linguistic insecurity essay

• Degree Options
• Program Options
• Year-by-Year Planning
• Degree Requirements
• Involvement Opportunities
• Course Registration
• Academic Performance
• Dates & Deadlines
• Academic Support
• The Compass: Arts Student Engagement Hub
• Funding Options
• Health & Wellness Resources
• Alumni Profiles
• Alumni Involvement
• Grant Recipients
• Research Resources
• Cultural Spaces
• Artist Advocates Network
• ARTIVISM 2023: Madness in the Masses
• Strategic Plan
• Leadership Team
• Units & Departments
• Justice, Equity, and Inclusion
• Black Faculty Hiring
• Award Nominations
• Academic Postings
• Recruit a Student
• Support UBC Arts
• Contact Arts

What is linguistic insecurity and why we should dismantle it

January 10, 2023

By Marie-Eve Bouchard, assistant professor of sociolinguistics for the Department of French, Hispanic & Italian Studies

Have you ever felt nervous about speaking to someone or out loud in a classroom because of your accent? I have and I still do. All the time. This annoying feeling has a name: it is called linguistic insecurity.

Linguistic insecurity is expressed as discomfort or anxiety when speaking. It refers to a speaker’s own evaluation of their way of speaking as inferior to another language variety that they perceive as “correct” or more prestigious. This insecurity emerges when the speaker becomes aware of a distance between their own language and the variety that they consider to be legitimate. Personally, I also feel this linguistic insecurity when I fear that I will be judged based on how I say something rather than what I actually say.

What is the cause of linguistic insecurity?

At the societal level, there are two major social forces responsible for creating and perpetuating linguistic insecurity. First, there is what linguists call “standard language ideology”. This ideology is a bias toward an abstract and idealized (i.e. unreal) language variety or way of speaking that is imposed and maintained by existing institutions, including the school system. It is a belief that is socially constructed and can lead us to assume that some ways of speaking are “good” and others are “bad”. The standard language variety (which is perceived as “good”) is usually taught in school, spoken on television and radio, used in the written form, and so on. A person who feels that the way they speak is inferior or too far from the standard is bound to show signs of linguistic insecurity.

The second social force is stereotyping of accents. This type of stereotyping refers to the process when a generalized belief about a particular accent is created. And of course, stereotyping may result in prejudice. There are many examples, but here’s what prejudices could look like:

• When we consider individuals with a non-native accent to be less competent, less intelligent or less educated than those with a native accent.
• When individuals with a non-standard accent struggle to find a job in communication or education.

Generally, people with an accent from higher social classes and urban areas are perceived more positively than those from lower social classes and rural areas. The attitudes we hold towards accents depend on context, so the beliefs we have towards an accent in one group or speech community does not necessarily hold true in another. As an example, the variety of French I speak is usually perceived as good when I am in Vancouver, but maybe not so good when I am in Paris.

At the individual level, linguistic insecurity related to language use usually comes from:

• Negative comments = “The way you say this word is so weird.”
• Interventions = “This is not how we pronounce this sound. You should try to pronounce it this way instead.”
• Humiliation = “You sound dumb when you speak like this.”

Linguistic insecurity has become an important area of concern in recent years among minority-speaking communities in Canada. This insecurity can lead to a loss of confidence in speaking a language, and eventually to the erosion of knowledge and ability in this language. This is why we need to foster linguistic security , which is felt in the body as confidence.

Speakers can fight back against dominant language ideology, assert their linguistic security, and claim the legitimacy of their language variety. One important means of fostering linguistic security is to raise people’s awareness about language use and the impact of language discrimination.

Top 4 tips for fostering language security:

1. Critical language awareness can be developed through education, hence the important role of teachers in fostering linguistic security at the individual and societal levels. 2. Support our friends who wish to build their linguistic confidence. 3. Strengthen our sense of belonging to different groups regardless of the way people speak. 4. Create safe environments (meaning free of prejudice) where individuals can build linguistic security and confidence.

What I wish for all of us is that we learn how to appreciate the different accents and ways of speaking that we have because we don’t all speak the same way, and that is a good thing!

Marie-Eve Bouchard is an Assistant Professor in the Department of French, Hispanic & Italian Studies . She is an anthropologically oriented sociolinguist. Her research interests include language contact, language attitudes and ideologies, language variation, and identity. Marie-Eve lives and works on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territories of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Stó:lō and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh (Tsleil- Waututh) Nations.    

Related News

Recognizing graduating student leaders in the class of 2024.

Viola Chao, Alancia Jeffery, and Kenneth Lao receive 2024 Outstanding Leader in the UBC Community Award

Ashley Haines, Hannah Stengler, and Trinity Stephens receive 2024 Outstanding Leader in the Faculty of Arts Award

Linguistic Insecurity

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

Linguistic insecurity is the anxiety or lack of confidence experienced by speakers and writers who believe that their use of language does not conform to the principles and practices of standard English .

The term linguistic insecurity was introduced by American linguist William Labov in the 1960s. 

Observations

"While there seems to be no lack of confidence in exporting native models of English as a foreign language, it is at the same time almost paradoxical to find among all the major anglophone nations such enormous linguistic insecurity about standards of English usage . The complaint tradition stretching back to medieval times is intense on both sides of the Atlantic (see Romaine 1991 on its manifestations in Australia). Ferguson and Heath (1981), for instance, comment on prescriptivism in the US that 'quite possibly no other nation buys so many style manuals and how-to-improve-your-language books in proportion to the population.'" (Suzanne Romaine, "Introduction," The Cambridge History of the English Language , Vol. IV. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999)

Sources of Linguistic Insecurity

"[Linguist and cultural historian Dennis Baron] suggests that this linguistic insecurity has two sources: the notion of more or less prestigious dialects , on the one hand, and the exaggerated idea of correctness in language, on the other. . . . It might be additionally suggested that this American linguistic insecurity comes, historically, from a third source: a feeling of cultural inferiority (or insecurity), of which a special case is the belief that somehow American English is less good or proper than British English . Indeed, one can hear frequent comments made by Americans that indicate that they regard British English as a superior form of English." (Zoltán Kövecses, American English: An Introduction . Broadview, 2000)

Linguistic Insecurity and Social Class

"A great deal of evidence shows that lower-middle-class speakers have the greatest tendency towards linguistic insecurity, and therefore tend to adopt, even in middle age, the prestige forms used by the youngest members of the highest-ranking class. This linguistic insecurity is shown by the very wide range of stylistic variation used by lower-middle-class speakers; by their great fluctuation within a given stylistic context; by their conscious striving for correctness; and by their strongly negative attitudes towards their native speech pattern." (William Labov, Sociolinguistic Patterns . Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1972)

Also Known As: schizoglossia, language complex

• Standard American English (SAE)
• Definition and Examples of Linguistic Americanization
• Definition and Examples of Dialect in Linguistics
• Scottish English Overview
• Definition and Examples of Standard British English
• What is Vocabulary in Grammar?
• General American English (Accent and Dialect)
• What Is American English (AmE)?
• Definition and Examples of Rhotic and Non-Rhotic Speech
• Standard English Definitions and Controversies
• Linguistic Competence: Definition and Examples
• What Is Caribbean English?
• New Englishes: Adapting the Language to Meet New Needs
• Linguistic Variation
• What Is British English (BrE)?
• Definition and Examples of Linguistic Purism

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

7 Deferring to the Other: English and Linguistic Insecurity

• Published: September 2021
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter discusses how the notion of linguistic insecurity can illuminate the processes by which essentialist conceptions of language and identity—in particular, the persistent colonial ideology of nativeness—contribute to the hegemonic status of English in neoliberalism. This chapter conceptualizes linguistic insecurity in terms of tensions that speakers experience between conflicting language ideologies. Focusing on the case of Korean mid-level managers working in non-Korean multinational corporations abroad, the chapter argues that the notion of linguistic insecurity allows us to explore how conflicting ideologies about English in neoliberalism—one in which English is valorized as a commodifiable resource available to anyone through projects of self-development, and one in which who counts as a legitimate speaker of English is defined in ethnonational terms—can jointly create a sense of insecurity in those who are traditionally considered non-native speakers of English, and rationalize the inequalities they are subjected to in neoliberalism.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

Which English You Speak Has Nothing to Do With How Smart You Are

Wikimedia Commons

How can linguists and educators work together to help maintain the linguistic voices of the next Zora Neale Hurston or Albert Einstein while at the same time support students on the Common Core, SATs, GREs, and LSATs?

In classrooms across the U.S., there are kids who speak a wide variety of types of English. Even though it’s historical accident that anyone considers “isn’t” better than “ain’t” or “wash” better than “warsh,” those kids who just axed a question may feel dumb and be treated as if they’re dumb by the people around them. And it starts young: Even by the end of kindergarten, many students have absorbed messages that their language is wrong, incorrect, dumb, or stigmatized.

For example, when I studied the language patterns of 4- and 5-year-old black children in several U.S. cities , many of them were worried that just talking with me would somehow cause them to be held back a grade if they did not do well in the conversations. You can see how these feelings of insecurity, anxiety, and apprehension when communicating—what the linguist William Labov calls linguistic insecurity —would make it disheartening to try and learn higher skills like math and reading when you’re told you’re wrong as soon as you even open your mouth.

But where does this idea that certain varieties of English are worse come from, does it have any basis in reality, and what can teachers—and all of us—do about it?

First of all, let’s lay to rest this idea that English—or any language—has one dialect that’s just right and a whole bunch of others that are wrong. Not only has English changed throughout the ages, but there isn’t even any logic behind what’s currently in style: As the linguist Steven Pinker explains, “The choice of isn’t over ain’t , dragged over drug , and can’t get any over can’t get no did not emerge from a weighing of their inherent merits, but from the historical accident that the first member of each pair was used in the variety of English spoken around London when the written language became standardized. If history had unfolded differently, today’s correct forms could have been incorrect and vice versa.”

So why do people think of speakers of standardized English as being smarter, of a higher status, and as having more positive personality traits than speakers of nonstandardized English varieties? These values have more to do with who is in power: If people are devalued for some reason or another—race, gender, socioeconomic class, and so on—their language gets the same association. For example, the way that the British upper class speaks may sound snobby to some, but it’s most always judged academically acceptable. The language of Southern African-Americans may sound warm and fun but it’s often judged to be academically unacceptable or undesirable . It’s even in our media: As the linguist Rosina Lippi-Green points out , the way that cartoon characters speak, like the Lion King’s hyenas or Shrek’s donkey , reinforces our racial and linguistic stereotypes, encouraging kids to think of their classmates who sound like Simba or Shrek as “good guys,” people who sound like the hyenas as “bad guys,” and people who sound like Donkey as buffoons.

All too often, what happens is something like this story I heard from a math teacher in a first grade classroom, “One of the kids, an African American kid, was playing a game and he said, ‘I don’t got no dice.’ He didn’t have the materials he needed. And the teacher said, ‘You know, Joshua, we speak English in this class.’ Really harshly. And I just thought, oh gosh. There must be a better way to respond.”

But what’s a teacher to do? On the one hand, they need to help students prepare for a world that—like it or not—isn’t particularly accepting of linguistic variation. But on the other, they want to do so in a way that lets students continue to be proud of who they are and where they come from, rather than pushing them into tongue-tied linguistic insecurity.

It’s not a solved problem yet, but the educators I’m working with have two main approaches. The first is to talk in terms of being able to use and understand many varieties of English. Educators have also used the terms code-switching and toggle talk to express the idea that it’s useful to speak standardized English in certain contexts, like academia, but that it doesn’t have to come at the expense of speaking your own way in other contexts, with friends or at home.

The second is to point out that, in fact, many famous authors take great care in learning several language varieties. For example, in the preface to Adventures of Huckleberry Finn , Mark Twain notes:

In this book a number of dialects are used, to wit: the Missouri negro dialect; the extremest form of the backwoods Southwestern dialect; the ordinary “Pike County” dialect; and four modified varieties of this last. The shadings have not been done in a haphazard fashion, or by guesswork; but painstakingly, and with the trustworthy guidance and support of personal familiarity with these several forms of speech.

I make this explanation for the reason that without it many readers would suppose that all these characters were trying to talk alike and not succeeding.

When we encourage students to creatively mix their own varieties of English with the standardized version depending on the time and circumstances, we help them develop both their self-confidence and their own unique voices: Think how much blander the literature of Mark Twain or Maya Angelou would be if every character talked the same way. For more ideas on how to do this, my colleague Christine Mallinson and I have a list of resources here .

In fact, this kind of linguistic flexibility is a skill that’s becoming more and more recognized. For example, the recently-implemented Common Core Standards state that students need to “appreciate that the twenty-first-century classroom and workplace are settings in which people from often widely divergent cultures and who represent diverse experiences and perspectives must learn and work together…[and be] able to communicate effectively with people of varied backgrounds.”

But the task of challenging linguistic insecurity isn’t just the job of classroom teachers. From animated caricatures to the next great work of literature, we all need to start with this basic premise: Which variety of English you speak has nothing to do with how smart you are.

In a 1979 essay called “ If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is ?,” James Baldwin states: “A child cannot be taught by anyone who despises him, and a child cannot afford to be fooled. A child cannot be taught by anyone whose demand, essentially, is that the child repudiate his experience, and all that gives him sustenance, and enter a limbo…” Otherwise, Baldwin warns: “it may very well be that both the child, and his elder, have concluded that they have nothing whatever to learn from the people of a country that has managed to learn so little.”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Linguistic Violence, Insecurity, and Work: Language Ideologies of Latina/o Bilingual Teacher Candidates in Texas

2013, International Multilingual Research Journal

Related Papers

Patricia Sanchez

lllf.uam.es

Lucila D Ek

Armando Garza

This study explores the linguistic violence of bilingual Latina/o/x adolescents in school settings in Southcentral Texas. In addition, the paper examines how these students see themselves as proficient Spanish/English bilinguals. In doing so, the author uses a language ideologies framework coupled with Anthropolitical linguistics. Within this overarching perspective, the author also utilizes a raciolinguistics lens to support his findings. Using a fluid ethnographic approach, the author collected data through class observations, interviews, focus groups, and students' artifacts. Findings were grouped into two main categories with some subsections: (1) linguistic violence; (a) marginalization of Spanish and its speakers; (b) legitimizing varieties of the Spanish language; and (c) language loss and blocking biliteracy, and (2) languacultural identity: (a) bilingualism is our language. Implications for teachers, school administrators, and teacher preparation programs are discussed. This study contributes to the field of bilingualism, language violence, and identity of marginalized adolescents.

