Language ideologies and the use of French in an English-dominant context of Canada: new insights into linguistic insecurity

1 Introduction

Linguistic insecurity has become an important area of concern in recent years among French-speaking minorities of Canada. This insecurity, expressed as discomfort or anxiety when speaking, can lead to a loss of confidence in speaking a language, and eventually to the erosion of knowledge and ability in this language (OCOL 2021). The emergence of attitudes regarding linguistic insecurity has been attributed to school institutions, as they disseminate prestigious social norms regarding language usage, and schooling allows speakers to be aware of the distance between their ways of speaking and the prestigious forms (Francard 1993). This is why the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française proposes to make every educational establishment in Canada a bastion of linguistic security (SNSL 2023). This implies that teachers play an essential role in fostering linguistic security in their classrooms and that their actions can exert great influence on their students.

The following study was conducted in the Canadian province of British Columbia, where the Francophone School District (pseudonym, henceforth FSD) has the mission of teaching French as a first language to ensure that students develop an appreciation of their French-speaking community, culture, and roots. This mission is definitely a challenge in the English-dominant context of British Columbia. The study focuses on linguistic security at the intersection between language ideologies (e.g., Schieffelin and Woolard 1994; Schieffelin et al. 1998) and language-in-education policy (e.g., Menken and García 2010a). More specifically, it takes interest in the beliefs the teachers hold and the practices they implement in their classrooms to encourage both linguistic security and the use of French. As Heller and Martin-Jones (2001) point out, the concept of language ideology provides a means for understanding how the beliefs and practices of teachers and discourses around language policies are shaped by hegemonic views about language. The central purpose of the study is to identify the language ideologies articulated and embodied by the teachers in order to explore how the different practices may interact and expose contradicting ideologies. The research question is: What ideologies are exhibited by teachers when discussing the practices they implement in their classrooms to encourage both linguistic security and the use of French? To answer this question, I propose to analyse the ways teachers articulate the different practices they hold to promote linguistic security and how they implement the use of French in their classroom. With this focus, I analyse interview data to identify some of the contradictions between the practices put into place to develop linguistic security and those employed to encourage the use of French. My goal as a researcher is to explore how the French-language policy is applied by teachers in their classrooms, and my goal as an activist is to collaborate with practitioners to develop the ideological spaces for promoting linguistic security within the French-speaking community of British Columbia. This is the first study on the practices that may (or may not) lead to linguistic security in the minority French-speaking communities of the English-dominant province of British Columbia. It contributes to a better understanding of linguistic insecurity by investigating the language policing practices deployed by the teachers to establish French as the medium of classroom interaction. At the end of this paper, I discuss the possible impacts of the contradicting practices and ideologies and make recommendations for the purposes of teacher education. I argue that the practices teachers use to implement the French-language policy in their classrooms must be examined further because they may be detrimental to the efforts they are making to increase linguistic security. To contextualize the study, I begin by providing background information about the French-speaking community of British Columbia.

2 Context: French-speaking schools in an English-dominant context of Canada

Since the early 2000s, Canadian federal policies have been prioritizing the immigration of French speakers to support the vitality of French in French-speaking minority communities outside the province of Quebec (Citizenship and Immigration Canada 2006). In his paper on the varieties of French spoken in Western Canada, Papen (2004) excluded British Columbia, arguing that the only “real” French-speaking community that existed in the province was the one in Maillardville, which has since assimilated to English. But recent work in the French-speaking communities of British Columbia suggests that the young people of today form a new cosmopolitan French-speaking community and that they are, in fact, the new “real French British Columbians” (translated from Traisnel et al. 2013: 25). The French-speaking population of British Columbia is the most culturally diverse one in the country (Adam 2003). British Columbia has a higher number of French speakers coming from abroad (32 %) and from the other Canadian provinces (56 %) than from the province itself (12 %) (OCOL 2023). The French-speaking immigrants in British Columbia come from Europe (50 %), Asia (22 %), Africa (18 %), and the Americas (10 %). From 2006 to 2016, the number of people in British Columbia who speak French as a first language at home increased by 9 %, and the number of people who speak French as the most common language increased by 21 %. Between 2012 and 2017, there was a 25 % increase in the number of students registered at French-education schools (for a total of about 40 schools and 6,000 students in 2020–2021) (OCOL 2023). In other words, the French-speaking community of British Columbia is growing. The French schools play a central role in the vitality of the French-speaking community of British Columbia, and this certainly explains why a large portion of the scholarship has focused on immigrant children in school settings (cf. Jacquet et al. 2008; Jacquet 2009; Lai-Tran 2020; Levasseur 2020).

