The Prague School and Verbal Morphology, A Trend in European Structuralism

 

Contents Introduction 1. The 'Classical Period' of the Prague School 2. Later Developments Conclusion Footnotes Bibliography

 

Introduction

All metaphysical questions are historical questions, and all metaphysical propositions are historical propositions. Every metaphysical question either is simply the question what absolute presuppositions were made on a certain occasion, or is capable of being resolved into a number of such questions together with a further question or further questions arising out of these.

Collingwood, An Essay on Metaphysics, p. 49

 

Linguistics in the twentieth century has the absolute presupposition, stemming from Ferdinand de Saussure' s Cours de linguistique générale, that language should be studied as a system; this implies a step towards abstraction and is a complete reversal of what Pos 1939:71 calls the nineteenth century's nominalism which was concerned with the sheer description and accumulation of facts, isolated from one another (cf. Trnka 1948: 154). This tendency towards abstraction implies another presupposition, namely that it should be possible to provide a formal analysis of language and was best illustrated in the inter-war period by Trubetzkoy's Grundzüge der Phonologie. This last presupposition was carried out by J. Cantineau, in accordance with a major trend in American structuralism, to the point of virtually eliminating meaning from linguistic description. Another presupposition, which will be recurrent throughout this paper, is that the structure of 1anguage should be described in terms of binary features (e.g., langue/parole, markedness/unmarkedness).

This essay will deal with works on structural verbal morphology which use the formal apparatus originally devised by Trubetzkoy and his collaborators of the 'Cercle linguistique de Prague' for the analysis of phonology; in accordance with the very concept of structuralism, this means viewing language as a system of oppositions. This will entail a presentation of the so-called 'classical period' (1929-1939) of the Prague School, which culminated in the publication of Trubetzkoy's Grudzüge der Phonologie, and of the influence that these seminal ideas had on other members of the group when faced with the description of particular aspects of the verbal syntax. The second part will be devoted to an analysis of J. Cantineau's generalisation of Trubetzkoy's ideas about phonology to other fields of linguistics. There will also be an exposé of how the teachings of the Prague School have been synthesized by the Spanish scholar Martin Sánchez Ruipérez in a coherent doctrine which he applied to the description of Greek verbal morphology(l). This essay could also be viewed as a study of the concept of markedness from the early 1930's to the early 1950's, in a fraction of European structuralism.

The notion of a formal apparatus used in describing morphological phenomena will be considered a crucial one for the purpose of the present study. As for the goal of morphology, one can use a definition given in 1958 by representatives of the new Prague School :

The role of structural morphology is (1) to state morphological oppositions (e.g., that of the number of substantives, that of the common case — adnominal case, etc. in English) and their neutralisations (e.g., ... the neutralisation of grammatical genders in plural in German... ), (2) to state the phonemic means (often homonymous) implementing the morphological oppositions of a language, such as prefixes, suffixes, and alternations of phonemes (so-called morphonemics). (Vachek1960:50)

 

1. The 'Classical Period' of the Prague School

The first meeting of the 'Cercle linguistique de Prague' was held on 6 October 1926, under the presidency of Vilém Mathesius. Historically, the Prague movement can be divided into three periods : the first one, called the 'Classical Period', from 1929 to 1939, when occupation and war interrupted the activities of the Prague Circle; in fact the date 1939 coincides with the death of N. S.  Trubetzkoy. The second period is one of stagnation, characterised in the late forties by ideological squabbles around N. J. Marr's doctrine (Vachek 1966:13; Lepschy 1975:890). There was a revival of interest in the late fifties and early sixties which led to the publication of a new journal, Travaux linguistiques de Prague (1964) (on this ternary division, cf. Vachek 1961:67). In the present paper, we will be concerned only with the classical period, which acknowledged the combined influence of Baudouin de Courtenay and Ferdinand de Saussure (Mathesius 1932:6). Saussure's influence is also acknowledged by Trnka 1958:36 and Vachek 1966:18 who mentions the importance of S. I. Karcevskij, a pupil of Saussure, in the first days of the Prague Circle (cf. also Martinet 1953: 577) but the importance of this influence has been questionned by G. Lepschy 1970:53. One may also add the influence of the Czech Joseph Zubatý and the Russians Šachmatov and Ščerba (Trnka 1958:36).

From the very beginning, the Prague linguists were mainly concerned with phonology, though they also approached questions such as literary criticism, problems of the standard language, etc.; they intended to test their theses first in phonology and afterwards at higher levels of language (Vachek 1966:77-8).

Many scholars contributed during these years to the theory of phonology : for example, Martinet's contributions to the discussion of neutralisation and segmentation (Martinet 1936, 1939) are important historically but for the present purpose, it will suffice to set out the main theoretical assumptions made by the Prague linguists as they appear in Trubetzkoy's Grundzüge der Phonologie (published posthumously in 1939) and how they have been applied during this period to the analysis of morphology. This simplification in the presentation of the Prague linguists' doctrine is justified by the fact that Trubetzkoy was the most impressive personality in the group (Lepschy 1970:57).

Trubetzkoy calls phonological oppositions those phonetic oppositions which, in a given language, serve to differentiate meanings (Trubetzkoy 1976:33). The sounds which enter in such a relation, he calls phonemes(2). A phoneme has phonological content inasmuch as it is a member of a phonological opposition (Ibid.:69). These phonological oppositions can be classified according to the logical relation uniting their two members : such a classification is crucial in evaluating how the phonological system works (Ibid.:76). A privative opposition is one in which one member is characterised by the presence of a mark or feature, the other by the absence of the mark : for instance, in the pair b/p, b is characterised by the feature 'voice', p by its absence; the member of the opposition characterised by the presence of the mark will be called marked term, the other unmarked term. Trubetzkoy adds that this type of opposition is extremely important in phonology (Ibid.:77). A gradual opposition is one in which its members (here, by definition, can be more than two) are characterised by different degrees of the same feature : for example, o and in German have different degrees of opening. Trubetzkoy adds : "Les oppositions graduelles sont relativement rares et moins importantes que les privatives" (Ibid.). We shall have the opportunity to criticise this judgement later and see how it must be amended if the theoretical framework outlined by Trubetzkoy is to be applied to higher levels of linguistics. The third category is composed of equipollent oppositions, in which the two terms are logically equivalent, in other words these two terms cannot be viewed as having a different degree of the same feature nor as the affirmation or the negation of a feature. These last oppositions are held to be the most numerous in every system (Ibid.). And Trubetzkoy adds : "La valeur équipollente, graduelle ou privative d'une opposition phonologique dépend donc du point de vue auquel on se place pour la considérer. Mais on ne doit pas croire que cette valeur soit purement subjective et imaginaire : par la structure et le fonctionnement du système phonologique la valeur de chaque opposition est la plupart du temps donnée objectivement et sans équivoque" (Ibid.:78).

According to the extent of their distinctive power, oppositions can be either constant or neutralizable. In certain circumstances, one of the members of the opposition can lose its distinctive feature; in that case, there remains only what the two members have in common, in other words the "archiphoneme"; this concept appeared for the first time in Jakobson 1929, cf. Vachek 1966:22. The member of the opposition which appears in the neutralised position is to be considered as the unmarked term, this being only possible in cases of privative oppositions. On the other hand, if the neutralisable opposition is not privative but gradual, then it is always the extreme member of the opposition (the member which presents an extreme degree, either minimally or maximally, of a given feature) which appears in the neutralised position (Ibid.:85).

The publication earlier, in 1927, of Karcevskij's monograph Système du verbe russe constituted the first attempt, within the Prague Circle, to deal with morphology. The overall impression is that of an inventory of forms, the task of the linguist being to discover regularity amidst apparent chaos : "Cependant ne serait-il pas permis de considérer toute classification simplement comme un moyen pratique et conventionnel, dépourvu de toute valeur scientifique, de cataloguer les phénomènes linguistiques, comme un procédé destiné à mettre dans une langue un peu de cet ordre que la nature lui a refusé, afin de faciliter par là l'étude de cette langue ? Mais une langue est un système, et prétendre y introduire de l'ordre, c'est simplement avouer que nous ne la connaissons pas suffisamment. Penser autrement et / admettre qu'une langue puisse demeurer dans le chaos, c'est renoncer à la possibilité d'une science du langage" (Karcevskij 1927:43-4).

Though Karcevskij operates with notions such as neutralisation and the assumption that all grammatical categories should be binary, there is no systematic attempt at defining them. When dealing with the Russian infinitive, Karcevskij introduces the important notion of "zero-value" but, unfortunately, he does not develop this concept. But this treatment of morphology was very influential, as it was later acknowledged by Jakobson : "None of the experts in syntax would ever by-pass Karcevski's classification of elementary combinations (Saussure's syntagmes). Meillet was right in considering Karcevski's analysis of Russian verbal categories as a remarkable performance and, as V. Vinogradov points out, it is this work on the system of the Russian verb that gave such an impetus to investigations of verbal derivation" (Jakobson 1956:496).

