1887
image of Syntactic position of contrast markers in different registers of French
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper presents a quantitative corpus analysis of three syntactically mobile contrast markers in different registers of French: contrastive adverbs, emphatic pronouns, and emphatic pronouns introduced by “as for”. We show that the preferred syntactic position of the three markers is influenced by their form and discourse function, but that the degree of this influence varies across registers. In informal written and spoken French, form and discourse function have a greater impact on syntactic position than in formal written French, where the standard word order is favored, and non-neutral (inter)subjective peripheries are avoided. Hence, our analysis provides evidence for the idea that informal written and spoken French are (becoming) more discourse-configurational.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22082.bry
2025-01-16
2025-02-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Altenberg, B.
    (1998) Connectors and sentence openings in English and Swedish. InS. Johansson & S. Oksefjell (Eds.), Corpora and cross-linguistic research: Theory, method, and case studies (pp. –). Brill. 10.1163/9789004653665_009
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653665_009 [Google Scholar]
  2. (2006) The function of adverbial connectors in second initial position in English and Swedish. InK. Aijmer & A.-M. Simon-Vandenbergen (Eds.), Pragmatic markers in contrast (pp. –). Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080480299_004
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080480299_004 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anscombre, J.-C.
    (2006) Les locutions quant à, pour ce qui est de, en ce qui concerne: Chronique d’un discours annoncé [The locutions quant à, pour ce qui est de, en ce qui concerne: Chronicle of announced speech]. Modèles Linguistiques, , –. 10.4000/ml.587
    https://doi.org/10.4000/ml.587 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anthony, L.
    (2018) AntConc (Version 3.5.7) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Avanzi, M., Béguelin, M.-J., Corminboeuf, G., Diémoz, F., & Johnsen, L. A.
    (2012–2020) Corpus OFROM — Corpus oral de français de Suisse romande. https://ofrom.unine.ch/
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman Grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Branca-Rosoff, S., Fleury, S., Lefeuvre, F., & Pires, M.
    (2011) Constitution et exploitation d’un corpus de français parlé parisien [Constitution and exploitation of a corpus of Parisian spoken French]. Corpus, , –. 10.4000/corpus.2033
    https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.2033 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) Discours sur la ville. Corpus de Français Parlé Parisien des années 2000 (CFPP2000). cfpp2000.univ-paris3.fr/
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Briz, A.
    (2010) Lo coloquial y lo formal, el eje de la variedad lingüística [The colloquial and the formal, the axis of linguistic variety]. InR. M. Castañer Martín & V. Lagüéns Gracia (Eds.), De moneda nunca usada: Estudios dedicados a José Mª Enguita Utrilla (pp. –). Insituto Fernando El Católico.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brysbaert, J., & Lahousse, K.
    (2021) The influence of text formality on the syntactic position of French contrastive adverbs. A corpus analysis of en revanche and par contre. Papers of the Linguistic Society of Belgium, , –. https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/643063
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2022) Marking contrastive topics in a topic shift context: Contrastive adverbs versus emphatic pronouns. Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholinguistique et informatique, , –. 10.4000/discours.12189
    https://doi.org/10.4000/discours.12189 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bulc, T. B., & Gorjanc, V.
    (2015) The position of connectors in Slovene and Croatian student academic writing: A corpus-based approach. InS. Starc, C. Jones, & A. Maiorani (Eds.), Meaning making in text (pp. –). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137477309_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137477309_4 [Google Scholar]
  13. Caddéo, S.
    (2004) Lui, le propriétaire, le propriétaire, lui: Deux constructions bien distinctes [Lui, le propriétaire, le propriétaire, lui: Two clearly distinct constructions]. Recherches sur le français parlé, , –. https://repository.ortolang.fr/api/content/recherches-francais-parle/4/pdf/volume_18/145_18_RSFP.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cappeau, P.
    (1999) Sujets éloignés. Esquisse d’une caractérisation des sujets lexicaux séparés de leur verbe [Distant subjects. Sketch of a characterization of lexical subjects separated from their verb]. Recherches sur le français parlé, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (2004) Les formes disjointes des pronoms sujets [The strong forms of the subject pronouns]. Recherches sur le français parlé, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Carton, F.
    (2009) Étude prosodique d’un cas de détachement. Les pronoms personnels pseudo-disjoints dans un corpus de presse parlée en français [Prosodic study of a case of detachment. Pseudo-disjoint personal pronouns in a corpus of spoken press in French]. InD. Apothéloz, B. Combettes, & F. Neveu (Eds.), Les linguistiques du détachement. Actes du colloque international de Nancy (7–9 juin 2006) (pp. –). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Choi-Jonin, I.
    (2003) Ordre syntaxique et ordre référentiel: Emplois de la locution prépositive quant à [Syntactic order and referential order: Uses of the prepositional phrase quant à]. InB. Combettes, C. Schnedecker, & A. Theissen (Eds.), Ordre et distinction dans la langue et le discours (pp. –). Honoré Champion.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Coveney, A.
    (1996) Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Elm Bank.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Csűry, I.
    (2001) Le champ lexical de mais: Étude lexico-grammaticale des termes d’opposition du français contemporain dans un cadre textologique [The lexical field of mais: Lexico-grammatical study of contemporary French opposition terms in a textological framework]. Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Cat, C.
    (2007) French dislocation: Interpretation, syntax, acquisition. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780199230471.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199230471.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. De Smet, H.
    (2009) Yahoo contrastive corpus of questions and answers. https://varieng.helsinki.fi/CoRD/corpora/YCCQA/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Debaisieux, J.-M.
    (2001) Contraintes syntaxiques et discursives des emplois de quant à et en ce qui concerne en français parlé [Syntactic and discursive constraints on the uses of quant à and en ce qui concerne in spoken French]. Cahiers de Praxématique, , –. 10.4000/praxematique.241
    https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.241 [Google Scholar]
  23. Degand, L.
    (2014) ‘So very fast then’: Discourse markers at left and right periphery in spoken French. InK. Beeching & U. Detges (Eds.), Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change (pp. –). Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822_008
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822_008 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dupont, M.
    (2015) Word order in English and French: The position of English and French adverbial connectors of contrast. English Text Construction, (), –. 10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.8.1.04dup [Google Scholar]
  25. (2020) Placement patterns of English and French conjunctive adjuncts of contrast: The impact of register. Languages in Contrast, (), –. 10.1075/lic.00018.dup
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00018.dup [Google Scholar]
  26. (2021) Conjunctive markers of contrast in English and French: From syntax to lexis and discourse. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.99
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.99 [Google Scholar]
  27. Engel, A., Grafmiller, J., Rosseel, L., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2021) How register-specific is probabilistic grammatical knowledge? A programmatic sketch and a case study on the dative alternation with give. InE. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.103.03eng
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.03eng [Google Scholar]
  28. Équipe DELIC
    Équipe DELIC (2004) Présentation du Corpus de référence du français parlé [Presentation of the Corpus de référence du français parlé]. Recherches sur le français parlé, , –.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Etienne, C., & Sax, K.
    (2009) Stylistic variation in French: Bridging the gap between research and textbooks. The Modern Language Journal, (), –. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2009.00931.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00931.x [Google Scholar]
  30. Fløttum, K.
    (1999) Quant à — thématisateur et focalisateur [Quant à — thematizator and focalizator]. InC. Guimier (Ed.), La thématisation dans les langues (pp. –). Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Gadet, F.
    (1996) Variabilité, variation, variété: le français d’Europe [Variability, variation, variety: European French]. Journal of French Language Studies, (), –. 10.1017/S0959269500004981
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269500004981 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gaiffe, B., Nehbi, K., & Tonnelier, M.
    (2018) Corpus journalistique issu de l’Est Républicain (version). https://hdl.handle.net/11403/est_republicain/v2
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W.
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe — Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte [Language of immediacy — language of distance. Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and language history]. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, (), –. 10.1515/9783110244922.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2007) Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz [Literacy and communicative distance]. Zeitschrift für germanistische Linguistik, (), –. 10.1515/zgl.2007.024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl.2007.024 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kunz, K., & Lapshinova-Koltunski, E.
    (2014) Cohesive conjunctions in English and German: Systemic contrasts and textual differences. InL. Vandelanotte, K. Davidse, C. Gentens, & D. Kimps (Eds.), Recent advances in corpus linguistics: Developing and exploiting corpora (pp. –). Rodopi. 10.1163/9789401211130_012
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789401211130_012 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lagae, V.
    (2007) Left-detachment and topic-marking in French: The case of quant à and en fait de. Folia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1515/flin.41.3‑4.327
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.41.3-4.327 [Google Scholar]
  37. Landert, D., & Jucker, A. H.
    (2011) Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries. Journal of Pragmatics, (), –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lenker, U.
    (2014) Knitting and splitting information: Medial placement of linking adverbials in the history of English. InS. E. Pfenninger, O. Timofeeva, A.-C. Gardner, A. Honkapohja, M. Hundt, & D. Schreier (Eds.), Contact, variation, and change in the history of English (pp. –). John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.159.02len
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.159.02len [Google Scholar]
  39. Leonetti, M.
    (2017) Basic constituent orders. InA. Dufter & E. Stark (Eds.), Manual of Romance morphosyntax and syntax (pp. –). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110377088‑024
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110377088-024 [Google Scholar]
  40. Massot, B.
    (2010) Le patron diglossique de variation grammaticale en français [The diglossic pattern of grammatical variation in French]. Langue française, , –. 10.3917/lf.168.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.168.0087 [Google Scholar]
  41. Nølke, H.
    (1997) Anaphoricité et focalisation: Le cas du pronom personnel disjoint [Anaphoricity and focalization: the case of the strong personal pronoun]. InW. De Mulder, L. Tasmowski-De Ryck, & C. Vetters (Eds.), Relations anaphoriques et (in)cohérence (pp. –). Brill/Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004648838_005
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004648838_005 [Google Scholar]
  42. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman. 10.1177/007542428702000108
    https://doi.org/10.1177/007542428702000108 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rocquet, A.
    (2014) The discourse-marking effect of strong pronoun doubling in French. Phrasis: Studies in language and literature, (), –. hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-4413428
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Rowlett, P.
    (2013) Do French speakers really have two grammars?Journal of French Language Studies, (), –. 10.1017/S095926951200035X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S095926951200035X [Google Scholar]
  45. SA Le Monde
    SA Le Monde (1999) Le Monde sur CD-ROM: CEDROM-SNI.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Traugott, E. C.
    (2012) Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction, (), –. 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau [Google Scholar]
  47. Werner, V.
    (2021) Text-linguistic analysis of performed language: Revisiting and re-modeling Koch and Oesterreicher. Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/ling‑2021‑0036
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2021-0036 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wolfe, S.
    (2021) Syntactic change in French. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198864318.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198864318.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zribi-Hertz, A.
    (2011) Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: Quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques [Towards a diglossic model for the description of French: Some theoretical, didactic and methodological implications]. Journal of French Language Studies, (), –. 10.1017/S0959269510000323
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269510000323 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22082.bry
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.22082.bry
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: French ; syntactic position ; (inter)subjectivity ; register ; discourse
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error