Talk:Canadian French

Redirect and Stub

I think the idea of this article as basically a stub or redirect to the articles on Québécois french and Acadian french is really misguided. I have read the ongoing debates, and still think the majority of the arguments at play are without merit. The decision to make the Québec french article the top-level document in the hierarchy is politically motivated (I should add that I am an ardent quebecophile and have had many debates with friends on the subject).

I think we should use the article on British English as a guide; it explains the general trends & truisms among a multitude of dialects, rather than being a redirect to various regional vernaculars. For the user interested in learning more specific information, the links to those vernaculars are there. The term “British English” is considerably more spurious than “Canadian French” yet they have a good article that serves an important, valid purpose, and we would be wise to do same.

The article on Quebec French defines it as a regional variety of french --- but the same is true of Canadian french; it depends on what you define as a region. The article on Canadian French defines it as an umbrella term for multiple varieties of french --- but the same is true of Quebec french. So what is really being said here?

You have a country, and within that country are people who speak french. As seen from a broad view encompassing the entire country, that french is Canadian french, and deserves an fully developed article on Wikipedia. Whether or not it is one cohesive dialect is not at issue (and anyone who thinks Québec french is one cohesive dialect is mistaken). —Muckapædia 16^e mai 2007, 11h25 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK/ CONTRIBS

I wholeheartedly agree -- see the discussion at Talk:French language in Canada which, despite reputable references to the contrary and Wikipedia:Naming conventions, is where the predecessor to this article was moved through 'consensus' and which I strenuously opposed. Immediately after the move, I recreated this article. If you build it, they will come. :) Corticopia 02:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not politically motivated. Acadian French and Quebec French are distinct (i.e. different), living dialects of French, each deserving their own article. Both are Canadian in the modern sense of the word. Hence this article essentially is a disambiguation, ever since most of its old content was moved to French language in Canada.

Now it used to be that "Canada" meant the settled areas along the St. Lawrence and "Canadians" were its inhabitants of French origins. Back then, their dialect of French was called Canadian French (seperate, of course, from Acadian French, as Acadians were not Canadians). But the meanings of "Canadian" and "Canada" have evolved over the years, and so has the dialect of the descendants of the Canadians (in the historical sense) and of all French speaking inhabitants of what is now the province of Quebec (outside of Gaspe and the Magdalen Islands...), along with their cultural identity. This explains why now Quebec French can no longer be called "Canadian French". It's the modern dialect of French tied to the province of Quebec, and it is different from what was spoken (Canadian French) on the same territory one hundred years ago (say). As modern Acadians are Canadians, but their dialect has always been distinct from the historical Canadian dialect which became Quebec French, it would be wrong to use the modern boundaries of Canada to invent a "regional" Canadian variety of French which encompasses all French spoken in Canada.--Boffob 04:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I take a different view. Linguistically speaking, Acadian French and Quebec French share a number of traits that distinguish them from European French. So it makes sense to speak of Canadian French collectively. Given that there are so many more sources on Quebec French than on Acadian French, and that in any event Quebec French is spoken by 95% of francophones in Canada, Wikipedia has two choices.

• 1) In depth coverage of Quebec French at Quebec French, and an article on Acadian French explaining the differences between it and its close relative (this is not unlike most works on Quebec French — they compare it to a variety which is at present better described in reference works and more widely known, French French);
• 2) an article at Canadian French covering essentially Quebec French with some mention of differences with Acadian French (which would in fact not be impossible in Quebec French), and a more in-depth article at Acadian French.

The two systems work out to be similar except for the name of the main article on Quebec French. Linguistically either would make sense. For example, in an article covering Canadian English, it is plausible for Newfoundland English to receive less attention than West/Central Canadian English. So it's just a matter of seeing which name is most commonly used.

Research I did on Google Scholar ended up showing that "Canadian French" was about twice as common as "Quebec French" in English, but "français canadien" was only half as common as "français québécois", although a more precise study would have to take into account the fact that more recent papers would - and this is a hunch - most likely use "Quebec French" more than before.

