quesiton his motives behind this (more soldiers), but does that mean that we must deny that children are important because a Nazi said they are? Must we really be so petty as to blindly oppose anything anyone says based on what they stand for? I don't do that. I take words at face value. I couldn't care less if Mother Teresa says it or if Hitler says it. The truth is the truth. Again, the CTF study might be biassed. But that has yet to be proven, uless of course you believe in guilty until proven innocent? We go by what we have. That being the case, instead of blaming me for having to rely on such study, why not criticize the government for not having engaged in such study?
Don't you think it's pretty pathetic that we must rely on CTF for research since they're the only ones who've done it? Shamefully enough, that 's an admission that, as biassed and 'fascist' as they are, they're already one step ahead of the left (in Canada at least) in such research. In Europe, it's precisely the lef that's in the vanguard in such research. Why is it that in Canada, it's the right?
If anything, the left should be more interested than the right in how language policy might institutionalize injustice, or give unfair advantages to access to economic resources to particular groups. Or how inefficiencies in language education and policy lead to extra costs that could otherwise be diverted to UNICEF or other more crucial projects.
Just a point to ponder. Why is it that in Canada the right is in the lead in such researh with the left having no research of its own in this?
Still trolling, I see.
In the words of the song from "Damn Yankees", "Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets"... "give in". This one, not devil-driven like Lola, will atrophy. No sense going into rightwing think tanks and their funding. That one would never come to completion and we cannot drive a Faustian bargain here. But sometimes....
LTJ, I've already asked you to stop. Now I'm telling you. I understand that this guy triggers you and you don't like how he started out here. But I want you, right now, to stop attacking him. If that means that you need to leave the thread, or stop reading his posts, then I guess that's what you have to do.
Machjo, if you want to talk about Esperanto, then talk about it. There's no need for you to drag up old posts in the thread and continue the pissing match once the moderator has already intervened. Move on and quit the martyr routine, or I'll shut down the thread.
Machjo,
I think we are agreed that Esperanto could be an alternative second or third or fourth, etc language choice for those who want to.
So what's the issue?
Somebody has to be forced to? (not!)
Some other language program has to go? (not!)
What is it exactly that you are proposing, other than somebody offer Esperanto somewhere where people want it?
Wonderful. And again, I apologize for the misunderstanding in the beginning. It just shocks me that while this policy shift had occured in Italy as early as in 1993, in Poland and Hunagry as early as in 2000, and in Croatia as early as in 2001, that Canada, especially with its having four official languages shared among its federal and territorial governments, with not all Canadians speaking either official language, that Canadians have proven so slow at recognizing the benefits of giving schools the freedom to offer an easier second language as an alternative, especially in a Country like Canada where post-secondary education is not guaranteed for all. After all, even Statistics Canada has proven that both English-French bilingualism has proven out of reach of 85% of Canadians, and that both have proven out of reach of 8% of Nunavummiut. How Canada cannot recognize this is beyond me.
Irrelevant, as I have said SEVERAL times.
Official bilingualism is about providing government services in both languages. It has NOTHING to do with how many people speak both languages.
If you would stop repeating errors already pointed out to you, you wouldn't arouse such IRRITATION.
The other thing that I think had lead to further misunderstanding was my tackling too many issues at once. Honestly, I wouldn't mind shifting funds from official bilingualism to helping Canada's indigenous languages. After all, French and Englsih are in no need of protection in comparison. But I agree that I should have kept bilingual services as part of a separate thread.
The other thing was I'd I was taken aback by sudden venom spewed at me, and so reacted more in shock than reason.
You brought the "venom" on yourself by attacking Canadian bilingualism, and you are STILL doing it.
"shifting funds from official bilingualism"It is clear that your agenda is to attack official bilingualism, but you are trying to hide it in other 'causes'.That's propaganda, not discussion.
You attack official bilingualism but you have not yet even grasped its purpose.
You propose we 'substitute' some other arcane 'language' as our "second" language, tromping on the rights and feelings of people, and then you wonder why some are upset at you?
I repeat: No one disagrees that Esperanto (or whatever) can be offered to interested people. We strongly object to your suggestions that it
- replace heritage languages,
- steal funding from them,
- or that it BE IMPOSED on people.
Please read carefully, and stop pushing propaganda down people's throats.
I've never heard of Esperanto before and I already hate it, so your approach is clearly not working!
I agree with saga - good post.
Almenaŭ veraj Eŭropaj lingvoj evolu nature. Kial ..us iu volas paroli inventita Eŭropa lingvo? Don mi La angla kaj Franca ĉiam.
