Difference between revisions of "Joual (Canada)"

''Joual'' maintains four key features that set it apart from other French dialects: i) archaisms, ii) unique sound patterns, iii) anglicisms, and iv) ‘‘les sacrés’’. Beginning with archaisms, Québec had been isolated from the rest of the French-speaking world since the end of the Seven Year’s War. ''Joual'' thereby retained the patterns of 17th-century French, and many of the words and idioms used today can be traced back to Northern and Central France (Salien 1988). In addition, ''joual'' exhibits unique sound patterns, one of the most noticeable being the pronunciation of the ‘‘oi’’ diphthong, which is pronounced ‘‘oé’’ in Québec (Ossipov 1994). ‘‘Moi et toi’’ become ‘‘moé et toé’’, for example. This phonetic trait is often subject to parody, with the implication that the speaker is poor or uneducated. In addition, spoken ''joual'' is marked by both consonant insertion and vowel deletion (Handler 1988). A final consonant ‘‘t’’ may be inserted in words such as ‘‘ici‘’ or ‘‘un but’’, resulting in ‘‘icitte’’ or ‘‘un boutte’’ (Ossipov 1994). Vowel deletion results in mass elision, such that the beginning and end of separate words blend together. For example, ‘‘je suis’’ or ‘‘ça était’’ would be pronounced as ‘‘chuis’’ or ‘‘c’tait’’.

One of ''joual''’s most controversial characteristics is its adoption of anglicisms. Cultural exchange is a commonplace practice, with neighbouring nations often embracing one another’s customs, traditions, or even language. It thus comes as no surprise that Québec, a French-speaking nation surrounded for decades by anglophone British colonies, would do the same. Examples of popular anglicisms include ‘’avoir le fun or un gang’’, with the borrowed words given a French pronunciation (Ossipov 1994). A largely unsettled debate has occurred over the extent of English penetration, however, with one side preaching against English’s destructive influence, and the other arguing that anglicisms represent a miniscule proportion of all words in ''joual''.

The last of ''joual''’s defining features is the presence of ‘’les sacrés’’. This development is a direct product of Québec’s experience with the Catholic Church. Since it was forbidden to take God’s name in vain, traditional French evolved alternate forms of expression, replacing the word ‘‘Dieu’’ with ‘‘bleu’’ or ‘‘gioux’’ (Vincent 1984). ''Joual'', in its opposition to the establishment of the Catholic Church, subverts this convention through its use of ‘’les sacrés’’. Vincent (n.d.) proposes that four characteristics distinguish ‘‘les sacrés québecois’’ from other blasphemous linguistic phenomenon: i) the use of a wide range of words from the sacred domain, ii) the transformation of original pronunciation, so as to clearly separate the sacred from ‘‘les sacrés’’, iii) the multiplication of derivatives and compound expressions, and iv) the relexification of words. Linguists have recorded over 2000 ‘‘sacrés’’, with words such as ‘‘tabernak’’, ‘‘câlice’’, ‘‘crises’’, and ‘‘osti’’ amongst the most popular (Vincent n.d.).  Each word may generate dozens of new forms, creating a multitude of distinct and colourful additions to the language.  

To better contextualize ''joual'', it may be useful to compare it to similar practices, for example ''chiac''. ''Chiac'' refers to dialect of French spoken mainly by Acadian francophones living in the Greater Moncton area of New Brunswick. Like ''joual'', it is characterized by a primarily French syntax and structure intertwined with English vocabulary and expressions (Papen 2014). ''Chiac'' maintains historical parallels with ''joual'' as well, both being the language of a marginalized people. Unlike ''chiac'', however, ''joual'' has been politicized in the years since the so-called Quiet Revolution of the 1960s, marked by an increasingly secularisation of society, expansion of the welfare state, and restructuring of the economy (Behiels and Hayday 2011). As religion lost its importance in Québécois society, the nation-state thus took its place as the dominant force in shaping society, with ''joual'' as a symbol of the nation. Cultural works written in ''joual'' appeared for the first time, including Tremblay’s 1968 play ‘‘Les Belles-sœurs’’. The play centres on a Montréal kitchen, in which several working-class women recount their lives and miseries to one another (Churpała and Warmuzińska-Rogóż 2011).  ‘‘Les Belle-sœurs’’ was extremely popular in Québec, but the public nature of the play thrust ''joual'' into the international spotlight for the first time, creating debate over the dual nature of the language. It acts both as a symbol of national pride and liberation, but also as one of shame.  

Aquin (1988) describes ''joual'' as a “linguistic resistance movement,” in that it attempts to define the Québécois against the hegemony of both anglophone Canada and Hexagonal French, formal institutions that he characterizes as “colonizing entities.” It is for this reason that ''joual''’s characteristic anglicisms have created so much controversy, with one linguist even going so far as to allege their ability to “undermine the speaker’s identification with a dominant language and his ability to conceptualize and fully express reality” (Handler 1988). Language pollution threatens the collective identity of Québec, making it important to safeguard ''joual'' from further contamination. Since the Quiet Revolution, the provincial government has implemented a host of language laws, all of which work to make ''joual'' the dominant and preferred language (Handler 1988).  

In 1972, Tremblay applied for a $20,000 grant to take ‘‘Les Belles-sœurs’’ to Paris. Despite its widespread success in Québec, the Ministry of Cultural Affairs refused to grant Tremblay the money, ashamed of the work’s portrayal of the province and its language (Five Nights 1972). Such a refusal reveals the dual nature of ''joual''. As a substandard form of French, ''joual'' acts, in this scenario, as a symbol of national shame. This view echoes the writings of Desbiens, among others, who insist that the language, as “the lowest common denominator,” does not properly reflect the social reality (Williams Walsh 1993). In this sense, joual stands for backwardness, a term that, for many, recalls life pre-Quiet Revolution. The recourse to Anglicisms thus “bespeaks the inability to project the collective self into external forms,” signifying ''joual'' as a cultural failure of the Québécois nation (Handler 1988).