Copyright by
Elizabeth Anne Mayne 2020
The Dissertation Committee for Elizabeth Anne Mayne Certifies that this is the approved version of the following Dissertation or Treatise:
An Old Tradition in a New Space: A Critical Discourse Analysis of YouTubers’ Metalinguistic Commentary on Quebec French
Committee:
Carl Blyth, Supervisor
David Birdsong
Dale Koike
Hervé Picherit
An Old Tradition in a New Space: A Critical Discourse Analysis of YouTubers’ Metalinguistic Commentary on Quebec French
by
Elizabeth Anne Mayne
Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
The University of Texas at Austin May 2020
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my dissertation committee members, for their support, and for offering helpful suggestions and feedback along the way. Special thanks to Dr. Blyth for his encouragement througout the dissertation process, and for meeting with me many times to help me sort out my thoughts and organize my ideas. Thank you to my family, friends, and boyfriend for your emotional support. Thank you to Fanny Macé for some native speaker judgements on
French from France and for formatting help, and Rozen Neupané for some judgements on Quebec French. Thank you to Caitlin O’Neil for consulting on some of the translations. Thank you to Jessica Luhn for all her help.
iv Abstract
An Old Tradition in a New Space: A Critical Discourse Analysis of YouTubers’ Metalinguistic Commentary on Quebec French
Elizabeth Anne Mayne, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2020
Supervisor: Carl Blyth
Quebec French (QF) has a long history of language commentary in the form of newspaper columns and letters to the editor, particularly coming from within its own community, and directed toward its speakers. This has been fueled by QF speakers’ history of linguistic insecurity. YouTube is a new space where metalinguistic commentary comparing QF and French spoken in France (FF) is taking place. This study presents a qualitative critical discourse analysis of 10 YouTube videos comparing QF and FF, examining how YouTubers use language to discuss QF vs. FF. Methods from Systemic Functional Linguistics were used to analyze these videos at three levels of analysis: discourse, genre, and style. Results show that although some
YouTubers engage in language “activism” and draw on a reporting style similar to traditional journalistic genres, others focus their talk on actions in and related to the videos, and in engaging with the audience. YouTubers participating in language activism largely framed QF as new information for the audience. Thus, although some YouTubers engaged in language commentary that continues in the vein of older forms via new media, the audience is imagined to be unfamiliar with QF, rather than the QF-speaking community as a “call to arms” to protect their v language. That some YouTubers focus their talk more on the actions in and surrounding the video and engagement with the audience suggests that language commentary serves more as a
“vehicle” for their channel, to create content, collaborate with another YouTuber, and potentially expand their audience. Therefore, metalinguistic commentary on QF has been recontextualized and repurposed in this new venue. YouTubers draw both on orders of discourse associated with traditional mass media forms of language commentary, and those associated with the new practices and expectations of the YouTube community. This dissertation shows that a multitiered analysis, accounting for choices made at the levels of discourse, genre, and style, is crucial for understanding what discourses are represented in a metalinguistic text, and why discourses which are represented and expected in metalinguistic commentary in some spaces are excluded from others.
vi Table of Contents
List of Tables ...... xii
List of Figures ...... xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1
Studies on metalinguistic discourse on YouTube ...... 4
The Rise of The Social Media Influencer ...... 5
Relevance and Contribution to the field ...... 8
Framework for analysis ...... 10
Critical Discourse Analysis ...... 11
Systemic Functional Linguistics ...... 12
Research questions ...... 13
Organization of the dissertation ...... 13
Chapter 2: Literature review ...... 14
Metalinguistics ...... 14
Folk linguistics: its interests and why it matters ...... 15
Folk metalanguage ...... 16
Overview of methodologies in folk linguistics ...... 18
Argument for performing discourse analysis of metalinguistic discourse ...21
Folk linguistics methods as a contribution to critical sociolinguistics ...... 24
Application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) ...... 25
Relevance of CDA to the present study ...... 26
Accessing evaluative repertoires of the folk ...... 27
Linguistic insecurity in Quebec ...... 28
vii Language attitudes studies on QF, 1960 to present ...... 29
YouTube ...... 33
YouTube: birth, growth, and popularity ...... 33
What is YouTube’s content?...... 34
Three dimensions of use ...... 36
Who uses YouTube? ...... 38
Lens for analysis ...... 39
Jenkins’ five features of participatory culture ...... 39
YouTube as a community of practice ...... 40
Imagined communities and affinity spaces on YouTube ...... 43
Androutsopolous’ participatory spectacle ...... 45
Predictions ...... 46
Chapter 3: Framework and Methodology ...... 55
Theoretical Framework: Social Semiotics ...... 55
Orders of Discourse ...... 56
Three levels of analysis...... 57
Discourse: the “what” of communication ...... 57
Discourse as social practice ...... 58
Genre: the “how” of communication ...... 59
Style: the manner of communication ...... 60
Individual style...... 60
Social style ...... 61
Lifestyles ...... 62
Restatement of Research Questions ...... 63
viii Tools for analysis: CDA and SFL...... 63
Halliday’s three metafunctions ...... 65
Corpus ...... 67
Videos and YouTubers: ...... 67
Data extraction ...... 71
Advantages of working with online data ...... 72
Limitations of online data ...... 72
Methods for Analysis ...... 73
Transcriptions ...... 73
Types of Analysis ...... 76
Transitivity ...... 77
Appraisal analysis ...... 86
Social Actor Analysis ...... 88
Other analyses ...... 90
Chapter 4: Results ...... 92
Discourse ...... 92
Discourses represented in the corpus ...... 95
Comparing discourses in the videos to those in the QF press ...... 100
Discourses in the guessing game videos ...... 102
Attitudes toward QF...... 106
Genre ...... 113
Generic staging of a vlog entry ...... 114
Sub-genres in the corpus ...... 117
Staging of the language activism genre ...... 124
ix Staging of the guessing game genre ...... 125
Staging of V10 ...... 125
Generic hybridity in language activism videos ...... 126
Function ...... 129
Style ...... 130
Videos in English ...... 131
Videos in French ...... 133
Style in YouTube activism vlogs in French ...... 134
Style of guessing game YouTubers ...... 136
Style of V10 YouTubers ...... 142
Overall trends in style ...... 145
Summary of results ...... 145
Chapter 5: Discussion ...... 148
YouTube’s community of practice ...... 153
Learning, engagement, and play ...... 155
The YouTuber-Audience power dynamic ...... 159
Participatory culture and presentational culture ...... 161
“Democracy” on YouTube ...... 164
YouTube as a platform and an archive ...... 167
The importance of a multileveled analysis ...... 168
Chapter 6: Conclusion...... 172
New motivations in a new space...... 173
Contribution to folk linguistics ...... 174
Limitations of CDA ...... 176
x Limitations of the corpus ...... 179
Performing the authentic self vs. a persona ...... 180
Directions for future research ...... 181
Appendices ...... 184
Appendix A: Corpus metadata ...... 184
Appendix B: Scripts ...... 186
Appendix C: Sample transitivity analysis ...... 206
Appendix D: Distribution of process types by video and speaker ...... 224
Appendix E: Appraisal Analysis...... 228
Appendix F: Distribution of targets of evaluation, by sub-genre ...... 250
Appendix G: Social Actor Analysis...... 253
Appendix H: Distribution of references to social actors...... 263
References ...... 266
xi List of Tables
Table 3.1. Examples of use of affect, judgement, and appreciation ...... 86
Table 3.2. Examples of classification of social actors ...... 89 Table 4.1. Distribution of attitudes toward QF ...... 107 Table 4.2. Process type distribution for language activism videos ...... 118
Table 4.3. Process type distribution for guessing game videos ...... 120 Table 4.4. Process type distribution for V10 ...... 122 Table 4.5. “Ne”-retention rate by speaker in guessing game videos ...... 140
xii List of Figures
Figure 3.1. Screenshot from V7 ...... 74
Figure 3.2. Tagging processes and finding percentages in MAXQDA ...... 85 Figure 3.3. Scrolling through a process type for examples in MAXQDA...... 85 Figure 4.1. Théo overreacting to the camera ...... 105
Figure 4.2. Emy conspiring with the audience...... 105 Figure 4.3. Suzie saying, “Je suis confus” (FF) ...... 110 Figure 4.4. Suzie saying, “Ch’toute fourrée” (QF) ...... 110
Figure 4.5. French soirée (left) vs. Québécois soirée (right) from V10 ...... 112 Figure 4.6. Generic staging of a YouTube vlog ...... 115 Figure 4.7. Generic staging of a vlog from V4 ...... 116 Figure 4.8. Lysandre gazing at the audience ...... 139
Figure 4.9. Emy’s clothing style (left) ...... 141 Figure 4.10. Théo’s clothing style and setting choice...... 141 Figure 4.11. PL’s clothing style and setting choice ...... 142
Figure 5.1. Audrey framed in medium close-up ...... 150 Figure 5.2. Solange playing with camera angles in V9 ...... 152 Figure 5.3. “LA DIFFÉRENCE ENTRE SOLANGE ET INA”...... 153
xiii Chapter 1: Introduction Quebec French (QF) speakers have a history of linguistic insecurity that reached its peak in the 1940s and 1950s, and while this insecurity has been dying down over the past few decades, it still persists today. Although the French spoken in la Nouvelle France was lauded for
its linguistic uniformity in the early 17th through the 18th centuries, the British conquest of the territory in 1763 was the perfect catalyst for creating the environment for QF linguistic insecurity to breed: it severed ties between Francophones in Quebec and their roots in France, isolating them from linguistic developments taking place in France; it allowed English to invade their language, through their lexicon and their syntax; it left them stranded to create their own French words when they found their vocabulary lacking; it forced them to remember, every day, that they were a conquered people, who must fight tooth and nail to keep their language.
The English title of Bouchard’s (2008) account of the history of commentary on Quebec
French (QF) is “Obsessed with language: a sociolinguistic history of Quebec” (The original
French title is “La langue et le nombril: Histoire d’une obsession québécoise” Language and the navel: History of a Quebecois obsession, evoking imagery of navelgazing (Bouchard, 1998).).
Indeed, QF speakers have been obsessively reflexive on their language and its status because they have had to be obsessed with it.
Busque (2017) explains that “[f]or almost two centuries, clerics, writers and journalists have said repeatedly that preserving the French language was the only possible safeguard for the survival of the Québécois nation”. The phrase that cries out for attention here is “the survival of the Québécois nation”: although Quebec is not politically a nation, but a province of Canada, many Québécois still consider themselves to be a part of a separate imagined “nation”, because
1 their culture and linguistic situation are very different from the rest of Canada. This is important in understanding the sociolinguistic situation and attitudes of the Québécois people. The
Québécois have twice voted on referendums to separate from Canada. Although the referendums did not pass, the debate on whether to separate continues. It is this need for the preservation of the identity of this imagined Québécois nation that has driven the Québécois to fight so hard to preserve the status of their French, both linguistically and politically.
Although recent studies have found QF speakers to exhibit more solidarity with their language and speakers of their language, speakers still consider QF to have a lower status than
FF (Kircher, 2012), and the state of the French language in Quebec is still a common subject of debate and scrutiny in current event articles and editorials in QF publications. For example, in an article in La Presse subheadlined, “Le ministère de l’Immigration ne prêche pas toujours par l’exemple dans son maniement de la langue française” (The minister of Immigration does not always practice what it preaches in its handling of the French language) (Richer, 2019), the author criticizes an error-riddled missive sent in French by this office, giving the reader examples of the errors committed by “une employée de l’État maîtrisant mal la langue officielle du Québec” (an employee of the State who has a poor grasp of the official language of Quebec).
The author treats this disrespect of Quebec’s official language as a serious offense, stating, “Il n’a pas été possible de savoir si l’écart linguistique observé constituait un incident isolé ou non”
(It was not possible to find out if the linguistic deviation observed constituted an isolated incident or not).
A recent article in Le Devoir online used the following words to compare Québécois youths of the past to those of today:
2
Il fut un temps où les jeunes francophones, même montréalais, refusaient d’apprendre l’anglais ou de le parler. On se faisait un devoir de ne pas céder un pouce devant la botte du maître. Aujourd’hui, l’attitude, certainement chez les plus jeunes, n’est pas de faire un bras d’honneur à l’impérialisme anglo-saxon, mais plutôt de conquérir de plus vastes horizons (Pelletier, 2019). There was a time where young Francophones, even in Montreal, refused to learn or speak English. We made a point not to kneel before the boot of the master. Today, the attitude, certainly among the youngest generation, is not to give the finger to Anglo- Saxon imperialism, but rather the conquer wider horizons.
The above quote contains language recalling battle, against Anglo-Saxon imperialism, describing the francophone youths of the past as fighting against a dominant power, which is contrasted with today’s Québécois youths’ desire to “conquer” wider horizons. In the article,
Pelletier (2019) views Québécois youth as unbothered by growing bilingualism in Quebec, and unconcerned with protecting French. She attributes this not to a lack of pride or ignorance of linguistic issues in the province, but rather to the youths’ view of protecting the survival of
French as a battle of their elders, and to their desire to expand their horizons through the doors that learning and speaking English can open. She maintains, though, that French is a defining part of the Québécois’ identity, and closes her article by asking how they could forget that the uniqueness of their linguistic and cultural situation defines their identity.
The above examples are taken from recent newspaper articles, and show that language commentary on QF, written by and for QF speakers, is still taking place in Québécois publications. Both newspapers from which they were taken, La Presse and Le Devoir, were founded around the turn of the 20th century, but now publish articles online. So, they represent an old genre, but in a new online format. Reflexive conversations about QF, especially in comparison to FF, are taking place in new media spaces online, as well. YouTube is one such new media space. Indeed, YouTube has provided a venue in which YouTubers and commenters
3 have been drawn to participate in metalinguistic commentary. Androutsopoulos (2013) points out that although discourse on dialect is not a new phenomenon, dialect metalanguage has received little attention in computer-mediated discourse (CMD) studies; yet, as Barton and Lee (2013) remark, there is something about the internet that makes users aware of and reflective about language.
STUDIES ON METALINGUISTIC DISCOURSE ON YOUTUBE Researchers in the past decade have studied the relationship between language performances in YouTube videos, and their reception in the comment sections. For example,
Chun and Walters (2011) analyzed a set of two YouTube videos and their comment sections to determine how viewers evaluated a comedian’s performance of Arabic and Filipino English. The comedian, Wonho Chung, used the fact that he looks East Asian but is culturally and linguistically an “authentic” Arab frequently in his comedy. The authors examine how Chung exploits Asian stereotypes and how YouTube commenters negotiate the sociocultural meanings represented in his performances. Chun and Walters analyzed both the content of what commenters posted and the language they used to react to the video. They also analyzed reactions to Chung’s language skills and his visual embodiment of the different stereotypes he exploits.
Ivković (2013) studied comment sections of YouTube videos from the Eurovision song contest, and found that language was often overtly discussed in the comment sections. He found that most negative evaluations of language occurred when a performer was singing in his or her non-native language. Specifically interested in commenters’ attitudes toward the choice of the
English language in the song used to represent France in 2008, Ivković found that unlike English
4 language comments, French language comments tended to focus more on the status of French vis-à-vis English rather than commenting on the overall linguistic diversity of the song contest.
Androutsopoulos (2013) analyzed YouTube videos tagged for German dialects and their comment sections through the lens of “participatory spectacle”, wherein knowledge and performance of the dialects presented in the videos was evaluated and negotiated in the comment sections. Androutsopolous points out that the format of YouTube allows for the engagement of the commenters to contribute to a “kind of jointly produced sociolinguistic panorama” in which both the video uploaders and the commenters are a part of constructing social knowledge (66).
The above studies analyze metalinguistic commentary in the comments sections of
YouTube videos, and the videos in the above corpora involve performances of different dialects or and identities uploaded to YouTube, rather than YouTubers discussing or reporting on different dialects or varieties of a language. In this dissertation, I present a social semiotic analysis of the discourse of the YouTubers themselves, rather than the commenters, as they discuss, comment on, and perform different varieties of French, that is, QF and French spoken in
France (FF).
THE RISE OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCER YouTubers who have their own channel, regularly post content addressing their audience, and, in some cases, make a living off their earnings from sponsors and ads are referred to as
“influencers”. Generally speaking, influencers have been defined as “people who built a large network of followers, and are regarded as trusted tastemakers in one or several niches” (De
Veirman et al., 2017, p. 1). Although an influencer can be anyone who “has the capacity to incite a behavior with his or her followers” (Hazell, 2019), the term is most commonly used to describe
5 those “who have the capacity to encourage a significant group of followers to make purchasing decisions” (Hazell, 2019). The term “Social Media Influencers” (SMIs) most often appears in reference to personalities on Instagram and YouTube, who participate in self-branding and promote their lifestyles and products, and can be sponsored by companies who wish them to publicize their products by way of content on these sites. The term “influencer” (or
“influenceur”) appears in French YouTube as well: French Youtuber Squeezie posted a song to
YouTube on January 8, 2020 titled “Influenceurs”.
Scholars in the past decade have designed studies to understand the characteristics of
SMIs, and why they are successful. Freberg et al (2010) conducted a study comparing traits assigned to CEOs to those attributed to SMIs. Both types were rated to be “smart, ambitious, productive, poised, power-oriented, candid, and dependable” and perceived not to be
“victimized, likely to give up, self-defeating, lacking meaning in life, doubting adequacy, submissive, fearful, anxious, and thin-skinned” (Freberg et al., 2010, p. 91); however, CEOs were “viewed as more critical, skeptical, and difficult to impress than SMIs” whereas SMIs were perceived as “more likely to be sought out for advice and reassurance and more likely to give advice than CEOs” (Freberg et al., 2010, p. 91).
Thus, the word “influencer” is appropriate for describing these individuals, because they are perceived to possess traits that position them as power-oriented and tenacious, people that their followers look up to. Since they are perceived as more likely to be sought out for advice, despite a “power” differential, followers may perceive less social distance from an influencer than from a CEO.
6 Jin, Muqaddam, and Ryu (2019) found that consumers exposed to an Instagram celebrity’s posts considered the source to be more trustworthy, and they showed more positive attitudes toward the brand, and felt a stronger social presence from and were more envious of the
Instagram celebrity than consumers exposed to a traditional celebrity’s posts. They attribute fashion bloggers’ success and popularity on Instagram in part to the “aesthetic appeal of
Instagram filters and the platform’s capability to reach wide audiences” (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu,
2019, p. 567). They say that Instagram specifically has unique features for social interaction and aesthetic presentation “which allow users to build personal narratives and showcase identities that attract audiences” (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019, p. 568), citing Abidin (2016).
I would argue that YouTube also has features to build personal narratives, through vlogging and asking the audience to participate via the comment sections. Jin, Muqaddam and
Ryu (2019) point out that SMIs have a “unique identity of both being famous and an ordinary person” (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019, p. 569).
They can be considered to be “micro-celebrities”, defined by Abidin (2016) as “everyday, ordinary internet users who accumulate a relatively large following on blogs and social media through the textual and visual narration of their personal lives and lifestyles, engage with their following in ‘digital’ and ‘physical’ spaces, and monetize their following by integrating
‘advertorials’ into their blogs or social media posts and making physical paid-guest appearances at events” (Abidin, 2016, p. 3).
SMIs are perceived to have a closer social distance to their followers than do traditional celebrities, so that the followers perceive their lifestyles and purchases to be more attainable than those belonging to traditional celebrities (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019). Thus, followers feel
7 more affiliation toward SMIs than to traditional celebrities. This may make them more likely to buy the products an SMI is showcasing in the case of a sponsored post, but could also mean that followers feel more able to express disagreement with a stance presented in an SMI’s post, knowing that an SMI that is engaged with her channel is likely to read the comment, and possibly respond to it.
RELEVANCE AND CONTRIBUTION TO THE FIELD As Barton and Lee (2013) and Androutsopoulos (2013) remark, studies on metalinguistic discourse online are still relatively new and fewer than the earlier strains of CMD research on forms and social variation online. Androutsopoulos (2013) points out that research on dialect discourse is nothing new. Indeed, the fields of language attitudes, perceptual dialectology and folk linguistic studies have employed methodologies such as map-drawing tasks, surveys, interviews, and matched guise tasks to study folk linguistic perceptions of dialect (see for example Garrett, 2010; Preston, 1999a); however, dialect discourse online has received little attention (Androutsopoulos, 2013, p. 50). This is a huge area for growth, as the internet poses several new media spaces where people tend to be reflective about language and often seem compelled to participate in metalinguistic discourse via new media (Barton & Lee, 2013).
The studies of metalinguistic discourse on YouTube reviewed above mostly analyzed metalinguistic commentary in response to language being performed in mass media clips that had been uploaded to YouTube, sometimes with an analysis of how the language was being performed in those clips. By contrast, amateur content creators with an established channel, also known as “YouTubers”, or “influencers”, have created videos about language on their YouTube channels. YouTubers are considered to be “influencers” precisely because they hold some
8 influence over their audience. That means that the discourses they circulate in their videos are not just reflective of their lived experiences in the off-line world, or opinions they wish to amplify on their channels; they are positioned to have influence over their subscribers, who in turn can circulate the discourses presented in the videos either in comment sections of other
YouTube videos, on other channels or social media sites, or in the off-line world. What happens on YouTube often does not stay on YouTube.
There has not, to my knowledge, been a study analyzing the discourse of YouTube vloggers (video bloggers) in user-created videos about language on YouTube, although there is a wealth of such videos on the site. In particular, Quebec French is a variety of French on which
Francophone YouTubers have focused their commentary; indeed, as explained earlier, QF speakers have a long history of linguistic insecurity and reflexive discourse on their language and its status, and this tradition has continued online.
I have alluded above to the difference between mass media content that has been uploaded to YouTube, and user-created content that has been created specifically for YouTube by YouTubers. This is a commonly-made and relevant distinction in the YouTube literature.
Indeed, Burgess and Green (2013) refer to “Two YouTubes” (p. 41), dividing video content on the site into two categories: those coming from either “inside established media practice or outside of it” (p. 41). In this way, they argue, “YouTube is imagined as a space where these two categories co-exist and collide, but do not really converge: where familiar forms of mass media content will be encountered alongside amateur oddities; where television, cinema, music videos, and advertising, appear next to bedroom, boardroom, or back-yard productions” (p. 41-2).
However, they allow that the dichotomy between “user-created” and “traditional” content “is of
9 course problematic for understanding YouTube as a site of new convergences and mutations of these categories” (p. 42).
In this dissertation, I argue that YouTubers conform both to social practices associated with mass media traditions and emergent social practices for creating content on YouTube. The orders of discourse (Fairclough, 1989/2015; Fairclough, 2003) to which a YouTuber conforms the most is motivated by what the YouTuber privileges. In this case, conforming to the social practices associated with traditional language commentary and on Quebec French, or conforming to the social practices that make a YouTuber successful within the YouTube community.
By performing a critical discourse analysis of 10 YouTube videos comparing Quebec
French with French spoken in France, I aim to uncover ideologies regarding QF and FF represented in and circulated by these videos. This is done not only through an analysis of explicitly-stated evaluations of QF and FF, but also through analyzing how linguistic choices reveal implicit discourses and presuppositions behind what is stated, thus revealing what Preston
(2004) refers to as Metalanguage 3 (to be discussed in Chapter 2).
FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS This dissertation presents a critical discourse analysis of the data, at the levels of discourse, genre, and style (van Leeuwen, 2004). Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a social semiotic framework, meaning that it considers the choices that speakers and writers make from their field of potential resources to have significance in their context of use. For example, a mother’s choice to call her child “Baby” in an interaction would carry a different meaning than if she chose to call her by her full name. We might imagine that the first choice would be uttered in an affectionate manner, when the mother is doting on her child, while the second choice might be
10 used when the mother is angry with her child. Before the 2020 State of the Union address,
Speaker Nancy Pelosi made the choice to omit the customary, “I have the high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the president of the United States”, and rather chose the words, “Members of Congress, the president of the United States” when introducing the president. This choice clearly carried historical and political significance, and was one of many moments in this State of the Union where various social actors appeared to be flouting the rules of this particular genre, opting to draw on very different ones.
Critical Discourse Analysis Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) views language as a social practice (Fairclough &
Wodak, 1997), regarding the consideration of context of use to be essential to understanding the meaning behind the language used in an interaction (Wodak, 2001). It considers how power structures manifest themselves via the linguistic choices that speakers and writers make. CDA’s primary concern is to analyze “opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language” (Wodak, 2001, p. 2).
These relationships may be taken for granted for both creators and receivers of a text. Indeed,
Fairclough (1989) writes that “common sense is a world which is built entirely upon assumptions and expectations which control both the actions of members of a society and their interpretation of the actions of others” (77). He says that these assumptions are “implicit, backgrounded, taken for granted, not things that people are consciously aware of, rarely explicitly formulated or examined or questioned” (77). Thus, the critical discourse analyst’s task is to uncover structures of power, dominance, and inequality behind the choices speakers and writers make from their set of potential resources.
11 In order to uncover YouTubers’ language ideologies and motivations for participating in metalinguistic commentary on YouTube, I examine what linguistic resources YouTubers choose, and how these choices reveal what discourses, genres, and styles are drawn on in the production of these videos. In order to systematically analyze the patterns in linguistic choices YouTubers make, I use tools from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL).
Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic Functional Linguistics is a “functional-semantic approach to language” (Eggins,
1994, p. 2). Its theoretical claims about language are the following: language use is functional; language’s function is to make meanings; these meanings are influenced by the social and cultural context of use; using language is a semiotic process or “a process of making meanings by choosing” (Eggins, 1994, p. 2). The aim, broadly, is to answer the questions, “Why does a text mean what it does (to me, or to anyone else)? Why is it valued as it is?” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 3). SFL conceives of three simultaneously operating “metafunctions” in language: the ideational, which construes human experience, naming things “thus construing them into categories” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 29); the interpersonal, which accounts for how we enact “our personal and social relationships with the other people around us” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 29) as we use language; and, finally, the textual metafunction, which accounts for how sequences of discourse are organized and create “cohesion and continuity as [the text] moves along” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 30). Performing a systemic functional analysis of a text may involve analyzing any one or all of these strands of meaning (e.g. transitivity analysis to study the ideational metafunction, that is, how speakers or writers are construing their experience, at work in a text), while understanding that all are simultaneously at work in that text.
12 RESEARCH QUESTIONS My research questions are inspired by those in Androutsopoulos (2013)’s social semiotic analysis of YouTube videos tagged for German dialect, but from a more critical perspective. I have organized my research questions by three levels of social semiotic analysis (van Leeuwen,
2004): discourse, genre, and style.
-Discourse: What do linguistic choices reveal about YouTubers’ ideologies regarding QF
and FF? What attitudes toward QF and QF speakers do they communicate? What ideas to
YouTubers presuppose about QF and FF?
-Genre: What genres do these YouTuber influencers draw on? What genres do these
YouTuber influencers construct? What generic staging do they follow?
-Style: How do YouTubers stylize their language and performance? How do they use
stylistic choices to orient to and engage with the audience?
ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION This section provides details on the organization of the subsequent chapters of this dissertation. Chapter 2 presents a review of the literature on metalinguistics and folk linguistics, the history of language attitudes studies on QF speakers, and YouTube. Chapter 3 explains the theoretical framework, social semiotics, restates my research questions, provides details regarding the corpus, and explains my methodology. Chapter 4 presents the results, organized by level of analysis, Chapter 5 discusses the findings presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 6 discusses the significance and contributions provided by my findings, and presents directions for future research.
13 Chapter 2: Literature review
METALINGUISTICS The term metalinguistics refers to language that refers to language use or language form.
In Carnap’s (1958) terms, “the language which is the object of study is the object language”, while “the language we use in speaking about that object language is called metalanguage”, so that metalanguage is used to construct the theory of the object language (Carnap, 1958, pp. 78-
9). We can use language to communicate information about what people have said, how a word is pronounced or spelled, what a word means, or what one meant to say in a previous utterance.
We can also use language to “discuss styles and genres of talk and make comparisons between languages and dialects” (Jaworski, Coupland, & Galasińki, 2004, p. 3). However, the ability of language to refer to itself is not just “a self-serving capacity of language and an interesting
‘design feature’” (Jaworski, Coupland, & Galasińki, 2004, p. 3); rather, it is important for linguists to analyze how people represent language and communication in order to understand how different social groups value and consider language and communication. The studies of folk beliefs about language, language attitudes and language awareness are crucial to gleaning this knowledge. Jaworski, Coupland and Galasińki (2004) further remark that metalinguistic representations may become a part of the community’s collective consciousness “and come to constitute structured understandings, perhaps even ‘common sense’ understandings - of how language works, what it is usually like what certain ways of speaking connote and imply, and what they ought to be like” (p. 3). Thus, metalanguage can have ideological influences, which in turn can influence the way people act toward speakers whose social and linguistic identity differs from their own. Jaworski, Coupland and Galasińki (2004) further argue that “it is in the interplay between usage and social evaluation that much of the social ‘work’ of language - 14 including pressures towards social integration and division, and the policing of social boundaries generally - is done” (p. 3).
FOLK LINGUISTICS: ITS INTERESTS AND WHY IT MATTERS Preston (1996a) states that while contrasting folk and scientific knowledge has been a widely-used approach in linguistics, folk knowledge often receives “brief attention”, and is
“assigned little value” (p. 40). While he acknowledges that this is because non-linguists’ perceptions of language “may or may not correspond to scientific information” (p. 42), he argues that scientific studies of language structure and use should be coupled with an understanding of what non-linguists “believe about and do with language” (p. 72). Indeed, even when the folk are inaccurate in their mappings of linguistic features and their usage, their inaccuracies can tell us a lot about their language ideologies, or their “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein, 1979, p.
193).
For example, in Chun (2001), a Korean-American boy from Chicago thought he should avoid the use of y’all because he believed it to be a White term. Fought (2006) describes this as an example of a mismatch that “can occur between perceptions of the language associated with a particular ethnicity and reality, since y’all is in fact used by people of many ethnicities in the
South” (Fought, 2006, p. 119). This speaker not only mistakenly associated a regional lexical item with a particular ethnic group, but also he felt he should not use this item because he does not belong to this ethnic group.
Preston (2011a) notes that applied linguists should be aware of folk linguistic ideas when the placement of children in schools and special education programs can reflect “strongly held
15 beliefs about intelligence and educability on the basis of iconic relations between language and ability” (p. 19). Applied linguists would also benefit from knowing to avoid features of regions that have a reputation among the folk for being nonstandard or “inappropriate”, and even avoid referencing such regions when working in a speech community (p. 27). Additionally, the applied linguist would want to know which varieties local speakers consider to sound “the same” or
“representative” of a region, particularly when it comes to language planning or policy making.
Folk metalanguage Preston (2004) discusses folk metalanguage, naming three categories of metalanguage used by the folk: Metalanguage 1, Metalanguage 2, and Metalanguage 3. He considers
Metalanguage 1 to be “overt comment about language” (p. 75), giving the example of a respondent reporting to a fieldworker that a coworker pronounces some words differently from their colleagues, which is a source of humor in their workplace. Preston points out that, just like a linguist’s metalanguage, “folk metalanguage is conscious. That is, it is not directed to a phenomenon which a speaker is unaware of, but one which he or she has focused on in some way” (p. 75).
Metalanguage 2 is “language use which refers to some property of language itself, but such reference does not focus the speaker’s or listener’s attention on those properties as ones of linguistic form” (p. 86). This could be reported speech, as in, “Bill said he was hungry”, as well as expressions that refer to language or project speech or cognition, as in “in other words”, “can you say that more clearly”, and “do you understand me?” (p. 85). With this type of metalanguage, language is referred to, but it is not the subject of the discourse. Therefore,
16 Preston says, it does not play a part in folk linguistic accounts “since it is language which refers to but is not about language” (p. 86). Still, he allows that:
...like every fact of language, Metalanguage 2 use itself may be interesting from some sociocultural perspectives as it both varies in its uses from situation to situation and even varies in its shape and employment from one group to another (e.g., “So Bill says ‘I’m out of here’” versus “So Bill goes ‘I’m out of here’”), entailing, as usual, identification and associative factors both within and across group boundaries (p. 86).
Preston (2004) states that the “richest territory to mine for folk belief about language may be the presuppositions which lie behind much Metalanguage 1 use” (p. 87) and that he believes them to be “sorts of unasserted Metalanguage 1 beliefs which members of speech communities share” (p. 87). He calls this shared folk knowledge about language Metalanguage 3, while noting that these underlying beliefs are not a specific kind of language use. Still, he argues that since presuppositions “form the backbone of mutual understanding” in a conversation, “the deeper the sense of community or shared culture among participants, the more likely that enormous amounts of presupposed (and therefore usually unstated) beliefs will play an important role” (p.
87).
Thus, language attitudes are revealed through linguistic choices (e.g. how social actors are named or not, what types of verb processes speakers and writers use), and what shared ideologies are presupposed by these choices. In this dissertation, my analysis focuses both on
Metalanguage 1 and on Metalanguage 3, what YouTubers say about QF vs. FF (Metalanguage
1), as well as how YouTubers use language to talk about language, and how language attitudes are expressed indirectly through language (Metalanguage 3).
17 Overview of methodologies in folk linguistics Preston (2011a) provides an overview of methods in applied folk linguistics. These include what he calls Traditional approaches, Operational approaches, Experimental approaches, and Discourse approaches.
Traditional approaches include the folkloristic-literary approach, in which data can be obtained from conducting fieldwork interviews and questionnaires, as well as extracting extant data from public sources, “including now the rich resources of the internet” (p. 16). These data are then subjected to analyses “often but not always those common to literary or cultural studies: the interpreter, with a rich background of cultural and historical knowledge of the speech community (or communities), provides insightful comments on and generalizations about the meaning and significance of the data” (p. 16). The other strand of approach under Traditional approaches is the anthropological-cultural approach, in which the data come from longitudinal observation or participant observation in local practices (p. 18). Preston notes that most of the interpretations in this line of work rely heavily on Silverstein’s conception of indexicality (e.g.
2003).
In his discussion of Operational approaches, Preston focuses on tasks used in perceptual dialectology, a subfield of folk linguistics. These include the little-arrow method, in which respondents draw arrows between the region in which they live and other areas where they believe people speak the same way, and the results are compiled to create perceptual areas based on “clusters of sites connected by arrows” (Preston, 2011a, p. 19). Other operational strategies involve asking participants to create their own maps, depicting where they think different dialects exist (Preston, 2011a, p. 22). Finally, an operational approach may involve areal identification (e.g. Preston, 1996), in which respondents listen to recorded voices and judge 18 where they believe the speaker is from. Such an approach can reveal what features are salient to respondents and how distinct different regional varieties are to respondents.
Experimental approaches come from the subfield of language attitudes research, and include methodologies such as matched-guise tests (e.g. Lambert et al., 1960) in which the same person is recorded speaking two different languages or varieties, with these stimulus voices mixed with distraction items from other voices, so that respondents are unaware that the same speaker is providing the test items. Respondents are then asked to rate each item on a Likert scale for bipolar characteristics such as “fast-slow” or “friendly-unfriendly” (Preston, 2011a, p. 27).
The technique has been replicated using different voices (which Preston (2011a) points out is no longer matched-guise), but using the same rating procedure.
The prevailing finding across these studies, mostly based on factor analysis of the paired opposite rankings, was that respondents rate voice samples along the two dimensions of status
(from rankings on pairs like “intelligent-unintelligent”) and solidarity (from rankings on pairs such as “friendly-unfriendly”) (Ryan et al., 1982, p. 8).
Lastly, Preston (2011a) describes Discourse approaches. Preston argues that in performing discourse analysis of a folk linguistic text, linguists can use their skills to “look beyond what is said and to uncover what is presupposed” (p. 34). This is useful because presuppositions found in these texts “often involve deeply-held folk beliefs” (p. 34). Preston gives the following example, from Preston (1994), to illustrate how this particular discourse would be difficult to interpret without taking into account presupposition:
Exchange between a Taiwanese fieldworker (C) and his African American friend (D) discussing African American English, reproduced as it was written in Preston (2011a):
19 1 C: We uh -- linguistics, in this field, uh- from the book I s- I mean, I saw from the book that -- many linguists quite interest in black English. So could you tell me -- a little bit about -- your dialect? 2 D: Dialects. 3 C: Heh yeah 4 All: ((laugh)) [ 5 D: Well, uh: -- well -- see the world’s getting smaller. There’s= [ [ 6 C: ((laughs)) I- I mean- do you have- 7 D: = not -- even among all the ethnic groups we’re- we’re getting- getting less and less of dialectual in- inFLUence. (.hhh) Uh I’m- happen -- not to be -- from the South, … . (Preston 1994: 286-87; reproduced in Preston (2011a: 34).
Preston (2011a) points out that “Your dialect” in 1 C presupposes the existence of a dialect or dialects, and that “you” are a speaker of one. D then states that “The world’s getting smaller” in 5, to explain why there are fewer dialects. Preston then points out that D’s assertion, that there are fewer dialects, is in response to C’s proposition that there are dialects. Then, D confirms the presupposition that dialects exist, but for D, they only exist in the South (“I’m-m happen -- not to be -- from the South”), implying that if C happened to be speaking to someone from the South, he would have the opportunity to speak with someone who speaks a “dialect”
(Preston, 2011a, pp. 34-35).
Preston (2011a) argues that this sort of work can allow us to build a cultural model of D’s and C’s language ideologies, and that work on discourse, “from many perspectives, but surely from both formal and informal pragmatic ones, reveals not only what speakers have said or asserted (the conscious) but also what they have associated, entailed, and presupposed” (p. 35).
The following section expands on this argument.
20 Argument for performing discourse analysis of metalinguistic discourse Preston (1994) points out that although sociolinguists know that “discourse is important to their enterprise”, common approaches to discourse typically undertake analyzing the structure of a conversation, rather than analyzing the “facts about its content” (p. 286). Preston (1994) presents two different content-oriented discourse analytic approaches to analyzing a sample of a conversation from an interview about language between a linguistics graduate student researcher, and his non-linguist friends. The two approaches undertaken in Preston’s (1994) work draw on
Schiffrin’s (1985, 1987, 1990) analysis of argument structure, and Vantage Theory (MacLaury
(1987)). He concludes that although attitude surveys and participant-observer studies can help inform us on folk beliefs, these techniques “do not reveal the breadth and depth” of casual interviews of the sort analyzed in this paper (p. 327). This is because, in a more casual conversation, the respondents are “caught in the act of reasoning about language” (p. 327). Thus,
Preston claims that content-based discourse analytic approaches such as argument and vantage theory “shed light not only on the structure of the conversation but also on the instantiation and background structure of the participants’ folk beliefs about language” (p. 327).
Following Preston (1994), Babcock (2015) applied Shiffrin’s argument analysis to similar data and compared her findings to Preston’s, finding that her participants followed a rhetorical argument structure, as opposed to the oppositional one found in Preston (1994).
Babcock concludes by saying that “[f]olk linguistics is a rich tapestry, and more studies such as this one and Preston’s (1994) should be conducted with a spectrum of participants in order that linguists can understand both the form and the content of people’s beliefs about language” (p.
67).
21 Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) similarly argue for the valuable contribution of observing language attitudes as they occur in interaction. They examine three discourse-based methods of analysis: content-based approaches, turn-internal semantic and pragmatic approaches, and interactional approaches. Scholars have begun using more qualitative methodologies in language attitudes research, a field which traditionally has been dominated by quantitative studies, like the matched-guise test and other experimental methodologies mentioned above. Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain list a number of criticisms that these experimental methodologies have drawn in recent years, citing Hyrkstedt and Kalaja (1998).
Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain state that these criticisms stem from the following limitations (I quote directly the list from Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, p. 195, below):
• the difficulty in applying these findings to real-life situations; • the suppression of variability in the findings; • the pressure on participants to respond along a scale that has been worked out by the researchers; and finally • the fact that different participants may well mean different things by, for example, checking off a point along a semantic-differential scale.
Similar to Preston (1994) and Babcock (2015) above, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain
(2009) argue that “while one of the acknowledged benefits of the matched-guise technique is in its ability to access attitudes indirectly rather than inquiring about them overtly (Lambert et al.
1960), we argue that equally indirect expressions of language attitudes can also be found in conversations, and accessed through the interactional methods of analysis [that they discuss in the paper]” (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, p. 196).
Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain apply interaction analysis to four stretches of talk in different contexts, noting that all three of the above approaches are important, but that they
“encourage more researchers to take the final, interactive level of discourse into account in their
22 discourse-based approaches to language attitudes” (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, pp. 200-
201). Their four stretches of talk come from different cultural and social contexts to show that
“the expression of language attitudes is a social practice that needs to be embedded within particular contexts” (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, p. 201). Indeed, their data come from conversations from native German speakers in Germany between 2000 and 2003, notably after the fall of the Berlin Wall, and from conversations involving German speakers from the German diaspora in two Canadian Cities, between 2007 and 2008. (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, p.
201). The authors also draw on Critical Discourse Analysis, citing Blommaert (2005), “to focus on the ways in which ideology plays a role in the construction of language attitudes” ((Liebscher
& Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, p. 201).
For example, in one of the conversations taking place between two researchers and a family in Germany, one of the sons evaluates the Saxon dialect as “the worst dialect”. When the researchers and his brother ask him to clarify, he says it is “because it sounds so weird”. When his mother counters, “but you speak Saxon” and later specifies that he speaks it with his brothers, he asks, “So what?” and then concedes, “yeah MAYbe, but Sa- it just sounds so bad”, and reiterates the evaluation of Saxon as the “worst dialect in the world”. The authors analyze the son’s negative evaluation of Saxon as not being contradictory to his usage of the dialect in certain situations, such as bonding with his friends.
After the mother puts forward, “Lots of people think that, right?”, which the authors analyze as perhaps an attempt to resolve the contradiction she perceives in her son’s negative evaluation, while admitting that he uses the dialect in certain contexts, one of the researchers, the only native Saxon speaker in the conversation, suggests that perhaps there is a negative stigma
23 associated with Saxon. The father then makes a connection to the antagonism between East and
West Germany during the Cold War. Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain analyze the parents’ “neutral- to-positive” attitudes about Saxon as indicating that they perceive the negative stigma to belong to the Cold War era, and that they now see Saxon in new light, due to political changes.
(Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, pp. 202-203).
In the end, the authors argue that:
...an interactional analysis shows that language attitudes are not only expressed in the formulations of a speaker, but also merge through the ways in which others react to the speaker. We have observed that attitudes emerge as a result of being encouraged by other interactants, which gives an indication of how attitudes are shaped and created in the interaction (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, p. 217).
The authors conclude that the interactional approach can uncover indirectly expressed attitudes just as matched-guise tests are designed to do, and can also “shed light on how these attitudes emerge, the ways in which they are ideology driven, and how they are influenced by the immediate context” (Liebscher & Dailey-O’Cain, 2009, p. 218).
Folk linguistics methods as a contribution to critical sociolinguistics Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) argued that interactional approaches to analyzing folk discourse about language can reveal language attitudes as they emerge in specific social and cultural contexts, and uncover ideologies indirectly expressed through the talk in these interactions, drawing in part on Critical Discourse Analysis. Albury (2017b), particularly concerned with the contribution of folk linguistics to critical sociolinguistics, provides an overview of how folk linguistic research methods can support critical sociolinguists in revealing inequalities and power structures expressed through language. Albury goes through the different types of folk linguistic research approaches outlined by Preston (2011a) (as described above),
24 reviewing studies in these different approaches which have served to uncover folk linguistic ideologies, and arguing for their importance in understanding inequalities in different populations. For example, in his own study (Albury, 2017a), which involved a content-oriented folk linguistic analysis, Albury found that Chinese speakers in Malaysia considered Mandarin to be their “mother tongue” and thus the variety of Chinese taught in schools, even though historically, other dialects of Chinese came to Malaysia. These speakers did not consider the language they grew up with as their “mother tongue”, but rather the variety they consider to be the “language” associated with Chinese identity, and considered all other variants, including their own to be “dialects”.
Application of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)
As described above, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) used an interaction analysis of stretches of conversation about language to reveal how ideologies influence the construction and expression of language attitudes in interaction. I have also explained how an analysis at both the levels of content and interaction in folk discourse about language uncovered speakers’ ideological stances about African American English in Preston (1994) and Babcock (2015).
Jaworski and Sachdev (2004) used a combination of attitudinal research and CDA in their analysis of teachers’ metalinguistic commentary of students’ talk and silence in letters of recommendation for university admissions in the UK. They found that references to talk were much more prevalent than references to silence in the letters in their corpus, and that the majority of references to talk were positive, whereas mentions of silence were overwhelmingly negative, often mitigated with a concession, using conjunctions such as “but” or “though” (e.g. “Roger works quietly but effectively” (Jaworski & Sachdev, 2004, p. 235). They suggest that this is due 25 to the expectation of letters of recommendation to speak to students’ “communication skills”.
The authors see the preference for talk over silence in the letters of recommendation in their corpus to be potentially discriminatory toward both male and female applicants who are quiet learners (Jaworski & Sachdev, 2004, p. 240). Furthermore, the authors found that male letter writers made more references to talk in their letters for male students than in their letters recommending female students. This can be explained, perhaps, by “the subconscious yet discriminatory dismissive view of female students’ talk in the classroom” (Jaworski & Sachdev,
2004, p. 240).
Thus, as evidenced by the studies reviewed above, although CDA involves analyzing how power structures and inequalities manifest themselves through language, and studies in this field do not necessarily treat texts which have language as their subject, metalinguistic texts can also benefit from a critical discourse analytic approach to uncover how the folk’s linguistic ideologies are expressed through language.
Relevance of CDA to the present study The YouTube videos under analysis in this dissertation contain discourse in which
YouTubers compare French spoken in France (FF) with Quebec French (QF). Speakers of QF have a history of linguistic insecurity dating back to the British Conquest of 1763, and have rated
QF as lower than FF on status dimensions in language attitude surveys, to be reviewed below.
Thus, in this dissertation, I draw on CDA to uncover ideologies expressed by QF and FF speakers in and through their language in their metalinguistic commentary about QF and FF.
Indeed, since CDA seeks to uncover how ideologies are expressed through language, a critical discourse analytic approach to metalinguistic discourse can serve to uncover what Preston (2004)
26 called Metalanguage 3 (discussed above), that is, the presuppositions or shared beliefs about language which lie behind the folk’s overt commentary about language.
Accessing evaluative repertoires of the folk Folk metalinguistic discourse, explicitly and implicitly, almost inevitably involves some evaluation of the language of which the folk are speaking. Matched-guise techniques have been the gold standard in quantitative approaches to eliciting responses on language attitude dimensions since Lambert et al. (1960). While this technique has received some criticism in more recent years, Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2009) stress that, apart from the limitations of such techniques, the results from these studies can still contribute a great deal to our understanding of patterns in groups of speakers’ attitudes toward language varieties.
Garrett, Coupland and Williams (2004) draws on the matched-guise technique, but with some differences, in order to access the evaluative repertoires of Welsh adolescents toward their peers in different regions of Wales. In addition to using voices produced by different individuals, rather than the same speaker in the test, Garrett, Coupland and Williams (2004) included an open-ended question, “Write down your first impressions when you listen to this speaker”
(Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, 2004, p. 201), and had participants respond to seven questions on a 5-point scale. The judgement scales were selected from pilot work with a comparable sample of teenagers who had listened to the same recordings and answered the open-ended question. The authors refer to these as “keywords”, which are “often group labels (nominals) rather than just person attributes (adjectives)” (Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, 2004, p. 216).
27 In the present study, I examine extant data (YouTube videos); thus, the evaluative repertoires will emerge from the speakers in the data themselves, which I analyze using appraisal analysis, described in the next chapter.
LINGUISTIC INSECURITY IN QUEBEC Folk attitudes toward language serve to represent and explain stereotypes that respondents have toward speakers of different dialects or varieties of a language. The notion of linguistic insecurity (Labov 1972) is important in the context of QF. Reinke and Ostiguy (2016) note that although language attitude studies on QF such as Lambert et al. (1960), do not explicitly use the term “linguistic insecurity” it is this phenomenon that these studies describe
(Reinke & Ostiguy, 2016, p. 107). Reinke and Ostiguy (2016) describe this phenomenon as “un sentiment d’illégitimité envers leur propre façon de parler par rapport à un modèle plus préstigieux, idéalisé” (a feeling of illegitimacy toward their own way of speaking in relation to a more prestigious, idealized model) (Reinke & Ostiguy, 2016, p. 111). They point out that not just the QF folk, but also professional QF lexicographers, have fallen prey to this feeling when comparing QF to FF, denoting words as “archaisms”, even while being aware that these words are still fully in use in QF (Reinke & Ostiguy, 2016, p. 111). Indeed, it is at the lexical level that a lot of commentary on QF insecurity has occurred. Beyond words considered to be “archaisms” based on an FF standard of prestige, much ink has been spilled on the use of Anglicisms over the decades, and consequential insecurity QF speakers feel due to the infiltration of Anglicisms in their language (Saint-Yves, 2006).
