Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T07:48:04.227Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vouvoiement and tutoiement: sociolinguistic reflections1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 November 2009

AIDAN COVENEY
AIDAN COVENEY*
Affiliation:
University of Exeter
*
Address for correspondence: Aidan Coveney, Department of Modern Languages, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX4 4QH, UK e-mail: a.b.coveney@exeter.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article offers a critical review of research on the T/V (tu/vous) choice in French, and an analysis of this alternation in terms of markedness, variation and change. While there is unique public interest in T/V as a sociolinguistic phenomenon, it is a subject that has paradoxically been under-represented in linguistics and sociolinguistics publications produced in France. Much of the research conducted on the topic has been carried out by scholars based in other countries, and this is characterised by a rich variety of disciplinary approaches. T/V in contemporary French is a non-probabilistic phenomenon and is therefore not a sociolinguistic variable, in the Labovian sense. Considering the various senses of ‘markedness’, discussed by Haspelmath (2006), there is a good case for considering T as the unmarked option, rather than V, as has often been suggested. The long-term historical tendency for French to lose many of its inflections suggests that, at some time in the future, it is quite possible that vouvoiement will all but disappear. Yet there is no sign in France at present of a massive and decisive shift away from V.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 127 - 150
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.)

Footnotes

1

I thank the JFLS Editors and Referees, as well as the following colleagues, for their detailed comments on this article: Thérèse Butler, Paul Cappeau, Sylvie Plane.

References

REFERENCES

Aalberse, S. (2006). Pronoun loss as a form of deflection. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, 12/1: 1–13.Google Scholar
Abecassis, M. (2002). A social study of address patterns in the dialogues of 1930s French films. Romanische Forschungen, 114: 295–306.Google Scholar
Abecassis, M. (2005). The Representation of Parisian Speech in the Cinema of the 1930s. Bern and Oxford: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Alvarez-Pereyre, F. (1977). Eléments pour une syntaxe des termes d'adresse. Langue française, 35: 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. (1985). De l’énonciation au lexique: mention, citativité, délocutivité. Langages, 80: 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. J. (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
Auger, J. (1997). Acquisition par l'enfant des normes sociolinguistiques. In: Moreau, M-L. (ed.), Sociolinguistique: Les concepts de base. Sprimont: Mardaga, pp. 15–19.Google Scholar
Bachman, C. (1976–77). Communications sociales et analyse sociolinguistique: le cas d'un grand ensemble. Publication du Groupe Communication et Travail, Université de Paris XIII (Villetaneuse).Google Scholar
Bachman, C., Lindenfeld, J. and Simonin, J. (1981). Langage et Communications sociales. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
Bakos, F. (1955). Contributions à l’étude des formules de politesse en ancien français. Acta Linguistica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 5: 295–367.Google Scholar
Ball, R. (2000). Colloquial French Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bauche, H. (1946). Le langage populaire: grammaire, syntaxe et dictionnaire du français tel qu'on le parle dans le peuple avec tous les termes d'argot usuel (nouvelle édition). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Baylon, C. (1991). Sociolinguistique. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Béal, C. (1989). On se tutoie? Second-person pronominal usage and terms of address in contemporary French. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 12: 61–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béal, C. (2009). L’évolution des termes d'adresse en français contemporain: un essai de modélisation. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N. (eds), pp. 115–145.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as Audience Design. Language in Society, 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (2001). Back in style: reworking Audience Design. In: Eckert, P. and Rickford, J. R. (eds), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–169.Google Scholar
Beyer, C. and Jouan, A. (2006). Alors, on se dit tu? Le Figaro, Cahier No. 5, Entreprises et emploi, p. 6, 3.07.06.Google Scholar
Bilger, M. and Cappeau, P. (2004). L'Oral ou la multiplication des styles. Langage et Société, 109: 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1997). Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. and Jeanjean, C. (1987). Le Français parlé. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Bollack, L. (1903). La langue française en l'an 2003. La Revue (formerly Revue des Revues), 14: 5–24 (Paris, 15 juillet 1903).Google Scholar
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (first published in 1978 in: Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 56–310).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
Bryan, A-M. (1972). Le tu et le vous. French Review, 45: 1007–1010.Google Scholar
Bustin-Lekeu, F. (1973). Tutoiement et vouvoiement chez les lycéens français. French Review, 46: 773–782.Google Scholar
Calvet, L-J. (1976). À tu et à vous. Le Français dans le Monde, 118: 14–18.Google Scholar
Carton, D. (2003). “Bien entendu c'est off”, Ce que les journalistes politiques ne racontent jamais. Paris: Albin Michel. Extracts available at: http://www.denistouret.net/textes/Carton.htmlGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. 2003. Sociolinguistic Theory (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. and Trudgill, P. (1998). Dialectology (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claudel, C. (2008). Les formes allocutoires dans le maintien des faces ou, gare à « vous ». Signes, Discours et Sociétés, 1 (Interculturalité et intercommunication), 17 juillet 2008. Available at: http://www.revue-signes.info/document.php?id=187Google Scholar
Clyne, M., Kretzenbacher, H-L., Norrby, C. and Schüpbach, D. (2006). Perceptions of variation and change in German and Swedish address. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10: 287–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clyne, M., Norrby, C. and Warren, J. (2009). Language and Human Relations: Styles of Address in Contemporary Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coffen, B. (2002). Histoire culturelle des pronoms d'adresse: vers une typologie des systèmes allocutoires dans les langues romanes. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Constable, D. (1984). Pouvoir et solidarité en Afrique francophone: le cas du Mali. Le Français moderne, 52: 191–197.Google Scholar
Corréard, M.-H. and Grundy, V. (eds.) (2001). The Oxford-Hachette French Dictionary (3rd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2007). Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2000). Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences, 22: 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2003). ‘Anything you can do, tu can do better’: tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7: 164–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (2009). On pour tous et tu pour on: tu et vous comme pronoms indéfinis. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N. (eds), pp. 253–285.Google Scholar
Deshaies, D. (1991). Contribution à l'analyse du français québécois: études des pronoms personnels. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 10/3: 11–40.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J-M. (2002). Vouvoiement et tutoiement en français natif et non natif: une approche sociolinguistique et interactionnelle. La Chouette, 33. 1–13, available at: http://www.bbk.ac.uk/lachouette/chou33/33Dewael.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J-M. (2004). Vous ou tu? Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42/4: 382–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. (1981). Notes on pronominal strategies in a bilingual society. In: Sankoff, D. and Cedergren, H. (eds), pp. 499–503.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. (2007). Le parler public de Sarkozy est celui du show-biz. (Propos recueillis par Éric Aeschimann). Libération, samedi 13 octobre 2007.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1972). Sociolinguistic rules of address. In: Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 225–240.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. W. (1990). The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. W. (1991). The quiet demise of variable rules. American Speech, 66: 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, P. B. (1920). The use of TU and VOUS in Molière. University of California Publications, 8/3: 227–286.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. (1991). Diglossia revisited. Southwest Journal of Linguistics, 10/1: 214–234.Google Scholar
Field, T. (1986). Tu and vous in French literature. Bradford Occasional Papers, 7: 69–84.Google Scholar
Field, T. (1987). Tu and fro: Changes of address in translation from French. Franco-British Studies, 4: 51–65.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. F. (eds), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, J. C. (1974). The semantics of direct address pronouns in French. French Review, 47: 1142–1157.Google Scholar