The Urban Review

Laura C Chávez-Moreno

Many schools attempt to address the needs of “English-language learners,” who usually are Spanish-dominant Latinxs, by offering dual-language (DL) bilingual education. While undertaking a larger ethnographic study of one such secondary-level dual-language program, I examined how dual-language teachers understood the program as equitable for Latinxs. I found that teachers believed DL met Latinxs’ needs by providing Spanish-language/biliteracy schooling, which deemphasized the need for explicitly enhancing youths’ critical consciousness. This teacher ideology of assuming DL is “inherently culturally relevant” led to significant issues. For example, teachers believed DL would improve Latinxs’ academic achievement, but when teachers perceived Latinx achievement was not on par with White dual-language students’ outcomes, teachers made sense of Latinxs’ underperformance in DL through racist explanations and did not interrogate the program’s cultural relevance. Specifically, teachers point...

Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada

Mara R Barbosa

Language ideologies are the shared frameworks through which groups understand language and speakers (GAL; WOOLARD, 2001; WOOLARD, 1998). In educational settings, these ideologies may impact learning as teachers who adhere to ideologies favoring monolingualism may undermine students’ identities and bilingual development in favor of assimilation. Using language ideology and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) frameworks, this study investigated the presence of different language ideologies in pre-service Spanish teachers’ discourse and their positioning in face of these language ideologies. The analysis demonstrated that while pre-service Spanish teachers challenge the ideology of monolingualism and favor bilingualism, they also legitimate the ‘one language’ ideology that entails that the unity of a nation depends partly on the use of only one language.

Language and Education

Adam Sawyer

A new bilingual/plurilingual education renaissance in California was ushered in with the passage of state Proposition 58 in 2016. Program planners, however, have struggled to meet the need for bilingual/plurilingual teachers within a linguistic context ravaged by two decades of restrictive policies. This restrictionism has resulted in an entire generation of would-be bilingual teacher candidates growing up without formal academic support for bilingualism and biliteracy in their k-12 education. Although plurilingualism has been stymied in formal spaces, emerging research on translanguaging indicates that 'bilinguals' by definition creatively language within their various social and political milieu such that syntheses or hybrid forms of language emerge that reflect their full linguistic repertoire. This study examines the linguistic experiences of those who have overcome the odds to pursue their bilingual teacher certification. Through analysis of participant case studies of Latinx candidates studying for their bilingual teacher certification in California's southern San Joaquín Valley, we find translanguaging to be a critical tool of identity expression, interethnic solidarity, and plurilingual/bilingual sustenance within a decidedly conservative and subtractive sociocultural and sociolinguistic context. We discuss the implications of these findings for the centering of translanguaging in bilingual teacher education and the cultivation of future bilingual/plurilingual educators in California.

Michelle Ramos Pellicia

New Census data demonstrate that Latino communities are increasing in every region of the United States, particularly in the South and the Midwest, with some regions nearly doubling its Latino population (Census 2011). This population growth goes hand in hand with the growth in diversity along with the need to construct and negotiate a unique linguistic identity for the Latino groups (Ghosh-Johnson 2005, Otheguy, Erker & Livert 2005, Otheguy & Lapidus 2005, Rivera-Mills 2000, Zentella 1990). If different Spanish-speaking groups have different status, the negotiation of these identities is crucial. I analyze the negotiation of a distinctive identity in the United States as seen in the language use and metalinguistic comments of Mexican Americans and Puerto Ricans. Community members describe the tensions within and between them. These comments reproduce and perpetuate ideologies promoted by intellectuals who have described developments resulting from the contact between Spanish and English as ‘language corruptions.’ Similarly, differing language use reflects another way to mark boundaries between identities and group affiliation within this Spanish-speaking community.

Multicultural Education

Lisa Winstead

Sarah Gallo

Davi S Reis

RELATED PAPERS

Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia

Danilo Moreira , Eliete Carvalho

Working Papers CEB

Beatriz Armendariz

Rosario Galesi

carmen benitez

The Pharma Innovation Journal

anwanabasi udoh

World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering

Maja Mihelja Žaja

PLoS Genetics

Sonam Mehrotra

Arif Djunaidy

Carpathian Journal of Mathematics

Ahmad Yonanda

International Journal of Biological Sciences

Suliman Khan

Adam Adebayo Sirajudeen

Gabriele Maria Achilli

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

Alexandre Bernardino

Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing

Mochamad fahmi

Microwave and Optical Technology Letters

Armando Humberto Nolasco Pinto

Historia Caribe

DOLCEY JACINTO ROMERO JARAMILLO

World Journal of Innovative Research

Dr. Mohammed Usman

Stochastic Processes and their Applications

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

Shashank Pathak

juan colonna

Laval证书 拉瓦尔大学认证办证

Biophysical Journal

Jonathan S. Oliveira

Maria Digilio

Journal of Nanoparticle Research

Gilberto Falk

International Journal of Health Sciences (IJHS)

Dr. Atyaf Hamied

See More Documents Like This

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Language selection

• Français fr

From Linguistic lnsecurity to Linguistic Resilience (FON4-J03)

Description.

This job aid includes exploratory questions designed to promote reflection, initiate constructive conversations, and provide encouragement on the journey towards linguistic resilience.

Published: June 6, 2022 Type: Job aid

Download as PDF (537 KB)

From Linguistic lnsecurity to Linguistic Resilience

What is it.

Linguistic resilience is the ability to adapt to stressful situations involving the use of a second language and bouncing back afterwards.

This ability contributes to self-confidence and risk taking. Everyone can strengthen their linguistic resilience.

Why is it important?

Linguistic insecurity manifests itself as a feeling of uneasiness, anxiety or fear and can hamper or even block the use of a language.

Linguistic resilience gives you the ability to overcome this insecurity by viewing errors as learning opportunities.

How does it work?

The pillars of linguistic resilience:

• self-awareness
• ability to be vulnerable
• self-regulation
• strength of character

Reflecting on your own experiences with the help of the exploratory questions gives you an opportunity to learn and develop these pillars.

Developing linguistic resilience by changing perspectives

Am l experiencing linguistic insecurity, self-assessment.

lf you ever experience any of the situations listed below, this tool is for you.

• l don't dare take risks because l don't know how to express myself properly.
• l don't dare speak because l feel judged.
• I am convinced I will never become fully proficient in my second official language.
• My perfectionist nature and anxiety don't allow me to make mistakes.
• l am more concerned with proving rather than improving my linguistic performance.
• Anything else?
• l name my linguistic challenge and say that l'm still perfecting my second official language.
• l demonstrate leadership by daring to be vulnerable.
• l am patient with myself and give myself time.
• l trust myself: by taking risks, l am progressing to a level of comfort.
• l try to ignore my inner negative language by overcoming my linguistic insecurity.

Exploratory Questions – Points to ponder and discuss

• What linguistic insecurity challenges have you faced?
• What have you learned from your best failures?
• To what extent do you see the positive in your failures?
• How comfortable are you with the unknown?
• What have your experiences taught you about your level of linguistic resilience?
• Why talk about linguistic resilience?
• What steps do you take to calm yourself when you are stressed?
• What support mechanisms do you use to encourage others to take risks?
• To what extent are you willing to be vulnerable when you are experiencing linguistic insecurity?
• How do you help create linguistic security?
• What new daily habit could help you strengthen your linguistic resilience?
• On what challenge would you like to focus your efforts starting today? What approach could help you?
• How will you radiate your linguistic resilience on a day-to-day basis?
• What can you do to promote a culture of linguistic resilience in your team?
• How can you celebrate your successes and those of your organization?

Proposed Model

Strengthening and maintaining linguistic resilience is an ongoing process that stems from a personal choice. Individuals who are mindful of both individual and collective linguistic resilience will see a positive impact on wellness, engagement and culture with respect to linguistic duality in the organization.

• Self-Awareness Objectively observe your physiological behaviour and pay attention to your thoughts and emotions.
• Vulnerability Be open to risks, emotions, and uncertainty.
• Optimism See the positive side of things.
• Self-Regulation Shape your thoughts, emotions and behaviours according to the results you want to achieve.
• Strength of Character Make a commitment to being authentic, living according to your values, and overcoming challenges using your strengths and resources.
• What else would you add?

This job aid was developed by the Canada School of Public Service in partnership with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat.

Event: Practical Advice About Evaluations for Program Managers

Event: Recognizing the Resilience of Indigenous Women and the 2SLGBTQIA+ Community

Event: Unlocking the Power of Scientific Evidence for Effective Policy-Making

• GCLearning newsletter

• Search and menus

Language selection

Language switcher.

• Français fr

Linguistic (in)security at work – Exploratory survey on official languages among federal government employees in Canada

Table of contents.

The Commissioner of Official Languages mandated this study report to his office’s Policy and Research Directorate and to PRA Inc. The lead researchers and contributors were Robert Talbot, François Dumaine, Nicholas Borodenko, Jeannette Yameogo, Stéphanie Jolette and Véronique Boudreau, and the project benefited from the input and contributions of several other employees of the Office of the Commissioner and of PRA.

Linguistic insecurity has become an important area of concern in recent years for official language minority communities, for young Canadians, for second-language education advocates and, as this study report will help to show, for federal public servants, as well 1 .

Linguistic insecurity can be described as a sense of unease, discomfort or anxiety experienced when using or attempting to use one’s first language or a second language due to a variety of environmental, perceptional, interpersonal, organizational, cultural and social factors. It can have a negative impact on the individual speaker’s confidence or comfort in using the language: for example, it can lead to a feeling that using the language may inconvenience others or that the individual’s use of the language is not consistent with established norms and principles. Another negative impact of linguistic insecurity is that it can discourage the use of a language, which can lead to an erosion of capacities, a loss of confidence in one’s mastery of the language, and even a loss of one’s sense of freedom to use it, including in workplace settings 2 .

To what extent might Canada’s public servants be experiencing linguistic insecurity? And how can we help them to feel more comfortable using both official languages, English and French, in the workplace?

Part of the answer lies in asking federal employees themselves whether they might sometimes feel uncomfortable using English and/or French at work, and if so, why that is and how they think federal institutions can help to address the challenge.

With this in mind, the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada (the Commissioner) mandated his research team, in collaboration with private research firm PRA Inc., to conduct an exploratory survey on the challenge of linguistic insecurity in the federal workplace. One of the Commissioner’s main responsibilities is to promote the equality of status and use of English and French in the public service so that federal employees can work—and serve Canadians—in both official languages.

The survey was aimed at federal public servants working in regions where they have a right to work in the official language of their choice and where federal institutions have an obligation to ensure that the work environment is “conducive to the effective use of both official languages,” as stipulated under Part V of the Official Languages Act . The regions that are covered by this obligation have come to be known as the regions of Canada designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes , or “Part V regions.”

For the purposes of this report, the Part V regions are grouped into four:

• The National Capital Region, including Ottawa and Gatineau
• The province of New Brunswick
• The bilingual regions within Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)
• The bilingual regions within Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

The survey was conducted online from March 6 to 25, 2019, and attracted great interest. Invitations with an open survey link were sent to federal institutions’ Official Languages Champions and Persons Responsible for Official Languages for distribution to employees working in the four regions in their respective departments and agencies. In total, 10,828 survey questionnaires were completed by personnel located in Part V regions from nearly 100 different federal institutions. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (the Office of the Commissioner) and PRA wish to thank the Champions and the Persons Responsible for Official Languages for their support, as well as all of the individuals who generously took the time to participate in this survey.

The questionnaire asked respondents to identify their “first official language,” English or French. For the purposes of this report, “Anglophone” refers to all respondents who selected English, and “Francophone” refers to all respondents who selected French. Respondents were asked about where they work, which language(s) they prefer to work in, their abilities in English and French, and which language(s) their colleagues, supervisors and senior management tend to use. Respondents were then asked whether they had ever felt or would ever feel uncomfortable using English or French in their current job 3 . Those who answered “yes” or who were unsure were asked whether they had ever felt or would ever feel uncomfortable asking to be supervised in the language, writing in the language or speaking it at work, and if so, why. Respondents were also asked to provide written comments on how employees could be helped to feel more comfortable using English and French at work. Some demographic and exploratory questions were also asked, and respondents were asked to indicate their interest in possible follow-up discussions.

The survey used a non-probability sample, meaning that the results can be taken only as reflecting the views and experiences of the respondents themselves; they cannot be projected to the target population, and a margin of error cannot be calculated. That being said, the survey sample was very large and provided a wealth of opportunities for analysis.

It is also important to note that the questionnaire did not include employees located outside of Part V regions. Therefore, the survey results are specifically related to Part V regions, which are localities where both official languages are particularly present, not only at work, but also in the broader community. The Office of the Commissioner recognizes that official languages are central to the work of many federal employees across Canada, both in and outside of Part V regions. Therefore, in addition to detailing the survey findings relating to employees working in Part V regions, the study report also includes a section that gives special consideration to employees working outside of Part V regions.

This report is divided into three chapters:

• What we heard overall: Key findings from the survey results
• What we heard from the regions: Feedback from non-Part V regions and detailed survey results from Part V regions
• What we learned and what we need to explore further: Possibilities for linguistic security in the federal workplace and opportunities for further research

The report also includes appendices that provide the following:

• A more detailed breakdown of the survey methodology, scope and limitations
• The complete survey questionnaire

It is hoped that the findings of this study will be of interest to public servants, to federal officials and policy makers (including those who have a particular responsibility to advance the equality and use of English and French within their institutions), to researchers both in and outside of government, and to all Canadians who take an interest in the promotion of official languages in Canadian society.

Chapter I. What we heard overall: Key findings from the survey results

While the results of the survey varied according to region, some key findings emerged from the overall results (regional findings are detailed in Chapter II). These key findings, including overall challenges and opportunities, will help in identifying possibilities for addressing linguistic insecurity in the federal workplace (discussed in Chapter III).

