Cover not available
Article published In:
Interactional Linguistics
Vol. 4:1 (2024) ► pp.3–37

Longitudinal change in linguistic resources for interaction

The case of tu vois (‘you see’) in L2 French

ORCID logo | Stockholm University | University of Neuchâtel

This article presents a longitudinal study of a second language (L2) French speaker’s (Aurelia) use of the construction tu vois (‘you see’) over 15 months. Research on first language (L1) French has shown that tu vois has been subject to grammaticalization, whereby the construction in spoken language frequently serves as a discourse marker rather than a complement-taking predicate construction expressing visual perception. Drawing on longitudinal Conversation Analysis, I qualitatively and quantitatively analyze Aurelia’s use of tu vois in relation to its turn position and interactional purposes. I document a similar change happening in Aurelia’s use of the construction over time as what has been observed in L1 French: While she initially deploys tu vois exclusively in its ‘literal’ sense of visual perception and with a complement (tu vois X, ‘you see X’), she eventually starts using it as a semantically bleached discourse marker for interaction-organizational and interpersonal purposes. A few ‘hybrid’ cases demonstrate the progressive nature of this change, and indicate further similarities between L2 acquisition and L1 grammaticalization processes. I discuss possible reasons for the documented change and address implications of the findings for research on both the development of L2 grammar-for-interaction and language change more generally.

Keywords: longitudinal change, grammaticalization, discourse markers, second language interaction, development, multimodality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Grammaticalization of tu vois (‘you see’) and other complement-taking predicate constructions
  • 3.The acquisition and changing use of linguistic resources for interaction in the L2
  • 4.Data and method
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Overall tendencies: From low-frequency predicate construction to high-frequency DM
      • Turn/TCU-final tu vois
      • Turn/TCU-initial tu vois
      • TCU-medial tu vois
      • Free-standing tu vois
      • Quantitative distribution
    • 5.2Hybrid cases: Grammaticalization-in-progress?
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 23 October 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/il.23001.sko
References
Andersen, H. L.
(1997) Propositions parenthétiques et subordination en français parlé. Dissertation, University of Copenhagen.
(2007) Marqueurs discursifs propositionnels. Langue Française, 154 1, 13–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asmuß, B.
(2011) Proposing shared knowledge as a means of pursuing agreement. In T. Stivers, L. Mondada & J. Steensig (Eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, (205–234). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auer, P.
(2020) Genau! Der auto-reflexive Dialog als Motor der Entwicklung von Diskursmarkern. In B. Weidner, K. König, W. Imo & L. Wegner (Eds.), Verfestigungen in der Interaktion: Konstruktionen, sequenzielle Muster, kommunikative Gattungen (pp. 263–294). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Auer, P., & Günthner, S.
(2005) Die Entstehung von Diskursmarkern im Deutschen – ein Fall von Grammatikalisierung?. In T. Leuschner, T. Mortelmans & S. De Groodt (Eds.), Grammatikalisierung im Deutschen (pp. 335–362). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolly, C.
(2010) Pragmaticalisation du marqueur discursif tu vois. De la perception à l’évidence et de l’évidence au discours. In F. Neveu, V. Muni-Toké, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2010 (Discours, pragmatique et interaction) (pp. 673–693). Paris: Institut de Linguistique Française. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) Du verbe de perception visuelle au marqueur parenthétique ‘tu vois’: Grammaticalisation et changement linguistique. French Languange Studies, 22 1, 143–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L.
(2011) Usage-based theory and grammaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (2011; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. L., & Hopper, P.
(2001) Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In J. Bybee & P. Hopper (Eds.), Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure (pp. 1–24). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cappeau, P.
(2004) Les sujets de deuxième personne à l’oral. Langage et société, 108 1, 75–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clayman, S. E., & Raymond, C. W.
(2021)  You know as invoking alignment: A generic resource for emerging problems of understanding and affiliation. Journal of Pragmatics, 182 1, 293–309. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deppermann, A., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2021) Longitudinal conversation analysis – Introduction to the special issue. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 (2), 127–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Détrie, C.
(2010) De voir à tu vois/vous voyez : fonction sémantico-énonciative et postures énonciatives construites par ces particules interpersonnelles. In F. Neveu, V. Muni-Toké, J. Durand, T. Klingler, L. Mondada & S. Prévost (Eds.), Proceedings of the Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française – CMLF 2010 (Discours, pragmatique et interaction) (pp. 755–766). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G.
(2011) Grammaticalization and pragmaticalization. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (2011; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H.
(2011) Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In: B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (2011; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eskildsen, S. W.
(2011) The L2 inventory in action: Usage-based linguistics and conversation analysis in second language acquisition. In G. Pallotti & J. Wagner (Eds.), Learning as social practice: Conversation-analytic perspectives (pp. 327–364). National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
(2012) L2 negation constructions at work. Language Learning, 62 1, 335–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018) L2 constructions and interactional competence: Subordination and coordination in English L2 learning. In A. Tyler, L. Huang, & H. Jan (Eds.), What is applied cognitive linguistics? Answers from current SLA research (pp. 61–96). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020) Creativity and routinisation in L2 English – two usage-based case-studies. In W. Lowie, M. Michel, A. Rousse-Malpat, M. Keijzer & R. Steinkrauss (Eds), Usage-based dynamics in second language development (pp. 107–129). Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fielder, S.
(2020) Tu sais (’you know’) and t’sais (’y’know’) in spoken French. Travaux Neuchâtelois de Linguistique, (72), 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacalone Ramat, A.
(1992) Grammaticalization processes in the area of temporal and modal relations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 14 (3), 293–322.Google Scholar
Goffman, E.
(1978) Response cries. Language, 54 (4), 787–815. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, C.
(2009) Things, bodies, and language. In B. Fraser & K. Turner (Eds.), Language in life, and a life in language: Jacob Mey – A Festschrift (pp. 105–109). Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J.
(1994) Ritualization and the development of language. In W. Pagliuca (Ed.), Perspectives on grammaticalization (pp. 3–28). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C.
(2003) Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishida, M.
(2009) Development of interactional competence: Changes in the use of ne in L2 Japanese during study abroad. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 351–386). University of Hawai‘i.Google Scholar
Kärkkäinen, E.
(2003) Epistemic stance in English conversation. A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on ‘I think’. John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Keevallik, L., & Amon, M.
(in press) Seeing is believing: The multisensorial emergence of the Estonian näed ‘you see’ as an evidential. Interactional Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2009) Korean discourse markers in L2 Korean speakers’ conversation: An acquisitional perspective. In H. T. Nguyen & G. Kasper (Eds.), Talk-in-interaction: Multilingual perspectives (pp. 317–350). National Foreign Language Resource Center.Google Scholar
Lindström, J., Maschler, Y., & Pekarek Doehler, S.
(Eds.) (2016) Grammar and negative epistemics in talk-in-interaction: Cross-linguistic studies. Special Issue of Journal of Pragmatics, 106 1.Google Scholar
Lindström, J., & Wide, C.
(2005) Tracing the origins of a set of discourse particles. Swedish particles of the type you know. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 6 1, 211–236. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W.
(1994) Principles of linguistic change. Volume 1: Internal Factors. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D.
(2015) Complexity theory. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 227–244). Routledge.Google Scholar
Markee, N.
(1997) Managing curricular innovation. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mondada, L.
(2004) Marqueurs linguistiques et dynamiques discursives : le role des verbes de perception visuelle et de la spatialité dans la gestion du topic. In J. Fernandez-Vest & S. Carter-Thomas (Eds.), Structure informationnelle et particules énonciatives: essai de typologie (pp. 101–126). L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Olsher, D.
(2004) Talk and gesture: The embodied completion of sequential actions in spoken interaction. In R. Gardner & J. Wagner (Eds.), Second language conversations (pp. 221–245). Continuum.Google Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S.
(2018) Elaborations on L2 interactional competence: The development of L2 grammar-for-interaction. Classroom Discourse, 9 1, 3–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021) How grammar grows out of social interaction: From multi-unit to single-unit question. Open Linguistics, 7 (1), 837–864. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) Multimodal action formats for managing preference: chais pas ‘dunno’plus gaze conduct in dispreferred responses to questions. Journal of Pragmatics, 197 1, 81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
in press). How grammar-for-interaction emerges over time: Evidence from second language talk. In M. Selting & D. Barth-Weingarten Eds. New perspectives in interactional linguistic research John Benjamins
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Balaman, U.
(2021) The routinization of grammar as a social action format: A longitudinal study of video-mediated interactions. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 54 1, 283–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Berger, E.
(2018) L2 interactional competence as increased ability for context-sensitive conduct: A longitudinal study of story-openings. Applied Linguistics, 39 1, 555–578.Google Scholar
(2019) On the reflexive relation between developing L2 interactional competence and evolving social relationships: A longitudinal study of word-searches in the ‘wild’. In J. Hellermann, S. W. Eskildsen, S. Pekarek Doehler & A. Piirainen–Marsh (Eds.), Conversation analytic research on learning-in-action: The complex ecology of L2 interaction ‘in the wild’ (pp. 51–75). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Skogmyr Marian, K.
(2022) Functional diversification and progressive routinization of a multiword expression in and for social interaction: A longitudinal L2 study. The Modern Language Journal, 106 (S1), 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pekarek Doehler, S., & Thörle, B.
in press). Discourse markers in second language acquisition. In M.-B. Mosegaard Hansen & J. Visconti Eds. Discourse markers in Romance De Gruyter
Pomerantz, A.
(1984) Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Raumolin-Brunberg, H., & Nurmi, A.
(2011) Grammaticalization and language change in the individual. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (2011; online ed., Oxford Academic, 18 Sept. 2012), DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reaves, A.
(2023) Discourse markers in second language French. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M.
(2003) Diffusion of innovations. (5. ed.). Free press.Google Scholar
Schirm, S. K.
(2022) L2 discourse markers and the development of interactional competence during study abroad. Dissertation, University of Waterloo.
Skogmyr Marian, K.
(2021) Assessing without words: Verbally incomplete utterances in complaints. Frontiers in Psychology. 121:689443. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022) The development of L2 interactional competence: A multimodal study of complaining in French interactions. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Robinson, J.
(2006) A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society, 35 (3), 367–392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stivers, T., & Rossano, F.
(2010) Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 43 1, 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoenica, I. M., & Fiedler, S.
(2021) Multimodal practice for mobilizing response: The case of turn-final tu vois ‘you see’ in French talk-in-interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 121:659340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J.
(2009) Forward-gesturing. Discourse Processes, 46 (2–3), 161–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, S. A., & Mulac, A.
(1991) A quantitative perspective on the grammaticization of epistemic parentheticals in English. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization (pp. 313–329). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar