# President Chirac, and his views on English.



## Alxmrphi

This clip speaks for itself :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3856695833514367805&q=chirac

Where Chirac walked out on a meeting in the European Union because he heard a French man speaking English.

I sort of agree that I don't like the way it's going, I like other languages being there and not everyone "having" to learn English.

What are your views?

[P/S]

I've just seen this in another post and it sums up why I don't want English to be seen as "necessary"



			
				[U said:
			
		

> rhiannonhelen][/U]
> *Are English speakers lazy?*
> When my dad told his friend that I was studying languages at university, he replied, "Why that's not very useful - everyone speaks English."


----------



## Residente Calle 13

I think the whole thing is *hilarious*. It was okay when the upper classes outside of France were conversing in French but now that I French person is speaking English in the EU, Chirac has a _vache_ ? Why wasn't he proud his countryman could speak a foreign language. For a Frenchman to learn to speak French is nothing in comparaison, non?

The truth is, if you want to reach the widest audience possible, your best bet is English. Chirac seems to be shocked that French does not get the respect it used to. I'm pleasantly surprised that many people are still studying French in countries where English is not the main language. You would think more people would channel all their energy to the more useful of the two languages.


----------



## KateNicole

I can't see the video, but walking out on a meeting isn't going to change the fact that English is the most communicable (foreign) language in the world right now.  There's no sense in getting upset about it.


----------



## Outsider

A way to boost his low popularity ratings with the French public?... 

Just for the record, the man at the meeting wasn't just any man. It was Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank. How would Americans react if Alan Greenspan announced his forecasts in Spanish?... Just kidding, don't answer that. 

BTW, I think there's a mistranslation in the subtitles. I think what Mr. Chrirac said was that France "has supported, for a long time, the presence of French" , not "of the French" .


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> A way to boost his low popularity ratings with the French public?...
> 
> BTW, I think there's a mistranslation in the subtitles. I think what Mr. Chrirac said was that France "has supported, for a long time, the presence of French" , not "of the French" .



Haha! Is there a difference?

Greenspan is retired but if he said anything in Spanish I would be both shocked and pleasantly surprised. Since when is speaking a foreign language a bad thing? If the current head of the Fed discussed monetary policy at a NAFTA meeting (do they even do that?) I think that would be...both impressive and unrealistic. But one _*can *_dream.


----------



## Pivra

I don't see why it is such a big deal for a frenchman to express himself in English since it is his preference to do so. Why did he get so upset about it? The motto of the UK is in French and nobody (I guess) is upset about having their national motto in French.


----------



## Brioche

Alex_Murphy said:
			
		

> This clip speaks for itself :
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3856695833514367805&q=chirac
> 
> Where Chirac walked out on a meeting in the European Union because he heard a French man speaking English.
> 
> I sort of agree that I don't like the way it's going, I like other languages being there and not everyone "having" to learn English.
> 
> What are your views?


 
I don't suppose Chirac would have any objection to everyone "having" to learn French!
He, of course, speaks *all* of the languages of the EU members, and uses the local language when he's outside France: Irish in Dublin, Welsh in Cardiff, Catalan in Barcelona &c.


----------



## Aupick

It feels strange to be defending Chirac, but the person who spoke English in this meeting (Ernest-Antoine Seillière, a business leader, not Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank, who spoke in French) was not just demonstrating his linguistic skills, accommodating foreigners or trying to promote bilingualism. He was making an ideological statement, to the effect that languages other than English have no valid role in international contexts, and so Chirac responded in kind. Seillière said that he was speaking in English because it's the language of business, but the meeting he was addressing was not a business meeting, but a summit of the European Union. The EU has always rejected the idea of operating with a single language and has always defended the linguistic diversity of its members, even if that means spending a considerable sum on translation and interpreting. It is this linguistic diversity that Seillière was attacking and that Chirac was defending.

I have little respect for Chirac, but I've heard him speak English and he speaks it very well. For all his faults, his government's policies on language learning are mostly positive, and the learning of foreign languages (usually English) is being extended to start at the age of 7 and last as long as a student's education. At this point you can't study anything at a university without studying at least one foreign language on the side.