The key findings from the overall survey results are summarized as follows:

• Thousands of Anglophone and Francophone public servants from across Canada, both in and outside of Part V regions, wanted to talk about their experiences with official languages.
• Many respondents, including Anglophones and Francophones, wanted more opportunities to use French at work.
• Some Anglophone and Francophone respondents wanted more opportunities to use English at work, especially in offices where French predominates.
• French first- and second-language linguistic insecurity was a significant challenge in all regions studied: primarily when it came to speaking but also for writing and for asking to be supervised in that language.
• English first- and second-language linguistic insecurity was present in all regions studied, but it was more prevalent in Quebec.
• Respondents who felt uncomfortable using their first official language were often concerned about inconveniencing others.
• Respondents who felt uncomfortable using their second official language were often concerned about the extra effort involved and about being judged.

1. Official languages matter to public servants working across Canada

Thousands of anglophone and francophone public servants from across canada, both in and outside of part v regions, wanted to talk about their experiences with official languages.

Public servants working across Canada, including Anglophones and Francophones, care about the use of official languages in the workplace. This was evidenced by the large number of survey responses. The voluntary survey gathered nearly 11,000 complete responses, significantly exceeding the initial target of 1,000, and this during the busy final month of the fiscal year.

More than 5,000 Anglophones and more than 5,000 Francophones completed the survey questionnaire. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of responses were received from each of the regions studied. The respondents were predominantly female (61%), most were between 35 and 54 years old (59%), and 30% were managing or supervising other individuals. More than 5,000 respondents—roughly half of all respondents—took the time to write comments for the open questions, and more than 2,000 respondents expressed an interest in participating in potential follow-up discussions.

The administration of the survey also showed that public servants working outside of Part V regions are interested in how official languages are used in the workplace. More than 4,000 respondents from federal offices in non-Part V regions attempted to complete the questionnaire, including more than 2,000 from outside of the National Capital Region, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick. The Office of the Commissioner and PRA received correspondence from public servants from all corners of the country expressing a desire to participate in the survey. The current designation of Part V regions, which dates from 1977, did not appear to reflect the needs, realities and values of these public servants.

Many respondents, including Anglophones and Francophones, wanted more opportunities to use French at work

Overall, a significant portion of survey respondents said they would welcome the opportunity to use both official languages—particularly French—more frequently. As indicated in Figure 1, around 40% of both Anglophone and Francophone respondents would like more opportunities to use French at work.

Figure 1. Opportunities to use English or French at work

Question: Would you like to have more opportunities to use English or French at work? ( n =5,043 for Anglophones and n =5,785 for Francophones)

Note: the percentages for Francophones add up to over 100% due to rounding.

The percentages increased when language environment and ability were considered. Among Anglophones with at least moderate French-language reading, writing and speaking skills and working in English-predominant environments, 53% wanted more opportunities to use French at work. Among Francophones working in English-predominant environments, 70% wanted more opportunities to use French at work. Given that French-language linguistic insecurity was a real issue for many Anglophone and Francophone respondents, the interest expressed by members of both groups to use French more often at work can be seen as encouraging. The challenge is there, but so, too, are the potential means to address it.

The receptive bilingualism of some Anglophones (being able to understand a language without necessarily being able to speak it or to write in it) may also provide potential opportunities for Francophones and Anglophones who wish to use French more often in the workplace. Whereas 61% of Anglophone respondents had at least a moderate ability to speak French, even more (72%) had at least a moderate ability to understand spoken French; and whereas 55% had at least a moderate ability to write in French, still more (78%) had at least a moderate ability to understand written French.

Given that Francophone respondents’ main reason for potential unease in speaking or writing in French was the perception that colleagues may not be comfortable in that language (see Table 2, below), a greater awareness of Anglophone colleagues’ receptive bilingualism and of the desire of some Anglophone and Francophone colleagues to use French more often could help Francophones to feel more comfortable using French at work. The same could be said for English in instances where Anglophones have experienced unease in the language—in work environments where French predominates, it could be that some Anglophone and Francophone colleagues would like to use English more often.

The 2017 report of the Clerk of the Privy Council, The next level: Normalizing a culture of inclusive linguistic duality in the Federal Public Service workplace , also considered the potential of receptive bilingualism:

If all employees understood their second official language (even without necessarily being able to speak or write it), everyone would be able to use the official language of their choice while being assured that they could be understood by their colleagues.

Receptive bilingualism could be leveraged in contexts where employees who are interacting with each other are at a similar level in an organization’s hierarchical structure. It is important to note, however, that those in a supervisory or employee service delivery role are still required to use the official language of the employee’s choice in Part V regions.

Some Anglophone and Francophone respondents wanted more opportunities to use English at work, especially in offices where French predominates

Among survey respondents, 9% of Anglophones and 10% of Francophones stated that they would like to have more opportunities to use English at work. The percentages increased when language environment and ability were considered. Among Francophones with at least moderate English-language reading, writing and speaking skills and working in French-predominant environments, 35% wanted more opportunities to use English at work. Among Anglophones working in French-predominant environments, 47% wanted more opportunities to use English at work.

2. Linguistic insecurity is a challenge in federal offices in Part V regions

French first- and second-language linguistic insecurity was a significant challenge in all regions studied, primarily when it came to speaking but also for writing and for asking to be supervised in that language.

Respondents were asked whether they had ever felt or would ever feel uncomfortable using their first official language in their current job, and those who had at least a minimal knowledge of their second official language were also asked whether they had ever felt or would ever feel uncomfortable using their second official language.

Overall, there were far more respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable in French than those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable in English, although results sometimes varied by region. Discomfort in speaking French was the most common type of linguistic insecurity cited by respondents, followed by writing in French and then asking to be supervised in French.

Figure 2. Francophone respondents' (potential) discomfort using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French or asking to use English/French in your current job? ( n =5,780 for Francophones in English, n =5,784 for Francophones in French)

Figure 3. Anglophone respondents' (potential) discomfort using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French or asking to use English/French in your current job? ( n =5,043 for Anglophones in English, n =4,751 for Anglophones in French)

Among all Francophone respondents, 44% said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using French at work, and in each region studied the percentage was at least 22%.

Among all Anglophone respondents with at least some French-language ability, 39% said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using French at work, and in each region studied the percentage was at least 39%, except in Quebec outside the National Capital Region, where 16% of Anglophone respondents said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using French at work.

English first- and second-language linguistic insecurity was present in all regions studied, but it was more prevalent in Quebec

Although much less common than French-language linguistic insecurity, linguistic insecurity was experienced in English in all regions by some respondents, who reported that they had felt or would feel uncomfortable in English, primarily in terms of speaking English, followed by writing and then asking to be supervised in English.

Among all Anglophone respondents, 15% said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English at work, and in each region studied the percentage was at least 8%. In Quebec outside the National Capital Region, 32% of Anglophone respondents said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English at work.

Among all Francophone respondents with at least some English-language ability, 11% said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English at work, and in each region studied the percentage was at least 2%. In Quebec outside the National Capital Region, 18% of Francophone respondents with at least some English-language ability said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English at work.

3. The reasons for first- and second-language linguistic insecurity were different but interrelated

While linguistic insecurity in French was more common than linguistic insecurity in English, there were notable similarities between respondents’ reasons for French first-language discomfort and English first-language discomfort, and between respondents’ reasons for French second-language discomfort and English second-language discomfort. Work environment factors were also important for both first- and second-language linguistic insecurity.

Interestingly, the most frequently cited reasons for first- and second-language discomfort appeared to be interrelated. Whereas second-language speakers were more concerned about not being strong enough in the language and about being judged when trying to use it, first-language speakers were more concerned about inconveniencing colleagues (or even supervisors) whom they thought might themselves feel uncomfortable using the language. This suggests that it may be possible to address first- and second-language linguistic insecurity in ways that are complementary and mutually reinforcing (explored in Chapter III).

Respondents who felt uncomfortable using their first official language were often concerned about inconveniencing others

Among Anglophones and Francophones who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable when speaking, writing or asking to be supervised in their first official language (see Table 2, below):

• the most frequent explanation was that it would inconvenience colleagues or supervisors who might not be comfortable in the language, or that it would be bothersome or cause trouble;
• for discomfort in speaking or writing, the perception that the language wasn’t often used in the workplace and the tendency of colleagues to switch languages were also important factors; and
• for French-language discomfort in writing, a lack of requests from senior management for French-language material was also an important factor.

Table 2: Reasons why Anglophones and Francophones felt uncomfortable in their first official language, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable

Respondents who felt uncomfortable using their second language were often concerned about the extra effort involved and about being judged.

Among Anglophones and Francophones who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable when speaking or writing in their second official language (see Table 3, below):

• the most frequent explanation was that they were out of practice and that it would take extra effort, followed closely by the concern that their ability in the language would be questioned or judged;
• the perception that the language wasn’t often used in the workplace was also an important factor; and
• the tendency of colleagues to switch to the other language in meetings and in conversations was an important factor, especially for Anglophones trying to speak French.

Table 3: Reasons why Anglophones and Francophones felt uncomfortable in their second official language, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable

Chapter ii. what we heard from the regions: feedback from non-part v regions and detailed survey results from part v regions.

Before discussing potential strategies to address the challenge of linguistic insecurity, it is important to look at the regional perspectives and realities in light of the different language environments and contexts in which federal employees work in different parts of the country.

Feedback from employees outside of Part V regions is presented first, followed by a detailed breakdown of survey data from each of the Part V regions.

1. Feedback from employees outside of Part V regions

Despite this, 4,044 responses were received from federal public servants in more than 60 different institutions attempting to participate in the survey but who were screened out because they did not work in a Part V region. This included:

• 927 from non-Part V localities within Ontario;
• 873 from non-Part V localities within Quebec; and
• 2,244 from provinces and territories other than Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

The Office of the Commissioner and PRA received dozens of e-mails from federal employees across the country who wanted to participate in the survey. Some were perplexed, as they were under the impression that employees in an office that provided services to the public in both languages also automatically had the right to work in either language. Others were disappointed or even frustrated, explaining that official languages were personally and professionally important to them, that they often worked in both languages, served the public in both languages, and that they interacted with colleagues in both languages in other parts of the country.

Individuals from non-Part V regions who contacted the Office of the Commissioner and PRA directly were invited to provide written responses to the questionnaire’s open questions in the official language of their choice. Four of these individuals did so. Their responses illustrated the value that they placed on official languages and the importance of being able to work in both languages. Below are a few examples of their comments:

I enjoy communicating with my co-workers because we often switch language mid-conversation. I’m proud to be fluently bilingual in French and English.

When receiving correspondence and/or e-mails from management, it would be more than helpful if they were bilingual so I don’t have to request it be translated to my official language of choice, which I often have to do.

As a manager who works at a non-designated office and is responsible for employees in a designated bilingual office in the [National Capital Region], it would be great if this type of scenario would be considered when discussing [official languages]. Technology changes the landscape of ‘regions’ and [official languages] must be considered in these scenarios.

We take our roles very seriously when it comes to the [official languages] obligations. We truly exist because of [official languages], yet I wouldn’t say that we have the most current training and knowledge required, especially since we are not located in a designated bilingual area. Are we at a disadvantage in a non-designated area when required to provide content in both official languages?

Second-language courses should be available to employees who want to improve their language skills. [translation]

Many talented Francophone candidates have been refused bilingual positions here (in an English region) simply because their English isn’t good enough, but the employer could give them a chance to improve their English through structured training courses. [translation]

It’s important for employees to feel that their manager or supervisor supports them in their using the language of their choice in their workplace and that their manager or supervisor supports and even encourages them to learn a second language. [translation]

It’s worrying to see that a few people in positions of power seem to be able to set a certain tone or example that often has a negative impact on the workplace’s linguistic minority. [translation]

While the survey results from Part V regions cannot be extrapolated to non-Part V regions, it is possible that some of the findings could be consistent with realities in these offices. For example, respondents in offices in Part V regions where English predominates were more likely to want to have more opportunities to use their French; it is possible that this could also be the case among bilingual employees outside of Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and the National Capital Region, in regions that also tend to have English-predominant work environments. In addition, the possibility that, if employees are made to feel more comfortable using both English and French with their colleagues they might feel more confident using both when interacting with the public (see Figure 56) should be of particular interest in offices outside of Part V regions that have Part IV obligations (communications with and services to the public). These issues merit further study and analysis.

2. Detailed overview of survey responses by region

Distribution of respondents within each region.

The distribution of respondents within each region was as follows:

• This region includes Ottawa, Ontario, and Gatineau, Quebec. The National Capital Region was considered to be one unit of analysis because of the similarities in the overall work environment in which federal public servants in the two cities operate (it is not unusual, for example, for a government office to move from one side of the Ottawa River to the other). Just over half (51%) of the respondents from the National Capital Region said that English was their first official language, and just under half (49%) said that French was their first official language. Most of the Anglophones (86%) and Francophones (74%) from the National Capital Region worked on the Ottawa side.
• The vast majority of respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) were in the Montréal area, but there were also respondents in other regions of the province. Less than a quarter (20%) of the respondents from Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) said that English was their first official language: 95% were in Montréal and its metropolitan area, 3% were in Sherbrooke, and the remaining 2% were located elsewhere in the province. Most (80%) respondents from Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) said that French was their first official language: 93% were in Montréal and its metropolitan area, 5% were in Sherbrooke, and the remaining 2% were located elsewhere.
• The vast majority of respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) were in the Sudbury area, but there were also respondents in other regions of the province. Nearly two thirds (62%) of the respondents from Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) said that English was their first official language: 81% were in Sudbury, 8% were in Cornwall, 8% were in Sault Ste. Marie, and the remaining 3% were located elsewhere in the province. Over one third (38%) of the respondents from Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) said that French was their first official language: 76% were in Sudbury, 16% were in Cornwall, and the remainder were located elsewhere.
• In New Brunswick, 45% of respondents said that English was their first official language, and 55% said that French was their first official language. Because the province as a whole is a Part V region, all respondents from New Brunswick were grouped together. The data therefore does not allow for a further distribution of respondents by city.

Language skills and preferences

The questionnaire asked respondents which language(s) they preferred to use at work (when writing, being supervised, speaking during meetings and chatting with colleagues). It also asked them to rate their skills in both official languages, how they had learned their second official language, what second-language test results they had received (if any), and whether their position was bilingual. Most respondents (71% of Anglophones and 93% of Francophones) had been tested for language proficiency in their second official language, except for Anglophones in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region). In addition, most respondents (54% of Anglophones and 90% of Francophones) were in positions identified as “Bilingual,” except for Anglophones in New Brunswick and in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region).

Self-evaluation of language skills can be a potential indicator of linguistic insecurity. Generally speaking, Francophones had higher second-language test scores and also tended to evaluate their own second-language skills at a higher level than did Anglophones (although in Quebec outside the National Capital Region, it tended to be the other way around). Interestingly, this trend persisted even among Anglophones and Francophones with the highest test scores (a “C” or an “E”) for speaking their second language; 58% of Francophones and only 38% of Anglophones in that category evaluated their own second-language speaking skills as “excellent” (a score of 5 out of 5). It is also important to point out that both groups reported a stronger ability to understand their second official language compared to their ability to use it, suggesting that “at-level” receptive bilingualism could be leveraged to encourage a more inclusive language environment. With regard to first-language abilities, the overall results of the two language groups’ self-evaluations were similar, although Anglophone respondents were more likely to give themselves a “5” for writing in English (92%) compared to Francophones, who were somewhat less likely to give themselves a “5” for writing in French (79%).

When asked where they had learned their second official language, media and schooling were the most common responses among Francophones who had learned at least some English. Community and home were also very important, especially for Francophones in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) and in New Brunswick. For Anglophones who had learned at least some French, the education system (basic courses and immersion programs) was the most important, along with federal government training. For Anglophones in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) community and media were also important. These findings underscore the importance of ensuring access to French second-language education for Anglophones before they enter the public service, and the need for continued access to language learning opportunities and skills retention in the workplace.

When it came to language preferences in the workplace, for Anglophones and Francophones in all regions, “chatting with colleagues” was the situation in which respondents were most likely to prefer using both official languages, suggesting that this might be an optimal medium for encouraging a greater presence for both languages in the workplace.

Among respondents who preferred to use only one language in a given situation, Anglophones and Francophones were both more likely to prefer using their first official language. There were some notable exceptions, however. For example, in both Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) and New Brunswick, there were more Francophones who preferred writing only in English to writing only in French. The higher proportion of Francophones who preferred to work in English (or in “English or French”) in some contexts—relative to Anglophones who preferred to work in French or in “English or French”—was consistent with Francophones having relatively stronger second-language skills. It is also important to note that among Francophone respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable writing in French, those from New Brunswick and Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) were more likely than those from Quebec and the National Capital Region to have stated that they were “out of practice,” that “extra time would be needed for translation,” and that they were concerned that their writing might be “corrected or judged” (see Table 5, below).

Figures 4 through 35 show the language skills and preferences of each language group and in each region.

Figure 4. Language preference for Anglophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =4,316)

Figure 5. French test results for Anglophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =3,137)

Figure 6. Self-reported French skills for Anglophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: How would you rate your French language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =4,316)

Figure 7. How French was learned by Anglophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =4,087 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 8. Language preference for Anglophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =289)

Figure 9. French test results for Anglophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =243)

Figure 10. Self-reported French skills for Anglophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: How would you rate your French language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =289)

Figure 11. How French was learned by Anglophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =285 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 12. Language preference for Anglophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =183)

Figure 13. French test results for Anglophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =65)

Figure 14. Self-reported French skills for Anglophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: How would you rate your French language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =183)

Figure 15. How French was learned by Anglophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =154 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 16. Language preference for Anglophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =255)

Figure 17. French test results for Anglophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =135)

Figure 18. Self-reported French skills for Anglophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: How would you rate your French language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =255)

Figure 19. How French was learned by Anglophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =225 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 20. Language preference for Francophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =4,223)

Figure 21. English test results for Francophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =3,998)

Figure 22. Self-reported English skills for Francophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: How would you rate your English language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =4,223)

Figure 23. How English was learned by Francophone respondents in the National Capital Region

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =4,220 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 24. Language preference for Francophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =1,142)

Figure 25. English test results for Francophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =976)

Figure 26. Self-reported English skills for Francophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: How would you rate your English language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =1,142)

Figure 27. How English was learned by Francophone respondents in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =1,140 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 28. Language preference for Francophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =110)

Figure 29. English test results for Francophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =103)

Figure 30. Self-reported English skills for Francophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: How would you rate your English language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =110)

Figure 31. How English was learned by Francophone respondents in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =110 - More than one answer could be selected)

Figure 32. Language preference for Francophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: What is your language preference for...? ( n =310)

Figure 33. English test results for Francophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: What is the most recent score you received for...? ( n =291)

Figure 34. Self-reported English skills for Francophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: How would you rate your English language skills (1 to 5 scale)? ( n =310)

Figure 35. How English was learned by Francophone respondents in New Brunswick

Question: Where did you learn your second official language? ( n =310 - More than one answer could be selected)

Language-of-work environment by region

Although results varied between regions, Anglophones and Francophones within the same region tended to report similar trends with regard to the language(s) used by colleagues and senior management:

• In the National Capital Region, English was more prevalent, but French was also used often.
• In Quebec (outside the National Capital Region), French was more prevalent, but English was also used often.
• In Ontario (outside the National Capital Region), English was predominant, and French was used much less often.
• In New Brunswick, Anglophones and Francophones reported differently for the language their colleagues use, but both reported English as being more prevalent among senior management.
• In all regions except Quebec (outside the National Capital Region), most Anglophones and Francophones reported that the predominant language used by senior management was English.

The results for the language used by employees’ supervisors varied by region and language group, but in general they appeared to reflect:

• the language of the individual respondent (given that, working in Part V regions, federal public servants have the right to be supervised in the official language of their choice); and
• the potential influence of the overall language environment at work (i.e., the language used by colleagues and by senior management).

Figures 36 through 47 show the language-of-work environment in each region.

Figure 36. Language(s) used by colleagues at work in the National Capital Region

Question: What language(s) do your colleagues generally use at work? ( n =4,316 for Anglophones, n =4,223 for Francophones)

Figure 37. Language(s) used by senior management in the National Capital Region

Question: What language(s) does senior management generally use at work? ( n =4,316 for Anglophones, n =4,223 for Francophones)

Figure 38. Language(s) used by supervisors at work in the National Capital Region

Question: What language(s) does your supervisor generally use with you at work? ( n =4,316 for Anglophones, n =4,223 for Francophones)

Figure 39. Language(s) used by colleagues at work in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) do your colleagues generally use at work? ( n =289 for Anglophones, n =1,142 for Francophones)

Figure 40. Language(s) used by senior management in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) does senior management generally use at work? ( n =289 for Anglophones, n =1,142 for Francophones)

Figure 41. Language(s) used by supervisors at work in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) does your supervisor generally use with you at work? ( n =289 for Anglophones, n =1,142 for Francophones)

Figure 42. Language(s) used by colleagues at work in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) do your colleagues generally use at work? ( n =183 for Anglophones, n =110 for Francophones)

Figure 43. Language(s) used by senior management in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) does senior management generally use at work? ( n =183 for Anglophones, n =110 for Francophones)

Figure 44. Language(s) used by supervisors at work in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region)

Question: What language(s) does your supervisor generally use with you at work? ( n =183 for Anglophones, n =110 for Francophones)

Figure 45. Language(s) used by colleagues at work in New Brunswick

Question: What language(s) do your colleagues generally use at work? ( n =255 for Anglophones, n =310 for Francophones)

Figure 46. Language(s) used by senior management in New Brunswick

Question: What language(s) does senior management generally use at work? ( n =255 for Anglophones, n =310 for Francophones)

Figure 47. Language(s) used by supervisors at work in New Brunswick

Question: What language(s) does your supervisor generally use with you at work? ( n =255 for Anglophones, n =310 for Francophones)

Linguistic insecurity – Incidence, contexts and reasons by region

Comfort levels.

Respondents were asked whether they had ever felt or would ever feel uncomfortable using English or French in their current job. Individuals who did not report at least a minimum ability in their second official language were not asked about their level of comfort in using that language at work.

The results show that respondents from both language groups and from all regions were much more likely to have felt uncomfortable using French, with one exception: Anglophones from Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) were more likely to have felt uncomfortable using English at work.

Figures 48 through 55 show the incidence of linguistic insecurity among respondents in each language in each region.

Figure 48. Percentage of Anglophones in the National Capital Region who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =4,316 for Anglophones in English, n =4,087 for Anglophones in French)

Figure 49. Percentage of Anglophones in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =289 for Anglophones in English, n =285 for Anglophones in French)

Figure 50. Percentage of Anglophones in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =183 for Anglophones in English, n =154 for Anglophones in French)

Figure 51. Percentage of Anglophones in New Brunswick who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =255 for Anglophones in English, n =225 for Anglophones in French)

Figure 52. Percentage of Francophones in the National Capital Region who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =4,220 for Francophones in English, n =4,222 for Francophones in French)

Figure 53. Percentage of Francophones in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =1,140 for Francophones in English, n =1,142 for Francophones in French)

Figure 54. Percentage of Francophones in Ontario (outside the National Capital Region) who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =110 for Francophones in English, n =110 for Francophones in French)

Figure 55. Percentage of Francophones in New Brunswick who reported feeling uncomfortable using English or French at work

Question: Have you ever felt or would you ever feel uncomfortable using English/French in your current job? ( n =310 for Francophones in English, n =310 for Francophones in French)

Contexts and reasons for potential linguistic insecurity

Tables 4 through 7 list the various reasons given by respondents from each language group and in each region to explain why they felt uncomfortable using English and/or French. Respondents were allowed to provide multiple answers. The results show that the reasons can be varied and complex, depending on the region and language of the respondent. In general, however, the results suggest that potential factors for linguistic insecurity can be linked to first- and second-language contexts and the overall work environment (including whether English or French is the non-predominant language of the workplace).

The regional results (Tables 4 to 7, below) generally reflected the overall results (Tables 2 and 3, above). Among respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using their first official language, the discomfort typically came from a concern that colleagues would not be comfortable enough in that language. Among respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using their second official language, the discomfort typically came from concerns about the extra effort involved, a lack of confidence, or being judged or corrected when using the language.

The data also shows some regional particularities. For example, Francophones in the National Capital Region and Anglophones in Quebec (outside the National Capital Region) who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable asking to be supervised in their first official language were relatively more likely to be concerned about their supervisor being uncomfortable using the language.

It is important to note that some questions had a very small number of responses in some regions (e.g., responses relating to English-language insecurity in New Brunswick and in Ontario outside the National Capital Region); therefore, those results should be taken with caution.

First-language linguistic insecurity – Why Anglophones felt uncomfortable using English and why Francophones felt uncomfortable using French at work, by region

Table 4: reasons why anglophones felt uncomfortable using english, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable (by region), table 5: reasons why francophones felt uncomfortable using french, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable (by region), second-language linguistic insecurity – why anglophones felt uncomfortable using french and why francophones felt uncomfortable using english at work, by region, table 6: reasons why anglophones felt uncomfortable using french, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable (by region), table 7: reasons why francophones felt uncomfortable using english, among those who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable (by region), chapter iii. what we learned and what we need to explore further: possibilities for linguistic security in the federal workplace and opportunities for further research.

After analyzing the factors that contributed to respondents’ first- and second-language insecurity (discussed in chapters I and II) and taking into account the respondents’ comments and suggestions (discussed below), this report concludes by identifying possible strategies for further consideration in order to help senior management, supervisors and employees work together toward a more linguistically secure work environment. It also suggests possible avenues for further research and analysis.

Many Anglophone and Francophone respondents had suggestions of their own

The questionnaire asked respondents to provide suggestions as to how employees could be helped to feel more comfortable using English and/or French at work, and roughly 40% did so. Half of all respondents were randomly selected and their responses to the open survey question were coded and analyzed according to their first official language (see Table 8, below).

Respondents gave a variety of suggestions, but some suggestions were more prevalent than others. Among Anglophones (who were more likely to feel uncomfortable in their second language, except in Quebec outside the National Capital Region), the predominant suggestion was for greater access to opportunities to learn and to improve in the languages, including through training and a workplace environment that is more encouraging and open to people practising their second language. Among Francophones (who were more likely to feel uncomfortable in their first language), the predominant suggestion was to ensure a meaningful place for both languages through leadership from management in promoting bilingualism and through fostering a workplace environment in which both languages can be seen and heard being used by colleagues.

Table 8: Respondent suggestions to help employees feel more comfortable using English and/or French

Question: Do you have any suggestions as to how employees can be helped to feel more comfortable using English and/or French at work?

Note: Individual responses may have been attributed to more than one category. The percentages in bold indicate the three most common responses given by each respondent group.

Is it possible to create a “virtuous circle” of linguistic security in which both first- and second-language speakers can benefit?

The survey results showed that first- and second-language speakers can have different needs when it comes to overcoming linguistic insecurity. But both groups can also form part of a shared linguistic work environment in which either English or French is the non-predominant language. This raises the question: By helping one group, is it possible to help the other? Is it possible to create a “virtuous circle” of linguistic security in which both first- and second-language speakers of the non-predominant language in a given office, team or department can benefit?

For example, encouraging second-language learners to use the underrepresented language more often (whether English or French) could help to make it more seen and heard. This could, in turn, help first-language speakers to see that their own use of the language is not inconveniencing colleagues who may, in fact, also wish to use it more often. With this in mind, first-language speakers could feel encouraged to respond in the non-predominant language to second-language speakers who are trying to use it, helping to show them that their efforts to develop their skills and to make the non-predominant language more seen and heard are worthwhile.

Moreover, it may be possible that both groups would benefit from the knowledge that some of their colleagues may be more bilingual than they realize (e.g., receptive bilingualism), and that some of them—first- and second-language speakers alike—may actually want to use the non-predominant language more often. No employee should have to feel alone in their desire to use or improve their English or French. As one respondent from an English-predominant work environment explained:

Native French speakers could more frequently engage in French during meetings and conversations so that others who are trying to practise/improve/engage in French can feel like they are genuinely participating and not artificially speaking French just because colleagues are French . . . . Making French more commonplace would make it easier for all employees to feel more comfortable speaking in French, regardless of their proficiency.

