Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:20:48.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Picard: a mal aimé among regional languages?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2019

David Hornsby
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although often seen as a medieval rival to French, Picard has received far less official recognition and support than more celebrated regional languages such as Breton or Occitan. A shared history and high degree of linguistic similarity with the national language appear to have engendered a perception that it is simply ‘bad French’, but for supporters such Eloy (1997) Picard remains potentiellement une vraie langue, worthy and in need of status enhancement initiatives enjoyed by other regional languages. Promotion of language status for Picard, however, is found to be fraught with practical difficulties, not least of which are a lack of territorial unity and major cultural differences between the north and south of the picardophone area. Equally importantly, the discourse of languagehood fosters notions of linguistic purity which ignore the extensive mixing of local, supralocal and national elements that has always been evident in Picard writing and speech. This in turn engenders linguistic insecurity, notably among urban working-class speakers, whose speech can all too easily be caricatured as both ‘bad French’ and ‘bad patois’, with obvious consequences for intergenerational transmission. The well-intentioned promotion of Picard as a regional language may therefore, perversely, be detrimental to the very varieties it serves.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 2: Langues régionales: models and methods , July 2019 , pp. 169 - 188
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2019 

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

Auger, J. (2010). Picard et français : la grammaire de la différence. Langue Française 168: 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. and Villeneuve, A-J. (2008). Ne deletion in Picard and in regional French: Evidence for distinct grammars. In: Meyerhoff, M. and Nagy, N. (eds), Social Lives in Language– Sociolinguistics in Multilingual Speech Communities: Celebrating the Work of Gillian Sankoff. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 223–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auger, J. and Villeneuve, A-J. (2014). L’épenthèse vocalique en picard et en français. In: Barra-Jover, M., Brun-Trigaud, G., Dalbera, J-P., Sauzet, P. and Scheer, T. (eds.), Études de linguistique gallo-romane. Presses universitaires de Vincennes, pp. 85–102.Google Scholar
Ayres-Bennett, W. (1996). A History of the French Language Through Texts. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bailey, C-J. (1973). Variation and Linguistic Theory. Arlington, VA: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1975). Dynamics of a Creole System. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Boisier-Michaud, S. (2011). Étude du Livre Roisin : Recueil médiéval et moderne de la loi de Lille. Unpublished Masters dissertation, University of Montréal. https://papyrus.bib.umontreal.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1866/5961/Boisier-Michaud_Simon_2011_memoire.pdf Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Brunot, F. (1966). Histoire de la langue française : des origines à 1900 (13 vols). Paris: Colin.Google Scholar
Carton, F. (1965). François Cottignies dit Brûle-Maison, 1678-1740, chansons et pasquilles. Arras: Société de Dialectologie Picarde VII.Google Scholar
Carton, F. (1981). Les parlers ruraux de la région Nord-Picardie: situation sociolinguistique. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 29: 15–28.Google Scholar
Carton, F. (1992). L’essor de la poésie picarde à Lille. Nord 19: 22–34.Google Scholar
Carton, F. (2004). Orthographier le picard : aperçu historique du débat entre « phonétistes » et partisans de graphies « françaises ». In: Eloy, J-M. (ed.), Des langues collatérales : Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001 (2 vols.). Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 173–186.Google Scholar
Carton, F. and Lebègue, M. (1989). Atlas linguistique et ethnographique picard. Vol. 1 : La vie rurale. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Carton, F. and Poulet, D. (2006). Dictionnaire du français régional du Nord-Pas-de-Calais (2nd edition). Paris: Bonneton.Google Scholar
Cerquiglini, B. (1999). Les Langues de France, Rapport au Ministre de l’Éducation, de la Recherche et de la Technologie, et à la Ministre de la Culture et de la Communication. (www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/var/storage/rapports-publics/994000719.pdf)Google Scholar
Cohen, M. (1967). Histoire d’une langue, le français : des origines à nos jours (3rd edition). Paris: Editions Sociales.Google Scholar
Coulangeon, P. (2013). Class and culture in contemporary France. In: Jones, M., and Hornsby, D. (eds), Language and Social Structure in Urban France. Oxford : Legenda, pp. 46–57.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. (2002). Le « Chtimi » de poche, parler picard du Nord et du Pas-de-Calais. Chennevières-sur Marne: Assimil.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. (2003). Le Picard de poche. Chennevières-sur Marne: Assimil.Google Scholar
Dawson, A. (2012). Le picard est-il bienvenu chez les Chtis ? identité(s) régionale(s), marketing et conscience linguistique dans le Nord de la France. In : Dotte, A-L., Muni-Toke, V., and Sibille, J. (eds), Langues de France, langues en danger : aménagement et rôle des linguistes. Cahiers de l’Observatoire des Pratiques Linguistiques (DGLFLF – Ministère de la Culture et de la Communication) 3: 41–53.Google Scholar
De Certeau, M., Julia, D. and Revel, J. (2002). Une politique de la langue. La Révolution française et les patois : l’enquête de Grégoire (2nd edition). Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Dees, A. (1980). Atlas des formes et des constructions des chartes du 13e siècle. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 178. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Dees, A. (1985). Dialectes et scriptae à l’époque de l’ancien français. Revue de Linguistique Romane 49: 87–117.Google Scholar
Delbouille, M. (1970). Comment naquit la langue française. In Phonétique et linguistique romanes : Mélanges offerts à M. Georges Straka (2 vols). Lyon; Strasbourg: CNRS.Google Scholar
Dubois, R. (1957). Le domaine picard : délimitation, carte systématique. Arras: Archives du Pas-de-Calais.Google Scholar
Eloy, J-M. (1997). La Constitution du picard: une approche de la notion de langue. Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Eloy, J-M. (ed.) (2004a). Des langues collatérales : Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001 (2 vols). Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Eloy, J-M. (2004b). Des langues collatérales: problèmes et propositions. In: Eloy, J-M., (ed.): Des langues collatérales: Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001. Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 5–25.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. (1991). Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Flutre, L-F. (1977). Du moyen picard au picard moderne. Amiens: Musée de Picardie.Google Scholar
Gossen, Ch-T. (1970). Grammaire de l’ancien picard. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Gueunier, N., Genouvrier, E. and Khomsi, A. (1978). Les Français devant la norme. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Haugen, E. (1966). Dialect, language, nation. American Antropologist 68: 922–935. Reprinted in Pride, J. B. and Holmes, J. (eds), Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendrickson, R. (2014). Distinctive Features and the Liquids in Picard. In Kingston, J.; Moore-Cantwell, C.; Pater, J. and Staubs, R. (eds) Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Meeting on Phonology. Linguistic Society of America, Washington, DC. https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/amphonology/article/view/39/32 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, U. and Schutz, A. (1935). A History of the French Language. New York: Farrar and Rinehart.Google Scholar
Hornsby, D. (2006a). Redefining Regional French: Koinéization and Dialect Levelling in Northern France. Oxford: Legenda.Google Scholar
Hornsby, D. (2006b). The myth of structured obsolescence. Journal of French Language Studies 16/2: 125–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hornsby, D. (2007). Dialect Lite? The rise of the semi-speaker in an obsolescent dialect community. In Ayres-Bennett, W. and Jones, M. C. (eds) The French Language and Questions of Identity. Oxford: Legenda. 76–88.Google Scholar
Hornsby, M. and Quentel, G. (2013). Contested varieties and competing authenticities: neologisms in revitalized Breton. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 223: 71–86.Google Scholar
Jones, M. C. (1996). Language Obsolescence and Revitalization: Linguistic Change in two sociolinguistically contrasting Welsh communities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Junkovic, Z. and Nicolai, R. (1987). Changement linguistique et interaction. GRILL (Groupe de recherche sur les interactions linguistico-langagières). Fasc 0.Google Scholar
Kasstan, J. and Nagy, N. (2018). Introduction. In: J. Kasstan & N. Nagy (eds) Francoprovençal in Europe and North America. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 249: 1–9.Google Scholar
Kloss, H. (1967). Ausbau languages and Abstand languages. Anthropological Linguistics 9: 29–41.Google Scholar
Kuter, L. (1989). Breton vs. French: Language and the opposition of political, economic, social and cultural values. In: Dorian, N. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landrecies, J. (1992). Un genre original : la littérature picarde du pays minier. Nord 19: 69–78.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. and Tabouret-Keller, A. (1985). Acts of Identity : Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (1993). French: From Dialect to Standard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loriot, R. (1967). La frontière linguistique en Haute Normandie. Amiens: Société de Linguistique Picarde.Google Scholar
Marcellesi, J-B., Bulot, T. and Blanchet, Ph. (2003). Sociolinguistique: Épistémologie, Langues Régionales, Polynomie. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Milroy, J., Milroy, L., Hartley, S. and Walshaw, D. (1994). Glottal stops and Tyneside glottalisation: competing patterns of variation and change in British English. Language Variation and Change 6: 327–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Offord, M. (1990). Varieties of Contemporary French. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Picoche, J. (1985). L’âge d’or de la Picardie littéraire : le Moyen-Age. In: Darras, J., Picoche, J., Debrie, R. and Ivar, P. (eds), La Forêt invisible. Au nord de la littérature française, le picard. Amiens: Editions des Trois Cailloux. 55–83.Google Scholar
Picoche, J. and Marchello-Nizia, C. (1989). Histoire de la langue française. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Pierrard, P. (1966). Chansons populaires de Lille sous le Second Empire. Lille: Editions de l’Aube.Google Scholar
Pooley, T. (1996). Chtimi: The Urban Vernaculars of Northern France. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Pooley, T. (2004). Language, Dialect and Identity in Lille (2 Vols). Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
Rickard, P. (1995). A History of the French Language (2nd edition). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Trudeau, D. (1992). Les Inventeurs du Bon Usage (1529–1647). Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2004). Ausbau et Abstand : la sociolinguistique des minorités linguistiques. In: Eloy, J-M. (ed.), Des langues collatérales : Problèmes linguistiques, sociolinguistiques et glottopolitiques de la proximité linguistique. Actes du Colloque international réuni à Amiens, du 21 au 24 novembre 2001 (2 vols). Paris: L’Harmattan, pp. 69–76.Google Scholar
Viez, H. (1978 [1910]). Le parler populaire de Roubaix. Marseille: Lafitte Reprints.Google Scholar
Villeneuve, A-J. and Auger, J. (2013). ‘Chtileu qu’i m’freumereu m’bouque i n’est point coér au monne’ : Grammatical variation and diglossia in Picardie’. French Language Studies 23: 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Wartburg, W. (1946). Evolution et structure de la langue française. Berne: Franke.Google Scholar