Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T09:09:44.775Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tracing a morphosyntactic change in Quebec French: the non-standard conditional in si-clauses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2010

CARMEN L. LEBLANC
CARMEN L. LEBLANC*
Affiliation:
Department of French, 1602 Dunton Tower, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We follow the trajectory of a change in progress in Québec French. The study is based on interviews with speakers born between 1895 and 1965. The results show an increase in conditional morphology in the si-clauses of hypothetical complexes. After WWII, the conditional becomes the quantitative norm. The analysis of a number of demographic and socio-economic factors reveals that the usage likely originated in the working class male group. Today, use of the conditional is generalised in the community and it is the preferred form for the younger speakers; only the most educated hold on to the old rule.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , July 2010 , pp. 151 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Bescherelle, L.-N. (1877). Grammaire nationale. Paris: Garnier frères.Google Scholar
Blondeau, H. (2001). Real time changes in the paradigm of personal pronouns in Montreal French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 5: 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpentier, N. J. (1860). Dictionnaire du bon language. Liège: L. Gramont-Donders.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1973). The Interplay of Social and Linguistic Factors in Panama. Cornell University, Ph D Linguistics.Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. (1988). The spread of language change: Verifying inferences of linguistic diffusion. In: Lowenberg, P. H. (ed), Language Spread and Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 45–60.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (1995). Sociolinguistic Theory. Linguistic Variation and its Social Significance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2003). Sociolinguistic Theory (second edition). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cukor-Avila, P. (2002). “She say, she go, she be like”: Verbs of quotation over time in African American Vernacular English. American Speech, 77: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downes, W. (1984). Language and Society. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1988). Adolescent social structure and the spread of linguistic change. Language in Society, 17: 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, R. (1984). The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (2003). ‘Français populaire’: Un classificateur déclassant? Marges Linguistiques, 50: 333–355.Google Scholar
Guy, G. and Boyd, S. (1990). The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change, 2: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Laurence, J.-M. (1957). Grammaire française: grammaire raisonnée et code grammatical. Montreal: Centre de Psychologie et de Pédagogie.Google Scholar
LeBlanc, C. L. (1999). Du conditionnel dans les propositions hypothétiques en si: cet intrus. MA Dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R. (1977). Language, Social Class, and Education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. and Milroy, L. (1985). Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation. Journal of Linguistics, 21: 339–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oudin, A. (1640). Grammaire françoise rapportée au language du temps. Paris: A. de Sommarville.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1989). The care and handling of a mega-corpus: The Ottawa-Hull French project. In: Fasold, R. and Schiffrin, D. (eds), Language Change and Variation. Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 411–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. and Tagliamonte, S. (2001). The grammaticalisation of going to in (African American) English. Language Variation and Change, 11: 315–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riegel, M., Pellat, J.-C. and Rioul, R. (1998). Grammaire méthodique du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1988). Variable rules. In: Ammon, U., Dittmar, N. amd Mattheier, K. J. (eds), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 984–997.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. and Vincent, D. (1981). L'emploi productif du ne dans le français parlé à Montréal. Le français moderne, 3: 243–256.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. and Smith, E. (2005). GoldVarb X: A multivariate Analysis Application for MacIntosh and Windows. Department of Mathematics, University of Ottawa/Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (2006). Age: Apparent time and real time. Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Second Edition, Article Number: LALI:01479.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. (2005). Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Studies. In: Ulrich, A., Dittmar, N., Mattheier, K. J. and Trudgill, P. (eds), An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society, Volume 2, 2. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1003–1013.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G., Blondeau, H. and Charity, A. (2001). Individual roles in a real time change: Montreal (r > R) 1947–1995. r-atics: Sociolinguistic, phonetic and phonological characteristics of /r/. van de Velde, H. and van Hout, R. (eds), Études et Travaux 4. 141–158.+R)+1947–1995.+r-atics:+Sociolinguistic,+phonetic+and+phonological+characteristics+of+/r/.+van+de+Velde,+H.+and+van+Hout,+R.+(eds),+Études+et+Travaux+4.+141–158.>Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Evans Wagner, S. (2006). Age grading in retrograde movement: the inflected future in Montreal French. Penn Working Papers in Linguistics, Selected Papers from NWAV 34, 12: 203–216.Google Scholar
Seutin, É. (1975). Description grammaticale du parler de L'Ile-aux-Coudres, Quebec. Montreal: Presses de l'Université de Montreal.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2006). Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1989). Contact and isolation in linguistic change. In: Breivik, L. E. and Jahn, E. H. (eds), Language Change: Contributions to the Study of its Causes. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 227–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuite, K. (1999). Au-delà du ‘stammbaum’. Anthropologie et sociétés, 23: 15–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, W. and Cheng, M. (1970) Implementation of phonological change: the Shûang-Fêng Chinese case. Paper from the 6th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 6: 552–559.Google Scholar
Zilles, A. (2005). The development of a new pronoun: the linguistic and social embedding of a gente in Brazilian Portuguese. Language Variation and Change, 17: 19–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar