Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature

Hana Kratochvílová

The English Language in Canada: A Questionable Dialect or a Distinct Variety of English?

B.A. Major Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph. D.

2006

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the sources listed in the bibliography.

Brno, 28 April 2006 ....…………………………….....

2

I would like to express many thanks to my supervisor, Mgr. Jan Chovanec, Ph.D., for his kind and valuable advice and help.

3 Table of Contents 1. Introduction...... 6 2. The Evolution of the Views of Canadian English and of the Attitudes towards It...... 8 3. Vocabulary...... 11 3.1 Canadian English - A Unique Mosaic ...... 11 3.2 Regional Varieties of Canadian English...... 11 3.3 Canadian Vocabulary in Relation to British and American Varieties of English.12 3.3.1 British English: Political and Legal Terminology...... 14 3.3.2 American English: Motoring and Transport ...... 15 3.4 Different Lexical Preferences within Canada: Toronto (Ontario) and Montreal..15 3.5 Contemporary Comparison of Canadian and American Lexicons...... 17 3.6 Canadianisms ...... 18 4. Grammar...... 20 4.1 Prepositional Variations...... 20 4.2 Verbs...... 21 4.3 Adverbials ...... 22 4.4 ‘Canadian’ Eh ...... 23 5. Spelling...... 25 5.1 Historical Development of Canadian Spelling...... 26 5.2 -our/ -or...... 27 5.3 -ce/ -se...... 29 5.4 -er/ -re ...... 29 5.5 -ise/ -ize...... 30 5.6 ae and oe Digraphs versus e...... 31 5.7 Doubling of l and p Consonants before Suffixes ...... 32 5.8 em- /en- and im- /in- Prefixes ...... 32 5.9 Other Spelling Features ...... 33 6. French Influence on Canadian English ...... 36 6.1 Vocabulary...... 36 6.1.1 Vocabulary of Quebec English...... 37 6.2 Grammar ...... 39 6.2.1 Post Adjectival Position of Canada ...... 39 6.2.2 Prepositions and Idiomatic Expressions ...... 39

4 7. Conclusion ...... 41 Bibliography ...... 43 Appendix ...... 47

5 1. Introduction

There exist many varieties of English, some of which are generally unquestioned and recognized worldwide whereas others are doubted and treated as parts of those better established ones, i.e. those considered as more clearly defined. Canadian variety of English represents the latter case: While it has been identified with either British or American English (BrE, AmE), its distinct features have been mostly ignored and its existence has still not been acknowledged by everyone. The aim of the present thesis is to demonstrate that Canadian English (CanE) is a distinct variety which should be treated accordingly, even though some linguists argue that no such variety exists. The distinct nature of the English language in Canada is clearly indicated by differences between CanE and the varieties which most influence it (i.e. British and American), by features found uniquely in CanE as well as by its actual usage. The thesis starts by discussing how the very notion of CanE evolved, how Canadians approached the existence of the variety they spoke and what factors influenced Canadians’ views of AmE and BrE which were perceptible in their speech. There will also be presented several linguists’ theories suggesting the non-existence of the distinct Canadian variety of English. The following four chapters will attempt to refute those ideas by pointing out the distinctive nature of Canadian vocabulary, grammar and spelling, and by focusing on the features from Canadian French which have become fully naturalized in CanE and are not characteristic of any other variety of English. The chapter on vocabulary includes the information on the components of Canadian vocabulary and on the regional division of the country. It deals with the development of originally British and American expressions in the Canadian background and also mentions the domains in which either British or American lexicon prevails. Subsequently, the preferred expressions in selected regions are discussed and the chapter is finished by a section on Canadianisms. The following chapter – ‘Grammar’ – presents in three sub-chapters Canadian tendencies concerning prepositional phrases, verbs and adverbials, and it ends with the section entitled ‘Canadian Eh ’ referring to the interjection which is widely used by Canadians.

6 The subsequent chapter on Canadian spelling starts with the historical development of the spelling system in Canada, and it continues by going through the individual spelling phenomena, commenting on each of them. It equally reflects on the consistency of usage in the three discussed varieties of English: CanE, BrE and AmE. Finally, the ‘French Influence on Canadian English’ offers an insight into the features of CanE resulting from the co-existence of the two languages. The chapter focuses primarily on the lexical and grammatical characteristics of CanE with relation to Canadian French. Given its minority status in the French speaking province, Quebec English is dealt with in more detail.

7 2. The Evolution of the Views of Canadian English and of the Attitudes towards It

To understand why relatively few studies on the English language in Canada have been done and why Canadians did not feel for so long the need to struggle for the recognition of CanE as a distinct variety (Orkin 1970: 3-5), one has to consider the development of the country in the context of Great Britain and the United States . Canadians, revering their mother country, traditionally identified themselves with Britons, the consequence of which was the identification of CanE with BrE. Gradually, the view of CanE developed into the opposite extreme: it started to be regarded as nothing else but American English. Additionally, in an effort of the French Canadians to assert their cultural and linguistic rights, they depicted the Anglophone majority as confident and linguistically powerful, which naturally did not encourage the Anglo-Canadians to seriously explore the variety they spoke. They still tried to maintain the same language as was spoken in Great Britain and believed that BrE is what they should speak. However, this conviction did not prevent them from gradually incorporating into their speech Americanisms which subsequently became part of their ‘language’. Thus, the early British travellers to Canada recognized such Americanisms as ‘unwanted’ non-British elements; their comments on “the mis-adoption of would and should by the Canadians in the American manner” and on the use of such expressions as wagon or lot reach back into 1830s (Orkin 1970: 8). Other observers, resentful at the naturalizing of American expressions, vilified Canadian English by declaring it, for instance, “a corrupt dialect growing up amongst our population, and gradually finding access to our periodical literature, until it threatens to produce a language as unlike our noble mother tongue as the negro patua [sic], or the Chinese pidgeon [sic] English” (Reverend A. Constable Geike 1857, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 9). Geike criticized the intrusion of such Americanisms as “ guess for think [or] betterments for improvements to new land” (qtd. in Orkin 1970: 9). He equally objected to words which he obviously considered as Canadianisms, although they were actually American borrowings: first class meaning ‘able, great, capable’, loaned instead

8 1 of ‘lent’ or ‘I conclude to go’ for ‘I resolved to go’ (1857, qtd. in Hultin 1967: 251) . Similarly, an Englishman visiting Canada in the 1830s expressed his concern about the children being “instructed by some anti-British adventurer, instilling into the young and tender minds sentiments hostile to the parent state . . . and American spelling books, dictionaries and grammar, teaching them an anti-British dialect and idiom” (Hodgins 1895, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 9). In the nineteenth century, British disparaging views of AmE were still peculiar to most Canadians. AmE was regarded as “illiterate, coarse, and rude and the people who used it as little better” (Hultin 1967: 244). The British promoted such a portrayal of Americans in periodicals and literature and Canadians, inspired by them, started 2 themselves to caricaturize the Yankees and glossed over the AmE influence on their variety, convinced that they speak similarly pure English as the British (Hultin 1967: 245). However much the authors fought against the use of Americanisms in literature, considering it “a further erosion of their British identity” (Hultin 1967: 253, emphasis by italics added), they could not avoid it; and the ever-rising manifestation of the American influence on the level of speech led some Canadians to describe themselves as being “exceedingly British with mouth and exceedingly ‘American’ with the voice” (Hultin 1967: 255). The example of such a ‘speech characteristic’ reaches back to the turn of the twentieth century, when a Toronto school teacher lamented that there was no point in teaching children to pronounce such words as palm or calm with the Italian A, because “their parents tell them it is affected to pronounce those words correctly, and say they are imitating the English!” and she added, “What language are we alleged to speak?” (1906, qtd. in Hultin 1967: 255). Even if the authorities insisted on sounding purely British, the public was less reluctant to accept the reality of sounding ‘American’. And one could hear a number of opinions such as “the language and the fashions of the two people are the same” or “among the populace American habits, customs and manners prevail. Canadian slang is American slang. Popular nomenclature and phraseology are American” (1903, qtd. in

1 Minor discrepancies were found between Geike’s wordlists mentioned in Orkin and Hultin: In contrast to Hultin, for instance, Orkin quotes first-class with a hyphen, and chooses an ‘opposition’ ‘ loan for lend’ (10). Besides, he makes difference between considerable meaning ‘a good deal’ and considerable much 2meaning ‘very well’ (10) while Hultin records only considerable as having both meanings (251). e.g. the character of Sam Slick in Thomas Haliburton’s The Clockmaker (Hultin 1967: 244-245)

9 Hultin 1967: 256). Thus, the view of CanE underwent a gradual change from ‘more British’ to ‘more American’ . However, not much changed about the Canadians’ concern over the investigation of the language they spoke. In the late 1950s, a Canadian linguist M. H. Scargill asserted that “a definitive history of the English language in Canada is yet to be written” and that “the vast amount of preliminary work necessary for such a history has not been done” (1957, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 5). At about the same time, an American linguist Morton W. Bloomfield presented the view that Canadian English is “to all intents and purposes General American with a few modified sounds usually paralleled in American sub-dialects and with some vocabulary variations” (1948, qtd. in Jurcic 2003b: 1). Some twenty years later, Mark M. Orkin anxiously remarked that “the homogenizing of North American English is far advanced” (1970: ix). And the theories of the non-existence of CanE have found an ardent supporter in the young Canadian linguist Jaan Lilles . His article entitled ‘The myth of Canadian English’ commences with John Algeo’s view that “all linguistic varieties are fictions” since “a language system, such as English, is a great abstraction, a fiction, analyzable into large areal varieties” which he in turn sees as fictions (1991, qtd. in Lilles 2000: 3). Elaborating on Algeo’s ideas, Lilles (2000: 3) suggests that studying a linguistic community within national boundaries is useful only on the condition that a group studied shares “a unique or binding set of linguistic features”. As for CanE, however, he argues that “the ‘usefulness’ of the fiction is so limited, that not only is it almost purposeless but it can and does result in negative social and political effects” and he openly proclaims: “In England they speak English, in France French and so on. But in Canada we do not speak ‘Canadian English’, for it is my argument that there is hardly such a thing ” (2000: 3-4).

