• «Introduction», Gage Canadian Dictionary, 1983,1997:

The Gage Canadian Dictionary is thus a catalogue if the things relevant to the lives of Canadians at a certain point in history. It contains, therefore, some clues to the true nature of our Canadian Identity.

• J. K. Chambers, «Canadian English: 250 Years in the Making», Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 1998:

In the living language there is a reflection of where we have been and where we are likely to go next, and what we have considered important on the way. It is the codification of our common understanding.

These accounts conflate political history and the history of the language, and in doing so leave out significant events and aspects of Canadian political reality. Not the least of these is the omission of the issues surrounding Quebec and Canadian French, which for twenty years have dominated Canada’s political landscape. Further, as in so many of the features of Canadian English and its study, these histories gloss over certain very real distinctions in order to accentuate others. In their mini-histories of the settlement of Canada as read through the language, the exchange between Aboriginals and Europeans, and between French and English is made to seem flawlessly smooth and equitable. Sample token Aboriginal words are often cited as examples of this harmonious interaction and implicit assimilation of Native and French words and people into the dominant «Canadian English». Such a method of reading history through language is a mode of propagating a myth that serves to heighten underlying tensions in Canadian society, and interfere with the process of mutual understanding and tolerance.

Separate from this more philosophical problem encountered with the historical implications and assumptions of these Canadian dictionaries, there are other reasons to question their intention and use value. The first is the circumstance of their publishing. Many of the Canadian dictionaries embrace the fact that they are overtly political acts. The firs wave of dictionary publishing came in the late 1960's, with a push for the DCHP and the Gage Senior Dictionary to be published in time for the Centenary in 1967. Both dictionaries refer to this event. At the conclusion of the Foreword to the DCHP, W. R. Wees states: «The publishers hope that, as a contribution to Centennial thinking, the Dictionary of Canadianisms will assist in the identification, not only of Canadianisms but of whatever it is that we may call ‘Canadianism'». Elsewhere in the Introduction it is essentially revealed that the work was rushed to print, not wholly error-free, in order to be published in 1967. The Senior Dictionary likewise acknowledges this event: because a dictionary is a «catalogue if the things relevant to the lives of Canadians», the editor suggests «it is therefore fitting that this book should be first published in the year of Canada’s Centenary».

The second wave of dictionary publishing comes in the early 1980's, with Gage refurbishing its Senior Dictionary as the Gage Canadian Dictionary. 1980 marked the height of Quebec nationalist fervour (publication of Bergeron’s overtly political Dictionnaire de la Langue Quйbйcoise) and, with the inaugural Referendum on Sovereignty, the first real threat to Canada’s political integrity since 1812. Perhaps this is the reason for the passage acknowledging the inclusion of «regionalisms» in the 1983 edition of the Gage Canadian Dictionary, as well as a striking change from a mention of the Centenary to a reassuring comment on Canada’s fragile «identity». This era marks the rise to national consciousness of Canada’s «identity crisis», a rise fuelled by both an anxiety over differentiation from the United States and the fear of internal disintegration. The final passage remains unchanged in the most recent version of the Gage Canadian Dictionary (1997), but the passage on regionalisms has changed, to include among other things a reference to «tourtiere» and, instead of borrowing from a Native Language, the term «residential school».

The current period of the late 1990's, in which we are witnessing a renewed outburst of dictionary production, is also a period of supposed national identity crisis. Canada narrowly survived politically intact from yet another Quebec referendum in 1995 and increasingly the «Aboriginal question» has risen to the political forefront. Does the inclusion of «residential school» reveal a rising political awareness and shifting consideration of the treatment of the First Nations of Canada? We may suggest that the pressures and desires to create a National Dictionary arise from more than linguistic sources. These dictionaries, consciously unconsciously, carefully present a picture of a Canada that is relatively free of division and strife by presenting a coherent account of a «Canadian English» that serves to ease anxieties about the fragility of the political nation.

Speaking reductively, though not necessarily erroneously, the primary use of dictionaries is for consultation in a question of the definition or spelling of a word. It is obvious, from the special mention given in the prefatory material to the dictionaries, that the more famous thorns of Canadian orthography such as the colour/color debate remain unresolved, and no effort is made to do so by the dictionary makers. As a litmus test, then, we may choose a less controversial, though equally unresolved spelling dilemma of Canadian English: do we analyze or analyse?

The following descriptions are given in the Gage Canadian Dictionary (1997), the ITP Nelson Canadian Dictionary of the English Language (1997) and the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998). Gage lists the both under the headline «analyse», citing them as entirely neutral equivalents. Under the headword «analyze» are the instructions «see ‘analyse'». Nelson provides no headword for «analyse» but does list the s-spelling under the headword for «analyze» — the reverse of Gage. The Canadian Oxford Dictionary defines «analyse» as «a variant of analyze». Under the headword for «analyze», the variant spelling is repeated in parentheses. Each of these dictionaries appears to pronounce neutrally on the subject of the ‘correct' spelling, by choosing to list the definition under one or the other headword preferences. It is interesting that not at all three stress the same headword. It is perhaps surprising that Nelson is not the odd case, considering it is one of those dictionaries put out by an American publisher with token Canadian content often deplored by purists (although its complete omission of a headword for «analyse» is perhaps indicative of this American bias).

This example illustrates two things. The first is that in a desire for clarification on usage the Canadian dictionaries provide no overt guidance; only through the suggestion of definition placement do they advocate one spelling over another. Thus either version is «correct». Further it reveals that there is not even consistency between the dictionaries on which spelling is stressed.

So is there in fact any pragmatic value in a Canadian Dictionary? Dictionaries are designed to be consulted, and we still long in Canada to be able to go to «The Dictionary» and know once and for all how to spell the generic name for red, white, etc. The search for a standard is precisely what dictionary making is about, but this arbitrary cross-section of Canadian Dictionaries yields no consensus.

The result of the realization of the highly variant nature of «Canadian English» and the inability to appeal to any convenient authority to resolve conflicts is that ideal conceptions of Canadian dictionaries become impossible — unrealizable projects.

Canadian slang as a variation of substandard speech is obvious nowadays. The lexical constituent of Anglo-Canadian slang is very dissimilar. There can be singled out the following units:

• Units that are common for American and Canadian Languages, North-Americanisms;
• Units, that appeared and are used in USA, but that gradually get into Canadian language;
• Units that appeared and are used in Canada, but can be met in American language;
• Units that appeared and are used exceptionally in Canada.

These units appeared in the slang in XIX-XX centuries. They are different in their origin but are gut assimilated by Canadian and American languages.

buff (enthusiast) AE 1930; CdnE 1940; floozie (prostitute) AE 1935, CdnE 1940; ripstaker (a conceited person) AE, CdnE 1833