But probably the earliest and most important systematic work on morphology during that 'classical period' and the most typical of the Prague School approach (Vachek 1966: 118, n. l5) remains Jakobson's "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums" (1932), an article that looks rather sketchy, with many references to other Russian linguists but only a few examples. Jakobson starts by accepting Trubetzkoy's system of correlations (p. 76) and uses them in studying the values of the grammatical forms : the Russian verb contains two correlations of verbal aspect and two correlations of verbal voices. In the aspectual correlation, "perfective" is the marked term and "imperfective" the unmarked term; inside the imperfective group, there is another correlation, which appears only in the preterite : iterative (marked) / non-iterative forms (unmarked). An equivalent of the phonological concept of archiphoneme is also introduced : "Die merkmallose Form fungiert im sprachlichen Denken als Repräsentant des Korrelationspaares; darum werden als gewissermassen primäre Formen empfunden : die Imperfektiva gegenüber den Reflexiva [..]" (Jakobson 1932:83).

Jakobson characterises the asymmetry of the correlative grammatical forms as the antinomy of the signalising value of an A ("die Signalisierung von A") and its non-signalising value ("Nicht-Signalisierung"). Two signs may be used for the same referent, but in one case, the first sign will ascribe a mark to that referent , while in the second case this mark will remain unmentioned : for example, in Russian, the word for 'heifer' can be either télka or telénok. Although the two words apply to the same referent, only in the second case is the meaning left incomplete.

From the asymmetry of the correlative forms follows also another antinomy : the general and the partial meaning of the unmarked form, in other words the non-signalising of A and the signalising of non-A. Thus the same sign possesses two different meanings, so that in one case the mark of the referent remains unprecised, the presence of this mark being neither affirmed nor denied; in the other case, the absence of the mark is manifested. For example, the word telénok can either refer to a calf without any mention of its sex or can also refer to a male calf. Here Jakobson introduces a significant difference from Trubetzkoy's framework. Whereas at the phonological level the correlation is between the presence of a feature and its absence, here the correlation is more complex : the un-marked term does not mention the presence nor the absence of a given feature (in contradistinction to the phonological unmarked term which is always characterised by the absence of a feature; this analysis is different from the one given by Ruipérez, cf. infra). This analysis is also adopted by de Groot 1939:111.

 

If we take as an example of phonological neutralisation the German final devoicing of consonants ('Auslaut-verhärtung'), we get the following scheme,

to which can be compared

E. Seidel 1936 is worth noting in so far as it is a departure from Jakobson' s theory : "[...] ich kann Jakobson's [...] Gegenüberstellung von Perfektiv (=merkmalhaltig) zu Imperfektiv (=merkmallos) nicht völlig zustimmen. Mir scheint die Merkmallosigkeit eine der Funktionen zu sein neben den übrigen" (Seidel 1936:118). Seidel states that both the perfective and the imperfective aspects in Russian can function as marked and unmarked. In its ultimate consequences, this merely means abandonning.the attempt of applying to morphology and syntax the formalism devised for phonology in favour of a sheer classification. Martín Sánchez Ruipérez is severe in his critique of Seidel's attempt, saying that it is an absurd one (Sánchez R. 1954: 19).

B. Havránek also wrote an article on the same topic (Havránek 1939) which has been described as a minor contribution (Vachek 1966: 87). The structuralist formalism is much less developed than in Jakobson 1932; actually, the only reference to markedness is this quotation : "Donc l'aoriste [en vieux slave] se présente comme la forme du temps passé 'non-marquée' et l'imparfait comme la forme 'marquée', en employant la terminologie de la linguistique structurale" (Havránek 1939: 227). But Havránek's analyses are structuralist in so far as he integrates them in a global description of the verbal system.

Even if one is to include a couple of related articles (such as : Karcevskij 1932, Mathesius 1932, Trnka 1932), the production of the Prague linguists in the domain of morphology and syntax seems rather sparse. However one must emphasise the fact that they wanted to establish their theory on a solid phonological basis which, in the beginning, could not but entail a neglect of other linguistic levels in favour of a deeper insight in the analysis of the phonological component. Nevertheless, the basis on which future works could be built was laid in Jakobson's paper on the Russian verb; only after World War II could these ideas be developed, partly by modern representatives of the Prague School (Vachek 1966:86) but, for an obvious linguistic reason (the works being written in Czech), they will not be dealt with here and we will, in the stead, focus our attention on some Western European linguists who used the conceptual framework established by Trubetzkoy and Jakobson.

 

2. Later Developments

The publication in 1947 of the French translation of Trubetzkoy's Grundzüge was a major event since it contributed largely to the diffusion of the Prague theories among Western linguists. Following an indication given by Trubetzkoy himself ("tous ces principes de classement ne valent pas seulement pour les oppositions phonologiques, mais aussi pour n'importe quel système d'oppositions : ils ne contiennent rien de spécifiquement phonologique", Trubetzkoy 1976:94), Cantineau published some years later an article (Cantineau 1952) which is, possibly, the first attempt to generalise Trubretzkoy's ideas on phonology to the whole field of linguistics. However, it will be seen that the Prague School doctrine was distorted on a major issue by the influence of the American descriptivism. I shall now give a summary of Cantineau's views, introducing a critical analysis wherever necessary.

Cantineau calls 'opposition significative' the opposition made by two signs whose 'signifiers' (to use Culler's translation of 'signifiant ') are different. What differentiates this from a phonological opposition is that here whole signs, both signified and signifier, are part of the opposition whereas the members of a phonological opposition do not have meaning or, at least, meaning is not taken into account (which is a strange interpretation of Trubetzkoy 1976:33, already quoted). A classification of these 'oppositions significatives' is possible as it has been possible in phonology, according to the same logical principles.

Trubetzkoy's distinction between proportional oppositions and isolated oppositions is used as such and is held to be the basis of grammar since it allows for a clear distinction between grammar and lexicon : grammatical oppositions are proportional because the formal and semantic relation existing between the members of a given opposition also appears in at least another opposition in the same language; lexical oppositions are isolated. A gramrnatical opposition which becomes isolated ceases to be part of the grammar and enters the domain of the lexicon.

Amongst grammatical oppositions, a privative opposition will be one in which the signifier of one member will be characterised by the presence of a formal feature ("marque formelle") which is absent in the signifier of the other member. Cantineau illustrates this point by an example taken from Greek : in the verb λείπω, the unaugmented aorist forms, imperative λίπε, subjunctive λίπω, optative λίποιμι, are in a privative opposition with the corresponding present forms : λεῖπε, λείπω, λείποιμι which are marked by the root vocalism -ε- whereas this mark is absent from the aorist. As we shall see presently, Cantineau would disagree with the following critique since it will be made on semantic grounds. However, I believe it is not possible to give an account of morphology and syntax without any intervening semantic interpretation: for example, using only formal criteria cannot provide an analysis of the following Latin sentence : animal gramen pascitur because there is no nominative-accusative distinction in the neuter and since the word order is free (example from Martinet 1964:28). On the other hand, Cantineau does not exclude the methodology of the American linguists who interpret the French masculine adjectives rond, oblong, droit, gris, lourd, gros as lacking a mark present in the corresponding feminine forms ronde, oblongue droite, grise, lourde, grosse : though in principle the mark of a privative opposition should be the feature added to the unmarked member, it is not at all impossible to view it as a feature removed from the marked member. But such an analysis, which admits masculine as the marked member, though most economical from a morphophonemic point of view is counterintuitive : it does not take into account everyday uses of the masculine for both genders, e.g. L'homme est mortel vs. La femme est mortelle where the second example has not the generalising value of the first; the same holds for a pair like chien/ chienne, where the feminine will never be used to refer to the species. This raises the question of semantics in the grammar : should semantic -factors be taken into account in the definition of 'mark'? On this point, Cantineau's position is very clear : "la définition de la marque doit rester purement formelle, sur le plan du signifiant. On repoussera, comme contraire à la méthode, toute définition sémantique dans laquelle la marque serait cherchée sur le plan du signifié" (Cantineau 1952:29). This is, of course, in accordance with the general presupposition made by twentieth-century linguists that language should be described in formal terms and is a major characteristic of American descriptive linguistics, though it is wrongly assumed that Bloomfield rejected meaning in favour of a purely formal analysis (Bloomfield 1935:ch.9); this trend is most evidenced in the work of Z. H. Harris, e.g. "morphemes are not distinguished directly on the basis of their meanings or meaning differences, but by the results of distributional operations upon the data of linguistics"(Harris 1960 [=1951]: 363), though, even there, meaning is not completely excluded : "In determining the morphemes of a particular language, linguists use, in addition to distributional criteria, also (in varying degrees) criteria of meaning difference. In exact descriptive linguistic work, however, such considerations of meaning can only be used heuristically, as a source of hints, and the determining criteria will always have to be stated in distributional terms" (Harris 1960:365, footnote 6). Judging by the number of references to works of Harris, Cantineau was well aware of this position though 'Les oppositions significatives' does not yield any internal evidence of Cantineau's having read Methods in Structural Linguistics (published one year earlier). In any case, it is not possible to exclude meaning completely and one has to admit meaning as a criterion when faced with choosing between two competing analyses, as in the example already given of gender in French.

Moreover, if the mark can be seen either negatively or positively, this leads to the ultimate consequence (noted by Sánchez Ruipérez 1953:7) that it is no longer possible to identify the marked term only on the level of the signifier, i.e. by formal means, a consequence certainly not realised by Cantineau.

