Language Ecology and Language Teaching for Translators

Abstract In the age of globalization, there are fears that the overwhelming presence of dominant world languages such as English and French will have serious repercussions for ethnic cultures and languages. Supporters of the language-ecology paradigm for language teaching see it as the responsibility of teachers of first-world languages to examine these repercussions through forms of representation they use to teach world languages. The ecological paradigm, with its insistence on boundary-crossing and on observation of inter-language and inter-cultural relationships, has proven to be a rich avenue of exploration for translation students. The exploration of cultural and linguistic assumptions in the multicultural language learning classrooms of the new millennium provides translation students with frameworks for understanding the profound holism of the act of translation. Key words: language teaching, ecological paradigm, recursive approach, ecological curriculum. Resum En els temps de la globalització, hom tem que la presència aclaparadora de llengües dominants en tot el món, com l’anglès i el francès, no tingui unes repercussions greus per a les cultures i les llengües ètniques. Els partidaris del paradigma llengua-ecologia per a l’ensenyament de llengües consideren que és responsabilitat dels professors de les llengües dominants examinar aquestes repercussions per mitjà de les formes de representació que utilitzen per ensenyar aquestes llengües. El paradigma ecològic, en posar l’èmfasi en la vessant transfronterera i en l’observació de les relacions entre llengües i entre cultures, ha demostrat que és una via d’exploració eficaç per als estudiants de traducció. L’exploració dels pressupòsits culturals i lingüístics en les aules d’aprenentatge de llengües multiculturals del nou mil·leni proporciona als estudiants de traducció marcs per a comprendre l’holisme profund de l’acte de la traducció. Paraules clau: ensenyament de llengües, paradigma ecològic, enfocament recursiu, currículum ecològic. Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 61-77 Language Ecology and Language Teaching for Translators Rosalind M. Gill Université York. Département d’études françaises 2275 Bayview Ave. Toronto Ontario M4N 3M6. Canada Summary Introduction Systems Theory and the Ecological Paradigm Conclusion Appendix References Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 61 Introduction As a teacher of French-English translation and French as a second language, over the past ten past years, I have developed a pedagogy based on an ecological interpretation of language and communication. This approach uses a guiding principle: if language students are to succeed in their language learning and cultural border-crossing, they should develop a sophisticated notion of the very nature of language and culture. Ecological language learning focuses on interrelations between languages and on cognizance, not only of the structural nature of language, but also of the contextual, psychological and social dynamic in which communication, and the learning itself, occur. Experience has shown that this approach provides the language student with an excellent preparation for the complex holism of translation studies. My move away from the traditional structuralist to an ecological approach to language teaching has evolved as globalization has come to alter the composition of university classes and the dynamic of languages in the world. In the urban Toronto setting in which I teach, the demography of student clientele has changed dramatically and the teacher is challenged and enriched by a high degree of multiculturalism in the classroom. As a result, student assumptions about the cultural importance and utility of the language they are learning and eventually translating, French, for example, can vary greatly. While the majority of the class may come out of the Canadian education system where they learned French in immersion or other more or less intensive programmes, there is a growing percentage of recent immigrants who are less familiar with the language and for whom it does not bear the same significance. As well, English is by no means necessarily the first language of students of FSL or of those studying translation into English. A teacher of a class of such mixed linguistic backgrounds, assumptions and attitudes must grapple with the issue of how to make the learning process effective and meaningful for everyone in the disparate group. Globalization has also led to changes in the academic institutional environment, which, in turn, deeply affect curriculum and classroom dynamics. A recurrent theme in language ecology is the lament that the all-pervasive market economy is homogenizing and commoditizing not only languages but also the very knowledge we attempt to create\impart in the classroom setting.1Classrooms are over-crowded (i.e., more «cost effective») and there is pressure (on times, even directives...) from university administrators to attract students through job-oriented curriculum. As a liberal arts language teacher who believes that to teach language and translation is to teach human values of communication and that indeed the humanistic way is the most efficient way for language learning to occur, I, like many of my colleagues, have been attempting to stand my ground against the move to what can be termed the de-humanization of language teaching. Faced with a changing clientele and circumstances, and pressure to teach language and 62 Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 Rosalind M. Gill 1. See Robert Phillipson and Tove Skutnabb-Kangas on the «MacDonaldization» of the world, involving a move to controlled information flows for purposes of global marketing (p. 439). Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 62 translation as a finite object, my response has been to turn my teaching into an exploration of the meaning of knowledge and of the process by which it is gained, to expose in the classroom the nature of the teaching and learning, the many possible ways of exploring this experience, and the multiple consequences of such an exploration. As I have developed curriculum in this direction and looked for theoretical guidelines for teaching in an epistemological framework, I turned to that aspect of communications theory known as Systems Theory and I have found in the ecological paradigm, which grew out of this theory, a useful metaphor for what I believe to be a responsible, effective, value-centred approach to the teaching of language and of translation. Systems Theory and the Ecological Paradigm In the mid twentieth century, after the Second World War, biological and communicative scientists introduced a stream of systems thinking known as cybernetics. The cybernetic application attempted to include all aspects of communication, both natural and technological. In the second half of the 20th century, two very divergent streams of thought have evolved from cybernetics.2The dominant field, that of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.), focuses on development of machine intelligence and represents knowledge as a commodity stored in the brain. Funded by billions of dollars, the A.I. approach has managed to capture research agendas and publications about cognition and learning over the last 50 years. However, all along, within cybernetics there has been another approach to representations of intelligence, information and learning. This has come to be known as the ecological approach and is predicated on an epistemology in which all intelligence is an attribute of an interaction and all information derives from shared agreement-upon meaning, hence its appropriateness for the teaching of language and translation. The ecological paradigm for communication phenomena represents systems as behaving like living organisms in ecosystems which are all related and which are all in a continuous process of transformation. Thus, learning is not a function of structural invariants or fixed memory in a system, but an ability to «relate in context, create and satisfy recurrent demands as patterns change» (Maturana, 1980). Ecological models of knowledge use epistemology, the limits to how we know, in order to provide descriptions of a medium (technological, biological or social). Central to the ecological model is the unavoidable subjectivity of the observer, which is seen as a primary constraint in a system: the observer forms part of any ecological description. We are dealing, thus, with a science of «observed systems» or even «observing observed systems» of interaction. What follows is a break down of some of the basic tenets of the ecological model of communication, with comments on how such notions can be reflected in the teaching of language and translation. Possible consequences for teaching are Language Ecology and Language Teaching… Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 63 2. For an overview of the development of Systems Theory, see CAPRA (1996), especially Part II, «The Rise of Systems Thinking». Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 63 provided alongside specific ecological notions, but the examples I give here are not meant to be isomorphic with any particular principle of ecological structure or process. I am merely providing reflections that grow out of the paradigm presented. Indeed, all the examples mentioned could be coupled with each other, as in the ecological paradigm knowledge emerges at all levels simultaneously. 1. Connectedness and the Pattern of Life According to the eminent anthropologist Gregory Bateson,3a central figure in the development of ecological theory, we perceive by categories and patterns, but knowledge is not found passively in the categories themselves – it arises in active observation of perception of such categories over time and at different levels of abstraction. In Bateson’s reading, traditional Western approaches to education misrepresent the nature of learning, in that they consistently divide the study of substance («What is it made of?») from the study of form («What is its pattern?») (Capra, 1996, p. 80). In other words, Western education divides the object of study from the process of study. For Bateson, it is the interaction between form and process, the