Foulet, L. (1918–19). Le tutoiement en ancien français. Romania, 45: 501–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (1997). Le Français ordinaire (2e édition). Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2004). Mais que font les sociolinguistes? Langage et société, 107: 85–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (2006). France. In: Ammon, U., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J. and Trudgill, P. (eds), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, vol. 3 (2nd edition). Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1787–1792.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2007). La Variation sociale en français. (2e édition) Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1985). Language selection and switching among Strasbourg shoppers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 54: 115–135.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Ni tu ni vous: Principes et paradoxes dans l'emploi des pronoms d'allocution en français contemporain. Journal of French Language Studies, 1: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2003–2004). Le développement historique de T/V en français et en anglais: parallélisme et divergence. Franco-British Studies, 33–34: 90–98.Google Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2007). Tu/vous choices: an ‘Act of Identity’? In: Jones, M. and Ayres-Bennett, W. (eds), The French Language and Questions of Identity. London: Legenda, pp. 106–115.Google Scholar
Gervais, M.-M. and Sanders, C. (1986). Cours de français contemporain: Niveau approfondi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Girouard, P. C., Ricard, M. and Gouin Décarie, T. (1997). The acquisition of personal pronouns in French-speaking and English-speaking children. Journal of Child Language, 24: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grevisse, M. and Goosse, A. (2007). Le Bon usage (14e édition). Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Grimaud, M. (1989). Les appellatifs dans le discours: ‘Madame’, ‘Mademoiselle’, ‘Monsieur’, avec et sans nom propre. Le Français moderne, 57: 54–78.Google Scholar
Guigo, D. (1991). Les Termes d'adresse dans un bureau parisien. L'Homme, 31/3: 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halmøy, O. (2009). La concurrence tu/vous en français contemporain: paramètres, polarités et paradoxes. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N. (eds), pp. 99–113.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, M. (2006). Against markedness (and what to replace it with). Journal of Linguistics, 42: 25–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Havu, E. and Sutinen, J. (2007). L'emploi des termes d'adresse dans le français parlé du film. Comparaison avec une enquête sur questionnaires. In: Broth, M., Forsgren, M., Norén, C. and Sullet-Nylander, F. (éds). Le français parlé des médias, Actes du colloque de Stockholm (8–12 juin 2005), pp. 289–302.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. and Towell, R. (2001). French Grammar and Usage (2nd edition). London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (1979). ‘Bonjour, hello ?’: négociation de choix de langue à Montréal. In: Thibault, P. (ed.) Le Français parlé: études sociolinguistiques. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc., pp. 121–130.Google Scholar
Heller, M. (1982). Negotiations of language choice in Montreal. In: Gumperz, J. J. (ed.), Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 108–118.Google Scholar
Helmbrecht, J. (2005). Politeness distinctions in pronouns. In: Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. and Comrie, B. (eds), The World Atlas of Language Structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Also available on-line at: http://www.livingreviews.org/wals/indexGoogle Scholar
Héran, F. (1990). Trouver à qui parler: le sexe et l’âge de nos interlocuteurs. In: Marpsat, M. (ed), Données sociales. Paris: INSEE.Google Scholar
Hickey, L. and Stewart, M. (eds) (2005). Politeness in Europe. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirvonen, J. and Sutinen, J. (2005). L'emploi des termes d'adresse dans un corpus de films. Comparaison entre le français et l'italien. (Communication présentée au XVIe Congrès des Romanistes Scandinaves, Copenhagen and Roskilde, 25.–27.8.2005: http://www.ruc.dk/cuid/publikationer/publikationer/XVI-SRK-Pub/KFL/KFL18-Hirvonen_Sutinen/Google Scholar
Hollos, M. (1977). Comprehension and use of social rules in pronoun selection by Hungarian Children. In: Ervin-Tripp, S. and Mitchell-Kernan, C.. (eds), Child Discourse. New York: Academic Press, pp. 211–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. (2001). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Hughson, J. (2003). Tu et Vous: étude sociolinguistique dans la banlieue parisienne. Communication présentée au Colloque 2p, Paris, mars 2003: http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/coloquio_paris/ponencias/pdf/cvc_hughson.pdf/Google Scholar
Hughson, J. (2009). Tu et vous: étude sociolinguistique dans la banlieue parisienne. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N.. (eds), pp. 43–65.Google Scholar