I think Klingon should be offered as a second language in schools.
You brought the "venom" on yourself by attacking Canadian bilingualism, and you are STILL doing it.
For the sake of peace, I won't argue with it.
"shifting funds from official bilingualism"
It is clear that your agenda is to attack official bilingualism, but you are trying to hide it in other 'causes'.That's propaganda, not discussion.
I take offense at your insinuation, but again, for the sake of peace, I won't argue with it so that we can move on to other things. But I would like to say that if the objective is to promote Canada's official languages, I've done more than 85% of Canada's population (according to Statistics Canada 2006) by actually learning both languages. If you have found a better way of doing so than actually having learnt them, I'm certainly open to hearing of your personal contribution to the cause
You attack official bilingualism but you have not yet even grasped its purpose.
Alors c'est quoi son but au juste? J'ai appris les deux langues. Quoi d'autre veut-tu que je fasse?
You propose we 'substitute' some other arcane 'language' as our "second" language, tromping on the rights and feelings of people, and then you wonder why some are upset at you?
Je m'excuse si j'ai offensé quelqu'un, mais je voudrais savoir comment j'ai offensé, afin de ne pas répéter la même erreur.I repeat: No one disagrees that Esperanto (or whatever) can be offered to interested people. We strongly object to your suggestions that it
- replace heritage languages,
When did I ever suggest replacing Canada's heritage languages? In fact, I support the freedom of Canadians to learn in their mother-tongue wherever numbers warrant (as I have, by the way; and if my English offends you, I'd be more than happy to discuss this with you in French, unless French offends you too?), and also support Official Bilingualism at the federal level so long as our schools continue to produce an 85% English or French monolingual population. In fact, I even support adding languages to the list of official languages so long as some of our schools continue to produce English and French analingual students up north. I simply believe that to produce a universally bilingual population with a common second language is more efficient than having four official languages and more just than ignoring the linguistic needs of those who know neither English nor French in a democratic society. I'd say that if anything, Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun are more a part of this land's heritage than English and French. They might not be part of my heritage, but still a part of the land's heritage.
- steal funding from them,
In economics we have the concept of opportunity-cost (i.e. the alternative opportunities that must be given up as the cost of something else). In this sense, we can argue that some opportunity-costs of Official Bilingualism are:
Increased time and funding for aboriginal languages.
More funding for bilingual education in schools, including in English and French.
More charity-deductible taxes.
Tax cuts.
More funding for anti-poverty programmes
etc. Of course the list is infinate by definition, since essentially opportunity-cost is ANYTHING else that the resources devoted to official bilingualism could have been applied to, but this is to give but some examples.
- or that it BE IMPOSED on people.
That what be imposed on people? All I was proposing is that schools be free to offer Esperanto or other easier languages as an alternative second-language for those students who might lack the necessary aptitude for second-language learning, which statistics indicate comprise about 85% of Canada's population. Do we have the moral right to hold a student back from becoming bilingual just because of blind tradition?
Please read carefully, and stop pushing propaganda down people's throats.
I've never heard of Esperanto before and I already hate it, so your approach is clearly not working!
Again, call it what you will. You're free to hate it if you want. And if most Canadians think the same way, then certainly I'd rather provide more funding for bilingual education to bring that success rate up from the current whopping 15%. Seeing that I'm not convinced that even that would bring the success rate up sufficiently, I'd also be in favour of maintaining Official Bilingualism so that the monolingual masses can continue to have access to government services during their travels. And, should extra education funding fail to get all of Canada's Nunavummiut to learn at least one of Canada's official languages fluently, then for the sake of guaranteeing them the same democratic and equal access to government services as their compatriots of European descent enjoy, I'd be in favour of adding Inuktitu and Nunavummiut to the list of official languages. Personally, I believe that justice ought to trump blind tradition at all times.
Now that we can agree (I hope) that money and time spent on bilingual education is a waste unless we can ensure a decent rate of success, that switching to an easier second language is not likely to get sufficient political support, and that making second-language education optional is not an option, the only rational solution left is to increase government spending considerably to bring the chance of success way up from 15% to at least above 70% before any school reserves the right to force a student to learn his second official language.
If we don't agree on this, I'd be curious to know what the objection is. And if we do, then my next question would be: where should the extra money come from? And since this would likely require more time spent in second-language lessons, what that time would be taken from?
