I was surprised to read this morning an article found in LaPresse in which Pauline Marois, PQ leader, was discussing the subject of bilingualism in the
Here's what she said:
"D'abord, et on semble l'oublier, que nos enfants parlent, écrivent et lisent leur langue maternelle avec plus de rigueur. Comment? En faisant en sorte, de la première à la quatrième année, que ce soit le français qu'ils apprennent, et le français seulement, pour que, avant de savoir les mots d'une autre langue, ils soient capables d'écrire, de lire, d'épeler la leur."
Far from approving her statement, I ask myself if Mme Marois is attacking the right subject; thus meaning "is it at the expense of English classes that we should teach more French in order for our students to have a better quality of their L1 speaking, writing and reading abilities?" Will teaching more French and less English help our students become more educated (linguistically speaking) or should we rather focus on the reasons why our students' level of French is decreasing.
This is once again, another classic case where governments take action without evaluating the positive aspects that were already present prior to their decision.
QUESTION OF DISCUSSION
- Do you consider that Mme Marois' statement is based on the linguistic protectionist point of view that Law 101 is intended to defend?
- Do you also believe that she is addressing the right problem?
For a full transcript of this article, please visit:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/article/20080213/CPOPINIONS02/802130741/6732/CPOPINIONS
2 comments:
Hi Simon,
First of all, congratulations for your idea of bringing real news events in the culture class, it really feels like some fresh air!
As for the question you ask, here is my opinion on it. Obviously, Marois is presenting the problem in the protectionist view you mention. As leader of a party vowing to bring Québec to the state of country, it would be contradictory to do otherwise. However, I must say that I think she is bringing an interesting point to the discussion. I have been waiting a long time to hear a politician say the obvious: our children need to become bilingual. It may be one of our only hope of securing a prosperous future for Québec against the growing economies of China and especially India. There are many ways to achieve this goal and the more people will talk about it, the better chances we have that this dream will become one day a reality.
Hey Simon!!
Here is what I think. I think that Mme Marois is only looking for excuses for an ongoing “problem” and school is not that problem, neither are children. I come from a family with an English & French background, that is, I’ve always ONLY spoken English with my father and always ONLY spoken French with my mother and I can proudly say that I am perfectly bilingual.
In my opinion, language is not like any other subject and I have always been a fair believer of “the more you can learn the better” and also “the sooner, the better”. I think that everyone, politicians, teachers, parents, etc., seem to underestimate children and their learning capacities; when a toddler learns to walk, does he stop eating? I believe that is the problem; the tendency to think that, because a child learns a second language, his first language may disappear or its level may decrease, which is completely false.
In addition, I think that it’s not because a child’s first contact with English is in fourth grade, that his proficiency in French will be higher and it certainly will not determine which language the child will choose to employ or favor in a near future. On the contrary, I think, as they get older and see how important the English language is, will they not be frustrated that they haven’t learned English before? I mean, isn’t the number of ESL classrooms for adult learners growing more and more? Hasn’t the point been made that having English as either an L1 or an L2 opens a world of possibilities to any human being? This doesn’t mean the extinction of French, especially not in the province of Quebec.
Sara Ann Sexton
Post a Comment