Referring to certain features of Canadian vocabulary, grammar and spelling, as well as to the French traits peculiar to CanE, and emphasising the characteristics in which the distinctiveness of CanE is perceived, the following chapters aim to demonstrate that there is such a thing as Canadian English.

10 3. Vocabulary

Before approaching the influences of BrE and AmE noticeable in the vocabulary of CanE, which is the main focus of this chapter, the other components of Canadian vocabulary will be mentioned. Besides, as CanE is not homogenous, i.e. not the same all over the country’s territory , there will also be included a brief overview of the regions 3 in which the most significant variations were noted.

3.1 Canadian English - A Unique Mosaic

The metaphorical designation of the Canadian nation – Canadian mosaic , representing the idea of one nation composed of a variety of culturally distinct groups, 4 could be to a certain extent applied to the English language spoken in Canada. Its components include the aboriginal languages – Indian and Eskimo, Gaelic (associated with Scottish immigrants), South-West English and Irish features which are especially preserved in Newfoundland English, German, the Chinook jargon ("the only pidgin English ever to exist in North America") (Orkin 1970: 107), and most importantly the British and American standard varieties of English. Besides, it is significantly influenced by the French language, and there are also Spanish-American terms and borrowings from other languages (Orkin 1970: 66). Thus, features contained in CanE can also be found in other languages or language varieties. The combination which they create together in the form of CanE, however, is unique.

3.2 Regional Varieties of Canadian English

From the point of view of the regional differences in CanE, the following dialects can be distinguished: Atlantic (comprising the Maritime Provinces, i.e. New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island, and the Newfoundland as a specific sub-area), Quebec (including Montreal), Ottawa Valley, and General Canadian (covering the area from Toronto to the Pacific), which has recently been regarded as “a

3 4 not only lexical Pelhe’s paper implies a similar parable – she applies the image of Canadian mosaic to the spelling and pronunciation variants (2003).

11 5 class-based urban dialect of broadcasting and educated speech” (Mc Arthur 1996: 274). Focusing on CanE as a whole, I am not going to describe any of the regional varieties in detail. However, some prominence will be given to the province of Ontario and Quebec, especially to Montreal area, because the South of Ontario is the richest and the most densely populated area in Canada and the English spoken in this region is seen as a ‘norm’ for the whole of CanE (Viereck 2005[2002]: 181). Montreal area develops within the French province and is hence under greater influence of the second official language of the country.

3.3 Canadian Vocabulary in Relation to British and American Varieties of English

One the most striking features that distinguishes CanE from the British and American varieties is the mixed character of its vocabulary. Once a word of either origin becomes part of CanE, it can develop freely, its meaning can be shifted, it can be a preferred term in one region while not occur but rarely in another. Besides, more terms of both British and American origins can co-exist or be combined among each other into a new Canadian expression, e.g. chicken-run which is a combination of British fowl-run and American chicken-yard (Orkin 1970: 72). To illustrate the changes which can affect an originally British or American expression after it enters CanE, I will use four items from C. J. Lovell’s classification of the Canadian vocabulary on the basis of its resources . From the sixteen headings covering most of the previously mentioned ingredients of CanE, the following relate to the British and American varieties:

• Everyday words formed into combinations unfamiliar abroad, such as apartment block, bush pilot, fishing admiral, New Canadian, staking rush ; • Words replacing synonyms more often used in England, such as elevator (lift), gasoline (petrol), movies (cinema), sidewalk (pavement), truck (lorry) ; • Terms representing different things than in British English, such as black cat (marten), crocus (prairie anemone), north country, maid of honor, robin ; • Words which have developed additional meanings unknown in England,

5 Viereck (2005[2002]: 181) in his Atlas Englishe Sprache divides Canada, on the basis of the Survey of Canadian English, undertaken in 1972, into only three areas: Newfoundland, Eastern Canada and Western Canada, which is identical with the area of General Canadian . Boberg (2005: 40) distinguishes six principal lexical regions – the West, Ontario, Montreal, New Brunswick-Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. ITP (1997) and GCD’s (1967) ‘divisions’ differ from these only slightly.

12 such as concession, frontier, reeve, unionist (‘an6 advocate of Confederation’), warden (1955, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 66-67).

The classification attests to the formerly mentioned notion of the respected position of the BrE, which appears as ‘an authoritative resource’ for CanE, a ‘model variety’ with which the Canadian vocabulary is compared. On the contrary, AmE, which is referred to only indirectly in the second heading above, seems to exercise only 7 a minor influence on CanE. The way Lovell approaches the American influence contrasts with Alexander’s view of CanE as an amalgam of BrE and AmE, but “with a strong leaning toward the American pattern” (1955, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 70). What is significant about Lovell’s classification, though, is the accentuation of the characteristics of the words in CanE which are different from those in BrE and AmE and which the words acquire only in the Canadian background. Thus, Lovell’s classification supports the idea of the existence of CanE as a distinct variety. As far as the choice between Americanisms and Britishisms is concerned, “Canadians,” according to Orkin (1970: 70), “thread an uncertain and apparently arbitrary path between British and American usage”, hence billboard (AmE) is preferred to hoarding (BrE) but instead of American oatmeal and faucet a Canadian opts for British porridge and tap . The ‘arbitrariness of the choice’ in different places in Canada is not ‘absolute’, however, for it is not unimportantly affected by preferences in individual regions. Apparently, a confusing inconsistency might seem to govern the choice of words for formation of compounds. Canadians prefer luggage (BrE) instead of baggage (AmE) but in composite words ( baggage-car and baggage-check ) the American expression is chosen. Similarly, American store is preferred to the British shop , whereas the composites ( barber shop or bake-shop ) contain the British variant. Yet there are equally composites with store , such as book-store , grocery-store , and drug-store (Orkin 1970: 79). I do not find this ‘inconsistency’ as something that should be forcibly ‘corrected’ by choosing only one expression for both independent words and compounds. Rather, I consider this phenomenon a result of the distinct development of

6 Lovell mentions another three headings relating to BrE and AmE: ‘Spanish-American terms’, ‘Words shifted from one part of speech to another’, and ‘Apparent survivals from various Scottish and English

7dialects’ (Orkin 1970: 66-67) A similar notion is implied in The Oxford Companion to the English Language by mentioning only (1) borrowings from indigenous languages, (2) borrowings from French and (3) the extension and adaptation of traditional words (i.e. BrE words) as resources for CanE vocabulary. (Mc Arthur 1996: 165-166)

13 words in CanE; and this phenomenon should not be ignored as, again, it makes the Canadian vocabulary different from British and American ones: Canadian . As for the co-existence of both originally British and American words in Canada, they “flourish side by side […], although they are not always synonymous” (Orkin 1970: 71). Interchangeable are couples like braces (BrE) and suspenders (AmE), parcel and package, odd jobs and chores as well as both a pack or a deck of cards (Orkin 1970: 71), having, though, different preferences in individual regions. The co- occurence of flat (BrE) and apartment (AmE) is an example of the ‘non-synonymous co-existence’: in Canada, apartment, in contrast to flat, is usually self-contained (Orkin 1970: 71). Nevertheless, there are domains in which either British or American vocabulary prevails, such as law and politics (BrE) or motoring industry (AmE). This reflects, respectively, the important influence of the British political organization on Canada (Orkin 1970: 79-81) as well as the Canada-US neighbourhood which enabled developing the trade and economic relations between the two countries .

3.3.1 British English: Political and Legal Terminology

Since the Canadian “institutions are largely patterned on English [British] models” (Orkin 1970:80), most parliamentary and constitutional vocabulary stems from 8 Britain. As for the terms themselves, most of them are contained in the B. N.A. Act ; for instance “ dominion , provinces as political divisions of a federal state, Governor- General, privy council, Lieutenant-Governor ,[...], electoral district, decennial census [or] disallowance” (Orkin 1970: 81) . Several political terms occur both in Canada and the US, as they “derive independently from a common British source, as cabinet , speaker , committee ” (Orkin 1970: 82) . American vocabulary prevails on the local and municipal levels, e.g. mayor, controller, ward . In addition, riding, referring to a constituency, is a borrowing from BrE (in which it has, however, quite different connotations) (Orkin 1970: 82).

8 i.e. “An Act for the Union of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; and the Government thereof. and for Purposes connected therewith. [29th March 1897]” (source: British North America Act, 1867 - Enactment no. 1.(8 Nov 2001) 29 March 2006 .)

