Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-7jkgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-16T16:49:26.230Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implications of Mougeon et al.’s study for future research on Canadian French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

TERRY NADASDI
TERRY NADASDI*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
*
Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, 2–40 Assiniboia Hall, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, CanadaT6G 2E7, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The purpose of this article is to consider the main contributions of Mougeon et al.’s study and to examine the implications of their findings for future research on Canadian French. We first give a brief overview of results obtained, then present a critical analysis of their findings. In our comments, we consider alternative methodological approaches with a view to reflect on how such alternatives would enhance Mougeon et al.’s results and those of future research.

Type
Commentary
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 2 , July 2016 , pp. 171 - 176
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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

Beniak, E. and Mougeon, R. (1989). Recherches sociolinguistiques sur la variabilité en français ontarien. In: Mougeon, R. and Beniak, E. (eds), Le français canadien parlé hors Québec. Quebec: Presses de l'Université Laval, pp. 69–103.Google Scholar
Grimm, R. and Nadasdi, T. (2010). The Future of Ontario French. Journal of French Language Studies, 21.2: 173–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R., Nadasdi, T. and Butler, G. (2004). Indexing oral narratives of personal experience: the fate of the declining Acadian French vernacular variant je-verb-ons. Language Variation and Change, 16.3: 237–255.Google Scholar
King, R. and Nadasdi, T. (1999). The expression of evidentiality in French-English bilingual discourse. Language in Society, 23.3: 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. and Milroy, J. (1992). Social network and social class: toward an integrated sociolinguistic model. Language in Society, 21.1: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987). Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R. and Nadasdi, T. (1998). Sociolinguistic discontinuity in minority language communities. Language, 74.1: 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. and Rehner, K. (2005). Corpus of Ontario French.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R. and Beniak, E. (1991). Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction. The Case of French in Ontario. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (2000). Variation grammaticale et langue minoritaire: Le cas des pronoms clitiques en français ontarien. Munich: LINCOM Europa.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (2005). Living in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8, 2: 167–182.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. and Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic market and the statistical explanation of variability. In Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, pp. 239–250.Google Scholar