Revitalising Aboriginal Languages

Last week, the Consulate General of the United States in Quebec City invited some people interested in the future of Aboriginal languages to a videoconference organised by the Department of State in Washington, D.C. Two experts from the Smithsonian Institution talked about programmes to revitalise Aboriginal languages. This was a multiplex conference between Washington, D.C., Vancouver, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. It appeared during the meeting that there were listeners in other countries as well, at least in Ivory Coast and Bolivia. I am still not sure about the objectives of such a meeting: perhaps the organisers sought to create a new right of interference to protect endangered languages and cultures abroad.

The experts first presented the situation of endangered languages around the world, making the now common comparison with the disappearance of animal and plant species. The Breath of Life programme for language revitalisation was also presented. Examples were given of children brought to a museum to show them pieces of pottery and to teach them at the same time the vocabulary of the natives who had made them. Rather a backward-looking approach to revitalise languages, I would say. But, after all, the Smithsonian is primarily known for its museums.

But first a remark on a technical aspect. Images during this multiplex conference were often blurry when they did not freeze. Not at all the quality of images that the pilots have at their disposal with remote-control drones in the Homeland TV series. I wondered in petto what it is like for the drones that are currently sent to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The conference began at 2 pm and abruptly ended at 3 pm although we had been informed that it would last an hour and a half. This was a blessing in disguise because the Quebec City group continued the discussion – which was more interesting, I would venture to say, than the videoconference itself. Our group was composed of Wendat (Huron), an Abenaki, an Algonquin, perhaps an Innu (or Montagnais as they were formerly called, here I have a memory lapse), and a few Euro-Canadians. There were also three contributors to my book Quebec’s Aboriginal Languages (French edition 1992, English edition 1996).

Few know that the Wendat are trying to revive their language which ceased to be spoken more than a century ago. One of them pointed out the necessity, in order to revive the ancestral language and to use it in everyday life, to find equivalents for words as common to us as sidewalk or fan (for this object, he argued that the solution would be to use a term that would be equivalent to a periphrasis in English – she pushes the wind – adding the further explanation that there is a preponderance of the feminine in the Wendat language). This intervention would seem at odds with the backward-looking (or even purist) vision that seemed to be presented during the videoconference. For the Smithsonian expert did not address the theme of language modernisation, an essential feature if endangered languages are to be used again fully in everyday life. Let me add here that this topic has been studied at length and extensively exemplified in the six-volume series Language Reform: History and Future edited by István Fodor and Claude Hagège (1983-1994).

For my part I quoted from Statistics Canada's analysis of the 2011 Census questions on Aboriginal languages: "According to the 2011 Census, almost 213,500 people reported an Aboriginal mother tongue and nearly 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language most often or regularly at home". A mere difference of only 100 between the two figures. This sentence calls for two comments. First, it is unlikely that Aboriginal languages do not show linguistic assimilation. Secondly there is no mention of linguistic assimilation as such. On the contrary, it is suggested that English or French speakers would switch to Aboriginal languages: "In 2011, almost 213,400 people reported speaking an Aboriginal language at home. While 82.2% of them reported that same Aboriginal language as their mother tongue, the other 17.8% reported a different language, such as English or French, as mother tongue". These data are astonishing in the light of the situation prior to 2011. Here is what Louis-Jacques Dorais wrote in my book Les langues autochtones du Québec (published in 1992; at that time, the 1991 census data were not yet available):

The comparison between mother tongue and home language makes it possible to calculate the conservation rate of Aboriginal languages (home language / mother tongue). In 1971, this rate was 85.4% among Aboriginals in Quebec. This means that of all Aboriginal speakers, 83.8% spoke their ancestral language at home, 14.7% spoke English, 1.3% spoke French, and 0.2% spoke another language (Bernèche and Normandeau, 1983). The linguistic transfers from Aboriginal languages were therefore massively towards English.

In 1986, the conservation rate of Aboriginal languages (excluding Mohawk) was 95.8%, a figure probably close to that of 1971. That same year, the rate of conservation of Aboriginal languages spoken outside the Montreal area was estimated at 94%. It is also probable that in 1986 linguistic transfers continued to be directed mainly towards English, but probably to a somewhat lesser extent than in 1971, the influence of French having then increased slightly in Aboriginal communities.

Among the Inuit, the Inuktitut conservation rate was 98.6% in 1986, probably the same as in 1981. Few transfers were registered, mainly to English.

Demographers should therefore undertake serious analyses of the 2011 census data on Aboriginal languages.

Presence of French on Store Fronts and Language Attrition

This interesting comment on my preceding post, from That Nerdy Girl Who Is Skinny, seems to have mysteriously disappeared. I hereby reproduce it:

The prominence of French takes another degree of importance when the process of language attrition is taken into account.

Language attrition happens when a speaker becomes more exposed to a language than another or certain words over others. Eventually, the most used language and vocabulary starts affecting the use of the lesser used languages and vocabulary by causing word retrieval problems and structural changes. This happens because the brain is plastic and reorganizes itself to make the most used language and vocabulary easier to access. This happens at the cost of making the lesser used languages and vocabulary harder to access. Language attrition, like language acquisition, is a matter of EXPOSITION and USE.

L1 attrition is often seen in bi(tri, etc)linguals and especially in people who move abroad and don't get to use their L1 often.

The most blatant manifestation of language attrition we can see here is Frenglish speakers. Next time you converse with a Frenglish speaker, ask them to redo the whole sentence in French and watch them struggle to retrieve the proper words even though French is their L1. Frenglish speakers foster Frenglish speakers by increasing and solidifying the EXPOSITION and the USE of English words over their French counterpart. That's aside from the fact that the rules of communication dictate that to be understood, 2 people have to use the same code, which encourages further the use of Frenglish among Frenglish speakers. That's why, dozens of years later, we still use English terminology for all things mechanic and tools. It has become harder to understand what people refer to when they use the French terminology for those things. Again, a matter of exposition.

Over generations, this causes permanent language loss.

So where does French prominence on signs come into play? It's about exposition. French prominence on signs ensures that French is the language the most readily seen and as such, increases the chances that it will be the one used. People want a name for things, they will pick the first thing they see, because people are lazy. That's how we got English speakers to use "Dépanneur" over "Convenience store" ;)

        – That Nerdy Girl Who Is Skinny

Ups and Downs of English in Montreal

The issue of English increasing its presence on commercial signs in the Montreal area has come periodically to the forefront. French lobbies have been active in filing complaints with the OQLF. In 2009-10, 39.1% of the complaints filed at the OQLF dealt with the language of commercial signs, up from 26.4% in 2008-09 (OQLF, 2010: 70) and 10.5% in 2006-2007 (OQLF, 2007: XIII).

A series of reports on the language of commercial signs in Montreal made public by the OQLF on 1 June 2012 went almost unnoticed, since it was released in the wake of massive student protests and social unrest. It should not come as a surprise that these reports were published at a time when they would pass almost unnoticed. For indeed their findings tend to confirm the apprehensions of those complaining that English is coming back in force in the Montreal area (see testimonies posted on French language advocacy sites such as vigile.net and imperatif-francais.org).

According to this 2012 report, in 1997 and 2010 French was present on respectively 96% and 94% of business names and signs; this means a slight decrease of the presence of French on commercial signs in the whole Montreal area from 1997 to 2010 and it is statistically significant (OQLF, 2012b: 39). In 2010 some 82% of signs posted on shops and businesses were in French only, some 3% were bilingual but with a marked predominance given to French. The OQLF report acknowledges that French is indeed predominant in the linguistic landscape of Montreal; and in some areas it is even the only language used on commercial signs (OQLF, 2012b: 41). However in the West Island area 11% of commercial signs have no French wording (OQLF, 2012b: 44).

The OQLF report also concludes that English is “stable” on commercial signs though its presence went down from 43% in 1997 to 41% in 2010 (OQLF, 2012b: 9-10). The statement that the presence of English is stable is dubious and even misleading considering that from 43% in 1997 it went up to 49% in 1999 and then down to 41% in 2010. The figures rather show that English is far from being stable and suggest that it might indeed be retreating. These figures are not concealed but the report prefers to play down this potential decrease of English on commercial signs. Such behaviour is puzzling and one may wonder why the OQLF prefers not to highlight this relative decrease in the presence of English in a context where this agency is frequently reproached to be weak in its defence of French. The explanation for this behaviour might be that it was not socially and politically acceptable to suggest that English might be less present on commercial signage. Especially at a time when the linguistic insecurity of French-speaking Montrealers ran high and when other reports published simultaneously attested to a decrease in the use of French (see my post on the use of French in attending customers in shops and retail stores). Moreover it should be reminded that the report was published in a pre-electoral climate (elections were called a few weeks later on 1 August 2012) and that English speakers and more generally people who do not have French as their native language constitute the hard core of the Quebec Liberal Party electorate (so much so that political opinion poll data are regularly disaggregated between native speakers of French and native speakers of all other languages). It should therefore not come as a surprise that the then Liberal government (and the sovereignist Official Opposition) would choose to play down this relative decrease in the use of English.

The 2010 survey was updated in 2012 but only for a section of downtown Montreal (St.-Catherine Street between Papineau and Atwater). The scope of this new survey was restricted to business names. The OQLF found that 81.7% of businesses complied with the requirements of Bill 101 while 18.3% did not (OQLF, 2012c: 25). But according to a survey made the same year by Radio-Canada in the same section of downtown Montreal and with the same target, more than 25% of business names did not comply with Bill 101 (Faits et Causes, 2012). It is reasonable to assume that the figures given by the OQLF survey are more accurate owing to the agency legal expertise, whereas the Radio-Canada findings would be more consistent with popular feeling.

_________

For references, see preceding posts.

The Language of Commercial Signs

The language of commercial signs, or more exactly the place of French on commercial signs, is an issue that has been rampant since at least the 1960’s. From 1977 when Bill 101 was passed till 1993, French was the only language to be used on commercial signs (there were exceptions for signs advertizing cultural activities, for ethnic shops, for political or religious messages, etc., see Maurais 1989: 146). This French-only policy was deemed necessary because it was to symbolize, in the eyes of all, that linguistic change was under way and that French was regaining ground.

These provisions were challenged before the courts and in 1993 Québec’s National Assembly passed a new law allowing for bilingual (or multilingual) commercial signs provided that French was given a marked predominance. This concept of a marked predominance of French was suggested and approved of by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1988 ruling though it did not define it. Neither did the law passed in 1993, which simply states that “Public signs and posters and commercial advertising must be in French. They may also be both in French and in another language provided that French is markedly predominant [...]” (section 58 of R.S.Q., chapter C-11; 1993, c. 40, s. 18). In practice French is deemed markedly predominant when messages in French are twice as numerous or written in characters twice as large as in any other language.

The issue of English increasing its presence on commercial signs in the Montreal area has come periodically to the forefront. French lobbies have been active in filing complaints with the OQLF. In 2009-10, 39.1 % of the complaints filed at the OQLF dealt with the language of commercial signs, up from 26.4 % in 2008-09 (OQLF, 2010: 70) and 10.5% in 2006-2007 (OQLF, 2007: XIII).

To be continued…

________________

Maurais 1989 = Maurais, Jacques (1989), Language Status Planning in Quebec. In Christer Laurén and Marianne Nordman (eds.), Special Language: From Humans Thinking to Thinking Machines. Clevedon UK and Philadelphia USA: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 138-149.

OQLF, 2007 = Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) (2007), Rapport annuel de gestion 2006-2007. Montreal: Office.

OQLF, 2010 = Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) (2010), Rapport annuel de gestion 2009-2010. Montreal: Office.

Some Thoughts on Language Politics and Regional Integration

Michael A. Morris, emeritus professor at Clemson University (South Carolina), has recently published Language Politics of Regional Integration: Cases from the Americas (Palgrave Macmillan US, 2016).

In a world globalising across boundaries and cultures, where economic interdependence increases dramatically, languages may come to be seen as non-tariff barriers to free-trade flow. Assessments need to be made of the measures taken by various states and/or implemented through particular free-trade treaties to manage (be it implicitly or covertly) the relationships between the de facto imperial lingua franca and various national languages not to mention aboriginal languages. Economic forces and, it must be added, also military alliances and intelligence networks (like the so-called Echelon or Five Eyes network which includes only English-speaking states) promote the dominance of English. Inevitably tensions and conflicts arise at various levels and they need be analysed.

In his book Michael A. Morris sets out to rate a number of cases of language politics in the Americas with the help of a multi-level analysis. He compares various North and South American groupings and whenever possible introduces parallels with extra-American groupings (in particular the European Union). His aim is to provide a conciliatory strategy allowing consensus to be forged and tensions lessened. His book is a tool that could help reduce or solve problems arising from a hegemonic lifestyle imposed at the expense of biodiversity and cultural diversity.

Whereas a country like Canada imposes Canadian content quotas on cultural productions (and quotas on the use of French songs on radio), one should be reminded that cultural protectionism is not exclusive to Canada: the US practice of film remakes is a clear example of cultural protectionism favouring the Hollywood film industry. This instance of a covert cultural and linguistic policy shows a lack of respect for cultural diversity. In most countries films in foreign languages are either dubbed or subtitled.

But even greater social forces are at play and jeopardise the promotion of various national languages or even the preservation of most aboriginal languages in a context where parents tend to see the use of the ancestral tongue as hindering social upward mobility.

Bonjour! Hi!

Language Used in Greeting Customers in Shops and Retail Stores

In 2010 the OQLF (Office québécois de la langue française) carried on a survey in downtown Montreal on the language in which customers were greeted.

This survey was replicated in 2012 but on a smaller scale. Its scope was restricted to downtown St.-Catherine Street (between Papineau and Atwater).

Results show a significant decrease over a two-year period in the use of French as the only language to greet customers in shops and retail stores, from 89% in 2010 down to 73% in 2012. Curiously enough, this finding is not mentioned in the summary published by the OQLF (OQLF, 2012a: 5 where the figure given is 74% for 2012 and the 2010 figure is omitted).

There is a corresponding increase in the use of bilingual greetings from 1% in 2010 up to 14% 2012. However there was no difference in the impossibility to get services in French over this two-year period (OQLF, 2012b: 16 and 22). These findings lend weight to the popular perception that the overall use of French in Montreal is indeed decreasing.

________

OQLF, 2012a, Bilan de l’évolution de la situation linguistique au Québec, Langue du commerce et des affaires, Faits saillants. Montreal: Office.

OQLF, 2012b, La langue d’accueil, de service et d’affichage des noms d’entreprise des commerces de détail du centre-ville de Montréal en 2012 selon les observations. Montreal: Office.

Dangerous Liaisons at Downton Abbey

 –This text was first published in French on 21 February 2014 –

In one episode of season 4 of Downton Abbey, Lady Mary is heard to say: “papa r’and mama”.

This kind of linking phenomenon is called “intrusive R”. It appears after the vowels /ɑ:/, /ə/ or /ɔ:/ when followed by a word beginning with a vowel sound:

China ^rand India

law ^rand order

pasta ^rand sauce

This linking R can even be heard within a word between a root morpheme and a suffix as in draw^ring room.

This kind of sandhi is a characteristic of Estuary English, the variety of English spoken along the Thames river and estuary though it reaches beyond.

It seems that intrusive R comes from the popular speech of London. Here is Márton Sóskuthy’s conclusion of his synthesis on the emergence of intrusive R:

All sources from before 1870 describe the phenomenon as a vulgar feature of Cockney pronunciation that should be avoided, as opposed to sources from around the turn of the 20th century, which all admit that it is present even in the pronunciation of educated speakers, and take a much less negative attitude towards it.

According to sociolinguist Peter Trudgill, intrusive R is now part of standard English pronunciation.

A similar phenomenon exists in Quebec French, especially as spoken in Montreal: it is intrusive L, as in ça l’arrive souvent. According to linguist Yves-Charles Morin who published a study on linking L the frequency of non etymological L’s might depend on social class (this pronunciation might be heard more frequently in impoverished neighbourhoods) and perhaps also on age and geographical origin (this pronunciation seems to be peculiar to Montreal French, at least it seems to have started there).

In Quebec French intrusive L is stigmatised whereas in British English intrusive R is now considered standard.

Which Standard Language for Quebec?

The “Quality of Language” Issue (Corpus Planning)

The Charter of the French Language stipulates that French is the official language of Quebec (section 1). But it says nothing about which variety of French should form the basis of its norm. It has been commonly assumed that it was the variety described in the most commonly used dictionaries and grammars (former deputy minister Jean-Claude Corbeil, personal communication). At the time the Official Language Law (1972) and the Charter of the French Language (1977) were passed, this meant essentially dictionaries and grammars made by Europeans and published in Europe (Commission des états généraux, 2001: 81). In litigious cases where there was no consensus on which term was to be used in French or when there was no agreement on what the proper translation was for an English term or phrase, Quebec’s language agency, the Régie de la langue française (the name of the language agency from 1972 to 1977), explained in 1976 (Régie, 1976: 9) that it was empowered by the law to officialise a French equivalent and make its use compulsory in certain circumstances (in state documents, in public advertising, in textbooks, etc.).

Nevertheless allowing French to become Quebec’s official, common, and working language has meant an increased preoccupation with social and regional variation. A debate developed on which kind of French should be the official one: was it to be the international standard historically based on Parisian French but increasingly tolerant of local peculiarities (as evidenced by the introduction of many ‘Belgicisms’, ‘Quebecisms’, ‘Africanisms’, etc., in the major dictionaries published in Paris)? Or was Quebec to establish its own standard variety placed at the pinnacle of a series of hierarchised colloquial registers (as proposed by the Conseil de la langue française, 1990: 30 and 50 and in various papers by Cajolet-Laganière and Martel, e.g. 1996)?

For those adhering to the second proposal, Quebec French is considered as an autonomous language variety possessing its own standard, a standard that is said to reflect the linguistic uses of the new French-speaking middle class, which arose after World War II (Gendron, 1986). As linguist Jean-Denis Gendron (1986: 95) adds, this new predominant linguistic standard appears in public and official discourses, both spoken and written. In 1990, the Conseil de la langue française proposed to launch a comprehensive description of Quebec French uses (at times abbreviated as... FUQ ‘français en usage au Québec’), including standard uses. This led to the creation of the Franqus project based at the Université de Sherbrooke; the project has received substantial funding from the state (more than $3 M as of 2005, cf. Meney, 2005).

Others propose to view the linguistic situation of Quebec as diglossical (e.g. Lamonde, 1998: 96-103; Barbaud, 1998; Maurais, 2008a, chapter 1; Meney, 2010). Typically, diglossia means a situation where two language varieties are in contact, each of them having certain spheres of social interaction assigned to it. The relationship between the two language varieties is hierarchical: one has high, the other has low prestige. According to this view, the high variety in Quebec would be ‘international French’, used for example in official, commercial, and scientific communications, while the low variety would be Quebec colloquial French used mainly but not exclusively in non formal circumstances (see the discussion by Meney, 2010: 102-122, esp. p. 106).

There is therefore a two-fold division on the topic of which linguistic norm should be favoured: on the one hand, those who hold that international standard French should be the variety taught in schools; on the other hand, ‘endogenists’ who propose that Quebec should officialise its own linguistic norm. ‘Endogenists’ have maintained for years that there is a consensus among Quebec linguists and the general public on an endo-normative standard (e.g. Commission des états généraux, 2001: 84 and Conseil de la langue française, 1990).

A proposal was sent to the 2008 sovereignist Parti québécois convention asking that ‘the teaching of French should be reoriented toward the acquisition of spoken and written standard Quebec French’ (quoted by Paquot, 2009). Linguist Annette Paquot intervened in the media before the proposal was discussed at the convention (Paquot, 2008). She pointed out that the proposed new standard differs only marginally from the established international norm (mainly easily understandable lexical items) and that even supporters of this new standard write their books and publish their papers in international standard French (Paquot, 2008 and 2009). The Parti Québécois convention finally made no move since promoting a new language standard in schools was clearly not supported by public opinion (this is of course reminiscent of the ‘Oakland Ebonics controversy’ in the USA).

The rejection of the proposal on standard Quebec French by the 2008 Parti Québécois convention shows that there is obviously no consensus on the adoption of an endo-normative standard in the public at large. Moreover many prominent linguists (e.g. Barbaud, Meney, Nemni, Paquot) disagree on the existence of the consensus peremptorily proclaimed in some official reports. Admittedly the opponents just mentioned are foreign-born but many native Quebecers also discourage the establishment of a local norm (for instance opinion leaders Lysiane Gagnon at the daily La Presse and Denise Bombardier at Le Devoir). Also, this raises the issue of the discrimination that a new standard could bring to immigrant citizens, a great number of whom are selected by the Department of Immigration on the criterion that they already have a working knowledge of French – a knowledge usually acquired abroad at school where the only variety of French taught is ‘international French’. This argument was developed by Maurais (2008b) who advised choosing the standard that would create the least discrimination.

The absence of a consensus on a new local linguistic norm is also evidenced by the results of opinion polls: in surveys done in 1998 and 2004 about half the respondents felt that they spoke Québécois while the other half felt that they spoke French (Maurais, 2008a: 19).

On the basis of the opinion poll results published by Maurais (2008a), it has been argued by Paquot (2009) and by Meney (2010) that if there is at all a consensus on the linguistic variety to be taught in Quebec’s schools, it does not tend to support the claim made by the proponents of an autonomous norm. Quite the reverse: 76.8% of respondents (all native French-speakers born in Quebec) think that international French should be the standard variety taught in schools while 88.3% think that it is advisable that reference books used in schools (such as grammars and dictionaries) should be the same in all French-speaking countries.

Despite the above, the OQLF’s Grand Dictionnaire Terminologique (Grand Terminological Dictionary, hereafter GDT) has maintained its new orientation adopted in the early 2000's, which favours the acceptance of colloquial words (including loan-words and loan-translations). The GDT merely tags them with the label “langue courante”, but this is not done systematically. This approach, in its core more lexicographical than terminological, was denounced in a manifesto by 19 former OQLF’s terminologists. These terminologists were supported by more than a hundred other terminologists, translators and copy-editors (Manifesto, 2011; for a critical assessment of the GDT, see Meney, 2010: 405-443).

All in all, the debate over which variety of French should prevail still goes on but supporters of ‘international French’ have made headway and the former chairperson of the Conseil supérieur de la langue française Conrad Ouellon declared his preference for international French (CSLF, 2010: 2).

_______

Bibliography

Barbaud, Philippe (1998), Dissidence du français québécois et évolution dialectale. Revue québécoise de linguistique 26/2, 107-128.

Cajolet-Laganière, Hélène and Pierre Martel (1996), Le français québécois: usages, standard et aménagement. Quebec City: Presses de l’Université Laval and Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture.

Commission des états généraux (2001), Le français, une langue pour tout le monde.

Conseil de la langue française (1990), L’aménagement de la langue: pour une description du français québécois. Quebec City: Conseil.

CSLF (Conseil supérieur de la langue française) (2010), Rapport annuel de gestion 2009-

2010. Quebec City: Conseil.

Gendron, Jean-Denis (1986), Aperçu historique sur le développement de la conscience linguistique des Québécois, Québec français 61, 82-89.

Lamonde, Diane (1998), Le maquignon et son joual, l’aménagement du français québécois. Montreal: Liber.

Manifesto (2011): Au-delà des mots, les termes, Le Devoir, 12 February 2011 and Le Soleil’s online edition, 14 February 2011.

Maurais, Jacques (2008a), Les Québécois et la norme, l’évaluation par les Québécois de leurs usages linguistiques. Montreal: Office québécois de la langue française.

Maurais, Jacques (2008b), Le français correct plutôt que le français québécois, Le Soleil, Quebec City, 1 November 2008.

Meney, Lionel (2005), Un autre dictionnaire québécois, pourquoi? Le Devoir, 7 January 2005.

