No, they don’t really do that; they generally connect their nationhood to the fact of speaking French, as opposed to English, without seeing French as a colonial remnant any more than English in the ROC is.
Quick anecdote: I was looking to enter into business discussions in Montreal. A local company was looking to team with us as the “feet on the ground” in Quebec and giving us cultural tips on how to interact with our Target.
When it came to translation issues - our materials are currently available primarily in English - I asked our local teammates how to frame the language issue. I cited some experience we have with Spanish, where “Mexican Spanish” is linquistically/vocab colloquially different from “South American Spanish” and both are likewise different from “Spanish Spanish” etc.
The guys I was working with stopped and said “in Quebec, we speak French. There is no “Quebecois French” in the way that you describe Spanish.”
The clear point being: yes, we may have local accent / colloquial word-choice issues, but it is NOT okay to discuss it as if it is a wholly different dialect or variant from “French French.”
Message received. We approached it that way and the meeting went off with out a hitch…
Offered as a data point relevant to the OP…
The question of whether Quebec French is a separate language from French French would really only be relevant if the separatists were seeking independence from France. If they’re seeking independence from Canada, then there’s really no question that their language (French) is separate from the language of the rest of Canada (English).
I’m not sure I grasp your “former French colonial overlords” reference, but how would that in any way be different from the “former English colonial overlords” of Ontario?
It depends on who you are talking to. Formerly, and apparently still today in some quarters, any difference with France French was seen as wrong, lower-class, ignorant, etc., except for a sparse number of québécismes de bon alloi (“well-made” Quebecisms) used to describe local realities.
Michel Tremblay created a scandal with his 1960s play Les Belles-soeurs as it was one of the first literary works to use transcribed Quebecois French (specifically an intense Montreal working-class form).
As others have pointed out, people have gotten increasingly used to the idea that they speak differently than people from France, and the Office québécois de la langue française routinely gazettes terminology exclusive to or created in Quebec using a different set of standards from its equivalents in France. It’s also far more common for broadcasters, especially on entertainment/sports/talk/variety programs, to use more colloquial language and pronunciation, and even editorialists in newspapers to do likewise.
However, they would reject any suggestion that they’re not really speaking (or especially, writing) French.
Keep in mind that if you decide to look this stuff up in Wikipedia, they–whoever it is that writes these particular articles, that is–tend overmuch to identify different dialects as different languages. At least with English, for example, they consider Scots to be a different language. As strange as English dialect in The Acid House may may have looked to this American when opening to a random page, all I had to do was imagine the words being spoken by any film character with a stereotypical Scots accent*, and it became 100% comprehensible, except for words rooted in unfamiliar cultural aspects.
*Like, for example, Scotty from Star Trek.
Here’s a good rule of thumb in discussing language: Never use the word “real” in describing what a language or a dialect or particular words, pronunciations, or grammatical patterns in that language or dialect is or is not. In fact, I would urge you to give up using the word “real” for most sorts of things.
There is no sharp dividing line between whether two varieties of a language are different dialects or different languages. There is a spectrum betwen them being so close that you can barely tell the difference between them to being so far apart that the speakers of one can’t understand the speakers of the other. They are certainly distinct varieties, but whether they are distinct languages is another matter. You can’t apply “real” to one but not to another.
The same is true when someone asks, “Is this a real word?” when they want to know if some word is used in a standard variety of the language or just in some variety that’s not as generally accepted for formal writing. A nonstandard variety is just as “real” as a standard one, and its words are just as “real.” Its grammar is just as “grammatical.” Linguistically, all varieties of a language are equally “real.” If you want to know if some word, grammatical pattern, or dialect is acceptable in formal writing, ask about that and don’t ask about “reality.”
I used to work at Eurocopter here in the US, and there was a particular guy who worked there who was Quebecois, and the French guys used to tease him, because he sounded “old timey” both in word choice and accent.
On the other hand, he could talk to them in French with no problem in intelligibility, so I get the impression it would be similar to maybe one of us talking to a early 19th century Quaker or something.
Scotty (i.e., James Doohan) was a Canadian of Irish descent. The accent he spoke with in Star Trek wasn’t very realistic, and there are far more inconprehensible accents than his.
