Bilingualism is not a phenomenon of language; it is a characteristic of its use. It is not a feature of the code but of the message. It does not belong to the domain of “langue” but of “parole.”

If language is the property of the group, bilingualism is the property of the individual. An individual’s use of two languages supposes the existence of two different language communities; it does not suppose the existence of a bilingual community. The bilingual community can only be regarded as a dependent collection of individuals who have reasons for being bilingual. A self-sufficient bilingual community has no reason to remain bilingual, since a closed community in which everyone is fluent in two languages could get along just as well with one language. As long as there are different monolingual communities, however, there is likelihood of contact between them; this contact results in bilingualism.

This study presents a partial analysis of nouns ending in orthographic -sion, -tion (or -ion) and morphophonemic variations between these nouns and related stems. It deals with an area traditionally called derivation.

The frame of reference is that of Trager and Smith, Outline of English Structure, supplemented by subsequent revisions and additions to the general theory developed by the authors in their teaching. For the purposes of this study the morphemic analysis will be limited to “postmorphemes,” i.e., morphemes occurring at the end of the word. Everything which precedes the postmorpheme(s) will be called the “stem” and will not be further segmented. The “stem” may occur elsewhere as an independent word (mutation: mutate) or in composition with different postmorpheme(s) (ambition: ambitious). The following special symbols will be used: √ … “morphemes”; √ … “allomorphs”; √ …/ “morphophonemes”; ∽ “varies with.” In three cases (Y, T, S) a small capital letter is used as a morphophonemic symbol; these are denned below.

Many different systems of writing the Eskimo language are in use in Canada today. Several alphabetic systems based roman letters affect only a minority of Eskimos. The syllabic system consisting of such symbols as small triangles, right and acute angles, and semicircles is written by the great majority. Those who know a given alphabetic system usually know the syllabary as well, except those who were born and brought up in the Mackenzie River area and Labrador. In Canada, at present, there is no standard orthography for the Eskimo language as there is in Greenland, for example. The syllabary which serves some 75 per cent of the Canadian Eskimo population, by virtue of this fact, comes closest to being a standard system of writing. It should be noted that the syllabary is not known in Greenland.

Le vingt-neuvième congrès de l’Acfas se tenait à l’Université d’Ottawa les 27, 28 et 29 Octobre 1961. Les membres de la section de Linguistique se sont réunis sous la présidence de MM. Jean-Paul Vinay et Roch Valin.

Voici le titre des communications qui ont été prononcées ainsi qu’un bref résumé de chacune d’elles.

One of the distinctive structural characteristics of all Semitic languages is the so-called construct phrase. Two words are connected serially in this structure. The first of these, which for convenience I shall call an “A”-word, can have no suffixes, nor if the language in question marks determination of nouns can it have an article attached to it. If the particular Semitic language inflects noun for case the A-word is perfectly free thus to inflect. Furthermore many nouns inflect for A-ness, or to use traditional Latin terminology, for the construct state. Thus Modern Classical Arabic has albintu (the girl, daughter), but in A position it becomes bintu-s-sulṭāni (the daughter of the sultan). In Syrian Arabic and in most modern colloquials iljamhūrīya means “the republic,” but jamhūrīyet al-irāq is the phrase for “republic of Iraq.” It will be noted that throughout the various Arabic dialects the A-word of such a structure omits the article (i.e. the initial al- or il-).

Le Français commun dit régulièrement, comme chacun sait, C’est le plus beau blé qu’il yAITsur le marché, construisant au subjonctif le verbe de la proposition subordonnée. Un trait du parler populaire de la région de Québec — observé aussi ailleurs au Canada français — consiste à substituer ici au subjonctif, lorsque le verbe est un verbe d’existence, un indicatif accompagné de la négation (réduite à pas) et à dire: C’est le plus beau blé qu’il y A PAS sur le marché.

Cet emploi en apparence aberrant de la négation est-il une innovation du français canadien ou représente-t-il, au contraire, l’usage ancien d’un des divers parlers régionaux français apportés en Nouvelle-France aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles? Ce n’est pas notre intention d’éclairer ce point d’histoire. Notre propos est tout différent. Prenant acte des deux usages observés et de leur divergeance, nous démontrerons—en nous appuyant, pour ce faire, sur l’analyse psychomécanique du langage du linguiste français Gustave Guillaume — que, en face de la nuance de pensée à exprimer, les deux manières de dire s’équipollent, la négation d’une forme verbale indicative produisant en l’occurrence le même effet de sens que l’emploi affirmatif d’une forme de subjonctif.