One important area of concern among the French-speaking community of British Columbia is linguistic insecurity. To address this concern, the Conseil jeunesse francophone de la Colombie-Britannique (BC Francophone Youth Council, henceforth CJFCB), a not-for-profit organisation created to promote, develop, and represent the interests of the French-speaking youth of British Columbia, put together the Linguistic Security Committee. The mission of this committee is to offer interactive workshops to youth in order to raise awareness and increase linguistic security within the French-speaking community of British Columbia. The young members of the CJFCB have observed that most teachers in the FSD are from contexts where French is spoken as a majority language (mainly Quebec and France). This contrasts with the linguistic reality of British Columbia, where French is a minority language in a highly multilingual context. Therefore, the teaching staff might not be fully equipped to understand the challenges that these youth face. The members of the Linguistic Security Committee have decided to take this matter into their own hands: following the suggestion made by the Fédération de la jeunesse canadienne-française, they want to make every FSD school a bastion of linguistic security (CJFCB 2023). The current study is part of a broader project in collaboration with the CJFCB, which aims to expand their workshops to a broader audience – in this case, teachers – so the teachers can foster linguistic security among their students. These teachers work in FSD schools. The FSD’s mission is to 1) provide a French-language education for students attending the schools, 2) protect, promote, and transmit the French language, and 3) promote the development of a sense of belonging to French-speaking cultures. This mission clearly establishes that French is the only language of the school district, which means that teachers have to ensure that students speak French in their classrooms in order to carry out the FSD’s mission and meet the parents’ expectations. This, however, is being challenged by the students who speak English in their everyday lives, including at school.

3 Linguistic (in)security, language ideologies, and language policies in school

This research draws on previous studies that treat linguistic insecurity as emerging from inequalities between different social groups (Bourdieu 1982; Labov 1966). The institutionalisation of standard language varieties perpetuates what Lippi-Green (1997) called “the standard language ideology,” i.e., the belief that some varieties are more correct than others. The corrective practices that are meant to help speakers learn the so-called standard variety can have negative social consequences for their linguistic self-assurance and attitudes. One of these consequences is linguistic insecurity. Labov (1966) introduced the notion of linguistic insecurity when investigating the relationship between socioeconomic status and linguistic insecurity, which was measured with the Index of Linguistic Insecurity. Linguistic insecurity refers to speakers’ own evaluation of their variety as inferior to another variety that they perceive as “correct” or more prestigious (Meyerhoff 2006). This insecurity emerges when the speaker becomes aware of a distance between their own language variety and the variety that they consider to be legitimate (Francard 1994). According to Labov (2006: 318), “those who adopt a standard of correctness which is imposed from without, and from beyond the group which helped form their native speech pattern, are bound to show signs of linguistic insecurity.”

Since Labov (1966), a number of sociolinguists have taken interest in the causes and manifestations of linguistic insecurity, as well as ways to study this phenomenon (see Bretegnier 1999 for a review of the first decades following the work of Labov). Gueunier et al. (1978) were the first scholars to apply the notion of linguistic insecurity to the Francophone world. They investigated the use of French in terms of the standard and speaker norms, and showed that the insecurity felt by their participants related to the use of a non-standard variety. Francard’s work in the Belgian French-speaking community has made significant advances in the conceptualization of language insecurity, as he laid the foundation for a new linguistic insecurity framework. For him, linguistic insecurity is “the manifestation of a search for linguistic legitimacy, experienced by a dominated social group which has a clear perception of both the linguistic forms which show its minorization, and the language forms it needs to acquire in order to rise within the social scale” (translated from Francard 1997: 171–172 in Escandell 2011: 326). Francard replaced Labov’s original quantitative approach with a qualitative methodology, which scholars have used since then to investigate linguistic insecurity.

Most of the studies on linguistic insecurity in French-speaking communities were conducted in areas where different languages or varieties of the same language coexist (e.g., Boudreau and Dubois 1991, 1992, 1993, 2008; Francard 1989, 1993 in Belgium; Remysen 2003 in Canada; Singy 1997 in Switzerland). Calvet (1996) went a step further and extended the notion of linguistic insecurity to language contact situations – moving from an intralinguistic perspective to an interlinguistic one. Since then, a number of scholars have examined language insecurity in different multilingual contexts (e.g., Boudard 2013 in Mauritius; Bretegnier 1999 in La Réunion; Escandell 2011 in Spain; Piccardi et al. 2021 in Italy; among many others).

