Cover not available
Part of
Language Variation - European Perspectives VI: Selected papers from the Eighth International Conference on Language Variation in Europe (ICLaVE 8), Leipzig, May 2015
Edited by Isabelle Buchstaller and Beat Siebenhaar
[Studies in Language Variation 19] 2017
► pp. 157–172

Variation in style

Register and lifestyle in Parisian French

| Universität zu Köln
This study presents a sociolinguistic analysis of two linguistic variables of French, subject doubling and subject-verb inversion in wh-questions. First, factor and cluster analyses led to a grouping of the sample into four distinct lifestyle types. Then, statistical tests show that lifestyle, gender, and age are significant external factors, and that lifestyle exhibits the most salient effect. While the lifestyle associated with orthodoxy correlates with a high inversion rate (formal linguistic style) and low doubling rate (informal linguistic style), the group associated with heterodoxy demonstrates the inverse pattern. It stands to reason that sociolinguistic studies can uncover more patterns of variation if they go beyond the standard sociodemographic variables (such as age, gender, etc.) and a ‘narrow’ concept of class.
Keywords: French, subject doubling, subject-verb inversion, wh-question, dialogue data, lifestyle, social class, norm, factor analysis, cluster analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
  • 3.Subject-verb inversion in wh-questions and subject doubling in French
  • 4.Lifestyle and Bourdieu’s sociocultural theory
  • 5.Operationalization of lifestyle
    • 5.1Data reduction
    • 5.2Factor analysis
    • 5.3Cluster analysis
  • 6.The effect of lifestyle and other social variables on inversion and doubling
    • 6.1Statistical results
  • 6.2Discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 July 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.19.10adl
References (24)
References
Adli, Aria. 2013. “Syntactic Variation in French wh-Questions: A Quantitative Study from the Angle of Bourdieu’s Sociocultural Theory.” Linguistics 51(3): 473–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Auger, Julie. 1994. Pronominal Clitics in Quebec Colloquial French: a Morphological Analysis. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
. 1984. Distinction : A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 1993. Sociology in Question. London and Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd edition). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan B. 2005. “Subject Doubling in Spoken French: A Sociolinguistic Approach.” The French Review 79(1): 96–111.Google Scholar
Coveney, Aidan, and Laurie Dekhissi. 2013. Variation dans l’emploi des interrogatives partielles dans le cinéma de banlieue. Paper presented at ‘La syntaxe des interrogatives’, Neuchâtel.
Culbertson, Jennifer. 2010. “Convergent Evidence for Categorial Change in French: From Subject Clitic to Agreement Marker.” Language 86(1): 85–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drijkoningen, Frank, and Brigitte Kampers-Manhe. 2008. “On Inversions and the Interpretation of Subjects in French.” Probus 20(2): 147–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Druetta, Ruggero. 2008. La question en français parlé : étude distributionnelle. Torino: Trauben Edizioni.Google Scholar
Elsig, Martin. 2009. Grammatical Variation across Space and Time – The French Interrogative System. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Faul, Franz, Edgar Erdfelder, Albert-Georg Lang, and Axel Buchner. 2007. “G*Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences.” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers 39(2): 175–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
INSEE. 2003. Nomenclature des Professions et Catégories Socioprofessionnelles (PCS). Paris: Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S., and Jean-Yves Pollock. 1978. “Stylistic Inversion, Successive Cyclicity and Move-NP in French.” Linguistic Inquiry 9: 595–621.Google Scholar
Kerswill, Paul. 2007. “Social Class.” In The Routledge Companion to Sociolinguistics, ed. by Carmen Llamas, Louise Mullany, and Peter Stockwell, 51–61. Abingdon & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1966. The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
. 2001. Principles of Linguistic Change, Volume 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Meisel, Jürgen M., Martin Elsig, and Matthias Bonnesen. 2011. “Delayed Acquisition of Grammar in First Language Development: Subject-Verb Inversion and Subject Clitics in French Interrogatives.” Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 1(4): 347–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, Terry. 1995. “Subject NP Doubling, Matching, and Minority French.” Language Variation and Change 7(1): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nagy, Naomi, Helene Blondeau, and Julie Auger. 2003. “Second Language Acquisition and “Real” French: An Investigation of Subject Doubling in the French of Montreal Anglophones.” Language Variation and Change 15(1): 73–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zahler, Sara. 2014. “Variable Subject Doubling in Spoken Parisian French.” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 20(1): 361–371.Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 2010. “Pour un modèle diglossique de description du français: quelques implications théoriques, didactiques et méthodologiques.” French Language Studies 21(2): 231–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar