Talk:Quebec English

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcshifrin.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete

This article needs to be deleted, it's at best 80% false. Or it should be renamed to "Allophone Italian Frenglish". Many comments below have stated The obvious. Things like "Sak" to reference the S.A.Q (ess-ay-queue)/Liquor Commision. Chinese Pate?? Is this another bad Elvis Gratton film?? the only people I know who use such a pigeon, also use "Make me a sangwitch", and "Me, I you know.. I was teached it".

Mathieugp-> There is a quebec english dialect & accent, The O in "sorry" in quebec is pronounced like saw-rie, unlike the rest of canada's sow-rie or the states sah-rie. English quebecers don't throat the R.. etc.. "soft drink" NEVER "pop", "Regie" or "License bureau".. NEVER "Societey..", "Medicare" "UI". "Saynte Catherines" never "Sahynte katryne"..

This artice is incoherrant. On top of being completely wrong, the punctuation and grammer in 1/2 of this article is missing or written by someone who has real poor english skills (EX: An Allophone from St.Leoonard who went to french school and learned english on the street)..

The anonymous comments above (added 2006-10-19) are not helpful; the article is generally accurate. Justinbb 02:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there is no Quebec English dialect, should we rename this article English in Quebec instead? -- Mathieugp 18:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'Tis a beauteous question. First, I thought of either putting quotation marks around "Quebec English" because it is such a common and established expression, though a misnomer. However, I hate the overuse of quotes, the more so in that some people get offended because of identity politics. Also, when looking at the structures used by Quebec anglophones and francophones, we're focusing on only the salient parts. So, in reality, we're talking about very few regional aspects akin to say, California or New Mexico differences, among English speakers and then interlanguage phenomena among non-anglophones.

Calling anything "English" is a major misnomer, though that's what folks do. It's exactly the problem with the dialect box for English. Commonwealth English, American English, Newfoundland English and Quebec English are all entirely different things. The term "dialect" is a floodgate from which misconceptions and "vanity" dialects gush.

So, overall, I think it should be left as is just for the moment. Only if someone wants to add English/anglophone demographics and information about official status and anglophones provincial minority status in Quebec, then can we rename it "English in Quebec". Plus, the Statistics Canada data would corroborate the human realities to a certain extent. Ooops! I forgot to mention that I have the entire series of Gazette articles on English and anglophones in Quebec. Some of it is quite informative, but the part on linguistic features is full of, pardon my Quebec French word, bullshit. I would go so far as to say it's intellectual dishonesty in the way they used certain retired professors' words to back claims. It ain't easy!

In the meantime, I think we should step back, get a better look at the big picture and re-organize things on the meta level. There's a wealth of quality info and work here and it remains very inaccessible due to misconceptions. -- CJ Withers 23:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's not entirely accurate to say that there's no such thing as a distinct English dialect in Quebec, especially when it comes to vocabulary. For example, Quebec is the only place in the world that I know of that uses the term "soft-drink" for what in Toronto would be called "pop" and in the states "soda". There are many more I can think of but not at this moment.

We also seem to have a habit redundantly using the accusitive form at the beginning of a phrase. This I would definitely attribute to the influence of French, specifically Quebec French. For example in Quebec English it would not be unusual for someone to say "me, I don't know." This is probably due to the fact that it is common in Quebec French to say "moi, j'sais pas" or even more idiomatic "j'sais pas, moi."

Also, as a native anglo-Quebecer, I don't think I've ever heard of the SAQ being referred to phonetically as what would sound like the "sak". I grew up calling it the "liquor commission," and more recently simply by just saying the letters "S-A-Q."

One other thing, its mentioned that ATMs are referred to as guichets (a term that I've rarely heard an anglo speaking to another anglo use...we generally seem to call it a "bank machine"...I'm not sure if that's a Quebec thing or whether they say "bank machine" throughout Canada) in any case, its mentioned that all bank machines are labelled ATM's anyway. This is entirely innacurate as I've never once seen a bank machine labelled an ATM. In fact throughout Canada it seems that the initials ABM are used for "automated bank machine" and never ATM for "automated teller machine." It's only when I travel to the states that I notice the letters "ATM" as referring to a bank machine. Not to mention, given Quebec's sign laws it would be odd for the initials for the term "automated teller machine" to be used.

Finally, I think it deserves honourable mention to point out that despite being technically direct translations of one another, the words "Quebecer" and "Quebecois," in Quebec English at least, have a tendency to refer to two different things. For example, as an anglo, I would refer to myself as a "Quebecer," but NOT a "Quebecois". The term "Quebecois" in Quebec English tends to have a narrower meaning, usually referring to "Quebecers" of French Canadian stock (what in French would be referred to as pur laine Quebecois)

Street names

They pronounce it "Bernard" because they're saying it in English, not because they can't say it in French. Just because the signs have to be in French doesn't mean the English name stops existing.. it just doesn't appear on the signs. When French street names or "Montéal" and "Québec" are used instead of English street names and "Montreal" and "Quebec", this is because they are being written in French, not because the English version takes an accent or is called "de la Montagne". What I mean to say is, the signs use the French translation or version of the name. That doesn't mean there is no English version. -65.94.224.14 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That is precisely the point. We are not saying that Anglophone Quebecers are stupid or unable to speak French [many of them are bilingual, whatever that means - at the very least it means an ability to communicate in French to Québecois, in some cases to the point of saying difficult sounds (e.g., Longueuil) and getting the grammatical gender (le vs. la) correct] rather that what we are trying to do is describe how Anglophones pronounce words as they speak English that come from the French environment in Quebec.Albertde 14:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In reply to the implied question in the text: "the English-language official designations have reputedly been revoked, although evidence for this is difficult to find". I suspect that the official revocation was the Charte de la langue française, aka Bill 101, which includes sections on toponymy. -Justinbb 09:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sodee-pop

(Appalachian dialect pronunciation --> sodee) A few differences in vocabulary is hardly a reason to declare a different dialect. If you read the first lines carefully as well as the explanation that follows, you will see that I say there definitely are language practices that occur in Quebec, yet they do not simply constitute a separate dialect, the more so in that they are not unique to Quebec.

Your personal anecdote can be interesting and potentially useful; however, one person’s observation (without qualifying the observation or using linguistic tools) or idiolect does not determine what a separate dialect would be. In fact, your “soft drink” claim is an egregious example of how people misinform. On the English-speaking N.American continent, “soda” is used primarily in the Northeast whereas “pop” is mostly in the North and West and as far east as Pittsburgh. In fact, “pop” is said by the majority of Americans. And even then, in California virtually everything is called “a Coke”, regardless of the type, brand of flavour of the carbonated beverage. Plus one can occasionally hear “tonic” in New England. “Soft drink” is the standard term for the entire continent and for the industry but it also includes beverages such as iced tea or Snapple-brand products, which aren’t fizzy. Only soda/pop/etc. is a fizzy soft drink. As you can see, soft drink is more general, so much so that in the US we usually say “in the soft-drink isle” when talking about the supermarket. What I have noticed, however, is that many francophones and allophones use “soft drink” because they don’t even know the terms “soda”, “pop” or “soda pop”. If a first-language speaker of English says “soft drink” all the time and instead of “soda”, “pop”, etc. then the questions here are: 1. is this person really a native speaker of English and 2. is this person showing convergence, a practice that comes into play among bilinguals when they speak an interlanguage so that others will understand. As you can see, the situation is not that simple and most of the time it just leads us to a set of practices, not a set of structures that legitimately constitute some dialect.

Sorry to interrupt but 'soft drink' is correct UK English and the normal phrase. 'Pop' is old fashioned (and only means lemonade in any case) and soda is non-existant.GordyB 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[The other day I was listening to my elderly mother-in-law, an Anglophone born and raised in Verdun, who doesn't speak any French beyond street names like /pinʌf/, referring to a carbonated beverage as a soft drink. I asked her why and she said that to her, pop sounded like something a Maritimer would say, while, to her ears, soda sounded American. Albertde 18:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)]

I am a Montreal anglophone and have lived here all my life and I have never heard any Montrealer refer to soft drinks as anything other than soft drinks. To be honest, this is because we are all snobs and we don't want to sound like Americans, Albertans, or Maritimers. "Pop" and "Soda" are quaint farmer words. No offence, that's just how they come off as. Also, people do say "guichet", at least here in St. Leonard, and we call a shopping cart a carrosse, which isnt even its proper name in French. -65.94.224.14 13:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I invite you to watch the CBC documentary on Canadian English that aired 2-3 years ago and is shown every now and then. Most of the documentary misinforms by saying that certain practices or structures are unique to Canada or Quebec, thus making speakers in those areas/communities unique and possibly satisfying any identity politics / crisis issues. I would go so far as to qualify some of the information in the documentary as propaganda. If ever you’d like to watch the documentary with me and discuss, I have a copy. Just as an example, the documentary clearly represents/states that the cot-caught merger is specific only to Canada and that it is not at all American. This is blatant misrepresentation since the majority of Americans show the cot-caught merger, specifically because it is a North and West phenomenon on the continent (this includes the Midwest).

A fun and interesting way to hear salient vowel differences in Canadian pronunciationS and General American (that is, how songs are usually sung) is to ask someone to sing "Tomorrow" from the muscial Annie. Try it, you'll see what I mean. CJ Withers 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the Gazette, they made similar claims. The paragon of this linguistic engineering is the word “aubergine”. The author of the article on structural/lexical aspects purports that “aubergine” is the word preferred by Anglo-Quebecers and is thus unique to Quebec. This couldn’t be more astray from reality. It’s francophones who use the word because they don’t know the word “eggplant”. If there are Anglo-Quebeckers, or Anglo-Canadians for that matter, who say “aubergine”, it’s because those speakers are from the UK or possibly Australia, since “aubergine”, as “courgette”, is a Britishism. You can see the danger of declaring a dialect without the grounds to do so.

---

Just have to correct a few mistakes...

>> On the English-speaking N.American continent, “soda” is used primarily in the Northeast whereas “pop” is mostly in the North and West and as far east as Pittsburgh. In fact, “pop” is said by the majority of Americans <<

Nope. "Pop" is the prefered term in the Northern half of the West, where it co-exists with "soda" and "soda pop". In California "soda" is the prefered term.

Yep. Read the original: "primarily" and "mostly" there is no mention of "exclusively". Obviously there is co-existence. "North" does not include the "Northeast" in how the U.S. is "isoglossed".

>> This is blatant misrepresentation since the majority of Americans show the cot-caught merger, specifically because it is a North and West phenomenon on the continent (this includes the Midwest). <<

Nope. Actually it is a Western and North Central thing. The North ( is clearly distinguished by the lack of the cot-caught merger. See Cot-caught_merger#Cot-caught_merger

Again, re-read. In the "North", the caught TO cot merger exists; however, words expected to contain "ɑ" already are pronounced akin to "ɔ" or "ɒ" in the North and in many Canadian pronunciations. Given this reality, it should be called the "caught TO cot merger with a caveat". :-) "Central" is a very vague term and should be avoided, the more so in that it's a crossroads, not so much a linguistic region in and of itself, despite what most uninformed Americans say. In fact, anything termed "Central" is disputed. Note that I specifically used "Midwest" and not "Central". In the Northeast, the merger can also found among some whites in their thirties and younger who are from higher-income families and/or who attended higher-end colleges and universities, despite these speakers' Northeast roots. The same is true for creaky voice in both men and women with the same extra-linguistic variables. The interesting research topic would be a demonstration of where this phenomenon comes from.

>> A fun and interesting way to hear salient vowel differences in Canadian pronunciationS and General American (that is, how songs are usually sung) is to ask someone to sing "Tomorrow" from the muscial Annie. Try it, you'll see what I mean. CJ Withers 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC) <<

General American is not some sort of an officially codified standard even though the General American article states that "tommorow" is pronounced as [-Ar-] instead of [-Or-] in "General American". There is considerable variation of the pronounciation of pre-rhotic vowels in English in the States. A singer from the Northwest, or North Central, for example would pronounce "tomorrow" with [-Or-] (the same as in Canada) (see Pacific Northwest English and North Central American English), and people from say, California or Arizona would pronounce it with [-Ar-]. Since it's not a stigmatized feature, no one would alter their pronunciation to conform to the vaguely defined "General American".

Greetingz 14:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, General American already includes a certain amount of variation, particularly with respect to Mary-merry-marry-(Murray) mergers before "r", so why the comment? However, pronunciations touted/required/expected in the language industry and news/entertainment media do not include "-or" in "tomorrow", that is, unless they want to get an easy Fargo-esque joke in or rake in millions thanks to regional differences in pronunciation. "No one" is quite a sweeping generalization; check out convergence theory and you'll see how people change their speech be it consciously or unconsciously. On the otherhand, what spontaneous speech variation that goes unnoticed is "heard" as being the listener's phonological framework. It's the opposite situation of "fish"/"fis" when young children acquire EL1. Also, you do not mention that people can use more than one dialect, pronunciation or register. This heteroglossia is the modern reality for English as a first language in most countries. Oh, yeah, plus people have been moving around a lot, so where one comes from or lives is not a reliable indicator as such.

>> A singer from the Northwest, or North Central, for example would pronounce "tomorrow" with [-Or-] (the same as in Canada) (see Pacific Northwest English and North Central American English), and people from say, California or Arizona would pronounce it with [-Ar-]. <<

Singers, both amateur and professional, are more versatile and talented than that! Again, place of origin is not an indicator in and of itself, plus people's pronunciation can and does change over their lifetimes. Many speakers of rhotic dialects sing naturally without the -r and vice versa. Listen to all the music that's out there. Honestly, how often does, Annie Lennox, a very well known singer in the world, sing like the Glaswegian she is (save for intentional bits on "Shame")? And when did Mick Jagger sing in RP?? Come on! :-) CJ Withers 06:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

---

>> the caught TO cot merger exists <<

It's the terminology that is incorrect. This is not a merger. A merger means that speakers pronounce both sounds the same way, and perceive them to be the same vowel. The Northern dialect region does not merge these sounds, instead it is a chain vowel shift, where the vowel in "caught" shifts to the vowel in "cot". But they do not merge, because "cot" shifts to "cat". So they are still two distinct sounds. Calling this a merger would be like calling the Canadian Shift the "kettle to cattle merger". While the vowel in "kettle" shifts to the "a" in cattle, the vowel in cattle shifts as well, so they are both quite distinct.

>> "Central" is a very vague term and should be avoided, the more so in that it's a crossroads, not so much a linguistic region in and of itself, despite what most uninformed Americans say. <<

The North Central is a dialect region. According to The Linguistic Atlas of North American English by William Labov Ch 11: "This region ranges from Montana to Michigan along the U.S.–Canadian border, including the communities of Billings, Bismarck, Minot, Fargo, Duluth, and Marquette." It does not participate in any of the sound changes found in the Northern and Inland North dialect region (defined by the Northern Cities Vowel Shift), and is distinguished from (West/Central) Canadian English, because it also lacks the Canadian Shift. In this dialect, [u] and [o] are very back and rounded even after coronals, (unlike both Western/Central Canadian English, and Western US English) and cot and caught are merged--speakers produce and perceive them to be the same vowel sound. (unlike the Northern dialect.)

>> Note that I specifically used "Midwest" and not "Central <<

There is no such region. Inside the midwest exist the North (and inside that the Inland North), the North Central, as well as the Midland. There is also a corridor in and around St. Louis that contains Northern features.

>> In the Northeast, the merger can also found among some whites in their thirties and younger who are from higher-income families and/or who attended higher-end colleges and universities, despite these speakers' Northeast roots. <<

The Northeast does contain speakers who are cot-caught mergered, but many of them are not bother-father merged.

>> However, pronunciations touted/required/expected in the language industry and news/entertainment media do not include "-or" in "tomorrow" <<

Of course tomorrow with an "-or" is not required in news, etc. but it certainly is not a stigmatized feature, and not likely to be changed by someone trying to achieve a more "neutral" accent. In North Dakota, it is considered the standard pronunciation, and is used in news broadcasts, radio, etc.

Greetingz 15:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

>> Just have to correct a few mistakes... <<

Tact and nettiquette would improve your specious arguments. You have both ignored the important social variables and twisted what I wrote, unless you've simply misunderstood. Please refrain from quoting me and making false accusations. Thank you. CJ Withers 02:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To each of the points you have made, there are absolutely no social variables--only regional variables, as none of the features discussed are stigmatized, or changes that one would effect to speak in a more "neutral accent". First of all, you are the one who used the wrong terminology to refer to a chain vowel shift, by calling it a merger. They are completely different things, and I merely wanted to clarify the fact. Words such as "merger" or "chain vowel shift" have precise definitions in Linguistics, and should not be used without their formalized definition. Second of all, trying to relate the pronunciation of the word "tomorrow" to convergence theory is completely irrelevant, as this is purely a regional feature, as I have been trying to point out. It is certainly true that one's pronunciation can change in ones lifetime, especially if one moves around. But this does not invalidate the fact that different regions have different pronunciations that are used by people who are from those regions.

Canadian shift and cot-caught merger

To my ears, while there is a cot-caught merger in Canada and parts of the United States, the merger is to different sounds in Canada and the States. In Canada, again, to my ears, the sound is closer to the short British o like in cot, i.e., /ɒ/ , not to the sound /ɔ/ in the States.Albertde 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just to your ears; the phenomenon is directly observable by anyone able to perceive the differences in the vowels. In fact, it was a striking discovery for me to hear how the merger is "reversed", so to speak, because no textbooks that push for a single Canadian English explain it. The well-known "cot"-"caught" merger is not Amercian; it's North and Western in North America in general, i.e. minus the American South, Philadephia, NYC and Boston/New England. Also, it only applies to where one would expect /ɔ/, so to be more precise, it should be called the "'caught' to 'cot' merger". Now for those Americans who pronounce "Don" as /dɑn/ and "Dawn" as /dɔn/, it is very clear which Canadians make the distinction or not, reversing or not; use the words "mall" and "dollar" for examples (avoid words with post-vocalic /r/ because it affects the quality of the vowel and is erratic even within the US). In Montreal, however, I've noticed most older people in broadcasting, such as CFCF-12's Bill Haughland, do not "reverse" the vowels. I've also noticed that the further West one comes from in Canada, the more similar people's reversel vowel /ɔ/ is to the British /ɒ/, as you noticed. In fact, Bill Haughland (does his last name rhyme with "Holland"? do the test!!) and the CBC's Don Murray (who pronounces his first name as /dɔn/, thus sounding like "Dawn" to most English-speakers in the Anglosphere, including myself) do not sound alike.

Stress pronouns

What you call the accusative form is actually the stress/intensifying/tonic pronoun or in French the “pronom intensif ou tonique”. Most first language speakers of English who are born and bred Montrealers do not speak like this in English; in fact, it is most encountered among Italian Montrealers, French-speakers and allophones. Again, if you read the article, you’ll see that I clearly state that what is perceived as QE is a set of restricted behaviours not common to everyone who’s a first-language speaker of English. Moreover, the use of the intensifying pronoun is common to ALL speakers of French, regardless of their origin. It is just as common in France as it is in Quebec. Plus, it’s in France that I learned to use the intensifying pronoun. If any French-speaker, regardless of origin, says “Me, I…”, then he or she is speaking and interlanguage or using a calque, not some dialect of English. It has absolutely nothing to do with Quebec French. Both these terms are linked to in the article. Now, to say this language practice is a part of Quebec English and unique to it would be misinformative.