The next two sections present a set of potential strategies for further exploration that could help to address linguistic insecurity among first-language speakers and second-language speakers in ways that are complementary and mutually reinforcing. The strategies presented here are not exhaustive; they are based on the survey findings and respondent suggestions and are illustrated with direct quotations from individual respondents.

Potential strategies for further exploration: Addressing the needs of first-language speakers

Overcoming first-language linguistic insecurity in the workplace could benefit from an inclusive language environment in which first-language speakers know that they are genuinely welcome to use their language, and that their use of the language is not “inconveniencing” others. Everyone can play a positive role—colleagues, supervisors and senior management alike—to encourage this inclusivity and to help foster a meaningful place for the non-predominant language 4 .

A more inclusive language environment for first-language speakers could be fostered by one or more of the following:

If senior management were to use both official languages equally more often, the employees would feel more comfortable.

I’d appreciate it if [management] made the effort to talk to me in French so that I don’t feel as if I’m causing them extra stress. [translation]

Let people know that they are welcome to work in either official language and to practise using the language of their choice. [translation]

The simple fact of reminding people about this at the beginning of a meeting can reduce stress and increase the level of comfort for people who are not as fluent in one language as they are in the other. [translation]

Trusting in Anglophones’ receptive bilingualism would improve Francophones’ comfort level, and French would be used more often. Francophones wouldn’t feel as if they’re excluding their Anglophone colleagues from the conversation by speaking French. [translation]

People should be able to speak in their language of choice. We all speak both, and at varying levels, but we understand one another . . . . I understand my French colleagues fully when they speak in French, and they understand me when I speak in English . . . we get our work done and are very productive.

Allowing for “bilingual” files (e.g., . . . documentation in either or both languages) could allow more flexibility.

Some of my colleagues who don’t speak French very well may appreciate it if I speak to them in that language, but because I’m perfectly bilingual, it’s often just easier or quicker for me to speak to them in English. Maybe it’s up to me to make an effort to use my own language more often so that my colleagues can improve their second language. . . . That’s the reason I sometimes do choose to speak French, but maybe I should do it more often? [translation]

Potential strategies for further exploration: Addressing the needs of second-language speakers

Overcoming second-language linguistic insecurity in the workplace may require, above all, individual effort and engagement. As one respondent put it, employees “have to make the commitment to do it on their own.” But meaningful opportunities to learn, improve and maintain skills are also critical, including access to training (not just in terms of an available budget but also a manageable workload) and a non-judgemental language environment that encourages “linguistic risk-taking 5 .” Less formal situations—chatting with colleagues or short e-mail messages, for example—may provide such opportunities in some cases.

A more inclusive language environment for second-language speakers and learners could be fostered by one or more of the following:

If a completely bilingual environment is the goal, then everyone must be given equal and ongoing opportunities for training and maintaining.

Training allows a safe space for people to learn, improve and practise.

Employees who suffer from being judged when speaking or writing French/English should be encouraged instead of shamed or disregarded when their use of the language isn’t perfect, especially if it is apparent that they put a lot of time and effort into trying to [give] their responses.

Just give it a try! Don’t be shy, or intimidated, or afraid of making mistakes. Nobody will judge you, most everyone will help you, and it’s only through practice and a willingness to learn and have others correct you that you’ll feel more comfortable. You’ve got nothing to lose by trying!

When someone initiates a conversation in their second language, people should take this as a cue that they want to speak in that language even if they are having difficulty. Often when people notice someone is struggling a bit, they will switch to the language they believe the other person will feel more comfortable with, but this will frustrate their efforts to speak in their second official language.

Take a risk and make mistakes to improve your skills. [translation]

Change the social dynamic so that people can be imperfect and encouraged.

People need to stop being afraid of looking stupid when they’re speaking their second language. Don’t be too proud or too fearful of making mistakes. [translation]

For me personally, my colleagues are very supportive when I try to speak in French, but it’s more of an internal struggle, as I know I’m not as comfortable or necessarily strong in French, so it’s easier to revert back to English when I forget a word or can’t express myself as I would in English. But I should remind myself they want to help me and are patient with me when I try to improve my French.

Additional opportunities for further understanding – Non-Part V regions, the relationship between language of work and service, workplace wellbeing, and other questions

The potential strategies suggested above would benefit from additional analysis and consideration through further study, including ongoing analysis of the survey data by other experts in the field and by establishing discussion groups—for example, by drawing on the more than 2,000 respondents who volunteered to participate in potential follow-up discussions.

The strong interest from federal public servants outside of Part V regions also suggests that there is an opportunity to study and to better understand their needs and contexts, including through a separate survey and through potential discussion groups.

The mutually reinforcing potential of promoting best practices in language of work (Part V) and best practices in language of service (Part IV) should also be explored further. Public servants working in non-Part V regions who contacted the Office of the Commissioner and PRA during the administration of the survey pointed out that fostering a positive language-of-work environment was important to them because they had an obligation to serve the public in both languages. Survey respondents from Part V regions appeared to be of a similar view. When asked whether they agreed that “if employees were made to feel more comfortable using both English and French with colleagues it would make them feel more confident using both languages when interacting with the public,” 60% of all survey respondents (including 53% of Anglophones and 66% of Francophones, see Figure 56, below) agreed, and only 16% disagreed.

Figure 56. Confidence using English and French with colleagues and with the public

Question: If employees were more comfortable using both English and French with colleagues, would it make them feel more confident using both when interacting with the public? ( n =5,043 for Anglophones, n =5,785 for Francophones)

The potential personal impacts of linguistic insecurity on federal employees’ workplace wellbeing may also merit further exploration. Among survey respondents who said they had felt or would feel uncomfortable using English or French at work, over three quarters of them reported having experienced some kind of personal impact as a result. Among those respondents, half (50%) stated that as a result they had hesitated to use the language, 43% (mainly Anglophones) stated that they felt awkward, judged, embarrassed or self-conscious, and 31% (mainly Francophones) felt the need to apologize for using the language.

Figure 57. Impact of the feeling of discomfort in using an official language

Question: Has discomfort in using a particular official language in your current job led to any of the following? ( n =2,921 for Anglophones, n =3,112 for Francophones - More than one answer could be selected)

Some survey respondents wrote about how their experiences had left them feeling frustrated, pessimistic or even disillusioned. One respondent, for example, was skeptical that the federal workplace culture could change:

I’m sorry, but I don’t think concrete actions will change anything. . . . The federal public service is slowly and surely assimilating Francophones. [translation]

Another cited the politicization of language in their workplace as a symptom of a broader societal challenge that their employer could do little to influence:

There is definitely a stigma in Quebec towards English speaking people. . . . But it’s not anything the job is doing, it’s the culture and the way people were raised, unfortunately.

A respondent in their 40s, although supportive of bilingualism, explained how they had never themselves had the opportunity to become bilingual, stating that “many of us are at a distinct disadvantage simply because of where and when we grew up.”

Still, others remained optimistic that, regardless of language or ability, all federal employees could contribute to a more linguistically secure work environment:

I think that all employees should be considerate of each other as they try to practise their second languages. That would go a long way to help.

Linguistic insecurity in the federal workplace intersects with other important challenges, issues and opportunities that survey participants identified in their comments and that could benefit from further consideration. These include questions around:

• diversity and inclusion;
• workplace environment and culture;
• the promotion of bilingualism among employees;
• the need for access to second-language education before entering the public service;
• leveraging technology and other tools;
• possibilities for greater cost-effectiveness; and
• the need for more bilingual staffing and recruitment.

As one survey respondent explained, perhaps the greatest need is for the continued promotion of linguistic duality and bilingualism as fundamental values of Canadian society:

First and foremost, we need to instill the idea among all Canadians that Canada is a bilingual country and that everyone benefits by being able to speak both of their country’s official languages. [translation]

Background research

The development of the research project was informed by a literature review conducted for the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages (the Office of the Commissioner) by Jedweb Inc. in 2018. The literature review found that most research related to linguistic insecurity used qualitative rather than quantitative methods. It also found that, with a few notable exceptions, relatively little research had been conducted on linguistic insecurity in the workplace. In Canada, the research tended to focus on youth and educational settings and on French first-language contexts, although research has also been conducted into second-language contexts. The available research suggested that first-language linguistic insecurity in these contexts can relate to the favouring of some accents and dialects over others (e.g., European French over Canadian French, Quebec French over Acadian French) or the favouring of the predominant language in minority situations. For second-language contexts linguistic insecurity was more present among Core French students than among immersion students, and the lack of opportunities to speak the language outside of a school setting was cited as a major challenge.

As a complement to the literature review, Jedweb Inc. contracted Leger Marketing to conduct a web-based survey in February 2018 on second-language linguistic insecurity among 203 Anglophones and 179 Francophones in Canada. The data supported the view that opportunities to use one’s second official language are an important factor in reducing insecurity and anxiety in the language and that comfort levels are higher in institutional settings where such opportunities may arise (e.g., in a workplace that encourages people to use both languages). The results suggested that building confidence in second-language communication at the school level supports successful interaction in the workplace, but this too may be linked to opportunities for contact in the second language either inside or outside of school. The survey underscored the need to look more closely at the transition between school and the workplace in terms of acquiring and developing a second language.

Scope and limitations

This exploratory survey employed a questionnaire that was circulated on a voluntary basis by Official Languages Champions and other personnel using an open link. The Official Language Champion of a federal institution is generally a member of the institution’s executive, and their role includes demonstrating leadership and promoting official languages within the institution. The sample is therefore non-probability, meaning that a margin of error cannot be calculated and that the results cannot be projected to the entirety of the target population (i.e., employees of federal institutions working in Part V regions). While it is possible that the results of the survey may be consistent with experiences in federal institutions more generally, this cannot be stated with certainty, as the results reflect only the experiences of the respondents themselves. The large number of respondents, however, delivered a large sample size and a valuable means for exploring, understanding and analyzing the potential nature and scope of the challenge of linguistic insecurity in the federal public service.

Level of participation

The original intent was to reach a minimum base of 1,000 respondents. However, the survey achieved very strong participation, exceeding the target. The survey thus closed with a total of 10,828 completed questionnaires. Individuals from nearly 100 federal departments and agencies participated in the survey. Table 1 in Chapter I shows the geographical distribution of survey respondents.

To accommodate the relative overrepresentation of the National Capital Region, results for each of the four different regions were considered separately in the report. It is also important to note that an additional 5,314 individuals started to complete the survey but did not finish it (in addition to the 4,044 individuals who attempted to participate in the survey but were screened out because they were not located in one of the designated bilingual regions).

Questionnaire design and pretest

The Office of the Commissioner and PRA research teams reviewed relevant documentation and literature, including the literature review that had previously been prepared for the Office of the Commissioner by Jedweb Inc. This document review informed the design of the survey questionnaire and provided helpful contextual information.

Beginning in January 2019, the Office of the Commissioner and PRA drafted a relatively short questionnaire that employed skip logic. This was to allow the survey to take no more than 10 minutes to complete. The Office of the Commissioner and PRA pretested the survey internally in both official languages to improve respondents’ understanding of questions and survey flow. The final version of the survey is presented in Appendix B. The software used for the online survey was Acuity, provided through Voxco’s survey platform. The survey was designed so that questions appeared properly on computer, smartphone or tablet screens. The questions automatically adjusted to the size of the page on these devices, and additional measures for accessibility were taken. All data was stored in PRA’s protected servers located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Recruitment strategy and surveying

The Office of the Commissioner’s and PRA’s research teams collaborated on a recruitment strategy rather than a sampling plan. Establishing a sampling plan would have required gathering the contact information of each potential respondent and then sharing individual online survey links with them by e-mail. This would have been a time-consuming and costly process. Keeping in mind the project’s timeline and budget, the option of having an online open link survey was chosen, allowing potential respondents to access the survey through multiple platforms. In addition, the software and the very large sample size mitigated potential impacts of duplicate responses—an analysis of more than 2,000 respondents found only two instances in which a respondent appeared to have completed the survey more than once (a frequency of <0.001%).

A snowball approach was used, whereby the Office of the Commissioner and PRA worked directly with the Official Language Champions in federal departments and agencies located in designated bilingual regions. An initial e-mail informed Champions of the survey and requested their assistance in promoting and distributing the survey link. To maximize participation, Champions were asked to inform federal public servants within their respective departments and agencies about the survey ahead of time. An invitation in both official languages containing an open link was sent to the Champions on March 6, 2019 (the date that the survey went live), so that they could forward it at an appropriate time to employees in Part V regions. The invitation was not sent to Champions whose institutions had declined to participate in the survey.

Throughout the course of the project, the Office of the Commissioner and PRA worked with the Champions to ensure that reminder e-mails were sent to employees where appropriate. In most cases, reminder e-mails were deemed unnecessary because of the already high level of participation. Office of the Commissioner project manager Robert Talbot and PRA project manager Stéphanie Jolette responded to questions and issues from Champions and from respondents. The survey was closed on March 25, 2019.

Qualitative analysis with open-ended responses

Because of the very high number of respondents, the Office of the Commissioner contracted PRA to conduct a separate follow-up analysis of the open-ended responses, the results of which have been integrated into this report. Given the time and thought that respondents had put into the survey, it was important to take their feedback into consideration, even though this meant that more time would be required to complete the final report.

Half of the 10,828 respondents were randomly selected, and their responses to Question 26 (“Do you have any suggestions as to how employees can be helped to feel more comfortable using English and/or French at work?”) were coded and analyzed.

PRA reviewed these responses and categorized them into general themes (or codes) that were assigned numerical values. PRA then reviewed each response and assigned it a value or values. In many cases, a response was given a single numerical code, while in others, responses from participants who touched on many themes in one answer were assigned multiple codes.

