the influence of linguistic factors on the expression of futurity

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE EXPRESSION OF FUTURITY IN MARTINIQUE FRENCH 139 2. Previous studies For both prescriptive and pedagogical grammars, <strong>the</strong> two main <strong>linguistic</strong> <strong>factors</strong> governing variant choice are (a) <strong>the</strong> temporal distance between speech time and <strong>the</strong> future eventuality and (b) <strong>the</strong> degree <strong>of</strong> certainty that <strong>the</strong> future event will in fact take place (cf. Poplack & Dion 2009: 561–9). The periphrastic future, for instance, has been claimed to mark ‘<strong>of</strong>ten a near future but also sometimes a relatively distal one that is considered unavoidable’ (my translation, Grevisse & Goosse 1993: 1230). Thus, according to Hawkins and Towell (2001: 228–9), <strong>the</strong> selection <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inflected variant in (2a) renders <strong>the</strong> utterance as purely hypo<strong>the</strong>tical, i.e. she is currently not pregnant but would like to have a baby in <strong>the</strong> future. In contrast, <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> periphrastic construction in (2b) indicates that her utterance is justified, i.e. she is pregnant and will give birth. (2) a. Elle aura un bébé. ‘She will have a baby.’ b. Elle va avoir un bébé. ‘She is going to have a baby.’ (Hawkins & Towell 2001: 229) Labovian socio<strong>linguistic</strong> studies have tested <strong>the</strong>se claims quantitatively using corpora <strong>of</strong> speech data. Thus far, we have evidence from Laurentian (Deshaies & Laforge 1981, Emirkanian & D. Sank<strong>of</strong>f 1985, Zimmer 1994, Poplack & Turpin 1999, Blondeau 2006, Poplack & Dion 2009, Grimm 2010, Grimm & Nadasdi 2011, Wagner & G. Sank<strong>of</strong>f 2011, G. Sank<strong>of</strong>f, Wagner & Jensen 2012) and Acadian (Chevalier 1996, King & Nadasdi 2003, Comeau 2011) varieties <strong>of</strong> Canadian French, 2 as well as European French (Söll 1983, Roberts 2012). These studies have demonstrated that, contrary to <strong>the</strong> prescriptive literature, a range <strong>of</strong> <strong>linguistic</strong> <strong>factors</strong> condition <strong>the</strong> choice <strong>of</strong> future variants in <strong>the</strong> French language (see section 3.2). Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong>y have shown that, in speech, <strong>the</strong>re exists a preference for periphrastic verbs forms, irrespective <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> variety under consideration. In Laurentian French, <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> inflected forms is reported to range from only 11% (N=135) in Ontarian French (Grimm & Nadasdi 2011: 181) to 22% (N=725) in Ottawa-Hull (Poplack & Turpin 1999: 148). 3 In contrast, <strong>the</strong>re is a greater prevalence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> IF (41%, N=179) in European French (Roberts 2012: 101) and <strong>the</strong> more conservative Acadian varieties: IF usage rates vary from 38% (N=257) in Baie-Sainte Marie, Nova Scotia (Comeau 2011: 226) to 53% (N=362) in Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland (King & Nadasdi 2003: 332). The overall variant distribution detailed above is, however, in stark contrast to written language studies, which show a reversal <strong>of</strong> this general trend. Lesage and Gagnon (1993) and Wales (2002) report that <strong>the</strong> incidence <strong>of</strong> IF forms far exceeds that <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> periphrastic future in <strong>the</strong>ir respective journalistic corpora. Indeed, <strong>the</strong> relative frequency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> two variants in Lesage and Gagnon’s Québec French dataset was 97% (N=5,818) for <strong>the</strong> IF and only 3% for <strong>the</strong> PF (N=199), while Wales reports almost identical results in his Ouest-France regional newspaper study (IF: 90%, N=7,751; PF: 10%, N=887). 2 The term ‘Laurentian French’ denotes varieties genetically related to Québec French (e.g. in Canadian provinces west <strong>of</strong> Québec and in <strong>the</strong> Nor<strong>the</strong>ast United States). ‘Acadian French’ refers to those varieties spoken in <strong>the</strong> four Atlantic provinces <strong>of</strong> New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. 3 The percentage scores for Poplack and Turpin (1999) have been recalculated to exclude <strong>the</strong> futurate present.
140 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS 3. Data and methodology The data for <strong>the</strong> present study were extracted from a corpus <strong>of</strong> spoken Martinique French. The island <strong>of</strong> Martinique has a population <strong>of</strong> nearly 400,000 people (IEDOM 2010: 24) and is situated in <strong>the</strong> Lesser Antilles archipelago between <strong>the</strong> islands <strong>of</strong> Dominica to <strong>the</strong> North and Saint Lucia to <strong>the</strong> South. Although <strong>the</strong> vast majority <strong>of</strong> English-speaking islands gained <strong>the</strong>ir independence in <strong>the</strong> latter part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 th century, Martinique still remains an integral part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> French Republic as a département et région d’outre-mer ‘monodepartmental overseas territory’, even though it is located approximately 7,000 km from mainland France. The corpus comprises approximately 16 hours <strong>of</strong> semi-directed interviews conducted by me between December 2011 and February 2012. In order to minimise <strong>the</strong> effects <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> observer’s paradox, participants were recorded in self-selected dyads. Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> topics covered during <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> recordings were based on <strong>the</strong> modules found in a traditional socio<strong>linguistic</strong> interview (Labov 1972) but were tailored to community-specific issues and traditions (cf. Meyerh<strong>of</strong>f & Walker 2007). The analysis is based on a judgment sample <strong>of</strong> 32 informants, all <strong>of</strong> whom originate from <strong>the</strong> Saint-Pierre arrondissement ‘administrative district’ in <strong>the</strong> Northwest <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> island. O<strong>the</strong>r than for schooling, <strong>the</strong>y have remained in this area for <strong>the</strong>ir entire lives. All <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> speakers ei<strong>the</strong>r actively spoke, or at least had a passive knowledge <strong>of</strong>, <strong>the</strong> French-lexifier creole that is spoken on <strong>the</strong> island. 4 Research on bilingual Franco-Ontarian communities has shown that socio<strong>linguistic</strong> variables may pattern differently depending on how <strong>of</strong>ten speakers communicate in ei<strong>the</strong>r French or English. Resultantly, I decided to measure <strong>the</strong> frequency <strong>of</strong> use <strong>of</strong> French in interpersonal communication using a modified version <strong>of</strong> Mougeon and Beniak’s (1991) language-restriction index. All <strong>of</strong> my informants completed a self-reported questionnaire based on a six-point scale in which <strong>the</strong>y rated how <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong>y communicate in both French and créole martiniquais. Questions focused on language use in a variety <strong>of</strong> settings as well as with a range <strong>of</strong> interlocutors. A mean score was <strong>the</strong>n calculated for each speaker ranging from zero (i.e. <strong>the</strong>y always communicate in creole) to 1 (i.e. <strong>the</strong>y only speak French). 3.1. Excluded tokens I first extracted every verb form that featured IF tense morphology and every aller periphrasis from my Martinique corpus using <strong>the</strong> AntConc concordance program (Anthony 2011). However, since <strong>the</strong> present study analyses variability in <strong>the</strong> French future temporal reference sector and not merely those verbal forms featuring future morphology, I excluded a number <strong>of</strong> tokens in line with <strong>the</strong> protocol first outlined in Poplack and Turpin (1999: 143–5). This procedure for delimiting <strong>the</strong> variable context has also been replicated and refined in more recent work (cf. Grimm & Nadasdi 2011: 174–5, Wagner & Sank<strong>of</strong>f 2011: 279–84). As such, it was necessary to remove all ‘false futures’. In o<strong>the</strong>r words, I discarded those tokens that exhibit future morphology but do not actually reference a future eventuality. As such, all habituals (3a), hypo<strong>the</strong>ticals (3b), instances <strong>of</strong> aller ‘to go’ used to indicate spatial movement (3c) and imperatives/pseudo-imperatives (3d) were not considered in my quantitative analysis. It was also necessary to remove those tokens that have a future temporal reference but do not admit all <strong>the</strong> variants. An example <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se ‘true futures’ includes tokens occurring in <strong>the</strong> protases <strong>of</strong> conditional si-clauses (3e) as such contexts prohibit IF. 4 In a recent study <strong>of</strong> Guadeloupe French, Pustka (2007a: 261) notes that only a small minority <strong>of</strong> Guadeloupéens do not nowadays acquire French as <strong>the</strong>ir L1. This is also <strong>the</strong> case in Martinique, which has traditionally been viewed as more assimilated to mainland France both <strong>linguistic</strong>ally and culturally than its sister island (Pustka 2007b: 60).
Page 1: THE INFLUENCE OF LINGUISTIC FACTORS
Page 5 and 6: 142 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS constraint.
Page 7 and 8: 144 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS Wagner & Sa
Page 9 and 10: 146 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS remove thos
Page 11 and 12: 148 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS Table 5: Mi
Page 13 and 14: 150 NICHOLAS S. ROBERTS Meyerh<stro

the influence of linguistic factors on the expression of futurity

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?