SAQ

Your SAQ example corroborates what I say from the beginning. There is no generalisation extended to all first-language English-speakers. Some might say “liquo(u)r commission” and some may indeed say S.-A.-Q. but that doesn’t make it a dialect. However, as a linguist specialising in English-French contact, I have observed this phenomenon and was in fact very surprised to hear “sack”. Interestingly enough, in French “sack” is for the SAAQ while S.-A.-Q. (separately) is for the liquo(u)r store. Btw, many will say that “liquor” or “liquour” is American, so go figure; the misinformation works both ways.

Now, with what you say, I, being a native New Yorker having lived in Paris and in Montreal (this latter city for 8 years, though I’ve been visiting regularly for almost 20 years), I would be an Anglo-Quebecker or speaking Quebec English if I say “S.-A.-Q.”. And yes, S-A-Q is what I’ve always said. It’s because I speak French, not because of a so-called dialect. French is my second language, though main language. I work in French, did virtually all of my university education in French, including my Master’s in linguistics. I tend to borrow/calque from French. It’s even hard for me to pronounce standard gallicisms in English with an English-language pronunciation (phonological framework). According to my friends, it’s a riot to hear.

~ We call it boozeheimers. SAQ counds too much like the shortened form of "sacrement".--Soul scanner 12:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ATM

I don’t where you’ve been hiding not to have noticed “ATM” written on a sign posted in store/bank windows, even in non-tourist areas. It’s ubiquitous and far from “odd”. ABM is an alternative to ATM but it’s hardly a Canadian phenomenon, never mind unique to Quebec. Plus, there is huge variation to the ATM issue. In North America, some people say “ATM”, “bank machine”, “money machine” and the now TD-trademark “green machine”. There is such a thing as variation and it would be disinformative to make it a CAN/US issue, nonetheless a so-called Quebec English topic. Many true English-speakers say “guichet” in English because it’s a general word instead of “box office”, “ticket window”, “bank window/wicket”, and yes, “ATM”.

[May I interject that guichet is not used by Anglophones but the word I generally hear, especially from older Anglophones is wicket as a general word? Sorry - in true Canadian fashion...Albertde 20:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)]

What’s more, the majority of North Americans on either side of the border do not even know what ATM stands for. They usually say “ATM machine” just as people say “PIN number” (remember the “N” stands for “number”). In the Quebec context, “NIP” does not qualify as Quebec English despite how hundreds of thousands of non-native English speakers say it. Again, it’s interlanguage or a calque.

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the most important of Quebec signage laws, the bane/sore-spot/*ahem* poster-child of some Anglo-Quebecers. Using English is not against the law when both (1.) French is present and (2.) the French version is prominent, i.e. markedly larger and placed above. All the signs containing “ATM” have “GUICHET” written above. Just stroll down St-Laurent or take check out the Couche-Tard near the Plamondon metro station – these are only two examples of thousands. I invite you to join me on my monthly trips to the Office québécois de la langue française, which is open to the public and is funded by our tax money. I do research in their library and can direct you to both the people and the information that can explain the laws to you. It’s a disservice to everyone to misconstrue such laws.

Also, you’ve totally misquoted my contribution to the article. First off, concerning “ATM”, I refer to spoken English, not written and second, I never once said or implied either here, in the article or elsewhere that words behind “ATM” would be written out. Come on. Stop reacting, take the time to read and don’t add things that aren’t there. You’re only wasting both our time.

Quebec(k)er, Québécois, etc.

I think bringing up the “Quebecer” vs. “Québécois” issue is very important; however, it’s a Canadian phenomenon, not a Quebec-only one. To label it as Quebec English is, then, wrong. Also, even though the word does exist in dictionaries in the US and abroad, it is rarely used; French-Canadian is the norm, albeit the uninformed norm. The Quebecer-Québécois issue is a sticky, though worthwhile, addition. It should be done with tact and rigour as well as with an aside that it is not a purely Quebec phenomenon.

On a similar note, I hope you see how I qualify anglophone, meaning first-language speaker. What counts as anglo in Quebec, according to Stats Canada, is also misinformative. An anglophone by their definition is anyone who claims to be able to hold a short conversation in English, no mention of mistakes, misunderstandings or misperceptions and regardless of first language. By such standards, I am an anglophone, a francophone and (thrice over) an allophone. How ludicrous! In my contributions, I make it clear who the anglophone is and whether or not he or she is unilingual. -- CJ Withers 23:30, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to this article simply out of curiousity to see what was written about Quebec English. I'm not a linguist, and as such, perhaps I don't fully understand the meaning of the term "dialect" as used by professional linguists. As such, I most humbly apologize for my most unforgiveable ignorance in this matter. I sincerely hope that you can find it in your heart to forgive me for this most egregious of errors.

In any case, I would love to have a fruitful discussion about the status and nature of Quebec English with a respectful and open minded Wikipedian with similar interests. Unfortunately, due to the acerbic, condescending, highly hypocritical and extremely arrogant nature of your reply to my simple comments and observances (which, unlike you, I'm a big enough of a person to admit may not be entirely accurate), it would seem that it's unlikely that you're capable of such discussion.

I can debate the logic and veracity of each and every of your STATEMENTS, but that would indeed be a lengthy, time consuming and likely fruitless use of my time.

Rather, I'll choose one simple example. You offered, so extremely condescendingly, that you would be pleased to help me learn about Quebec's language laws by taking me on one of your monthly field trips to the library of the Office de la Langue Française. As I said, I'm not a linguist, but I do happen to be a lawyer. You can say that I've read the book on Quebec's language laws, (literally), as well as their origin and periodic modification by the legislature, their constitutional status, their interpretation by the courts, and their administration by the Office itself. Perhaps, rather than a field trip to the Office's library, I would invite you to meet with myself and my colleagues at our office in order to more fully acquaint* you with the many intricacies of Quebec law.

(*Please don't correct my split infinitive, I recognize and embrace split infinitives.)

However, unlike you, my talk page is not a self-aggrandizing list of academic and various other credentials (written in the third person no less! How much more pompous can you get?), it's merely a simple description of who I am and where my interests lie.

Nonetheless, as I said, I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong, and that includes my assessment of you from your reply to my comments. Maybe you were having a bad day. I try to assume the best in people and sincerely hope that your reply was uncharacteristic of your true nature. If so, I would be glad to further discuss the subject of Quebec English.Loomis51 01:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal, honest, and if you like, we should discuss this outside of Wikipedia. I'm sorry that you didn't take my invitation to share what we as citizens have rightfully paid for as just that, an invitation. Some doubt never hurt anyone.

First, I think many of your assertions were _normal_; there was no judgment. It's what we observe and to what extent we can prove the who/what/when/where/how/why. Most sociolinguistic research is inspired by such observations like yours, yet they're tested, that's the difference. Second, there are surely legions of people who have similar observations on the same lexical items or phenomena, etc. Again, they need to be checked. As for the OQLF, I mentioned the people who work there and not just the library. They are more than happy to explain how things work. Most people are so scared of the OQLF or offended by it that it's a shame that it's not used more often. I think more people should go there, period. BTW, for my Master's, I specifically chose to work with a professor who had worked at the OLF and who worked in Francization, including its (messy) legal intricacies. The language realities of Quebec and Montreal brought me here and my understanding of them has greatly surpassed any common knowledge I shared with Montreal residents, and much to my surprise.

I neglected to mention that some of the dialect articles are very good and some are very bad. It's hit or miss. I'm considering re-working some of them to remove observation bias. For example, many claim that the dialect they discuss substitutes -in for the -ing ending. While this is probably true, there is no mention that it is not unique to that dialect. It's common in most English dialects and should be labelled so. In fact even the organization of the dialects left much to be desired - I spent a good portion of last night re-working the Dialects of English box in my sandbox because not only was it ridiculously long in format, but it also did not explain the differences in dialects/varieties. As to the term "dialect" or what you say about your understanding of dialects, it has absolutely nothing to do with you. "Dialect" is a fuzzy word, as is "XYZ English" (Legal English, Quebec English, Queen's English, etc.), and many linguists like myself just avoid it. The term often implies some subordination or inferiority; sometime it is outright vague. I invite you to check out two things: 1. my sandbox to see how I've arranged the dialects (it makes much much more sense, but it's not done and I'm sure other people who know more about UK and AUS/NZ regional dialects can help out) and 2. The Hong Kong English page. While re-doing the dialect box, I checked each article to see if they were actually describing English or an interlanguage. It turns out that the Hong Kong English article is very similar to the Quebec English one, though the tone is much better than the one I use, mainly because there is much less of an identity politics issue at stake over there. Quebec English is a misnomer because we think it's English; Hong Kong English, though a misnommer, is clearly understood as a Chinese-influenced group of language practices.

I hope this has helped clear up some misunderstandings. Please feel free to contribute other things you notice than should be discussed because after all it is a collective effort. Despite my long-windedness, I've certainly not covered everything, esp. in terms of examples. -- CJ Withers 03:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the good-will gesture. I appreciate it. It's late and I have an early day tomorrow, but I look forward to future discussion with you. Like I said, I try to assume the best in people and it appears I may have been right. Good night.Loomis51 04:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple of friendly reactions to CJ

Rather than tackle all the issues at once, I'll try them one at a time. As a native anglophone Montrealer, I have not once heard an anglophone refer to the the S.A.Q. as the "sack". Call my proof anectdotal, but then again so it seems is the statement of the author. Anecdote vs. anecdote I'm afraid. Loomis51 23:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, the article states that less than 10% of Quebecers are native English speakers. This stat would seem to be substantiated by the article on Demolinguistics of Quebec. This doesn't seem right, but if proven, I'll accept it. However, upon further research, the same article states that less than one percent of Quebecers (0.8%) are bilingual. That can't be right. I cannot accept that less than one in one hundred Quebecers speak both English and French. There's simply something wrong with that article, and therefore, any reference to it should be reassessed. Loomis51 23:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor Question

It's okay = It's fine Is this not true in all english? In Canadian English (at least, the "western Canadian English of Ontario & westwards") these two phrases are essentially interchangable. Perhaps "It's okay" carries a slightly more positive connotation, but if it does, its very slight. WilyD 14:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you missed the point. Some of the structures are grammatically correct but semantically very incorrect. If you say "It's ok" instead of "It's fine" you change the meaning. The two expressions indicate how you look at the proverbial glass of water: is it half-full or half-empty. "Ok" means acceptable but leaves much to be desired and "fine" means just acceptable enough. Clearly, I'm referring to the value judgment people make in their very limited English or very fluent yet poor English. When the waiter asks you how the food is and you reply "It's fine", he or she will simply go on to ask you if you'd like anything else because he or she understands that you're satisfied. However, if you answer "It's okay", he or she will think that you're not pleased with the food and will/should ask what the matter is or might just change the subject to avoid the issue. As for francophones, "It's fine" is absent from the vast majority of their speech inventories. Just imagine the repercussions when they travel: English-speaking waiters outside of Quebec and Canada must think Quebec francophones quite rude or hard to please. -- CJ Withers 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I did - I guessed it was the connotation that you were claiming differed, then incorrectly guessed which one is "supposed" to carry which connotation for non-Quebecers. In as much as I have only my experience as an anglophone to go by, I don't think your characterisation of "It's okay" and "It's fine" are accuracte for "Non-Quebec English". I'd have to say "it's okay" at a restaurant is a stronger approval than "it's fine", although both are easily washed out in the noise of how you say it. Of course, a Torontonian may not have English experience that's representative of anything - I don't know.WilyD 14:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Francophones use perfect in English to mean fine. That's because parfait is used that way in French. My children went to school in French and although they are Anglophone they tend to use perfect that way as well and they claim their Allophone friends do, too.Albertde 20:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a research topic to me. CJ Withers 04:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables anyone?

It would be really great if someone who's got wikipedia table-making down pat to clean up the examples part of this article. Not only am I clueless, but I don't want to waste several weeks on learning since I have other articles to write and translate. So, again, I think tables for the examples would rock. -- CJ Withers 06:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

article in the wrong tone

Large parts of the article seem to be writeen in the wrong tone of voice for an encylopedia. It should report how people speak, not lecture that they are doing it wrong. Joncnunn 21:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you should feel that way. This is an acurate description of many language phenomena related to the use of English in Quebec by anglophones and by francophones (and allophones). Being a sociolinguist, my job is to describe not prescribe, especially in the face of popular opinion (which is sometimes colored by identity politcs). The issue here is not "right" vs. "wrong"; it's clearly what is English and what is an interlanguage phenomenon. No judgment there whatsoever. If language purists choose to view this article as a guide for "correct" or "standard" English, then this article is not the one they're looking for.

For example, if someone says "Open the computer" for "Turn on the computer" / "Boot up the computer", it is simply not English; it is an interlanguage, one of three phenomena grouped under the everyday word "franglais". I suggest you not read into this as tagging these phenomena as saying something is, as you put it, "doing it wrong".

Please note, however, that the N@ symbol is only to show WHERE certain phenomena are not viewed as acceptable in broadcasting and in print, etc. Language attitudes and stances of others are important to understand usage. If you have a beef about such journalistic or cultural practices, write to the Gazette or CFCF12, or The Hour or Mirror for that matter. I have no influence there; I just describe what anyone can attest to by reading or viewing their media.

