la loi toubon: language policy and linguistic and cultural
Post on 05-Jan-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
LaLoiToubon:LanguagePolicyandLinguisticandCulturalDiversityinFrance
MaryCatherineDevine
CarnegieMellonUniversity
Advisor:RémiA.vanCompernolle
2
Abstract
ThisthesisisaboutlanguagepolicyandplanninginFrance.Throughtracingthe
originsoftheFrenchlanguageandpolicies,Idemonstratethatlanguagepolicyhas
historicallybeenutilizedtostandardizeandregulateFrenchusageinordertocentralize
governmentalpowerandinfluence.Inturn,theFrenchlanguagebecameakeycomponent
ofhavingaFrenchnationalandculturalidentity.However,afterWorldWarII,theriseof
EnglishandAmericandominancethreatenedthestatusoftheFrenchlanguage.Itherefore
arguethattherewasashiftinFrenchlanguagepolicyfollowingtheincreasingpresenceof
EnglishinFrance,whichculminatedwiththepassingofLaLoiToubonin1994.LaLoi
ToubonensuredthatFrenchtranslationsmustbepresentinthepublicsector.Whilemany
FrenchlinguisticpuristssupportedLaLoiToubonasameanstoprotectthestatusof
French,theresultsfromanonlinesurveysentinFall2016representanadditionalshiftin
attitudessurroundingtheroleoftheFrenchlanguageinbeingakeycomponentofFrench
historyandculture.Ithereforeadditionallyarguethatamongademographicofhighly
educatedandmultilingualindividuals,thereexistsashiftinattitudesaboutFrench
languagepolicythatsupportslinguisticandculturaldiversity.
3
Chapter1:Introduction
1.AimandScope
InLanguageShock:UnderstandingtheCultureofConversation,MichaelAgarargues
thatlinguistshaveoftendrawna“circle”aroundlanguagestounderstandthem.1Insideof
thecirclearegrammar,syntaxandvocabulary.However,Agarstressestheimportanceof
erasingthecircle,warningthatlearninglanguageswithinthecirclelimitsunderstanding
additionalcomponentsoflanguages,specificallyintermsoftheirinextricablerelationship
totheculture(s)inwhichtheyareused.ThisthesisisbasedonAgar’sfundamentalpremise
thatlanguageandcultureareintertwined,aunityhecalls“languaculture,”andthatone
cannotexistwithouttheother.2
ThisthesisaimstoframeAgar’sconceptoflanguaculturewithinthecontextof
FranceandFrenchlanguagepolicythroughoutliningthesignificantwaysinwhichthe
Frenchlanguagehasbeenpreservedandlaterprotectedfromforeigninfluences,which
demonstratesthesignificantculturalandhistoricalvaluetheFrenchlanguagepossesses.
Furthermore,thisthesisaddressestheconceptoflinguisticandculturaldiversitythrough
presentingtheresultsofanonlinesurveysenttoparticipantsinFrancewhoindicated
positiveattitudestowardlinguisticandculturaldiversityandthereforeopposeLaLoi
Toubon,whichservesasthequintessentialexampleofFrenchlanguagepolicythat
promotesthesingularusageofFrenchinthepublicarena.
WhenIsigneduptotakeFrenchasasecondlanguageinthefifthgrade,Iadmittedly
struggledwithlearningalanguagewhosegrammarwasentirelydifferentfrommynative
1Agar,Michael.Languageshock:understandingthecultureofconversation.NewYork,NY:Perennial,2008,29-30.2Ibid.,96.
4
language.Fortunately,thememorizationmethodsthatmyteachertaughtme,whichIstill
usetoday,helpedmeadjustmypracticeinspeakingandwritingalanguagethatvastly
differedfromEnglish.AtthispointinmyexperienceasaFrenchstudent,Iunderstoodthe
FrenchlanguagewithinAgar’s“circle.”Inotherwords,IperceivedFrenchasanacademic
subjectthatrequiredpracticeandmemorizationinordertomastermylistening,reading,
writingandspeakingskills.
WhenIcontinuedtakingFrenchinhighschool,mycoursesgraduallycombined
elementsofFrenchcultureinourlessons.Nonetheless,myteacherscontinuedto
implementmemorizationstrategiestoperfectourgrammarandvocabularyskills.Itwas
notuntilcollegethatIlearnedhowcloselyFrenchcultureandthehistoryoftheFrench
languageacrossvarioussocialcontextsdemonstrateAgar’stheorythatlanguageand
cultureareintertwined.
Myunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenlanguageandcultureculminated
duringmystudyabroadexperienceinthesouthofFranceinAix-en-Provence.InAix,Inot
onlylearnedhowtoimprovemyoralandlisteningskillsbutalsohowtoappropriatelyuse
Frenchacrossdifferentsocialcontexts.Forinstance,whenwalkingintoashop,customers
areexpectedtosayBonjourasameansofintroduction,evenifthecustomerisnotdirectly
addressinganyoneinparticular.ThiswasbecausetheAixoisperceivedcustomersentering
theirshopsasequivalenttoanyindividualenteringtheirhome.So,itwasthecustomer’s
responsibilitytogreettheshopownerandtheshop’semployees,giventhattheywere
perceivedasenteringtheshopowner’spersonalspace.Employeesthereforebasedthe
levelofcustomerservicethattheywouldoffertotheircustomersbasedonwhetherornot
thecustomersaidBonjouruponenteringthestore.Thiswasvastlydifferentfrommy
5
experienceworkinginretailintheUnitedStates,whereIamconstantlyexpectedtogreet
customerspolitely,anditwasoneofthefirsttimesthatIexperiencedalinguisticand
culturalphenomenonthatwasentirelydifferentfrommyown.
TheseexperiencescombinedmademerealizethattheFrenchlanguageandFrench
culturewerenottwoseparatesubjectstolearn;rather,theyweretwoconceptsthatI
learnedintandem.Therefore,largeportionsofmycourseworkhavebeendedicatedtothe
historyoftheestablishmentoftheFrenchlanguage,andhowtheFrenchlanguagebeinga
fundamentalaspectofFrenchculturehasshapedthenationalcharacterandidentityof
Frenchforcenturies.
Manyacademicshavewrittenandresearchedaboutthevariouswaysinwhichthe
Frenchlanguageandgovernment-sanctionedregulationsregardingtheFrenchlanguage
havecontributedtotheFrenchlanguagebeingafundamentalelementofFrenchculture
andFrenchnationalism.Forinstance,K.StevenVincent’sexplorestheprogressionof
Frenchnationalismfromthefifteenthcenturyonward,anddiscussestheimportantrole
thatlanguageplayedinactingasa“unifyingforce”thatwouldcentralizeFrenchpowerand
subsequentlyplayanimportantroleinfortifyingFrenchnationalismin“National
Consciousness,NationalismandExclusion:ReflectionsontheFrenchCase.”3Vincent
providesavaluablehistoricalcontextualizationofunderstandinghowaFrench“national
consciousness”formedduringandaftertheFrenchRevolution,andthateffortstopreserve
“nationalunity”madeFranceadistinguishablenation-stateinWesternEurope.4Vincent’s
explorationoftheestablishmentoftheFrenchnation-state,andFrenchnationalism,
3Vincent,StevenK."NationalConsciousness,NationalismandExclusion:ReflectionsontheFrenchCase."HistoricalReflections/RéflexionsHistoriques19(1993):436.JSTOR.4Ibid.,444.
6
providesarelevantframeworkforfurtherexploringhowusingtheFrenchlanguageasa
politicaltoolcentralizedFranceandFrenchpower,whichinturnbuiltadistinctFrench
nationalidentity.
In“HistoryandPoliticsofLanguageinFrance:AReviewEssay,”PierreAchardand
hiscolleaguesdiscussthe“politicsoflanguage”inFranceandobservesthefollowing:
ThestandardizationofFrenchasanationallanguage;thesuppressionofthe
vernacularsofregion,locality,classandoccupation;theroleoflanguageeducation
inthereproductionofa‘national’culture;thefunctionofschoolgrammarand
spellingasformsofsocialdiscipline;linguisticcompetenceasacriterionofselection
foremployment,promotionandsocialmobility.5
Theauthors’discussionofthehistoryofpoliticsoflanguageinFrancestartsduringthe
sixteenthcenturyandcontinuesthroughouttheRevolutionandendswiththe
standardizationofeducationinthenineteenthcentury.Achardetal.demonstratethatthe
FrenchgovernmentnationalizedandstandardizedFrenchtoestablishitasthe“languageof
reason”andasthe“languageofliberty.”6Theythendiscuss,indetail,theeffectsofteaching
astandardFrenchinschools.Sinceschoolingbecamecompulsoryandpublicinthe
nineteenthcentury,thegovernmentensuredthatastandardFrenchwouldbespokenand
taughtacrossthecountry.Thisexampleoflanguageacquisitionpolicycontributedtoa
standardizedFrenchbecomingthemostcommonlyspokenlanguageacrossFrance,tothe
detrimentofthedozensofotherdialectsanddistinctregionallanguages.Achardetal.’s
workthereforeservesasanadditionalexampleofscholarshipthatprovidesadetailed
5Achard,Pierre,SusanBullock,andMichaelIgnatieff."HistoryandthePoliticsofLanguageinFrance:AReviewEssay."HistoryWorkshop,10(1980):175.JSTOR.6Ibid.,177.
7
historyoflanguagepolicyinFranceanddemonstratesthattheFrenchgovernmenthas
historicallyfocusedonusingtheFrenchlanguageasapoliticaltooltocentralizepower.7
Additionally,in“LinguisticCultureandLanguagePolicy,”HaroldF.Schiffman
providesanextensiveinvestigationregardingthehistoryofFrenchlanguagepolicyand
how“languageandlinguisticcultureconstituteacorevalue”ofthenationalcharacterof
France.8SchiffmandiscussestheoriginsoftheFrenchlanguageandprovidesatimelineof
Frenchlanguagepolicytoexplainhowlanguagelegislationhashistoricallybeen
implementedtostandardizeandspreadtheuseoftheFrenchlanguage.Todoso,he
explainsTheOrdonnancedeVillers-Cotterêts(1539),thefirstofficiallanguagepolicy
favoringtheKing’sFrenchoverallotherdialectsandlanguagesinlegalmatters,andits
significance,theroleoftheAcadémieFrançaise(1635)incodifyingandstandardizing
FrenchandtheFrenchRevolution(1779)andlanguagepolicyfollowingtheRevolutionin
transmittingastandardFrenchacrosstheState.Inthishistoricalanalysis,Schiffman
demonstratesthatFrancehasanextensivehistoryofutilizinglanguagepolicysinceatleast
the16thcentury,whichallowedfortheFrenchlanguagetobecomeadistinctfeatureof
Frenchhistoryandculture.9
Furthermore,in“LinguisticAnthropologyandtheStudyofContemporaryFrance,”
SteveJ.Albertdemonstrateshow,inhiswords,“languageconstitutesacrucialelementof
theFrenchpeople’sconceptionofthemselvesasadistinctnationalculture.”10Heexamines
theprogressionofFrenchbecominganessentialcharacteristicofFrenchculturefroma
7Achard,,“HistoryandthePoliticsofLanguageinFrance,”175-83.8Schiffman,HaroldF."LanguagePolicyandLinguisticCultureinFrance."inLinguisticCultureandLanguagePolicy,75.London:Routledge,1996.9Ibid.10Albert,SteveJ."LinguisticAnthropologyandtheStudyofContemporaryFrance."FrenchReview74(2001):1165.JSTOR.
8
linguisticanthropologicalapproach,throughwhichhe“explicitlyaddressesthelinkages
betweenlanguageanditssocioculturalcontexts.”11Asalinguisticanthropologist,Albert
“favorsamorequalitativeapproachthatexaminesaspectsoflanguagewithintheir
contextsofuse.”12AlbertdirectlyexaminesLaLoiToubon,a1994lawlimitingthepresence
oflanguagesotherthanFrenchinthemedia,andstudiespoliticaldebatesurroundingits
passing.HeframesthisexaminationthroughexplaininghowLaLoiToubonservesasan
exampleofthe“iconicrelationshipbetweenthelanguageandthenation-state”inFrance.13
HearguesthatLaLoiToubonmarkedadirectresponsetotheincreasingpresenceof
English,andthatJacquesToubon,theMinisterofCultureatthetimethatthelawwas
passed,useddiscoursethatsupportedthisnotion.Albertthusprovidesadetailedanalysis
aboutLaLoiToubonanditssupporterstodemonstratethatToubonperceivedlanguageas
atoolthatwouldguaranteesocialcohesionandunity,anddemonstrateshowLaLoi
ToubonactedasaformofresistanceagainsttheEnglishlanguage.14
Vincent,Achard,Schiffman,andAlbert,amongothers,thusprovidekeytheoretical
andhistoricalframeworksthataddressFrenchnationalismandidentity,thewaysinwhich
FrenchlanguagepolicyhasfunctionedtoestablishandpreserveFrenchnationalismand
identity,andevendescribeLaLoiToubonanditssignificanceinrelationtoFrench
linguisticculture.Myresearchisuniqueinitsapproachofdeterminingiftherelationship
betweenFrenchidentityandlanguagepolicyhasshiftedinitsnatureafterLaLoiToubon,
11Albert,“LinguisticAnthropology,”1165.12Ibid.13Ibid.,1167.14Ibid.
9
andifthemethodstheFrenchgovernmenthistoricallyimplementedarenecessaryinthe
twenty-firstcentury.
ThisthesisthusaddressesthehistoricalprogressionoftheFrenchlanguageand
languagepolicyconcerningregulatingandpreservingFrench.Onepieceoflanguagepolicy
willbeanalyzed:LaLoiToubon,passedin1994inFrance.LaLoiToubonmandatesthatthe
Frenchlanguagemustbepresentonallpublicsignage,allofficialgovernmentdocuments,
inallworkplaces,inpublicschoolsandincommercialcommunications.Thispieceof
languagelegislationiscontroversialbecauseFrenchisandhasbeentheofficiallanguageof
theFrenchnation-stateforcenturies;however,supportersofLaLoiToubonsoughtto
reinstatetheofficialstatusoftheFrenchlanguageduetotheincreasingpresenceofEnglish
inFrenchmediaoutletsacrossvariousmediumsincludingtelevision,radiostations,and
movies.
Inthisanalysis,IarguethatLaLoiToubonrepresentsashiftinFrenchlanguage
policyinthelatetwentiethcentury,butthattheincreasingpresenceoflinguisticand
culturaldiversityacrosstheworldrepresentsanadditionalshiftinattitudessurrounding
theroleoftheFrenchlanguageinbeingakeycomponentofFrenchhistoryandculture.
AmongacertaindemographicofhighlyeducatedandmultilingualFrenchindividualswho
weresurveyedforthepurposeofthisanalysis,thereappearedtobehighlevelsofsupport
forlinguisticandculturaldiversity.Inconjunctionwithhighlevelsofsupportfor
multilingualism,themajorityofparticipantsopposedLaLoiToubonbecausethey
perceivedthelawasrestrictingthepublicpresenceofmultilingualism.Insteadof
promotingthesolepresenceoftheFrenchlanguageinthepublicsector,thesurveyresults
indicatesupportforpresenceofmultiplelanguagesinthepublicsector,andtherefore
10
rebutToubon’ssupportersandtheiradvocacyforprotectingFrenchagainsttherising
presenceofEnglish.
2.ResearchQuestions
Myresearchandanalysisaddressthreeresearchquestions:
1. Historically,whatistherelationshipbetweenFrenchlanguagepolicyandFrench
identity?
2. HastherelationshipbetweenFrenchlanguagepolicyandFrenchidentityshiftedin
thetwentieth/twenty-firstcenturies?
3. DoesLaLoiToubonrepresentaparticularshiftinattitudessurroundinglanguage
policyinthetwentieth/twenty-firstcenturies?
3.TheoreticalFramework
3.1Language,Culture,IdentityandNationalism
Thissectionprovidesabrieftheoreticalframeworkinunderstandinghowlanguage,
cultureandidentityintersect.Itisadditionallycrucialtoaddressideasofnationalismand
nationhoodinthecontextoftheeighteenthcenturygiventhatmuchofFrenchlanguage
policyishistoricallyrootedintheidealsoftheFrenchRevolutionduringthelate
eighteenthcentury(adetailedexplanationofthishistoricaltimeperiodisaddressedin
ChapterTwo).
Asmentionedintheproject’sAimandScope,myapproachtounderstandingFrench
languageandFrenchcultureisfundamentallybasedonMichaelAgar’sconceptof
languaculture.Languaculturereferstotheinextricableconnectionbetweenlanguageand
culture,andessentiallypointstothefactthatneitherlanguagenorculturecanexist
11
withouttheother,giventhat“cultureisinlanguageandlanguageisloadedwithculture.”15
Agar’sindicationthat“communicationintoday’sworldrequiresculture”illustratesthat
usinganylanguageis“rootedinwhoyouare”andanyencounterwitha“different
mentality”ora“differentmeaning”makesthespeakerconsciousoftheirownlanguageand
itsmeaningsandsubsequentlyoftheirculture.16Inotherwords,encounteringadifferent
or‘foreign’languageallowsforpointingoutthedifferencesbetweenone’snativelanguage
andtheforeignlanguagethattheyareencountering.Inturn,sincelanguageisloadedwith
culture,thesamepersonbecomesincreasinglyconsciousofthedifferencesbetweentheir
nativecultureandthe‘foreign’culturethattheyareencountering.
Thisrecognitionofdifferencewhenencounteringaforeignculture(andlanguage)
allowsforindividualstoformtheirownidentitiesaroundtheirnativecultures.Rosemary
Salomone,forexample,writesthathavinganidentityinacommunityimplies“belongingto
agroup,withinalargerculture,unitedbysharedcustoms.”17Therefore,languagecanact
asadistinctmarkerofidentitywithinandacrossdifferentcultures.Ontheonehand,
languageisusedforcommunication,andthereforeallowsformembersofacommunityto
sharesimilar“values,attitudes,andprejudices,”allofwhichreflectthatcommunity’s
culture.18Subsequently,sharedlanguagesareoften“atthecoreofethnicidentityand
ethnicpride,”whichcreatesadistinctcommunitywithitsowndistinguishableculturethat
ischaracterizedbyitslanguage.19InthecaseofFrance,myresearchwillindicatethatthe
FrenchlanguageanditspoliciesareloadedwithFrenchcultureandhistory,andthat
15Agar,LanguageShock,28.16Ibid.17Salomone,RosemaryC."Language,IdentityandBelonging."InTrueAmerican,HarvardUniversityPress,2010,70.JSTOR.18Ibid.,74.19Ibid.,95.
12
subsequentlytheFrenchlanguagehasstraightforwardlybecomeamarkerofFrench
identityandculture.
Keepinginmindthatlanguageisloadedwithcultureandviceversa,itisalso
relevanttodiscusstheroleofthenationandofthenation-stateinrelationtoAgar’s
conceptoflanguaculturetoprovideaframeworkforunderstandinghowtheFrenchnation
utilizedlanguageasapoliticaltooltocentralizeitspower.AlexanderCaviedesdefinesthe
nationas“ahumancollectivelydefiningitselfashistoricallyconstitutedordesired,where
thenationmakessomeclaimtoautonomy.”20InWesternEurope,modern“nationstates”
developedamong“ethnicallydefinedcommunities”whichwereoriginallydefinedas
kingdomsorculturalentities.21Sharinga“commonterritory,commonorigin,common
language,commonreligionandmorals,andcommoncustoms”wereessentialcomponents
ofestablishednationsineighteenth-centuryWesternEurope.22Thesecommon
characteristicsallowedmembersofthenationtodevelopasenseofsharednationalism
andnationalpride,whichstrengthenedthenationasaseparateanddistinctentity.
Therefore,alongwithsharingalanguagethatactedasadistinctculturalcharacteristicand
identitymarker,languagebecameapoliticaltoolthatwasusedtocentralizepower,and
languagesubsequentlyactedasadistinctnationalcharacteristicofcertainnation-states.
Keepinginmindthatlanguagehasthecapacitytoactasdistinctculturaland
nationalcharacteristicofcommunitiesandnation-states,languageadditionallybecamea
keycomponentofestablishingandmaintaininganationalidentity.Anationalidentitycan
bedefinedasan“abstractconceptthatsubsumesthecollectiveexpressionofasubjective
20Caviedes,Alexander."TheRoleofLanguageinNation-BuildingwithintheEuropeanUnion."DialectalAnthropology,RevisionsofNationalistandCulturalIdentityinContemporaryEurope27(2003):250.JSTOR.21Ibid.22Karna,MN."Language,RegionandNationalIdentity."IndianSociologicalSociety48(1999):80.JSTOR.
13
individualsenseofbelongingtoasociopoliticalunit:thenationstate.”23Throughsharinga
nationallanguage,membersofanationareenabledtoconnectwithoneanotherthrough
communicationbutalsothroughasharedsenseofbelonging.Consequently,theirdevotion
to,andpridein,thenationsubsequentlydevelops,whichinturncanstrengthenthenation
itself.Individualswithinthenationwhousethesamelanguageareenabledtosharea
“commonbond”andthusalsosharea“commonstoreofsocialmemories.”24Thus,inthe
contextofdevelopingeighteenth-centurynations,languageactedasasymbolfor
developingnationalidentitiesaswellasapoliticaltoolfornationbuilding.25InChapter2,
thewaysinwhichtheFrenchgovernmentusedlanguagepolicyasatooltostrengthenthe
nationwillbeaddressed,soitisimportanttoprovideabroadframeworkofthewaysin
whichlanguageworkstoactasasymbolfornation-buildingandcommunalandnational
identity.
3.2MinorityLanguages,GlobalizationandMultilingualism
InEthnicityandNationalism,ThomasEriksenwrites,“thereisnoinclusionwithout
exclusion.”26KeepingEriksen’spremiseinmind,itwouldbeoversimplisticandperhaps
tooidealistictoarguethathavingasharednationallanguageguaranteesunityandsocial
cohesionacrossallnations.Eventhoughlanguageactsasaunifierandasamarkerof
similarity,itcanalsobeasamarkerofdifference.Languagethereforehasthecapacityto
createboundariesandborders,whichseparateonedistinctnationfromanother,and
thereforehelpestablish“linguisticallyhomogenousnations.”27Theexistenceofminority
23Karna,“Language,RegionandNationalIdentity,”79.24Ibid.,80.25Salomone,“Language,IdentityandBelonging,”76.26Eriksen,ThomasHylland."Nationalism."InEthnicityandNationalism,126.PlutoPress,2010.JSTOR.27Urciuoli,Bonnie."LanguageandBorders."AnnualReviewofAnthropology24(1995):527.JSTOR.
14
languagesisperceivedtoposeathreattothehomogenousnatureofnationalisticlanguage
policies.Minoritylanguageshavethereforeoftenbeendiscouragedorsuppressed“witha
varietyofsanctionsfrommockerytopunishment.”28
Followingthesuppressionofminoritylanguagesandwiththeriseofglobalization,
advocacyforpromotingandpreservingminoritylanguageshasincreasedthroughoutthe
latetwentiethcentury.Thisislargelyduetoahumanrightscampaignthattookcharge
throughoutthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Thismovementplacedalarge
emphasison“individualrights”onauniversalscaleandpromotedjusticeandequalityfor
thegloballyinterconnectedcommunityaftertheSecondWorldWar.KeepingAgar’s
languaculturedefinitioninmind,itisreasonabletoalsoassumethatethnicminorities
soughtprotectionoftheirheritagelanguages29,sincetheirlanguageswerekeyelementsof
theirculture,identityandheritage.
In1948,forexample,theUniversalDeclarationofHumanRights(UDHR)promoted
thenecessityof“basichumanrights,”thusimplyingtheacceptanceandpromotionof
minorityrights.TheUDHRstates,“Everyoneisentitledtoallrightsandfreedoms…without
distinctionofanykindsuchas…language.”In1992,theUnitedNationsdirectly“Addressed
thespecialrightsofminorities”in“TheDeclarationontheRightsofPersonsBelongingto
NationalorEthnic,ReligiousandLinguisticMinorities.”Additionally,in1998,theCouncilof
Europeheldaconventionthatpromotedprotecting“NationalMinorities”;theEuropean
CharterforRegionalorMinorityLanguageswasadditionallywrittenin1998.Itistherefore
evidentthatalongsidethehumanrightscampaign,thereexistedlegislationthatpromoted
28Wright,Sue.LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning:FromNationalismtoGlobalisation.Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan,2004,44.29Ibid.
15
linguisticequalitydemonstratedanincreasingadvocacyforminoritylanguagesacross
nations.
Additionally,astheworldisbecomingincreasinglyglobalized,thereisnot
necessarilyasmuchrhetoricastherewasintheeighteenthcenturythatemphasizedthe
importanceofthenationinitscapacityto“fulfilltheindividual’sneedtobelong.”30Inan
increasinglyglobalizedworld,establishinganationalidentityischallengedbythosewho
“maybemorelikelytoconceivethemselvesasmultilayered,withintheirpositioninlocal
communitiesaswellastheirparticipationinglobalnetworkscontributingwithnationality
totheirwholeidentity.”31Evidently,modernnotionsofglobalizationandoftheglobal
communitychallengedtheEuropeaneighteenth-centuryideologythatthestandardization
andpromotionofanationallanguagewouldactasaunifierformembersofthenation.
Furthermore,asminoritylanguagesandglobalizationcontinuetopersist,itappears
thatmultilingualism,linguisticandculturaldiversityarethreeconceptsthatrelateto
celebratingminoritylanguagesandglobalization.AccordingtolinguistRitaFrenceschini,
multilingualismcanbeunderstoodasthe“fundamentalhumanabilitytobeableto
communicateinseverallanguages”andisadditionallya“phenomenonembeddedin
culturaldevelopments,”indicatingthatattainingmultilingualismrequiresencounterswith
foreignlanguagesandcultures.32Inturn,languagediversityreferstothepresenceofa
variationoflanguages,andthereforeindicatesapresenceofmultilingualism.33Since
languageandcultureareinterconnected,thepresenceoflinguisticdiversitymustalso30Wright,Sue.LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,182.31Ibid.,183.32Franceshini,Rita.“MultilingualismandMulticompetence:AConceptualView.”TheModernLanguageJournal95,no.3(2011):346.JSTOR.33Cenoz,Jason,DurkGorter,andKathleenHeugh."LinguisticDiversity."InDiversityResearchandPolicy:AMultidisciplinaryExploration,editedbyStevenKnotter,RobDeLobel,LenaTsipouri,andVanjaStenius,83.Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress,2011.JSTOR.
16
indicateapresenceofculturaldiversity,giventhatcommunicatingviaanygiven
language(s)allowsfortheexchangingofculturesacrossvarioussettings.Thepromotionof
minoritylanguagesandlanguagerightsintheUDHRevidentlypromoteslinguisticand
culturaldiversity,andthereforedemonstratesanofficialrecognitionofmultilingualism
anditsimportanceinaglobalizedcontext.
Theseissuesofglobalizationandlinguisticandculturaldiversity,specificallyin
France,willbeaddressedindetailinChapters2and3.
3.3LanguagePolicyandPlanning
Itisadditionallyimportanttodefinethecomponentsanddomainslanguagepolicy
andplanninginordertobetterunderstandthehistoryofFrenchlanguagepolicyand
planningandcontentofLaLoiToubon.RichardBaldaufdefineslanguagepolicyand
planningasthe“planning—oftenlargescaleandnational,usuallyundertakenby
governments—meanttoinfluence,ifnotchange,waysofspeakingorliteracywithina
society.”34Languagepolicyandplanning(LPP)playsanessentialroleinestablishinga
relationshipbetweenlanguage,identityandnationalism.ThroughLPP,governmentshave
theauthoritytodefineoneormultipleofficiallanguage(s)inordertocreateastrong
nationthathasasharedlanguage.
Theneedtosolvesocial,economicandpoliticalproblemsthroughlanguagepolicy
andplanningwasespeciallyprominentfollowingWorldWarII.Thiswaslargelydueto
British,French,Belgian,DutchandPortugueseempiresfreeingtheircoloniesandthus
producingnewindependentnationsthathadcomplexlinguisticlandscapesbecauseofthe
34Baldauf,RichardB.,Jr."LanguagePlanningandPolicy:RecentTrends,FutureDirections."
17
“lackoffitbetweenpoliticalandlinguisticboundaries.”35Inmanycases,formercolonies
sharedoriginalnativelanguagesthatwerediminishedbytheircolonialrulers.Manynewly
independentnationsacrosstheworldwerethereforecompelledtodetermineandsolve
theircomplexlinguisticsituations,acrosswhichthecolonialandnativelanguageswere
spoken.Itisthereforesensiblethatlanguagepolicyandplanningemergedasasubjectof
academicstudybecauseofthelarge-scalepolicyissuesthatwerebeingaddressedacross
theglobeinformercolonies.36
Duringthelastthirtyyearsofthetwentiethcentury,accordingtoSpolsky,“alarge
numberofdetailedstudiesofspecificcasesoflanguageplanning”emergedandfeatured
someaspectsoflanguagepolicy.37JoshuaA.Fisherman,forexample,publishedsignificant
researchregardingLPPintheInternationalJournaloftheSociologyofLanguageand
ContributionstotheSociologyofLanguage.Fishermanwroteaboutamultitudeof
significantissues,includingbilingualcommunitiesandtheirstructures,bilingualeducation,
thespreadandrapidglobalizationofEnglish,languageandethnicity,ethnicidentity,
endangeredlanguagesandlanguagepurism.AdditionalresearchsurroundingLPPwas
publishedintwosociolinguisticsjournals:LanguageinSocietyandJournalofMultilingual
andMulticulturalDevelopment.Asof2008,thereexistthreejournalsthataresolely
devotedtothestudyoflanguageplanningandlanguagepolicy:LanguageProblemsand
LanguagePlanning,CurrentIssuesinLanguagePlanningandLanguagePolicy.Mostofthe
35Spolsky,B."Languagepolicy:Thefirsthalf-century."inUnityandDiversityofLanguages,editedbyP.VanSterkenberg,137,Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,2008.36Ibid.37Ibid.,139.
18
workinthesejournalsfocuson“policiesdevelopedbynationalgovernments,”but
additionallycover“locallysalientissues.”38
Spoolsadditionallyremarksthatmanyscholarsstudyandwriteaboutlanguage
policyaslinguisticimperialisminthecontextofcolonialandpostcoloniallanguagepolicy.
Otherscholarstakeadifferentapproachthrough“consideringlanguagepolicyascentrally
locatednotinapoliticalbutalinguisticculturalcontext.”39Theythusfocusonanalyzing
therelationshipbetweenlanguagesandculture,andhowlanguagepolicyandplanningcan
damageorimprovethisrelationship.40
Additionally,languagepoliticsandlanguagerightsinthecontextofglobalization
havebecomeapopularLPPtopicofstudy.Thesescholarsnotethestatusofendangered
and/orminoritylanguagesandlanguagerightsthroughcoveringcasesaboutgovernment’s
effortsto“guaranteethecontinueduseoftheirnationallanguage”aswellasthe“attempt
toteachadyingorevendeadlanguagetomembersoftheheritagecommunity,”oftenin
thecontextofglobalization.41
Acrossthevariousareasofstudiesinlanguagepolicyandplanning,LPPcanbe
understoodacrossfourdomains(Baldauf),manyofwhichoftenoverlaponeanother:1)
corpusplanning,2)statusplanning,3)acquisitionplanning,and4)prestige/image
planning.42
Corpusplanning:Corpusplanning,whichisconsideredtobethe“technicalsideof
theenterprise”oflanguageplanning,isdefinedasthe“creationofnewforms,codification
38Spolsky,B."Languagepolicy:140.39Ibid.,141.40Ibid.41Ibid.,147.42Baldauf,“LanguagePlanningandPolicy.”
19
ofoldones,ortheselectionofalternativeformsoflanguage.”43Inotherwords,corpus
planningreferstothestandardizationthegrammarorbodyofalanguageinordertocreate
acohesivestandardofalanguageviapolicy,focusingon“thenatureofthelanguagetobe
taughtandlearned.”44
Statusplanning:Statusplanningreferstothe“allocationoflanguagestocertain
functions.”45Whenimplementinglanguagepolicyinstatusplanningterms,high-level
planningquestionsinclude:“Whichsecondlanguagesshouldbeknown,learnedand
taught?”“Whataspectsofthelanguage(s)chosenshouldbeknown,learnedandtaught,i.e.
whichvarietyandtowhatlevel?”,“Whoshouldlearnthemandtowhomshouldtheybe
taught?”,and“Whenshouldlearningbeginandunderwhatcircumstances?”46
Acquisitionplanning:Acquisition(alsoknownaslanguageeducationpolicy
planning)referstodetermininghowalanguagewillbeacquiredandtypicallyrelatesto
language-in-educationpolicies,whichdetermineswhatlanguage(s)willbetaughtinpublic
schools.Throughcentralizingeducationandlanguage-in-educationpolicies,nation-states
areabletoensurethatthemajorityoftheirpopulationwilluseastandardnational
languageforcommunication.Itisimportanttoparticularlyaddressacquisitionplanning
duetotheemphasisthatWesternnationstatesplacedonmasseducation.Education
systemswere,ashistorianJohnE.Josephwrites,the“greatcentralizedandcentralizing
metropolisthateveryonepassesthrough.”47Schoolsthusserveastheenvironmentin
43Caviedes,“TheRoleofLanguageinNationBuilding,”252.44Baldauf,“LanguagePlanningandPolicy,”3.45Caviedes,“TheRoleofLanguageinNationBuilding,”252.46VanEls,T."Statusplanningforlearningandteaching."InHandbookofResearchinSecondLanguageTeachingandLearning,editedbyE.Hinkel.Mahwah,NJ:Routledge,2005.inBaldauf,“LanguagePlanningandPolicy,2-3.47Joseph,JohnE."TheSocialPoliticsofLanguageChoiceandLinguisticCorrectness."InLanguageandPolitics,46EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
20
whichnationalcitizensarecultivated.Therefore,schoolsandnationaleducationsystems
wereanessentialinstrumentinnationalizinglanguages.48
Prestige/imageplanning:Prestige(orimage)planningreferstothestate-sanctioned
effortstoimprovetherespectandstandingofacertainlanguage.Imageplanningisoften
“relatedtoethnicorcivicidentity,”andisoftenassociatedwith“motiveandtheactivities
ofthelanguageplannersthemselves.”49
ThepiecesofFrenchlanguagepolicythatChapter2presentsencompassallfour
domainsoflanguagepolicyandplanning.Forinstance,corpusplanningtechniqueswere
implementedthroughestablishingtheAcadémieFrançaise,whichfunctionstocodifyand
regulateFrenchgrammarandvocabulary.ThroughoutthehistoryofFrenchlanguage
policy,statusplanningreflectedapushforpromotingsingularFrenchusageacrossthe
publicsector.AcquisitionplanninginFranceisperhapsoneofthemosteffectivemeansto
spreadFrenchusagethroughrequiringallschoolingtobedoneinFrench.Furthermore,
Frenchlanguagepolicycanbecategorizedasprestige/imageplanningbecauseoftheeffort
topromoteFrenchusageandthereforerestrictEnglishusage.
4.Conclusion
Thischapterhasservedasanintroductiontotheconcepts,questionsand
argumentsthatIseektoaddressinthisthesis.Throughpresentingthetheoretical
premisesofthepaper,thereadershouldhaveabetterunderstandingofthetiesbetween
language,culture,identityandnationalism.Itwillbeimportanttorememberthatlanguage
andcultureareinterconnected,andthatFrenchhistorynotonlyservesasanexampleof
thisrelationshipbutalsodemonstratesthatlanguagecanfunctionasamarkerofidentity48Baldauf,“LanguagePlanningandPolicy,”4.49Ibid.,4.
21
andofnationalism.Byunderstandinghowlanguage,culture,identityandnationalism
functionintandemwithoneanother,thereaderwillgageabetterunderstandingofthe
contextualizationoftheseconceptsinFrance(whichisaddressedinChapter2).
Furthermore,thequestionsintheonlinesurveydirectlyaddresstheparticipant’sopinions
regardingFrenchlanguage,culture,identityandnationalism.
Additionally,throughpresentingthedevelopmentoflanguagepolicyandplanning
asanacademicfieldanddefiningthedomainsofLPP,thereaderwillbetterbeableto
contextualizeFrance’spastandcurrentlanguagepolicies,includingLaLoiToubon.
Moreover,thesurveyasksparticipantsabouttheiropinionsregarding,mostsignificantly,
LaLoiToubon.
5.ThesisOverview
Chapter1hasprovidedanintroductiontothekeyconceptsthatwillbediscussedin
thisthesis:LaLoiToubon,languagepolicyandplanning(LPP)anditsrelationtonation-
buildingandnationalidentity,andtheshiftingclimateofglobalizationthathasincreasingly
affectedLPP.
Chapter2isaboutlanguagepolicyinFrance.ThehistoricalsignificanceofLPPin
FranceisdiscussedtodemonstratethatLPPhashadastrongmanifestationinFrancesince
thesixteenthcentury.IthenexaminethecontentandpublicdebatesurroundingLaLoi
Toubon.
Chapter3servesasananalysisofanonlinesurveysenttoFrenchparticipants
regardingtheirattitudesaboutlanguagepolicyandidentityingeneralandalsoinrelation
toLaLoiToubon.
22
Chapter4providesasynthesisofmyfindings,aswellasthelimitationsandfuture
directionsofthefocusofthisthesis.
23
Chapter2:LanguagePolicyandPlanninginFrance
1.Introduction:TracingtheOriginsofFrench
ThischapterbeginswithabriefsketchofFrenchlanguagepolicythroughouthistory
inordertocontextualizethepassingofLaLoiToubonin1994.Then,thecontentand
publicdiscussionsurroundingLaLoiToubonwillbeexplained.
TheearlyhistoryandoriginsofmoderndayFrenchbeginswiththeRoman
colonizationofGaul,whichwasa“looseconfederationoftribes”andwhichpartially
constitutesmoderndayFrance.50Beforeitwascolonized,theCeltslivedinGaulandwere
consideredIndo-EuropeanbecauseoftheirlinguisticandculturaltiestotheGreeks,
Romans,andGermanicpeoples.By52B.C.,theRomanEmpireentirelyoccupiedGaul,anda
newformofCeltic-Romanculture(andlanguage)wouldeventuallyemerge.51
FollowingtheRomanconquest,Gaul’slinguisticlandscapegraduallychanged.Latin,
thelanguageoftheRomanEmpire,becamethelanguageofadministrationandof
educationinGaul.52The“Latinisation”ofGaulwasgradual,anditwasnotuntiltheendof
thefifthcenturythatLatindialects,whichcontainedaspectsofCelticlanguagesandvaried
regionally,replacedtheGaulishlanguageoftheCelts.53Itisdifficulttodistinguishthe
variationsofLatinthatwerespokenacrosstheregion,butmanyhistorianscollectively
concludethatastheRomanEmpirebegantofall,thedifferentprovincesinGaul
increasinglybecame“cutofffromeachother”andthereforedevelopedtheirownlinguistic
50Rickard,Peter.AHistoryofFrenchLanguage.London:UnwinHyman,1989,1.JSTOR.51Ibid.52Ibid.53Ibid.,5.
24
variations.54Thesevariationsoftencombinedtocreatea“vulgarLatin,”whichwas
essentiallyLatinwithelementsoflocallanguagesthatexistedbeforetheRomaninvasion.55
Thelackofanexistingcentralauthoritycouldalsopointtothediverselinguisticlandscape
amongthepopulationinhabitingtheRomanEmpire.Theuseofvaryinglanguagesin
differentregionsoftheareademonstratethisdiversityandtheevolutionofspokenLatin,
whichwouldeventuallyevolveintomoderndayromancelanguagessuchasFrench,Italian,
andSpanish.56
WhentheRomanEmpiredeclinedandeventuallylostitsterritoriesandinfluence
throughoutthefifthcentury,theMerovingianandCarolingianperiodsbegan,which
markedtheintroductionoflesFrancs(theFranks),aGermanic-speakingtribe,tothe
region.57Throughoutthecentury,therewereseveralFrankinvasionsandsettlements
acrossGaul,andbytheendofthesixthcentury,theFrankslargelycontrolledmostof
Gaul.58Subsequently,theadministrationinthenorthwasinfluencedbyGermanicfolk
traditionsandcustomsandRomanlawheavilyinfluencedtheadministrationinthe
south.59Latinretainedaprestigiousreputationasthelanguageofwriting,politics,
administrationandeducation.60However,overthecourseofthefifthcentury,thereexisted
severallocalvarietiesofLatin,thusindicatingthattherewasnotonecommonstandardof
54Rickard,AHistoryofFrenchLanguage,6.55Scheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998,4.56Fatou-Niang,Mame.LaNaissanceetL'EvolutionduFrançais.CarnegieMellonUniversity.Accessed2015.57Schiffman,HaroldF."LanguagePolicyandLinguisticCultureinFrance,”81.58Rickard,AHistoryofFrenchLanguage,7.59Ibid.,8.60Battye,Adrian,Marie-AnneHintze,andPaulRowlett.TheFrenchLanguageToday:ALinguisticIntroduction.London:Routledge,1992.GoogleScholar.
25
communicationusedthroughouttheregion.61ThesevarietiesdifferedfromwrittenLatin,
andwereusedbytheuneducatedintheirdailycommunicationandactivities.62
ThevarietiesofspokenLatinacrossGaulwerelinguisticallydividedintotwo
groups:laLangued’Oïl,whichwasspokeninthenorth,andlaLangued’Oc,whichwas
spokenintheSouth.63Therewereofcourse,variationswithinthesecategories,but
generallyspeaking,lalangued’oïlincludeddialectsspokenintheNorthernregionsof
FranceandhadGermanictones.64Lalangued’ocreferstothedialectsspokeninthe
SouthernregionsofFranceandwascharacterizedwithLatintones.65
Bytheendoftheeighthcentury,avernaculardistinctfromLatinemerged,which
ledCharlemagne’scampaigntoreinstateLatin’s“classicalpurity”throughimposinga
standardformofcommunicationthroughouthisempire.66Thisfurtherindicatesthatthere
wasstillaconsiderablevariationofspokenandwrittenformsofLatin.Charlemagne’s
“officialrecognition”oftheLatinwasalteredin813attheCouncilofTours.67TheCouncil
ofToursmandatedthatFrenchpriestswererequiredtogivetheirsermonsintherustica
romanalingua(theRomancespeechofthecountryside)orthetheotiscalingua(the
Germanictongue),sothatChurchgoerswouldbeabletounderstandthesermons.The
CouncilofToursisthereforesignificantbecauseitscontentpointstothelinguisticdiversity
thatexistedacrosstheregion.FollowingtheCouncilofTours,Latinmaintaineditsroleas
theprestigiouslanguageoftheChurch,ofthegovernmentandofeducationandexisted
61Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”10.62Ibid.,11.63Ibid.64Niang,LaNaissanceetL’EvolutionduFrançais.65Ibid.66Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”10.67Ibid.,11.
26
alongsidelocalvernacularsthatwere“uncodified”andusedfordailycommunication.68
Therewasnotonestandardformofcommunicationimplemented,andtheFrenchlanguage
thatisusedtodaydidnotyetexist.69
TheideaofFrenchbeingalanguagedistinctfromLatinwasarguablysolidifiedin
842withtheSermentsdeStrasbourg.TheSermentsisawrittenagreementofmutual
supportbetweentwoofCharlemagne’sgrandsons,LouistheGermanandCharlestheBald,
againsttheirbrotherLothaire,whowastheemperoroftheHolyRomanEmpire.70
Althoughitwasnotanofficialpieceoflanguagelegislation,theSermentsarelinguistically
significantbecauseoneversioncontainstheoldestknownversionofoldFrench.71The
Sermentsarealsonoteworthytomentionbecauseitrecognizedthedifferentlinguistic
communitiesthroughbeingpublishedinthreelanguages,furtherindicatingthediverse
linguisticlandscapethatwaspresentthroughouttheFrenchkingdom.
Themostsignificantvernaculartomentionisfrançoysorfrançois,becauseitiswhat
woulddirectlyevolveintomoderndayFrench.Françoyswasadialectoflangued’oïl
spokenintheIle-de-Franceregion,whichiswhereParisislocated.Françoiswasviewedas
theprestigelanguageoftheregionforseveralreasons.Forone,theIle-de-Franceregion
playedasignificanthistoricalroleinpoliticallydevelopingNorthernFrance,whichwould
leadtotheeventualunificationofthenorthernandsouthernregionsthatconstitute
moderndayFrance.Evidently,politicalpowerwaslargelyconcentratedinParis,whichwas
consideredasaflourishingandprosperingcity.Pariswaswheremembersoftheroyal
courtresidedandeventuallyformedtheadministrativestructureofthekingdom.So,
68Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”11.69Ibid.70Ibid.,12.71Ibid.
27
throughbecomingthelanguageofapoliticallycentralcity,françoysgainedmoreprestige
asalanguage.Additionally,severalschoolswereestablishedintheIle-de-Franceregion,
andsubsequentlymadeParisaprestigiousplacetolive.Bytheendofthethirteenth
century,françoisbecameadialectwithnotablestatusandwasthusthe“desirablenormfor
speech.”72
TheoriginsoftheFrenchlanguagearefairlycomplicated,largelyduetothediverse
linguisticlandscapeoftheregion.Throughreportingthisdiversity,onecanappreciatethe
complexevolutionoftheCelticlanguagesoftheGaul’stoLatin/Celticvernaculars,allof
whichwouldeventuallyevolveintomoderndayFrenchvialanguagepolicyandplanning
implementationthroughoutthefollowingcenturies.
2.FrenchLanguagePolicyFromFrançoisItotheFifthRepublic
2.1FrançoisI
Bythefifteenthcentury,françoiswasfairlywidespread,butLatinretaineditsstatus
asthelanguageforacademicandreligiousmatters.However,in1539,KingFrançoisI
attemptedtodiminishthelinguisticvalueofLatinwiththeOrdonnancedeVillers-Cotterêts.
TheEdicteffectivelyreplacedLatinwiththelangagematernelfrançoisasthe
administrativelanguageofthekingdom.So,françois,thelanguageofthekingandofthe
elitewhoresidedintheIle-de-Franceregion,wasrecognizedasthelanguageforlegaland
officialdocuments.Throughrecognizingthelanguagethatheusedastheofficiallanguage
ofhiskingdom,FrançoiseffectivelydiminishedtheChurch’spowerandinfluencethrough
rejectingLatin,thelanguagethatsymbolizedthepoweroftheChurch,asthe
72Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”14.
28
administrativelanguageofthekingdom.Instead,hisofficialrecognitionoffrançois
symbolizedandcentralizedtheKing’spowerandauthority.73
DespiteFrançois’sattempttocondenseandcentralizehispoliticalpowerand
influencethroughL’Ordonnance,therestillexistedalargelydiverselinguisticlandscape
acrosstheFrenchkingdom.FrançoyswasnotablyspokeninParis,butvariouspatois
dominatedcertainregionsofthekingdom.Forexample,inBretagne,Bretonwaspopularly
spoken,BasquewasspokeninBearn,andFlemishandFranciquewerespokeninthe
Northeast.74
2.2LeGrandSiècle:TheSeventeenthCentury
Duringtheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies,theFrenchgovernmentactively
workedtocodifyalanguagethatcouldbesharedthroughoutFrance,whichwaslargelydue
tothefactthattherestillexistedvaryingpatoisregionally.LouisXIV,leroisoleilandthe
quintessentialabsolutemonarch,consolidatedhispoweraskingandthusFrance’spolitical
powerthroughouttheseventeenthcentury.75
DuringLeGrandSiècle,Francebecameinternationallyrecognizedforitssocialand
economicprosperity.Bythemid1600s,KingLouisXIIIandhischiefministerCardinal
RichelieueffectivelycentralizedtheFrenchmonarchy.FollowingKingLouisXII,KingLouis
XIVworkedtofurthercentralizethemonarch’spower.Indoingso,hebecamethe“roi
soleil”(‘theSunKing’),becauseherepresentedthecenterofFrance’spower.Through
centralizingFrance’spower,adistinctandprestigiousFrenchcultureamongthe
73Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”15.74Leclerc,Jacques.“L’expansionnismelinguistiquedumonderomain”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[.http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s1_Expansion-romaine.htm].75Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”16.
29
aristocracyandeliteupperclassesemerged,duetothefactthatthewealthyflourishedand
thrivedunderLouis’sreign.
Frenchbecamea“badgeofidentity”forthearistocracy,andtheirusageofthe
languagecontributedtotheongoingelitereputationoftheFrenchlanguage.76Membersof
thearistocracyinParisandatVersaillesspokethebelusageversionofFrenchto
distinguishthemselvesasadistinctsocialclass.Belusageischaracterizedbyexaggerated
andpoetictermsthatreplacesimplephrasesinFrench.Membersoftheeliteatsalons
wouldoftencreatenewexpressionsandwouldchangethespellingofwords.77Table1
containsafewexamplesthatdemonstratetheFrenchwordswhosebelusagetermswere
usedtopoeticallydescribewhatthespeakerwascommunicating.78
Table1.Bonusagevs.belusage
Word BelUsageTerm
Nuit(‘night’) Mèrdesilence(‘seaofsilence’)
Oreille(‘ear’) Portesdemacompréhension(‘doorsof/tounderstanding’)
Chapeau(‘hat’) Affronteurdestemps(‘fighteroftheweather’)
Coincidingwithusingbelusagetosignifymembershiptotheupperclass,la
preciositémovementpromotedusingFrenchinalyricalandartisticmanner.Lesprécieuses
wereupperclasswomenwhoadoptedarefinedlifestyleandexpressedthisobsession
throughdress,mannerismsandlanguageinsalons,wheremembersofthearistocracy
discussedtheater,literature,philosophyandtheartofconversation.Evidently,usinga
76Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”20.77Vincent,“NationalConsciousness,NationalismandExclusion,”97.78Ibid..
30
certainstyleofFrenchamongtheupperclassesrepresentedtheculturalvaluethatthe
Frenchlanguageretainedduringtheseventeenthcentury.
TheFrenchlanguagealsorepresentedsophisticationandrefinementbecauseof
notoriousFrenchauthorsandplaywrightssuchasBousset,Corneille,Molière,LaFontaine
andPascalusingFrenchintheirwork.ThroughusingwrittenFrenchintheirwork,which
becameacentralfeatureofFrenchhighsocietyculture,theseauthorsandplaywrightsgave
culturalvaluetotheFrenchlanguage.Furthermore,Frenchbecamethelanguageof
diplomacyandwasspokeninroyalcourtsacrossWesternEurope.Throughobservingthe
distinctwaysthattheupperclassesusedaformofFrench,itisevidentthatthattheFrench
languageembodiedwealthandprestige,andsonotonlybecameafundamentalpartofthe
eliteculture,butalsoallowedforthelanguagetomaintainaprestigiousvalueacross
Europe.79
WhilethearistocracyusedapoeticformofFrench,theAcadémieFrançaise,which
wasfoundedbyCardinalRichelieuin1635,promotedbonusagethroughoutFranceto
standardizeandcodifythelanguage.Theacadémiciens,membersoftheAcadémie,were
responsibleformonitoringandstandardizingtheFrenchlanguage.Onesignificantmember
whopromotedbonusagewasClaudeFavredeVaugelas,whopublishedtheRemarquessur
lalanguefrançaisein1647,whichservedasaguidefortheelitewhocontinuouslyusedthe
belusageinthecourts.MembersoftheAcadémiesimilartoVaugelaspromotedtheproper
grammaticaluseoftheFrenchlanguagethroughoutthelateseventeenthcentury,andthus
79Leclerc,Jacques.“LefrançaisauGrandSiècle”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s6_Grand-Siecle.htm].
31
representanattempttouselanguageasaunifyingforce,whichwouldallowforthebetter
centralizationofpoliticalpower.80
DespitethefactthattheFrenchlanguagegainedprestigeamongthearistocracy,
playwrights,authorsandothermembersoftheupperclassinParisandatVersailles,and
despitetheeffortsofVaugelasandtheAcadémietostandardizetheFrenchspokeninParis,
themajorityoftheFrenchpopulationretainedtheusageoftheirpatois.Bytheeighteenth
century,anestimatedthreemillion(outofapopulationof25million)Frenchindividuals
spokepopularFrench.Despitetheintroductionofelementaryandformalschooling,the
ChurchpersistentlytaughtLatin,furtherindicatingthatFrenchwasnotpopularlyused
throughoutthecountry.So,bytheFrenchRevolution,therestilldidnotexistastandard,
nationallanguagethatwasspokenbythemajorityofthepopulation.81
2.3TheFrenchRevolutionandFrenchLanguagePolicy
TheFrenchRevolutioncompletelyalteredFrance’spoliticallandscapethrough
eradicatingage-oldinstitutionssuchasthemonarchyandfeudalsystem.Notonlydidthe
FrenchRevolutionreplacethekingdomwitharepublic,butitalsotransformedFrench
languagepolicyandplanning,whichwouldbecomeacrucialinstrumentintheprocessof
creatinganewnation.AsmentionedinChapter1,languagepolicyplaysanessentialrolein
nationbuilding,giventhatlanguagecanactasameanstostrengthennationalismandthe
prestigeofthenationitself.AndsincetheFrenchpoliticalclimatetransformedfrom
kingdomtonationduringtheRevolution,itwasessentialtobuildastrongFrenchnation
basedontheRevolutionaryanddemocraticprinciplesofLiberté,Egalité,Fraternité.Policy
80Battye,“TheFrenchLanguageToday,”23.81Leclerc,Jacques.“LaRévolutionfrançaise:lalanguenationale”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s8_Revolution1789.htm].
32
implementedbyRevolutionariesinthelateeighteenthcenturythus“radicallyaltered
Frenchnationalminoritypolicy”inordertocentralizethepowerofthenewlyfounded
FrenchnationandbolsterFrenchunityandidentity.82
SincetheFrenchRevolutionestablishedthemodernFrenchnationstate,itneeded
tobefoundedonthebasisofa“unifiedpoliticalinstitutionandacommoneconomic
market”butalsoonacommonculture,whichinoneway,couldbereflectedthroughhaving
anational,“sharedlanguage.”83PierreAchardwrites,forinstance,thatsharingacommon
languageaftertheRevolutionwouldinstigatethe“bureaucraticregulationof
communicationandtheemotionalandsymboliccommunionofthewholenation.”84
However,bytheendofFrenchRevolution,therewasnotadistinctsetoflanguage
policiesthatregardedthe“promulgationofstandardFrenchthroughouttheRepublic.”85
ThefirstknownlinguisticpoliciesthatregardedtheuseofFrenchrequiredthe
“translationsofalllawsanddecreesintolocalvernaculars.”86Soonafterthe
implementationoftheseheterogeneouspolicies,certainmembersoftheNationalAssembly
recognizedtheimportanceofestablishingonelanguageforonenation.
TheJacobindictatorshipthatfollowedtheRevolutionheavilypromotedthe
importanceofestablishingacommonnationallanguageforthenewFrenchnation.In
ordertohaveastrong,unitedconstituency,manyrevolutionariesarguedthattheFrench
nationneeded“tobefoundedona…sharedlanguage,”andnationalizingtheFrench
languagewouldallowforFrenchcitizenstocommunicatewithoneanotherandtocreatea82Cartrite,Britt."MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance:Jacobism,CulturalPluralism,andEthnoregionalIdentities."inCultureandBelonginginDividedSocieties,editedbyMarcHowardRoss,131.UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2009.JSTOR.83Achard,“HistoryandthePoliticsofLanguageinFrance,”239.84Ibid.,239.85Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”132.86Ibid.,131.
33
sharedsenseofa“unifiednationalspirit”thatwouldbondthemtogether.87Manymembers
oftheNationalAssemblyadditionallyarguedthatasingle,standardlanguagewouldallow
forthe“freeexchange”ofthedemocraticidealsoftheRevolution.88
PerhapsoneofthemostnotoriousexamplesoftheNationalAssemblyadvocating
foraunifyinglanguageisvisibleinAbbéGrégoire’sanalysisofasurveytakenacross
FrancethatwasusedtodeterminetheFrenchlinguisticlandscape.Theanalysis,“Surla
nécessitéetlesmoyensd’anéantirlespatoisetd’universaliserl’usagedelalangue
française”(‘Onthenecessityandthemeanstoannihilatethepatoisandtouniversalizethe
Frenchlanguage’),indicatedthataminorityoftheFrenchpopulationspokeParisian
French,andtherestspokeatleastthirtydialects.Hewrote:
ItisnoexaggerationtosaythatatleastsixmillionFrenchmen,particularlyinthe
countryside,donotspeakthenationallanguage;thatanequalnumberaremoreor
lessincapableofsustainingacoherentconversation;thatasaresult,thenumberof
truespeakersdoesnotexceedthreemillion,andthatthenumberofthosewhowrite
itcorrectlyisprobablyevensmaller.89
Grégoireadvocatedfortheannihilationof‘patois’dialectsthroughoutFrancesothatall
Frenchcitizenscouldsharethesamenationallanguageincommon.90DuetoGrégoire’s
resultsandsimilarargumentsmadebyothermembersoftheNationalConvention,aseries
oflawswerepassedin1794thatofficiallybannedtheuseofanylanguageotherthan
Frenchinpublicservicesandineducation.91Thefoundationsoflanguagepolicyofthe
87Kasuya,Keisuke."DiscoursesofLinguisticDominance:AHistoricalConsiderationofFrenchLanguageIdeology."InternationalReviewofEducation47(2001):235-51.JSTOR.88Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”132.89Ibid.,132.90Kasuya,“DiscoursesofLinguisticDominance,”240.91Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”133.
34
FrenchnationduringtheFrenchRevolutionwerethereforebasedintheideologythat
havingasharedlanguagewasessentialinfortifyingacohesiveandcollectiveFrench
nationalidentity,whichisanimportantthemeinthehistoryofFrenchlanguagepolicyand
planning.
2.4TheEighteenthCentury:LanguageinEducationPolicies
WhenNapoleonascendedtopowerintheearlynineteenthcentury,themajorityof
theFrenchpopulationretainedtheirlocalcommunity’sdialect.So,in1820,theFrench
governmentdecreed,“allactsofcivilstatus(ofpersons)bewritteninFrench,whichisthe
onlyofficiallanguage.HencethepatoisofthedifferentregionsinFranceareforbidden.”92
However,themajorityoftheFrenchpopulationstilldidnotshareonecommonlanguage;
Frenchofficialsthereforebegantouselanguage-in-educationplanningasameansto
spreadtheuseofParisian‘standard’Frenchanderadicatepatois.
FrenchschoolswerecreatedwiththeintentofmoldingFrenchcitizensthrough
cultivatingnationalismthroughthetransformationof“PeasantstoFrenchmen.”93Using
educationandschoolingasameanstostandardizeandspreadtheuseoftheFrench
languageculminatedwithLaLoiFerryin1882whentheThirdRepublic’sgovernment
mandatedcompulsoryandfreepubliceducation.94Studentswereexclusivelytaughtin
French,andanystudentwhowasheardspeakingtheircommunity’slocaldialectwouldbe
punishedandoften“bemadetowearatokenaroundtheirneck;theactualobjectvaried,a
peg,apaperribbonormetalobject,orabrick.”95In1845,aFrenchofficialinstructeda
groupofteachersinBrittanyto“rememberthatyouhavebeenpostedhereexclusivelyto
92Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”133.93Achard,“HistoryandthePoliticsofLanguageinFrance,”242.94Ibid.,242.95Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”134.
35
killtheBretonlanguage.”96TheobligatoryuseofFrenchintheclassroomwasaserious
taskforteachers.Frenchschoolsadditionallytaughtstudentstheir“sharedhistoryand
civicvalues,”whichhelpedinbreakingdownlocalidentitiesandbuildingacollective,
nationalidentity.97
TheFrenchgovernment’slanguagepoliciesthroughouttheeighteenthcentury
thereforesoughttoeliminateFrenchminoritydialectstominimizelocalpatriotismandto
increaseacollectivenationalpatriotism,whichwouldcontinuetocentralizeFrance’s
power.Largelyduetotheselanguage-in-educationpolicies,bythebeginningofWorldWar
Iin1914,themajorityofFrance’spopulationspokeastandardFrench,andthepatoisused
bylocalcommunitiesgraduallybecameminoritydialects.
2.5WorldWarIIandAmericanization
Bythetwentiethcentury,duetoyearsofeffortstostandardizeandspreadtheuse
ofFrench,thelanguagebegantorepresenttheprestigeoftheFrenchnationandFrench
cultureleadinguptotheWorldWars,andforsomeactedasasourceofnationalidentity
andpride.Frenchwasevenestablishedasthelanguageofdiplomacy,whichwasstrongly
reinforcedwhentheTreatyofVersailles(1919)waswritteninEnglishandinFrench.98
However,astheUnitedStatesemergedasapoliticalandeconomicpowerafterWWII,the
EnglishlanguagematerializedasasymbolicrepresentationofAmericanprestige.
PriortoWorldWarItheUnitedStatesgovernmentwasprimarilyconcernedwith
domesticpolicy.Therefore,theUSwasn’tnecessarilyrecognizedasamilitaristic,economic
superpowerleadinguptheFirstWorldWar.Intheinterwarperiod,USpolicyfocusedon
96Cartrite,“MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance,”133.97Ibid.98Leclerc,Jacques.“Lefrançaiscontemporain”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s9_Fr-contemporain.htm].
