Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation - European Perspectives V: Selected papers from the Seventh International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 7), Trondheim, June 2013
Edited by Eivind Torgersen, Stian Hårstad, Brit Mæhlum and Unn Røyneland
[Studies in Language Variation 17] 2015
► pp. 17–30

How many ands in Picard?

One notable difference between Standard French and Picard is that, unlike Standard French, which has only et, Picard has two coordinating conjunctions equivalent to the English and: pi and et pi. In this paper, we examine the distribution of the two forms and try to determine whether they are different conjunctions or allomorphs of the same underlying form. Oral and written data from three speakers are analyzed. The picture that emerges reveals a complex interplay of semantic, syntactic, and phonological constraints that we attribute to ongoing grammaticalization.
Keywords: allomorph, apheresis, coordinating conjunction, epenthesis, Gallo-Romance, language change, reanalysis, temporal succession, variation
Published online: 9 April 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.17.02aug
References (12)
References
Auger, Julie. 2000. “Phonology, variation, and prosodic structure: Word-final epenthesis in Vimeu Picard.” Proceedings of the First International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE), ed. by Josep M. Fontana, et al., 14–24. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
. 2001. “Phonological variation and Optimality Theory: Evidence from word-initial vowel epenthesis in Picard.” Language Variation and Change 13 (3): 253–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la syntaxe.” Journal of French Language Studies 13 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clements, J. Clancy. 2009. “Gradual vs. abrupt creolization and recent changes in Daman Creoile Portuguese.” In Gradual Creolization: Studies Celebrating Jacques Arends, ed. by Rachel Selbach, Hugo C. Cardoso and Margot van den Berg, 32–53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeGraff, Michel. 2007. “Kreyòl Ayisyen.” Comparative Creole Syntax: Parallel Outlines of 18 Creole Grammars, ed. by John Holm and Peter Patrick. London: Battlebridge Publications (Westminster Creolistics Series, 7).Google Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane. 2004. “Considérations sur la forme et le sense. Pis en français québécois.” French Language Studies 14: 113–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giacomi, Alain, Henrietta Cedergren, and Malcah Yaeger. 1977. “ ‘Pi,’ ‘et pi,’ … ‘pi que’ à Montréal.” Recherches sur le français parlé 1: 87–99.Google Scholar
Hale, Ken. 1983. “Papago k(c).” International Journal of American Linguistics 49 (3): 299–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 1992. “Some Into-European Systems of Conjunction: Rigveda, Old Persian, Homer.” Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 94: 1–51. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laks, Bernard. 1983. “Langage et pratiques sociales.” Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales 46: 73–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurendeau, Paul. 1983. “Sur la systématique et la combinatoire du joncteur pi en québécois.” Travaux de Linguistique Québécoise 4: 13–57.Google Scholar
Vasseur, Gaston. 1998. Dictionnaire des Parlers Picards du Vimeu. Abbeville: Sides.Google Scholar