Printer Friendly

Francophone intergroup attitudes and readiness for interprovincial migration in Canada.

Abstract

Though existing research helps account for readiness of migrants to move internationally, few social psychological studies have focused on readiness of native born citizens to move internally across regions of their own country. Francophones residing in Canada's bilingual belt comprised of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario rated their readiness to move internally to a French and English province compared to their readiness to migrate to the United States. Questionnaires were completed in French by three groups of undergraduates: Francophone Quebecers (n = 204), Acadians in New Brunswick (n = 227), and Franco-Ontarians (n = 227). Though readiness to emigrate to a French or English province was low across all groups, Franco-Ontarians were more willing to migrate out of Province and to the US than both Acadians and Francophone Quebecers. Predictors of readiness to migrate to Acadia (New Brunswick) or Quebec were: seeking better career prospects, perceptions that Francophones contribute to linguistic vitality, avoidance of linguistic tensions, and endorsement of integration-transformation toward Francophone migrants. Predictors of readiness to move to an English majority Province were: seeking better career prospects, English language use, and acceptance of Anglo-Canadians as migrants to own province. Predictors of readiness for emigration to the United States were very similar to those for internal migration to an English majority Province, confirming that factors accounting for internal and international migration share much in common. Results are discussed using ethnolinguistic vitality and the Interactive Acculturation Model with implications for harmony and social cohesion between Francophone and Anglophone communities within Canada's "Bilingual Belt".

Resume

Cette recherche porte sur les intentions de migration interprovinciale d'etudiants universitaires francophones originaires du Nouveau-Brunswick (Acadiens : N = 227), du Quebec (N = 204) et de l'Ontario (N = 227). Ces repondants francophones ont rempli des questionnaires en francais comprenant une serie d'echelles, de type Likert, qui ont servi a mesurer leur desir de migration interne vers une province francophone ou anglophone compare au desir d'emigration vers les Etats-Unis. Les resultats demontrent que bien que la volonte d'emigrer vers une autre province canadienne ou aux Etats-Unis etait faible chez les Acadiens et les Quebecois, elle etait plus soutenue chez les Franco-Ontariens dont l'identite bilingue etait plus forte que celle des Acadiens et Quebecois. Les predicteurs du desir de migrer vers le Quebec et l'Acadie au Nouveau-Brunswick etaient surtout pour s'assurer d'une meilleure carriere professionnelle, pour delaisser les tensions linguistiques dans la province d'origine et l'endossement de l'orientation d'acculturation integrationniste-transformation a l'egard des migrants francophones. Les predicteurs du desir de migrer vers les provinces anglophones et les Etats-Unis etaient semblables : pour s'assurer d'une meilleure carriere professionnelle, l'usage soutenu de l'anglais dans la vie quotidienne, et l'acceptation des migrants anglophones dans la province d'origine des repondants. La vitalite ethnolinguistique et le modele d'acculturation interactif contribuent a l'explication de ces resultats ayant des implications pour l'harmonie et la cohesion sociale des communautes francophones et anglophones de la <<zone bilingue du Canada>>.

INTRODUCTION

The causes of international immigration movements have been researched by sociologists and economists. For example, the push-pull model emphasized economic factors such as contrasting unemployment rate and high wage differentials to account for movement of individuals from labor-abundant low-wage countries to labor-scarce high-wage destination countries (Massey and Espinosa 1997). Better jobs and salaries are seen as 'pull' factors which motivate individuals to migrate from low to high opportunity countries. Aversive circumstances which incite individuals to move out of their country of origin were seen as 'push' factors reflecting macro-societal factors accounting for international migration. Non-economic 'push' factors in the country of origin include natural disasters, environmental degradation, widespread insecurity and corruption, political, ethnic and religious tensions, civil conflict and war.

Less attention has been devoted to factors accounting for the internal migration of individuals sharing a common citizenship across provinces and regions of multilingual and multicultural states such as Canada, the United States and Spain. As proposed by King and Skeldon (2010), "conceptually, both types of migration derive from the same set of fundamental causes: inequalities in development, employment prospects, incomes and living conditions between and within countries" (1621). International and internal migration patterns can be complementary, reinforcing each other according to regional political, economic and ethnic cleavages.

In a country spanning from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is not surprising that economic, social and demographic development has been uneven across the Canadian territory. Unequal economic development across Canada's ten provinces and three territories create employment disparities such that: "Interprovincial migration has always been a powerful mechanism of population redistribution in the Canadian federation" (Coulombe 2006, 199-200). Using large scale census data, economic studies have shown that unemployment and income differentials were key factors accounting for interprovincial migration in Canada (Bernard, Finnie and St. Jean 2008; Coulombe and Tremblay 2009). Canadian census analyses from 2002 to 2012 showed that the province of Alberta was a net beneficiary of internal migration, while Saskatchewan recorded net gains since 2007 (Bendiner 2013). It is in these two oil and gas rich provinces that economic recovery was strongest following the 2008 recession in North America. In this same ten-year period, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario recorded job losses and some economic decline.

In officially bilingual Canada, tradition holds that individuals who have French as their mother tongue are labeled Francophones, and those who have English as their mother tongue are labeled Anglophones. The latter make up 63% of the Canadian population while Francophones constitute a 21.4% minority. It is in Canada's bilingual belt, comprised of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario, where there are the most French-English bilinguals in the country (Statistics Canada 2011). In New Brunswick and Ontario, Francophones are linguistic minorities at both the provincial and federal levels, thus constituting a double national minority. In Quebec, Francophones have a dual status: they constitute the language majority within the province but remain a linguistic minority nationally in Canada. Canadian census data allows an assessment of interprovincial migration according to mother tongue for the period between 2006 and 2011. Though minor relative to total provincial populations, there were net demographic losses of Anglophones in Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec, while net losses of Francophones occurred in Quebec and Ontario. Only New Brunswick had a marginal net gain of Francophone interprovincial migrants (Statistics Canada 2011). Taking into account individual and labour market characteristics from census data, Bernard and colleagues (2008) highlighted language as a predictive factor of interprovincial migration in Canada, with French speakers outside Quebec being up to three times more likely to move from their province of residence than the general population. In contrast, Quebec's English speakers were up to ten times more likely to leave the French majority province of Quebec for the rest of Canada (ROC).

The above inter-provincial migration studies are based on aggregate census and economic data with less attention being paid to the personal reasons why individuals may desire to migrate from one region of their country to another. As a useful complementary approach to large scale census analyses, this study examines self-rated social psychological reasons accounting for inter-provincial migration. As a case study of such an approach, this research focuses on Francophone respondents in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario and their readiness to migrate internally to a French or English province compared to their readiness to migrate internationally to the United States. This is the first Canadian study to include social-psychological factors as determinants for readiness to move from their province of origin to other Canadian provinces compared to readiness to move to the United States.

