As far back as the end of the 13th century, Picard/Ch’ti started falling in status relative to the French of Paris (Eloy 1997). For a long time, France was a multilingual state, but due to continuously harsh language policies since the 17th century, the country had become mostly monolingual by the 20th century (Bourhis 1997). Abbé Grégoire, a Catholic priest and proponent of universalised French in the 18^th and 19^th centuries, conducted a study in 1794 to determine how many people in France could speak French, finding that only three million out of the country’s 23 million inhabitants could speak it (German 2007). As a result, Grégoire expressed “the outlines of a language policy that has ever since been applied in France”: that is, the use of the same language for all French people, or in other words, the idea of one nation, one language (Raible 2005: 117). Language policies in France have influenced attitudes towards French and other languages, since in addition to promoting the Parisian regional dialect as the French prestige standard, the government has also legislated against all languages other than French. Bourhis (1997) points out that the prestige standard status achieved by French should not be thought of as a cultural accident, but as the product of centuries of effort to enforce the use of one code and exclude all others.

A hierarchy of stigmatisation of regional languages emerged as a consequence of these policies. As discussed by Pooley (2004), the least stigmatised languages are the distinctive Occitan varieties along with the non-Romance varieties such as Basque or Alsatian, while the most stigmatised are the Oïl and Francoprovençal varieties. All these codes can also be called patois in French, a term used to refer to all regional language varieties other than French in France, from the related Oïl languages to distant relatives such as Breton, and even to the genealogically unrelated Basque language (Marr & Pooley 2011). Although patois may seem dismissive, Picard/Ch’ti was traditionally known by this name; thus, patois does not automatically carry negative connotations locally (Pooley 2014). For all these reasons, the relationship between French and Picard/Ch’ti may be understood as diglossic (Smirnova & Dawson 2019), with French the High variety, since it is the official language, language of education, and vehicle for opportunity, and Picard/Ch’ti the Low variety, since it bears no official status and is used with family and friends. Considering the relation between French and Picard/Ch’ti in diglossic terms contributes to the understanding of the language attitudes reported on later in the paper. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Picard/Ch’ti has a presence in domains traditionally associated with High-variety languages, such as cultural events and literature, and is now very rarely acquired and used at home.

In her research comparing Picard/Ch’ti with Mari, a minority language spoken in Russia, Smirnova (2016) mentions that when foreigners visit Lille or Amiens, the two largest cities of the Hauts-de-France, they detect no sign of Picard’s existence, since it is neither visible nor audible. This is in strong contrast to what is shown in the 2008 movie Bienvenue chez les Ch’ti, the highest-grossing French film in France that had more than 20 million views. In this comedy, which takes place in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais, many seem to be able to speak Picard/Ch’ti. But this does not reflect the actual situation in the region. The rare manifestations of Picard/Ch’ti one in fact currently finds in the linguistic landscape include some business names on signs, the presence of the word “Ch’ti” on some products (such as beers and sauces), a few books in Picard, a few newspapers, some Picard/Ch’ti time slots on the regional radio, and some bilingual town signs. Clear assertion of a regional Picard/Ch’ti identity in the linguistic landscape through features like bilingual signs and newspapers remains uncommon (Smirnova 2016). Picard/Ch’ti language planning and policy simultaneously follows two approaches: a top-down approach at the institutional level, and a bottom-up approach at the level of civil society. For an example of the top-down approach, the former Conseil Régional de Picardie (the regional Picardy council) included Picard/Ch’ti in its cultural policies and provided financial support to the Agence pour le Picard as well as to the Université de Picardie Jules Verne to fund research projects related to Picard/Ch’ti (Smirnova 2016). Even so, the former Conseil Régional du Nord-Pas-de-Calais never took actions to support the code (Smirnova 2016). In 2016, the two regions were merged into the Hauts-de-France, unifying the Picardophone area. The Pacte Linguistique signed in December 2020 aims to increase support for regional languages, but it is too soon to know how effective this will be. In any event, unification does not ensure the future of the code, and this may have been forgotten by the new Conseil Régional des Hauts-de-France, since in May 2020 they published an article titled Le Picard, une langue régionale d’une belle vitalité (see Région Hauts-de-France 2020) stating that the language was en pleine forme! ‘in a very good shape!’ and that ‘young people ensure the continuity of the language’ (my translations), suggesting a lack of awareness of the current situation at the institutional level. As it does not have any real official support, Picard/Ch’ti primarily has a place in the Hauts-de-France thanks to grassroots initiatives such as the Picardisants du Ponthieu et du Vimeu, a group of writers who meet every month to read their work, and Achteure, a musical group (Smirnova 2016). There are certainly other groups which have in common the aim to keep Picard/Ch’ti culture and language alive. However, as noted by Smirnova, the bottom-up approach alone is not likely to be effective. To help Picard effectively, a strong support is needed at both top-down and bottom-up levels, and the current top-down support is too weak.

A qualitative study conducted by Smirnova (2016) showed that the stigmatisation of Picard/Ch’ti has been widely internalised by the population. Indeed, when asked why they do not want to reveal their skills in the language, interviewees mentioned that they were afraid to be laughed at by the Parisians, or to look like they come from an underprivileged social background, as Picard/Ch’ti is the language of labourers. Picard/Ch’ti may be in a diglossic relation with French, but Picard and Ch’ti can also be said to be in a “diglossie enchâssée”: a situation of double overlapping diglossia given that the terms “Picard” (the label used in Picardy to refer to the code) and “Ch’ti” (the label used in Nord-Pas-de-Calais) carry different connotations, since Ch’ti is not viewed as a regional language but tends to be regarded as an accent or a patois with a derogatory meaning (Smirnova & Dawson 2019). This diglossia between Picard and Ch’ti can also be seen in activist associations, such as the Comité Régional Picard which stated “as for ‘Chtimi’, it is not a variety of Picard, but a vulgar jargon. French slang mixed with patois. This pseudo-patois has engendered an artificial folklore, a real dog’s breakfast that sullies and offends the eminent dignity of the Picards” (Pooley 2004: 644; Pooley’s translation). As Smirnova & Dawson’s study shows, this gives some of those they interviewed a sense of linguistic insecurity: their Ch’ti is not perceived as a real language, and they do not have the feeling that they speak like “real speakers of patois” (2019: 100).

Studies of Picard/Ch’ti use by children, their parents, and their grandparents were conducted by Söhnle in 1994 (cited in Pooley 1998) in an urban area, Tourcoing, and a rural area, Armentières. These studies revealed that children in the rural area understood and spoke Picard/Ch’ti more than the ones in the urban area. However, the language acquisition rate continued to decrease even in the rural area. Children in both areas showed a strong interest in learning Picard, but they did not automatically have the support of their parents: only 45% of parents from the urban area and 75% of parents from the rural area wanted their children to learn the code (Pooley 1998). Söhnle’s research with members of the Veillées Patoisantes de Tourcoing, a group dedicated to using the language that met in the evenings, revealed that the code was mostly used with friends, siblings, and partners. Despite a “concentration of fluent and aware Picardophones”, Picard/Ch’ti was rarely used naturally and spontaneously in the Veillées Patoisantes (Pooley 2004: 616). This is because those attending the evening groups did not generally know each other very well and did not dare to use a language that they were used to using only in private. Most attendees also wanted their children and grandchildren to learn Picard/Ch’ti, but 43% believed that Picard/Ch’ti would be lost in the future. In addition, it was found that Picard/Ch’ti was regarded as a language by only 39% (Pooley 2004).

The attitudes towards Picard/Ch’ti cannot be straightforwardly described as either negative or positive. The majority of respondents know that Ch’ti and Picard are similar and are both considered to be a dialect of French by the majority. While respondents have mixed attitudes regarding the superiority of the French language over Picard/Ch’ti, few think that they are impoverished versions of French. In addition, few respondents think that speaking Picard/Ch’ti impacts the ability to speak proper French.

