Systematiker wrote:
So, I’ll preface this by noting that I do appreciate the diversity present in every language I’ve encountered, and by no means denigrate any particular variety.
However, you’re making a moral judgment about something that simply isn’t one. The practical decisions of the course makers are economical ones - what sells. To a lesser extent, what’s “neutral” (loaded term, I know, so perhaps “shares features of many variants and thus is “centrist”) and is most useful to a person who can’t make an informed decision about a language they don’t (yet) know. Perhaps you are even right in a practical sense about English in Asia - but the market doesn’t seem to bear that out.
And if you’re not making a moral judgment, your approach sure makes it seem that way. I’m not even in much disagreement with you about the richness of less-often-learned languages and variants, but you consistently express yourself in such a way that seems to disparage those who choose a so-called “standard” variant, or worse, those who can’t yet make an informed choice.
When someone starts with a language, especially their first one, even a precritical, naive assumption about culture and language is a starting point at which they engage with the other. People start somewhere, and experience the other from there. And that’s ok!
“Hey, check out this cool, different thing” goes a lot further than “why would you ever colonialismimperialismoppressionpluricentrality...”
Just saying.
I said that beginners are not to be faulted or blamed for the lack of language learning materials. Certainly everyone has to start from somewhere. A standard language or dialect is as good as any place to start, given the abundance of resources and the fact that these also act as the cement in situations of big linguistic diversity (Norwegian, Dutch etc).
But once you are on your way, it is a choice to
expose yourself to only one variety. There's a choice there between opening up Netflix and watching exclusively French films or watching a TV show from the Ivory Coast
at least once in a while.
I feel like sticking to only one variety actually limits the broad value of learning a language. Someone mentioned this before with French, that technically it is supposed to open an entire Francophone world to you.
But if you only stick to one variety, then what happens when you do try to partake of a slightly different variety? Here I am reminded of an
incident that happened between native speakers of Belgian and French French, when a Belgian show was redubbed at the insistence of a French broadcaster who wanted to retransmit the show. The generally slight differences in vocabulary or expression, such as the number system, was enough to motivate this absurd decision, which did go ahead, to the general derision of the Belgians. This is an attitudinal problem more than anything, and I suspect it is at the root of why French people have more trouble understanding Quebec people than the other way around, because the Quebecois are more exposed to European French through media than vice versa. It is a self-enforced restriction in other words. How many
varieties of French do you hear on French national television or on French radio? Heck, how many varieties of French French do you hear? I can tell you, not many.
Now what about a variety that is more different than Belgian French is from French French, such as Quebec French? Only exposing yourself to a variety from Europe might make it difficult to access material from Quebec - what does c'est plate mean? Why are these people adding -tu to their yes-no questions? This can lead to two reactions: discouragement and disengagement from this material,
or the desire to learn more about this variety. Exposing yourself to more varieties opens more and more of the Francophonie to you. Isn't that one of the great things about learning a language?
If you are only purely, exclusively focused on one standard variety of one country, you will certainly be able to reap the rewards of your effort. France alone is big enough and produces enough for a person if they want to only listen, talk to or read French people. There is nothing wrong with that if you choose to do that.
garyb wrote:I've just based it on necessity, and I grew out of the "chameleon" fantasy long ago, accepting that I'll clearly appear foreign as soon as or even before I open my mouth wherever I go. I've been one of these French learners who focuses almost exclusively on Metropolitan French, because that's what interested me, I was travelling to France rather than Belgium or Quebec or Africa, and about 98% of the speakers I encountered here in the UK were from France. If I had planned to visit one of the latter places or known more people from them, I would have made some effort to familiarise myself with their varieties. For Spanish, my main interest is in Spain but I also appreciate Latin American film and literature and hope to travel to Central and/or South America someday, so I mostly listen to and aim to speak Peninsular Spanish but also try to get some exposure to other varieties. I don't believe that learners are under any obligation to study every variety or that not doing so makes them ignorant or prejudiced, as some replies almost seem to imply.
It can be just plain useful.
There is certainly a
great deal of variety within French French.
I was talking with someone from Lorraine and in the course of our conversation, some expressions I didn't know came up. It turns out that they are local to Lorraine. Similarly, I was talking with someone from Normandy and luckily enough I had a pencil and paper with me so I could note things from his place. Similarly with Lyon. What, as learners, are we to do with this? I try to passively learn them, so I can recognise them. That is eminently practical. With the eventual goal of even repeating them in the
right context when I meet speakers from these regions. That is my aesthetic side.
Now perhaps it is not so useful for someone who is only visiting France for a short period of time. Perhaps it will not be very useful to know what 'c'est shount' means if you never go to Lorraine. However, there is a practical use for exposing yourself to as many varieties of French French as possible. I recall numerous occasions when French learners have told me that they found it difficult to understand people from the south of France. Quite probably they had never heard a Limousin speak, well that could be the source of the problem. So even if you're only going for a short trip down to the south, it could definitely be practical to exposure yourself as much as possible beforehand to varieties of French spoken in the South West, the South Centre or the South East.
Next, there is just the plain pleasure of doing so. After all many of us learn languages because it is fun. If you expose yourself to Alsacian French, you get the great joy of listening to Alsacian music, Alsacian theatre (and perhaps even Alsacian language). If you expose yourself to French spoken in Brittany, there is a rich resource of things there as well. If that means going to the inter Celtic festival of Lorient in order to get exposed to the French of the Bretons, awesome! If you expose yourself to French spoken in New Caledonia, likewise. It's harder to expose yourself to these varieties of French within France rather than the typical one that most media use, it's true, but it's worth the investment.