While we concur with the importance of micro factors related to individual economic mobility and family reunification, we posit that, in a bilingual and multicultural state like Canada, the perception of being the victim of personal and/or collective discrimination should also be considered as a potential factor of the desire to move to another province. A large survey conducted in Canada showed that, in Quebec, twice as many Anglophones than Francophones declared having been personally victims of discrimination, with language and accent (linguicism) being seen as the main factor accounting for such treatment relative to ethnicity, race and religion (Bourhis, Montreuil, Helly and Jantzen 2007). Moreover, a nation-wide study conducted with senior secondary school Francophone students in French schools in the ROC found that 30.6% of such students declared having experiences with discrimination (Landry, Allard and Deveau 2010).

In addition to perception of discrimination, the present study tests macro-societal correlates of readiness to move deriving from two broad theoretical frameworks: ethnolinguistic vitality and acculturation. The first, ethnolinguistic vitality, refers to the strength of language communities within multilingual settings as determined by three broad dimensions of socio-structural variables: demography, institutional support and status (Giles, Bourhis, and Taylor 1977). Demographic variables are related to the absolute number of members composing the language group and their distribution throughout the regional or national territory. Within democracies, demographic indicators of 'strength in numbers' can be used as a legitimizing tool for granting linguistic minorities the institutional support they need to maintain and transmit their language across the generations. Institutional support is defined as the degree of control a linguistic minority commands over the institutions needed to ensure the survival of their language and culture in dominant majority group settings (Bourhis and Landry 2012). Language minorities struggle to achieve the institutional support needed to use their language within formal institutions, such as education, health care, regional government, commerce and the mass media. Maintaining demo-linguistic strength and gaining institutional support is likely to be accompanied by gains in social status. Variables related to this third dimension of vitality include socio-historical status within the state, current status as a culturally and economically vibrant community, and language planning for the status of its language regionally and nationally. High status groups enjoy a more positive social identity, which can facilitate collective mobilization for the maintenance and improvement of its vitality position within the state, a motivation known as egovitality. Based on the ethnolinguistic vitality framework, Francophones migrating to another province may weaken the demographic vitality of their ingroup in their province of origin while boosting the vitality of the Francophone communities they have joined in their province of destination.

Second, based on the Berry (2005) acculturation framework, we used the Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM), which was designed to account for intergroup processes that characterize relations between host majority and minority group members (Bourhis, Moise, Perreault, and Senecal 1997). The IAM proposes that, by virtue of their vitality advantage in the country of settlement, dominant host majority members may endorse six acculturation orientations toward minorities, three of which are welcoming and include individualism, integrationism, integrationism-transformation, while three others are unwelcoming: assimilationism, segregationism and exclusionism. Numerous empirical studies in Canada, the US and Europe have shown that host community members are more likely to endorse welcoming acculturation orientations towards 'valued' immigrants and less welcoming acculturation orientations towards 'devalued' immigrants (Montreuil and Bourhis 2004). However, few studies have focused on host acculturation orientations held toward internal migrants who share a common citizenship membership but whose linguistic backgrounds may differ across different regions of the country. In addition to such socio-psychological considerations, the willingness of Francophones in Canada's Bilingual Belt to migrate inter-provincially and to the US as well as the factors accounting for such migration intentions should also be understood in the socio-historical context of Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario. It can be understood that the brief account of French/English ethnic relations in Canada's bilingual belt described below cannot do justice to the complex history of such relations as they developed over the last century.

Historical and Sociolinguistic Context

Based on the 2011 Canadian census, Francophone Quebecers number 6,164,745 (78.9%), an increase in absolute numbers from 4,860,410 (80.7%) in 1971 (Statistics Canada 2011). Up to the 1950s, they remained an economically and socially disadvantaged majority who nevertheless succeeded in controlling their own government administration, religious, educational and health institutions. As Francophone Quebecers became increasingly educated, secular, and wealthy following the modernisation of the 'Quiet Revolution' in the 1960s, the French language emerged as the last symbol of Quebecois national identity (Plourde and Georgeault 2008). Quebec nationalist discourse highlighted the threatened position of the French language and culture in a province increasingly integrated economically and politically within North America. The first sovereignist government, elected in 1976, adopted the Charter of the French language (Bill 101, 1977) designed to increase the status of French relative to English in all institutions of the province and the work world (Corbeil 2007). Overall the status and use of French increased and Francophone Quebecers succeeded in controlling the Quebec public administration and most of the political, cultural, economic and state institutions of the Province.

Quebec nationalist discourse also nurtured dissociation from the one million French Canadians living in minority communities in the ROC (Theriault and Meunier 2008). Francophone communities outside Quebec were dismissed as doomed minorities bound to assimilate to the English majority in the ROC. Without the burden of responsibility or solidarity with FCs in the ROC, Quebec nationalism could more easily legitimise the separation of Quebec from Canada. Despite such political considerations, it remains that many Francophone Quebecers maintained affective and linguistic ties with Francophone minorities.

With a population of 240,455 mother tongue French speakers in 2011, Acadians represent 32.5% of the New Brunswick population, down from 33.8% (214,720) in 1971 (Statistics Canada 2011). The demographic vitality of Francophone communities within New Brunswick is bolstered by the fact that 80% of Acadians live in regions of the province where they reside as linguistic majorities. Following the adoption of anti-French/anti-Catholic laws up to the early 20th century, Acadians created numerous associations to defend the vitality of their French cultural communities (Laxer 2007). It was not until the 1960s when the first Acadian was elected Prime Minister of New Brunswick that the Acadian communities gained institutional support in education, health and social services. In 1981, the New Brunswick government adopted Bill 88, an Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick thus enshrining French education and health services for Acadians.

Franco-Ontarians numbered close to half a million people in 1971, representing 6.3% (482,350) of the Ontario population, and dropping to 4.4% of the population by 2011 though comprising 561,160 Franco-Ontarians (Statistics Canada 2011). While only 14% of Franco-Ontarians live in a region of Ontario where they comprise the majority, most live in areas where they account for less than 30% of the regional population (Corbeil and Lafreniere 2010). Along with the drawing power of English in Ontario, it is the frequency of French/English mixed marriages that is seen by demolinguists as contributing most to the decline in the proportion of Franco-Ontarians in the Province (Mougeon 2014).

French language schools in Ontario were not officially recognized under the provincial Education Act until 1968. Ontario accepted Section 23 of the 1982 Canadian Charter, which stipulated that official language minorities have the right to have their children educated in English or French across Canada where numbers warrant. In 1986, the Ontario legislature adopted Bill 8, which guaranteed a number of provincial government services in French in designated areas of the province and recognized the right to use both English and French in the Ontario legislature. By 1997, Franco-Ontarians achieved full governance over their education institutions at the primary and secondary levels across the Province (Boileau 2014).

