Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T09:13:32.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language Death and Subject Expression: First-person-singular subjects in a declining dialect of Louisiana French

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 September 2018

KATIE CARMICHAEL  and
AARNES GUDMESTAD
KATIE CARMICHAEL*
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
AARNES GUDMESTAD
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: katcarm@vt.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Louisiana French is undergoing gradual language death. In such situations, it is common to find increased variability and rapid change, as speakers use the language less often and in fewer domains (Wolfram 2004; Palosaari and Campbell 2011). These processes have been observed in the pronominal system of Louisiana French (Rottet 1996; Girard 2013), with both phonological and morphological sources of variation leading to an exceptionally large inventory of first-person-singular forms in the French of the Pointe-Au-Chien Indians of Pointe-Aux-Chênes, Louisiana. Using data from a translation task, we examine the range of forms used by French speakers from this community varying in age and fluency. We note a sharp distinction in forms used by fluent versus non-fluent speakers, with the latter making use of the non-clitic form mon. To answer the question of why mon is so common amongst non-fluent speakers in this task, we apply insights from the field of second language acquisition, considering the systems of these non-fluent speakers as autonomous and systematic. We ultimately propose a potential interaction between the previously documented phonological and morphological patterns observed in this community, influencing in the forms observed.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 67 - 91
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*This work was supported by a grant from the Virginia Tech Institute for Society, Culture and Environment (ISCE). We wish to thank Andrea Lloyd, Nathalie Dajko and Rocky McKeon for their help in collecting and processing the data analysed in this article.

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, R. W. (1989). The ‘up’ and ‘down’ staircase in secondary language development. In: Dorian, N. C. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 385–394.Google Scholar
Auger, J. (1994). Subject-clitic inversion in romance: A morphological analysis. In: Parodi, C., Quicoli, C., Saltarelli, M. and Zubizarreta, M. L. (eds), Aspects of Romance Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 23–40.Google Scholar
Auger, J. (2003). Les pronoms clitiques sujets en picard: une analyse au confluent de la phonologie, de la morphologie et de la sytaxe. French Language Studies, 13: 1–22.Google Scholar
Bankston, C. and Henry, J. M. (1998). The silence of the gators: Cajun ethnicity and intergenerational transmission of Louisiana French. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19 (1): 1–23.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. K. (1985). The Pragmatics of Left Detachment in Standard Spoken French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Blainey, D. (2017). Sociolinguistic research with endangered varieties: The case of Louisiana French. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 62: 576–595.Google Scholar
Brasseaux, C. (1992). Acadian to Cajun: Transformation of a People, 1803–1877. Jackson, Mississippi: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. and Muntzel, M. C. (1989). The structural consequences of language death. In: Dorian, N. C. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181–196.Google Scholar
Carmichael, K. (2008). Language death and stylistic variation: An intergenerational study of the substitution of /h/ for /ʒ/ in the French of the Pointe-Au-Chien Indians. Unpublished Tulane University masters thesis.Google Scholar
Carmichael, K. (2007). Gender differences in the substitution of /h/ for /ʒ/ in a formal register of an endangered dialect of Louisiana French. Southern Journal of Linguistics, 31 (2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Carmichael, K. (2013). The performance of Cajun English in Boudreaux and Thibodeaux jokes. American Speech, 88 (4): 377–412.Google Scholar
Carmichael, K. (2017). Stylistic variation and dialect contraction: The case of /ʒ/ and /h/ in Louisiana French. Fleur de Ling: Tulane University Working Papers, Sociolinguistics, 3 (1): 72–89.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (1982). Les dislocations ne sont pas si populaires que ça [Dislocations are not as popular as one might think]. In: Lefebvre, Claire (ed.), La syntaxe comparée du français standard et populaire. Quebec: Gouvernement du Québec, Office de la langue française, pp. 21–246.Google Scholar
Carvalho, A. M., Orozco, R. and Lapidus Shin, N. (eds.) (2015). Subject Pronoun Expression in Spanish: A Cross-Dialectal Perspective. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. xviii–xxvi.Google Scholar
Catalogue of Endangered Languages. (2017). University of Hawaii at Manoa. http://www.endangeredlanguages.comGoogle Scholar
Dajko, N. (2009). Ethnic and Geographic Variation in the French of the Lafourche Basin. Unpublished Tulane University dissertation.Google Scholar
Dajko, N. (2012). Sociolinguistics of ethnicity in Francophone Louisiana. Language and Linguistics Compass, 6/5 (2012): 279–295.Google Scholar
Dajko, N. and Carmichael, K. (2014). But qui c'est la différence? Discourse markers in Louisiana French: The case of ‘but’ vs. ‘mais.’ Language in Society, 43: 159–183.Google Scholar
de Cat, C. (2007). French Dislocation: Interpretation, Syntax, Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1973). Grammatical change in a dying dialect. Language, 49.2: 413–438.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1977). The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 12: 23–32.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1978). The fate of morphological complexity in language death: Evidence from East Sutherland Gaelic. Language, 54.3: 590–609.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1981). Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1983). Natural second language acquisition from the perspective of the study of language death. In: Andersen, R. (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization As Language Acquisition. New York: Newbury House, pp. 158–167.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (ed.). (1989) Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dorian, N. C. (1994). Varieties of variation in a very small place: Social homogeneity, prestige norms, and linguistic variation. Language, 70.4: 631–696.Google Scholar
Dressler, W. (1972). On the phonology of language death. In: Peranteau, P. M., Levi, J. N. and Phares, G. C. (eds), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 448–457.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. (2001). Attrition linguistique ou convergence dialectale: JE, MOI/JE et MOI en français cadien. In: Donabédian, A. (ed.), Langues de diaspora, Langues en contact. No 18 of Faits de Langue: Revue de Linguistique. Paris: Ophrys. 149–165.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. and Horvath, M. (2002). Sounding Cajun: The rhetorical use of dialect and speech writing. American Speech, 77: 264–287.Google Scholar
Dubois, S. and Noetzel, S. (2005). Intergenerational pattern of interference and internally-motivated changes in Cajun French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 8.2: 131–143.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K. L. and Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition: Learning to Use Language in Context. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Geeslin, K., Linford, B., Fafulas, S., Long, A., Díaz-Campos, M. (2013). The L2 development of subject form variation in Spanish: The individual vs. the group. In: Amaro, J. Cabrelli, Lord, G., de Prada Pérez, A. and Aaron, J. E. (eds), Selected proceedings of the 16th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 156–174.Google Scholar
Girard, F. A. (2013). The pronominal markers in Cajun French. In: Salvesen, C. M. and Helland, H. P. (eds), Challenging Clitics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 187–208.Google Scholar
Harrison, K. D. and Anderson, G. D. S. (2008). Tofa language change and terminal generation speakers. In: Harrison, K. D., Rood, D. S., and Dwyer, A. (eds), Lessons from Documented Endangered Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 243– 270.Google Scholar
Kato, M. A. (1999). Strong and weak pronominals in the null subject parameter. Probus, 11: 1–37.Google Scholar
King, R. (1989). On the social meaning of linguistic variability in language death situations: Variation in Newfoundland French. In: Dorian, N. C. (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 139–148.Google Scholar
Klingler, T. (2009). How much Acadian is there in Cajun. In: Mathis-Moser, U. and Bischof, G. (eds.), Acadians and Cajuns. The Politics and Culture of French Minorities in North America, Innsbruck: Innsbruck university press, pp. 91–103.Google Scholar
Leblanc, C. L. (1996). Les sujets nuls en français madelinot. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Nance, C., McLeod, W., O'Rourke, B. and Dunmore, S. 2016. Identity, accent aim, and motivation in second language users: New Scottish Gaelic speakers’ use of phonetic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics 20 (2): 164–191.Google Scholar
O'Shannessy, C. (2011). Language contact and change in endangered languages. In: Austin, P. K. and Sallabank, J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 78–99.Google Scholar
Papen, R. A. and Rottet, K. J. (1997). A structural sketch of the Cajun French spoken in Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes. In: Valdmen, A. (ed.), French and Creole in Louisiana. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 71–108.Google Scholar
Palosaari, N. and Campbell, L. (2011). Structural aspects of language endangerment. In: Austin, P. K. and Sallabank, J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 78–99.Google Scholar
Picone, M. D. 1997. Enclave dialect contraction: An external overview of Louisiana French. American Speech, 72.2: 117–153.Google Scholar
Rehner, K. (2002). The development of aspects of linguistic and discourse competence by advanced second language learners of French (Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 12.Google Scholar
Rottet, K. J. (1995). Language Shift and Language Death in the Cajun French-Speaking Communities of Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, Louisiana. Unpublished Indiana University dissertation.Google Scholar
Rottet, K. J. (1996). Language change and language death: Some changes in the pronominal system of declining Cajun French. Plurilinguismes, 11: 117–152.Google Scholar
Rottet, K. J. (2005). Variation et Étiolement en Francais Cadien: Perspectives Comparées. In: Valdman, A., Auger, J., and Piston-Hatlen, D. (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord: État Présent. Saint-Nicolas, Québec, Canada: Les Presses de l'Université Laval, pp. 243–260.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. (2007). Français acadien, français cadien: variation stylistique et maintenance de formes phonétiques dans le parler de quatre générations de femmes cadiennes. Unpublished dissertation, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. (1985a). Young People's Dyirbal: An example of language death from Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmidt, A. (1985b). The fate of ergativity in dying dyirbal. Language, 61.2: 378–396.Google Scholar
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 10: 209–231.Google Scholar
Spolsky, B. (2011). Language and society. In: Austin, P. K. and Sallabank, J. (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 141–156.Google Scholar
Wolfram, W. (2004). Language death and dying. In: Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P. and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 764–787.Google Scholar