Cover not available
Article published In:
Language Problems and Language Planning
Vol. 45:1 (2021) ► pp.80–104

Immigrant linguistic integration in the multilingual context of Montreal

| University of Ottawa
ORCID logo | University of Ottawa
We investigate the relative intensity of use of English and French at home for allophone immigrants in the Montreal metropolitan area. We find that the linguistic distances between immigrants’ mother tongues and English and French have an important impact on the relative intensities of use at home of the two Canadian official languages. However, immigrants whose mother tongues are closer to French than to English are relatively less likely to use an official language at home. We further investigate the role of spousal and other characteristics on the integration of immigrants. The results suggest that the home environment is an important factor contributing to the linguistic integration. Individuals exposed to an official language at home with their spouse have significantly higher rates of linguistic integration. Also, English is more attractive than French in the sense that immigrants with an Anglophone partner will have higher integration rates to English than those with a Francophone partner integrating to French.
Keywords: linguistic distance, linguistic integration, home language, immigrants, Montreal, Canada
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and summary statistics
  • 3.Empirical methodology
  • 4.The results
    • 4.1Impact of linguistic distance on the official languages used at home
    • 4.2Impact of linguistic distance on the English-to-French intensity at home
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.20020.gre
References (19)
References
Bourhis, Richard Y. 2019. “Evaluating the impact of Bill 101 on the English-speaking communities of Quebec.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 198–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castonguay, Charles. 2019. “Quebec’s new language dynamic.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 113–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chiswick, Barry R., and Paul W. Miller. 1994. “Language Choice Among Immigrants in a Multi-Lingual Destination.” Journal of Population Economics, 7 (2): 119–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “A Model of Destination-Language Acquisition: Application to Male Immigrants in Canada.” Demography, 38 (3): 391–409. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “International Migration and the Economics of Language.” In Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller. Handbook of The Economics of International Migration, Volume 1A1, The Immigrants, Elsevier, Oxford, chapter 5, 211–269.Google Scholar
Grenier, Gilles and François Vaillancourt. 1983. “An Economic Perspective on Learning a Second Language.” Journal of Multilingual & Multicultural Development, 4 (6): 471–483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grenier, Gilles. 1984. “Shifts to English as Usual Language by Americans of Spanish Mother Tongue.” Social Science Quarterly, 65(2):537–550.Google Scholar
. 2019. “Quebec’s language policy and economic globalization.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 179–197. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holman, Eric W., Cecil H. Brown, Søren Wichmann, André Müller, Viveka Velupillai, Harald Hammarström, Sebastian Sauppe, Hagen Jung, Dik Bakker, Pamela Brown, Oleg Belyaev, Matthias Urban, Robert Mailhammer, Johann-Mattis List and Dmitry Egorov. 2011. “Automated dating of the world’s language families based on lexical similarity.” Current Anthropology 52 (6): 841–875. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Chigon, and Pyong Gap Min. 2010. “Marital Patterns and Use of Mother Tongue at Home Among Native-Born Asian Americans.” Social forces, 89(1): 233–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lazear, Edward P. 2007. “Mexican Assimilation in the United States.” Mexican immigration to the United States. University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Rennie. 2018. “Spousal Characteristics and Language Use at Home: Immigrants and Their Descendants in Canada.” Sociological Perspectives, 61(6): 874–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortega, Javier, and Gregory Verdugo. 2015. “Assimilation in Multilingual Cities.” Journal of Population Economics, 28(3): 785–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paillé, Michel. 2019. “Succès et faiblesses de l’intégration des immigrants par la scolarisation obligatoire en français au Québec.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 135–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Termote, Marc. 2019. “L’utilisation du français dans la sphère publique : travail, commerce et affichage.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 159–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vaillancourt, François. 2019. “Assessing Bill 101 after 40 years: An introduction.” Language Problems and Language Planning, 43(2): 103–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Tubergen, Frank and Menno Wierenga. 2011. “The Language Acquisition of Male Immigrants in a Multilingual Destination: Turks and Moroccans in Belgium.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(7): 1039–1057. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Veltman, Calvin. 1983. “Language Shift in the United States.” Amsterdam: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. “Modelling the Language Shift Process of Hispanic Immigrants.” International migration review, 22(4): 545–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Grenier, Gilles
2023. Langues utilisées à la maison et au travail à Montréal par les immigrants entre 2001 et 2016 : progrès notoire, mais fragile du français. Recherches sociographiques 63:3 ► pp. 525 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.