14 3.3.2 American English: Motoring and Transport

In CanE, terms connected with vehicles, such as “ trucks, fenders, trunks, 9 cabooses , etc.” (Crystal 1988: 232) are typically American. While Britons, when referring to their vehicles, use such expressions as accumulator , saloon-car , wind- screen , or gear lever Canadians use words borrowed from Americans: battery , sedan , windshield , or gear lever , respectively (Orkin 1970: 80). Similarly, the terms connected with transport by train are predominantly American: All aboard! (AmE) is used for Take your seats, please! (BrE), conductor for guard, one-way ticket for single ticket and ties for sleepers (Orkin 1970: 79-80). British railway , however, is preferred to 10 American railroad (Cornerstone 2006).

3.4 Different Lexical Preferences within Canada: Toronto (Ontario) and Montreal

A number of studies have already shown that while British and American words co-exist in Canada, their distribution is uneven. As in other varieties of English, there exist several regional and local ‘sub-varieties’ which differ one from another; and in Canada, one of the distinguishing features may be different lexical preferences. As the language develops and changes in time, however, the vocabulary preferences change as well. This phenomenon can be illustrated by comparing several older and recent studies of Toronto and Montreal’s vocabularies. First of all, let us focus on the variety of English spoken in Montreal. In 1929, an American Helen Munroe declared that Montreal English is more British than American, supporting her claim by a list of different Montreal and American expressions for the same thing. The list included

Montreal = BrE AmE pram baby carriage tram street-car sweet dessert tin can serviette napkin pickerel pike

9 10 British equivalents taken from CALD : lorry, wing or mudguard, boot, guard’s van, respectively Orkin argues that Canadians prefer the American term in this case, too, but the more recent source says the contrary.

15 boot shoe braces suspenders zed zee long holidays summer vacation and other items (Orkin 1970: 73) . A year later, W. S. W. McLay objected that “in both 11 Toronto and Montreal the ordinary speech of even cultivated Canadians approximates in the matter of words to that of the United States” (1930, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 73, 12 emphasis by italics added) and followed that Canadians in Toronto do prefer baby carriage, street-car and dessert and that “ pickerel and pike are different kinds of fish, and boot and shoe are not synonyms” (1930, qtd. in Orkin 1970:74). In the 1950s, on the basis of his study of Montreal English, D. E. Hamilton concluded that it has more in common with AmE than with BrE and he compiled a list of different words used in Montreal and in Britain (Orkin 1970: 74). He mentions expressions such as

Montreal = AmE BrE apartment flat boundary frontier candy sweets pants trousers wrench spanner

(qtd. in Orkin 1970: 74-75). Interestingly, the 1960s comparison of Ontario and Montreal usage of selected four words revealed that the preferences in the two varieties differed: Ontarioans preferred British variant in three cases out of four whereas Montrealers favoured 13 American expressions. Differences in usage were equally noted in the most recent study on regional vocabularies. When questioned about how they generally call carbonated beverages, the prevalence of Toronto respondents chose pop (72%) which is also frequent in the United States whereas the Montrealers largely preferred soft drink (73%) (Boberg 2005: 39, 48). The occurrence of pop in Montreal likewise of soft drink in Toronto was

11 McLay’s observation implies that in the 1930’s, the tendecies in the development of vocabularies in

12both Toronto and Montreal varieties were identical. 13 Cf. the change in the perception of CanE The words included serviette , braces , coal oil (BrE, preferred in Ontario) and napkin , suspenders and kerosene (AmE) chosen by Montrealers. Both Ontarioans and Montrealers preferred can (AmE) over the British tin (Orkin 1970: 76).

16 negligible. In Eastern Ontario which forms a transitional zone between Greater Toronto and Quebec, however, the preferences were 30% for soft drink and 43% for pop 14 (Boberg 2005: 39). Similarly, 95% respondents from Montreal opted for all-dressed pizza , i.e. a pizza with all toppings, while only 12% chose this term in Greater Toronto; the prevalent term there was the American expression everything-on-it , chosen by 60% 15 respondents (Boberg, 2005: 39). The above-mentioned examples of lexical variation conveniently illustrate the ‘passage’ from initially ‘more British’ nature of the common, everyday lexicon, to the ‘more American one’. But this is not to say that British expressions have disappeared from CanE or that CanE it has become fully Americanized. The development of Montreal which has first been perceived as ‘more British’, later as ‘more American’ and it seems that currently as either because of some lexical features which, according to the Boberg’s study, were not recognized as either prevailingly British or prevailingly American, suggests that Canadian lexicon can never be fully identified with a lexicon of another variety of English.

3.5 Contemporary Comparison of Canadian and American Lexicons

Boberg’s study is particularly useful for marking out the variables by which CanE as a whole differs from AmE. As it follows from the study, the greatest lexical differentiator is how people name successive school years. While Americans describe them as first grade , second grade, etc., Canadians prefer to say grade one, grade two etc. There are some minor variations, such as Quebec’s usage of first grade for the first year of elementary school. Unlike the US’s freshman, sophomore, junior , and senior, no special designations for high school years exist in Canada: these are simply grades nine 16 through twelve . The study also points out that out of top five US variants by which, in a certain aspect, the US most differs from Canada – first grade, candy bar, faucet, zee, studio apartment – none can be heard in Britain, and only two out of the five Canadian

14 Boberg (2005: 39) divides the Ontario area into Northwestern, Southern and Eastern Ontario and

15Greater Toronto. Generally, Montreal usage decreases westwards. Boberg actually says that the “use of everything-on-it is more common with burgers than with pizza in most regions” when talking about the 60% preference in Toronto. But he equally claims that “terms for a burger with all the toppings […] are largely parallel to those for pizza” which allows me to establish this

16link. Cf. Table 1 of the appendix

17 variants are British – tap and zed. “The remaining three – grade one, chocolate bar and bachelor apartment – are Canadianisms” (Boberg 2005: 46-48). What should be accentuated most, however, is the important finding of the survey that the variables distinguishing Canadian regions one from another do not coincide (save a few exceptions) with those differentiating CanE from AmE. Thus the conclusion that “ Canada’s regions have much more in common lexically with each other than any of them does with the United States ” (Boberg 2005: 52) clearly proves the idea that the variety of English spoken in Canada is distinct .

3.6 Canadianisms

The first meaning of the expression ‘Canadianism’ offered by GCD is ‘a word or expression originating in or peculiar to Canada’ (1967: 163). Such a category is rather extensive for it encompasses terms for place names, fauna, flora, as well as words from social, cultural, political and economic domains. To this can be added a huge number of expressions characteristic of individual regions. The aim of this section is not to offer an 17 exhaustive list of ‘ Canuck words’ but rather to choose some of them, primarily those having roots in or related with the English language, as well as pick out a few interesting ones. Among Canadianisms adopted from aboriginal languages there are Algonquian Indian muskeg, pemmican, toboggan or totem or Eskimo igloo, mukluk or kayak (Orkin 66, 89, 90, 93) . I start with this small note on originally aboriginal words because of their importance: some of them have enriched the vocabularies of many languages in the world. Even though Orkin (1970: 69-70) suggests that Canadians “are not prolific coiners of words, being content for the most part to borrow American and British English expressions,” he also finds some expressions being “not without occasional sparks of wit as in Bennet buggy and remittance man ”. The other coinages include McIntosh Red, York boat, Newfie or splake (Orkin 1970: 69). Apart from the terms included in the above-mentioned headings of Lovell’s classification (save the second heading), more ‘English language’ Canadianisms can be presented, for instance hydro standing for ‘hydro-electric’, grid road, cat train (Orkin

17 i.e. Canadian words, Canadianisms

18 1970: 67-68) , chuck race, corduroy road, separate school (Dean 1963: 279) , as well as more recent terms contained in Boberg’s (2005: 48) report, namely bank machine and washroom. It is pleasing that at least certain awareness of the distinct CanE exists in the world, which is evident e.g. in Hana Rebeková’s phrase book. Although the book is entitled Americká angličtina: Praktická příručka pro konverzaci v USA a Kanadě [American English: A Practical phrase book for conversation in the USA and Canada], which actually leads the readers to suppose that there is no difference between the language spoken in the two countries, Rebeková (2002: 14) remarks that washroom is a 18 Canadianism. She does the same in the case of loonie or twonie (2002: 44) . Expressions bushed or snow shovel are also distinctively Canadian (Dean 1963: 19 281). To this list can be added “ timbits , which are little round donuts one can buy at Tim Hortons, a Canadian coffee shop” (Jurcic 2003a: 2). Furthermore, many sport (esp. hockey) expressions, such as blue line or faceoff (Orkin 1970: 68) , and a considerable number of political terms originated in Canada. Where the British or American term did not fit or could not represent the Canadian reality, a new word was coined, namely Clear Grit , Confederation (Dean 1963: 279), M.P.P ., acclamation, endorsation, Socred, mountie and many others (Orkin 1970: 67, 69). I would like to conclude this ‘Canadian section’ arguing that there are enough words peculiar to Canada which make the vocabulary distinct enough from both United States and Britain. Moreover, in view of the constant development of any living language, the development of new expressions which would reflect new realities of contemporary Canadian society can be predicted.

18 These are colloquialisms for one and two dollar coins. Cornerstone’s (2006) web page mentions other

19possible spellings, loony and toonie . Loonie got its nickname from the loon on the coin. Although the word is not included in the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary (Jurcic 2003a: 2), the Google search located 112,000 results for timbits , suggesting its relatively high frequency.

19 4. Grammar

The number of CanE – AmE – BrE variations on the grammatical level is not as high as, for instance, on the lexical one. Besides, quite a few grammatical features correspond to AmE. The main variations concern prepositional phrases, verbs and adverbials. Certain grammatical phenomena, though, are unique to Canada.