36
improvingtheeconomicproblemsofthe1930s,whichresultedina“policyofisolationism”
untilPearlHarbor,whichdrewtheU.S.militaryintoWorldWarII.WorldWarIIwasa
pivotalmomentinUShistory,foritisarguablywhentheUSemergedasaglobal
superpower.99Bytheendofthewar,becauseoftheglorificationoftheUnitedStatesand
itsinvolvementandvictoryduringthewar,English“becamethelanguageofthevictorsand
ofmilitarymight.”100Incontrast,FrenchbegantoloseitsprestigeduetotheNazi
occupationandVichy’scollaborationwithHitlerandtheNazis.Subsequently,French,
whichwashadpreviouslybeenconsideredasthelanguageofdiplomacy,was“oustedas
themainlanguageofpostwarnegotiations”andreplacedbyEnglish.101
FollowingWorldWarII,theUSwasconsideredtobeadominantpoliticalforceona
globalscale.TheWesternrejectionofCommunismandtheappraisaloftheAmerican
modelofdemocracyadditionallycontributedtotheriseoftheUSasadominantpolitical
force.Coincidingwiththisrisetopower,Englishbecameassociatedwitheconomic
globalization,and“contactacrosslinguisticborders”wasverylikelytobeinEnglish
throughoutthetwentiethcentury.102Englishwasincreasinglytaughtasasecondlanguage
acrosstheworldduetoitswideningpresenceinpolitics,economicsandalsoin
technologicaladvancements.Thisholdstobeespeciallytruefor“languageborncultural
products”suchasmovies,music,televisionshows,books,journalsandcomputersoftware,
allofwhichbecamethe“largestUSexportsector”bythe1990s.103Evidently,following
WorldWarII,theEnglishlanguagebecameincreasinglyglobalizedandaccessible,and
99Wright,LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,143.100Ibid.101Ibid.102Ibid.103Ibid.
37
arguablyreplacedtheFrenchlanguageastheprestigiouslyrecognizedandutilized
languageoftheglobalworld.104Englishthusisincreasinglyrecognizedasthe“lingua
franca”ofthecontemporaryworld,meaningthatitbecamethegloballanguageusedfor
internationalcommunicationacrossvariousdomains,includingcultural,scientific,
technologicalandpoliticalaffairs.105
BecauseFrancewasunderNazioccupationformostofWorldWarIIandwould
laterfreeitscolonies,itsstatuswasarguablydiminished.ThisresultedinCharlesde
Gaulle’sactiveeffortsto“restoreitspoliticalandeconomicauthority”duringhis
presidency.106DeGaullepulledFrancefromNATO,dischargedAmericantroopsinFrench
territoryandmadeFranceanuclearpowerwith“anindependentweaponscapacity.”107De
GaulleadditionallycreatedtheHautComité,whichactedtopromotetheuseofFrenchin
“internationalsettings”whilealsopromotingtheconceptofaninternational
Francophonie.108Morethan20committeesandcouncilswerecreatedduringthemiddleof
thetwentiethcentury,allofwhichwereestablishedtomonitorandpreservetheFrench
language.SomeofthesecouncilsincludetheComitéd’étudedestermestechniquesfrançais,
whichworkstofindFrenchequivalentsforforeigntechnicaltermsandcreatesnew
definitionsfortechnologicalterms;theConseilinternationaldelalanguefrançaise,which
aimstopromoteFrenchasthe“languageofeconomicandsocialdevelopment”inthe
modernworld;andtheOrganisationDéfensedelalanguefrançaise,which“reportsthedaily
decisionsoftheAcadémieFrançaise.”109
104Wright,LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,143.105Leclerc,“Lefrançaiscontemporain.”106Wright,LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,123.107Ibid.,123.108Ibid.,123.109Rickard,AHistoryofFrenchLanguage,
38
Despitetheseattempts,“asteadyofnumberofEnglishwords”enteredintosome
Frenchspeakersvocabulary,andyoungstudentsdevelopedanincreasingdesiretolearn
Englishasasecondlanguage.110ThisdesiretolearnEnglishwasalsoarguablyinfluenced
bythespreadofAmericanculturalgoods,suchasmusic,moviesandtelevisionshows,
which,withthehelpoftheInternet,wereaccessibletoyouthsacrosstheglobe.111English
thusgainedahugepresenceinthemedia,somuchsothatbythebeginningofthe1980s,
“three-fourthsofimportedtelevisionshowsinFrancewereAmerican.”112Theseshowsand
otherformsofmedia,whichareimportantlya“dailypresenceforpeople,”mainlyuse
“Anglo-Americancultureandvocabulary.”113UsingEnglishbecameverypublicandvery
prominentamongFrenchspeakers,andwouldbeperceived,tosome,asathreattothe
dedicationthatFrenchpoliticianshistoricallydemonstratedtotheFrenchlanguage.Bythe
latetwentiethcentury,theeffortstoestablishFrenchasasymbolforFrenchpowerand
prestigewerediminishedbytheencroachmentofEnglishandAmericanpoliticsand
economicsdominatingthenewlyglobalizedworld.
Nonetheless,FrenchlegislationcontinuedtopreservetheFrenchlanguagethat
manygovernmentofficialshavehistoricallysoughttocodifyinordertocentralizepower
andstrengthentheFrenchnation.In1985,theFrenchgovernmentcreatedthe
CommissariatGénéraldelaLangueFrançaisetooversee“allgovernmentagencies
monitoringtheFrenchlanguage.”114In1992,theFrenchConstitutionwaseditedtoinclude
110Wright,LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,123.111Gordon,DavidC.TheFrenchlanguageandnationalidentity:1930-1975.TheHague:Mouton,1978.InScheel,"FrenchLanguagePurism.”112Flaitz,Jeffra.TheideologyofEnglish:FrenchperceptionsofEnglishasaworldlanguage.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,1988.InScheel,"FrenchLanguagePurism,”34.113Scheel,"FrenchLanguagePurism,”35.114Grigg,Peter."ToubonornotToubon:TheinfluenceoftheEnglishlanguageincontemporaryFrance."EnglishStudies78,no.4(1997):368-84.InScheel,"FrenchLanguagePurism,”44.
39
thattheofficiallanguageoftheRepublicwasFrench.115Andin1994,theDictionnairedes
termsofficielsdelalanguefrançaisewaspublishedto“provideFrenchreplacementsfor
anglicisms.”116
FromFrançoisIertotheFifthFrenchRepublic,itisevidentthattheFrench
government’sutilizationoflanguagepolicyreflectedtheneedtoextendpowerinorderto
establishtheFrenchnationasapowerfulpoliticalentity.Withthiscontextualizationin
mind,onecanconcludethattheFrenchlanguagehasasignificanthistoricalandculture
value,inthatitwasutilizedasatoolfornationbuildingtostrengthentheinfluenceand
poweroftheFrenchnation.Forcenturies,Frenchlanguagepolicyandideologyhas
implemented“varioustypesofdiscoursesrangingfromirrationallanguagemythand
functionalmodelsinordertoestablishlinguisticdominanceandhierarchy.”117Inother
words,FrenchlanguagepolicyhasfocusedonpreservingtheprestigeoftheFrench
language,initiallytoconsolidatetheking’spowerandlatertoestablishandfortifythe
powerofthenation.Inturn,thisconsolidationofpowerhelpedestablishastronglink
betweentheFrenchlanguageandFrenchnationalidentity.
Followingthediscoursesurroundingempoweringandpreservingthenation,
however,itisapparentthatafterWorldWarII,theEnglishlanguageandAmericanculture
becamegloballydominant,andsodefendingtheFrenchlanguageinthetwentyfirst
centuryisoftenequatedwithacertainresistancetotheincreasingpresenceofa“global
AmericanEnglish.”118Increasingly,manyconservativelinguistsfeltthatFrenchvocabulary
115Wright,LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning,123.116Scheel,FrenchLanguagePurism,”31.117Kasuya,“DiscoursesofLinguisticDominance,”249.118Shelly,SharonL."UneCertaineidéedufrançais:thedilemmaforFrenchlanguagepolicyinthe21stcentury."Language&Communication19(1999):310.
40
andsyntaxis“menaced”byEnglish,andthatEnglishissimultaneously“usurpingits
(France’s)internationalroleinpolitical,economicandculturalaffairs.”119Thisdebate
surroundingtheperceivedthreatofEnglishiswhatgaveLaLoiToubonlegitimacyin1994.
3.LaLoiToubon(1994)
ThissectionpresentsthecontentandpublicsupportsurroundingLaLoiToubonto
indicatehowandwhythelawwaspassedandsupported.Followingthisanalysisinthe
subsequentchapter,theresultsfromanonlinesurveywillindicateopinionsthatlargely
differfromToubonandhissupporters,andwhichthereforesuggeststhatacertain
demographicofindividualslivinginFrancebelieveinthepromotionofmultilingualism
andthereforeopposeLaLoiToubon.
3.1Content
ItisinitiallyimportanttoprovideabriefsketchofthecontentandsanctionsofLa
LoiToubon.LaLoiToubonactuallyreplacedlaloi75-1349,alsoknownastheLoiBas-
Lauriol,passedonDecember21st,1975.120Thispieceoflegislationwasofficiallycalled
“TheMaintenanceofthePurityoftheFrenchLanguage,”anditlimitedtheuseofforeign
languagesorwords“inthesupplyanddemandofgoods,inadvertising(whetherspokenor
written),inlaborcontracts,businesstransactions,instructionsandguaranteesfor
appliances,inradioandtelevisionprograms,inpublicservicesandtransport.”121TheLoi
Bas-LauriolsetprecedentforLaLoiToubon,inthattheybothmandatedthepublicusageof
French;LaLoiToubon,however,wasintendedtobestricterinitsimplementation.
119Shelly,“UneCertaineidéedufrançais,”311.120Hansen,LB."LaPolitiqueLinguistiqueDuFrançais."1-21.121Rickard,Peter.AHistoryofFrenchLanguage.London:UnwinHyman,1989.inScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism,”22.
41
PassedinAugust1994,thefirstarticleoftheLaLoiToubonmandatesthat“the
FrenchlanguageisafundamentalelementofthepersonalityandpatrimonyofFrance.Itis
thelanguageofteaching,ofwork,andofpublicservices.”122Itisinterestingthatthefirst
lineofLaLoiToubonstatesthattheFrenchlanguageisanessentialfeatureofthe
“personality”orcultureofFrance,andinsodoing,thelawelevatesthehistoricaland
culturalvalueoftheFrenchlanguage.ArticletwomandatesthatFrenchbepresentinany
writtenororalpresentationordescriptionofaproductorservice.123Thisincludes
televisionandradioadvertisements,aswellaspublicsignage.Evidently,thecontentofLa
LoiToubonemphasizesthepublicusageofFrench,suggestingthatthosewhosupported
thelawhopedthatdailyencounterswiththeFrenchlanguagewouldincreaseafterLaLoi
Toubon’spassing.Generallyspeaking,LaLoiToubonmandatesthatFrenchmustbepresent
inadvertisingontelevision,ontheradio,insafetyandhealthregulations,andin
documents.Ifthereisno“Frenchequivalent”thentheuseofaforeignlanguageis
permitted.124
ThereexistfouragenciestoensurethatLaLoiToubonisimplementedproperly:
1) LaDirectiongénéraledelaconcurrence,delaconsommationetdela
répressiondesfraudes
2) LeBureaudeVérificationdelaPublicité
3) LeConseilsupérieurdel’audiovisuel
4) Lesassociationsdedéfensedelalanguefrançaise.125
122France.MinistryofCulturalAffairs.LOIn°94-665du4août1994relativeàl'emploidelalanguefrançaise(1).1994.123France.MinistryofCulturalAffairs.124Scheel,“FrenchLanguagePurism,”46.125Hansen,“LaPolitiqueLinguistique,”3.
42
TheFrenchgovernmenthastheabilitytopunishanypublicpersonsorbusinessesthatdo
notproperlyfollowLaLoiToubon.126TherearevariousfinesforviolatingLaLoiToubon;
anyviolatorcouldbefinedupto$2,000fora“firstoffense”andupto$4,000forany
“subsequentviolations.”127AninstanceinwhichLaLoiToubonwasviolatedwasin2006
whenanAmericancompanybranch,GEMedicalSystems,provideda“documentation
technique”onlyinEnglish.128ThedistributionofthedocumentwasindirectviolationofLa
LoiToubon,giventhattherewasnoFrenchpresenceortranslationofthedocument.129
LaLoiToubonis,onthesurface,apieceoflanguagepolicythatenforcesandensures
theuseoftheFrenchlanguageinpublicspaces.Uponcloserexamination,with
understandingthehistoryofFrenchlanguagepolicyandplanning,LaLoiToubonwas
enforcedandsupportedtoprotecttheFrenchlanguagefromaperceivedthreatofEnglish,
whichinturnindicatedthatthereexistedaperceivedthreatofAmericanculture.
Therefore,LaLoiToubonservesasafundamentalexampleoftheFrenchlanguagebeing
perceivedasafundamentalaspectofFrenchcultureandFrenchidentity.Thismakessense,
knowingthatlanguageandcultureareinterconnectedandthatFrenchlanguagepolicyand
planninghashistoricallyfunctionedtocodifyandspreadandlaterprotecttheFrench
language.Inthissense,theFrenchlanguageissymbolicinitsfunctionasameaningful
culturalandnationalemblemofFrance.
3.2PublicDebateandOpinionssurroundingLaLoiToubon
Atthetimeofit’spassing,therewerevariousopinionssurroundingLaLoiToubon.
EventhoughthetextofLaLoiToubondoesnotdirectlyindicateor“singleoutany
126Hansen,“LaPolitiqueLinguistique,”3.127Grigg,“ToubonornotToubon,”inScheel,“FrenchLanguagePurism,”47.128Hansen,“LaPolitiqueLinguistique,”3.129Ibid.,3-4.
43
particularlanguageforcensure,”manyofitssupportersandadvocatorsindicatedthatthe
lawwasessentialtorestricttheincreasingpresenceofEnglish,especially“inthedomains
ofadvertisingandmassmedia.“130Forexample,JacquesToubon,whowastheMinisterof
Culturewhenthelawwaspassed,saidinaninterviewwithClaudeHagège:
Cetteloi[loiToubon]estelle-mêmeuncombat.IlestclairquelaFrancen’estplusle
centredumondecommeellel’étaitauXVIIIesiècle.Augmenterlespositionsdu
françaisdanslemonderestedoncplusquejamaisuncombat.C’estl’undesobjectifs
decetteloi(‘Thislaw[Toubonlaw]isafight.ItisclearthatFranceisnotatthe
centeroftheworldlikeitwasduringtheeighteenthcentury.Toimprovethe
positionofFrenchintheworldisthereforeafightnowmorethanever.Thatisone
oftheobjectivesofthislaw’).131
ToubonassertsthattheToubonLawisa“fight,”andinadvertentlypointstoEnglishand
Americanizationastheentitythatthelawisfightingagainst.Hisrhetoricimpliesthat
Englishisathreat,andissomethingthatneedstobecombattedwithLaLoiToubon.Healso
interestinglypointstothefactthatFranceisnolonger“atthecenteroftheworld”likeit
usedtobe,butisclearlymakinganefforttoreestablishtheprestigeoftheFrenchlanguage,
atleastwithintheFrenchnation.132
InaneditorialessayinLeMonde,ToubonreiteratedhisargumentthatEnglishwasa
threattoFrenchcultureandnationalism:
Chacunprendcependantpeuàpeuconsciencequel’usaged’unelangueétrangère
n’estpasinnocent.Elledevient,dansbiendescas,uninstrumentdedomination,un
130Albert,“LinguisticAnthropology,”1166.131Kasuya,“DiscoursesofLinguisticDominance,”247.132Ibid.
44
agentd’uniformisation,unfacteurd’exclusionsociale,etlorsqu’onl’utilisepar
snobisme,unelanguedemépris(‘Everyoneisbecominggraduallyawarethatusing
aforeignlanguageisnotinnocent.Itbecomes,inmanycases,aninstrumentof
domination,anagentofstandardization,afactorofsocialexclusion,andwhenused
bysnobbery,alanguageofcontempt’).133
Here,ToubonaccusesEnglish-usersofsnobbism,inthattheyareusingthelanguageof
whatmanyperceivedtobetheeconomic,militaryandculturalsuperpowerofthelate
twentiethcentury.Infact,asdemonstratedpreviously,Frenchwasthegloballanguageof
dominationwithinFranceaswellasthroughoutFrance’scolonialempire.Thisviewpointis
somewhatironicgiventhatFrenchusagewasoftenpromotedtopreservetheprestigeof
France,whichmanynationalistsviewedastheeconomic,militaryandculturalcenterofthe
world,butnonethelessdemonstratesthatToubonperceivedtheFrenchlanguageashaving
asymbolicvalueandthatthereforeneededprotectionfromforeigninfluences.
AsidefromToubon,therewerenumerousprominentpoliticalfiguresinFrancewho
supportedLaLoiToubon.ThePresidentoftheNationalAssembly,PhilippeSeguin,for
example,wasreportedinLeMondearguingthatdefendingtheFrenchlanguagethroughLa
LoiToubonwasnecessary.134EdouardBalladur,whowasthePrimeMinisteratthetime,
said,“leroledel'Etatétaitjustementderedressercetyped’évolution"('theroleofthe
statewasjusttoaddressthistypeofevolution').135InadditiontoSeguin,membersofthe
AcadémieFrançaisefullysupportedLaLoiToubon.MaurisDruon,forinstance,saidinan
133Albert,“LinguisticAnthropology,”1168.134Peronçel-Hugoz,Jean-Pierre.“Culture:Leprojetdeloisurl’emploidufrançaisenFrance;Langue:l’impatiencedeM.Segui.”LeMonde.20Jan.1994.Online.Nexis.21Jan.1994inScheel,“FrenchLanguagePurism,”48.135Ibid.
45
articleinLeFigarothattheFrenchmediaunjustlyuses“falsemeanings,barbarisms,
ignoranceofthemostelementaryrulesofsyntax,defectivepronunciation,theinvasionof
foreigntermsandageneraltendencytovulgarity.”136Anothermember,BertrandPoirot
Delpech,said,“Legislatingwithregardtoverballaxityineconomicandadministrativelife
isbothlegitimateandnecessary.Ifitcomestoimposingrestraintsorevenfines,ifthelaws
arebroken,thenwhynot?”137
Othersupporters,whocouldbecalled“linguisticconservatives,”hadsimilar
sentiments.138Frequently,ToubonandhisfollowersarguedthatusingEnglishwasa
“renunciationorrejectionofone’sFrenchidentityandthatofculturalelitism.”139Following
thistypeofrhetoric,otherFrenchlinguisticconservativesemphasizedthatusingEnglish
reflectedasortof“culturalrenunciation,”whichdemonstratesthatthesesupportersfeared
the“multinationalcharacter”ofoutsideinfluences(especiallyAmerican)onFrenchculture,
whichtheyfearedwouldcausearejectionofanallegiancetotheFrenchnation.140Their
positionsthereforereflectthehistoricaltrendofFrenchlanguagepolicy’srolein
strengtheningandpreservingFrenchnationalidentityinthattheyvaluetheFrench
languageasbeingafundamentalaspecttoFrenchcultureandidentity.141
WhiletherewasobviouslyameasurableamountofsupportforLaLoiToubon,there
wasalsoopposition.Mostoftheseobjectionswerediverse,“rangingfromobjectionstothe
limitationsitwouldimposeonthescientificcommunitytoculturalconcerns,”manyof
136Nundy,Julian."France:OutofFrance-BoisdeL’estRidesAgain,toDefendLinguisticPurity."TheIndependent,June2,1994.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism,”49.137Grigg,“ToubonornotToubon,”inScheel,“FrenchLanguagePurism,”49.138Albert,1168.139Ibid.140Ibid.141Ibid.
46
whichrelatedtospecificarticlesofLaLoiToubon.142AFrenchsenator,FrançoiseSeligman,
opposedLaLoiToubonthrougharguingthatitwould“alienatetheyoungergenerationby
forbiddingtheirslangwordsandmannerofspeech.”143So,insteadofprotectingtheFrench
language,someFrenchindividualsperceivedthelawasrestrictingitsuse,whichinturn
wouldarguablyalienatealargepercentoftheFrenchpopulation.Manyscientistsand
deputiesopposedLaLoiToubonbecausetheybelievedthatthelawshouldnotinterfere
withlanguageuse,especiallysinceEnglishdominatedmanyscientificfields.Laurent
Dominati,aliberaldeputy,forexample,indicatedthat“lalangue,c’estlapensée;l’Etatn’a
pasàs’enmeler"('Language,itisthought;theStateshouldnotinterferewiththat').144
Perhapsoneofthereasonswhyscientistsopposedthelawwasbecauseofthe
overwhelminguseofEnglishinscientificarticles,conferences,andgeneral
correspondence.
Overall,LaLoiToubonwassupportedbysomeprominentpoliticalfiguresbecause
theyperceivedEnglishasthreateningtheprestigeandpublicpresenceoftheFrench
language.Therefore,LaLoiToubonservesasanexampleofFrenchlanguagepolicyand
planningthatreflectsthesignificantculturalvalueoftheFrenchlanguageinbeinga
markerofFrenchidentityandofcentralizedFrenchpower.However,LaLoiToubonpoints
tothepromotionofunilingualismandsuggestsabacklashagainstlinguisticandcultural
diversity,whichwillbediscussedindetailinChapter3.
4.Conclusion 142Scheel,“FrenchLanguagePurism,”51.143Thody,Philip,HowardEvans,andMichellePepratx-Evans.Lefranglais:forbiddenEnglish,forbiddenAmerican-law,politicsandlanguageincontemporaryFrance:astudyinloanwordsandnationalidentity.London:Athlone,1995.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism,”51.144Mikosaka,Jana,andNicoleMartriche."Uneloicontroverséecontrele‘franglais’definitivementadopteeenFrance."AgenceFrancePresse,July1,1994.inScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism,”52.
47
ThroughprovidingthehistoricalcontextunderwhichtheFrenchlanguage
developedandbecamecodifiedvialawinFrance,Ihopetohavedemonstratedthatthe
FrenchlanguagehasplayedafundamentalroleinthedevelopmentoftheFrenchnation,
particularlyduringtheFrenchRevolution.Additionally,sincetheFrenchlanguageis
symbolicofFrenchcultureandusingitoftenactsasamarkerofFrenchidentity,itisclear
thatFrenchhasasignificanthistoricalandculturalvaluethatissopervasivethatLaLoi
ToubonwaspassedtoprotectFrenchagainstaperceivedthreatofEnglishandAmerican
culture.
LaLoiToubonthereforerepresentsashiftinFrenchlanguagepolicy.Asindicated
earlierinthischapter,Frenchlanguagepolicyoriginallyfunctionedtostandardizeand
spreadtheuseofFrenchacrosstheregiontoensurethatallFrenchindividualswoulduse
onelanguageforcommunication.Fromthegovernment’sperspective,languagewasused
asapoliticaltooltoconsolidatepower,whichinturnwouldcreateadistinctFrench
nationalidentity.However,LaLoiToubonisindicativeofthepoliticalandeconomic
influencethattheEnglishlanguagegainedaftertheSecondWorldWar,giventhatitwas
passedtoprotecttheFrenchlanguageandpromoteitspublicpresenceyearsafterFrench
wasdeclaredastheofficiallanguageofFrance.
SupportersofLaLoiToubonpromotedthelawbecauseFrenchwaslosingthe
prestigethatithistoricallygainedoverthepastcenturies.Therefore,LaLoiToubonfurther
suggeststhattheFrenchlanguageissymbolicallyperceivedasapoliticaltoolforpower
consolidationtoensurethattheFrenchlanguageremainsafundamentalaspectofFrench
cultureandidentity.Andwhilethissupportreflectsthehistoricalprotectionand
preservationoftheFrenchlanguage,itmayalsosuggestafightagainstlinguisticand
48
culturaldiversity,whichisanissuethatmanyindividualssupport,especiallyina
contemporarycontext.Evidenceofsupportforlinguisticandculturaldiversityisfoundin
thesurveyfindingsinthesubsequentchapter.
49
Chapter3:SurveyMethods,FindingsandAnalysis
1.Introduction
Thischapterservestosynthesizethefindingsofaweb-basedsurveysentto
participantsinFrance.Thesurvey’srelevancetothestudycanbefoundinitscontent
focusingonattitudesaboutFrenchlanguage,identity,andlanguagepolicy,specificallyin
referencetoLaLoiToubon.Thepreviouschaptersdemonstratedthatthereexistsa
significantrelationshipbetweenlanguage,culture,andidentityandlanguagepolicy.Since
languageandcultureareinextricablyintertwined,languagepolicycanbeusedasapolitical
tooltoreinforcethisnotionthroughstandardizingandsupportinglanguageuseinthe
public.InthecaseofFrance,itisevidentthathistorically,languagepolicypreservedand
laterprotecttheFrenchlanguageagainstoutsideforces,especiallyEnglish.Supportersof
LaLoiToubonfollowedthisprinciple,hopingthatthelawwouldretaintheFrench
language’sprestigiousglobalrole.However,theresultsfromthissurveyrevealapotential
shiftincontemporaryideologiesandopinionssurroundinglanguagepolicyinFrance
amongacertaindemographicofindividualsresidinginFrance.Whileitisimportantto
notethattheparticipantpooldoesnotrepresenttheentireFrenchnation,itdoesrepresent
individualswhoresideinFranceandthusexemplifiesaportionofcontemporarypublic
opinionsurroundingFrenchlanguagepolicy,LaLoiToubon,andFrenchlanguaculture.
Thepurposeofthischapteristoengageadiscussionaboutcontemporarypublic
opinionsurroundinglanguagepolicyinFrance.Itwillthereforeserveasacomparisonto
thehistoricalanalysisoflanguagepolicyandidentityinrelationtoLaLoiTouboninFrance
thatwasdescribedinthepreviouschapter.Iwillfirstintroducethemethodsutilizedto
50
distributethesurveyandrecruitparticipants.Second,Iwillpresentthefindingsofthe
survey.Third,Iofferananalysisanddiscussionofthefindings.
2.Methods
2.1RecruitmentandDesign
UsingGoogleSurvey,anonlinesurveywasdesignedforthisstudy.Theresearcher
andherthesisadvisordistributedthesurveytotheirpersonalandprofessionalcontacts
viaemailandFacebook.Thesurveycontainssixsections,dividedonatopical-basis(see
Appendix2).Thefirstportionisarequiredwrittenconsentformthatliststhesurvey’s
purpose,procedure,risks,benefits,andconfidentiality.Subsequently,thereisasection
withquestionsregardingtheparticipant’sdemographicinformation,includingtheirage,
sex,spokenlanguage(s),educationbackground,nativecountryandexperience(ifany)
studyingand/orlivingabroad.Thequestionnaire’sthirdsectioncontainsstatements
concerninggeneralattitudesabouttheFrenchlanguage’shistoricalandcultural
significanceinrelationtohavingaFrenchnationalidentity.Eachparticipantwasaskedto
ranktheiragreementwitheachstatementonascalefrom1-4(i.e.,a4-pointLikert-type
scale),with1meaningthattheycompletelydisagreeand4meaningthattheycompletely
agree.ThefourthportionofthesurveycontainsstatementsregardingFrenchlanguage
policyandtheFrenchgovernment’sroleinensuringthepublicpresenceoftheFrench
language.Correspondingwiththethirdsection,participantswereaskedtoranktheir
agreementwitheachstatementonascalefrom1-4.Thefifthsectionhasquestionsabout
theparticipant’sinteractionswithforeignlanguagesingeneralandparticularlywith
English.Thesixthandfinalportionofthesurveyfirstaskstheparticipantsabouttheir
knowledgeregardingLaLoiToubonanditscontent,andsubsequentlyhasopen-ended
51
questionsregardingtheparticipant’sopinionsabouttheimplicationsandnecessityofthe
law.
2.2ParticipantInformation
Atotalof44individualsbetweentheagesof20and72(mean=46)andcurrently
livinginFrancecompletedthesurvey.20identifiedasmale,and24identifiedasfemale.
Themajorityofparticipantswerehighlyeducated,with17doctoratedegreeholders,8
mastersdegreerecipients,5“licence”holders,6“HDRs”,2withaBAC+5,2reportinga
BAC+3,and2thesis-writers.ThevastmajorityoftheparticipantswerefromFrance
(n=33),followedbyAlgeria(n=3).Othernativecountries,reportedindividually,included
Scotland,Columbia,Ireland,Spain,Quebec,Morocco,andGreece.
Inadditiontothehighlevelsofeducationamongparticipants,asizeablenumberof
participants(n=41)reportedhavingatleastsomeknowledgeofadditionallanguages,9
werebilingual,17weretrilingual,13spoke4languages,1spoke5languages,and1
reportedspeaking6languages.Participantswereaskedtolistwhatlanguage(s)they
spoke;assumingthattheparticipantlistedtheirlanguage(s)inchronologicalorder(i.e.the
firstlanguagelistedisassumedtobetheparticipant’sL1),themajority(n=36)reported
FrenchastheirL1,followedbyEnglish(n=2),Spanish(n=2),Kabyle(n=1),Bambara(n=1),
Arabic(n=1),andGreek(n=1).English(n=23)wasreportedasthemajorL2,followedby
French(n=7),andotherlanguagesincludingGerman(n=4),Arabic(n=4),Italian(n=1),
Spanish(n=1),andNorwegian(n=1).ParticipantslistedEnglishastheirL312times,
followedbySpanish(n=9),German(n=4),Portuguese(n=2),Spanish(n=2),Arabic(n=1),
French(n=1),andItalian(n=1).Spanishwaslisted5timesasanL4,followedby
Portuguese(n=3),Polish(n=2),Italian(n=1),Greek(n=1),English(n=1),Arabic(n=1),and
52
Wolof(n=1).SlovakianandBamananwerelistedasL5languages,andcreolewaslistedas
anL6language.
Inadditiontoreportinghighlevelsofmultilingualism,alargenumberof
participantsindicatedthattheyhavestudiedand/orlivedabroad(n=33).20participants
reportedthattheyhadlivedin1-3countries,and1markedthattheyhavelivedinmore
than3countries.18reportedspendingashorttime(lessthan1year)livingabroad,with5
marking3monthsorless,4marking3-6months,and9marking6-12months.The
remainingparticipantsindicatedspendingalongperiodoftimelivinginaforeigncountry:
12-24months(n=12)andmorethan2years(n=14).
Whenaskedabouttheirinteractionswithforeignlanguages,29(67.4%)ofthe
participantsreportedthattheyinteractedwithalanguageotherthanFrenchmultiple
timesaday,followedby11(25.6%)whoreportedonceadayand6(14%)whoreported
lessthanonceaweek.21(48.8%)reportedthattheyencounteredEnglishlanguageusage
multipletimesaday,followedby8(18.6%)whoreportedonceaday,11(25.6%)reported
multipletimesaweekand6(11.6%)reportedlessthanonceaweek.
Thissectionconcludedwithanopen-endedquestionthatinquiredparticipantsto
reportiftheyhadanystrongopinionsaboutinteractingwithforeignlanguagesingeneral
andwithEnglishinparticular.Asignificantamountoftheparticipantsfavored
multilingualism.Forinstance,onewrote,“Jepensequelemultilinguismeestàpromouvoir”
(‘Ithinkthatmultilingualismissomethingtopromote’).Anotherparticipantwrote,“J’aime
beuacoupavoirdesinteractionsavecleslanguesétrangères“(‘Ilovetohavelotsof
interactionswithforeignlanguages’),followedbyasimilarlysentimentdeclaring,“Le
monolinguismeestunmythe.Noussommestousplurilingues”(‘Monolingualismisamyth.
53
Weareallplurilingual’).Anotherparticipantsupportedthisclaimbyindicating,“Ilfautêtre
ouvertàtoutesleslangues”(‘Itisnecessarytoremainopentoalllanguages’).Onlyone
participanthadastrongattitudeagainstinteractingwithEnglish,writing,“Jesuishostileà
l’envashissementdelaculturefrançaiseparlalangueanglaiseetlaculturedesEtats-Unis”
(‘IamhostiletotheinvasionofFrenchculturebytheEnglishlanguageandAmerican
culture’).
3.Findings
3.1AttitudesSurroundingtheFrenchLanguage
Thissectionpresentsthefindingsfromtwoportionsofthesurvey.Table2indicates
thescoreforeachstatementundertheattitudesabouttheFrenchlanguagesectionofthe
survey.Theparticipantswereaskedtoselectanumberonascaleof1-4,with1indicating
thattheydonotagreeatallwiththestatementanda4indicatingthattheycompletely
agreewiththestatement.Figure1isabargraphrepresentingthemeanscoresforeach
question.ThescoresforFigure1wereconvertedtorepresenthoweachquestionscoredon
ascalefrom-1.5to1.5tobettervisualizehowparticipantsleanedintheiragreementor
disagreementwitheachquestion.
Thisportionofthesurveywascalled“AttitudesSurroundingtheFrenchLanguage,”
andwasaccompaniedbystatementsthatrecognizedtheimportanceoftheFrench
languageinrelationtoFrenchcultureandidentity.Thefirststatementindicatedthatthe
FrenchlanguageisanimportantaspectofthecultureandhistoryofFrance,andthe
averagescore,3.58,suggeststhatmostparticipantsagreedwiththisstatement.
Subsequently,thesecondstatementaffirmedthatallFrenchpeopleshouldknowhowto
speakandwriteFrench.Theaveragescore,2.86,indicatesasplitinagreement,butleans
54
moretowardcompletelyagreeingwiththestatement.Next,thethirdstatementpointedto
thenecessityofspeakingFrenchinordertobeconsideredFrench.Theaveragescore,2.72,
pointstoanothersplitinagreement,withjustoverone-halfofrespondersleaningtoward
agreement.ThefourthandfinalstatementwrotethattheabilitytospeakFrenchis
essentialtoconstructingacohesiveFrenchnationalidentity,andtheaveragescore,2.77,
demonstratesaslightleaningtowardagreement.
Table2:AttitudesSurroundingtheFrenchLanguage
Score
Question 1 2 3 4 Mean
1(n=43) 0(0%) 4(9.3%) 10(23.3%) 29(67.4%) 3.58
2(n=42) 6(14.3%) 9(21.4%) 12(28.6%) 15(35.7%) 2.86
3(n=43) 7(16.3%) 12(27.9%) 10(23.3%) 14(32.6%) 2.72
4(n=43) 9(20.9%) 8(18.6%) 10(23.3%) 16(37.2%) 2.77
Figure1:MeanScoresofAttitudesSurroundingtheFrenchLanguage
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Question1
Question2
Question3
Question4
AttitudesSurroundingtheFrenchLanguageMeanScores
55
3.2LanguagePolicy
Table3showsthescoreforeachstatementundertheLanguagePolicyportionofthe
survey.Similartotheprevioussection,participantswereaskedtoselectanumberona
scaleof1-4,with1indicatingthattheydonotagreeatallwiththestatementanda4
indicatingthattheycompletelyagreewiththestatement.Figure2indicatestheaverage
scoreforeachquestionintheformofabargraph.Thescores,similarlytothoseinFigure1,
wereconvertedtobeonascalefrom-1.5to1.5tobetterdemonstratethesplitin
agreementanddisagreementamongparticipants.
Thissectionofthesurveywascalled“LanguagePolicy,”andwasaccompaniedwith
statementsregardingtheFrenchgovernment’sroleinpreservingandprotectingthe
Frenchlanguage.ThefirststatementindicatedthatFrenchshouldbetheonlyofficial
languageofFrance.Themeanscore,2.02pointstoaleaningtowardparticipant
disagreement.ThesecondstatementpointedthattheFrenchgovernmentmustensurethat
FrenchremaintheonlyofficiallanguageofFrance,andwasaccompaniedbyanaverage
scoreof1.91,showingasplitinagreementthatleanedtowarddisagreement.Subsequently,
thethirdstatementreferredtothenecessityoftheFrenchlanguage’spresenceinpublic
spaces.Theaveragescore,3.17,showsthatparticipantstendedtoagree.Thefourth
statementpointedtoFrenchneedingtobepresentinallformsofmedia,andtheaverage
score2.81indicatesaslightagreement.Thefifthandfinalstatementindicatedthatthe
Frenchlanguagemustbethelanguageofeducation,workandservice.Theaveragescore,
3.02,signifiesparticipant’sinclinationtowardsagreement.
56
Table3:LanguagePolicy
Score Question 1 2 3 4 Mean
1(n=43) 19(44.2%) 13(30.2%) 2(4.7%) 9(20.9%) 2.02
2(n=43) 22(51.2%) 11(25.6%) 2(4.7%) 8(18.6%) 1.91
3(n=43) 7(16.3%) 5(11.6%) 7(16.3%) 24(55.8%) 3.17
4(n=43) 6(14%) 12(27.9%) 9(20.9%) 16(37.2%) 2.81
5(n=43) 4(9.3%) 7(16.3%) 16(37.2%) 16(37.2%) 3.02
Figure2:MeanScoresofLanguagePolicy
3.3LaLoiToubon
ThissegmentofthesurveycontainedquestionsspecificallyregardingLaLoi
Toubon.Initially,participantswereaskedtoranktheirknowledgeofLaLoiToubonona
scalefrom1-10,witha1pointingtohavingnoknowledgeaboutthelawanda10
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Question1
Question2
Question3
Question4
Question5
LanguagePolicyMeanScores
57
indicatingknowingthelaw’scontentverywell.Figure3isabargraphthatrepresentsthe
responsestothisquestion.Thegraphindicatesthatasignificantamountofparticipants
(n=20),werecompletelyunfamiliarwithLaLoiToubonanditscontent.Inbetween
indicatingcompletelyunfamiliarityandcompletefamiliaritywiththelaw,aremaining17
participantsindicatedthattheyweresomewhatfamiliarwithLaLoiToubon.Interestingly,
6participantsindicatedhavingcompletelyfamiliaritywithLaLoiToubon.Thiscallsfor
furtheranalysisoftheseparticipantsduetothesignificantamountthatclaimedthatthey
wereveryknowledgeableaboutLaLoiToubonincomparisontothe20participantswho
markedthattheywerecompletelyunfamiliarwithLaLoiToubon.
Figure3:FamiliaritywithLaLoiToubon
Outofthese6participants,only1indicatedthattheyweremonolingual(inFrench).
Theremainingparticipantsmarkedthattheyspokethreeormorelanguages(including
English,German,Polish,Slovakian,Italian,German,SpanishandBreton.All6reportedhigh
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FamiliaritywithLaLoiToubon
58
levelsofeducation,4ofwhichhavedoctoratedegrees,andonewithamaster’sdegreeand
theotherwithanHDR.Allbut1isfromFrance,withtheotherparticipantbeingfrom
Ireland.Allparticipantsindicatedthattheyspenttimelivingand/orstudyingabroadin
countriesincludingPoland,Slovakia,Croatia,Germany,Scotland,Senegal,Vietnam,
Montreal,Mayotte,andSwitzerland.
Thefirstopen-endedquestionofthisportionofthesurveyaskedparticipantsifthey
coulddescribeLaLoiToubonafterrankingtheirfamiliaritywithit.P1wrotethatLaLoi
Toubonensuredthe“enrichissementdufrançais”(‘enrichmentofFrench’).P2andP3
wrote“oui”(‘yes’),indicatingthattheycoulddescribeLaLoiToubon,butdidnotelaborate.
P4actuallydirectlyquotedLaLoiToubon,writingthatthelawdefinestheFrenchlanguage
as“unelementessentialdupatrimonieetdelapersonnalitédelaFrance”(‘anessential
elementtotheheritageandpersonalityofFrance’).P4theninsertstheirpersonalopinion
aboutthisportionofLaLoiToubon,claimingthatis“faux”(‘false’),andthatthelaw“nefait
quereprendredesdispositionsantérieurespourdefendrelemonopoledufrançaisdans
l’espacepublic”(‘merelyadoptspreviousprovisionstodefendthemonopolyofFrenchin
publicspace’).P5accuratelydefinedLaLoiToubonasimposingtheFrenchlanguage“dans
lemilieuprofesionnel,lapublicité,lesinstancespubliques”(‘intheprofessionalworld,
advertising,andpublicauthorities’)andthatitenforcesan“obligationdetraduireen
français,”(‘obligationtotranslateintoFrench’),witha“butestdeprotégerlefrançaisd’une
dominationparl’anglais”(‘aimtoprotectFrenchfromdominationbyEnglish’).P6wrote
thatLaLoiToubon“préconisequelalanguefrançaisedoitêtrepreservéeentantque
languescientifique“(‘statesthattheFrenchlanguagemustbepreservedasascientific
language’).
59
Afteraskingparticipant’siftheycoulddescribeLaLoiToubon,participantswere
askedwhatthelaw’simplicationswereregardingthestatusoftheFrenchlanguagein
France.P1wrotethatthelawrepresentedthe“interdictiondedonnerdesinformations(y
comprislapublicité)sansversionenlanguefrançais”(‘prohibitionofdistributing
information(includingadvertising)withoutaFrenchversion’).P2wrotethatthelaw
impliedthe“ledroit(etsurcertainspointsl’obligation)del’utiliser”(‘right(andatcertain
timestheobligation)tousetheFrenchlanguage’).P3indicatedthatLaLoiToubonsignified
that“lalanguefrançaiseestlangueofficielle,maislaloin’apasd’influenceréellesurla
langueparléeparlaplupartdelapopulationfrançaise(commetoujours)maisonutilise
aussidesanglicismes”(‘theFrenchlanguageistheofficiallanguage,butthelawdoesnot
haveanyrealinfluenceonthelanguagespokenbythemajorityoftheFrenchpopulation,
wecontinuetospeakFrench(likealways)butwealsocontinuetouseanglicismes’).The
term“anglicismes”referstoEnglishwordsthatareslightlyalteredtosoundandappear
French.P4wrotethatunderthelaw,“l’anglaisn’ensouffreguère,leslanguesregionales
bienavantage”(‘Englishhardlysuffers,”butthat“regionallanguages[suffer]muchmore’).
P5wrotethatLaLoiToubonimpliesthattheFrenchlanguage“dominetoutslesautres
langues…elledévaloriseleplurilinguisme”(‘dominatesallotherlanguages…itdevalues
plurilingualism’).Lastly,P6,whowasundertheimpressionthatLaLoiToubonwaspassed
tomakeFrenchascientificlanguage,wrotethatthelawhasnoimplications,since
scientists“obligeàécrireenanglais”(‘areobligedtowriteinEnglish’).
ThethirdandfinalquestionofthisportionregardedLaLoiToubon’snecessity,and
askedparticipantstoexplainwhyorwhynottheythoughtthelawwasobligatory.P1
wrotethattheydidthinkthelawwasnecessary,aslongas“qu’ellen’interdisepas
60
l’utilisationd’autreslangues(regionales,étrangères)”(‘itdoesnotprohibittheuseofother
languages(regional,foreign)’).P2suggestedthatLaLoiToubonwasnotnecessary,writing
thatlefrançaisn’estpasmenacé,ilestmenaçant(saufdanslaspherescientifique)”
(‘Frenchisn’tmenaced,itismenacing(exceptinthescientificsphere)’)P3alsoindicated
thatthelawwasn’tnecessarybecause“ellen’apasd’effetréel”(‘itdoesn’thaveanyreal
effect’).Similarly,P4wrotethatthelawwasnotnecessarybecause“LaFranceestunpays
historiquementplurilingue,c’estungenocideculturelquid’occultercetteréalité”(‘France
isahistoricallyplurilingualcountry,itisaculturegenocidethatobscuresthisreality’).P5
wrotethatLaLoiToubonwas“tropprescriptivesûrement,”(‘tooprescriptive’)andthat
theyarebothered“qu’uneloiimposel’usaged’uneseulelangue”(‘thatalawimposesthe
useofonlylanguage’).P6critiquedthelawforbeing“”factice”(‘fictitious’),becauseit“ne
s’accordepasaveccequiestconcrètementdemandé”(‘doesnotaccordwithwhatis
specificallydemanded’).
Apartfromthecommentsfromparticipant’swhomarkedtheirfamiliaritywithLa
LoiToubonatalevel10,thereareadditionalcommentsofinteresttobenotedfrom
participants.Forinstance,whenaskediftheycoulddescribeLaLoiToubon,oneparticipant
wrotethatitwasimplementedasa“défensedufrançais”(‘defenseofFrench’).Another
participantwrotethatLaLoiToubon“favoriserl’usagedufrançaiseninterdisantl’usage
d’autreslangues,commeanglais”(‘favorstheuseofFrenchwhileprohibitingtheuseof
otherlanguages,suchasEnglish’).Additionally,aparticipantwrotethatthelawpromotes
theneedto“toujoursutiliserlalanguefrançaiseetbannertoutcequis’écartedelanorme”
(‘useoftheFrenchlanguageandbanishesanythingthatdeviatesfromthenorm’).
61
WhenaskedabouttheimplicationsofLaLoiToubonregardingthestatusofthe
FrenchlanguageinFrance,oneparticipantnotablywrotethatthelawgavetheFrench
language“promotionetvisibilité”(‘promotionandvisibility’).Severalindicatedthatthe
lawreinforcedthenotionthattheFrenchlanguageisthe“seuleetuniquelanguedela
République”(‘onlyofficiallanguageoftheFrenchRepublic’)andthatthelanguagewas
therefore“intouchable”(‘untouchable’).Anotherparticipantwrotethatthelawsymbolized
“l’usagesociale”(‘thesocialusage”ofFrench’),whichisa“unfacteurplusimportant”
(‘moreimportantfactor’)whendeterminingthestatusoftheFrenchlanguagepolitically.
ManyparticipantscritiquedLaLoiToubonwhenaskedaboutitsnecessity.For
instance,onewrotethatthelaw“estdépassé”(‘isoutdated’),andthattheFrenchlanguage
should“àpromouvoiretàprotégermaispasdeforce,”(‘bepromotedandprotectedbut
notforced’)ontotheFrenchpopulation.Anotherparticipantcriticizedthelawasbeing
“hypocrite”(‘hypocritical’),since“lesuniversitiesfrançaisesenseignentcertaines
disciplinesenanglais”(‘FrenchuniversitiesteachcertaindisciplinesinEnglish’).In
addition,oneparticipantwrote“chacunestlibredeparlerlalanguequ’ilsouhaiteutiliser”
(‘everyoneisfreetospeakwhateverlanguagetheywishtouse’),withanotherechoing
thesesentimentsbystatingthatthelaw“vaàl’encontredescertaineslibertésetdela
diversitélinguistiqueetsesevolutionsnaturelles”(‘goesagainstcertainfreedomsand
linguisticdiversityanditsnaturalevolutions’).
Otherparticipantsbelievedthatthelawwasnecessary,butthatitwaslogistically
difficulttoenforce,andthatitmaynothaveanyrealeffect.Oneparticipant,forinstance,
wrote,“uneloinepeutrivaliseravecl’usage.(Nousnesommesplusautempsde
l’OrdonnancedeVillers-Cotterêts).C’estdoncparl’usagequelalanguefrançaisesaura
62
d’adapteràlamodernité…”lefrançaisestsouventenconcurrencequ’ils’enrichitde
l’intérieur(comme“binette”pour“emoticone”,“pilote”pour“driver,”“mdr”pour
“lol”)…uneobligationd’applicationestentréeenvaguerdansl’educationen2016
(seulement).Maiscetteréformen’enteradanslesmoeursquesiles
imprimaturs/editors/mediasl’appliquent,sanscelaresteraunvoeupieux,commecellesde
1901,1925,1976…”(‘alawcannotcompetewithusage.(Wearenolongerinthetimeof
theOrdinanceofVillers-Cotterêts).ItisthereforebyusethattheFrenchlanguagewill
adapttomodernity…Frenchisoftenincompetitionwhichisenrichedfromwithinsuchas
binetteforemoticone,pilotfordriver,mdrforlol…Anenforcementobligationenteredinto
forcein2016.Butthisreformwillonlybecomecustomifprinters/publishers/themedia
applyit,otherwiseitwillremainapiouswish,asthoseof1901,1925,1976…’).
AfewparticipantscompletelyagreedwiththenecessityofLaLoiToubon.For
instance,oneparticipantwrotethatitwasnecessaryto“favoriserl’existencedelalangue
françaisecommesignificantdel’identiténationale”(‘favortheexistenceoftheFrench
languageasasignifierofanationalidentity’).Anotherparticipantwrotethatthelaw“évite
desderives”(‘avoidsdrifts’),withanotherwritingthatit“peutprotégerles
consommateursetlestravailleurs”(‘canprotectconsumersandworkers’).Additionally,a
participantwrotethatLaLoiToubonwasnecessary“silebutestdegarantirl’accèsaudroit
decitoyensfrançais”(‘ifthegoalistoguaranteeaccesstotherightsofFrenchcitizens’).
4.Discussion
Thissectionservesasadiscussionandreflectionontheresultsandfindingsofthe
surveydescribedabove.Itisinitiallyimportanttorecognizethesignificanceofthe
participant’sdemographicinformation.Aspreviouslyindicated,alloftheparticipantswere
63
highlyeducated,mostlikelybecausetheywererecruitedbytheresearcherandher
advisor,butofwhomreachedouttopersonalandprofessionalcontactswhowould
presumablyhavehighlevelsofeducation.Thereportedhighlevelsofeducationcould
potentiallypointtowhyparticipantswere,forthemostpart,opentolinguisticandcultural
diversity,andalsowhymanyreportedhighlevelsofmultilingualism.
Thefactthatmostoftheparticipants(n=33)werefromFranceisalsosignificantfor
numerousreasons.Forone,thiscouldexplainwhythemajorityofparticipants(n=29)
completelyagreedwithFrenchbeinganimportantaspectofFrenchcultureandidentity,
giventhattheyareFrenchandarethereforefamiliarwiththesignificantculturaland
historicalvalueoftheirnativelanguage.Andsincemostoftheparticipantswereoriginally
fromFrance,itmakessensethatthemajority(n=36)reportedFrenchastheirL1.Finally,
thissurveywasintentionallysenttoparticipantswholivedinFrance(regardlessof
whetherornotitwastheirnativecountry),butitislogicalthatapproximatelythree-
fourthsofparticipantsmarkedFranceastheirnativecountryandsubsequentlyFrenchas
theirnativelanguage.
DespitethefactthatmostparticipantswerenativeFrenchspeakers,thehighlevels
ofmultilingualismthatwerereportedpointstoafewinterestingconclusion.Forone,these
reportscouldadditionallyexplainwhytherewerenumerousresponseswhoserhetoric
washeavilypro-multilingualismandpro-cultural/linguisticdiversity.Furthermore,there
wasawidearrayoflanguagesreported,withEnglishstandingoutasamajorL2language.
ThiscouldpointtotheincreasingspreadofEnglishacrosstheglobe,whichwasoneofthe
primaryreasonsbehindLaLoiToubon’spassing.Evidently,thisstudysignifiesthatEnglish
remainsapopularlanguagetolearnand/orobtain.Anotherreasonwhyhighlevelsof
64
multilingualismwerereportedcouldbeduetothemajorityofparticipantsindicatingthat
theyhavestudiedand/orlivedabroadforatleast3months.
Theresponsestothequestionspertainingtoparticipant’sinteractionswithforeign
languagesvaried,butasignificantportionofparticipant’sdemonstratedfavoritismtoward
interactingwithforeignlanguageandthuswithlinguisticdiversity.Themajorityof
participants(n=29)whoreportedthattheyinteractedwithalanguageotherthanFrench
multipletimesadayexhibitthatlinguisticdiversityhasasignificantpresenceintheirdaily
livesandencounters.InrelationtointeractingwithEnglish,mostparticipantsreported
thattheyencounteredEnglishusagemultipletimesaday(n=21),thusfurtherindicating
thatEnglishisapopularlanguagethatisfairlywidespread.Itisimportanttonotethatthe
Englishusersthatparticipantscouldencountermaybetouristsorstudents,but
nonethelesssignifiesanEnglishpresenceabroad.Asindicatedinsection2.2,many
responsesindicatedfavoritismtowardmultilingualism,withparticipantswritingthat“We
areallplurilingual,”andthat“multilingualismissomethingtopromote.”
InastudyconductedbyDewaeleandLi,researchshowedthatlevelsoftoleranceof
ambiguity,whichisdefinedasthe“tendencytoperceiveambiguoussituationsas
desirable,”werehigheramongparticipantswhoweremultilingualandhadexperience
livingabroad.145Definingasituationas“ambiguous”pointstoanindividualencountering
anunfamiliarexperiencethat“requiresattentiontomultiplecuesforhowtobehave.”146
DewaeleandLi’sfindingssuggestedthathigherlevelsofmultilingualismcould“positively
145Budner,S."Intoleranceofambiguityasapersonalityvariable."JournalofPersonality30(1962):29-50.InVanCompernolle,RémiA."Aremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.146VanCompernolle,RémiA."Aremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.
65
impact”TA,whilealsokeepinginmindthatindividualswithhigherlevelsofTAmayjust
enjoylearningforeignlanguages.147DewaeleandLi’sfindingscouldthereforefurther
explainwhytheparticipantswhoreportedhighlevelsofmultilingualismindicatedthat
theyweremoreopentolinguisticandculturaldiversity.
Whiletheparticipantinformationrevealsthattheparticipantpoolwasquite
diverseandmajorlymultilingual,theirresponsesto“AttitudesSurroundingtheFrench
Language”pointtoawiderangeofsentimentsregardingFrench.AsTable1indicates,in
general,participantstendedtofairlyagreewiththestatementsgiven.Itisinterestingthat
theaveragescoreforeachquestiondecreasesasthequestionsprogressed,whichcould
indicatethatparticipantsagreedthatwhiletheFrenchlanguageisanimportantaspectof
thecultureandhistoryofFrance,speakingFrenchmaynotnecessarilybeanindicatorof
“beingFrench”orofhavinganationalFrenchidentity.
The“LanguagePolicy”sectionscoresindicatemoreofasplitbetweenparticipants
intermsofagreement,withmoreagreeingthattheFrenchlanguageshouldbepresentin
thepublicsphereandinthemedia.Interestingly,incontrastthehighnumbersof
participantsagreeingwiththeimportanceofanexistingFrenchpresenceinthepublic
arena,manydisagreedabouttheFrenchgovernment’sroleinensuringFrenchusage.This
pointstoaninterestingsuggestionthatparticipantsfavoredFrenchbeingapublicand
thereforeofficiallanguageofFrance,butdidnotnecessarilythinkthatthegovernment
playedanimportantoressentialroleinensuringthelanguage’spublicpresence.Despite
thelengthyhistoryoftheFrenchgovernmentutilizinglanguagepolicytoensurethespread
147Dewaele,J.-M.,andW.Li."Ismultilingualismlinkedtoahighertoleranceofambiguity?"Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition16(2013):231-40.InVanCompernolle,RémiA."Aremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.
66
ofFrench,thestatementscoresrevealdissatisfactionordisapprovalfromparticipants
regardingthesepoliciesinacontemporarycontext.WhatisunclearishowtheFrench
languagewouldbeguaranteedapresenceinthepublicspherewithoutgovernment
interference,soitisespeciallyinterestingthatparticipantsmarkedthattheywerenot
favorabletowardthegovernment’sroleinlanguagepolicy.
Theresultsfrom“LaToubon”portionofthesurveyindicatenumerousunexpected
andinterestingsuggestions.Toleaduptothisfinalportionofthesurvey,Iintentionally
askedquestionsthatwererelevanttothecontentsandimplicationsofLaLoiToubon.The
“AttitudesaboutFrenchlanguage”portion,forinstance,containedstatementsregarding
thevalueofFrenchasbeingacomponenttoFrenchculture,historyandidentity.These
questionsrelatetoLaLoiToubonbecauseofhowFrenchisusedinthispolicyasacultural
emblemtoprotectFrenchidentityfromoutsideinfluences.
Similarly,the“LanguagePolicy”sectioncontainsstatementsthatspecifically
questionwhatroletheFrenchgovernmentshouldtakeinpreservingandprotectingthe
Frenchlanguage.AllofthestatementsinthissectiondirectlyrelatetoLaLoiToubon’s
sanctions,becausetheyindicatethatFrenchmustbetheofficiallanguageofFrance,that
Frenchmustbepresentinpublicspaces,andthatFrenchmustbethelanguageof
education,workandservice.TheparticipantsinthissectiontendedtofavorFrench’s
necessarypresenceinpublicspacesandFrenchbeingthelanguageofeducation,workand
service.Thisisespeciallyinterestingbecauseofparticipant’sperceivedcontemptforLaLoi
Toubon,sincethelawsanctionsthatFrenchmustbepresentinallpublicspaces.
Whatisequallyinterestingisthefactthatthemajorityofparticipants(n=20)
indicatedthattheywerecompletelyunfamiliarwithLaLoiToubon.Thiswasabit
67
remarkablebecauseofthehighlevelsofeducationthatwasreported.However,these
levelsofeducationcouldpointtospecializationwithinacertainacademicarea,whichmay
notinvolvelanguagepolicyandplanningandthuswouldnotinvolveLaLoiToubon.There
wasadditionallyafairamountofparticipantswhomarkedthattheywerebetween
completelyunfamiliarlyandcompletefamiliaritywithLaLoiToubon,whichcouldindicate
thatsomeofsomewhatofanunderstandingofthelaw’scontentbutnotenoughtoconsider
themselvesanexpertonitscontent.Regardless,lookingatTable4indicatesasignificant
differencebetweenthosewhomarkedthattheywerecompletelyunfamiliarwiththelaw
asopposedtothefewincomparisonwhomarkedthattheywerecompletelyfamiliarwith
it.
Whenaskediftheycoulddescribethelawanditscontentandimplications,many
participantseitherlefttheanswerblankorwrotethattheydidnotknow.However,outof
the6participantswhorankedthattheywerecompletelyfamiliarwithLaLoiToubon,
severalsuccinctlydescribedanddefinedit,withoneparticipantevenquotingthe
introductionfromthelaw.OtherparticipantspointedtothelawprotectingFrenchfrom
Englishand“anglicismes.”Interestingly,oneparticipantmarkedthatthelawactedto
preserveFrenchasascientificlanguage,whichcouldbeapotentialinterpretationofLaLoi
ToubonenforcingFrenchtranslationofalltextsdistributedintheworkplace,including
scientificworkthatcouldfrequentlybeinEnglish.Theseparticipantstendedtopromote
multilingualismandLaLoiToubon,andthatitmaybenecessarybutshouldnotlimit
individual’srightstospeakinthelanguageoftheirchoice,withoneparticipantarguing
thatthelawwasaformof“culturalgenocide”againstotherlanguages.So,outofthe
participantswhoknewwhatthecontentandinterdictionsofLaLoiToubonwere,there
68
werehighlevelsofoppositionfound.Thisissignificantbecausetheseparticipantshada
factualbasisforcritiquingthelaw,andthereforetheirresponsesarenoteworthyin
referencetocontemporarypublicopinionsurroundingLaLoiToubon.
Inadditiontotheopen-endedresponsesfromtheparticipantswhomarkedhigh
familiaritywithLaLoiToubon,manyotherresponsesindicatesomewhatofanopposition
tothelaw.Callingthelaw“outdated”and“hypocritical”suggestsapotentialgenerational
gapbetweenthosewhosupportedthelawinthe1990sversusthissurvey’sparticipants,
whocompletedthesurveyin2016-2017.Thisoverarchingthemeofoppositionthuspoints
toapotentialshiftinattitudesofhighlyeducated,multilingualindividualsinregardsto
Frenchlanguagepolicyinthetwenty-firstcentury.Theirresponsesindicatefavoritism
towardculturalandlinguisticdiversityinoppositiontothemonolingualnatureofLaLoi
Toubon.
5.Conclusion
Theaimofthisonlinestudywastogagecontemporarypublicopinionsurrounding
LaLoiToubon.Thesurvey’ssamplesizeissmallincomparisontotheentireFrench
population,buttheresponsesnonethelesssuggestthatthereexistsashiftinopinionabout
languagepolicy,evenwithinasmallersamplesize,regardingFrenchlanguagepolicyina
contemporarycontext.
Thefirsttwochapterspresentedatheoreticalandhistoricalframeworkfor
understandingtheimportantrolethatFrenchlanguagepolicyhasplayedforcenturiesto
consolidateFrenchpower.Inturn,followingAgar’spositionaboutlanguaculture,the
FrenchlanguagehasbecomeakeyfeatureofFrenchculture,andthusofFrenchidentity.
ThecontextunderwhichFrenchpowerwasconsolidatedvialanguagepolicywaswhenthe
69
Frenchkingdom,andlaternation,wasseekingtogainaprestigiousglobalpower.The
Frenchlanguagethusnotonlyworkedasatoolforcommunication,butasasymbolfor
Frenchdominance.AndastheUnitedStatesandtheEnglishlanguagebecameincreasingly
influentialontheglobalstageafterWorldWarII,Frenchlanguagepolicyshiftedtoprotect
theFrenchlanguagefromaperceivedthreatofEnglish,whichispreciselywhatLaLoi
Toubonanditscontentandinterdictionsenforced.
WhileitisevidentthatToubonandhissupportersclaimedthatthelawwouldserve
topreservethepurityoftheFrenchlanguageagainstotherlanguages,theresultsfromthis
surveyserveasatypeofcounter-argumentagainstToubon.Theparticipantswerelargely
supportiveoflinguisticandculturaldiversity,andtheymajorlyagreedthattheFrench
languagewasanimportantcharacteristicofFrenchcultureandhistoryandthattheFrench
languageshouldhaveapublicpresence.However,theyalsoseemedtodisagreewiththe
conceptofthegovernmentimplementingpoliciesthatwouldfurtherhomogenizethe
languageandthuswouldhavethecapacitytodiminishmultilingualism,whichisaconcept
thatthemajorityofparticipantsvalued.
70
Chapter4:Conclusion1.Synthesis
Thisfinalchapterservesasasynthesisofthisthesisthroughpiecingtogetherthe
ideologies,histories,andanalysespresentedinthepreviousthreechapters.The
fundamentalpremiseofthisthesisfocusesonMichaelAgar’sconceptoflanguaculture,
whichindicatesthatlanguageisloadedwithcultureandcultureisloadedwithlanguage.
Whilelanguageisfundamentallyusedasameansofcommunicationwhosewordsare
formulatedbasedongrammaticalstructuresandsyntax,itcanalsobestudiedasacultural
artifact.Thisisbecauselanguagescontainuniqueculturaltermsthatmaynotbe
applicabletoothercultures.Therefore,alanguagecan,inturn,beakeycomponentofany
culture,andusingthatlanguageoftenbecomesamarkerofidentity,sinceitfunctionsasa
markerofsimilarityandalsoofdifference.
Languaculturethereforeallowsfortheintersectionoflanguage,culture,identityand
nationalism.Throughlanguage,individualswithinaculturalcommunityareabletosharea
formofcommunicationthatcanoftenactasamarkerofculturalpride.Ifthatlanguageis
spokenorsharedwithinanation,itcanalsoactasamarkerofnationalidentityand
nationalpride,whichinturnbuildsastrongsenseofnationalism.
Throughlanguagepolicyandplanning(LPP),nationscanuselanguagesaspolitical
toolsasameanstocentralizepowerandthereforebuildastrongernationand
subsequentlyastrongernationalidentity.Thiscanbeaccomplishedthroughcorpus
planning,statusplanning,acquisitionplanningand/orprestigeplanning,allofwhichoften
overlaponeanotherintheirimplementations.ThesedomainsofLPPcanalsodifferbased
onthemethodsusedtoimplementthemandtheideologicalbasesandjustificationsused
71
fortheirimplementation.Onasurfacelevel,languagepolicyandplanningappearstobea
legislativeapproachtostandardizinglanguages.However,keepinginmindthatlanguages
areloadedwithcultureandviceversa,languagepoliciescanindicatehowlanguage,
culture,identityandnationalismallintersect.
ThehistoricaloverviewofFrenchlanguagepolicyandplanninginChapter2
demonstratesthesignificantintersectionoftheideologiesdescribedabove.Thefactthat
theFrenchgovernmenthasimplementedlanguagepoliciesandplanningsincethe15th
centurytocentralizeFrenchpowerindicatesthattheFrenchlanguagehasasignificant
symbolicvalue,inthatitrepresentsakeycomponentofFrenchcultureandFrenchidentity
becauseofitshistoricalsignificance.
Frenchpolicythroughoutthe16thcenturyandintotheearly20thcenturywasused
asameanstostandardizeandcodifyanationallanguageforallFrenchpeopletousefor
communication.ThestandardizationofFrenchculminatedinthe19thcenturywhenpublic
educationbecamecompulsoryandfree.ThisenabledtheFrenchgovernmenttoimplement
acquisitionplanningthroughsanctioningtheteachingofastandardFrenchineverypublic
schoolacrossthenation.Regionallanguageusewasthereforeminimized,andthemajority
oftheFrenchpopulationspokethesamelanguage.However,aftertheSecondWorldWar,
whentheUnitedStatesbecameincreasinglyinfluentialonaglobalscaleviapolitical,
economicandculturalpower,Englishbegantospreadrapidly,andFrenchlanguagepolicy
shiftedtoprotecttheFrenchlanguagefromaperceivedthreatofEnglish,whichculminated
withthepassingofLaLoiToubonin1994.
AsdescribedinChapter2,LaLoiToubonensuresthepublicpresenceofFrenchin
variousformsofmedia,intheworkplace,andinanypublicdocuments.JacquesToubon
72
andhissupportersdefendedLaLoiToubonthrougharguingthatthepurityoftheFrench
languageneededtobeprotectedandpreserved.Theirargumentsreiteratedthe
importanceofmaintainingtheprestigeofFrench,whichindicatestheimportantsymbolic
valuethattheFrenchlanguagehas,andthereforeassertsthattheFrenchlanguageisakey
componentofFrenchculture.AndwhileitisclearthatToubonandhisfollowerspromoted
theimportantrolethattheFrenchlanguageplaysinhavingaFrenchidentity,theirsupport
ofLaLoiToubonalsorepresentsafightagainstoutside,foreignlanguages,whichindicates
thattheydidnotpromoteorsupportmultilingualismandlinguisticandculturaldiversity.
IncontrasttoToubonandhissupporters,theparticipantsofthesurveydescribedin
Chapter3indicatesupportformultilingualism,giventheirpositivethoughtsregarding
encounteringforeignlanguagesaswellastheirusingandstudyingmultiplelanguages.By
nomeansdothesurveyparticipantsrepresenttheentireFrenchpopulationregarding
languagepolicyandidentity.Instead,theparticipantpoolindicatesthattheresults
representtheattitudesofhighlyeducated,multilingualhabitantsofFrancewhotendtobe
moreopentolinguisticandculturaldiversity.Therefore,iftheyrankedfamiliaritywithLa
LoiToubon,mostoftheparticipantsindicatedthatthelawrestrictedandsoughtto
minimizelinguisticandculturaldiversity.
Theresponsesfromthesurveysuggestanadditionalshiftinattitudestoward
languagepolicyinFranceamongacertaindemographicofhighlyeducated,multilingual
participantsinFrance.Insteadofpromotingonenationallanguagetopromoteculturaland
nationalidentityinordertocentralizepower,acertaindemographicofFranceseemsto
favordiversityandcelebratesmultilingualism.Perhapsnewergenerationsofmultilingual
individualswillcontinuetocelebratediversityinsteadoffearit,butthecurrentpolitical
73
climateacrosstheworldalsoindicatesapushbackagainstlinguisticandculturediversity
andapushforhomogeneity.
Giventhecontroversialandpervasivepoliticalissuesthatarecurrentlyarising,itis
almostimpossibletonotdiscusspopulismandanti-immigrantrhetoricinrelationtothe
findingsofmyresearch.InFranceinparticular,theheadoftheFrontNationalParty,which
ischaracterizedasextremelyright-wingandpopulist,MarineLePen,exhibitsremarkable
andnoteworthyrhetoricthatsuggestssupportforsimilarlanguagelegislationsuchasthe
ToubonLawinFrance.Recently,theFrontNational(FN)hasundergonea“political
revival,”underwhichtheparty’smembersandpopularityhavebothincreased.148Under
theleadershipofMarineLePen,theparty’splatformhascometorest“onacombinationof
people-centrismandanti-elitism,”aswellasonthe“exclusionofspecificpopulation
categories(e.g.mosttypically,immigrants)fromthecommunityofpeople,consideredasa
homogeneousbody.”149TheFN’sconstituentsthereforehaveaworldviewunderwhichthe
Frenchnation“shouldbeprimarilyreservedforpeopleofacertaintype:individualswho
sharethesameethnicity,history,religionandidentity.”150
FromunderstandingtheFrontNational’splatform,onecanassumethattheparty’s
leadersandconstituentswouldprobablyhavebeeninfavorofLaLoiToubon,giventhat
theysupportexclusionary,anti-immigrationpoliciesandseemtobefavorabletowards
maintainingandprotectingacohesiveFrenchnationalidentityinthewakeofglobalization.
TheFrontNational’smomentuminpopularitycouldthereforepointtopotentialfuture
148Stockemer,Daniel,andMauroBarisione."The'new'discourseoftheFrontNationalunderMarineLePen:Aslightchangewithabigimpact."EuropeanJournalofCommunication,2016,1.SagePublications.149Ibid.,3.150Ibid.,4.
74
languagelegislationinFrancethatcontinuestoattempttopreserveandprotecttheFrench
language.ThesepoliciesinturnmaybebelievedtoprotectFrenchidentity,giventhe
interconnectedrelationshipbetweenFrenchlanguage,identity,cultureandnationalism.
2.Limitations
Thetermsandtheoriespresentedinthisthesisareabitabstract.Tyinglanguage,
culture,identityandnationalismisn’tnecessarilyacohesiveconceptthatcanbeclearly
defined.Thismaybebecauseeachofthesetermsvariesdependingonthecontextunder
whichtheyaredefined.Andevenwithinacertaincontext,thereareclearvariationsand
diversityininterpretationsandunderstandingsoftheconceptsoflanguage,culture,
identityandlanguage.
Inthecaseofthisthesis,I,asaresearcher,madecertainconclusionsaboutFrance’s
historyandcultureinrelationtoitsnationallanguageanditslanguagepoliciesthathave
historicallyfunctionedtoensurethestandardizationandnationalizationoftheFrench
languagethroughoutthe16th,17th,18thand19thcenturies.Throughunderstandingthat
languagefunctionsasanessentialcharacteristicofone’sidentityandculture,andthat
languagepolicyhasplayedsuchasignificantroleinFrance’shistory,Iconcludedthatthe
FrenchlanguageisacentralcomponentofFrenchidentity.
However,itisimportanttonotethatthisconclusionmaynotrepresenttheentire
Frenchpopulation,giventhatitisalargecountrywithadiversesetofindividualswith
differentbackgrounds.Thisisespeciallyrelevantwhenreferringtotheonlinesurveyand
itsanalysis,giventhattheparticipantpoolonlyreflectsacertaindemographicof
individualslivinginFrance.Theywere,forthemostpart,highlyeducated,whichindicates
thattheyweremostlikelymembersofthemiddle,upper-middle,orupperclass.So,from
75
thesurveyresults,Iconcludethattheparticipant’sresponsesindicatethatmembersofthis
demographicgrouptendtofavormultilingualismanddiversityandthereforeopposethe
ToubonLaw,giventhatitrestrictsthepublicpresenceofforeignlanguages.Bynomeans
dotheseresultsreflecttheentireFrenchpopulation’sopinionsregardingforeignlanguage
useandLaLoiToubon,whichisindicatedbythecurrentpoliticalclimate.
3.FutureDirections
BasedonthetheoreticalandhistoricalframeworkregardingFrenchidentity,
culture,language,nationalismandlanguagepolicy,IconcludethatwhiletheLaLoiToubon
representsashiftinlanguagepolicythroughprotectingFrenchfromEnglish,thediscourse
usedinthelawisproblematicinitspromotionofunilingualism.Asthesurveyresults
indicate,multilingualismandculturaldiversityarethingsthatoughttobecelebrated,not
restricted.However,aftermorethanadecadeafterLaLoiToubon’spassing,thereare
strongpoliticalactorswhoareadvocatingforpoliciesthatrestricttheexistenceofcultural
andthereforeoflinguisticdiversity.
ItwillbeinterestingtoseewhatthefutureforlanguagepolicyholdsinFrance.Will
thepromotionandprotectionofFrenchbemaintainedasitwasinLaLoiToubon?Or,
assumingthatglobalizationwillcontinuetorapidlyoccur,willmultilingualismandthe
diversityofculturesbecelebrated?
Iamhopefulthatdiversityissomethingthatwillnolongerbefeared.Interacting
withpeoplewithdifferentbackgrounds,experiencesandculturesopensupnumerous
opportunities.Frompersonalexperience,myinteractionswithdiversityhaveallbeen
positive.Icanonlyhopethatopennesstolinguisticandculturaldiversitywillcontinueso
thatotherscanexperiencethefrustrationsbutalsothejoysoflearningaforeignlanguage
76
andexperiencingforeigncultures.Afterall,myinteractionswiththeFrenchlanguageand
Frenchculturearewhatinspiredthisprojecttocomeintofruition.
77
Acknowledgements
Iwouldliketosincerelythankmythesisadvisor,Dr.RémiA.vanCompernolleforhis
constantandconsistentinputandadvicethroughouttheentireresearchinganddrafting
process.IwouldalsoliketooffermygratitudetowardtheDietrichCollegeDean’soffice
andspecificallytoDr.BrianJunker,Dr.JenniferKeating-MillerandDr.JosephE.Devinefor
allowingmetheopportunitytoworkundertheDietrichCollegeHonorsFellowship
Programduringthesummerof2016.Finally,Iwouldliketothankmyacademicadvisor,
EmilyHalf,andmyFrenchprofessor,Dr.MameFatou-Niang,bothofwhomencouragedand
inspiredmetopursuethisproject.
78
References
Achard,Pierre,SusanBullock,andMichaelIgnatieff."HistoryandthePoliticsofLanguageinFrance:AReviewEssay."HistoryWorkshop,10(1980):175-83.JSTOR.
Agar,Michael.Languageshock:understandingthecultureofconversation.NewYork,NY:Perennial,2008.
Albert,SteveJ."LinguisticAnthropologyandtheStudyofContemporaryFrance."FrenchReview74(2001):1165-175.JSTOR.
Baldauf,RichardB.,Jr."LanguagePlanningandPolicy:RecentTrends,FutureDirections."Battye,Adrian,Marie-AnneHintze,andPaulRowlett.TheFrenchLanguageToday:A
LinguisticIntroduction.London:Routledge,1992.GoogleScholar.
Budner,S."Intoleranceofambiguityasapersonalityvariable."JournalofPersonality30(1962):29-50.InVanCompernolle,RémiA."Aremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.
Cartrite,Britt."MinorityLanguagePolicyinFrance:Jacobism,CulturalPluralism,andEthnoregionalIdentities."InCultureandBelonginginDividedSocieties,editedbyMarcHowardRoss,128-50.UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,2009.JSTOR.
Caviedes,Alexander."TheRoleofLanguageinNation-BuildingwithintheEuropeanUnion."DialectalAnthropology,RevisionsofNationalistandCulturalIdentityinContemporaryEurope27(2003):249-68.JSTOR.
Cenoz,Jason,DurkGorter,andKathleenHeugh."LinguisticDiversity."InDiversityResearchandPolicy:AMultidisciplinaryExploration,editedbyStevenKnotter,RobDeLobel,LenaTsipouri,andVanjaStenius,83-98.Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress,2011.JSTOR.
Dewaele,J.-M.,andW.Li."Ismultilingualismlinkedtoahighertoleranceofambiguity?"
Bilingualism:LanguageandCognition16(2013):231-40.InVanCompernolle,RémiAremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.
Eriksen,ThomasHylland."Nationalism."InEthnicityandNationalism,117-46.PlutoPress,2010.JSTOR.
Esman,MiltonJ."TheStateandLanguagePolicy."InternationalPoliticalScience
79
Review/Revueinternationaledesciencepolitique13(1992):381-92.JSTOR.
Fatou-Niang,Mame.LaNaissanceetL'EvolutionduFrançais.CarnegieMellonUniversity.Accessed2015.
Flaitz,Jeffra.TheideologyofEnglish:FrenchperceptionsofEnglishasaworldlanguage.Berlin:MoutondeGruyter,1988.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
France.MinistryofCulturalAffairs.LOIn°94-665du4août1994relativeàl'emploidelalanguefrançaise(1).1994.
Franceshini,Rita.“MultilingualismandMulticompetence:AConceptualView.”TheModern
LanguageJournal95,no.3(2011):344-55.JSTOR.
Gordon,DavidC.TheFrenchlanguageandnationalidentity:1930-1975.TheHague:Mouton,1978.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Grigg,Peter."ToubonornotToubon:TheinfluenceoftheEnglishlanguageincontemporaryFrance."EnglishStudies78,no.4(1997):368-84.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Hansen,LB."LaPolitiqueLinguistiqueDuFrançais."1-21.Joseph,JohnE."TheSocialPoliticsofLanguageChoiceandLinguisticCorrectness."In
LanguageandPolitics,43-63.EdinburghUniversityPress,2006.
Karna,MN."Language,RegionandNationalIdentity."IndianSociologicalSociety48(1999):75-96.JSTOR.
Kasuya,Keisuke."DiscoursesofLinguisticDominance:AHistoricalConsiderationofFrenchLanguageIdeology."InternationalReviewofEducation47(2001):235-51.JSTOR.
Leclerc,Jacques.“L’expansionnismelinguistiquedumonderomain”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[.http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s1_Expansion-romaine.htm].
Leclerc,Jacques.“LaRévolutionfrançaise:lalanguenationale”inL’aménagement
linguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s8_Revolution1789.htm].
80
Leclerc,Jacques.“LefrançaisauGrandSiècle”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s6_Grand-Siecle.htm].
Leclerc,Jacques.“Lefrançaiscontemporain”inL’aménagementlinguistiquedanslemonde,Québec,CEFAN,UniversitéLaval,[http://www.axl.cefan.ulaval.ca/francophonie/HIST_FR_s9_Fr-contemporain.htm].
Mikosaka,Jana,andNicoleMartriche."Uneloicontroverséecontrele‘franglais’
definitivementadopteeenFrance."AgenceFrancePresse,July1,1994.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Nundy,Julian."France:OutofFrance-BoisdeL’estRidesAgain,toDefendLinguisticPurity."TheIndependent,June2,1994.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Peronçel-Hugoz,Jean-Pierre.“Culture:Leprojetdeloisurl’emploidufrançaisenFrance;Langue:l’impatiencedeM.Segui.”LeMonde.20Jan.1994.Online.Nexis.21Jan.1994.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Rickard,Peter.AHistoryofFrenchLanguage.London:UnwinHyman,1989.JSTOR.Salomone,RosemaryC."Language,IdentityandBelonging."InTrueAmerican,68-97.
HarvardUniversityPress,2010.JSTOR.
Scheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Schiffman,HaroldF."LanguagePolicyandLinguisticCultureinFrance."InLinguisticCultureandLanguagePolicy,74-123.London:Routledge,1996.
Shelly,SharonL."UneCertaineidéedufrançais:thedilemmaforFrenchlanguagepolicyin
the21stcentury."Language&Communication19(1999):216-305.
Spolsky,B."Languagepolicy:Thefirsthalf-century."InUnityandDiversityofLanguages,editedbyP.VanSterkenberg,137-53.Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins,2008.
Stockemer,Daniel,andMauroBarisione."The'new'discourseoftheFrontNationalunderMarineLePen:Aslightchangewithabigimpact."EuropeanJournalofCommunication,2016,1-16.SagePublications.
81
Thody,Philip,HowardEvans,andMichellePepratx-Evans.Lefranglais:forbiddenEnglish,forbiddenAmerican-law,politicsandlanguageincontemporaryFrance:astudyinloanwordsandnationalidentity.London:Athlone,1995.InScheel,SonyaLynn."FrenchLanguagePurism:FrenchLinguisticDevelopmentandCurrentNationalAttitudes."Master'sthesis,UniversityofOregon,1998.
Urciuoli,Bonnie."LanguageandBorders."AnnualReviewofAnthropology24(1995):525-46.JSTOR.
VanCompernolle,RémiA."Aremultilingualism,toleranceofambiguity,andattitudestowardlinguisticvariationrelated?"InternationalJournalofMultilingualism13(September18,2015):61-73.
VanEls,T."Statusplanningforlearningandteaching."InHandbookofResearchinSecondLanguageTeachingandLearning,editedbyE.Hinkel.Mahwah,NJ:Routledge,2005.inBaldauf,“LanguagePlanningandPolicy,2-3.
Vincent,StevenK."NationalConsciousness,NationalismandExclusion:Reflectionsonthe
FrenchCase."HistoricalReflections/RéflexionsHistoriques19(1993):434-49.JSTOR.
Wright,Sue.LanguagePolicyandLanguagePlanning:FromNationalismtoGlobalisation.Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan,2004.
82
Appendix1.LaLoiToubonJORF n°180 du 5 août 1994
LOI n° 94-665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française (1)
NOR: MCCX9400007L
Le Président de la République promulgue la loi dont la teneur suit: Art. 1er. - Langue de la République en vertu de la Constitution, la langue française est un élément fondamental de la personnalité et du patrimoine de la France. Elle est la langue de l’enseignement, du travail, des échanges et des services publics. Elle est le lien privilégié des Etats constituant la communauté de la francophonie. Art. 2. - Dans la désignation, l’offre, la présentation, le mode d’emploi ou d’utilisation, la description de l’étendue et des conditions de garantie d’un bien, d’un produit ou d’un service, ainsi que dans les factures et quittances, l’emploi de la langue française est obligatoire. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] Les mêmes dispositions s’appliquent à toute publicité écrite, parlée ou audiovisuelle. Les dispositions du présent article ne sont pas applicables à la dénomination des produits typiques et spécialités d’appellation étrangère connus du plus large public. La législation sur les marques ne fait pas obstacle à l’application des premier et troisième alinéas du présent article aux mentions et messages enregistrés avec la marque. Art. 3. - Toute inscription ou annonce apposée ou faite sur la voie publique, dans un lieu ouvert au public ou dans un moyen de transport en commun et destinée à l’information du public doit être formulée en langue française. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] Si l’inscription rédigée en violation des dispositions qui précèdent est apposée par un tiers utilisateur sur un bien appartenant à une personne morale de droit public, celle-ci doit mettre l’utilisateur en demeure de faire cesser, à ses frais et dans le délai fixé par elle, l’irrégularité constatée. Si la mise en demeure n’est pas suivie d’effet, l’usage du bien peut, en tenant compte de la gravité du manquement, être retiré au contrevenant, quels que soient les stipulations du contrat ou les termes de l’autorisation qui lui avait été accordée.