----------



## TimeHP

Immagino che voi tutti siate al corrente del dibattito che da anni viene portato avanti a livello internazionale sull'uso dell'Inglese come _lingua del potere. _Chirac forse ha voluto attirare l'attenzione sul problema e lo ha fatto in modo eclatante. Ma, a prescindere dalle scelte linguistiche dei politici francesi, sarebbe sbagliato banalizzare il problema dicendo semplicemente che l'Inglese è la lingua internazionale e quindi tutti la capiscono.
There are many books (many of these are in English, English authors...) about the implications of the hegemony of English and in the site of Unesco (page of culture) there was an intersting article who complained about the reluctance of the Uk Publishers in translating books from other countries.
And I read many articles about the problem on The Guardian as well. (http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,948910,00.html).

Un mondo dove si parlano tante lingue è un mondo più bello.
Ciao


----------



## maxiogee

The discussion here over who did, or did not, speak English and why they did, or did not do it; and why Chirac reacted to whoever it was, doing whatever they did for whatever reason they had, all goes to show that everything, absolutely everything is open to misinterpretation - and to playing politics because of it.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Hi Aupick,

It looks like you have a bit more of the facts than the rest of us.
I have a few questions for you, if you don't mind.



			
				Aupick said:
			
		

> It feels strange to be defending Chirac, but the person who spoke English in this meeting (Ernest-Antoine Seillière, a business leader, not Jean-Claude Trichet, head of the European Central Bank, who spoke in French) was not just demonstrating his linguistic skills, accommodating foreigners or trying to promote bilingualism. He was making an ideological statement, to the effect that languages other than English have no valid role in international contexts, *How do we know this? Did he actually come out and say that?* and so Chirac responded in kind *How do we know this was his main motive?*. Seillière said that he was speaking in English because it's the language of business, but the meeting he was addressing was not a business meeting, but a summit of the European Union. The EU has always rejected the idea of operating with a single language and has always defended the linguistic diversity of its members, even if that means spending a considerable sum on translation and interpreting. It is this linguistic diversity that Seillière was attacking and that Chirac was defending. *How is speaking in English attacking linguistic diversity? *


----------



## Residente Calle 13

TimeHP said:
			
		

> Immagino che voi tutti siate al corrente del dibattito che da anni viene portato avanti a livello internazionale sull'uso dell'Inglese come _lingua del potere. _Chirac forse ha voluto attirare l'attenzione sul problema e lo ha fatto in modo eclatante. Ma, a prescindere dalle scelte linguistiche dei politici francesi, sarebbe sbagliato banalizzare il problema dicendo semplicemente che l'Inglese è la lingua internazionale e quindi tutti la capiscono.



Perché "il problema" ? Where is the problem? When the Romans were in control of most of Europe, and even quite a few years after, it was Latin. In the Eastern part of the Empire, it was Greek. Nobody talks about the problem of Spanish in Latin America. The Spanish had an Empire and because of that about 20 countries speak Spanish. In a very real sense, America now has an Empire and coincidently, the last big Empire was English speaking too.

When Mongolia takes over the world, we'll all be studying Mongolian. Ainsi va le monde.


----------



## cuchuflete

I watched the film clip, and found it to be more about Chirac's attitude towards his own language.  The title of this thread points in a different direction.  Chirac didn't really say much about English.  He explained why he believes a French speaker should speak French.


----------



## Robbo

Dear President Chirac

I speak English and would like to learn the French language and absorb French culture, high and low.  

Please would you arrange for your government to pay for me to live in France for a year and attend a French language school.  

Somewhere on the Cote d'Azur would be nice (Nice).

Merci,

Veillez agréer, Monsieur, l'expression de mes sentiments distingués.

Robbo


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> He explained why he believes a French speaker should speak French.



I think most French speakers do!


----------



## cuchuflete

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I think most French speakers do!


 And thus it attracted his attention when one did not.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> And thus it attracted his attention when one did not.




See? That's the whole thing. That guy speaks French. He just chose another language at a certain occasion. It's not like he forgot French because of English. I fail to see what Chirac is defending. Are French people foregoing French for English like the Gauls forewent(?) Celtic for Latin?

I also find it kind of odd that the head of the French State would chime in on linguistic diversity. It's not like he is a big proponent of linguistic diversity in France. The Republic did, and does, to France what Chirac seems to be claiming globalization is doing to the world. I don't get what his beef is. It seems like more flag waving. It has very little substance, I think.


----------



## cuchuflete

Chirac is defending his version of national pride.  That's his right.  I think it is pure hypocrisy, given what the French government has done to suppress the other languages of France, but that's just an outsider's opinion.

Last night I heard my (pleeeuuugh!) president say some hypocritical things.  Language never seems to impede politicians from acting silly.


----------



## geve

I didn't want to click on a thread with the word "chirac" in it, but couldn't help it... So I'll contribute by posting the whole story, and then you can all express your opinion about it (yes, even you, Residente!  ):The scene took place in the boardroom of the EU.
Ernest-Antoine Seillière, French entrepreneur, formerly head of the Medef (union of employers in France), and now head of the UNICE (association of european industries and employers) started a speech. First he introduced himself in French, then said he would proceed in English "because it is the language of business". 
It is that very sentence that made Chirac stand up and leave, along with two French ministers. 
As for Jean-Claude Trichet, he said his speech in French (although some sources say his speech was initially written in English). 
As a French diplomat explained later, "Il n'y a pas une langue des affaires. Il y a autant de langues des affaires que d'économies" (more or less: _There is not one language of business. There are as many languages of business as there are countries where business is made_)

​(you can find it in the news in French here; and here in English)


----------



## Residente Calle 13

geve said:
			
		

> I didn't want to click on a thread with the word "chirac" in it, but couldn't help it... So I'll contribute by posting the whole story, and then you can all express your opinion about it (yes, even you, Residente!  ):The scene took place in the boardroom of the EU.
> Ernest-Antoine Seillière, French entrepreneur, formerly head of the Medef (union of employers in France), and now head of the UNICE (association of european industries and employers) started a speech. First he introduced himself in French, then said he would proceed in English "because it is the language of business".
> It is that very sentence that made Chirac stand up and leave, along with two French ministers.
> As for Jean-Claude Trichet, he said his speech in French (although some sources say his speech was initially written in English).
> As a French diplomat explained later, "Il n'y a pas une langue des affaires. Il y a autant de langues des affaires que d'économies" (more or less: _There is not one language of business. There are as many languages of business as there are countries where business is made_)
> 
> ​(you can find it in the news in French here; and here in English)


Je suis d'accord avec le diplomat français: il n'y a pas une langue des affaires. Mon problème avec Chirac c'est qu'il ne se serait pas faché si un Rwandais avait dit dans un réunion international : «Je vais parler en français, car le français est la langue de la diplomacie.» Au contraire, il aurait sourit. Et _*ça *_on l'a dit e et redit.

Qu'il arrête avec son «on va pas fonder le monde sur une seule langue» 

chimérique. On a pas de choix.


I agree with the French diplomat; there is no such thing as "the language of business." My problem with Chirac is that I wouldn't have gotten angry if  a Rwandan  had said "I am going to speak in French because it's the language of diplomacy." Au contraire, he would have smiled. And _*that *_has been said over and over again.

He could cut out the quixotic "The world should not be based on one language." We don't have much of choice.


----------



## cuchuflete

Let us speculate as to Chirac's likely reaction if someone had given his speech in Occitan.


----------



## lizzeymac

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Let us speculate as to Chirac's likely reaction if someone had given his speech in Occitan.



Or Corsu
-


----------



## Outsider

Merci beaucoup, *Aupick* et *Geve*, pour les informations et les corrections. 

Maintenant que je comprends mieux ce qui c'est passé, l'attitude de M. Chirac me semble admirable.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Merci beaucoup, *Aupick* et *Geve*, pour les informations et les corrections.
> 
> Maintenant que je comprends mieux ce qui c'est passé, l'attitude de M. Chirac me semble admirable.



You don't think it's a bit _*chauvin *_in the very French way?


----------



## Outsider

Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire, "chauvin" ?


----------



## nokeeffe99

Outsider said:
			
		

> Qu'est-ce que ça veut dire, "chauvin" ?



C'est a dire, une personne tres dogmatique, par example un extreme nationaliste.


----------



## TimeHP

> Perché "il problema" ? Where is the problem?


 
Call it as you prefer. 
I'm not so involved in what Chirac did and said.
I personally think that English is a great resource and I like it very much, but also I'm trying to understand what its hegemony is provoking.   
Tons of books and articles have been written about this topic.
The not so new theory of linguistic imperialism is well explained here:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_imperialism
The linguist George Steiner in _After Babel_ writes: 
_Intentionally or not, American-English or English, by virtue of their global diffusion, are a principal agent in the distruction of natural linguistic diversity._
The professor Yukio Tsuda writes: 
_It is evident that English is the de facto international language of international communication today, but it is also evident that the dominance of English today causes not only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feelings of anxiety and insecurity especially on the part of the non-English-speaking people in a rapidly globalizing world in which English dominates extensively http://www.toda.org/Default.aspx?PageID=292._ 
Maybe not a probem. 
What then?
Ciao


----------



## Residente Calle 13

TimeHP said:
			
		

> The linguist George Steiner in _After Babel_ writes:
> _Intentionally or not, American-English or English, by virtue of their global diffusion, are a principal agent in the distruction of natural linguistic diversity._


I disagree with this view, actually. French has and is "destroying" many languages actually. What has destroyed natural linguistic diversity is industrialization and the nation state. How many languages has French stamped out in the name of the Republic in the last two hundred years? How many languages of France are now gone because of the French state?

The same thing is happening in South America, Africa, and Asia. Little languages are disappearing in favor of big languages and in some cases the bigger languages are Wolof or Vietnamese. 



			
				TimeHP said:
			
		

> The professor Yukio Tsuda writes:
> _It is evident that English is the de facto international language of international communication today, but it is also evident that the dominance of English today causes not only linguistic and communicative inequality but also the feelings of anxiety and insecurity especially on the part of the non-English-speaking people in a rapidly globalizing world in which English dominates extensively http://www.toda.org/Default.aspx?PageID=292._
> Maybe not a probem.
> What then?
> Ciao


Yes. But at the same time they neglect what is really going on. I knew Africans who only speak French because one parent is from one tribe and the other from another and they just chose French as a lingua franca. No complaints from Chirac about that! No complaints about how other languages in France are disappearing because of French linguistic policy.

He's complaining about the wrong thing, I think. French is safe. Gascon is not. I guess my message to him would be : "charity begins at home."


----------



## Outsider

nokeeffe99 said:
			
		

> C'est a dire, une personne tres dogmatique, par example un extreme nationaliste.


Merci bien. 

Alors, to answer Residente's question, if anyone else did the same I might agree that they were being extreme. But politicians represent a country. Sometimes, they take an action, not because it's particularly useful, but because of its symbolic value.

I bet that was what Mr. Seillière himself was doing by speaking English with the excuse that it's the language of business, too: a symbolic gesture.


----------



## Outsider

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> I disagree with this view, actually. French has and is "destroying" many languages actually. What has destroyed natural linguistic diversity is industrialization and the nation state. [...]
> 
> The same thing is happening in South America, Africa, and Asia. Little languages are disappearing in favor of big languages and in some cases the bigger languages are Wolof or Vietnamese.


I think I agree with you there. The problems of minority languages have to do with globalization, not with this or that dominant language in particular.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Outsider said:
			
		

> Merci bien.
> 
> Alors, to answer Residente's question, if anyone else did the same I might agree that they were being extreme. But politicians represent a country. Sometimes, they take an action, not because it's particularly useful, but because of its symbolic value.
> 
> I bet that was what Mr. Seillière himself was doing by speaking English with the excuse that it's the language of business, too: a symbolic gesture.




Maybe Mr. Seillière just really thinks business sounds better in English. I don't agree but I think that he has the right to believe that just as much as Chirac has the right to think he's the President of the French language and not of a country called France.

I like Chichi, alot and I don't mind him getting upset over this. I have a Latin temper myself. But I do think that many people from many countries take this whole "notre langue est menacée" thing...well...if you can find Barron CDs for it, that language is pretty safe. In fact, I think French has much more prestige than one would suppose considering the weight French speaking people have in World politics and economics. That's a compliment to French-speaking people everywhere.


----------



## geve

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Je suis d'accord avec le diplomat français: il n'y a pas une langue des affaires


I do think there is one language of business. Statistically, there are more chances that people will speak English in an international business meeting, as this is the language they are the most likely to share... But I don't think that's really the issue. 
Of course Seillière can speak English. Probably many heads of states who were attending the meeting would have understood it, too. I don't think Chirac would have blamed Seillière for speaking in English in another kind of meeting; but we're talking about the EU here, and that's very different. 
It has been decided that there would not be an official language in the EU institutions. Diplomats have the right to express themselves, and have documents and speeches translated, in their own language. If Seillière starts saying at the EU board that English is the language for business, somehow he is attacking that decision of the EU. 