Alternatively, if you conclude that the cost would be too high, and decide that it would make more sense to have students not be forced to learn a second-language anymore, then what would be your advice to provide equal access to the nation's economic resources to those 8% in Nunavut who know neither of these languages that we have decided are part of their heritage?
Another possibility is that I have misunderstood your original intent, that what you really meant was that the process of learning our second official languge, regardless of the chances of success, was in itself a part of our heritage. If that was the case, then I honestly cannot imagine what a student stands to gain, either culturally or materially, from having failed to learn a second language, but being forced to lern it anyway just because their father had to learn it too as an extension of blind tradition.
I'm certainly open to changing my mind if you can show me a more rational and just alternative to the current system.
Translation:
May at least European languages evolve naturally. Why? (unclear subjuctive suffix) someone want to speak an invented European language? English and French (root for give) me always.
What machine translated that for you?
This could be viewed as offensive to certain cultures, namely:
Koreans. Here is an extract about the history of Hangul (the Korean script) from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hangul#History):
Hangul was promulgated by the fourth king of the Joseon Dynasty, Sejong the Great. The Hall of Worthies (Jiphyeonjeon, 집현전) is often credited for the work.[5]
The project was completed in late December 1443 or January 1444, and described in 1446 in a document titled Hunmin Jeongeum ("The Proper Sounds for the Education of the People"), after which the alphabet itself was named.[3] The publication date of the Hunmin Jeong-eum, October 9, became Hangul Day in South Korea. Its North Korean equivalent is on January 15.
Various speculations about the creation process were put to rest by the discovery in 1940 of the 1446 Hunmin Jeong-eum Haerye ("Hunmin Jeong-eum Explanation and Examples"). This document explains the design of the consonant letters according to articulatory phonetics and the vowel letters according to the principles of yin and yang and vowel harmony.
Hangul was designed so that even a commoner could learn to read and write; the Haerye says "A wise man can acquaint himself with them before the morning is over; a stupid man can learn them in the space of ten days."[6]
Hangul faced opposition by the literate elite, such as Choe Manri and other Confucian scholars in the 1440s, who believed hanja to be the only legitimate writing system, and perhaps saw it as a threat to their status.[5] However, it entered popular culture as Sejong had intended, being used especially by women and writers of popular fiction.[7] It was effective enough at disseminating information among the uneducated that Yeonsangun, the paranoid tenth king, forbade the study or use of Hangul and banned Hangul documents in 1504,[8] and King Jungjong abolished the Ministry of Eonmun (언문청 諺文廳, governmental institution related to Hangul research) in 1506.[9]
So are you suggesting that their script is devoid of culture because it was rationally created?
And what about Bahasa Indonesia? It's a naturalistic planned language devised from a traditional Pidgin language that was developped by the Indonesian government through corpus planning to make it capable of serving all communicative needs of society. It's grammar and lexis continue to be enforced by the government today.
Or what about Turkish using the Roman script? What about recent spelling reforms to German and the current discussion by the Brazilian government to reform Portuguese spelling?
Does this all make these languages lacking in culture or unworthy of study?
To be fair though, I'm aware that systematic revision of national languages is much less common in Occedental cultures, and that is something to keep in mind, granted.
I think Klingon should be offered as a second language in schools.
I like the system in England whereby any school or organization is free to present a course plan for any language of their choice to their local education authority. If the plan is found to be pedagogically sound, then it is approved, and the school is free to teach it as long as enough parents show interest in it. That's what lead to the Springboard Project in England.
So if enough parents show interest, and a pedagogically sound course plan is presented, why not Klingon? Who are you to tell other people what second language their children may or may not learn? My apologies if I believe in freedom.
At this point I can only express my profound regret that I didn't protest more strenuously when my my father burned my National Lampoon collection (I'd have hidden the damned things if I thought he'd ever read them).
They did a fabulous feature on how to swear in Esperanto. Come to think of it, that may have been the one that drove my old man over the edge.
Anyway, what I wouldn't give to have that facility now.
And I'll second the Klingon motion. I want a language with some romance about it.
Now that we can agree (I hope) that money and time spent on bilingual education is a waste unless we can ensure a decent rate of success,
Uh ... no ... (economist eh?)
Money spent on bilingual or multilingual government services is not a waste.
It's a non-negotiable necessity.
To which more languages, and more funding can be ADDED, if you insist.
Now that we can agree (I hope) that money and time spent on bilingual education is a waste unless we can ensure a decent rate of success,
Uh ... no ... (economist eh?)
Money spent on bilingual or multilingual government services is not a waste.
It's a non-negotiable necessity.
To which more languages, and more funding can be ADDED, if you insist.
Well, now maybe we're starting to agree on something, though I'm not sure if it's for the same reasons. I agree with the necessity of bilingual services specifically because I see them as a necessary compensation for having failed so many Canadians. Had the Ministries of Education done their jobs competently, all Canadians would be fluently bilingual, thus negating the need for Official Bilingualism.
I'm just curious to know your reason for supporting Official Bilingualism?
As for the second part: adding more official languages, I'm not sure if you're serious or facetous in your comment there (it's not always possible to tell online). When I'd made the comment, I was partially tongue-in-cheek, but not entirely. I do acknowledge that the government has a duty to make sure all citizens anywhere in the country have access to their government. That being the case, if many northern Canadians are in fact failing to learn both official languages, then I'd argue on moral grounds that they ought to have a right to access to all of Canada's economic resources too. The problem I see with that though is the cost of maintaining Official Quadrilingualism nationwide, which thus explains my preference for the long-term promotion of a mommon second language that is within reach of all students. After all, it would seem cheaper to me to have everyone learn a common second language than to have them learn four languages if they wish to have full access to the economic resources of the country. But certainly on moral grounds I do agree (all humour aside) with the idea that should a government fail its students in their language learning, it then has a duty to compensate them by providing them services in both the public and private sectors in whatever their first language is. I was wondering what your thoughts on this are? Again, no sarcasm (I'm not accusing you of this and maybe you weren't sarcastic, but like I said, it's not always easy to tell online).
Also, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but I'd noticed that you skipped the point about bilingual education, which of course is directly related to government services. After all, if everyone succeeded in learning both official languages, Official Bilingualism as such would cease to exist since anyone coudl function in either language. So I'm just curious as to your thoughts on the relationship between bilingual education and how its success or failure might impact government and private sector service sectors.
I'm all for Esperanto being taught as an optional language in schools alongside other non-official languages. Focus on the two primary ones, but if the opportunity to have the program - it should't be passed by. I took Latin in high school, and I loved it. I could've taken Italian or Spanish. I also took extracurricular Cantonese. I love language. I actually took a great interest in Esperanto when I was in high school and early on in university. I took part in message boards and taught myself. It was fun.
Esperanto, due to its nature, aids in the acquisition of languages generally. It's simplicity and regularity allows for one to understand the baser makings of Indo-European languages. Also, it's wide use of linguistic 'devices' (I can not think of another word to say what I mean) from multiple sources allows for a teacher to illustrate to the learnee to explain their functions in a fashion that is simply logical. I think that is just as useful in school as Latin, Ancient Greek, Sandskrit, etc. I'm sure Machjo would be able to actually bring up the study that concluded that Esperanto may aid in language acquisition.
I like a lot of the symbolism in the Esperanto movement (the melon flag looks stupid!) and one can sympathize with Esperantists when they encounter those who choose to krokodil. Heck, I even think Zamenhoff was a pretty cool dude. However, I think that the belief that an artificial auxilliary language that can foster understanding between people and be implemented globally in the foreseeable future is simply a tad too optimistic.
As for being too optimistic, I agree if you put it in those terms. But if the goal is simply to add it as an elective language from which schools could choose, that is not only possible but being done already in some countries.
As for propaedeutic research relating to Esperanto, you can look up:
http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaedeutic_value_of_Esperanto
This research is already being applied by the Italian Ministry of Public Instruction (http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf) and was referred to as early as in 1922 by the League of Nations (http://www.archive.org/details/esperantoasinter00leagrich).
Unfortunately, Canadians are lagging about 90 years behind on this research.
Tidak betul. ;) You're incorrect there.
Indonesian (Bahasa just means language, so Bahasa Indonesia = the language of Indonesia, or just plain Indonesian) evolved from pasar Melayu (trade Malay), a simplified form of the language indigenous to parts of Sumatra and the Malay peninsula. It was effectively the "second language" of many people throughout the Dutch East Indies.
In the 1920s, anti-colonial nationalists settled on it as the language of resistance AGAINST the colonial state. It was developed by anti-government writers and in the course of a popular revolution and became a true "people's language" through the work of folks like Chaerul Anwar and Pramoedya Ananta Toer. In effect, what you had was an organic development, as part of an anti-colonial revolution, in which this language was spoken and written into being.
The state since independence has played a role, but not much more than (say) the role played by Académie française in standardizing usage, spelling etc.
