Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-11T09:58:36.487Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

#YouAreWhatYouTweetCHHH: Identity and fricative epithesis in French-language tweets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2022

Amanda Dalola Open the ORCID record for Amanda Dalola [Opens in a new window]
Amanda Dalola*
Affiliation:
Department of Languages, Literatures & Cultures, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
*
Email: dalola@mailbox.sc.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Phrase-final fricative epithesis (PFFE), often indicated in informal writing with a final -h or -ch, e.g. beaucoup_h, oui_ch, is a sociophonetic variable of Hexagonal French in which utterance-final vowels give way to intense fricative-like whistles. Production research has found PFFE to be used at equal rates among men and women, and perception research has found that native French speakers perceive it to mark either formal speech or intense affect. This research furthers the special issue’s line of inquiry on French variation in forms of digital media by extending the analysis to a sociophonetic variable with a robust life on Twitter. The study compares the pragmatic value of tweets containing PFFE with previously described values and then examines interactions of gender, hostword phrasal location and lexical frequency on its realization. 96.8% of PFFE occurrences in the 2060-token corpus were classified into the pragmatic categories of Formality and Intense Affect. Results suggest that PFFE has become a salient enough sociophonetic variable that 21st-century French users represent it graphically in their tweets, however, its usage is structurally more permissive than in spoken language, signaling that it has taken on an iconic value in digital spaces.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 32 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue (French Variation in Digital Media) , July 2022 , pp. 243 - 266
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Footnotes

1

I would like to thank the audience of New Ways of Analyzing Variation 46 for comments on a previous version of this analysis, as well as Keiko Bridwell, Barbara E. Bullock, Zsuzsanna Fagyal, Jeff Lamontagne, and three anonymous reviewers. Any remaining errors are my own.

References

7 REFERENCES

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). “Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4.” Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Candea, M. (2012). Au journal de RFI-chhh et dans d’autres émissions radiodiffusée-chhhs. Les épithèses consonantiques fricatives. Le discours et la langue, 2(2), 136–149.Google Scholar
Candea, M., Wottawa, J., Adda-Decker, M., & Lamel, L.. (2020). Merci·chh, entendu·chh: variation phonétique ancienne ou émergence d’une proto-particule en voie de stabilisation? Federica Diémoz, Gaétane Dostie, Pascale Habermann, Florence Lefeuvre. Le Français innovant, 130, pp. 291–308, 2020, Sciences pour la Communication, 978-3-0343-4143-1. hal-02505343.Google Scholar
Candea, M., Adda-Decker, M., & Lamel, L.. (2013). Recent evolution of non-standard consonantal variants in French broadcast news. Interspeech: 412–416.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (in progress). Bossy is in the ear of the beholder: The perception of phrase-final fricative epithesis among L1 and L2 speakers of French. To be submitted to Journal of French Language Studies.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (2017). Identity & vowel devoicing in French-language tweets. New Ways of Analyzing Variation 46, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, November 2–5, 2017.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (2016). Bossy is in the ear of the beholder: When L1 and L2 French speakers perceive final vowel devoicing [Presentation]. NWAV 45, Vancouver.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (2015b). The role of vowel type, preceding consonant and lexical frequency on final vowel devoicing in Continental French. ICPhS 18, University of Glasgow, UK, August 10–14, 2015.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (2015a). An acoustic profile of phrase-final devoicing in Continental French [Presentation]. Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages 45, UNICAMP, Campinas, Brazil, May 6–9, 2015.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. (2014). Un drôle de bruit_hhh: A sociophonetic examination of the production and perception of Final vowel devoicing among L1 and L2 speakers of French. Dissertation. UT Austin.Google Scholar
Dalola, A., & Bridwell, K.. (in press). Revisiting sociophonetic competence: Variable spectral moments in phrase-final fricative epithesis for L1 & L2 speakers of French. LSRL50 Proceedings.Google Scholar
Dalola, A., & Bridwell, K.. (2020). “Redefining sociophonetic competence: Mapping COG Differences in Phrase-Final Fricative Epithesis in L2 and L2 Speakers of French.” Languages, 5(4), 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalola, A., & Bridwell, K.. (2019). “The Shape of [u]: Mapping COG differences in Phrase-Final Vowel Devoicing in L1 & L2 speakers of French.” In Sasha Calhoun, Paola Escudero, Marija Tabain & Paul Warren (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, August 2019 (pp. 1174–1178). Canberra, Australia: Australasian Speech Science and Technology Association, Inc.Google Scholar
Dalola, A. & Bullock, B.E.. (2017). On sociophonetic competence: Phrase final vowel devoicing in native and advanced L2 speakers of French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 1–31.Google Scholar
Dansereau, D. M. (2006). Savoir dire: cours de phonétique et de prononciation. Houghton Mifflin College Division.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J. (2015). Systematic patterning in phonologically-motivated orthographic variation. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19.2, 161–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagyal, Z. (2010). Rhythm types and the speech of working-class youth in a banlieue of Paris: the role of vowel elision and devoicing. In A reader in sociophonetics (pp. 91–132). De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Fagyal, Z., & Moisset, C.. (1999). Sound change and articulatory release: where and why are high vowels devoiced in Parisian French. ICPhS, 309–312.Google Scholar
Fónagy, I. (1989). Le français change de visage? Revue Romane, 24, 225–254.Google Scholar
Gentry, J., Gentry, M. J., RSQLite, S., & R. L. Artistic. (2016). Package ‘twitteR’. R package version, 1(9).Google Scholar
Graham, M., Hale, S. A., & Gaffney, D. (2014). Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in Twitter. The Professional Geographer, 66(4), 568–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns (No. 4). University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume one: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. E., Frankle, H., & Tucker, G. R. (1966). Judging personality through speech: a French-Canadian example. Journal of Communication, 16(4): 305–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lamontagne, J. & McCulloch, G.. (this issue). Phonological variation on Twitter: Evidence from letter repetition in three French dialects. Special Issue on French Variation in Digital Media. Journal of French Language Studies.Google Scholar
Law, J. (this issue). Reflections of the French nasal vowel shift in orthography on Twitter. Special Issue on French Variation in Digital Media. Journal of French Language Studies.Google Scholar
Leipzig Corpora Collection: French mixed corpus based on material from 2012 (2020). Leipzig Corpora Collection. Dataset. https://corpora.uni-leipzig.de?corpusId=fra_mixed_2012.Google Scholar
Martin, P. (2004). Dévoisement vocalique en français. La linguistique, 40, 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCulloch, G. (2020). Because internet: Understanding the new rules of language. Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Myers, S. (2005). Vowel duration and neutralization of vowel length contrasts in Kinyarwanda. Journal of Phonetics, 33: 427–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paternostro, R. (2008). Le dévoisement des voyelles finales. Rassegna italiana di Linguistica applicata, 3(40), 129–158.Google Scholar
R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Smith, C. (2002). Prosodic Finality and Sentence Type in French. Language and Speech, 45(2), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, C. (2003). Vowel Devoicing in Contemporary French. Journal of French Language Studies, 13(2), 177–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, C. (2006). In and Out of the Laboratory: Using a Variety of Data Sources to Study Variation Source in Speech [Poster]. LabPhon06, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Straka, G. (1979). “La division des sons du langage en voyelles et consonnes peut-elle être justifiée?” in Les sons et les mots: choix d’études de phonétique et de linguistique. Paris, Klincksieck, 59–141.Google Scholar
Tatman, R. (2015). # go awn: Sociophonetic Variation in Variant Spellings on Twitter. Working Papers of the Linguistics Circle, 25.2, 97–108.Google Scholar
Tatman, R. (2016). “I’ma spawts guay”: Comparing the Use of Sociophonetic Variables in Speech and Twitter. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 22(2), 18.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1986). Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar