Quebec French vs. "Canadian" French[edit]

I'm a bit frustrated at how identity politics distorts linguistic reality and research, particularly in educational and informative publications. This includes some efforts in Wikipedia.

For example, it would be very pleasant and convenient if the name of a dialect and its Sprachraum were identical to political, i.e. national/provincial/state, boundaries. It would be wonderful if this were the case of Quebec French and Acadian French, neither of which are limited to the areas after which they were named. Also, there is no such dialect as "Canadian French"; all works containing the title only describe Quebec French with a micro-mention of Acadian French.

The ultimate references on the subject are listed below. I invite all to read them to witness the reality of the preponderance of Quebec French (disguised as Canadian French) and the misnomer of "Canadian French":

Robinson & Smith (1991) Dictionary of Canadian French; NTC. This work is actually two dictionaries: an exhaustive one on Quebec French (253pp) and a tiny supplement on Acadian French (13pp). It is therefore a misnomer, for it is a Quebec French dictionary with a separate, token 13 pages on Acadian French. No mention of any other dialects.

Dulong (1989) Dictionnaire des canadianismes; Larousse. Note that the term "canadianisme" is outdated in contemporary French; the modern term is "québécisme". Again, the title of this work is a misnomer. The work is actually a dictionary of Quebec French with a smattering of Acadian terms. In fact, the book relies on the Office de la langue française (now the Office québécois de la langue française) and uses an abbreviation for Acadianisms only. No mentions of any other dialects.

The mis/disinformative practice of changing "Quebec French" to "Canadian French" results in a denial of linguistic reality and research, regardless of what side of any identity-politics fueled debate. An article on "French in Canada" is totally justifiable. An article on "Canadian French", however, is not unless we want to fill Wikipedia with misconceptions, deep-seated preconceived notions, bias and disinformation. CJ Withers 03:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a debate for that article then, and not this template. You're probably a sepratist, and that's why you want Quebec French listed. Ardenn 04:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that you should think that way, the more so in that I am on _no_ side of the debate and am not interested in it, either. I am a language professional and researcher in linguistics contributing facts and improving the Wikipedia articles I work on. It's your choice to ignore all that has been published on Quebec French and Acadian French, be their authors from France, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, etc.; separatist or federalist or neutral. CJ Withers 04:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the template was accurate _without_ the misnomer "Canadian" French. There is no such dialect, hence, it is incorrect to list it. It is very clear that Quebec French and Acadian French are in Canada; that's why it is the first word in the line. Also, you will note that I changed "France French" [sic] to "Metropolitan French" since that is what it is from a neutral perspective. There is a desparate need for an article on Metropolitan French; we'll see if there are any takers/experts who will develop and enrich it. Btw, no one outside of Canada calls it "France French" unless they are using it as an ad-hoc term, albeit stiltedly and uncomfortably, picked up from Canadian anglophones or francophones. CJ Withers 04:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is Canadian French, it's used outside of Quebec, like in Ontario and BC. Ardenn 04:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecture. Unfortunate misnomer. What research and other documented facts are you basing your opinion on? Just because it's outside of the politcal boundaries of Quebec, doesn't qualify it as non-Quebec French or Canadian. In fact, the majority of French speakers in B.C. are born and bred Quebec francophones relocated to teach French or to work in some other field. Go figure.

Plus, there's no dialect difference among the half a million francophone Ontarians when you cross the Ottawa River, either from Grenville to Hawkesbury or from the new Gatineau to Ottawa. Same dialect, same Quebec French. In fact, if you look in my sandbox, the one on Quebec French, you'll see that I wrote in bold caps "SPRACHRAUM NEEDED"; the borders of the Quebec French dialect sprachraum are beyond those of Quebec the province. The obviously contiguous francophone areas of Ontario, the historical direct control of ALL francophone Catholic churches in Ontario by the diocese of Montreal (I know the area well, such as the villages of Plantagenêt, Orignal, Curran, etc.) and the lack of any evidence of an Ontarian dialect (or B.C. for that matter) only re-inforce the fact of Quebec French's continued dominance (media production, language regulation - O(Q)LF, etc.). And, here's the cherry on the sundae: my thesis advisor agrees, for it was her class that confirmed what I'd already known. Oh, she was a Franco-Ontarian from Embrun and an expert on language attitudes, perceptions and terminological research; and this person is NOT a separatist(!), as if this were a politcal issue. The only difference that could be observed in B.C. or Ontario would be a probably higher degree of bilingualism and or code-switching; then again, the same could be said about franco-anglo couples anywhere, francos on the West Island or anglos in Quebec City. Again, go figure. CJ Withers 05:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree with CJ Withers. It should have two pages for the same concept. Quebec French is not exclusive to Quebec, like French is not exclusive to France. Also, the french Wikipedia redirects the "Canadian French" page to "Quebec French" and the "Canadian French" page in the german Wiki is a disambiguation page between "Quebec French" and "French in Canada". LeQuantum 18:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. I've lived in a franco-ontarien community for years and there's a definitive dialect compared to Quebec (I speak French). That being said, I don't doubt that quebecois french spills over into the eastern ends of the province. Also, franco-ontarien itself is a misnomer, considering there are actually multiple forms of French in Ontario - French as the speak it in the southeast, French as they speak it in the north, French as the Metis speak it, etc. (in my experience, French as they speak it here in the Quinte region seems to be a bit different than other ontarien french communities, so maybe we count as a (sub?)dialect too. Mike Oosting (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proper term here would then be that it is a subdialect of Quebec French. It may be distinct from the subdialects of Quebec French that are spoken in Quebec or elsewhere in Ontario, but it remains part of the sprachbund that descends from the French that became the common language of New France in the 17th century rather than from Metropolitan French (which did not become the common language of French until after the French Revolution), Acadian French (which is also Canadian but has a different pedigree), or Metis French (which is also rooted in the French spoken in New France, but which has spent generations developing in a different sociocultural milieu). Though Francophones in Vanier, Vankleek Hill, or Timmins may all have their own idiosyncracies, the subdialects typically understood as 'Ontario' French are part of the same same continuum as the subdialects spoken in Quebec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.238.109 (talk) 06:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is the language spoken by Franco-Manitobans Québec French? Michael Z. 2006-11-16 17:16 Z
Also incorrect. There are multiple forms of French in Manitoba - all of which, I imagine, are a little different from Quebec French.

→—== ... vs. Newfoundland French??? (ooh, I know who's going to lose this one!) ==


Hi there.

Not to stride into linguistic politics here, but I did notice that someone had gone to the trouble of at least starting an article on Newfoundland French, so I thought that I would add it to the template here. I suspect this only adds to the argument for the use of the term Quebec French rather than Canadian French - of which I support the use of the former. AshleyMorton 00:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple geographic migration and mixture with natives and other imigrants?[edit]

My opinion (for what it's worth) is that the subject has to be simplified a bit. The problem we have to address is the normal evolution of language caused by a change in geographic location by a people from their country of origin(location where their dialect originated);then you simply add the passage of some time. The result can be a tenuous contrast in language or in some cases (with isolation from the native land) a larger or pronounced deviation from the proper form of the original langauge.The new slang would be widely known in its area of origin however when it pertains to it's mother country the slang in some specific cases can become harder interpret for the native country when trying to set a dialouge. However, the core of language the specific language will remain the same as long as consistant contact with the of linguistic origin remains active. I mean if you think about it French is based on the Latin language of early the Roman empire. I don't know any country today that speaks latin as a main language. If you can speak fluent Latin, but you cannot speak fluent French; Good luck setting a dialouge with a Frenchman who can only speak French and/or English. Take from this what will.

                                                                        --J.M.McCarthy 04:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for CJ. Withers argument about Quebec vs. Canadian dialect; the last time I checked Quebec was located within Canada. Would it be so unreasonable to name the dialect Canadian, or would you find North American French to be a stretch as well. The point is simply that your research is to critical in its symantics.Sometimes a question can have more than one correct answer.