Esperanto was invented by elite European utopia-seekers. Nothing against it, but it's utterly invented, so not really comparable to languages in Asia that have been simplified for easy use by ordinary people.
On topic, national official bilingualism is nothing to do with teaching languages, which is the job of provincial education systems. Official bilingualism is about the federal government ensuring that any Canadian can access services in either official language. Sure it costs, but that's a choice we've made a country, and many are very proud of the choice. Learning French or English in schools can't be mandated by Ottawa, only by the provinces. Ditto for Esperanto, Ottawa can't permit it, but if you wanted to lobby at the provincial level for it to be permitted, then go crazy lobbying.
Tidak betul. ;) You're incorrect there.
All you have to do is Google "indonesia" and "language planning" or "planned language" or "corpus planning", etc, and you'll come up with site after site. Since I wasn't sure which to start with, I figured that simply googling it would suffice to show how common it is. Here's just one interesting site on the subject:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=A9UjLYD9jVEC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=indonesia+%22language+planning%22&source=web&ots=JhtI6i4DZ0&sig=IdlIaCwXzS4zNs2MJ9nQOEhdve4&hl=en&ei=g2SMSbvNIYjKNL3nmLcL&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
Just go to page 9 of the book on that site, and it gets into quite some detail.
Esperanto was invented by elite European utopia-seekers. Nothing against it, but it's utterly invented, so not really comparable to languages in Asia that have been simplified for easy use by ordinary people.
The basics of the language were created by Dr. Ludwig Zamenhof, but it has evolved considerably since, especially in its expansion of roots. Hangul (the Korean Script) was created systematically by scollars, though granted that's a script, not a language. Though one thing Hangul, Bahasa Indonesia and Esperanto have in common is that they were all intended to be made accessible to the common population. One possible difference, though, is that Esperanto was intended as an international auxiliary language, but I'm not sure if Hangul and Bahasa Indonesia were intended to replace the mother tongue. In the case of Hangul, regardless of intent, it did indeed replace the chinese script, though in the case of Bahasa Indonesia most speak it as a second language, but I don't know if that' the intention or not. You might know more about that than I do.
On topic, national official bilingualism is nothing to do with teaching languages, which is the job of provincial education systems. Official bilingualism is about the federal government ensuring that any Canadian can access services in either official language. Sure it costs, but that's a choice we've made a country, and many are very proud of the choice. Learning French or English in schools can't be mandated by Ottawa, only by the provinces. Ditto for Esperanto, Ottawa can't permit it, but if you wanted to lobby at the provincial level for it to be permitted, then go crazy lobbying.
I can agree with that. I was just pointing out though that as long as provincial governmetns continue to fail their students, the federal government really has no choice but to provide bilingual services as a kind of damage control. It doesn't change the fact though that official bilingualism is essentially a tacit acknowledgement that the provinces have faile dtheir students.
Well, you'd need some actual stats to show that "the provinces have failed their student." (Please don't offer the CTF stats, since they are worse than no stats, in being based on lies and false evidence.) For one thing, few people in Ontario aged over 40 even had the option of learning French in school, when they were forcde to provide options by citizen groups like Canadian Parents for French. They failed their students before then by not providing the option, I'd say. To assess the rate of success for bilingualism in Ontrio, you'd need to base it only on those who had access to French classes, not on the entire population. As in Quebec, my guess is you'd find rates of bilingualism higher among the young than among the old.
As to Indonesian, you are misreading Sneddon, who is himself missing part of the story through his being more interested in formalized state structures than in lived experiences. He does not claim that Indonesian is an invented language, he simply notes that it has had standardizing authorities (though check the dates -- this is mostly the state playing catch-up to a chaotic, people-centred linguistic evolution). There is really no comparison to Esperanto, which emerged as part of a well-meaning universalizing/internationalist project. The Indonesian comparison is far more to French, as I said in making a parallel to the Académie française. (I really think as an Indonesian-speaker I know what I'm talking about here, if I may borrow one of your own rhetorical techniques.) Hangul I wouldn't know about, though there would be parallels to any shift in writing system, including those brought to Asia by Western missionaries (I wonder how much pressure for a new writing system in Korea acually came from the missionaries?).
But you can't simply lump together every language that's had an element of planning and standardization and say they're all the same phenomenon, that is to ignore all historical context.
Is official bilingualism damage control? I'd say it's an aspect of a deliberate state-sponsored vision of Canada as a country of two languages. That's a vision most people here would agree with, I think, and the apparent attack on that vision is certain to get people riled up. If you suggest dismantling it, you're attacking an aspect of Canadian nationalism, and that is not going to go over well among those who take pride in their country.
few people in Ontario aged over 40 even had the option of learning French in school,
Begging your pardon, but this old fart (I vaguely remember being 40) remembers the introduction of uniform teaching standards for French as core curriculum in Ontario public schools when he was still in primary school.
I'm certainly open to changing my mind if you can show me a more rational and just alternative to the current system.
Therein lies the rub: you are entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that it is the current system (as unpolished as it may be) that is far and way the most rational and just choice for Canada.
I'm certainly open to changing my mind if you can show me a more rational and just alternative to the current system.
Therein lies the rub: you are entirely unwilling to consider the possibility that it is the current system (as unpolished as it may be) that is far and way the most rational and just choice for Canada.
I hope you're not right, because if you are, then Official Bilingualism will always be needed since it will never be possible to attain universal bilingualism. I'm more of an optimist though, and believe that through a more efficient system, universal bilingualism would is possible. But this is just a difference in outlook.
I had sent a long response to Ze, but I don't know what happened to it. I'm not in the mood right now to type it all up again, so I'll just give the ling about language trends in Canada:
http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/english/census06/analysis/language/bilingual.cfm
It shows that though overall growth occured, among the young it has declined.
As for language planning, I agree that sinse we're talking along a spectrum, it's very subjective where we draw the line. For example, Ebonics is minimally panned if at all. English had undergone corpus planning of its scientific terminology in the 1700's under the Royal Society. French is more planned with the Academy. Indonesian a little more with government involvement. Esperanto more so with the basic grammar being planned, though the roots come from other languages. And Volapuk is more planned whereby even the roots are contorted. In the end, nearly all languages that ahve ever been used as langauges of science, education, government, etc. have had to undergo some level of plannng. It's just a matter of degrees. So yes, I can agree that Indonesian is not entirely planned, just like no language is entirely so.
few people in Ontario aged over 40 even had the option of learning French in school,
Begging your pardon, but this old fart (I vaguely remember being 40) remembers the introduction of uniform teaching standards for French as core curriculum in Ontario public schools when he was still in primary school.
Really? French wasn't available, even as an option, at my Ontario primary school in the early 70s. Perhaps it varied between school districts?
If bilingualism is down among the young, then better French language education might be called for. I don't see it as a reason to abandon the policy.
Machjo,
MUST there be an ultimate end or bute pour le bilingualism officielles?
From Wikipedia:
Official bilingualism is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws which give English and French a privileged status over other languages in Canada’s courts, parliament and administration.
Official bilingualism should not be confused with personal bilingualism, which is the capacity of a person to speak two languages. However, the promotion of personal bilingualism in English and French is an important objective of official bilingualism in Canada, and is addressed more fully below.
Exemples: Si je parlais que francais, et en reconnaissant que je suis un citoen Canadien, et j'aimerais vivres en Colombie Brittaniques, si il y avait pas de resources commes radio canada au BC our d'autres services culturelles ou gouvernemental je perdrais mon francais.
So if those services weren't available I would be in that example completely assimilated. That would be terrible! I don't think french only speaking canadians should all just stick to one province as that would be counterproductive to your cause. (not suggesting that you were saying that)
As another user had mentioned, I think it's kind of like the groundwork for the potential increase in funding to improve bilingual rates. However, this is not a process that happens quickly. Especially in a country like Canada that is spread out so much. You can't compare us to Europe.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
few people in Ontario aged over 40 even had the option of learning French in school,
Begging your pardon, but this old fart (I vaguely remember being 40) remembers the introduction of uniform teaching standards for French as core curriculum in Ontario public schools when he was still in primary school.
Really? French wasn't available, even as an option, at my Ontario primary school in the early 70s. Perhaps it varied between school districts?
If bilingualism is down among the young, then better French language education might be called for. I don't see it as a reason to abandon the policy.
I could agree to this if one of the following conditions were met:
1. universal compulsory education in French or English as a second or foreign language were a new policy that had not been given a chance to prove itself yet, or
2. universal compulsory education in French or English as a second or foreign languge had proven successful somewhere in the world, thus allowing us to emulate it.
Unfortunately, neither of these conditions can be met. Some might point to Europe as an example. But let me blow that myth aside with the following the following passage from Ulrich Matthias in 2002 (http://www.u-matthias.de/latino/latin_en.htm#6.4):
In 2001 a German teacher named Michael Scherm estimated that only 5 -7% of Germans can express
themselves well in English. Similar research in 1989 came up with much the same result. A survey by an
advertising agency which invited Europeans to translate sound recordings of three English phrases into their
native languages concluded that "the truly correct understanding of English [in Western Europe] fell well below
our most pessimistic expectations" being limited to about 6% of the population.
A more superficial question produces a more positive result. A press release from the European Commission
on 20.02 2001 reported the "surprising" information that in a survey of 16,000 Europeans more than half (53%)
"know a second language". However, an article published on the same day by the German news agency dpa
indicated a less rosy picture:
Foreign language shortfall
Half the citizens of the EU not competent in a foreign language
Almost half of the citizens of the EU are not competent in a foreign language. At the inauguration of
the European Year of Languages in the Swedish city of Lund last Monday, EU Commissioner for
Education and Culture Viviane Reding announced that a new survey of 16,000 people in the 15
countries of the EU had found that 47.3% speak only their mother tongue.
In 1996/7 a Commission of the German Federal Ministry for Education, Science, Research and Technology
investigated the linguistic competence of tertiary students. A detailed result was published on the Internet.
An extract follows:
In chapter 5 we indicated that the students' knowledge of English is not very good. Only 10% of them
have a good knowledge of more than one foreign language and there is no sign of a wish to
change. Only 5% of the sample would be interested in a course in one of the less widely-known
European languages.
And furthermore:
Returning to the previously-mentioned survey of students' linguistic competence we find that:
The need to deal with elementary errors in the usual language of communication, English,
demonstrates on the other hand how far we still are from the ideal image of the multilingual
European. This aim of European education policy, directed towards mastery of "an ever increasing
number of the Community languages" can be seen not only to belong to the remote future, but in fact
to be unrealistic, when one observes for example the role of English in the headlong evolution of the
Internet.
Though I believe it to be reasonable to give a new policy a chance, universal compulsory second-language instruction policies have been in place in both Europe and Canada for decades already.Plenty of compiled surveys conclude that all policies so far have failed. This might explain why in 1993 a decree of the Italian Ministry of Public Instruction (http://www.internacialingvo.org/public/study.pdf) stated in its conclusions:
There are, then, good reasons to call attention to the international language: good reasons ignored up until
now, or even hidden by deliberate misinformation.
This state of things has provoked the great, and probably serious, delay in understanding the cultural,
social, and political opportunity of putting "into play" a non-ethnic and authentically international language
alongside the others in our schools.
The international language is at the base of a more appropriate conception of plurilingualism in the
European Union and allows the elaboration of a new, more realistic language policy. It in fact:
a) educates to the construction of peace, making concrete the conception of belonging to a single humanfamily and a "world environment," rather than one geo-nationally determined and circumscribed. In a moment
of resurgent nationalism, sometimes in aggravated forms, spreading a means of international comprehension
which finds in the equal dignity of peoples and their linguistic expression one of its strong points, aims at
overcoming narrow national viewpoints which remain tied to the concept of nation even when there is aperture
to other countries' languages;
b) contributes, in fact, to safeguard European and global linguistic and cultural diversity;
c) allows transnational cultural and commercial relations in a common language, without discrimination,which can be fully acquired within the time spent in mandatory education;
d) facilitates, taught as Linguistic Orientation, the study and learning of national foreign languages;
e) avoids the predominance of one or two "major" languages in the teaching of possible foreign languages;
f) enriches metalinguistic reflection even in the native language;
g) allows notable savings of time and money, both in teacher training and in student work, with additionaladvantages for other subjects such as learning ethnic foreign languages (A useful study would be one which
examined the necessary cost, in time and money, for teaching and learning an ethnic foreign language
compared to the international language).
I think it's legitimate to ask ourselves why it is that the Italian Ministry of Public Instruction, along with its counterparts in Hungary, Poland, and Croatia, has chosen to abandon its attempts at universal comulsory education in the national languages and has chosen to add Esperanto to the list of electives. It's also worth noting the rationale presented for the Springboard to Languages project in England (http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf):
Essentially, the current Canadian model is based on the traditional model used in French and British elite schools in the 1800's, where they could guarantee the best teachers, materials, time, etc., which simply is not economically feasible in the univeral public school education of today.
So bearing this in mind, we could say that the curent system is fine in private schools or for children who benefit from an advantageous learning environment outside of the classroom or alternatively show intrinsic motivation to learn the language. But for the rest, no research yet has ever proven it possible to replicate the successes of the private schools of the nineteenth century universally in all public schools across a nation. Research simply doesn't sustain the claims.
It's time for Canada to learn from its counterparts abroad and apply the latest linguistic research to its archaic language education policies.
I agree on that. Our language education policies do stink!
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
Machjo,
MUST there be an ultimate end or bute pour le bilingualism officielles?
From Wikipedia:
Official bilingualism is the term used in Canada to collectively describe the policies, constitutional provisions, and laws which give English and French a privileged status over other languages in Canada’s courts, parliament and administration.
Official bilingualism should not be confused with personal bilingualism, which is the capacity of a person to speak two languages. However, the promotion of personal bilingualism in English and French is an important objective of official bilingualism in Canada, and is addressed more fully below.
Exemples: Si je parlais que francais, et en reconnaissant que je suis un citoen Canadien, et j'aimerais vivres en Colombie Brittaniques, si il y avait pas de resources commes radio canada au BC our d'autres services culturelles ou gouvernemental je perdrais mon francais.
So if those services weren't available I would be in that example completely assimilated. That would be terrible! I don't think french only speaking canadians should all just stick to one province as that would be counterproductive to your cause. (not suggesting that you were saying that)
As another user had mentioned, I think it's kind of like the groundwork for the potential increase in funding to improve bilingual rates. However, this is not a process that happens quickly. Especially in a country like Canada that is spread out so much. You can't compare us to Europe.
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
You do have some legitimate arguments there. Though we could extend the same argument to Canada's indigenous languages even more so (after all, while an anglophone or a francophone can have plenty of opportunities to use his language in Canada and abroad, Canada's aboriginal peoples have even less of an opportunity even within their own coountry). But of course we can focus on the word 'privileged' as chosen in Wikipedia, which I believe is a very a propos term when comparing their status to that of the FN languages.
Another point is that based on your argument above, Official Bilingualism would only benefit bilingual Canadians (e.g. a bilingual French Canadian in BC might appreciate SRC, whereas a monolingual French Canadian in BC will likely be on social assistance for lack of a job unless he's just going to wash dishes in a local French restaurant; and a monlingual English Canadian will not be able to appreciate SRC at all). So from that standpoint, Official Bilingualism benefits only about 15% of Canadians, and those most likely to have the highest income at that, based on statistics.
Now this aside, there might still be some legitimate reasons to keep Official Bilingualism, but that woudl still not change the duty of schools to concern themselves more with achieving universal bilingualism as reflective of the goals of a more democratic education system as opposed to one that restricts some access to Canada's economic resources to 15% of Canada's hierachy.
I agree on that. Our language education policies do stink!
Brian Topp: Our friends on the blue team seem to mostly focus on sticks, and not so much on carrots. ;)
My socks stink too by the end of a hot summer day, but that has not hurt anyone as long as my socks stay in my shoes until they get into the washing machine.
The problem with our language education policies, though, is that, as the Italian Ministry of Education put it in 1993:
allows transnational cultural and commercial relations in a common language, without discrimination, which can be fully acquired within the time spent in mandatory education.
As we can see from this quote, the Italian Ministry of Public Instruction takes into account, quite explicitely in an official document (granted the translation into English isn't official, but the original document from which it was translated is at least), that not all students go on to higher education, and that transnational (which in the broader sense can include between French Canadians and English Canadians as cultural nations) communication must be on an equal footing, suggesting that all citizens of a democratic country must have equal access to the economic resources of the nation regardless of their access to higher education. According to this principle, any French Canadian from central Quebec who doesn't have the means to learn English well, should still have the opportunity to reach fluent bilingualism in a common second language which would thus allow him to have the same access to BC's economic resources as an English Canadian living in BC. And of course this should apply equally to citizens from up north.
What I find so progressive about the Italian policy is how it integrates second-language acquisition policy so neatly with economic, foreign, military, and general public policy in a way Canada's provincial and territorial policies competely fail to do.
I recognize that the Italian policy is intended to reap futrue, not immediate, rewards, yet the fact that Italy's Ministry of Public Instruction has the audacity to not simply follow the status quo but to actively engage in changing it and redefining the future language environment simply contrasts it even more profoundly to the Canadian ones.
In fact, we can say that when we consider the economic aspect of second-language acquisition policy in how it can determine which segments of the population will have access to the nation's economic resources, or how its resources are to be distributed among the population, it's actually shocking that so many advocates of social justice have passed it by without giving it a single thought.