Chirac might have overreacted, but as Outsider said:


			
				Outsider said:
			
		

> Alors, to answer Residente's question, if anyone else did the same I might agree that they were being extreme. But politicians represent a country. *Sometimes, they take an action, not because it's particularly useful, but because of its symbolic value*.


I think that's what he did, and yes it was _"a bit *chauvin *in the very French way",_ but that's what everyone expects from us, isn't it?


----------



## Residente Calle 13

geve said:
			
		

> I do think there is one language of business. Statistically, there are more chances that people will speak English in an international business meeting, as this is the language they are the most likely to share... But I don't think that's really the issue.
> Of course Seillière can speak English. Probably many heads of states who were attending the meeting would have understood it, too. I don't think Chirac would have blamed Seillière for speaking in English in another kind of meeting; but we're talking about the EU here, and that's very different.
> It has been decided that there would not be an official language in the EU institutions. Diplomats have the right to express themselves, and have documents and speeches translated, in their own language. If Seillière starts saying at the EU board that English is the language for business, somehow he is attacking that decision of the EU.
> 
> Chirac might have overreacted, but as Outsider said:
> 
> I think that's what he did, and yes it was _"a bit *chauvin *in the very French way",_ but that's what everyone expects from us, isn't it?


Non. Je voulais dire dans le sens que le mot est utilisé en français et pas en anglais (sexiste).

I don't think Chirac "overreacted". He's entitled to make a diplomatic gesture if he likes. I kind of wish we had listened to some of his other diplomatic gestures; we wouldn't be in the mess that we are in now...

But I digress. 

I don't how one "defends" a language or how the French are doing it. I guess what Chirac was talking about was defending the use of French in the *EU* which is none of my business. 

That whole thing about "on ne va pas fondé _un nouveau monde_ sur un seul langue" or whatever thing is my business because I'm living in that new world he's talking about and that's what I was commenting on.


----------



## geve

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Non. Je voulais dire dans le sens que le mot est utilisé en français et pas en anglais (sexiste).


Ah - désolée, j'avais oublié que le mot avait un autre sens en anglais


----------



## Residente Calle 13

geve said:
			
		

> Ah - désolée, j'avais oublié que le mot avait un autre sens en anglais



Ah, ben, voilá, le français n'est pas en danger du tout. Même les mots que vous nous avez empruntés vous oubliez ce que ça veut dire en anglais!


----------



## bernik

Just to illustrate French ideology: An amendment was added to the French constitution in 1992: "The language of the Republic is French". And a law was adopted in 1994: "French is the language of school, work, exchanges (?), and public services". Both laws have been used as weapons against indigenous languages like Breton, and the EU has never done anything about it (Down with the EU !). The loss in the planet's linguistic diversity can not be prevented entirely, but much of it is deliberate, whether in France, Africa or other places. As for Chirac's antics, I think they are very funny.

I think small countries like the Netherlands or Scandinavia have a good linguistic policy. They cherish their own national languages as a way to preserve their distinct identities, and at the same time, all of them learn English, to facilitate international communication and give them access to a wider cultural world. On the other hand, in France, I don't see the French language as a way to preserve identity but rather as a symbol of the French state. It has been artificially altered, it sounds dull and not natural, it has too few words, no musicality, no character, no flexibility. Besides, it doesn't give us access to the richness of the English speaking world. Seriously, who wants to read Balzac, Victor Hugo or Jean-Paul Sartre ? So I think the French language should just be scrapped. Unfortunately, French schools are among the worst in Europe at teaching English. I think it is not entirely unintentional.


----------



## vince

Residente Calle 13 said:
			
		

> Non. Je voulais dire dans le sens que le mot est utilisé en français et pas en anglais (sexiste).



Je crois que "chauvinist" a encore le même sens en français que celui en anglais. C'est vrai que le mot est le plus souvent utilisé dans l'expression "male chauvinist" mais je crois l'avoir vu dans d'autres contextes. Selon le dictionnaire Encarta:

*chau·vin·ist *[shṓvənist]
(_plural_ *chau·vin·ists*)  _n_ 
*1. * *somebody with sense of superiority: *somebody with an  excessive or prejudiced loyalty to a particular gender, group, or cause    *2. * *unreasoning patriot: *an unreasoning,  overenthusiastic, and aggressive patriot *Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.*


----------



## geve

Well, since we're digressing on "chauvin", I might as well post the etymology of the word, if anyone's interested  :


