Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T19:52:50.359Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Second-person pronoun use in French language discussion fora

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2009

LAWRENCE WILLIAMS  and
RÉMI A. VAN COMPERNOLLE
LAWRENCE WILLIAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, University of North Texas, PO Box 311127, Denton, TX 76203-1127, USA E-mail: lawrence.williams@unt.edu
RÉMI A. VAN COMPERNOLLE
Affiliation:
Department of French and Francophone Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, 211 Burrowes Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA E-mail: compernolle@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines the use of second-person pronouns in on-line French language discussion fora, with specific focus on Doctissimo and Meilleur du chef, two fora from which approximately 400,000 words were collected for this corpus. Two hundred discussion threads (i.e., series of linked postings), with a minimum of fifteen postings (i.e., messages) and a maximum of twenty per thread, were analysed in three different ways in order to determine whether tu, vous-singular, or neither could be considered the default address pronoun. The results of the analysis suggest that while tu is clearly preferred in many cases, its use has not become systematic.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 363 - 380
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

Ashby, W. (1992). The variable use of on versus tu/vous for indefinite reference in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies, 2: 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, N. F. (1990). Shakespeare's language: Some recent studies and future directions. Deutsche Shakespeare-Gesellschaft West, Jahrbuch 1990: 61–77.Google Scholar
Braun, F. (1988). Terms of Address: Problems of Patterns and Usage in Various Languages and Cultures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
Busse, U. (2002). Linguistic Variation in the Shakespeare Corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2003). ‘Anything you can do tu can do better’: Tu and vous as indefinite substitutes for on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7: 164–191.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1972). Sociolinguistic rules of address. In Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds), Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 225–240.Google Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B. and Waugh, L. R. (2003). On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In: Leistyna, P. and Meyer, C. (eds), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1997). T/V Choices: An act of identity? In: Jones, M. C and Ayres-Bennett, W. (eds), The French Language and Questions of Identity. London: MHRA, pp. 106–115.Google Scholar
Gilman, A. and Brown, R. (1958). Who says tu to whom? A Review of General Semantics, 15: 169–174.Google Scholar
Hearn, G., Mandeville, T. and Anthony, D. (1998). The Communication Superhighway: Social and Economic Change in the Digital Age. St. Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Herring, S. (1999). Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4: np. Available at the following URL: <http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol4/issue4/herring.html>>Google Scholar
Herring, S. (ed.) (1996). Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, Social and Cross-Cultural Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Lee, P. (ed.) (1995). The Democratization of Communication. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (2005). Arguing in English and French asynchronous online discussion. Journal of Pragmatics, 37: 1801–1818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morford, J. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7: 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Paolillo, J. (2001). Language variation on Internet Relay Chat: A social network approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5: 180–213.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1992). The uses and utility of ideology: Some reflections. Pragmatics, 2: 311–323.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1996). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. In: Ide, R., Parker, R. and Sunaoshi, Y. (eds), Salsa III: Proceedings of the Third Annual Symposium about Language and Society-Austin. Austin: University of Texas, Department of Linguistics, pp. 266–295.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2006). Address pronouns in French: Variation within and outside the workplace. Australian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29: 16.1–16.17.Google Scholar
Williams, L. and van Compernolle, R. A. (2007). Second-person pronoun use in on-line French-language chat environments. French Review, 80: 804–820.Google Scholar