Talk:Allophone (person)

Feel free to delete this page if you prefer the original link to allophone.

No, we need two separate pages. The meaning in linguistics is well established, but in Quebec the anglophone/francophone/allophone usage is widespread and standard.

Canada vs. Quebec

"The terms anglophone and francophone are used in Quebec, and also sometimes in Canada, to designate people whose first or adoptive languages are English and French, respectively."

While I agree with the preceding paragraph where allophone is used in Quebec and sometimes in the rest of Canada, I think that "francophone" and "anglophone" are used throughout Canada, and not just primarily in Quebec. However, I only have my personal context as an Ontarian with several years of French classes. --timc | Talk 02:22, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

Can anyone provide the etymology of this term? Is is all + phone (and if so, why does that make sense), or does allo- mean something in French (besides "hello")? —Triskaideka 19:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All or Allo, meaning "other" in grec. The opposite of homo or homéo meaning "the same". Maybe it should be mentionned in the article?

-- Mathieugp 21:53, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think so, and I've added it. Feel free to revise it, but I'm wary of calling "homo" the opposite of "allo" in the article -- I think most people would consider "hetero" the oppostite of "homo", and probably wouldn't consider, for example, "allophones" in either sense to be the opposite of "homophones". —Triskaideka 22:25, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

References?

I wonder if anybody has a source showing that the use of the word "allophone" is restricted to Quebec. I would have guessed that it was used throughout Canada.

136.152.196.177 09:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard it used outside of Quebec. In BC, French isn't a reference point. The most common label is probably ESL speaker (English as a Second Language) for non-Anglos. bobanny 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed name change: Allophone (person)

This term is used in Australia, too, and I suspect it used in other countries as well. The meaning of a migrant who does not speak the primary language(s) used by their adopted country is definitely a useful one outside Quebec

Sources for usage outside Quebec:

Bischoff, Alexander, Caring for migrant and minority patients in European hospitals: a review of effective interventions Google Book Search

Contemporary Issues in Australian Literature Ed: David Callahan Google Book Search

Obviously, the whole page would need to be revamped to internationalise it. Myk 05:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose Allophone (demography). Joeldl (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a generic page for this term (See Allophone). This page is supposed to be about Quebec allophones, which is different and more popularized than it is in academic disciplines linguistics or demography. --Soulscanner (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The other meaning is in phonetics and probably deserves to be given greater prominence than this meaning. However, at least one source [1] treats it as non-country-specific. Though the source pertains to the French term, it also gives an English equivalent. The previous contributor made the comment that the term is used in other countries as well. Also note that the Russian article ru:Аллофон (этнография) chose the name Allophone (ethnography) with a section on the Canadian context. Allophone as used here is clearly a demographic term.

Any claim that the term is limited to Quebec is absurd, as the term is used by Statistics Canada and as any search for "+Ontario +allophone" on Google will show.

Why persist in saying Aboriginal languages are excluded when the definition from Statistics Canada plainly contradicts that? Find a source.

Finally, very many Canadians who are not immigrants speak other languages as their mother tongue. Of course, they virtually always also speak English or French if they are native-born.

The statement that all immigrants traditionally integrated into the English-speaking community is overbroad, especially without an acceptable source.Joeldl (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The term is used mostly in Quebec to designate speakers of non-official languages. Elsewhere in the world, it is used predominantly in the linguistic context. hence, usage of the word is different in Quebec than elsewhere in the world. --Soulscanner (talk) 00:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, a word has two meanings, and one is much more common than the other. That is the case here. It's naïve to say that because it has one meaning, it can't have another. Please provide a source indicating that the word is not used elsewhere. The previous contributor above gave examples of use elsewhere. Joeldl (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The main article allophone shows that the dominant use of the word in most of the world is linguistic. There are plenty of references there. There are many sources there that show that this is the case. In Quebec (and Canada), it is mainly used to refer speaker of non-official languages. I have yet to see this word used this way in any other country. More references and sources from outside Quebec and Canada are required to establish it. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one making the claim that use of the term is restricted in that way. The sources provided say what the word is, and you are making the additional claim that the use of the word is restricted. Joeldl (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you ascribing to me assertion I'm not making? I didn't say usage was restricted: both senses of the word might very well be used everywhere. I'm saying that the predominant usage outside Quebec is the linguistic sense of the term, as documented in the allophone article; that is different that the predominant usage inside Quebec, where the term is one of linguistic identity and mother tongue.That is why we need a separate article on Quebec allophones. I'm also saying that I've yet to see a source outside Quebec or Canada refer to an allophone this way. That doesn't mean it does not exist, it only means that I've yet to see a source that does. If you find one, I'll gladly accept it.

In anycase, this is an article on Quebec allophones, their history, their identity, their demographics, etc. It's not an article on demography per se. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think you disagree that the term is used by the federal govenment to refer to people anywhere in Canada. Second, The other source was a general definition applying to people outside Canada as well. The fact that it was a source located in Quebec does not mean that the notion applies only to people located in Quebec, regardless of whether the term is used that way primarily by people in Quebec. Second, we have indications the term is used in Australia in the same meaning.

Grand dictionnaire entry including English word

Domaine(s) :

- démographie
- linguistique

. français . . allophone n.

Équivalent(s) English allophone .

Définition : Personne dont la langue d'usage (celle qui est parlée à la maison) ou la langue maternelle est différente de la ou des langues officielles du pays où elle se trouve. . .

. Note(s) : D'une étude démolinguistique à l'autre, on tiendra compte soit de la langue maternelle seule, soit à la fois de la langue maternelle et de la langue d'usage, en rapport avec les langues officielles du pays. Par exemple, un hispanophone ou un germanophone est considéré au Canada comme un allophone s'il ne parle ni le français ni l'anglais. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeldl (talk • contribs) 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I've requested a third opinion from WP:3O. I don't want to have interminable discussions as we've had on other subjects in the past. Joeldl (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a dispute? All you need to do is find an academic non-Canadian/Quebecois source that refers to someone outside of Canada as "allophone". Some here mentioned Australia. Is there a reference that does so?--Soulscanner (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aboriginal languages

Aboriginals are usually refered to as such in Quebec. I've never seen a Cree or Mohawk refered to as an allophone. I've seen no sources that say that aboriginals are considered allophone. The source you cite is the government of Quebec. It designates the official use of the word in Quebec in French, not elsewhere in the world and not in English. --Soulscanner (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Statistics Canada source says "other than English or French". The Quebec source does not say that the use only applies to residents of Quebec or Canada, in fact is says "whose first language is other than the official languages of the country in which they are located." Of course, the Statistics Canada source restricts to English and French because they are only concerned with carrying out the Census. I have introduced sources. You are contradicting them. Please provide your own sources now, instead of saying what you've seen before or haven't seen. Joeldl (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the comment about "in French": the source gives the English word allophone as an equivalent. Joeldl (talk) 01:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is possible that this definition from a government website (hardly academic and authoritative) overlooks aboriginals, as their population is small compared to that of immigrants in Quebec. Moreover, native languages have a special status in Quebec, and they are treated separately in most demographic studies. It is not clearcut. We need a reference to show that speakers of aboriginal languages are counted as allophones in government statistics. I don't now if they do or don't, but I'd like a source that determines this satisfactorily. That being said, the vast majority of allophones will always be immigrants. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition from Statistics Canada shows clearly how the term is used by them. That is clear cut. Also, you are overstating the immigrant part. Joeldl (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It does not indicate that aboriginals are included in this category. Please show me a reference that explicitly includes aboriginals speaking aboriginal languages as allophone. The reason allophones are counted in Quebec and Canada is to monitor weather they adopt French or English in the home (linguistic transfer) and follow government policies that encourage them to adopt French. In the case of aboriginals, government policy encourages aboriginals to retain their languages, not adopt French.

Nunuvut is an intersting example. Inuktituk is an official language. Does that make the Inuit allophone in Nunuvut? --Soulscanner (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Aborignal languages and Allophones: reference

I knew I read this somewhere:

"Aside from natives, who continue to speak in majority their ancestral languages in Quebec, and who constitute a separate category, what allophones have in common is their fairly recent immigration to Quebec. Essentially, Quebec was made up of French, English and Natives at the time of Confederation. But starting from around 1896, immigration of allophones was to become important in Quebec, as it did in the rest of Canada."[2]

So it's clear from this academic source that Aboriginals are not considered allophones in Quebec. I've added this reference to the lead already. I'll fix the reference to include the quote. --Soulscanner (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That contradicts the Statistics Canada and Quebec government references, and as far as I understand is an example of how one (community) college professor used the word in a particular instance. There's an issue of weight here. You should find a source with a definition that excludes Aboriginal languages in order to give it equivalent weight to the other two sources, rather than an example. Joeldl (talk) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Quebec source does not say that aboriginal languages are included, and neither does the stats can source. You'll note that the academic source uses the same definitions, then explicitly exclude aboriginals. This is in fact standard practice. It's up to you to show that the Quebec government and Stats can explicitly includes aborignals as allophones, and does not list them as a seperate demographic category. --Soulscanner (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)