Another way to understand the respondents’ views of Picard/Ch’ti is to see how they describe this form of speech. The most chosen word to describe both Ch’ti and Picard is the relatively neutral term unique ‘unique’ while the least chosen is mélodieux ‘melodious’. The most used words freely offered by participants to describe Picard and Ch’ti are shared by both; they are patrimoine (similar to ‘shared heritage’ in English), héritage ‘heritage’, racine ‘roots’, and tradition ‘tradition’. Even if Picard and Ch’ti share many descriptors, they differ in other respects: Ch’ti elicited corons ‘miner’s cottage’ and mineur ‘miner’, whereas Picard is described by words such as campagne ‘countryside’, campagnard ‘rustic’, and paysan ‘farmer’. This reflects the mining industry of the former Nord-Pas-de-Calais region and the agricultural sector of the former Picardy region. Overall, Picard and Ch’ti are both described with terms relating to their cultural past, and not with terms linked to the 21st century.

The respondents’ regional identity can be described as strong. The vast majority of respondents claim that they are proud of being from Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Picardy and that these regions should maintain their unique identity. Overall, respondents are in favour of using Picard/Ch’ti to maintain the identity of the region. It appears that this is felt to be important for maintaining the respondents’ personal heritage, but even more so for maintaining the region’s heritage.

It is also important to understand respondents’ perception of the language variety’s place in the modern world. People care about the existence of Picard/Ch’ti; a majority of respondents say that the code has its place in the modern world (73%) and that it matters if Picard/Ch’ti disappears (86%). On the other hand, attitudes towards the language in the linguistic landscape are mixed: respondents tend to have a neutral opinion about bilingual signs and bilingual announcements. Interestingly, among those respondents whose opinion is not neutral, 43.2% are in favour of bilingual signs but only 26.5% are in favour of bilingual announcements, implying a stronger desire to see Picard/Ch’ti in the environment than to hear it. With regards to learning the language, opinions are mixed, though many say they would like to learn it. Attitudes are also mixed about the teaching of Picard/Ch’ti in school, with no clear majority opinion emerging.

Overall, the data suggest that respondents perceive Picard/Ch’ti as part of their own and their region’s heritage. However, while the majority of respondents have a positive attitude towards the idea of Picard/Ch’ti, their attitudes are mixed with regard to the practical ways to bring the code into the linguistic landscape and schools, where French is ubiquitous. This reinforces the idea that there is a diglossic relation between French and Picard/Ch’ti as suggested by Smirnova & Dawson (2019).

The oldest group tends to have the most favourable attitudes about Picard/Ch’ti, followed by the middle group and then the youngest group. For example, those 55 years old and older are slightly more likely to know that Picard and Ch’ti are similar despite the different names, followed by the 35–54 age group, and then the 18–34 age group; however, these differences are not statistically significant. The pattern linking favourable attitudes towards Picard/Ch’ti with age can be illustrated by the statement, “The French language is superior to Picard”. 38.2% of the oldest group disagrees or strongly disagrees with this statement, compared to 35.4% for the middle group and 25.9% for the youngest group (p = 0.011).

There is a clear pattern with regards to identity as well: the oldest group has the strongest regional identity and considers Picard/Ch’ti an important part of their regional and personal heritage, followed by the 35–54 age group and the 18–34 age group. The difference can be seen especially in responses to the statement “Picard or Ch’ti is important for your personal heritage”, where 54.2% of those 55 years old and older “strongly agree” compared to only 23.5% of the 18-34 age group. It is also illustrated with the statement “Picard or Ch’ti should be used to maintain the identity of Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Picardy”, where the youngest group is less likely to agree/strongly agree with this statement (62.1% agree/strongly agree, unlike 71.3% for the middle group and 82.5% for the oldest group). These differences are all statistically significant.

The oldest group has the most favourable attitudes towards the place of Picard/Ch’ti in the modern world, in schools, and in the linguistic landscape of Nord-Pas-de-Calais/Picardy, closely followed by the 35–54 age group. But an important difference can be noticed with the 18–34 age group. Only 12.8% of the youngest group strongly agrees that Picard/Ch’ti should be taught in schools, compared to 24.1% of the 35–54 age group and 27.5% of those 55 years old and older. Those most in favour of bilingual signs are the oldest, followed by the middle and youngest groups. These differences are all statistically significant.

These results suggest that variations in attitudes and regional identity can be expected depending on one’s age, with respondents born after 1985 (i.e., the 18–34 age group) having a less favourable attitude towards the code compared to those born before that date. This phenomenon could be explained by their lack of intimate exposure to the language, given that “very few people, if any at all, born since 1980 have inherited the language from their parents” (Pooley 2014: 86).

