Back to the Future in Acadian French

Abstract

ab st rac t Our article presents a variationist analysis of future verb forms in Acadian French. The main variants considered are the inflected future (e.g. je partirai) and the periphrastic future (e.g. je vais partir). The purpose of this study is twofold: a) it will determine the distribution of these variants and their linguistic correlates; b) it will compare the use of future verb forms with other varieties of French. Our results reveal that the inflected future is used with greater frequency in Acadian French than in other Canadian varieties and that the factors that condition the variable in Acadian are not the same as in other varieties. i nt roduc t i onThe present article examines the expression of future temporal reference in Acadian French. Two principal variants are used with this function, namely, the periphrastic (aller 'to go' + infinitive, also known as the futur proche or 'near future') and the inflected (also known as the futur simple or 'simple future') future. The variable has been the subject of a number of studies of both European and Canadian French. For Quebec and Ontario French in particular, the case has been made that the inflected future has lost considerable ground to the periphrastic future including in contexts where traditional grammars prescribe the former. In our study we determine the overall distribution of the two variants in three varieties of Acadian French and consider the factors that influence variant choice. Our results show robust use of the inflected future and choice of variant correlated with a number of factors traditionally associated with such use, providing evidence of the conservative nature of the Acadian varieties. the variableThe two variants that have been the object of quantitative analysis in our study are presented in examples 1a) and 1b):323

What the present can tell us about the future

“…For instance, Poplack and Turpin (1999), who analyzed a corpus of vernacular Ottawa French, found that the PF accounted for 73%, the IF for 20%, and the present for only 7% of their 3594 occurrences. A similar dominance of the PF has been reported in most Canadian studies, with the exception of King and Nadasdi (2003), whose examination of Acadian French found slightly more IF than PF (present was excluded from their analysis). Most studies have thus concentrated on the IF and PF in an attempt to identify which factors encourage the use of one over the other.…”

“…It is, however, interesting to note that accounts of future-time expression in Acadian French (e.g. Comeau 2011;King & Nadasdi 2003) did not find sentential negation to be a significant factor. The results for certainty, temporal distance, and LTI are not as consistent as those reported for sentential polarity.…”

“…This state of affairs has led numerous linguists (e.g. Comeau 2011; Grimm & Nadasdi 2011;King & Nadasdi 2003;Poplack & Dion 2009;Poplack & Turpin 1999) to argue that the domain of future-time expression in native French provides an example of morphosyntactic variation.…”

La trajectoire de l'emploi du futur chez une cohorte de Montréalais francophones entre 1971 et 1995

“…(Louise, 1995) La variation dans l'usage des temps verbaux du futur en français a déjà fait l'objet d'attention pour plusieurs variétés du français, qu'il soit hexagonal (JeanJean, 1988 ;Frankel, 1984) ou nord-américain (Deshaies et Laforge, 1981 ;Emirkanian et Sankoff, 1985 ;Poplack et Turpin, 1999 ;Chevalier, 1994 ;Zimmer, 1994 ;King et Nadasdi, 2003). Dans la majorité des études empiriques portant sur la variation, l'intérêt des chercheurs a porté sur l'alternance entre les deux variantes principales -le futur synthétique et le futur analytique -auxquelles on a tenté d'associer des facteurs linguistiques ou sociaux explicatifs de l'usage.…”

At the Interface between Sociolinguistic and Grammatical Development: The Expression of Futurity in L2 French

“…His findings point to a reversal in the relative frequency of each form compared to those presented in earlier metropolitan studies, with a rate of 58.8% for the periphrastic future and 41.2% for the inflected future. Similarly, in the case of Acadian French, King and Nadasdi (2003) find that use of the inflected future generally dominates over the periphrastic form at 53% and 47% respectively, although Chevalier (1996) In view of such differential findings concerning the process of language change which seems to be impinging on use of the inflected form to differing extents in continental and Franco-Canadian contexts, as well as the discrepancy between prescriptive norms and real language usage in a FrancoCanadian context at least, the question arises as to how the L2 learner in general, and the instructed L2 learner in particular, will express futurity in his/her language usage, and in so doing, come to reflect either prescriptive grammatical norms or native speaker sociolinguistic norms.…”