Good afternoon, everyone.
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you about some of my language law research work.
I will essentially be drawing on my latest book—just to give it a quick plug—Restaurer le français langue officielle. It's a book that I co‑wrote with François Côté. Former appellate court judge Jean‑Louis Baudoin did us the honour of writing the preface.
Chapter one of the book is essentially a review of the academic literature from around the world on the two major approaches in language law. It is theoretical but concerns our subject. I'll return to solid ground toward the end of my presentation.
What the literature tells us is that there are two major language-policy models: the one based on personality, the other on territoriality. Under the first model, while there may be many official languages, every citizen chooses the one he or she wishes to use in interacting with the government. Under the second, the government establishes a single official language across its territory, generally the language of the majority population in that territory.
As we had suspected and in fact assumed, we discovered in our survey of the literature that virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only a territoriality-based approach can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language. That finding is even more striking than we had thought. Allow me to cite a few of those experts.
According to Philippe van Parijs, “To protect vulnerable languages in a high mobility context, there is at best one effective strategy: strict application of the principle of linguistic territoriality.”
Jean Laponce, a leading language policy expert, holds a similar view: that, of these approaches, “the only one that has a chance of being effective in the long term consists in concentrating the endangered language within the geographic space.”
Closer to home, Professor José Woehrling, of the Université de Montréal, claims that “the territorial solution is the one that best guarantees the stability and security of the linguistic communities” and that the principle of personality allows “the strongest language to develop to the detriment of the most vulnerable.” He explains why the personality-based approach doesn't work, claiming that it lets the strongest language develop to the detriment of the vulnerable one. The personality-based approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate.
He goes on to explain:
The principle of territoriality may therefore be a way to protect the language of a group that constitutes a minority at the national level but the majority in a regional or federated entity [much as French, the majority language in Quebec, does in Canada] by enabling that entity to ensure that its language enjoys sole official language status within it. For a sufficiently large minority that is settled as a concentrated community in a territory where it constitutes the majority, the territoriality principle is the best solution.
Quebec and Canada were referred to earlier, but, in real terms, Philippe van Parijs claims that it is precisely the awareness of the constant advancement of English in Montreal that made a linguistic territoriality regime necessary. He is referring to the Charter of the French Language.
Linda Cardinal, whom I'm sure you know, one of the leading language policy experts in the world, particularly in Canada, writes that, in the Charter of the French Language, “the Quebec government favours a policy based on the principle of territoriality in order to strengthen the French language in its territory.” Ms. Cardinal adds—this is very important and the essential point of my presentation—that “a model change in Canada would have to foster further recognition that the territorialization of French is necessary in order to guarantee its continued survival.” Furthermore, in her view, “Quebec should not hesitate to continue along the same path and further promote French in all sectors.”