observation of connectedness that constitutes learning: The pattern which connects. What pattern connects the crab to the lobster and the orchid to the primrose and all four of them to you and to me? And me to you? And all six of us to the amoeba in one direction and to the back schizophrenic in another? [...] Why do schools teach almost nothing of the pattern which connects? Is it that teachers know that they carry the kiss of death which will turn to tastelessness whatever they touch and therefore they are wisely unwilling to touch or teach anything of real-life importance? Or is that they carry the kiss of death because they dare not touch anything of real life importance? What’s wrong with them? (Bateson, 1978, p. 4-6) The ecological metaphor of the «web of life» (Capra, 1996) enables us to represent the activity of language in its full complexity. Whereas in traditional pedagogical representations, language is reduced to linear trajectories of structure and category such as verb endings, nominal groups, predictable linguistic expression of motivational responses or set communicational situations, the ecological paradigm represents language learning as an interactive non-linear network with several levels of perception. Rather than restricting the study of language to the study of category, the teacher helps the student become aware of perceptions of category and, thus, of their «connectedness» to the process of learning itself. There is no set method for such guidance, as awareness can be played out on multiple levels and in changing contexts, as we shall see. An ecological curriculum for translation is designed to help students engage in meaningful observation and arouse awareness of the diversity of phenomena that 64 Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 Rosalind M. Gill 3. For a comprehensive discussion of how Bateson’s reading of systems theory can be applied to language teaching, see Mark A. CLARKE (1998). «Gregory Bateson, Communication and Context. An Ecological Perspective of Language Teaching». Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 64 come into play in language and translation activity. For example, beginner translation students, typically suffer from lack of confidence in their own translation decisions and from lack of understanding of why they make certain choices. In other words, they have not observed their own connectedness to the study of translation. Self-revision is an important skill for a translator. In an ecological approach, students begin their translation studies by observing their relationship to the source language, as well as to the target language. With the teacher’s guidance, they learn to evaluate and monitor their reading skills in the source language, their writing skills in the target language and, of course, their research skills and general knowledge of the world. In my introduction to translation class, I invite students to engage in a process of observation which helps them discover assumptions they may have, not only about their understanding of French, but also about their general reading skills, which always require fine tuning and deepening in a translation class. The goal is to help students come to terms with overestimating (frequent with immersion students) or underestimating (frequent with those who do not speak fluently) their understanding of written French and to focus on deep-rooted bad reading habits such as superficiality, stereotyping, lack of precision or poor general knowledge. Each student learns to identify their own particular set of assumptions and their own history with reading and writing French and English. The ability to recognize the parameters of their own knowledge becomes central to the student learning. This approach helps students understand the profundity of translation studies, as they begin to perceive translation not as a technique, but as a reflective and enriching art. In my experience, students feel empowered by this process and are able to proceed with more confidence and success in their translation choices. «As we know how we know we bring forth ourselves.» (Maturana in Capra, 1996, p. 290) It is important to note here that this process of observation does not involve reinforcement of the subjective. The perception students gain of their «connectedness» or relationship to language and translation is not merely to do with how they think or feel personally. The teachers’ role here is to guide the class so that they place perception within a framed discourse about the nature of patterning. In other words, students see themselves interacting, but also learn about the nature of this interaction. In the end, the student should be able to articulate what they have perceived and observe their perception in relation to various other possible ways of perceiving. The learning occurs in a paradigm of reflective consciousness. 2. Ecological Systems and the Notion of Difference In the ecological model, individual organisms do not exist in and of themselves but derive their autonomy from interaction with other levels of the system in which they are embedded. There is constant flow and change or response between individuals and the systems with which they come in contact. Yet, within these systems, there are closed loops, patterns, and networks of pathways along which travel perceptions (news) of difference. Colin Cherry (1977) has developed a systems Language Ecology and Language Teaching… Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 65 Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 65 model that demonstrates that ways of «learning» a message can be represented on different levels, from the syntactic level to the semantic and pragmatic levels. Each level is a successive abstraction, but all levels are embedded in each other. There are, nonetheless, boundary constraints between these levels, i.e., closed loops within the system. Following Cherry’s model, in a language situation, verb endings could be seen as bits in the syntactical level of perception, while formal use of the salutation Bonjour! could form part of the pragmatics level. In his discussion of the «logic» of communication, Cherry demonstrates that knowledge of a message is not attained solely at the level of the closed loop in which it is represented. A «truth» drawn from a particular level of meaning is only true with reference to that particular syntactical system. But no system is autonomous: the successful language student may excel in a grammar test, but must also be able to use syntactic information at the pragmatic level. For real learning to occur, the learner of a message\knowledge should become aware of a notion of difference not on one perceptual level but rather in an overlay of percepts. Understanding emerges from all levels and across border constraints. The connectedness of all levels of meaning and the constant interactions across boundaries of percepts can be used as a metaphor to reflect the subtle but powerful way in which learning emerges in a translation classroom. I often hear complaints from students that specialized translation courses are boring. This boredom may well stem from a perception that specialized translation involves nothing more than learning to access and use specialized lexicons and syntactical strings, in other words, passive execution of fixed patterns. To remedy this situation, the ecological teacher expands the constraints of the system and leads the student to realize that while constraints must be recognized, there are multiple constraints and a wide range of possible patterns involved in the process in which they are engaged. The professor’s first task is to disabuse students of the idea that the «truth» they draw on to translate is restricted to a single loop, i.e., a terminological category or data base, no matter how vast or elaborate that category may be. It is indeed, true, that with the development of corpus-based data etc., there is a danger of focussing the study of specialized translation almost entirely on complex data retrieval. This trend is, no doubt, encouraged by the commodity approach to knowledge favoured by A.I. and other knowledge engineering systems. Ecological teaching would take students well beyond the specifics of terminology or even of content and context of a given field. In a more holistic approach, the professor guides students through an exploration of the meta-context of translating in a specialized field. For example, work systems may vary from one milieu to another and often, their criteria and expectations are based on assumptions that have not been articulated by the employer. Students must learn to ask broad questions about the professional or communicative objective of a given translation. Knowing what questions to ask about work systems becomes part of preparation for a translation project. The professor guides the students in an exploration of assumptions such as terminological consistency, technological efficiency, absoluteness of knowledge engineering categories and of definitions in terminology sources, as well as issues such as the social ramifications of 66 Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 Rosalind M. Gill Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 66 homogenization of specialized texts across cultures. The student learns, thus, to avoid confusing knowledge with data. 3. Ambiguity and Flexibility of Open Systems In the ecological model of communications, there are no finite answers or solutions. (A favourite bon mot of Bateson was «stamp out nouns»). Ecological teaching allows learners to see themselves as observers, recognize patterns, know them for what they are, and move from one relational context to another. In this paradigm, errors are useful dilemmas, ways to help us perceive, and this perception of the context of interaction is what constitutes learning. Context allows us to decide on our next move (Clarke, 1998, p. 165). According to Bateson the «truth» of a message is derived from a weaving of the message with its context and with messages about the context (Bateson, 1972, pp. 275-276). Eventually, errors may well be corrected, but not as a result of implementation of a methodological technique. The end result is never a linear trajectory of cause and effect, and in many cases, learning leads simply to another question. Yet the learners have developed awareness that comes into play in the next context in which they perceive a notion of difference. Played out in traditional educational formats, such ambiguity and flexibility regarding right and wrong answers can cause conflict. As we mentioned above, institutional notions of commoditized knowledge so in favour in universities today leave little room for exploration of multiple contexts and long term perception of difference over time. University administrations are eager to post easily accessible packages of information on web pages, listing clearly delineated facts that will be taught in a course and teachers are encouraged to teach to those objectives. We all know that methodological techniques fall short in effective teaching of translation. Indeed, despite the persistence of notions of faithfulness with regard to translation, ambiguity and flexibility always come out as being central to the translation process. Learning to work with ambiguity is perhaps the greatest challenge for translation students. They must, above all, eschew finite notions of error, of right and wrong, of absolute translatability and learn to recognize messages about context. They must develop the confidence and awareness that allow them to find in holism, in relations that can be ambiguous or non-isomorphic with structure, an acceptable translation, be it more, or less, «faithful» to the source text. A classic example of translation flexibility in the Canadian context is the translation of separatist texts from Quebec. Typically, such texts contain words that carry particular significance in the separatist context: patrie, souvenir, nation, national, canadien, Canada, and even anglais are often rife with political meaning when on the pen of a separatist writer. Exploration of different contexts and possible translations of such words in federal government documents, in English Canadian anti-French tirades, in Quebec government documents, in literature, etc., helps students move away from rigid notions of faithfulness. Informed and reflective discussion, particularly in the case of texts dealing with polemic issues such as separatism, racism and sexist language, helps students find their way Language Ecology and Language Teaching… Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 67 Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 67 through source-focussed and target-focussed translation choices. Class discussions on communicative purpose of polemic texts can become heated. This is the time for translation students to take stock of their own bias and to learn their role as mediator in inter-cultural, inter-ideological situations in which translation choices are characterized by ambiguity, wandering, between «source text determinism and reader response relativism» (Robinson, 2001). Typically, the beginner translation student feels daunted by the ambiguity of relativizing the communicative purpose of both source and target texts. But in the ambiguity lies the very translation lesson to be learned. 4. Avoiding a Control-Design Approach to Knowledge The ecological paradigm places the whole enterprise of teaching on a human interactional level. If a learning situation is to be predicated on interaction and perception of interaction, the teacher must design a curriculum that helps students become active participants in and observers of the emergence of patterns. If the student is to be a full participant, the elitist power relationship between teacher and student must break down. In the traditional relationship, the teacher is the bearer of knowledge which students attempt to acquire. The discourse of the teacher is, thus, a discourse of control, of possession of knowledge. The voice of the student is silenced. Indeed, in the traditional paradigm, what is required of the student is to learn the discourse of the teacher. In the ecological paradigm, the discourse created is one of shared or negotiated meaning. The role of the teacher is to share her experience of how patterns evolve and lead students to an understanding of this process. In this situation, students do not have control, but the language teacher must listen carefully to them. Curriculum design must allow for the relationship between language and a myriad of aspects of a student’s life to come into play. Rather than imitate the discourse of the teacher, students learn to recognize discourse in its multiple manifestations. Let take as an example, the way in which the cultural component of a language course can be taught in an ecological approach. When I studied French language in the fifties and sixties, the teaching of culture typically involved presenting cultural icons to students (all the classical moments of French history, philosophy, art and literature: the French Revolution, the Enlightenment, Existentialism, the Eiffel Tower, etc.). These are the icons Bourdieu terms le poids (the weight) of the culture (Bourdieu, 1982). As a young anglophone student of French, I became familiar with many aspects of French culture, indeed by the time I graduated with a BA in French I was quite familiar with the map of Paris and