the influence of linguistic factors on the expression of futurity

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).