Hunt, T. (2003). The use of tu/vus in the Anglo-Norman Seinte Resurreccion. In: Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H.. (eds), Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 47–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ibrahim, A. H. (1984). Dis-moi ‘vous’. . . Le Français dans le Monde, 186: 89–91.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. (1972). The use of Tu and Vous in the first part of the old French prose Lancelot. In: Barnett, F. J., Crow, A. D., Robson, C. A., Rothwell, W. and Ullmann, S.. (eds), History and Structure of French: Essays in Honour of Professor T.B.W. Reid. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 135–149.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (1992). Les Interactions verbales, tome 2. Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C. (2005). Politeness in France: How to buy bread politely. In: Hickey, L. and Stewart, M.. (eds), pp. 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, S. (1977). Etude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montréal. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2008). The cognitive status of sociolinguistic variables: cognitive capacities of the sociolinguistic monitor. Paper at Sociolinguistics Symposium 17, Amsterdam, April 2008. Abstract available at: http://www.meertens.knaw.nl/ss17/contributions/abstract.php?paperID=877Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E. (1967). The use of tu and vous as forms of address in French Canada: a pilot study, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 6: 614–617 (reprinted in: W. E. Lambert. (1972) Language, psychology and culture. Essays by Wallace E. Lambert, selected and introduced by Anwar S. Dil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 236–242.)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E. (1969). Some current psycholinguistic research: the tu-vous and le-la studies. In: Puhvel, J.. (ed.), Substance and Structure of Language. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, W. E. and Tucker, G. R.. (1976). Tu, vous, usted: A Social-psychological Study of Address Patterns. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Lebsanft, F. (1987). Le problème du mélange du tu et du vous en ancien français. Romania, 108: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Le Page, R. B. and Tabouret-Keller, A.. (1985). Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lévy, L. (2006). On se dit tu ? Si vous voulez. . . Stratégies, 1427: 62, (28.09.06). Available at: http://www.strategies.fr/archives/1427/page_37336/management_on_se_dit_tu_si_vous_voulez_.htmlGoogle Scholar
Liddicoat, A. (2006). Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’ understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1996). Question forms, conditionals, and second-person pronouns used by adolescent native speakers across two levels of formality in written and spoken French. Modern Language Journal, 80: 165–182.Google Scholar
Maingueneau, D. (1994). L’énonciation en linguistique française. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Maley, C. A. (1972). Historically speaking, Tu or Vous? French Review, 45: 1000–1006.Google Scholar
Marcellesi, J-B. and Gardin, B. (1974). Introduction à la sociolinguistique. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Martiny, T. (1996). Forms of address in French and Dutch: A sociopragmatic approach. Language Sciences, 18: 765–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurais, J. (2007). Les Québécois et la norme: l’évaluation par les Québécois de leurs usages linguistiques. Québec: Office québécois de la langue française.Google Scholar
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. and Leap, W. (2000). Introducing Sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Meyerhoff, M. (2003). ‘But is it linguistics?’: Breaking down boundaries. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Observing and Analysing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Morford, J. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7/1: 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, I. R. (1988). Remarques sur les pronoms allocutifs chez Rabelais. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 104: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Négroni, A. (2007). Le vouvoiement, un usage menacé d'extinction. Le Figaro, 14 octobre 2007: http://www.lefigaro.fr/france/20070521.FIG000000137_le_vouvoiement_un_usage_menace_d_extinction.htmlGoogle Scholar
Peeters, B. (2004). Tu ou vous? Zeitschrift für französische Sprache und Literatur, 114: 1–17.Google Scholar
Peeters, B. and Ramière, N. (eds) (2009). Tu ou Vous: l'embarras du choix. Limoges: Editions Lambert-Lucas.Google Scholar
Pires, M. (ed.) (2004). Langage et Société, No. 108: “Comment tu m'parles!” Les pronoms d'adresse: langue et discours.Google Scholar
Planchenault, G. (2009). Celui qui dit tu n'est pas toujours le plus fort: choix des pronoms d'adresse dans les écrits d’étudiants de FLE et de lycéens français. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N.. (eds), pp. 223–237.Google Scholar
Posner, R. (1996). The Romance Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rodrigues, I. and Neather, T. (2001). Streetwise French. Chicago, IL: Passport Books.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Mendoza, J. P. (2003). Lenguaje y sociedad: la alternancia tú/usted en San Sebastián de La Gomera. PhD thesis. Universidad de La Laguna.Google Scholar
Rodríguez Mendoza, J. P. (2004). Pronouns of address in a semi-rural community. Poster communication at the Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2004. Abstract available at: http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ss15/papers/paper_details.php?id=1113Google Scholar
Romaine, S. (1994). Language in Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. and Cedergren, H. (eds) (1981). Variation Omnibus. Edmonton, Alberta: Linguistic Research Inc.Google Scholar
Schliebitz, V. (1886). Die Person der Anrede in der französischen Sprache. Breslau: Junger.Google Scholar
Schoch, M. (1978). Problème sociolinguistique des pronoms d'allocution tu et vous: enquête à Lausanne. La Linguistique, 14/1: 55–73.Google Scholar
Schogt, H. (2004). Toi et moi: les pronoms personnels et la traduction. La Linguistique, 40/1: 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherzer, J. (1988). Talk about tu and vous. In: Jazayery, M. A. and Winter, W.. (eds), Languages and Cultures: Studies in Honour of Edgar C. Polomé. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 611–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sichler, L. (1986). ‘Dites-moi tu’. In: Gervais, M.-M. and Sanders, C., pp. 24–26 (Originally published in L'Express, date unknown).Google Scholar
Silva, G. M. O. (1981). Perspective sociolinguistique de la forme você a Rio de Janeiro. In: Sankoff, D. and Cedergren, H.. (eds), pp. 481–487.Google Scholar
Taavitsainen, I. and Jucker, A. H. (eds) (2003). Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telfizian, L. (2006). Tutoyer ou vouvoyer, un détail qui peut tuer. Challenges, 04.05.06. Available at: http://www.challenges.fr/recherche/20060504.CHAP1016012/tutoyer_ou_vouvoyer_un_dtail_qui_peut_tuer.htmlGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P. (1991). La langue en mouvement: simplification, régularisation, restructuration. LINX, 25: 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibault, P. and Daveluy, M. (1989). Quelques traces du passage du temps dans le parler des Montréalais, 1971–1984. Language Variation and Change, 1:19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thogmartin, C. (1979). Old Mines, Missouri et la survivance du français dans la haute vallée du Mississipi. In: Valdman, A.. (ed.), Le Français hors de France. Paris: Champion, pp. 111–118.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2000). Sociolinguistics (4th edition). Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2008). Second-person pronoun use and address strategies in on-line personal ads from Quebec. Journal of Pragmatics, 40/12: 2062–2076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vassallo-Villaneau, R-M. (1991). De vous à tu. French Review, 64: 830–833.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. (1997). Le Québec à tu et à toi. In: Laforest, M.. (ed.), Etats d’âme, états de langue. Québec: Nuit blanche éditeur, pp.105–118.Google Scholar
Vincent, D. (2001). Remarques sur le tutoiement et le vouvoiement en français parlé au Québec. Actes du colloque ‘La journée du Québec’. Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen, Institut d’études romanes, pp. 11–22.Google Scholar
Wales, K. (1996). Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, A. L., Bickerton, D. M., Coleman, J. A., Leitch, H., McDowall, W. G. C., Mason, I., Mulphin, H. and Wakely, R. G. (1986). Lyon à la une: Communicative competence in French. Edinburgh: Scottish Universities’ French Language Research Association.Google Scholar
Wardhaugh, R. (2005). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (5th edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (2006). Address pronouns in French: Variation within and outside the workplace. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 29/2: 16.1–16.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, J. (2009). Tu et vous en français contemporain à Paris et à Toulouse. In: Peeters, B. and Ramière, N.. (eds.) pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
Waugh, L. R., Fonseca-Greber, B., Vickers, C. and Eröz, B. (2007). Multiple empirical approaches to a complex analysis of discourse. In: Gonzalez-Marquez, M., Mittelberg, I., Coulson, S. and Spivey, M. J.. (eds), Methods in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 120–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weil, S. (1983). Trésors de la politesse française. Paris: Belin.Google Scholar
Williams, A., Grace, C. and Roche, C. (2007). Bien vu, bien dit: Intermediate French. New York: McGraw-Hill.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
Williams, L. and van Compernolle, R. A.. (2009). Second-person pronoun use in French language discussion fora. Journal of French Language Studies, 19: 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P. (1994). Vous: une histoire internationale du vouvoiement. Toulouse: Signes du monde.Google Scholar