Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:59:55.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Differences and Occupational Experience*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

E. Jacques Brazeau
Get access

Extract

Because Canada has a labour force composed of more than one language stock, it is of interest to ask what social organization has developed to take account of this pluralism in her work world. Such an interest may take two main forms. First, with respect to a language variable, differences in occupational opportunities may be seen as the sole problem of Canadian Indians and Eskimos, of French Canadians, or of New Canadians. Second, we may wish to find out how our different language groups achieve interdependence in actual work situations and with what consequences for society as a whole. It is the second approach which will be adopted here; in a sense it includes the first, since the problem of any group stems in large part from the ways in which groups act on each other. The groups to which I shall limit my discussion will be the English and the French Canadians, but my remarks will undoubtedly apply, at least in part, to groups who speak other languages.

The view taken in this paper is that in our society, because English is the sole language which has currency in all aspects of social activity, people of different mother tongues have unequal opportunities for work. In a plural society, two consequences follow from the dominance of one language: a limited utilization of the potential skills of those who do not know the dominant language perfectly and a disengagement of the other mother tongues from important aspects of social reality.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science/Revue canadienne de economiques et science politique , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , November 1958 , pp. 532 - 540
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 1958

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in Edmonton, June 5, 1958.

References

1 My hypotheses are drawn from fields as diverse as linguistics, history, psychology, and sociology. They were developed during a study of occupational training in the Canadian armed forces made by David N. Solomon and myself, but they go beyond that research (Defence Research Board Project D77–94–52–05). They reflect also consultations with social scientists from Canada, the United States, the Union of South Africa, and Switzerland. Nevertheless, the ideas expressed are my own. They should not be taken in any way as those of my employers or of the persons who contributed some of the materials with which I built them.

2 Hughes, E. C., French Canada in Transition (Chicago, 1943)Google Scholar; also, S. Jamieson, “French and English in the Institutional Structure of Montreal,” D. L. C. Rennie, “The Ethnic Division of Labour in Montreal from 1931 to 1951,” and Roy, W. J., “French and English Division of Labour in the Province of Quebec” (unpublished M.A. theses, McGill University 1935, 1953, and 1935, respectively).Google Scholar

3 Hughes, E. C. and Hughes, H. M., Where Peoples Meet (Glencoe, Ill., 1952).Google Scholar

4 Brunet, M., Canadians et Canadiens (Montréal, 1954).Google Scholar

5 Daviault, P., “French Language” in Robbins, J. E., ed., Encyclopedia Canadiana (Ottawa, 1958), IV, 261–4.Google Scholar

6 Bram, J., Language and Society (Garden City, N.Y., 1955).Google Scholar

7 Hoijer, H., ed., Language in Culture (Chicago, 1954).Google Scholar

8 E. Sapir, “Communication,” “Language,” “Symbolism” in Seligman, E. R. A., ed., The Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences (New York, 1934), IV, IX, and XIV, 78–81, 155–69 and 492–5Google Scholar, respectively; and Sapir, , Language (New York, 1921).Google Scholar

9 Miner, J. B., Intelligence in the United States (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

10 Lambert, W. E., “Developmental Aspects of Second-Language Acquisition,” Journal of Social Psychology, XLIII, 1956, 83–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; “Measurement of the Linguistic Dominance of Bilinguals,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L, 1955, 197–200 Google Scholar; “Studies of the Verbal Behavior of Bilinguals” (hectographed MS, McGill University, Dept. of Psychology, 1956).Google Scholar

11 Hughes, E. C., Johnson, C. S., et al., eds., Race and Culture: The Collected Papers of Robert Ezra Park, I (Glencoe, Ill., 1950), chaps, xxvi–xxviii.Google Scholar

12 “Sommes-nous asservis par la traduction?” Le Devoir, 22 06 1957.Google Scholar

13 Chroniques de Français (Ottawa, 1956)Google Scholar; “Avant-Propos” reproduced as “Problèmes canadiens” in Vie et Langage, LIX, 02 1957, 51–7.Google Scholar

14 In his “The Natural History of a Research Project, French Canada” (hectographed MS, University of Chicago, Dept. of Sociology, n.d., circa 1952).Google Scholar

15 The terms dialecte and patois are not used in a derogatory sense by linguists; they refer to variations in speech patterns which are found in all languages and which are slight enough not to interfere appreciably with comprehension. Marcel Cohen indicates that France has several dialectes and patois or parlers. A patois, also called a parler, is a form of speech common to a small group, a village, or surrounding region; a dialecte is shared by a larger aggregate. See Cohen, M., Pour une sociologie du langage (Paris, 1956).Google Scholar Following Cohen's definitions, French Canada shares a language which is a French dialect and one which, presumably, is subdivided into several patois or parlers which are peculiar to regions, communities, classes, etc. For the characteristics of the French language in Canada, see Daviault, “French Language.”

16 Based on a personal communication from S. Biesheuvel, Director, National Institute for Personnel Research, Johannesburg.

17 Mead, G. H., Mind, Self and Society (Chicago, 1934), 81–2, 272–3Google Scholar; and his “Thought Communication and the Significant Symbol” in Berelson, B. and Janowitz, M., eds., Reader in Public Opinion and Communication (Glencoe, Ill., 1950), 154–9.Google Scholar