Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:09:18.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phrase-final prepositions in Quebec French: An empirical study of contact, code-switching and resistance to convergence*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 August 2011

SHANA POPLACK ,
LAUREN ZENTZ  and
NATHALIE DION
SHANA POPLACK*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
LAUREN ZENTZ
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
NATHALIE DION
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
*
Address for correspondence: Shana Poplack, 70 Laurier East, Suite 422, Ottawa, ON, CanadaK1N 6N5spoplack@uottawa.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we investigate whether preposition stranding, a stereotypical non-standard feature of North American French, results from convergence with English, and the role of bilingual code-switchers in its adoption and diffusion. Establishing strict criteria for the validation of contact-induced change, we make use of the comparative variationist framework, first to situate stranding with respect to the other options for preposition placement with which it coexists in the host language grammar, and then to confront the variable constraints on stranding across source and host languages, contact and pre-contact stages of the host language, mainstream and “bilingual” varieties of the source language, and copious and sparse code-switchers. Detailed comparison with a superficially similar pre-existing native language construction also enables us to assess the possibility of a language-internal model for preposition stranding. Systematic quantitative analyses turned up several lines of evidence militating against the interpretation of convergence. Most compelling are the findings that the conditions giving rise to stranding in French are the same as those operating to produce the native strategy, while none of them are operative in the presumed source. Explicit comparison of copious vs. sparse code-switchers revealed no difference between them, refuting claims that the former are agents of convergence. Results confirm that surface similarities may mask deeper differences, a crucial finding for the study of contact-induced change.

Keywords

grammatical convergencecode-switchinglanguage contactpreposition strandingvariation theoryFrench
Type
Keynote Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 203 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

*

The research reported here was generously funded by grants to Poplack from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the Killam Foundation. Poplack holds the Canada Research Chair in Linguistics. Yves Roberge has been a source of boundless information about preposition stranding, and we are indebted to him for hours of invaluable discussion. Éric Mathieu not only cheerfully withstood, but kindly answered our barrage of questions, providing many useful references along the way. Comments from Rena Torres Cacoullos and audiences at LSA, CLA and University of New Mexico substantially improved this study. We thank members of the University of Ottawa Sociolinguistics Lab Molly Love for her research and editorial skills, and Alexandra Hänsch, Allison Lealess and Mystique Lacelle for participating in extracting, coding, checking and correcting the English preposition data from the Quebec English Corpus and the Ottawa-Hull French Corpus. This paper has benefited enormously from the very detailed and thoughtful comments of four reviewers, to whom we are most grateful. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

Ambrose, J. (1987). Syntaxe comparative du français et de l'anglais. Potomac, MD: Scripta Humanistica.Google Scholar
Backus, A. (2004). Convergence as a mechanism of language change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 179–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backus, A. (2005). Code-switching and language change: One thing leads to another? International Journal of Bilingualism, 9 (3/4), 307–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbaud, P. (1998). Dissidence du français et évolution dialectale. Revue québecoise de linguistique, 26 (2), 107–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, G., & Seppänen, A. (2000). Preposition stranding with wh-relatives: A historical survey. English Language and Linguistics, 4 (2), 295–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, D. (1982). Les constructions relatives en français vernaculaire et en français standard: étude d'un paramètre. In Lefebvre, C. (ed.), La syntaxe comparée du français standard et populaire: approches formelle et fonctionnelle (vol. 1), pp. 103–133. Québec: Éditeur officiel du Québec.Google Scholar
Culicover, P. W. (1999). Syntactic nuts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dion, N. (2003). Le français et l'anglais, “les deux en même temps?”: l'étude des noms isolés d'origine anglaise dans le discours français des francophones du nord-est de l'Ontario. Term paper for LIN7942, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Flikeid, K. (1989). «Moitié Anglais, Moitie Français»? Emprunts et alternance de langues dans les communautés acadiennes de la Nouvelle-Écosse. Revue québecoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée, 8 (2), 177–228.Google Scholar
Frei, H. (1929). La grammaire des fautes. Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Reprinted in 1971.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. M. (1996). When cultural maintenance means linguistic convergence: Pennsylvania German evidence for the Matrix Language Turnover hypothesis. Language in Society, 25, 493–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gadet, F. (2003). La relative française, difficile et complexe. In Kriegel, S. (ed.), Grammaticalisation et réanalyse, pp. 251–268. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M., & Goosse, A. (2008). Le bon usage. Grammaire française (14th edn.). Brussels: De Boeck & Larcier.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J., & Wilson, R. (1971). Convergence and creolization: A case from the Indo-Aryan/Dravidian border. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Pidginization and creolization of languages, pp. 151–167. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heath, J. (1989). From code-switching to borrowing: A case study of Moroccan Arabic. London & New York: Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2005). Language contact and grammatical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herrmann, T. (2003). Relative clauses in dialects of English: A typological approach. Ph.D. thesis, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. (2005). Variable vs. categorical effects. Journal of English Linguistics, 33 (3), 257–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornstein, N., & Weinberg, A. (1981). Case theory and preposition stranding. Linguistic Inquiry, 12 (1), 55–91.Google Scholar
Johansson, C., & Geisler, C. (1998). Pied-piping in spoken English. In Renouf, A. (ed.), Explorations in corpus linguistics, pp. 67–82. Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kayne, R. (1975). French syntax: The transformational cycle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
King, R. (2000). The lexical basis of grammatical borrowing: A Prince Edward Island French case study. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R. (2005). Crossing grammatical borders: Tracing the path of contact-induced linguistic change. In Filppula, M. et al. (eds.), Dialects across borders: Selected papers from the 11th International Conference on Methods in Dialectology (Methods XI), Joensuu, August 2002, pp. 233–251. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, R., & Roberge, Y. (1990). Preposition stranding in Prince Edward Island French. Probus, 2 (3), 351–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koster, J. (1978). Locality principles in syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lealess, A. V., & Smith, C. T. (2008). The use of subject relatives in Quebec English: Evidence of contact-induced language change? Presented at the Second Annual Conference on Change and Variation in Canada, University of Ottawa, Ottawa.Google Scholar
McBriarty, W. J. (1935). The French-Canadian's guide in English Grammar with examples in French and English. Lévis, Québec: Le Quotidien, Limitée.Google Scholar
Montrul, S. (2004). Subject and object expression in Spanish heritage speakers: A case of morphosyntactic convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 125–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1989). The care and handling of a mega-corpus: The Ottawa-Hull French project. In Fasold, R. & Shiffrin, D. (eds.), Language change and variation, pp. 411–451. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S. (1993). Variation theory and language contact. In Preston, D. (ed.), American dialect research: An anthology celebrating the 100th anniversary of the American Dialect Society, pp. 251–286. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., Jones, A., Lealess, A. V., Leroux, M., Smith, C. T., Yoshizumi, Y., Zentz, L., & Dion, N. (2006). Assessing convergence in contact languages. Presented at the Thirty-fifth Annual Conference on New Ways of Analyzing Variation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Levey, S. (2010). Contact-induced grammatical change: A cautionary tale. In Auer, P. & Schmidt, J. E. (eds.), Language and space – An international handbook of linguistic variation (vol. 1): Theories and methods, pp. 391–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., & Meechan, M. (1998). Introduction: How languages fit together in codemixing. In Poplack, S. & Meechan, M. (eds.), Instant loans, easy conditions: The productivity of bilingual borrowing; special issue of International Journal of Bilingualism, 2 (2), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & St-Amand, A. (2007). A real-time window on 19th-century vernacular French: The Récits du français québécois d'autrefois. Language in Society, 36 (5), 707–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poplack, S., & Tagliamonte, S. (2001). African American English in the diaspora. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Poplack, S., Walker, J., & Malcolmson, R. (2006). An English “like no other”?: Language contact and change in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 51 (2/3), 185–213.Google Scholar
Porquier, R. (2001). «Il m'a sauté dessus», «je lui ai couru après»: un cas de postposition en français. French Language Studies, 11, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pullum, G. K., & Huddleston, R. (2002). Prepositions and preposition phrases. In Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. et al. , The Cambridge grammar of the English language, pp. 597–662. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R. (1957). Relative clauses in educated spoken English. English Studies, 38, 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rand, D., & Sankoff, D. (1990). Goldvarb 2.1: A variable rule application for the Macintosh. Montreal. Centre de Recherches Mathématiques, University of Montreal. Version 2. http://www.crm.umontreal.ca/~sankoff/GoldVarb_Eng.html (retrieved April 24, 2004).Google Scholar
Riemsdijk, H. C. van. (1978). A case study in syntactic markedness: The binding nature of prepositional phrases. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y. (1998). Les prépositions orphelines dans diverses variétés de français d'Amérique du Nord. In Brasseur, P. (ed.), Français d'Amérique: variation, créolisation, normalisation, pp. 49–60. Avignon: Centre d'études canadiennes.Google Scholar
Roberge, Y., & Rosen, N. (1999). Preposition stranding and que-deletion in varieties of North American French. Linguistica Atlantica, 21, 153–168.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Roy, M.-M., Lefebvre, C., & Régimbald, A. (1982). Acquisition de la norme et de la structure linguistique des relatives chez deux groupes d'adolescents montréalais. In Lefebvre, C. (ed.), La syntaxe comparée du français standard et populaire: approches formelle et fonctionelle (vol. 2), pp. 321–326. Quebec: Office de la langue française, Gouvernement du Québec.Google Scholar
Silva-Corvalán, C. (1998). On borrowing as a mechanism of syntactic change. In Schwegler, A., Tranel, B. & Uribe-Extebarria, M. (eds.), Romance linguistics: Theoretical perspectives. Selected papers from the 27th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, pp. 225–246. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorace, A. (2004). Native language attrition and developmental instability at the syntax–discourse interface: Data, interpretations and methods. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2002). Comparative sociolinguistics. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P. & Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.), Handbook of language variation and change, pp. 729–763. Malden, MA & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Takami, K. (1992). Preposition stranding: From syntactic to functional analyses. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomason, S. G. (2001). Language contact: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Togeby, K. (1984). Grammaire française (vol. 4). Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Toribio, A. J. (2004). Convergence as an optimization strategy in bilingual speech: Evidence from code-switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 7 (2), 165–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres Cacoullos, R., & Travis, C. E. (2010). Variable yo expression in New Mexico: English influence? In Rivera-Mills, S. & Villa, D. (eds.), Spanish of the Southwest: A language in transition, pp. 185–206. Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tottie, G., & Harvie, D. (2000). It's all relative: Relativization strategies in Early African American English. In Poplack, S. (ed.), The English history of African American English, pp. 198–230. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vinet, M.-T. (1979). Dialect variation and a restrictive theory of grammar: A study of intransitive prepositions in a variety of French. Recherches Linguistiques à Montreal, pp. 107–125. Montreal: McGill University.Google Scholar
Vinet, M.-T. (1984). La syntaxe du québecois et les emprunts à l'anglais. Revue de l'Association québecoise de linguistique, 3 (3), 221–242.Google Scholar
Winford, D. (2005). Contact-induced changes: Classifications and processes. Diachronica, 22 (2), 373–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zentz, L. (2006). “C'est ça je travaille dessus”: Orphaned prepositions and relativization in Canadian French. M.A. thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1984). Orphan prepositions in French and the concept of “null pronoun”. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar