Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities

Previous Article Reviews Next

Blattes, M. (2018). Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 13-37.

Article Summary

In the reviewed article, Marianne Blattès presents her research on language policy creation by documenting the process that resulted in the adoption of Article 2 of the “Fioraso Law”, which in 2013 allowed for English-medium instruction (EMI) in French universities. By analyzing four different versions of the bill and the transcripts of the debates that took place in the Assemblée Nationale (National Assembly), Blattès seeks to demonstrate 1) how language policy is created, and 2) how the specific bilingual policy for French universities was reached.
For those not familiar with language policy in France, her article provides some context which serves as backdrop to the debate over the controversial Fioraso bill. She then turns to a critical discourse analysis, specifically using a Discourse-Historical Approach, in order to focus on four discrete, chronologically-arranged versions of the bill (the original, two separate drafts, and the final) (See Appendix A) with a parallel analysis of the transcripts of the debates that occurred among lawmakers. By examining the themes that emerged in the debate, by analyzing the discourse of proponents and opponents of EMI (whose positions she admits to oversimplifying for the sake of contrast), by studying the “trajectory” of the policy through the “recontextualization” of oral arguments into written drafts, she attempts to show the impact that those debates had on the final version of the law. As an added data set, Blattès conducted a brief interview with Minister Fioraso, to gain her insight into the policy itself and the process of arriving at the policy. Blattès concludes that the fiercest opponents of the bill had a greater impact on the final law than analysis of the debates should indicate. Instead of the intended policy that was more open, she opines, the “Fioraso Law does not constitute a historical departure from traditional French language policy since it retains much of the protectionist discourse which characterised the [previous law].” (p. 35)

Analysis of the Study

Blattès deftly identifies the themes which surfaced during debate of the Fioraso law: “EMI for attracting international students”, “EMI for the promotion of Francophonie”, and “EMI for equal opportunity.” She also perceptively examines the discursive strategies that members of parliament (MPs) used to invoke these themes. For each one, she details one or more “topoi” or “means of argumentation…’conclusion rules’…which connect arguments with the conclusion.” (p. 19). Within the theme of “promotion of Francophonie” for example, she demonstrates how the topos of “ambassadeurs” [ambassadors] allows proponents of the bill to frame the debate in a way that aligns with their opponents’ values (to promote French language and culture). Other topoi she identifies include “linguistic barrier”, “democratic right”, and “English language skills”. Though she does not refer to them as topoi, she highlights other notions such as modernity, openness, attractiveness, and “rayonnement” [radiance, splendor, or glory] as discursive, gravitational anchors around which the debate orbited.
The ethnographic approach used in the study is a particular strength. It demonstrates that policies such as Article 2 do not emerge from nowhere, that they are situated within a context and are a “product of multiple voices, competing discourses and compromise” (p. 34). Blattès concluded that “Francophonie lobbyists” still have considerable influence, the result of which is that even “EMI supporters have to play the ‘Francophonie card’ and be seen to firmly promote the French language if they want to stand a chance of getting the bill passed.” (p. 33). Minister Fioraso explained later that “[t]o get the law through and to put an end to the controversy, we had to negotiate on the amendments.” (p. 32).

Oversights and Unanswered Questions

Despite the thoroughness of the study, I felt that two questions remained, as I situated this study within the larger context of Language Planning and Policy in Europe and in the United States.

English or Bilingualism

The first thing that struck me in this article was the way that both the researcher and the actors in the debates continually and overtly referred to this bill and the resulting law as pertaining to English Medium Instruction. This is clear in the title of the article and in the committee transcripts. They are openly discussing the role of English in the French educational system, as opposed to a purely theoretical, bilingual education policy. Supporters, opponents, and this researcher repeatedly refer to English, although not once in the text of any draft of the bill or the final law is English mentioned (see Appendix A). Blattès cites MP Myard who objected to the bill in the following terms: “Cet article porte la marque des cervelles lavées qui excellent à s’exprimer en Globish et pensent ainsi se faire comprendre de la terre entière” [This article bears the mark of those who are brain-washed, who excel at speaking in Globish and think that this is how they can make themselves understood throughout the whole world.] The pejorative “Globish” which everyone understood to mean English was used not as a loaded term in opposition to multilingualism, but to one language in particular. The openness to which they refer is openness to English, which presumably stands in as a surrogate for all non-French languages. All, even opponents of the Article, agreed that in the twenty-first century, learning English is an appropriate and laudable goal, along with the other objective of attracting international students to France. Proponents of Article 2 argued that access to English is a social justice issue, since programs at the elite “Grandes Écoles” have been using English for some time and Article 2 would give such access to the masses.

Neoliberalism

The other striking unanswered question in this article is the extent to which neo-liberalism plays a role, either in the general context surrounding any discussion of language policy or specifically in the debate, drafting, and finalization of Article 2. Blattès alludes to it, acknowledging the historical concern over “Americanisation” (p. 15) that characterized much of the language policy in France following World War II. She invites it into the analysis, quoting one of MP Myard’s objections to Article 2:
[C]et article n’ouvre pas l’université, il la ferme sur ce sabir parlé aujourd’hui un peu partout, que l’on présente comme le deus ex machina, et qui n’est en réalité qu’une conception mercantile de la langue imaginée pour vendre des cacahuètes. (MP Myard) [This article does not open up the university, it restricts it to this kind of pidgin spoken everywhere today and presented as the deus ex machina, when in reality it is just a mercantile conception of language devised to sell peanuts.] (p. 25).
Other underpinnings of the neoliberal agenda go unchallenged or insufficiently examined, in my view. In her analysis, Blattès notes that the “desire to be competitive in the international education market [emphasis added] is weighed against the centralized model of the nation-state.” (p. 33). Indeed, in the first theme presented, she highlights the overall consensus in the desirability of “attracting international students who are from ‘emerging markets’…[from] countries with strong potential economic growth” (p. 20), without contesting such framing.

Conclusion

As it relates to language policy and language policy creation, this article provides a detailed account of one European country and its struggle to live out the doctrine set forth by the European Commission and Council of Europe regarding the learning of multiple languages. It is worth considering the role of the majority language, and the positioning of that language with respect to the other linguistic options for students and citizens. I wonder, for example, if Blattès’ view, as a French national who has studied in America and the UK and who currently works in London, is influenced by her L1 and the status of and expertise in her L2. I also wonder if my position as a teacher of French and my own personal affiliation with the French language and culture influence my alignment in this debate. Am I more critical of the neoliberal, American-English justifications because I have been successfully enlisted as “ambassadeur” of Francophonie? Does this status make me over-sensitive to the conflation of English and neoliberalism when I read the Council of the European Union’s (2004) plan to help Europe “become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world [emphasis added]” (cited in García, 2009, p. 205)? To what degree would the debates and law have been different if, instead of discussing EMI, the policy had been framed to allow minority or regional languages such as Alsatian or Breton or immigrant languages such as Arabic? At any rate, it is clear that the creation and adoption of language policy, in America or in Europe, must contend with the pre-existing individual and societal biases rather than presume that no such bias exists.

References
Blattes, M. (2018). Policy development for English-medium instruction in French universities. European Journal of Language Policy, 10(1), 13-37.
Garcia, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

Appendix A

Four Versions of Article 2:

20 March 2013
Bill presented to National Assembly
Exceptions may also be justified by the nature of certain classes which are given as part of an agreement with a foreign or international institution as set out in article L. 123–7 or within the framework of a European programme.

28 May 2013
Text adopted by National Assembly
Exceptions may also be allowed for certain classes when they are justified out of pedagogical necessity and when these classes are given within the framework of an agreement with a foreign or international institution as set out in article L. 123–7 or within the framework of a European programme to facilitate the development of multilingual, cross-border programmes and diplomas.
In such instances, classes can only be given partly in a foreign language. Foreign students receiving such classes will be given French language courses. Their level of mastery of French will be included as part of the overall assessment for their diploma.

12 June 2013
Text adopted by Senate Commission
Exceptions may be justified:
Out of pedagogical necessity, when classes are given within the framework of an agreement with a foreign or international institution as set out in article L. 123–7 or within the framework of a European programme;
For the development of multilingual, cross-border programmes and diplomas.
Foreign students following courses in a foreign language will be given courses in French culture and, when their mastery of French is insufficient, French language classes. Their level of mastery of French will be assessed as part of the overall assessment for their diploma.

3 July 2013
Text adopted by Senate and National Assembly
Exceptions may be justified:
Out of pedagogical necessity, when classes are given within the framework of an agreement with a foreign or international institution as set out in article L. 123–7 or within the framework of a European programme;
For the development of multilingual, cross-border programmes and diplomas.
In such instances, classes can only be given partly in a foreign language and only if authorisation for such programmes fixes the proportion of classes to be given in French. The minister responsible for the usage of the French language in France will immediately be informed of the exceptions made, for how long and why.
Foreign students following courses in a foreign language will be given French language classes if their mastery of French is insufficient. Their satisfactory level of mastery of French will be assessed as part of the overall assessment for their diploma.
The classes offered will enable French students to acquire a mastery of the language in which the classes are given.
(Blattés, 2018, p. 29)

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License