The questionnaire answers from men and women are for the most part similar, but some differences are worth highlighting. Men are more likely than women to know that Ch’ti and Picard are similar (77.9% vs. 69.4%; p = 0.041). Men also tend to think of Ch’ti as a language more than women (21.5% and 17.1%, respectively) and the same observation can be made for Picard (30.7% and 20.4%). However, this difference is significant only in the case of Picard (p = 0.015), and not with Ch’ti (p = 0.171). Men are also more likely to report that it does not matter if Ch’ti or Picard disappears (p = 0.046).

Apart from these findings, there are no significant differences between men and women regarding their general attitudes towards the code, its place in the modern world, and its importance for maintaining a distinct regional identity. The results do not support the findings of many sociolinguistic studies that emphasise the preference for high-prestige speech varieties by women more than by men. Unfortunately, uneven participation in the study (72% of respondents were women) limits the interpretability of the results.

To assess vitality awareness and its effects on respondents, Questionnaire 2 contained a cover page titled “Important information” that only respondents for the second version saw. This page contained a paragraph explaining the current situation of Picard/Ch’ti as follows (my translation): “Picard, also called Ch’ti in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, is a Romance language just like Spanish or Corsican. As the use of this language has decreased considerably, UNESCO has classified Picard/Ch’ti as a ‘seriously endangered’ language.”

Those who answered Questionnaire 2 were more likely to believe that Ch’ti and Picard are similar than those who answered Questionnaire 1, which lacked the introductory paragraph (75.8% in Questionnaire 2, as opposed to Questionnaire 1’s 67.7%; p = 0.029). Interestingly, the two codes are more often perceived as languages when people are informed (or for some, reminded) of the threat to their vitality and UNESCO’s recognition of Picard/Ch’ti as a language: 20.5% of the Questionnaire 2 respondents say that Ch’ti is a language, compared to 16.3% of the Questionnaire 1 respondents. For Picard, the numbers are 26.5% compared to 20.1%. But in neither case is this difference significant.

With regard to questions about regional identity, the difference in results obtained between the two groups is similarly non-significant. However, when asked if the code is important for their personal heritage, Questionnaire 2 respondents were significantly more likely to answer “strongly agree” compared to those who answered Questionnaire 1 (45% and 33.7%, respectively, p = 0.028). The same pattern can be noticed for the question asking if the code is important for the region’s heritage; 63.1% strongly agree in Questionnaire 2 and 49% in Questionnaire 1 (p = 0.016).

This reveals that Questionnaire 2 respondents, those informed/reminded that Picard/Ch’ti is a UNESCO-recognised endangered language, have more favourable attitudes toward the language than Questionnaire 1 respondents. In the last part of the questionnaire, this difference is not statistically significant for two statements (“Picard or Ch’ti does not have its place in the modern world” and “You would like to learn Picard or Ch’ti”). However, for the four remaining questions (attitudes towards Picard/Ch’ti taught in schools, bilingual signs, bilingual announcements, and if it matters whether Picard/Ch’ti disappears or not), the differences are all statistically significant. For example, 42.6% of Questionnaire 2 respondents agree/strongly agree with the statement “Picard or Ch’ti should be taught in school” compared to 34.7% of Questionnaire 1 respondents (p = 0.005).

In sum, those informed/reminded of the vitality situation are more likely to describe Picard and Ch’ti as languages compared to those who are not informed/reminded of the situation. It must be borne in mind that the information presented in Questionnaire 2 described Picard/Ch’ti as a seriously endangered language (i.e., the word “language” was used) and mentioned that Picard is also called Ch’ti in Nord-Pas-de-Calais, equating the two, so acquiescence bias should be considered. Nevertheless, those informed/reminded of the current endangered status of Picard/Ch’ti consider the code more important to their own heritage and to the region’s heritage and have more positive attitudes towards the place of the code in the linguistic landscape and in schools compared to those not informed/reminded of the situation. Evidently not everybody knows that Picard/Ch’ti is actually a language and that it is endangered, so reading the informative paragraph in the questionnaire might have led some respondents to realise that the local language could disappear, resulting in more supportive attitudes towards the preservation of Picard/Ch’ti.