> Étymol. et Hist. 1843, 18 janv. (SAINTE-BEUVE, _Correspondance,_ t. 5, p. 38). Du nom de _Nicolas Chauvin,_ type du soldat patriote naïvement exalté des armées du premier Empire, mis en scène par Cogniard dans la _Cocarde tricolore_ (d'apr. LARCH., p. 79 : Je suis Français! Je suis chauvin).


source



			
				Bernik said:
			
		

> It has been artificially altered, it sounds dull and not natural, it has too few words, no musicality, no character, no flexibility. Besides, it doesn't give us access to the richness of the English speaking world. Seriously, who wants to read Balzac, Victor Hugo or Jean-Paul Sartre ? So I think the French language should just be scrapped. Unfortunately, French schools are among the worst in Europe at teaching English. I think it is not entirely unintentional.


This is all very subjective. I have met several French-learning forer@s here who read Balzac, Hugo and Sartre. Why, I even read it myself!
I don't think it's necessary to denigrate a language in order to promote another one. And this statement applies to any possible combination: no need to denigrate Breton to promote French, no need to denigrate French to promote Breton, no need to denigrate English to promote French... Les langues sont une richesse.


----------



## Residente Calle 13

geve said:
			
		

> I have met several French-learning forer@s here who read Balzac, Hugo and Sartre.



You can add another one to the list of foreros who read French Lit. I even majored in it in College. Why? Because I like it. I agree that there is no need to put one language down in order to promote another.


----------



## Agnès E.

The only reason Jacques Chirac acted this way is that French is one of the several official languages of the EU, and that anyway:

*All speaches, whatever the language, are immediately translated into the national language of the attendees, who wear headphones.*

There was absolutely no reason for Ernest-Antoine Sellières to speak in English. He could have spoken in Swahili, the result would have been the same: his speech would have been translated.
Furthermore, as Aupick most rightly pointed out, these meetings are definitely not business meetings.


----------



## maxiogee

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> The only reason Jacques Chirac acted this way is that French is one of the several official languages of the EU, and that anyway:
> 
> *All speaches, whatever the language, are immediately translated into the national language of the attendees, who wear headphones.*
> 
> There was absolutely no reason for Ernest-Antoine Sellières to speak in English. He could have spoken in Swahili, the result would have been the same: his speech would have been translated.
> Furthermore, as Aupick most rightly pointed out, these meetings are definitely not business meetings.



That only negates any reason why the speaker spoke English, it doesn't explain why "Chirac acted this way", as you put it.


----------



## Agnès E.

E.A. Sellières and him never agreed -- especially about the war in Iraq, and the commercial and diplomatic independance of Europe towards the USA. 

I suspect that E.A. Seillères chose to speak in English as an intentional gesture against the European diplomatic and commercial position in the world.


----------



## xav

Anyway, he certainly was consciously provoking Chirac and the French government.

I'd like to say that it certainly is easier to notice placidly that English is the world language when you are a native English speaker, enjoying all the benefits of language-mastering and of cultural dominating. US government representatives are not at all so placid when they are fighting against French as the language of the UPU (Universal Postal Union). And the Financial Times made his main title, six or seven years ago, when the number of English-written papers in the EU Commission overtook the number of the French-written ones. 

When people begin to write, to speak and to decide in English in the main French companies (e.g. Renault), since they become Europe or even world-sized, that means we are going to live here in France under a growing linguistic pressure from English (ads, public services, newspapers, tomorrow street names ? and business, even inside French companies) and that foresighted parents will speak English home with their children so that they have the best possible level for their future. _Le poisson pourrit par la tête._ Sorry, I don't like that. My _patrie_ is my language... 

I'll be a bit less afraid when American boys will _have to _learn Chinese. But maybe they will be a bit less placid, then...


----------



## Residente Calle 13

Agnès E. said:
			
		

> The only reason Jacques Chirac acted this way is that French is one of the several official languages of the EU, and that anyway:
> 
> *All speaches, whatever the language, are immediately translated into the national language of the attendees, who wear headphones.*
> 
> There was absolutely no reason for Ernest-Antoine Sellières to speak in English. He could have spoken in Swahili, the result would have been the same: his speech would have been translated.
> Furthermore, as Aupick most rightly pointed out, these meetings are definitely not business meetings.



Oh, I see now. Yeah, I would have walked out too. I think however, that in the speech we saw, he says some very hypocritical things about  linguistic diversity. But  again, don't blame him for walking out.


----------

