m. termote - measuring and analyzingimmigrants’ linguistic integration

Measuring and analyzingimmigrants’ linguistic integration

Marc TermoteDépartement de démographie, Université de Montréal

Office québécois de la langue française

Four steps

1. Methodological problems

2. Defining linguistic indicators

3. Empirical results

4. Policy implications

Measuring and analyzing immigrants’ linguistic integration | Marc Termote | Rome 17 - 18 June 2013

1. Methodological problems (1)

Linguistic integration determines the whole integration process

Language is more than a means of communication : it is also the expression of a culture, of an identity

A multiplicity of indicators needed for analyzing a complex multidimensional process



The usual linguistic life history provides the basis for a set of indicators :

- Mother tongue

- Language spoken at home

- Language used during schooling

- Languages « known »

- Language used at work

- Language used for shopping

- Language used for social and cultural activities process



For most individuels and in most societies :

- same language all over the linguistic trajectory

- no distinction between private use and public use

Exceptions:

- plurilingual societies (but : jus soli …)

- immigrants



For most immigrants : need to distinguish private space and

public space (exception : those using already the language of

the country of immigration)

BUT

- Distinction between private and public is not clear

- Interaction between language used in private and language

used in public



Multiplicity of linguistic indicators, particularly for language

used in public space

Favouring a particular indicator is highly questionable

Need to combine various indicators in order to measure

linguistic integration


2. Defining linguistic indicators (1)

Mother tongue: first learned at home in childhood (and still

understood ?)

Language spoken at home:

- « most often » (thus: one single answer …)

- others, on a « regular » basis

Languages « known » : how to define « knowledge of a

language » ? « speak well enough to conduct a

conversation » ?



Language spoken : combining the 3 previous indicators

(Statistics Canada) – transition between private and public

use

Language at school : in most cases, no choice

Language at work : complex and multiple

- written/oral

- type of activity

- hierarchical level



Language used for shopping : very complex

- public notices, welcoming, service

- location

- type of commercial activity

- frequency

Language used for socio-cultural activities :

- private/public ?

- multiple and varying



Summarizing :

Private language : relatively less complex; if one indicator

to be favoured : language spoken at home (mother tongue

of children)

Public language : very complex, no indicator to be

favoured, need for surveys



Measuring linguistic integration :

Usual way : combining mother tongue and language

spoken at home, but limited to private language, and :

when, where ?

Extreme difficulty to measure integration with respect to

public language (but significance ?)


3. Empirical results (1)

Few immigrants abandon their mother tongue at home

- ex Canada : 45 % over life time

- Canada, USA : 2d-3d generation

Over one year, after immigration : 1-2 % (estim. Canada

by following imm. cohort)

Almost no substitution after age 40 (mean age of

immigrants : 27-30)



Most linguistic substitutions at ages 5-14 (role of schooling)

First years on labor market and exogamy are crucial in

« fixing » substitution due to schooling

Linguistic substitutions take a lot of time

Linguistic mobility of immigrants has marginal impact on

linguistic composition of population



A set of 5 multistate projection experiences (Termote,

1988-2011) : all scenarios produce continuing decline of

French in Quebec and English in Rest of Canada, and very

fast increase of « other » languages

- Note: Montreal Island (⅟4 Quebec pop.) 2011 : French 48,5

% mother tongue, 53,0 % home language.


4. Policy implications (1)

Policy measures may intervene only on language used in

public space

Most language substitutions in public space (schooling,

working, shopping in language of immigration country) are

« forced » : is this « linguistic integration » ?



Immigrants’ linguistic behavior in public space may lead to

substitution in private space, but after a lot of time (2-3

generations)

In the long run, crucial role of language spoken at home

(intergenerational transfers)



Dominant role of demographic behavior in determining the

future linguistic composition of a population

Therefore, invest in data and analysis of fertility and

migration (internal and international) of immigrant groups

(demolinguistics)



Need to take into account the spatial dimension :

immigrants are concentrated in a few major metropolitan

areas

In these areas, increasing gap between language used in

private space and language used in public space



If immigration policy based mainly on humanitarian

objectives (family reunification, refugees): cumulative

process favouring decline of national language

Difficult to select immigrants « knowing » language of the

immigration country (illegals…)



Final conclusion

We have to accept that:

(1) linguistic integration, and therefore integration as a whole,

is a very slow, difficult and multidimensional process

(2) policy measures to accelerate the process have a limited

efficiency.


G R A Z I E !

m. termote - measuring and analyzingimmigrants’ linguistic integration

Technology

linguistic trajectory

private language

integration process

home language

work language

shopping language

choice language

public use language