Butqui c'est la différence? Discourse markers in Louisiana French: The case ofbutvs.mais

Abstract

A B S T R A C TThis article examines the use of English discourse markers in Louisiana French, focusing in particular on English but and its French counterpart mais. Based on data collected in Terrebonne and Lafourche Parishes, we examine the speech of bilinguals to determine the status of these markers, which provide a window onto the role of discourse markers in situations of language contact. Though the markers show an overlapping semantic and functional distribution, but more often appears in the context of at least one pause. We also provide acoustic evidence and an analysis of the markers in different functions to conclude that the need for iconic contrast via language mixing (Maschler 1994(Maschler , 1997de Rooij 2000) is only one possible motivation for the use of foreign markers. We conclude that discourse markers may carry social meaning and be the site of identity construction as much as they are the site of text organization. (Discourse markers, bilingual discourse, codeswitching, language shift)* "I get by in life, French or English, mais that's alright" I N T R O D U C T I O NIn this article, we examine use of English discourse markers in Louisiana Regional French (LRF) to determine the linguistic and extralinguistic motivations for the use of codeswitched markers in situations of language contact, and to better understand the nature of discourse markers themselves. In particular, we bring new acoustic evidence to the debate, and we examine the phenomenon using data from a situation of language shift and cultural revival rather than one of stable diglossia or simple

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

“…One may also encounter the replacement of irregular or otherwise marked morphosyntactic features with more regular, linguistically unmarked forms, and a preference for analytic sentence structures with more rigid word order (Dorian, 1978; Schmidt, 1985a; Campbell and Muntzel, 1989; O'Shannessy, 2011; Palosaari and Campbell, 2011). (3) Increased variability may occur in phonological or morphological realizations (Wolfram, 2004) and can be motivated by contact with a dominant language, as words and structures are borrowed into the dying language, sometimes with specific functional distributions (Campbell and Muntzel, 1989; Dajko and Carmichael, 2014). (4) Rapid change may be driven by the reduction in domains of use, convergence with the dominant language, and use of ‘attritional’ forms by younger and non-fluent speakers (SSs) (Schmidt, 1985a,b; Cook, 1995; Dorian, 1973, 1978; Dubois and Noetzel, 2005).…”

Like in English and como, como que, and like in Spanish in the speech of Southern Arizona bilinguals

“…Overall, this qualitative and quantitative analysis of like in English and como, como que , and like in Spanish sheds light on the limited interaction of linguistic repertoires at the discourse level in the speech of bilinguals in a language contact situation in which English is the majority language. It would be expected that discourse-pragmatic features such as the discourse markers and discourse particles in this study would be highly susceptible to borrowing in contact situations because they appear on the periphery of grammar and are detachable (e.g., Brody, 1987, 1995; Dajko & Carmichael, 2014). Several previous studies of discourse markers in bilingual communities in the USA have concluded that discourse markers in English as the majority language are used alongside or at the expense of equivalent discourse markers in minority languages (Aaron, 2004; Flores-Ferrán, 2014; Goss & Salmons, 2000; Salmons, 1990; Torres, 2002; Torres & Potowski, 2008).…”

“…Furthermore, there is no evidence that like has replaced other discourse markers in Spanish because there is a clear preference for como among the bilinguals in this study. There is no evidence of convergence to lessen the cognitive load (Matras, 1998, 2000), fill a gap (Hill & Hill, 1986; Hlavac, 2006), or mark or strengthen discourse boundaries (Dajko & Carmichael, 2014; de Rooij, 2000; Maschler, 1994, 1997, 2009).…”

“…The choice of English discourse markers instead of their Hebrew counterparts is iconic, fulfilling the same discourse function as the discourse markers themselves and the use of English discourse markers is often accompanied by pauses to preserve maximal contrast. Similarly, de Rooij (2000) and Dajko and Carmichael (2014) observe that bilingual discourse markers are often accompanied by pauses and prosodic cues to increase their saliency. The following section turns to the use of like and como as discourse markers and discourse particles.…”

“…Hlavac (2006) argues that kao in Croatian is used more frequently than its equivalent like in English because it fulfills more functions. A third motivation for the convergence of discourse markers is a marking or strengthening of discourse boundaries (Dajko & Carmichael, 2014; de Rooij, 2000; Maschler, 1994, 1997, 2009). Maschler (2009) argues that Hebrew-English bilinguals use English discourse markers including like in Hebrew discourse “to metalanguage” discourse boundaries, that is, to mark Hebrew discourse strategically through English.…”