Hover a line for its translation; hover a word for its meaning. Tap 🔊 to hear it.
Generate a brand-new dialog on any topic, using this lesson's 0 vocab words — plus any words you add below.
Sign in to generate dialogues. It needs a pass — the first ten lessons of every course are free either way.
The third shape of the language question
Block B has now shown three arrangements, and setting them side by side is the point of putting Québec, Belgium and Switzerland in one year. **Québec** defends one language against the demographic weight of another, using law to make French the language of work, schooling and public space. **Belgium** gives two languages official status on a territorial basis, with a fixed border between them and a bilingual capital, and argues about the arrangement continuously. **Switzerland** has four official languages, assigns them territorially to twenty-six cantons which decide their own linguistic affairs, and has arrived at a settlement that is notably quiet. The numbers, roughly: German-speaking around 62 per cent, French around 23, Italian around 8, Romansh well under one per cent — a few tens of thousands of speakers in the canton of Grisons, which is itself trilingual. Romansh became a national language in 1938 and an official one, with limited scope, in 1996. The principle governing all of it is territoriality: a canton's language is the language of its schools and administration, and people moving between cantons adapt rather than the canton accommodating them. Why it is quieter than the other two is a real question and the answers offered are contested. Some point to federalism itself — the canton is where decisions are made, so there is no single national language policy to fight over. Some point to the German-speaking majority's own linguistic situation: they speak dialects at home and write a standard German that is not quite their own, which arguably makes them less inclined to treat a standard language as a birthright. Some point to the consensus habits of Swiss politics, and some simply to prosperity. Others note that the quiet is overstated — that the 'barrière de rösti' marks real and persistent differences in how the two halves vote, that French-speakers complain of German-speaking dominance in federal institutions, and that Romansh is declining whatever its legal status. This course takes no position on which arrangement is best, and the comparison is not an argument. What a learner should take from the three blocks is narrower and more useful: that 'French' is a language with several centres and no single authority over it; that each francophone community's relationship to the standard has its own history; and that the question 'is this correct French?' almost always turns out to be the question 'whose French?'. Laurent's last exchange with Alex is the Swiss answer to that, and it is not the only possible one. A practical note, since Switzerland is expensive and brief visits are common. In Geneva and Lausanne, French is simply the language and your Parisian-flavoured French is entirely at home — Swiss French differs mainly in the numbers of lesson 67, a handful of words ('le natel' for a mobile, 'la panosse' for a floorcloth, 'le cornet' for a carrier bag), and a slower, more even rhythm that most learners find easier than Parisian speech. Crossing to Zurich or Basel, French will not help you; English will, and so will any German you have.