I could have used some American subtitles for parts of “In The Loop”, especially when Peter Capaldi was talking. Much worse than a Guy Ritchie movie if you ask me.
What about the French they speak in Haiti? I had a friend from Tahiti comment to me that a Haitian friend sounded like they were talking in baby talk.
Thanks, Wendell, I think you articulated very clearly the point I was trying to make.
There is a huge difference between Haitian French (French, spoken by Haitians) and Haitian Creole. Although much of the Creole vocabulary is recognizably French, a lot of it isn’t, and the syntax is very different, owing to the creolization process (Wikipedia says it’s partly derived from the Fongbe language of Benin). It’s probably what your friend was referring to.
French and Creole are currently both official languages of Haiti, and a written form for Creole has taken root, especially since the 1980s.
As a parisian native who had a roommate from Quebec, i can tell you that while they certainly can’t be considered distinct languages, the differences between French and Quebecois are far greater that the ones between any english dialects.
Concerning pronunciation, it’s about like the difference between indian english and american english. The grammar often sounds weird : lots of what would be considered as “little kids grammar mistakes” are standard in Quebecois, and they’re is a whole bunch of vocabulary that is unintelligible to french speakers.
Note that everybody in Quebec understand standard french, because of movies etc, but the opposite is not true, as people in france are seldom exposed to Quebecois media.
Someone talked about movies : i know that there are two different versions of “The Simpsons”, one in quebecois and one in french, but the two are almost identical.
One of the riskier examples is that “fermer la porte” in France can mean to lock the door, whereas in Quebec it only means to close it (lock the door would be barrer la porte or fermer la porte à clé).
My current favourite Quebec word is enfirouâper, a glorious verb meaning “to bamboozle.”
Nitpick: it’s spelled aloi, and it’s the only place where I’ve ever seen this word used, although the expression is usually canadianisme de bon aloi. Makes sense, since it’s an old way of thinking about language which predates the rise of national sentiment based around Quebec as a territorial entity.
The scandal that this caused is something that I have trouble conceiving of today, as someone who developed his political consciousness during the 90s and 00s. But looking at old footage of interviews of Michel Tremblay (who of course is still alive, still active and still celebrated), it’s obvious that the elites of the time were really pissed at him.
I don’t know. When I was in France (Marseille) this month, I had no trouble at all getting understood although I sometimes had to repeat things twice at first. I figure they weren’t expecting my accent the first time, but once they expected it they had no problem.
Can you give examples of these “mistakes”? As for vocabulary, some words are used in one place but not the other, or with slightly different meanings, but I wouldn’t call it “a whole bunch”.
Almost identical?! The hell with that! I have tidbits from the French version of The Simpsons on my DVDs, and Homer sounds like what Cletus should sound like. It’s terrible, I can’t stand it. In the Quebec version he sounds right.
Quebec gets dubbed versions of American movies, and they’re usually done in France, probably at least partly because of French protectionist measures. And while people are used to them, they still find them hilariously weird. Movies dubbed in Quebec are usually thought as sounding more right.
No idea. As I said, it was a stab in the dark. I was trying to come up with some reason why someone might want to call Quebec French a separate language from the French spoken in France. I though perhaps that someone might want to distinguish Quebec as a separate linguistic and cultural entity, separate from Canada, separate from France.
Juste. When we were in Paris a few years ago, we watched the Simpson occasionally, and I found the French version of Homer’s voice grating - he sounded like a hillbilly, which he definitely isn’t.
I would thus respond that, if a sizable number of people use “real” in this fashion, then, by your own logic, said definition is legitimate.
Highly doubtful, considering the broad range of English accents/dialects out there.
The difference is that “real” used in this sense is not a value neutral usage; it both contradicts scientific understanding of language and also can be perceived as insulting or demeaning to those whose dialects are not granted the designation “real.” Furthermore, this usage of “real” is in conflict with the primary meanings of the word “real” itself; that is, it sets up the implication that if X is “real” then Not X is “fake.”
There is also another factor in play – If a group that shares a particular dialect itself considers its dialect to be a discrete language, then this can also be a legitimate consideration in deciding whether a dialect is a discrete language. This can be considered part of the political factor too.