Skip to main content
Log in

Linguistic Distance, Languages of Work and Wages of Immigrants in Montreal

  • Published:
Journal of Labor Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We use the Levenshtein linguistic distance measure to explore the question of whether the distance between an immigrant’s mother tongue and a Canadian official language (English or French) has an impact on his/her economic integration into the labor market. Using microdata from the master files of the 2001 and 2006 Canadian censuses and from the 2011 National Household Survey, we investigate the relationship between linguistic distance and the intensity of use of English and French at work in the Montreal metropolitan area. That region is characterized by the presence of sizeable French- and English-speaking communities, as well as by a large number of immigrants from a wide variety of linguistic backgrounds. Those elements of linguistic diversity interact in the environment of English being the lingua franca. We find that linguistic distances between immigrants’ mother tongues and English and French have an important impact on the relative intensities of use of the two Canadian official languages at work. We further investigate the role of the languages used at work on the earnings of immigrants by estimating earnings functions. We find that the use of both French and English is remunerated positively in the labor market, but that using English at work has a larger impact on earnings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

We used confidential Statistics Canada data in the restricted environment of the Research Data Centre of the University of Ottawa. Access to the data is available to those who have received the proper authorization.

Notes

  1. Given the absence of a one-to-one correspondence, we also conducted the regression analysis including region-of-birth indicators and additional variables designed to capture cultural differences. The results are pretty similar to those generated from our primary specifications.

  2. The list of visible minorities in our data includes: South Asian, Chinese, Black, Filipino, Latin American, Arab, Southeast Asian, West Asian, Korean, and Japanese. Since all of those are associated to a country or a group of countries, we did not over control for that variable in our regressions.

  3. The census contains two questions regarding past residences. One is a flag for residence outside of Quebec one year ago or earlier. Another is a flag for residence outside of Quebec five years ago or earlier. We include a single indicator that is the union of these two variables.

  4. In order to address multicollinearity concerns, we calculated the coefficient of correlation between two variables: the linguistic distance between French and a given mother tongue and the linguistic distance between English and the same mother tongue. The value of this correlation is −0.097, indicating that there is a very weak linear relationship between the variables.

  5. Moving from left to right, the distance of the native tongue from French increases, the predicted probability of the outcome of using French only at work decreases, and the predicted probability of the outcome of not using French at work increases.

  6. To the extent that able individuals are more likely to invest in learning a second language, the OLS estimates of the impact of the language-at-work variable would be upwardly biased.

References

  • Adserà A, Ferrer A (2015) The effect of linguistic proximity on the occupational assimilation of immigrant men in Canada. In: CreAM discussion paper series 1517, Centre for Research and Analysis of migration (CreAM). University College London, Department of Economics

    Google Scholar 

  • Adserà A, Pytlikova M (2015) The role of language in shaping international migration. Econ J 125(586):F49–F81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albouy D (2008) The wage gap between Francophones and Anglophones: a Canadian perspective, 1970-2000. Can J Econ 41(4):1211–1238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bleakley H, Chin A (2004) Language skills and earnings: evidence from childhood immigrants. Rev Econ Stat 86(2):481–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutt-Griffler J (2002) World English: a study of its development. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carliner G (1981) Wage differences by language group and the market for language skills in Canada. J Hum Resour 16(3):384–399

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick BR, Miller PW (2005) Linguistic distance: a quantitative measure of the distance between English and other languages. J Multiling Multicult Dev 26(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick, BR, Miller PW. (2015) “International Migration and the Economics of Language.” In Barry R. Chiswick and Paul W. Miller, Handbook of The Economics of International Migration, Volume 1A, The Immigrants, Elsevier, Oxford, chapter 5, 211–269

  • Christofides LN, Swidinsky R (2010) The economic returns to the knowledge and use of a second official language: English in Quebec and French in the rest-of-Canada. Can Public Policy 36(2):137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dustmann C, van Soest A (2001) Language fluency and earnings: estimation with misclassified language indicators. Rev Econ Stat 83(4):663–674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh VA, Prieto-Rodriguez J (2011) Returns to foreign languages of native workers in the EU. Ind Labor Relat Rev 64(3):599–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburgh, V, Weber S. (2016) Linguistic distances and ethnolinguistic fractionalization and disenfranchisement indices. In Victor Ginsburgh and Shlomo Weber, The Palgrave handbook of economics and language, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, chapter 5: 137–173

  • Grenier G (2015) The value of language skills. IZA World of Labor(205). https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.205

  • Grenier G, Nadeau S (2016) English as the lingua franca and the economic value of other languages: the case of the language of work in the Montreal labor market. In Michele Gazzola and Bengt-Arne Wickström, The economics of language policy, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, chapter 8, 267–312

  • Gunduz S. (2017). “The impact of immigrant language skills on Canadian wages” Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa, retrieved from https://ruor.uottawa.ca/bitstream/10393/36624/1/Gunduz_Seda_2017_thesis.pdf

  • Isphording IE, Otten S (2013) The costs of Babylon—linguistic distance in applied economics. Rev Int Econ 21(2):354–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isphording IE, Otten S (2014) Linguistic barriers in the destination language acquisition of immigrants. J Econ Behav Organ 105(1):30–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins J. (2007) English as a lingua franca: attitude and identity Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Li PS, Dong C (2007) Earnings of Chinese immigrants in the enclave and mainstream economy. Can Rev Sociol 44(1):65–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petroni F, Serva M (2010) Measures of lexical distance between languages. Physica A 389(11):2280–2283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro D, Stelcner M (1997) Language and earnings in Quebec: trends over twenty years, 1970-1990. Can Public Policy 23(2):115–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swadesh M (1952) Lexicostatistical dating of prehistoric ethnic contracts. Proc Am Philos Soc 96:121–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Vaillancourt F. (1980) Differences in earnings by language groups in Quebec, 1970: an economic analysis. International Center for Research and Bilingualism, Quebec

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jose Galdo, Louis-Philippe Morin, Jean-françois Tremblay, François Vaillancourt, the editor of this journal and one anonymous referee for comments on early versions of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gilles Grenier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The opinions are those of the authors and not those of the University of Ottawa.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Calculation of the Levenshtein Linguistic Distance

The following explanation of the computation of the linguistic distance is based on the work of Petroni and Serva (2010). The ASJP linguistic distance is computed by using a list of 40 words in each language having similar meanings. The list includes, for example, words describing body parts, animals, plants, nature, verbs, adjectives, and pronouns that are used universally across languages. It was originally based on the 100-item “Swadesh list” (Swadesh 1952), but was reduced to 40 items that were shown to suffice. To calculate the distances, the lexical similarities of all pairings of languages are compared using an algorithm called the “Levenshtein distance” (LD), which is calculated as the minimum number of edits (deletions, substitutions or insertions) required to transform a word from one language into another. To provide a very simple illustration, the Levenshtein distance between the French word “allo” to its corresponding English word “hello” is equal to two, the transformation of one word into the other cannot be effectuated with fewer than two edits.

  1. 1.

    allo hllo (substitution of ‘a’ with ‘h’)

  2. 2.

    hllo hello (insert ‘e’ after ‘h’)

A normalized measure of the Levenshtein distance (LDN) needs to be provided in order to account for the word lengths, because longer words inherently require more edits to be executed. The normalization is performed by dividing the LD between similar words in two different languages by the number of characters of the longer of the words in whichever language applies. The LDN between the words with meaning i in two languages labelled Q and W is equal to:

$$ LDN\left({Q}_i,{W}_i\right)=\frac{LD\left({Q}_i,{W}_i\right)}{L\left({Q}_i{W}_i\right)} $$

where LD(Qi, Wi) is the Levenshtein distance between Qi and Wi, and L(QiWi) is the number of characters of the longer word. The total linguistic distance (involving all words) between a pair of languages is then calculated by measuring the average distance of all n words for those languages as follows.

$$ LDN\left(Q,W\right)=\frac{1}{n}\sum \limits_{i=1}^n LDN\left({Q}_i,{W}_i\right) $$

where Qi and Wi correspond to the word i in languages Q and W. Finally, to account for word lexical similarity resulting from merely pure coincidence (as opposed to pure etymology), the program provides a further normalized measure labelled the Levenshtein distance normalized divided (LDND) between pairs of languages. It is obtained by dividing the LDN(Q, W) by the “global distance”, where the “global distance” (GD) is the average distance between two languages using only pairs of words with different meanings. This quantity is expressed as:

$$ GD\left(Q,W\right)=\frac{1}{n\left(n-1\right)}\sum \limits_{i\ne k}^n LDN\left({Q}_i,{W}_k\right) $$

The LDND is the final measure of linguistic distance, which is obtained by dividing the LDN(Q, W) between pairs of languages with their respective values of GD(Q, W). It is employed in our empirical analysis, and is written as:

$$ LDND\left(Q,W\right)=\frac{LDN\left(Q,W\right)}{GD\left(Q,W\right)} $$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bousmah, I., Grenier, G. & Gray, D.M. Linguistic Distance, Languages of Work and Wages of Immigrants in Montreal. J Labor Res 42, 1–28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-020-09316-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-020-09316-1

JEL Classifications

Keywords

Navigation