Cantineau also uses the phonological notion of equipollent opposition defined here as an opposition between two equivalent members, i. e. both characterised by the presence of a feature; he adds that these are the most frequent oppositions, an assertion which seems strange when one considers the examples given : Engl. foot/feet, goose/geese, German sie brechen/sie brachen. If one were to introduce semantic criteria, one would come to the conclusion that there is a correlation of privative opposition in the following pairs, each pair being proportional with one another: Engl. book/books, table/tables, tooth/teeth, German sie lieben/sie liebten, sie brechen/ sie brachen. The intuition of any native speaker will be that tooth and teeth stand in the same relation to one another as book and books. In other words, Cantineau's analysis does not reflect the native speakers' judgement about the working of their own language, though it is only fair to add that this kind. of structuralism is not intended to give a model of a native speaker's competence. In any case, one is led to question the necessity of using equipollent oppositions when dealing with higher linguistic levels; Cantineau's position may well stem from a misunderstanding of the following passage in the Grundzüge :"Les oppositions équipollentes sont dans chaque système les plus nombreuses" (Trubetzkoy 1976:77), where it is not clear whether Trubetzkoy refers only to phonological systems or to linguistic (or even semiologic) systems in general. In this connection, it is worth noting that Martín Sánchez Ruipérez does not use this concept in his analysis of the Greek verb.

Cantineau's concept of neutralisation is similar with the one Jakobson employs in "Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums" : an opposition is neutralised when its two signs have the same signifier though the signifieds are different, e. g. there is no number mark in the following pair in (spoken) French : il mange/ils mangent. So, implicitly, Cantineau tacitly accepts Jakobson's interpretation of neutralisation (cf. supra).

Cantineau concludes : "On voit [...] que la plupart des problèmes de grammaire peuvent être traités par la méthode des oppositions. Celle-ci est une méthode générale de classement formel. C'est par hasard qu'elle a été appliquée pour la première fois aux sons du langage. Elle permet d'étudier d'une façon plus approfondie une partie quelconque de la langue — de même que bien d'autres problèmes concrets" (Cantineau 1952:40).

The most thorough attempt to apply the Prague School phonological formalism to other fields of linguistics is probably Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del verbo griego antiguo, análisis funcional sincrónico (1954), by Martín Sánchez Ruipérez, professor of classics at the University of Salamanca (Spain) (3). The goal here is the same as for Cantineau : to apply the methods used in phonology, since they are of general value (Sánchez Ruipérez 1954:6 and 10). But such a classification will not take into account the signified : an opposition of signs is impossible without a corresponding opposition of signifieds whereas, on the contrary, an opposition of signifieds is possible even without a corresponding opposition of signifiers; in an article on the same subject written one year earlier, Sánchez Ruipérez says that "... the neutralization of morphological oppositions takes place also on the level of the signifié" (Sánchez Ruipérez 1953: 244). This implies furthermore that "the determining factor of the neutralization must be of semantic, not of phonic, value" (ibid.:24-5). This is a major difference from the view taken by Cantineau and, ultimately, this position is in accordance with the first major work of the Prague School on verb, Jakobson 1932.

Every feature distinguishing a sign at the level of the signified is called 'noción pertinente'; 'sentido' or sense applies to a value ('noción pertinente') realised in 'la parole'. This distinction does not appear in Jakobson 1932 nor Cantineau 1952.

Sánchez Ruipérez's treatment of isolated and proportional oppositions is the same as Cantineau's : the former pertains to the domain of the lexicon, the latter to the grammar. A grammatical opposition established, at the level of the signifier, by means of morphemes (which are defined as the signifiers of grammatical categories within a word) is called a morphological opposition (Sánchez Ruipérez 1954:11-12).

Privative morphological oppositions have a special character, different from privative phonological oppositions, a fact already noted by Jakobson 1932. This is due to their being an opposition of signifiers, and not only signifieds. A simple privative opposition will be represented by the formula

Ax / A

where A is a semanteme (or lexeme) and x a morpheme. The marked member Ax expresses the notion of the opposition shown by the morpheme (positive value). The unmarked member possesses a double function : as unmarked, A remains indifferent to the distinctive notion of Ax (neutral value); but as the term opposed to Ax, A can also express the negation or the absence of the notion x (negative value) (4). Sánchez Ruipérez (p. 17) adds that this is a significant difference from Jakobson 1932 : Jakobson says that the unmarked term does not mention the presence nor the absence of a given feature whereas Sánchez Ruipérez assigns to it two values, neutral and negative. Sánchez Ruipérez's position is justified empirically in his article on the neutral aspect of present indicative in classical Greek (1953).

Taking as an example the case of aspect in Greek, this conception of privative opposition parallels the analysis given by Martinet of the phonemes /t/, /d/, /n/ :

(Sánchez Ruipérez 1953:242; the difference from the scheme given supra is worth noting).

This means that the perfect is, as far as aspect is concerned, in opposition to the present-aorist block in that it expresses "la acción verbal después de su término" (p. 47), e.g. νενόσηκα "at a given moment, I fell ill and I am still ill". In contradistinction, both aorist and present express action in se (p. 45). By their neutral value as unmarked members in that opposition, present and aorist can be used instead of perfect: for example, in Herodotus IV 190 θάπτουσι δὲ τοὺς ἀποθνήσκοντας οἱ νομάδες the present participle (underlined) is used instead of the perfect, though the meaning is clearly that they bury the dead not the dying. There is a similar privative opposition between present (marked) and aorist (unmarked) within the unmarked member, non-perfect.

A gradual opposition is introduced to explain the values of the Greek moods but it is not developed further since the book is primarily concerned with tense and aspect (p. 15, especially footnote 1). In this respect, subjunctive and optative are differentiated only in the intensity with which they express the notion of mood. But this treatment should also include the imperative; one would then be led to posit objective expression of reality vs. subjective disposition of speaker, this last member being composed of a gradual opposition : imperative — subjunctive — optative, each term being a greater distanciation from the reality expressed by the lexeme (this is tentatively suggested in order to include the imperative. but would need to be developed and illustrated with examples). In phonology, it is theoretically possible to reinterpret a gradual opposition as a privative one, for example the opposition u/o as being close/non-close (depending on the phonological system described, cf. Trubetzkoy 1976:79) but the same is not true for morphological oppositions, since both members have a positive value whereas, if it were a privative opposition, one of the members would have a zero-value with its associated two uses already discussed.

Finally, contrary to Cantineau' s opinion, no morphological equipollent opposition is introduced by Sánchez Ruipérez : they are excluded on a semantic basis : "en una hipotética oposición morfológica equipolente, las nociones expresadas por cada uno de los términos, no siendo ni grados distintos: ni la afirmación o negación de una misma noción, serían valores independientes unos de otros, de tal modo que, dado uno, sería imposible conocer cuál es el otro o cuáles son los otros, contradiciendo así el carácter que debe tener toda oposición gramatical significativa" (p. 16).

This has the result that, of the three types of phonological oppositions defined by Trubetzkoy, only two seem to apply at higher linguistic levels.

As opposed to Cantineau, Sánchez Ruipérez, by his use of semantic criteria in analysing morphological oppositions, is in direct filiation from the classical theses of the Prague School, e.g. Pos 1939:75 : "L'opposition en elle-même et dégagée de tout facteur matériel, est de nature éminemment logique : c'est une relation qui ne se constate pas, mais qui se pense. Les opposés sont deux, mais d'une façon particulière; leur dualité n'a pas le caractère indéterminé et contingent de deux objets arbitrairement réunis par la pensée. La particularité consiste en ce qu'étant donné l'un, la pensée déduit l'autre, ce qui n'est pas le cas de la dualité contingente."

 

Conclusion

In the early days of the Prague School it was held that the system of a language should be uncovered by the linguist since it is pre-existing, in other words the linguist, with the help of his classificatory tools, does not put things into order but only reveals an order already present.

For phonological description, Trubetzkoy devised a kind of formalism which afterwards came to be applied to morphology, but never to the same extent; this use of formalism is part of a trend in modern linguistics which ultimately culminates in the use of mathematical devices. The system of (privative) oppositions in morphology is characterised by its binarism, a feature best exemplified in Jakobson's works : given a system of the following type

____A____

B (b - c)

A is in opposition to B (which stands for b and c as a whole) and within B, b is in opposition to c. Of the three kinds of oppositions postulated by Trubetzkoy in Grunzüge, only two, privative and gradual oppositions, seem workable at higher linguistic levels, or at least in morphology. The third, equipollent opposition, has been rejected on semantic grounds, in accordance with the practice of the first Prague linguists who always gave equal importance to form and meaning.

 

Footnotes

1. It should be added here that the difference between morphology and syntax is somewhat attenuated in the Prague movement : "According to the Prague functionalists morphology is concerned with the analysis of the word, whereas syntax is mainly the analysis of the sentence into its constituent relationships (e.g. subject — predicate, etc.). In contradistinction to the views of the former linguists, the Prague School holds that morphology and syntax cannot be linguistically contrasted to each other as two disciplines concerned with 'parole' and 'langue' respectively, because even syntax deals not only with 'parole' but also with 'langue', in attempting to discover normothetic laws, whose individual actualizations take place in utterances" (Vachek 1960:50, s.v. morphologie et syntaxe).