Francophone communities in Canada's Bilingual Belt have a complex history marked by linguistic tensions and much effort by Francophones to limit linguistic assimilation to the Anglophone majority (Gilbert 2010). Each province offers a different degree of institutional support and status to its Francophone communities affecting the vitality of Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and Francophone Quebecers (Landry et al. 2010), which in turn may affect individual Francophone desire to leave their province for the ROC or the US.

For the sake of maintaining ethnolinguistic cohesion, the Canadian Government adopted the Official Languages Act in 1969 which enshrined the status of French and English as co-official languages and provided bilingual federal services for official language minorities across the country (Fraser 2006). The roadmap for Canada's official languages was adopted in 2003 and by 2018 will have provided over $3 billion to enhance the institutional vitality of Francophone and Anglophone language minorities across Canada. Whereas the federal discourse emphasizes the notion of vitality as it pertains to a community anchored in a given territory, it is noteworthy that mobility, largely based on changing socioeconomic circumstances, has long been a Francophone Canadian identity marker (Heller, Bell, Daveluy, Noel, and McLaughlin 2014). At stake today is the issue of thwarting the growing territorialisation of only Francophones within Quebec and only Anglophones in the ROC while allowing migration to play a role in shaping the ever-evolving official-language minority communities of Canada.

HYPOTHESES

Undergraduates were chosen as respondents in this study given their comparable educational and career achievements and higher geographic mobility as younger members of their respective local Francophone communities compared to those with more established job and family ties within their own province. As our first hypothesis (HI), we propose that Francophone Quebecers will express the least readiness to leave their province because, as members of the high vitality majority, they would perceive few advantages in moving to low-vitality minority Francophone communities in New Brunswick, Ontario or the United States. However, the status of Francophones in New Brunswick and Ontario as fragile minorities may encourage Acadians and Franco-Ontarians to migrate to Quebec, the only French majority province in Canada (H2). As regards migration motivations, pull factors such as seeking better career prospects and joining family members/spouses are expected to best account for readiness to move to another province in Canada or to the US, followed by push factors pertaining to avoidance of linguistic tensions in the home province as described in the historical overviews (H3). We also expect the following micro socio-psychological correlates to be predictors of readiness to move to another province (H4): English language proficiency, perception of own financial situation, perception of being personally and/or collectively victim of discrimination, desire for French/English-speaking internal migrants and welcoming acculturation orientations toward them, as well as weak personal mobilization for improving Francophone vitality.

According to the US Office of Immigration Statistics (2013), since 2000, an average of 23,000 Canadian migrants were legally admitted to the United States every year on various forms of visas, some of which lead to full American citizenship. Though such migration data does not distinguish Francophone from Anglophone migrants to the US, the yearly number of Canadians moving to the US attests to the sociological reality of such cross-border movements. Consequently, we posit that predictors of Francophone readiness to migrate internationally to the United States should be similar to those expected for readiness to move to an English majority Province of Canada (H5).

METHOD

Participants

Francophones in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario included in the study were undergraduate students between 18 and 35 years of age. Francophone Quebecer, Acadian and Franco-Ontarian participants were born and lived in Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario, respectively. As in recent studies of Francophone attitudes across Canada (Landry et al. 2010), our Francophone respondents met the following criteria: they had French as their mother tongue, and both their parents were born in Canada and had knowledge of French. The final sample was made up of 658 participants: 204 Francophone Quebecers, 227 Acadians from New Brunswick and 227 Franco-Ontarians. There were 443 females and 215 males with the average age being 21.9 years.

Though international immigrants have been increasingly joining and contributing to official language minority communities across Canada in recent years, the current study focuses on more ancestral Francophones constituting what was known as one of Canada's founding groups (Fraser 2006). Consequently, respondents who were immigrants were not included for analysis in this present study.

Procedure

Participants were recruited in French medium classes within the social sciences and education faculties at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal in Quebec, the Universite de Moncton in New Brunswick and the bilingual Universities of Ottawa and Laurentian in Ontario. Undergraduates completed the French-language questionnaire during class time and were fully debriefed in class.

Measures

All items included in the questionnaire used 7-point rating scales (l-not at all, A=moderately, 7=very much) unless otherwise indicated. Participants rated their readiness to migrate by answering the following three questions: "To what extent would you be ready to move for a long time: 1) to Quebec (Franco-Ontarian/ Acadian respondents), or to Acadia in New Brunswick (Francophone Quebecer respondents); 2) to an English-speaking province of Canada; 3) to the United States". Items and scales described below were used as social-psychological correlates (micro- and macro-societal) likely to predict readiness to migrate to the three destinations.

Multiple Identification with national and linguistic groups (Montreuil and Bourhis 2004) was measured for each of the following items: "To what extent do you identify as: Canadian, Francophone, Anglophone, bilingual, immigrant, other". In relevant provincial settings, respondents were also asked how much they identified as: Quebecois, Acadiens or Franco-Ontariens.

Linguistic Skills were measured using four items that assess to what extent respondents understand/speak French and English. The reliability scores (Cronbach s alpha) for linguistic skills ranged from .62 to .80 for French and .84 to .88 for English across the three respondent groups. The Language Use scale was comprised of eight items that measured to what extent participants used French and English at home, with their friends, at work and in college/university (for all participant groups considered, C. alpha = .58--.80 for French; .70-.80 for English).

The Personal Financial Situation scale (Harvey and Bourhis 2012) contained five statements concerning the present and future financial situation of respondents as well as their job prospects in the province of residence, i.e., "I consider that my financial situation is very promising in the years to come in Quebec" (C. alpha = .60 - .70 across provincial settings).

The Security of Identity Scale (Bourhis and Dayan 2004) was made up of the following three items: "To what extent do you feel secure economically/culturally/ linguistically" as a Quebecois or Acadian or Franco-Ontarian? The reliability scores (C. alpha) for all participant groups ranged from .64 to .77. A single item measured the feeling that ingroup identity--as Quebecois, Acadian or Franco-Ontarian--is threatened by the presence of the ingroup and three outgroups, which included Anglophones and two other outgroups among the following, depending on the host community at hand: Francophone Quebecers, Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and Quebec Anglophones.

A short version of the Ego-Vitality scale (Landry and Bourhis 1997) included six items measuring the degree to which respondents were willing to mobilise personally to improve the vitality of their own Francophone ingroup and for the Anglophone outgroup on the three dimensions of ego-vitality, namely: demographic strength, institutional control and status (C. alpha = .87-.92 for Francophone ingroup; .86-.92 for Anglophone outgroup).

Francophones completed the Reasons for migration scale adapted for Canadian interprovincial migration (Stelzl and Esses 2007) by rating the importance of several reasons for readiness to move to a French and an English province. Key items of this 12-item scale included those related to attractive features of the province of destination such as: "To improve my career prospects", "To join my family", "To get married or be close to my partner" and "For personal adventure". Migration items related to aversive features of the province of origin, including: "To avoid being the victim of discrimination", "To leave behind linguistic tensions".

Respondents rated their desire for accepting French and English speakers as internal migrants to their respective province. In addition, Francophone undergraduates in the three settings rated how much they felt such migrants contributed to their own vitality and to outgroup vitality on items such as: vigour of the English and French language, socio-economic well-being, harmonious relations between the French/English communities, and the overall vitality of the French and English provincial communities.

The three groups of FCs completed the 18-item Host Community Acculturation Scale (HCAS; Montreuil and Bourhis 2004) for the culture, values and customs domains toward French- and English-speaking migrants from relevant provinces. The following are examples of HCAS items measuring three welcoming and three unwelcoming orientations in the cultural domain from the point of view of Francophone Quebecers toward English-speaking interprovincial migrants. Individualism: "Whether English-Canadian migrants maintain their cultural heritage or adopt the culture of the Quebecois makes no difference because each person is free to adopt the culture of their choice." Integrationism: "English-Canadian migrants should maintain their own culture while also adopting the cultures of the Quebecois." Integrationism-Transformation: "Quebecois should transform certain aspects of their own culture in order to really integrate the culture of English Canadians from the ROC." Assimilationism: "English-Canadian migrants should give up their culture of origin for the sake of adopting the Quebecois culture." Segregationism: "English-Canadian migrants can maintain their culture of origin as long as they do not mix it with Quebecois culture." Exclusionism: "Quebecois have no benefit to gain from the presence of English Canadians and their culture." The HCAS internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was high for each acculturation orientation combining the three participant groups and the three domains: .84 for individualism, .80 for integrationism, .86 for integrationism-transformation, .80 for assimilationism, .87 for segregationism, and .82 for exclusionism.

The Perception of Personal Discrimination scale monitored the extent to which participants felt they had personally been victim of discrimination in the last five years in three settings: at work, in banks/stores/restaurants, and at school and/or university (C. alpha = .55-.85) (Bourhis et al. 2007). The Perceived Collective Discrimination scale was used to evaluate the extent to which undergraduates thought ingroup and outgroup members suffered from collective discrimination in three key settings: at work, in stores/banks/restaurants, and in school/at university. The four target groups for this scale were the Francophone ingroup and three relevant outgroups: French-speaking migrants from Quebec, Acadia, and/or Ontario, as well as English-speaking internal migrants. The reliability scores (C. alpha) obtained across the three participant groups for the collective discrimination scale were .81 to .87 for the Francophone ingroup, .74 to .84 for French-speaking outgroups and .76 to .89 for the English-speaking outgroup.

RESULTS

Social-psychological profile of the three respondent groups

As seen in Table 1, the three groups identified strongly and positively as Francophones and with their respective provincial ingroup. However, unlike Franco-Ontarians and Acadians who identified as much as Canadians as with their regional Acadian and Franco-Ontarian origin, Francophone Quebecers identified more as Quebecois than as Canadians. Franco-Ontarians had stronger Anglophone identity and weaker Francophone identity than Acadians and Francophone Quebecers. Franco-Ontarians also identified the most as bilingual, and reported highest English language skills, followed by Acadians and Francophone Quebecers. English use in everyday life was more frequent among Franco-Ontarians than for Acadian and Quebecois undergraduates. While the three Francophone groups reported very high French language skills, French language use was most frequent by Francophone Quebecers and least frequent by Franco-Ontarians. As regards perceptions of their current financial and career prospects in their home province, Francophone Quebecers reported a stronger financial situation than did Franco-Ontarians and Acadians (Table 2).

Though the perception of being personally victim of discrimination was weak overall, results showed that Acadians and Franco-Ontarians reported being more personally victim of discrimination than did majority group Francophone Quebecers who experienced very little discrimination in their personal lives (Table 2). As regards being victim of collective discrimination, Acadians and Franco-Ontarians perceived that their own group experienced more discrimination than did Francophone Quebecers. Acadians and Franco-Ontarians also perceived that their own group suffered more from collective discrimination than did English-speaking migrants to their respective province. In contrast, majority Francophone Quebecers perceived that their own group was less victim of discrimination than English-speaking migrants to Quebec. Undergraduates from the three provinces expressed a greater feeling of threat in the presence of English-speaking migrants settled in their province than from the presence of French-speaking migrants (Table 1). Acadians felt most threatened by the presence of English-speaking migrants, followed by Francophone Quebecers and Franco-Ontarians.

As seen in Table 1, scores on the ego-vitality scale showed that all participants expressed a stronger will to mobilize in favour of their own group Francophone vitality than for the Anglophone outgroup vitality. Acadians were more willing to mobilize to improve their Francophone vitality than were Franco-Ontarians and Francophone Quebecers. Franco-Ontarians were more willing to mobilize in favour of improving Anglophone vitality than Acadians and Francophone Quebecers.

As can be seen in Table 3, the three groups of Francophones expressed a stronger desire to have French-speaking migrants to their own province than to have English-speaking migrants. Compared to Francophone Quebecer and Franco-Ontarian respondents, Acadians were least willing to have English-speakers settle as migrants within their own province. The three groups of respondents also felt that French-speaking migrants were much more likely to contribute to the vitality of their own respective French community than were English-speaking migrants. Minority group Acadian and Franco-Ontarian respondents more strongly endorsed this view of the role of French-speaking migrants in bolstering the vitality of their own Francophone communities.

Acculturation orientations

Considering host community acculturation orientations towards internal migrants, Table 3 shows that overall, Francophones in each province endorsed individualism and integrationism most strongly, followed by segregationism, while assimilationism, exclusionism and integrationism-transformation were least endorsed. Segregationism was moderately endorsed by participants in the three provinces. As regards Francophone Quebecer majority group respondents, endorsement of individualism and integrationism-transformation was greater toward French-speaking migrants than for English-speaking migrants, while endorsement of segregationism and assimilationism was greater for English-speaking migrants. In contrast, minority group Acadian and Franco-Ontarian undergraduates endorsed orientations towards French- and English-speaking migrants that were equivalent and this for both welcoming and less welcoming acculturation orientations.

Readiness to migrate and reasons for migration

Readiness to move inter-provincially within Canada and to the US was low for the three Francophone groups. As seen in Table 2, Franco-Ontarians were somewhat more willing to move to a French or English province than Acadians and Francophone Quebecers. Acadians were even less willing to move to the United States than Franco-Ontarians and Francophone Quebecers. Considering each participant group separately, Franco-Ontarians and Acadians were just as ready to move to Quebec as to an English province and much less so to the US. However, Francophone Quebecers expressed greater readiness to migrate to an English province and to the United States than to Francophone Acadia (New Brunswick).

Despite low readiness to migrate, multivariate analyses can uncover the factors which best account for Francophone readiness to migrate internally to a French and to an English Province. Principal component analyses (PCAs, Varimax rotation) were used in order to identify clusters of items on the reasons for migration scale. Two PCAs were conducted combining the three participant groups (n = 658), one for each Canadian destination: to a French province or region and to an English province. Reasons for migrating to a French province consisted of the following three orthogonal factors (item beta weights are in parentheses). The first was seeking better career which consisted of following items: 'To get a better job' (.80), 'To ensure a better professional career' (.84) and 'For adventure' (.73). The second factor was family unification consisting of: 'To join my family' (.83) and 'To get married or be close to my partner' (.82). The third was avoiding linguistic tensions composed of the items 'To avoid being the victim of discrimination' (.85) and 'To leave behind linguistic tensions' (.79).

Reasons for migrating to an English province revealed three orthogonal factors (item beta weights are in parentheses). Seeking better career was comprised of the items 'To ensure a better professional career' (.88) and 'To get a better job' (.87). Cultural experience included the items 'For the experience of living in an English majority culture' (.84) and 'To improve my English skills' (.79). The third factor was family unification, including the items 'To join my family' (.89) and 'To get married or be close to my partner' (.86).

The mean of each of the six factors on the 7 point scale was calculated, these scores representing respondents' rating of the importance of each factor (n = 658). For readiness to move to a French province/region, seeking better career was most important (M = 4.2), followed by family unification (M = 3.9), while avoiding linguistic tensions was least important (M = 2.2). For moving to an English province, family unification (M = 4.2) and seeking a better career (M = 4.2) were rated as more important than cultural experience (M = 3.1).

Predicting readiness to migrate

Considering the three groups combined (n = 658), we conducted Pearson correlations between the reasons for migration factors described above and relevant socio-psychological variables included in the questionnaire as independent variables (IVs) and readiness to move to the following destinations treated as dependent variables (DVs): to a French province (D[V.sub.1]); to an English province (D[V.sub.2]); and to the United States (D[V.sub.3]) (this correlation matrix is available from authors upon request). Only IVs that were significantly correlated with the DVs were then entered in the multiple regressions (stepwise).

As seen in Table 4, migration reasons and socio-psychological correlates were simultaneously tested as competing predictors in three multiple regressions (stepwise), one for each destination combining the three groups of respondents (n = 658). Absence of multicollinearity was verified for each regression based on the condition index. The following six independent variables (IVs) were highly significant predictors of Francophone readiness to move to a French province: obtaining a better career, the perception that French-speaking migrants contribute to Francophone vitality, avoiding linguistic tensions, the endorsement of the integrationism-transformation acculturation orientations toward French-speaking migrants, French language use and the desire to welcome French-speaking migrants to the home province. Only three IVs were significant predictors of Francophone readiness to move to an English province: seeking a better career, English language skills and use, and desire for English-speaking internal migrants to move to one's own province. Finally, Francophone readiness to move to the United States was predicted by five IVs: seeking a better career, desire to welcome English-speaking internal migrants, seeking cultural experience, English language skills and use, and endorsement of the integration-transformation acculturation orientation toward English-speaking internal migrants.

DISCUSSION

The social-psychological profiles of the Acadian, Francophone Quebecer and Franco-Ontarian undergraduates emerged quite clearly. These three groups of participants strongly identified as Francophones and as members of their respective provincial linguistic communities while declaring stronger competence in French and more use of French than English in their everyday lives. The three groups of Francophones expressed a greater will to mobilize to improve the vitality of their own Francophone community than to mobilize for the vitality of the outgroup Anglophone community. Respondents in each province were also consistent in considering that French- rather than English-speaking internal migrants were more likely to contribute to the vitality of their own Francophone community. Francophone undergraduates from each setting were also consistent in feeling much less threatened by the presence of French-speaking internal migrants than by English-speaking ones and this despite their shared citizenship as Canadians.

As expected, Francophone undergraduates in the three provinces expressed low readiness to migrate to another Canadian province or to the United States. However, Franco-Ontarians were more ready to move to another English or French province of Canada than were Francophone Quebecers and Acadians. Hypothesis 1 (HI) was not supported given that Francophone Quebecers were as weakly interested as Acadians to move to an English province of the ROC. However, Acadians were even less willing than Francophone Quebecers to move to the US. Despite their minority status, Acadians and Franco-Ontarians were just as unwilling to move to French majority Quebec as they were to move to an English majority province, thus contradicting our second hypothesis (H2). That our Acadian and Franco-Ontarian minority undergraduates did not seek the comfort of moving to the majority setting of Francophone Quebec may reflect the historical and cultural divide that emerged between the high vitality Francophone Quebecer majority and the weaker vitality Acadian and Franco-Ontarian minorities of the Bilingual Belt (Theriault and Meunier 2008).

Some support for our third hypothesis (H3) was obtained given that key reasons for migration predicted willingness to move to a French and English province. Our multiple regression results (Table 4) showed that, in line with economic studies, seeking better career prospects was the strongest predictor for Francophone willingness to migrate to both French and English provinces of Canada. Novel in this study was the finding that avoiding linguistic tensions emerged as a predictor of readiness to move to a French region/province.

Social-psychological variables proposed in our fourth hypothesis (H4) were also confirmed as predictors of Francophone readiness to migrate. Multiple regression results (Table 4) showed that valued involvement in Francophone community life predicted readiness to move to a French province/region, namely: strong French language use in everyday settings, perceptions that French-speaking internal migrants contribute to own group vitality and desire for such migrants.

Francophone readiness to move to an English Province and to the United States was strongly predicted by positive attitudes toward Anglophones: strong English language use in everyday life and desire to welcome English-speaking migrants. Thus, we have support for hypothesis five (H5) positing that factors accounting for Francophone willingness to migrate internally to an English speaking province could be similar to those accounting for willingness to migrate internationally, in this case to the United States.

As regards the role of ethnolinguistic vitality in accounting for Francophone readiness for interprovincial migration, regression analyses showed that the more respondents perceived French-speaking internal migrants to contribute to French vitality in their home province, the more ready they were to move to a French region of Canada. Could this mean that moving to a French province or region is seen by Francophones as contributing to the superordinate goal of improving the vitality of all Francophone communities in Canada? Partly supporting this interpretation, correlation analyses (all significant at p < .01) showed that the more Francophones were motivated to improve the vitality of their own Francophone community, the less ready they were to move to English Canada (r = -.20) or the US (r = -.18). Conversely, the more they were motivated to improve Anglophone vitality in their own Province, the more ready they were to move to an English province (r = + .27) and to the United States (r = + .25), likely seen as attractive culturally concordant destinations. At the very least, our findings reveal a strong link between Francophone concerns for ingroup and outgroup vitality and readiness to migrate.

As seen in the regression results outlined in Table 4, the desire to welcome interprovincial migrants consistently emerged as a significant predictor of readiness to move to the three target destinations. It may be that our respondents were attracted to a destination province or country populated by inhabitants toward whom they held favourable attitudes. Given the strong relationship between desire to welcome internal migrants and personal readiness to migrate, it is reasonable to propose that openness to both incoming immigrants and readiness to become an emigrant characterizes Francophones whose attitudes are more favourable toward intercultural mobility and diversity.

