38 messages over 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>
Jeffers Senior Member United Kingdom Joined 4907 days ago 2151 posts - 3960 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Hindi, Ancient Greek, French, Sanskrit, German
| Message 1 of 38 31 March 2015 at 12:23pm | IP Logged |
The subject of French diglossia was mentioned on another thread, and I'd like to explore it a bit further. I didn't want to hijack the original thread, so I'm starting a new and specific discussion. I hope this will be a useful and interesting discussion.
First, the original comment by kanewai about diglossia:
kanewai wrote:
French is diglossic - the proper French we learn in school is very different from spoken French. It's not as
extreme as with Arabic, but it's more diglossic than any other language I've studied. Usually my listening lags
a bit behind my other skills; with French it feels years behind.
A few simple examples
What we learn:
Il ne marche pas.
Nous allons au cinema.
Oui
Actual French:
Il marche pas. (The 'ne' is rarely used)
On va au cinema (We were taught that 'on' was an option for 'nous', not that it is the main 1st person plural
form)
Ouais
I almost feel there should be separate courses on colloquial French. Or, as linguist John McWhorter argues,
we should start with actual spoken French, and learn the formal (and rarely spoken) version later. |
|
|
Then part of a post from eyðimörk:
eyðimörk wrote:
Lastly, don't get discouraged by what people are saying here about diglossia. Yes, you might have learnt "homme" and "ami" instead of "mec" and "pote", but I didn't learn "bloke" or "buddy" in English class (p.s. I'm sure they're common words, but words like mec, pote, nana etc. are not words anyone has ever used with me personally, maybe because I'm a foreigner but so are you, in the 20+ years I've travelled to France or in the 3 years I've lived here — heck, even the early 80s style punk who stopped me in the Paris metro to ask me for a light last time I was in the capital, about a decade ago, used "vous" and "mademoiselle" with me, and I was dressed like a metalhead from head to toe and hadn't given away my foreigner status by speaking yet). You'll be fine. Just go slowly. The real trouble with French is that it has a tendency to become one long string of syllables and it takes a lot of training listening and a fairly large vocabulary to parse it. Another issue is that there are a lot of very similar syllables making for a very large number of almost-homophones to the untrained ear or the still very much developing vocabulary. |
|
|
Finally a brief comment from the beginning of a post by Cavesa:
Cavesa wrote:
I think the "diglossia" is quite an exageration, the trouble lies elsewhere. |
|
|
I also thought that kanewai's comments were exaggerated, but I didn't want to derail the thread. Here are my responses to kanewai's three specific examples:
Il marche pas. (The 'ne' is rarely used) This is difficult to argue with, but I think exaggerated. After reading the post I did an informal count of "ne" used against "ne" dropped during a 90 minute episode of a policier on TV5Monde. Here's what I noticed:
1. It was dropped about 75% of the time, used about 25%. So it's not quite "rare".
2. Older characters tended to retain it more often.
3. A main character who was written to be rebellious never used it once (so dropping it is a sort of linguistic clue to his character).
4. I'm just forming this idea, but it seems to me that in spoken French there are certain phrases where "ne" is almost always used, and certain phrases where it is almost always dropped. I think in these cases the use or drop of "ne" is to make it sound better, the same way "t" is added between "a" and "il", e.g. for euphony.
On va au cinema (We were taught that 'on' was an option for 'nous', not that it is the main 1st person plural Most textbooks make it pretty clear that "on" is used frequently in spoken language. French in Action certainly does, and I'm pretty sure Assimil does.
Ouais Here I think I might disagree most strongly with kanewai. From my observations (TV, Films, podcasts, novels), "ouais" isn't used as often as foreigners are led to believe. Here are the groups I see routinely using "ouais" on TV/films:
1. Children use it constantly. Teens use it a lot.
2. Stupid characters use it frequently. That is, when a writer wants a character to appear uneducated, they make them use "ouais" a lot. Often this applies to uneducated immigrants.
3. When a character agrees with someone, but wants to tinge their response with sarcasm, they might say "ouais".
My conclusion (from admittedly limited exposure) is that using "ouais" can make you appear childish or uneducated.
Now here's the first big caveat: my experience of spoken French is mainly limited to what I hear on TV and films. I realize that it is likely that French dialogue writers may give their characters a more formal register than they would have in real life. But on the other hand, the use of language style to build a character also says a lot about how people think about their language: the middle-aged rebel who always drops "ne" is a good example.
My second caveat is that I'm not entirely disagreeing with kanewai, I just think his points were exaggerated. And I know he never intended his post to be dissected like I did, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss.
So, what do you think? Do you have other examples of the differences between spoken and textbook French? A question I'd like to know the answer to is, do TV shows and films reflect spoken French very well?
(Edited to nuance a few of my points).
Edited by Jeffers on 31 March 2015 at 12:58pm
3 persons have voted this message useful
| Cavesa Triglot Senior Member Czech Republic Joined 5007 days ago 3277 posts - 6779 votes Speaks: Czech*, FrenchC2, EnglishC1 Studies: Spanish, German, Italian
| Message 2 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:05pm | IP Logged |
I think the term diglossia is being overused. French is just a normal language with
spoken language being slightly different from the standard variant, which is a normal
thing. And how much the particular native's speech differs depends on their region of
origin, education, age, intelligence and so on, it's not like there was a separate
"standard" everyone used at the expense of the "literary" language.
this is the wikipedia definition:
Quote:
In linguistics, diglossia (/daɪˈɡlɒsiə/; Greek: διγλωσσία < δι- prefix denoting
two, from δίς, twice + γλῶσσα, language + -ία, suffix denoting state or attribute,
"speaking two languages") refers to a situation in which two dialects or languages are
used by a single language community. In addition to the community's everyday or
vernacular language variety (labelled "L" or "low" variety), a second, highly codified
variety (labelled "H" or "high") is used in certain situations such as literature,
formal education, or other specific settings, but not used for ordinary conversation.
[1]
The high variety may be an older stage of the same language (e.g. Latin in the early
Middle Ages), an unrelated language, or a distinct yet closely related present day
dialect (e.g. Norwegian with Bokmål and Nynorsk, or Chinese with Mandarin as the
official, literary standard and colloquial topolects/dialects used in everyday
communication). Other examples include literary Katharevousa versus spoken Demotic
Greek, Indonesian, with its Baku and Gaul forms,[2] and the Dravidian language Tamil
of southern India and Telugu with their respective high and low registers.[3] |
|
|
Really, do you think those details, like not using "ne" or having a lazier
pronunciation of "oui"="ouais" is the same sort of difference as those wiki examples?
I don't agree, especially as by far not everyone uses these variants.
The standard French is actually used in everyday speech by lots of people or they
differ from it only slightly. I don't think you can label everything as "diglossia",
that way all the languages would suffer from it and every teenager would even be
subject to triglosia (the standard variant used in writing school essais, the slightly
different and very polite variant to use with granny or teachers, the slang used with
friends over sms). As was said, the older people and the more educated ones tend to
speak a more standard variant than the young or uneducated ones (I get to hear both
even in Prague at times, so I don't need to rely only on my usual sources). That
leads, for exemple here, to occassional discussions of whether something like
diglossia won't be created in future and who is to blame for the horrible way the
young people speak. It is the same kind of complaints as the rest of those towards the
younger generation, in my opinion.
I quite agree with Jeffers. omission of "ne" or the "ouais" thing is not that much of
a difference, that way any kind of pronunciation deviation facilitating the speech at
high speed would be a diglossia. ANd "on" is a normally taught grammar in all the
courses I have ever seen. Sure, the course may not tell you it is used all the time
but the courses are normally pretty unreliable as a measure of importance, frequency
and necessity of any grammar feature.
The vocabulary difference eyðimörk gives examples of is, in my opinion, not a sign of
diglossia either. It is just widening of the vocabulary, it doesn't mean people don't
say "homme" anymore and everyone just says "mec" all the time. They use both, with
prevalence of either depending on their personal taste.
From my experience, the language in many tv series taking place in our days and books
of the lighter genres reflect the colloquial language really well in the dialogues, so
I don't think it is a bad source, Jeffers :-) .
However, I would agree the Quebec might be an exemple of diglossia where you can talk
to the people in european French and get Quebeqois answers from people using standard
French in writen contact. But there are better suited htlalers to speak of the Quebec
in particular, than I. I've met only two people from there so far. However, the more
educated one sounded much more standard and european than the other. But this is a
really tiny (laughable) amount of examples to judge from.
But if French is a diglossial language, than I don't know any non-diglossial one.
English is full of differences between standard and colloquial language, I am already
seeing some in Spanish but still nothing like the examples from the wikipedia
definition.
11 persons have voted this message useful
| tarvos Super Polyglot Winner TAC 2012 Senior Member China likeapolyglot.wordpr Joined 4705 days ago 5310 posts - 9399 votes Speaks: Dutch*, English, Swedish, French, Russian, German, Italian, Norwegian, Mandarin, Romanian, Afrikaans Studies: Greek, Modern Hebrew, Spanish, Portuguese, Czech, Korean, Esperanto, Finnish
| Message 3 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:30pm | IP Logged |
French definitely has different registers, but it's also, with the exception of Quebec,
fairly homogeneous. There is some slight variation on the old continent in terms of
lexicon and pronunciation, but nothing really worth bickering about. French is much
easier from this perspective than Mandarin (ugh) or Arabic (uuuugh).
As for the mentioned examples - I use all of those in informal conversations but wouldn't
write them in a thesis, and this is no different from certain English terminology I
wouldn't use, and I don't think that English is very diglossic.
Edited by tarvos on 31 March 2015 at 2:31pm
1 person has voted this message useful
| eyðimörk Triglot Senior Member France goo.gl/aT4FY7 Joined 4097 days ago 490 posts - 1158 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French Studies: Breton, Italian
| Message 4 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:41pm | IP Logged |
Jeffers wrote:
On va au cinema (We were taught that 'on' was an option for 'nous', not that it is the main 1st person plural Most textbooks make it pretty clear that "on" is used frequently in spoken language. French in Action certainly does, and I'm pretty sure Assimil does. |
|
|
"On" as a plural pronoun not only comes up in French courses, as stated, but I actually learnt it as a fourteen year old taking French at school. It's not only something that foreigners often learn about, but its status as "familiar" or "slang" French is highly exaggerated. Not only is it officially acceptable to write "on" as a plural pronoun on your French bac, it's even "tolerated" if your adjectives or participe passé are written in the plural/feminine (e.g. "On est restés amis" instead of "On est resté amis"). It's not what you'd consider "beautiful" French, and maybe French teachers try hard to get their students to avoid writing like this (I don't know — I wasn't educated in France), but they have to accept it.
2 persons have voted this message useful
| eyðimörk Triglot Senior Member France goo.gl/aT4FY7 Joined 4097 days ago 490 posts - 1158 votes Speaks: Swedish*, English, French Studies: Breton, Italian
| Message 5 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:44pm | IP Logged |
Cavesa wrote:
The vocabulary difference eyðimörk gives examples of is, in my opinion, not a sign of diglossia either. It is just widening of the vocabulary, it doesn't mean people don't say "homme" anymore and everyone just says "mec" all the time. They use both, with prevalence of either depending on their personal taste. |
|
|
That was precisely the point. No one thinks English is diglossic because they didn't learn the word "bloke" in their 9th grade English class.
4 persons have voted this message useful
| Ogrim Heptaglot Senior Member France Joined 4637 days ago 991 posts - 1896 votes Speaks: Norwegian*, English, Spanish, French, Romansh, German, Italian Studies: Russian, Catalan, Latin, Greek, Romanian
| Message 6 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:52pm | IP Logged |
I totally agree with Cavesa's post.
With regard to nous/on, I read an interesting theory about it (sorry, can't remember who wrote it, it is many years ago) which claimed that this reflects a tendency in spoken French to simplify the verb conjugations. As, contrary to Latin, Spanish or Italian, you have to use the personal pronoun with the verb form, the ending does not play any role any longer for indicating the person. If we look at the verb "aimer":
J'aime, tu aimes, il/elle aime, nous aimons, vous aimez, ils aiment.
"aime, aimes, aiment" are all pronounced the same. So "aimons, aimez" are the odd ones out. Consequently, the tendency is to replace "nous aimons" by "on aime", thereby alligning it with the singular and the third person plural form. So the only odd one out becomes "vous aimez", but since this is the polite form (in addition to you-plural), there would be a stronger resistance to simplify it.
I said spoken French, but it is seen more and more in the written language as well, and a famous TV show in France has the title "On n'est pas couché".
Concerning the ne...pas, again I think it is an expression of simplification supressing the first part of the negation "ne", as the second part after the verb makes it perfectly clear that it is a negation, whether it's pas, jamais, rien or personne. French is after all the Romance language which has developed most radically towards an analytical language.
Coming back to the initial question, it might seem that there is a big difference between spoken and written French, partly because of French language purism when it comes to the written standard, but I don't think one can talk about diglossia. Besides, there are many "sub-standards" in spoken French, and youngsters from the Parisian banlieu certainly have their own "argot" or sociolect or whatever one prefers to call it, but that is no different from what you will find in parts of London, New York or Berlin. And the spoken language of an Alsatian farmer is very different to that of a young Parisian.
Edited by Ogrim on 31 March 2015 at 3:11pm
6 persons have voted this message useful
| iguanamon Pentaglot Senior Member Virgin Islands Speaks: Ladino Joined 5260 days ago 2241 posts - 6731 votes Speaks: English*, Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, Creole (French)
| Message 7 of 38 31 March 2015 at 2:59pm | IP Logged |
Where's emk when you need him? Wouldn't it be great to hear from him right now. I miss you, emk. Come back soon!
Edited by iguanamon on 31 March 2015 at 3:04pm
6 persons have voted this message useful
| Arnaud25 Diglot Senior Member France Joined 3840 days ago 129 posts - 235 votes Speaks: French*, English Studies: Russian
| Message 8 of 38 31 March 2015 at 3:18pm | IP Logged |
I don't even understand what you're talking about :)
4 persons have voted this message useful
|
This discussion contains 38 messages over 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Next >>
You cannot post new topics in this forum - You cannot reply to topics in this forum - You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum - You cannot create polls in this forum - You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.3750 seconds.
DHTML Menu By Milonic JavaScript
|