État présent |
THE SYNTAX OF ORAL FRENCH
Queen's University, Belfast
 |
1. Introduction |
|---|
 TOP 1. Introduction 2. Theoretical approaches3. Corpora: advances and...4. Syntactic phenomena5. Future directions for... |
|---|
Until the 1970s and 1980s, oral French was unquestionably perceived as the ‘poor relation’ in linguistic terms, in the sense that it is frequently unfavourably compared to its written counterpart by grammarians and linguists alike.1 From eighteenth-century commentators through until relatively recently, it is not uncommon to find oral French equated with low-register, regional, or grammatically incorrect French, with terms such as ‘français fautif’, ‘français populaire’, ‘français familier’ applied directly or indirectly. Moreover, there is considerable oversimplification, to which we shall return, around the oral/written opposition, that is, a tendency to create a sharp divide which empirical evidence does not necessarily support. As Blanche-Benveniste and Jeanjean comment, ‘c'est un domaine où foisonnent les malentendus, les préjugés et les mythes’.2 A number of factors have helped influence the growth of research on oral French. First, the emergence of sociolinguistics in the 1970s brought a preoccupation with obtaining access to the vernacular and collecting high-quality data, and as a result, a number of spoken corpora have been established internationally, although many more exist for English than for French. Subsequent research developments, notably in discourse analysis, variationist approaches and corpus linguistics, have all advanced dramatically both the quantity and quality of research being done on oral French. This état présent focuses on syntax; lexis, morphology, phonetics and phonology would merit separate exercises.
|
2. Theoretical approaches |
|---|
|
TOP1. Introduction2. Theoretical approaches3. Corpora: advances and...4. Syntactic phenomena5. Future directions for... |
|---|
Research on oral French has drawn from a wide variety of theoretical perspectives, of which some of the most influential include variationist approaches, the approche pronominale, conversational analysis, and different schools of discourse analysis/pragmatics, including speech act theory, information processing, politeness theory and énonciation.
Variationist approaches, where data is taken from corpora which are usually stratified according to pre-determined sociolinguistic parameters such as age, gender, socio-economic status, region, and so on, have brought two major advances. First, the methodologies employed in data collection and fieldwork techniques have been refined such that authentic oral data is now much more readily accessible. The second main advance concerns insight into the relationship between speaker or situational variables and linguistic variables. So, to take one example, studies of the non-use of negative ne suggest that age is an important factor, with broad patterns from research by Ashby suggesting that younger speakers have higher non-retention rates.3 This in turn has sparked a debate on whether such patterns indicate a linguistic change in progress, that is, a change in ‘apparent time’, with some scholars cautioning that non-use of ne might not in fact be increasing, but rather that it could possibly constitute a stable variable, younger speakers demonstrating higher rates than older ones. Ayres-Bennett, for instance, cites seventeenth-century examples from Héroard's journal of the Dauphin's speech, as well as exploring the other syntactic, phonetic and semantic factors which have a bearing on non-use of ne.4 Ashby's most recent research attempts to test the same sample of speakers at a real time interval (1976–95), and does indeed appear to show a more rapid increase in rates of non-use, with the age differences less marked, perhaps because the older speakers are now also conforming to the overall tendency towards non-use.5 Both speaker gender and register are also shown in variationist studies to be highly relevant: according to Ashby's data, men have ‘caught up’ with women in rates of ne deletion, where women had been ahead in demonstrating a change in progress (this correlates with variationist findings on other phenomena), while in broadcast journalism data, corpora also suggest increased deletion, albeit at a different pace.6 Meanwhile, variationist statistical evidence from Canada indicates that non-use is virtually categorical in Canadian French.7 Such variationist studies must take into account linguistic factors such as the syntactic, lexical or phonological context, as well as the vexed question of whether a syntactic feature can in fact be treated as a linguistic variable, given the semantic/pragmatic dimension which can come into play. Variationist approaches have also proved illuminating in, for example, the investigation of detachment, interrogation, and auxiliary alternation between être and avoir in spoken French.8
Perhaps the best-known research group working on spoken French syntax is the DELIC (Description linguistique du langage informatisé sur corpus), formerly known as GARS (Groupe aixois de recherche en syntaxe), where the theoretical framework is the approche pronominale.9 This approach makes a distinction between syntax which can be analysed in terms of units such as the verb phrase, noun phrase, and so on, and ‘macro-syntax’, which operates at a broader level. The approche pronominale uses ‘proportionality’ with a pronoun when analysing syntactic structures, allowing different lexical items to fill the ‘pronoun-type’ slot in the phrase, and allowing in many cases analytic distinctions to be made which would not otherwise be made: thus, for example, constructions like je parle à son frère and je pense à son frère, which look superfically syntactically similar, would be analysed very differently.10 Amongst the many areas explored by the GARS are detachment (or double marquage to use their terminology), relative clauses, que, definitions of subordination, tense usage, as well as the structure of noun, adjectival and verb phrases.
A wide variety of different theoretical schools have in common a focus on language in context. Drawing on speech act theory, Kerbrat-Orecchioni engages in conversational analysis which explores the relationship between syntactic patterns and speech acts such as requests, questions and excuses.11 A major centre for pragmatically grounded approaches has been the University of Geneva, through scholars such as Roulet, Moeschler and Auchlin. Much of their and their collaborators' work has been published in the Cahiers de linguistique française (CLF), and is now theoretically very diverse; for example, Roulet has developed what he terms a modular approach to discourse organization while Moeschler now works within a ‘relevance theory’ framework, drawing on Sperber and Wilson's work.12 Finally, a number of German linguists, led by Elisabeth Gülich and Thomas Kotschi have worked on the structure of spoken French using the theoretical framework of ‘text linguistics’.13
Scholars working in an ‘information structuring’ or ‘information packaging’ framework have explored the relationship between the syntactic and the pragmatic structuring of various elements in the phrase; applications include Lambrecht's work on word order in modern spoken French, where, drawing on Halliday's notions of topic and focus (as opposed to grammatical notions such as subject and object), he is able to shed new light on the analysis of detached and cleft structures, for example.14 Blanche-Benveniste also invokes Halliday's work when comparing the presentation of events in newspaper faits divers and oral accounts, finding that in the latter case, where the discourse is spontaneous, we are much less likely to find certain types of participial construction which require a high level of pre-planning.15 Finally, spoken French has featured within the broad courant énonciatif, notably in Marnette's recent work on speech and thought presentation, where she explores the properties of different types of discourse representation (for example, direct, indirect, free indirect speech and thought, and so on) and their links to questions of internal and external focalization.16
|
3. Corpora: advances and problematic issues |
|---|
|
TOP1. Introduction2. Theoretical approaches3. Corpora: advances and...4. Syntactic phenomena5. Future directions for... |
|---|
Large, easily accessible corpora of spoken French are not plentiful. The best known within France are the GARS corpus and the LANCOM corpus (the latter includes the Orléans corpus as well as data from Tours and from the Auvergne). There are also substantial corpora of Belgian French (VALIBEL) and Canadian French (notably the Montreal corpus and the Ottawa-Hull corpus).17 Otherwise, there are many smaller corpora which have been designed, transcribed and interrogated by individual researchers for specific projects. Labovian style interviews and techniques such as participant observation have been employed mainly by North-American and British linguists. An early example of the former is the Sankoffs' stratified corpus of Montreal French, where speakers are classified for socio-economic status, age, gender, and so on, and which has formed the basis for projects by Sankoff and Vincent on negation, by Sankoff and Thibault on the use of avoir and être as auxiliaries, by Laberge and Sankoff on on.18 Pooley has used participant observation to build a corpus in a small cohesive community in Roubaix which has been analysed mainly for phonetic/phonological projects.19 In some cases, notably where the syntactic phenomenon is rare or infrequent in an interview context, interviews are ‘directed’ using elicitation techniques designed to obtain examples of particular linguistic phenomena; Coveney, for example, aims to provoke questions from the interviewee in a study of interrogation, while Carruthers asks speakers to recount past-time narratives in a study of past tenses and temporal structures.20 Many of the well-known corpora involve an attempt to access the vernacular, that is, the use of interview techniques which try to elicit speech which is as natural as possible, although, as Gadet points out, the methodological difficulties associated with the ‘observer's paradox’ are rarely fully resolved.21 Moreover, in terms of medium, register, field, and so on, the predominance of ‘vernacular’ corpora has led to a lack of variety in the type of spoken French available for analysis, although there exist corpora of other varieties of oral French, such as radio French, television data (see Cappeau's work on political discourse), tour guide French and oral storytelling.22 The key issues determining the researcher's approach to data collection will be the questions he/she is asking; which groups of speakers are to be recorded (is the sample aiming to be representative or testing particular groups?) and how will the parameters be defined? What are the key linguistic areas for research and what particular difficulties do they raise? What issues arise in terms of style/genre and authenticity of data?
Developments in transcription techniques and data storage have been dramatic. Transcription has been a major issue from the outset. How should we transcribe faithfully (and therefore in a way which includes spoken phenomena such as repetition, truncation, circularity, overlap between speakers, and so on), while at the same time producing data which is readable and usable? How should pauses, laughter, noises, uninterpretable words, ambiguities, and so on, be incorporated into the transcription? How do we avoid imposing punctuation on data where it is inappropriate? Attempts have been made recently to standardize certain elements of transcription technique; for example, many projects associated with EAGLES (Expert Advisory Group in Language Engineering Standards) and NERC (Network of European Reference Corpora) transcribe orthographically and use the conventions of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) designed by the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI) to signal phenomena such as laughter, noise, changes of pitch, intonation, volume, pauses, interruptions, and so on, conventions which then appear in the transcription itself.23 The GARS transcription methodology has much in common with this, although it differs in not using any type of punctuation whatsoever, in presenting alternatives where interpretation is unclear (for example, /à parler, a parlé/), and in using typographical codes where SGML uses explicit codes for the sorts of phenomena outlined above.
In terms of data handling, there now exist sophisticated tools for searching and analysing spoken syntax. In a minority of cases, a concordance-type programme can be used, where grammatical items can be searched in a similar way to lexical items. However, in most cases, it is not possible to identify searchable items since they more often involve phenomena such as choice of word order or syntactic elements (for example, studies of detachment, negation, relatives, interrogation, use of pronouns), or verb morphology (for example, studies of tense or mood). This difficulty has led to the creation of various ‘tagging’ techniques, whereby phenomena are marked up by the researcher using codes and can subsequently be searched using specially designed programmes. Again, there has been a drive to establish a common set of tags; EAGLES, for example, recommends a common set of morphological tags for categories such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, conjunctions, and so on, and a set of syntactic tags for categories such as ‘Phrase’, ‘Proposition’, ‘Syntagme nominal/verbal/adjectival’, and so on. However, the way in which such tags are used will depend on the aims of the individual project; there is considerable variation in definitions (for example, which elements should be included in a verb phrase?), and in the levels of structures which are tagged, as well as different implications for particular theoretical approaches.24
|
4. Syntactic phenomena |
|---|
|
TOP1. Introduction2. Theoretical approaches3. Corpora: advances and...4. Syntactic phenomena5. Future directions for... |
|---|
Which linguistic phenomena are associated with oral French? As mentioned above, this is an area where we should be cautious. Ayres-Bennett discusses the disagreement amongst scholars, comparing, for example, Blanche-Benveniste and Jeanjean's list of fifteen ‘spoken French’ characteristics to Koch and Oesterreicher's list of fourteen, the two lists only having eight features in common, and she further compares Hausmann's list of six.25 It is also an area where the oral/written divide can become conflated with questions of register (such that a feature might be characteristic of low register French, whether oral or written, and not characteristic of high register, whether oral or written) and field (the same principle applies). Notwithstanding the difficulties, the following is a brief list of some of the most common features which researchers have explored in relation to spoken French, with, where possible, mention of the theoretical approach employed.