2. The notion of phoneme itself has evolved since the early days of the Prague School when the phonemes were defined by Trubetzkoy and Jakobson as "des images acoustico-motrices les plus simples et significatives dans une langue donnée" (First Congress of Slavicists, 1929; also TCLP 1, 1929, 10-11), terms which are reminiscent of Baudouin de Courtenay's "Lautvorstellung". This psychologistic approach was abandoned in the "Projet de terminologie phonologique standardisée", TCLP 4., 1931, 309-323, for a definition as a phonological unit not dissociable into smaller and simpler (and Trubetzleoy will add later : successive) phonological units (this does not take into account the notion of distinctive feature.) For the history of the concept of phoneme, see Trubetzkoy 1976: 36 ff., esp. 41-46 and Vachek 1966, 43-50.

3. Most of his data come from E. Schwyzer's Griechische Grammatik (II/ Syntax und syntaktische Stilistik).

4. "En el término no caracterizado de una oposición morfológica privativa, junto al valor neutro o de indiferencia a la noción distintiva, el signo posee el valor negativo  consistente en la indicación de la ausencia o negación de la noción básica" (Sánchez Ruipérez 1954: 18).

 

Bibliography

Bloomfield, L. 1935. Language, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

Cantineau, J. 1952. 'Les oppositions significatives', Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 10, 11-40.

Charisteria Guilelmo Mathesio quinquagenario ... oblata. 1932. Prague.

Collingwood, R.G.. 1972. An Essay on Metaphysics, Chicago, Henry Regnery Company.

Culler, J. 1976. Saussure. Glasgow, Fontana Modern Masters.

Daneš, F. and J. Vachek. Prague Studies in Structural Grammar today, TLP 1, 21-31.

Garvin, P.L. 1963. 'Czechoslovakia', Current Trends in Linguistics, 1, 499-522.

--------, 1964. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style, Georgetown University Press.

--------, 1969. 'The Prague School of Linguistics' in Archibald A. Hill, ed., Linguistics Today, New York and London, Basic Books Inc., 229-238.

Groot, A.W. de. 1939. 'Les oppositions dans les systèmes de la syntaxe et des cas', Mélanges Bally, 107-127.

Harris, Z.S. 1960. Structura1 Linguistics, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press.

Havránek, B. 1939. 'Aspect et temps en vieux slave', Mélanges Bailly, 223-230.

Holk, A.G.F. van. 1964. 'Functional Syntax and Syntactic Operations', MSLL 17, 1964, 37-46.

Ivić, M. 1965. Trends in Linguistics, The Hague, Mouton.

Jakobson, R. 1929 'Remarque sur l'évolution phonologique du russe, comparée à celle des autres langues slaves', TCLP 2.

--------, 1932. 'Zur Struktur des russischen Verbums' in Charisteria G. Mathesius, Prague, 74-84 = J. Vachek, ed., 1964-, 347-359.

--------, 1936. 'Beitrag zur allemeinen Kasuslehre', TCLP 6, 240-288.

--------,1939. 'Nikolaj Sergejevič Trubetzkoy' in Sebeok 1966:526-542. Reprinted from Acta linguistica 1.64--76.

--------, 'Serge Karcevski', in Sebeok 1966:493-496. Reprinted from Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 14. 9-13.

Karcevskij, S. 1927. Système du verbe russe, essai de linguistique synchronique, Prague.

--------, 1932. 'Sur la structure du substantif russe', Charisteria G. Mathesisus, Prague, 65-73 = Vachek 1964:335-346.

Lepschy, G.C. 1970. A Survey of Structral Linguistics, London, Faber and Faber.

--------, 1975. 'European Structuralism: Post-Saussurean Schools', Current Trends in Linguistics 13, 887-902.

Leroy, M. 1963. Les grands courants de la linguistique moderne, Brussels and Paris.

Malmberg, B. 1964. New Trends in Linguistics, Stockholm and Lund.

Martinet, A. 1936. 'Neutralisation et archiphonème' TCLP 6, 46-57.

-------- 1939. 'Un ou deux phonèmes?', Acta linguistica 1, 94-103.

--------,1953. 'Structural Linguistics' in A.L. Kroeber, ed., Anthropology Today, Chicago, 574-586.

--------, 1959. 'Quelques traits généraux de la syntaxe', Free University Quaterly. 2, 115-129.

--------,1960. 'Elements of a Functional Syntax', Word 16, 1-10.

--------, 1964. 'The Foundations of a :Functional Syntax' , MSLL 17, 25-36.

Mathesius, V. 1932. 'La place de la linguistique fonctionnelle et structurale dans le développement général des études linguistiques', Časopis pro moderní filologii, 18, 1-7.

--------, 1936. 'On some Problems of the Systematic Analysis of Grammar', TCLP 6, 95-107 = Vachek 1964 :306-319.

--------, 1936b.'Deset let Pražskeho linguistického kroužku', Slovo a slovesnost 2, 137-145; translated in Vachek 1966:137-151, under the title 'Ten Years of the Prague Linguistic Circle'.

Pos, H.J. 1939. 'Perspectives du structuralisme', TCLP 8, 71-78.

Projet de terminologie phonologique standardisée, TCLP 4, 1930, 309-323.

Robins, R.H. 1967. A Short History of Linguistics, London, Longman.

Sánchez Ruipérez, M. 1953. 'The Neutralization of Morphological Oppositions as Illustrated by the Neutral Aspect of the Present Indicative in Classical Greek', Word 9, 241-252.

--------, 1954. Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del verbo griego antiguo, análisis funcional sincrónico, Salamanca, Theses et studia philologica salmanticensia.

Sebeok, T.A. 1966. Portraits of Linguists, A Biographical Source Book for the History of Western Linguistics, 1746-1933, Indiana University Press, vol. 2.

Seidel, E. 1936. 'Zu den Funktionen des Verbalaspekts', TCLP 6, 111-129.

Thèses, TCLP 1, 1929.

Trnka, B. 1930. 'On the Syntax of the English Verb from Caxton to Dryden', TCLP 3.

--------, 1932. 'Some Thoughts on Structural Morphology', Charisteria Mathesius, 57-51 = Vachek 1964 : 329-334.

--------, 1946. 'Vilém Mathesisus' in Sebeok 1966 : 477-488 : Časopis pro moderní filologii 29, 3-13.

--------, 1948. 'Jazykozpyt a myšlenková struktura doby', Slovo a slovesnost 10, 73-83. Translated in Vachek 1966 : 152-165.

-------- et al. 1958. 'Prague Structural Linguistics', Philologica Parguensia 1, 33-40 = Voprosy jazykoznan'ija 3, 1957, 44-52.

Trubetzkoy, N.S. 1929. 'Sur la morphonologie"', TCLP 1,85-88 = Vachek 1964:183-186.

--------,1936. 'Die Aufhebung der phonologischen Gegensätze', TCLP 6, 29-45.

--------,1976. Principes de phonologie, Paris, Klincksieck. Translation of Grunzüge der Phonologie, TCLP 7, 1939.

Vachek, J. 1936, 'Phonemes and Phonological Units' TCLP 6, 235-239.

--------,1961. 'À propos de la terminologie linguistique et du système de concepts linguistiques de l'École de Prague', Philologica Praguensia, 4, 65-78.

--------, 1964. A Prague School Reader in Linguistics, Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

--------, 1966. The Linguistic School of Prague, Bloomington and London, Indiana University Press.

-------- and J. Dubský. 1960. Dictionnaire de linguistique de l'école de Prague, Utrecht and Anvers,

Spectrum.

Waterman, J.T. 1970. Perspectives in Linguistics, Chicago, 2^nd ed., The University of Chicago Press.

Addenda

Bierwisch, h. 1971. Modern Linguistics. Its Development, methods and problems, Janua Linguarum 110, The Hague, Mouton.

Faye, J.P. and L. Robel, eds., 1969. 'Le Cercle de Prague', Change 3, Paris, Seuil.

Garroni, Emilio (ed.). 1966. Il circolo linguistico di Praga. Le tesi del '29, Milan, Silva.

Møller, C. 1936. 'Thesen und Theorien der Prager Schule', Acta Jutlandica 8:2.

Vachek, J. 1970. 'On some less known aspects of the early Prague linguistic school'. Actes du X^e Congrès International des Linguistes, vol. 2, 333-7.

 

Quebec's Aboriginal Languages

Thirty years ago...

In English:

Multilingual Matters, 1996

The Québec Experience of Language Planning

The Québec Experience of Language Planning

by

Jacques Maurais

Conference on Democracy and Ethnopolitics

Riga, 9-11 March 1994

Introduction

My paper will present the main features of our experience of language planning. "Language planning" is the usual English term; but in Québec a French equivalent which is not a litteral translation has been proposed and is now spreading throughout the French-speaking countries : "aménagement linguistique". It is used in the meaning of a middle- or long-term attempt at reaping advantage from a collective resource, language (or languages), while taking into account the needs and interests of a given group. It is implemented according to a flexible action plan directing societal evolution without rushing matters while demanding adhesion and participation from the general population (according to Corbeil, 1980 : 9). As can be gathered from the preceding definition, this French term does not have the connotations of social control the English term has : "aménagement linguistique" takes for granted a social consensus on language policy. Theoricians of language planning usually view it as being composed of two aspects : corpus planning (deliberate intervention on the linguistic fabric itself) and status planning(allotment of a socio-political status to a given language) (Kloss, 1969). This paper will focus on status planning; corpus planning will be touched on only briefly.

Language planning in Québec is characterised by an emphasis put on legal aspects. Since 1969, three major language laws have been enacted in Québec : the Act to promote the French language in Québec of 1969 (Bill 63) the Official Language Act of 1974 (Bill 22) and the Charter of the French language of 1977 (Bill 101). There has also been a number of other laws with linguistic impact (see Maurais, 1987).

These legal texts stemmed from the need to prevent language shift from French to English not only among native speakers of French but also among immigrants who upon their arrival do not speak English nor French but had acquired a tendency, especially after Word War II, to shift to English. If that trend had gone on, French would have become in Québec an ethnic language, that is the language of a particular ethnic group. The aim of our language planning project is to make French the common language (the common public language, the common language for public life) of the different ethnic groups making up the social fabric of the province. This has been made even clearer in a policy statement by the Ministry of Immigration. In its statement, Québec's Ministry of Immigration has introduced a new concept, that of a "moral contract" binding the immigrant and the host society. According to this moral contract, the immigrant must accept that French is the common language of public life in Québec. The policy statement adds that command of a common language is different from linguistic assimilation. It also explains that Québec, as a democratic society, does not interfere in the right of the individuals to use whatever language they want in their private life. Finally it is stated that ethnic languages are an economic, social and cultural asset for the whole population of Québec (Ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration, 1990 : 15-16). I shall come back later on to the problem of a common language as I know that the concept of язык межнационального общения has been at the core of Soviet language policy.

Before I present with more details the aims of Québec's language planning policy, let me first sum up the background of the various language bills that were passed since 1969, that is over a quarter of a century.

Several factors, which emerged more conspicuously in the 1960's, were at the root of the various language laws. Among them are : the economic inferiority of Francophones, not only within the whole of Canada, but within Québec itself, the preponderance of English in the labour market and the apprehensions of French-speaking Canadians regarding their demographic situation. For a long time, the demographic aspect largely dominated the language debate. Québec is the only Canadian province with a French-speaking majority and, before the government intervened in the language field, certain demographic indicators were alarming. Immigrants were becoming assimilated into the English-speaking group, while Francophones, because of their declining birthrate, could not offset the number of immigrants that were swelling English-speaking ranks. Hence, a growing language shift towards English was noted, facilitated by the educational system. Allophones (immigrants whose mother tongue is neither French nor English) were more attracted to English schools than to French schools; French-speaking Québecers also felt that attraction. In 1971-1972, 85 % of Allophone youngsters attended English schools, while only 15 % attended French schools (see St-Germain, 1980, and Paillé, 1981). In 1973, 25 000 French-speaking youngsters were enrolled in English schools (Duchesne, 1973). By the late 1960's, it had become obvious that Allophones would only attend French schools if French were required on the job and if the urban environment, especially in Montréal, reflected the predominantly French character of Québec.

In this paper, I shall address the following points : the question of a common language for public life, language of education, language used in the workplace, corpus planning, language or languages used on public and commercial signs and before I conclude I will set forth some principles that can be drawn from our experience of language planning.

The Common Language Question

This is a moot question. People making efforts to promote a common language in a bi- or multilingual community take a risk to be called linguistic Jacobinists. For instance, many nationalities in the former Soviet Union have been resentful at what was perceived as Russian chauvinism trying to impose Russian as a lingua franca (under the name язык межнационального общения); analogous reactions came from many Russian-speaking minorities when, starting with Estonia in 1989, various Soviet republics passed language laws declaring official the language of the titular nationality. This question will only be touched on here; owing to its sensitivity, such an issue should need a much more thorough discussion.

I want to introduce in the discussion the concept of "regional linguistic majorities" : "regional linguistic majorities", though a majority in their historic territory (where they may nevertheless be experiencing some form of assimilation), are minorities at the national level. By the phrase "regional linguistic majorities" are understood situations like that of French in Québec, Catalan in the Catalan Countries (Catalonia, the Balearic Islands, Valencia, Roussillon, Andorra), and of course Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian and other languages in the pre-1991 Soviet Union (by the way, Latvian is a clear instance of a receding majority since the Latvian ethnic component of the population of the Latvian SSR fell from 62 % in 1959 to 54 % in 1979; Estonian might serve as another example since, over the same period, it fell from 74.6 % to 64.7 %, see Rannut, 1989 : 16; situations like these ones should be dealt with before they became incorporated under the heading "aboriginal minorities").

In the case of what I term "regional linguistic majorities", the need is felt, for the language to survive, to have it as the common language of the various groups making up the population. At the same time, this has to be done in due respect to the linguistic minorities.

As for Québec, the Charter of the French Language, in its preamble, declares that French should become the common language in the following way :

[...] the National Assembly of Québec recognizes that Québecers wish to see the quality and influence of the French language assured, and is resolved therefore to make of [sic!] French the language of Government and the Law, as well as the normal and everyday language of work, instruction, communication, commerce and business;[...].

Having French as the common language of Québec could be best obtained, it was thought, through imposing it as the teaching medium of newcomers and as the normal language to be used on the job. Guarantees were given to the English-speaking historic community that it would retain its institutions and the right of the Amerinds and the Inuit (formerly, the Eskimos) was recognized to preserve and develop their original languages and cultures.

Immigrants are offered the opportunity to learn French through a network of special institutions called COFI's ("Centres d'orientation et de formation des immigrants"). The public school system also offers the opportunity for the children to learn their ethnic language (PELO, "Programme d'enseignement des langues d'origine").

It should also be added that in 1986 the Québec government passed Bill 142 which guarantees social and health services in English. Many health services, especially in the Greater Montreal area, have taken steps to provide their patients with services in many foreign languages. This is most important since illness is a circumstance when a human being is most vulnerable.

Language of Education

This part of my paper could also come under the heading "Freedom of Choice" as freedom of language is usually advocated in the educational context.

In Canada, the phrase "freedom of choice" usually refers to the freedom granted (or denied) to the parents to choose the language of schooling for their children (it also applies, on a much less controversial scale, to the freedom granted to individuals dealing with ministries and agencies of the federal government to receive services in one of Canada's both official languages, English or French).

First of all, it must be remembered that freedom of choice, especially when it relates to education, is often considered in the sociolinguistic literature as being detrimental to linguistic minorities. What could be called linguistic liberalism is in fact non-intervention in language matters but this non-intervention is not so neutral as it could seem from a superficial perspective; as a matter of fact, it is favourable to the dominant language in the existing language competition. In other words, "Le discours libéral n'est plus que la couverture d'interventions avantageant les couches ayant intérêt à la conservation d'une situation langagière qui leur est favorable" [Liberalism is a cover for interventions to the advantage of population strata whose interests rest in the perpetuation of a linguistic situation that is favourable to them] (Guespin & Marcellesi, 1986 : 17). Paradoxically, this liberal policy of freedom of choice for the language of schooling has perhaps been best exemplified in the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Union, especially on the occasion of the Education Reform of 1958-9 under Khrushchev (see Bilinsky, 1962 or Maurais, 1990). According to Hélène Carrère d'Encausse (1978 : chapter 5), this freedom of choice granted to Soviet parents to choose between Russian and their ethnic language as the medium of schooling was favourable to the Russian language. According to a Catalan sociolinguist, freedom of choice in education is the best system to perpetuate cultural and linguistic inequalities (Puig, 1983 : 37; for inequalities in the educational system on a more general level, see Bourdieu & Passeron, 1964). But it is actually more than that : seen from a historical perspective, freedom of choice paves the way to ethnolinguistic assimilation.

The preceding general considerations can be best understood if applied to a concrete case. In the Province of Québec, the majority of the population is French-speaking (some 83 % according to the latest census). Nevertheless, there was a marked tendency, especially after World War II, for the newly arrived immigrants to send their children to the English school, which according to some demographers writing in the late 60's could turn Montreal into an English city by the beginning of the third millennium as Francophones, because of their declining birth-rate, could not offset the number of immigrants that were swelling English-speaking ranks. Immigrants were more attracted to English schools than to French schools; even French-speaking Québecers were increaslingly sending their children to the English school. The need was felt to intervene as French, which is a majority language in the Province of Québec, is a minority language at the Canadian level; the aforementioned question of "regional majority languages" (often in a federation) is indeed a very acute one and requires special attention in language planning.

In order to reverse demographic trends unfavourable to French and taking into account the fact that Canada is a land of immigration, legislative action was taken. Laws were adopted by Québec's National Assembly : the Official Language Act ("Bill 22") in 1974 and the Charter of the French Language (also informally called "Bill 101") in 1977. These are two all-encompassing pieces of legislation. Their two main sectors of intervention are education and the workplace, which are the pivotal aspect of Québec's language legislation since it had already become obvious by the late 1960's that immigrants would only attend French schools if French were required on the job.

The Charter of the French Language is currently in force. In the area of fundamental rights the Charter sets forth the following principle : "Every person eligible for instruction in Québec has a right to receive that instruction in French" (section 6). The original (i.e. 1977) version of the Charter recognized the right to instruction in English of a child whose father or mother had received elementary instruction in English in Québec (section 73a), a child whose father or mother was domiciled in Québec when the Charter came into force and had received his or her elementary instruction in English outside Québec (section 73b), and a child, and his or her brothers and sisters, who, when the Charter was adopted, were already receiving instruction in English in Québec, in a kindergarten, elementary or secondary school (section 73c and d). These provisions were compatible with the Constitution of 1867 that guaranteed Protestant instruction in Québec (which at the time meant instruction in English, for all practical purposes).

These rules have had a number of repercussions on Québec's linguistic communities. Francophones (with the exception of those who attended an English elementary school) no longer have the freedom to choose the language in which their children receive their education : they must send them to a French school. Anglophones still have the right to choose between French and English schools. Immigrants can no longer attend English educational institutions.

It should also be mentioned that the chapter of the Charter of the French Language devoted to the language of instruction gives all categories of citizens (no matter their maternal language) complete freedom in choosing the language of instruction at the Cegep (pre-university) and university levels. Parents may also choose the language of instruction at the elementary and secondary levels if they enrol their children in non-subsidized private institutions.

At the time the Charter of the French Language was discussed at the National Assembly, the Québec government proposed reciprocity agreements with the governments of the English-speaking provinces : people coming from these provinces would be granted permission to send their children to English schools in Québec provided these provinces gave their French minorities the same education facilities as those granted to its English minority by the Québec government (this was section 86 of the Charter : "The Government may make regulations extending the scope of section 73 to include such persons as may be contemplated in any reciprocity agreement between the Gouvernement du Québec and another province"). The reciprocity agreements were supposed to redress the historic denial of access to French education in many English provinces, for "since Confederation until relatively recently, Francophones outside Quebec were systematically denied educational services that adequately reflected their linguistic needs and aspirations" (Mallea, 1984 : 229). No province has since accepted to sign such an agreement; but in the wake of the adoption of the Charter of the French Language the government of Québec decided to recognize that New Brunswick granted its French minority the same educational facilities as those enjoyed by the English-speaking minority in Québec and accordingly people migrating from New Brunswick were entitled to send their children to an English-medium school.

Certain aspects of the provisions contained in the Charter of the French Language were modified rather substantially when the Supreme Court of Canada noted, in July of 1984, that new constitutional rules (adopted without Québec's consent) had changed Québec's capacity to enact or enforce its own conditions for access to instruction in English. The Supreme Court recognized that a part of the 1982 Constitutional Act of Canada (particularly section 23) was designed to establish a different system of access to instruction in English. The judgment handed down opened the door to English instruction to two new categories of children : a child whose father or mother had received elementary instruction in English anywhere in Canada, and the brothers and sisters of a child of a Canadian citizen, who had received or was receiving elementary or secondary instruction in English in Canada. It should also be noted that the children of Canadian citizens whose mother tongue was English (even if these citizens had not attended English school in Canada) would be eligible for English instruction in Québec if so authorized by the Québec government under the provisions of section 59 of the 1982 Constitutional Act.

On a practical plane, the net result of the Charter of the French Language is that some 75 % of Allophone children are now enrolled in French schools.

On a more theoretical plane, the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada seem to imply that, as far as linguistic rights are concerned (at least in so far as they relate to education), the rules applying to immigrants are different from the rules applying to citizens. In other words, it has been accepted that immigrants from outside Canada may have to send their children to French schools in Québec whereas migrants from other provinces still have the choice between French and English schools. It should also be noted that the federal government and the other provincial governments when devising amendments to the Canadian Constitution in 1982 (without the presence of representatives of the Québec government) along with the Supreme Court of Canada in its decisions based on the new Constitutional Act of 1982 have in fact accepted the criterium of eligibility to instruction in English as established by Québec's authorities : elegibility is now determined on the basis of the language in which at least one of the parents has received his or her elementary education in Canada; this criterium is a manageable and objective one (it can be proved by documents) whereas eligibility based on the maternal language has proven to be inapplicable and the source of many social tensions.

Language used in the workplace

The pre-eminence given of the question of the language of work was the pivotal aspect of both the 1974 and 1977 language laws, to the extent that, in this respect, there was only a difference in degree between Bill 101 and Bill 22, as a political economist of an Ontario university has noted : "What is particularly striking about the law as it applies to the private sector is its strong continuity with Bill 22, the Official Language Act of 1974" (Coleman, 1984 : 144). However, to better grasp the significance of the legislative provisions relating to the language of work, a brief historical overview should be provided.

The work of the commission of inquiry set up in 1969 by the Québec government to study the position of the French language in Québec (Gendron Commission) showed that the English language in fact dominated in the workplace. The Gendron Commission summarized the situation as follows :

French appears to be useful only to French-speaking persons. In the province of Québec itself, it remains basically a marginal language, since non-French-speaking persons have little need of it and many French-speaking people use English as much as and sometimes more than their mother tongue for important work (Gendron Report, 1972 : I, 108).

In short, French was the language of menial jobs and low incomes and not the language of access to the upper echelons and their attendant benefits.

To carry out its mandate, i.e. to "advise the government on any legislative or administrative measures which might be passed to see to it that French is the working language in public and private undertakings in Québec" (section 14b of Bill 63 of 1969), the Office de la langue française (hereafter French Language Bureau) had begun, even before the Gendron Report was published, to set up administrative mechanisms that were to be used in implementing the 1974 legislation and, later on, the Charter of the French language.

However, to determine the management processes to bring about a linguistic change in the workplace, the French Language Bureau had to conduct pilot experiments in a number of firms. These experiments demonstrated that a Francization programme could be managed in the same way as any other activity of a firm, such as a change in a manufacturing process, without halting or slowing down production, but that there would be socio-psychological effects (including resistance to change). These Francization experiments also showed that the largest firms would produce a spill-over effect that would extend to medium and small businesses. Both the 1974 and the 1977 laws took this into consideration by first compelling firms with more than 100 employees to use French in the workplace. The pilot experiments also showed that the incentives for companies to use French, proposed in Bill 63, were ineffective because the firms never got beyond the linguistic analysis stage and that, accordingly, ways of compelling companies to use French had to be determined.

Moreover, the experiments showed that a linguistic profile of the company first had to be drawn up. Hence, a linguistic analysis questionnaire was developed. The Charter of the French language stipulates that all companies with more than 50 employees must fill out the questionnaire. The main areas covered in the analysis are : written communication within the company, oral communication at meetings, written communication with firms outside Québec, forms, training and reference manuals, language used on internal signs, language used in advertising, the company's policy regarding the teaching of the second language to its management personnel and other employees, linguistic criteria for hiring, promoting and transferring employees, use of French terminology within the company, the volume of translation from English to French and from French to English, and so on.

Once the linguistic analysis is completed, the company must negotiate a Francization programme with the French Language Bureau. According to the Charter (section 141) :

The Francization programme is intended to generalize the use of French at all levels of the business firm. This implies : (a) the knowledge of the official language on the part of management, the members of the professional corporations and the other members of the staff; (b) an increase at all levels of the business firm, including the board of directors, in the number of persons having a good knowledge of the French language so as to generalize its use; (c) the use of French as the language of work and as the language of internal communication; (d) the use of French in the working documents of the business firm, especially in manuals and catalogues; (e) the use of French in communications with clients, suppliers and the public, (f) the use of French terminology; (g) the use of French in advertising; (h) appropriate policies for hiring, promotion and transfer.

An amendment to the Charter of the French Language passed in 1993 has added a new requirement to the preceding list : the availability of computer softwares in French.

As part of its Francization programme, the firm negotiates with the French Language Bureau the list of positions that require knowledge of another language with a view to ensuring communication among the departments of the firm or with other companies outside Québec. It has been proposed that these positions be known as linguistic bridges. They are only to be used for communications with firms outside Québec, not for communications within the firm itself (Corbeil, 1975 [1974] : 25).

In firms employing more than 100 people, a Francization committee devises a Francization programme and supervises its application (section 150); workers must make up at least one-third of the members of the Francization committee (section 146) which, according to a 1993 amendment, must meet at least every six months.

A 1993 amendment to the Charter of the French Language requires that business firms, even when they hold a Francization certificate, report every three years to the French Language Bureau. This amendment has been devised so that Francization may not step back.

The Francization process as described above may not apply to head offices and, since 1983, to research centres. The text of section 144 was amended by Bill 57, passed in 1983. It now reads as follows :

The manner of applying Francization programmes in head offices and in research centres may be decided by special agreements with the Office [de la langue française] to allow the use of a language other than French as the language of operations.

A regulation of the French Language Bureau defines the two criteria which entitle a company to a special agreement : if, on the one hand, 50 % or more of the revenue of the firm is derived from exports outside Québec and, on the other, it is impossible for the firm to meet the requirements of section 141 of the Charter (quoted above in full), given the frequency of its transactions abroad, the complexity of the techniques used, its specialized staffing needs or the effects that a Francization programme could have on its competitive position. One of the two criteria is sufficient to entitle the firm to a special agreement; the first criterium has been the most frequently invoked until now (see FTQ, 1985 : 24).

What headway has been made in the Francization of business firms?

As of 31st March 1992, 82.6 % of businesses with 50 to 99 employees hold a Francization certificate; progress has been somewhat slower in the case of firms with more than 100 employees : 66.4 % hold a Francization certificate (Conseil de la langue française, 1992 : 106). The certificates attest to the fact that the firms can operate in French, i.e. that they have translated their most important documents and that a sufficient number of their management staff can express themselves in French.