was, for a North American and non francophone, reasonably well-versed in French culture. Now, this information is in itself interesting and useful, but what indeed had I learned from this teaching of culture, except for the facts and cultural attitudes that my teacher himself had learned a generation before me? In Le Français dans le village global, a textbook for the teaching of reading and writing in French that uses an ecological approach (recently developed with a colleague), we attempt to expand the way in which the cultural component of 68 Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 Rosalind M. Gill Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 68 language is treated. The book introduces students to the various francophone cultures in the world and describes them in their various interactions, both to each other, to the culture of France, and to the rest of the world. Most important, the book is designed to make the student see frameworks for thinking about culture and perceive possible patterns of cultural dynamics in their own lives. Perception of cultural or ideological discourse is, of course, a major skill for translation students. In my introduction to translation into English course, students are required to translate texts that take a wide variety of ideological and cultural points of view. Each translation exercise leads to discussion of discursive assumptions in the source text and how these assumptions could be understood by the target audience. Given the multicultural composition of the class, the anglophone target culture is not necessarily that of the student translator. Thus, a third dimension, that of the non-anglophone translator, is included in the interpretation of discourses. My intention is to guide the students through an exploration of perception and objectification of culture and ideology, including the wide variety of cultural perspectives in the classroom. The goal is to take students beyond the all too compact frames and formulae frequently (and dangerously) offered as definitions of culture.4The ecological teacher goes beyond constructivist approaches to help students «frame the frames» and evoke other levels of reflection. Through this experience, I hope that my students will develop a profound understanding of cultural border-crossing and ways of perceiving the Other. If, as Douglas Robinson (2001) claims, the translator is controlled by the «invisible hands» of deeply ingrained ideological and social norms, this pedagogy, at the very least, places students in a framework of awareness of such norms and of the danger of translating by simply «channelling ideology». Testimonials from students speak of the personal and intellectual growth they experienced in this interactional, inter-cultural approach. 5. Recursiveness A characteristic of ecological systems is that they nest one within the other. For example, bacteria live within the human body. This interaction, an indefinite living spiral, is known as recursion. As we have just seen, in traditional language teaching, the pattern of teaching is dualistic, knowledge constitutes syntactical forms that belong to the teacher and which the student acquires from the teacher. In a recursive view, this dualism breaks down. Knowledge is not found in the subject at hand, but emerges as messages are perceived in interaction with other levels of abstraction. Thus, an ecological curriculum for teaching language does not restrict itself to the teaching of the language per se but is expanded to include the context and meta-context of language as a process. In a recursive framework, the very process becomes a meta-context for study. The introduction of frameworks for language awareness alongside the study of language is central to a movement Language Ecology and Language Teaching… Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 69 4. For examples of such formulae (NLP, etc.), see D. KATAN (1999). Translating Cultures. Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 69 politique et celui, finalement, dans lequel se résument tous les autres. Qui donc, au reste, aurait envie de lutter pour la souveraineté d’un Québec multiculturel et bilingue ? Lorsque j’entends dire qu’il faut « rassurer les anglophones », je pressens comme tout un chacun que de nouveaux reculs se préparent en matière de politique linguistique. Certains des nôtres ont une curieuse prédilection pour le chemin de Canossa. De même, lorsque je lis qu’il importe d’éliminer les « irritants » de la loi 101 (pauvre loi, désormais orpheline, réduite à des lambeaux), j’observe non sans ironie qu’on a engagé la fameuse chasse aux « irritants » voici bientôt vingt ans. Au fond, pour tous ces contempteurs de la loi 101, le véritable « irritant », c’est la langue française elle-même. Finirons-nous par comprendre que chaque concession, loin d’apaiser la grogne, ne fait que susciter de nouveaux appétits ? Le compromis en la matière nourrit la revendication permanente. Il n’est sans doute pas de peuple chez qui le rapport à la langue soit aussi intime, aussi prégnant, aussi éloquent que chez le peuple québécois. La langue française est notre patrie profonde, elle nous