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?

-