Language Prejudist Attitudes

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

Post Reply
wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Language Prejudist Attitudes

Post by wjserson » Wed Apr 07, 2004 12:07 pm

I decided to post a new thread that was inspired by a statement made in the Ottawa Citizen today :

"Having been raised as a boy in Paris, every time that I walk down Sparks Street and hear the lunchtime chatter, the Parisian phrase 'Ils bavardent comme des vaches espanoles' ('they chatter like Spansih cows') is drawn strongly to mind to describe people who speak in a strong non-comprehensible 'argot'."

pA17, the Ottawa Citizen, April 7th 2004

Having made such attitudes a part of my favorite linguistic topics (those that are unfounded, or based purely on subjective feelings, with no scientific or factual evidence to back them up), I'm fascinated by this statement. Such attitudes by anglophones are quite common in Canada.

How do you feel about these types of points of view regarding post-colonial dialects of English, French, Spanish, or examples of creoles, etc ? Are they justified at all ? Any examples ? What does the above quote tell you?

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:45 pm

My apologies. To be specific, the author of the letter is calling French Canadians who take part in discussions outside "Spanish Cows" and saying that their French isn't really French at all : that it's some sort of slang. The term 'argot' was originally used to represent the secret code of tramps and criminals but is just used to distinguish 'higher' varieties of French (ie.Parisian) from 'lower' varieties.

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Wed Apr 07, 2004 9:54 pm

Well, I'll be the first to admit my views are generally rather more conservative than liberal on many social issues. But, having said that, and meaning it, I still have to admit I haven't much patience with notions of "high" and "low" varieties of languages. Speech communities can be quite small, and it seems only fair to judge a particular person's speech within that community. And to label an entire speech community's dialect as inferior or superior is kind of like saying grapefruits are superior to oranges and lemons are beneath either of them. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

The writer's contention may be correct that the "French" of French Canadian isn't really French. But so what? Do the speakers of it pretend that it is other than French Canadian?

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Wed Apr 07, 2004 10:13 pm

The French have the idea that there is one correct form of French, and no others can be allowed to pollute the pure form sanctioned by the Academy.

This has interesting side effects. French 'argot' is basically the same as it was in the 1940s. Read 'Papillon' and you find that nearly all of it is perfectly comprehensible. Any book written in the British prison slang of the 1940s would be completely incomprehensible to all but a few surviving old lags, and any words you could understand would no longer be used among criminals. The reason is that English asssimilates slang faster than a teenager can put on the latest pants. It is sometimes said that this is the result of the English not having an Académie, but the Spanish have one and Spanish assimilates slang as fast as English.

Now French Canadian is very clearly different from mainland French, not just in its sing-song accent but in its many different words ('marchander' instead of 'faire les achats' for example), and the influence of English, though 'franglais' is pretty common south of Calais as well.

Two other things stick out. Firstly your suggestion that Parisain is considered correct French, when it is more likely to be considered a totally corrupt 'argot', and secondly his strange choioe of the word 'argot', when what he surely means is 'patois'.

wjserson
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 6:09 am
Location: Ottawa

Post by wjserson » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:40 pm

SJ, I must admit I was looking forward to your posting (although I was hoping for some more characteristic use of "nonsense" and "rubbish") :wink:

Firstly SJ,

"your suggestion that Parisain is considered correct French"

the opinion that Parisian French is the 'high' variety or 'pure' form of the French language is what that writer is trying to point out,and a point many anglophones in North America enjoy believing. It is certainly not my opinion (especially being Canadian) so I thought I'd correct that right away.

I find it amazing how anglophones (such as the author of the above letter) have such severe judgments against Canadian French (or any other form of French that isn't from Northern France), but watch English programming from all over the world and never would say that the Crocodile Hunter, Eddie Murphy, Kenny Rogers all speak "bastardized/low/slang/blue collar English".

Out of curiosity SJ, what makes you think that 'patois' is what he's referring to?

Al
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: Sussex, UK

Post by Al » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:19 pm

I find it amazing how anglophones (such as the author of the above letter) have such severe judgments against Canadian French (or any other form of French that isn't from Northern France), but watch English programming from all over the world and never would say that the Crocodile Hunter, Eddie Murphy, Kenny Rogers all speak "bastardized/low/slang/blue collar English".
No, but we do hate Managerial English like the Evil One himself. You know the type - not afraid to call a spade a leveraged topsoil redeployment solution...

Al

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Apr 08, 2004 4:46 pm

:lol: :lol: :roll:

Larry Latham

Sally Olsen
Posts: 1322
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:24 pm
Location: Canada,France, Brazil, Japan, Mongolia, Greenland, Canada, Mongolia, Ethiopia next

Post by Sally Olsen » Thu Apr 08, 2004 8:30 pm

It is a world wide phenomena. In Greenland the people in Ilulissat (5000 people) think that the people in Aasiaat (3000) are inferior in speaking Greenlandic. They can even tell the difference between Ilulissat Greenlandic and Qasigiannguit Greenlandic which is only 20 km or so down the coast. Several of my students have been roundly teased for speaking Nuuk Greenlandic (15,000 people and a university). In Mongolia it was the same. I spoke Erdenet Mongolian which was much better in their view than Ulan Bator Mongolian. Japan's Osaka-ban was not as "good" as Tokoyo's Japanese in someone's view. The owner of the boutique here is best speaker in town and thinks the fishermen's wives are coarse. It seems that someone has to have the upper hand in language but it is not a stable view and those of us on the bottom of the pile laugh at someone thinking that it mattered. I speak French like a Spanish Cow (notice that this insult is also meant for the Spanish) as well in Canada or France and sound like a Brit in Ontario. If it has cost me a friend or position, I haven't had time to notice. If however, you want to pass the Danish exams in English, it is advisable that you learn the Queen's English.
Last edited by Sally Olsen on Fri Jul 02, 2004 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

LarryLatham
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)

Post by LarryLatham » Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:08 pm

Well done, Sally. You have reminded us that it is a human characteristic to think that the "other guy" is inferior (one need only point to his 'rough' language to prove it!). :roll:

Larry Latham

Post Reply