4.1 Prepositional Variations

A Canadian, likewise an American, opts for ‘ on Blank Street’ instead of British ‘in Blank Street’, he takes his ‘first vacation in two years’, unlike a Briton who takes his ‘first holiday for two years’, a Canadian uses due to instead of owing to and claims that ‘there is nothing to it ’, the phrase likely to be modified to ‘there is nothing in it’ by a 20 Briton (Orkin 1970: 154-155). American influence manifests itself also in the preposition to being preferred in an idiomatic expression sick to the stomach instead of sick at the stomach – formerly 21 “the standard English [i.e. British] form” – although Orkin (1970: 153) noted that the phrase with at was prevailing in the area west of Toronto. Besides, in some Canadian writings, Christopher Dean (1963: 281) noticed an Americanism name for where a Briton would normally use name after , and an expression wave at them where BrE uses wave to . Finally, all of the people (AmE) is preferred over the British all the people (Orkin 1970: 155). The influence of AmE on CanE is uncontested. Nevertheless, the examples of ‘there is nothing to it ’ and ‘ sick to the stomach ’ Americanisms which have become fully naturalized in BrE illustrate the fact that CanE, likewise the other varieties of English, ‘goes with the tide’ in allowing AmE to affect it, which is not the same as to claim that CanE is being Americanized to the extent that would imply the identification of CanE and AmE. Nevertheless, there exists a construction which has evolved in and around

20 However, BNC search results prove that these days, ‘nothing to it ’ being “used to say something is very

21easy” (CALD) – has become a common part of BrE. I add formely because according to more recent sources, preposition to is now preferred also in BrE: BNC, NODE and OALD quote only sick to one’s stomach (OALD marks it as Americanism). In the 1970s, however, sick at one’s stomach seems to be more common, and even recommended – surprisingly by AHDEL.

20 Toronto, as Chambers notes, independently of AmE: young people use an expression ’cep’fer which can occur in sentences such as

I can usually put them to bed at twenty to seven, ’ cep’fer she’s learning to tell time now (1987, qtd. in Chambers 1991b: 292, italics adjusted).

’Cep’fer is a form of except for - traditionally only a preposition but in sentences 22 like the one above, it functions as a complementizer (Chambers 1991b: 292) . Although its occurrence is rather local, Chambers (1991b: 292-293) suggests that “it will continue to spread [...] until it becomes common enough that it occurs in writing”. It may be another instance of a prepositional Canadianism .

4.2 Verbs

As far as verbs are concerned, Canadians are usually aware of both British and American verbal forms (providing there is a difference). Predominantly, however, they tend to follow the American usage. Already in the fifties an Americanism dove was a preferred preterite form in Ontario over the British dived , and more than a third of informants preferred the participial form drank (AmE) over drunk (BrE) as well as American bathe (transitive verb) over the British bath (Orkin 1970: 153-154). Montreal was found to lean to AmE expressions even more. A recent study undertaken in Montreal just confirmed the trend; the results for bath/ bathe usage prove that “virtually no one under 50 years of age still uses the British form” (Boberg 2004: 261) and that, together with the dive/ dove usage, 23 the “change is nearing completion” . Interestingly, Boberg (2004: 261) noted that the ‘younger generation’ is not the only one who moves to American usage: the tendencies of their parents’ generation are the same.

22 23 Cf. Crystal 1985: 60. Cf. Figures 1 and 2 of the appendix.

21 4.3 Adverbials

Out of the three syntactic forms which are to be mentioned here, first two can be observed both in CanE and AmE; the third one, however, is unique to CanE. The first one, ‘ever-exclamation’ , is an adverbial with a highly emphatic meaning which appears in sentences such as

Does he ever drive so fast! Is he ever stupid! (Chambers 1991a: 263, italics added).

Chambers (1991a: 263) clarifies the meanings of the sentences by rephrasing them into ‘Wow! He drives very fast! and Wow! He is really stupid! ’. He points out that in this usage, the meaning of ever is ‘habitually, at all times’, by contrast to its standard meaning ‘at any time’, and he reminds that the inversion of the auxiliary is required.

The second adverbial, in Canada a regionalism occurring in southern Ontario, is ‘positive any more’ , which is usually employed in sentences like these:

He complains lot any more. War, any more, is genocide. (Chambers 1991a: 264, italics added)

According to Labov, ‘positive any more ’ can be replaced by the temporal adverb ‘nowadays’, although not every time (qtd. in Chambers 1991a: 264). Pragmatically, as explained by Chambers (1991a: 264), sentences containing ‘positive any more ’ insinuate the speaker’s disapproval of the situation, e.g. “if someone says He smiles a lot any more , she probably means that she considers his smiling excessive, or not genuine, or the like”. As for the origin of this adverbial in CanE, W.H. Eitner suggests that it entered CanE at about the same time as Pennsylvanian refugees came to Ontario 24 (i.e. between 1783 and 1803), and thus the ‘Loyalists’ roots can be traced in the expression (qtd. in Chambers 1991a: 265). While common to AmE and CanE, the two above-discussed adverbials can be seen as features that clearly differentiate CanE (as well as AmE) from the British variety.

24 refers to the settlers from the US who came to Canada in the course of the American revolution (1776- 83) and after it (McArthur 1996: 163)

22

The adverbial phrase unique to Canada is as well – employed as a sentence connector (cf. Crystal 1985: 9), as in

She warned us of the dangers. As well, she told us how to avoid them. (Chambers 1991a: 264, italics added)

According to H. A. Gleason, CanE is the only variety in which as well can be found in initial position (qtd. in Chambers 1991a: 264). Therefore, this sentential adverb should be noted as it is another evidence of the distinct nature of CanE.

4.4 ‘Canadian’ Eh

As Trudgill (1991: 51) remarks, the interjection eh is used in very many varieties of English, including Scottish and AmE. However, he continues, its widespread usage in Canada sometimes leads to the erroneous notion, particularly among Americans, that it is exclusively a Canadian feature. Eh can be used in many contexts with a number of different meanings , e.g. “ interrogative ( You liked it eh? ), narrative (We had pizza, eh, 25 and beer ), greeting ( How’s it going eh? ), deferment (Yeah really eh? )” , tag ( You want to go, eh? ) or intensifier ( Do it, eh? ) (McArthur 1996: 165). Additionally, eh often appears in anecdotes (McArthur 1996: 165). The ample use of eh by Canadians on many diverse occasions may be related to the use of tags in other varieties of English: it can be noted that CanE effectively substitutes a number of various tags such as ... isn’t it? ... haven’t you? ... does she? by only one interjection, which reveals outstandingly strong tendencies of CanE towards the economy of language . Employing eh in CanE is an extremely frequent phenomenon. As Jurcic (2003a: 3-4) argues, “the frequency and the context in which it occurs in Canadian speech is remarkably different from both American and British native speakers and thus it is a

25 S ource: Discussion forum. ‘‘British’ Accents and Tuna Fish’ Online posting by Jay Tea [nickname]. 30 Oct 2002. Snopes.com . 9 Feb 2006 . According to the forum, the information is based on the study of Avis, Walter S. 1972. So eh? Is Canadian, eh? Canadian Journal of Linguistics 17: 89-104. and Gibson, Deborah. 1977. Eight Types of 'eh'. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8.1: 30-31.

23 26 distinguishing characteristic of Canadian speech”.

In addition to the features of CanE shared with AmE, the chapter presented the examples of ‘grammatical Canadianisms’ such as the specific use of as well , complementizer ’ cep’fer , or the frequently used eh interjection, which again illustrate the distinctiveness of CanE.

26 Jurcic substantiates her view by her own experience of being recognized as Canadian on the basis of eh and some distinctions in pronunciation by both teachers and students during her seven-year career as an English teacher in Croatia.

24 5. Spelling

Canadian spelling is another feature that sometimes contributes to doubts about the distinct nature of CanE. The aim of this chapter is to disprove the proverbial inconsistency of Canadian spelling by pointing out its inner rules based on spelling preferences which are clearly defined in dictionaries . Furthermore, the section on the development of spelling in Canada will touch on the origins of certain Canadian spelling choices which are maintained until today. As Orkin (1970: 148) remarks, Canadian spelling corresponds partly to British and partly to American usage; or, in other words, it “does not follow a consistent pattern.” Such a view invites the question of what exactly is meant by the ‘consistent pattern’. If it is either ‘purely British’ or ‘purely American’ spelling, then the truth must be given to Orkin. CanE makes use of both. Yet if either British or American spelling is ‘chosen’ for a certain phenomenon, Canadian dictionaries define clearly and consistently what the preferred spelling is. Preferred, because this is the way Canadians choose to describe their variety of English: descriptively, not prescriptively . From this point of view, CanE shows a considerable consistency. Of course, there are exceptions to the ‘rule’, such as favouring im- prefix in impanel while em- prefix is generally preferred in most other words of the kind, but if those are seen as inconsistencies, then BrE in the context of its prescriptivism could likewise be criticized as inconsistent for allowing for -ize endings as an alternative variant to its norm, -ise , and so could be in fact both AmE and BrE for many instabilities in doubling certain consonants, namely p and l. Such an approach would obviously be unwise. First, it would completely ignore the reality of language development, and second, a language is a complex phenomenon in which “the existence of tiny formal irregularities gets along quite well with great 27 linguistic refinement” (Mathesius 1982: 70), which implies that certain irregularities are quite natural to language and should be tolerated – in whatever variety of language.

27 Existence drobných formálních nepravidelností se docela dobře snáší i s vysokou jazykovou vytříbeností.

25 5.1 Historical Development of Canadian Spelling

Canadian spelling was developing together with the very notion of CanE. The British criticized any influence of AmE on CanE, hence also American spelling (Orkin 1970: 146). Despite the British dissatisfaction, though, American spelling was penetrating into CanE save the official level which was dominated by the ‘authoritative’ spelling of the mother country. This spelling, mirroring the important historical influence of the British law and politics on Canada, has remained the ‘norm’ until today. British standard is obligatory in all official correspondence (Orkin 1970: 148). The usage of British spelling in these documents dates back to 1890, when it was 28 established by a ‘recommendation’ called Order-in-Council (Mencken 1946: 396). Then, “in 1931, the Canadian Historical Association, the Canadian Geographical Society and the Royal Society of Canada joint in urging its use by every loyal 29 Canadian ” (Mencken 1946: 396). Simultaneously, “Kennedy Crone, then managing editor of the Canadian Geographical Journal , published a brief plea for a return to British spelling” (Orkin 1970: 150). Owing to the state regulation of the spelling, the British standard was taught in schools, too, together with “a marked anti-American bias” on the part of some schoolmasters (Orkin 1970: 149). In contrast to the ‘British norm’ on the official level, the press both national and originating from the US helped spread the American spellings (Orkin 1970: 149-150). Canadian Press Style Book published since 1940 and Globe and Mail Style Book (Jolly 2002), for instance, were stylistic guides for the contributors to their journals; and as Cornerstone (2006) notes, CP norms used to be largely American, at least as far as -o(u)r endings were concerned . In accord with this idea, David Crystal (1995: 340) declares that “the press on the whole uses US spelling [while] British spelling [...] is the norm in learned journals and school textbooks”, and as Jolly (2002) adds, this is the case also in pedagogical writings whereas the books of general interest follow American spelling.

28 “By Order-in-Council #1178 dated June 12., 1890, the Prime Minister [Sir John A. Macdonald] ‘... therefore recommends the issue of instructions to the effect that in all official documents, in the Canada Gazette and in the Dominion Statutes the English practice be uniformly followed’.” (Source: ‘Origins of

Canadian29 words.’ 2001, italics and hyphens in ‘ Order-in-Council ’ added) i.e. loyal to the mother country. Mencken quotes an article from the Baltimore Evening Sun, “Canada Won’t Even Import American Spelling.” Aug. 5, 1931 .

26 It should be pointed out, however, that the press does not use exclusively American spelling, as Crystal (1995: 303) illustrates by the “extracts from two papers [which] show program and favor alongside theatre , fibre optics and manoeuvring ”. He continues that juxtapositions of US and British spellings are common in personal correspondence and they occur also on in the names of ‘shops’, as in Tire Centre , which “show[s] that Canadian English cannot be identified with either American or British English” (340).

5.2 -our/ -or

What in Canadian English can be – almost – identified with British English, however, is the use of -our spelling, which has been, according to the most recent data, a preferred variant to American -or . The requirement of the rigorous use of -our words appeared already in Preparation of Copy for the Printer issued in 1928, which, however, allowed for many inconsistencies in other ‘spelling cases’ (Mencken 1946: 396). The former preferred choice of -or ending in the papers was conditioned by the Canadian Press’s style manual which “insisted that its writers spell colour and honour without the u’s” (Cornerstone 2006). Even the dictionaries, such as GCD, favoured the - or versions. After the 1998 version of GCD gave precedence to -our form, however, the Canadian Press conformed to it. (Cornerstone 2006). Other recent dictionaries favour the -our spelling, too, as is evident from ITP (1997: 275) which lists colour as a preferred variant of the American color or from the 2006 edition of the Canadian 30 Oxford Dictionary (COD) that does the same . Naturally, the preferences in individual regions vary. According to the Canadian English Usage (1997), -our prevails in eastern Canada (Ontario and Quebec) and in 31 British Columbia whereas in the Prairie Provinces -or endings are dominant (qtd. in Peters 2004: 397). To look more closely on the province of Quebec , there has been an interesting shift in preference from -or to -our during the last two decades . The results of Ireland’s 1979 study on the regional preferences of British or American spellings placed Quebec among the provinces with the American ending preferences;

30 Cf. the publicity materials for this new dictionary on

31. A distribution of the preferred variants may be affected by many factors, e.g. by the history of settlement (cf. McArthur 1996: 163-164, cf. Orkin 1970: 41-59).

27 Hamilton had reached the same conclusion in 1958: he claimed Quebec English to have many common features with the English in the North of the US (qtd. in Jolly 2002). The point here is not to analyze the factors which influenced the change from -or to - our in Quebec but to realize that the change has happened . The preceding note on regional preferences is included here to touch on the regions with prevailing -or usage which exemplify the ‘non representative sub-varieties’ of CanE: the existence of such sub-varieties, according to Bell’s criterion of reduction (Wardhaugh 1992: 35), prove the existence of CanE as a distinct variety. The shift in Quebec usage, on the other hand, illustrates the vitality of language (Wardhaugh 1992: 32 34), which is another evidence of the distinctiveness of Canadian variety .

With respect to Canadians’ preferences defined in their dictionaries, the -our spellings represent the national ‘norm’. As American standard are the -or spellings, it is possible to clearly distinguish CanE from AmE. Several examples of different Canadian and American spellings follow:

CanE + BrE AmE ardour ardor armour armor armoury armory candour candor clamour clamor colour color demeanour demeanor

33 and others.

As for ‘International English’ (as specified in Görlach’s circle model of English, cf. McArthur 1998: 101), the usage of -or endings was selected as a ‘norm’ because this option is more logical in view of the derivatives (Peters 2005: 398). Despite the facilitation resulting from the -or spelling, CanE leans towards the ‘more problematic’ British norm. Considering that in the past, British -our spelling was

32 In addition to reduction and vitality , Bell defines another five criteria – standardization , historicity , autonomy , mixture , and ‘ de facto ’ norms – which can be used for distinguishing between individual types

33of languages (Wardhaugh 1992: 30-37). These words are taken from a web page called “Dave VE7CNV’s Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling”. Their spellings were verified in ITP in the Cambridge dictionaries online – CALD and CDAE. ITP lists always both spellings in one entry with the -our one placed first.

28 ‘imposed’ in Canada, it could also be Canadians’ recognition of their common linguistic ‘roots’ that makes the -our ending Canadians’ favoured choice. Such an attitude would correspond to Bell’s criterion of historicity – which again supports the distinctiveness of CanE.

5.3 -ce / -se

As for the -ce/ -se suffixes, CanE agrees with the BrE practice: for nouns, -ce is 34 the preferred spelling. According to Cornerstone Word Company (2006), “four fifths of the sample [of the population] preferred -ce over -se in nouns such as defence, practice and pretence ”. In some words, however, the distinction between individual parts of speech is made by use of -ce for nouns and -se for verbs (Strongitharm 1995). In this respect, more inconsistency exists in AmE than in CanE: where CanE clearly tells apart verb and noun forms, as in practice and practise or licence and license (Strongitharm 1995), in AmE -ce/ -se suffixes remain interchangeable, which results in the obliteration of the distinction. Nevertheless, with reference to Mathesius’s remark on ‘tolerable irregularities’ in a language, I do not aim to claim that AmE is not a distinct variety. The point is to accentuate the more consistent pattern which governs this spelling phenomenon in Canada and thus to underlie its consistency.

5.4 -er/ -re

As regards the -er / -re spellings in the three discussed varieties of English, Canadian choice of the -re spellings in such words as fibre, lustre, sombre , or theatre (Orkin 1970: 151) agrees with the British norm. Cornerstone’s site (2006) informs that the -re spellings are favoured by eighty-nine per cent Canadians. AmE, the norm of which is the -er spelling, records here another ‘deviation from its norm’: Peters (2005: 461) notes that in some words, such as acre, cadre, macabre or timbre , the -re spelling must be retained, so that no “aspects of the word’s meaning and identity” were changed, e.g. “ timbre would otherwise be identical with timber”.

34 As Dressman (2005) remarks, Cornerstone Word Company “cite[s] usage surveys of the public and of Canadian editors”.

29 In order to avoid such inconsistencies as well as to facilitate the formation of derivatives, -re spelling was selected as a norm for ‘International English’ (461). One of the factors that contributed to the selection of this spelling variant was “the extensive use of -re in Canada” (461). The fact that Canadian usage was taken into account when defining the ‘norm’ for ‘International English’ proves the significance of CanE as a separate variety. Peters (2005: 461) offers a reason for the choice of -re by Canadians: the consistency with the French words of this kind. To illustrate it by an example, all the above mentioned ‘ -re words’ would be spelled identically in both English and French, except a small diacritical distinction in the French théâtre. In accord with Peters, Dressman (2005) mentions that Canadian editors tend “to keep forms from British standard that are closer to French” . By contrast, referring to the results of Ireland’s and Hamilton’s studies, Jolly (2002) points out that in Quebec, the occurrence of words with the endings corresponding to French is the lowest . She continues that 35 this might be a strategic move aiming at the differentiation of English and French . To compare the views on Canadian and American varieties of English, it should be noted that even though criticized as inconsistent, CanE proves again more consistency in its -re spelling choice than its ‘southern neighbour’, AmE, the existence of which, in contrast to CanE, is not being occasionally called into question. The examples of -er/ -re differentiation between CanE and BrE on the one hand and AmE on the other include: 36 Calibre, meagre, litre, reconnoitre, louvre, or spectre (Peters 2005: 461).

5.5 -ise/ -ize

Recently, the preferences concerning the -ise/ -ise spellings seem to be undergoing change in all three varieties in focus. However, the change is better perceptible in BrE and AmE than in CanE which, in this spelling case, reflects the American development. As Peters (2005: 298-299) states, CanE, like AmE, opts for -ize spellings. In BrE, the situation is more complicated as both spellings are acceptable, -ise

35 For more information on contemporary political, social and linguistic situation in Quebec cf. Duhet

361991: 69-147. The spellings of these words have been verified in ITP and in Cambridge Dictionaries online - CALD and CDAE. ITP lists always both spellings in one entry with the -re one placed first, except litre listed separately and liter listed as a chiefly US expression, variant of litre.

30 being the preferred variant. On account of etymology and practicality, -ise appears to be a better choice as only one exception to the rule would exist ( capsize ). With the -ize endings chosen as a norm, as many as nineteen words, namely advise, comprise, excise or surprise , would figure as exceptions. With respect to this fact, -ise variant would logically seem more convenient for ‘International English’ usage. Yet -ize spellings for some of those nineteen ‘-ise words’ have already penetrated certain American dictionaries and so has the -yze spelling as a 37 variant of -yse in analyse/ analyze . Consequently, there has been a gradual decrease in the number of exceptions to the American spelling rule. Thus, as a ‘norm’ for ‘International English’, the -ize spellings were selected, being already used by scientists worldwide (Peters 2005: 299). Considering the language development and change, these spellings might, in some time, become favoured also in BrE.

5.6 ae and oe Digraphs versus e

These days, the favoured Canadian spellings in words like orthop(a)edic or diarrh(o)ea are not the ae and oe digraphs but just e which is also a norm in the US (Peters 2005: 20, 389). About eighty years ago, however, the situation was described differently: As Kennedy Crone proclaimed, a large number of American spellings, such as maneuver , were almost never employed in Canada, being rejected together with words like thru and discust as representatives of ‘simplified spelling’ (1931, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 150). Current tendencies are in compliance with both usage data and linguistic arguments: they head towards simplification. Linguists explain that these digraphs are not truly etymological if they are Latin adaptations of the Greek diphthongs ai and oi, as e.g. in p(a)ediatrics, and that the reduction of superfluous vowels, as in hom(o)eopathy , is desirable (Peters 2005: 20, 389).

37 In his article “The myth of Canadian English” , Lilles complains that “Canadian dictionaries provide no overt guidance” as he experienced when he was searching the right spelling of analyse (2000: 7) . Michael Dressden, writing in 2005, claims that Canadians “use the -yse ending in ‘analyse,’ while Americans use –yze ”. In my opinion, the word Lilles chose to demonstrate the ‘total chaos’ of Canadian spelling system was exactly the one undergoing a change, a word in ‘transitional phase’ with an inconsistent spelling not only in Canada but also in the US, whose spelling pattern, in this case, CanE follows. As the language develops, each change needs some time to settle down. In my view, Lilles did not choose the word color/ colour which he refers to as a “thorn of Canadian orthography” which “remains unresolved” on purpose because what he would find would be a clear preference of the -our spelling, as indicated e.g. in ITP , GCD , and COD .

31 BrE demonstrates less consistency than AmE and CanE. For BrE, digraphs are standardized forms but “some words are already being spelled with e” (Peters 2005: 20). In this respect, it is chiefly BrE that has been undergoing substantial change recently and that shows less stability in spelling than CanE. Still, nobody doubts its distinctiveness just because of two co-existing phenomena. By contrast, the distinctiveness of CanE is sometimes doubted on exactly the same grounds, which is evidently unequal.

5.7 Doubling of l and p Consonants before Suffixes

As for the doubling of the l or p consonant before a suffix, the Canadian practice is dealt with, though quite generally, in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage . In both British and American varieties, the doubling of p is, in certain cases, inconsistent. While fixed rules order that “monosyllables with a simple vowel double the p”, as in flipper or stepped and that “words of more than one syllable [...] do not double it”, as in enveloped or galloping ”, the spelling of certain words, namely hiccup, kidnap and worship, is not uniform: BrE allows for both hiccuped and hiccupped while the AmE norm recognizes only the former variant; AmE, on the other hand, allows for both spellings kidnap(p)ing and worship(p)ing while BrE standard is only a doubled p (Peters 2005: 403). Peters further notes that for Canadians, both spellings of the l and p consonants before suffixes are acceptable. COD (1998) indicates that in Canada, the doubling of the l consonant before a suffix is more frequent than single l spellings (Peters 2005: 309). Peters (2005: 309) adds that “the pattern varies from east to west, and between book publishers and the press ( Editing Canadian English, 2000), where the first have been more committed to doubling than the second”. AmE standard is a single l spelling. BrE remains inconsistent, balancing between its deeply rooted doubling, as in traveller , persistent variations, as in cruel(l)est, marvel(l)ous, wool(l)en , and tendencies towards single l spellings, as in paralleled (Peters 2005: 309).

5.8 em- /en- and im- /in- Prefixes

Although Orkin (1970: 145-152) points out the differences between BrE and AmE and although he specifies the preferences in CanE for most of the features he

32 describes, he does not mention explicitly whether Canadians favour British or American prefixes em- /en- or im- /in-, respectively. To provide at least a partial idea of Canadian preferences in this particular domain, I undertook a small research into dictionary entries on the basis of which I offer my view of the current em- /im- choice. The method I chose was the following: from the section of words starting with em- prefix in GCD (1967) I singled out the words which offered also alternative spellings, the ones with the im- prefix. This left me with four words, embalm, embed, empanel and empower . Then I looked up these words in the ‘ im- section’ of the same dictionary, just to assure that the definitions occur only at one of the two alternative entries, the preferred one. Subsequently, I looked up the same words in both ‘ em- and im- sections ’ of GCD (1983 ed.) and ITP (1997) to see whether the preferences have still been the same or changed. While all three dictionaries favour em- prefixes in all cases but impanel , GCD s, in contrast to ITP , always offer alternative spellings. ITP states only embalm and empower as acceptable variants. Even though the observed sample of words is a short one to allow any serious generalizations to be drawn from the data, the results indicate that there have been no substantial changes in preferences over the last thirty years as far as the em- /im- spellings are concerned. Rather, it seems that Canadians’ preferences start to be more ‘clearly cut’, as suggests the disappearance of two expressions with im- prefix from the recent dictionary. As for the em- /en- and im- /in- prefixes, the above-mentioned data imply that Canadians choose prevailingly British spelling which is observed consistently enough.

5.9 Other Spelling Features

There is another feature that differentiates AmE spelling from the BrE one: the use or the non-use of particular characters. AmE spellings, as Orkin (1970: 147) 38 records, are longer in the instances of distill, fulfill, instill or installement (where BrE norm is a single l) as well as in words like cantaloupe, forebear, peddler and raccoon (BrE cantaloup, forbears, pedlar, racoon ). More frequently, however, AmE eliminates one letter or more. Thus American aluminum, flunky, chili, ax or annex are shorter than BrE aluminium, flunkey, chilli, axe or annexe (Orkin 1970: 146).

38 It was verified in CDAE online

33 CanE prefers doubled l in distill and the three following words, as suggested by ITP (1997: 402, 550, 705) that lists always both spellings but doubled l as a ‘first-place’ variant. The same fact was confirmed by the Cornerstone’s Canadian English Page (2006) which reads: “Majorities of up to 90 per cent liked the double L in such words as enroll, fulfill, install, marvelled, marvellous, signalled, skillful, traveller and woollen ” (italics added). According to GCD (1967) and ITP (1997), all the above-mentioned examples of American ‘longer spellings’ are Canadian ‘preferred variants’ and as for the following examples of the US ‘shorter spellings’, all but ax are preferred now, although flunky , a preferred term in the ITP, was presented in the GCD only as a ‘second-place’ variant. British spelling for axe has ‘strengthen its position’, from being listed as only one entry - axe or ax - in GCD to having two entries in ITP - axe also ax - indicating support for the longer spelling. Moreover, Canadians opt for British cauldron, cheque, syrup, (AmE caldron, check, sirup ) while choosing American airplane, font, gasoline, jail and jimmy (BrE 39 aeroplane, fount, gasolene, gaol and jemmy ) (Orkin 1970: 146, 151). Naturally, certain preferences have altered in time, thus while GCD cites ‘ mollusc or mollusk ’, ITP swaps the order of words to ‘ mollusk or mollusc ’. Toffee (AmE), presented by Orkin (1970: 151) as a preferred term to taffy (BrE), is not designated as such in either of the two dictionaries. Actually, ITP (1997: 1386, 1429) defines taffy as 1. A sweet chewy candy of molasses, maple syrup, or brown sugar boiled until very thick and then pulled until the candy is glossy and has its shape. 2. A sweet candy made by pouring hot maple syrup on snow. and toffee as A hard chewy candy made of brown sugar or molasses and butter. [Alteration of TAFFY] which rather suggests that AmE term is favoured, considering the ‘toffee entry’ contains 40 the reference to taffy .

39 Examples of words are taken from Orkin but the preferred variants have been verified in GCD and ITP

40and modified (if needed) Words mollusc – mollusk and toffee – taffy are taken from Orkin and further investigated.

34 Spelling is a complex phenomenon, liable to changes and containing many inner irregularities and co-existing forms. The chapter has demonstrated that CanE cannot be considered less consistent than other varieties of English for each spelling system has its own rules and its own inconsistencies. In view of this fact, Canadian spelling system is as good as American or British one and deserves proper attention.

35 6. French Influence on Canadian English

As has already been mentioned, French language has exercised a significant influence on CanE. Both languages have co-existed in Canada from roughly the 1970’s, 41 Canadian French being nearly a century ‘older’ than CanE, and since 1969 , Canada has been an officially bilingual country (McArthur 1996: 162, 167). As far as the French influence on CanE is concerned, it is especially Montreal (Quebec) English that should be given particular attention because, as Boberg (2005: 53) suggests, it has been a minority language “in close contact with French” which has been an official 42 language of Quebec since 1977, when Bill 101 was passed (McArthur 1996: 167). It is obvious that the specific instances of the French influence on CanE will be best perceptible in such a dialect that is most exposed to Canadian French, which is primarily English in Quebec. However, most expressions and certain grammatical features adopted from Canadian French have constituted a considerable part of CanE as a whole; and this part has been one of the major differentiators of CanE from British, American, and other varieties of English.

6.1 Vocabulary

Penetrating of French words into CanE has been a natural consequence of the co-existence of the two languages. As Lovell records, one of the components of CanE vocabulary are “loanwords from Canadian French, frequently with Indian antecedents” (1955, qtd. in Orkin 1970: 66). Thus, it is sometimes difficult to recognize the 43 aboriginal origin of certain expressions, such as babiche or caribou , which have

41 In that year, the Official Languages Act was issued. (McArthur 1996: 163) . It adopted most recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism launched in 1963, such as the “extension of official bilingualism into the federal government, [and] creation of bilingual districts with official language services where language minorities made up at least 10 percent of the population” (Insitute for Research on Public Policy. (1999) As I recall Si je me souviens bien: Historical perspectives.

42Montreal: IRPP. p. 170.) i.e. Charte de la langue française . It imposed the French language in every sphere in Quebec: “government, judicial system, education, advertising, business, contracts, etc.” (Bélanger, Claude. (23 Aug 2000) “The Language Laws of Quebec.” Quebec History . Marianopolis College. 29 Jan 2006

. ) These expressions are taken from Orkin 1970: 66.

36 entered CanE through Canadian French from Micmac āpapīc and ĝalipu , respectively (ITP 1997: 98, 212). Certain French Canadian words have inspired the creation of English forms of those expressions while at the same time their French forms were preserved. The result has been the co-occurrence of both French and English forms in CanE with similar, 44 although not identical meanings as in carryall and cariole . There are also expressions of French Canadian origin which exist in CanE only in their English form, namely mush (related to French Marche! ), sny(e) (from French 45 chenail ), shanty (probably from French chantier ) or lacrosse (from French (jeu de) la crosse , a name of a game of Algonquian origin) (ITP 1997: 902, 1295, 1257, 759). The reality of life, work and society in ‘ancient’ Canada is reflected in such expressions as caboteur, coureur du bois, cache, voyageur, portage, Métis, or 46 seigniory. Other words include tuque , caisse populaire, gaspereau, brulé (or brûlée) 47 or fameuse. Moreover, such expressions as anglophone and francophone (written with lower case letters at the beginning) are based on the French model, too (McArthur 1996: 166). Grace Jolly (2002) adds that these words have even motivated the creation of other composites with -phone , namely sinophone and ukrainophone .

6.1.1 Vocabulary of Quebec English

In Quebec English, which is more ‘saturated’ with French than other varieties of 48 CanE, Boberg (2005: 26) noted the occurrence of the word steamie . He suggests that this usage may be reborrowed from a Canadian French expression hot dog steamé , which French Canadians prefer to its French form chien chaud à vapeur . Another popular expression in Quebec is poutine , “the gooey mass of French fries smothered in gravy and melted cheese curds” (Boberg 2005: 26). Interestingly, the etymology of this word adopted from Canadian French reveals that the word has its antecedent in an English expression pudding (ITP 1997: 1077) .

44 45 These expressions are taken from Avis 1967: viii. Their meanings have been verified in ITP . 46 These expressions are taken from Avis 1967: viii, supplementary information on them is from ITP . Except seigniory which is taken from Orkin 1970: 66, these expressions are contained in McArthur

471996: 166. Tuque and caisse populaire are taken from McArtur 1996: 166, gaspareau from Orkin 1970: 66, and

48the remaining two words from Avis 1967: viii. i.e. a steamed hot dog. Neither ITP nor GCD mention this spelling, ITP offers only stymie or stymy.

37 However, Quebec English is also rich with typically French words, for instance autoroute replacing English highway (McArthur 1997: 749) , dépanneur which is derived from French dépanner ‘to repair’ but actually designates a sort of convenience store, or one-and-a-half or two-and-a-half , the expressions refering to apartments, where the numeral stands for the number of individual rooms and half designates a bathroom (Boberg 2005: 27). Montreal English, which Boberg (2005: 36) describes as “most lexically distinct”, further contains words such as stage for internship , chalet for summer cottage , or guichet for ATM . McArthur mentions the influence exercised by bilingual francophones on Quebec English: they ‘anglicise’ the French words instead of using ‘proper’ English expression, thus Quebec English is richer with such expressions as collectivity (community in English), annex (appendix ) (1997: 749), or polity (Jolly 2002). Bilingual anglophones, on the contrary, adjust certain French words to get their ‘English forms’, e.g. sc (h)olarity (schooling , from French scolarité ) or syndicate (a trade union , from syndicat ) (McArthur 1997: 749). In addition, Quebec English includes terms such as reunion (meeting , from French réunion ), ‘a good souvenir of something’ ( memory , from French souvenir ) or the use of deceive in the sense of disappoint (from French décevoir ) as in I was deceived... (McArthur 1997: 749) (evoking J’étais déçu... ). As for the perception of words primarily connected with Quebec, such as sovereignty association , independentist and Quiet revolution , Jolly (2002) notes that while the USA and British press use them in inverted commas, Canadian media do not mark their French origin in any way; and while English Canadian newspapers 49 commonly use the French abbreviation FLQ , the New York Times replaces it with QLF (Quebec Liberation Front ) – its English equivalent. From Jolly’s examples of treating words of French origin in the press and from the great number of francicisms incorporated into CanE, it follows that these words have been an inseparable component of Canadian lexicon: their number and the naturalness with which they are accepted is incomparably higher than in other varieties of English. Originally French vocabulary is another feature of CanE which makes it unique.

49 i.e. Front de Libération du Québec , Duhet uses the abbreviation with full points: F.L.Q. (1991: 66).

38 6.2 Grammar

On the level of grammar, the French influence is especially evident in “the post adjectival position of the word Canada after certain proper names” (Jurcic 2003: 6) and in using in certain syntagmas other words than usual, i.e. lexemes that occur in the French equivalents of those syntagmas, and are probably incorrectly employed by bilingual French Canadians and gradually adopted by English Canadians.

6.2.1 Post Adjectival Position of Canada

Unlike in the English language, in French adjective is usually placed after the noun (cf. Hendrich 2001). As far as the adjectival use of Canada is concerned, however, Canadian English, in contrast to other varieties of English, appears to stick to the French conventions. As McArthur (1996: 166) reports, “in the names of government departments, crown corporations and national organizations,” Canada is not only used attributively, as in Canada Post , but it frequently occupies the position after the noun. Thus, as Jolly (2002) suggests, such expressions as Air Canada , Parks Canada , Environment Canada are quite common and these naming practices tend to spread into other domains. The sentence “Canadian hockey players get support from Sport Canada when playing for Team Canada in the Canada Cup series” which, according to Avis, sounds quite natural to a Canadian (Avis 1983, qtd. in Jurcic 2003: 6), is a convenient illustration of this fact.

6.2.2 Prepositions and Idiomatic Expressions

Certain influence of French may be ascribed to a relatively high use of the Americanism in back of (i.e. behind) in Montreal, in comparison to Ontario where its use is not half as high (Orkin 1970: 155). Orkin proposes that Montrealers borrow this expression from bilingual French Canadians who employ it in place of en arrière de , which is its literal translation. Another expression related to the French language is sick at his heart. Looking for Canadianisms in Canadian literature, Christopher Dean encountered it. He explains that it is not related to the idiom sick at heart (i.e. sad) and speculates about the expression being derived by analogy from sick at his stomach (1963: 281). I assume a

39 French influence behind the expression Dean found: the meaning of the French phrase mal au cœur corresponds to sick at his stomach (cf. Velký francouzsko český slovník 1992: 53). Thus, I suggest the English translation of the French word cœur (heart) was implanted into the English phrase together with the meaning of the whole French expression. Other Canadian English usages inspired by French include give a conference (give a lecture , from French donner une conférence ) (McArthur 1996: 749), take a decision (instead of make a decision , from French prendre la décision ), or an infinitive after the verb accept as in accept to meet him instead of accept + direct object, e.g. accept a meeting , or accept + final clause, for instance accept that I should meet him (Jolly 2002). Finally, Avis indicates that it is French Canadians’ usage of eh, eh bien and hein interjections that has so significantly contributed to the frequent usage of eh among English Canadians (1972, qtd. in Jolly 2002).