Also, many English speakers not from Québec do not understand at all what the data under the "My English is broke" means, hence the explanations. Please realize keep in mind, as you already know, that what most people simply call is "broken English" is interlanguage. The subheading itself demonstrates this interlanguage phenomenon; "broke" having been translated from "cassé" ("cassé" having come from English to begin with, go figure). That's why I go to the length to explain and of including the link and descriptions. That's what makes it an encyclopedia article and not preconceived notions. There's nothing wrong with showing language attitudes and debunking them--it's an integral part of objectivity. CJ Withers 22:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

A couple of observations

a) I have certainly heard words like modalities used by native English speakers in English. They seem especially common amoung groups like lawyers who deal with francophone bureaucrats on a daily basis. Possibly this is because there really isn't a good English equivalent.

b) According to StatsCan and the 2001 Census, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/lang/tables/bilingual.cfm, 40.8% of Quebec residents were bilingual. Surely that's far closer to the truth.

c) bank machine is common in other parts of Canada. I don't think I've ever heard either ATM or guichet.

d)I agree on the name "English in Quebec"

Davidmr 21:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

a) Of course you have, it's called interlanguage.

b) Although StatsCan is the only well-known source of demolinguistic data, its naming and questionnaire techniques are flawed when it comes to describing who is bilingual and who may be considered francophone, anglophone or allophone. Linguists are well aware of this reality and usually add an aside to show that such data give a false impression and should not be used. For example, the StatsCan question on speaking the other official language is (1.) self-evaluation, thus not reliable and (2.) based on if a person says they can "hold a short conversation", a statement which is either vague or meaningless. Clearly, 40 some-odd percent is too high (if it's French-English and English-French bilingualism, not including a non-official language). If there is no language expert to asses someone's language proficiency, it's all hearsay. Plus no gov't that boasts its bilingual heritage wants to broadcast its failure to have a majority of bilingual citizens or that millions of its citizens are information-society challenged.

Just think of all those people who are under the impression that they're bilingual because they comfortably speak an interlanugage for a minute or two with their next-door neighbors only to find that they can't understand the most basic written or spoken message in any other common context. Moreover, very few Canadians period are truly proficient in their 2nd official language. Just under half of Quebec residents--anglophones and francophones combined--are functionally illiterate (analphabètes fonctionnels), i.e. are at proficiency Levels 1 and 2 on a scale where Level 3 is the minimal requirement to function with ease in contemporary society.La littératie au Québec 2003 Note that in the hard-hitting report, littératie means "functional literacy" and not "literacy" in its most basic English sense.

c. Totally.

d. I agree, though stats on anglophones and the use of English in general are called for should the title be changed. CJ Withers 04:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

My English is broke

My wife, who is a Montreal-born anglophone and does speak some French (good pronunciation but bad grammar), does not use any of the expressions listed in this section except for having the habit of using want for will. She also talks about the Express instead of Expressway.Albertde 12:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Tone is too casual

As amusing as the titles are "My English is broke", "Pardon my French", this is an encyclopaedia. The style should be more formal than this. --Saforrest 19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't read like an encyclopedia article at all. Somebody with the expertise please fix it.CharlesMartel 20:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

"No evidence for a distinct dialect"

I disagree with this. Here's the abstract from a 2005 article by linguist Charles Boberg, to take just an example (I should add that it's obvious the article is about first-language speakers). Joeldl 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The Canadian shift in Montreal, Charles Boberg, McGill University

Abstract

"Based on an impressionistic study of 16 young Canadians, mostly from Ontario, Clarke, Elms, and Youssef (1995) reported that the short front vowels of Canadian English are involved in a chain shift, the “Canadian Shift,” triggered by the merger of in low-back position, whereby is retracted to low-central position, and are lowered toward the low-front space vacated by . This article extends the study of the Canadian Shift to the English-speaking community of Montreal, Quebec, using acoustic rather than impressionistic analysis and a larger and more diverse sample. The new data motivate a revised view of the Shift, at least as it operates in Montreal, in which the three front vowels are retracted in a set of parallel shifts, rather than rotating in a chain shift."

Obviously, it's missing some phonetic characters. Sorry. Joeldl 15:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Undue focus of article on second-language phenomena

500,000 people in Quebec speak English as their mother tongue. They should be the main focus of the article. There's no more reason to talk primarily about those who use it as a second language than there is to have an article on "California English" talk primarily about the way Hispanics speak English there. At most, a short, separate, section would do, with a link to an article called "English as a second language in Quebec" if there was a lot of material. The fact that some people outside the province might be confused by the term "Quebec English" because they don't know that there are native English-speakers there is beside the point. The term "Quebec English", as used by linguists, virtually always refers to the English of first-language speakers, and that should be the main focus of an article with the title "Quebec English". Joeldl 15:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

INTERAC

I'm an anglophone from rural Quebec who went to English high school. I have never lived in Montreal. I am bilingual. When visiting Eastern Ontario I learned that 'direct payment' is the preferred term, instead of INTERAC. Eventually Interac was replaced with 'paiement direct' as more trademarks were associated with debit cards.

Dep is not a term I'm familiar with, depanneur is always used.

I always use the term 'soft drink'. (If this means I have no first-language, so be it!)

It bugs me when Americans pronounce last names that are French, for example "Mary Kay Letourneau".

Most of the English I experience today is from reading and listening, rather than actual conversation.

While in Ontario, I was asked more than once if I was from Nova Scotia (whassup with dat??)

Quebec English is simply a substitution in vocabulary. I have no idea if I have an accent, except perhaps for Ontarians believing I'm from NS Pendragon39 19:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that the further east you go in Quebec, the more the accent sounds like the Maritimes. --Soulscanner 06:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me

I'm an Anglophone who has lived in Montreal my whole life, gone to school in English my whole life and has been a part of the Anglophone community all my life as well. I don't understand why everyone thinks this page should be deleted! I've heard and used many of the phrases and terms on this page! And it is very true that the way we speak English has influences from French grammar and structure, the most common of them being "Open/close the lights", the use of "me" to compare yourself to someone or something else, all of which are mentioned on this page. P.S. I have heard people calling the S.A.Q. "Sack", but they're almost always promptly corrected =P

I say "sack" all the time for SAQ. I also call the RAAQ the "rack". And I always correct people when they say "open/close the light" or "pass the mop". It's just wrong.--Soulscanner 06:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You mean the "RAM Q"? Pendragon39 08:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Delete Reform article