From 1971 to 1989, progress in the use of French throughout the labour force was noted : 66 % of the labour force worked mainly in French in 1971, 70 % in 1979, 73 % in 1989. Progress has been more noticeable in the Montréal area : 51 % in 1979, 56 % in 1989 whereas over a ten-year period there was no significant progress for French in the rest of the province (87 % in 1979, 88 % in 1989) (see Béland, 1991).

Corpus Planning

Industrialisation in Québec was brought about since the nineteenth century by English-speaking entrepreneurs (first from Britain and thereafter increasingly from America). From the beginning, Québec's economic development was based on extraction of raw materials which were transformed elsewhere; businesses established in the province were most often branches of British or American firms with manegerial personnel coming from the United Kingdom or America with the lower echelons filled by local manpower, thus creating a predominantly French-speaking proletariate in the cities. This historical fact explains why English has been since the beginning of industrialization the dominant language in the workplace; it is noteworthy that even in the countryside new machinery introduced since the nineteenth century was more often than not designated under English names while traditional agricultural machinery and activities usually kept their French names.

Language bills passed in the 1970's (on which see Maurais, 1987) commissioned a government agency, the French Language Bureau, with the mandate to make French the working language in business firms and in the Civil Service; this implied an emphasis on terminology, i.e. the Bureau had to provide correct French terms to replace traditionally English or `Franglais' terms.

The historical situation which has just been outlined has led to the fact that the variety of French used in Quebec, especially the technolects, presents a lexical deficit when compared to English and this has a special bearing on terminology as practised in Quebec. In other words, traditionally terminological activities in Quebec have had more to do with lexical modernization than with terminology, qua terminology; and even at that, lexical modernization has consisted more often than not in establishing bilingual lexica providing North-American French-speakers with terms already in use in France. Gapping a lexical deficit, catching up with English in technical domains, are the main characteristics of corpus planning in Quebec.

Among its many activities, the French Language Bureau had to adopt a definite position regarding loan-words. When technical domains are literally flooded with foreign borrowings, as was the case in some sectorial vocabularies in Quebec, the matter is of public concern since the law entitles every worker to work in French; in such a case one may ask whether a worker is actually working in French when he uses an overwhelming foreign (and considered by himself to be foreign) technical lexicon. A certain regulation of the flow of loan-words is therefore called for : the Language Bureau has issued a policy statement on that matter (Office de la langue française, 1980). In its policy statement, the Bureau declares that linguistic borrowing (more precisely loan-words, loan-translations and semantic loans) is a legitimate means to enrich a language but it should not prevail over internal modes of lexical creativity; the Language Bureau sets three tasks : a) to get rid of Anglicisms which are detrimental to Quebec's French integrity (essentially loans that uselessly compete with standard French words); b) to promote French lexical creativity as a means to designate new realities, usually imported from the United States, instead of perpetuating the habit of systematically resorting to borrowings from English as the regular source for neologisms; c) to establish guidelines regulating admission of foreign words when they are really needed to fill a gap in the lexicon and when internal linguistic resources are clearly at an end.

Language(s) of Signs

Language demands were often related to the fact that Québec did not have a French image, a French face ("visage français"). Signs were often bilingual, if not solely in English. The former premier, René Lévesque, once said :

In its own way, each bilingual sign says to the immigrant : there are two languages here, French and English, and you choose the one you want. To the Anglophone, it says : you don't need to learn French; everything is translated.

This statement faithfully reflects the attitude of the Nationalists towards the sign question in the late 1960's and early 1970's, when they called for government intervention in this area.

Here is one author's description of the sign situation in downtown Montréal in the 1960's :

Look at downtown Montréal, in the Sainte-Catherine-Peel area, for example : almost all the large signs are only in English... There is some French on small signs in shop windows and on menus, to promote sales! But, to assert our presence, come on! These shopkeepers advertise in English, their language, or that of the most powerful in Canada, the language they have chosen, turning up their noses at the French demographic reality of Québec and Montréal itself (Lorrain, 1966 : 80).

In 1969, the Act to promote the French language in Québec (better known as "Bill 63") timidly paved the way for intervention by entrusting the French Language Bureau with the mandate to "advise the government on any legislative or administrative measures which might be passed in regard to public posting to ensure the priority of the French language therein" (section 14d). The Official Language Act of 1974 made French mandatory on public signs, rejected English unilingualism in favour of French unilingualism or bilingualism, and no longer mentioned the "priority" of French : "Public signs must be drawn up in French or in both French and another language, except within certain limits provided by regulation" (section 35). In 1977, the Charter of the French language opted squarely for French unilingualism : "except as may be provided under this act or the regulations of the Office de la langue française, signs and posters and commercial advertising shall be solely in the official language" (section 58, 1977 version). Only as an exception could the wording in French on signs be accompanied by another language in cases of "cultural activities of a particular ethnic group" (section 61) and in "commercial establishments specializing in foreign national specialities or the specialities of a particular ethnic group" (section 62); French was not mandatory in "messages of a religious, political, ideological or humanitarian nature" from non-profit associations (section 59); and, finally, "firms employing not over four persons including the employer may erect signs and posters in both French and another language in their establishments" (not outside their establishments), but "French must be given at least as prominent display as ... the other language" (section 60). Only the official language may be used on traffic signs (section 29).

French unilingualism on signs was deemed necessary because it was to symbolize, in the eyes of the entire population, the real possibility of linguistic change. This is how it was justified :

We have therefore chosen a number of highly visible, concrete manifestations of language and we have made them the subject of provisions in the Charter of the French language. These manifestations are : company names, signs, advertising and terminology. The changes that are occurring and will occur in these areas are directly visible and actually modify what we perceive with our eyes and ears. This will be an obvious confirmation for everyone that the law is effective, that things are changing (Corbeil, 1977 : 12).

The provisions of the Charter of the French Language relating to signs were challenged before the courts. In December 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada decided that freedom of expression could not be reduced to political expression and that it also applies to commerce. The Court added that requiring the predominance of French on commercial signs would be acceptable and would serve the goal of preserving and promoting a French face in the province. According to the Court's reasoning, it is legitimate to require a "marked predominance" of French on commercial signs for demographic reasons as more than 80 % of Québec's population is French : this means that the "linguistic face" should reflect the demolinguistic composition of the population. This interpretation is questionable. According to some legal experts (e.g. Woehrling, 1993), the Court has given a wrong interpretation and the objective of section 58 of the Charter of the French Language (pertaining to commercial signs) has been wrongly identified. The objective was to change non-Francophones' attitudes towards French, not to mirror the proportion of French-speakers in the population; this objective was based on the assumption that the "linguistic landscape" conditions to a great extent the psychological attitudes of non-Francophones towards French : inasmuch as people who do not speak French need the information transmitted through that language they will learn it but if commercial signs and advertisement are also available in English (or another language) they will not feel the need to learn French. As already mentioned, there were exceptions to the rule of French unilingualism, which had the effect of loosening that requirement, but these exceptions were not even taken into account by the Supreme Court in its 1988 decision.

Subsequently, the government of Québec amended the provision on commercial signs. As of 1993, bilingualism is again permitted on commercial signs. In some cases, the regulations provide for a one-to-one bilingualism but in other cases the regulations call for the "marked predominance" of the French language. This "marked predominance" has been defined by the two-to-one rule (that is, twice as big or twice as many). The rule of French unilingualism has nevertheless been maintained for advertisement-hoarding (signs and posters) of more than 16 square metres and for advertisement on vehicles used for public transport (including bus shelters and premises giving access to public transport). The maintenance of some domains of French unilingualism has been justified by the Conseil de la langue française on sociolinguistic grounds :

Only some domains of exclusive use of French on signs and in advertisement will guarantee the status of French as a creative language. Without those domains of exclusive use, there is a serious risk that French becomes again a translated language on signs and in advertisement whereas for the last 15 years lexical and semantical creativity has been increasingly manifested in those areas (Conseil de la langue française, 1993 : 14; translation mine).

Some Principles of Language Planning

Some basic sociolinguistic principles can be derived from the Québec experience of language planning. It remains to be seen whether they will hold true in every other circumstance. They will be presented here rather schematically.

(1) Need for a prior sociolinguistic description

A language planning project must be based on a thorough sociolinguistic description. On the basis of that description realistic goals must be set. Québec's language laws could build on two very important sociolinguistic surveys : the Canadian government's Royal Commission on bilingualism and biculturalism (Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, also called B & B Commission) and the Gendron Commission set up by the Québec government in 1969.

(2) Need for state intervention

When a language planning project aims at a massive switch-over (such as making French, instead of English, the usual language in the workplace), one must realize that the individual is helpless. An individual alone cannot bring about such a massive language change in a business firm, let alone in a whole society. In other words, one must do away with voluntarism. The state has to set the rules and to provide some sort of control (this, by the way, is in the opinion of the current author a major flaw in the 1989-1990 language laws of the Soviet republics as no state agency is entrusted with all the practical aspects of implementing the switch-over from Russian; see Maurais, 1991; this situation seems to have been rectified in Latvia by the creation of an "Official Language Commission", which includes an "Official Language Inspection Department" (Инпекция государственного языка), and in Estonia by the recent creation of a body of language inspectors; a language agency has also recently been established in Lithuania).