- Detachment/dislocation (for example, ‘il parle lui’, ‘je la connais elle’). This is one of the most widely researched phenomena, with projects on right and left detachment which investigate the syntactic, semantic, pragmatic and also the acoustic properties of these forms. Approaches include variationist ones such as Ashby's, Blasco's work within the approche pronominale, Lambrecht's approach which draws on theories of information structuring and Barnes's pragmatic framework. Moreover, typological theory, notably Harris's work, has also put forward interesting arguments about the possible grammaticalization of right-detached pronouns in particular.26
- Non-use of negative ‘ne’. This is an area where variationist approaches have produced particularly significant results suggesting increased non-use in contemporary French (see Section 2 above). Blanche-Benveniste puts non-use at 95% in conversation, regardless of the social background of the speaker, but heavily dependent on register.27
- Interrogative structures. Many accounts of contemporary spoken French cite non- or low use of inversion as a key ‘spoken’ feature.28 In addition to est-ce que (and related forms such as c'est que as in où c'est que tu vas?), speakers can of course use declarative word order with rising intonation. In practice, the criteria determining a speaker's choice are complex; in a variationist study, Coveney has demonstrated that grammatical, pragmatic, discoursal and sociolinguistic factors are all relevant, such that the nature of the grammatical subject (for example, noun vs. pronoun, first vs. second vs. third person, and so on), the age or gender of the speaker, the register or medium of the discourse and the pragmatic function of the question, all influence the distribution of the possible spoken forms.29
- Use of ‘on’. This is extremely complex in spoken French with Ashby offering a typology of four main categories — on as a ‘substitute’ for ils as an indefinite referent, for tu/vous, for nous and for ils as an inferable referent. Variationist research by Ashby and by Laberge and Sankoff demonstrates that both linguistic context and sociolinguistic factors (notably social class and gender) have a bearing on the use of on for tu/vous, and that there are important pragmatic choices, with vous associated with pragmatically foregrounded sections of discourse. Stewart offers a pragmatic analysis using Politeness Theory, which explores the use of on as a face-saving device in conversation.30
- Use of non-standard relative clauses/use of ‘que’. A wide variety of ‘non-standard’ constructions come into play here, including the relative du français populaire (for example, l'homme que je parle de lui), the relative défective (for example, l'homme que je parle), the relative pléonastique (for example, l'homme dont je parle de lui)31 and other structures where the use of que has expanded; que had a much broader range of functions in Old French, many of which are performed by more specific conjunctions in standard Modern French. Problematic issues which emerge here are how to analyse the semantic function of que in particular contexts (it is often open to more than one interpretation), and how to account for it syntactically (for example, Deulofeu cites cases such as il a pas pu le faire que Jean lui il aurait pu, where que does not appear to function as a subordinating conjunction, but rather as a type of greffe joining two structures32). Moreover, surveys suggest that sociolinguistic variables and, above all, questions of register and medium also play a major role in determining usage, as the very label relative du français populaire implies.33
- Use of particular tenses. One of the consequences of the loss of the passé simple from most varieties of the spoken medium has been the possible use of the pluperfect as a punctual past, although again we need to be cautious, since research is still in its early stages here.34 Use of the formes surcomposées, both ‘standard’ (that is, the form found in subordinate temporal clauses) and the ‘regional’ stigmatized form (for example, je l'ai eu fait) are widely viewed as features of spoken French, although the ‘standard’ form is much more complex in terms of register and media.35 Use of the periphrastic future is often said to be more frequent in spoken French, but one of the key problematic issues here is that the simple and periphrastic futures cannot be said to show semantic equivalence, thus making a variationist analysis difficult; for example, the fact that the periphrastic future is used in cases where ‘on envisage le terme à partir de l'énonciation en cours’ means that the spoken medium, where the speaker is present, is much more likely to use it.36
- Use of parataxis. Paratactic organization is another ‘classic’ feature of spoken French, while complex patterns of subordination are attributed to written French.37Again, research suggests that this sort of argument needs some qualification and that the oral/written distinction is not always the most salient one. Patterns of information structuring can be very significant, such that certain types of oral discourse favour certain types of subordinating structures (for example, formal lectures favouring subordination to the right); there is evidence that spoken French can in fact demonstrate extremely complex levels of subordination, especially in discourse where high levels of argumentation are involved; and in any case, complex subordination is not always synonymous with complexity of thought.
|
5. Future directions for research |
|---|
|
TOP1. Introduction2. Theoretical approaches3. Corpora: advances and...4. Syntactic phenomena5. Future directions for... |
|---|
Given the focus on the ‘vernacular’ in research so far, one key future development is likely to be the investigation of different types of oral discourse. For example, there is much more scope for research into television and radio French: not only are there many different ‘types’ and ‘sub-types’ of discourse to be investigated, but journalistic French is also an area which is potentially rich in terms of exploring interesting linguistic relationships between oral and written media. Other potentially fruitful varieties include courtroom discourse and storytelling. The characteristics of different oral ‘genres’, as well an analysis of shifting between different styles or genres within oral discourse, are both areas where much remains to be done.38 It is also possible that work on gesture and other paralinguistic features may become more fully integrated into linguistic analyses. Current technological advances should facilitate the building of more corpora which are increasingly likely to conform to the international transcription and annotation norms presently under development. Finally, there is also evidence of increasing interest in the spoken French of the past, where fascinating methodological issues arise alongside linguistic ones.39
|
Footnotes |
|---|
1 See the discussion in Claire Blanche-Benveniste, Approches de la langue parlée en français (Paris, Ophrys, 1997), Chapter 1; Françoise Gadet, ‘Le "Français avancé" à l'épreuve de ses données’, in Analyse linguistique et approches de l'oral: recueil d'études offert en hommage à Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ed. by Mireille Bilger, Karel van den Eynde and Françoise Gadet (Leuven, Peeters, 1998), pp. 59–68; Wendy Ayres-Bennett, Sociolinguistic Variation in Seventeenth-Century France: Methodology and Case Studies (Cambridge University Press, 2004), pp. 25–27.
2 Claire Blanche-Benveniste and Colette Jeanjean, Le Français parlé: transcription et édition (Paris, Didier, 1987), p. 1.
3 William Ashby, ‘The Loss Of the Negative Particle ne In French: A Syntactic Change In Progress’, Language, 57 (1981), 674–87.
4 Wendy Ayres-Bennett, ‘Negative Evidence; or, Another Look at the Non-Use of Negative ne in Seventeenth-Century French’, French Studies, XLVIII (1994), 63–85. See also Rebecca Posner, Linguistic Change in French (Oxford, Clarendon, 1997), p. 75.
5 William Ashby, ‘Un nouveau regard sur la chute du ne en français parlé tourangeau’, Journal of French Language Studies, 11 (2001), 1–22.
6 Nigel Armstrong and Alan Smith, ‘The Influence of Linguistic and Social Factors on the Recent Decline of French ne’, Journal of French Language Studies, 12 (2002), 39.
7 Gillian Sankoff and Diane Vincent, ‘The Productive Use of ne in Spoken Montréal French’, in The Social Life of Language, ed. by Gillian Sankoff (Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1980), pp. 295–310.
8 For detachment and interrogation, see Section 5 below. For a study of auxiliaries, see Gillian Sankoff and Pierrette Thibault, ‘The Alternation between the Auxiliaries avoir and être in Montréal French’, in The Social Life of Language, pp. 311–45.
9 Claire Blanche-Benveniste et al., Pronom et syntaxe: l'approche pronominale et son application à la langue française (Paris, SELAF, 1984).
10 Claire Blanche Benveniste, Le Français parlé: études grammaticales (Paris, CNRS, 1990), p. 41
11 Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Les Actes de langage dans le discours (Paris, Nathan, 2001).
12 For more details, see the CLF website at www.unige.ch/lettres/linge/CLF/.
13 For a list of Gülich's publications, see www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/eguelich/.
14 Knud Lambrecht, Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representation of Discourse Referents (Cambridge University Press, 1994).
15 Claire Blanche-Benveniste, ‘De la rareté de certains phénomènes syntaxiques en français parlé’, Journal of French Language Studies, 5 (1995), 17–29.
16 Sophie Marnette, Speech and Thought Representation in French (Amsterdam, Benjamins, 2005).
17 See the appendix of Kate Beeching's book, Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French (Amsterdam, Benjamins, 2002) for an excellent list of spoke French corpora, including Accadian, African, Creole and language-learner corpora.
18 Sankoff and Vincent, ‘The Productive Use of ne’; Sankoff and Thibault, ‘The Alternation between the Auxiliaries’; Suzanne Laberge and Gillian Sankoff, ‘Anything You Can Do’, in Sankoff, The Social Life of Language, pp. 270–93.
19 Tim Pooley, ‘Word-final Consonant Devoicing in a Variety of Working-class French: A Case of Language Contact?’, Journal of French Language Studies, 4 (1994), 215–33.
20 Aidan Coveney, Variability in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Study of Interrogation and Negation (Exeter, Elm Bank, 1996); Janice Carruthers, ‘A Problem in Sociolinguistic Methodology: Investigating a Rare Syntactic Form’, Journal of French Language Studies, 9 (1999), 1–24.
21 Françoise Gadet, ‘On n'a pas fini avec les problèmes de recueil de corpus’, in Le Français parlé: actes du colloque international, Université de Copenhague, 29, 30 octobre 1998, ed. by Hanne Leth Andersen and Anita Berit Hansen (Copenhagen, Museum Tusculanum, 2000), pp. 29–44.
22 J. Ågren, Étude sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le français de la conversation radiophonique (Uppsala, UUP, 1973); Dulcie Engel, ‘Radio Talk: French and English Perfects on Air’, Languages in Contrast, 2.2 (1999), 255–77; Paul Cappeau, ‘Le Sujet postposé en français contemporain’, thèse nouveau régime, Université de Provence, 1992; Janice Carruthers, Oral Narration in Modern French: A Linguistic Analysis of Temporal Patterns (Oxford, Legenda, 2005). See the discussion in Mireille Bilger and Paul Cappeau, ‘L'Oral ou la multiplication des styles’, Langage et société, 109 (2004), 13–30.
23 For an excellent discussion, see Élisabeth Delais-Roussarie, ‘Constitution et annotation de corpus: méthode et recommandations’, in Corpus et variation en phonologie du français, ed. by Élisabeth Delais-Roussarie and Jacques Durand (Toulouse, Presses universitaires du Mirail, 2003), pp. 91–125. See also the TEI website at www.tei-c.org
24 See Delais-Roussarie, ‘Constitution et annotation’; Mireille Bilger, ed., Corpus: méthodologie et applications linguistiques (Paris, Champion, 2000), especially the Introduction to the section on ‘Traitement informatique’ by André Valli.
25 See the discussion in Ayres-Bennett, Sociolinguistic Variation, pp. 18–20.
26 See, for instance, William Ashby, ‘The Syntax, Pragmatics, and Sociolinguistics of Left- and Right-Dislocations in French’, Lingua, 57 (1988), 203–29; Betsy Barnes, The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Spoken Standard French (Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1985); Blasco; Martin Harris, The Evolution of French Syntax: A Comparative Approach (London, Longman, 1976), p. 119; Lambrecht, Information Structure.
27 Approches de la langue parlée, p. 39.
28 Blanche-Benveniste, Approches de la langue parlée, p. 39.
29 Variability in Spoken French.
30 William Ashby, ‘The Variable Use of on versus tu/vous for Indefinite Reference in Spoken French’, Journal of French Language Studies, 2 (2002), 135–57; Laberge and Sankoff, ‘Anything You Can Do’; Miranda Stewart, ‘Personally Speaking ... or Not? The Strategic Value of on in Face-to-Face Negotiation’, Journal of French Language Studies, 5 (1995), 203–23.
31 Françoise Gadet, Le Français ordinaire (Paris, Colin, 1985); Françoise Gadet, ‘Les relatives non-standard en français parlé: le système et l'usage’, in La Subordination dans les langues romanes: actes du colloque international, Copenhague, ed. by Hanne Leth Andersen and Gunter Skytte (Copenhagan, Munksgaard, 1995), pp. 141–62.
32 José Deulofeu, ‘Syntaxe de que en français parlé et le problème de la subordination’, Recherches sur le français parlé, 8 (1986), 79–104.
33 See the discussion in Wendy Ayres-Bennett and Janice Carruthers, Problems and Perspectives: Studies in the Modern French Language (London, Longman, 2001), pp. 282–86.
34 Margaret Majumdar and Alison Morris, ‘The French Pluperfect Tense as a Punctual Past’, Archivum Linguisticum, 11 (1980), 1–12; Ayres-Bennett and Carruthers, Problems and Perspectives, pp. 186–87.
35 Ayres-Bennett and Carruthers, Problems and Perspectives, pp. 188–89.
36 Blanche-Benveniste, Approches de la langue parlée, p. 57.
37 See the discussion of a variety of projects in Chapter 10 of Ayres-Bennett and Carruthers, Problems and Perspectives.
38 For recent discussion of the issues see Bilger and Cappeau, ‘L'Oral ou la multiplication’; Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni and Véronique Traverso, ‘Types d'interactions et genres de l'oral’, Langages, 153 (2004), 41–51.
39 See, for instance, Ayres-Bennett, Sociolinguistic Variation; Anthony Lodge, ‘Vers une histoire du dialecte urbain de Paris’, Revue de linguistique romane, 62 (1998), 95–128.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||