In a similar vein, our study showed that out of the six possible host community acculturations endorsed by our respondents, only the weakly endorsed integration-transformation orientation significantly predicted readiness to migrate (see Table 4). Francophones who endorsed the idea of transforming features of their own culture to better integrate interprovincial migrants were the very ones who were most ready to migrate to a French Province and to the United States. This result suggests a link between the way one welcomes migrants as host community member and one's readiness to migrate both internally and internationally, thereby transforming oneself through the process of emigration, and hence, acculturation processes. Until now, the Interactive Acculturation Model had not addressed how host community acculturation orientations could predict readiness to migrate internally or internationally. Our results showed that endorsement of less welcoming acculturation orientations such as segregationism and exclusionism were not related to readiness to migrate. Francophones who were less welcoming toward Anglophone migrants were also those who did not wish to submit themselves to the intercultural challenge of migrating out of their own province. Clearly, more research is needed to better understand the relationship between host community acculturation orientations and readiness for intra-national and international migration.

This study focused on potential interprovincial migrants--our undergraduate Francophones did not actually make the decision to migrate elsewhere in Canada or the US. Future studies are needed to explore how attachment and loyalty to one's provincial linguistic community may or may not come into conflict with one's individual career aspirations involving inter-provincial or international migration. A recent study showed that while many Acadian students leave their region or province to pursue postsecondary education, the possibility of return is often linked to the positive or negative representations students have regarding their community of origin along with its perceived economic opportunities (Pilote and Brier 2013).

Taken together, our findings suggest that Acadian, Francophone Quebecer and Franco-Ontarian participants were keenly aware of the vitality position of their own Francophone community relative to that of their respective Anglophone community, while preferring migrants from their own Francophone background more than Anglophone ones. Awareness of contrasting vitality positions likely reflects historical struggles by Francophones to defend and maintain their demographic, institutional and status positions within their respective province. In Quebec, such contrasting vitality perceptions reflect Francophone efforts to assert

their dominant position relative to Quebec Anglophones often portrayed by the Francophone majority as a 'Trojan horse' minority threatening the vitality of French within their Province embedded in mainly Anglophone North America (Curzi 2014). That polarized French/English perceptions were obtained with young bilingual Francophones in the three settings should alert provincial and federal policy makers that promoting the institutional vitality of Francophone communities should be matched by efforts to increase French/English contacts designed to foster more harmonious intercultural relations within Canada's bilingual belt.

References

Bendiner, J. 2013. Interprovincial migration shifts in Canada. TD Economies, http://www.td.com/document/PDF/economics/special/jb0613_interprovincial_migration.pdf.

Bernard, A., R. Finnie, and B. St-Jean. 2008. Interprovincial mobility and earnings. Perspectives, Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75-001-X, pp. 15-25. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-001-x/2008110/pdf/ 10711-eng.pdf.

Berry, J. W. 2005. Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 29.6: 697-712. Doi : 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013.

Boileau, F. 2014. 50 Years after the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission: The journey of French Ontario. In Fifty Years of Official Bilingualism, eds. R. Clement and P. Foucher, 29-34. Ottawa: Invenire.

Bourhis, R. Y., and J. Dayan. 2004. Acculturation orientations toward Israeli Arabs and Jewish immigrants in Israel. International Journal of Psychology 39.2: 118-131.

Bourhis, R. Y., and R. Landry. 2012. Group vitality, cultural autonomy and the wellness of language minorities. In Decline and prospects of the English-speaking communities of Quebec, ed. R. Y. Bourhis, 23-69. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage and Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities.

Bourhis, R. Y., L. C. Moise, S. Perreault, and S. Senecal. 1997. Towards an interactive acculturation model: A Social Psychological Approach. International Journal of Psychology 32: 369-386.

Bourhis, R. Y., A. Montreuil, D. Helly, and L. lantzen. 2007. Discrimination et linguicisme au Quebec: Enquete sur la diversite ethnique au Canada. Canadian Ethnie Studies 39.1-2: 31-49.

Corbeil, J.-C. 2007. L'embarras des langues: Origine, conception et evolution de la politique linguistique quebecoise. Montreal, QC: Quebec Amerique.

Corbeil, J.-R, and S. Lafreniere. 2010. Portrait des minorites de langue officielle an Canada : Les francophones de l'Ontario. Ottawa: Statistique Canada, Division de la statistique sociale et autochtone.

Coulombe, S. 2006. Internai migration, asymmetric shocks, and interprovincial economic adjustments in Canada. International Regional Science Review 29.2: 199-223.

Coulombe, S., and J. F. Tremblay. 2009. Migration and skills disparities across the Canadian provinces. Regional Studies 43.1: 5-18.

Curzi, P. 2014. French, the common language of Quebec. In Fifty Years of Official Bilingualism, eds. R. Clement and P. Foucher, 15-19. Ottawa: Invenire.

Fraser, C. 2006. Sorry I don't speak French: Confronting the Canadian Crisis that won't go away. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Gilbert, A., dir. 2010. Territoires francophones: Etudes geographiques sur la vitalite des communautes francophones du Canada. Quebec: Editions du Septentrion.

Giles, H., R. Y. Bourhis, and D. M. Taylor. 1977. Towards a theory of language and intergroup relations. In Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations, ed. H. Giles, 307-348. London: Academic Press.

Harvey, S-P, and R. Y. Bourhis. 2012. Discrimination in wealth and power intergroup structures. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 15.1: 21-38.

Heller, M., L. Bell, M. Daveluy, H. Noel, and M. McLaughlin. 2014. La mobilite au coeur de la francophonie canadienne. Recherches sociographique 55.1: 79-104.

King, R., and R. Skeldon. 2010. 'Mind the gap!' Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36.10: 1619-1646.

Landry, R., R. Allard, and K. Deveau. 2010. Schooling and Cultural Autonomy. A Canada-Wide Study in Francophone Minority Schools. Gatineau, QC: Canadian Heritage, Canadian Institute for Research on Linguistic Minorities.

Landry, R., and R. Y. Bourhis. 1997. Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality: An empirical study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 16: 23-49.

Laxer, J. 2007. The Acadians: In search of a homeland. Anchor Canada Edition.

Lepage, J.-F., C. Bouchard-Coulombe, and B. Chavez. 2011. Portrait des minorites de langue officielle au Canada: Les francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division.

Massey, D. S., and K. Espinosa. 1997. What's driving Mexico-US Migration? A theoretical, empirical and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology 102: 939-999.

Montreuil, A., and R. Y. Bourhis. 2004. Acculturation orientations of competing host communities toward valued and devalued immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 28: 507-532.

Mougeon, R. 2014. Maintien et evolution du francais dans les provinces du Canada Anglophone. Dans Colonisation, globalisation et vitalite du francais, dirs. S. Mufwene et C. Vigouroux, 211-276. Paris: Odile (acob.

Pilote, A., and L. Brier. 2013. Representations du lieu d'origine et projets migratoires d'etudiants francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick : quelle articulation ? Minorites linguistiques et societe/Linguistic Minorities and Society 2: 29-44.

Plourde, M., and P. Georgeault, dirs. 2008. Le Francais au Quebec: 400 ans d'histoire et de vie. Montreal: Fides; Quebec: Conseil superieur de la langue Francaise ; Les Publications du Quebec.

Statistics Canada. 2011. 2011 Census: Topic-based tabulations--Language (Detailed Mother Tongue, Knowledge of Official Languages and Sex). Ottawa: Ministry of Industry.

Stelzl, M., and V. M. Esses. June, 2007. Through the migrant looking glass: Interactive relations between perceptions of one's own migration and attitudes toward immigrants. Presentation at the SPSSIEAESP Small Group Meeting on International Perspectives on Immigration, Toronto, Canada.

Theriault, j. Y., and E.-M. Meunier. 2008. Que reste-t-il de l'intention vitale du Canada francais? Dans L'espace francophone en milieu minoritaire au Canada: Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, dirs. J. Y. Theriault, A. Gilbert et L. Cardinal, 205-238. Montreal, QC: Fides.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2013. 2012 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Office of Immigration Statistics, http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_yb_2012.pdf.

RANA SIOUFI obtained a B.Sc. in psychology at the University of Ottawa and a Ph.D. in Social psychology at l'Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM). In 2012, she received the Joseph-Armand Bombardier doctoral Scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada. Using the Interactive Acculturation Model, her PhD research examines key social psychological correlates of inter-provincial migration within the bilingual belt of Canada. She has published on intercultural communication, discrimination, and acculturation orientations toward valued/devalued minorities.

RICHARD Y. BOURHIS obtained a BSc in Psychology at McGill University and a PhD in Social Psychology at the University of Bristol, England. He taught at McMaster University and has been a full Professor in Psychology at l'Universite du Quebec a Montreal (UQAM) since 1988. Richard Bourhis publishes extensively in English and French on topics such as cross-cultural communication, discrimination and intergroup relations, immigration, acculturation and language planning. He was director of the Concordia-UQAM Chair in Ethnic Studies and director of the Centre des etudes ethniques des universites montrealaises (CEETUM). He received a doctorate 'Honoris causa' from l'Universite de Lorraine, France, the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal in Quebec and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
TABLE 1. Identity profile, language skills-usage, feeling of threat
and ego-vitality of: Francophone Quebecers, Acadians and Franco
-Ontarians

                            Francophone   Acadians, New      Franco-
                             Quebecers      Brunswick       Ontarians
                              n = 204        n = 227         n = 227
                                 M              M               M

Identity

  Canadian                  [4.3.sub.b]    [6.7.sub.a]     [6.7.sub.a]
  Francophone               [6.8.sub.a]    [6.7.sub.a]     [6.3.sub.b]
  Provincial ingroup        [6.7.sub.a]    [6.2.sub.b]     [6.2.sub.b]
  Anglophone                [2.0.sub.b]    [2.5.sub.b]     [4.0.sub.a]
  Bilingual                 [4.3.sub.c]    [5.6.sub.b]     [6.3.sub.a]

Language skills

  French                    [7.0.sub.a]    [6.8.sub.b]     [6.5.sub.c]
  English                   [5.2.sub.c]    [5.9.sub.b]     [6.5.sub.a]

Language usage

  French                    [6.8.sub.a]    [6.5.sub.b]     [5.1.sub.c]
  English                   [2.2.sub.b]    [2.6.sub.b]     [4.6.sub.a]

Feeling of threat in the
  presence of:

  Francophone outgroup      [1.6.sub.b]    [2.9.sub.a]     [2.7.sub.a]
  Anglophone outgroup       [3.6.sub.c]    [5.0.sub.a]     [4.3.sub.b]

Ego-Vitality

  Ingroup                   [5.6.sub.ab]   [5.9.sub.a]     [5.5.sub.b]
  Anglophone outgroup (1)   [3.2.sub.b]    [3.2.sub.b]     [3.9.sub.a]

                                      Main effects

                            Within-subject    Franco-group
                              F, d.f.,          F, d.f.,
                            [[eta].sup.2]     [[eta].sup.2]

Identity                     905.03 ***,      127.75 ***,
                               2.9, .58          2, .28
  Canadian
  Francophone
  Provincial ingroup
  Anglophone
  Bilingual

Language skills              395.98 ***,      26.44 ***,
                                1, .38          2, .075
  French
  English

Language usage              1488.05 ***,      22.27 ***,
                                1, .69          2, .064
  French
  English

Feeling of threat in the     537.15 ***,       4.98 **,
  presence of:                  1, .45          2, .015

  Francophone outgroup
  Anglophone outgroup

Ego-Vitality                1058.42 ***,       5.57 **,
                                1, .60          2, .017
  Ingroup
  Anglophone outgroup (1)

                            Interaction
                               effect

                              F, d.f.,
                            [[eta].sup.2]

Identity                     87.33 ***,
                              5.9, .21
  Canadian
  Francophone
  Provincial ingroup
  Anglophone
  Bilingual

Language skills             127.29 ***,
                               2, .28
  French
  English

Language usage              271.12 ***,
                               2, .45
  French
  English

Feeling of threat in the      4.98 **,
  presence of:                 2, .015

  Francophone outgroup
  Anglophone outgroup

Ego-Vitality                 23.47 ***,
                               2, .027
  Ingroup
  Anglophone outgroup (1)

Note. Repeated measure ANOVAs, F tests represent a significant effect
at p < .01 **, p < .001 ***. Mean scores on a same row that do not
share a common alphabetical subscript differ at p < .01 (a > b > c).

(1) For Francophone Quebecers, the target group is Quebec Anglophones
specifically.

TABLE 2. Readiness to migrate to a French province or region, an
English province or to the United States; perceived financial situa
-tion; and perception of personal-collective discrimination of:
Francophone Quebecers, Acadians and Franco-Ontarians

                              Francophone   Acadians, New     Franco-
                               Quebecers      Brunswick      Ontarians
                                n = 204        n = 227        n = 227
                                   M              M              M

Readiness to move to:

  French region or province   [2.3.sub.b]    [2.6.sub.b]    [3.6.sub.a]
  English rovince ROC         [2.7.sub.b]    [2.8.sub.b]    [3.7.sub.a]
  United States               [2.6.sub.a]    [1.8.sub.b]    [2.4.sub.a]

Financial situation/          [5.3.sub.a]    [4.5.sub.c]    [4.9.sub.b]
prospects

Perception of personal        [1.6.sub.b]    [2.4.sub.a]    [2.5.sub.a]
discrimination

Perception of group
discrimination against:

  Ingroup                     [2.3.sub.b]    [3.8.sub.a]    [3.5.sub.a]
  Anglophone migrants         [3.1.sub.a]    [2.5.sub.b]    [2.3.sub.b]

                                          Main effects

                              Within-subject   Franco-group
                                F, d.f.,         F, d.f.,
                              [[eta].sup.2]    [[eta].sup.2]

Readiness to move to:           5.78 ***,       28.76 **,
                                1.92,0.76         2, .088

  French region or province
  English rovince ROC
  United States

Financial situation/                            49.88 ***,
prospects                                         2, .13

Perception of personal                         28.85 ***, 2
discrimination

Perception of group            106.34 ***,      21.19 ***,
discrimination against:          1.7, .14         2, .061

  Ingroup
  Anglophone migrants

                              Interaction
                                 effect

                               F, d.f., ,f
                              [[eta].sup.2]

Readiness to move to:          23.77 ***,
                                3.8, .063

  French region or province
  English rovince ROC
  United States

Financial situation/
prospects

Perception of personal
discrimination

Perception of group            94.36 ***,
discrimination against:         3.3, .22

  Ingroup
  Anglophone migrants

Note. For Francophone Quebecers, the French destination is the region
of Acadia (New Brunswick); for Franco-Ontarians and Acadians, it is
Quebec. Repeated measure ANOVAs, F tests represent a significant
effect at p < .01 **, p < .001 ***. Mean scores on a same row that do
not share a common alphabetical subscript differ at p < .01 (a > b >
c).

TABLE 3. Desire for French-speaking (F) and English-speaking (E)
interprovincial migrants, contributions by migrants to in-group
vitality, and acculturation orientations toward migrants by:
Francophone Quebecers, Acadians and Franco-Ontarians

                                Francophone           Acadians
                                 Quebecers            n = 227
                                 n = 204                 M
                                    M

Desire for migrants:
  Francophone                   [5.0.sub.a]        [4.8.sub.ab]
  Anglophone                    [3.8.sub.a]        [3.0.sub.b]

Contribution to French
vitality by migrants:
  Francophone                   [4.8.sub.b]        [5.3.sub.a]
  Anglophone                    [2.3.sub.b]        [2.4.sub.b]

Acculturation orientations
Individualism                   F : [5.5.sub.b]    F : [5.9.sub.a]
                                E : [5.0.sub.b]    E : [5.9.sub.a]
Integrationism                  F : [5.7.sub.a]    F : [5.3.sub.ab]
                                E : [5.7.sub.a]    E : [5.3.sub.b]
Integrationism-transformation   F : [2.3.sub.a]    F : [1.8.sub.a]
                                E : [2.1.sub.b]    E : [1.9.sub.b
Assimilation                    F : [1.4.sub.b]    F : [1.6.sub.b]
                                E : [1.9.sub.ab]   E : [1.7.sub.b]
Segregation                     F : [3.9.sub.b]    F : [4.6.sub.a]
                                E : [4.2.sub.b]    E : [4.8.sub.a]
Exclusion                       F : [1.8.sub.c]    F : [2.7.sub.b]
                                E : [2.0.sub.c]    E : [2.5.sub.b]

                                  Franco-            Main effects
                                 Ontarians
                                  n = 227            Within-subject
                                     M                  F, d.f.,
                                                     [[eta].sup.2]

Desire for migrants:                               480.62 ***, 1, .41
  Francophone                   [4.6.sub.b]
  Anglophone                    [3.7.sub.a]

Contribution to French                             991.84 ***. 1, .60
vitality by migrants:
  Francophone                   [5.2.sub.a]
  Anglophone                    [3.1.sub.a]

Acculturation orientations                         1162.67 ***, 3.8, .64
Individualism                   F : [5.6.sub.ab]
                                E : [5.6.sub.a]
Integrationism                  F : [5.1.sub.b]
                                E : [4.9.sub.c]
Integrationism-transformation   F : [2.6.sub.a]
                                E : [2.5.sub.a]
Assimilation                    F : [1.9.sub.a]
                                E : [2.0.sub.a]
Segregation                     F : [4.3.sub.ab]
                                E : [4.5.sub.a]
Exclusion                       F : [3.2sub.a]
                                E : [3.1.sub.a]

                                   Main effects      Interaction effect

                                     Province
                                    F, d.f.,             F, d.f.,
                                  [[eta].sup.2]        [[eta].sup.2]

Desire for migrants:            11.02 ***, 2, .033   19.75 ***, 2, .034
  Francophone
  Anglophone

Contribution to French          20.25 ***, 2, .058    6.68 **, 2, .008
vitality by migrants:
  Francophone
  Anglophone

Acculturation orientations      14.38 ***, 2, .042   7.09 ***, 9, .021
Individualism

Integrationism

Integrationism-transformation

Assimilation

Segregation

Exclusion

Note. Repeated measure ANOVAs, F tests represent a significant effect
at p < .01**, p < .001***. Mean scores on a same row that do not share
a common alphabetical subscript differ at p < .01 (a > b > c). For
acculturation orientations, the Interaction effect shown is triple 6
(orientations) x 2 (target group) x 3 (province); Frangophone target
group for Franco-Ontarians/Acadians is Francophone Quebecers; for
Francophone Quebecers, it is Acadians.

TABLE 4. Three multiple regressions testing socio/psychological
correlates (IV) as predictors of readiness to move to: a French or
English region/province of Canada or to the United States (DV) by the
three participant groups combined (n = 658)

Predictors                       Readiness to move to   [R.sup.2] = 29%
                                    French region/
                                  province of Canada

                                 B     Beta     P

Seeking better career           .34    .33    <.001

Perception that FCs             .24    .19    .001
contribute to in-group
vitality

Avoid linguistic tensions       .15    .13    .001
in own province

Integration-transformation      .16    .12    .001
toward FCs

French language use             -.14   -.10   .006

Desire for FC migrants          .13    .091    .01

                                 Readiness to move to   [R.sup.2] = 32%
                                  English province of
                                        Canada

                                 B     Beta     P

Seeking better career           .35    .38    .001

English language skills & use   .38    .28    .001

Desire for EC migrants          .17    .15    .001

                                 Readiness to move to   [R.sup.2] = 21%
                                        the US

                                 B     Beta     P

Seeking better career           .16    .20    .001

Desire for EC migrants          .18    .17    .001

Seek cultural experience        .18    .21    .001

English language skills & use   .13    .11    .004

Integration-transformation      .12    .10    .005
toward ECs
COPYRIGHT 2017 Canadian Ethnic Studies Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Sioufi, Rana; Bourhis, Richard Y.
Publication:Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal
Article Type:Report
Geographic Code:1CANA
Date:Mar 22, 2017
Words:9421
Previous Article:Welcoming the stranger in Alberta: newcomers, secularism and religiously affiliated settlement agencies.
Next Article:From affirmed privilege to experiences of discrimination: majority anglophones' perceptions of linguistic majority-minority dynamics in Canada.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters