What's the difference?
What's the difference?Click on the links here to drill down and get the full story.
| Canadian French's pronunciation is more complex. Parisian French has a slightly softer sound to it. |
| North-American way of thinking versus a European way of thinking. Less “vous” and more “tu”. |
 | Lots of different words and a lot of “old” words—by European perception—still used in Canada. Very much scorned in Canada, very much accepted in France. |
Keep in mind that all of these areas are intertwined and overlap somewhat. The few examples that are provided on this page are intended to illustrate the types of differences that exist and are in no way intended to be a complete list.
Canadian French has more sounds than Parisian French—both vowel and consonant sounds. Because of this, Canadian French tends to sound more nasal also. Distinction of words in Canadian French is easier to hear (because of having more sounds). Parisian French sounds softer; Canadian French, especially coming from the mouth of an old Montrealer, can sound harder because of a trilled “R” like in Spanish. Still, ironically, I’ve heard many many times from French people themselves that Canadian French has a melodic quality to it (kind of like Italian) that is very pleasant.
It's been almost 500 years, since the French first came to North America in 1534. Most of the French colonists who colonized Québec spoke the standard French of the time as a second language. Their first language depended on their region of origin in France. The claim that Québec French is “17th century Norman French” is partially true, but there were colonists from southern France, eastern France, Brittany, and even Paris, as well as from Normandy and Poitou. These settlers all brought their regional accents with them, and today—what is known as the “Québec accent”—is actually an evolutionary result of a mixture of different sixteenth-century French accents.
Most French colonists were actually well educated for people of that time period. They had a good command of the standard “Royal French” language of those days. By today's standards, the language spoken and written at the time of French colonization in North America was actually quite formal.
Since many of the French colonists wrote French well, it should not be surprising that they also spoke it well. In addition, they spiced their speech with words and accents from their home regions in France. (Their coins d'origine, as we say in French!) There was no Académie Française at the time, so squabbles about proper pronunciation and “the right word” were not as common at that time as they are today. Canadian pronunciations like “moé” for “moi,” “toé” for “toi,” “drette” for “droit,” and “frette” for “froid” were considered standard French. (These Canadian-like pronunciations can still be heard in certain parts of France today.)
Regional French dialects and patois—as the primary languages in Nouvelle France—quickly gave way to the standardized “Français Royal” as the first language so everyone could communicate with ease and get the job of establishing new lives in a harsh environment underway. But the spice and influence of these various dialects would live on.
This section will probably only make sense if you are familiar with European French already. Here's just a few examples of usage and structural differences.
French | Comment | |
nous autres | “Nous” follows a similar pattern as “vous” below, but it is a bit more complicated. Because it is paired with “on,” the third person singular is used instead of the first person plural form of the verb.
If you are a Spanish speaker, you will no doubt pick up on the fact the “nous autres” is the same, in essence, as “nosotros.” | |
on | Most of the time means “nous” (we). On est tous contents. | We're all happy. | |
-tu | A handy little particle added to the back side of the verb to form a question (not used with the “vous” form, however). “C’est-tu correct ?” Is it alright? “Je peux-tu le faire ?” Can I do it? | |
tu | Impersonal You Use “tu” (as we do in English) to express the impersonal you (where in France “on” would be used) “Tu devrais boire au moins 32 onces d’eau par jour !” You (one) should drink at least 32 ounces of water per day! | |
tu/vous | Familiar versus Formal Canadians use “tu” a LOT more often than the French. Almost everyone is “tu,” except senior citizens. Unless you're at least in your mid-50s, when you hear “vous,” think plural first. Store employees are generally (though not always) encouraged to use “vous” with first-time customers. With repeat customers, especially if there is a good rapport between them and the store employees, “tu” is increasingly more common. | |
Veux-tu…? | Inversion When creating a question, inversion is used much more in Canada than in France. In Canada, “Est-ce que” would usually be at the bottom of the list of choices. | |
vous autres | The use of “vous autres” is almost universal in Québec, but unlike Louisiana Cajun French speakers, Québécois speakers do not generally put “vous autres” right before a verb. It is much more commonly placed after the verb instead.
This is also a very convenient way to distinguish whether you wish to be formal with someone or are speaking in the plural “you.” |
Usage also reflects reality, culture and environment. As North Americans, we like action verbs because we also like brevity. We are much more prone to gravitate towards using a verb to express a thought than a longer construction. It is more common to say:
I antiqued all day long with friends. | than to say… | I went to antique shops all day long with friends. |
I e-mailed him twice now. | I sent him an e-mail twice now. | |
I googled the word “atocas.” | I did a Google search on the word “atocas.” | |
I need six more, please. | I have a need for six more, please. | |
I tipped the waitress a buck. | I gave the waitress a buck tip. |
This tends to be true in Canadian French also. Canadian French like American English is not as rigid in its ability, structure and willingness to be creative as its European counterpart. This flexibility—fortified with Quebecois ingenuity and creativity—is often misconstrued by the Euro camp as being a propensity towards creating Anglicisms or “calques d’anglais” or “direct translations” as some of the stone-throwing goes. Funny how this same Euro French elitist snobbery is so quick to condemn a Canadian-French word like “magasinage,” but approves of a so-called “French-French” word like “shopping”!
“They're an accepted part of the language now!” says the elite. Members of this elite see European Anglicisms as “international, cosmopolitan, and sophisticated,” while they label French-Canadian Anglicisms as “evidence of a corrupted and bastardized language.” Many of Montreal's TV and radio personalities apparently cannot see this hypocrisy, but most of the rest of us not only see it, but see right through it!
It's very difficult not to get ticked-off at the hypocrisy surrounding this issue in the French language… So I won't restrain myself and just say it the way it is.
Although I ultimately believe the problem stems from a HUGE amount of ignorance overshadowing the French language, both here on this continent and in Europe, there are still certain people out there who are simply mean-spirited arrogant idiots who refuse to examine and accept the facts and consciously spread lies and unsubstantiated claims about Canadian French. (Perhaps this somehow feeds their ego and their sense of superiority to do so. Simple minds apparently need constant reassurance of their superiority!)
The list of vocabulary that differs between Canada and France is seemingly endless and growing all the time. Not only are there different words altogether to express the same thing, but there are shared words that have different meanings or different nuances. Let’s start with a few examples of shared words with different meanings, but keeping the potentially “embarrassing-moment-causing” ones at the top of the list.
Same Word - Different Meaning
In Canada means… | Word/Term | In France means… |
happy hour | cinq-à-sept | tryst |
balls (testicles) | gosses | kids (children) |
sexual make-out session | parking | parking lot |
puck (hockey puck) | rondelle | ass hole (literally) |
panty (female underwear) | slip | panty/brief (female/male underwear) |
tune (usually hummed) | turlute | blow-job |
car | char | tank (military tank) |
curdle | cailler | freeze |
breakfast | déjeuner | lunch |
lunch | dîner | dinner |
pop / soda pop | liqueur | liquor |
dinner/supper | souper | supper |
Different Words - Same Meaning
Canada | English | France |
bleuet | blueberry | myrtille |
brun | brown | marron |
cèdre | cedar (tree/wood) | thuya |
change | change (currency) | monnaie |
ataca | cranberry | canneberge |
rousselures | freckles | taches de rousseur |
gamin | kid | gosse |
chefferie | leadership | leadership |
vivoir | living room | living |
chum | pal / buddy | pote |
arachide | peanut | cacahouète |
liqueur | pop / soda pop | soda |
magasinage | shopping | shopping |
fin de semaine | weekend | week-end |
Bienvenue ! | You’re welcome! | De rien ! |
téléverser | to upload | uploader |
parcomètre | parking meter | parcmètre |
Québec French still uses certain words that are often thought of as no longer being used in France. In some instances, these words are used differently on each side of the Atlantic. One example is “fiable.” Basically, “fiable” means “reliable,” but the French and the Québécois use the word in different contexts. A machine is “fiable” in France, meaning “reliable and safe.” In Québec, a person is “fiable,” meaning “trustworthy.” “Il est fiable !” (Pronounced: “Y é fiab'!”) “He's trustworthy.”
Another example of this is “piastre.” “Une piastre” was simply a French monetary unit from the time when the French colonized North America. The coin ceased to be used, and as a result, the word died out in France. It lived on in Québec, however, and came to be used as a colloquial word for “dollar.” In other words, a “buck.” Note that when true Québécois vernacular is being spoken, piastre is generally pronounced piasse, with the “t” and the “r” left out. This is true of many other words also, since endings like iste (as in Baptiste!) and istre (as in ministre) are routinely pronounced isse in colloquial speech.
Still another example is “à c't'heure” (à cette heure), an expression that was common in sixteenth century standard French—so common that it morphed into its own word “asteur” (sometimes spelled “asteure”) meaning “now.” Maintenant is universally accepted today, but “asteur” is still heard in northwestern France (Brittany) and it is widely used in colloquial Québécois French today.
icist à icit à icitte à ici
In Old French, “ici(tte)” (here) was written icist. I suspect that the spelling was changed to “icit” to reflect pronunciation, eventually resulting in the spelling “icitte.” Most dictionaries list only “ici” with no mention of “icitte.” This gives most Anglophones the impression that “icitte” doesn't really exist—Wrong! Not only does it exist, it goes back hundreds of years! In Quebec, most levels of speech call for “ici,” as does virtually all writing. Still, in casual speech among family members and good friends, “icitte” is still common. It is heard in Quebec City and Montreal, but it is more widely used in rural settings.
You will notice that there is a question mark next to the boldfaced heading Archaic Vocabulary. That's because “archaic” is certainly a matter of perspective. The pronunciations and words mentioned here may seem “archaic” to speakers (and learners) of European French, but to Canadian ears where these pronunciations and words are still heard in daily speech, there is nothing archaic about them. “Archaic” is a matter of perspective. French on other side of the Atlantic is “fundamentally” the same but it is not identical. After over 400 years of severed communication and almost TOTAL separation, it is UNREALISTIC and absurd to expect the same evolutionary results.
So… who speaks better Franglais (Français + Anglais)?
No contest! But seventy years ago would have been a different story! Franglais is what happens when Anglicisms take over.
The North-American French speaker, dominated and surrounded by Anglophones for centuries, allowed a multitude of raw English words in to pollute their language. What choice did they have?! There was no OQLF to govern usage. There were few—if any—native Canadian French college professors guiding and teaching language as it developed in North America; professors were British appointed and approved. Let's remember that the North-American Anglophone powers that were tried to wipe out the French in North America altogether. (Many believe they still are!) Later on, when it became obvious that Britain (and the U.S. to some extent) would have to kiss and make up with France, all three of these land-grabbers spat on the Canadian Frenchman regarding him as some type of irrelevant backwoods barbarian frozen in time.
Anglicisms… This is very much a sore spot for both the French and the Québécois. Quebec and France have long been hurling stones at one another where Anglicisms are concerned. Here’s a fair and balanced assessment of the situation written by a Franco-American friend of mine who's spent time in both Quebec and France.
« Au Québec on ne parle l'anglais que pour des raisons économiques, tandis que les Français le parlent aussi pour des raisons sociales. C'est à dire que le statut social de l'anglais est beaucoup plus élevé en France qu'au Québec. C'est pour ça que des phrases comme : “J'ai fait du shopping ce week-end,” et “J'ai pas oublié d'acheter de chips” font mal aux oreilles québécoises, tandis que les Français n'y voient aucun problème. Le français n'a pas évolué de la même façon chez nous que chez notre parent historique, et en général, nos attitudes ne se ressemblent pas beaucoup non plus. »
“In Quebec, we don’t speak English except for economic reasons, whereas the French speak it also for social reasons. That is, the social status of English is much more elevated in France than in Quebec. That’s why sentences like: “I did some shopping this weekend,” and “I didn’t forget to buy chips” hurt the ears of the Quebecois, while the French see no problem with it. French has not evolved in the same way with us as it has with our historical parent, and in general, our attitudes do not resemble one another much either.”
Better still, let’s do a “reverse illustration” in English to really drive the point home. In the Third Millennium, this is how someone from Paris would sound to someone from Trois-Rivières:
Last fin de semaine, I found myself forced to do some last-minute magasinage. I needed to pick up a bag of croustilles for our soirée. When I got to the supermarket, I quickly realized the stationnement was completely full, so I ended up parking at the petit dépanneur next door and walking a few meters. They really need to improve stationnement conditions in this town! Parking here is just poche!
Get the idea? Nasty, éh?!
Truth be told, both European and Quebecois French speakers DO use Anglicisms in their everyday speech, but it’s the quantity and quality that make the difference and when they are used—casual language or formal language.
Most of the Anglicisms we bicker about are not the same on both sides of the Atlantic. Take, for example, “le week-end,” virtually all speakers of European French use it, although “fin de semaine” is understood.
Traditionally, most speakers of Canadian French do not say “le week-end.” It is on the rise among members of the Montreal elite, especially among TV and radio personalities who try to give the impression that they have adopted an “international” form of French, obvious Montreal accents notwithstanding. Most speakers of Québec French still shun the word and many perceive it to be a silly affectation. Adoption of this European French raw Anglicism by the personalities mentioned above is a way of suggesting that we cannot survive unless we use “French French” as a smoke screen. We don't need these silly imported Anglicisms. We have enough home-grown ones of our own to deal with!
OUR Anglicisms include expressions like these: prendre un break (from to take a break) instead of faire une pause, prendre une marche (from to take a walk) instead of faire une marche, sauver de l'argent (from to save money) instead of épargner de l'argent, Ça slaque (Things are slacking off!) instead Ça ralentit, C'est le fonne (It's fun!) instead of C'est amusant, être en shape (from to be in shape) instead of être en forme, and so on. We even use what some consider an Anglicism in reference to toilet paper, since we all know the "official term" is papier hygiénique, but we call it papier de toilette in everyday talk.
So, is our language truly free of Anglicisms when compared to European French? Hardly! However, our Anglicisms are accepted only on a casual level of speech and writing. They are not accepted in formal situations and certainly never used for snob appeal. And in terms of quantity, France has got us beat by miles!
Although this writing specifically targets "loan-words" from English, what is stated applies to any foreign language including European French with regard to infiltration into the Canadian French language. You don’t just get in without proper credentials!
The official policy of the ToutCanadien web site towards Anglicisms can be summed up by an eloquently written article by Louise Guénette of the OQLF (Office Québécois de la Langue Française / Quebec Office of the French Language). I stumbled upon Louise's article here. I couldn't agree more with what she states regarding this controversial topic. She beautifully states the balance we all need to strive for.
Because the article is all in French, I have copied and pasted it here and translated it, paragraph by paragraph, for the benefit of beginners.
LOUISE GUÉNETTE - Office Québécois de la Langue Française
La crise financière qui sévit chez nos voisins du sud nous montre que les emprunts trop faciles peuvent avoir des conséquences dramatiques. En va-t-il de même lorsque c’est une langue qui emprunte ? En linguistique, le mot emprunt ne fait sourciller personne, mais celui d’anglicisme, oui. Que l’on soit enseignant ou étudiant, rédacteur ou réviseur, les anglicismes constituent pour plusieurs une véritable épée de Damoclès. Mais le risque est-il réel, et peut-on y échapper ? | The financial crisis that raged through our neighbors in the south shows us that loans too easily acquired can have dramatic consequences. Does the same thing go for a language that borrows? In linguistics, the word borrowing/loan-word does not cause anyone to raise an eyebrow, but an Anglicism does. Whether you are a teacher or student, writer or editor, Anglicisms constitute for several a veritable sword of Damocles. But is the risk real, and can we escape it? |