a définis, nous a nommés, elle nous permet le dialogue avec ce qui, dans le monde, est de langue française. Elle nous fait notre identité et notre dignité, nous permet de penser l’avenir et nous presse de nous redonner un pays au sens plein du terme. Elle nous a fait héritiers d’une longue et somptueuse histoire, un bon millénaire et davantage, qui s’est accomplie sur tous les continents. La lutte pour la langue française se confond avec l’histoire du Québec depuis la Conquête en vérité, on peut tenir que le combat pour la survivance a été essentiellement le combat pour la langue. Il ne pouvait guère en aller autrement puisque la langue nous définit et nous situe, il en ira ainsi jusqu’au jour de l’émancipation ou hélas jusqu’au crépuscule, celui de la langue, qui serait aussi inéluctablement le nôtre. Les langues ont besoin d’une assise solide non seulement pour leur expression mais pour leur maintien: quelle est l’assise possible et nécessaire du français au Québec, aujourd’hui, sinon l’indépendance? Il n’en est point d’autre. La langue est une tradition, la plus haute, et une mémoire, la plus ancienne. Elle transmet, entretient, enrichit le patrimoine et l’imaginaire de même qu’un savoir millénaire. La tradition appelle le renouvellement et l’enrichissement. La défense de la langue, et par là même de la culture dont elle est le fondement et l’expression, apparaît comme la première forme et la plus pressante du combat national. Il est vrai que la survivance d’une communauté de langue française en Amérique du Nord n’ira jamais de soi; il n’est pas moins vrai que les mesures qu’appelle cette survivance supposent que le Québec dispose de la plénitude des moyens d’une véritable politique linguistique, ce qui implique naturellement la souveraineté nationale. Nous ne prenons pas suffisamment en compte le fait que le combat mené ici pour la défense de la langue nationale a vertu exemplaire et valeur universelle. Non seulement rejoint les luttes menées ailleurs mais il peut contribuer à enrayer le glissement vers la tyrannie de la loi du marché, vers la profanation de la culture par les industries culturelles. 76 Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 Rosalind M. Gill Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 76 Comme l’a justement écrit Henri Gobard : « La politique au service de l’économie, c’est la destruction de la culture. L’analyse exclusivement économique aboutit à la suppression de toutes les cultures » (L’Aliénation linguistique, Paris, Flammarion, 1976). Un peuple comme le nôtre défend sa langue, mais en même temps, c’est sa langue qui le défend, et il arrive qu’il puise dans la reconnaissance de la fragilité de sa langue un regain de vigueur pour lui assurer les conditions minimales de la survie. Pour le peuple québécois, sa langue, toujours menacée dans sa qualité comme dans son usage, est à la fois blessure et armure. C’est dans sa langue et par elle que notre peuple renoue avec son histoire et noue avec le monde : elle seule le justifie, lui permet de créer la patrie et d’inventer l’avenir dont il rêve et qu’il fait advenir, surgir, en les nommant et en les voulant. Ce passé fait irruption dans le présent pour le féconder et ensuite l’absorber, le présent presse le passé de l’aider à inventer l’avenir. Encore faut-il que nous ayons vraiment envie de durer et que nous ayons dès lors le courage de nous en donner les moyens. Le courage, aussi, de récuser tout compromis et de reconnaître dans les concessions en matière de politique linguistique ce qu’elles sont vraiment l’antichambre de la démissionna. En somme, le devoir sacré de l’intransigeance, quant à l’essentiel. Jean-Marc Léger, Le Devoir (3 mars 1997) References AGER, Denis (1999). Identity, Insecurity and Image: France and Language. Clevenden: Multilingual Matters. BATESON, Gregory (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballentine Books. — (1978). «The Pattern Which Connects», The CoEvolution Quarterly 18: 4-15. BOURDIEU, Pierre (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard. CAPRA, Fritjof (1996). The Web of Life. New York: Doubleday. CHERRY, Colin (1997). On Human Communication. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. CLARKE, Mark (1998). «Gregory Bateson. Communication and Context. An Ecological Perspective of Language Teaching». In: MENDELSON, David (ed.). Expanding our Vision. Oxford: Oxford University Press. KATAN, David (1999). Translating Cultures. Manchester: St. Jerome. MATURANA, Humberto R.; VARELA, Francisco J. (1980). Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Boston: Reidel. PHILLIPSON, R.; SKUTNABB-KANGAS, T. (1996). «English Only Worldwide or Language Ecology?». TESOL Quarterly 30 (3): 429-451. ROBINSON, Douglas (2002). The Invisible Hands that Control Translation. http://home.olemiss.edu/~djr/invisible.html SIMEONI, Daniel (1998). «The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus» Target 10, 1: 1-39. WRIGHT, Sue (2000). French, An Accommodating Language? Le français, langue d’accueil? Clevenden: Multilingual Matters. Language Ecology and Language Teaching… Quaderns. Revista de traducció 10, 2003 77 Quaderns 10 001-207 18/4/05 10:37 Página 77