Language Policy (2007) 6:385388

DOI 10.1007/s10993-006-9021-8

Springer 2006

BOOK REVIEW
_ (Ed.) Linguistic Conict and Language Laws:
PIERRE LARRIVEE
Understanding the Quebec Question. Houndmills, UK & New York:
Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Pp. xi, 204. Hb $62.00.
Reviewed by A. ALKISTIS FLEISCHER
The introduction to this volume consists of barely three pages
(including the acknowledgements) containing an overview of the
individual contributions. The editor, Pierre Larrivee, provides no
theoretical introduction to language policy and planning or linguistic conict, nor does he dene these terms. The introduction is
unsatisfying, and so is most of the book.
In the rst chapter, Language policy and planning issues in
multicultural societies, Colin H. Williams argues that language
planning is an extension of social policy aimed at behavior modication within a broader social and political context. This interesting
discussion is only marginally linked to Quebec and is not taken up
again in later chapters. While the author provides several examples,
most of them pertain to Europe and Africa. Since this chapter, one
quarter the entire length of the book, does not focus directly on
Quebec, it is disproportionately long.
The second chapter, The history of Quebec in the perspective
of the French language, was written by Jean-Philippe Warren.
Warren discusses some of the challenges that the French-speaking
community has faced over the years, focusing on the period up to
1945. This informative chapter is marred by a lack of references.
Moreover, language became a political issue in Quebec only in the
1960s, but the important period with respect to language during
and after the Quiet Revolution is only sketched here. The language laws adopted since the late 1960s are dealt with in one and a
half paragraphs; the information given is insufcient and partly
misleading. For example, Warren argues that Bill 101 and the previous laws were similarly inspired (p. 83) without discussing the
important differences. Moreover, he does not tell us that Bill 101
was the rst legislation enacted by the Parti Quebecois (PQ) government in 1977 or what the laws objectives were (although he
says some of them were achieved). In fact, the Charter of the

386

BOOK REVIEW

French Language profoundly shaped Quebec society (see Bouchard

& Bourhis, 2002; Plourde, 2000). Warrens brief discussion of language laws in Quebec is the more disappointing since it is in this
chapter that these laws are introduced.
In the third chapter, C. Michael MacMillan discusses Federal
language policy in Canada and the Quebec challenge. Federal language policy and Quebecs language policy embody fundamentally
different principles for language policy. MacMillan reviews the
development of federal language policy in Canada, emphasizing the
effect Quebec concerns have had and how the policy has affected
Quebec. He argues that existing federal policy is largely compatible with Quebecs linguistic agenda .... (p. 88).
Chapter 4, by Marc Chevrier, A Language Policy for a Language in Exile, examines, among other issues, the development
and content of the two competing linguistic policies applying to
Quebec (p. 119). Chevriers discussion of federal language policy is
scattered throughout his chapter. Chevrier is critical of federal language policy and takes up some of the issues not considered by
MacMillan. One section in this chapter deals with language laws in
Quebec, in which, at last, the reader is given some detailed information about language legislation in Quebec. In a half-page discussion, Chevrier presents the issue of French as a common
language. Making French the common language of Quebec society
has been the main objective of Quebec language policy since the
Charter of the French Language, and a more detailed discussion
would be helpful. Common language, a basic term in the primary
sources, is not dened. The major study on French as the language
of public use in Quebec (Beland, 1999) is not mentioned.
This chapter is plagued by dozens of missing or incomplete references. For example, Chevrier uses Dumonts (1995: 121) reference
to French as a language in exile in North America (p. 119) and
even appropriates it in his title without providing the reference.
The problem is persistent; the list of missing or incomplete references is excessively long. Chevriers references to the quotations he
uses are woefully inadequate, making it almost impossible to trace
them. He refers to studies and reports without identifying them
(e.g. on pp. 118f; 146f; 147; 148; 149; 151); and provides statistics
without sources or without telling us on which census year they are
based (e.g. on pp. 127; 147; 148).
Furthermore, things are taken for granted in this chapter,
making it less accessible to readers unfamiliar with Quebec politi-

BOOK REVIEW

387

cal history. Inaccuracies and translation problems also mar this

chapter. For example, Chevrier calls Bill 22 (1974) the Act
respecting the ocial language (p. 131), but the law is entitled
the Ocial Language Act. We also are not given any information about the rst version of Bill 101, the projet de loi no 1.
Chevrier writes that [i]n late April 1977, the government tabled a
bill called the Charter of the French Language (or Bill 101) in the
National Assembly. It was adopted on 26 August 1977 (p. 133).
However, it was Bill 1 that was tabled in April 1977 and subjected to intensive examination and criticism during its brief existence; it was withdrawn in July 1977. Bill 101 was a slightly
revised version of Bill 1.
Chapter 5, by Pierre Larrivee, Anglophones and Allophones in
Quebec, is mainly about Anglophones, not Allophones (people
who have neither English nor French as their mother tongue). The
last chapter in this volume (Chapter 6) is also by Pierre Larrivee:
A Final Note on Culture, Quebec Native Languages and the Quebec Question. This chapter briey examines the situation of native
languages in Quebec.
Does this book advance our understanding of the Quebec
question, as the title suggests? The reader is left with the impression of a disparate whole. No effort is made to relate the papers
in any way, either by cross-references or by a concluding chapter. There is little editorial coordination. There is no uniform
system for references and notes. References may be in separate
sections, contained in endnotes, or be missing altogether. The
main value of the book is that it is the most recent English-language volume on the language question in Quebec (see Bourhis,
1984; Levine, 1990, for excellent earlier volumes on the topic).
Larrivees volume has the advantage of covering recent developments up to early 2001. It is doubtful, however, that the book
will be particularly useful to readers not already familiar with
the subject. The volume is better suited for a general rather than
a scholarly audience, especially for readers who do not read
French, for there are very few recent publications on the subject
in English. Overall, this is a disappointing volume on the important issue of language planning and language conict in Quebec.
Although it does provide some useful information, the problems
in individual chapters, the absence of overall coherence, and the
lack of editorial coordination detract from the quality of this
book.

388

BOOK REVIEW

REFERENCES
Beland, P. (1999). Le francais, langue dusage public au Quebec en 1997: Rapport de
recherche. Quebec: Conseil de la langue francaise.
Bouchard, P. & Bourhis, R. Y. (Eds.) (2002). Lamenagement linguistique au Quebec:
25 ans dapplication de la Charte de la langue francaise. Revue damenagement
linguistique Hors serie Automne 2002. Montreal/Saint-Laurent: Oce quebecois
de la langue francaise/Publications du Quebec.
Bourhis, R. Y. (Ed.) (1984). Conict and language planning in Quebec. Clevedon,
UK: Multilingual Matters.
Dumont, F. (1995). Raisons communes. Montreal: Boreal.
Levine, M. V. (1990). The reconquest of Montreal: Language policy and social change
in a bilingual city. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Plourde, M. (Ed.) (2000). (Avec la collaboration de Hele`ne Duval et de Pierre
Georgeault). Le francais au Quebec: 400 ans dhistoire et de vie. Saint-Laurent/
Sainte-Foy: Fides/Publications du Quebec.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

A. Alkistis Fleischer is a Ph.D. candidate in Linguistics at Georgetown University. She is completing her dissertation on the politics
of language in Quebec. Address for correspondence: Department of
Linguistics, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. 20057,
USA. E-mail: eischa@georgetown.edu