C/O Robin Kamanarski
The Silhouette: Please introduce yourself.
Robin Komarniski: My name is Robin Komarniski. I am in my second year of cognitive science of language. I'm an Academic Committee Member of the McMaster Linguistics Society. We focus on the idea of promoting linguistics as a whole and linguistic diversity. Not only that, we just want to help people if they're struggling with any linguistics classes and for other people to meet other people in linguistics and make some friends.
What languages are you currently learning?
So I speak English natively and I try to speak German with my mom. German and French are definitely my best languages; I could probably study them at an academic level . . . I'm also learning Spanish and Portuguese, which I haven't given too much attention to recently, but I am learning them.
How do you feel about lessons or books that advertise quick language learning tools, for example within a month?
I think it is a very strong and attention-grabbing selling point. I think that it also informs us about our society right now, how we're always expecting convenience . . . We're so used to quick service and now it's the same with languages. We've tried to condense it and commodify it when really, I just think it's not one size fits all. It's really dependent on the person because everyone learns at their own pace. Sometimes language just clicks for you but sometimes it takes longer and that's completely fine. There's no rush. If you're promising someone it'll take a month and it doesn't end up clicking in a month, that person might feel pressured. But it's okay if you feel like you're not making progress, because you probably are making progress, just at your own pace. It's like a product but language is not a product — it's its own entity.
Do you have any advice for learning languages?
If anyone is going to learn a language, definitely, if you can, try and focus on one language at a time. I think what a lot of people get wrong is the view that languages are a kind of collectible. It's like: "Oh, how many can you speak?" and people will say they speak five or six and then they get very concentrated on the number when they fail to realize that languages have so much. Each language is so beautiful in the way that it offers its own specific experience. Germany has its own culture and food and history and community. So does [France] and [Spain] and every one of them. You could just get lost in that for hours. I feel like a lot of people rush the process when it's actually a process to be enjoyed.
When did you become interested in linguistics?
When you learn a language you learn more about how people perceive the world. For example, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis suggests that some languages just might not have a word to describe a specific concept or maybe not all the degrees of that concept. Colour is one of those things. It's that idea of do they even see that colour, can they even perceive it or is it limited? That's exactly what I mean — for European languages, it might not be to the same degree but they have their own grammatical structures that influence the way that they think. Even in German, because 'bridge' is a feminine noun, when Germans are describing a bridge they will describe it using more feminine adjectives. They'll be like, “It's beautiful, it's elegant,” but they'll do that subconsciously. If you were to ask them if being female influences their perception, they'll say no. In reality, it does because there are so many ways language influences us subconsciously.
What area of language or linguistics are you most interested in?
I really do have a place in my heart for every field of linguistics because it all can have its moment to shine. It's so nice to actually connect to another human being and language is exactly how you do that. There's that expression: if you talk to a man in his second language, you're talking to his head. If you talk to a man in his first language, you're talking to his heart. It means so much more. The connection just is unmatchable. I do also value individual characteristics and that's why I want to go into speech-language pathology. When I was younger, I also saw a speech-language pathologist and it helped me a lot because I couldn't pronounce certain letters, like, for example, the ‘th’ phoneme . . . Hopefully, I can do that for other people. But that's what I love the most; you can connect with people and help them, but you can also learn more about these more refined things about language.
Could you elaborate on what the term linguistic diversity means?There are so many subfields of linguistics like syntax, phonology, phonetics and morphology. Linguistic diversity is just acknowledging that there are many different backgrounds from which people originate and how that influences speech, how that influences vocabulary and how people have their own specific ways of talking…Another thing in linguistics is there's this very clear separation between prescriptive grammar and descriptive grammar. For example, if you say “You is stupid,” some people would say that's ungrammatical. But if it makes sense to you, if that makes sense in your brain, then it is technically grammatical from a descriptive point of view. So there is no right and wrong way of speaking. At the end of the day, we are the ones who decide language, because language is a community-focused idea. Language is just sharing ideas from one person to another, so there is no wrong way of speaking. That's what linguistic diversity is about — it's deconstructing this idea that there is some kind of hierarchy to the right or wrong way of speaking.
By: Nicolas Belliveau
The news in November 2018 that Doug Ford and his provincial government were ceasing the project to build a French-language university in Toronto and eliminating the position of the provincial commissioner for French language affairs was met with backlash.
However, situations like these aren’t novel. French education and culture have been the target of marginalization for hundreds of years. Ford adds to this long list of discriminatory acts, as his decision to cut services and protections to Franco-Ontarians has underlying anti-francophone sentiment and is a violation of minority language rights in Canada.
