Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:46:26.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Do French speakers really have two grammars?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2013

PAUL ROWLETT
PAUL ROWLETT*
Affiliation:
University of Salford
*
Address for correspondence: Paul Rowlett, School of Humanities, Languages & Social Sciences, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, United Kingdom e-mail: P.A.Rowlett@salford.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I consider variation within French and its status in speakers’ mental grammars. I start with Massot's (2008) claim that, within relevant grammatical units, speakers in contemporary metropolitan France do not combine socio-stylistically marked L and H features, and his explanation of this in terms of diglossia (Ferguson, 1959), that is, the idea that speakers possess two (in this case massively overlapping but not identical) ‘French’ grammars which co-exist in their minds: one (français démotique, FD: acquired early, well, and in a naturalistic environment) comprises one set of grammatical features which generate unmarked forms and the marked L forms; the other (français classique tardif, FCT: learnt later, often unreliably, in a more formal context and under the influence of literacy) comprises a (partially) different set of grammatical features which generate the same unmarked forms as well as the marked H forms. Speakers switch between FD and FCT but do not use them both simultaneously, at least not within the context of an individual clause. While Massot's claim is controversial (see Coveney, 2011), I provisionally accept that it is correct, and move on to consider his explanation. I review instances of variation for which I suggest Massot's model needs to be revised in order to account for the phenomenon of surface forms which can be generated by both putative grammars, and which are therefore superficially part of the overlap, but which have a different linguistic status in each and underlyingly are not therefore part of any overlap. I then reconsider Massot's two-grammar hypothesis, raising issues surrounding the extent of the overlap between them, the nature of the differences between them, and their respective statuses in the minds of speakers. I suggest that in view of their massive overlap, their non-random differences, and their contrasting cognitive statuses, it does not make sense to view both FD and FCT as autonomous grammars. Rather, I suggest that only FD is an autonomous grammar. Since the differences between FD and FCT are instantiations of naturally occurring developments usually conceptualised in terms of cyclic grammaticalisation and renewal (the L features of FD are innovations with respect to the H features of FCT), I suggest that FCT should be seen as a dependent grammatical ‘bolt on’ which encodes its conservatism in an abstract and economical way.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 23 , Special Issue 1: L'hypothèse d'une diglossie en France , March 2013 , pp. 37 - 57
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.)

Footnotes

1

Acknowledgements: This article has developed from plenary lectures I was invited to deliver to the 19th Manchester–Salford Postgraduate Linguistics Conference, held in September 2010, and the colloquium Du Français et de l'Anglais aux langues du monde: Variation, Structure et Théorie du langage, held at Montpellier–Paul Valéry in June 2012. Some of the ideas in the first sections of this article initially appeared in a working paper in 2011. I am grateful to the organisers of the conferences for their kind invitations, to the audiences for their engagement with my topic, and to the reviewers of the working paper and the present article for detailed and useful feedback. My thanks also to Benjamin Massot for the opportunity to discuss these issues. I appreciate that our views differ on various points; all errors are my own.

Abbreviations used: neg = negative marker; ind = indicative; sub = subjunctive; cond = conditional; imp = imperfect; Q = interrogative feature; PLD = primary linguistic data; LAD = language acquisition device.

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French: A Comparative Approach. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauche, H. (1928). Le Langage populaire. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C., with Martin, P. (2010). Le Français: usages de la langue parlée. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (1999). Decomposing French questions. The University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 6: 69–80.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2008). Morphosyntactic and phonological constraints on negative particle variation in French-language chat discourse. Language Variation and Change, 20: 317–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2011). A language divided against itself? Diglossia, code-switching and variation in French. In: Martineau, F. and Nadasdi, T. (eds), Le français en contact: hommages à Raymond Mougeon. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval, pp. 51–85.Google Scholar
Côté, M.-H. (1999). Issues in the analysis and acquisition of clitics in (spoken) French. Ms. MIT.Google Scholar
Damar, M.-E. (2008). Le Subjonctif: norme et représentations de la norme dans le discours des internautes. Le Français Moderne, 76: 83–96.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2007). French Dislocation: Interpretation, Syntax, Acquistion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doehler, S. (2011). ‘Hallo! Voulez vous luncher avec moi hüt? Le “Code switching” dans la communication par SMS’, Linguistik Online, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durand, J. (ed.) (2008). Le Français à la lumière des corpus. Special issue of Journal of French Language Studies, 18.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. (1959). Diglossia. Word, 15: 325–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (1996). Niveaux de langue et variation intrinsèque. Palimpsestes, 10: 17–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (1997). Le Français ordinaire. 2nd ed.Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2009). Stylistic and syntactic variation: introduction. In: Beeching, K., Armstrong, N. and Gadet, F. (eds), Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 115–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. and Jones, M. C. (2008). Variation, contact and convergence in French spoken outside France. Journal of Language Contact, 2: 238–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gelderen, E. (2011). The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. et MacSwan, J. (2008). Interface conditions and code-switching: pronouns, lexical DPs, and checking theory. Lingua, 118: 765–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goosse, A. (2000). Evolution de la syntaxe. In Antoine, G. and Cerquiglini, B. (eds), Histoire de la langue française 1945–2000. Paris: CNRS, pp. 107–45.Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, F. (2011). On the role of phonology and discourse in Francilian French wh questions. Journal of Linguistics, 47: 129–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, D. (1998). The dynamic model and inherent variability: the case of northern France. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 6: 19–36.Google Scholar
Jones, M. A. (1999). Subject–clitic inversion in inflectional hierarchies. Journal of French Language Studies, 9: 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinet, A. (1960). Eléments de Linguistique générale. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2008). Français et Diglossie: décrire la situation linguistique française contemporaine comme une diglossie: arguments morphosyntaxiques. PhD thesis, University of Paris 8. [Available for download at http://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-00726999]Google Scholar
Massot, B. (2010). Le Patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français. In: Barra-Jover, M. (ed.), Le(s) Français: formaliser la variation. Langue Française, 168: 87–106.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardisation. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, M.-L. (1971). «L'homme que je crois qui est venu»; qui, que: relatifs et conjonctions. Langue Française, 11: 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palasis, K. (This volume). The case for diglossia: describing the emergence of two grammars in the early acquisition of metropolitan French.Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1996). Negative Configurations in French. DPhil diss., University of York, UK. Circulated as University of Salford European Studies Research Institute Working Papers in Language and Linguistics 11. [Available for download at usir.salford.ac.uk/14973]Google Scholar
Rowlett, P. (1998). Sentential Negation in French. Oxford University Press. [Available for download at usir.salford.ac.uk/2703]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowlett, P. (2007). The Syntax of French. Cambridge University Press. [Available for download at usir.salford.ac.uk/1355]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaëtt, M. (ed.) (2010). Le Français au contact des langues: histoire, sociolinguistique, didactique. Special issue of Langue Française, 167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, E. (2011). ‘La Morphosyntaxe dans les SMS suisse francophones: Le Marquage de l'accord sujet–verbe conjugué’, Linguistik Online, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (2011). Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques. Journal of French Language Studies, 21: 231–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (This volume). De la notion de grammaire standard dans une optique diglossique du français.Google Scholar