Meney, Lionel (2010), Main basse sur la langue, Montreal: Liber.

Paquot, Annette (2008), Non à la ‘langue québécoise standard’, Le Devoir, Montreal, 12 March 2008.

Paquot, Annette (2009), Pourquoi notre langue doit rester le français international, Argument 11/1.

Régie de la langue française (1976), La normalisation terminologique. Montreal: Official Printer of Quebec.

5th Anniversary of a Manifesto

On 12 February 2011 the Montreal-based daily newspaper Le Devoir published a manifesto written by nine former terminologists at the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF, French Language Bureau). In the following days the first signers were joined by ten other former OQLF’s terminologists. They were eventually supported by more than a hundred other terminologists, translators and copy-editors.

This manifesto denounced the OQLF’s new orientation adopted in the early 2000’s and favouring acceptance of loan-words and loan-translations over proper standard terms already in use in French. The joint signers argued that the new approach is in its core more lexicographical than terminological. They complained that the OQLF had given up its time-proven methodology. They also questioned the appearance in a terminological dictionary of colloquial words; it could be added that the tag “langue courante” – colloquial language –, already an oddity in such a specialised work, is not even systematically appended to them.

Five years later, the OQLF has not modified its approach. Its terminological dictionary (GDT, Grand Dictionnaire Terminologique) continues to propose loan-translations that have long been criticised, for example these word-for-word translations from English: comptoir de cuisine (< kitchen countertop, instead of plan de travail), glace noire (< black ice, instead of verglas), etc.

Compared with the GDT, Google’s automatic translator would appear almost as reliable, providing at times the same word-for-word translations, as evidenced by these examples:

In the latter case, Google’s automatic translator is even more reliable than the GDT. Besides the word-for-word translation of black ice as glace noire, it suggests the standard word verglas:

As a matter of fact, over the years the OQLF chose to correct only the most obvious spelling or grammatical mistakes that have been pointed out to them. That is indeed the least that could be expected from Quebec’s language watch dog.

Cause Célèbre, or just one more petty case of mean Québec bashing?

On 21 December 2015 Toronto’s Globe and Mail published an editorial that is ultimately another example of Quebec bashing, be it soft bashing in this case. It ridiculed the proposal made by a French language defence group, ASULF, to pronounce à la française initials used in proper nouns, asking for instance the initials in P.K. Subban’s name to be pronounced Pay Ka, not Pee Kay.

Here are some passages of this editorial followed by the reply made by ASULF founder and former president. This reply has still not been published by the sheet that prides itself as being Canada’s national daily newspaper.

Last week’s linguistic cause célèbre surrounding the pronunciation of the name of a Montreal Canadiens hockey player is not exactly a scandal. No one is calling it Subbangate. But it is still instructive about the absurdities of Quebec’s language-law regime.

The hockey player in question is P.K. Subban, the all-star defenceman known to everyone as “Pee-kay” – the English pronunciation of his initials.

[...]

The Association pour le soutien et l’usage de la langue française (ASULF) wrote a letter to French-language sports commentators asking that they start pronouncing Mr. Subban’s initials based on the French alphabet. In other words, Pee-kay becomes Pay-ka.

ASULF framed its request as constructive criticism. We’d call it a publicity stunt, something groups like ASULF pull when Quebec’s language wars fall too quiet for their liking. It’s a neat trick singling out Mr. Subban, too, because he is immensely popular in Montreal and any story involving him gets good play.

But, really? Mr. Subban’s name is P.K. If it was Peter, would ASULF insist he be called Pierre?

And what are we getting at here, anyway? The mispronunciation of the French, English, Russian, Swedish, Czech and Finnish names of NHL hockey players is as Canadian as wheat.

*   *   *

The Editor

The Globe and Mail

444 Front St. West

Toronto,  ON    M5V 2S9

Re : Pay Ka and Pee Kay SUBBAN

                                                          

                                                          

Dear Sir:

A friend of mine sent to me a few days ago your editorial dated December 20th, 2015 concerning P.K. Subban. So, I am a little bit late to send my comments on your article. Nevertheless, I think it worthwhile writing now.