--J.M.McCarthy 14:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a Franco-ontarian, I don't mind the term 'Canadian dialect', but the problem lies with the term also including the Acadian dialect and the Newfoundland dialect, which are all part of Canada, but fairly different. And referring the other dialects as 'Quebec french' is equally wrong, as the same dialect is spoken throughout Canada; though joualisms may be less frequent elsewhere, and regionalisms more dominant outside Quebec; just because Quebec has the most dominance, doesn't make it the sole lingua of Canada. However, nowadays the term "Canadian french" is usually associated more to the dialects outside Quebec (since most Quebeckers have pride in being Québécois vs. Canadien français), that aren't Acadian or the Newfoundland dialect.
-- As for this: "or pronounced deviation from the proper form of the original langauge" How do you define original language and proper form? Latin? Old French? Modern French dialects in France? Dialects that withhold strong archaisms of classical French? Even the parisian dialect has shifted, and to call other dialects improper forms of it, is biased. -- Io Katai 14:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While your experiance is invaluble (being that you are a Canadian native) you are not understandng the history of your own country as well as you should. I will give you a little challenge so that you can wrap your mind around a central and often lamented part of Canadian history. Look up disturbances in Qubec durring the 1960s. When you have finished your research on this matter perhaps your hypothesis will be increased in wisdom. --J.M.McCarthy 01:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speak the North American english language. In comparison to the orgin (European England the most recent origin). I speak a brocken improper slang. It doesn't bother me. It is reality. My skin must be thicker? I can admit the origin of my own language. Latin is the basis of all modern Eurpean romance language. Study and ye shall learn. --J.M.McCarthy 01:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the Révolution Tranquille & la Grande Noirceur are about, and other events that happened throughout the XX century in Québec; and that's what makes Québec unique, but they weren't the sole french canadians fighting to be recognized, there were similar historical events elsewhere, such as in Ontario ~1920. Québec's will for independency lead to a pride in being Québécois, which elsewhere in Canada people prefer 'Canadian french' because not only are provincial differences a factor, but historical and linguistic differences too. -- Sure everyone in Canada is Canadian, but the French dialect varies much more than English does. Acadian French is not the same as Québec French, which also isn't the same as Northern Ontario French or Newfoundland, etc. These dialects may appear the same, but they're not completely mutually intelligible, which is why a difference must be kept.
Anyhow, while Parisian French is suppose to be the standard, it isn't. There are no governing rules on standard language pronunciations, as France itself has various dialects (and Paris can be characterized by a mix of surrounding dialects), which in terms have shifted from Classical Parisian French. There are only syntax rules (hence, the Académie Française, and Québec's. Office de la langue française which is often more conservative), and literature is quasi-universal: that's how the original language is characterized. Dialects are dialects, not improper slangs of whatever origin(s) they're from. -- Io Katai 12:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the arguments displayed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Quebec_French#Renaming_article_French_Language_in_Quebec_.28lingusitics.29_.2F_Moving_Quebec_and_Canadian_French_to_disambiguation_page
Distinguishing Quebec French from Acadian French, and Newfoundland French from French spoken in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, are not motivated by politics, and by the scientific study of linguistics: they have substantial differences between them. Canadian French is an umbrella term that refers to all of them. Marcus wilby73 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchville Dialect[edit]

Frenchville French is attested on linked page. Unfortunately there is hardly any information on net, so does not yet justify its own page. Link points to township section, rather than a stub. If anyone wants to expand, great, otherwise it’s better to have a section than stub. Fortunately one of the links does confer bona fide “dialect status” to Frenchville French, warranting its inclusion in this template. Also (non sequitur) the 3yo debate in the previous section makes my nose bleed. Cheers — Muckapedia (talk) 13e avr. 2010 0h57 (−4h)

More Dialects[edit]

I recall an iteration of this template from a couple years back, when every french population on the globe was included in the template, whether or not there was an existing article describing each variety. No-one wants to go back to that, but I thought I’d record here some known dialects of french, so that if the articles are written they may be inlcuded on the template:

Carribbean (NOT CREOLIZED FRENCH)
Carenage/Frenchtown Dialect, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands
St. Barth’s
St. Martin

Is there a Haitian French dialect independent from Haitian Creole? Has it ever been studied?

I don’t know about St. Martin and Haiti (and whether their native dialects [French, not Creoles] deviate from standard French in significant ways), but I have already added the link to St. Barth’s Patois (and started the article). The Frenchtown dialect is subordinate to St. barth’s patois, because it originally came from St. Barth’s, and has a mention in the St. Barth’s patois article. Cheers. — Muckapedia (talk) 11e juin 2010 4h50 (−4h)

United States[edit]

Recent Edits to the list of United States dialects of French are pure fantasy.

• 'Métis' does not warrant a second mention (already covered in Canada) because, while obviously it is the case that Métis speakers live in USA, it would create major problems and an unmanageable precedent if that were the only standard for mention. The best practice is to list the dialect once under its most appropriate heading -- which is Canada, not USA.

• 'Muskrat French' is not a dialect. It is at best an obscure strain of moribund french culture, which in no way meets the most basic criteria for inclusion. This entry must be deleted.

• 'New England French' is not a dialect. It is a place in America which speaks Québec French. Again, this entry in no way meets the most basic criteria for inclusion and therefore must be deleted.

I will wait a month or so to see if this stirs any valuable debate. — Muckapedia (talk) 2e juin 2018 21h50 (−4h)