But why should we care about this? After all, with just over 620,000 people, the French-speaking community in Ontario makes up just 4.5 per cent of its total population.
Growing up French-Canadian in Ontario, practicing and maintaining the language my ancestors tirelessly fought to preserve has proven difficult. Additionally, the limited number of French secondary schools meant that I had to enroll at an English secondary school — adding to the challenge of keeping my mother tongue.
However, Francophones are still Canada’s largest minority with Ontario home to the most populous French-speaking community outside of Quebec. But most importantly, the French language is a right that is protected by the Constitution and language laws.
This didn’t come easily. Throughout all of Canada’s history, francophones have fought for the right to French education and with Ford’s new agenda, the battle appears to be ongoing.
Merely a century ago, the provincial government passed and enforced Regulation 17 throughout Ontario, which restricted the teachings in French beyond grade 2 and limited French teachings to one hour per day in primary schools. After 15 years of enforcement and prohibiting a whole generation from learning French, the law was finally repealed in 1927.
By ending the project for the development of a French university, Ford is reopening a door into the past that most French-Canadians thought was over. The ideology that once disregarded Franco-Ontarians’ identity and equality is now resurfacing, under the new disguise of Ford’s policies.
And what is Ford’s reasoning behind these radical changes? Although Ford has yet to comment on the matter, government officials have cited the province’s $15 billion deficit as being the motivation for these cost-cutting actions.
However, the cost for the French Language Services Commissioner and the university tally up to a total of just $15 million per year. And as of now, Ford’s government has yet to meet the targeted amount of savings, leaving experts to question whether a thorough program review was carried out.
When looking at these realities, it is hard to believe the government’s narrative of the provincial deficit being the sole incentive for premier Ford’s changes, and not worry about an anti-francophone sentiment underlying Ford’s fiscal agenda.
What’s more unsettling is that Ford’s new policy changes cuts into Canada’s Constitution and the protections and rights of French-Canadians.
The functions of a language commissioner prove to be essential in promoting and protecting a language. Not only do they monitor the government for any infringements upon minority language rights, the French language commissioner acts as a liaison between the provincial government and Franco-Ontarians.
By getting rid of the French Language Services Commissioner, Ford is destabilizing the rights and protections of minority francophones and undermining the institutions that promote one of the ‘supposed’ official languages of this country.
I acknowledge that Ontario is already home to three bilingual universities and that the francophone minorities account for just 4.5 per cent of Ontario’s population. Additionally, I acknowledged that the Ford government has created the position of senior policy adviser on francophone affairs following the elimination of the French Language Services Commissioner.
The realities of the mistreatment of francophones throughout history along with the benefits of the French services and protections that Ford is eliminating would make it illogical for one to not consider this as anti-francophone sentiment. To be idle while the government carelessly partakes in these divisive political tactics is a disservice to our ancestors and to all minorities.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[adrotate banner="16"]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Helene Caron
The tragic events in Paris had many frantically looking for friends and family currently in the cité des lumières and prompted a number of us to post “Je suis Paris” on our Facebook page out of solidarity. However, our links with France may be much closer than we think and I’m not referring to the latest events. I’m going way, way back. In early 17th century, Samuel de Champlain officially met a Huron-Wendaat chief in Toanché (now Penetanguishene).
Did you know that 2015 marked the 400th anniversary of French presence in Ontario, with celebrations happening throughout the province? And that Hamilton is an officially designated bilingual city with many francophone community organizations? If you didn’t, don’t feel bad. I moved here from Montréal in 1996 and I didn’t know either. A brief Google search at the time yielded very little on the French community whereabouts in Hamilton and I went on with my life until, one fateful day in 2002, I walked downtown Hamilton and saw a French-written sign in a window. Seconds later, I was chatting with Claudette Mikelsons, now president of Collège Boréal in Hamilton. “Oh yes, there is quite a large French-speaking contingent in Hamilton and area,” she told me. According to ACFO-Régionale Hamilton’s current website, about 45,000 people speak French in our area. “Quoi? But where are they?” I asked, stunned. Outside my workplace, there wasn’t a speck of French — many would lovingly try, but there was no French connection there.
Believe me, I wanted and needed to connect with French-speakers in Hamilton; I felt like assimilation had wrapped its fingers around my neck. Without kids and not being a church-goer (schools and churches are recognizable institutions within the community), I somehow fell in a Frenchless vacuum until that day in 2002. That chance encounter led me to understand the breadth of the greatest issue facing French Canadians outside Québec: invisibility. Franco-Ontarians are a minorité invisible. We don’t look different and heck, many of us don’t even sound different.
The community is not visible in mainstream English media either, even if French is this country’s second official language. Kudos to CFMU (I started the “French Toast” radio show there in 2010) and The Sil for taking a national leadership role and willingly offering a space where we can talk about all things French. Take note, Spectator and other mainstream media.
Anyway, after my encounter with Claudette, I started volunteering on the Board of Centre Français, which organizes fun and entertaining cultural events in French in Hamilton. By getting involved, I met dynamic French-speaking people who wanted to contribute to our city’s vitality by ensuring French cultures’ (yes, there are many French cultures even in Steel Town) solid and vibrant place in an inclusive manner.
I help organize the logistics for Mac-O Franco Ontario, an event about the rich cultural heritage of French presence in Ontario that will involve just under 200 McMaster students. They will showcase a wide range of French-Ontarian heritage aspects on Dec. 7 in the student centre’s Marketplace area, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. Seven francophone community organizations will also be there to talk about the services they offer in addition to interacting with McMaster students.
Finally, one last reminder – our heritage unites us all one way or another. Nous sommes Paris. Nous sommes Franco-Ontariennes et Franco-Ontariens.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
The Artist
Starring: Jean Dejuardin
Directed by: Michael Hazanivicus
3 1/2 out of 5 stars
Myles Herod
Entertainment Editor
On the surface, The Artist is a familiar story. Love, loss, redemption – you get the idea. Its trait of distinction, mind you, is that it dares with two cinematic no-no’s in the face of anxious modernity: silence, and black and white.
This year’s Best Picture winner is a nostalgic ode to Hollywood’s dawn, where acting came from the body and the screen gushed with monochromatic silver and shade.
No film comes easy, and it is this painstakingly constructed risk that gives The Artist its elegance and purpose.
Unusually, the inter-titles (vital of the pre-sound era it mimics) are scarce, leaving the film’s director to conduct solely between musical cues and two sparkling performances.
Hollywood, 1927. Tinseltown’s golden boy, George Valentin (Jean Dejuardin, in his Oscar-winning role) is impervious to failure. Adored by the masses, his swashbuckling stature comes as no fashionable fluke – he dances, he emotes and he seduces, too.
Paired with a capering canine, both man and dog conquer the industry, appeasing public appearances with comedic jest while subsequently obstructing their co-star’s kudos.
Nevertheless, his star burns bright. Looking closely, one will see that Jean Dujardin’s face is etched with ‘classic’ features – undoubtedly the film’s secret weapon.
A finely drawn mustache akin to one Douglas Fairbanks (on which the portrayal is loosely based), a dapper smile and certain machismo to boot, the film absorbs his radiance and projects it to screen, making the silent, black and white film work for a 2012 world.
One day, amidst the rallying onlookers of his latest première, a spontaneous ‘meet cute’ ensues. Surrounded by the surging press and crackling cameras, fate places casual fan Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) alongside George, who instantaneously ceases the magic moment to prop his swaggering ego.
Sensation transpires as the tabloids scream, ‘Who is George’s new girl?!’ Sensing a good thing, he and producer Al Zimmer (John Goodman) agree to include Peppy in their next picture.
Attraction blossoms, and the married Valentin soon adopts the role of mentor to the rising starlet, taking her under his wing.
Inevitably, as The Artist reaches 1929, the advent of ‘talkies’ erupt on Hollywood’s lawn, in turn threatening Valentin’s career while propelling Peppy’s.
Persuasion does little to convince him that sound is the future. Self-absorption finds George foolishly financing a silent ‘last hurrah’ as director and star, unknowingly setting himself up for an inescapable fall from fortune and fame, ultimately alienated by his own talkie-phobia.
The film’s look is tightly gelled and charming – much like George’s debonair dress, or its deco decor.
No doubt The Artist is a beautiful looking picture. Trudging deeper, it is also cleverly crafted, sonically challenging our perceptions when real sounds are used for dramatic effect.
Above all else, The Artist is a silent movie. Commend director Michael Hazanivicius for not having compromised, where the word ‘homage’ could have easily come ascribed.
Instead, it is an engaging love triangle between Hollywood and two people who meet within its pivotal years, one representing the old guard (Barrymore, Fairbanks, etc.), the other the future of cinema (Hepburn, Davis).
I liked The Artist because it worked. Indeed it delivers in the face of detractors, with the absence of colour and sound as endearing as the three words that started it all: lights, camera, action!