Studies among the French-speaking communities of Canada have shown that linguistic insecurity is an ongoing, complex, and multilayered issue, both at the individual and community levels, that tends to silence French speakers (Boudreau and Dubois 2008; Desabrais 2013; Remysen 2018). However, speakers can fight back against dominant language ideologies, assert their linguistic security, and claim the legitimacy of their language variety (Desabrais 2013). A number of studies were conducted in New Brunswick (mainly) and Ontario – the two provinces with the highest number of French speakers outside Quebec – starting in the late 1980s (e.g., Cormier and Péronnet 1987 in New Brunswick; Mougeon et al. 1984 in Ontario). At that time, French teachers in both provinces had questions about the variety they should be teaching to their students; should they teach the (non-standard) variety associated with the students’ identity, or the (standard) one that would give them access to higher education and better work opportunities? (Boudreau and Perrot 2005). Teachers were facing this dilemma as both varieties were essential for French speakers growing in a minority context. In New Brunswick, the work of Boudreau (1994, 1997, 2001, 2021 and Boudreau and Dubois (1991, 1992, 1993, 2008 is invariably referenced for all questions related to linguistic insecurity among French-speaking Acadians. The authors have shown that Acadians feel linguistically insecure, especially in regions where speakers are in everyday contact with English. And even if since the 1990s there has been a movement that valorises and normalises the use of linguistic features that are perceived as authentically Acadian, speakers do not necessarily feel comfortable with their linguistic practices (Boudreau 2021). Research on linguistic insecurity conducted among the French-speaking communities of eastern Canada is certainly relevant for the current study, but the French-speaking community of British Columbia differs from these communities that have existed and maintained French since the colonial period as it is more recent. With French speakers coming from all around the world and the everyday contact with English, linguistic (in)security in British Columbia is a fertile area for research.

Language ideology is a useful lens for examining linguistic (in)security. Language ideology is a conceptual tool used to access what speakers think, feel, and believe with regard to different languages and linguistic features (Woolard 1998). In a speech community, linguistic practices are commonly evaluated against the practices of the dominant group (Bourdieu 1982). In the case of British Columbia, as in most French-speaking minority communities of Canada, one ideological belief transmitted in the school system is that French as spoken in Quebec and France is more prestigious or that these varieties correspond to the standard form (Bouchard 2023a, 2023b). Language ideologies make the world more coherent; they arrange languages, language structures, and ways of using language as good or bad, desirable or undesirable, easy or difficult, and they link these descriptors to users of languages and language structures (Irvine 1989; Woolard 1998).

Studies of language ideologies encompass a wide range of phenomena, including linguistic insecurity. A wide range of studies focus specifically on teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards their students’ use of languages (e.g., Huerta 2011; Pettit 2011; Sowa 2009). The classrooms are a locus for ideological work, and schools have in fact often been the focus of language ideological research (Rosa and Burdick 2017). They are dynamic sites where ideologies can be formed, reconfigured, and reinforced and where the circulating discourses can be contested or endorsed. Silverstein (1998: 138) used the notion of ideological sites to refer to these sites of institutionalized ritual and ritualization that provide a place where social groups articulate the ideological. And as Rosa and Burdick (2017: 112) wrote, “a focus on institutions can provide insights into the rituals through which language ideologies are reproduced, the social roles that participate in these processes of reproduction, and the modes of authority required for their ritual efficacy.” In this paper, I examine how the teachers’ language ideologies might (unintentionally) create or exacerbate linguistic insecurity in students. Accessing the ideologies held by teachers is key to understanding how they are used (explicitly or tacitly) to implement language policies in their classrooms, what impact they may have on students, and how they might perpetuate existing social and linguistic hierarchies.

Language education policy as a conceptual framework brings together the disciplines of linguistics and education. Because this study takes place in an English-dominant context where teachers must implement the schools’ language policy regarding the use of French, examining the interaction between language policy and classroom-level practices to implement the policy is essential. In fact, the implementation of the school language policy might have an impact on the students’ feeling of linguistic insecurity.

Language education policies are put into practice in schools around the world. But according to Menken and García (2010b), we still know little about the complex process of language policy implementation within educational contexts, and most language policy research remains national in scope rather than focusing on the central role of teachers in the classroom. Yet, as Henderson (2017: 21) puts it, “teachers are at the metaphorical heart of language policy implementation and how teachers interpret, understand, and implement language policy connects intimately with the local construction of classroom-level language policy.” Language policy encompasses all of the “language practices, beliefs and management of a community or polity” (Spolsky 2004: 9) and a number of researchers have established the importance of language ideologies in the implementation of language policy in schools and classrooms (e.g., Freeman 2004; Makoe and McKinney 2014; Palmer 2011; Rajuan and Beckerman 2011). That is the reason why this paper examines the ideologies that emerge when discussing different practices used by teachers to promote linguistic security and the use of French in their classrooms. As the school is a space often associated with the emergence of linguistic insecurity (Francard 1993), assessing how the teachers implement the use of French in their classrooms may help us understand how this may (or not) have an impact on the students’ feeling of linguistic insecurity.

4 Data and methods

In order to familiarise myself with the Francophone schools of British Columbia, I first made observations in one high school in Metro Vancouver. These observations were important to this study in order to understand better the teachers’ practices and to examine the students’ language choice and use in action. I participated (as an observer) in about four classes a week for a total of two months (Spring and Fall 2023), visiting classes from grade 7 to 12, with different teachers and topics. Following these observations, an e-mail was sent to all the high school teachers of the FSD to specifically introduce this research project on linguistic insecurity and to invite them to conduct an interview (with me or a research assistant) in which we would discuss their personal and professional trajectories related to teaching in French in British Columbia and the practices they apply in their classrooms to foster linguistic security and encourage the use of French. Twenty-one teachers responded positively and were interviewed. These teachers work in different schools and cities around British Columbia and they teach a broad variety of school subjects (Table 1). Semi-structured interviews in French were held online. Interviews lasted between 40 and 85 min and followed a flexible interview schedule, with questions broadly related to teaching in French in British Columbia and linguistic insecurity. The purpose of these interviews was to gather information about the teachers’ views on their students’ varieties of French, their experience as teachers in a minority context, and their classroom practices related to fostering linguistic security, and then to present this information to the CJFCB to help them create a workshop on linguistic security for teachers. This means that these interviews were not conducted with the intention of discussing language ideologies and classroom policies – but these did emerge from the analysis.

Twenty hours of recordings were transcribed and anonymized. These transcribed interviews were then submitted for a thematic analysis, with the overall aim of investigating the teachers’ discursive construction of their beliefs and practices. This analysis was data-driven and consisted of grouping data into different themes that emerged during the interviews with teachers. This thematic analysis is “a method for identifying, analyzing and reporting patterns (themes) within data” (Braun and Clarke 2006: 79). Following the methodology of Braun and Clarke (2006), these different themes built a conceptual schema. These different themes will be used by the CJFCB to create a workshop on linguistic security for teachers. Among these themes, there are two that the current paper discusses in greater depth: the teachers’ perspectives on promoting linguistic security in their classrooms and their perspectives on promoting the use of French in their classrooms. This allows us to dive into the complex and contradictory nature of language ideologies and to explore the ways in which language policy implementation at the classroom level can have an impact on the students’ linguistic security.

5 Findings

In this section, I explore the language ideologies that emerged during the interviews. I divide the findings into two main sections: in the first section, I present the different ideologies that arose from discussing different practices used in the classroom to encourage students’ feeling of linguistic security, and in the second section, I do the same with the ideologies that arose from discussing the practices implemented to encourage the use of French in the classroom. What emerges from these different practices is a contradiction: the efforts made to support the use of French in the classroom might undermine the efforts made to cultivate linguistic security.

6 Discussion and conclusion

Findings in this study suggest that the teachers’ discursive construction of their practices to cultivate linguistic security in their classrooms construes multilingualism – and more specifically the use of English – as an asset. Allowing the use of English, and therefore of the students’ broader linguistic repertoire, is perceived as a way to create a space where the students can feel safe to express themselves. Teachers accept that their students use English, and they also sometimes use English in front of their students when teaching. By doing so, they model and show the students how it is possible – and even valued – to know how to “play with language.” In such cases, the use of English is perceived as a resource that is useful for better expressing ideas. Language-mixing is also perceived as a phenomenon that characterizes bilingual speakers rather than as a problem. The teachers that hold the language ideology of language variation as normal perceive code-switching as common. They also value and appreciate the vast array of French accents and language practices in their classrooms. Because a number of students do not come from a French-speaking background, they tend to make mistakes that are different from the mistakes that students who grow up in a dominant French-speaking context would make. The ideology of seeing mistakes as a learning tool emerged from the discussions on fostering linguistic security. Ways to create a safe space for students to make mistakes and learn from them include accepting mistakes without judgement, valuing mistakes in front of the students, and modeling how one can own their mistakes and learn from them. By embracing their mistakes, teachers also choose to be vulnerable in front of their students. Establishing a bond of trust with students is essential for students to feel linguistically safe. Teachers reported developing this bond with the students by showing vulnerability and kindness. Both are necessary for learning and developing linguistic security, and teachers can lead by example by showing their own linguistic insecurities to students.

It should be mentioned that all the teachers interviewed have their students’ language security at heart. They are aware that linguistic insecurity is a problem among the French-speaking minority communities of Canada and British Columbia more specifically, and they support the development of learning tools that could support the teachers in learning how to foster linguistic security in their classrooms. However, these teachers are in a difficult position. While they value the different varieties of French spoken in their schools and appreciate the language-mixing practices that their students use, they have a responsibility as teachers to support the FSD’s mission, which includes providing a French-language education for students and promoting the use of French. This is where there is a clash at the collective level. The ideologies that emerged when discussing how to encourage French in the classroom partly diverge from the ones that came up when discussing the practices used to promote linguistic security.

A number of teachers articulated a monoglossic language ideology, which is reflected in their practices for promoting the use of French and English separately. For them, English should not be used in contexts where French is expected – including the classroom – and language-mixing practices should be corrected. This ideology contrasts with two ideologies that underpin some of the practices used to encourage linguistic security: the ideology of English as functional and the ideology of language variation as normal. One common practice where the monoglossic language ideology is manifested is in the contests that discourage the use of English or reward the use of French only. This point-based system probably advantages the students who come from a French-speaking family and disadvantages the ones from an English or multilingual background. This type of contest might work for students who thrive in competition, but could create insecurity for those who feel less confident in their French-speaking skills. Also, some teachers’ beliefs and practices align with the ideology that French is the only language to be used in school – an ideology that is central to the mission of the FSD. For those teachers, the use of French in school is presented as logical and obvious. Why would a language other than French be used in a French school? This dominant language ideology is being challenged by a number of teachers who see value in approaches that are more multilingual (such as Anne, who wanted to include translation activities) and recognize that the French-only policy might be silencing a number of students. However, even if they challenge this ideology, they cannot act differently in their classrooms because of the mandate of the FSD. This leads some of them (like Marie in the excerpt above) to questions themselves and identify their own contradictions. Finally, when discussing the use of French, the ideology of language variation as normal also emerged. For many teachers, accepting variability in the speech of students is key to promoting linguistic security, but also to promoting the use of French. They expressed a desire to hear their students speak, no matter how they speak – just as long as they speak. And with time, with more positive French-speaking experiences, these students will naturally speak more and more French.

Recent studies demonstrate that using the full language repertoire of multilingual students is beneficial for their education (e.g., García and Wei 2014). My observations in the classroom showed that these students naturally use their linguistic resources to make sense of the class content (e.g., they write in English first and then translate into French, they ask questions or for clarifications from their peers in English when they have not understood the instructions in French). This was also highlighted by Claudia, who mentioned that her students cooperate and support their peers in English when they are struggling. García and Klein (2016: 14) point out that “by recognizing bilingual students’ full language repertoire and their translanguaging capacities, we then not only improve the education of bilingual students, but, in so doing, we build a better and more just world.” I believe that an approach that is more inclusive of English in the context of British Columbia would also strengthen the students’ feeling of linguistic security and develop an appreciation of their full linguistic skills. Learning and studying in French can also mean using, maintaining, and strengthening English and other home languages.

The findings suggest that some of the practices related to the implementation of French in the classroom might be detrimental to linguistic security. It is clear that practices to promote linguistic security must be accompanied by practices that foster positive French-speaking experiences. It also seems important to continue to implement strategies that encourage the development of the full range of students’ linguistic resources. In the longer term, the FSD might also want to become more inclusive of the students’ multilingual realities.

One important limitation regarding the research methodology in this study is that the beliefs and practices the teachers shared during the interviews might not match the reality of their classroom actions (Pajares 1992), partly because these constantly change or because of the social desirability bias (Krumpal 2013) – which is the tendency for participants to respond in a way that they perceive as socially desirable. Further research on the topic could include monitoring classroom practices to see how the practices that the teachers mentioned are implemented and observe the students’ reactions. Interviews with students could also be conducted as a follow-up study so they can have their say on the different ideologies and practices presented by their teachers.