Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:48:14.890Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Awareness of linguistic constraints on variable ne omission*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2008

Aidan Coveney
Aidan Coveney
Affiliation:
Department of French, University, Exeter, EX4 4QH, e-mail: a.b.coveney@exeter.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Many quantitative studies have shown that sociolinguistic variables, such as the variable omission of ne, are subject to several linguistic constraints, yet linguists have disagreed as to whether speakers themselves are aware of these constraints. This article reports on an Intuitions Elicitation Test designed to explore whether such awareness does exist, both for native-speakers and non-native advanced learners of French. It is suggested tentatively that the results of the test do indeed indicate some awareness of some linguistic constraints on the ne variable, and that some advanced non-native learners have a particular sensitivity to these constraints.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , September 1998 , pp. 159 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Armstrong, N. (1996) Variable deletion of French /l/: linguistic, social and stylistic factors. Journal of French Language Studies, 6: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. (1976) The loss of the negative morpheme ne in Parisian French. Lingua, 39: 119–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, W. (1981) The loss of the negative particle ne in French. Language, 57: 674–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, A. (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13: 145–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, D. (1971) Inherent variability and variable rules. Foundations of Language, 7: 457–492.Google Scholar
Birdsong, D. (1992) Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68: 706–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1995) De la rareté de certains phénomènes syntaxiques en français parlé. Journal of French Language Studies, 5: 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cedergren, H. and Sankoff, D. (1974) Variable rules: performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50: 333–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. and Trudgill, P. (1980) Dialectology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppieters, R. (1987) Competence differences between native and near-native speakers. Language, 63: 544–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (1996) Variability in Spoken French. Exeter: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
Durand, J. (1993) Sociolinguistic variation and the linguist. In: Sanders, C. (ed.), French Today. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 257–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fasold, R. (1978) Language variation and linguistic competence. In: Sankoff, D. (ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods. New York: Academic Press, pp. 85–95.Google Scholar
Fasold, R. (1990) Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greenbaum, S. and Quirk, R. (1970) Elicitation Experiments in English: Linguistic Studies in Use and Attitude. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. (1986) Le Bon Usage, 12th edn, rev. by A. Goosse. Gembloux: Duculot.Google Scholar
Guy, G. and Boberg, C. (1997) Inherent variability and the obligatory contour principle. Language Variation and Change, 9: 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, R. (1997) Inherent variability and linguistic theory. Cognitive Linguistics, 8: 73–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, S. (1977) Étude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montréal. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1978) Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? A response to Beatriz Lavandera. Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, No. 44.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994) Principles of Linguistic Change. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Labov, W., Cohen, P., Robins, C. and Lewis, J. (1968) A Study of the Non-standard English of Negro and Puerto Rican Speakers in New York City. Report on Co-operative Research Project 3288. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Lafontaine, D. (1986) Le Parti pris des mots. Normes et attitudes linguistiques. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Lodge, K. (1984) Testing native speaker predictions of variant forms of English. UEA Papers in Linguistics, 20: 21–27.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. (1987) Observing and Analysing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moreau, M.-L. (1986) Les séquences préformées: entre les combinaisons libres et les idiomatismes. Le cas de la négation avec ou sans ne. Le Français Moderne, 54: 137–60.Google Scholar
Preston, D. (1989) Sociolinguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Price, G. (1993) L. S. R. Byrne and E. L. Churchill's A Comprehensive French Grammar, 4th edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Regan, V. (1996) Variation in French interlanguage: a longitudinal study of sociolinguistic competence. In: Bayley, R. and Preston, D. (eds.), Second Language Acquisition and Linguistic Variation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regan, V. (1997) Les apprenants avancés, la lexicalisation et l'acquisition de la compétence sociolinguistique: une approche variationniste. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 9: 193–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, J. (1979) What the ‘Good Language Learner’ can teach us. In: Pride, J. (ed.), Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 17–26.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Cedergren, H. (1971) Some results of a sociolinguistic stu dy of Montreal French. In: Darnell, R. (ed.), Linguistic Diversity in Canadian Society. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., pp. 61–87.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. and Vincent, D. (1977) L'emploi productif du ne dans le français parlé à Montréal. Le Français Moderne, 45: 243–56.Google Scholar
Söll, L. (1982) Situer on ‘nous’ en franfais moderne. In: Hausmann, F.-J. (ed.), Etudes degrammairefratifaise descriptive. Heidelberg: Groos, pp. 7–15.Google Scholar
Thompson, S. and Mulac, A. (1991) The discourse conditions for the use of the complementizer that in conversational English. Journal of Pragmatics, 15: 237–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tousignant, C. and Sankoff, D. (1979) Aspects de la competence productive et receptive: la liaison a Montreal. In: Thibault, P. (ed.), Le Francais parle: etudes sociolinguistiques. Edmonton: Linguistic Research Inc., pp. 41–51.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974) The Social Differentiation of English in Norwich. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1983) On Dialect. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986) Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Warren, J. (1994) Plus ca change, plus c'est pareil: the case of ‘que’ in Montreal French. Culture, 14: 39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar