Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:37:29.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Il parle normal, il parle comme nous’: self-reported usage and attitudes in a banlieue

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2018

MARIA SECOVA ,
PENELOPE GARDNER-CHLOROS  and
FRÉDÉRIQUE ATANGANA
MARIA SECOVA*
Affiliation:
Open University
PENELOPE GARDNER-CHLOROS
Affiliation:
Birkbeck, University of London
FRÉDÉRIQUE ATANGANA
Affiliation:
La Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris – III
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: maria.secova@open.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We report on a survey of language attitudes carried out as part of a project comparing youth language in Paris and London.1 As in similar studies carried out in London (Cheshire et al., 2008), Berlin (Wiese, 2009) and elsewhere (Boyd et al., 2015), the focus was on features considered typical of ‘contemporary urban vernaculars’ (Rampton, 2015).

The respondents were pupils aged 15–18 in two secondary schools in a working-class northern suburb of Paris. The survey included (1) a written questionnaire containing examples of features potentially undergoing change in contemporary French; (2) an analysis of reactions to extracts from the project data: participants were asked to comment on the speakers and the features identified.

Quantitative analysis had shown that some of these features are more widespread than others and are used by certain categories of speaker more than others (Gardner-Chloros and Secova, this volume). This study provides a qualitative dimension, showing that different features have different degrees of perceptual salience and acceptability. It demonstrates that youth varieties do not involve characteristic features being used as a ‘package’, and that such changes interact in a complex manner with attitudinal factors. The study also provides material for reflection on the role of attitude studies within sociolinguistic surveys.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 28 , Special Issue 2: Multicultural youth vernaculars in Paris and urban France , July 2018 , pp. 235 - 263
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Agha, A. (2003). The social life of a cultural value. Language and Communication, 23: 231–273.Google Scholar
Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Beckford-Wassink, A. (1999). Historic low prestige and seeds of change: Attitudes toward Jamaican Creole. Language in Society, 28: 57–92.Google Scholar
Bellamy, J. (2012). Language Attitudes in England and Austria. A Sociolinguistic Investigation into Perceptions of High and Low-Prestige Varieties in Manchester and Vienna. Stuttgart: Steiner Verlag.Google Scholar
Boughton, Z. (2006). When perception isn't reality: Accent identification and perceptual dialectology in French. Journal of French Language Studies, 16 (3): 277–304.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R.Y., El-Geledi, S. and Sachdev, I. (2007). Language, ethnicity and intergroup relations. In: Weatherall, A., Watson, B. and Gallois, C. (eds), Language, Discourse, and Social Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 15–51.Google Scholar
Boyd, S., Hoffmann, M.F. and Walker, J.A. (2015). Sociolinguistic variation among multilingual youth: comparing Swedish cities and Toronto. In: Nortier, J. and Svendsen, B.A. (eds), Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 290–307.Google Scholar
Boyer, H. (2001). Le français des jeunes vécu/vu par les étudiants: enquêtes à Montpellier, Paris, Lille. Langage et Société, 1 (95): 75–87.Google Scholar
Castellotti, V. and Robillard, D. (2003). Le français face à la variation: quelques hypothèses. Cahiers de l'Institut de Linguistique de Louvain, 29 (1–2): 223–240.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J. and Stein, D.. (1997). Taming the Vernacular. From Dialect to Written Standard Language. London/New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Cheshire, J., Fox, S., Kerswill, P. and Torgersen, E. (2008). Ethnicity, friendship network and social practices as the motor of dialect change: linguistic innovation in London. Sociolinguistica, 22: 1–23.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2009). Dialects, standards and social change. In: Maegaard, M., Gregersen, F., Quist, P. and Jorgensen, J. N. (eds), Language Attitudes, Standardization and Language Change. Oslo: Novus, pp. 27–49.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. and Kristiansen, T. (2011). ‘SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation’. In: Kristiansen, T. and Coupland, N. (eds), Standard Languages and Language: Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus Press, pp. 11–35.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M. and Giles, H. (2014). The reference frame effect: an intergroup perspective on language attitudes. Human Communication Research, 40 (1): 91–111.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., Mastro, D., Giles, H., and Sink, A. (2016). Silencing nonstandard speakers: A content analysis of accent portrayals on American primetime television. Language in Society, 45 (1): 59–85.Google Scholar
Edwards, J. (1979). Language and Disadvantage. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Encrevé, P. and Braudeau, M. (2007). Conversations sur la langue française. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. and Yaguello, M. (2004). Discourse markers across languages? Evidence from English and French. In: Moder, C.L. and Martinovic-Zic, A. (eds), Discourse across Languages and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 129–147.Google Scholar
Gadet, F. (1989). Le français ordinaire. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Gal, S. (2006). Contradictions of standard language in Europe: Implications for the study of practices and publics. Social Anthropology, 14 (2): 163–181.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H. and Rakic, T. (2014). Language attitudes: Social determinants and consequences of language variation. In: Holtgraves, T.M. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, E. (1997). Sex, speech, and stereotypes: why women use prestige speech forms more than men. Language in Society, 26 (1): 47–63.Google Scholar
Goudaillier, J-P. (1996). Les mots de la fracture linguistique. La Revue des Deux Mondes, 115–123.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Anthrophologist, 68: 922–935.Google Scholar
Hawkey, J. (2016). Developing discussion of language change into a three-dimensional model of linguistic phenomena. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10: 176–190.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (1993). Regional variation in France. In: Sanders, C. (ed.), French Today: Language in Its Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 55–85.Google Scholar
Hedgecock, J. and Lefkowitz, N. (2000). Overt and covert prestige in the French language classroom: when is it good to sound bad? Applied Language Learning, 11 (1): 75–97.Google Scholar
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M. and Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53: 575–604.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2016). Enregisterment: How linguistic items become linked with ways of speaking. Language and Linguistics Compass, 10: 632–643.Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. (2014). The objectification of ‘Jafaican’: the discoursal embedding of Multicultural London English in the British media. In: Androutsopoulos, J. (ed.), The Media and Sociolinguistic Change. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, pp. 428–455.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. (2012). How pluricentric is the French language? An investigation of attitudes towards Quebec French compared to European French. Journal of French Language Studies, 22 (3): 345–370.Google Scholar
Kircher, R. (2016). The matched-guise technique. In: Hua, Zhu (ed.) Research Methods in Intercultural Communication: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 196–211.Google Scholar
Kristiansen, T. (2001). Two standards: one for the media and one for the school. Language Awareness, 10 (1): 9–24.Google Scholar
Kuiper, L. (2005). Perception is reality: Parisian and Provençal perceptions of regional varieties of French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (1): 28–52.Google Scholar
Lambert, W.E., Hodgson, R.C., Gardner, R.C. and Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken language. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60 (1): 44–51.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1963). The social motivation of a sound change. Word, 19: 273–309.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1990). The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2 (2): 205–254.Google Scholar
Laur, E. (2008). Contribution à l’étude des perceptions linguistiques: La méthodologie des faux-couples revisitée., Québec: Office québécois de la langue française.Google Scholar
Lee, M.G. (1999). Out of the hood and into the news: borrowed black verbal expressions in a mainstream newspaper. American Speech, 74 (4): 369–388.Google Scholar
Lodge, A. (1991). Authority, prescriptivism and the French standard Language. Journal of French Language Studies, 1 (1): 93–111.Google Scholar
Lodge, A. (2004). A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maio, G. and Haddock, G. (2014). The Psychology of Attitudes and Attitude Change, 2nd edition. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Marlow, M.L. and Giles, H. (2008). Who you tink you, talkin propah? Hawaiian pidgin demarginalised. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 3: 53–68.Google Scholar
Mattheier, K. (1997). Über Destandardisierung, Umstandardisierung und Standardisierung in modernen Europäischen Standardsprachen. In: Mattheier, K. and Radtke, E. (eds), Standardisierung und Destandardisierung Europäischer Nationalsprachen. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp. 1–9.Google Scholar
Milroy, J. (2007). The ideology of the standard language. In: Llamas, C., Mullany, L. and Stockwell, P. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 133–139.Google Scholar
Paltridge, J. and Giles, H.. (1984). Attitudes towards speakers of regional accents of French: Effects of regionality, age and sex of listeners. Linguistische Berichte, 90: 71–85.Google Scholar
Paveau, M.A. (2008). Le parler des classes dominantes, objet linguistiquement incorrect? Dialectologie Perceptive et Linguistique Populaire, 150 (2): 27–40.Google Scholar
Pooley, T. (2008) Analyzing urban youth vernaculars in French cities. In: Ayoun, D. (ed.), Studies in French Applied Linguistics. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 317–344.Google Scholar
Preston, D.R. (2004). Language with an attitude. In: Chambers, J.K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 40–67.Google Scholar
Rampton, B. (2015). Contemporary urban vernaculars. In: Nortier, J. and Svendsen, B.A. (eds), Language, Youth and Identity in the 21st Century: Linguistic Practices across Urban Spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–45.Google Scholar
Ryan, E.B., Giles, H., and Sebastian, R.J. (1982). An integrative perspective for the study of attitudes towards language variation. In: Ryan, E.B., and Giles, H. (eds), Attitudes towards Language Variation: Social and Applied Contexts. London: Edward Arnold., pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Schneider, E.W. (2016). Hybrid Englishes: An exploratory survey. World Englishes, 35 (3): 339–354.Google Scholar
Secova, M. (2017). Discourse-pragmatic variation in Paris French and London English: Insights from general extenders. Journal of Pragmatics, 114: 1–15.Google Scholar
Stewart, C.M. (2009). Perceptions of Parisian French: From language attitudes to speech perception. PhD thesis, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Stewart, C.M. (2012). Mapping language ideologies in multiethnic urban Europe: the case of Parisian French. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 33 (2): 187–202.Google Scholar
Stewart, C. and Fagyal, Z.. (2005). Engueulade ou énumération: Attitudes envers quelques énoncés enregistrés dans ‘les banlieues’. In: Bertucci, M.-M. and Houdart-Merot, V. (eds), Situations de banlieue: Enseignement, langues, culture. Paris: Institut National de Recherche, pp. 241–252.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (2016). Teen Talk. The Language of Adolescents, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1972). Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society, 1 (2): 179–195.Google Scholar
Wiese, H. (2009). Grammatical innovation in multiethnic urban Europe: New linguistic practices among adolescents. Lingua, 119: 782–806.Google Scholar
Wiese, H. (2014). Voices of linguistic outrage: standard language constructs and the discourse on new urban dialects. In: Rampton, B. et al. (eds), Working Papers in Urban Language and Literacies, 120: 1–25.Google Scholar
Woolard, K.A. (1985). Language variation and cultural hegemony: Toward an integration of sociolinguistic and social theory. American Ethnologist, 12 (4): 738–748.Google Scholar

WEBSITES

http://www.liberation.fr/france/2017/11/17/n-y-a-t-il-vraiment-qu-une-langue-francaise_1610426. Consulted on 21/11/2017.Google Scholar
http://www.valantine.fr/langage-jeunes/. Consulted on 21/11/2017.Google Scholar