The reason most of this page should be deleted is because it is all original research and unreferenced, and has been since its inception. I could add tonnes of stuff here on the Montreal Jewish English, Montreal Italian English, Montreal Greek English, Montreal Irish English, etc. but it would all be original research like the rest of the stuff here. I could also start separate sections on Gaspesian English (like Maritimes), Eastern Townships English (like Northern Vermont), the Ottawa Valley English, the Cree and Inuit dialect, all of which are much more distinctive than the standard Canadian English heard in Montreal. The English taught and used in schools and workplaces in Quebec is standard Canadian English. A few people who assimilate into the francophone community speak with a French accent. It doesn't warrant an article. --Soulscanner 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there should be one article to cover Canadian flavours of English and French (eg. Fort Coulonge ). The Newfies can have their own article Pendragon39 08:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If there is a reference for it, fine. There is an article on Canadian English with references. But even the definition given in this article seems unclear; it seems to identify "Quebec English" as something a few people (we're not told who) speak in the Montreal area, and there is no reference to back up this definition. --Soulscanner 11:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Quebec English would most likely be spoken by anglophones who went to English school in Quebec or who have lived in Quebec for a long time amongst francophones. Unilingual anglophones living in Quebec would not end up learning an interlanguage in the same way bilingual anglophones would, but they may learn to speak as their anglophone neighbours do. I dislike the emphasis on Montreal as I'm from rural Quebec. Not every anglophone in Quebec lives in Montreal. So the article lacks references, that doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist or shouldn't be documented. Finding references is a lot less fun than editing an article, so its no surprise there is a backlog all over Wikipedia. Perhaps the best reference is to encounter those who live this reality. Whether that be an anglophone living in the Pontiac or a francophone who was born and raised in Fort Coulonge. Eventually someone with a PhD or whatever will choose to document these small details of Canadian life. Pendragon39 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I recommend the Anglo Guide to Survival in Quebec by Josh Freed. Not a reference (as far as I can remember) but good for a laugh and some insight into anglo life in Quebec Pendragon39 04:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to examine wikipedia guidelines. Documenting unreferenced information as you propose is doing original research. Please check the labels links at the top of the article. They explain it fully. It might be the case that these phenomena should be documented and that it is way more fun to note your own observations rather than backing them up with verifiable references, but that is not what Wikipedia is for. Articles that do this should be deleted, according to Wikipedia. From my own observations, the English spoken in Quebec is at once too similar to standard Canadian English to be considered a distinct dialect, and at the same time too varied to be considered as a distinct variety of this dialect. Townshippers, Ottawa Valley dwellers, Jews in Cote St. Luc, fishermen on the lower North Shore, Gaspesians, Italians in Saint Leonard, Inuit in Nunuvik, and Point-Saint-Charles Irish all have very distinct accents and expressions, but unless these are documented and identified elsewhere I wouldn't start articles on them here. --Soulscanner 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Quebec English is not a dialect and the article attempts to explain why. Waving the axe of deletion may prompt more work to save an article, I agree. I looked and Wikipedia is filled with articles like Maritime English, BC English and the like. Some are improperly identified as dialects. I accept that Wikipedia is a work in progress, so this doesn't bother me. When I look around the world and see the same thing (works in progress), I conclude that this is the normal state of affairs Pendragon39 22:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I editd the intro, which was repetitive and missed some important information about the Canadian dialect it belongs to. Also added more info on regional variations in remote and rural areas. --Soulscanner 09:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking good :) Pendragon39 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of it will be challenged in the future. But I'll adopt your open-minded and inclusive attitude for now. --Soulscanner 02:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If the information is accurate it might survive. Pendragon39 18:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

References?

For those who enjoy referencing articles, please see the reference section in the West/Central_Canadian_English article. Perhaps those refs are applicable here as they "seem" to be the source for the paragraph on Quebec English and other regional variations Pendragon39 18:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Few mistakes I noticed

1. A french speaking Quebecker would not say "Close the door" for "Lock the door", but for "Shut the door close"

2. "A good placement" is not "A good location" but "A good investment"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.110.7.180 (talk) 15:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm a french speaker and I am not agree about Shut the door close. I never hear an other french speaker say it like that... Maybe you just heard it some times but please do not generalize that for every french-quebecer.

206.162.141.34 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a Start Class, as its detail is nearly completely unreferenced, and of midimportance, as I do feel that it plays a strong role in understanding the history of Canada. Cheers, CP 03:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Three Rivers

I just want to point out that Trois-Rivières actually has a significant English history and is commonly spoken as Three Rivers --68.145.127.213 (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I never heard of people calling Trois-Rivières as Three Rivers except me explaining that word to my unilingual mother who has a little knowledge of Quebec geography and French (she's from the States). I always call that city in its original French name. If you think that Trois-Rivières has a significant English history, then write about it in the right article: Trois-Rivières. 24.202.31.204 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have also heard Three Rivers numerous times, especially when speaking to native anglophones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbore (talk • contribs) 03:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

When I was growing-up in Montreal (in the 50s & 60s) we referred to it as Three Rivers. We also referred to Sept-Iles as Seven Islands, although it's been ages since I've heard or seen that in English language media, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.82.243.71 (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a twenty year-old English-speaker born and raised in Montreal and I have always heard it called Three Rivers, which I also say. I can attest to having heard the English term Three Rivers used by both my father's (Working class British/Canadian) and mother's (Italian-Canadian) respective families and communities.-174.94.79.158 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What the "haitch"?

A Montrealer I know of Italian heritage (no idea if she has Italian spoken within her family) pronounces the letter "h" not as "aitch" but as "haitch". Any idea if this is a cultural marker?Toddsschneider (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this erroneous pronunciation is common among Italian Montrealers. I remember fighting about it with a friend of mine in grade three. The argument was put to rest by a teacher who looked it up in an encyclopedia.-174.94.79.158 (talk)

You don't have to be Italian - that is not an uncommon pronunciation among English Montrealers of my generation, though it was made fun of by the English from the West Island. In the Montreal area, I believe it is more of an inner city vs suburb difference. The fact that Italian immigrants made up a large part of the inner city allophones may distort one's view on the matter. 99.245.248.91 (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Quebec English Exists

There are numerous sources and it is unacceptable to reduce the differences to a matter of second-language acquisition. I, for one, am very much a native English speaker AND a native Montrealer, Quebecer, and Canadian. Moreover, I straddle two distinct English-speaking communities: Montreal Italian and Montreal "Canadian"/white-bread/WASP/British-ancestry. You can't discount ethnic Montrealers as "non-native speakers", especially third-generation ones like myself, educated and raised in English. Just because we also learnt Italian from our grandmothers and French from our neighbourhood friends, doesn't make us any less Anglophone. Deal with it. Don't write falsities like,

"High-frequency, second-language phenomena by francophones, allophones, and generally non-native-English speakers occur, predictably, in the most basic structures of English. Commonly called "Frenglish" or "franglais", these phenomena are a product of interlanguage, calques or mistranslation and thus may not constitute so-called "Quebec English", to the extent that these can be conceived of separately – particularly since such phenomena are similar among English-subsequent-language French speakers throughout the world, leaving little that is Quebec-specific:"

This is just wrong. It is not native Francophones who are saying dep/depanneur, but the anglophones themselves! Francophones who speak English well are MUCH more likely to hypercorrect their speech and call it the 'corner store'. Those who do not speak English well enough to know what a corner store is don't deserve mention in this article. As well, note that interlanguage, calques, and mistranslation have been KEY to the development of the English language ever since the Norman invasion (and even before, with the presence of Church Latin)! Two-thirds of English vocabulary is "interlanguage, calques, and mistranslation"!... but when those pesky, naughty, rebellious Montrealers do it, it's shameful and non-native! Such WASPy poo-pooing of the dirty Catholics and immigrants is passé and intolerable. I want to re-iterate that it is important to distinguish NON-NATIVE speakers from NATIVE speakers who may come from a certain cultural background. If you're going to discount the speech of native-Anglophone Italians and Jews, then you might as well discount Irish, Scots, and Indian English... yet they are all considered standard varieties. Anyway I've had enough because the evidence speaks for itself. A series of Gazette articles in early 2010 outlined research out of McGill University that Montreal doesn't, in fact, have an English accent of its own. Rather, Montreal alone is home to at least THREE distinct English accents, and there are likely several more in Anglophone communities throughout Quebec. Anyone who claims Montrealers speak "standard" English or that we sound like Torontonians/Calgarians has only examined a small cross-section of English Montrealers, most likely from the West Island. See the following articles for further information:

Marian Scott. "'A' as in actors". The Gazette, February 12th 2010

Marian Scott. "Our way with words". The Gazette, February 12th 2010

Marian Scott. "Montrealers' borrowed lingo". The Gazette, February 14th 2010

Marian Scott. "That 'aboat' sums it up". The Gazette, February 15th 2010

Marian Scott. "Bagels & schmooze". The Gazette, February 15th 2010.

"Accent on Montreal". Audio Recordings of Montreal Accents. The Gazette.

fight

In Quebec English, the word fight is pronounced /faɪt/ or /fʌɪt/ ? Fête (talk) 23:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Primary one vs. grade one?

I have lived in Thetford Mines, the Eastern Townships, Quebec, and Montreal (which pretty much represents every English community in Quebec in general), and I have NEVER heard anyone say primary XXX instead of grade XXX when referring to elementary school. Maybe it's just me, but I have never heard it. - forbore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbore (talk • contribs) 03:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

no one says primary. that part is wrong. Bonusbox (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The only time I have heard "Primary X" used is by a french speaking person who was trying to use "technical terms" or so he thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talk • contribs) 21:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

"Primary 1,2,3..." is common amongst french first language speakers when referring to the levels whilst speaking english. Anglophones will rarely if ever use it. But, at the same time, it's extremely uncommon to hear anyone under the age of forty refer to "Grade 7,8,9, etc", as those levels do not exist in the quebec education system presently. Instead, as in french, "secondary, 1,2,3" will be used, often shortened to "sec, 1,2,3..."

I would disagree on the "Grade 7,8,9, etc" assessment. I might agree somewhat if you change the range to "by people between the ages of 30 and 40", as since the separate English language school boards were created, "universal" north American terms are used more widely, and interchangeably with the distinct Québec school system terms. Official transcripts, and anything from the ministry of education will state Secondary 1,2,3, etc, however as many Québec anglophone students and schools have frequent contact with people in the "ROC", they know and use the more widely accepted terminology.--NotWillyWonka (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

ʌ Fronting

There's this professor from Quebec at my university, and one of the things that really struck me as weird is that his /ʌ/ is extremely fronted, it sounds almost like [ɛ] (perhaps he uses his French /œ/?). This is a math-heavy class, so I hear a lot of "nembers." Is this an idiosyncrasy or is it common?--206.225.133.1 (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Mario Lemieux, Marie-Claire Blais, Jean Charest, Jean Chrétien...

This list of names is currently presented as examples of Quebec English pronunciation, but there is no explanation as to how English-speakers pronounce them. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 14:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Quebec English. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.equality.qc.ca/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"in hospital"

This is not, as the writer claims, a "grammatical impropriety", but simply standard British English - which has had considerable influence on Canadian English - when referring to the condition (as opposed to being admitted to, or working in, a specific hospital). Brits are usually surprised to hear Americans (and Canadians) saying "in the hospital" with this meaning, and would consider it incorrect, as well as misleading ("Which hospital do you mean?").213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Old timey expressions?

A good deal of the expressions listed in the "vocabulary and grammar" section are not used in common parlance today, and are not even common among older generations of Montreal Anglophones. Are they common among townshippers or laurentian dwellers? IE: "I don't find my keys" / "I would like shrimps with broccolis" / "I would like a brownies" and the especially laughable "My computer, he don't work", seem more like caricatures out of the "Anglophone guide to survival in QC", than the living English language being used on Montreal island in the 21st Century. Also, the references used for the "Vocabulary" section that draw on the American website "https://webauth.arizona.edu/webauth/login?service=https%3A%2F%2Fbackend.710302.xyz%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fshibboleth.arizona.edu%2Fidp%2FAuthn%2FUALoginCASID%2F87d021ded4f8f162946b97321ec2b6be%3Fconversation%3De4s1", tend to be flat out wrong. An "Animator" can be a host, OR an artist. The "your bus will pass" and "corner Peel" examples are flat out gibberish.

I was coming here (2020-07-26) to note that the "corner peel" thing is gibberish. I can't consult the referenced paper without paying for access, though. What nonsense.

Delete

A few references to the Montreal Gazette, original research and a few borrowed words and expressions from the French accents of Quebec does not create a whole new dialect guys. Be reasonable. Going by that logic, almost every immigrant group in Canada would have their own dialect because they are still adjusting and still have an accent and quirks of their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Safyrr (talk • contribs) 02:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

...

Well, someone got the number of speakers wrong. If the population of Quebec is over 8 million, then how is there an estimate of 20.1 million in Quebec? Whoever put this mistake must be either: a. A vandal or b. doesn't even know about Quebec.

(And here I am, sitting at the computer at St-Cleophas.) 2001:56B:DC25:9C00:E092:3277:84E3:3AFE (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)