PRA’s goal was to capture results so that at least 90% of all responses (including blank responses) were categorized without having to create codes that captured less than 1% of participants’ responses. Any response or part of a response that did not fit a code was coded as “Other.” This meant that, for some responses, the entire response was coded as “Other,” while other responses were given codes in addition to “Other” if part of the response fit into another code. This means that the percentage listed under “Other” in a table reflects the total number of respondents whose response was coded as “Other” for at least part of their answer. It also means that some aspects of the responses of these participants may have been coded into other categories. In addition to creating the coding for Question 26, PRA identified a selection of representative quotations in English and French for the Office of the Commissioner to use in this final report.

PRA also conducted a thematic analysis of the key concepts that emerged from Question 35 (“Do you have any other comments regarding language of work?”). A total of 2,975 responses were given to this question, half of which were randomly selected for analysis. While most respondents reiterated some of the points that were raised throughout the survey, some mentioned new elements that were given consideration in the conclusions of this report.

Language of survey

Would you prefer to complete the survey in English or French? Please note that once you select your language preference for the survey, the language of completion cannot be changed.

Préférez-vous effectuer le sondage en français ou en anglais? S.v.p., veuillez noter qu’une fois votre langue de préférence sélectionnée, la langue dans laquelle vous effectuez le sondage ne peut pas être changée.

Thank you for opening this survey!

PRA Inc. is conducting this survey on behalf of the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada. The survey is looking to explore how federal public servants work in bilingual regions and how to foster the use of both official languages in the workplace.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. Participation is voluntary, and all responses will remain confidential.

Please note that you must complete the survey in one session in order for your answers to be saved.

Your participation and input are greatly appreciated!

Please use the button(s) below to navigate through the survey.

• [Over 100 options to select from]
• Other, please specify:
• I do not work for a federal institution. [end of questionnaire – go to message: “This survey is intended for employees of federal institutions. If you are a federal employee, you may return to the survey by clicking ‘back.’”]
• Ottawa, Ontario
• Gatineau, Quebec
• New Brunswick
• Montreal (metropolitan area excluding Longueuil)
• New Richmond
• Cowansville
• Bromptonville
• Lennoxville
• Rock Island
• Other Quebec location [end of questionnaire – go to message “This survey is intended for employees of federal institutions who work in regions that are designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes . If you are a federal employee who works in a bilingual region, you may return to the survey by clicking ‘back.’”]
• Vankleek Hill
• Sault Ste Marie
• Blind River
• Bruce Mines
• Iroquois Falls
• Kapuskasing
• Smooth Rock Falls
• Sturgeon Falls
• Copper Cliff
• New Liskeard
• Other Ontario location [end of questionnaire – go to message “This survey is intended for employees of federal institutions who work in regions that are designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes . If you are a federal employee who works in a bilingual region, you may return to the survey by clicking ‘back.’”]
• Elsewhere [end of questionnaire – go to message “This survey is intended for employees of federal institutions who work in regions that are designated as bilingual for language-of-work purposes . If you are a federal employee who works in a bilingual region, you may return to the survey by clicking ‘back.’”]
• Ability to understand written: English (1-5); French (1-5)
• Ability to write in: English (1-5); French (1-5)
• Ability to understand spoken: English (1-5); French (1-5)
• Ability to speak: English (1-5); French (1-5)
• [If all “1” for English, skip questions 6, 11, 13-14, 17-18 and 21-22]
• [If “1” for “ability to write in English”, skip questions 17-18]
• [If “1” for “ability to speak English”, skip questions 21-22]
• [If all “1” for French, skip questions 6, 12, 15-16, 19-20 and 23-24]
• [If “1” for “ability to write in French”, skip questions 19-20]
• [If “1” for “ability to speak French”, skip questions 23-24]
• Television, radio, books, Internet or other media
• Basic courses in school
• Immersion program at school
• Post-secondary institution
• Federal government training (part-time)
• Federal government training (full-time)
• Don’t know / Not sure
• English only
• English mostly, with some French
• English and French equally
• French mostly, with some English
• French only
• Don’t know / Does not apply
• [If for “Being supervised” answered “English only”, skip questions 15-16]
• [If for “Being supervised” answered “French only”, skip questions 13-14]
• No [skip questions 13-14, 17-18 and 21-22]
• No [skip questions 15-16, 19-20 and 23-24]
• [If answered “No” to questions 11 and 12, skip question 25]
• No [skip next question]
• Don’t know / Not sure [skip next question]
• Does not apply [skip next question]
• I didn’t know that I had the right to be supervised in English
• My English isn’t strong enough
• My supervisor isn’t comfortable enough in English
• My grammar, vocabulary or accent might be corrected or judged
• I don’t want to bother my supervisor
• I might be seen as a troublemaker
• I didn’t know that I had the right to be supervised in French
• My French isn’t strong enough
• My supervisor isn’t comfortable enough in French
• English isn’t often used where I work
• I’m out of practice – it takes extra effort to write in English
• My grammar, vocabulary or spelling might be corrected or judged
• Some of my colleagues aren’t comfortable enough in English
• Senior management doesn’t request or expect written material in English
• Extra time would be needed for translation
• French isn’t often used where I work
• I’m out of practice – it takes extra effort to write in French
• Some of my colleagues aren’t comfortable enough in French
• Senior management doesn’t request or expect written material in French
• Yes, in meetings
• Yes, in conversations
• Yes, in meetings and in conversations
• English isn’t often spoken where I work
• I’m out of practice – it takes extra effort to speak in English
• I don’t want to bother others
• Colleagues tend to just switch to French when I try to speak English
• French isn’t often spoken where I work
• I’m out of practice – it takes extra effort to speak in French
• Colleagues tend to just switch to English when I try to speak French
• You hesitated in using the language
• You felt awkward, judged, embarrassed or self-conscious
• You felt you should apologize for using the language
• You decided not to use the language
• You decided never to use the language again
• None of the above
• No suggestions
• Yes, English
• Yes, French
• Strongly disagree
• Slightly disagree
• Slightly agree
• Strongly agree
• Unilingual English
• Unilingual French
• Either English or French
• Not sure / Does not apply
• Reading: A, B, C, E, N
• Writing: A, B, C, E, N
• Speaking: A, B, C, E, N
• 24 years old or under
• 25 to 34 years old
• 35 to 44 years old
• 45 to 54 years old
• 55 years old or over
• Prefer not to answer
• Other, please specify if you wish:
• No other comments
• Yes: Please provide your name and e-mail

Thank you for your time

National Strategy For Linguistic Security

Affecting people of all ages across the country, language insecurity is a long-standing issue and an cross-sectoral phenomenon that takes many forms. Both a societal issue and an individual experience, linguistic insecurity is a complex phenomenon, fraught with emotion.

Insecurity comes from an action, an intervention, a comment, a menacing context that hurts, intimidates, humiliates or frustrates someone about their language or the way they use it.

Linguistic insecurity isn’t just about accents. For many, language standards are at the heart of the problem.

Although linguistic insecurity is a phenomenon that is experienced and studied in many communities the world over, this strategy deals with the phenomenon in a very specific context.

It doesn’t claim to address the concerns of every language minority in Canada.

Its orientation, the challenges it describes, the strategies and suggested courses of action are all specific to Canada’s francophonie.

The literature review and consultations allowed us to identify four main sectoral areas from which we developed this strategy.

These areas became the four fields of intervention at the heart of this strategy: education, the workforce, culture and media and public policies.

A global objective accompanies the fields of intervention.

This approach allowed us to identify problems (challenges) for each field of intervention and the global objective, as well as strategies and courses of action seeking to improve the current situation in various regards.

One thing’s for sure: we’re not claiming that this strategy can eliminate or cure linguistic insecurity.

This strategy aims to reinforce la linguistic security, both on the collective and individual level and to consolidate favourable conditions for linguistic security.

See what’s new for the NSLS in 2021 by reading the joint statement from the members of the Linguistic Security taskforce! Download PDF

Download the complete version of it to discover what you can do! Download PDF

Download the annex ”Impact of Covid-19 on NSLS” Download PDF

Help | Advanced Search

Computer Science > Computation and Language

Title: prompting large language models for zero-shot essay scoring via multi-trait specialization.

Abstract: Advances in automated essay scoring (AES) have traditionally relied on labeled essays, requiring tremendous cost and expertise for their acquisition. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have achieved great success in various tasks, but their potential is less explored in AES. In this paper, we propose Multi Trait Specialization (MTS), a zero-shot prompting framework to elicit essay scoring capabilities in LLMs. Specifically, we leverage ChatGPT to decompose writing proficiency into distinct traits and generate scoring criteria for each trait. Then, an LLM is prompted to extract trait scores from several conversational rounds, each round scoring one of the traits based on the scoring criteria. Finally, we derive the overall score via trait averaging and min-max scaling. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets demonstrate that MTS consistently outperforms straightforward prompting (Vanilla) in average QWK across all LLMs and datasets, with maximum gains of 0.437 on TOEFL11 and 0.355 on ASAP. Additionally, with the help of MTS, the small-sized Llama2-13b-chat substantially outperforms ChatGPT, facilitating an effective deployment in real applications.

Submission history

Access paper:.

• HTML (experimental)
• Other Formats

References & Citations

• Google Scholar
• Semantic Scholar

BibTeX formatted citation

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Code, data and media associated with this article, recommenders and search tools.

• Institution

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs .

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

Linguistic insecurity comprises feelings of anxiety, self-consciousness, or lack of confidence in the mind of a speaker surrounding the use of their own language. Often, this anxiety comes from speakers' belief that their use of language does not conform to the perceived standard and/or the style of language expected by the speakers' interlocutor(s). Linguistic insecurity is situationally induced and is often based on a feeling of inadequacy regarding personal performance in certain contexts, rather than a fixed attribute of an individual. This insecurity can lead to stylistic, and phonetic shifts away from an affected speaker's default speech variety; these shifts may be performed consciously on the part of the speaker, or may be reflective of an unconscious effort to conform to a more prestigious or context-appropriate style of speech. Linguistic insecurity is linked to the perception of speech styles in any community, and so may vary based on socioeconomic class and gender. It is also especially pertinent in multilingual societies.

1. Description

Linguistic insecurity is the negative self-image a speaker has regarding his or her own speech variety or language as a whole, especially in the perceived difference between phonetic and syntactic characteristics of one's own speech and those characteristics of what is perceived to be the "correct" form of the spoken language. Linguistic insecurity arises based on the perception of a lack of correctness regarding one's own speech, rather than any objective deficiencies in a particular speech variety. [ 1 ]

In one of its earliest usages, the term linguistic insecurity was employed by linguist William Labov in his 1972 paper on the social stratification of the pronunciation of /r/ to describe the attitude that employees, at three different retail stores in New York City , have towards their own speech patterns, in comparison to the Standard English form. [ 2 ] Labov theorized that those employees who had the most extreme shift in style from their own speech variety (a casual style) to the standard form (a more emphatic style) were more insecure in a linguistic sense. The term has since been used to describe any situation in which a speaker is led to hypercorrect, or shift one's patterns of speech, due to a negative attitude or lack of confidence regarding one's normal speech. This lack of confidence need not be consciously acknowledged by a speaker in order for him/her to be affected by linguistic insecurity, and the changes in pronunciation and stylistic shifts indicative of linguistic insecurity can emerge absent of speaker intent. [ 1 ] Linguistic insecurity may also be a characteristic of an entire speech community, especially in how it relates to other speech communities of the same language that employ a more standardized form. [ 3 ]

Standard and Prestige Forms

As linguistic insecurity is related to the perception of how one speaks in comparison to a certain form, the notion of standard and prestige forms of languages is important. The standard form of a language is regarded as the codified form of language used in public discourse, [ 4 ] while the prestige form is the one perceived to receive the most respect accorded to any variety of the language. Variables that differentiate standard and prestige forms include phonetic realization, vocabulary, syntax, among other features of speech. The status of these forms is related to the concept of language ideology, which explains how varieties of language are correlated with certain moral, social or political values. Many societies value the belief that language homogeneity is beneficial to society; in fact, the existence of a "common language" is an intrinsic part of an imagined community, which defines a nation. [ 5 ]

However, the concept of a language norm is highly flexible. Nations often codify a standard language that may be different from regional norms. For example, Standard English in the United Kingdom is based on the south-eastern dialect and accent centered around London. In other parts of the UK, various dialects are spoken, such as Scots and Geordie; even in London, there exist Cockney and Estuary accents. Studies of young people in Glasgow show that they self-report linguistic insecurity, describing their own speech as 'slang' in comparison to the 'standard form' and attempting to incline their own speech to the standard. [ 6 ]

Prestige forms may also demonstrate linguistic insecurity. Again, in the UK, Received Pronunciation (RP), a prestige accent, has been affected by other varieties of speech. Though the standard form historically aimed towards RP, it is not a perfect imitation. The result is that RP speakers now demonstrate changes in phonetic realization in the direction of the standard. [ 7 ]

Despite these shifts, a person using an RP accent would tend to give the impression that he or she is well-educated and part of a higher socioeconomic class. This is because these traits are often associated with RP speakers; they index specific concepts that are presupposed by the community. Similarly, in general, forms of speech gain their status by their association with certain class characteristics. This indexicality does not need to be passive: in Beijing, young urban professionals actively adopt usages considered typical of prestigious Hong Kong and Taiwan speech in an effort to index themselves as cosmopolitan. [ 8 ] It also does not need to be positive: speech forms may also index negative characteristics. In his study of attitudes towards varieties of United States English, Preston demonstrates that people often associate the Southern accent with a lack of sophistication, indexing speakers with such an accent as being backwards and conservative; and that Southern speakers themselves perceive their language to be inferior, exhibiting linguistic insecurity. [ 9 ]

Speakers experiencing linguistic insecurity exhibit alterations of their normal speech which are reflective of their insecurity, and often are a result of the speaker attempting to compensate for the perceived deficiencies in their own speech variety. These effects of linguistic insecurity can come in the form of changes in pronunciation, as in the case of the retail store employees in William Labov's example, or even syntactic deviations from the speaker's normal speech variant. [ 2 ]

2.1. Hypercorrection

One documented linguistic effect of linguistic insecurity is hypercorrection. Hypercorrection is the over-application of a perceived rule of grammar in order to appear more formal or to appear to belong to a more prestigious speech community. [ 10 ] A common instance of hypercorrection in English is the use of the personal pronouns "you and I" as a correction of "me and you" in situations in which the accusative personal pronoun "me" is more appropriate. [ 11 ] Because the use of "you and I" is internalized as the more grammatically sound form in the mind of many English speakers, that rule becomes over-applied in a situation when a speaker wants to compensate for perceived linguistic deficiencies. [ 11 ] A speaker may try to avoid feelings of linguistic insecurity and perceived stigmatization by projecting a more educated or formal identity and emulating what is perceived as a more prestigious speech variety. Inadvertently, hypercorrection may index a speaker as belonging to the very social class or societal group that led to the linguistic insecurity. For example, linguist Donald Winford found after studying Trinidadian English that there was a knowledge that there was a stigmatization associated with less prestigious phonological variants, creating a situation in which individuals belonging to a "lower" social class would attempt to replicate phonological aspects of the more prestigious forms of English, but did not do so successfully, thus engaging in hypercorrection. [ 10 ]

2.2. Shifting Registers

Speakers experiencing linguistic insecurity may also undergo, either consciously or unconsciously, a change in register from their default language variety. Linguistic register refers to a variety of speech in a given language that corresponds to a specific situational purpose or social setting. An example of the phonological impact of register in English is when speaking in a formal setting, it is customary to pronounce words ending in -ing with a velar nasal rather than substituting it for the [n] sound that is typical of -ing endings in informal speech. A register shift cannot always be accounted for by documenting the individual phonological differences in speech from one's default speech variety to the newly registered speech variety, but instead may include a difference in the overall "tenor" of speech and in the way a speaker gives deference to his/her interlocutors who are more experienced in interacting in that register. Having to navigate in a linguistic register markedly different from one's own speech variety can be a catalyst for hypercorrection and other behavioral effects of linguistic insecurity that can further contribute to a sense of communicative inadequacy if the speaker feels he is not convincingly interacting in that linguistic register. [ 12 ]

3.1. Social Category

Socioeconomic class.

Findings show that the members of the lower middle class have the greatest tendency toward linguistic insecurity. Labov notes that evidence of their insecurity can be found in their wide range of stylistic variation, fluctuation in given stylistic contexts, conscious striving for correctness, and negative attitude towards their native speech pattern.

After conducting a linguistic survey in 1960s New York City, Labov found evidence that the usage of /r/ by speakers was predictable except in a specific case involving the lower middle class. At the time, the pronunciation of /r/ at the end of words and before consonants became a prestige marker and the degree to which it was realized in casual speech correlated with the socioeconomic status of the respondents. However, members of the lower middle class showed a dramatic increase of r-pronunciation when a more formal style of speech was elicited, even surpassing the usage by the classes above. Labov interpreted this tendency to hypercorrect by adopting the prestigious form of the high ranking class as a sign of the linguistic insecurity of the lower middle class. [ 13 ]

Explanations for why the lower middle class exhibits this tendency have yet to be fully explored. A study conducted by Owens and Baker (1984) [ 3 ] shows that the lower middle class of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada had highest scores for the CILI (Canadian Index of Linguistic Insecurity), which was adopted from Labov's original test – the ILI (Index of Linguistic Insecurity). In their paper, they hypothesize that this effect can be explained by an interaction between behavior and attitudes about social status. Members the lower middle class are caught between the linguistic behavior of the classes below them and the attitudes of the upper class. Members of the lower middle class accept the idea of correct speech from those above them, but changes in their usage lag behind changes in attitude. They identify the upper class usage as correct and admit that their behavior is different, leading to a disparity that manifests itself as linguistic insecurity. Though Owens and Baker admit that a measure of the mobility aspirations of the respondents is needed to test their explanation, others agree that the effect can be best interpreted as a function of upward social mobility rather than of social class distinctions themselves. [ 1 ] In his later work, Labov highlights that it is often the second highest status groups that display the steepest slope of style shifting, most hypercorrection, highest levels on linguistic insecurity tests, and the strongest tendency to stigmatize the speech of others in subjective evaluation tests for that variable. In many cases of socioeconomic stratification, this group is equated with the lower middle class. [ 14 ]

In the Owens and Baker study mentioned above, the authors used the CILI and ILI test to conclude that women are more linguistically insecure than men. Out of a sampling data of 80 participants, 42 of which were female, women scored higher on the ILI and the CILI, which indicates high manifest linguistic insecurity. On the CILI, the mean score was 3.23 for females and 2.10 for males. On the ILI, the means scores were 2.23 for females and 1.40 for males. Though the t-tests for the differences were only significant at .07 and .06 levels, the authors feel that this was due to a small sample size and that the uniformity of the results was enough to confirm their hypothesis. Additionally, these findings are consistent with Labov's original New York study and lead to the conclusion by Owens and Baker that women display more linguistic insecurity than men. [ 3 ]

3.2. Cross-Linguistic Contact

Linguistic insecurity can be heightened in speech communities in which multiple dialects exist beyond the standard language. Insecure speakers suffer from a negative attitude toward the speech of their dialect group and often feel pressured to mask their dialectal versatility since the norm of communication is to use the standard form. Bidialectal speakers, who speak both the standard and their own dialect, are most vulnerable to this problem because they are more aware of linguistic norms and the contexts to which they must adapt their speech to these norms. For monodialectal speakers, conversations can be difficult or stressful because they are locked into their nonstandard dialect and have a harder time explaining themselves in the standard dialect. [ 1 ]

African American Vernacular English

African American Vernacular English (AAVE) is a dialect of American English that is associated with the African American ethnic group. Speakers of AAVE (as well as speakers of other dialects found in the United States ) have encountered a variety of sociolinguistic problems in many important institutions since Standard American English (SAE) is the predominant form of English used.

One of these important institutions is school. Concerns about the academic achievement of African American children have motivated researchers to study the role AAVE plays though there are various explanations for how it might affect achievement. Dialectal differences could lead to inappropriate testing procedures or prejudice of educators (having lowered expectations [ 15 ] and assuming the child is inarticulate and hesitant [ 16 ] ). In this environment, AAVE-speaking students may develop linguistic insecurity, leading to a rejection of the standards as "posh" or reluctance to speak at all to hide their "inability" to use language. [ 16 ] AAVE-speaking students have also been shown to hypercorrect in attempts to speak or write in Standard English. Insecurity about what "sounds right" may result in the avoidance of the invariant be by deleting it from an instance in which it would be proper to use it (e.g. "They said they were told if they didn't follow orders they would courtmarshled or shot as deserters"). [ 17 ]

Speakers of AAVE may also encounter problems in seeking treatment for mental health problems, where professionals predominantly use Standard American English. Linguistic insecurity can be a cause of miscommunication for AAVE patients. For example, mental health care providers may attribute speaker's behavior to cognitive or emotional deficits, even to a psychopathological extent. In a study of a psychiatric ward, Bucci and Baxter collected data on the impact of linguistic problems of the patients, which included several monodialectal speakers and bidialectal speakers of AAVE. In the case of "Jimmy", his background led his therapist to believe that his "muteness" resulted from emotional or neurophysiological problems. However, Bucci and Baxter found evidence indicating his position as a monodialectal AAVE speaker made him unwilling to speak. His linguistic insecurity in the clinical setting with a norm of SAE made him reluctant to speak, but he was fluent and expressive in his own speech community and with his descriptions of his experiences outside the ward. Moreover, standard therapeutic techniques may have a negative and opposite effect for linguistically insecure patient. In the case of the bidialectal "Arlene", the patient thought that her speech was an obstacle to communication because her therapist often asked her what she meant. The intervention of eliciting answers was meant to encourage Arlene to speak more freely, but her linguistic insecurity led her to focus her attention on the perceived inadequacy of her language style and she responded by saying less rather than more. [ 1 ]

Malinke-Bambara

One example of linguistic insecurity arising from dialectal differences can be found in work done by Canut and Keita (1994). [ 18 ] They conducted a study of an area in the Mandingo zone of Mali that exhibited a linguistic continuum between two different forms: Bambara and Malinke. The study included two villages (Bendugu and Sagabari), a middle-sized town (Kita), and the capital of Mali (Bamako). Bamako is on the Bambara extreme of the continuum, Sagabari on the Malinke extreme, and Bendugu and Kita in between. The linguistic features important for understanding the differences between the dialects are mainly phonological.

The area encompassing these four places has relatively high social mobility and those who gain status often move towards Bamako, the capital. The dialects follow this pattern, as those closer to the capital are perceived as more prestigious; the most peripheral form in Sagabari can even prompt mockery of the individual using it. Thus, those speaking a dialect different from Bambara are likely to be affected by linguistic insecurity, particularly those closer to the Malinke end of the continuum.

Since migration is common, there are many examples of young migrants to the area who display linguistic insecurity. Most migrants who speak Malinke try to hide their origins and assimilate to the higher status society by changing the way that they speak. In their attempts to escape their geosocial status, however, they tend to hypercorrect to the point where they create non-existent terms in Bambara. One example is replacing every /h/ in Malinke with the /f/ used in Bamako, leading one to say 'young boy' /foron/ (which does not exist in Bamako) for 'noble' /horon/. [ 19 ]

Creole Languages

Linguistic insecurity in relation to creoles has to do with the underlying assumption and classification of these languages as inferior forms of the parent languages from which they are derived. Typical of most non-official languages, creoles are regarded as mere degenerate variants and rudimentary dialects that are subsumed under the main "standard" languages for that particular community. With this popular view, creoles are thought to be impoverished, primitive outputs that are far from their European target languages. The negative nonlinguistic implications lead to claims of creole use as being a "handicap" for their speakers. This has caused speakers of these creole languages to experience insecurity and lack of confidence in the use of their form of language, which has undermined the prevalence of creoles spoken in societies. [ 20 ]

One explanation concerning the different attitudes of speakers is that some populations are more insistent of the use of their particular form of language, as it is commonly claimed to be more "pure." This assumption places this form as a more prestigious standard, creating a tense environment that promotes feelings of insecurity to those who do not follow this standard (and speak "impure" variations). [ 21 ]

An instance of linguistic insecurity can be found in relation to Haitian Creole, which developed from a combination of French and other languages. Although the vast majority in this country grows up hearing and speaking exclusively this creole, it continues to be seen as an inferior, primitive tongue as well as a malformed version of French. This disfavor against the creole, which exists throughout the society, is present even among those who can speak only in that variation. The cause of the view has been attributed to the association of French with prestige, as most of the island's land-owning, well-educated elite speaks this language. These judgments contribute to the widespread belief that success is linked to French and that one must speak French to become part of the middle class with a financially stable job, a notion that places Haitian Creole on a lower status. Though it is the majority of people who cannot participate in the French-driven areas of society, the "ideology of disrespect and degradation" surrounding creoles leads to great linguistic insecurity. As Arthur Spears put it, an "internalized oppression" is present in these members who relate important figures in society (and their success) to speaking French, devaluing their own language of Haitian Creole. [ 22 ]

Multilingual Societies

Linguistic insecurity can arise in multilingual environments in speakers of the non-dominant language or of a non-standard dialect. Issues caused by the linguistic variation range from "total communication breakdowns involving foreign language speakers to subtle difficulties involving bilingual and bidialectal speakers". [ 1 ] Divergence from the standard variety by minority languages causes "a range of attitudinal issues surrounding the status of minority languages as a standard linguistic variety". [ 23 ]

Quebec French

An example of mother-tongue-based linguistic insecurity in a multilingual environment is Quebec French. Due to a general perception of Quebec French as lacking in quality and diverging from the norm, French speaking Quebeckers have suffered from a sense of linguistic insecurity. Though French is widely spoken in Quebec, the French in France is considered by many to be the standard and prestigious form. This comparison and the fact that Quebec French diverges from the standard form of France have caused linguistic insecurity among Quebec speakers.

Due to the separation from France after the Treaty of Paris in 1763 and the multilingual environment, Quebec French become more anglicized through English pronunciations and borrowings. Though French Canadian speakers were aware of the differences between Quebec French and French, the foreign perception of Quebec French as "non-standard" was not an issue until the mid 19th century. The opinions of the French elite that Quebec French was "far removed from the prestigious variety spoken in Paris" had spread through the general public by the end of the 19th century, causing a deep sense of linguistic insecurity in French speaking Quebec. The insecurity was twofold since Quebeckers spoke neither the dominant English language nor, as they were being told, Standard French. [ 23 ]

• Bucci, Wilma, and Milton Baxter. "Problems of Linguistic Insecurity in Multicultural Speech Contexts." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 433.1 Discourses in (1984): 185-200. Print.
• Labov, William. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania, 1973. Print.
• Owens, Thomposon W., and Paul M. Baker. "Linguistic Insecurity in Winnipeg: Validation of a Canadian Index of Linguistic Insecurity." Language in Society 13.03 (1984): 337-350. Print.
• Finegan, Edward. Language: Its Structure and Use, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2007. Print.
• Anderson, Benedict. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso: London/New York, 1991. Print.
• Menzies, Janet. An investigation of attitudes to Scots and Glasgow dialect among secondary school pupils. n.d. Retrieved October 16, 2011, from http://www.arts.gla.ac.uk/STELLA/STARN/lang/MENZIES/menzie1.htm
• Liberman, Mark. Happy-tensing and coal in sex. Language Log, 2006. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003859.html
• Eckert, Penelope. Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 2008, 12: 453–476.
• Preston, Dennis R. They speak really bad English down south and in New York City. In Language Myths, ed. Laurie Bauer and Peter Trudgill. London: Penguin, 1998. Print.
• Winford, Donald. "Phonological Hypercorrection in the Process of Decreolization – the Case of Trinidadian English." Journal of Linguistics 14.02 (1978): 277. Print.
• Lynch, Jack. The English Language: A User's Guide. Chicago: Focus/R. Pullins, 2008. Print.
• Huspek, Michael. "Linguistic Variation, Context, and Meaning: A Case of -Ing/in' Variation in North American Workers' Speech." Language in Society 15.2 (1986): 149-63. Print.
• Labov, William. "The Reflection of Social Processes in Linguistic Structure." Readings in the sociology of language. Ed. Joshua A. Fishman. Massachusetts: Mouton, 1972, Print.
• Labov, William. "The Intersection of Sex and Social Class in the Course of Linguistic Change." Language Variation and Change 2.02 (1990). Print.
• Charity, Anne H., Hollis S. Scarborough, and Darion M. Griffin. "Familiarity With School English in African American Children and Its Relation to Early Reading Achievement." Child Development 75.5 (2004): 1340-356. Print.
• Grillo, R. D. Dominant Languages: Language and Hierarchy in Britain and France. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1989. Print.
• Whiteman, Marcia Farr. Variation in Writing: Functional and Linguistic-cultural Differences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. Print.
• Canut, Cécile and Keita, Boniface. "Dynamique linguistique en zone mandingue : attitudes et comportements." Stratégies communicatives au Mali : langues régionales, bambara, français. Ed. G. Dumestre et al. Paris: Didier Erudition, 1994.
• Calvet, Louis-Jean. Towards an Ecology of World Languages. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Print.
• Degraff, Michel. "Linguists' most dangerous myth: The fallacy of Creole Exceptionalism." Language in Society. (2005)
• Whinnom, Keith. "Linguistic Hybridization and the "Special Case" of Pidgins and Creoles."Pidginization and Creolization of Languages. (1971)
• Degraff, Michel. "The Power of Creole."Article Collections, Boston.com. (2001)
• Oakes, Leigh. "Whose French? Language Attitudes, Linguistic Insecurity and Standardization in Quebec." Language issues in Canada: multidisciplinary perspectives. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Pub., 2007. 64-86. Print.

