Language issues in Canada regularly spark controversy and fuel polarizing debates, which can then be echoed and amplified in the media and by citizens.
Following the accident in March at LaGuardia Airport in New York involving an Air Canada passenger jet, the company’s CEO, Michael Rousseau, delivered a message of condolence in English only, provoking a fierce outcry and extensive media coverage. Rousseau announced his resignation soon after.
Although English-Canadian media and Québec French-speaking journalists and commentators largely agreed that the monolingual message was inappropriate, the views expressed by the general public were more divided.
This was particularly obvious when it came to how Québec’s francophones responded to Rousseau’s choice of language.
To better understand how these controversies emerge and develop, sociolinguistics is helpful. Sociolinguists look not only at how language is used, but also at how people talk about language, and how those discussions are interpreted and take on meaning.
À lire aussi : New official languages plan aims to end the decline of French in Canada
Negative portrayals of Québec, bilingualism
As part of an ongoing study analyzing reactions to the controversy in the media, I have examined about 3,000 reader comments published in the comment sections of a series of articles in the The Globe and Mail. I wanted to know what these comments would tell us about the attitudes and stances of the English-speaking public.
The five thematic areas that emerged from an automated analysis of all the comments were “French,” “Canada,” “Québec,” “English” and “bilingualism,” in descending order of frequency of occurrence.
An analysis that I carried out using a random sample of 500 comments reveals that 75 per cent of those relating to Québec express a negative attitude towards the province. These attitudes are primarily seen through unfavourable references to Québec’s distinctiveness within Canada, as well as its language policies and concerns.
While most references to Canada were also negative, repeatedly describing it as a “non-serious country,” this stance was largely developed through unfavourable references to Québec. More specifically, Canada’s perceived failure was often attributed to giving in to pressure from Québec, the French language and official bilingualism.
In some comments, this sentiment was conveyed with pejorative connotations. It included terms such as “catering”, “kowtowing” or “pandering” to Québec. These stances reflect a broader sense of resentment towards Québec and its language policies.
Although 62.5 per cent of comments regarding the CEO’s unilingual message were critical, 55.7 per cent expressed a negative attitude towards bilingualism. This centres, in particular, on the theme of coercion: “forced to be bilingual” and “force bilingualism on executives.”
French monolingualism, also described as “forced” (“forced monolingualism within Québec”), was associated with numerous references to the “language police.”
The tension between individual linguistic choice and the state-protected language, which reflects two divergent visions of language, pits the two linguistic communities against one another.
À lire aussi : La langue inclusive : lorsque des mythes font leur entrée dans les politiques publiques
Differing perceptions of the two languages
Sociolinguists like Annette Boudreau, an Acadian emeritus professor at the University of Moncton, have highlighted a close link in Canada between negative attitudes towards people and the language associated with them.
Furthermore, according to several studies, language can also serve as a socially acceptable vehicle for stigmatizing its speakers.
As such, negative attitudes about Québec were expressed through pejorative descriptions of Québecois French, including “the international language of whining” and “Canada’s second (unofficial dying) language.”
Stereotypical representations that aimed to challenge the status of Québecois French as a legitimate variety of French described it as “a dying” or “dead language,” or even as “a 400-year-old dialect,” which “is only understood in Québec.”
In contrast, several comments presented English as the “international” and “dominant” language and, in particular, “the dominant language in Canada.” One comment argued that the English language was “a lever for success.”
Language as a mirror
What assumptions about language — so ingrained they often go unquestioned within their communities — help drive these disparaging narratives?
For many French speakers, their language is more than a tool: it’s a source of belonging and a cornerstone of culture and social cohesion, tied closely to both personal and collective identity. That means criticizing the language can be regarded as criticizing the people who speak it.
In English-speaking Canada, by contrast, English — widely seen as the dominant language in public life — is often treated primarily as a practical means of communication. It tends to be viewed as emotionally neutral rather than identity-defining. From this perspective, criticizing a language doesn’t necessarily imply criticism of its speakers.
These contrasting ways of thinking about language — what researchers call language ideologies — are rarely spelled out, as shown in the work of Carleton University sociolinguist Rachelle Vessey. As a result, many people aren’t aware of them or their effects.
When these perspectives meet, they can clash and create tension. Recognizing these differences, and the attitudes they shape, can help explain persistent misunderstandings — and may open the door to a measure of reconciliation.
Yulia Bosworth ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