What a surprise! A great Canadian newspaper of Toronto (imitating The Montreal Gazette?) is asking the question : “P.K. Subban: Is that Pee-kay? Pay-Ka? Pfft.” How comes such a question? Everybody who speaks English says Pee-Kay. There is no reason at all to question this usual pronunciation in English.

To have an answer, we must read your article. We discover, after a few lines, that it is an ordinary invitation, made by the ASULF to the French-speaking population, to pronounce in French the abbreviation (two letters of the alphabet) of the first names Pernell Karl, when they speak that language. Curiously, this invitation addressed to the French-speaking community has become a subject of scandal and mockery in some English medias with an aggressive tone against the nationalists in Québec.

Frankly, we cannot conceive that you blame our association for having invited the French community to pronounce the letters of their own alphabet according to the common practice in French. Are you going to tell us how to speak French? It would be the height of absurdity. Is there a hidden motive to explain such aggressiveness? Moreover, did you really think that your readership was interested by such a subject?

I hope that you would have never written such a caustic editorial and ridiculed our group in a great newspaper like yours, had you been well-informed about the objective of our association founded 30 years ago, its means of action and the nature of its suggestion concerning the initials of Mr. Subban. I would bet that your Montreal correspondent had never seen or heard the word ASULF before. Here are some pertinent facts for your information.

First of all, our association is the only one whose sole objective is the promotion of a French language of quality. It has nothing to do with the defense of the legal status of that language. Some other groups do that. If you read the enclosed leaflet, you will see that this fact was recognized by the Conseil supérieur de la langue française. Moreover, if you cast a look on our main interventions in the past, you will see that they have absolutely nothing to do with the English language or the English-speaking people. They concern the quality of the French language spoken or written in our community, period. So, our recent suggestion is not “instructive about the absurdities of Québec’s language-law regime”, as you write.

I also point out that Asulf is not “one French-language rights group” as you write, because our association deals with quality (linguistics) and not rights (politics). Is it clear? So, our message was not “a publicity stunt”, as you write, but a “constructive criticism”.

At the beginning of our association in 1986, there were still few people in some parts of Canada arguing that the Quebecois did not speak pure French, but something close to a dialect. It was a poor excuse for them not to learn our uninteresting idiom. The objective of our association was then very pertinent. You agree?

Even if it means repeating myself, I invite you to remember the difference between the pronunciation of a name and the pronunciation of the abbreviation of that name represented by a letter of the alphabet. When we criticize the pronunciation of Pee and Kay in French, we are aiming at two letters of the alphabet and not the names behind these letters. According to our point of view, Mr. Subban having not been informed correctly by the English-speaking medias, we wrote to him on that question. A copy of that letter is enclosed, it could help you.

You wonder on what would be the answer of Asulf if Subban was named Peter. Would it be Pierre? Not at all. You are asking that question after having written that “Mr. Subban’s name is P.K.” What a confusion! P.K. is not a name, it is the abbreviation of two first names. Now, to answer your question, we would say logically Peter like we say Pernell, but we would pronounce, in French, Pay for the letter P. in both cases. It’s so simple!

While ending this letter, I am thinking a moment to the leader of the Opposition in Québec, Pierre Karl Péladeau. If you call him Pee-Kay, I won’t tell you what to say.

                Yours truly,

               

RA/ac                Robert AUCLAIR 

c.c.   Letter to Mr. Subban 

        Leaflet Asulf

Presentation

In this blog I aim to fight against some misconceptions about language, especially stereotypes concerning French in Quebec, its status and how it is spoken.

My inspiration stems from two sources: firstly Geoffrey K. Pullum, a professor at Edinburgh University whose language chronicles were collected in 1991 in the book The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax, and Other Irreverent Essays on the Study of Language (University of Chicago Press).

The name of my blog – Linguistically Correct – reveals my second source of inspiration, Jean Sévilla’s book Historiquement correct, Pour en finir avec le passé unique; that is: Historically Correct, To get over with one-sided visions of past (Paris, Perrin, 2003).

Posts will be uploaded on an irregular basis.