Le phénomène de l’emprunt n’est pas mauvais en soi. Il est même naturel et universel puisqu’il permet aux langues de s’enrichir mutuellement. Strictement parlant, un anglicisme est un emprunt à la langue anglaise. On peut emprunter à l’anglais un mot, un sens, une structure ou une expression. Ici au Québec, l’emprunt à l’anglais prend toutefois une signification particulière en raison de notre situation géographique et de notre histoire ; l’anglicisme fait souvent figure d’envahisseur et constitue une menace constante et sournoise. Faut-il pour autant bannir tout emprunt à la langue de Shakespeare ? Non, bien sûr. Mais comme pour tout type d’emprunt, il faut être conscient des risques et se donner les moyens de bien gérer ces anglicismes. C’est pourquoi l’Office québécois de la langue française, dans sa Politique de l’emprunt linguistique publiée en 2007, propose des principes qui balisent le traitement des emprunts. Ces principes directeurs peuvent nous aider à agir et à réagir devant les anglicismes qui, avouons-le, sont omniprésents dans notre paysage linguistique. | The phenomenon of borrowing isn't bad in itself. It is even natural and universal as it allows languages to mutually enrich themselves. Strictly speaking, an Anglicism is a loan-word from the English language. We can borrow from English, a word, a meaning, a structure or an expression. Here in Quebec, borrowing from English takes on however a particular significance by reason of our geographical situation and our history; the Anglicism is often portrayed as an invader and constitutes a constant and sly threat. Must we for that matter ban any loan-word from the language of Shakespeare? Of course not. But as for any type of borrowing, one must be conscious of the risks and give oneself the means to manage these Anglicisms well. That is why the Quebec Office of the French Language, in its Policy on Language Borrowing, published in 2007, proposes principles that plot out the treatment of loan-words. These guiding principles can help us act and react to Anglicisms that, let's face it, are omnipresent in our linguistic landscape. |
Premier principe Avant d’utiliser un mot anglais, posons-nous la question : existe-t-il un mot français équivalent ? Si oui, l’emprunt à l’anglais n’est pas justifié. Privilégier la forme anglaise se fait au détriment de la forme française, qui risque de disparaître à plus ou moins long terme. Par exemple, relax ne vient-il pas trop souvent prendre la place de détendu, tranquille, calme, décontracté, et cheap celle de bon marché, bas de gamme, médiocre, radin ? Bref, il est préférable de n’emprunter qu’en cas de nécessité. | First Principle* Before using an English word, let's ask ourselves the question: does an equivalent French word exist? If so, the English loan-word is not justified. Favoring the English form is done to the detriment of the French form, which may more or less disappear over the long term. For instance, does not relax too often happen to take the place of détendu, tranquille, calme, décontracté and cheap that of bon marché, bas de gamme, médiocre, radin? In short, it's preferable not to borrow except in cases of necessity. |
Deuxième principe Si le mot n’existe pas en français, est-il possible d’en créer un ? La langue française met à notre disposition une panoplie de procédés de création lexicale (dérivation, composition, siglaison…) nous permettant d’enrichir notre langue de néologismes bien français. Courriel (plutôt que e-mail), coussin gonflable (plutôt que air bag) et nordicité illustrent bien la vitalité du français. Faire preuve de créativité est parfois bien payant. | Second Principle* If the word does not exist in French, is it possible to create one? The French language puts at our disposal an array of procedures for lexical creation (derivation, composition, abbreviation…) allowing us to enrich our language with true French neologisms. Courriel (rather than e-mail), coussin gonflable (rather than air bag) and nordicité illustrate well the vitality of French. Providing proof of creativity is sometimes quite profitable. |
Troisième principe Si l’emprunt à l’anglais s’impose, est-il possible de lui donner un visage français ? Certains mots anglais peuvent en effet s’adapter plus facilement que d’autres en prenant les caractéristiques phonétiques, morphologiques et orthographiques du français. En s’intégrant ainsi, ces emprunts deviennent des mots bien français. Par exemple, les verbes prioriser (to prioritize) et finaliser (to finalize) sont des emprunts sans risque puisque leur forme, leur prononciation et leur sens s’adaptent parfaitement au français. Ce sont même des emprunts qui rapportent puisqu’ils ont donné finalisation et priorisation. | Third Principle* If the loan-word from English is in order, is it possible to give it a French face? Some English words can actually adapt more easily than others by taking on the phonetic, morphological, and orthographical (spelling) characteristics of French. By so integrating, these loan-words become true French words. For example, the verbs prioriser (to prioritize) and finaliser (to finalize) are risk-free borrowings since their form, their pronunciation and their meaning perfectly adapt to French. These are loan-words that even pay dividends since they have spun off finalisation and priorisation. |
Il faut rappeler que le traitement, l’adaptation et l’acceptation des emprunts se font toujours dans un contexte sociolinguistique particulier. Les Européens francophones, par exemple, n’ont pas les mêmes emprunts à l’anglais ni la même attitude devant ce phénomène. Et ici, tous n’ont pas la même prudence (ou tolérance !) face aux anglicismes. Les différences que l’on observe dans les ouvrages de référence en sont la preuve. Gardons toutefois en tête qu’emprunter aveuglément pour s’enrichir demeure toujours risqué. | One must remember that the treatment, the adaptation, and the acceptance of loan-words are always done in a particular sociolinguistic context. The European French-speakers, for example, do not have the same loan-words from English nor the same attitude before this phenomenon. And here, everyone does not have the same care (or tolerance!) towards Anglicisms. The differences that we find in reference works are proof of it. Still let's keep in mind that blindly borrowing to enrich always remains risky. |
Si vous voulez en savoir davantage sur le traitement des emprunts, vous pouvez consulter dans la Banque de dépannage linguistique, sous le thème Anglicismes, la webographie présentée sous Références, où figure notamment la Politique de l’emprunt linguistique publiée par l’Office québécois de la langue française. | If you want to know more on the treatment of loan-words, you can check in the Banque de dépannage linguistique, under the theme Anglicisms, the webliography presented under References, where the Policy on Linguistic Borrowing appears among others published by the OQLF. |
*Examples abound if you're interested in getting into the nitty-gritty. Click here for examples.
Quebec and France don’t agree on what constitutes an Anglicism. For that matter, the Quebecois don’t agree internally among themselves on how a word qualifies to be labeled an Anglicism and nor do the French… and EVERYONE has an opinion, including this web site, which is the only opinion that really matters, right?
World reality differs on both sides of the Atlantic. Although that gap gets smaller and smaller with each passing decade, that has not always been the case.
A double standard exists in France’s favor perpetuated by the elite. Remember, according to the elite that “le shopping” is cool and very “French,” but “le magasinage” is not! [Insert rolled eyes here.]
Nonnative French speakers and those for whom French is not a heritage language have no voice in this matter; that is, their opinion doesn’t mean squat. In other words, if you’re stating an opinion based on what your high-school or college textbook taught or what Madame LaPointue, from Paris, taught you at summer French camp, best to keep it to yourself! Learn the FACTS first!
The Académie Française couldn't be more irrelevant to the French language of Canada. We have our own authority, the OQLF, thank you very much!
Finally, if ultimately you believe (like I do) that our language has split into two similar languages like Swedish and Norwegian, then all of this talk of who speaks a purer French is pointless. Who cares how they speak in France and vice versa? But facts remain facts, modern-day Canadian French is FAR closer to Old French than modern-day Parisian French.
Easy answer. S.U.R.V.I.V.A.L! Cultural survival.
Look at what has happened to most Native-American languages. The Cornish language of Britain is now extinct. Why is there conflict in Belgium between the Flemish language and the French language? And in Spain with the Basques? Cultural survival! This “battle” is not unique to Canada/Quebec.
When a language dies, its culture dies, as language is a reflection of culture and vice versa. Diversity is the spice of life. Very few people want to see the entire planet become just one big English-speaking Wal-Mart.
There are PLENTY of intelligent, creative, and beautiful minds that speak French as their native tongue on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no need for English in our language(s), period! However, the direction in which things are presently moving, and at the rate raw English words and terms are being “accepted” into the French language of France, it won’t be long before the French language in Canada becomes a foreign language to the French National, now unable to recognize and understand words their grandparents once used.
French Nationals, elitists, elitist wannabes, U.S. high-school and college teachers… and anyone else with a toxic attitude or misguided understanding of the facts… Don't YOU be telling us how to speak French! It's been OUR official language since the 17th Century and France's since the 19th Century. The French-Canadians/Quebecois have been speaking French as their PRIMARY official language for nearly two hundred years longer than the French!
If you already speak Canadian French, Here's a toast to you! |  |
If you don't speak Canadian French, RAISE your standards! | |