So who is politically motivated, the English or the French? I say both. There is some element of identity and politics involved in this sort of thing. For example, purely linguistically, it makes a lot of sense to speak of "North American English". We all know that Ontarians, Quebecers, etc., speak in a way that's closer to Midwesterners than U.S. Southerners do. (Although spelling and some elements of vocabulary distinguish us, I think my point is clear.) Though you sometimes hear "North American English", you don't hear it nearly as often as you should on linguistic grounds. The reason? A strong U.S. identity. They're much more likely to refer to their language as "American English". And linguistically there's an even stronger case for "North American English" than there is for "Canadian French".

Now, some people may say that what counts on Wikipedia is the most common name in English. But I think the fact that anglophones happen to be federalists in the country the speakers live in, and can have their own political biases, outweighs that fact. We have to either look at all languages, or, alternatively, defer to what those academics who speak the language natively call it. There's really no translation problem, so we can say that they call it "Quebec French" or "Canadian French", even though they write the name in French.

Anyway, if someone feels strongly about this they can propose a move at Quebec French. It is likely to be unpleasant because it is political on both sides, and has the potential to involve editors who are only interested in the subject for that reason. My position is that linguistically, both are correct, and that both are very common names for slightly different things. 90% similar content could go in Quebec French or Canadian French (probably more, given the likely level of expertise in Acadian French among editors), so a choice has to be made. If anyone is interested, there is a rarely used name "Laurentian French" that includes Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies, etc., but excludes Acadians. This prevents the paradox of saying that an Ontarian speaks Quebec French, but it is a contrived solution. Joeldl 06:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The reasoning is good. Canadian French is used as an expression and I agreed with you on the changes leading to the current Canadian French and French language in Canada. But there remains a confusion since the two varieties "Canadian French" refers to are not spoken in Canada only. It feels like an artificial categorization, not to mention that in French "français canadien" has a meaning that changes over time and is now politicized.

A little while ago, I bought the folk music CD Mademoiselle, Voulez-Vous Danser? : Franco-American Music from the New England Borderlands. To me, they sound like Francophone Quebecers living in the USA. My grand-father still speaks of when he was visiting relatives in Bedford, New Hampshire where his own father was born. It is also for political reason that we do not learn about them much in our history courses. I think if a category grouping multiple French varieties is to be of any use, the least is to include all its speakers. North American French seems more appropriate to me since it can also include Cajun French. -- Mathieugp 13:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, and the phrases français américain (i.e. of the US and Canada) and français nord-américain exist in French. I have never heard them in English, but "North American French" is undoubtedly, linguistically speaking, the most appropriate name for a parent category. By the way, Mathieu, have you noticed the additions I made to Quebec French? Sources seemed to agree that moué is in the minority now in informal situations (like toi, reçoit, boit,...) but were divided on the frequency of pouel for poil, etc. (Obviously, we are only talking about informal situations.) What percentage of francophones would you say ever say pouel rather than poual for poil? Joeldl 14:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

To anyone sincerely interested in righting this situation and developing an intelligent article entitled Canadian French --- one that can peacefully co-exist with the current article on Quebec French --- I again direct your attention to the article on British English. The first couple paragraphs define a term that is analogous to this debate, without trying to pretend that it is a black-and-white tactile linguistic concept. Clearly it is difficult to define Canadian French exactly, but that only speaks to the need for a well-written article, rather than just a redirect. Arguments about whether or not something called Canadian French exists are, again, purely political --- if there are two dogs in Croatia, that's all that is logically required to justify the existence of an article entitled Croatian Dogs. Whether or not such an article meets the Wikipedia standards for notability is a seperate discussion entirely. What I mean by this is, whether or not there are grounds for articles entitled North American French or Gaspé French cannot preclude an article on Canadian French. —Muckapædia 7^e juin 2007, 0h39 (UTC+0900) 머크패저 TALK/ CONTRIBS

numbe rof people speaking french in Canada

The number of people speakig french in canada is not 6.4 million, but 9,4 million. source, TVA tv staton,,,heard on there.... i tihnk it needs to be change!

That's likely the number of people with knowledge of French, including non-native speakers. Joeldl 01:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge, again

I am not suggesting merging in French in Canada or Quebec French or other articles-- just French language in Canada and Canadian French. Spikebrennan 18:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a Stub, as it only contains the basic information on the topic, and of High importance, as I do feel that this topic plays a vital role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)