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

When Women Hold Each Other Back: A Call to Action for Female Principals

• Share article

At a recent national networking event I attended for secondary school principals, the facilitator asked the room packed full of excited female principals to share one of the greatest challenges we faced in our leadership journeys. One of the top responses? Other women.

When you look at the ratio of female teachers to men in leadership roles, the math ain’t mathin’! Currently, 74 percent of teachers are women, but when it comes to school leadership , women comprise 69 percent of elementary school principals, 44 percentage of middle school principals, and 36 percentage of high school principals. This number shrinks further for superintendents, approximately 26 percentage of whom are women .

According to researchers, there are a variety of reasons why more women are not in leadership positions, including biased cultural preferences for male leadership, disproportionate family responsibilities placed on women, and the outdated belief that women cannot discipline older students.

About This Series

In this biweekly column , principals and other authorities on school leadership—including researchers, education professors, district administrators, and assistant principals—offer timely and timeless advice for their peers.

But as I listened to my peers share their heart-wrenching stories at the women-leadership networking event, I was reminded of another barrier to add to the list: women who pull the ladder up after them as they climb education’s ranks.

In my years of teaching and leading a school, I’ve learned that mean girls often grow into mean women. I’ve observed three distinct mentalities of mean-girl leadership. Have you met any of these women before?

The Queen of Mean: She establishes herself as the “leader” in the group and wants to be always front and center. She uses intimidation tactics to make you feel inferior. She expects you to go along with her ideas because her ideas are always the best ideas. She makes you feel inadequate, and any proposal you share is met with resistance. If you ever have an innovative suggestion, she pokes holes in it and loves to share why it will not work. She is condescending and dismissive. There is a constant battle of you finding your voice and the Queen silencing you at every turn by reminding everyone that she is in charge and YOU are not!

The Competitor: She is the one who views other women as rivals. She will smile in your face, pretend to be a friend, and then speak negatively about you behind your back. She has a “pick me” mentality, and her mission is to be the best at all costs. She constantly wants to know what you are doing, not because she is genuinely interested but because she wants to figure out how to beat you. The competitor’s mode of operation is to win no matter what, even if that means losing a colleague and a friend.

The Just-One-of-the-Guys Girl: She considers herself an honorary member of the good ole boys’ network. She typically takes on traditionally ascribed masculine leadership characteristics, such as being domineering, aggressive, and blunt. These women put other women down in favor of men to make themselves “fit in.” She perpetuates a good ole boys mentality and is more concerned about advancing men to upper levels of administration over women. She will often make it difficult for women to ascend into leadership roles because she devalues characteristics traditionally associated with female leadership, such as being democratic, empathetic, and nurturing.

Ladies, we need to support and empower each other! The common characteristic of these types of women is insecurity. With so many barriers already facing women seeking administrative roles, we should not be fighting each other, tearing each other down, or dimming each other’s lights. So how can we move past these damaging mentalities?

Be a mentor . Be the woman who cultivates relationships with other women to help guide and support them in their career.

Be an advocate. When opportunities occur in your district, share those prospects with others. When there is an open position, encourage women to seek out those positions and coach them along the way.

Be supportive. When you attend conferences/events and notice a woman sitting by herself, talk to her and network. These types of events can be some of the loneliest and isolating places. A cheerful hello and a warm smile can absolutely make someone’s day.

Be an encourager. If you know a female teacher who has leadership potential, talk to her about becoming an administrator. Provide her with leadership opportunities in the building so that she can develop and broaden her skills.

Be a collaborator. If you have a leadership or instructional strength, find another woman with those same passions and teach others through professional development and presentations.

Live Event for Leaders

Education Week’s 2024 Leadership Symposium will take place live in Arlington, Va., from May 1-3, 2024. Join school and district leaders from across the nation for three days of empowering strategies, networking, and inspiration.

Be a promoter. Speak up for women in the spaces where their names might not be shared or spoken by others. Find your sister circle, squad, or tribe of women you can call on when you need a helping hand, a listening ear, or a sounding board. These women will also be your greatest champions and fiercest supporters.

Confidence is one of the most important traits for a female leader. You are supposed to be here. You are in your role because you have the credentials, skills, and dispositions to lead. It is not by accident or by luck. It is what you have earned and what you deserve.

Mean girls don’t have to grow up to be mean women. It is a choice. Choose to be better. Choose to uplift women.

A friend once told me to never dim my light so that others could shine. So, I say to always keep the light inside you shining. Don’t ever dim it, especially when others think it is too bright and work hard to blow it out. More importantly, be the spark that makes those lights around you shine even brighter! My flame is blazing and ready to set the world on fire. Ladies, are you with me?

Sign Up for The Savvy Principal

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

2024 Ethics Essay Contest winners announced

Claire Martino , a junior from New Berlin, Wis., majoring in applied mathematics and data science, is the winner of the 2024 Ethics Essay Contest for the essay "Artificial Intelligence Could Probably Write This Essay Better than Me."

The second place entry was from Morgan J. Janes , a junior from Rock Island, Ill., majoring in biology, for the essay "The Relevant History and Medical and Ethical Future Viability of Xenotransplantation."

Third place went to Alyssa Scudder , a senior from Lee, Ill., majoring in biology, for the essay "The Ethicality of Gene Alteration in Human Embryos."

Dr. Dan Lee announced the winners on behalf of the board of directors of the Augustana Center for the Study of Ethics, sponsor of the contest. The winner will receive an award of $100, the second-place winner an award of $50, and the third-place winner an award of $25.

Honorable mentions went to Grace Palmer , a senior art and accounting double major from Galesburg, Ill., for the essay "The Ethiopian Coffee Trade: Is Positive Change Brewing?" and Sarah Marrs , a sophomore from Carpentersville, Ill., majoring in political science and women, gender and sexuality studies, for the essay "Dating Apps as an Outlet to Promote Sexual Autonomy among Disabled Individuals: an Intersectional Approach to Change."

The winning essays will be published in Augustana Digital Commons .

The Augustana Center for the Study of Ethics was established to enrich the teaching-learning experiences for students by providing greater opportunities for them to meet and interact with community leaders and to encourage discussions of issues of ethical significance through campus programs and community outreach.

Dr. Lee, whose teaching responsibilities since joining the Augustana faculty in 1974 have included courses in ethics, serves as the center's director.

If you have news, send it to [email protected] ! We love hearing about the achievements of our alumni, students and faculty.

Schneier on Security

Home Essays

In Memoriam: Ross Anderson, 1956-2024

• Communications of the ACM
• April 9, 2024

Ross Anderson unexpectedly passed away in his sleep on March 28th in his home in Cambridge. He was 67.

I can’t remember when I first met Ross. It was well before 2008, when we created the Security and Human Behavior workshop. It was before 2001, when we created the Workshop on Economics and Information Security (okay, he created that one, I just helped). It was before 1998, when we first wrote about the insecurity of key escrow systems. In 1996, I was one of the people he brought to the Newton Institute at Cambridge University, for the six-month cryptography residency program he ran (I made a mistake not staying the whole time)—so it was before then as well.

I know I was at the first Fast Software Encryption workshop in December 1993, the first conference he created. There, I presented the Blowfish encryption algorithm. Pulling an old first edition of Applied Cryptography (the one with the blue cover) down from my shelf, I see his name in the acknowledgments. This means that at either the 1992 Crypto conference in Santa Barbara or the 1993 Eurocrypt in Lofthus, Norway, I, as an unpublished book author who had written a few cryptography articles for Dr. Dobb’s Journal , asked him to read and comment on my book manuscript. And he said yes. Which means I mailed him a paper copy. And he read it, and mailed his handwritten comments back to me. In an envelope with stamps. Because that’s how we did it back then.

This is back when "crypto" meant cryptography, and we would laugh when military types said "cyber" or "cybersecurity." We all called it "computer security" and then "Internet security."

I have known Ross for over 30 years, both as a colleague and a friend. He was enthusiastic, brilliant, opinionated, articulate, curmudgeonly, and kind. Pick up any of his academic papers and articles—there are 302 entries on his webpage —and odds are that you will find at least one unexpected insight that will change how you think about security. He was a security engineer, but also very much a generalist. He published on block cipher cryptanalysis in the 1990s, on the security of large-language models last year, and on pretty much everything else in between.

His masterwork book, Security Engineering —1,200 pages in its third edition—illustrates that breadth. It is as comprehensive a tome on computer security and related topics as you could imagine. Twenty-nine chapters cover everything from access control to tamper resistance, from banking security to nuclear command and control, and from psychology to security printing. Every page is infused with his knowledge, expertise, wisdom, and uncanny ability to cut through the nonsense that too often surrounds traditional security disciplines. (Also note his 15-lecture video series on that same webpage. If you have never heard Ross lecture, you’re in for a treat.)

Ross was a pragmatic visionary. His mastery of both the technologies and the underlying policy issues showed a deep command of multiple fields , and a rare capability to both work within them and synthesize around them. He was also able to weave this knowledge into narratives that were both compelling and comprehensible to the layperson. In his 1993 paper " Why Cryptosystems Fail ," he pointed out that both cryptography and computer security got threat modeling all wrong, and that we were solving the wrong problems. It’s not the math, he wrote; it’s the implementation and the people and the procedures. In 2001, he was the first person to recognize that security problems are often actually economic problems , kick-starting the academic discipline of security economics.

He didn’t suffer fools in either government or the corporate world, giving them no quarter by disproving their security claims. As a graduate student, he defended people accused of stealing from ATM machines by banks who maintained that their security was foolproof. It was a pattern that repeated itself throughout his career: analyze a real-world security system from all angles, understand how it fails, and then publish the results—angering the powers in charge of that security system.

Here’s one example of many. In 2014, he was hired as an expert witness to defend people accused of tampering with the curfew tags used for offender monitoring. He studied the physical tags and their security, and also the economic, policy, and security implications of the tagging system. He even went as far as to wear an ankle bracelet himself. It promptly broke, proving his point. You can read the whole story in Chapter 14 of the third edition of his book.

That sense of justice and confronting power infused much of his work. He fought against surveillance and backdoors. He and I were part of the second and third academic take-downs of government attempts to break encryption. His 2022 rebuttal of child protection as a pretense to break encryption is particularly scathing.

Ross also fought for academic freedom, repeatedly publishing his findings in the face of corporate threats. Many things we all use are more secure today because of Ross’s work.

He was a blistering letter writer to those he believed deserved it. Verbally, he could be a hurricane in your face if he disagreed with you, but he would also engage with your points and was always willing to change his mind. And he enthused about, argued with, and listened to everybody: students, colleagues, partners of students and colleagues, random people he crossed paths with. Everyone was a sounding board for whatever ideas he had in is head.

And his head was constantly filled with ideas—mostly good, some not so good—and seemingly inexhaustible energy to implement them. He founded five different conferences, including the Information Hiding Workshop and Decepticon. He co-founded the Cambridge Cybercrime Centre . He founded the U.K.’s Foundation for Information Policy Research , and wrote most of the papers that the organization submitted to Parliamentary Inquiries on dumb legislative ideas. When the legislative center of power moved to Brussels, he helped form the European Digital Rights organization to provide advice there.

All this was part of his gift of fostering community. And it’s nowhere more evident than his legacy of graduate students at Cambridge University. His CV lists thirty-two of them, and seven more that he was currently advising. Many have carried his legacy of pragmatic security analysis of real-world systems.

Ross was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society and a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering in 2009. In 2016, he was awarded the British Computer Society’s Lovelace Medal, the U.K.’s top prize in computing. From 2021, he split his time as a professor between the University of Cambridge and the University of Edinburgh and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 2023. He was absolutely rageful against Cambridge University for making him retire at 67—and he was right.

He also play ed the bagpipes throughout his life. I dedicated a 1998 cryptography paper, " The Street Performer Protocol ," to him because he "spent some of his youth busking on the streets of Germany with his bagpipes." Those were good stories.

He is listed in the acknowledgments as a reader of every one of my books from Beyond Fear on. Recently, we’d see each other a couple of times a year, at this or that workshop or event. He hosted me at Security and Human Behavor at Cambridge’s Churchill College in 2022. The last time I saw him was last June at SHB in Pittsburgh. We were having dinner on Alessandro Acquisti ‘s rooftop patio to celebrate another successful workshop. He was going to attend my Workshop on Reimagining Democracy in December 2023, but had to cancel at the last minute. The day before he died, we were discussing how to accommodate everyone who registered for this year’s SHB workshop in December. I learned something from him every single time we talked. And I am not the only one.

My heart goes out to his wife Shireen, their daughter Bavani, and the rest of their family. We lost him much too soon.

Categories: Computer and Information Security

Tags: Communications of the ACM

Sidebar photo of Bruce Schneier by Joe MacInnis.

Powered by WordPress Hosted by Pressable