(3) Need for visible change

Language is an abstract reality and so is language change. In order for a language policy to succeed, some signs of progress have to be made visible so that the whole population is no longer under the spell of collective powerlessness and will realise that change is possible.

People must perceive that change has been made or is under way, otherwise the situation will be seen as hopeless. Speakers chronically suffering from linguistic insecurity must be driven out of their vicious circle. Three domains were selected in Québec in that respect : 1. Public commercial signs; 2. Terminology in the workplace (i.e. doing away with English and Franglais [Frenglish] terms); 3. School enrolment (easily checked through official statistics). As Corbeil (1977 : 12; translation) wrote :

We have therefore chosen a number of highly visible, concrete manifestations of language and we have made them the subject of provisions in the Charter of the French Language. These manifestations are : company names, signs, advertising and terminology. The changes that are occurring and will occur in these areas are directly visible and actually modify what we perceive with our eyes and ears. This will be an obvious confirmation for everyone that the law is effective, that things are changing.

(4) Domains of non-intervention

The law must define the domains where the official language is to be used, alone or with another language. All the other domains, and especially all private domains (including religion), are to remain untouched.

(5) Special status of bilingualism

Everyone agrees that bilingualism is an asset for the individual. But when it comes to social bilingualism (which more often than not is synonymous with diglossia, that is a relationship between a dominant language and a dominated one), the situation is no longer so clear as bilingualism is usually an intermediary step to later unilingualism in the dominant language. In Québec, social bilingualism has been deemed to be detrimental to French : systematic bilingualism as used to be the rule before the language laws of the 1970's meant that immigrants, when offered the choice between French and English, usually opted for the second. Québec's language laws therefore provide for a certain regulation of bilingualism : for instance, business firms have to negotiate with a specially commissioned government agency (Office de la langue française) the list of positions that require the knowledge of a language other than French; these positions are indeed necessary in order to ensure communication with the departments of the firm situated outside Québec and with firms from outside Québec. The provisions in the Charter of the French Language relating to bilingualism are based on a distinction that has been made between individual bilingualism (which must be fostered) and institutional bilingualism (which must be controlled) (on this, see Corbeil, 1977 and 1980).

In other language planning projects, bilingualism plays a very different part. This is so in cases where the decline of the language is more acute than it was in Québec. In such instances requirements of generalized bilingualism may be the first step to restore the language. This is clearly the case in the Spanish Basque Country where slightly more than 25 % of the population have reportedly a sufficient knowledge of the language. Latvia offers another example of a language planning project fostering bilingualism (where the titular nationality is on the verge to loose its status of majority). Section 22 of the Latvian Law on languages stipulates that citizens shall be reimbursed for any losses due to a failure of employees to speak Latvian or Russian and that this reimbursement may even be demanded from the guilty employee; according to section 23, infringement on a citizen's freedom of language choice shall bring the guilty party before court. These bilingual requirements must of course be evaluated in reference to the demolinguistic composition of the population. As ethnic Russians tend to be unilingual, such requirements are clearly set out in order to increase their knowledge of the majority language.

The preceding examples clearly show that the role of bilingualism can be very different from one language planning project to another.

(6) Need to build consensuses

In order for a language planning project to develop some sort of support in the population, large consensuses must be built. Here are some consensuses which still hold in Québec : the immigrants must be enrolled in French schools; French must be obligatory and prominent on public commercial signs; and there is a need for state support for French, since this is clearly a minority language in the North American context.

(7) The role of the time factor in language planning

Language planning is a middle-term or a long-term undertaking. It is generally estimated that language change, i.e. more precisely phonological change, takes about one generation. I think it could also be assumed that planned change – and I mean real, deep change, not only changing the names of the streets from one language to another – would also probably take one generation, if not more. A switch-over from one language to another cannot be done overnight. In order words, in language planning there is no short cut – or, in any case, resorting to short cuts could be dangerous. This observation entails two consequences :

1- The need for visible change in some domains (which has been already mentioned) in order to reduce uncertainty about the future of the language;

2- The need for monitoring : as most of the linguistic change will go unnoticed by the individual speaker in his life span, a team of experts must monitor the change. If this is not done, then the language planning project might well be a short-lived endeavour.

Conclusion

The Québec experience in language planning is of course broader in scope than what has been discussed in this paper. What is most striking about our experience and has been perhaps only hinted at in some passages of this paper is the pragmatic character of our language planning project. This character is best exemplified by the fact that this project, embodied in an act of parliament, has been periodically modified in order to meet new needs and/or demands arising either from some group (e.g. the Anglophones pressing in 1983 and 1993 for a better recognition of English) or from the evolution of the economy (e.g. the massive introduction of personal computers in the workplace necessitated in 1993 that the requirements on the Francization of business firms be readjusted).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BÉLAND, Paul (1991), L'usage du français au travail. Situation et tendances, Québec, Conseil de la langue française.

BILINSKY, Y. (1962), "The Soviet Education Laws of 1958-9 and Soviet Nationality Policy", Soviet Studies 14/2, 138-157.

BOURDIEU, Pierre & Jean-Claude PASSERON (1964), Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture, Paris, Éditions de Minuit.

BOURHIS, Richard Y. (1984), Conflict and Language Planning in Quebec, Clevedon, Multilingual Matters.

CARRÈRE D'ENCAUSSE, Hélène (1978), L'empire éclaté, Paris, Flammarion.

CONSEIL DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE (1990), L'aménagement de la langue : pour une description du français québécois, Québec.

CONSEIL DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE (1992), Indicateurs de la situation linguistique au Québec. Édition 1992, Québec, Conseil de la langue française.

CONSEIL DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE (1993), Avis sur d'éventuelles modifications à la Charte de la langue française, Québec.

CORBEIL, Jean-Claude (1975[=1974]), Description des options linguistiques de l'Office de la langue française, Régie de la langue française, coll. Études, recherches et documentation n^o 2.

CORBEIL, Jean-Claude (1977), "Principes sociolinguistiques de la Charte de la langue française", Langues et usage des langues, Québec City, Conseil de la langue française, coll. Notes et Documents No. 50.

CORBEIL, Jean-Claude (1980), L'aménagement linguistique du Québec, Montréal, Guérin.

DUCHESNE, Louis (1973), La situation des langues dans les écoles du Québec et de ses régions administratives (1969-70 à 1972-73), Québec City, Ministère de l'Éducation.

FÉDÉRATION DES TRAVAILLEURS ET DES TRAVAILLEUSES DU QUÉBEC (F.T.Q.) (1985), Travailler en français, nos droits, nos responsabilités, nos moyens d'action, Montréal, F.T.Q.

GOVERNMENT OF QUÉBEC (1972), Rapport de la Commission d'enquête sur la situation de la langue française et sur les droits linguistiques au Québec, Québec City, Official Printer's, 3 vols.

GUESPIN, L. & J.-B. MARCELLESI (1986), "Pour la Glottopolitique", Langages 83, 5-34.

KLOSS, Heinz & Albert VERDOODT (1969), Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism, Québec City, International Centre for Research on Bilingualism.

LORRAIN, Roland (1966), La mort de mon joual, Montréal, Éditions du Jour.

MALLEA, John R. (1984), "Minority Language Education in Quebec and Anglophone Canada" in Bourhis (ed.) (1984 : 222-260).

MAURAIS, Jacques (1987), "L'expérience québécoise d'aménagement linguistique" in J. Maurais (ed.), Politique et aménagement linguistiques, Québec City, Conseil de la langue française and Paris, Éditions Robert.

MAURAIS, Jacques (1990), "Les législations linguistiques soviétiques de 1989", L'Action nationale LXXX/10, 1439-1450.

MAURAIS, Jacques (1991), "Les lois linguistiques soviétiques de 1989 et 1990", Revista de Llengua i Dret (Barcelona) 15, 75-90.

MAURAIS, Jacques (1993), "Terminology and Language Planning" in Helmi B. Sonneveld & Kurt L. Loening, Terminology. Applications in Interdisciplinary Communication, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 111-125.

MINISTÈRE DES COMMUNAUTÉS CULTURELLES ET DE L'IMMIGRATION (1990), Énoncé de politique en matière d'immigration et d'intégration.

OFFICE DE LA LANGUE FRANÇAISE (1980), Énoncé d'une politique relative à l'emprunt de formes linguistiques étrangères, Québec City, Official Printer's.

PAILLÉ, Michel (1981), "The Impact of Language Policies on Enrolment in Public Schools in Québec", Contributions à la démolinguistique du Québec, Québec City, Conseil de la langue française, coll. "Notes et Documents" n^o 48.

PUIG, Gentil (1983), "Criteris per a una normalització lingüística democràtica a Catalunya", Treballs de sociolingüística catalana 5, 25-39.

RANNUT, Mart (1989), О законе о языке, Tallinn, Znanie.

SAINT-GERMAIN, Claude (1980), La situation linguistique dans les écoles primaires et secondaires, 1971-1972 à 1978-1979, Québec, Conseil de la langue française.

WOEHRLING, José (1993), La conformité de certaines modifications projetées au régime linguistique de l'affichage public et de la publicité commerciale découlant de la Charte de la langue française avec les chartes des droits et libertés, Québec, Conseil de la langue française.