The influence of Canadian French on CanE is undisputed. As has been demonstrated, the originally French vocabulary has penetrated all spheres of Canadian life, from official expressions to everyday words. Syntactical phenomena stemming from French have equally become a non-negligible part of CanE. Nothing like that has happened in other varieties of English. Hence it can be concluded that the French factor is one of the features that make CanE unique.

40 7. Conclusion

The objective of this thesis was to demonstrate the distinct nature of CanE by focusing on vocabulary, grammar, spelling and features adopted from Canadian French. It was shown that despite the initial reluctance to investigate the variety of English spoken in Canada, its difference from both British and American varieties had been evident long before the serious study of the subject began. As far as Canadian vocabulary is concerned, it was noted that the contribution of both BrE and AmE to the vocabulary of CanE resulted in the combination which is unique and unidentifiable with either of the two varieties. Besides, more components of different origins recognizable in the vocabulary of Canadian variety were pointed out .There was also presented a number of Canadianisms which do not occur in either BrE or AmE. The changes that affected the expressions of British or American origins in the Canadian background, as described by Lovell, proved that the development of certain features of CanE is independent of other related varieties. As for the opinion that the vocabulary of CanE is inconsistent, it was attempted to explain that in Canadian lexicon, there exists an inner consistency based on the preferences of choice, as exemplified by the compounds, by the prevalent British or American vocabulary in selected domains as well as by the different lexical preferences in individual regions. These regional preferences , as demonstrated on Toronto and Montreal lexicons, were shown to develop in time , which proves that CanE is vital . Furthermore, the findings of Boberg’s survey proved that there are much greater lexical resemblances between individual Canadian regions than between the regions in Canada and in the USA. The section on Canadianisms presented many expressions peculiar to Canada which cannot be found in other varieties of English and are hence another evidence of the distinctiveness of CanE. Although the examination of the grammatical level revealed quite a few similarities between CanE and AmE, several features were found to be uniquely Canadian, such as the usage of ’cep’fer or employing the adverbial as well in initial position. Moreover, despite not being unique to CanE, the interjection eh was shown to be one of the distinguishing characteristics of Canadian speech. On the background of the question of consistency , the ‘Spelling’ chapter dealt with selected spelling phenomena in CanE as compared with BrE and AmE. It was

41 demonstrated that certain inconsistencies can be found in all the three varieties. In respect to this fact, it was suggested that the distinctiveness of neither of the varieties should be doubted. Besides, the chapter offered an overview of the historical development of Canadian spelling, which elucidated particular usages in certain domains, such as preferring American usage in the press or observing the British norm on the official level. The sixth chapter focused on such features of Canadian vocabulary and grammar which have their origin in the French language. They constitute another part of CanE that is not to be found in other varieties of English. The characteristics of Canadian vocabulary, spelling and grammar, which were dealt with in this thesis, clearly illustrate that CanE cannot be fully identified with any other variety of English. It was proved that the Canadian variety of English is distinct .

42 Bibliography

Avis, W.S. (1967) ‘Canadian English’ in The Gage Canadian Dictionary , W.S. Avis et al. (eds) Toronto: Gage. vi-ix. Boberg, Charles (2005) ‘The North American Regional Vocabulary Survey: New Variables And Methods in the Study of North American English’ American Speech 80.1: 22-60. 21 Feb. 2006 . Boberg, Charles (2004) ‘Real and Apparent Time in Language Change: Late Adoption of Changes in Montreal English’ American Speech 79.3: 250-269. 21 Feb. 2006 . British North America Act, 1867 - Enactment no. 1. (8 Nov. 2001) Department of Justice Canada / Ministère de la Justice Canada. 29 Mar. 2006 . Chambers, J.K. and Peter Trudgill (1991a) ‘Adverbials in English Dialects’ in Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation , Peter Trudgill and J.K. Chambers (eds), London: Longman, 261-266. Chambers, J.K. and Peter Trudgill (1991b) ‘Dialect Grammar: Data and Theory’ in Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation , Peter Trudgill and J.K. Chambers (eds), London: Longman, 291-296. ‘Cornerstone's Canadian English Page’ (2006) Cornerstone Word Company. 21 Jan. 2006 . nd Crystal, David (1985) A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. 2 ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Crystal, David. (1988) The English Language . London: Penguin. Crystal, David. (1995) The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language . Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Dean, Christopher (1963) ‘Is There a Distinctive Literary Canadian English?’ American

43 Speech: A Quaterly of Linguistic Usage 38.4: 278-282. Dressman, Michael R. (2005) ‘Canadian English: Notions of Nationality and Language’ TheCollege Quaterly 8.1. 9 Feb. 2006 . Duhet, Paule-Marie (1991) Le Canada . Nancy: Presses Universitaires de Nancy. Hendrich, Jozef et al. (2001) Francouzská mluvnice. 3rd ed. Plzeň: Fraus. Hultin, Neil C. (1963) ‘Canadian Views of American English’ American Speech 42.4: 243-260. Institute for Research on Public Policy (1999) As I recall Si je me souviens bien: Historical perspectives. Montreal: IRPP. Jolly, Grace (2002) [XXVII ] La codification de l’anglais canadien . Québec. Conseil supérieur de la langue francaise. 9 Feb. 2006 . Jurcic, Dane (2003a) ‘Canadian English’ Canadian English.org . Dept. of Linguistics, U of Toronto, 2005, 7 Feb. 2006 . Jurcic, Dane (2003b) ‘From One Canuck to another Canuck: I stand on guard for thee’ 9 Feb. 2006 . Lilles, Jaan (2000) ‘The Myth of Canadian English’ English Today 16.2: 3+. Mathesius, Vilém (1982) Jazyk, kultura a slovesnost . Praha: Odeon. McArthur, Tom (1998) The English Languages . Cambridge: Cambridge UP. McArthur, Tom, ed. (1996) The Oxford Companion to the English Language . Abr. ed. New York: Oxford UP. Mencken, H. L. (1949) The American Language: An Inquiry into the Development of th English in the United States . 4 ed. New York: Knopf. Orkin, Mark M.(1970) Speaking Canadian English: An Informal Account of the Language in Canada . New York: McKay. Pelhe, Stephanie (2003) ‘The “Corrupt Dialect”: Spelling and Pronunciation in Canadian English’ Canadian English.org . Dept. of Linguistics, U of Toronto, 2005, 6 Feb. 2006 .

44 Peters, Pam (2004) The Cambridge Guide to English Usage . Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Rebeková, Anna (2002) Americká angličtina: Praktická příručka pro konverzaci v USA a Kanadě . Olomouc: Olomouc. Strongitharm, H.L. (1995) Research Program Style Guide and Authors Manual. B.C. Min. For. Res. Br., Victoria, B.C. 25 Feb. 2006 . Trudgill, Peter and J.K. Chambers (1991) ‘Verb Systems in English Dialects’ in Dialects of English: Studies in Grammatical Variation , Peter Trudgill and J.K. Chambers (eds), London: Longman, 49-53. Viereck, Wolfgang, et al. (2002) Encyklopedický atlas anglického jazyka . Trans. Marek Nekula and Andrea Malá. Praha: Lidové noviny, 2005. Trans. of Atlas Englishe Sprache . nd Wardhaugh, Roland (1992) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics . 2 ed. Oxford: Blackwell.

Dictionaries AHDEL The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language . (1969) Boston: American Heritage. CDAE Cambridge Dictionary of American English . (2006) Cambridge UP. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Feb. – Apr. 2006 < http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/Default.asp?dict=A>. CALD Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary . (2006) Cambridge UP. Cambridge Dictionaries Online. Feb. – Apr. 2006 . GCD The Gage Canadian Dictionary. (1967) Toronto: Gage. (1983 ed. of the dictionary was used, too.) ITP ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary of the English Language: An Encyclopedic Reference . (1997) Toronto: ITP Nelson. NODE The New Oxford Dictionary of English . (1998) Oxford: Oxford UP OALD Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English . (1989) 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford UP. nd Velký francouzsko český slovník (1992) 2 ed., vol. 2. Praha: Academia.

45 Other sources BNC British National Corpus. Feb. – Apr. 2006 . nd The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2 Edition. Advertisment. 1 June 2005. 21 Mar. 2006 . ‘Dave VE7CNV’s Truly Canadian Dictionary of Canadian Spelling’ (2006) Mar. – Apr. 2006 . Discussion forum. (30 Oct. 2002) ‘‘British’ Accents and Tuna Fish’ Online posting by Jay Tea [nickname]. Snopes.com . 9 Feb. 2006 . ‘Origins of Canadian words’ (23 March 2001) Library and Archives Canada / Bibliothèque et Archives Canada . 5 Apr. 2006 .

46 Appendix

Table 1:

Key Lexical Differences between Canadian English and American English

Source: Boberg, Charles (2005) ‘The North American Regional Vocabulary Survey: New Variables And Methods in the Study of North American English’ American Speech 80.1: 22-60. 21 Feb. 2006 . p. 46.

47 Figures 1 and 2:

Frequences of Selected Expressions in Montreal English

Fig.1

Fig.2

The abbreviation ‘GPs’ represents ‘grand parents’.

48 Source: Boberg, Charles (2004) ‘Real and Apparent Time in Language Change: Late Adoption of Changes in Montreal English’ American Speech 79.3: 250- 269. 21 Feb. 2006 . pp 261-262.

49