83
Art. 4. - Lorsque des inscriptions ou annonces visées à l’article précédent, apposées ou faites par des personnes morales de droit public ou des personnes privées exerçant une mission de service public font l’objet de traductions, celles-ci sont au moins au nombre de deux. Dans tous les cas où les mentions, annonces et inscriptions prévues aux articles 2 et 3 de la présente loi sont complétées d’une ou plusieurs traductions, la présentation en français doit être aussi lisible, audible ou intelligible que la présentation en langues étrangères. Un décret en Conseil d’Etat précise les cas et les conditions dans lesquels il peut être dérogé aux dispositions du présent article dans le domaine des transports internationaux. Art. 5. - Quels qu’en soient l’objet et les formes, les contrats auxquels une personne morale de droit public ou une personne privée exécutant une mission de service public sont parties sont rédigés en langue française. Ils ne peuvent contenir ni expression ni terme étrangers lorsqu’il existe une expression ou un terme français de même sens approuvés dans les conditions prévues par les dispositions réglementaires relatives à l’enrichissement de la langue française. Ces dispositions ne sont pas applicables aux contrats conclus par une personne morale de droit public gérant des activités à caractère industriel et commercial et à exécuter intégralement hors du territoire national. Les contrats visés au présent article conclus avec un ou plusieurs cocontractants étrangers peuvent comporter, outre la rédaction en français, une ou plusieurs versions en langue étrangère pouvant également faire foi. Une partie à un contrat conclu en violation du premier alinéa ne pourra se prévaloir d’une disposition en langue étrangère qui porterait préjudice à la partie à laquelle elle est opposée. Art. 6. - Tout participant à une manifestation, un colloque ou un congrès organisé en France par des personnes physiques ou morales de nationalité française a le droit de s’exprimer en français. Les documents distribués aux participants avant et pendant la réunion pour en présenter le programme doivent être rédigés en français et peuvent comporter des traductions en une ou plusieurs langues étrangères. Lorsqu’une manifestation, un colloque ou un congrès donne lieu à la distribution aux participants de documents préparatoires ou de documents de travail, ou à la publication d’actes ou de comptes rendus de travaux, les textes ou interventions présentés en
84
langue étrangère doivent être accompagnés au moins d’un résumé en français. Ces dispositions ne sont pas applicables aux manifestations, colloques ou congrès qui ne concernent que des étrangers, ni aux manifestations de promotion du commerce extérieur de la France. Lorsqu’une personne morale de droit public ou une personne morale de droit privé chargée d’une mission de service public a l’initiative des manifestations visées au présent article, un dispositif de traduction doit être mis en place. Art. 7. - Les publications, revues et communications diffusées en France et qui émanent d’une personne morale de droit public, d’une personne privée exerçant une mission de service public ou d’une personne privée bénéficiant d’une subvention publique doivent, lorsqu’elles sont rédigées en langue étrangère, comporter au moins un résumé en français. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] Art. 8. - Les trois derniers alinéas de l’article L. 121-1 du code du travail sont remplacés par quatre alinéas ainsi rédigés: << Le contrat de travail constaté par écrit est rédigé en français. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] << Lorsque l’emploi qui fait l’objet du contrat ne peut être désigné que par un terme étranger sans correspondant en français, le contrat de travail doit comporter une explication en français du terme étranger. << Lorsque le salarié est étranger et le contrat constaté par écrit, une traduction du contrat est rédigée, à la demande du salarié, dans la langue de ce dernier. Les deux textes font également foi en justice. En cas de discordance entre les deux textes, seul le texte rédigé dans la langue du salarié étranger peut être invoqué contre ce dernier. << L’employeur ne pourra se prévaloir à l’encontre du salarié auquel elles feraient grief des clauses d’un contrat de travail conclu en violation du présent article. >> Art. 9. - I. - L’article L. 122-35 du code du travail est complété par un alinéa ainsi rédigé: << Le règlement intérieur est rédigé en français. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] Il peut être accompagné de traductions en une ou plusieurs langues étrangères. >> II. - Il est inséré, après l’article L. 122-39 du code du travail, un article L. 122-39-1 ainsi rédigé
85
<< Art. L. 122-39-1. - Tout document comportant des obligations pour le salarié ou des dispositions dont la connaissance est nécessaire à celui-ci pour l’exécution de son travail doit être rédigé en français. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] Il peut être accompagné de traductions en une ou plusieurs langues étrangères. << Ces dispositions ne sont pas applicables aux documents reçus de l’étranger ou destinés à des étrangers. >> III. - Aux premier et troisième alinéas de l’article L. 122-37 du code du travail, les mots: << articles L. 122-34 et L. 122-35 >> sont remplacés par les mots: << articles L. 122-34, L. 122-35 et L. 122-39-1 >>. IV. - Il est inséré, après l’article L. 132-2 du code du travail, un article L. 132-2-1 ainsi rédigé: << Art. L. 132-2-1. - Les conventions et accords collectifs de travail et les conventions d’entreprise ou d’établissement doivent être rédigés en français. Toute disposition rédigée en langue étrangère [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994] est inopposable au salarié à qui elle ferait grief. >> Art. 10. - Le 3o de l’article L. 311-4 du code du travail est ainsi rédigé: << 3o Un texte rédigé en langue étrangère [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994]. << Lorsque l’emploi ou le travail offert ne peut être désigné que par un terme étranger sans correspondant en français, le texte français doit en comporter une description suffisamment détaillée pour ne pas induire en erreur au sens du 2o ci-dessus. << Les prescriptions des deux alinéas précédents s’appliquent aux services à exécuter sur le territoire français, quelle que soit la nationalité de l’auteur de l’offre ou de l’employeur, et aux services à exécuter hors du territoire français lorsque l’auteur de l’offre ou l’employeur est français, alors même que la parfaite connaissance d’une langue étrangère serait une des conditions requises pour tenir l’emploi proposé. Toutefois, les directeurs de publications rédigées, en tout ou partie, en langue étrangère peuvent, en France, recevoir des offres d’emploi rédigées dans cette langue. >> Art. 11. - I. - La langue de l’enseignement, des examens et concours, ainsi que des thèses et mémoires dans les établissements publics et privés d’enseignement est le français, sauf exceptions justifiées par les nécessités de l’enseignement des langues et cultures régionales ou étrangères ou lorsque les enseignants sont des professeurs associés ou invités étrangers. Les écoles étrangères ou spécialement ouvertes pour accueillir des élèves de nationalité étrangère, ainsi que les établissements dispensant un enseignement à
86
caractère international, ne sont pas soumis à cette obligation. II. - Il est inséré, après le deuxième alinéa de l’article 1er de la loi no 89-486 du 10 juillet 1989 d’orientation sur l’éducation, un alinéa ainsi rédigé: << La maîtrise de la langue française et la connaissance de deux autres langues font partie des objectifs fondamentaux de l’enseignement. >> Art. 12. - Avant le chapitre Ier du titre II de la loi no 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986 relative à la liberté de communication, il est inséré un article 20-1 ainsi rédigé: << Art. 20-1. - L’emploi du français est obligatoire dans l’ensemble des émissions et des messages publicitaires des organismes et services de radiodiffusion sonore ou télévisuelle, quel que soit leur mode de diffusion ou de distribution, à l’exception des oeuvres cinématographiques et audiovisuelles en version originale. << Sous réserve des dispositions du 2o bis de l’article 28 de la présente loi, l’alinéa précédent ne s’applique pas aux oeuvres musicales dont le texte est, en tout ou partie, rédigé en langue étrangère. << L’obligation prévue au premier alinéa n’est pas applicable aux programmes, parties de programme ou publicités incluses dans ces derniers qui sont conçus pour être intégralement diffusés en langue étrangère ou dont la finalité est l’apprentissage d’une langue, ni aux retransmissions de cérémonies cultuelles. [Dispositions déclarées non conformes à la Constitution par décision du Conseil constitutionnel no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994.] << Lorsque les émissions ou les messages publicitaires visés au premier alinéa du présent article sont accompagnés de traductions en langues étrangères, la présentation en français doit être aussi lisible, audible ou intelligible que la présentation en langue étrangère. >> Art. 13. - La loi no 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986 précitée est ainsi modifiée: I. - Après le sixième alinéa du II de l’article 24, il est inséré un alinéa ainsi rédigé: << - le respect de la langue française et le rayonnement de la francophonie. >> II. - A l’article 28, il est inséré, après le 4o, un 4o bis ainsi rédigé: << 4o bis Les dispositions propres à assurer le respect de la langue française et le rayonnement de la francophonie; >>. III. - A l’article 33, il est inséré, après le 2o, un 2o bis ainsi rédigé: << 2o bis Les dispositions propres à assurer le respect de la langue française et le
87
rayonnement de la francophonie; >>. Art. 14. - I. - L’emploi d’une marque de fabrique, de commerce ou de service constituée d’une expression ou d’un terme étrangers est interdit aux personnes morales de droit public dès lors qu’il existe une expression ou un terme français de même sens approuvés dans les conditions prévues par les dispositions réglementaires relatives à l’enrichissement de la langue française. Cette interdiction s’applique aux personnes morales de droit privé chargées d’une mission de service public, dans l’exécution de celle-ci. II. - Les dispositions du présent article ne sont pas applicables aux marques utilisées pour la première fois avant l’entrée en vigueur de la présente loi. Art. 15. - L’octroi, par les collectivités et les établissements publics, de subventions de toute nature est subordonné au respect par les bénéficiaires des dispositions de la présente loi. Tout manquement à ce respect peut, après que l’intéressé a été mis à même de présenter ses observations, entraîner la restitution totale ou partielle de la subvention. Art. 16. - Outre les officiers et agents de police judiciaire agissant conformément aux dispositions du code de procédure pénale, les agents énumérés aux 1o, 3o et 4o de l’article L. 215-1 du code de la consommation sont habilités à rechercher et constater les infractions aux dispositions des textes pris pour l’application de l’article 2 de la présente loi. A cet effet, les agents peuvent pénétrer de jour dans les lieux et véhicules énumérés au premier alinéa de l’article L. 213-4 du même code et dans ceux où s’exercent les activités mentionnées à l’article L. 216-1, à l’exception des lieux qui sont également à usage d’habitation. Ils peuvent demander à consulter les documents nécessaires à l’accomplissement de leur mission, en prendre copie et recueillir sur convocation ou sur place les renseignements et justifications propres à l’accomplissement de leur mission. Ils peuvent également prélever un exemplaire des biens ou produits mis en cause dans les conditions prévues par décret en Conseil d’Etat. Art. 17. - Quiconque entrave de façon directe ou indirecte l’accomplissement des missions des agents mentionnés au premier alinéa de l’article 16 ou ne met pas à leur disposition tous les moyens nécessaires à cette fin est passible des peines prévues au second alinéa de l’article 433-5 du code pénal.
88
Art. 18. - Les infractions aux dispositions des textes pris pour l’application de la présente loi sont constatées par des procès-verbaux qui font foi jusqu’à preuve du contraire. Les procès-verbaux doivent, sous peine de nullité, être adressés dans les cinq jours qui suivent leur clôture au procureur de la République. Une copie en est également remise, dans le même délai, à l’intéressé. Art. 19. - Après l’article 2-13 du code de procédure pénale, il est inséré un article 2-14 ainsi rédigé: << Art. 2-14. - Toute association régulièrement déclarée se proposant par ses statuts la défense de la langue française et agréée dans les conditions fixées par décret en Conseil d’Etat peut exercer les droits reconnus à la partie civile en ce qui concerne les infractions aux dispositions des textes pris pour l’application des articles 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 et 10 de la loi no 94-665 du 4 août 1994 relative à l’emploi de la langue française. >> Art. 20. - La présente loi est d’ordre public. Elle s’applique aux contrats conclus postérieurement à son entrée en vigueur. Art. 21. - Les dispositions de la présente loi s’appliquent sans préjudice de la législation et de la réglementation relatives aux langues régionales de France et ne s’opposent pas à leur usage. Art. 22. - Chaque année, le Gouvernement communique aux assemblées, avant le 15 septembre, un rapport sur l’application de la présente loi et des dispositions des conventions ou traités internationaux relatives au statut de la langue française dans les institutions internationales. Art. 23. - Les dispositions de l’article 2 entreront en vigueur à la date de publication du décret en Conseil d’Etat définissant les infractions aux dispositions de cet article, et au plus tard douze mois après la publication de la présente loi au Journal officiel. Les dispositions des articles 3 et 4 de la présente loi entreront en vigueur six mois après l’entrée en vigueur de l’article 2. Art. 24. - La loi no 75-1349 du 31 décembre 1975 relative à l’emploi de la langue française est abrogée, à l’exception de ses articles 1er à 3 qui seront abrogés à compter de l’entrée en vigueur de l’article 2 de la présente loi et de son article 6 qui sera abrogé à la date d’entrée en vigueur de l’article 3 de la présente loi. La présente loi sera exécutée comme loi de l’Etat.
89
Fait à Paris, le 4 août 1994.
FRANCOIS MITTERRAND Par le Président de la République:
Le Premier ministre, EDOUARD BALLADUR
Le ministre d’Etat, ministre de l’intérieur et de l’aménagement du territoire,
CHARLES PASQUA Le ministre d’Etat, garde des sceaux,
ministre de la justice, PIERRE MEHAIGNERIE
Le ministre des affaires étrangères, ALAIN JUPPE
Le ministre de l’éducation nationale, FRANCOIS BAYROU
Le ministre de l’économie, EDMOND ALPHANDERY
Le ministre de l’équipement, des transports et du tourisme, BERNARD BOSSON
Le ministre du travail, de l’emploi et de la formation professionnelle,
MICHEL GIRAUD Le ministre de la culture et de la francophonie,
JACQUES TOUBON
Le ministre du budget, porte-parole du Gouvernement,
NICOLAS SARKOZY Le ministre de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche,
FRANCOIS FILLON (1) Loi no 94-665. - Travaux préparatoires:
90
Sénat: Projet de loi no 291 (1993-1994); Rapport de M. Jacques Legendre, au nom de la commission des affaires culturelles, no 309 (1993-1994); Discussion les 12, 13 et 14 avril 1994 et adoption le 14 avril 1994. Assemblée nationale: Projet de loi, adopté par le Sénat, no 1130; Rapport de M. Francisque Perrut, au nom de la commission des affaires culturelles, no 1158 et annexe, avis de M. Xavier Deniau, rapporteur, au nom de la commission des affaires étrangères, no 1178; Discussion les 3 et 4 mai et adoption le 4 mai 1994. Sénat: Projet de loi, adopté par l’Assemblée nationale, no 401 (1993-1994); Rapport de M. Jacques Legendre, au nom de la commission des affaires culturelles, no 437 (1993-1994); Discussion et adoption le 26 mai 1994. Assemblée nationale: Projet de loi, adopté avec modifications par le Sénat en deuxième lecture, no 1289; Rapport de M. Francisque Perrut, au nom de la commission des affaires culturelles, no 134; Discussion et adoption le 13 juin 1994. Rapport de M. Jean-Paul Fuchs, au nom de la commission mixte paritaire, no 1429; Discussion et adoption le 30 juin 1994. Sénat:
91
Projet de loi no 502 (1993-1994); Rapport de M. Jacques Legendre, au nom de la commission mixte paritaire, no 547 (1993-1994); Discussion et adoption le 1er juillet 1994. - Conseil constitutionnel: Décision no 94-345 DC du 29 juillet 1994 publiée au Journal officiel du 2 août 1994.
92
Appendix2.Web-basedSurvey(translatedfromFrench)Section1:InformedConsentThissurveyispartofaresearchstudyconductedbyCaseyDevineatCarnegieMellonUniversity.Thepurposeofthisresearchistodeterminetherelationshipbetweenlanguagepolicyandidentity.Procedures:Youwillbeaskedtoansweranumberofquestionsaboutyourselfandyourthoughtsonlanguage.Thesurveyshouldtakelessthan20minutes.Participantrequirements:Participationinthisstudyislimitedtoindividual’sage18andolder.Risks:Therisksanddiscomfortassociatedwithparticipationinthisstudyarenogreaterthanthoseordinarilyencounteredindailylifeorduringotheronlineactivities. Benefits Theremaybenopersonalbenefitfromyourparticipationinthestudybuttheknowledgereceivedmaybeofvaluetohumanity. Compensation&Costs Thereisnocompensationforparticipationinthisstudy.Therewillbenocosttoyouifyouparticipateinthisstudy. Confidentiality Thedatacapturedfortheresearchdoesnotincludeanypersonallyidentifiableinformationaboutyou.YourIPaddresswillnotbecaptured.RighttoAskQuestions&ContactInformation Ifyouhaveanyquestionsaboutthisstudy,youshouldfeelfreetoaskthembycontactingthePrincipalInvestigatornowatCaseyDevine,412-874-6212,mdevine@andrew.cmu.edu.Ifyouhavequestionslater,desireadditionalinformation,orwishtowithdrawyourparticipationpleasecontactthePrincipleInvestigatorbymail,phoneore-mailinaccordancewiththecontactinformationlistedabove. Ifyouhavequestionspertainingtoyourrightsasaresearchparticipant;ortoreportobjectionstothisstudy,youshouldcontacttheResearchRegulatoryComplianceOfficeatCarnegieMellonUniversity.Email:irb-review@andrew.cmu.edu.Phone:412-268-1901or412-268-5460. VoluntaryParticipation Yourparticipationinthisresearchisvoluntary.Youmaydiscontinueparticipationatanytimeduringtheresearchactivity. 1.Iam18yearsorolder.(Youmustbeatleast18toparticipate) 2.Ihavereadandunderstoodtheinformationabove. 3.Iwanttoparticipateinthisresearchandcontinuetothesurvey
Section2:DemographicQuestions1. Whatisyourage?2. Whatisyourgender?3. Whatlanguage(s)doyouspeak?(Maternallanguage,second,third,etc.)4. Whatisthehighestlevelofeducationthatyouhaveachieved?
93
5. Whatisyournativecountry?6. Haveyoustudiedorlivedabroad?Ifso,forhowlong?
Section3:AttitudessurroundingtheFrenchlanguageOnascalefrom1-4,indicatewithwhatdegreeyouagreewiththefollowingphrases(1=don’tagreeatall;4=completelyagree)
1. TheFrenchlanguageisanimportantaspectofthecultureandhistoryofFrance.2. AllinhabitantsofFrancemustknowhowtospeak/writeFrench.3. TheabilitytospeakFrenchisessentialtobeconsideredFrench.4. TheabilitytospeakFrenchisimportanttoconstructacohesiveFrenchnational
identity.Section4:LanguagepolicyOnascalefrom1-4,indicatewithwhatdegreeyouagreewiththefollowingphrases(1=don’tagreeatall;4=completelyagree)
1. TheFrenchlanguagemustbetheonlyofficiallanguageofFrance.2. TheFrenchgovernmentmustassurethattheFrenchlanguageremainstheonly
officiallanguageofFrance.3. TheFrenchlanguagemustbepresentonallpublicsignage.4. TheFrenchlanguagemustbepresentinallmedia(i.e.television,radio)5. TheFrenchlanguagemustbethelanguageofeducation,ofworkandofpublic
service.Section5:Interactionswithforeignlanguages
1. HowoftendoyouinteractwithalanguageotherthanFrench?2. HowoftendoyouinteractwiththeuseoftheEnglishlanguage?3. Doyouhaveanystrongopinionsaboutyourinteractionswithforeignlanguages?
WiththeEnglishlanguageinparticular?Section6:LaLoiToubon
1. DoyouknowLaLoiToubon?2. CouldyoudescribeLaLoiToubon?(I.e.content,interdictions)3. WhataretheimplicationsofthelawonthestatusoftheFrenchlanguageinFrance?4. DoyouthinkLaLoiToubonisnecessary?Ifyes,why?Ifno,whynot?
-
top related