What is the real force of attraction of French in Quebec? A critical analysis of the improvement of the situation of French observed in 2001: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
At first glance, the 2001 census indicates an unexpected improvement of the situation of French in Quebec. The increase of the French-speaking population on the island of Montreal, in particular, differs to such an extent from the demographic forecasts that a meticulous examination of the data becomes essential. Is the progress made visible by Statistique Canada real or the result of the changes made to the questionnaire used for the survey conducted by the federal agency every five years? | At first glance, the 2001 census indicates an unexpected improvement of the situation of French in Quebec. The increase of the French-speaking population on the island of Montreal, in particular, differs to such an extent from the demographic forecasts that a meticulous examination of the data becomes essential. Is the progress made visible by Statistique Canada real or the result of the changes made to the questionnaire used for the survey conducted by the federal agency every five years? | ||
To properly evaluate the trends at work, it is necessary to follow the evolution of the data before and after the two modifications, in 1991 and 2001, of the census questionnaire. These modifications can compromise the comparability of the data from one survey to the next. | |||
Moreover, what should be more important to judge the evolution of the situation of French is the comparative vitality of the languages or, as we could say, their respective force of attraction. For example, a rise of the number of French-speaking people on the island of Montreal is not in itself an indication of the vitality of French if this rise is ascribable to the settlement in the metropolis of French-speaking suburbanites who are just returning to the city. | |||
==The vitality of languages== | ==The vitality of languages== | ||
The intrinsic vitality of a language in contact with other languages is measured by the linguistic persistence of its native speakers and by its capacity of attraction toward the speakers of the other languages. In the private space, it is possible to evaluate the vitality of French by comparing the French as mother tongue population with the French as language of use population. Insofar as the keeping or the adoption of French as usual language in the privacy of home reflects its prestige and its utility at work and at the market, this comparison also indirectly informs us about its vitality in the public space. It is the same for English and the other languages. | |||
From 1971 to 1986, French showed a rather poor vitality. With the introduction, in 1991, of a reorganized questionnaire, it suddenly became appreciable: a net gain of 66 145 new speakers of French at home, a number in obvious rupture of comparability with the former series. The additional gain of 22 499 recruits between 1991 and 1996, recorded with a unit of linguistic questions that had not changed by a comma, makes it possible to estimate that the sudden vitality recorded in 1991 resulted for a good part from the recasting of the questionnaire. | |||
The interpretation of the subsequent progress of 27 718 new speakers of French as usual language between 1996 and 2001 is a problem for a similar reason. What share of this accelerated growth emanates from a real rise of the vitality of French and what share is explained by the modifications made to the 2001 questionnaire? The incidence of these last modifications, in particular the new priority given to "French" over "English" in the wording of the linguistic questions, is not negligible. | |||
We can deepen the appreciation of the vitality of French by examining the linguistic persistence of French-speaking people and the relative attraction of French in comparison to English toward allophones [speakers of languages other than French or English]. Therefrom the importance of the analysis of "linguistic transfers" - which sociolinguists more precisely describe as "linguistic substitutions" - in the mandate, unaccomplished on this point, of the Larose commission. | |||
==The trend of the shifts== | ==The trend of the shifts== | ||
Before the questionnaire was altered in 1991, the number of nets transfers from French to English (the number of French-speaking people, mother tongue, who declared English as language of use minus the number of English-speaking likewise francized) was substantial, even increased from 1971 to 1986. Thereafter, the comparability was broken: the questionnaire of 1991 reduced these transfers to almost nothing. | |||
In addition, the questionnaire of 1991 produced an improbable increase in the nets transfers among the allophone population, of which an about equal number of additional transfers toward French (42,267) and English (43,780), which made its relative rate of Francization jump by 9,9 percent. The subsequent progression of four percent between 1991 and 1996, recorded with an unchanged questionnaire, shows that more than half of the sudden increase between 1986 and 1991 was ascribable to the change in the instrument of observation, in other words that it was artificial. | |||
The modified questions of 2001 caused a new jump of 5,9 percent for the rate of relative Francization. In the light of the values obtained for the 1991-96 period, approximately two of these percentage points would be ascribable to the changes made to the 2001 questionnaire of 2001, therefore, artificial. | |||
All things considered, according to the data for the whole period, the relative Francization of allophones would have passed from 27,4 to 45,7%, that is to say a rise of 18,3 percent in 30 years. On the whole, however, eight of these points of percentage, of which six in 1991 and two in 2001, would arise from the modification of the questionnaire. | |||
==The effect of the duration of the stay== | ==The effect of the duration of the stay== | ||
According to certain studies submitted to the Larose commission, the relative Francization of a given group of allophone immigrants allophones increases according to the duration of their stay, generally in the area of Montreal. Actually, the evolution of relative Francization between 1991 and 1996 - the only recent censuses for which the data are comparable - does not indicate in this respect any significant longitudinal tendency, the rate evolving slightly and, according to the group, sometimes on the rise, sometimes on the fall. | |||
In addition to this, anglicized allophones are more likely than francized allophones to leave Quebec to migrate elsewhere to Canada. This migratory sifting causes a raise in the rate of relative Francization among the members of immigrants groups who still reside in Quebec. Thus, a part, if not the totality, of a small progression of the relative Francization of a given group between two censuses is due to this linguistic sifting rather than to the effect of the stay in Montreal in itself. | |||
==The language of work== | ==The language of work== | ||
Revision as of 01:33, 16 February 2007
This is an unofficial translation of an article entitled Quelle est la force d'attraction réelle du français au Québec? Analyse critique de l'amélioration de la situation du français observée en 2001 Le Devoir mercredi 10 décembre 2003
Without the change in the composition of immigration, the vitality of French would have shown an extremely modest improvement
The integral version of this new study is to be found in L'Annuaire du Québec 2004, [a directory] which draws up an assessment of Quebec in the social, economic, political and cultural fields and is available in bookshop as of today.
At first glance, the 2001 census indicates an unexpected improvement of the situation of French in Quebec. The increase of the French-speaking population on the island of Montreal, in particular, differs to such an extent from the demographic forecasts that a meticulous examination of the data becomes essential. Is the progress made visible by Statistique Canada real or the result of the changes made to the questionnaire used for the survey conducted by the federal agency every five years?
To properly evaluate the trends at work, it is necessary to follow the evolution of the data before and after the two modifications, in 1991 and 2001, of the census questionnaire. These modifications can compromise the comparability of the data from one survey to the next.
Moreover, what should be more important to judge the evolution of the situation of French is the comparative vitality of the languages or, as we could say, their respective force of attraction. For example, a rise of the number of French-speaking people on the island of Montreal is not in itself an indication of the vitality of French if this rise is ascribable to the settlement in the metropolis of French-speaking suburbanites who are just returning to the city.
The vitality of languages
The intrinsic vitality of a language in contact with other languages is measured by the linguistic persistence of its native speakers and by its capacity of attraction toward the speakers of the other languages. In the private space, it is possible to evaluate the vitality of French by comparing the French as mother tongue population with the French as language of use population. Insofar as the keeping or the adoption of French as usual language in the privacy of home reflects its prestige and its utility at work and at the market, this comparison also indirectly informs us about its vitality in the public space. It is the same for English and the other languages.
From 1971 to 1986, French showed a rather poor vitality. With the introduction, in 1991, of a reorganized questionnaire, it suddenly became appreciable: a net gain of 66 145 new speakers of French at home, a number in obvious rupture of comparability with the former series. The additional gain of 22 499 recruits between 1991 and 1996, recorded with a unit of linguistic questions that had not changed by a comma, makes it possible to estimate that the sudden vitality recorded in 1991 resulted for a good part from the recasting of the questionnaire.
The interpretation of the subsequent progress of 27 718 new speakers of French as usual language between 1996 and 2001 is a problem for a similar reason. What share of this accelerated growth emanates from a real rise of the vitality of French and what share is explained by the modifications made to the 2001 questionnaire? The incidence of these last modifications, in particular the new priority given to "French" over "English" in the wording of the linguistic questions, is not negligible.
We can deepen the appreciation of the vitality of French by examining the linguistic persistence of French-speaking people and the relative attraction of French in comparison to English toward allophones [speakers of languages other than French or English]. Therefrom the importance of the analysis of "linguistic transfers" - which sociolinguists more precisely describe as "linguistic substitutions" - in the mandate, unaccomplished on this point, of the Larose commission.
The trend of the shifts
Before the questionnaire was altered in 1991, the number of nets transfers from French to English (the number of French-speaking people, mother tongue, who declared English as language of use minus the number of English-speaking likewise francized) was substantial, even increased from 1971 to 1986. Thereafter, the comparability was broken: the questionnaire of 1991 reduced these transfers to almost nothing.
In addition, the questionnaire of 1991 produced an improbable increase in the nets transfers among the allophone population, of which an about equal number of additional transfers toward French (42,267) and English (43,780), which made its relative rate of Francization jump by 9,9 percent. The subsequent progression of four percent between 1991 and 1996, recorded with an unchanged questionnaire, shows that more than half of the sudden increase between 1986 and 1991 was ascribable to the change in the instrument of observation, in other words that it was artificial.
The modified questions of 2001 caused a new jump of 5,9 percent for the rate of relative Francization. In the light of the values obtained for the 1991-96 period, approximately two of these percentage points would be ascribable to the changes made to the 2001 questionnaire of 2001, therefore, artificial.
All things considered, according to the data for the whole period, the relative Francization of allophones would have passed from 27,4 to 45,7%, that is to say a rise of 18,3 percent in 30 years. On the whole, however, eight of these points of percentage, of which six in 1991 and two in 2001, would arise from the modification of the questionnaire.
The effect of the duration of the stay
According to certain studies submitted to the Larose commission, the relative Francization of a given group of allophone immigrants allophones increases according to the duration of their stay, generally in the area of Montreal. Actually, the evolution of relative Francization between 1991 and 1996 - the only recent censuses for which the data are comparable - does not indicate in this respect any significant longitudinal tendency, the rate evolving slightly and, according to the group, sometimes on the rise, sometimes on the fall.
In addition to this, anglicized allophones are more likely than francized allophones to leave Quebec to migrate elsewhere to Canada. This migratory sifting causes a raise in the rate of relative Francization among the members of immigrants groups who still reside in Quebec. Thus, a part, if not the totality, of a small progression of the relative Francization of a given group between two censuses is due to this linguistic sifting rather than to the effect of the stay in Montreal in itself.
The language of work
La commission Gendron (1972) a souligné la fonction essentielle de la langue de travail dans le processus de francisation ou d'anglicisation des immigrants allophones. Aussi les lois 22 et 101 avaient-elles toutes deux comme objectif de faire du français la langue de travail habituelle, notamment dans la région de Montréal. Les données de recensement sur la langue principale de travail, recueillies pour la première fois en 2001, confirment la pertinence de cette analyse.
Dans la région de Montréal, les deux tiers (67,3 %) des transferts nets à l'anglais effectués à la maison par les travailleurs francophones sont associés à l'utilisation de l'anglais comme langue principale au travail. Le lien est tout aussi évident en ce qui a trait aux travailleurs allophones. Parmi ceux qui travaillent principalement en français, 69,3 % des transferts nets effectués vont au français. À l'inverse, parmi ceux qui travaillent principalement en anglais, 88,2 % des transferts nets déclarés vont à l'anglais.
Par ailleurs, le rayonnement de l'anglais comme langue principale de travail à Montréal domine largement celui du français. Le nombre de Montréalais qui travaillent principalement en français dépasse de 27 295 l'effectif des travailleurs francophones alors que le nombre de ceux qui travaillent principalement en anglais excède de 136 832 celui des travailleurs anglophones, soit un surplus cinq fois supérieur à celui du français. De fait, les francophones qui travaillent principalement en anglais sont presque deux fois plus nombreux que les anglophones qui travaillent principalement en français. Et malgré que les travailleurs francophones soient plus de six fois plus nombreux que les anglophones, les allophones qui travaillent principalement en anglais sont presque aussi nombreux que ceux qui travaillent principalement en français.
Vu l'ampleur du déséquilibre linguistique observé, il paraît plausible que les contacts directs entre personnes de langues maternelles différentes dans les milieux de travail à Montréal se soldent, la majeure partie du temps, par l'usage de l'anglais comme langue commune plutôt que du français.
The real force of attraction of French
Dans le domaine privé, le recensement permet de constater avec précision que l'anglais domine toujours nettement le français comme langue commune dans les couples linguistiquement mixtes à Montréal. Le recensement n'offre, en revanche, qu'une information partielle sur la langue commune publique. Les données de 2001 révèlent néanmoins la force démesurée de l'anglais vis-à-vis du français comme langue principale de travail à Montréal, qui traduit sans doute un avantage de l'anglais sur le français dans les situations de contact entre travailleurs de langues différentes.
La supériorité de l'anglais comme langue commune est plus tranchée encore à Gatineau. Or les régions de Montréal et de Gatineau sont les principales zones de contact entre les langues au Québec. Le véritable statut du français se détermine là. Que le français soit la langue commune, publique ou privée, dans la partie massivement francophone du Québec, cela n'a pas grande signification.
Il existe ainsi un écart considérable entre la force réelle du français en situation de contact sur le terrain et le discours officiel voulant que le français soit la langue commune de la société québécoise.
Le recensement démontre en outre que le véritable moteur du progrès réel de la force d'attraction du français depuis 1971 est l'addition de nouvelles cohortes d'allophones considérablement francisés avant même d'arriver au Québec et, à l'exception de la cohorte arrivée en 1996-2001, majoritairement francotropes. Autrement dit, sans changement de composition ethnolinguistique de l'immigration, sans sélection des immigrants et sans tamisage linguistique interprovincial - et sans changement du questionnaire ! -, la vitalité du français aurait connu au mieux une amélioration fort modeste.
Il peut paraître étonnant que le fait de vivre au Québec n'exerce pas un effet de francisation plus marqué et que la durée de séjour profite aussi à l'anglicisation. Mais il semble que l'avantage de l'anglais sur le français dans le monde du travail à Montréal et dans l'univers connexe des cégeps et des universités fasse contrepoids à la francisation par la langue de scolarisation.
by Charles Castonguay
Professeur au département de mathématiques et de statistique à l'Université d'Ottawa