1887
Volume 125, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Inter-individual variation in the use of direct interrogative structures (N = 450) is explored in a corpus of spoken native and non-native French. A quantitative analysis of the data reveals that while non-native speakers seem to avoid non-standard structures, they do not use more formal variants systematically. Comparison with data from other native and non-native corpora reveals important differences in the frequency of particular interrogative structures. The choice of interrogative structure seems to be influenced by a number of situational, pragmatic and socio-stylistic variables.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.125-126.01dew
1999-01-01
2019-10-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AL, B.
    (1975) : La notion de grammaticalité en grammaire générative-transformationnelle. Etude générale et application à la syntaxe de Vinterrogation directe en français parlé. Leiden : Universitaire Pers Leiden.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. BARTNING, I.
    (1997) : L’apprenant dit avancé et son acquisition d’une langue étrangère. Tour d’horizon et esquisse d’une caractérisation de la variété avancée, Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère (AILE)9, 9–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BEHNSTEDT, P.
    (1973) : Viens-tu? Est-ce que tu viens? Tu viens? Formen und Strukturen des direkten Fragessatzes im Französischen. Tübingen : Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BROWN, G. & YULE, G.
    (1983) : Discourse analysis. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. COVENEY, A.
    (1995) : The use of the QU-fmal interrogative structure in spoken French. French Language Studies8, 143–171.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. (1996) : Variability in Spoken French. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. DEWAELE, J.-M.
    (1992) : L’omission du “ne” dans deux styles d’interlangue française. Interface. Journal of Applied Linguistics7 (1), 3–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. (1996) : Variation dans la composition lexicale de styles oraux, I.R.A.L. , International Review of Applied LinguisticsXXIV (4), 261–282.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. (1998) : Lexical inventions : French L2 versus L3. Applied Linguistics, 19,4, 471–490.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. GREEN, D.W.
    (1986) : Control, activation and resource: a framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and language27, 210–223.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. GREVISSE, M.
    (1980 [1936]) : Le Bon Usage, 11th ed.Gembloux : Duculot.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. HUOT, H.
    (1997) : Le rüle des corpus dans la recherche linguistique. Paper presented at theAFLS Conference ‘Les Descriptions du Français : Discours, Corpus, Analyses, Applications’, Montpellier.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. LARSON RINGQVIST, E.
    (1997) : Le questionnement dans le français des apprenants suédois. Paper presented at theEUROSLA 7 Conference, Barcelona.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. LlGHTBOWN, P.
    (1979) : Question form and meaning in the speech of young children learning French. Working papers on bilingualism / Travaux de recherche sur le bilinguisme (18), 103–129.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. (1980) : The acquisition and use of questions by French L2 learners. InSecond language development : Trends and issues S.W. Felix (ed.), 151–175. Tübingen : Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. LlGHTBOWN, P. & D’ANGLEJEAN, A.
    (1985) : Some input considerations for word order in French L1 and L2 acquisition. InInput in second language acquisition S. Gass & C. Madden (eds.), 415–430. Boston : Heinle.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. LYSTER, R.
    (1996) : Questions forms, conditionals, and second-person pronouns used by adolescent speakers across two levels of formality in written and spoken French. The Modern Language Journal80, 2, 165–182.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. MACWHINNEY, B.
    (1995) : The CHILDES Project : Computational Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, N.J. : Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. MILROY, L.
    (1987) : Observing and analysing natural language. Oxford : Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. POHL, J.
    (1965) : Observations sur les formes d’interrogation dans la langue parlée et dans la langue écrite non-littéraire. InActes du Xe Congrès International de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes, vol.2, Paris : Klincksieck.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. PRICE, G.
    (1971) : The French Language: Past and Present. London : Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. REBOULLET, A.
    (1979) : De l’écrit authentique à l’oral authentique, Le Français dans le Monde145, 15–17.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. REGAN, V.
    (1995) : The acquisition of sociolinguistic native speech norms : Effects of a year abroad on Second Language Learners of French. InSecond language in a study abroad context245–267. Amsterdam-Philadelpia : John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1997) : Les apprenants avancés, la lexicalisation et l’acquisition de la compétence socio-linguistique : une approche variationniste. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Etrangère (AILE)9, 193–210.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. SADOCK, J. & ZWICKY, A.
    (1985) : Speech act distinctions in syntax. In T. Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description155–196. vol.1, Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. SHARWOOD SMITH, M.
    (1994) : Second Language Learning. Theoretical foundations. London - New York : Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. TRÉVISE, A. & PORQUIER, R.
    (1985) : Acquisition d’une langue 2 en milieu naturel : quelles méthodologies de description?Langue française68, 18–31.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. WAGNER R.L. & PINCHON, J
    (1962) : Grammaire du français classique et moderne. Paris : Hachette.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.125-126.01dew
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
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