Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-12T21:47:13.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Je sais et tout mais . . .’ might the general extenders in European French be changing?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2013

MARIA SECOVA
MARIA SECOVA*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary, University of London and Birkbeck, University of London
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, School of Languages, Linguistics and Film, Queen Mary, University of London, Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, UK e-mail: m.secova@bbk.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper addresses contemporary trends in the use of general extenders in two recent corpora of spontaneous French stratified by age. In these corpora, certain variants (e.g. et tout) are highly prevalent in the speech of young people compared to older speakers, while others are not. Other studies have shown that general extenders’ form as well as frequency tends to vary with respect to speakers’ age, while some extenders may also undergo grammaticalisation. The present study includes a comparison with a late 20th-century corpus of spoken French, and finds that not only age grading but also generational change might be occurring. This conclusion is supported by qualitative and quantitative analysis of the contemporary data, showing that the forms most frequent among young people appear to have acquired new pragmatic functions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , July 2014 , pp. 281 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aijmer, K. (1985). What happens at the end of our utterances? The use of utterance-final tags introduced by ‘and’ and ‘or’. Papers from the 8th Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, 366–389. Copenhagen: Institut for Philologie, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K. (2002). English Discourse Particles: Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, B. (1989). Terminating devices in Spoken French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 27 (3): 193–216.Google Scholar
Beeching, K. (1980–1990). Un corpus d'entretiens spontanés. www.uwe.ac.uk/hlss/llas/iclru/corpus.pdfGoogle Scholar
Billiez, J. and Trimaille, C. (2007). Pratiques langagières de jeunes urbain: peut-on parler de «parler»? In: Galazzi, E. and Molinari, C. (eds.), Les français en émergence. Peter Lang: Bern, pp. 95–109.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. (1987). Semantic Constraints on Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F. and Pires, M. (2007–2009). Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000) http://ed268.univ-paris3.fr/CFPP2000/Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2003). Mechanisms of change in grammaticization: The role of frequency. In: Brian, J. and Richard, J. (eds.), The Handbook of Historical Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 602–623.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language, 82 (4): 711–733.Google Scholar
Channell, J. (1994). Vague Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2005). Age and generation-specific use of language. In: Ammond, U., Dittmar, N. and Mattheier, K. (eds), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 760–76.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalisation, and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11: 155–93.Google Scholar
Dines, E. (1980). Variation in discourse – and stuff like that. Language in Society, 1: 13–31.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. (1992). Extension particles, etc. Language Variation and Change, 4: 179–203.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. (1993). Les particules d'extension dans le discours: analyse de la distribution des formes et patati et patata. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 11 (1–4): 21–47.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1997). Age as a sociolinguistic variable. In: Coulmas, F. (ed.), Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 151–167.Google Scholar
Ferrara, K. and Bell, B. (1995). Sociolinguistic variation and discourse function of constructed dialogue introducers: the case of be + like. American Speech, 70 (3): 265–290.Google Scholar
Ferré, G. (2011). Analyse multimodale des particules d'extension «et tout ça, etc.» en français. In: Yoo, H.-Y. and Delais-Roussarie, E. (eds), Proceedings from IDP (Interface Discours et Prosodie) 2009. Paris: ARP, pp. 157–171.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2003). La variation sociale en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Guy, G. (1993). The quantitative analysis of linguistic variation. In: Preston, D. (eds), American Dialect Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 223–249.Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (2008). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. and Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, A. (2009). ‘En plan’ used as a hedge in Spanish teenage language. In: Stenström, A.-B. and Jørgensen, A.-M. (eds), Youngspeak in a Multilingual Perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 95–11.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H., Smith, S. W. and Ludge, T. (2003). Interactive aspects of vagueness in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 35 (12): 1737–1769.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1980). Locating Language in Time and Space. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In: Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, Form and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 43–70.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2: 205–254.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. I: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. II: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: Helm, J. (ed.), Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts. Seattle: American Ethnological Society, pp. 12–44.Google Scholar
Lemieux, M., Fontaine, C. and Sankoff, D. (1987). Quantifieurs et marqueurs de discours. In: Sankoff, D. (ed.), Diversity and Diachrony. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 381–390.Google Scholar
Levey, S. (2012). General Extenders and grammaticalization: Insights from London preadolescents. Applied Linguistics, 2012: 1–26.Google Scholar
Macaulay, R. K. S. (2006). Pure grammaticalization: The development of a teenage intensifier. Language Variation and Change, 18: 267–283.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1980). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mosegaard Hansen, M.-B. (1998). The semantic status of discourse markers. Lingua, 104: 235–260.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (1999). Whales, Candelight, and Stuff like That. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. (2005). And stuff und so: Investigating pragmatic expressions in English and German. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1845–1864.Google Scholar
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. (1997). On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 25: 250–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, M. and Yule, G. (2002). The metapragmatics of and everything. Journal of Pragmatics, 34: 785–794.Google Scholar
Pichler, H. (2010). Methods in discourse variation analysis: Reflections on the way forward. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 14 (5): 581–608.Google Scholar
Pichler, H and Levey, S. (2011). In search of grammaticalization in synchronic dialect data: general extenders in north-east England. English Language and Linguistics, 15 (3): 441–471.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, F. (ed.) (2002). El lenguaje de los jóvenes. Barcelona: Ariel.Google Scholar
Romaine, S. and Lange, D. (1991). The use of like as a marker of reported speech and thought: A case of grammaticalization in progress. American Speech, 66 (3): 227–279.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Blondeau, H. (2007). Language change across the lifespan: /r/ in Montreal French. Language, 83: 560–588.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. and Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Secova, M. (2011). Discourse-pragmatic features of spoken French: analysis and pedagogical implications. PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. (1999). He was really gormless – She's bloody crap: Girls, boys and intensifiers. In: Hasselgard, H. and Okesfjell, S. (eds), Out of Corpora: Studies in Honour of Stig Johansson. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi, pp. 69–78.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B. (2000). It's enough funny, man: Intensifiers in teenage talk. In: Kirk, J. M. (ed.), Corpora Galore: Analyses and Techniques in Describing English. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 177–190.Google Scholar
Stenström, A.-B., Andersen, G. and Hasund, I. K. (eds). (2002). Trends in Teenage Talk. Corpus Compilation, Analysis and Findings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics, 12: 361–394.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2012). Variationist Sociolinguistics: Change, Observation, Interpretation. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. and D'Arcy, A. (2004). He's like, she's like: The quotative system in Canadian youth. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8: 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. and Denis, D. (2010). The stuff of change: General extenders in Toronto, Canada. Journal of English Linguistics, 38 (2): 335–368.Google Scholar
Traverso, V. (2007). L'Analyse des conversations. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. and Sankoff, D. (1992). Punctors: A pragmatic variable. Language Variation and Change, 4: 205–216.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. E. (2008). Linguistic change and stabilization in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. PhD Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wagner, S. E. and Sankoff, G.. (2011). Age grading in the Montreal French future. Language Variation and Change, 23 (3): 275–313.Google Scholar
Ward, G. and Birner, B. (1993). The semantics and pragmatics of ‘and everything’. Journal of Pragmatics, 19: 205–214.Google Scholar
Winter, J. and Norrby, C. (2000). Set marking tags ‘and stuff’. In: Henderson, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1999 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.uwa.edu.au/LingWWW/als99/proceedings.htmlGoogle Scholar
Winter, J. and Norrby, C. (2001). Affiliation in adolescents’ use of discourse extenders. Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. www.als.asn.au/proceedings/als2001/winter_norrby.pdfGoogle Scholar