Bouchard (2008) chronicled the history of language commentary on QF through speeches, newspaper editorials, and letters to the editor. She says that although there were not
28 explicit references to negative identity prior to the 1950s, there were implicit references in the discourse of the traditional elites (e.g. writers, academics, members of the clergy) in the form of, for example, imploring QF speakers to be proud of their language and culture (Bouchard, 2008, p. 76). She notes the following, when tracing the Quebecois’ history of linguistic insecurity:
… people were exhorted to be proud of their origins, language, culture, and nation when normally these things are self-evident. What is the use of such talk? With the exception of patriotic discourse at the time of war, when it becomes necessary to artificially inflate national pride so that the people agree to the sacrifices demanded of them, you hardly find such sentiments-except in societies that are dominated, or in decline. Thus, when you see appeals for people to be proud, you can be sure that precisely this pride is under threat (Bouchard, 2008, p. 76).
Below I review some important language attitude studies on QF from 1960, the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, to the present.
LANGUAGE ATTITUDES STUDIES ON QF, 1960 TO PRESENT In 1960, Lambert et al. referred to Montreal as “a community whose history centers in a
French-English schism which is perhaps as socially significant for the residents of the Province of Quebec as that between the North and South is for Southerners in the United States” (Lambert et al., 1960, p. 44). During this period in which the relationship between French and English was particularly fraught in Montreal, and indeed all of Quebec, these researchers conducted a matched-guise task in which respondents from an English-speaking group and from a French- speaking group (both Canadian) rated bilingual speakers reading a passage in French and
English, on 14 traits such as height, kindness, religiousness, intelligence, dependability, and likeability. Overall, English Canadians rated the French voices less favorably than the English voices. Interestingly, the French Canadians also rated the English voices more favorably than the
French voices. This suggests that even French speakers in Quebec felt that their language had a
29 lower status and had lower solidarity (likeability) with their own language than with English.
Again, this study took place right at the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, when QF speakers were feeling insecure in their status, but were beginning to fight for legislation to protect their language.
In 1974, Aboud et al. conducted a matched-guise study in which respondents heard standard QF, more conversational or familiar QF, and joual. Joual is a term based on an imitation of how these speakers said the word cheval ‘horse’, and was originally used to refer to
QF in general, but came to refer to the lower class or urban register, and is today considered to be a pejorative term (Oakes, 2007). In the Aboud et al. (1974) study, respondents were presented with an image of a person, along with the audio of one of the voices, with both the images and the audio intended to elicit different ideas of social classes. Interestingly, participants preferred mismatches of images and audio, in terms of association with social class (e.g. an image of someone appeared middle-class with the audio of a joual accent), for friends or work colleagues.
Aboud et al. concluded that their respondents preferred friends and coworkers to be socially
“flexible”, rather than cast unflinchingly in a single social category. However, for both superiors and subordinates, respondents favored standard QF voices, suggesting that they felt it was appropriate for people in these relationships to conform to the norm. Overall, respondents judged people who spoke at a higher level than expected the most favorably, and those who spoke at a lower level than expected the least favorably. Unlike the Lambert et al. (1960) study, this experiment had speakers rating different registers of QF, rather than comparing Canadian
English and QF, and seems to show a preference for standard QF (which is closer to European
30 French (Reinke & Ostiguy, 2016)) and a preference for social flexibility in friends and colleagues.
In 1989, Genesee and Holobrow published a partial replication of Lambert et al. (1960), this time using Canadian English, Quebec French, and European French voices. The results of this study showed that respondents gave higher ratings overall to their own group to solidarity rates, such as likeability, than in Lambert et al. (1960); however, both groups still rated QF voices lower on status traits (e.g. ambition, education). This study was published just a year after the Court judged sections 58 and 69 of the Charter of the French Language as violating freedom of expression, and Bill 178 was voted, which allowed for there to be two languages on signs for some businesses, as long as French was the dominant one. Therefore, during this time, QF speakers may have felt that they had taken a step backward, toward bilingualism, whereas
Anglophones still felt betrayed by the law protecting the domination of French in signage, thus leading to tension between the two groups. Francophones still felt their language to be in an insecure position, thus potentially fueling these perceptions of lower status than English.
In the 1980s and 1990s, there were language attitude studies comparing different registers of QF with French from France. Studies in 1989 and 1993 reported improved attitudes among
Francophones in Quebec toward the quality of their French (Cajolet-Lagnière and Martel 1995), and in 1999, Bouchard and Maurais reported that, of their sample of 1,591 QF speakers, 4% wanted to sound like French people from France, 6% wanted to sound like Quebec politicians,
44% reported wanting to sound like Radio-Canada news speakers, and 47% wanted to sound like
“ordinary people”. This suggests that QF speakers were starting to feel more secure in their variety of French, and particularly wanted to sound either like Radio-Canada news speakers, who
31 would have a more neutral accent (Reinke and Ostiguy, 2016) or like “ordinary people”, who may be considered to speak in a more familiar fashion than newscasters.
Still, although QF attitudes toward their variety have improved over the past decades,
Kircher (2012) found that while her informants displayed higher solidarity than QF informants had shown in past studies, they still perceived QF to have a lower status than FF.
Discourses on QF in traditional venues for language commentary
Some discourses Bouchard (2008) found recurring in her corpus from the 1670s through the 1970s, again, taken from speeches, letters to the editor, and newspaper articles, were that QF was the “guardian of the faith” and thus should be protected, that the language of QF peasants was more “pure” than the language of FF peasants, that archaisms in QF needed to be preserved, that QF speakers needed to avoid Anglicisms, and that the only value of QF was that it was once the 17th century French of Corneille.
Recent articles on QF in QF publications have focused on the threat of English, often referred to as “bilingualism”. Some of the discourses present in these are the following: the State should set an example and speak (good) French (Leduc, 2019; Richer, 2019); Francophone politicians are expected to be bilingual in Quebec, but Anglophone politicians are not held to the same expectation (Lagacé, 2020); someone hoping to be Canadian Prime Minister should be able to speak French (Lagacé, 2020); the indifference of younger generations toward growing bilingualism is “frightening” (Pelletier, 2019), the educated younger generations think that protecting the survival of their French is a battle for the older generations (Pelletier, 2019); young Québécois do not have a lack of pride in their French, but do not want to be reduced to one “dimension” (Pelletier, 2019); the Québécois’ unique linguistic and cultural situation is what
32 “defines” them, and the youth should not forget this (Pelletier, 2019); not enough is being done to uphold Bill 101 (The Charter of the French Language) (Dutrisac, 2019). Dutrisac (2019) also says that although the strategy of the Legault government is to make sure immigrants learn to speak French, 30% of immigrants work in English. Dutrisac comments that if so many of them are choosing to live their lives in English, then Bill 101 is not being upheld.
YOUTUBE
YouTube is a video sharing website with social networking features, where people go to learn, play, and engage with the community. Amid the sea of fail videos, viral challenges, and music videos, YouTube is also home to a wealth of videos revolving around folk perceptions of language use. These videos all involve the dimensions of learning, playing, and engaging, and are a rich multimodal resource for studying metalinguistic discourse in the online environment.
In this section, I present background information on what YouTube is, how and why people use the site, who uses the site, and finally, my lens for analyzing YouTube as a new media social networking space.
YouTube: birth, growth, and popularity YouTube was founded by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jawed Karim, three young former PayPal employees. The site launched fairly quietly in early 2005: the domain name became active on February 14, 2005, and Karim posted the first video, “Me at the zoo”, on April
23, 2005. This 19-second video is still available on the site. A beta version of YouTube was first launched to the public in May 2005. Then, Google bought out YouTube in October 2006 for
$1.65 billion (Burgess & Green, 2013). Today, it is recognized as the fastest-growing site in the
33 history of the web (Snickars & Vonderau, 2009). As of July 2017, it is ranked the second most- visited site both in the US and globally (Google is number one). It is also the second most-visited site in France and Canada, two countries of interest to the present study. On July 12, 2017, there were 106,216,650 unique visitors in the US, 19,080,165 in France, and 12,917,694 in Canada within the past 30 days (alexa.com).
Co-founder Jawed Karim, who left YouTube in 2005 (Burgess & Green, 2013), attributes
YouTube’s success, to four features: video recommendations given by the “related videos” list function; providing links in order for users to share videos with friends, the ability to comment
(and other social networking functions, such as likes/dislikes); and an embeddable video player, to share videos on external sites (Gannes, 2006). These unique features allowed YouTube to overwhelmingly surpass competitors (such as Dailymotion and Vimeo) as a video sharing site with social networking capabilities.
What is YouTube’s content? Scholars in media studies have sought to describe YouTube’s bountiful content, either by comparing it to older forms of media, or by attempting to categorize recurring genres on the site.
Snickars and Vonderau (2009) say that YouTube can be viewed as a platform, an archive, a library, a laboratory, or a medium, like television, depending on what one wants to “do” with it
(Snickars & Vonderau, 2009, p. 13). These metaphors hint at the various ways people “use”
YouTube, as well as the fact that there is both user-created content and mass media content that has been uploaded to YouTube. Strangelove (2010), on the other hand, focuses specifically on the theme of “extraordinary videos by ordinary people”, referring to YouTube’s culture of amateur videos, the feature for which YouTube is best known. Kavoori (2011) also focuses on
34 user-created content, identifying recurring genres of user-created videos: The Phenom, The
Short, The Mirror, The Morph, The Witness, The Word, and The Experiment (Kavoori, 2011, p.
14) to describe the subjects of these amateur videos. Clearly, user-created content is important to the identity of the site.
Indeed, YouTube’s slogan is “Broadcast Yourself”, indicating the site wants to be identified for its user-created content. Although amateur content may be the most interesting aspect of YouTube, as, in terms of content, this is what sets it apart from mass media, uploads of videos from mass media are also an important part of YouTube’s content. After all, YouTube was bought by Google on November 13, 2006, about a year and a half after YouTube was created. Most videos are still free to watch, but there are now some subscription-based premium channels, as well as film rentals and YouTube Red, which are all paid services. Warner and
Universal Music Groups both have deals with YouTube, and CBS, the BBC, Vevo, and Hulu offer selected material on YouTube via the YouTube partnership program. With advertising revenue now coming from Google AdSense, it is becoming increasingly rare to view a video on the site without having to endure an ad first, even when viewing videos not produced by “Big
Content” players.
Determining whether mass media or user-created content is more important to YouTube is therefore challenging now that Google owns the site and big players are involved. Indeed,
Snickars and Vonderau (2009) say that the “peculiarity of YouTube” stems from “the way the platform has been negotiating and navigating between community and commerce” (Snickars &
Vonderau, 2009, p. 11). For example, music videos consistently dominate “most popular” and
“most viewed” metrics, but comprise a marginal amount of YouTube’s overall content (Snickars
35 & Vonderau 2009, p. 11). With over 85 million videos to watch (Burgess & Green, 2013), most of which are user-created, it makes sense that more known videos have higher view counts, while the amateur videos, prevailing in terms of volume of content, cannot possibly garner a comparable number of views individually.
The videos analyzed in this dissertation are all user-created videos, but we will see that they are still influenced by older and mass media genres. It is also important to understand the context in which they are found. To do this, we must understand what types of videos are available and popular on the site. We must also understand the nature of the YouTube community as a whole, and what influences YouTubers, and who they imagine their audience to be when creating a video. This crucial contextual information is discussed in the subsequent sections.
Three dimensions of use The scholarly sources mentioned above provide some helpful analysis on what has typically been uploaded to YouTube, and how users interact with videos; however, these sources are almost ten years old, and YouTube, like all social media sites, has changed in terms of content and usage over time. Therefore, I identify three dimensions of use into which most participation on YouTube seems to fall within the past decade, play, learning, and engagement.
These three dimensions of use can overlap, and often do. These dimensions of use are my own, based on my recent experience with the site. I discuss below how they are manifested in
YouTube videos, and will discuss in Chapter 5 how they are exploited in the videos in my corpus.
36 Play is a very broad category, which encompasses many manifestations on YouTube. It can refer to why people watch the videos, to unwind and be entertained, by both mass media and user-generated content. It can also refer to an overarching genre of videos, in which play is the subject of the video. YouTubers can also play with genres, by making parody videos (Ballard,
2016), creating a video based off of a meme (Shifman, 2012), or remixing existing videos
(Knobel and Lankshear, 2007). Commenters can play with language in the comment sections, and thus “play along” with the YouTubers who have posted the videos. Play can also come in less salubrious forms, when commenters “troll” YouTubers and other commenters in the comment sections. Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines the verb to troll as, “to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content”. This is also a form of engagement, although one that other users, especially those targeted by the trolls (also a noun, those who carry out the trolling) typically do not enjoy.
Engagement refers to the social activities that YouTubers participate in on the site order to build and foster affinity, express their identity, or build their “brand”. YouTubers who post videos keep their content “fresh” and updated regularly, address the audience directly in word and gesture, ask the audience questions for them to answer in the comment section, and respond to audience comments. YouTubers can also engage with the YouTube community by participating in viral memes, games, or challenges. Users engage by responding to videos in the comment section, creating response videos, liking or disliking videos, and reporting behavior that goes against community guidelines.
37 Learning is the third dimension of use for YouTube. It is hard to remember the time before “google” became a verb; now, if people want some information quickly, they will pull out their smartphone, and “google” it. With ever-growing content available on YouTube, including how-to or DIY (do-it-yourself) videos on a variety of different topics, people have begun searching YouTube to learn information, particularly in the “how-to” genre. Indeed, Strangelove
(2010) reports having overheard a young woman suggesting to a friend, “YouTube it” to find out how to do something, as early as 2008 (Strangelove, 2010, p. 5). There are also informational videos on subjects, which Androutsopoulos (2013) likens to the older media genre of documentaries. The data for the present study fall into this category, with YouTubers informing their audiences on what they notice about the differences between QF and FF, based on their experience. In turn, viewers learn from the videos, if they pay attention and accept the YouTuber as a voice of authority, and commenters can either thank the YouTuber for this new information, corroborate the information based on their experience, add additional knowledge on the subject, or disagree with some or all of the information presented in the video, thus engaging with the video’s page.
Again, a video can incorporate all three of these dimensions: play, engagement, and learning. Indeed, I argue that the videos analyzed in this dissertation promote learning about
Quebec French while encouraging learning, engagement, and play. Now that I have explained why people use YouTube, I turn to the general demographics of the site.
Who uses YouTube? It is also important to consider how representative (or not) YouTube users are of the general population. To understand the demographics of the site as a whole, I consulted alexa.com
38 (in July, 2017). Relative to the Internet population, males are overrepresented among YouTube’s viewers, and females are underrepresented. Users with college and post-graduate education are overrepresented, as are users making $60,000 or less. People browsing at home and work are overrepresented, while people browsing at school are underrepresented (alexa.com).
LENS FOR ANALYSIS
In this section, I outline the lens for analysis for YouTube as a new media social networking space, from the macro to the micro aspects of social interaction on the site. I introduce Jenkins’ (2009) five features of online participatory culture, and how they relate to
YouTube. I then explain how YouTube can be viewed as a community of practice (Wenger,
2000), wherein users can identify with and participate in smaller imagined communities
(Anderson, 1983) or affinity spaces (Gee, 2005a). Finally, I summarize Androutsopoulos’ notion of participatory spectacle (Androutsopoulos, 2013).
Jenkins’ five features of participatory culture Jenkins (2009) identifies five features of online participatory culture: low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, support for creating and sharing projects, informal mentorship, a belief in the value of contributions, and a feeling of social connection. We can see all of these elements present in YouTube; although YouTube does host many videos that originated in mass media, it is differentiated from sites such as Netflix and Hulu by its identity as a site for user-created content, with social networking features. Additionally, we can see in the comment sections and videos that reference other YouTubers that there is support across channels (although, as with any social networking site, there is also trolling and there are disparaging comments). More experienced filmmakers informally mentor amateur YouTubers 39 through tutorials posted on their channels (Müller, 2009). All of these elements combine on this social networking site to create a sense of community.
YouTube as a community of practice YouTube can be viewed as a community of practice (Wenger, 2000), wherein users are attracted to and participate in virtual affinity spaces for different interests and groups of people.
Wenger (2000) states that learning is “an interplay between social competence and personal experience”, and a “dynamic, two-way relationship between people and the social systems in which they participate” (Wenger, 2000, p. 226). He lists three “modes of belonging” to a community of practice: imagination, alignment, and engagement. These three modes typically co-exist, but one can dominate the others, which lends a “different quality to the social structure”
(Wenger, 2000, p. 228). A quick analysis of YouTube reveals that all of these modes of belonging are represented on the site.
Wenger describes imagination as involving the need to imagine being a part of a community, as it can be too vast to know every member of the community. YouTube’s site is so vast, that 300 videos being uploaded by the minute,1 making it impossible for any one user to view all the content available. Nevertheless, YouTube and its users refer to this web space as the
“YouTube community”. It even has a published set of “Community Guidelines” as well as a new
“Community tab” (a feature which represents engagement). Indeed, a Google search of
“YouTube community” (in quotes) yields 223,000 search results.2 YouTube scholars also frequently refer to the “community” in referencing activities on the site. This sense of an
1 Information retrieved from https://fortunelords.com/youtube-statistics/ (as of the March 23, 2017 update). This link now redirects to a different page. 2 On July 27, 2017 40 “imagined” community is supported and fostered by both the site and its users, and one of the ways this is accomplished is through the second mode of belonging, alignment.
YouTube members align to YouTube’s community of practice by adhering to the
Community Guidelines. Users must follow to these guidelines, and can report other users for content judged to be in violation of the guidelines. A user who has committed serious or repeated violations of the guidelines will have their account terminated, and will not be able to create a new one. At the end of the guidelines, YouTube reminds its users to “join in and have fun”, saying, “Remember that this is your community. Each and every person makes the site what it is, so don’t be afraid to dig in and get involved”.3 Moreover, successful YouTubers not only align to the way YouTube is “done”, they also adhere to filmmaking practices, either because they are experienced filmmakers, because they learn from watching other videos that have been successful, or because they have watched tutorials that more experienced filmmakers have posted. More experienced filmmakers have posted tutorials to help amateurs to create higher quality videos that will attract more videos (Müller, 2009). This sense of community building between the experienced and the inexperienced adds to an overall sense of community on
YouTube.
The third mode of belonging is engagement. This is arguably the dominant mode of belonging that holds YouTube together as a community. Users demonstrate engagement to varying degrees, and the more activities the user participates in, the more “engaged” she can be said to be. Those that choose to upload videos engage by posting videos and asking questions or prompting comments from the audience in their videos. They can also respond to comments on their videos, creating a bond with their audience and encouraging them to participate, subscribe
3 https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html#communityguidelines-respect 41 to their channel, and be a part of their community. Indeed, Burgess and Green (2009) , who analyze vlogging (video blogging) as “a dominant form of user-created content” which is
“fundamental to YouTube’s sense of community” (Burgess & Green, 2009, p. 94) found that the most successful vloggers are those who engage with the YouTube community, rather than simply posting their videos. Viewers engage with the community by viewing content, sharing videos, adding videos to their favorites, giving a thumbs-up or down to a video, commenting on videos, replying to or liking comments that others have made on a video, and reporting behavior that does not adhere to the community guidelines. Recently, YouTube launched a new feature to enable users to become even more engaged in their community. On September 13, 2016, the
YouTube Creator Blog announced the new feature, called the “YouTube Community tab”, in a post entitled, “YouTube Community goes beyond video”.4 Users can now add this tab to their channel, and the blog touted this new feature as a means to “help strengthen the bond between you and your viewers”. Since the post begins with the assumption, “Your bond with your viewers is deep”, this is likely both a post for uploaders who already feel a sense of engagement with their viewers, as well as a post in order to promote both the new feature and engagement with viewers on the site in general. Burgess and Green (2009) also refer to YouTube “stars” as a
“shared cultural resource” for other YouTube participants:
The ‘stars’ provide markers for a sense of ‘YouTube-ness’—through their participation and ways in which other YouTubers engage with them, a sense of YouTube’s ‘common culture’ is created (Burgess & Green, 2009, p. 100).
In this sense, YouTube “stars” can be seen as the leaders of the community of practice, showing the way for other participants to act and engage in the YouTube community. The stars’ engagement also strengthens ties between themselves and the community. Furthermore,
4 https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2016/09/youtube-community-goes-beyond-video.html 42 YouTube stars serve as an element of common ground among other users who are familiar with the stars’ work.
YouTube as a whole site is thus seen as the umbrella community, using all three of
Wenger (2000)’s modes of belonging: imagination, alignment, and engagement. Working beneath this umbrella, the site also contains various affinity spaces or communities of specific interests.
Imagined communities and affinity spaces on YouTube Kiernan (2018) and (Harju, 2016) use Anderson’s (1983) notion of an imagined community in their analyses of old and new media practices of the cycling community and online mourning practices respectively. An imagined community is one in which the members do not necessarily know each other personally, but share a culture and lived experience, and imagine the other members tied to this imagined community through this shared culture and experience.
Originally, Anderson (1983) used this term to explain how members of a nation state are perceived to belong to it, but it has been applied to a variety of different contexts, with varying degrees of specificity as to what qualifies to be a member of a particular imagined community.
We could say that both YouTube itself and the smaller communities within it can be considered imagined communities of different sizes. Here, the notion of affinity space (Gee, 2005a) becomes useful to differentiate between the larger (imagined) community of YouTube, and the smaller embedded communities of interest within.
YouTubers post videos for myriad possible motivations: some post videos intended to reach only their friends and family to YouTube, simply because it’s a free platform, and it’s easier to send a link than to send a large video file via email. They may choose to allow the video
43 to be public, or they may wish only those with access to the link to be able to view it. We often think of other users, who post videos to reach a wider audience than simply friends and family, with the hopes of attaining YouTube fame. But there is also a type of user who posts videos to reach a particular community of users, or to create an affinity space. According to Lange (2009)
“[a] video of affinity attempts to keep the lines of communication open to social networks, large or small, by sharing informal experiences” (Lange, 2009, p. 77). In her analysis, Lange uses
Nardi’s (2005) definition of affinity, as “achieved through activities of social bonding in which people come to feel connected with one another, readying them for further communication”
(Nardi, 2005, p. 99).
Naturally, in the “real” non-digital world, people on sports teams and in social clubs participate in social bonding activities that strengthen their rapport and can be seen as “team- building”. Online, on the other hand, there are other ways of sharing experiences and activities that strengthen feelings of connections within specific affinity spaces. In particular, Lange (2009) uses Nardi’s (2005) notion of “habeas corpus” to underline the importance of the body in establishing affinity, explaining how embodied acts presented in videos like drinking tea and facing the audience directly, as well as camera angles and close-up framing of the body, can build affiliation with the audience by making them feel as if they are in part of the conversation with the YouTuber.
Lindgren (2012) uses the notion of affinity space to define the relationships between DIY
YouTube videos and their comment sections. Comment sections on this particular genre of video tend to contain thanking comments, comments proclaiming success in performing the task, and feedback with suggestions for improvement on the video, or how to better complete the task. He
44 concludes that in the case of DIY videos, the common endeavor of performing the task itself is at the center of the affinity space, rather than the identity of the group or individual participants.
Therefore, the subject of the video as well as audience responses must be taken into account in order to determine what the common goal or overall focus of the affinity space is.
In the data for the present study, the videos are centered on teaching and learning about
QF vs. FF; however, some of the YouTubers who create and post the videos already have established audiences, or “followers”. Thus, there is an overlap of viewers that are a part of the affinity space centered on the YouTuber herself, and viewers that have searched for or have been recommended videos about Quebec French or French generally as a topic of interest. This means that there may be overlapping affinity spaces and goals when considering the disparate motivations of watching a video that involves both learning about a language (as opposed to learning “how to” perform a task) and following an online “personality” or “influencer”.
Androutsopolous’ participatory spectacle Androutsopoulos (2013) uses the term “participatory spectacle” to take into account all of the elements a user experiences when viewing a YouTube page. Each YouTube page contains a video, audience responses, including comments and likes and dislikes, and a list of related videos on the sidebar. Androutsopoulos points out that although each of these elements could be viewed as a “distinct textual unit, videos and comments co-occur in a patterned way and are interrelated in meaning making” (Androutsopoulos, 2013, p. 50). His “participatory spectacle” describes a
YouTube page as “an organic whole…[which is] multiauthored, multimodal, multimedia, inherently dialogic, dynamically expanding, and open ended” (Androutsopoulos, 2013, p. 50):
They are multiauthored because videos, comments, and surrounding elements come from
45 different users. They are multimodal because they are made up by various different semiotic modes. They are multimedia due to the audiovisual nature of videos interacting with written text.
They are dialogic because comments respond to videos, and in turn comments can respond to other comments. Additionally, they are dialogic due to the intertextual properties of many videos. Finally, they are expanding and open ended because people can continue to add comments or make video responses, and surrounding elements like related videos can change due to videos being added to the site as well as the site’s algorithm for suggesting related videos.
Androutsopoulos (2013) says that this is all relevant to understanding how people read and interact with YouTube as a text with all of these properties. Although the analysis in this dissertation focuses on the discourse of the YouTubers in the videos, it is important to note that the videos were designed with an audience in mind, and that YouTubers are aware that viewers may react to their videos by liking, disliking, and commenting.
PREDICTIONS Based on the literature review, we can make predictions regarding the research questions. I have grouped the following predictions by the three categories of discourse, genre, and style.
Discourse: The recent discourses surrounding the status of French in Quebec in the QF press have tended to revolve around (the threat of) bilingualism, politicians’ (in)ability to speak
French, and younger generations’ indifference to protecting the survival of French in Quebec. I have elaborated on this with examples from the press above, and restate the examples of these discourses with their sources below. If metalinguistic discourses in these YouTube videos reflect those that have been expressed recently in the mass media press, I expect to find the following discourses:
46 1. The State should set an example and speak (good) French (Leduc, 2019; Richer, 2019);
2. Francophone politicians are expected to be bilingual in Quebec, but Anglophone
politicians are not held to the same expectation (Lagacé, 2020);
3. Someone hoping to be Canadian Prime Minister should be able to speak French (Lagacé,
2020);
4. Younger generations are indifferent toward growing bilingualism, and this is
“frightening” (Pelletier, 2019);
5. The educated younger generations think that protecting the survival of their French is a
battle for older generations (Pelletier, 2019);
6. Young Québécois do not have a lack of pride in their French, but do not want to be
reduced to one “dimension”; they do not want to identify as solely Francophone
(Pelletier, 2019);
7. The Québécois’ unique linguistic and cultural situation is what “defines” them, and the
youth should not forget this (Pelletier, 2019);
8. Too many immigrants are choosing to live their lives in English, and not enough is being
done to uphold Bill 101 (The Charter of the French Language) (Dutrisac, 2019)
Note that (4-6) reference discourses about “younger generations”, expressed in Pelletier
(2019). The QF YouTubers in my corpus are all between their late teens and early thirties, and could all be considered to be part of these “younger generations”. Thus, we can expect them to participate in the discourses associated with the younger generations, or to project the discourses
Pelletier (2019) expresses toward younger generations onto the press or older generations.
47 Furthermore, as the speeches and newspaper articles and letters to the editor in the QF press analyzed in Bouchard (2008), as well as those recent articles from the QF press reviewed above, tended to be produced both for and by QF speakers, I expect that if YouTube videos on
QF continue in the same vein, they will orient their talk to an imagined QF audience.
Finally, in the literature on QF speakers’ attitudes toward QF reviewed above, I mentioned that Kircher (2012) found QF participants to rate QF voices higher on solidarity dimensions than in past language attitude studies, but they still rated QF voices lower in terms of status than FF voices. Thus, if YouTubers participate in these same evaluative discourses, I expect QF YouTubers to use affiliative language when talking about QF, but to use language positioning FF as having a higher status than QF. If, on the other hand, the YouTubers in this corpus conform to discourses associated with the idea that the internet is a “democratic” space, challenging the power of traditional media outlets (e.g. von Hippel 2005; Vatikiotis 2014), then I expect them to use language positioning FF and QF speakers to have equal status in the context of the internet.
Genre: If YouTubers follow the generic conventions of the traditional mass media press, then we can expect their language to follow patterns associated with journalism. For example, we might expect YouTubers to report on what social actors say.
In terms of function, “[a] news discourse as a whole may have the function of a macroassertion, and an advertisement the function of a macroadvice or macrooffer” (van Dijk,
1988, p. 27). Thus, if YouTubers intend their videos to carry out the same type of function as a news story, we should be able to identify a “macroassertion” in each video. Van Dijk (1988)
48 adds that news events “necessarily embody a point of view, and so does their description in a news discourse” (p. 41).
In terms of structure, van Dijk (1988) states that the point of view of a news event and its discourse “also shows in macrostructural organization and signaling” (p. 41). The news is structured in a “top-down” manner, in terms of relevance, such that “news discourse is organized so that the most important or relevant information is put in the most prominent position, both in the text as a whole, and in the sentences” (van Dijk, 1988 p. 43). If YouTubers are to follow the generic staging of a news story, we would expect them to start with the presentation of the main event or main events, followed by the cause or reason for and antecedents to the event and the consequences of the event. Conditions under which events took place may also be represented
(van Dijk, 1988, p. 42). Van Dijk (1988) comments that “condition/cause or consequence relationships, which characterize the facts referred to… seem to be an important organizing feature of thematic structure” (p. 43). He adds that “for each theme or theme level, we may specify context or situation, participants involved, the [major] events or acts, and so on” (p. 43).
On the other hand, YouTubers may choose to follow the generic conventions associated with YouTube’s practices. A common genre on YouTube among user-created videos is that of the YouTube vlog, or video blog (Burgess & Green, 2013). Burgess and Green (2013) characterize the genre of a vlog entry as “structured primarily around a monologue delivered directly to camera” (p. 145). Vlog entries are “produced with little more than a webcam and some witty editing” (p. 145). In terms of content, Burgess and Green (2013) claim that “[t]he subject matter ranges from reasoned political debate to impassioned rant about YouTube itself and the mundane details of everyday life” (p. 145). If YouTubers in this corpus conform more to
49 practices associated with YouTube genres, we might expect them to follow the generic conventions of a vlog entry.
Style: The news traditionally has a formal style (van Dijk, 1988, p. 27). Below I explain predictions based on the literature as to how a formal style may manifest through language, taking into account that stylistic choices may differ in English, FF and QF.
Videos 1-3 are in English. Characterizations of formal style in English have included the use of long, complex sentences, more advanced vocabulary, and the use of “one” instead of
“you”, whereas informal speech is characterized as using contractions, first and second personal pronouns “I” and “you”, and short, simpler sentences and vocabulary (Horner, 1988). Among the videos in French (V4-V10), some markers of formal speech we might expect if YouTubers draw on formal styles to mimic those found in journalistic texts are use of “vous” rather than “tu”, choice of “on” rather than “tu/vous” for indefinite references, and retention of the negative particle “ne” (all discussed below).
“Tu” vs. “vous”
We might expect YouTubers to use “vous”, the formal pronoun of address, rather than the informal “tu”, if they are drawing on formal, “standard” speech styles associated with the traditional mass media press.
On the other hand, as these videos are in an online social networking space, we might expect YouTubers to conform more to the practices of online linguistic style. In the egalitarian space of the internet, French users are using “tu” more with people whom they might address with “vous” in the offline world (Lawn, 2012). Indeed, the director of the left-leaning traditional press outlet Le Nouvel Observateur, Laurent Joffrin, received flak for expressing offense at a
50 follower addressing him with “tu” on Twitter in 2011. His tweet, “qui vous autorise a [sic] me tutoyer?" (“Who authorizes you to use “tu” with me?”), in which he addressed the follower with
“vous” in response to the user who had used “tu” to address him on Twitter, was seen as “rude and condescending” (Lawn, 2012). In response, Joffrin explained that there is an amical use of tu, and an aggressive usage, and he claimed that his interlocutor on this occasion was clearly using tu aggressively toward him (Joffrin, 2011).
Ironically, Twitter was also more recently the space where people took out their outrage at journalists who had used “tu” soccer players during a press conference, wondering what the reaction would be if journalists used “tu” political guests (Devillers, 2018). Devillers (2018) explains that in the sports milieu, however, it is common practice for journalists to use “tu” when speaking with players, and this has been the case for a long time. Devillers notes that in the FF press, while it is the convention to use “vous” with political guests, there is variation as to whether interviewers use “tu” or “vous” with other types of guests: this could be a function of whether they are longtime friends, if a publication is going for a “cool” vibe (she cites a rock magazine) or if a host has decided to use “tu” with everyone in an “acte de rupture avec la
"vieille télé"” (“act of rupture with ‘old television’”). So, the choice of “tu” vs. “vous” in traditional mass media French press is a question of style, but may vary based on the above mentioned factors.
In Quebec, both “tu” and “vous” have been used by interviewers on Radio-Canada in the context of the televised interview program On prend toujours un train, depending on “diverse social factors”, such as whether the interviewer had social proximity to the guest prior to the interview (Villeneuve, 2017, p. 53). Villeneuve (2017) characterizes this program as “un style
51 légèrement plus soutenu que le vernaculaire, mais tout de même familier” (“a slightly more formal style than the vernacular, but nevertheless familiar”) (p. 53). She contrasts On prend toujours un train with another news program on Radio-Canada, Téléjournal Le Point, which she characterizes as being closer to the “standard”, with a more formal style, while still representing spontaneous speech (p. 53). In the corpus from the more formal Téléjournal Le Point, Villeneuve
(2017) comments that the interviewers always use “vous” with guests. Thus, although some
Radio-Canada journalists use “tu” on a program considered to draw on a more familiar speech style, it is still a marker of a more informal, familiar style in this context.
Generic “On” vs. “Tu/Vous”
In French, the standard indefinite pronoun is “on”, but it is also possible to use “tu” or “vous” for indefinite reference (Coveney, 2003). QF speakers over the age of 40 preferred the more conservative “on”, whereas speakers under age 40 used “tu/vous” more frequently as indefinite pronouns in Laberge (1977). Among the younger speakers, females preferred “on”, and males preferred “tu/vous”. Participants in Thibault (1991), also QF speakers, used generic “tu” three times as frequently in 1984 than in 1971, suggesting that generic “tu” may be replacing “on”; however, Ashby (1992) did not find an age effect in his participants’ selection of “on” vs.
“tu/vous”, he did find an effect for gender in FF speakers. Choice of generic “tu” over “on” has been associated with a more informal style in FF speakers (Zhong, 2009). Coveney (2003) comments, though, that “Non-standard language has become increasingly acceptable in the audio-visual media of France in recent years, and so indefinite tu is heard in contexts from which it was long excluded” (p. 168). He gives an example of a television advertisement from 2002 in which a 50-year-old male uses indefinite “tu”. Still, if YouTubers attempt to draw on a standard
52 expectation of stylistically formal speech like that in news reports, we might expect them to prefer indefinite “on” over indefinite “tu” or “vous”.
“Ne” retention
If the YouTubers in my corpus draw on a more traditional, formal style, we might expect them to avoid dropping the negative particle “ne” in negative structures; when speaking in a formal style or discussing serious topics, speakers have been found to retain the negative particle
“ne” more than in informal speech, both in FF (Ashby, 1981), and in QF (Sankoff and Vincent,
1977). In Sankoff and Vincent (1977), QF speakers in Montreal overwhelmingly preferred ne deletion in vernacular speech, and use of ne was interpreted as a marker of formality in the few cases that it was retained (less than 1%).
Rates of ne deletion in the press may be increasing, however. In Armstrong and Smith
(2002)’s study of FF radio news speech “suggest strongly that “ne deletion is spreading to highly monitored speech styles such as those found in serious radio discussions” (p. 39). Reinke (2005), on the other hand, found that ne was retained more on Radio-Canada during the news (79.8%), than in general interest programs (35.7%), and light entertainment programs (des émissions ludiques) (21.2%). Villeneuve (2017) found that in the speech of participants in televised interviews on the program On prend toujours un train on Radio-Canada and interviews from
Téléjournal Le Point, another Radio-Canada program, speakers retained ne less than 10% of the time (still higher than the less than 1% ne retention rate found in QF vernacular speech in studies such as Sankoff and Vincent (1977)), and she attributed usage to idiolectal variation.
Nevertheless, when dividing the speakers into strong users, modest users, and weak users of ne, she remarks that most artist guests (such as singers, actors, and comedians) were weak users of
53 ne, and conformed more to familiar speech styles, whereas three of the four radio/TV hosts from the On prend toujours un train corpus conformed to a more formal style, and were strong users of ne. She also notes that among the five speakers who were interviewed on both programs, the rate of ne retention was significantly higher on the program considered to represent a more formal style (Le Point) than when they were interviewed on On prend toujours un train. So, the literature supports the idea that ne retention or deletion varies depending on the level of formality associated with the context of the talk, including within the context of different registers of journalistic speech, in both QF and FF.
YouTuber style
As mentioned in Chapter 1, Freberg et al (2010) found that both CEOs and CEOs who posed as SMIs were rated as to be “smart, ambitious, productive, poised, power-oriented, candid, and dependable” and perceived not to be “victimized, likely to give up, self-defeating, lacking meaning in life, doubting adequacy, submissive, fearful, anxious, and thin-skinned” (p. 91), while CEOs were “viewed as more critical, skeptical, and difficult to impress than SMIs” and
SMIs were considered to be “more likely to be sought out for advice and reassurance and more likely to give advice than CEOs” (p. 91). Thus we might expect YouTubers to stylize their speech and body language to minimize social distance between themselves and the audience, but that they also may position themselves as having the authority to dispense advice to their viewers. If YouTubers hedge their claims, and present less of an authoritative interpersonal stance. If they project mental clauses and verbal clauses onto other social actors, this would render the text more heteroglossic, again leaving the door open to negotiation with other points of view.
54 Chapter 3: Framework and Methodology The theoretical framework for this dissertation is social semiotics, based on three of van
Leeuwen’s (2004) levels of social semiotic analysis: discourse, genre, and style. My framework of analysis draws on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Systemic Functional Linguistics
(SFL), two approaches to linguistic analysis that frame language as a paradigmatic system wherein speakers and writers make choices from a set of potential semiotic resources to make meaning in a particular context. In this chapter, I present the theoretical framework, restate my research questions, explain my data and data collection methods, and explain my tools and methods for analysis.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: SOCIAL SEMIOTICS Social semiotics seeks to understand how people use semiotic resources to make meaning in particular social contexts. That is, it considers social processes as necessarily influencing what semiotic choices people make from a set of potential semiotic resources. Semiotic resources have a theoretical semiotic potential based on their past and potential uses, and an actual semiotic potential based both on past uses that users are aware of, and potential uses that users discover based on their needs and interests (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 4). The set of semiotic choices available in a particular social context is known as the “semiotic register” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 14).
Halliday (1978) introduced social semiotics to the field of linguistics with his foundational work, Language as Social Semiotic. Halliday considers the “grammar” of a language to be a “resource for making meanings” (Halliday, 1978, p. 192) rather than the traditional consideration of grammar as a set of rules. He proposed a paradigmatic system of
55 language wherein speakers/writers choose the words they use from a set of resources, and emphasized that these choices are made in and linked to a social context.
Van Leeuwen (2004) extends Halliday’s (1978) concept of grammar as a resource for meaning-making to the “grammar” of other semiotic modes, that is, how semiotic modes beyond linguistic ones are used as resources for making meaning. He argues that semiotic resources are
“the actions and artefacts we use to communicate, whether they are produced physiologically- with our vocal apparatus; with the muscles we use to create facial expressions and gestures, etc.- or by means of technologies-with pen, ink and paper; with computer software and software; with fabrics, scissors and sewing machines, etc.” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 13). These would all be representative of “signs” in semiotics, but are considered as “semiotic resources” in social semiotics. While the present analysis focuses on the meanings made by linguistic choices, I will briefly consider other modalities exploited in the videos to serve interpersonal functions.
ORDERS OF DISCOURSE According to Fairclough (2003), an order of discourse is “a network of social practices in its language aspect” (p. 24). Orders of discourse consist of discourses, genres, and styles.
Languages map onto social structures, orders of discourse map onto social practices, and texts map onto social events (Fairclough, 2003). In this dissertation, I analyze the data at the levels of discourse, genre, and style, and discuss how these levels operate together. I analyze what choices
YouTubers make at each of these levels, to determine what orders of discourse they are conforming to, thus revealing what social practices YouTubers are following, those associated with traditional outlets for language commentary on QF, or those associated with YouTube.
Below, I expand on the three levels of analysis, discourse, genre, and style.
56 THREE LEVELS OF ANALYSIS Van Leeuwen (2004) broadly summarizes social semiotics as describing the “how” of communication, studying how we use resources to make meaning. Importantly, the “how” does not exist without the “what”, with discourse being the “what” in this system. Discourse is the first of van Leeuwen’s four “key dimensions of social semiotic analysis”: discourse, genre, style, and modality (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 1). In this dissertation, I attend to the first three of these, which are discussed below.
Discourse: the “what” of communication Van Leeuwen (2004) as “socially constructed knowledges of some aspect of reality” (van
Leeuwen, 2004: 94). This means that these knowledges are constructed in specific social contexts, according to the interests of the social actors involved in these social contexts. Van
Leeuwen provides a list of properties of discourse, as outlined below.
(1) The same social actor could talk about the same event in many different ways, depending on the social context in which he is speaking, and his individual interests and purposes. Van Leeuwen refers to this as the “plurality of discourse” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 94).
(2) Discourses are finite, following Foucault’s proposition that discourses contain a limited number of “statements”: people familiar with a particular discourse share common knowledge around that discourse, with this knowledge being repeated time and again in a variety of different texts. Hearing a phrase representing common knowledge of a discourse can trigger the rest of that discourse. For example, discourse of “the heart at risk” will trigger in those familiar with that discourse associations of smoking, obesity, and lack of exercise (van Leeuwen,
2004, p. 97).
57 (3) Discourses have history. We can study how and why a particular discourse came about, and how it became accepted as common sense, repeated and even taught in schools (ibid,
98).
(4) Discourses have social distribution. Specific discourses only make sense and appear in certain social contexts. Van Leeuwen (2004) gives the example of the “heart as pump” discourse being unlikely to occur in a “lonely hearts” advertisement, or in a fitness magazine, even though both of these environments contain discourses of the heart (van Leeuwen, 2004, p.
98).
(5) Discourses also can be realized in manners other than speech. For example, exercising in order to reduce the risk of heart disease participates in the discourse of “the heart at risk”. This discourse can be continued by various representations of promoting a healthy lifestyle, in order to reduce the risk of heart disease, such as those found in personal conversations, media reports, advice columns, and advertisements (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 98).
Discourse as social practice Discourse is not just about what we do, but why we do it. Thus, discourses about social practices include variations of those practices themselves, as well as the attitudes we have attached to them in the particular social contexts in which the discourses occur. (van Leeuwen,
2004, pp. 104-105).
Van Leeuwen identifies four types of transformation, or how “reality is changed into discourse” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 110): exclusion, rearrangement, addition, and substitution.
For example, excluding reference to victims in a discourse of war can severely transform the interpretation of the practice of war. Discourse can present events out of chronological order, to
58 obscure the relationship between different events. They can add elements, such as the attitudinal elements of evaluations, purposes, and legitimations to a representation of a social practice.
Discourses “substitute concepts for the concrete elements of actual social practices” (van
Leeuwen, 2004, p. 111). Substitution can also be manifested by generalizations: for example, a text may refer to QF and FF as “French” or to Quebeckers as “Canadians”.
Genre: the “how” of communication The word “genre” is most often used to describe a type of text. A text becomes typical when it has characteristics that are recognizable as similar texts. This is because text creators follow certain genre conventions, usually belonging to the following categories: content, form, and function. For example, Westerns are recognizable by characteristics like stock characters and familiar plot points (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 123). Texts can be recognizable based on the form, or manner of expression and the media used to create the text. Burgess and Green (2013) identify characteristics of a YouTube vlog: It is “structured primarily around a monologue delivered directly to camera” and “produced with little more than a webcam and some witty editing. The subject matter ranges from reasoned political debate to impassioned rant about YouTube itself and the mundane details of everyday life” (Burgess & Green, 2013, p. 145).
Van Leeuwen (2004) presents four “key characteristics” of social semiotic genre theory, drawing on Eggins (1994) and Martin (1992): (1) a genre is comprised of a series of “stages” with functional purposes; (2) each stage is then comprised of one or more of the same speech acts; (3) the sequence of stages together create a strategy for achieving a communicative goal;
(4) each stage will be “relatively homogenous in terms of the linguistic features that characterize
59 it”. For example, the “problem” stage of an advice column has the typical characteristics of a confession, a statement in the first person using the past tense. (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 127).
Van Leeuwen stresses that genres are semiotic resources, or “templates” for performing communicative acts, and that they are thus quite versatile (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 128). Although individual texts contain characteristics that make them recognizable as following the conventions of a particular genre, the variability of how these characteristics are realized is what makes each individual text unique. Van Leeuwen also stresses that genre is a multimodal concept (van
Leeuwen, 2004, p. 129), and that exchanges are often realized using non-linguistic resources in concert with linguistic ones. For example, a grocery store transaction, elements of the transaction are realized by gesture and moving and exchanging objects, acts which may or may not be accompanied by speech (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 129).
Style: the manner of communication Van Leeuwen (2004) identifies three types of style: individual style, social style, and lifestyles. These three types of style are not mutually exclusive, and all are “concerned with articulating and enacting the relation between individual freedom and social determination, even if they do so in different ways” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p.140).
Individual style Individual style represents individual difference. Although the ways we speak, write, and act “are always to some extent socially regulated, there is usually room for individual difference, for ‘doing things our way’” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 140). For some, individual style is simply a mark of identity, which allows one to recognize who a speaker, actor, or creator is. To others, style has expressive meaning, expressing attitudes and feelings about what is said, acted, or 60 created. Van Leeuwen says that this can be a result of deliberate choices, wherein an individual has “cultivated” a particular personal style, or copied another’s, or it can be incidental (e.g. someone’s voice, handwriting, or manner of walking). The manner in which a text is created can then tell us something about the creator of that text. For example, Hodge and Kress (1988) analyzed Sylvia Plath’s handwriting in a poem written just fourteen days before her suicide.
They point out characteristics of her handwriting manifest the despair that she was undoubtedly experiencing leading up to her death. They point out that in print form, the poem is “sanitized” of the mark of despair left by the handwritten form, “removing materials left by the material social being, Sylvia Plath” (Hodge and Kress, 1988, p. 119).
Van Dijk (1988) notes that style is “the result of the choices made by the speaker among optional variations in discourse forms that may be used to express more or less the same meaning
(or denote the same referent). Saying ‘physician’ instead of ‘doctor’, for instance, is an element of lexical style” (p. 27). An individual may choose a more formal style in one context, and a more informal style in another, depending on what styles are available to him and expected in that context.
Social style Social style represents the “social determination” of style (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 143), and expresses our social positioning based on stable categories such as class, gender, and age, our social relations, and what social activities we participate in, as well as our roles in those activities (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 143). Van Leeuwen stresses that social style is “not internally, psychologically motivated, and it does not follow from our moods or from our stable and consistent ‘character’ (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 143). Rather, it is externally motivated, and
61 although the individual does not disappear in social style, it is less important than with individual style. Furthermore, using particular social styles means that the individual is aware of the social codes and chooses to follow them. Thus, social style is not expressive, but rather a marker that the individual belongs to a certain social group, where individuality “can at best be expressed through subtle variations in the kinds of ties [individuals] are wearing or the ways in which they button up their jackets” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 144).
Lifestyles Lifestyles are the third type of style, and are a combination of individual and social style.
They are social because they represent a group style, even if that group is spread out geographically. This sort of group is not determined by social class, gender, or age, or other more stable characteristics like occupation. Rather, it is characterized by consumer behaviors and tastes, shared leisure activities, and shared attitudes toward social issues. They are social because they are signified by aspects of appearance, such as clothing styles and preferences of interior décor (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 145). Ideas about what signifies particular lifestyles can be exploited by clothing designers and “role models” in the media (or, more recently, social media influencers). Van Leeuwen (2004) claims that the role lifestyles play in marketing decisions also indicates that lifestyles are necessarily social. Nevertheless, lifestyles are more diverse and allow for more individual freedom than social styles, because they do not require for example, that the individual dress or speak in a manner according to his age, gender, or occupation. Individuals can play with signifiers of particular lifestyles, wearing or speaking signs representing a given lifestyle ironically (van Leeuwen, 2004, pp. 152-153). Individuals can move from one lifestyle to another fairly easily, and can mix elements that represent different lifestyles in their individual
62 styles. Van Leeuwen states that linguistic style “can be based on the principle of lifestyle” (van
Leeuwen, 2004, p. 148). He gives the example of direct address used in Cosmopolitan writing, stating that “[i]deologically, [advertising style] has always sought to address you, personally, and so to transcend its nature as a mass medium” whereas in practical terms, “advertisements need to persuade readers and viewers to do or think certain things and hence they are replete with imperatives--which also address readers and viewers directly” (van Leeuwen, 2004, p. 150).
RESTATEMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS Below, I restate my research questions by three levels of social semiotic analysis following van Leeuwen (2004): discourse, genre, and style.
-Discourse: What do linguistic choices reveal about YouTubers’ ideologies regarding QF
and FF? What attitudes toward QF and QF speakers do they communicate? What ideas to
YouTubers presuppose about QF and FF?
-Genre: What genres do these YouTuber influencers draw on? What genres do these
YouTuber influencers construct? What generic staging do they follow?
-Style: How do YouTubers stylize their language and performance? How do they use
stylistic choices to orient to and engage with the audience?
TOOLS FOR ANALYSIS: CDA AND SFL I draw on tools from Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Systemic Functional
Linguistics (SFL) for answering questions within a theoretical framework of social semiotics, as both conceive of language as a paradigmatic system wherein speakers and writers make choices from a set of potential semiotic resources to make meaning in a given context. SFL is primarily concerned with how meaning is made in different contexts, whereas CDA is concerned with the 63 relationship between language and power and “the ways in which language is being used to produce, maintain, and reproduce positions of power through discursive means”, but also to make change (Young & Harrison, 2004). The aim of CDA is to analyze the choices speakers and writers make in language in order to “reveal buried ideology” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 1).
Recent language attitude studies have shown that although QF speakers show higher levels of solidarity toward their variety of French, they still consider FF to have a higher status.
FF is represented much more in mass media internationally than QF. Thus, we may examine how
YouTubers use language to construe QF and FF speakers as social actors, what types or processes they ascribe to speakers of the different varieties, and what lexical choices they make in their talk about language. The internet has been described as a democratic space, where participants find themselves on a more even footing than they might be in “real life”(e.g. Way,
2015; Von Hippel, 2005); so, it is of interest to see whether the status relationship perceived in real life is reflected online, or if the two varieties are construed as being on more even footing online. There is also an uneven power dynamic between the YouTubers in the videos and the audience. While viewers can be assumed to watch at least part of the video, and may comment on the video, YouTubers do not necessarily read all the comments on a video, should viewers choose to engage in this manner. Nevertheless, YouTubers need subscribers, view counts, and likes in order to be successful.
Among the criticisms that have been made against CDA is that it is “an exercise in interpretation, not analysis” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 208), but methods from SFL can be used in analysis in order to make the analysis more systematic, rigorous, and rooted in grammatical functions, choices, and transformations.
64 Foundational works linking SFL and CDA include “Language and Control” (Fowler et al., 1979), “Language and Power” (Fairclough, 1989), and “Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press” (Fowler, 1996). These works root their analysis in SFL, using analyses such as transitivity, at the ideational metafunctional level, analysis of modality at the interpersonal metafunctional level, and transformations (e.g. nominalizations and passivization) and classifications of lexical patterns at the textual level (Young & Harrison, 2004). As we can see from the titles, these works link language to power, control, and a mass media outlet, thus emphasizing these scholars’ position that ideology is played out through language, and that a systematic analysis of the choices speakers and writers use can uncover ideologies in a text.
Halliday’s three metafunctions Halliday (1978) identifies three strands of meaning, or metafunctions: the ideational, the interpersonal, and the textual metafunctions. The ideational metafunction represents how the individual construes his/her experience of the world, the interpersonal involves how language is used to position identities and relationships in the discourse, and the textual deals with how coherence and cohesion work in a text, “providing the resources for presenting ideational and interpersonal meanings as a flow of information in text unfolding in its context” (Matthiessen,
Teruya, & Lam, 2010, p. 220). These three metafunctions operate simultaneously in a text, such that a speaker or writer is simultaneously creating meaning at these three different metafunctional levels by way of making choices related to each of these functions.
To access the choices made at the ideational metafunctional level, I conducted a transitivity analysis. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) state, “Our most powerful impression of experience is that it consists of a flow of events, or ‘goings-on’” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004,
65 p. 170). They describe the transitivity system, saying that it “construes the world of experience into a manageable set of PROCESS TYPES. Each process type provides its own model or schema for construing a particular domain of experience as a figure of a particular kind”
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 170). In this analysis, I identify the distribution of choices of process types per speaker, and the participant roles assigned to individuals and groups. To access the interpersonal choices made, I conducted an appraisal analysis. While a transitivity analysis identifies participants and types of processes in each clause of a corpus, an appraisal analysis goes “beyond the clause” to interpret the mood of a text as a whole, analyzing how language is used to evaluate, using the resources of attitude, graduation, and engagement. Martin and Rose
(2003) describe these as “the kinds of attitudes that are negotiated in a text, the strength of feelings involved and the ways in which values are sourced and readers aligned” (Martin &
Rose, 2003, p. 22). In my analysis, I focus on resources of attitude.
I also conducted an analysis of the social actors referenced by each YouTuber. Social actor analysis comes from the CDA tradition. Machin and Mayr (2012) state, “In any language, there exists no neutral way to represent a person. And all choices will serve to draw attention to certain aspects of identity that will be associated with certain kinds of discourse” (Machin &
Mayr, 2012, p. 75). In SFL terms, social actor analysis relates to the textual metafunction, where references to an individual or group throughout a text create cohesion. It also relates to the impersonal metafunction: reference to the other YouTuber in the video, the audience, or other social actors shows engagement with these other actors, while the choice of term used (e.g. “tu” vs. “vous”, “chers amis québécois” vs. “these Quebecker people”) can reveal the relationship of the speaker to the referent, and the attitudes the speaker has toward the group or individual
66 referenced. In this analysis, I was concerned with who was included and who was excluded: that is, what social actors (represented as individuals and groups) were overtly represented more than others. To this end, I noted each mention of individuals and groups, represented by proper nouns, labels of groups, and pronouns, and grouped them by type.
CORPUS My data consists of 10 YouTube videos comparing QF and FF. I found these videos by searching “Quebec French” on YouTube, and selecting the top videos which had QF speakers in them . The videos selected were posted between January 12, 2014 and July 9, 2017. The combined length of the videos is 75 minutes, 24 seconds. A table with the breakdown of each video and its length, view count, and number of comments (as of August 15/August 22, 2017) can be found in the Appendix. Below, I present a brief description of the videos.
Videos and YouTubers:
V1: “Differences Between Quebec French VS France French”. YouTuber: Suzie Talbot.
In this video, QF speaker Suzie Talbot sits cross-legged on her bed addressing the camera. She speaks English throughout the video, with examples in QF and FF. Suzie states at the beginning of the video that she has talked to a lot of people on the internet who think that QF is the same as
FF, and seeks to show that this is not the case. Suzie then provides examples of how QF and FF
67 are different, and performs a series of expressions in English, then FF, then QF, in order to exemplify the differences between QF and FF.
V2 + V3: “French Canadian (Quebecois) vs France French” and “French Canadian (Quebecois) vs French part 2”. YouTuber: Elise DesRoches (off-screen) with guests Marine and Mikael.
Marine (FF) and Mikael (QF) sit facing the camera, side by side behind a desk with a French flag spread across it. They are not introduced as YouTubers with their own channels, but are guest informants on Elise’s channel. Off screen, an interviewer (based on others of Elise’s videos, it sounds like it is Elise’s voice) asks Marine and Mikael questions about how they say certain words and expressions in their variety of French. These videos are both in English, apart from the French examples from Marine and Mikael.
V4 + V5: “JE DEVINE DES EXPRESSIONS QUEBECOISES !”. YouTuber: Théo Gordy with guest PL Cloutier and “EXPRESSIONS QUÉBÉCOISES ET FRANÇAISES (avec Théo
Gordy)”. YouTuber: PL Cloutier with guest Théo Gordy.
This is a set of videos representing a collaboration between two YouTubers, Théo Gordy (FF) and PL Cloutier (QF). V4 is on Théo’s channel and V5 is on PL’s channel. In both videos, Théo and PL are communicating via Skype. In both videos, Théo sits at a desk with his laptop visible, 68 which he is using to communicate with PL on Skype. PL sits behind a kitchen counter, closer to the camera, which may be his laptop, as we do not see it. The video consists of a guessing game, wherein Théo must guess the meaning of QF expressions PL sends him, and PL must guess the meaning of FF expressions Théo sends him. The two take turns exchanging and guessing expressions. These videos are all in French.
V6: “EXPRESSIONS FRANÇAISES VS QUÉBÉCOISES avec LéaChoue ! [Sud-ouest]”.
YouTuber: Cath (girlyaddict) with guest Léa Choue.
This is another guessing game collaboration, between two YouTubers, Cath (QF) and Léa (FF), on Cath’s channel. As in V4 + V5, these YouTubers are communicating via Skype. Cath appears to be in her bedroom, and Léa is sitting on a couch. As in V4 + V5, they take turns exchanging and guessing one another’s expressions. The video is all in French.
V7: “Comprendre les Québécois pour les nuls”. YouTuber: Audrey D.
YouTuber Audrey (QF) sits on the end of her bed, addressing the camera. She presents her video as a guide “pour comprendre vos chers amis québécois” (“to understand your dear Quebecois friends”). She explains lexical, syntactic, and phonetic characteristics of QF, comparing them to their FF equivalents. The video is all in French. 69 V8: “EXPRESSIONS QUÉBEC VS FRANCE (avec Emy LTR)”. YouTuber: Lysandre Nadeau with guest Emy LTR
This is another collaborative video between two YouTubers, Lysandre (QF) and Emy (FF), in which the two exchange expressions back and forth, and guess the meaning of one another’s expressions. Unlike the other guessing game collaborations, Lysandre and Emy are together, in person, rather than in Skype. They are in Montreal, and sit on a couch. They face each other but also occasionally turn to face and address the audience. The video is all in French, apart from a few instances of playful code switching into English.
V9: “F*CK LES ANGLICISMES (duel France-Québec)”. YouTuber: Solange (SolangeTeParle)
Solange (QF/FF) presents the question of who uses more Anglicisms as the most common cliché when QF and FF are compared. She then presents what she calls a “quasi-scientific” study: we see sped up footage of her watching a QF film “Starbuck”, and its FF remake, “Fonzy”, to determine which version includes more Anglicisms. Following this, she presents her results to the audience, and engages in evaluative commentary about her relationship with QF. Solange is a unique case, because she grew up in Quebec, but, at the time of the video, she had been living in
France for 11 years. She has mostly adopted the FF accent, but occasionally shifts into a QF 70 accent during the video. The video takes place in Solange’s living room, with her sitting and lying on the couch, and sitting on the floor by the window. The video is all in French, apart from the Anglicisms she presents.
V10: “DIFFÉRENCES ENTRE LA FRANCE ET LE QUÉBEC”. YouTuber: Anaïs (Allo Anaïs) with guest Marie-Michelle
This is a video on YouTuber Anaïs (FF)’s channel, with guest Marie-Michelle (QF; does not have her own channel). The two stand in an opening and closing scene, addressing the audience to present the video in the intro, and inviting the audience to like and subscribe in the closing. The scenes in between the intro and the closing are vignettes which depict cultural differences between Quebec and France. These are acted out in various spaces, such as a living room, the street, a hallway, and a café. They appear to have been filmed in Montreal; indeed, other videos on Anaïs’s channel address being a French person going to school in Montreal. The video is all in French.
Data extraction I downloaded the videos as mp4 files, using OnlineVideoConverter
(https://www.onlinevideoconverter.com/video-converter)5. This was to retain the data in the event that a video was taken down from YouTube during the course of my study (which did happen to V1). Three videos could not be downloaded via the online converter; for these, I
5 Converting videos from YouTube on this site has since been disabled. 71 recorded the videos on my phone (by holding the phone up to my computer screen) and uploaded them onto my computer for analysis.
Advantages of working with online data Working with online data that has been posted to a public site has various advantages.
Those who have posted the video have chosen a public audience, and, in the case of YouTubers posting their own videos of themselves, the person in the video has consented to the content being uploaded to a public online site. Thus, the researcher does not need to obtain permission to use these data in analysis or publication. Another advantage of using online data is that there is no chance that the researcher has influenced how the participants behave in the corpus.
Additionally, the lack of an experimental setting allows for more “naturalistic” data, in the sense that the participants are acting on their own to create these videos and comments as they please; of course, YouTubers are aware that they’re designing their videos with an imagined audience in mind, and are able to edit themselves if they choose. Nevertheless, YouTubers can be assumed to be naïve to the fact that researchers may analyze their behavior on the site.
Limitations of online data There are, of course, disadvantages to working with online data. The researcher cannot systematically collect the demographic information she may wish to have, and must rely on the information that YouTubers choose to reveal about themselves. The researcher also has no control over what format, length, or content the YouTuber will use, the audio and visual quality of the video, and what appears in the frame. The researcher also has no control over whether the content of the videos is edited, or whether a video is taken down. In order to deal with the latter issue, I downloaded (or filmed) and saved all videos. 72 METHODS FOR ANALYSIS This section explains my specific methods for analysis. I begin by explaining how I transcribed the talk of 10 videos. I then explain how I analyzed the content of the videos.
Transcriptions I watched each video several times, and transcribed the videos following the conventions of the Jeffersonian tradition, as described by Hepburn and Bolden (2017). Transcribing audiovisual data in the conversation analytic tradition also “ ‘slows down’ the interaction to a level that is hard to discern just by listening” (Hepburn & Bolden, 2017, p. 10). Thus, the transcriber can develop a deeper awareness of what was occurring in the discourse.
I mostly used the videos I had downloaded (or filmed with my phone when they would not download) when working on my transcriptions, but occasionally visited the YouTube page when I had difficulty understanding parts of the talk (participants talking over each other, talking too fast, mumbling, or using words with which I was unfamiliar). YouTube has a slow-down feature, and some videos also have auto-generated closed-captioning. The accuracy of these closed-caption subtitles was variable, but even when the words were wrong, they helped me figure out what sounds and then what words the speakers were saying. When I was unfamiliar with the word, and the subtitles didn’t help, I googled what it sounded like, until I found a word that was reasonably what the person was saying. I also consulted informal online QF dictionaries for slang words and phrases I heard. The screenshot in Figure 3.1 demonstrates closed captioning and options for playback speed.
73
Figure 3.1. Screenshot from V7
Note above in Figure 3.1 that for “peu” (“little”) the speaker really said “pas” (“not”), and where it says “déçu” (“disappointed”) she actually said “dix tus” (“ten tu’s”).
A simplified version of the scripts (indication of latching and overlapping speech is removed) for the videos are found in the Appendix. One note I would like to make here regarding my transcriptions has to do with the treatment of “non-standard” language. Scholars have varying opinions as to how to represent “non-standard” spoken language in textual transcriptions. According to Hepburn and Bolden (2017):
Jeffersonian transcription attempts to strike a balance between having a clearly readable transcript, and faithfully representing pronunciational particulars using non-standard orthographic representation. Jefferson (1983) defends this kind of representation, noting, across a number of examples, that different ‘pronunciational particulars can be detected in the same speaker (Hepburn & Bolden, 2017, p. 16).
74
On the other hand, they say that one should:
use caution in adopting non-standard orthography, apart from when a particular pronunciation is interactionally significant, for example where speakers correct themselves or mishear one another due to non-standard pronunciation, and where speakers’ talk is markedly different from their usual pronunciation (Hepburn & Bolden, 2017, p. 16).
When I felt that the non-standard pronunciation of a word or phrase was intentionally made by the speaker to emphasize a difference between QF and FF, or when the difference was interactionally significant, I spelled the word or phrase to represent how it sounded.
(1) Suzie (QF): Je peux t’avoir du bar avec mes toasts. Can I have butter for my toast?
In (1), the QF speaker in V1 is contrasting the way she believes an FF speaker would order toast to how a QF speaker would make the same demand (the above example is her QF version). In this example, the speaker is using the question tag “tu”, a feature of QF, but not FF, which is usually written as attaching to the verb, which in this instance would be represented as
“Je peux-tu”; however, this speaker pronounces this phrase by reducing the vowel in “tu”, attaching the [t] to the infinitive “avoir”. Thus, I have transcribed this as “Je peux t’avoir”. In this example, we also find “bar”, representing the QF pronunciation of the word “beurre” (butter). I have spelled the word “bar” here because the speaker is specifically making a contrast between the two different pronunciations, which would have been lost in the transcript, had I used the standard spelling “beurre” for both.
I also followed spelling conventions that both FF and QF speakers use in informal language online:
75 (2) Lysandre (QF): Chuis trop veinarde. (Je suis trop veinarde) I’m so (lit. “too”) lucky.
(3) Théo (FF): T’as l’ droit à trois- trois essais. (Tu as le droit à trois essais.) You have the right to three tries.
I only used IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) in situations where I felt that an orthographic representation of the realization was inadequate to represent how the word sounded.
For example, in V8, the QF speaker pronounced the word “feu” (‘fire’) as [føʏ̯ ] and the FF speaker did not understand her, and repeated this “unknown” word, pronouncing it the same way as the QF speaker had, until she realized what the word was, and pronounced it as [fø], the standard FF pronunciation of the word.
Although my main analyses focused on patterns of meaning behind word choices, noting changes in pronunciation in the same speaker in my transcripts allowed me to keep track of style shifting, which will contribute to my discussion of style in Ch. 5.
Types of Analysis Here I describe the three types of analyses I performed: transitivity analysis, appraisal analysis, and social actor analysis. Transitivity analysis is a powerful tool for uncovering what types of processes are used in a text. This can indicate the genre of the text and what types of actions the speaker chooses to focus on. Although my main focus is on the distribution of process types overall and by speaker, I also attend to what participants are assigned what roles in each clause. My appraisal analysis focuses on the attitudes represented overall and by speaker. I analyze what attitudinal resources speakers prefer, who and what the targets of evaluation are,
76 and what attitudes are represented. My social actor analysis reveals what types of social actors are represented the most, who is excluded, and how social actors are represented (e.g. as individuals or collective groups, with pronouns, as agents or patients, etc.).
Transitivity Transitivity analysis in SFL deals with how speakers construe their experience of the world, belonging to the ideational metafunction. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) refer to this function of the clause as “clause as representation” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 168). The six types of processes are material, mental, relational, behavioral, verbal, and existential. The main processes in English transitivity are material, mental, and relational. Behavioral processes are found at the borderline between material and mental processes. Verbal processes lie on the border between mental and relational processes, with existential processes bordering between relational and material processes.
Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) state that part of the “flavor” of a text, as well as the text’s register, “lies in a mixture of process types” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 174).
Dominance of certain process types can be indicative of a particular genre: for example, recipes and other procedural texts, contain nearly exclusively material processes, whereas news reports are dominated by verbal clauses. Casual conversations tend to contain a lot of mental clauses
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 174). Halliday and Matthiessen also note that the types of processes used in a text tend to change as it unfolds; in a narrative, the setting will be dominated by existential and relational clauses, while the main event, later in the text, has a tendency to be dominated by material clauses (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 174).
77
The clauses we treat in a transitivity analysis contain, in principle, three components:
1. A process that unfolds through time
2. the participants that are involved in that process
3. The circumstances of the process
The process typically consists of the verbal group, the participant(s) of nominal group(s), and circumstance as an adjunct (adverbial group or prepositional phrase). Circumstantial elements are usually optional. Below I give a brief discussion of types of processes and the types of participants that are associated with them.
Material processes. These are processes of “doing-and-happening”, with the person doing the action labelled as Actor, and the participant to which or to whom the action is
“extended” as the Goal. Other possible roles in a material clause are Recipient (“I gave him a book”), Client (“He served himself some wine”), and Scope (“She crossed the street”).
Recipients and Clients benefit from the action construed in the material clause, and Goals are affected by the process. Scopes differ from these roles, as they are not affected by the process.
Attribute roles in a material clause are results of the action in the clause (as in the example “They stripped her clean of every bit of jewellery” from Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 190)
Material processes can be intransitive or transitive. Halliday and Matthiessen give as an example for an intransitive is, “the lion sprang”, wherein the lion is the Actor, and sprang is the process. For a transitive material clause, they give the example, “the lion caught the tourist”. In this clause, the lion is the Actor, caught is the process, and the tourist is the Goal (180).
Below is an example of an analysis of a material clause from my corpus.
78
(4) Solange: Le personnage principal prête un camion (The main character loans a truck) material Le personnage principal prête un camion
Actor Pr: material Goal
While the above clause construes a concrete action, material clauses can also be abstract: in addition to physical events, “they may represent abstract doings and happenings” (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004, p. 196). Halliday and Matthiessen give examples such as “AT&T’s stock slid” and “three major brokerages initiated coverage of the stock” (Halliday & Matthiessen,
2004, p. 196). They point out that these are treated grammatically in language as types of action, and that you can ask the questions “What did AT&T’s stock do?” And “What did three major brokerages do?” showing that although these are abstract usages of the verbs, they refer to things that are done. Below is an example of an abstract usage of a material process.
(5) Audrey: Les Québécois utilisent souvent le mot char (The Quebecois often use the word char (“car”)) material Les Québécois utilisent souvent le mot char
Actor Pr: material Goal
The above examples are in the active voice, but material processes can also be realized in the passive voice. In the example given by the authors, “the tourist was caught by the lion”, the tourist is the Goal, but is found in Subject position. The Actor, if expressed is found in the
Adjunct position, but can be left out:
79
(6) Cath: ça peut être utilisé dans l’ contexte d’une blague? (“it can be used in the context of a joke?”) material ça peut être utilisé dans l’ contexte d’une blague
Goal Pr: material Circ: place
Relational processes are processes of “being and having”, and are most often realized by the verbs “to be” or “to have”. They necessarily involve a relationship between two participants, and involve being something, possessing something, or becoming something. The labeling of the participants in a relational clause depends on the relationship between the participants, as demonstrated in the examples below.
(7) Léa: Ah, c’est génial! (Ah, that’s great!) relational: attributive Ah c’ est génial!
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
(8) Théo: tous les liens sont en barre d’infos (all the links are in the info bar) relational: attributive tous les liens sont en barre d’infos
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Circ: place
(9) PL: Pour moi, c’est mon coup de cœur euh, francophone, eh, Français sur YouTube (For me, it is my favorite uh, francophone uh French person on YouTuber) relational: identifying mon coup de cœur euh francophone Pour moi c’ est eh Français sur YouTube
Circ: viewpoint Token Pr: rel: ident Value
80 (10) Théo: J’ai pas encore une petite chance? (“I don’t still have a little chance?”) relational: attributive: possession J’ ai pas encore une petite chance
Possessor Pr: rel: attr: poss Circ: duration Possessed
The relationship in a relational clause can be between a Carrier and its Attribute (7), a
Token and Value (9) or between a Possessor and Possessed (10). Attributes can be realized by a prepositional phrase, “in which case the circumstantial relation is expressed by the preposition”
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 240) as in (8). Token and Value relationships are referred to as
“identifying” relational processes, where both halves are referring to the same thing. Thus, this type of clause defines a relationship in which “either can be used to identify the other” (ibid,
230). The Token represents that which is identified, and Value represents that which identifies the Token. Halliday and Matthiessen give the example of “Tom is the treasurer”, which can be reversed, such that we are now identifying who the treasurer is: “The treasurer is Tom”.
Mental processes. These clauses refer to our experience of the world in our consciousness. They include processes of sensing, which may be construed “either as flowing from a person’s consciousness or as impinging on it” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 197).
They include verbs dealing with perception (e.g. I feel cold, I can feel something on my leg, I hear, I see, I notice), verbs of preference and emotion (e.g. I hate, I love, I like, I rejoice, I grieve, I regret), desiderative processes (e.g. I would like, I want, I wish, I desire), and verbs of cognition (e.g. I think, I remember, I know, I realize). Some processes construing emotion are gradable, like those expressing preference (love-like-dislike-hate-detest, loathe) (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004, p. 198). Cognitive processes (imagine-think-know) and desiderative processes
(would like-want-desire) can also be gradable (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 208).
81 For mental process clauses, we refer to the person experiencing the process as the Senser, and that which is perceived as the Phenomenon. Phenomena are “things, macro-things (acts) or meta-things (facts)” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 201). The Senser must be “endowed with consciousness” to fill this participant role (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 201); although “the empty house” is not a prototypical Senser, it can be endowed with consciousness in a clause such as the following: “the empty house was longing for the children to return” (Halliday &
Matthiessen, 2004, p. 202).
(11) Marie-Michelle: Si vous avez kiffé la vidéo? (“If you liked the video?”) [hypothetical clause] mental: emotive Si vous avez kiffé la vidéo?
Senser Pr: mental Identifier
Mental clauses can project outside themselves, “as the representation of the ‘content’ of consciousness” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 206). For example, “I think that he’s dead”, or
“She believes he saw her”. The mental clause here is said to “project” another clause as the representation of the content of what is thought, believed, presumed, etc. This projected clause is known as an “idea clause” (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, p. 206):
(12) Audrey: ch’ crois que vous appelez ça des moufles, les Français? (“I believe that you call that des moufles (“mittens”), the French?”) mental: cognitive || [projection] relational: identifying ch’ crois que vous appelez ça des moufles
Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon
[projected clause]relational: identifying que vous appelez ça des moufles
Assigner Pr: rel: ident Token Value
82 Behavioral processes describe physiological and psychological behavior, such as breathing, coughing, smiling, laughing, singing, and dreaming. Halliday and Matthiessen (2004) note that they are “the least distinct of all six process types because they have no clearly defined characteristics of their own; rather, they are partly like the material and partly like the mental”
(Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004, pp. 249-250). The participant enacting the behavior is usually a conscious being, like the Senser in a mental process. The behavior that they perform is called the
Behavior. Below is an example of a behavioral clause.
(13) Théo: tu devras chanter une chanson de Stromae (“you will have to sing a Stromae song”) behavioral tu devras chanter une chanson de Stromae
Behaver Pr: behavioral Behavior
Verbal processes are clauses of saying, and are realized by verbs such as “to say”, “to speak”, “to talk”. The participant doing the speaking is called the Sayer, and what is said is referred to as the Verbiage. If a participant receiving the process or Verbiage is indicated, this participant is labeled as the Receiver.
(14) PL: je vais dire ça (“I’m going to say that”) verbal je vais dire ça
Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Existential processes are usually realized by the verb “to be” in English (in the expression
“there is”), or other verbs dealing with existence (e.g. “to exist”). In French the most prototypical expression is il y a (“there is”). There is only one participant in an existential clause, the Existent.
83 (15) Audrey: parce qu’il reste encore beaucoup d’ vocabulaire, beaucoup d’expressions (“because there still remain a lot of vocabulary, a lot of expressions”) existential parce qu’ il reste encore beaucoup d’ vocabulaire
Circ: Circ: reason Pr: existential Existent duration
Methods: transitivity analysis To conduct the analysis, I identified all the predicates in each of my transcripts of the videos, and manually coded each process type (material, relational, mental, behavioral, verbal, existential), as well as the participants and circumstances involved in each clause, and put these into tables. In videos in which YouTubers gave examples of QF and FF expressions, I did not include the expressions or clauses describing the expressions in my analysis, as this would have told us more about the nature of the expressions than how YouTubers orient to metalinguistic discourse.
I made a separate document for each speaker in MAXQDA, proprietary software for qualitative analysis. I then copied and pasted the clauses and tables into these documents. Next, I created codes in MAXQDA for each process type, and tagged each process within the clause by process type. By inputting my manual analysis into MAXQDA, I could easily count process types both by speaker and in the overall corpus, and obtain percentages for the distribution of process types. This method also allowed me to easily select a process type and view examples of it in my text, organized by speaker. The transitivity analysis for Théo’s speech in V4 is presented in the Appendix as an example.
84
Figure 3.2. Tagging processes and finding percentages in MAXQDA
Figure 3.3. Scrolling through a process type for examples in MAXQDA
85 Appraisal analysis Since language commentary on QF in its traditional forms (e.g. newspaper columns and letters to the editor) has tended to be evaluative (Bouchard, 2008), I expected videos comparing
QF and FF not just to compare the similarities and differences between the two, but also to evaluate these two varieties of French. Therefore, I also conducted appraisal analyses of the videos (Martin & Rose, 2003; Martin & White, 2005). Appraisal analysis involves analyzing how attitudes are negotiated through the use of various resources. I focused on attitudes, and noted instances of expressions of affect (expressions of feelings), judgements (evaluations of people), appreciation (evaluation of things) in addition to other attitudinal lexis and metaphors used in the videos. In the table below, I present examples of uses of affect, judgement, and appreciation, all taken from Martin and Rose (2003) (Martin & Rose, 2003, pp. 25-33).
Affect “I was torn to pieces”; “I can’t explain the pain and bitterness”“We were ecstatic”, “We celebrated”; “I wish I had the power”
Judgement “Our leaders are too holy and innocent”; “at least their leaders have the guts to stand by their vultures”; “respectable members of their communities”
Appreciation “a frivolous question”; “a very serious issue”; “virtually all the important applications to the Commission”
Table 3.1. Examples of use of affect, judgement, and appreciation
Notice in the table above the metaphors “torn to pieces” to construe affect and “have the guts” to construe judgement. I had noted previously that I coded instances of metaphor separately from the three main resources described by Martin and Rose (2003). In my analysis, when a speaker used a fixed metaphor, such as the ones above, I coded it as the relevant resource
86 among affect, judgement, and appreciation. In the case of a novel metaphor, as in Suzie’s
“beating up the French”, I coded it as a metaphor.
Martin and Rose (2003) note that some cases are borderline between judgement and appreciation. They give an example of a positive appreciation of Stevie Ray Vaughan’s album, which could be said to judge Vaughan or to appreciate his playing (Martin & Rose, 2003, p. 35).
I ran into this issue when YouTubers were evaluating their own and their co-collaborator’s performance in the games and in imitating one another’s variety. Following Martin and Rose, I did my best to pay attention to the context in which the evaluation was found to determine whether the evaluation were an instance of judgement or of appreciation.
Methods: Appraisal analysis I copied my scripts and pasted them into new Word documents, bolded all attitudinal resources, and identified what type of resource (affect, judgement, appreciation, attitudinal lexis, metaphor) each one was under chunks of the script. I then made tables organized by type of resource, and by the target of evaluation or attitude. These tables are found in the Appendix.
Next, I calculated how many instances of each attitudinal resource occurred per speaker, and calculated the distribution of attitudinal resources used by speaker. I also calculated the distribution of how often the following categories were targets of evaluation, by speaker: Self,
Other in video, Self + other in video, audience, QF (language, speakers, Quebec), FF (language, speakers, France), QF v. FF, and Other. The tables representing these distributions are presented in Ch. 4.
Multimodal resources
After the appraisal analysis, I consider multimodal resources exploited by YouTubers to create social distance and intimacy (framing and setting), and to construe attitudes (body
87 language, facial expressions, choice of props, use of music). Although my analysis is primarily linguistic, it is necessary to consider the multimodal nature of these texts in order to get a full picture of the interactions represented in the videos. As Kress and van Leeuwen (2006) note,
“interactive meanings are visually encoded in ways that rest on competencies shared by producers and viewers” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 115). In texts which both represent social interaction within the text, and interact with the viewer, the “articulation and understanding of social meanings in images derives from the visual articulation of social meanings in face-to-face interaction, the spatial positions allocated to different kinds of social actors in interaction (whether they are seated or standing, side by side or facing each other frontally, etc.)” (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2006, p. 116). With this in mind, I analyze how
YouTubers are framed in the videos, where they orient their gaze, and how they use other modalities to communicate interpersonal information.
Social Actor Analysis I conducted social actor analysis to analyze how social actors (individuals and groups) were referenced by each of the YouTubers in the corpus. Social actors may be classified by whether the actor is personalized or impersonalized, whether participants are represented as individuals or collectives, whether they’re represented as specific individuals or a generic type of individual. They can be nominalized or functionalized, they can be represented by an honorific, and they can be objectified and anonymized. Speakers may use aggregation to quantify groups.
Pronouns may be used, such as “us”, “we”, and “them” to align the audience with or against a certain group. Suppression is also a technique speakers and writers may use to silence a voice in a discourse. (Machin & Mayr, 2012, pp. 79-85). The table below presents examples of these
88 strategies, all taken from Machin and Mayr (2012) (Machin & Mayr, 2012, pp. 79-85), with emphasis added to call attention to the social actor representation in each example.
Personalization vs. “Professor John Smith requires academic staff to give impersonalization notification of strike action” vs. “The university requires academic staff to give notification of strike action”
Individualization vs. “Two soldiers, privates John Smith, and Jim Jones, were collectivization killed today by a car bomb” vs. “Militants were killed today by a car bomb”
Specification vs. “A man, Mazar Hussein, challenged police today” vs. “A genericization Muslim man challenged police today”
Nominalized vs. “George Bush said that democracy would win” vs. “The functionalized American president said that democracy would win”
Honorifics “A government spokesperson said yesterday that there was no official involvement in the affair” vs. “The Minister of Foreign Affairs said yesterday that there was no official involvement in the affair”
Objectivation “A ball of fun” to represent a baby; “A beauty” to represent a woman
Anonymization “Some people believe that globalisation is a bad thing”
Aggregation “Many thousands of immigrants are arriving in...””
Pronouns “They shall not be allowed to threaten our democracies and freedom”
Suppression “Globalisation is now affecting all national economies”
Table 3.2. Examples of classification of social actors
Methods: Social actor analysis To conduct this analysis, I copied the scripts and pasted them into a new document, and highlighted instances of references to individuals one color, and groups another color. I then created a table for each speaker, with one column indicating instances of reference to individuals, and the other indicating instances of reference to groups, and organized references according to 89 whom they were referencing within each column. I then counted each reference for the following categories: Self, Other in video, Self + other in video, Audience, Quebeckers, French people, and
Other, and calculated the percentage of reference to each of these social actors, per speaker.
Next, I created tables representing the distribution of references to social actors by speaker.
Therefore, my analysis was more focused on the distribution of which social actors were referenced more than others, and whether they were individualized or collectivized, although I do reference the strategies described above as they are relevant in my presentation of the results in Ch. 4. Some speakers have a third column for cases in which it was not possible to determine whether a reference referred to an individual or group (e.g. indeterminate between “you” referencing another individual in the video, or the group to which that individual belongs). These tables are in the Appendix.
Other analyses In addition to the above analyses, I also performed the following analyses, to determine the level of formality of the style of these YouTubers’ speech. For the videos in English, I calculated the percentage of contractions used out of all possible contractions. I also used the results of the social actor analysis to keep track of instances of generic “one” versus instances of generic “you”, and how often speakers used first and second personal pronouns.
For the videos in French, I used the results of the social actor analysis to determine how often speakers used first and second person personal pronouns, and how they referenced or addressed the other YouTuber, in videos with more than one YouTuber (whether they used “tu” or “vous”, and whether they referred to them in the third person when addressing the audience). I also used the results of the social actor analysis to keep track of whether speakers in these videos
90 used generic “on”, “tu” or “vous”. Finally, I calculated the percentage of ne-retention, counting all instances wherein “ne” was retained, out of all negative structures. I excluded instances in which the construction involved the subject “on” and a verb starting with a vowel “on (n’)utilise pas”, as it is difficult to determine in these cases whether the speaker has retained “n’”, or is doing a liaison between “on” and “utilise”.
91 Chapter 4: Results In this chapter, I present my findings in light of my research questions. I have grouped my findings by the categories of discourse, genre, and style. From the beginning, it is important to note that there are three sub-genres of videos that were revealed in this corpus. I call these language activism videos, guessing game videos, and V10, which belonged to its own genre, and consisted of a series of pairs of vignettes representing differences between French and Quebecois culture. This distinction will be important to keep in mind at all three levels of analysis. In the section on genre, I will explain how the differences between these sub-genres are revealed in the transitivity analysis.
DISCOURSE What do linguistic choices reveal about YouTubers’ ideologies regarding QF and FF? What attitudes toward QF and QF speakers do they communicate? What ideas to YouTubers presuppose about QF and FF? These questions will be addressed throughout this section on the discourses represented in the corpus, as the questions are intertwined, and pieces of evidence from the linguistic analysis will often answer more than one of them at once.
To begin, all of the language activism videos in the corpus presented QF and the differences between QF and FF as something new for the audience to learn, presupposing the audience to be familiar with FF, and assuming that QF is unfamiliar, or not as familiar, to the audience. This presupposition was made clear in the analysis by a number of findings. First, in the social actor analysis, I found that, overall, QF speakers were referenced more, at 29.4% of references to social actors in these videos, than FF speakers, who were only represented in 9.9% of references in these videos (See the appendix for distribution tables). The appraisal analysis revealed that QF language and speakers were also evaluated more (44.1% of evaluations) than 92 FF language and speakers (17.4% of evaluations) in these videos (See the appendix for the distribution tables). Furthermore, particularly in Audrey’s speech in V7, FF was set up as the default, “given” French, against which she compared QF expressions which she framed as something she needed to teach her audience. Indeed, the transitivity analysis revealed that 26.9% of Audrey’s verbal clauses have an unexpressed Sayer, instead using the structure “au lieu de dire” (“instead of saying”) + the FF manner of saying something, as in (1). This suggests that
Audrey takes FF for granted, as the default with which her viewers are assumed to be familiar.
(1) Audrey (V7): Donc au lieu de dire, veux-tu on dit tu veux-tu (So instead of saying veux-tu we say tu veux-tu)
These results suggest that although the language activism videos were presented in their titles as being about the differences between QF and FF, these YouTubers focused more on QF as new information for their audience, and as a target for evaluation. These videos were more about QF than they were about FF, and this was revealed by the linguistic analysis.
In the guessing game videos (V4 + V5, V6, V8), however, we saw above from the transitivity analysis that YouTubers chose processes orienting to the game itself. They used relational processes to identify the meanings of expressions, and attributive processes to describe and evaluate one another’s performance in the game. They used material processes to talk about actions in and around the game, and to incite the audience to engage with their channels. For these videos, then, metalinguistic talk was more of a game, and collaborating with another
YouTuber was an opportunity to garner more likes and subscriptions. Indeed, although the
YouTubers in the guessing game videos followed the pattern of referencing QF speakers more than FF speakers seen in the language activism videos, references to QF speakers and FF speakers represented a relatively low percentage of these YouTubers’ references in the social
93 actor analysis (5.6% and 3.5%, respectively). The appraisal analysis revealed that the YouTubers in the guessing game videos evaluated QF language and speakers and FF language and speakers relatively less than in the language activism videos. Unlike in the language activism videos, QF and FF language and speakers were targets of evaluation almost an equal number of times
(14.2% and 14.7%, respectively). This, along with the fact that the YouTubers in these guessing game videos traded an equal number of QF and FF expressions, suggests that these YouTubers positioned QF and FF as having an equal status in the context of the game, and that the
YouTubers in the video as well as the viewers had the opportunity to learn something new about
FF or QF, depending on which variety the YouTuber or audience member was more familiar with. This contrasts with the presupposition revealed in the analysis of the language activism videos, that viewers are more familiar with FF and stand to learn something new about QF, and thus reveals another difference between these two sub-genres.
Again, V10 differed greatly from the other videos in the corpus. The social actor analysis revealed that QF and FF speakers were referenced an equal number of times (at 10.6% of total references each). This indicates that QF and FF were considered equally important in the video, and that the YouTubers were comparing QF and FF equally, rather than focusing on QF as new information. Through the appraisal analysis, however, I found that evaluation tended to be context-specific to the conversation represented in the scene, such as affect projected via desiderative processes in service encounters, as in (2), or in interacting with the audience and trying to incite them to engage with the channel, as in (3).
(2) Anaïs (V10): Voulez-vous un autr’ café? (Do you want another coffee?)
(3) Marie-Michelle (V10): t’as trouvé ça écœurant (you found it (the video) cool (in QF))
94 Indeed, there was only one overt evaluation of FF, shown in (4), and no overt evaluations of QF.
(4) Text (V10): On sait se faire désirer (We know how to make ourselves desired ).
Although evaluation of QF was not expressed linguistically in V10, this video made use of extralinguistic semiotic resources in its comparisons and evaluations of QF and FF, to be discussed below in my analysis of how QF was evaluated in the corpus.
Discourses represented in the corpus At the end of Chapter 2, I mentioned some discourses I predicted to be represented in these videos, based on current discourses about QF present in the traditional QF press, and on the results of recent language attitudes research. Briefly, again, the recent discourses surrounding the status of French in Quebec in the QF press include (the threat of) bilingualism, politicians’
(in)ability to speak French, and younger generations’ indifference to protecting the survival of
French in Quebec. From recent language attitudes research, Kircher (2012) found in her study that QF speakers rated QF voices higher on solidarity dimensions than in the past, but still rated
QF voices lower on status dimensions than FF. Below, I present the discourses found in this corpus, and then compare the findings from my analysis with the discourses found in the QF press. Then, I present the evaluations of QF revealed through the appraisal analysis, and compare those results with the attitudinal findings in Kircher (2012).
The following folk linguistic discourses are represented in the videos: QF is “not proper
French”; QF is spoken not written; QF uses more Anglicisms; FF uses more Anglicisms. The majority of these discourses only appear in the language activism videos, with only one realization of one of these discourses coming from Lysandre, in the guessing game video, V8
95 (seen in example (19) below). Other discourses were more important in the guessing game video genre, to be discussed below.
QF is “not proper French”. This discourse is represented in Suzie (5) and Audrey’s speech (6), and was more indirectly communicated by Lysandre (7). Suzie states this idea explicitly, in the following quote:
(5) Suzie (V1): The written French? is the same in Quebec as in France We just- don’t- write- these, like, drette-là, stacose, we just speak them, we do not write them because it’s not proper French and you can’t write like that, it’s not words, it’s- it’s a lot of words you condensed into one word.
Audrey similarly evaluates certain QF verbs as “not a correct French” on two occasions, as in (6).
(6) Audrey (V7): Ils ne sont pas nécessairement un français correct de- d’écrire. Ces verbes- là. (They are not necessarily a correct French to write. Those verbs.)
Both Suzie and Audrey communicate this idea using the appraisal resource of appreciation, evaluating QF for what it is not: a “proper” or “correct” French. Lysandre communicates a similar idea, but more indirectly, and as a judgement of herself:
(7) Lysandre (V8): Je ne peux pas parler français (I cannot speak French)
QF is spoken not written. This discourse is communicated by Suzie and Audrey, as in (5) and (6) above, as well as in the following, from Audrey:
(8) Audrey (V7): On pourrait dire- me dire quoi? pour dire, je vais te dire quelque chose. Le ‘ me’ remplace je vais. Demandez-moi pas pourquoi? Je sais pas même haha c’est… juste… comme ça? Encore une fois, c’est seulement à l’oral. (We could say- me dire quoi? To say, I’m going to tell you something. The ‘me’ replaces je vais (‘I’m going’). Don’t ask me why? I don’t even know haha it’s… just… like that? Once again, it’s only in speech.)
96 QF uses more Anglicisms. This is a folk discourse represented in both Suzie’s and
Solange’s speech. Suzie projects this folk discourse implicitly onto her audience, in order to introduce a counterexpectancy:
(9) Suzie (V1): Unlike you would think, people from France use more Englishism- than we do.
The idea that QF speakers use more Anglicisms is not explicitly stated, but implied and projected onto the audience, both to indicate what Suzie imagines her audience to believe, and as a rhetorical device to set it against what she then proclaims to be the truth, that it is FF speakers who use more Anglicisms.
Solange also construes this discourse indirectly, in the introduction to V9:
(10) Solange (V9): Le lieu commun qui revient le plus souvent lorsqu’on compare le français- de France au français parlé au Québec? C’est- Ben les Français là ils utilisent pas les anglicismes. Les Québécois ils ont un cœur de parler français ils traduisent tout. La périlleuse question des anglicismes. Qui en utilise vraiment le plus. (The cliché that comes back the most often when one compares the French from France to the French spoken in Quebec? It’s- Well the French there they don’t use Anglicisms. The Quebecois they have a heart to speak French they translate everything. The perilous question of Anglicisms. Who really uses the most.)
In (10), Solange suggests that there are two competing discourses, that QF speakers use more Anglicisms and one that FF speakers use more Anglicisms. She presents it as something that is taken for granted, as the most cliché topic when comparing QF and FF. Solange sets two discourses against each other: “The French there they don’t use Anglicisms” and “The
Quebecois have a heart to speak French they translate everything”. She uses parallel reference terms in setting these up “les Français” and “les Québécois” against one another, and follows with the question: “Qui en utilise vraiment le plus?” (Who really uses the most?).
FF uses more Anglicisms. Set against the previous discourse, this is the competing discourse that FF speakers use more Anglicisms, which Solange “proves” wrong by her study,
97 and which Suzie claims is the truth. Again, in (22), Solange does not state this discourse directly, but construes the debate as the “perilous question of Anglicisms”, implying that this is an infamous question that she expects her audience to be familiar with, which she considers
“dangerous” to invoke. We saw in (21) that Suzie, on the other hand, stated outright, “people from France use more Englishism- than we do”, but framed this as something she expects will surprise her audience.
Both Suzie and Solange use legitimations to support their claims. Suzie provides a list of
Anglicisms she believes FF speakers to use, setting them up against the French equivalents QF speakers use:
(11) “They use parking. Shopping, des boots. We say, des bottes, un stationnement, pis magasiner.”
In (11), Suzie uses the pronouns “they” and “we” to create a discourse of “us vs. them”, to set QF and FF against one another and highlight the differences between them, rather than the similarities.
In V9, Solange uses her findings that there were more Anglicisms in the QF film
“Starbuck” than its FF remake, “Fonzy”, as support for the claim that QF speakers use more
Anglicisms than FF speakers. Importantly, she also relies on Le Petit Robert, a dictionary published in France, as legitimation of her assessment that particular words are Anglicisms. This choice reveals an implicit bias for a prescriptive FF reference as the standard of French to which
Solange holds both the QF film and the FF film accountable.
Lying behind these competing discourses about whether QF or FF speakers use more
Anglicisms is the implicit discourse that it is undesirable to both groups to use more Anglicisms,
98 that it makes those speakers’ French less French, and that it symbolizes the domination of
English. This is made clear in Solange’s quote, in (12):
(12) Solange (V9): Je ne me ferai pas que des amis, mais à mon humble avis, les Québécois recourent davantage et malgré eux à l’anglais, que les Français. (I’m not going to make only friends, but in my humble opinion, the Quebecois resort more and in spite of themselves to English than the French.)
Solange introduces the claim in (12) by saying she won’t make only friends by saying this, and referring to her opinion as “humble”. In this quote, Solange is asking us not to shoot the messenger. She assumes that her QF audience is not going to be happy with this claim, and frames them as “resorting” to English not because they want to, but rather “in spite of themselves”, as if they have no control over whether they use English words.
At the end of Solange’s video, after she has reported that she found more Anglicisms in the QF version of the film than the FF remake, Solange insists that she did not make the video to tell QF speakers that they speak poorly (13), implying that this could be the audience’s interpretation of her motivation for making the video.
(13) Mais- si j’ai fait tout ça- c’est pas du tout pour pointer du doigt les Québécois et leur dire ah vous voyez vous parlez mal, vous utilisez euh de l’anglais, et euh Pas du tout. Chuis pas du tout anti-anglicisme en fait. (But- if I’ve done all that- it’s not at all to point at the Quebecois and tell them ah you see you speak poorly, you use uh English, and uh Not at all. I’m not at all anti- Anglicism in fact.)
Again, Solange imagines her audience to associate using Anglicisms while speaking
French as “speaking poorly”, and feels she needs to position herself as not being “anti-
Anglicism”. Thus, using Anglicisms is considered to be a feature which contributes to folk linguistic ideas of what it means to not speak “proper” or “correct” French.
Solange goes even further than claiming that QF speakers use more Anglicisms than FF speakers, stating that QF is “hybrid”:
99
(14) Mais euh le Québécois? Euh de tous les jours, dans son quotidien? I:: sa langue elle est hybride, y a de l’anglais dedans, et on va pas le nier. (But uh the everyday Quebecker? Uh in his everyday life? He:: his language it is hybrid, there is English in it, and we are not going to deny it).
In this quote, which comes after Solange allows that QF avoids Anglicisms in “official” language, Solange insists that “everyday” QF is “hybrid”, without hedging this claim. She strengthens this by saying “we are not going to deny it”, thus denying her audience the opportunity to disagree with her.
Lying behind all of these discourses is the implicit macrodiscourse that FF is the default, the standard to which QF is compared. We saw this previously, in Audrey’s tendency to use “au lieu de dire” (“instead of saying”), rather than expressing FF speakers as the Sayer in verbal processes projecting FF manners of expression. We saw this also in Solange’s choice of a FF dictionary as legitimation for what should be considered a legitimate or illegitimate Anglicism, for a QF and an FF text. And we saw it expressed implicitly in the idea that QF was only
“spoken”, implying that QF speakers imagine themselves to write in a common standard French, based on FF, and that QF is restricted to a lower register, which is not in fact the case (Reinke &
Ostiguy, 2016). Only Solange briefly mentions at the end of V9 that Anglicisms are avoided in
QF in official documents and signage. We will see this idea that QF is a lower register than FF, excluding higher registers of QF and lower registers of FF, expressed again in the results of the appraisal analysis below.
Comparing discourses in the videos to those in the QF press When we compare the folk linguistic discourses in the present corpus to those I had predicted based on recent discourses found in the traditional QF press, the only one present in
100 both was that of the threat of bilingualism. Interestingly, even though we saw that there were some implicit ideas hiding behind what Suzie and Solange stated explicitly, it is often the term
“bilingualism” that is used negatively in the press, as an implicit threat to the French language in
Quebec, and not the term “Anglicisms”, which is used in the videos. We can see, though, how this threat of bilingualism could be present behind the discourses represented more clearly in the corpus; FF is considered to be the “more French”, the standard, because it is considered to be less “polluted” by English.
We recall that another of the discourses present in the recent traditional QF press was the idea that younger QF generations are indifferent to protecting the survival of French in Quebec.
The fact that the young YouTubers in the language activism videos have created videos to teach their viewers about QF seems to run contrary to this idea. V1 and V2 + V3 conducted their videos in English, and one could argue that this very fact is representative of the domination of
English, and that if they really wanted to protect the survival of French in Quebec, they would have conducted their videos in French. On the other hand, these YouTubers clearly imagined their audience to be English-speaking, regardless of where they live in the world, and perhaps designed their video in order to teach English speakers familiar with FF about QF.
Politics were completely excluded from all of the videos, even though language and politics are so often intertwining discourses in the QF press about the status of French in Quebec.
This could mean that these are young people who may want to share knowledge of their language with their audience in order to promote their identity, but are “indifferent” to the language politics that are so often the focus of metalinguistic commentary in the traditional press. Or, it could mean that, to these YouTubers, YouTube is not the place for them to have
101 political conversations (A glance at the comment sections quickly reveals that commenters do not share this opinion, but that is the topic for another study.).
The “activism” in these videos was directed at trying to teach the audience something about QF vs. FF, assuming QF to be unfamiliar to the audience, or that viewers had an inaccurate view of QF vs. FF. Thus, these videos seemed to imagine primarily a non-QF speaking audience
(with the exception of Solange, who seemed to imagine an audience of both QF and FF speakers). This differs from traditional QF language commentary, which tends to be directed at
QF speakers. Importantly, the goal of the YouTubers in the corpus was to describe, evaluate and teach something about QF to their audience; it was not “activism” in the sense of trying to incite change in terms of the status of French in Quebec. At most, YouTubers sought to bolster the status of QF on YouTube.
I have discussed above discourses which orient to language. But there were other discourses present in the video that point to the motivations behind creating these videos within the space of YouTube. These discourses have to do with capitalism and branding.
Discourses in the guessing game videos Although YouTubers in the guessing game videos commented on and evaluated expressions in their own and one another’s variety, occasionally commenting on their own and one another’s performance and manner of or ability in speaking French, they largely did not participate in the discourses represented above, apart from Lysandre’s comment that she cannot speak French. Rather, these YouTubers seemed to be playing a game in order to collaborate with another YouTuber, to showcase their identity, and to entertain their audience. They use promotional, advertising language in promoting the video and one another’s channel.
102 The social actor analysis reveals that the majority of references to social actors in these videos represented the self (44.9%) or the collaborator in the video (25.3%). These YouTubers preferred to reference the social actors present in the videos, rather than making generalizations about QF and FF speakers, or anyone else. In the opening and closing stages of these videos, to be discussed in the genre analysis below, these YouTubers spent a lot of time promoting their channel, as well as the collaborator’s channel.
Every one of the guessing game videos used the circumstantial “Aujourd’hui” (“Today”) during the opening stage of the video, to present the video in a way that implied it was an installment of regular programming on their channel. All guessing game videos except V8 addressed the audience with terms which implied that they had a regular audience: in V4 and V6, the host addressed the audience with “tout le monde” (“everyone”) at the beginning of the video, and in V5, Théo addressed PL’s audience as “PL Cloutier family”. PL and Lysandre referenced catch phrases they use in their other videos. Thus, these YouTubers used references to their community that viewers would recognize as positioning these videos as taking their place within the context of other entries on the channel, thus promoting the idea that the audience wouldn’t just watch this video, but would be interested in watching more content by these YouTubers.
Further, creating a sense of community on the channel encourages the audience to want to participate and belong.
Théo in V4 and Cath in V6 promoted their video by calling it “spéciale”, noting that what was special about it was their guest, as in (15) below.
(15) Théo (V4): Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale, puisque je suis avec-
PL (V4): PL Cloutier! Bonsoir! (Théo (V4): Today we find ourselves in a kind of special video, because I am with- PL (V4): PL Cloutier! Good evening!)
103
In V8, Lysandre’s guest, Emy, evaluated her upcoming collaboration with Lysandre on her channel by saying, “Ça va être cool” (“It’s going to be cool”), thus promoting another video between the two of them. This next collaboration was going to be about eating bagels. Thus, what was special and worth promoting to these YouTubers seemed not to be that they were talking about language, but rather that they were collaborating with another YouTuber. The fact that they could play a game based off of their differences in language seemed to be an excuse for a topic to collaborate on and have fun with, to create content and get views.
YouTubers also promoted their collaborators. They did this by expressing affinity for the other YouTuber and their channel, adding links to the collaborator’s channel, and telling the audience to subscribe to their channel. An example from PL (V5) is shown in (16) below.
(16) PL (V5): Ché pas si: vous suivez Théo? Pour moi, c’est mon coup de cœur euh, francophone, eh, Français sur YouTube, allez vous abonner à sa chaîne? (“I don’t know if: you follow Théo? For me, he’s my favorite, uh, Francophone, uh French person on YouTube, go subscribe to his channel? ”)
YouTubers in these videos also visually and linguistically played to the audience, overreacting to expressions or their collaborator’s guesses at the meanings of expressions through their facial expressions and intonation, and sometimes conspiring with the audience, as in (17).
(17) Emy (V8): Elle m’aide pas. Elle veut pas m’aider. C’est de la triche. Elle va gagner parce qu’elle ne m’aide pas. (She [Lysandre]’s not helping me. She won’t help me. It’s cheating. She’s going to win because she doesn’t help me).
104
Figure 4.1. Théo overreacting to the camera
]
Figure 4.2. Emy conspiring with the audience
105 Finally, YouTubers addressed imperatives at the audience, demanding that they click on links to the collaborator’s channel, to go to the collaborator’s channel and subscribe to it, to leave a thumbs up if they liked the video, and, in the case of V4 + V5, to leave comments suggesting additional QF and FF expressions, as in (18).
(18) PL (V5): Et pis laissez-moi savoir? dans les commentaires? si vous connaissez d’aut’s expressions québécoises euh- que je pourrais faire deviner à Théo la prochaine fois. (And then let me know? in the comments? if you know other Quebecois expressions uh- that I could make Théo guess next time.)
Thus, by using promotional language, expressing affinity for their collaborators, using language to imply a standing relationship and sense of community between the YouTuber and viewers, and giving demands of the audience to interact and engage with their channel and the collaborator’s channel, these YouTubers participated more in a transactional, capitalistic discourse, that was dependent upon their “customers” “buying” into their channel, and supporting their “brand” by liking, subscribing, and commenting, rather than participating in the discourses revealed in the analysis of the language activism videos.
Attitudes toward QF In this section, I discuss the attitudes toward QF present in the corpus, and compare them to the predicted attitudes based on the language attitude literature. At the end of Chapter 2, I stated that Kircher (2012) found that QF speakers rated QF voices higher on solidarity dimensions than they had in past studies, but that they still rated them lower than FF voices on status dimensions. Thus, I predicted that this pattern may be present in my data. I also posited that, on the other hand, if YouTubers conformed more to the social practices associated with ideas that the internet should be a more “democratic” space than the offline world, that they might position QF and FF as having an equal standing within the space of YouTube. 106 Overall in the corpus, QF language and speakers were the most common target of evaluation (27.4%), after “other” (34.3%) (see the distribution table in the appendix), and was the most common target of evaluation in the language activism videos (44.1%). Here I present the attitudes that YouTubers expressed about QF (the language, its speakers, and Quebec). I took all 127 instances of evaluation of QF and coded them for “positive”, “negative”, and “neutral”.
Some of these were more straightforward (e.g. “J’adore ça”), whereas in other cases, I had to do my best to determine the speaker’s intention. Thus, some of my judgements may be more interpretive, but I did my best to remain unbiased and reflect speaker intention. Below is a table representing the distribution of attitudes, separated by FF speakers’ attitudes, QF speakers’ attitudes, and Solange’s attitudes, since she grew up in Quebec but had been living in France for the past 11 years, and largely adopted the FF accent.
FF speakers QF speakers Solange
Positive: 13 (43.3%) Positive: 12 (18.5%) Positive: 11 (35.5%) Negative: 10 (33.3%) Negative: 27 (41.5%) Negative: 12 (38.7%) Neutral: 7 (23.3%) Neutral: 26 (40%) Neutral: 8 (25.8%)
Total: 30 Total: 65 Total: 31
Table 4.1. Distribution of attitudes toward QF
FF speakers evaluated QF speakers more positively than negatively or neutrally, but QF speakers had more instances of negative evaluation, followed by neutral, and finally positive, at only 18.5%. Solange displayed one more instance of negative evaluation than positive. Her higher rate of negative evaluation is due to the fact that QF speakers had a false opinion, according to her study, that they use fewer Anglicisms, and Solange evaluated certain words as 107 “very Anglicised”, which I took to be negative in the context of her video (Indeed, this has also been considered a negative appraisal historically in language commentary on QF).
In QF speakers’ negative evaluations, 25.9% construe QF speakers as violently transforming words, using words like “déformation”, “beating up”, “mash”, and “écraser”.
These all came from Suzie’s and Audrey’s speech. In FF speakers’ negative evaluations, 60% evaluated a word or expression as not making sense; in QF speakers’ negative evaluations,
22.2% evaluated a QF word or expression not making sense. One FF speaker, Marine, evaluated
QF speakers as not speaking French, and, as we saw earlier, Lysandre lamented at one point in
V8 that she could not speak French. Suzie evaluated QF as “not proper French”, and Audrey evaluated two QF expressions as “pas un français correct” (“not a correct French”).
Of the neutral evaluations, 14.6% described QF (language, speakers, an expression) as being more familiar (or “vulgar” (vulgaire), or “pejorative” (péjoratif)) or associated with “a farmer kind of accent”, in one instance. 14.6% described QF as more aggressively spoken
(“plus intense”, “plus de punch”, “bang bang bang”, “in your face”, “shut up”, “that’s what
I’m talking”) 12.2% represented QF words and expressions as funny (drôle in 4 instances; rigolo in 1 instance).
Of the positive evaluations directed at QF, 47.2% were affective (61.5% in FF speakers
41.7% in QF speakers, and 36.4% in Solange’s speech). This suggests that, particularly in FF speakers, rather than focusing on whether QF were “good” or “correct”, they expressed affinity for the language, speakers, and Quebec. This is because, in spite of some “negative” discourses involving QF, YouTubers used affect to express their affinity for their QF, and to mitigate
108 perpetuating discourses which may be perceived negatively by Quebeckers. This was the case both for FF speakers and QF speakers.
Solange used a lot of language to suggest that QF speakers have an emotional attachment to their language, as in (19):
(19) Solange (V9): Les Québécois ils ont un cœur de parler français (The French they have a heart to speak French)
This representation of QF speakers having a special emotional attachment to their language seems to be in line with the idea that QF is more expressive, intense, and in your face.
QF is construed as more vibrant and passionate, and QF speakers as having a more passionate relationship with their language, by these YouTubers. Solange’s quote that QF speakers have a heart to speak French evokes a fear of instability, that they may risk losing their language.
Evaluation expressed through body language and facial expressions: Suzie (V1)
The fact that Suzie performs FF expressions and their QF equivalents back-to-back affords us the opportunity to easily compare her realizations, both in terms of intonation and in the way she emotes through her face and body as she performs the two different varieties. In Figures 4.3 and
4.4 below, we see how Suzie’s body language and facial expressions differ when saying “I’m
(so) confused” in FF and in QF.
109
Figure 4.3. Suzie saying, “Je suis confus” (FF)
Figure 4.4. Suzie saying, “Ch’toute fourrée” (QF)
When Suzie performs FF examples, she sits more upright and is more reserved in her movements and facial expressions, often with her eyebrows raised. When she performs their QF equivalents, she hunches over, often slanting her body diagonally. She moves her body and head around in the space, and uses much more expressive facial expressions, often grimacing. This acting out of FF and QF expressions reflect Suzie’s evaluative commentary that QF French is
“more in your face” and “very expressive”. This was reflected in her choice of process types 110 when construing QF speech as opposed to FF speech: in the transitivity analysis, I found that
Suzie used material processes to represent QF speakers as “doing” things with language (58.6% of the time), and verbal processes to report on what QF speakers say (only 41.4% of the time). In contrast, Suzie used verbal processes (72.7%) more to represent FF speech than she used material processes (27.3%) to represent FF speech. Thus, in her body movements, facial expressions, evaluative statements and in her choice of process types, Suzie portrayed QF as being a more expressive, active, bodily experience, and FF as being more reserved and limited to language.
Suzie gestures high in the space when talking about British English and FF toward the beginning of the video, and lowers her hand when talking about QF and American English.
When she says, “British English, you think of somebody more, fancy, more- not to be mean, but somebody more like snobbish fancy like”, she beats her right hand, with her pinky finger up, in the upper right periphery of her space, on “fancy”, “snobbish”, and “fancy”. Thus, Suzie embodies her impression of BE and FF speakers as “fancy” and “snobbish”.
This contrast between being “in your face”, with slouching posture and grimaces, and the reserved “proper”, “fancy” and “snobbish” in Suzie’s performance, was interpreted as a difference between a more “masculine” and a more “feminine” variety of French in Mikael’s speech: he evaluated QF speakers as adding more “masculinity” to their speech, evaluating FF speakers as sounding “way more feminine”.
We notice that many of these evaluations of QF and FF were not just about the languages, but about their speakers. In V10, which focused more on stereotyped cultural differences and contained a lot less language and relied more on visual and other modes of
111 semiosis, French people were represented as drinking wine with their noses in the air and listening to Mozart, whereas Quebeckers were represented as drinking hard liquor and dancing to hip hop music.
Figure 4.5. French soirée (left) vs. Québécois soirée (right) from V10
Affect was the most common way positive evaluations of QF were expressed, suggesting an affinity for the language, even if the speakers considered it to be lower status or “incorrect”.
Indeed, among the QF speakers, only Mikael insisted that a QF word or pronunciation was the correct one, in three instances. Otherwise, QF speakers’ positive appreciations of QF were expressions of solidarity and affinity for characteristics such as “to the point”, “not forcing it”, and “very expressive” (all from Suzie’s speech).
Overall, both QF and FF speakers express affinity and solidarity toward QF, while representing it as not always making sense, violently transforming French, and being more aggressive and expressive. YouTubers considered QF speakers to be more casual, and familiar, and potentially lower class, using the words “familiers”, “vulgaire”, “péjoratif”, and “a farmer kind of accent”. Potentially negative attitudes expressed toward QF was often mitigated by positive affective expressions directed at QF, as in (20):
(20) Suzie: We just like beat up the hell out of the French, but we like it this way.
112 Thus, the findings in the appraisal analysis seem to be in line with Kircher (2012)’s findings, that speakers have a high level of solidarity with and affinity for QF language and speakers, but still consider QF to have a lower status than FF, both in terms of considering it potentially lower class or a lower, more familiar register, and by the fact that QF was presented, particularly in the language activism videos, as “new information”; it is lower status in the sense that it is imagined to be not as well-known as FF. On the other hand, the fact that, unlike in the language activism videos, the guessing game videos referenced QF social actors and evaluated
QF almost at the same rate as they referenced FF social actors and evaluated FF, suggesting that these YouTubers sought to position QF and FF on even ground, at least for the purpose of the videos. Indeed, we could say that the “activism” of all of these videos is to take advantage of the claims that the internet is (or can be) a more democratic space, and seek to give QF more exposure. But the fact that FF is continuously assumed to be the default in the language activism videos, and the fact that these YouTubers imagine their audiences to be less familiar or unfamiliar with QF, shows that QF is still viewed by these YouTubers as lower status.
GENRE Despite important differences in content, these are all metalinguistic videos (although
V10 could be seen as more of a metacultural video). In terms of staging, I below that they belong to a macrogenre called a “vlog entry”. We recall from the predictions stated at the end of Chapter
2 that Burgess and Green (2013) characterize the genre of a vlog entry as “structured primarily around a monologue delivered directly to camera” (p. 145). Vlog entries are “produced with little more than a webcam and some witty editing” (p. 145). In terms of content, “[t]he subject matter ranges from reasoned political debate to impassioned rant about YouTube itself and the mundane
113 details of everyday life” (p. 145). As this genre of vlog entry is specific to the context of
YouTube, we can refer to it as a situated genre (Fairclough, 2003), to be discussed in Chapter 5.
Generic staging of a vlog entry The videos in this corpus generally consist of either a monologue directed at the camera, or a conversation between YouTubers, who orient both to each other and the camera, and make references linguistically and visually (e.g. through gaze and gesture) to the audience and camera.
The exception is V10, although the YouTubers in this video address the audience in an opening and a closing scene. The majority of the videos take place in the YouTubers’ homes, and do appear to be “produced with little more than a webcam and some witty editing”. In terms of content, the videos with a single YouTuber seem to fit Burges and Green’s description of the possible topics for a vlog entry ranging “from reasoned political debate to impassioned rant about YouTube itself and the mundane details of everyday life” better than the videos with more than one person. Overall, though, these YouTube videos conform largely to the higher macrogenre of a vlog entry, and this is seen not only in the production level and orientation to the camera, but also importantly in terms of generic staging.
The staging of a vlog entry as realized in the majority of these videos is found in Figure
4.6, and described in prose below.
114 Greeting
Introducing guest/ Opening collaborator
Stating the topic of today’s video Body of video Vlog Saying where links to Thanking viewers other videos can be found
Inviting viewers to Housekeeping like and subscribe, Closing and leave comments
Advertising when the Saying goodbye next video will be
Figure 4.6. Generic staging of a YouTube vlog
The generic staging of these videos tended to start with an opening, in which the
YouTuber(s) greeted the audience, and told them what the topic of that day’s video was. Those videos with a collaborating YouTuber spent some time introducing that YouTuber and promoting his or her channel. YouTubers then launched into the body of the video, sometimes making digressions from the game or narrative. Most videos also concluded by wrapping up the video, engaging in housekeeping turns (talking about where they will put links to other videos, inviting viewers to like and subscribe, and leave comments, and reminding them to subscribe to or watch videos on the collaborator’s YouTube channel), and finally saying goodbye to the audience, sometimes saying that they’ll see each other soon. An example of this staging (from
V4) is given in Figure 4.7.
115 Opening Greeting the audience: Théo: Hello tout le monde, c’est Théo j’espère que vous allez bien
Introducing guest: Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale, puisque je suis avec- PL: PL Cloutier! Bonsoir!
Introducing the topic: Théo: On va parler des expressions
Promoting collaborator’s channel: Théo: et je mettrai aussi la chaîne de PL en barre d’infos
Body [Game]
Closing Summing up: Théo: Et donc maintenant voilà que PL m’a donné trois expressions et que je lui ai donné trois expressions
Promoting collaborator’s channel: c’est le moment de passer sur sa vidéo, donc je vous incite de cliquer…
Summing up: Et donc du coup voilà c’est tout pour cette vidéo, j’espère qu’elle vous aura plu.
Inviting viewers to engage with his channel: En tout cas, si c’est le cas n’hésitez pas à mettre un petit… pouce bleu
Promoting collaborator’s channel: et aussi n’hésitez pas à aller vous abonner à la chaîne de PL qui sera en barre d’infos. [...] Je vous la mettrai en barre d’infos parce que sa chaîne, elle est juste, ben franchement je l’adore, ‘fin:: sa personnalité atypique […] j’aime le voir sur YouTube, ben.
Inviting viewers to engage with his channel and other social media: Théo: Voilà, donc, faites l’éducation de PL en lui disant des expressions purement françaises de votre région Théo: N’oubliez pas de me rejoindre sur les réseaux sociaux, tous les liens sont en barre d’infos, encore une fois
Advertising the next video: et on se retrouve la semaine prochaine, pour une nouvelle vidéo, à très […] très bientôt!
Saying goodbye: Bye! Ooh, j’arrive pas, c’est trop loin Bye! Ah! J’arrive toujours pas! Attends! Bye!
Figure 4.7. Generic staging of a vlog from V4
116 Not all of the videos conformed exactly to this structure, but it was the most common across videos. Indeed, when YouTubers didn’t conform to this structure (only V2 + V3 and V9 did not conform), it felt like a rebellion against the vlog genre, of what would be expected from the social practices of YouTube.
Within this macrogenre of the vlog entry, we have metalinguistic videos that take three forms: the language activism sub-genre, the guessing game sub-genre, and V10’s vignettes.
These sub-genres have different stagings which take place within the “Body” stage of the macrogenre of a vlog entry, shown in Figure 4.6 above.
Sub-genres in the corpus Through my analysis, two main sub-genres of metalinguistic videos in the corpus emerged. The first of these two sub-genres revolved around reporting on the differences between
QF and FF, and each had a specific agenda relating to QF (V1, V2 + V3, V7, V9). I call these videos “language activism videos”, after Androutsopoulos’ (2013) term, “dialect activism videos”. The videos belonging to the other main sub-genre were more focused on performing a game in which a collaborating QF and FF YouTuber exchanged expressions from one another’s variety of French, and had to guess their meanings (V4 + V5, V6, V8). I call these “guessing game” videos. V10 belonged to a third, separate genre of video, which consisted of a series of sets of vignettes acted out by Anaïs (FF) and her guest, Marie-Michelle (QF), in order to portray various specific cultural differences between France and Quebec.
The differences between these genres of videos can be seen in the results of the transitivity analysis.
117
Language activism videos (V1, V2 + V3, V7, V9)
Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Lang. 141 128 209 136 8 (1%) 154 20 796 activism (17.7%) (16.1%) (26.3%) (17.1%) (19.3%) (2.5%) videos 337 (42.4%)
Table 4.2. Process type distribution for language activism videos
As we can see in Table 4.1, the transitivity analysis revealed that relational processes were most commonly used in the language activism videos (42.4%), followed by verbal (19.3%), material (17.7%), mental (17.1%), existential (2.5%), and behavioral (1%).
Relational processes were used to describe QF and FF and evaluate the languages and speakers, as in (21), and to identify, describe and evaluate the YouTubers in the videos, as in
(22). They were also used to identify the meanings of expressions, particularly in V7, as in (23).
(21) Suzie (V1): Our French is more in your face, very expressive. relational: attributive Our French is more in your face, very expressive
Carrier Pr: relational: attr Attribute/Circ: comparison
118
(22) Marine (V2): Hi! I’m Marine from France, in Paris. relational: identifying
I ‘m Marine
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
relational: attributive
I ‘m from France, in Paris
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
(23) Audrey (V7): qu’on appelle ça euh oui une blonde (we call that uh yes une blonde) relational: identifying
qu’ on appelle ça euh oui une blonde
Assigner Pr: rel: ident Target Value
Verbal processes were the next most common type. A high percentage of verbal processes would be expected from traditional journalistic texts, as these types of texts tend to include a lot of “reporting” language (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Below is an example from
V3, in which Mikael uses a verbal process to report on usage of the expression “bonne fête”
(“Happy birthday” in QF, but “happy saint’s day” in FF).
(24) Mikael (V3): When it’s Christmas, you don’t say bonne fête. verbal
When it’s Christmas you don’t say bonne fête
Circ: time Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
119
Thus, the most prevalent clauses in the videos belonging to this sub-genre involved identifying people and meanings of phrases, describing and evaluating QF and FF language and speakers, and reporting on what people say. Thus, these videos conformed to the discursive practices we would associate with traditional forms of language commentary in traditional mass media (describing and evaluating language and speakers, and using reporting language).
Guessing game videos (V4 + V5, V6, V8)
Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Guess. 178 172 204 150 18 87 8 817 game (21.8%) (21.1%) (25%) (18.4%) (2.2%) (10.6%) (1%) videos 376 (46.1%)
Table 4.3. Process type distribution for guessing game videos
In the guessing game videos, relational processes were the most common (46.1%), followed by material (21.8%), mental (18.4%), verbal (10.6%), behavioral (2.2%), and existential (1%),
Relational identifying processes were used to identify participants in the videos for the audience, and to identify the meanings of expressions in QF and FF, a major component of the guessing games. Relational attributive processes were used to describe and evaluate expressions, and to talk about participants’ status in the game, as in (25). Relational attributive processes were also used to evaluate YouTubers in the videos, primarily in V8, as seen in (26).
120
(25) Léa (V6): Du coup c’est à toi. (So it’s your turn) relational: attributive
Du coup c’ est à toi
Carrier/Possessed Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Possessor
(26) Lysandre (V8): Chuis très loin d’être française. (I am very far from being French) relational: attributive
Ch uis très loin d’être française
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
The second most common process type in the guessing game videos was material.
Material processes primarily served to engage with the audience and incite them to act, as in
(27), and to describe actions in and surrounding the game, as in (28). Unlike the language activism videos, then, these videos did not follow the characteristic of a high percentage of verbal processes associated with traditional journalistic genres; rather, high rates of material processes are associated with procedural texts, such as recipes or instruction manuals (Halliday
& Matthiessen, 2004). The language in these videos focused more on explaining rules to the game, describing how the game unfolded, and giving instructions to the audience, particularly in the openings and closings of the videos.
(27) Théo (V4): cliquez sur sa tête (click on his head) material cliquez sur sa tête
Pr: material Scope
121 (28) PL (V5): Ok, je vais te donner un indice (Ok, I’m going to give you a hint) material
Ok je vais te donner un indice
Actor Pr: material... Recipient ...Pr: material Scope
The guessing game videos thus departed from the discursive practices we would expect from traditional journalistic reporting genres. These YouTubers rather focused their language on performing the game, drawing on existing game show genres, and on engaging with and giving demands to the audience to engage with the channel.
V10 (Vignettes)
Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Vignettes 20 (41.7%) 5 (10.4%) 5 (10.4%) 14 (29.2%) 0 (0%) 4 (8.3%) 0 (0%) 48
10 (20.8%)
Table 4.4. Process type distribution for V10
V10 belonged to a different sub-genre, and consisted of a series of vignettes, sandwiched between an opening and closing scene in which Anaïs and Marie-Michelle addressed the audience. In V10, the most common process type was material (41.7%), followed by mental
(29.2%), relational (20.8%), verbal (8.3%), behavioral (0%), and existential (0%).
122 The material clauses in V10 served to provide contextual information for the physical world represented in the vignettes in the video (29), to describe how people are doing (30), and to invite the audience to participate and engage with the video (31).
(29) Anaïs (V10): Donc on se retrouve dimanche prochain (So we’ll meet up next Sunday) material
Donc on se retrouve dimanche prochain
Actor Pr: material Circ: temporal
(30) Anaïs (V10): Oui ça va (Yes, it’s going) material
Oui ça va
Actor Pr: material
(31) Voiceover (V10): Tu peux cliquer dessus depuis ton ordinateur ou ton téléphone (You can click from your computer or your phone) material Tu peux cliquer dessus depuis ton ordinateur ou ton téléphone
Actor Pr: material Scope/Circ: place
The second most common process type in V10 was mental. A high percentage of mental clauses is characteristic of conversational talk (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004). Both Anaïs and
Marie-Michelle favored desiderative clauses, with 60% of Anaïs’ mental clauses, and 80% of
Marie-Michelle’s mental clauses being of this type. All but one desiderative clause in their combined clauses were used in the context of service encounters acted out between the two of them, with “tu”, “vous”, or “je” as Senser. A example is provided in (32).
123 (32) Marie-Michelle (V10): Veux-tu un refill? (Do you want a refill?) mental: desiderative
Veux tu un refill
Pr: mental Senser Phenomenon
No explicit commentary on language was made in V10. Indeed, the talk in the vignettes tended to be conversational, and consisted of performed dialogues between Anaïs and Marie-
Michelle, which revealed cultural differences between Quebec and France.
Now that we have a basis for understanding the differences between these sub-genres of language activism videos, guessing game videos, and V10’s vignettes in the corpus, I turn to my analysis of the discourses revealed in the analysis.
Staging of the language activism genre Although there was some variation among the language activism videos, as they drew on some different existing genres in shaping their discourse, there are also commonalities we can point to for this sub-genre. First, all language activism videos but V2 + V3 begin the body of the video with an identifiable macroassertion or goal for the video. For V2 + V3, the alleged goal of the video was stated at the end, and a macroassertion was stated on a closing slide at the end of
V3. Next, YouTubers provide evidence, or exemplums, that are sometimes categorized (e.g.
Audrey had a separate section for “verbes”, and one for expressions that she believed FF and QF speakers to use differently, in V7), to support their macroassertion. All language activism videos except V7 (re)iterated a macroassertion at the end of the body of the video.
124 Staging of the guessing game genre The staging of this genre resembles how a game would unfold when it is being performed with an imagined audience in mind. That is, it is performed following the generic staging of a game show. First, the YouTubers explain the goal of the game. Then, they might explain the rules of the game, such as how many expressions each YouTuber will give the other, and whether there is a consequence for the loser, as in V4 + V5. Next, YouTubers perform the game, taking turns giving and guessing at the meanings of expressions. As YouTubers reason out the meanings aloud, they give justifications to motivate certain guesses. As YouTubers attempt to help give clues to their collaborators, or explain the meaning of expressions, they might give examples to help contextualize how the expressions are used. YouTubers comment on who is performing better in the game throughout, and also comment on whether an expression seems strange or doesn’t make sense to them. Finally, the YouTubers end the game, sometimes saying who won. Optionally, there is a consequence for the loser, as in V5. Thus, the guessing game videos in this corpus largely follow the generic staging expected of a game show, with some details more specific to playing a game about language. This generic staging exists within the
“body” stage of the staging of a vlog entry represented in Figure 4.6 above.
Staging of V10 In the body of V10, each set of juxtaposed vignettes (each composed of one scene in
France and one in Quebec) was introduced by a black slide with white writing, introducing the activity that would be contrasted in France and Quebec (e.g. “traverser la rue” “crossing the street”). For each set of vignettes, the France scene appeared before the Quebec scene.
Superimposed text contextualizing where the scene was taking place, and occasionally giving
125 more information or commenting on the scene, appeared in the corner at the beginning of each scene.
Generic hybridity in language activism videos I showed at the beginning of this chapter that the language activism videos overall displayed a high percentage of verbal processes, which is associated with journalistic genres; however, as I mentioned above, though there were similarities overall in the generic staging of the language activism videos, they differed somewhat regarding which traditional existing genres each one drew on to construct their texts.
In V1, Suzie appears to be following the structure of a persuasive essay or report. She begins with the topic of the video, saying it will be about the differences between QF and FF.
She then explains her reason for making the video, that people she had talked to on the internet think that QF is “like the French from France”. In this stage, she draws on the genre of a testimony (“When we tell them that we speak French, they think it’s French like the French in
France”), and uses “we” to take on the voice of all Quebeckers, and explain why they find it insulting when people think their French is the same as FF. She then presents some exemplums and an anecdote, and reads “translations” of phrases in English, FF, and QF, to demonstrate that
FF and QF are different, before summing up and restating her premise, that “there is a big difference between French from France and French from Quebec”.
V2 + V3 drew on the genres of an interview, and a courtroom examination. The off- screen interviewer asked Marine and Mikael questions and gave them commands. At the beginning of each video, the interview commands them to “State your name and where you are from” to introduce their testimony, and establish each of these participants as legitimate
126 witnesses to their respective varieties of French. Marine and Mikael sit behind a desk, facing the camera, reminiscent of a “news desk” from which they are reporting on their experiences with their language. As mentioned above, a macroassertion is only presented on the closing slide, which was most likely created by the YouTuber, the off-screen interviewer, Elise: “In conclusion, both dialects may be different, however THEY ARE BOTH FRENCH”.
V7 draws on the guidebook genre. The title of this video is “Comprendre les Québécois pour les nuls” (“Understanding the Quebecois for dummies”; “pour les nuls” is the French equivalent of the “for dummies” series). Audrey does not state a macroassertion in her video; rather she states her purpose for creating the video, “pour comprendre vos chers amis québécois”
(“to understand your dear Quebecois friends”). Thus, she will be giving tips, or advice, rather than trying to convince the audience of a particular stance (although she evaluates QF throughout the video, as she presents different aspects of the language). From there, Audrey launches into different sections on various aspects of QF she has selected to present to her imagined FF- speaking audience. Audrey closes the body of her video simply by stating “C’est tout pour la vidéo” (“That’s all for the video”) after the last expression, and launches into the closing stages represented in Figure 4.6.
V9 also begins with a goal, to prove once and for all whether QF or FF speakers use more
Anglicisms, and a macroassertion, Solange’s prediction, that QF speakers use more Anglicisms than FF speakers. Solange draws on the genre of a scientific study, noting each instance of an
Anglicism in the QF film, “Starbuck”, and its FF remake, “Fonzy”, and then verifying them using a FF dictionary, Le Petit Robert. She uses the term “quasi-scientifique” to describe her methods, and states ruefully, “Mais il faut ce qu’il faut pour la science” (“But you have to do
127 what you have to do for science”) after stating that she was “afraid” to watch “Fonzy”. Solange then draws on the genre of film critique, after having watched the two films, before providing her audience with evidence, going through each Anglicism she found, and declaring that, based on her “quasi-scientific” study, QF speakers use more Anglicisms. She then launches into an
“impassioned rant”, defending herself by saying that she is not trying to accuse QF speakers of speaking poorly, and waxing poetic about her childhood in Quebec, surrounded by immigrants who spoke different languages. She then closes another assertion, that QF is a hybrid language, and we are not going to deny it, before reverting back to the film critique genre, and giving
Quebec a “thumbs up” for having produced the superior film. Again, along with V2 + V3, V9 was one of the three videos in the corpus that did not conform to the vlog entry generic staging represented in Figure 4.6.
We recall the generic staging for a news discourse according to van Dijk (1988) from
Chapter 2. Van Dijk (1988) states the news is structured in a “top-down” manner, in terms of relevance, such that “news discourse is organized so that the most important or relevant information is put in the most prominent position, both in the text as a whole, and in the sentences” (van Dijk, 1988 p. 43). The main event or main events is presented, followed by the cause or reason for and antecedents to the event and the consequences of the event, and potentially conditions under which events took place may also be represented (van Dijk, 1988, p.
42). These videos did not consist of narratives describing a specific “event”, but rather presented a thesis or goal, and either gave evidence to support the thesis or accomplish the goal. The
“headline” for a news story would correspond to the title of a YouTube video, but we saw that these titles were sometimes misleading. For the guessing game videos, the point of the video was
128 to play a game in front of the camera, so that although the expressions had been prepared in advance, the interaction was meant to at least appear authentic and unscripted. The interview in
V2 + V3, although we imagine it to be unscripted, just like an interview we might see on a news program, had an agenda, and the interviewer selected her questions knowing that they would lead to disagreement between the QF and the FF informant, and support the assertion made at the end, that, “both dialects may be different, however THEY ARE BOTH FRENCH”. Thus, videos that participated in language activism and had a main thesis which they provided at the beginning and for which they provided evidence seemed to follow the traditional staging of a news discourse more closely than the guessing game videos, and this was reflected in the higher percentage of verbal processes in the dialect activism videos, but not among the other videos, that I mentioned earlier. V10 did not present a macroassertion, but rather a goal to present differences between the
French and the Québécois, followed by evidence in the form of contrasting vignettes. In this way, V10 was closer than the guessing game videos to following the top-down staging of a news discourse.
Function In my predictions, I quoted van Dijk (1988), who said that “[a] news discourse as a whole may have the function of a macroassertion, and an advertisement the function of a macroadvice or macrooffer” (p. 27). For the language activism videos, I noted that all but V7 included a macroassertion, whereas V7 consisted of advice given with the intention of promoting a deeper understanding of Quebeckers. As noted above, following the macroassertion (or preceding it, in the case of V2 + V3), YouTubers provided the audience with evidence for their claims.
129 I explained above that the guessing game videos participated more in promotional, capitalistic discourses, demanding the audience to engage with the channel, in exchange for offering them a sense that they are part of the community. These videos participated more in an advertising-type genre, promoting themselves and their collaborators, and participating in self- branding by using catch phrases, referencing their community, and sharing more about their social identity through a game in which they could reveal expressions about their personal variety of French.
As stated above, V10 presented the goal of the video at the beginning, to illustrate differences between French people and Quebeckers. Contrasting vignettes between the two served as evidence that there were differences between the two cultures. It is important to note that the YouTuber on whose channel this appears, Anaïs, is a young French woman who lives in
Montreal, and has posted several videos to her channel which depict life in Montreal, from the perspective of a French woman. Thus, her vlog is dedicated to sharing her experiences in
Montreal with her audience. V10 seems to be both a commentary or report on cultural differences that Anaïs has noticed between French people and Quebeckers, and also potentially
“relatable content” for those who have experienced both cultures.
STYLE How do YouTubers stylize their language and performance? How do they use stylistic choices to orient to and engage with the audience? In the predictions, I stated that if YouTubers draw on traditional journalistic genres, we should expect a more formal style; if they draw more on styles associated with YouTube’s social practices, we might expect a more informal style. In the predictions, I listed some linguistic indications of formal style. In English, use of long, complex sentences, more advanced
130 vocabulary, and the use of “one” instead of “you” are characteristics of formal speech. Informal speech is characterized as using contractions, first and second personal pronouns “I” and “you”, and short, simpler sentences and vocabulary (Horner, 1988).
In French, use of “vous” directed at an individual, retaining the negative particle “ne”, and using generic “on” rather than “tu” or “vous” are characteristics we would expect in formal speech, in addition to long, complex sentences and more advanced vocabulary, as in English. If
YouTubers use informal speech style, we would expect “tu” rather than “vous” to address an individual, the deletion of the particle “ne” in negative structures, and use of generic “tu” or
“vous” instead of “on” in indefinite references.
The results of the social actor analysis, calculations of percentages of contraction usage in the English data, and calculations of percentages of “ne”-retention in the French data are used as support for whether YouTubers draw on a more traditional, formal style, or whether they prefer a more informal style indicating more orientation to styles associated with YouTube’s social practices. The results of the social actor analysis also reveal if and how the YouTubers in the corpus orient to the audience. I also reference results from the transitivity analysis to support analysis of how YouTubers present themselves and orient to the audience.
Videos in English The YouTubers in the videos in English (V1, V2 + V3) largely preferred characteristics of informal speech. All of the speakers in this video used generic “you” to generalize about what people say or perceive; none of them used the indefinite “one”.
(33) Suzie (V1): but that’s just what it comes off as, when you hear it.
131 Suzie used the personal pronoun “I” to refer to herself, in addition to the object pronoun
“me” on three occasions. She used “you” to address the audience, and included herself in the audience once, using “we”. Suzie used “we” and “us” to speak for Quebeckers. Suzie’s use of
“I”, “me”, “we”, and “us” gave her report of what QF speakers say a personal, informal tone. Her use of “we” to speak for QF speakers was often contrasted with “they”, representing FF speakers; indeed, Suzie used “they” and “them” to refer to FF speakers. This created an “us” vs. “them” rhetoric.
(34) Suzie (V1): They have a lot of vocabulary words. We don’t have as much as them?
The fact that Suzie included herself with the audience on one occasion, using “we”, and addressed her viewers directly using “you” and “guys”, minimized social distance from the audience, thus bringing them in line with her views, while maximizing distance from and othering FF speakers by using “them”.
In V2 + V3, Marine and Mikael both used “I” to refer to themselves. Marine also used
“me” twice, and Mikael used “je” five times. Both used “you” to address one another, and for generic reference. Marine also used “you” to address the audience and Quebeckers. Marine used
“we” both to speak for French people and to speak for Quebeckers, but, when she used “we” to speak for Queebckers, it was to mock them. Marine also used “they” to distance herself from
Quebeckers and set them against French people on four occasions. Thus, even when Marine included herself with the Quebeckers, she did not do this out of solidarity, and used “we” to put words in their mouths. Mikael used “we” to speak for Quebeckers and “they” to speak for French people. Thus, like Suzie, Marine and Mikael used first and second personal pronouns both
132 lending a more informal, conversational nature to their talk, and to create an “us” vs. “them” rhetoric.
The interviewer in V2 + V3 referred to Marine and Mikael using “you” and “you guys”.
She included herself with the two interviewees using “we” on one occasion, to frame the interview as a task they were undertaking together. Overall, though, she promoted a discourse of competition between the two interviewees, by asking them what they thought of one another’s country, and how to say words in French that she knew a QF speaker and an FF speaker would disagree on.
Speakers in V1 and V2 + V3 tended to use contractions when it was possible (73.5% of possible instances in V1 and 71.3% of cases in V2 + V3). In both V1 and V2 + V3, in the cases where contractions were avoided, it was mainly in order to emphasize something.
(35) Suzie (V1): I just wanted to say that there is a big difference between French- from France, and French- from Quebec.
The interviewer in V2 + V3 tended to avoid contractions in some of her questions, as well, which gave her speech a more careful, formal style.
(36) Interviewer (V2): Okay, so state your name and where you are from.
This could be interpreted as her desire to draw on the style of a more traditional, formal interviewer. Otherwise, these speakers tended to prefer contractions, which contributed to a more informal style.
Videos in French The above videos in English all belonged to the language activism genre. In keeping with the distinction between sub-genres of videos in my analysis at the levels of discourse and genre, I
133 will discuss my findings regarding the style of YouTubers’ speech within each of the sub-genres of videos, continuing with the language activism videos presented in French.
Style in YouTube activism vlogs in French The language activism videos which were presented in French were V7 and V9.
Although Audrey (V7) had a relatively low rate of self-reference compared to the other speakers in the corpus (See the distribution tables for the social actor analysis in the appendix), she still referenced herself using “je” on 18 occasions, and “me”, and “moi” on two other occasions. She also included herself with the audience on two occasions, using “on”. Audrey mostly addressed her audience collectively using “vous”, and also gave hypothetical situations for an individual viewer using “tu” on three occasions, and “te” on one occasion. These could have been interpreted as an generic usage of “tu”, but I coded them as addressing the individual viewer, since Audrey was giving advice directly to her audience “pour comprendre vos chers amis québécois” (“to understand your dear Quebecois friends”).
(37) Audrey (V7): Soyez pas fâché si un Québécois veut pas vraiment voir vos gosses. (Don’t be angry if a Quebecois doesn’t really want to see your gosses (“kids” in FF; “testicles” in QF))
(38) Audrey (V7): Donc si je t’ dis, tu gosses? C’est pas très positif. (So if I say to you, tu gosses? It’s not very positive.)
Audrey used generic “on” on seven occasions, and “on” to include herself with QF speakers on 22 occasions. Overall, in referencing herself less than the other YouTubers, Audrey positioned herself as more distant from the text, and her choice to include herself with QF speakers and speak for them shows that she chooses to be a representative of QF speech without making the video too much “about her”. Her use of “on” for generic reference could also point to a more formal, distant style. Although Audrey retained “ne” in only 11.5% of negative
134 constructions, her rate of “ne”-retention is still higher than that in familiar conversational QF speech in Sankoff and Vincent (1977). Her “ne’-retention is lower than that found in Reinke
(2015)’s study of “ne” retention on Radio-Canada, even among the more light entertainment programs; however, is close to the rate found in Villeneuve (2017)’s study on interviews on
Radio-Canada. Thus, Audrey’s style seems to lie in between what would be expected in conversational, informal speech and what one would expect from a speaker in the context of a more formal radio or television news program.
Solange mostly referred to herself using “je”, and to a lesser extent “moi” and “me”, but also referred to herself in the third person, as “Solange”, “elle” and “a” (QF for “elle”) on seven occasions. She used generic “on” twice, and generic “tu” and “vous” once each. Solange made few direct addresses to the audience, and mostly included herself with the audience, using “on” and “nous”, strategically placing them as part of a joint enterprise. She referred to “les Français” and “les Québécois” nearly an even number of times, and used “on” to speak for FF speakers on two occasions, and excludes herself from QF speakers by using “vous” to address them on six occasions, as well as “amis québécois” (“Quebecois friends”).
Solange retained “ne” in 31.8% of negative constructions, exhibiting the highest rate of
“ne”-retention among all the speakers in the videos conducted in French. She also used a rich vocabulary throughout her video: in the transitivity analysis, I found that out of 28 material clauses construing “using” or “doing things with” language, Solange used 15 different material verbs (utiliser, écrire, venir, inventer, s’hybrider, se panacher, recourir, prendre, naître, traduire, reprendre, noter, mettre, évoluer, décalquer). This sets her apart from the other
YouTubers stylistically. The transitivity analysis also revealed that mental processes represented
135 only 11.6% of her clauses, and only 4 out of these 21 clauses could be considered hedges, using the verbs savoir (“to know”), croire (“to believe”), and trouver (“to find”) with the Senser je.
Solange presented herself as an authority, and did not leave room for conversation or negotiation with the audience.
Therefore, we see that Solange’s use of referents has some conversational aspects to it, but seems to prefer formal choices. This is in line with how she presents herself as a hybrid between a QF and an FF speaker. Solange does not like her identity to be pinned down, and this is seen in her somewhat inconsistent choices in referent terms and rich vocabulary, seeming to straddle both formal and informal styles, though her style is overall the most formal and distant from her audience.
Style of guessing game YouTubers In V4 + V5, Théo refers to himself using “je”, and to PL using “tu”. He only occasionally refers to PL in the third person to describe PL to the audience. PL also uses “je” to refer to himself and “tu” to address Théo. He also uses “Théo” to address Théo. Both used “on” to reference the two of them,Théo uses generic “tu” on eight occasions, and generic “on” on only one occasion. PL used generic “tu” on six occasions and generic “on” on three occasions.
Therefore, both preferred the less formal “tu” for indefinite reference.
Both PL and Théo used primarily “vous” to address the audience. and each included themselves with the audience using “on” on a few occasions. Both Théo and PL referred to themselves more than anyone else (40.3% of all references to social actors in Théo’s speech;
47.6% in PL’s speech), followed by references to each other (30.9% in Théo’s speech; 28.8% in
PL’s speech). The audience was the next most common referent (8.6% in Théo’s speech; 7.9% in
136 PL’s speech), although the percentages of references were much lower than those to the self and the collaborator. So, their frequent use of first and second personal pronouns and their focus on themselves made the talk in these videos seem more familiar and conversational, and their references to the audience and occasional attempts to include the audience positioned them as being part of a joint enterprise.
In V6, Cath and Léa both referred to themselves using “je”. Of all the videos with two speakers, though, these two speakers displayed the lowest percentage of reference to one another in the social actor analysis (11.9% of references in Cath’s speech; 5.9% in Léa’s speech). Cath only addressed Léa with “tu” once; all other references to Léa were in the third person, to address the audience and present and describe Léa to them. Léa, on the other hand, always referenced Cath using “tu” and “toi”, but these were only on two occasions, each.
Cath referred to herself plus Léa as “on” and “nous” once, to describe what she and Léa were doing in the video to the audience. She included herself with the audience on three occasions, and addressed the audience 13 times using “vous”, and once using “tout le monde”.
Léa only addressed the audience three times, using “vous” on two occasions, and “tous” once.
She included herself with Cath using “on”, and, like Cath, used this “on” to describe to the audience what their relationship was, and what they were doing in the video. Both used generic
“tu”, and did not use the formal indefinite “on”. Both speakers chose to reference one another’s group (QF speakers or FF speakers) more than they referenced each other, thus rendering the body of the video less personalized than the other guessing game videos.
V6 had a higher rate of mental processes than the other guessing game videos, and I stated earlier that mental processes are characteristic of conversational genres. Additionally, the
137 personal pronouns in reference to themselves and the audience, and the choice of generic “tu” over “on” rendered the talk more informal. However, their low direct address of and reference to one another made the talk more about the game of figuring out the meanings of expressions, and their focus on generalizing to their own and one another’s group (QF vs. FF) made this conversation more about QF vs. FF than about engagement with one another. Although Cath’s references to the audience were the second most common references to people after references to herself in the social actor analysis, she only addressed them during the opening and closing stages of the video, not in the body of the video. This gave the impression that Cath and Léa were “presenting” to the audience, while Cath wished to minimize social distance with her audience by engaging with them in the opening and closing scenes.
In V8, Lysandre and Emy referred to themselves more than any other social actors
(51.7% and 45.5%, respectively), followed by references to each other, with 19% of Lysandre’s references to social actors referencing Emy, and 35.6% of Emy’s references to social actors referencing Lysandre. Both referred to themselves mostly using “je”, and referenced each other primarily using “tu” to address each other directly. Thus, their speech patterned like Théo and
PL’s speech in V4 + V5 in these respects.
Unlike Théo and PL, on the other hand, Lysandre and Emy only directly referenced the audience once each, with Lysandre using “nous” to include herself with the audience, and Emy using “vous” to address Lysandre’s audience collectively on one occasion. However, as mentioned previously, Emy referred to Lysandre in the third person (“elle”) on six occasions, while gazing at the camera to “conspire” with the audience. Lysandre also gave conspiring gazes to the audience in reaction to some of Emy’s statements.
138
Figure 4.8. Lysandre gazing at the audience Lysandre and Emy both used “on” to refer to themselves collectively, to describe what they were doing to the audience. Only one imperative is directed at the audience, at the end, when Lysandre tells her viewers to go watch another collaborative video between her and Emy on Emy’s channel. Thus, engagement with the audience was less explicit in this video than in the other guessing game videos, while Lysandre and Emy displayed high engagement with one another. This gave the impression that they were presenting to the audience and aware that they were presenting to them, but did not leave the door open to very much participation from the audience.
Emy and Lysandre both used generic “on” and generic “tu” in their speech, although
Emy preferred to use “tu”, while Lysandre’s usage of generic “on” (and “soi”) and “tu” were evenly split.
139 Speaker “Ne”-retention rate
Théo (FF) (V4 + V5) (4/20) 20%
PL (QF) (V4 + V5) (3/22) 13.6%
Cath (QF) (V6) (3/16) 18.8%
Léa (FF) (V6) (2/8) 25%
Lysandre (QF) (V8) (1/9) 11.1%
Emy (FF) (V8) (2/22) 9.1%
Overall (15/97) 15.5%
Table 4.5. “Ne”-retention rate by speaker in guessing game videos
Overall, ne-retention was relatively low in the guessing game videos, with an overall retention rate of 15.5%. In terms of this variable, then, YouTubers in the corpus drew on a more informal style. Emy in V8 had the lowest rate of “ne”-retention, at only 9.1%. Her low rate of
“ne” identifies her as having an informal style, and is in line with her hip-hop style clothing choices, represented in Figure 4.9, her statement that she speaks “street” language, and her statement that she loves that the Quebecois are “familiers”. The highest rate of “ne”-retention in the guessing game videos was found in Léa’s speech in V6, at 25%. If we look at pairs of collaborators, the biggest disparity in “ne”-retention rates was between Théo and PL. Théo had a higher rate of “ne”-retention, suggesting that his style was more formal in this respect. This was in line with the difference in Théo and PL’s clothing choices and choice of setting, represented in
Figures 4.10 and 4.11 respectively.
140
Figure 4.9. Emy’s clothing style (left)
Figure 4.10. Théo’s clothing style and setting choice
141
Figure 4.11. PL’s clothing style and setting choice
The guessing game videos all displayed evidence of informal speech, although they all engaged with the audience and one another in different ways, and to varying degrees.
Style of V10 YouTubers Finally, I turn to the speech style of the YouTubers in V10. As I noted previously from the results of the transitivity analysis, the language in V10 included a high percentage of mental processes, which is characteristic of conversations.
In the social actor analysis, both Anaïs and Marie-Michelle referred to each other more than to anyone else (42.9% and 35.7%, respectively). The second most commonly referenced person in both of these speakers was the self (28.6% for Anaïs and 21.4% for Marie-Michelle).
Anaïs referred to herself by using “je” in all instances, except for one, in which she used her first name. Marie-Michelle also referred to herself as “je” and used “moi” to reference herself.
142 In the scenes, all references are personal pronouns, apart from the vocatives “Marie-
Michelle”, “Anaïs”, and “Amandine” and the address term “Mademoiselle”. Anaïs uses “tu” and the vocative “Marie-Michelle” in scenes in which she and Marie-Michelle are acting out scenes in which they are friends. Anaïs uses vous with Marie-Michelle in all scenes in which Anaïs plays a French server, with Marie-Michelle playing the client. It is in this context that she also addresses Marie-Michelle with “Mademoiselle” on one occasion. Singular “vous” is the address term associated with social distance and respect, but server Anaïs is abrupt and impatient with
Marie-Michelle:
(37) Anaïs (V10): Voilà avec vos frites, c’est mayo, ou ketchup. Qu’est-ce que vous voulez? Ah non les deux, c’est pas possible hein. C’est mayo ou ketchup. Et je vous l’ai déjà dit hein. (So with your fries, it’s mayo or ketchup. What do you want? Ah no both, it’s not possible heh. It’s mayo or ketchup. And I already told you that)
Thus, although the French server is using the address pronoun of distance and deference, she is far from polite. In the Quebec analogue, server Marie-Michelle also addresses Anaïs using
“vous”, but offers client Anaïs a wide range of options for her bread, to which a confused Anaïs responds, “Euh vous pouvez répéter? Ch’ai pas compris.” (Uh can you repeat? I didn’t understand). Thus, cultural difference is not in choice of address term, but rather a cultural difference between being harshly told that one’s choices are limited (France) and being offered an overwhelming number of choices (Quebec).
This is contrasted with a France scene in which Anaïs, as a barista, addresses Marie-
Michelle with “Mademoiselle” in a friendly tone:
(38) Anaïs (V10): Bonjour Mademoiselle! Voulez-vous un autr’ café? (Hello miss! Do you want another coffee?)
In the Quebec analogue, barista Marie-Michelle uses the informal address pronoun “tu”:
143 (39) Marie-Michelle (V10): Veux-tu un refill? (Do you want a refill?)
Again, the cultural contrast is between being offered (implied: to purchase) another coffee (France) as opposed to being offered a “refill” in Quebec, although we also note a difference in the pronoun of address used in each scene. Anaïs responds to barista Marie-
Michelle’s question with a horrified expression, and it is not clear whether this is simply due to being offered a “refill” or Marie-Michelle’s familiarity toward her.
Both Anaïs and Marie-Michelle address the audience using “vous”, only in the opening and closing scenes. Anaïs includes herself with the audience using “on” in the closing scene, stating that they will see each other again.
The voiceover, in Anaïs’s voice, addresses the individual viewer, though, using the informal “tu”:
(40) Voiceover (V10): Tu vois le bouton rond avec ma photo? Tu peux cliquer dessus depuis ton ordinateur ou ton téléphone, et ça fait un truc super cool. Vas-y clique avec ta souris (avec un doigt) Voilà. Sympa non? Beaucoup plus simp’ pour t’abonner (You see the round button with my photo? You can click on it from your computer or your phone, and it does a super cool thing. Go ahead click with your mouse (with a finger). Voilà. Nice right? A lot easier to subscribe).
There were no instances of indefinite reference in this video, likely because the
YouTubers in this video did not make generalizing statements, but rather acted out scenes which were exemplums of generalizations. Anaïs never retained “ne” in her speech, while Marie-
Michelle’s speech did not contain any negative structures.
Overall, the language in V10 was informal and conversational, and the use of “vous” was reserved for collective references to the audience, and service encounters in which the client and server were showing respect and distance from one another. The one service encounter in which
144 the QF barista used “tu” toward the FF client served to index the QF barista as acting more familiar toward the client.
Overall trends in style While videos differed at the levels of discourse and genre, there were fewer differences stylistically across videos. Overall in the corpus, the style exhibited mostly informal characteristics. Most YouTubers played to the audience and engaged with them, either by addressing them directly, or orienting to them via gaze or third person references to the other
YouTuber in the video. Rather than conforming to formal styles, associated with traditional mass media, these YouTubers seemed to be playing more to the styles expected by YouTube’s social practices. This YouTuber style, involving informal choices, playing to the audience, minimizing social distance with the audience, and inviting them to engage with the channel can be considered a lifestyle (van Leeuwen, 2004), which I will discuss more in depth in Chapter 5.
Solange, on the other hand, exhibited the most characteristics of formal speech, and distanced herself from the audience, not leaving her claims open to negotiation with them. She seemed to be the exception that proves the rule; indeed, Solange’s content and her defiance in clearly establishing where Ina Mihalache (her real name) ends and Solange, her online persona, begins, serve to subvert the expectations of YouTube’s social practices.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS At the level of discourse, I found that the YouTubers in the dialect activism videos considered QF to be more familiar, and potentially lower status than FF, but QF speakers expressed affinity for their language. This was in line with recent language attitude studies such
145 as Kircher (2012), who found QF speakers to display more solidarity for QF voices than in past studies, but still considered QF voices to have a lower status than FF voices.
The YouTubers in these videos considered FF to be the “default” to which QF should be compared. They assumed their audience to be unfamiliar with QF, but to be familiar with FF.
Suzie and Solange imagined their audience to have opinions on what they presented as a long- standing debate as to whether QF or FF speakers use more Anglicisms, and implicitly referenced the discourse that using English words is undesirable, and renders one’s French less French. This evoked a discourse that is present in the recent QF traditional press, that of the threat of bilingualism.
For most of these YouTubers, though, the imagined audience was different from that of the QF traditional press, which tends to be written for and by QF speakers. It was “activism” in the sense of promoting their language to naive viewers, in an attempt to balance the representation of QF and FF on YouTube, rather than a call to arms to insiders to fight for legislation to protect their language. In the case of Solange, she sought to settle what she assumed to be a debate among her viewers, which she seems to imagine as both QF and FF speakers.
In the guessing game videos, the speakers used language oriented more toward the game itself, as well as capitalistic and branding genres. These YouTubers engaged in promotional language and invited their audience to engage with their channels. For these YouTubers, they were using language as a vehicle to build their image, or “brand”, and to collaborate with another
YouTuber. Indeed, collaborating with another YouTuber is what these YouTubers considered to
146 be special, not that they were participating in an intercultural discussion about variation in language.
V10 engaged more in stereotyped scenarios representing differences between QF and FF culture. The video appeared on Anaïs’s channel, which contains several other videos vlogging her experience as a French woman living in Montreal. This video could be seen as an account of what cultural differences she has noticed between France and Quebec, potentially for those who have not lived in both or either place. It could also be “relatable content” for those who have experienced life in both countries.
Although these different sub-genres contain different discourses and have different purposes, they have all recontextualized language commentary on QF in a new space, with a new imagined audience, in contrast to traditional forms of language commentary on QF.
At the level of genre, these YouTubers drew on various existing genres, including persuasive essays, reports, interviews, games shows, and film reviews, while most of them conformed to the generic staging of a YouTube vlog, thus recontextualizing old genres within the macroform of a new genre.
At the level of style, YouTubers in the corpus tended to draw on more informal styles, contrasting with what one would expect from traditional news media. They did not conform to the social styles expected of participants in traditional language commentary outlets. Rather, with the exception of Solange, who is intentionally subversive, these YouTubers conformed to the social styles that are popular on YouTube and can make a YouTuber a successful influencer.
147 Chapter 5: Discussion In Chapter 4, I answered my research questions at three levels of social semiotic analysis, discourse, genre, and style, presenting the results at each of these levels in turn. But these levels of analysis, or orders of discourse (Fairclough, 1989, 2003), while meaningful on their own, reveal a bigger picture when we understand how they function together. Choices made at the levels of discourse, genre and style all act together to create meaning in a text. Discourses are chosen among a potential set of resources, and are told within the constraints of the genres the speakers or writers have chosen among a potential set of genres. Styles are also chosen, from the potential stylistic resources available to speakers and writers, based on the expectations of the social practices to which the speakers and writers conform. In doing CDA, we cannot just look at the discoursal level and expect to fully understand a text and the implicit meanings and motivations behind the text; we must look at these other levels to better understand the context of use, and the social practices to which speakers or writers are fitting their texts.
We saw in Chapter 4 that some YouTubers in this corpus, those who had created the language activism videos, drew on existing discourses and genres we would expect from the practices of traditional forms of language commentary. They compared QF to FF, which they considered to be the default, “correct” French. They represented Anglicisms as an undesirable element for anyone who wishes their French to be considered correct. They drew on journalistic genres relating to reporting and interviewing. These findings were expected from metalinguistic commentary on this particular subject, according to the social practices of traditional language commentary on QF, and where that commentary has traditionally taken place, in the press, in newspaper articles and in letters to the editor.
148 On the other hand, some YouTubers, particularly those in the guessing game videos, participated in discourses of branding and capitalism, revealing new purposes for participating in metalinguistic commentary, which are associated with the social practices of YouTube. Also conforming to YouTube’s practices, rather than those associated with traditional language commentary on QF, most of the YouTubers in the corpus structured their videos according to the generic staging of a new genre, the vlog entry. This new genre is a situated genre, or a genre
“which [is] specific to particular networks of practices” (Fairclough, 2003, p. 69). In terms of choices made at the levels of discourse and genre, then, those participating more in discourses of branding and capitalism, and conforming to the generic staging of a vlog entry, conformed more to the social practices of YouTube, rather than to those associated with traditional language commentary.
At the level of style, we saw something new, as well. The majority of the YouTubers in this corpus engaged in a more familiar, informal style than we would associate with the traditional press. We also saw that these YouTubers showed engagement with the audience, using a “lifestyle” (van Leeuwen, 2004) that conforms to YouTube’s social practices. This lifestyle is associated with using informal language and involving a high percentage of self- reference, and engagement and minimized social distance with the audience. Engagement and minimized social distance were displayed by gazing at the camera, addressing the audience directly, and indirectly referencing the audience by speaking to them about the collaborator in the third person. YouTubers also used medium close-ups or medium shots to minimize distance from the audience, and most of them hedged their claims, using mental processes (e.g. Je pense,
149 Je sais pas), in order to leave the door open to other viewpoints, and allow the audience to disagree with them.
(1) PL (V4): Mais- euh, j’pense pas que ça va fonctionner avec beaucoup d’ monde. (But- uh, I don’t think that’s going to work with a lot of people.)
(2) Suzie (V1): And they- and their accent? is more? It’s kind of high? up, I don’t know it’s hard to say.
For example, in (1), PL hedges his opinion about how an act would be perceived in
Quebec. In (2), Suzie hedges her assessment that FF speakers have a “higher” accent, using rising intonation to emphasize her incertain stance, and expresses difficulty in explaining what the FF accent sounds like to her. Both of these usages of mental processes serve to allow for other opinions or input from the audience.
Figure 5.1. Audrey framed in medium close-up
150 In Chapter 1, I presented the concept of social media influencers (SMIs), who have the
“unique identity of both being famous and an ordinary person” (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019, p.
569) and are perceived to have less social distance to their followers than do traditional celebrities, so that the followers perceive their lifestyles and purchases to be more attainable than those belonging to traditional celebrities (Jin, Muqaddam, & Ryu, 2019). But SMIs on YouTube
(and elsewhere) are not just trying to sell products from sponsors; they are trying to sell themselves. By sharing a part of their identity and themselves with their audience (in this case, their language, culture, and opinions), they are promoting and “selling” their “brand”.
Encouraging their audience to engage with their channel fosters a sense of community around their channel, and minimizing social distance with the audience makes viewers feel as if they could be friends with these YouTubers, thus helping them build their brand. This is all a part of the social practices associated with YouTube’s community of practice.
In Chapter 4, I noted that Solange was the exception that proves the rule. Solange exhibited the most formal characteristics in her speech, and rarely hedged her claims, presenting them as facts. Although she gazed at the camera, and occasionally addressed the audience using
“vous”, she did not greet the audience or say she hoped they were doing well at the beginning, and she did not thank her viewers for watching, ask them to like and subscribe, or say goodbye at the end of her video. Solange played with camera angles and shot her video in various corners of her living room, rather than staying fixed in one spot, facing the camera in a medium close-up or medium shot.
151
Figure 5.2. Solange playing with camera angles in V9
Solange subverts communicative norms for SMIs. This is part of her “brand”. After having been asked in the comment sections on her videos and in interviews where Ina Mihalache
(her real name) ends and Solange, her online persona, begins, Solange posted a video titled, “LA
DIFFÉRENCE ENTRE SOLANGE ET INA”, with the description, “Réponse presque définitive” (“Almost definitive answer”). In the video, after Solange herself presents the video stating that she is finally going to answer this question, we see a series of vignettes in different locales of conversations between a yellow zucchini (representing Solange) and a green zucchini
(representing Ina), with hair and faces attached to them. The question remains unresolved. It seems that anything Solange does represents an intentional subversion to YouTube’s social practices, and thus shows us the opposite of what is expected from YouTube, that is, an informal
152 style, engagement with the audience, minimized social distance, and appeals to the audience to engage with the channel.
Figure 5.3. “LA DIFFÉRENCE ENTRE SOLANGE ET INA”
YOUTUBE’S COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE In Chapter 2, I suggested that YouTube could be considered a community of practice, representing all three of Wenger (2000)’s modes of belonging, alignment, imagination, and engagement. I cited their community guidelines, which allow users to report others for violating the guidelines. Users must align to the community guidelines, because repeated or serious violations end in account termination. I noted that these guidelines end on a positive note, saying,
“Remember that this is your community. Each and every person makes the site what it is, so don’t be afraid to dig in and get involved”6. This statement promotes the idea of an imagined community, where everyone matters, no matter how small their level of participation. At the same time, it encourages users to engage with the site, to “dig in and get involved”. I stated that
Burgess and Green (2009) found that the most successful YouTube vloggers are those who engage with the YouTube community, rather than just posting their videos. Finally, in terms of
6 https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html#communityguidelines-respect 153 filmmaking practices, more experienced filmmakers have posted tutorials to YouTube, to mentor inexperienced members (Müller, 2009). This idea of experienced filmmakers helping inexperienced filmmakers to learn the rules of the practice of filmmaking further contributes to a sense of a community that has certain rules of engagement.
Apart from the filmmaking mentorship present on the site, these rules of engagement on
YouTube apply to all those who participate in the community, whether they upload content, subscribe to channels, comment, thumbs up or thumbs down videos and comments, or simply visit the site to view videos. However, beyond filmmaking conventions that existed prior to
YouTube, we saw that there are certain practices in creating a YouTube video, in terms of expected discourses, genres, and styles, associated with the YouTube community. These included following the generic staging of a vlog, and engaging in promotional discourse within the opening and closing stages. We also saw that YouTubers engaged in promotional discourse throughout the video, using catchphrases and inside jokes with which subscribers to the channel would be familiar. YouTubers invited the audience to engage with the channel, by commenting on the video, subscribing to the channel, and leaving a thumbs up. We saw that YouTubers in this corpus generally drew on informal, familiar styles, minimizing social distance with the audience, so that the audience would feel like they could be friends with the YouTuber.
YouTubers in this corpus engaged in discourses that promoted their channel and videos, as well as those of their collaborators. These practices are associated with YouTube, rather than with traditional language commentary on QF, and were revealed at all three levels of analysis; indeed, it was necessary to take into account how discourses, genres, and styles functioned together in order to understand what YouTubers in this corpus were doing, and why their metalinguistic
154 commentary seemed to depart from what we would expect in traditional spaces for language commentary on QF.
LEARNING, ENGAGEMENT, AND PLAY In Chapter 2, I identified three dimensions of use that I had noticed in my personal use of
YouTube: learning, engagement, and play. These three dimensions are important in the present corpus. The YouTubers in this corpus are all teaching the audience about the differences between
QF and FF. In the language activism videos, particularly in V1 and V7, YouTubers emphasize
QF as new information, something for their audience to learn. All of these YouTubers engage with the audience in various ways, addressing them, giving them tasks to perform to engage with the channel or the collaborator’s channel (e.g. like, subscribe, add comments with their own expressions, etc.). Playing games, joking, and playing with expressions from another’s variety in the guessing game videos allow these YouTubers to approach this subject with more levity than in traditional forms of language commentary. Linguistic insecurity among QF speakers has been a real issue in Quebec, and yet here, on YouTube, the collaborators in the guessing game videos compare QF and FF, referencing them nearly equally, and framing both to be legitimate varieties of the same language, in their own right.
That does not mean that the insecurity among QF speakers and prejudice from FF speakers is gone, though; we saw examples, mostly coming from the language activism videos, such as Marine’s evaluations of QF speakers not speaking French, Lysandre’s comments that she cannot speak French, and Audrey and Suzie’s evaluations of QF as incorrect, a “deformation” of
French that is only spoken. Nevertheless, creating a metalinguistic text in an environment which
155 promotes both learning and play allows for QF and FF speakers to address this topic in a more lighthearted way.
I noted in Chapter 4 that although in the recent traditional QF press, talk of language is often interwoven with talk of politics, whether it has to do with politicians’ (in)ability to speak
French, or with debating the utility and enforcement of language policy in Quebec. Those discourses were largely excluded from these videos, apart from Mikael’s statement that “We are segregated. We need to stand strong”, though even this statement was made with a joking tone of voice. These YouTubers chose not to teach their audience about political issues surrounding language in Quebec, because they either considered them to be not “fun” enough for YouTube, or not relevant for sharing their identity with their audience.
The fact that community engagement and engagement with the channel is so integral to
YouTube’s social practice could also be a reason why these YouTubers avoided discussing the political side of language debates in Quebec. It’s not just that politics “aren’t fun”; it’s that discussing them can lead to division, something that a YouTuber might not want in his particular space. The awareness that some of these YouTubers’ comments could have been considered inflammatory to the audience, and that viewers have the power to comment on videos if they disagree or dislike something in a video was represented in many instances of mitigating turns after a YouTuber had said something that could have been considered offensive, as in (3).
(3) Marine: I love Quebec! Mikael: I love France! I love France. I- these were all jokes. Marine= Okay: oui, I’m sorry for all I say. I love- I love Quebec people. Mikael: It was all jokes. Marine: Yeah. Mikael: All fun and games.
156 In (3), which comes from the ending of both V2 and V3, Marine and Mikael recognize that throughout their discourse of competition between QF and FF, discussing whose vocabulary is “correct” and saying various disparaging things about one another’s variety of French and cultural identity, they could have offended some viewers. They both mitigate their previous statements, which they recognize could have alienated audience members, by using the affective verb “love” five times between the two of them, to express affinity for one another’s country/province. Mikael uses language referring to “fun and games”, insisting that “these were all jokes”, and “all fun and games”.
Moreover, YouTubers are aware that a YouTuber’s reputation and influence can expand beyond YouTube. I stated in Chapter 1 that “what happens on YouTube often does not stay on
YouTube”. Some of the YouTubers in this corpus have other social media sites, which they advertised in their videos, or in their descriptions. Some have been blogged about and interviewed in non-YouTube online spaces. In the case of Solange, much ink has been spilled outside of YouTube based on controversy that she has created in and around her YouTube channel and persona. It is worth noting that beneath the surface of Solange’s commentary on QF vs. FF lies the controversy she has stirred up among QF speakers by explaining that at the age of
10, while still living in Quebec, she chose to adopt a FF accent because she thought it sounded beautiful, which remains completely unaddressed in the video under analysis in this corpus.
In the online article by Dumas (2012) from La Presse, for example, it is clear that
Solange’s choice to abandon her QF accent in preference for a FF one is seen not just as a stylistic preference, but as a betrayal:
157 Adopter l'accent français n'est pas qu'une coquetterie. C'est une prise de position politique et sociale. C'est fâchant, car ce débat nous ramène 30 ans en arrière, à l'époque de Diane Tell et compagnie (Dumas, 2012). To adopt the French accent is not just a frivolous choice of style. It is a political and social stance. It is enraging, because this debate sets us back 30 years, to the era of Diane Tell and company.
Note that although these YouTubers have left politics out of their discourse, this writer insists that Solange’s decision to adopt a FF accent is a political as well as a social stance. The article is titled “Solange te parle sans accent”, invoking the folk belief that to use a FF accent is not to use an accent at all. Earlier in the article, his discourse is full of language that suggests that the choice of completely adopting the FF accent is a troubling betrayal:
Avec justesse, Julie Snyder écrivait lundi sur Twitter qu'il y a une énorme différence entre adapter sa façon de parler pour que les Français nous comprennent bien et gommer complètement son accent afin de passer pour un des leurs, baguette et béret compris (tant qu'à s'amuser avec les clichés). Adopter des expressions et inflexions, quand on habite Paris, c'est tout à fait normal. Mais se travestir vocalement à ce point, c'est troublant (Dumas, 2012). Rightfully, Julie Snyder was writing on Monday on Twitter that there is an enormous difference between adopting one’s manner of speaking so that the French understand us and completely erasing one’s accent in order to pass for one of them, baguette and beret included (so much for amusing oneself with clichés). To adopt expressions and inflections, when one lives in Paris, it’s completely normal. But to vocally crossdress to this extent, it’s troubling (Dumas, 2012).
The fact that he suggests that QF speakers might acceptably reduce their accent to be understood by FF speakers, and refers to the choice of adopting a FF accent as “vocally crossdressing”, perpetuates the discourses QF speakers may need to accommodate FF speakers, because FF speakers might not understand them, and that QF speakers should be proud of their language and accent. Thus, as we saw in Chapter 1, these types of discourses on QF vs. FF are still ongoing in more traditional forms of language commentary, in QF press, that while
YouTubers may make light of the differences between QF and FF, shifting into one or the other
158 without fear of consequence, and largely ignoring the history of QF linguistic insecurity, these debates on the status of QF are still very real and ongoing.
I mentioned in Chapter 4 that QF speakers were overtly referenced more than FF speakers, because QF was often presented as “new information” for viewers, whereas FF was taken for granted as “given”. This indicates indirectly the power of FF as an international language, the knowledge of which has been transmitted globally via mass media; viewers are assumed to either be FF speakers or to have learned FF as the default, through school, mass media, and culture. It is through new internet spaces such as YouTube that more viewers globally have access to learn about QF and to participate in language commentary on QF, something that previously had been limited to QF speakers and FF speakers who had traveled to
Quebec and commented on what they noticed.
THE YOUTUBER-AUDIENCE POWER DYNAMIC I noted in Chapter 4 that YouTubers often incited their viewers to act by engaging with the channel and their collaborator’s channel, bookending their videos with a greeting to their viewers and requests for viewers to like the video, make comments, and subscribe to their channels. These demands were often in the imperative, as in (4).
(4) Théo (V4): allez-y, cliquez sur sa tête (go ahead, click on his head)
Although viewers can comment on the video, YouTubers are not obligated to respond to the comments, and YouTubers are likely to be more famous and have a louder voice than those making a comment among thousands on the page. We could interpret the use of the imperative and louder voice of the YouTuber as an out-of-balance power relationship, in which the
YouTuber is more powerful than the audience, and dominates their audience. In one way, this is
159 true. YouTubers can be very influential, which is why the successful ones are often referred to as influencers.
On the other hand, YouTubers need their viewers to like, subscribe, and otherwise engage with their channel, to remain relevant on YouTube, and to retain or gain sponsorships. I mentioned above that Burgess and Green (2009) found that YouTuber vloggers are more successful if they engage with the community, rather than just posting content. This need is implicit in YouTubers’ use of promotional and branding language, discussed in Chapter 4, and their requests for the audience to engage with the channel. Their requests for audience participation show that they are aware that they need the audience’s support and active engagement in order to be successful. Indeed, we can see that imperatives were sometimes softened by putting a mental process in the imperative, before the infinitive of the verb representing what the YouTuber wanted her audience to do, as in (5).
(5) Cath (V6): Donc sur ça n’oubliez pas de vous abonner si c’est pas déjà fait? et de faire un thumbs up à la vidéo (So on that note don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t already? And to give the video a thumbs up)
In (5), Cath asks her audience to subscribe and to thumbs up the video. She does this by using the imperative “n’oubliez pas” (“don’t forget”) followed by infinitives for what she wants her audience to do. Telling the audience “not to forget” to do something implies that they had the intention of doing it, but might need a reminder. At the same time, it serves to soften the demand.
Other YouTubers similarly used “n’oubliez pas” or “n’hésitez pas” (“don’t hesitate”) to soften their demands. These softeners remind us that the YouTuber is not fully “in command” and needs to play nice with the audience in order to get the engagement that they want.
160 YouTubers also know that if a comment receives a lot of attention from other viewers
(several hundred or thousand likes on a comment, several comments responding to a comment), or if an opinion about a video or YouTuber is repeated multiple times throughout that video’s comment section, this comment or opinion becomes amplified. Particularly negative opinions along with dislikes on a video can damage a YouTuber’s reputation and cause them to lose sponsorship. Although I did not include an analysis of the comment sections in this dissertation, this dynamic and YouTubers’ awareness of it is implicit in their friendly greetings toward the audience and invitations to like, subscribe, and engage with the channels.
So, there is a delicate and unique balance of power between the YouTuber and his or her audience. It is not at all the same as a film that receives film reviews. These comments appear directly below the video on the site, and can be viewed before, after, or during the video. These features of liking, disliking, and commenting make YouTube more like a social networking site than just a video hosting site, and they give the audience a lot more power.
PARTICIPATORY CULTURE AND PRESENTATIONAL CULTURE At the heart of a YouTuber’s success lies the intersection of participatory culture
(Jenkins, 2009) and presentational culture (Crandall, 2007). In Chapter 2, I listed Jenkins
(2009)’s five features of online participatory culture: low barriers to artistic expression and civic engagement, support for creating and sharing projects, informal mentorship, a belief in the value of contributions, and a feeling of social connection. He notes that not all members of a participatory culture need to contribute to be a part of the community, but they must feel like they can contribute, and that their contributions would be appreciated. We can see all of these features in the YouTube videos in this corpus: the videos are fairly low-tech, YouTubers who ask
161 their audience to engage with the channel make this request with the expectation that some of them will do this, and YouTubers are teaching the audience something they feel is new to them through their videos. Viewers feel that their contributions are worthwhile if they choose to comment, because the YouTubers have asked for these contributions. Finally, YouTubers’ efforts at minimizing social distance through language, gaze, and camera proximity give the viewer a sense of social connection.
In addition to this, however, is the sense of hierarchy that is implicit behind these requests to engage with the channel and contribute to the community, which I have discussed above. “[S]upport for creating and sharing projects”, while at the YouTube community level can occur across channels and is necessary for YouTube’s community to thrive, is one-sided at the level of one YouTuber’s channel; it is the audience who supports the YouTuber in creating and sharing projects. “Informal mentorship” is also a key element to building and maintaining
YouTube’s community, as we saw in the example of Müller (2009)’s account of more experienced filmmakers informally mentoring amateur YouTubers through tutorials posted on their channels, as noted in Chapter 2. But, again, at the level of one YouTuber’s channel, there is a one-sided mentorship; as mentioned in Chapter 1, SMIs are perceived to be “power-oriented”, but also “more likely to be sought out for advice and reassurance and more likely to give advice than CEOs” (Freberg et al., 2010, p. 91).
In Chapter 1, I mentioned that Jin, Muqaddam, and Ryu (2019) claimed that Instagram specifically has unique features for social interaction and aesthetic presentation “which allow users to build personal narratives and showcase identities that attract audiences” (p. 568). I argued that this could also be said of YouTube, and this seems to be the case in the YouTube
162 videos in this corpus. These YouTubers used their language in order to connect and collaborate with other YouTubers, to produce content for their channel, and to teach their viewers something about their identity.
Thus, it is not just participatory culture that drives the success of these YouTubers. It is also the conscious awareness that these YouTubers are presenting themselves to their audience.
Barton and Lee (2013) invoke Crandall (2007)’s notion of “presentational culture”, stating that
“identity online is not just about who we are, but also who we want to be to others, and how others see us (Barton & Lee, 2013, p. 68). Indeed, in Crandall (2007)’s words, the online culture revolving around “blogs, webcams, profiles, live journals, and lifecasting” is “less a representational than a presentational one, where we are compelled to solicit the attention of others, act for unseen eyes, and develop new forms of connective intensity – as if this were somehow the very condition of our continued existence, the marker of our worth”.
Engagement with the audience and with collaborators is crucial to YouTubers’ success, and how YouTubers present themselves is important in receiving that engagement and those collaborations. YouTube’s participatory culture does not just have the purpose of constructing social knowledge on the internet; rather, it also serves to boost the YouTuber’s signal and makes them more successful if they have engagement on their channel, in terms of subscriptions, view counts, and thumbs up, and in activity in the comment sections. Thus, a YouTuber might ask his audience to share knowledge in the comment section of a video, making them a part of the “joint enterprise” of building knowledge together, but in so doing, the commenter contributes to the content of the channel, thus making the channel seem more popular. The commenter, in turn,
163 gets to feel the satisfaction of having contributed knowledge or feedback, and the feeling of being a part of this YouTuber’s specific community.
“DEMOCRACY” ON YOUTUBE The above discussion supports the argument that YouTube is not a democratic space, even though it gives the illusion of being one. Indeed, as a community, YouTube does follow
Jenkins’ (2009) requirement for participatory culture that users need to feel like they can contribute to the community, and that their contributions will matter. Anyone with a YouTube account can upload a video. That video may receive very few views, but, nevertheless, the uploader can feel a sense that they have participated in contributing to YouTube’s content, and that maybe, if they follow the rules, they too can become a successful YouTube influencer.
The view of YouTube as a democratic space may be an aspiration, even if it isn’t reality.
I noted in Chapter 4 a few aspects of both the language activism videos and the guessing game videos that point to the idea that YouTube’s culture and community at least feels more
“democratic” than mass media. After all, there is a lower barrier for entry, as anyone with an account can upload videos. Not all YouTubers will become “YouTube famous”, but YouTube gives the impression that if they follow the rules of engagement, they’ll have a chance.
In my analysis of the discourses represented in the language activism videos, I found that
QF was referenced more and evaluated more than FF, and that YouTubers in these videos presupposed their audience either to be unfamiliar with QF, or to be somewhat familiar with it, but to have misconceptions about the language. The default to which QF is compared in the language activism videos is always FF. This reflects FF’s status not only in the “real world”, but also in mass media, where FF language and culture has enjoyed much more international
164 attention than QF. Unlike the authors of traditional forms of language commentary on QF, these
YouTubers largely do not expect their audience to be QF speakers, and do not even expect them to know much about QF at all. They do not perform “activism” in the sense of trying to incite change from within the community to bolster the status of their language and make the community proud of their language, culture, and heritage. Rather, their activism is promotional: they want to teach their audience something about their language, which has not received nearly as much attention in mainstream culture as FF.
This may be why QF is often represented in this corpus as being more expressive, active,
“in your face”, and familiar; lower status, but “we like it like this”, “beating up” the snobby
French the audience is imagined to have learned in school. Although QF has its own high culture, and its own formal registers in the language, these YouTubers consistently ignore this fact, and choose to represent it as only spoken, and maybe not “correct”, but cool and casual. At the beginning of V1, Suzie states that she has talked to a lot of people on the internet, and that these people have the wrong impression about QF:
(6) Suzie (V1): When we tell them, that we speak French they think that it’s French like the French from France, which is kind of insulting in one way because as Quebecers, we really enjoy our culture and our French, and we think that the other French is- much different than ours and we’re proud of our version. our slang accent. That’s why we kind of get offended.
Suzie claims that “people on the internet” think QF and FF are the same, and evaluates this as “kind of insulting” and speaks for all Quebeckers, saying “we kind of get offended” by this. Following this comment, and throughout the video, Suzie portrays QF as being more relaxed and expressive, and containing a lot of slang and FF as being “snobbish”, “fancy”, and reserved. She completely excludes higher registers of QF and lower registers of FF from her discourse. In my analysis of YouTubers’ style in this corpus, I found that they nearly all
165 preferred to use informal, familiar language, and minimized social distance with their audience, making them feel close to the YouTubers, as if they could be friends. Emy, a FF speaker in V8, stated that she loves that QF speakers are “familiers”, and her self-proclaimed “street” language in her FF examples, along with her clothing choices, suggest that she too wants to be one of the
“cool kids”. Solange, on the other hand, the most subversive figure of my corpus, uses more formal language, self-describes as a “Poétubeuse” in her profile, and has one playlist for all her
“Bilans Culturels” and another called “ARTY”. Solange tries to bring “high culture” to
YouTube, because she knows that this subverts the norms of YouTube’s social practices.
In the guessing game videos, QF and FF were referenced and evaluated nearly evenly.
The Youtubers participated in a give-and-take of expressions in one another’s variety of French, as if they enjoyed equal status. In the context of YouTube, a FF YouTuber and a QF YouTuber could collaborate on the same “stage”, and participate equally, each teaching one another and the audience about their language. This is not the representation that QF and FF both enjoy in the
“real world”, but in the context of YouTube, two YouTubers can collaborate and pretend that this is the case. And maybe, if more people put QF in the spotlight on YouTube, this can increase the exposure of QF to an international audience in a way that the mass media has not.
In V10, Anaïs and Marie-Michelle also gave equal reference to QF and FF, as they were comparing Quebecois and French people and culture in pairs of scenes. As was common in the other videos, French people were portrayed as more snobby and sophisticated, whereas
Quebeckers were mostly portrayed as more “cool” and relaxed. V10 differed from the other videos, though, because it was more characteristic of an entry in a vlogger’s “diary”, a day in the life of this young woman’s experience as a French woman living in Montreal, told via cultural
166 clashes she has experienced in Montreal. Still, this equality of representation serves to put
Quebec and France on the same playing field, as two cultures in their own right which can be compared, and can serve to raise Quebec’s and QF’s visibility on the international space of
YouTube.
YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM AND AN ARCHIVE In Chapter 2, I referenced Snickars and Vonderau (2009), who said that YouTube can be viewed as a platform, an archive, a library, a laboratory, or a medium, like television, depending on what one wants to “do” with it (Snickars & Vonderau, 2009, p. 13). The YouTubers in my corpus seem to be using YouTube as a platform. For the language activists, it is a platform to teach their audience something about QF, or to disprove misinformation they presuppose their audience to have about QF. For Anaïs in V10, it is a platform for her to share her experiences as a French woman living in Montréal, to teach her audience about Quebecois culture, and to affiliate with those who have also lived in both France and Quebec, and can relate to her content.
For those participating in the guessing game videos, it is a platform for amplifying QF where it has been given a smaller voice in mass media, putting it at the same level as FF, as just another variety of French in its own right. It is also a platform for YouTubers to share their identity with their audience, to have fun, and to “sell” their personal brand.
YouTube is also an archive, but not just for keeping track of moments in history and in
“ordinary people’s” lives. YouTube also archives moments in time when particular discourses, genres, and styles were prevalent on the site itself. The practices change, the genres shift, and different memes become popular to remix and remake. This site no longer has a cut-and-dry amateur content and professional mass media content that has been uploaded to the site.
167 “Amateur” content is not without capitalistic language or practices. As more YouTubers have learned more about creating higher quality content, and how to market themselves, and as “real” celebrities have taken to social media, and companies have tried to mimic and sponsor influencers in their advertising, the lines have blurred between user-created content and mass media content. So, too, the practices of YouTube have changed, and we can expect YouTube to continue to transform. The videos in this corpus represent a moment in time on YouTube, when these YouTubers decided it would be fun to create metalinguistic videos, sharing a part of themselves, advocating for their language, teaching their audience something new, and inviting them to be a part of the conversation.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A MULTILEVELED ANALYSIS In Chapter 2, I introduced Preston (2004)’s concept of Metalanguage 3, or “sorts of unasserted Metalanguage 1 beliefs which members of speech communities share” (p. 87).
Preston (2004) considers these presuppositions which lie behind what speakers explicitly say about language to be perhaps the “richest territory to mine for folk belief about language” (p.
87), since presuppositions lie at the root of mutual understanding in a community.
Preston (2011a) argues that performing discourse analysis of a folk linguistic text can uncover the presuppositions that lie behind what is stated in the text, and that this is useful because these presuppositions “often involve deeply-held folk beliefs” (p. 34). He argues that this sort of work can build a cultural model of speakers’ language ideologies, and that work on discourse, “reveals not only what speakers have said or asserted (the conscious) but also what they have associated, entailed, and presupposed” (p. 35).
168 I argued in Chapters 1-3 that methods from CDA and SFL are well suited to this task. In
Chapter 4 we saw how the transitivity analysis, the appraisal analysis, and the social actor analysis revealed patterns in who and what YouTubers chose to represent, and what types of words they chose to represent them. My analysis revealed what presuppositions YouTubers had about QF and FF, those discourses that lay behind the implicitly stated discourses. These included the ideas that QF was lesser-known to the audience, that use of Anglicisms made one variety of French “lesser” than another, that QF has a lower status or is used with a lower register, and that FF was considered to be the “default” French to which QF should be compared.
The choice of French for the language of seven out of 10 of these videos presupposes that the audience is either Francophone, or has studied enough French to understand them.
In this corpus, YouTubers assumed that their audience did not share their set of beliefs about QF; YouTubers believed that they were teaching their audience something new. Therefore, the attention paid in my analysis to what was taken for granted and not explicitly stated in the text revealed that QF YouTubers imagined their audience to be different from that of traditional language commentary on QF. It also revealed that these YouTubers chose to exclude politics from the conversation. Solange says the following, toward the end of V9:
(7) Solange (V9): Les Français ont aussi tendance à penser que les Québécois luttent, et se battent pour tout traduire, ce qui est vrai, mais- à l’écrit, et eum dans la langue officielle, des documents? Et de l’affichage. (The French also have the tendency to think that the Quebecois struggle and fight to translate everything, which is true, but in writing, and um in the official language, or documents? And signage.)
In (7), Solange speaks for the French, saying that they have the tendency to think that the
Quebecois fight to translate everything into French. She uses two different verbs that mean
“fight” to emphasize the Quebecois’ passion and struggle to preserve their language, and keep it
169 free of English. But she doesn’t say why. She then makes the distinction between written and spoken language, which Suzie and Audrey have also made, but hints at the fact that QF has different registers, unlike the other YouTubers, saying that it is only in “official” language found in documents and signage where QF speakers avoid Anglicisms more than FF speakers. But this is all she says about QF speakers’ struggle to protect their language in official settings. She does not explain why. In fact, Solange completely dismisses it by stating immediately after this that the “everyday Quebecker” in his “everyday life” speaks a “hybrid” language “et on va pas le nier” (and we are not going to deny it). This is the only hint at different registers of QF, and the only hint at politics in the corpus, besides Mikael’s statement about being “segregated”, and
Solange quickly brushes it off as irrelevant and not representative of everyday life.
We have seen how performing a critical discourse analysis of this video has allowed us to reveal not only Metalanguage 1 but Metalanguage 3, by paying attention to what was included and excluded at the discoursal level, and analyzing the implicit presuppositions lying behind explicitly expressed discourses. But I also showed in this dissertation how important it is to analyze the semiotic choices made at the levels of genre and style, which have not been the focus on discourse analytic studies on metalinguistic discourse. My analyses of the genres and styles drawn on in these videos revealed the purposes behind why these YouTubers chose to make these videos, and how they thought it best to frame metalinguistic commentary for their audiences, depending on their goals.
My analysis at the levels of genre and style revealed that YouTubers conformed to practices not just of traditional mass media journalism, but also generic and stylistic conventions associated with YouTube. At the discoursal level, I found that YouTubers used promotional
170 language and, in the case of the guessing game videos, focused their language more on happenings in and around the game and in engaging with the audience, thus conforming at the discoursal level to YouTube’s practices of engagement and play. My analysis of their choices at the generic and stylistic levels revealed how they conformed to generic staging and informal styles associated with YouTube's social practices. This multileveled analysis thus revealed how
YouTubers were using metalinguistic commentary differently than how we’ve seen it performed in the past: as a vehicle to collaborate with another YouTuber, to have fun and engage in lighthearted discourse about language, to build their identity for their audience, and to gain more likes and subscribes.
171 Chapter 6: Conclusion The analysis of the data revealed that language commentary in this corpus differs from traditional language commentary on QF. Traditional language commentary on QF, both written and spoken, has mostly been produced by QF and for QF speakers. It has traditionally been directed at QF speakers, as a call to arms to protect their language and be proud of it, to bemoan the state of their French compared to FF, or to complain about and warn against the infiltration of
Anglicisms (Bouchard, 2008). We saw in Chapter 1 and again in Chapter 5 that these conversations and debates on the status of French in Quebec are still present in the QF traditional press. Recent discourses in the traditional QF press have included discussions of (the threat of) bilingualism, politicians’ (in)ability to speak French, and younger generations’ indifference to protecting the survival of French in Quebec. This commentary on the state of French in Quebec in the traditional press still seems to be directed at a QF audience.
The YouTubers in this corpus, on the other hand, particularly in the language activism videos, imagined a new audience for their metalinguistic discussions on QF and FF, one that most of them assumed to be unfamiliar with QF. They participated in some discourses that have been seen in traditional language commentary on QF, but excluded others. The YouTubers in the guessing game videos performed very little overt commentary on the status of QF vs. FF, and referenced each equally, positioning them as equally worthy of attention. V10 also referenced
QF and FF evenly, comparing the two cultures and people in pairs of scenes, in order to share
Anaïs’s experiences as a French woman living in Montreal.
A multileveled analysis of the data, examining the choices YouTubers made at the levels of discourse, genre, and style, revealed that the YouTubers in this corpus participated in language commentary for new reasons, and for a new audience. Some conformed to discourses 172 and genres we would expect traditional language commentary on QF, while others conformed more to promotional, branding discourses and genres we would expect from YouTube. Nearly all of them used the generic staging of a vlog entry, and an informal style. They minimized social distance with the audience, through their language, gaze, and proximity to the camera, suggesting conformity with YouTube’s social practices. Thus, this dissertation shows that the context in which folk linguistic commentary takes place matters in what speakers choose to talk about, and how they choose to talk about it.
NEW MOTIVATIONS IN A NEW SPACE As we saw in Chapters 4-5, some YouTubers participated in language activism, whether to prove that QF and FF are very different (V1), to assert that although they are different, they are both French (interviewer in V2 + V3), to teach viewers how to understand their dear
Quebecker friends (V7), or to prove once and for all who uses more Anglicisms, QF or FF speakers (V9). However, those in the guessing game videos seemed to use this topic to share part of their identity with their audience, thus building their “brand”. They used language as an opportunity to collaborate with another YouTuber, and as a vehicle for likes and subscribes.
In the language activism videos, QF was referenced more and evaluated more, even though, apart from V7, these videos were framed as being about the differences between QF and
FF. QF was presented as the main topic of the video, and assumed to be new information to the audience. The YouTubers in V1 and V2 + V3 conducted their videos in English, assuming that their audience understood English. Audrey conducted V7 entirely in French, but presented the video as a guide to understand QF speakers. She always used FF as the default for comparison,
173 assuming her audience to understand FF, but to be unfamiliar with QF. This differed from traditional language commentary on QF, which tends to be directed at QF speakers.
In the guessing game videos and in V10, QF and FF were referenced equally, positioning speakers of those languages on even ground. QF was not presented as new information to the audience, and the two speakers both learned new information about one another’s variety of
French, and made a game out of language commentary, playing off the fact that QF and FF have different idiomatic expressions. In V10, Anaïs and Marie-Michelle presented pairs of scenes in
Quebec and France, to compare the two cultures, with each exploring differences in one another’s culture. Thus, in the “democratic” space of YouTube, QF can be placed as a variety of
French that deserves as much visibility as FF, which represents a subversion of the mass media sphere, in which QF language and culture has not enjoyed as much international attention.
CONTRIBUTION TO FOLK LINGUISTICS As I discussed in Chapters 1-2, traditional approaches to studying folk attitudes toward language involve eliciting data from speakers in the form of language attitude surveys, matched guise tasks, interviews, and methodology from perceptual dialectology, such as map-drawing tasks. In Chapter 2, I presented Preston’s appeal for discourse analytic approaches to folk metalinguistic discussions on language, in order to uncover not only explicit discourses about language (Metalanguage 1), but also the presuppositions behind these discourses (Metalanguage
3). Performing a discourse-level analysis of the corpus in this dissertation allowed me to uncover not only the content of what these YouTubers chose to comment on regarding QF vs. FF, unprompted by a researcher (an affordance of the corpus), but also an analysis of the linguistic choices they made to construe what they choose to represent, and what they choose not to
174 represent. This allowed me to uncover the presuppositions that were lying behind the explicitly stated discourses, thus allowing for a deeper understanding of these speakers’ language ideologies, what they take for granted. An analysis of these choices revealed what these
YouTubers presuppose about the differences between QF and FF, as well as who they imagine their audience to be, and what knowledge they presuppose their audience to have. This close social semiotic analysis reveals to us patterns in how YouTubers choose to construe the differences between QF and FF, without being prompted to do so, thus uncovering their language ideologies through these choices.
For example, as discussed in Chapters 4-5, the analysis revealed that YouTubers in the language activism videos presupposed the audience to be familiar with FF, but not with QF. FF is assumed to be the “default”. Some YouTubers assumed that if viewers are familiar with QF, they may have some misconceptions about it, including that it is not “French”. The overall lower references to the French as social actors compared to Quebeckers, particularly in the language activism videos, indicated that these speakers were taken for granted. This was especially clear in
Audrey’s speech, in which her erasure of reference to FF actors was coupled with her tendency to use the FF equivalent for her “definitions” of QF expressions. Solange imagines her audience to have false beliefs regarding which group of speakers uses more Anglicisms. She rejects the idea, which she imagines her audience to project onto her, that QF speakers speak poorly, implying that using more Anglicisms would be seen as “speaking French poorly”.
Thus, analyzing not only the overtly expressed attitudes in the appraisal analysis, but also what attitudes and presuppositions are implicit through who is referenced more, what is taken for granted and not referenced overtly, who and what is more often the target of evaluation, as well
175 as what languages and varieties are used in the videos, allows us to have a deeper understanding of attitudes, assumptions, and what is considered salient to these YouTubers.
LIMITATIONS OF CDA Above I have discussed the advantages of performing a multitiered analysis within the framework of CDA. But CDA also presents some limitations. Some criticisms of CDA have been that it is an exercise in interpretation, rather than a method of analysis, that it mostly ignores real readers and listeners, that it doesn’t pay enough attention to the intentions of the production of a text, that it is not cognitive enough, and that it is “too selective, partial and qualitative” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 208).
In my analysis, I used methods from SFL in order to bring more rigor to the analysis, and leave less room for researcher interpretation. The appraisal analysis was the most interpretative of all the analyses, and that is built into the nature of performing such an analysis (Martin &
Rose, 2003). Still, I tried to be careful to minimize bias in my interpretations.
In response to the criticism that CDA ignores real readers and listeners, and doesn’t pay enough attention to the true intentions of the production of the text, this is a limitation of the present study. The purpose of this study was to analyze how YouTubers talk about QF vs. FF on
YouTube. If I were to conduct future research to improve upon this study, I would include more ethnographic analysis. I would contact the YouTubers to see if they would participate in interviews, to ask them what their true motivations were in creating these videos, why they chose to include certain discourses and not others, and why they chose certain filming practices. I would ask what their motivations were at the time on YouTube.
176 The criticism that CDA does not pay enough attention to cognition is linked to the criticism that it does not take real readers’ and listeners’ interpretations into account. This is because, if the CDA analyst’s task is to uncover ideologies that are expressed through discursive structures, of which the average reader may not be consciously aware, “there needs to be an analysis of the relationship between readers and the texts being read” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p.
212), to understand how actual readers and listeners interpret and react to a text.
Although the awareness of the audience was implicit through YouTubers’ linguistic overt references to them, invitations for them to engage, and physical orientation, gaze, and positioning toward the audience, I did not analyze the comments themselves in this study. When
I downloaded the videos for my data extraction, I also downloaded the comment sections. There are 14,759 comments which include reactions to the videos and YouTubers, evaluations of QF and FF, and evaluations of the performances of the YouTubers in the videos. Some of the discourses present in the comment sections were largely excluded in the videos, but the videos still prompted viewers to engage with these discourses in the comment sections.
For example, although YouTubers in the videos chose to largely exclude discourses involving politics, this was not the case in the comment sections. In particular, Mikael’s statement, “We are segregated. We need to stand strong”, stoked the fire in the comment sections, and a lot of debate surrounding Quebecois identity, and whether Quebec should separate from Canada. Non-Francophone, non-Anglophone immigrants in Quebec (known as
“Allophones”) are also largely excluded in these videos, even though discourse about
Allophones appears in the traditional QF press, in the context of the status of French versus
English in Quebec.
177 Solange was the only YouTuber in the corpus to mention Allophones. Toward the end of
V9, she described her childhood, surrounded by immigrants who spoke French “mixed with their native language”. Solange describes this mix of languages as a beautiful and moving phenomenon that touches her, conflating this with the use of Anglicisms in QF, and using it for support in characterizing QF as a “hybrid” language. However, she did this without mentioning the tensions that have existed surrounding Allophones as well as Anglophones in Quebec.
Some commenters did choose to discuss the Allophones in the comment sections. That means that although YouTubers largely excluded Allophones from their discourse in the videos, viewers made an association with the content and speakers in the videos and the Allophones, and chose to open that conversation. Just as in the example of Mikael’s comment prompting a large debate in the comment section of V2, commenters chose to make the conversation more political in some of the comment sections than the discourses represented in the video.
Therefore, an analysis of the comment sections, using the same methods I used to analyze the YouTubers’ discourse, would be fruitful in understanding how these videos were received and how information is negotiated. An analysis of what other metalinguistic and cultural discussions arise in reaction to the videos, and why the discourses in the comment sections differ from those in the videos would help explain how actual viewers interpret the discourses in the videos. Although it would not be feasible to interview each of the commenters, I suggest replying to some of the comments to see if some of them might be interested in being interviewed or adding a bit more about what they intended by making their comments, to add more ethnographic analysis to the study.
178 The criticism that CDA is “too selective” relates to the idea that the analyst chooses texts or types of discourse that they know in advance are controversial, “the confirmation for which is presented through an analysis that in essence only partially addresses certain patterns of language in the text” (Machin & Mayr, 2012, p. 213). To this criticism, I argue that if we do not analyze texts in which we expect controversy to exist, we will not be able to systematically show whether a contentious situation has improved, or how it is represented differently, by different writers and speakers, and in different contexts. As we saw in my study, although debates about the status of
French in Quebec still persist in the traditional press, YouTubers in this corpus chose largely to exclude political discourses in their talk about QF.
LIMITATIONS OF THE CORPUS Although some of the findings of this study overlapped with those found in language attitudes research, the goal of this project was not to uncover discourses and appraisals that could then be generalized to the population of all QF and FF speakers. The corpus represented a relatively small sample of speakers, who were highly self-selecting. These were people, some of whom were already establishing a YouTube presence and following, who had chosen to create videos about QF and FF and post them on YouTube. The goal of this project was to uncover how
YouTubers talk about QF and FF in the context of YouTube. Thus, we need to be careful not to overgeneralize the findings to represent the opinions of the general QF and FF speaker populations.
Another more general issue of working with YouTube data is that the demographic information of the YouTubers is not always known, unless the YouTuber has given that information, or is popular enough that others have reported on this information (e.g. Wikipedia,
179 blog or television interviews, etc). If I had included an analysis of the comments section, I would have been limited to how much the commenters chose to reveal about their identities, as well.
Once again, because my purpose was not to make claims about the general population or claims relating to social variables such as age and gender, it was not necessary to have access to this information.
Performing the authentic self vs. a persona Another limitation of working with YouTube data is that it is often unknown whether a
YouTuber is performing his “true” self on camera. For example, Solange is notorious among her viewers for putting on a persona and obscuring her true self from the public. I noted in Chapter 5 that after receiving so many requests for her to explain where Ina (her real name) ends and where
“Solange” begins, Solange posted a video entitled “LA DIFFÉRENCE ENTRE SOLANGE ET
INA”, in which she represents her Solange persona and her true self as two vegetables with hair and faces attached to them, and has them act out dialogs in various locales. In other words,
Solange is content to keep this a mystery. In V10, Anaïs and Marie-Michelle acted out vignettes in order to describe their perceived differences in France and Québécois culture. In V2 + V3,
Marine and Mikael were being interviewed by an off-screen YouTuber, but were clearly exaggerating some of their attitudes and reactions.
We might be tempted to say that nothing on YouTube is real, and that we cannot take these YouTubers’ words at face value; however, I would argue that the other YouTubers in this corpus, who maintain a vlogging channel, are motivated to represent something that is at least close to their authentic self. This is primarily because they have an audience to answer to, if they are caught misrepresenting themselves. Those audience members can then post comments, and
180 such comments can multiply and damage a YouTuber’s reputation. Viewers can also blog, vlog, or tweet about Youtubers, which, when circulated on the internet, can also contribute to the downfall of a YouTuber’s reputation, if he or she is deemed to be inauthentic.
For example, when a vlogger, lonelygirl15, was revealed to be an actress working as “the creation of independent filmmakers Mesh Flinders and Miles Beckett” (Burgess & Green, 2009), even the mainstream media picked up the story (Burgess & Green, 2009). Burgess and Green
(2009) note that the “possibilities of inauthentic authenticity are now a part of the cultural repertoire of YouTube” and that other vloggers have “built identities around a similar ambiguity about their authenticity” (p. 95). They say that figuring out how much of what a YouTuber performs on YouTube is real, and how big a production company is backing them is “now something of a ‘game’ for participants within YouTube’s social network” (Burgess & Green,
2009, p. 96). That is, viewers are aware that YouTubers may not be performing their authentic selves, but YouTubers are also aware that viewers will be looking for signs of inauthenticity, and may not trust them if they find them not to be representing their true selves.
Again, in this study, I wasn’t concerned with the “true” identity of these YouTubers, but rather what they were presenting and how they were presenting it. And from the above story, we can see that although we can never say with certainty whether a YouTuber is performing his or her “authentic” identity, we can be sure that they are aware that the fans can and will hold them to any perceived inauthentic representations.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH I suggested above that this study could be improved by further ethnographic research, interviewing the YouTubers about their intentions in creating these videos, and why they chose
181 to discuss some discourses, but exclude others. I also noted that performing the same analyses on the comment sections would provide a picture of how ordinary viewers interpreted these texts.
As I noted from having read the comments, some videos prompted a lot more political discussions in the comment sections than were present in the videos themselves. This suggests that commenters draw more on discourses present in the traditional press than the YouTubers do.
These commenters consider it appropriate or “allowed” to participate in these discussions in the comments, even though these discourses were largely excluded in the videos. At the same time, some of these commenters were accused of “trolling” by other commenters, suggesting that not all viewers believe these discourses to be appropriate. An analysis of the comment sections would give us a deeper understanding, then, not only of ordinary viewers’ interpretations of these videos, but of what is expected both from YouTubers and commenters based on the social practices of YouTube.
In this dissertation, I argued that these YouTubers’ discourses on QF and their imagined audience for language commentary on QF differed from what we would expect from these discourses in the traditional press, due to the context where these discourses were being represented. This was revealed through a multilevel analysis of the discourses, genres, and styles
YouTubers chose to represent in their videos. Some YouTubers drew on genres associated with traditional mass media, while others conformed more to the social practices of YouTube. Nearly all of them adopted an informal style and minimized social distance with the audience, in keeping with YouTube’s practices.
In order to further examine how discourse about QF differs in different contexts, I propose performing the same analyses, at the three levels of discourse, genre, and style, in other
182 online spaces, to examine how they differ from how YouTubers participate in this discussion on their channels. I would expect social networking sites more focused on presentational culture, such as Instagram, Facebook, or lifestyle blogs, to orient to metalinguistic commentary in similar ways as the YouTubers in this corpus. I would expect political blogs or posts on Quora to draw on discourses, genres, and styles associated with the practices of traditional language commentary on QF.
An analysis of these different online spaces would allow us to further test the findings of dissertation: Context and the social practices associated with the space in which the discussion occurs matter, and performing a multileveled analysis of metalinguistic discussion, analyzing not only at the level of discourse, but also the genres and styles represented in framing the discussion, is crucial to understanding what discourses are included, and thus what ideologies are represented.
183 Appendices
APPENDIX A: CORPUS METADATA
Title Date Length View count Comments Likes/dislikes
“Differences Between 1 Quebec French VS 3.16.16 7:24 266,268 1,972 3,091/1,132 France French”
“French Canadian 2 (Quebecois) vs France 6.12.15 3:30 172,606 642 552/566 French”
“French Canadian 3 (Quebecois) vs French 6.13.15 4:23 18,926 54 151/27 part 2”
“JE DEVINE DES 4 EXPRESSIONS 6.13.15 8:43 787,903 1,772 28,784/758 QUEBECOISES !”
“EXPRESSIONS QUÉBÉCOISES ET 5 6.13.15 10:27 339,745 958 17,542/145 FRANÇAISES (avec Théo Gordy)”*
“EXPRESSIONS FRANÇAISES VS 6 QUÉBÉCOISES avec 10.28.15 8:23 625,421 1,742 16,512/763 LéaChoue ! [Sud- ouest]”*
“Comprendre les 7 Québécois pour les 1.12.14 9:21 436,902 1,250 6,197/181 nuls”
“EXPRESSIONS QUÉBEC VS 8 3.21.16 8:19 955,459 1,440 27,279/299 FRANCE (avec Emy LTR)”
184 “F*CK LES 9 ANGLICISMES (duel 12.22.15 10:03 555,885 2,012 10,931/991 France-Québec)”
“DIFFÉRENCES 10 ENTRE LA FRANCE 7.9.17 4:51 1,945 7 42/11 ET LE QUÉBEC”
Upload date range: January 12, 2014-July 9, 2017 Combined length of videos: 75 minutes 24 seconds
Updated on August 15, 2017 / updated for V6 on August 22, 2017
*Could not download; filmed the screen with my phone
185 APPENDIX B: SCRIPTS Video 1 Hey guys! So for today’s video I wanted to talk about the difference between French from France and French from Canada Mostly Quebec I’ve been wanting to do this video because I’ve talked to a lot of people on the Internet and uh When we tell them, that we speak French they think that it’s French like the French from France, which is kind of insulting in one way because As Quebecers, we really enjoy our culture and our French, and We think that the other French is- much different than ours and we’re proud of Our version. our slang accent. That’s why we kind of get offended, because it’s not- really offended? But I would compare French from France as to British English, and French from Quebec as to American English. You see the difference. It’s more? British English, you think of somebody more fancy, more- Not to be mean, but more like snobbish fancy like I’m better than everyone kind of language? And that’s kind of what French from France for us, for Quebeckers, sounds like. That does not mean that they think they’re better than us, o:r They think they’re snob people, but that’s just what it comes off as, when you hear it. I-I love France, I love French people, I love their.. language, I think it’s beautiful they have a nice French, I’m not trying to bring them down or anything it’s just that- that’s- for- a lot of people’s opinion that’s how it sounds like. Because what we do, in F- Quebec, is We condense a lot of words, and- the accent? is more It’s hard to say My kinda French, I would say something like Aujourd’hui ch’tallée au garage In French I would say, Aujourd’hui je suis allée au garage. Donc we see there’s a difference here. B’cause? Aujourd’hui, ch- The real word is Je suis allée, but we put ch-t Ch’ta-llée, we put that all in one word?, and they keep it And they- and their accent? is more? it’s kind of high? up, I don’t know it’s hard to say. Je suis allée au garage. Chtallée au garage. You see there’s a much it’s more like A farmer kind of accent A lot of French people would say that we’re beating up the French, but haha we like it like this. Another thing is people think that because in Quebec we’re surrounded by the whole Canada that is all English. I’m from Quebec and a lot of people cause you have almost no choice since you’re [surrounded by so much English? that- We have a lot of English slang in our words. We do use English words, but- Unlike you would think, people from France use more Englishism- than we do. Ah- Englishism I don’t even know if that’s a word. But, anglicisme. For example, I found a parking, I went shopping, and I bought some boots. In Quebec I would say, chme suis trouvé un stationnement chtallée magasiner, pis je me suis ache(t)é des bottes. I’m not the perfect person in French accent but I’m trying my best. In France they would say, (ch) me suis trouvé un parking, et je suis allée faire du shopping, et je me suis acheté des nouvelles boots. You can see the difference here. (They) Don’t know what a stationnement is, they use parking. Shopping, des boots. We say, des bottes, un stationnement, pis magasiner. Also, Uh, my parents went on a vacation, and there was a French guy serving them? And they would say- Can I have some butter for my toast, please? And they would say (it) like this, from Quebec Ch’peux t’avoir du [bar] p’ mes toasts. And in French, they would say, “Puis-je avoir du beurre pour mes rôties s’il vous plaît. Du [bœ:R:], and we say, bar. It’s (a) [really? (.) much more, I don’t know. When I think about France, I think about du bœR, and then when I think of Quebec I think du bar. It’s like, I don’t really care about the word? st- c’est du bar, I’m not forcing it?… or whatever. There’s a traduction here that I’m gonna read? It’s like, slang that we use? ‘Cause we put, like, three words and mash ‘em together [pfoo] b’cause we’re lazy like that and we like to:: do that with hh our language. I’m gonna say fir-first in English then in French from France, and then in Quebec. 186 Right here. Ici même. Drette là. Don’t bother. Ne t’en fais pas. Baud toé zempa. Have you seen that? As-tu déjà vu ça? t’as-tu d’jà vu ça? You see we condense the words a lot t’as-tu d’jà vu ça? compared to As-tu déjà vu ça? As- tu- dé- jà- vu- ça, t’as-tu d’jà vu ça Move you’re ass. Tasse-toi Aweille! hh I tell you, je te le dis, ch’te’ l’dis! I’m so confused Je suis confus Ch’toute fourrée I’m so tired Je suis épuisée Ch’ cogne des clous man Get lost Disparais Décrisse Because “Par-ce” Par-ce que Staco:se Anyway En Tout cas Antéka That’s enough C’est assez stacé See you later A plus tard Ma lwòere talleur Relax Détends-toi Camme toé? She’s crying, elle pleure, A braille. Hurry up! Dépêche-toi! Aweille, grouille! Make believe Faire à croire Faire à craire He has bad breath hh Il pue de la bouche, y pue d’la yeul. I’m in trouble. Je suis dans le pétrin. Chu dans (l’) marde. The written French? is the same in Quebec as in France We just-don’t- write-these, like, drette-là, stacose, we just speak them, we do not write them because it’s not proper French and you can’t write like that, it’s not words, it’s-it’s a lot of words you condensed into one word. It’s a lot more like bang bang bang, to the point? =like shut up? that’s what I’m talking. And the curse words are different, too. A France person tells me, Putain de merde, I’m not gonna be like, oh damn, shit’s goin’ dow:n, I’m gonna be like, laughing, like putain de merde, that makes me laugh. But when someone says crisse de tabarnak sio de marde en esti? Shit is real. it is- sumin is gon’ on bad, but- I don’t know- it’s really different from the swear words to everything they say. Also, I’ll say maybe, A pair of shoes, une [par] de souliers And they’ll say Une [pER] de chaussures. This is a shirt, a sweatshirt. I’ll say ‘st’un chandail? Ceci est un t-shirt à manches longues. Like they say a t-shirt? a long-sleeve t-shirt. How does that make sense? I don’t know. But we say a lot of things that don’t make sense here in Quebec. Our French is more in your face, very expressive. They have a lot of vocabulary words. We don’t have as much as them? Well that’s what I believe. But, I don’t know. Like I understand all the words? but since I’m bilingual? my- this is like- okay this is like my words. I have this much French, and this much English, but I understand all these words, in French and in English but I just don’t-speak them because that’s too much for my brain, but when I’ll-I’ll hear it on TV? I’ll- I’ll understand. With that said, I hope you liked this video, I just wanted to say that there is a big difference between French- from France, and French- from Quebec. It’s not even- only in the language, it’s also in the attitude? and the culture surrounding the language, so- There’s not- a better French than the other- maybe the one from France. I’m sorry, we- hh we just like beat up the hell out of the French, but we like it this way. If you want me to make more videos, where I speak French, Leave a big thumbs up. Please don’t forget to like and subscribe, I’d really appreciate it, and I’ll see you in the next video. Bye!
Video 2 I: Okay, so state your name and where you are from. F: Hi, I’m Marine from France, in Paris. Q: Hi, I’m Mikael from Quebec City. I: So… F: It/which is a country. I: So how long have you been speaking English? F: I’ve been speaking a good English… or not a bad English since 9 month.. 10 month.. Q: I started learning English when I was in.. grade five for/from my mother, and I… became fully, uh, bilingual, uh last year. I: We’ll start with Marine. What are your thoughts on… Quebec. F: At first, this is not a country, this is just a little part of a big country, who think that they speak English. F: So, they just haha they think they are French, but they’re not French. Let’s like, put that out there. You’re not French. F: Just saying that you’re Canadian, not Quebecker (all right) you’re just a little part of-Canadia/Canada. You’re Canadian. Q: Oh no
187 I’m Que-I’m Quebecker. Quebecois. It’s Que- F: You see- (you continue) Q: It’s Quebecker. F: haha Q: We are segregated. We need to stay/stand strong. F: We’re not French, we’re not Canadian, we are.. Quebecker. Haha I: Mikael Q: Yeah I: What are your thoughts on.. France? Q: I’ve never been to France, um, I did-I did hear- F: That’s a shame. Q: a lot about it, though. I think it’s uh, should be a proud country? They have a lot uh- it’s an artful country, I like that, um…Q: I think their- their French is- is all right. It’- it’s a bit- it’s a bit different. Q: They do sound way more f-eminine, when they speak, and I’m not addressing towards the women particularly, and that’s fine, you can sound the- F: hahaha Q: way you want, if you want to be, uh, considered a lesser French speaker. F: France is an amazing country haha I’m proud to be French, haha to can sing the French Q: haha F: national anthem. Q: I’m also proud. I: Now this is the time when you guys get to say your- who- who can say the line faster, in French and in English? Okay? F: Les pommes de terre sont bonnes j’aime les pommes de terre. Ooh-ooh! Q: Les pommes de terre sont bonnes j’aime les pommes de terre. F: Les pommes de terre sont bonnes j’aime les pommes de terre. Q: I tell you I don’t even think that’s a contest, I mean F: That’s no, no, woah no, yeah French people, woo! I: Um, for the English one, because, you know?, French are known to not haha not be able to pronounce their th’s? very well? F: Th: at’s not true! Haha Q: Okay, okay, [t]row any[θ]ing at me. F: haha Q: [t]row any[t]ing. Q: (I got them in the three hundred murinals) F: (I got them in the- third in the minina haha) Q: .. France. I: Now you guys get to try your best… Quebec slash French expressions. F: Ben, euh: ben, euh:: ch’quittais où euh: ben: tabarnak? Q: Pronounce ‘tabarnak’. Taba[R::]nak! Q: Non mais euh: premièrement ch’pense que c’est facile à dire que chuis capable d’imiter l’accent France, et peut-être que c’est parce que c’est un langage plus facile à parler? F: Français! Français! Q: Alors c’est pour ça que je suis euh haha F: French mistake! Did you hear it/that?! Q: C’est pour ça que je suis capable d’articuler mes mots? F: Let’s do a.. an information for all Quebec, on/and this entire world, we love you, but you don’t speak French haha I: Name one thing that is really good about each other’s country. F: Poutine. (have a good cut about poutine) I went to Gatineau Q: The architecture. F: I love Quebec! Q: I love France! I love France. I- these were all jokes. F= Okay: oui, I’m sorry for all I say. F: I love- I love Quebec people. Q: It was all jokes. F: Yeah. Q: All fun and games. F: When are you taking me to Quebec City, though? Q: Uh, tonight, maybe. F: Let’s go! Shooo! hahaha
Video 3: F: I’m proud to be French. Hahaha Q: haha F: to can sing the French national anthem Q: I’m also proud- Q: To be French F: Allons enfants de la patrie! Q: haha I: State your name, and where you are from. F: Hi! I’m Marine from France? in Paris. Q: Hi, I’m Mikael from Quebec City. I: How do you wish someone happy birthday in French? F: Yeah we say Q: Bo-nne fê-te à toi F: no, no! No no! Q: haha F: ah! Hahaha Q: haha Q: But it’s bonne fête. F: No(n), pas bonne fête- bon anniversaire. Because- Q: Bonne fête F: Because, when is your fête, how do you know the difference. Q: You celebrate. Q: and that’s exactly what you do on your birthday. F: No. Because sometime it’s your birthday, and sometime it’s your fête. Q: Well then you don’t say bonne fête, you don’t say like- F: Yeah Q: When it’s Christmas, you don’t say bonne fête. F: When it’s your- But no, but no, but no, we say… Joyeux Noël. But whatever, it can be your fête.. not your birthday. So I’m not gonna Q= Bonne fête, bonne fête à toi F= I’m not gonna- I’m not gonna say bonne fête. I’m gonna say anniversary Q: Okay, I’ll say bonne fête. F: (is anniversary)ha OH
188 hahaha Q: haha I: Pronounce the word.. August in French. F: OH Q: [a:u] F: No- no OH! [haha] [ut] Q: No. You’re wrong, silent t. F: OH Q: [suE]? Or do you say [suEtə]? F: There is ex- like, um Q: No, no, no, no, no! You say [suE], as in like, as in like, I wish, do you say [suE] or [suEt]? F: [t] [ut]. C’est [ut]. On est en [ut]. Um, like, you say Q: That’s silly, why do you choose not to- F= Okay, August, in- Q: pronounce the a, but you pronounce the t? F: in English, August, August Q: I can think of many examples where the t is silent at the end. You always pronounce the first- letter, though. F: We should teach Quebecker people to speak French. I: So how do you say shoes? Q: Souliers. F: Chau-ssures Q: Ou chaussures. Yeah, no, souliers. F: No, chausseurs. Q: Souliers. F: Chaussures. Q: Souliers. F: Yeah because we: you know, we speak French, so we don’t mind that using the wrong word Q: hahaha I: How do you say pants? F: I wanna hear this/that. Q: Culotte F: hahahaha Q: ou “pantalon” F: hahaha Q: No, cu- culotte, It’s culotte. F= pantalon! Pantalon hahaha Q: See, I know, I know, both words, but I mean, I choose to pref-I prefer- F: You should- Q: I prefer to use the right one. F: go to- France and use this word. It means something else. Q: je peux aller en France et dire euh, des pantalons et euh, mes chaussures. F: Yeah. Q: Yeah. C’est c’est pas tant difficile. I: How do you say shirts? In French. Q: Chandail. F: T-shirt ou shirt? I: A shirt. Q: Un chandail. F: T-shirt. Q: Oh! Um she means a shirt, she didn’t say t-shirt, she said shirt, like, uh chandail F: That is t-shirt? And- Q: That is a t- shirt. If it was longer, it- it’d be a chandail. F: And, and, and, the (thing) F: Chemise, no, chemise. Q: No (that’s not). Chemise is when you have the button-up. F: Yeah. Yeah! Q: I didn’t say it would be a button-up, I said it’d be longer. F: No Q: Chandail. F: No! T-shirt manches longues! Q: That’s not a thing! F: Yeah! I promise you it’s that. Q: That’s- Q: So you just said-F: We say t-shirt manches longues! Q: T-shirt long sleeve! How is that even make sen- t-shirt means like, you know, it’s- it’s a t-shirt. T-shirt? F: Yeah, t-shirt. Q: It’s like if you said short long pants, or like, you know, like- F: haha I: How do you say eight in French? Hahaha F: [ɥit] Q: [oə]/(what?) [ɥIt] F: (uh no) [ɥit] Q: [ɥIt] F: [ɥit] Q: It’s cause you know we add masculinity to our pronunciation, it’s [ɥIt] not ɥit] F: [i: ɥit] haha Q: un deux trois quatre cinq six sept [ɥit] no. F: Yeah! Q: un deux trois quatre cinq six sept [ɥIt] F: OH HO HO I got him! We have hh right now, people, the proof that août is [ut]! HA! We got these Quebecker people! Q: You still, I mean until- until you prove souhait? F: BAH! Q: Wrong? I- until you prove souhait wrong? F: Thank you very much, thank you, thank you Q: I stand my ground, I stand my ground. F: Thank you. That was a pleasure to prove, to finally prove to all Quebec people that you can use [ut]. I: Okay. Well thank you guys so much and uh- F: Okay, just, yeah, yeah, and just saying, I love Quebec, okay, oui? Q: I love France F: I love Quebec people. Q: It was all jokes. F: Yeah. Q: Funny- fun and games. F: When are you taking me to Quebec City now Q: Uh, tonight maybe. F: Let’s go! Shoo! Writing: “In conclusion, both dialects may be different, however THEY ARE BOTH FRENCH”
Video 4: T: Hello tout le monde, c’est Théo, j’espère que vous allez bien parce qu’en tout cas, moi ça va. Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale, puisque je suis avec- P: PL Cloutier! Bonsoir! T: Qui est un YouTuber.. euh.. francophone? Mais il est au Québec il est… T’es où, d’ailleurs? P: (Alors), À Montréal? Chez moi? Dans ma cuisine. Seul. T: Et- P: Parce que j’ai pas beaucoup d’amis. T: haha et moi, chuis, ben, je suis dans mon bureau parce qu’aujourd’hui on va parler de sérieux. On va parler des expressions, parce que.. comme vous savez dans: là dans des
189 expressions dans les pays c’qui est logique et je mettrai aussi la chaîne de PL en barre d’infos, et tout ça, donc, euh: tout en barre d’infos, la barre d’infos c’est un peu- le sac à dos d’ tout le monde donc P: Aahh, j’aime ça, c’est bien dit. Bon, et (là c’est qu’une) conséquence des (once) est: on voit? Je tiens ici le pointage dans mon cahier? que: ok, si c’est toi, qui en devines le moins? il va falloir que tu- chantes haha- une chanson- de la québécoise la plus connue au monde? J’ai nommé Céline? T: haha P: Il va falloir que t’chantes la chanson de Titanic. T: Et, du coup, toi, si tu as, euh, le moins de bonnes réponses, tu devras chanter une chanson de Stromae, et tu devras chanter Papaoutai avec de la farine dans ta bouche. Writing: “QUI SERA LE MEILLEUR?” P: Ok, première expression? Être le boss des bécosses. T: Genre, eum: avoir réussi quelque chose, genre, ch- chuis boss des bécosses, j’ai réussi à tré- trépasser sur des bécosses? P: haha Mais, c’est- c’est quoi (eum) une bécosse? T: Moi, je pense qu’une bécosse, c’est une vache. P: haha T: Ça c’est, c’est une bière ou P: Non… T: Ben faire un bon gros, euh… voilà? Quoi P: haha T: haha c’est ça? P: Non, c’est pas ça du tout. T: Attends, j’essaie d’ deviner, j’ai une dernière chances, j’ai trois chances. P: Ok, ok, dernière chance. T: Réussir une épreuve. P: C’est une mauvaise réponse! P: Être le boss des bécosses, ça veut dire faire son (petit) chef, quelqu’un qui peut connaître/comme être l’autorité suprême? T: Alors, l’expression française que tu dois deviner c’est avoir le cul bordé d’ nouilles. P: hahahaha et le pire? C’est que j’ai déjà parlé de ça dans une de mes vidéos, euh, y a quelques mois? Pis je ne savais pas c’était quoi mais j’ai trouvé ça dégeu? Je pense que.. la mémoire- mais c’est quasiment comme une tricherie parce que j’en avais déjà parlé, mais.. Il me semble que ça veut dire voir d’la chance. T: Mais non P: Je l’ai eu? T: Oui, c’est ça. P: Yes! Yes! M’entendez- vous? J’pense que je suis un peu français dans l’âme. T: haha P: Connais-tu l’expression grimper dans les rideaux T: J’pense que ça à avoir avec les chats. Donc j’pense que ça veut dire… brosser le chat dans l’ sens du poil. T: Tu n’as pas eu haha C’est- T: J’ai pas encore une petite chance? Ou pas P: Oh tu as droit à une aut’ chance? Ok T: Genre, s’énverver pour rien P: Tu l’ai! Tu l’as eu! T: Ouais! P: Ouais Ah, d’abord tu l’as eu c’est ça que ça veut dire, ça veut dire s’emporter, euh faire une crise euh, un peu pour rien dans l’ fond, ouais. T: Chuis tellement content? J’aime l’Amérique, je vous embrasse haha P: hahahaha T: Alors maintenant pour toi, PL, la deuxième expression que je vais te donner, ça va êtr’- être au taquet. P: .. Ah.. haha T: Etr(e) au taquet. P: haha alors laisse-moi le lire, pour êtr’ certain que… T: Ça va. P: Etre au taquet? T: je pense que tous les Français qui regarderont vont savoir ce que ça veut dire? C’est (sur)tain, oui, tout le monde connaît. P: Ok, est-ce que c’est comme, être au taquet c’est être aux toilettes? T: Non! P: haha T: C’est pas ça, pas du tout. P: haha T: haha P: Ok, ok, j’ai l’ droit-eh, j’ai l’ droit encore à deux chances. T: T’as l’ droit à trois- trois essais. P: C’est ça, laisse, laissez-moi mon premier… P: Je bois du vin français parce que… une gorgée à la fois? Je deviens un peu plus français. T: Exact! haha en fin de bouteille il sera totalement français! T: mhm P: Ouais. P: Est-ce que ça serait comme aller à la banque? T: Ah non, haha pas du tout. P: haha Parce que, le taquet, c’est un lien, est-ce que c’est un lien T: Non, c’est pas un lien, le taquet. P: Est-ce que c’est que’ qu’ chose comme un peu, euh sexuel? T: Oh! Non! P: Okay haha T: haha OO! P: Mais être très très bien habillé. T: Tu t’rapproches, mais c’est pas ça. Non haha P: C’est quoi. T: Alors quand tu dis être au taquet, ça veut dire qu’en gros quand t’es motivé, gen’ t’es motivé à faire un truc, tu dis, chuis au taquet, genre, chuis prêt à faire (là), chuis.. tu vois? P: Ah haha alors, chuis au taquet? Pour me servir plus de vin. T: ‘xactement P: C’est ça? P: T’es prêt pour la troisième expression? T: Prêt. P: Qu’est-ce que ça veut dire péter de la broue. T: Wé-/ouais ou! haha Péter d’ la broue?
190 P: hahaha T: Péter de la broue. Ben, de la broue… brouette. Brouette, euh c’est un moyen de transport? Donc péter de la broue? Je dirais que c’est eum, prendre le bus? P: hahaha non, haha mais- tu peux! Pé- Tu peux péter de la broue si tu prends l’autobus? Mais- euh, j’pense pas que ça va fonctionner avec beaucoup d’ monde. T: Je pense que je sais. P: Okay T: Faire son intéressant, tu sais, genre… se mettre (avant (et tout)) de- devant les gens. P: Ben, je suis en train de détester ce jeu là? Tu l’as eu? T: Ah! woo hoo! P: (Il faut que) tu marques encore un point? Ça veut dire se vanter. T: Se vanter, ouais, c’est ça que je ba ba ba ba ba P: Et moi? Je- moi, j’étais certain que j’aurais une longueur d’avance? Parce que- on- ici on- on a plein de films traduits en France? On entend plein d’expressions tout le temps, là t’es en train de me calencher? Ça m’énerve T: haha T: C’est un clash, cette vidéo. T: Donc, l’expression, c’est- avoir la dalle. P: hahaha T: Avoir la dalle? Ou on peut dire aussi crever la dalle, carrément. P: Crever la dalle T: Ouais haha P: Mais ça veut dire que ça (veut dire) que’que chose d’assez positif, parce que toi t’es une personne positive.Ok. Est-ce que c’est quelque chose? Que tu dirais à une personne qui est attirante? T: Ooh là là P: Tu crèves la dalle T: hahahahaha P: Bon, alors je présume que ça veut dire? Non? T: En fait, non, mais dans un certain contexte? Ça- P: haha T: peut être parfois bizarre, tu vois, ‘fin, tu peux le dire à quelqu’un? mais ça serait- un peu mal vu, quoi- ‘fin, imaginez, ché pas tu vois haha oui et non, donc euh- P: hahahaha K, i’ y a l’expression crever l’abcès? T: Ouais, mais c’est pas pareil du tout. P: Non, ok, ça veut pas dire la même chose. T: Non. P: Ok ça c’est ma première tentative. T: Ok, donc- P: euh Crever la dalle! Crever la dalle, mais ça peut être- oh- est-ce que ça veut dire se défoncer, là (une soirée look) T: haha eh ben non, c’est pas ça, non P: AAH haha Crever la dalle. Ça, est-ce que ça veut dire tout donner? T: … non, c’est pas ça. Woo! J’ai gagné! Encore une fois! Yes! Alors, crever la dalle, ça veut dire avoir faim. Mais avoir faim, mais vraiment super faim. C’est pour ça que je te disais que quand tu dis ça à quelqu’un ça – peut- être un peu mal interprété P: haha T: Genre ( ) quelqu’un et tu dis oooah je crève la dalle, genre, j’ai trop faim, ben, elle va te dire, ok? Tu veux quoi, toi? P: mais tu vois, moi, je pen- moi c’est une expression que j’utilise, que j’utilise régulièrement, eh/hein. T: Ah ouais. P: pour charmer, hein T: hahahaha P: Bon, je suis encore célibataire? T: Et donc maintenant voilà que PL m’a donné trois expressions et que je lui ai donné trois expressions, c’est le moment de passer sur sa vidéo, donc je vous incite de cliquer par exemple ici ou sur sa tête, allez-y cliquez sur sa tête ici, ici là. Mais attendez quand même, attendez de voir la fin de cette vidéo avant de cliquer sur sa tête, enfin. Et donc du coup voilà c’est tout pour cette vidéo, j’espère qu’elle vous aura plu. En tout cas, si c’est le cas n’hésitez pas à mettre un petit… pouce bleu et aussi n’hésitez pas à aller vous abonner à la chaîne de PL qui sera en barre d’infos. Ben je vous bl bl bl Je vous la mettrai en barre d’infos parce que sa chaîne, elle est juste, ben franchement je l’adore, ‘fin:: sa personnalité atypique comme genre même, comme-comme, comme, j’aime le voir sur YouTube, ben. P: Aw, back at you, Théo! Et j’aimerais ça c’est dans les commentaires? Les, des abonnés pourraient me proposer des nouvelles expressions françaises. T: Voilà, donc, faites l’éducation de PL en lui disant des expressions purement françaises de votre région, vous savez, si vous êtes de Poitou ou Charente. P: oui T: Les expressions Poitou-Charentèses, mettez-les en commentaire, ça va… il va adorer. P: Oui. T: N’oubliez pas de me rejoindre sur les réseaux sociaux, tous les liens sont en barre d’infos, encore une fois, et on se retrouve la semaine prochaine, pour une nouvelle vidéo, à très très très très très très très très très bientôt! Bye! Ooh, j’arrive pas, c’est trop loin Bye! Ah! J’arrive toujours pas! Attends! Bye!
191
Video 5: P: Salut? C’est PL Cloutier? Aujourd’hui je suis avec- Théo Gordy! Mais non, j’ai pas un ami imaginaire, parce qu’il est par skype Ah, dis âllo, Théo! T: Eh! Bonjou: r PL Cloutier [famili:] ou: voilà P: La PL Cloutier family, j’aime ça! Ché pas si: vous suivez Théo? Pour moi, c’est mon coup de cœur euh, francophone, eh, Français sur YouTube, allez vous abonner à sa chaîne? Pis tant qu’avez-vous abonné, allez voir la première partie de cette vidéo, parce qu’on- euh- on joue un jeu aujourd’hui. Tous les deux, on doit faire deviner trois expressions typiquement québécois ou typiquement français à l’autre? Et pis on a fait déjà… six expressions sur sa chaîne, alors, vous pouvez cliquer.. sur… Théo, pour aller voir la première partie. Moi, j’ai comme envie de pincer une petite joue! T: Comme ça, ooh! Je fais pour toi! P: haha Et, je peux vous dire en ce moment je suis vraiment en retard dans le pointage. Eh le… perdeur.. euh une conséquence- T: Donc, tout simplement, si PL- a- le moins de bonnes réponses, il devrait chanter une chanson- française- de Stromae, ‘fin c’est Papaoutai, je sais pas si vous connaissez? Et il devrait la chanter avec de la farine dans la bouche P: haha Toi, à ton tour, si t’es le grand perdeur, eh bien tu devras chanter un succès de Céline Dion, ma québécoise préférée? Qui est la chanson, My Heart Will Go On la chanson thème de Titanic, et tu devras faire ça avec la bouche remplie d’eau T: Voilà. P: As-tu hâte T: Je suis- comblé et heureux de devoir chanter du Céline Dion. P: Mais à quoi bon jouer une deuxième ronde de ce fabuleux jeu si c’est pas à me servir un autre bon verre de vin, ouais! T: Ouais! P: Toi, tu bois encore du jus d’orange? T: Encore et toujours infidèle à mon vigneron P: Ouais le fait que t’as pas de vin chez toi, ça me fait beaucoup de peine. T: Moi aussi, chuis, chuis en peine d’avoir- mm P: Ok, c’est partie pour la prochaine expression? T: Ok P: Je t’envoie ça dans le chat T: Se tirer une bûche? P: haha T: euh- euh- euh haha T: Se tirer une bûche, ben bûche, ça fait penser au bois, parce qu’une bûche de bois T: (Tiens/tu vois) dans- dans les films et tout ça en France? On voit beaucoup les bûcherons québécois avec les trucs et tout, donc j’pense que se tirer une bûche, c’est- être au bout du rouleau ne plus en pouvoir- P: hahaha non, c’est pas ça hahaha T: C’est pas ça. P: haha T: Bon, alors. P: T’as d- t’as droit encore à deux chances. T: Ok. Je bois, ça va peut-être me donner des idées. P: haha- hahahaha T: Alors, se tirer une bûche, c’est quand même assez compliqué, euh, partir T: en vacances. P: hahahahaha dans le bois? Comme aller faire du camping? Haha T: du camping. C’est ça. P: haha Non, c’est pas ça haha mais c’est une- j’aime ça je pense je vais dire ça à l’avenir. On va aller dans le parc à faire- se faire tirer une bûche. T: Bien, on va, alors on va tirer une bûche, on va jouer ensemble? P: hahahaha non, se tirer une bûche, ça veut dire, c’est: va chercher une chaise, pis, assieds-toi avec nous. T: Ben pourquoi faire si compliqué quand on peut P: hahaha T: faire si simple? Haha P: Mais- mais c’est cette idée de- des bûcherons qui- qui est assis, ils se prenaient un- un billon, quoi un- billon de bois? Pour s’asseoir dessus? on dit, eh! Tire-toi une bûche! Ça veut dire viens d’asseoir avec nous. T: Oh! Félicitations, tu m’as bien eu. P: J’espère tellement que chuis pas en train d’attraper un accent français sans m’en rendre compte, ça me fait tout le temps ça quand ch’ parle avec des Français. T: Sérieux? P: Trouves-tu que j’ai l’accent français? T: Non, pas du tout, t’as- t- un accent… oui P: Ok T: L’expression que tu vas avoir, et ça c’est impossible que tu connais, c’est, il drache P: Il drache. Et que ça ça sonne vulgaire.T: hahahahaha P: Il drache? P: Mais il: drache, comme (appartient/à part temps) ça semble, à il crache. T: Non, c’est pas ça. P: Ah! J’aime pas, je- ça, ah/oh mon dieu j’ai jamais ok, j’ai jamais entendu ça de ma vie? Il drache? T: Oui. P: Est-ce que ça veut dire qui eu::m quelqu’un qui est
192 vraiment cool? c’est qu’il swag on va dire (oui) il drache. T: waouh P: A, je l’ai eu? T: C’est pas ça. P: O-oh T: hahahaha P: J’étais sûr, ch’ t’ dis j’étais vraiment content d’ moi de- de l’avoir eu, ce- tu joues avec mes sentiments Théo. T: Exactement P: Et- euh est-ce qu’on peut dire ça d’une fille? Elle drache? T: Non! hahaha Ça serait un peut bizarre ça aussi? P: haha Il drache… il- il va vite? Quelqu’un qui va vite? T= oui P: Comme il est en.. il drache sur l’autoroute? T: Et ben non. Perdu. Donc du coup il drache, ça veut dire il pleut très fort, tu vois? P: A-ah T: Et c’est une expression typique du Nord de la France en fait. P: Bon ben écoute (donc voilà), c’était pas de point pour moi? encore une fois? T: Olé! P: OK, prochaine expression québécoise pour toi. T: J’ai mon voyage. P: hahahahahaha T: J’ai mon voyage, j’ai mon v-, ben, j’ai mon- ticket de- d’avion? P: hahahaha non, c’est pas ça. T: J’ai mon voyage? Est-ce qu’il y a une autre intonation pour dire aussi j’ai mon voyage, ben, j’ai mon voyage, tu vois? P: (Oui/et) tu peux dire eum: OH BEN J’AI MON VOY-AGE! J’ai mon voyage. T: Je l’ai enfin. P: Non hahaha /il te reste une chance. En plus avec mon interprétation incroyable, tu devrais l’avoir deviné là. T: J’en ai marre? P: Ben ben ben ben T: Non P: Ça veut dire j’en reviens pas T: Ohh P: haha T: ah bon oui j- P: J’ai mon voyage! T: Je n’ connaissais pas cette expression? Genr’, j’ai mon voyage P: Oui essaie-la dans une phrase, comme euh, mais attends qu’est-ce qui pourrait te surprendre. T: Waouh, j’ai beaucoup d’abonnés, j’ai mon voyage! P: Ah non c’est parce que- ‘y a comme une connotation? un peu euh péjorative à dire ça. T: Ah merde, euh, ‘y a quelqu’un (qu’) j’aime pas qui vient (à) la maison, j’ai mon voyage.… Non? P: … on va passer à la prochaine expression. T: Ok hahahahaha P: hahaha hahahaha T: (Ok) voilà/donc et voilà, la prochaine expression ça va êtr’- être dans la mouise P: Dans la mouise? T: Ouais. P: êt’ dans la mouise. Ça ça doit être quelque chose comme gen’ êt’ dans l’ (marde) là, êt’ dans l’ pétrin? T: Tu dirais être dans le pétrin, c’est ça? P: Ouais. T: Mais non haha P: Je l’ai eu? T: Oui, tu l’as eu. P: Yes! Yes T: Non. P: Je pense je vais dire ça, alors là, Théo, tu commences à être dans la mouis[ə], parce que, j’ai marqué un nouveau point au tableau. T: Et au final combien de points enfin? On est à combien de points là, alors. P: On est rendu à deux points pour toi et à un point cinq pour moi. La ps- le prochain point est décisif. T: Exact P: Es-tu prêt pour la prochaine expression? T: Je suis prêt! P: Ok, c’est parti. T: Ooh As-tu vu la charrue passer. P: hahaha T: Non haha je l’ai pas vue passer. P: haha T: As-tu- vu la cha—Ah! Je pense savoir! T: Est-ce que tu connais la nouvelle? P: Non non haha non, c’est pas ca haha c’est pas (de ta personne/ta façon de) charme. T: Enfin: as-tu vu la charrue passer P: haha T: C’est genre quelque P: haha T: chose que tu peux dire dans une conversation. P: Oh/ah ouais tu peux dire ça ah P: souvent là… à Montréal. Hahaha T: Et c’est vulgaire comme truc? Haha P: haha- hahaha- haha]je- vais te l’ dire à la fin. T: Donc ça veut dire que c’est vulgaire donc, alors. Est-ce que t’as vu la moch’té qui (est) passée devant. P: La moch’té? T: Est-ce que t’as vu la personne moche, tu vois. P: Une charrue, c’est pas tout à fait ça, non. P: Ok, je vais te donner un indice parce que le m- le mot charrue on peut l’utiliser selon deux sens? As-tu vu la charrue passer, ça peut vouloir dire deux choses. T: Ben, ça m’a encore plue embrouillé. Merci hahaha As-tu vu la charrue passer? P: haha T: Ah! Est-ce que t’as vu, gen’ là.. gen’ une personne super belle passer. T’as vu la charrue qui est passée, gen’ la merveille. P: hahaha T: C’est ça? P: hahaha P: hahaha non, c’est pas ça haha tiens c’était ça ta troisième chance T: J’ai utilisé mon troi- P: Oui P: Désolé, tu n’ l’as pas eu, c’était ta troisième chance Ok, (je- je) T: Ben c’était quoi alors P: Ça veut dire gen’ chasse-neige, euh pour déblayer la neige l’hiver. La charrue passe dans la rue enl’ver la neige? T: Ouais… P: et le- l’autre façon de l’utiliser, ça peut êt’ (euh) de- comment dire. C’est un peu vulgaire? P: Une charrue c’est euh-
193 Une fille facile? T: Une pute? P: Peut-être qu- qui fait de l’argent: grâce à son corps T: j’ai perdu en plus, je me suis dit est-ce que- est-ce que je dis ou pas P: Mais on sait que toi tu es loin dans l’ fond du parler du chasse neige. T: Je parle du sa- du sa, du cha, du sa neige! P: hahahahaha Ok c’est la dernière expression. T: Alors la prochaine expression? C’est êtr’ assis sur sa casquette. P: Etr’ assis sur sa casquette? T: Ouais. P: hahaha Mais est-ce que c’est comme avoir, euh, la tête dans l’ cul? T: hahahaha P: hahahah reste avec nous Théo! Haha C’est pas ça. P: Non? Parce que ç’aurait marché? Tiens comme avoir une tête corps, tête, cul? T: oui P: fesses, assis, casquette. T: hahaha P: J’ai fait beaucoup trop de liens avec cette réponse-là. T: mhm P: et on demande à d’aut’ gens de mettre de l’argent dans la casquett[ə]? Ok, est-ce que ça veut dire être assis sur une fortune? T: Non. Pas du tout. Haha T: Il te reste qu’une! La seule et dernière. P: Mettons, eu:m P: que chuis vraiment paresseux chuis t’assis là, les bras croisés? J’ai pas envie d’ travailler? Là chuis t’assis sur ma casquette. T: Tu penses que c’est ça, c’est vo’ der- c’est ton dernier mot PL. P: ouais. Oui. T: C’est pas ça, woo-hoo! J’ai- gagné! J’ai- gagné woohoohoo! P: Ah Tu m’énerves! Chuis tellement mauvais perdeur là. T: Et voilà. P: euh. Qu’est-ce que ça veut dire? T: Et ben ça veut dire gêné, être mal à l’aise. P: Ah. T: Et voilà. P: I’ faut qu’ ch’ fasse mon défi, ah mon dieu là je vais tasser mes chats là j’ai peur de leur envoyer de la farine dessus. T: J’ai tellement hâte de voir ça. P: Ah je me rentre là, là au complet dans la bouche? T: Oui tant qu’à faire. P: haha T: Alors je compte jusqu’à trois. Un… deux trois P: Pa- pa- PA hahaha T: hahahaha hahaha P: Ah! T: hahaha P: Ah… Ah ha! T: hahaha P: Ah j’ vais êt’ malade T: hahaha P: Ah! T: Ah, c’était génial, c’était, mais, génial. P: haha T: Tu pleures? P: hahah T: oh, ému P: J’ai pas aimé ça hahaha T: Je pense que ça se voit, oui haha P: Eh, mais c’est vraiment fun de faire une vidéo avec toi, Théo. T: Mais oui, c’était trop bien. P: Bon! Mais si vous avez aimé ma vidéo, avec Théo? Vous donnerez un thumbs up allez vous abonner à sa chaîne? Je vais mettre tous les liens dans la barre d’infos? Et pis laissez-moi savoir? dans les commentaires? si vous connaissez d’aut’ s expressions québécoises euh- que je pourrais faire deviner à Théo la prochaine fois. T: Dites-le (en) commentaire, j’ai envie de me faire mon éducation sur les expressions québécoises. P: Bon! Parle-moi de ça à l’ouverture P: Ok, Théo, merci, bye. T: Mais donnez un bye! P: Bye haha salut.
Video 6: Cath: Salut tout le monde! J’espère que vous allez bien? Donc aujourd’hui je ( ) pour une vidéo qui est vraiment super spéciale? de toutes les vidéos que j’ai jamais fait avant? Et je suis avec Léa de la chaîne Léa Choue? et la particularité avec ça c’est qu’on est carrément euh d’un bout à l’autre de l’océan? parce que moi je suis au Québec et elle elle est en France? donc aujourd’hui on va tester de faire.. des expressions québécoises versus des expressions françaises? pour présenter un peu euh nos/les différences/euh de langage. ch’ pense que ça va être vraiment drôle et je vais vous laisser avec Léa pour qu’elle se présente un peu. Léa: Bonjour à tous du coup ben:: moi c’est Léa, je suis de Toulouse et on parle depuis un p’tit moment? On a décidé de faire cette vidéo en commun? Pour un peu confronter nos accents? et faire quelque chose d’un peu drôle? Et aussi pour en apprendre un peu plus sur les différents pays. Donc voilà j’espère que ça va vous plaire. Cath: Donc si c’est sur ma chaîne? C’est la deuxième vous voulez voir la première partie il faut aller voir sur la chaîne de Léa? (avant) (vous) cliquez juste ci ou juste là, ché pas encore où je vais la mettre dans l’écran? et vous irez? vous abonner à sa chaîne? également? Donc on va commencer tout d’ suite. Cath: Donc il va (y a)voir cinq expressions
194 québécoises et cinq expressions françaises. On va y aller chacune à/de tour et si jamais vous voyez que je (re)garde pas dans la caméra? c’est que je regarde l’écran parce qu’on est sur skype présentement? Donc je vais commencer tout d’ suite avec ma première phrase? que je vais écrire sur Skype pour que tu puisses nous la dire? Léa: OOH eh haha y a du monde à messe. C’est ça? Cath: Oui. Léa: Uh, c’est euh, est-ce que c’est comme nous? Il y (a) du monde au balcon? Cath: Non haha Léa: quand quelqu’un a des gros nichons? Cath: pas du toutLéa: haha Cath: hahaha Léa: Vous dites ‘y a du monde au balcon? Cath: Non, j’ai- ben j’ai déjà entendu ça? Mais nous on ne dit pas, on n’utilise pas du tout ici? Mais en fait il y a du monde?- (ça se prononce) ‘y a du monde à messe dans lsens ‘y a beaucoup de gens parce que: ‘y a plusieurs années d’ici ‘y avait vraiment beaucoup d’ personnes? qui étaient à l’église? (pis) nous pour dire l’église, on dit à la messe. Donc ‘y a du monde à messe. Léa: Oui. Cath: (y a) beaucoup de gens haha Léa: D’accord haha ché pas. J’ai tenté haha.. À moi! Cath: Je m’en cague. L: haha ouais. C: Est-ce que ça veut dire je m’en fous? L: Ouais. C: Peut-être? L: Yay:: haha haha Oh: haha Tu l’as trouvé trop facilement, celui-là. C: Mais- c’est- j’ai (fait un essai parce que je- m’en- L: Ouais. C: cague L: ouais ouais ouais C: peut-êt’ fous. Je sais pas. L: Ouais. C: Okay haha L: Et/eh t’as bien tenté/testé là C: Yay L: haha Yay haha À toi. C: Okay L: Oh haha dirait comme une insulte haha Pren’ une brosse … Alors, là? Oh zut, ‘fi- eum, prend’/prends une brosse euh: haha dans le sens, euh.. euh pas de quoi fessier C: Non, ben en fait c’est prendre une brosse pis en fait c’est une expression pour dire, euh qui est une personne a bu vraiment beaucoup d’alcool elle prend une brosse donc si je dis je m’en vais prendre une brosse? ça veut dire je m’en vais: prend’ beaucoup d’alcool. Je pense que c’est un peu: sens que vous euh je suis bourrée? Je pense? L: je b- ouais Prendre une cuite C: Ok, prendre une cuite, c’est ça. Voilà. L: haha C: haha L: Ah, c’est génial! (Ça) n’a pas à voir avec la brosse? Mais haha C: Moi non plus absolument pas mais: c’est c’ qu’on dit. L: haha C: haha L: Alors C: À ton tour C: Alors, Il est fatch ton boule. Ton boule? Je pense que c’est tes fesses? L: … ouais C: Ok, Il est fatch.. il est... bien? … L: Non haha C: Il est:: je sais pas. J’en ai aucune idée haha L: Ouais, fath c’est l’inverse, il est- il est- il est- il est pourri, quoi, ‘fin, il et laid fatch. C: Ok L: Ouais- c’est pas très gentil quand tu dis à une personne- ne C: Ok L: Vas-y t’es fatch? C’est- t’es- laisse tomber t’es nul(le) quoi. C: Ok haha L: haha C: Je sais pas pourquoi je pensais que c’était un: compliment. L: Ouais ah (non) Non, pourtant ouais. Non c’est vrai ouais. L: Avoir les deux yeux dans le même trou… Alors… euh ça m’ fait penser à un trou? Mais je pense pas que c’est ça j’ai deux- deux options. Soit la première c’est.. eum.. la personne d’avoir peur ‘fin moi je suis partie trop loin. La personne d’avoir peur que l’autre la trompe? Haha C: haha Ok non haha non pas du tout haha L: haha la deuxième c’est de: de de de pas avoir les choses en fait. C: Donc en fait avoir les yeux dans l’ même trou? Ça:/ça a strictement aucun rapport mais ça signifie euh être fatigué, avoir une mine endormie, donc quand quelqu’un va dire euh t’as les deux yeux dans l’ même trou? L: Ouais C: ou j’ai les deux yeux dans l’ même trou, c’est? j’ai mal dormi, chuis fatigué(e)? j’ai, l’air fatigué, euh je- je- j’ai pas une bonne mine c’ matin. L: Ah ouais, non ouais. Non mais c’est pas du tout ça haha C: Ça:/Ça a aucun rapport. L: haha j’avoue euh euh: alors du coup c’est à moi? L: Du coup je t’envoie euh: deux expressions euh ‘fin c’est les mêmes mais avec deux mots différents. C: Ok “C’est Tarbin Bon” ou “C’est gavé bon” C: C’est très bon? Haha L: Ouais. C: haha c’est excellent? L: Ouais gavé bon? Ça vient de Bordeaux… Et Tarpin- bon. Ça vient de Marseilles… mais c’est vrai que- C: Ok L: À Toulouse on utilise- euh- pas- c’est- celle qu’on utilise ‘fin- cette expression c’est qu’on utilise
195 quasiment pas à Toulouse en fait. Mais bon. C: Ok, non, pa- parce que nous ici on dit juste ça c’est très bon, ou c’est vraiment bon, ou… L: Ouais non. C: Comme j’ai dit tantôt euh dans: ta vidéo? C’est crissement bon? L: Ouais haha C: Ça peut être une option? haha L: Ouais (ouais) ouais non non non c’est- k- c’est- c’est- ché pas, nous, on, nous à Toulouse on dit c’est gave bon. À Bordeaux ils disent gavé et: voilà. (Bref) à chacun son p’tit truc? là hahaha C: Ok C: Oui haha voilà. L: Du coup c’est à toi Mettre la pédale au fond. C: haha L: euh… est-ce que ça veut dire être pressé C: … Ouais ça pourrait dire ça, en fait c’est quand tu es dans une voiture pis tu… mets la pédale au fond ça veut dire va vraiment vite. L: Ah oui ouais.. ouais voilà. C: Et ça pour- ça pourrait a été un synonyme d’être vraiment pressé. L: Ah oui ouais… ouais en fait ça ça… c’est cool aussi la phrase a un rapport avec le- C: C’est ça. L: haha la définition haha C: Ça fait plus- plus de sens que l’autre. L: Ouais haha que les yeux dans l’ même trou. C: Tu gères grave, ça m’es- plante Tu gères? Ça veut dire tu- tes choses vont bien? Ça fonctionne bien? Tu- L: Ouais. C: et je si- je sais pas trop comment l’expliquer là mais c’est surtout tu gères? L: Ouais C: Yay haha L: C’est ça. L: Gen’- m’espante? Je croyais que tout le monde l’utilisait et je crois qu’il y a que les gens du sud. Pour moi c’est un mot que j’utilise depuis petite? Et: je vois que c’était vraiment typique du Sud. hahaha C: Ok non parce que moi j’ai jamais entendu ça. Jamais jamais. Ça s’utilise pas du tout… (au)tant que (pour que) je sache là. L: ‘y en sort une couple de bonnes. Euh est-ce que c’est deux gens qui sont coincés? C: Non. Pas du tout. haha J’pense ça peut- ça peut avoir un rapport (selon le but) aussi? Mais en fait c’est- ‘y en sort une couple de bonnes c’est- quelqu’un dit a est bonne c’et plus dans l’ sens a est excellente: c’est drôle euh: c’est ça peut être utilisé dans l’ contexte d’une blague? Parce que je sais que vous en France être bonne? C’est assez péjoratif? L: Ouais. C: Ok c’est ça qu’on dit encore une couple de bonne? C’est une personne.. qui euh dit des blagues qu’ sont drôles ou qui sont.. euh qui ont encore aucun rapport avec qu’est-ce qu’il dit (enfin) on dit oh! ‘y en sort une couple de bonnes? C’est euh qui (est swag) qui est drôle ou que- ça:/ça a absolument aucun rapport à qu’est-ce qu’il dit haha L: Ah ouais non ouais non pp C: Aucun se- L: (voilà) haha Vous dites des trucs? Ça n’a aucun sens hahahaha ah ouais non haha et on apprend? On vous apprend beaucoup aujourd’hui quand même. C: Oui définitivement haha L: Oh à moi? Du coup? Euh la dernière qui est pour moi? Haha C: Alors enfin la dernière expression est oh un peu moins, je te déglingue C’est- je je je sais pas, attends euh: un peu- est- ce que c’est dans le sens que… moins vite, je te suis pas? ou, tu vas trop vite? Peut-être? L: Non. Non. En fait? un peu moins? ça veut dire une personne calme-toi, redescends euh genre euh (comme c’est quand) tu dis oh oh un peu moins? C: Ok L: Et euh… je te déglingu[ə], c’est euh, je te frappe? Et après ça peut être pris dans le sens euh péjoratif? euh une fille- un gars peut dire à une fille, ouais, euh, … fin, ouais t’es bonne et je te déglingue. ‘fin deux deux mots péjoratifs? Pour reprendre le mot bonne hh C: Okay Non, je n’ai jamais- L: Mais là c’est dans le sens de: voilà c’est dans l’ sens d’taper en fait. C: Ok L: Dans une embrouille quoi C: Je n’aurais jamais deviné ce mot hh Ben voilà c’est tout pour la vidéo? J’espère que vous avez apprécié si jamais vous voulez voir une autre vidéo avec Léa? vous pouvez nous le dire dans les commentaires. Et vous pouvez aussi aller voir sa chaîne pour voir qu’est-ce qu’elle fait vous pouvez cliquer euh peu importe où est-ce que je vais mettre la notation? dans les vidéos? haha je sais pas encore? Donc sur ça n’oubliez pas de vous abonner si c’est pas déjà fait? et de faire un thumbs up à la vidéo et nous on se reverra bientôt. Bye!
196 Video 7: Audrey: Salut, allô. Mais oui, si vous saviez pas là, les Québécois ils disent allô, ça veut dire bonjour. Vous allez deviner que cette vidéo ça restera tout en français? En espérant (que ceci) peut vous être utile pour comprendre vos- chers amis québécois. Premièrement, bon. C’est vrai que les Québécois mettent plein de tu inutiles dans la phrase. Ok, c’est p’être un peu vrai, mais i’ faut pas exagérer non plus. On fait ça à l’oral, pas à l’écrit? Pis pas dix tu dans la même phrase. Je vais donner un exemple. On pourrait dire tu veux-tu venir magasiner en fin d’semaine. Ça ça veut dire Veux-tu aller faire du shopping- en fin de semaine ou ce week-end. C’est simplement qu’on ajoute un tu de trop donc au lieu de dire, veux-tu on dit tu veux-tu. Voilà. C’est pas plus compliqué que ça. Un autre exemple et on pourrait dire t’aimes-tu la pizza au lieu de dire simplement aimes-tu la pizza? Ou est-ce que tu aimes la pizza. Tu comprends-tu là? Haha Deuxièment, les Québécois utilisent a à la place de elle, et i à la place de il. Oui, (m’) encore une fois, seulement à l’oral. Par exemple un Québécois dirait ch’ pense qu’a vient du Québec, ou ch’ pense qu’i vient du Québec. Ch’ pense qu’a vient Ch’ pense qu’a vient le a c’est comme dire elle vient? Et ch’ pense qu’i vient le i c’est comme dire il vient. Troisièment, les Québécois? font beaucoup d’abréviations et de déformations de mots. Quand même, je vais vous donner quelques exemples. C’est un peu comme si on voulait aller plus vite et qu’on écrasait certains mots ensemble? Par exemp’ au lieu de dire je suis, on va dire chu. Chu full content? Ça veut dire je suis vraiment content. Même chose pour je sais. Au lieu de dire je sais? La plupart (de ) va dire ché. Sinon, au lieu de dire tu sais? euh il y a des Québécois qui vont dire, tsais. Une autre abbréviation célébre est un peu plus étrange parce que ça semble vraiment pas à la vraie forme de ces mots-là? C’est de dire- meuh- au lieu de dire- je vais En contexte? pour que ça semble un peu plus clair? On pourrait dire- me dire quoi? pour dire, je vais te dire quelque chose. Le me remplace je vais. Demandez-moi pas pourquoi? Je sais pas même haha c’est… juste… comme ça? Encore une fois, c’est seulement à l’oral. Sinon, parfois pour euh, rend’ des mots? Un peu plus intense, pour leur donner un peu plus de punch? Il y a certains mots? qui peuvent un peu se transformer comme, euh, quand il fait vraiment froid? Euh: i’ y a des Québécois qui vont dire i fait frette. Un peu l’ même principe pour laid? (on) pourrait dire i’ est vraiment lette? Ça c’est comme? une déformation du mot laid. Il y aurait aussi droit que parfois certaines personnes disent drette au lieu de droit, ou icitte. Des fois certaines personnes disent icitte au- lieu- de- ici. Maintenant on va passer à la section: verbes. J’ai sélectionné quelques verbes utilisés par les Québécois? euh que- je- crois bien? que les Français ne connaissent pas- ou euh ou (ils) les connaissent, mais sous un sens différent? La plupart de ces verbes, on les utilise, encore une fois, seulement à l’oral? Mais ils ne sont pas nécessairement un français correct de- d’écrire. Ces verbes-là. Un des plus répandus est- pogner. Non non, vous avez vraiment bien entendu, c’est pas une poignée d’ porte, c’est vraiment un verbe, qui s’appelle pogner. Ça peut s’utiliser euh, sous plusieurs formes? Ça peut vouloir dire plusieurs choses. Ch’ pense qu’un des sens les plus connus? C’est euh- attraper ou, chopper. Donc on pourrait dire euh, j’ai pogné un virus? C’est j’ai attrapé un virus. Ça peut aussi vouloir dire attraper quelqu’un sur le fait, ou pincer. Par exemple, se faire pogner par la p(o)lice. y a aussi le verbe gosser. Ça aussi c’est quand même assez répandu? Euh, c’est- pas- très très euh- gentil? d’ dire ça, c’est pas très très en français correct encore une fois? Haha Ça veut dire généralement importuner ou emmerder quelqu’un? euh donc si je t’ dis, tu gosses? C’est pas très positif. Maintenant le verbe jaser. Il veut
197 simplement dire euh bavarder ou causer. Il y a aussi le verbe niaiser qui est aussi quand même très répandu? Ça peut vouloir dire euh quelques sens différents? Généralement, c’est plutôt se moquer d’ quelqu’un, rire de lui, ou euh: rigoler? Par exemple, si t’ dis quelque chose d’un peu méchant à tes amis, et que: c’est un blague, mais tu vas dire, ah, ch te niaisais ou ch te niaise, au lieu de dire, je rigole, par exemple. Un aut’ verbe c’est le verbe ostiner, c’est juste une déformation du verbe obstiner. Et ça veut surtout dire qu’on peut dire à quelqu’un (où) ce que (il (lui) est arrivé) de lui. Maintenant le verbe- revoler, mais on le dit euh plutôt r’voler. Ça veut dire quelque chose est proj’té ou quelque chose- jet’. Par exemple, l’eau a r’volé partout quand- je- faisais la vaisselle (mais) Maintenant le verbe sacrer? Oui ça a aussi le sens d’un peu religieux là comme quelque chose qui est sacré? Mais pour les Québécois ça veut aussi dire complètement aut’ chose? Et c’est-à-dire de dire des gros mots, ou de jurer. Mais les verbes sacrés peut’/peuvent aussi s’utiliser dans des expressions. Par exemp’ si quelqu’un dit je m’en sacre, ça veut dire je m’en fous. Il y a aussi l’expression sacrer cinq ans, ça veut dire se casser, (foutre ton camp) Il y a le verbe tripper? Qui veut dire- s’amuser, s’emballer. Ça soûler, je sais que les Français disent euh plutôt ça? Euh:: comment tu m’ soûles, donc, tu me fatigues, tu- tu m’énerves? Mais, nous ça ne veut pas haha vraiment dire ça haha ça veut plutôt dire, euh, boire beaucoup, et euh se rendre ivre. Quand les Québécois disent barrer la porte? Ça veut dire la verrouiller. Et finalement Atchoumer? Ça veut dire éternuer. Maintenant, on va passer à la partie vocabulaire? Donc j’ai sélectionné? une liste- de- plusieurs mots? utilisés par les Québécois? Si vous entendez un Québécois dire? C’t un adon euh un adon, ça? veut dire un hasard, donc euh- c’e’ un coup de veine, une chance, c’t un (adon/hasard). Sinon les Québécois, quand ils parlent de pizza, au lieu de dire une pizza toute garnie (a pas d’ sens/on parle de ça) c’est une pizza avec euh pepperoni, fromage et euh quelques légumes, comme poivrons, champignons, ch’ pense que c’est tout. Donc au lieu d’ dire- pizza- toute garnie. Souvent les Québécois vont dire, pizza all dress. Souvent c’est ( ) de dire- asteur. C’est comme de dire à cette heure, mais dit plus rapidement? Euh ça veut dire maintenant. Nous, au lieu de dire un aspirateur, on dit une balayeuse. Et, au lieu de dire du maïs, on appelle ça du blé d’inde. On a¿ une façon (u’) peu particulière d’appeler les p’tits copains et les p’tites copines. Donc au lieu de dire p’tit copain, on dit un chum, et au lieu de dire une p’tite copine, on dit une blonde. Ça peut? (peut-être) paraître un peu euh drôle si- vous avez jamais entendu ça, mais oui c’est vraiment comme ça qu’on appelle ça euh oui une blonde, ça peut être aussi une fille qui a les cheveux blonds mais ça dépend s’lon le contexte de la phrase, donc euh, par exemple, Max est le chum de Julie, et Julie est la blonde de Max. Le mot bobettes pour les Québécois, ça veut dire des sous-vêtements? Ou euh un slip. Les Québécois utilisent souvent le mot char et… oui.. vous trouverez/trouvez peut- être ça drôle mais non on n’utilise pas ça dans l’ sens, euh, d’une vieille charrette traînée par des chevaux. On utilise vraiment ça pour dire voiture haha voiture. Si vous (vous) faites cruiser par un Québécois ou une Québécoise, ça veut dire que vous êtes en train de vous faire draguer. Nous, au lieu de dire d’ la glace, on appelle ça de la- crème glacée. Les Québécois disent souvent c’est correct, c’ correct. Ben/enfin ça veut juste dire qui est en d’accord avec vous. Okay. Au Québec vous allez souvent voir des dépanneurs? et si vous savez pas c’ que ça veut dire, c’est un p’tit magasin ou on trouve euh tout plein d’ choses essentielles euh la vie quotidienne. Donc vous avez compris qu’un dépanneur, ça sert à dép’nner. Ahahaha Si dans un restaurant vous entendez un Québécois dire qu’il veut la facture, ça veut dire, simplement qu’il demande l’addition. Nous, on appelle ça, une facture. Pour les Québécois, une garderie c’est comme un jardin d’enfants.
198 Mett’ du gaz dans son char, c’est mettre de l’essence dans sa voiture. Soyez pas fâché si un Québécois veut pas vraiment voir vos gosses. Ça veut pas dire qu’il veut pas voir vos enfants. C’est simplement qu’une (pour nous) le mot gosse a- vraiment un aut’ sens. Ça veut plutôt dire- test’cule. Pour les Québécois, des gougounes, c’est des tongs, ou des sandales de plage. Qu’que chose de quétaine? C’est qu’que chose de kitsch, de vieux jours, de passé (d’) mode. Ici on dit s’arrêter à la lumière rouge? c’est la même chose- que- s’arrêter au feu rouge. On dit lumière au lieu de feu. Si vous vous faites- piquer par un maringouin, ça veut dire que vous (vous) faites piquer par un moustique. Pour les Québécois, des mitaines, c’est ça ici c’est- ch’ crois que vous appelez ça des moufles, les Français? Et une tuque c’es’ un bonnet pour l’hiver, donc euh… ça ici. Et, au Québec, l’hiver il fait full frette, fait que, on (en) a vraiment besoin. Avez-vous compris là haha Si un Québécois vous traite de niaiseux, c’est- pas très gentil? Ça veut dire que vous êtes stupide. Pour nous un party c’est une boum ou une fête. Et une fête c’est pas- une boum ou un party haha c’est un anniversaire. Ça c’est peut-êt’ un peu mélangeant j’avoue haha Donc euh, si c’est ma fête aujourd’hui, ça veut simplement dire que c’est mon anniversaire. Des bonnes patates pilées, c’est de la purée de pommes de terre. Et, la pâte à dents, c’est une dentifrice. Une patente, ça peu’ être à peu près n’importe quoi, c’est un truc, ou un machin. Une piasse, c’est un dollar canadien. Une poutine, si vous savez pas c’est quoi, et (que) vous avez jamais goûté, je vous plains. c’est un mets (t’piquement) québécois? C’est des frites, du fromage en grain? une sorte de fromage qu’on a ici, et de la sauce brune. Ça peu’ être là un peu d’goûtant dit comme ça, mais c’est vraiment bon. Une sacoche, pour les Québécois, c’est un sac-à-main. Les repas, on nomme ça un peu différemment des Français. Donc, le déjeuner c’est le premier repas, le repas du matin? le dîner, c’est le repas du midi, et le souper, c’est le repas du soir. Pour terminer, ch’ sais que les Français disent souvent du coup. C’est pas vraiment une expression qu’on utilise au Québec. Mais ch’ crois que l’équivalent pourrai’ êt’… dans l’fond. C’est tout pour la vidéo, j’espère que vous avez aimé, si vous avez des questions concernant euh- le Québec ou la- la langue, euh- française parlée au Québec, ou euh si vous aimeriez une deuxième partie avec d’aut’ choses que j’ai pas nommées dans cette v’déo-là, parce qu’il reste encore beaucoup d’ vocabulaire, beaucoup d’expressions, j’ai pas parlé des jurons non plus et c’est quand même un élément assez important haha du français québécois? Donc euh si vous aimeriez une deuxième partie, (n’hésitez) pas pour me demander dans les commentaires et faites un p’tit thumbs up si vous avez aimé ça, partagez avec vos amis et merci beaucoup d’avoir regardé, bye bye
Video 8: Lysandre: Regardez qui c’est qui est là! Emy: haha c’est moi! Haha L: haha as compris ça? L: Parce que E: haha L: et on est vraiment pas sorties du bois? E: haha E: Pas sorties de l’auberge L: Ben ça. Ça va être ça aujourd’hui L: On va se raconter nos- nos expressions E: On va essayer de se comprendre. Ça va être- euh- simple. L: Tu comprends (mon) à Montréal? C’est pas si pire? E: Elle fait exprès!=depuis (quelque) haha L: haha même pas! même pas haha J’ai vraiment un accent très fort, okay, je vais E: Oui L: me forcer. E: Euh déjà que j’ai du mal ave(c) les gens qui parlent français L: haha E: T’imagines? Toi qui parles trop vite (et) avec ton accent c’est compliqué! L: On va haha tout d’suite on va se lancer dans les expressions?- E: Allez ouais ouais ouais/ Tu commences ou je
199 commence? L: Je vais y aller.. déjà que- tu comprends pas c’que je dis E: haha Non mais là je comprends E: Je me réveille, il est tôt ici? Euh: L: Euh (ou) tôt E: Il est onze heures? Haha L: haha justement. Ça ça va être ma première expression E: (It was) L: Hier? J’ai viré une brosse. E: Hier j’ai viré une brosse. L: Ouais. E: Une brosse. Ok, attends. Hier j’ai viré une brosse. Qu’est-ce que ça peut être ce truc. Est-ce que ça a rapport avec une soirée. L: Oui. E: D’accord. Tu t’es pris une cuite. L: Oui. Exactement! E: Attends, répète-toi? L: Virer une brosse. E: Virer une brosse! L: Ça veut dire que tu es saoul E: Mais ça (n’)a aucun lien avec l’alcool L: Ben… non E: Avoir une cuite, c’est logique haha Dis comment pour le matin c’est gueule de bois L: Moi j’dis hangover E: Ah so you’re so American Oh my God L: haha Oh I’m so American E: You’re so hangover. Okay. L: haha E: ou moi je dis avoir- j’ai la tête dans l’cul? L: Ah! Ouais. E: Oui? Aussi? L: A toi. E: Allez L: T’es prête E: T’es prête? L: uh E: Okay L: à faire un testament français E: Beaucoup euh Moi euh la personne d’Emy LTR et vous êtes au courant que- euh je parle beaucoup comme dans la street? N’est-ce pas (lower, facing Q) pour l’accent parce que— because I L: haha E: In Montréal, so, I speak English L: haha E: Donc, je t’ai pris des expressions un peu—thug life. L: Okay. E: Okay? L: Okay, chuis dans- E: Si je t’ dis J’ai le seum L: Ah man! J’ai entendu ça souvent. E: C’est vrai? L: Parce que quand j’écoute quand même des vidéos de- des Français? E: D’accord L: Donc, j’ai le seum, si ça voudrait dire ch- chuis tannée? Euh- euh- ben je- je- E: haha L: haha E: Elle répond par une expression… que je comprends pas! Haha L: haha Tu es épuisée? Chuis euh E: Non T’t à l’heure tu m’as dit c’est relou. L: C’est relou, c’est E: C’est pas, c’est- L: C’est chiant. J’ai le seum, c’est je trouve ça chiant? E: Non, c’est, j’ai le seum c’est, je suis énervée en fait. L: Ah chuis énervée, okay E: Ah, j’ai le seum, chuis chuis vénère. Vénère? Énervée? L: Okay, okay, c’est bon, okay E: Chuis vénère, j’ai le seum d’ouf. L: Ah HAHA E: Alors, tu as compris là? L: haha truc de Ouf? Est-ce que c’est du verlan déjà? C’est fou mais c’est ouf? E: C’est fou en verlan. C’est ça. Truc de ouf. Et ouais. L: Oh man. Chuis très loin d’être française. E: Non mais je t’prépare pour quand tu vas venir L: Ah oui okay, c’est bon haha E: haha par exemple… avec tout le monde L: Moi, je trouve que c’est beaucoup plus facile de trouver des expressions. Ça va mal à la shop. E: Ça va mal à? L: à la shop. E: à la shop. L: Mettons… ça va mal à la shop. E: Ça va mal à la shop pff haha L: haha E: C’est un seul mot, ton truc en fait, on dirait que c’est une phrase complète, c’est un seul bloc. Ça va mal à la shop. L: Ça va mal à la shop. E: Je le dis bien? L: Ça va- c’est parfait E: okay ça va mal à la shop Eh eh j’ai passé une sale journée. L: Euh.. non, c’est par rapport à que’que chose. E: D’accord. Ça va mal à la shop. L: Ouais. E: Donne-moi un indice. L: okay mettons.. parce que ch’peux pas donner un indice. Comment? Comment? E: Elle m’aide pas. Elle veut pas m’aider. C’est de la triche. Elle va gagner parce qu’elle ne m’aide pas L: haha c’est- je sais pas comment t’expliquer c’est (un- type) d’expression E: ça va mal à la shop. En fait le- le mot shop c’est un mot ça shop. L: Ouais S- H- O- P mais c’est un mot anglais E: comme un shop? comme un shop. L: Ouais E: Comme… t’as pas trouvé c’que tu voulais quand tu es partie faire du shopping hier haha L: haha E: Rien à voir! L: Rien à voir haha haha ça va mal à la shop c’est c’est quelque chose qui fonctionne pas, mettons euh mettons qui est pas capable de faire quelque chose ça va mal à la
200 shop. Mettons ça? comme ça (un style on dirait?) E: Okay. Ça marche pas. L: mal à la shop E: Rien à voir les deux phrases. L: Euh ben rien à voir. E: C’est trop drôle ça va mal à la shop. L: Truc de ouf E: Ah! L: Ah! E: Attends L: So French E: You’re so French L: Oh my God I’m so French E: Oh my God, I was like, uh L: haha E: Okay. Ah oui celle-là j’aime bien. L: Okay. E: C’est pas du tout (de) la street (ou pas). L: Okay E: C’est une expression courante. Avoir un poil dans la main.hahahahahahaha L: Okay- ça- truc de ouf, j’avais entendu, p’tout ça j’avais un poil dans la main? E: Ouais L: Ben apparemment ça serait comme avoir euh E: Pense à pourquoi t’aurais un poil dans la main. L: Ben parce que mon Dieu E: hahaha hahahahahaha L: Oh mon Dieu, j’ai aucune idée! Oh E: Ah L: Oh j’ai tellement j’ai oublié E: Ça va mal à la shop là, hein? Eh ouais! L: haha Ça va mal à la shop en crisse. avoir un poil dans l’main E: Non je t’aide plus moi tu arrêtes pas d’ gagner parce que tu ne m’aides pas alors je t’aide plus. L: haha man E: euh on- on dit ça pour des gens qui font pas grand chose. L: Ah ouais? E: Si t’es fainéant en gros? T’as un poil dans la main. Ça veut dire que tu utilises pas tes mains? Donc- le poil a le temps de pousser quoi. Parce que t’es feignant hein? L: C’est ça? Oh moi j’étais j’étais- comme euh euh J’ai mal à quelque part? J’ai genre j’avais aucune- E: C’est une phrase de feignant. Si t’es feignant donc t’as un poil dans la main voilà. L: Oh ben j’ai-cl[a]rement (un) poil dans la main c’matin? J’ai oublié ma caméra? Pis on est obligé d’faire un emprunt. E: haha (ah ton) il est bien ton emprunt-là. L: Ah (chuis..) E: Je voyais bien les emprunts que moi je fais- c’est pas ça donc-euh L: haha J’emprunte à la fac cet emprunt- régulièrement. J’ai un poil dans la main. Ou.. on parle des aut’? Donc tu peux-tu le dire par rapport à soi E: Oui, j’ai un poil dans la main tu peux (dire ça). L: Ça veut dire je me pogne le cul E: Ouais mais il vaut mieux pas que tu le dises haha mais oui. L: haha Est-ce que tu dis ça, je m’pogne le cul. C’est que’que chose? E: No haha L: haha E: Qu’est-ce-que c’est que ça? L: Je me pogne le cul. E: Je me pogne? L: Je me pogne? C’est genre… Je me pogne c’est C’est- E: Tu te tiens- les fesses. L: Ouais (sur les mains?) E: Mais pourquoi tu ferais ça. L: Ça veut dire je m- ch’fais rien. E: Ah! L: Donc- E: Okay. D’accord. Haha L: ha voilà. E: haha faire ceci c’est génial haha L: Tire-toi une bûche. E: Quoi? L: Tire- toi E: Tire-toi une bûche. L: Ouais. E: Euh c’est- bois/boire un coup? L: Non. E: Tire une bûche? Euh mange un truc. L: Non. E: C’est un truc sur tes rots c’est ça. C’est un truc malsain- haha Je vois haha L: Non même pas haha E: Tire-toi une bûche. Il va couper du bois? L:Non plus- Euh prends-toi une chaise. Comme vient t’asseoir avec nous. E: Mais quel rapport. Quel rapport L: hahaha E: Parce qu’elle est en bois? et toutes les choses sont en bois au Canada, alors. L: Mettons comme dans- le feu-là tu te mets gen’ dans les bûches pis tu fais griller. E: Tu m’as perdu dès l'début de ta phrase haha Dis- moi L: Je ne peux pas parler français. E: haha Non mais t’as utilisé un mot que je connais pas? Le premier? que t’as appellé? L: Euh.. mettons un [føʏ̯ ] euh un feu..euh euh E: et c’est quoi ça [føʏ̯ ]? Ah, [fø]! feu! Haha L: un feu, un feu, un feu hahahahahaha E: Un [føʏ̯ ] Eh tu t’ tires une bûche (dans ton) feu. =haha L: hahaha On dirait que tu parles- parles anglais quand tu- tu essaies de faire E: Je sais pas. J’essaie. Je teste Et quand tu dis, boire un coup, viens boire un coup, genre… L: Euh viens t’ soû- viens t’ soûler haha ? haha E: Viens quoi? L: Viens te soûler. E: Viens? Ah oui viens t’ soûler carrément. L: Ouais viens t’ soûler E: Donc tu passes pas par quelque chose c’est direct viens te soûler. L: Non E: Nous c’est viens boire un verre L: Ouais E: Prends l’apéro. Toi c’est viens te torcher avec moi? Parfait. L: hahahaha Viens te torcher! E: Vous êtes familiers vous les Québécois E: j’adore ça. Ah ouais. tiens/tu vois Une simple! Enfin-
201 quoique- haha (ben/simple) haha Avoir d’la veine. L: Euh ça je pen- euh c’est c’est pas euh être- découragé? =t’as pas le goût de faire quelque chose? E: Pas du tout L: Non? E: Non. L: A- avoir de la veine? E: Ouais. L: (Ah non?) E: Non. L: Ah ch’ pense- oh- êt’ veinarde c’est- E: Oui L: une chance E: Oui ouais. L: Oui? E: Bah oui. Vous êtes j’ai même pas aidé ouais Je sais pas d’où ça vient. L: Ouais dans le fond E: Je sais pas pourquoi on dit ça L: Chuis trop veinarde. Est-ce que c’est bon? Haha E: Je suis trop veinarde… Ouais c’est bon c’est bien ça T’as fait une forme typique de chuis vénère et chuis veinarde en même temps (c’est très bien) c’est très )L: Okay, chuis clairement pas française? E: Chuis clairement pas québécois tu sais mais c’est pas grave. m’ on apprend on- on échange des trucs L: nja oui Êt’ de bonheur sur le piton. E: Êt’ de bonheur sur le piton? L: Ouais. E: Un python c’est un serpent? L: haha okay. E: Pour moi un python c’est un serpent? Ça veut dire que t’es à l’heure quelque part? t’es ponctuel? L: Non. E: Être de bonheur sur L: ch’fais un rot de café. Pardon. E: T’t à moi j’ai- et j’ai fait t’t à l’heure aussi c’est- L: haha E: Mais retournons à notre état d’ glamour! Eum- L: T’es… quand même vers une bonne piste. E: Ah oui? C’est bon-c’est vers là? L: Ouais E: Rendez-vous? L: Non… C’est comme- ce matin on est de bonheur sur le piton. E: Oh c’est s’lever pour venir faire une vidéo C’est ça que ça veut dire. L: Euh c’- c’est exactement ça. Voilà à chaque fois. E: C’est ça que ça veut dire. L: C’est que tu t’lèves tôt. C’- êt d’bonheur, c’est- t’arrives tôt à qu’que part, c’est-c’est qu’que chose E: Oh! Okay. L: qui se passe tôt. T’es de bonheur sur le piton à mati:n! Haha E: haha t’es- fin- c’est- en plus c’est trop mignon comment ça s’ dit! =Genre c’est trop… t’as- t’as envie de t’ lever toutes les- tous- tous les matins sur le piton! L: haha E: haha voilà! L: Non. E: Tu/je ne comprends rien! Vite! Haha L: Spogu[ə] Donc. C’que je disais? Euh merci à Emy d’avoir été avec nous? (so) E: Mais merci à toi de m’avoir invitée, chuis trop contente. L: Ben écoute c’est tout mon plaisir! E: C’est tout ton plaisir? =Ben moi aussi c’est tout mon plaisir. L: haha tu sonnais comme Céline Dion! Haha! Okay haha E: Ah! Céline haha. Merci Céline. Merci de m’avoir accueillie dans ton beau pays, Céline. L: haha E: Je t’aime Mwah! Salut. L: Full love E: Full love L: Mwa- ah- allez voir sur sa chaîne YouTube le vlog qu’on va faire ensemble. Parce qu’ensemble E: Manger des bagels. Ça va êt’ cool. L: C’est ça E: Salut L: Bye!
Video 9: Solange: Le lieu commun qui revient le plus souvent lorsqu’on compare le français- de France au français parlé au Québec? C’est- Ben les Français là ils utilisent pas les anglicismes. Les Québécois ils ont un cœur de parler français ils traduisent tout. La périlleuse question des anglicismes. Qui en utilise vraiment le plus. Je ne me ferai que des amis, mais à mon humble avis, les Québécois recourent davantage et malgré eux à l’anglais, que les Français. C’est mon instinct qui parle? Mais pour les départager, de manière quasi-scientifique j’ai choisi de regarder devant vos yeux? un film québécois, et son remake français. Oh là déjà j’ai perdu un point pour moi? Comment vous dites les Québécois? remake? Sa reprise. Starbuck versus- Fonzy Euh j’ai peur de:: ça? Mais il faut ce qu’il faut pour la science. Je vais scrupuleusement accompagnée de mon ami Robert noter les points de part et d’autre? Et débriefer? en votre compagnie? juste après. Starbuck? film québécois sorti en juillet 2011, un an plus tard en France, réalisé par Ken Scott avec Patrick Huard Okay? Euh, je fais une petite pause et je regarde le prochain? Fonzy, film français d’Isabelle Doval sortie en 2013 avec José Garcia. Je crains le pire. h- h- h- c’est pour la bonne cause on y va. Nous sommes le jour d’après. Il m’aurait fallu… au moins… seize
202 heures? pour me remettre de cette merde intergalactique? qu’est Fonzy? Je te défends formellement, de consacrer une heure quarante de ta vie à ce film. Ne le fais pas. Ne- le- faites- jamais. Je m’étais un petit peu ennuyée à voir Starbuck pour la deuxième fois. Mais quel film formidable, lorsqu’on doit s’enfiler son remake français. Je me suis rendu compte de la puissance de la réalisation, de la direction artistique, du dialogue, du jeu d’acteurs. Des costumes, du casting des Québécois. Résultats des courses? L’anglicisme est bel et bien présent dans le paysage québécois. Alors. Dans Starbuck, nous avons- Fl[æ]sher qui permet de se parker, pas [paʀke], hein [parke]. J’ai mis mon [flæʃəʳ]. Autrement appelé clignotant? ici en France? Alors pas d’chance? C’est assez connu? Tous les vocabulaires entourant la voiture est très très très anglicisé. A un moment, le personnage principal il est à la banque. Il dit au banquier ah oui c’est un pawnshop ici, un pawnshop. Un mont de piété. Un prêteur sur gages. Voilà. Fancy? Les Québécois parfois le Y de l’anglais? Finit on é comme au lieu de dire sexy ils vont dire sexé. Donc au lieu d’ dire fancy ils vont dire fancé. Ils parlent des meubles fancés des meubles: fancés? Un peu.. tape-à-l’œil, sophistiqué? Eum Fantaisiste. Quand c’est écrit anglicisme dans l’ dictionnaire mais que c’est dans l’ dictionnaire, est-ce que je le compte comme un anglicisme je sais pas. Ah allez je vous laisse. Le hold-up euh je vous laisse. Let’s go une histoire de football, de soccer? dans l’ film donc euh let’s go? C’est la formule d’encouragement. Là où les Français vont dire allez. Les Français gagnent, je suis désolée les Français utilisent un mot français? Les Français disent allez. Les Québécois disent let’s go. Ou? Come on. Come on. Donne-moi un break. C’est clairement décalqué de l’américain. Gimme a break. Donne-moi un break. Comment diraient les Français ils diraient.. Fous-moi la paix? Fous-moi la paix. Des scratch. Le personnage principal prête un camion pis il dit tu me la ramène avec pas d’ scratch. Enfin des égratignures des rayures. Fly[ə]. Pour dire à quelqu’un euh disparais que tu ne veux plus voir ou vas t’en avant que ça.. tourne mal[ə], dire fly[ə] La fly c’est aussi la braguette chez les Québécois. Donc c’est pas utilisé dans Starbuck mais au passage? Remonte ta fly ou ferme ta fly[ə]. t’as la fly ouvert(e)? Au Québec on dit la job une job Et en France c’est un job y a des drôles de: masculin féminin comme ça. Dans le Petit Robert? Job est masculin. Bon c’est dans l’ dictionnaire c’est écrit anglicisme et bon je le- je le compte pas. À un moment la fille elle dit:, sloguer? J’ai envie de le sloguer. Je n’ai jamais entendu ça. Ça va faire onze ans, que chuis partie du Québec? Donc euh la langue évolue c’est ça qui est assez fascinant. Hehehe. C’est drôle ça. Ça vient d’un terme du cricket. Slogue frapper fort. Mais c’est bel et bien un anglicisme hein eum Sloguant? Sloup. Désolée ce n’est pas dans le Petit Robert, J’ai appris un mot. Focusser? Focusser. Ch’ trouve ça tellement beau comme verbe. Focusser? Pour se concentrer. Focusse. Est-ce que c’est dans le dictionnaire, ch’ crois pas hein Clean. Il avait l’air clean. Quelqu’un d’ confiance? Propre sur lui, bien habillé, il avait l’air clean? C’est beau, c’est très beau, mais c’est un anglicisme Ch’ fais d’ la business. Et là pareil. A mon avis? On dit un business. Et pas une business. Alors il est aussi dans Fonzy ce mot-là? Donc je sais pas, je l’annule. E:t je l’annule. Anyway [ɛ]n[ə]way chuis pas responsable. [ɛ]n[ə]way. De toute façon anywa::y? alors là bien sûr bienvenue dans l’anglicisme total? Alors cool, il était aussi dans Fonzy donc je l’annule, bon cool. Cool ça va quoi. Cute? Désolée. Cute, hein anglicisme hein Gang. La gang. Là où- en France- un gang. C’est tout d’suite la drogue, les armes, Le gang, euh C’est les malfaiteurs. Forcément. Au Québec la gang la gang, la bande Ah::. Ah c’est rigolo. C’est écrit- bande clan? Sens vivant au Québec sous la forme gang. Repris au vingtième siècle du mot anglais équipe. Si ça s’trouve le mot anglais vient d’un mot français. Je vous laisse celui-là. Amis québécois. Gang.
203 Bon. La game, la game, ch’ peux pas, euh j’ai pas le choix. Donc la game, la partie quoi. Ou t’es pas game. C’est une autre expression aussi québécoise qui n’est pas dans le film mais- t’es pas game, c’est t’es pas cap. Le fun? Alors j’en ai déjà parlé hein. Fucker c’est un anglicisme. fucké. I était toute fucké, j’ai fucké, j’ai emmerdé. Au Québec c’est fuck? C’est comme fun. Fun, c’est un o, comme le téléphone? Et fuck, c’est un o comme- le foc, l’animal. Fucker? Tu l’as fucké, ma radio est fuckée..est: morte, elle marche plus? Quelqu’un d’ fucké c’est quelqu’un qui est bizarre, qui va pas bien:: dans sa tête? y en a pour qui Solange a est fuckée. Solange est fuckée. T’es comme perdu, et bizarre. Tough, mais alors tough, bonjour bonjour? C’est tough. C’est dure, c’est difficile. C’est tough. C’est (une) traduction littérale de l’anglais. Alors t’es weird Solange, Solange, elle est weird aussi, elle est bizarre, c’est weird. Et le fait de le dire en anglais, augmente la singularité, l’étrangeté? Le dernier (qu’) j’avais mis? Freakant. C’est freakant. Freak. Qui vient de monstre, monstrueux, C’est freakant, ça. Ça m’fait peur. Mais- si j’ai fait tout ça- c’est pas du tout pour pointer du doigt les Québécois et leur dire ah vous voyez vous parlez mal, vous utilisez euh de l’anglais, et euh Pas du tout. Chuis pas du tout anti-anglicisme en fait. Moi je trouve au contraire que le québécois est une langue vivante? qui se panache et s’hybride au contact euh du bilinguisme environnant? et euh ça me touche vraiment. Ça m’émeut? Je ferai p’t-être une autre vidéo sur les rappeurs québécois qui utilisent le franglais mais d’une manière virtuose au possible. Et qui moi. Me fait monter les larmes aux yeux parce que ça me rappelle mon enfance, où j’étais entourée d’enfants d’immigrés- qui parlaient- euh le français l’anglais mélangé à leurs langues maternelles, et où- on s’ comprenait comme ça, et où- quand on utilisait un mot en anglais- ça avait un sens? Et quand j’entendais- des anglophones parler anglais et utiliser un mot français? Ç’avait aussi un sens? Donc je suis pas du tout euh euh là avec mon doigt accusateur vers le Québec, par contre c’qui m’énerve, c’est que les Québécois pensent que les Français utilisent plus d’anglicisme qu’eux c’ qui est, selon moi, et d’après ce petit test très arbitraire, faux. C’est faux. Bien sûr- il y a des mots, qui font rigoler les Québécois? Comme Parking? Pressing? Casting? Qui est finalement le seul anglicisme utilisé dans Fonzy, c’est casting là où dans la version française dans Starbuck il dit audition? Il a bien raison de dire audition? Mais en France on dit casting? Les Français ont aussi tendance à penser? que les Québécois luttent, et se battent pour tout traduire, ce qui est vrai? Mais- à l’écrit? Et eum dans la langue officielle, des documents? Et de l’affichage. Où vous aurez droit à tous ces néologismes comme courriel, clavardage, Baladodiffusion. Tout ce lexique spécifique, qui naît de l’anglais et dont le Québec se dit non je peux pas prendre des mots de l’anglais il faut que j’en invente un mot à moi Mais euh le Québécois? Euh de tous les jours, dans son quotidien? I:: sa langue elle est hybride, y a de l’anglais dedans, et on va pas le nier. Ok le score final? Vingt-quatre à un Ouais. Conclusion? C’est pas pour rien que ça a marché Starbuck. Il fallait pas s’aventurer à le refaire. C’était une très mauvaise idée. Thumbs up le Québec.
Video 10: Anaïs: Salut! Bienvenue sur ma chaîne, Allô Anaïs. Donc j’espère que vous allez bien aujourd’hui parce que je vous présente Marie Michelle Marie Michelle: Salut haha A: C’est: hh avec elle que j’ai fait la vidéo d’aujourd’hui? Donc M: On va vous présenter une vidéo? Qui parle de? A: différences- entre? M: les Québécois? A: et les Français hehe hehehe M: Donc à tout d’ suite! A: Yay! Hehe Writing: “TRAVERSER LA RUE” ;“EN FRANCE…” VO: Le festival. vous voyez quand on
204 parle de construction au Québec ben c’est ça. le cône. Les cônes Writing: “ET QUAND LE BONHOMME DEVIENT VERT”; “LA PONCTUALITÉ” A: Allô Marie Michelle? Oui ça va, Writing: “UNE QUÉBÉCOISE DONNE RDV À UNE FRANÇAISE” A: Oui oui merci oui. Oui. Et euh je me demandais est-ce que tu viens toujours euh à cinq heures? Writing: “16h50” A: Ouais on se rencontre toujours à cinq heures? Okay. Pas d’ problème. Ça marche. A tout. Ciao. Writing: “17h00”; “QUAND C’EST L’iNVERSE, C’EST QUELQUE PEU DiFFÉRENT…”; “ON SaiT SE FaiRE DÉSiRER…”; “17h01”; “17h15”; “17h45 !!!!!!!”; “DANS UN CAFÉ”; “UNE FRANÇAiSE AU QUÉBEC…” M: Veux-tu un refill? Writing: “UNE QUÉBÉCOiSE EN FRANCE…” A: Bonjour Mademoiselle! Voulez-vous un autr’ café? Writing “DiRE BONJOUR”; “QUAND UN FRANÇAiS RENCONTRE UN QUÉBÉCOIS” M: Allô! A: Salut M: Salut Anaïs euh A: eh hehehe Writing: “MALAiSE !”; “EN FRANCE…” A: Salut M: Hey, Salut! Est-ce que chuis bien chez Amandine? A: Oui! C’est ça, comment ça va? M: Hey! Salut! Yay! A: Allez, viens! M:Woo-hoo! A: hmhmhm Writing: LES SOiRÉES”; “EN FRANCE…”; “AU QUÉBEC”; “AU RESTO” A: Voilà avec vos frites Writing: “En France…” A: c’est mayo, ou ketchup. Qu’est-ce que vous voulez? Ah non les deux, c’est pas possible hein. C’est mayo ou ketchup. Et je vous l’ai déjà dit hein. Bon mayo ben très bien mayo. M: Moi je veux juste du ketchup. Bon ben avec vos œufs est-ce que vous voulez Writing: “AU QUÉBEC…” M: des rôties, du pain brun, du pain blanc, des croissants, du pain multigrain, du pain brioché, du pain aux oignons caramélisés? A: Euh vous pouvez répéter? Ch’ai pas compris. M: Bon ben avec vos œufs est-ce que vous voulez des rôties du pain brun du pain blanc des croissants du pain multigrain du pain brioché, du pain aux oignons caramélisés? A: Ah oui alors euh du euh ben du pain blanc? Writing: “PRENDRE LE BUS”; “EN FRANCE…”; “AU QUÉBEC…” M: Si vous avez kiffé la vidéo? A: Ou si t’as trouvé ça écoeurant? M: Vous avez juste à vous abonner à la chaîne d’Anaïs A: Exactement, donc on se retrouve dimanche prochain. Ciao VO: Tu vois le bouton rond avec ma photo? Tu peux cliquer dessus depuis ton ordinateur ou ton téléphone, et et ça fait un truc super cool. Vas-y clique avec ta souris (avec un doigt) Voilà. Sympa non? Beaucoup plus simp’ pour t’abonner Writing: “NOUVELLE VIDÉO À CHAQUE DIMANCHE”
205 APPENDIX C: SAMPLE TRANSITIVITY ANALYSIS Théo’s speech from V4 Théo: c’est Théo relational: identifying C’ est Théo
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: j’espère que vous allez bien mental: desiderative || [projection] material
j’ espère que vous allez bien
Senser Pr: mental Actor Pr: material
Théo: Parce qu’en tout cas moi, ça va [circumstantial clause] material Parce qu’en tout cas moi ça va
Circ: reason Actor Pr: material
Théo: Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale relational: attributive Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale
Circ: time Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Circ: place
Théo: parce que je suis avec relational: attributive: circumstantial: accompaniment parce que je suis avec (PL Cloutier finishes with “PL Cloutier”)
Circ: reason Carrier Pr: rel: attr Circ: accompaniment
Théo: Qui est un YouTuber.. euh.. francophone? relational: attributive Qui est un YouTuber francophone
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
206
Théo: Mais il est au Québec relational: attributive Mais il est au Québec
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Circ: place
Théo: il est… T’es où d’ailleurs relational: attributive T’ es où d’ailleurs
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Circ: place
Théo: je suis dans mon bureau. relational: attributive je suis dans mon bureau
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/Circ: place
Théo: parce qu’aujourd’hui on va parler de sérieux. verbal parce qu’ aujourd’hui on va parler
Circ: reason Circ: time Sayer Pr: verbal
Théo: On va parler des expressions, verbal On va parler des expressions
Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Théo: parce que.. comme vous savez Pr: mental: cognitive parce que comme vous savez
Circ: reason Circ: manner Senser Pr: mental
Théo: c’qui est logique Pr: relational: attributive ce qui est logique 207 Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: et je mettrai aussi la chaîne de PL en barre d’infos, material Je mettrai aussi la chaîne de PL en barre d’infos
Actor Pr: material Scope Circ: place
Théo: la barre d’infos c’est un peu: le sac à dos d’ tout le monde donc haha relational: identifying la barre d’infos c’ est un peu le sac à dos d’ tout le monde
Token Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: si tu as, euh, le moins de bonnes réponses, relational: attributive: possession si tu as le moins de bonnes réponses
Possessor Pr: rel: attr: poss Possessed
Théo: tu devras chanter une chanson de Stromae behavioral tu devras chanter une chanson de Stromae
Behaver Pr: behavioral Behavior
Théo: tu devras chanter Papaoutai avec de la farine dans ta bouche. tu devras chanter Papaoutai avec de la farine dans ta bouche
Behaver Pr: behavioral Behavior Circ: condition
Théo: Moi, je pense qu’ une bécosse, c’est une vache. mental: cognitive || [projection] relational: identifying moi je pense qu’ une bécosse c’ est une vache
Pr: Senser Token Token Pr: rel: ident Value mental
Théo: c’est, c’est une bière relational: identifying 208 c’ est une bière
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: c’est ça? relational: identifying c’ est ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: Attends material Attends
Pr: material
Théo: j’essaie d’ deviner mental: cognitive j’ essaie d’ deviner
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: j’ai une dernière chance, relational: attributive: possession j’ ai une dernière chance
Possessor Pr: attr: poss Possessed
Théo: j’ai trois chances. relational: attributive: possession j’ ai trois chances
Possessor Pr: attr: poss Possessed
Théo: Alors, l’expression française que tu dois deviner c’est avoir le cul bordé d’ nouilles. relational: identifying l’expression française que tu dois avoir le cul bordé Alors c’ est deviner d’ nouilles
Token Token Pr: rel: ident Value 209
[embedded clause] mental: cognitive que tu dois deviner
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: Oui, c’est ça. relational: identifying Oui c’ est ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: J’pense que ça a à voir avec les chats. mental: cognitive || [projection] relational: attributive: possession J’ pense que ça a à voir avec les chats
Senser Pr: mental Possessor pr: rel: attr: poss Possessed
Théo: Donc j’pense que ça veut dire… brosser le chat dans l’ sens du poil. mental: cognitive || [projection] relational: identifying brosser le chat dans l’ sens Donc j’ pense que ça veut dire du poil
Senser Pr: mental Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: J’ai pas encore une petite chance? relational: attributive: possession J’ ai pas encore une petite chance
Possessor Pr: rel: attr: poss Circ: time Possessed
Théo: Chuis tellement content? relational: attributive Ch uis tellement content
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: J’aime l’Amérique mental: emotive
210 J’ aime l’Amérique
Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon
Théo: je vous embrasse material Je vous embrasse
Actor Scope/Target Pr: material
Théo: la deuxième expression que je vais te donner material La deuxième que je vais te donner expression
Scope Actor Pr: material…. Recepient …Pr: material
Théo: ça va êtr’- être au taquet. relational: identifying Ça va être être au taquet
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: Ça va. material Ça va
Actor Pr: material
Théo: je pense que tous les Français qui regarderont vont savoir ce que ça veut dire? mental: cognitive || [projection] mental: cognitive || [projection] relational: identifying tous les Français qui ce que ça veut je pense que vont savoir regarderont dire
Pr: Senser Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon mental
[embedded] behavioral qui regarderont
211 Pr: behavioral
[projected clause] relational: identifying ce que ça veut dire
Value Token Pr: rel: ident
Théo: C’est [sy]rtain relational: attributive C’ est certain
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: tout le monde connaît. mental: cognitive tout le monde connaît
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: C’est pas ça relational: identifying C’ est pas ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: T’as l’ droit à trois- trois essais relational: attributive: possession t’ as l’ droit à trois essais
Possessor Pr: rel: attr: poss Possessed Possessed
Théo: Exa::ct! haha en fin de bouteille il sera totalement français! relational: attributive en fin de bouteille il sera totalement français
Circ: time Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: Non, c’est pas un lien, le taquet. relational: identifying 212 Non c’ n’est pas un lien
Token Pr: rel: ident Identifier
Théo: Tu t’rapproches, material Tu t’rapproches
Actor Pr: material
Théo: mais c’est pas ça. relational: identifying mais c’ est pas ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: Alors quand tu dis être au taquet, verbal Alors quand tu dis être au taquet
Circ: time Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Théo: ça veut dire qu’en gros quand t’es motivé relational: identifying ça veut dire qu’en gros quand t’es motivé
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: tu dis, chuis au taquet tu dis chuis au taquet
Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Théo: tu vois? mental: perceptual tu vois
Senser Pr: mental
213 Théo: Brouette, euh c’est un moyen de transport? relational: attributive Brouette euh c’ est un moyen de transport
Carrier Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: Donc péter de la broue? Je dirais que c’est eum, prendre le bus? verbal péter de la Donc je dirais que c’est eum prendre le bus? broue
Token Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage relational: identifying c’ est prendre le bus
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: Je pense que je sais. mental: cognitive || [projection] mental: cognitive je pense que je sais
Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon mental: cognitive que je sais
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: tu sais mental: cognitive
tu sais
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: Se vanter, ouais, c’est ça que je relational: identifying se vanter c’ est ça
214 Value Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: C’est un clash, cette vidéo. relational: attributive c’ est un clash
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: Donc, l’expression, c’est- avoir la dalle. relational: identifying Donc, l’expression c’ est avoir la dalle
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: Avoir la dalle? Ou on peut dire aussi crever la dalle, carrément. verbal Ou on peut dire aussi crever la dalle
Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Théo: En fait, non, mais dans un certain context[ə]? Ça peut être parfois bizarre, relational: attributive dans un certain contexte ça peut être parfois bizarre
Circ: condition Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: tu vois mental: perceptual tu vois
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: ‘fin, tu peux le dire à quelqu’un? verbal
Enfin tu peux le dire à quelqu’un
Sayer Pr: verbal… Verbiage …Pr: verbal Receiver
Théo: mais ça serait- un peu mal vu, quoi- 215 relational: attributive mais ça serait un peu mal vu
Carrier Pr: relational Attribute
Théo: ‘fin, imaginez, mental: cognitive Enfin imaginez
Pr: mental
Théo: ché pas mental: cognitive ch é (sais) pas
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: tu vois mental: perceptual tu vois
Senser Pr: mental
Théo: Ouais, mais c’est pas pareil du tout. relational: attributive Ouais, mais c’ est pas pareil du tout
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: haha eh ben non, c’est pas ça, non relational: identifying eh ben non c’ est pas ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: J’ai gagné! Encore une fois! Yes! material
j’ ai gagné!
216 Actor Pr: material
Théo: Alors, crever la dalle, ça veut dire avoir faim. relational: identifying Alors crever la dalle ça veut dire avoir faim
Token Token Pr: rel: ident Value
Théo: c’est pour ça que je te disais que quand tu dis ça à quelqu’un ça peut être un peu mal interprété relational: identifying c’ est pour ça
Token Pr: rel: ident Value verbal || [projection] verbal || [projection] verbal que quand tu dis ça à quelqu’un c’est pour ça que je te disais ça peut être un peu mal interprété
Circ: reason Sayer Receiver Pr: verbal Verbiage verbal que quand tu dis ça à quelqu’un
Circ: time Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage Receiver relational: attributive ça peut être un peu mal interprété
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
Théo: Genre ( ) quelqu’un et tu dis oooah je crève la dalle, verbal Genre… tu dis ooah je crève la dalle
Sayer Pr: verbal Verbiage
Théo: ben, elle va te dire, ok? verbal 217 ben elle va te dire ok tu veux quoi toi
… Pr: Sayer Pr: verbal… Receiver Verbiage verbal
Théo: Et donc maintenant voilà que PL m’a donné trois expressions material Et donc maintenant voilà PL m’ a donné trois expressions que
Circ: time Actor Recipient Pr: material Scope
Théo: et que je lui ai donné trois expressions, material et que je lui ai donné trois expressions
Actor Recipient Pr: material Scope
T: c’est le moment de passer sur sa vidéo, relational: identifying c’ est le moment de passer sur sa vidéo
Token Pr: relational Value
T: donc je vous incite de cliquer par exemple ici ou sur sa tête, material || [projection] material donc je vous incite de cliquer sur sa tête
Actor Target/Scope Pr: material Pr: material Circ: place
T: allez-y cliquez sur sa tête ici, ici là. material allez y
Pr: material scope material cliquez sur sa tête
218 Pr: material Scope
T: Mais attendez quand même, material
Mais attendez quand même
Pr: material
T: attendez de voir la fin de cette vidéo avant de cliquer sur sa tête, enfin. material || [projection] mental: perceputal la fin de cette avant de cliquer sur sa attendez d e voir vidéo tête
Pr: material Pr: mental Phenomenon Circ: time
T: et donc du coup voilà c’est tout pour cette vidéo, relational: identifying et donc du coup voilà c’ est tout pour cette vidéo
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
T: j’espère qu’elle vous aura plu. mental: desiderative || [projection] mental: emotive j’ espère qu’elle vous aura plu
Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon mental: emotive qu’ elle vous aura plu
Initiator Affected Pr: mental
T: En tout cas, si c’est le cas relational: identifying En tout cas, si c’ est le cas
Token Pr: rel: ident Value
T: n’hésitez pas à mettre un petit… pouce bleu 219 mental: cognition || [projection] material n’hésitez pas à mettre un petit pouce bleu
Pr: mental Pr: material Goal
T: et aussi n’hésitez pas à aller vous abonner à la chaîne de PL mental: cognition || [projection] material et aussi n’hésitez pas à aller vous abonner à la chaîne de PL
Pr: mental Pr: material Circ: place/Scope
T: qui sera en barre d’infos. relational: attributive qui sera en barre d’infos
Pr: rel: Attribute/Circ: place attr
T: Ben je vous- Je vous la mettrai en barre d’infos material je vous la mettrai en barre d’infos
Actor Recipient Scope Pr: material Circ: place
T: parce que sa chaîne, elle est juste, attributive
parce que sa chaîne elle est juste-
Circ: reason Carrier Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
T: ben franchement je l’adore, mental: emotive ben franchement je l’ adore
Senser Phenomenon Pr: mental
T: comme genre même, comme-comme, comme, j’aime le voir sur YouTube, ben. mental: emotive || [projection] mental: perceptual
220 comme j’ aime le voir sur YouTube
Senser Pr: mental Phenomenon
[projection] mental: perceptual le voir sur YouTube
Phenomenon Pr: mental Circ: location
T: Voilà, donc, faites l’éducation de PL en lui disant des expressions pûrement françaises de votre région, material l’éducation de en lui disant des expressions pûrement Voilà donc faites PL françaises
Pr: Scope Circ: manner material verbal en lui disant des expressions pûrement françaises
Receiver Pr: verbal Circ: manner
T: vous savez, mental: cognitive vous savez
Senser Pr: mental
T: si vous êtes de Poitou ou Charentes [hypothetical clause] relational: attributive Si vous êtes de Poitou ou Charentes continuant Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
T: Les expressions Poitou-Charentèses, mettez-les en commentaire, material Les expressions Poitou- mettez les en commentaire Charentèses
221 Pr: material Goal Circ: place
T: ça va… il va adorer. mental: emotive il va adorer
Senser Pr: mental
T: N’oubliez pas de me rejoindre sur les réseaux sociaux, mental: cognitive || [projection] material N’oubliez pas de me rejoindre sur les réseaux sociaux
Pr mental Scope Pr: material Circ: place
T: tous les liens sont en barre d’infos, encore une fois, relational: attributive tous les liens sont en barre d’infos
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute/circumstantial
T: et on se retrouve la semaine prochaine, pour une nouvelle vidéo, à très très très très très très très très très bientôt! Bye! material la semaine et on se retrouve pour une nouvelle vidéo prochaine
Actor Pr: material Circ: time Circ: purpose
T: Ooh, j’arrive pas, material j’ arrive pas
Actor Pr: material
T: c’est trop loin Bye! relational: attributive C’ est trop loin
Carrier Pr: rel: attr Attribute
222 T: Ah! J’arrive toujours pas! material Ah j’ arrive toujours pas
Actor Pr: material
T: Attends! Bye! material
Attends
Pr: material
223 APPENDIX D: DISTRIBUTION OF PROCESS TYPES BY VIDEO AND SPEAKER V1:
Material Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Suzie 29 14 45 45 2 27 6 168 (QF) (17.3%) (8.3%) (26.8%) (26.8%) (1.2%) (16.1%) (3.6%)
59 (35.1%)
V2 + V3: Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Interviewer 2 3 2 1 0 (0%) 13 0 21 in V2 + V3 (9.5%) (14.3%) (9.5%) (4.8%) (61.9%) (0%)
Marine 13 11 25 14 2 16 0 81 (FF) (16%) (13.6%) (30.9%) (17.3%) (2.5%) (19.8%) (0%)
Mikael 10 14 37 19 0 (0%) 18 0 98 (QF) (10.2%) (14.3%) (37.8%) (19.4%) (18.4%) (0%)
Text in V3 0 (0%) 1 (50%) 1 (50%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 2 (0%)
ALL 25 29 65 34 2 (1%) 47 0 202 (12.4%) (14.4%) (32.2%) (16.8%) (23.3%) (0%)
94 (46.5%)
V4 + V5:
224 Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Théo 41 42 43 46 7 18 (9%) 2 (1%) 199 (FF) (20.6%) (21.1%) (21.6%) (23.1%) (3.5%)
PL 50 48 49 36 5 16 3 207 (QF) (24.2%) (23.2%) (23.7%) (17.4%) (2.4%) (7.7%) (1.4%)
Text 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 in V4 (100%)
ALL 91 91 92 82 12 34 5 407 (22.4%) (22.4%) (22.6%) (20.1%) (2.9%) (8.4%) (1.2%)
183 (45%)
V6: Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Cath 23 23 22 30 2 14 2 116 (QF) (19.8%) (19.8%) (19%) (25.9%) (1.7%) (12.1%) (1.7%)
Léa 15 17 17 11 0 (0%) 9 1 70 (FF) (21.4% (24.3%) (24.3%) (15.7%) (12.9%) (1.4%)
ALL 38 40 39 41 2 23 3 186 (20.4%) (21.5%) (21%) (22%) (1.1%) (12.4%) (1.6%)
79 (42.5%)
V7:
225 Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Audrey 28 71 48 36 1 52 10 246 (QF) (11.4%) (28.9%) (19.5%) (14.6%) (0.4%) (21.1%) (4.1%)
119 (48.4%)
V8: Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Lysandre 12 19 31 10 3 11 0 86 (QF) (14%) (22.1%) (36%) (11.6%) (3.5%) (12.8%) (0%)
Emy 37 22 42 17 1 19 0 138 (FF) (26.8%) (15.9%) (30.4%) (12.3%) (0.7%) (13.8%) (0%)
ALL 49 41 73 27 4 30 0 224 (21.9%) (18.3%) (32.6%) (12.1%) (1.8%) (13.4%) (0%)
114 (50.9%)
V9: Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Solange 59 14 51 21 3 28 4 180 (QF/FF) (32.8%) (7.8%) (28.3%) (11.6%) (1.7%) (15.6%) (2.2%)
65 (36.1%)
226
V10: Mat. Relational Mental Behav. Verbal Exist. ALL
Id. Attr.
Anaïs 11 3 3 5 0 (0%) 2 0 24 (FF) (45.8%) (12.5%) (12.5%) (20.8%) (8.3%) (0%)
Marie- 2 0 (0%) 1 5 0 (0%) 1 0 9 Michelle (22.2%) (11.1%) (55.5%) (11.1%) (0%) (QF)
VO and 7 2 1 4 0 (0%) 1 0 15 Text in (46.7%) (13.3%) (6.7%) (26.6%) (6.7%) (0%) V10
ALL 20 5 5 14 0 (0%) 4 0 48 (41.7%) (10.4%) (10.4%) (29.2%) (8.3%) (0%)
10 (20.8%)
227 APPENDIX E: APPRAISAL ANALYSIS V1 Suzie (QF): Affect Toward FF, France, French people: -love (3): “I love France, I love French people, I love their language” -laugh (2): “I’m gonna be like, laughing, like ‘putain de merde’, that makes me laugh”
Toward QF: -like (3): “we like it this way”, “we like it like this”, “we like to do that with our language” -“I don’t really care about the word” -“As Quebeckers, we really enjoy our culture, and our French” -“we’re proud of our version, our slang, our accent”
Toward outside opinions of QF: -offended (2): “That’s why we kind of get offended”, “It’s not really offended?”
Other: -want (4): “I wanted to talk about the difference between French from France and French from Canada”; “I’ve been wanting to do this video”; “I just wanted to say that there is a big difference between French from France and French from Quebec”; “If you want me to make more videos where I speak French” -“I’m sorry” -“I hope you liked this video” -“I’d really appreciate it”
Judgement FF speakers/British English speakers as analogy to FF speakers: -fancy (2) and snob(bish) (2): “British English you think of somebody more fancy, more- not to be mean but more like snobbish, fancy”; “that does not mean that they think they’re better than us or that they think they’re snob people”
QF speakers: -“b’cause we’re lazy like that”
Herself: -“I’m the not perfect person in French accent, but I’m trying my best”
228 Appreciation FF: -“I think it’s beautiful” -“They have a nice French” -“The real word is ‘Je suis allé’” -“maybe the one from France” (is better)
QF: - “it’s not proper French” - “very expressive”
Comparing FF and QF: - different (4): “We think that the other French is much different than ours”; “the curse words are different, too”; “It’s a lot different”; “It’s really different from the curse words to everything they say” -“there is a big difference between French from France and French from Quebec” “There’s not- a better French than the other-.”
Other: - “It’s hard to say” (2) -“which is kind of insulting” -“that’s too much for my brain”
Attitudinal FF: lexis -“How does that make sense?”
QF: -“It’s more like a farmer kind of accent” -“I’m not forcing it”, -“to the point” -“Like shut up, that’s what I’m talking” -“but we say a lot of things that don’t make sense here in Quebec”
Metaphor QF: -“A lot of French people would say that we’re beating up the French” -“It’s a lot more like bang bang bang” -“our French is more in your face” -“we just like beat up the hell out of the French” -“Cause we put, like, three words and mash ‘em together”
V2 + V3: Interviewer: 229 Judgement Marine vs. Mikael: -“Now this is the time when you guys get to say your- who- who can say the line faster, in French and in English?” -“Now you guys get to try your best… Quebec slash French expressions.”
French speakers: -“French are known to not haha not be able to pronounce their th’s? very well?”
Appreciation France and Quebec: -“Name one thing that is really good about each other’s country.”
Marine (FF): Affect Being French: -proud (2): “I’m proud to be French” (2)
Toward QF speakers: -love (3): “we love you”; “I love Quebec people” (2)
Toward Quebec: -love (2): “I love Quebec” (2)
Other: -“I’m sorry for all I say” -“we don’t mind that because we speak French” -“that was a pleasure to prove, to finally prove to all Quebec people that you can use [ut]. ”
Judgement Herself: -“I’ve been speaking a good English… or not a bad English since 9 month.. 10 month”
Appreciation France: -“France is an amazing country”
Quebec: -little (2): “this is just a little part of a big country”; “you’re just a little part of- Canadia”
Canada: -“a big country”
Other: 230 -“that’s a shame” -“that’s not true”
Attitudinal Quebec: lexis -“this is not a country”
Quebec speakers: -“You don’t speak French”
French speakers: -“We speak French” -“yeah French people!”
Mikael: -“French mistake!”
Other: -“woah” -“woo”
Mikael (QF): Affect being French: -“I’m also proud.. to be French”
France: -“I love France” (2) -“I like that”
Other: “I’m also proud” -“I prefer to use the right one”
Judgement FF speakers: -“they do sound way more feminine”
QF speakers: -“We are segregated, we need to stand strong”
Marine:
231 -“You’re wrong”
Himself: -capable (2): “chuis capable d’imiter l’accent France” I am capable of imitating the France accent; “je suis capable d’articuler mes mots” I am capable of articulating my words
Appreciation France: -“I think it’s uh should be a proud country?” -“It’s an artful country”
FF: -“their French is all right” -“it’s a bit different” -“c’est un langage plus facile à parler” it’s an easier language to speak
QF word: -“the right one”
FF word: -“That’s silly”
Other (indirectly referencing FF): -“that’s fine” -“ch’ pense que c’est facile à dire” I think that it’s easy to say
Speaking FF: -“c’est pas tant difficile” not so hard
Attitudinal FF: lexis -“lesser French speaker” -“how is that even make sense?”
On QF pronunciation of août: -“I stand my ground” (2)
Metaphor QF: -“we add masculinity to our pronunciation”
V4 + V5: Théo (FF):
232 Affect His affect: -“J’espère” I hope (2) -“ça va” it’s going -“Chuis tellement content” I’m so happy - Prêt (2): “Prêt” ready; “Je suis prêt!” I am ready -“Je suis comblé et heureux de devoir chanter du Céline Dion” I am fulfilled and happy to have to sing Céline Dion -“chuis en peine” I’m in pain -“ça m’a encore plus embrouillé” that confused me even more -“J’ai tellement hâte” I’m so eager (to see PL complete his challenge)\
Toward QF: -“J’ai envie de me faire mon éducation sur les expressions québécoises I want to be educated on Quebecois expressions
Toward Quebec: - “J’aime l’Amérique” I love America -“je vous embrasse” I kiss you all (in America)
Toward PL: -“Je l’adore” I love it (his channel), -“j’aime le voir sur YouTube” I love to see him on YouTube -“ému” moved (from seeing PL do his challenge)
Audience affect: - “vous allez bien” you’re doing well, -“elle vous aura plu” it pleased you (the video)
PL’s affect: -“Il va adorer” He’s going to love it -“Sérieux?” You serious? -“Tu pleures? you crying?
Judgement Of PL: -“sa personnalité atypique” his atypical personality -le moins the least (2) bonnes correct (2): “si tu as, euh, le moins de bonnes réponses” if you have uh the least correct answers; “si PL- a- le moins de bonnes réponses” if PL has the least correct answers - génial great (2): “Ah, c’était génial, c’était, mais, génial” Ah that was great, that was, but, great
Of himself: -“toujours infidèle à mon vigneron” still disloyal to my winegrower
233 Appreciation Video: - “Aujourd’hui on se retrouve dans une vidéo un peu spéciale” Today we find ourselves in a sort of special video -“c’est trop loin” it’s too far (the camera) -“tout simplement” simply (explaining the game) - “Mais oui, c’était trop bien.” But yes, it was too good.
Subject: -“aujourd’hui on va parler de sérieux” today we’re going to talk about serious things -“On va parler des expressions, parce que.. comme vous savez dans- là dans des expressions dans les pays haha c’qui est logique” We are going to talk about expressions because.. As you know in- there in expressions the expressions in the countries haha which is logical
FF expressions: -bizarre (2): “ça peut être parfois bizarre” that can sometimes be bizarre; “Ça serait un peu bizarre ça aussi?” That can be a little bizarre that too? -“tu peux le dire à quelqu’un, mais ça serait- un peu mal vu” you could say it to someone, but it would be- a little frowned upon -“ça peut être un peu mal interprété” it could be interpreted a little badly -“des expressions purement françaises” purely French expressions -“ouais mais c’est pas pareil du tout” yeah but it’s not at all the same -“quand on peut faire si simple” when you can make it so easy -“et ça c’est impossible que tu connais/connaisses” and that it’s impossible that you know it -“Et c’est une expression typique du Nord de la France en fait.” And it’s a distinctive expression of the North of France actually.
QF expressions: -compliqué complicated (2): “c’est quand même assez compliqué” it’s still rather complicated; “pourquoi faire si compliqué” why make it so complicated -vulgaire vulgar (2): “Et c’est vulgaire comme truc?” And it’s a vulgar thing?; “ça veut dire que c’est vulgaire” That means it’s vulgar
Attitudinal About video: lexis -“C’est un clash cette vidéo” It’s a clash, this video
Reactions to getting or losing a point: - “ouais!” yeah! (2)
234 -“Yes!” (2) - “woo-hoo” (2) -“Mais non!” but no!
Toward/about PL: - “Félicitations” Congratulations -“waouh” wow -“ooh” - “Exact!” (2) Exactly!
PL (QF): Affect PL’s affect: Toward/involving game: -“je suis en train de détester ce jeu-là” I am hating this game -“ça m’énerve” that annoys me -“laisse-moi le lire- pour être certain” Let me read it- to be certain - “J’étais sûr”
Toward himself: - “j’étais vraiment content d’ moi” I was very happy with myself -“j’étais certain que j’aurais une longueur d’avance” I was certain I’d have an advantage
Related to loser challenge: - “j’ai peur de leur envoyer de la farine dessus” I’m scared to get flour on them (his cats) “je vais être malade” I’m going to be sick -”J’ai pas aimé ça” I didn’t like that
Toward FF: -“J’aime pas” I don’t like (FF expression) -“J’espère tellement que chuis pas en train d’attraper un accent français sans m’en rendre compte” I really hope I’m not catching a French accent without realizing it
Toward Théo: -“J’aime ça” (2) I like that (what Théo said) -“Aww, back at you, Théo” (after Théo says he loves seeing PL on YouTube) -“J’ai comme envie de pincer une petite joue” I like want to pinch a little cheek -“tu m’énerves you annoy me 235 -“ça me fait beaucoup de peine” That pains me a lot (that Théo doesn’t have wine) -“Désolé, tu l’as pas eu” Sorry, you didn’t get it
Théo’s affect: -prêt ready (2): “t’es prêt?” you ready?; “Es-tu prêt?” Are you ready? -“As-tu hâte?” Are you eager?
Audience affect: -“vous avez aimé” You liked
Other: -“j’aimerais ça” I would love that (for subscribers to comment with more expressions)
Judgement Of himself: -“Seul.” Alone, -“Chuis au taquet? Pour me servir plus de vin” I’m working full throttle to serve myself more wine -“je suis encore célibataire” I’m still single -“ je suis vraiment en retard dans le pointage” I’m really behind in the counting (the score) -“Chuis tellement mauvais perdeur” I’m such a bad loser -“avec mon interprétation incroyable, tu devrais l’avoir deviné là.” with my incredible interpretation, you should have guessed it there” - “J’ai fait beaucoup trop de liens avec cette réponse-là.” I made way too many connections with that response.
Of Théo: -“t’es une personne positive” you’re a positive person -“C’est mon coup de cœur… sur YouTube” He’s my favorite… on YouTube, -“tu commences à être dans la mouise” you’re starting to be in a jam
Something Théo said: -“C’est bien dit” It’s well said
Céline Dion: -“la Québécoise la plus connue” the most known Quebecoise -“ma Québécoise préférée” My favorite Quebecoise.
Whoever loses the game: - “le grand perdeur” the big loser
236 Appreciation Something Théo said: -“C’est une mauvaise réponse” That’s a wrong answer
About FF expressions: -“j’ai trouvé ça dégeu” I found that disgusting -“typiquement français” distinctively French - “Et que ça ça sonne vulgaire.” And that that sounds vulgar.
About QF expressions: -“typiquement québécois” typically Quebecois -“C’est un peu vulgaire?” It’s a little vulgar? -“‘y a comme une connotation? un peu euh péjorative à dire ça.” there’s like kind of a pejorative connotation to say that
About game: -“Mais à quoi bon jouer une deuxième ronde de ce fabuleux jeu But what good playing a second round of this fabulous game - “Eh, mais c’était vraiment fun de faire une vidéo avec toi, Théo.” Eh but it was really fun to do a video with you, Théo.
About wine: -“si c’est pas à me servir un autre bon verre de vin!” if it’s not to serve myself another good glass of wine!
Attitudinal About himself: lexis -“j’ai pas beaucoup d’amis” I don’t have a lot of friends,
Reaction to FF expression: -“Oh mon Dieu” Oh my God
Reaction to winning/losing points: -“Yes!” (4), -“Ouais!” yeah! -Oh mon Dieu Oh my God
Text on interlude screen: Judgement “Qui sera le meilleur?” Who will be the best?
V6 Cath (QF):
237 Affect Cath’s affect: -“J’espère” I hope (2)
Audience: -vous voulez you want (2): “vous voulez voir la première partie” you’ll want to see the first part; “si jamais vous voulez voir une autre vidéo avec Léa?” if you ever want to see another video with Léa -“vous allez bien” you’re doing well -“vous avez apprécié” you liked (the video)
Appreciation Video/game: -“pour une vidéo qui est vraiment super spéciale? de toutes les vidéos que j’ai jamais fait avant?” for a video that is really super special of all the videos that I’ve done before -“ch pense que ça va être vraiment drôle” I think that it’s going to be really funny
Difference between QF and FF meaning: -“Parce que je sais que vous en France être bonne? C’est assez péjoratif?” Because I know that for you in France to be good? It’s rather pejorative”
QF expressions: -aucun rapport (no relationship) “Ça a strictement aucun rapport” It has no relationship (with its meaning); “Ça a aucun rapport” It has no relationship with (its meaning)
Attitudinal Reaction to getting the right answer: lexis -“Yay” (3)
Léa (FF): Affect Léa’s affect: -“J’espère” I hope
Audience’s affect: -“ça va vous plaire” it is going to please you
238 Judgement Of Léa: -“je suis partie trop loin” I went too far
Of Cath: -“Tu l’as trouvé trop facilement” You found it too easily -“T’as bien tenté” you tried well
Of Cath and Léa: -“On vous apprend beaucoup” We’re teaching you a lot
Appreciation FF expressions: -péjoratif pejorative (2): “Et après ça peut être pris dans le sens euh péjoratif?” And then it can be taken in the pejorative sense; “‘fin deux deux mots péjoratifs?” well two pejorative words -“c’est pas très gentil quand tu dis à une personne” it’s not very nice when you say that to someone -“à chacun son p’tit truc?” to each their own little thing -“c’était vraiment typique du Sud.” it was really distinctive of the South
QF expressions: -“Ah, c’est génial!” Ah that’s great -“c’est cool aussi” It’s cool too -“Ça n’a aucun sens” That makes no sense
Video/game: -“Pour un peu confronter nos accents? et faire quelque chose d’un peu drôle?” To confront our accents a little? And do something a little funny
Other: -“C’est vrai” That’s true (2)
Attitudinal Reaction to Cath getting answer right: lexis -“Yay”
Reaction to having trouble guessing QF expression: -“oh zut” oh shoot
V7: Audrey (QF):
239 Affect Audrey’s affect: -“en espérant” hoping -“j’espère I hope
Toward audience: -“je vous plains” I feel bad for you
QF speakers’ affect: -“C’est un peu comme si on voulait aller plus vite” It’s a little as if we wanted to go faster
Audience’s affect: -aimer like (4): “j’espère que vous avez aimé” I hope you liked (the video); “faites un p’tit thumbs up si vous avez aimé ça” and make a little thumbs up if you liked it; “si vous aimeriez une deuxième partie” you would like a second part (2)
Toward QF speaker: -“soyez pas fâché” don’t be angry
A hypothetical QF speaker’s affect: -“un Québécois veut pas vraiment voir vos gosses” a Quebecois doesn’t really want to see your kids (in FF)/testicles (in QF)
Judgement Quebeckers: -vos chers amis québécois your dear Quebecois friends
Appreciation Video: -“ceci peut vous être utile pour comprendre vos- chers amis québécois.” this could be helpful to you to understand your- dear Quebecois friends
QF expressions: -“c’est pas très gentil” it’s not very nice -répandu widespread (3): “Un des plus répandus est- pogner” One of the most widespread is- pogner; “c’est quand même assez répandu?” it’s nevertheless pretty widespread; “Il y a aussi le verbe niaiser qui est aussi quand même très répandu?” There is also the verb niaiser which is also still very widespread -“Une autre abréviation célèbre est un peu plus étrange” Another famous abbreviation is a little strange -“C’est pas très positif.” It’s not very positive. -“On a une façon (u’) peu particulière d’appeler les p’tits copains et les p’tites copines.” We have kind of a particular way of calling boyfriends and girlfriends -“quand même un élément assez important” nevertheless a pretty important
240 element
Comparing QF and FF: -“que les Français ne connaissent pas- ou euh ou (ils) les connaissent, mais sous un sens différent?” that French people don’t know- or uh (they) know them, but under a different meaning -“C’est comme à cette heure, mais dit plus rapidement? It’s like a cette heure, but said more rapidly”
QF expressions, imagining audience reaction: -drôle funny (2): “Ça peut paraître un peu euh drôle” It can seem a little uh a little funny; “vous trouverez/trouvez peut-être ça drôle” you maybe find/will find that funny -“ça semble vraiment pas à la vraie forme de ces mots-là?” it really doesn’t resemble the real form of those words? -“En contexte? pour que ça semble un peu plus clair?” In context? So that it seems a little more clear? -“Ça c’est peut-êt’ un peu mélangeant” That is maybe a little confusing.
Assumptions of others about QF: -“C’est vrai que les Québécois mettent plein de tu inutiles dans la phrase.” It’s true that the Quebecois put lots of useless tu’s in the sentence -“Ok, c’est p’être un peu vrai” Okay it’s maybe a little true
QF: -pas… un français correct not a correct French (2): “ils ne sont pas nécessairement un français correct de- d’écrire. Ces verbes-là.” they are not necessarily a correct French to write. Those verbs.; “c’est pas très très un français correct encore une fois?” it’s not really really a correct French once again. -“on ajoute un tu de trop” we add one too many tu -“C’est pas plus compliqué que ça.” It’s not more complicated than that. -pour euh, rend’ des mots? un peu plus intense to uh, make words?a little more intense -“pour leur donner un peu plus de punch?” to give them a little more punch?
Quebec weather: -“y full frette” it is really cold, différents different
Poutine: -“c’est un mets t’piquement québécois?” it’s a distinctive Québécois food? -“Ça peu’ être là un peu d’goûtant dit comme ça, mais c’est vraiment bon.” It can be there a little disgusting said like that, but it’s really good.
241 Attitudinal QF word: lexis -une déformation a deformation (3): “c’est juste une déformation du verbe obstiner” it’s just a deformation of the verb obstiner; “les Québécois? font beaucoup d'abréviations et de déformations de mots.” The Quebecois? Make a lot of abbreviations and deformations of words; “Ça c’est comme? une déformation du mot laid.” That, it’s like? a deformation of the word laid.
Metaphor QF manner of speaking: -“comme si… on écrasait certains mots ensemble” like if we squashed certain words together
V8: Lysandre (QF): Affect Lysandre’s affect: -“Ça va mal à la shop en crisse” It’s really not working well -“C’est tout mon plaisir” It’s all my pleasure
Emy’s affect: -“T’es prête?” You ready?
Judgement Of Lysandre and Emy: -“On est vraiment pas sorties du bois” We are really not out of the woods
Of herself: -“J’ai vraiment un accent très fort” I really have a very strong accent -“Chuis très loin d’être française” I’m very far from being French -“I’m so French” -J’ai clairement un poil dans la main ce matin I clearly am lazy (lit. have a hair in my hand) this morning, -“Je ne peux pas parler français” I cannot speak French -“Chuis trop veinarde” I’m too lucky -“chuis clairement pas français” I’m clearly not French
Of Emy: -“so French” -“On dirait que tu parles anglais” One would say that you’re speaking English “tu sonnais comme Céline Dion” you sounded like Céline Dion -c’est parfait” it’s perfect (her pronunciation)
Appreciation To Emy’s explanations: -“C’est bon” It’s good/ok (2)
Understanding people in Montreal:
242 -“C’est pas si pire” It’s not bad
Of QF expression: -“rien à voir” nothing to do (between form and meaning)
Finding QF expressions: -“Moi, je trouve que c’est beaucoup plus facile de trouver des expressions” Me, I find that it’s a lot easier to find expressions
Of her own speech: -“Est-ce que c’est bon?” Is it good? (her imitation of FF)
Attitudinal Reactions to FF expressions: lexis -“Mon Dieu” My God (2) -“Ah man!” -“Oh man!” -“man”
Emy (FF): Affect Emy’s affect: -“déjà que j’ai du mal avec les gens qui parlent français ” I already have trouble with people who speak French
Toward FF expression: -“celle-là j’aime bien” This one I like
Toward QF familiarity: -“j’adore” I love
To be invited on Lysandre’s channel: -“chuis trop contente” I’m so/too happy -“Moi aussi c’est tout mon plaisir” Me too it’s all my pleasure
Toward Céline Dion: -“Je t’aime” I love you
Lysandre’s affect: Related to game; -“T’es prête?” You ready? “Ça va mal à la shop” It’s not working well
Having Emy on her channel: -“C’est tout ton plaisir?” It’s all your pleasure?
243 Judgement Of Emy and Lysandre: -“pas sorties de l’auberge” Not out of the inn (woods)
Of Lysandre: -“Elle fait exprès” She does it on purpose -“toi qui parles trop vite” You who talks too fast -“you’re so American” -“you’re so French” -“You’re so hangover” -“C’est de la triche” that’s cheating
Of herself: -“Je parle comme dans la street” I talk like in the street -“Je le dis bien?” Am I saying it right/well? (QF expression) -“Chuis clairement pas québécoise” I’m clearly not Quebecoise
Of the Quebecois: -“Vous êtes familiers vous les Québécois” You are familiar you the Quebecois
Appreciation QF expression: -“quel rapport?” what relationship? (2) (between form and meaning) -“Mais ça (n’)a aucun lien avec l’alcool” but that has no link with alcohol - “rien à voir” nothing to do (2) (between form and meaning) -“c’est trop mignon comment ça s’ dit” it’s too cute how it’s said -“C’est trop drôle ça va mal à la shop.” That’s too funny ça va mal à la shop -“Parfait” perfect (that QF speakers say get hammered with me rather than let’s have a drink)
FF expressions: -“Avoir une cuite, c’est logique” Avoir une cuite it’s logical (compared to QF equivalent) -“Je t’ai pris des expressions un peu thug life” I took some expressions that are a little thug life for you -“Une simple!” An easy one! -“pas du tout de la street” not at all from the street -“C’est une expression courante.” It’s an ordinary expression
Game/video: -“ça va être simple” it’s going to be simple -“il est bien ton emprunt-là.” it’s good your loaner (camera) there -“Faire ceci c’est génial” to do this it’s great -“Ça va êt’ cool ” It’s going to be cool (future video)
Lysandre’s speech: 244 -“t’a fait une forme typique de chuis vénère et chuis veinarde en même temps” you made a typical/distinctive form of chuis vénère and chuis veinarde at the same time” -“avec ton accent c’est compliqué” with your accent it’s complicated -“C’est bien ça” that’s good that (Lysandre creating a neologism with two FF slang expressions) -“C’est bon” it’s good (same as above)
Her guess: -“C’est bon?” it’s good? (her guess)
Canada: -“Merci de m’avoir accueillie dans ton beau pays, Céline.” Thank you for welcoming me in your beautiful country, Céline.
Other -“C’est vrai?” It’s true? (That Lysandre had heard an FF expression often) - “mais c’est pas grave” but it’s no big deal (that she’s clearly Quebecoise--and by extension that Lysandre is clearly not French) -il est tôt ici it’s early here
Attitudinal Reaction to starting the game: lexis -Ouais ouais ouais yeah yeah yeah
Toward Céline Dion: -“mwah” (kissing noise)
Contrasting FF and QF culture: -“Nous c’est viens boire un verre, prends l’apéro; toi c’est viens te torcher avec moi, c’est direct viens te soûler ” Us it’s come have a glass, have an aperitif, you it’s come get hammered with me, it’s directly come get drunk
QF expression: -“c’est un seul mot ton truc c’est un seul bloc” It’s one single word your thing it’s one single block
Toward Lysandre: -“Tu m’as perdu dès le début de ta phrase” You lost me from the beginning of your sentence
V9: Solange (QF):
245 Affect Solange’s affect: Toward “Fonzy” (FF remake): -“j’ai peur de ça” I’m scared of that -“je crains le pire” I fear the worst
Toward “Starbuck” (QF original): -“Je m’étais un petit peu ennuyée” I was a little bored
That QF Anglicism is not in the dictionary/not French -désolée sorry (2)
Toward the Quebecois, that the French “win”: - “je suis désolée, les Français utilisent un mot français”
Hybridity of QF: -“ça me touche vraiment” it really touches me -“ça m’émeut” it moves me -“me fait monter les larmes aux yeux” brings tears to my eyes (the way QF rappers use franglais)
That Quebeckers think French people use more Anglicisms: -“m’énerve” annoys me
QF speakers’ affect: -“ils ont un cœur de parler français” they have a heart to speak French, -“les Québécois recourent davantage et malgré eux à l’anglais, que les Français” the Quebecois resort more to English than the French and in spite of themselves
Toward FF: -“Bien sûr- il y a des mots qui font rigoler les Québécois” Of course- there are words that make the Quebecois laugh
Judgement Of herself: - “Je vais scrupuleusement accompagnée de mon ami Robert noter les points de part et d’autre?” I am going to scrupulously accompanied by my friend Robert note all the points on both sides? -fuckée weird (2): Y en a pour qui Solange a est fuckée. Solange est fuckée. There are those for whom Solange is weird (fuckée). Solange is weird (fuckée). -“Solange, elle est weird” Solange, she is weird - “elle est bizarre” She is bizarre
Of QF speakers: -“vous parlez mal” you speak poorly (projected attitude that she says she does not have) 246
Of QF rappers who use franglais: -“les rappeurs québécois qui utilisent le franglais mais d’une manière virtuose au possible” the Quebecois rappers who use franglais but in as virtuoso a manner as possible
Appreciation QF Anglicism: -beau beautiful (3): “Focusser. Ch’ trouve ça tellement beau comme verbe” Focusser. I find that so beautiful as a verb; “C’est beau, c’est très beau, mais c’est un anglicisme” It’s beautiful, it’s very beautiful, but it’s an Anglicism -“Alors pas d’ chance? C’est assez connu” So no luck? It’s pretty known, -“C’est clairement décalqué de l’américain.” It’s clearly calqued/based on the American -“Tous les vocabulaires entourant la voiture est très très très anglicisé.” All the vocabulary surrounding the car is very very very Anglicized. -“C’est (une) traduction littérale de l’anglais.” -“C’est drôle ça.” That’s funny that. -“Ah c’est rigolo.” Ah that’s funny. -“Et le fait de le dire en anglais, augmente la singularité, l’étrangeté?” And the fact of saying it in English, augments the uniqueness, the strangeness
QF opinion that FF use more Anglicisms: -faux (2) false: “c’ qui est, selon moi, et d’après ce petit test très arbitraire, faux. C’est faux.” which is, according to me, and according to this very very arbitrary little test, false. It’s false.
QF vs. FF: - “y a des drôles de: masculin féminin comme ça” there are funny/strange masculine feminine things like that
QF: -“Donc euh la langue évolue c’est ça qui est assez fascinant.” So uh the language evolves that’s what’s pretty fascinating. -“Moi je trouve au contraire que le québécois est une langue vivante?” Me I find on the contrary that Quebecois is a living language -“sa langue elle est hybride” his language it is hybrid
Her study: -“de manière quasi-scientifique” in a quasi-scientific manner -“ce petit test très arbitraire” this very arbitrary little test -“c’est pour la bonne cause” it’s for the good cause
Topic of video: 247 -“La périlleuse question des anglicismes” the dangerous question of Anglicisms
“Fonzy”: -“cette merde intergalactique” this intergalactic shit -“C’était une très mauvais idée” It was a very bad idea
“Starbuck” -“quel film formidable” what a terrific film -“C’est pas pour rien que ça a marché Starbuck.” It’s not for nothing/no reason that Starbuck worked
Attitudinal Her stance: lexis -“chuis pas du tout anti-anglicisme” I’m not at all anti-anglicism -“je suis pas du tout là avec mon doigt accusateur vers le Québec” I’m not at all there with my accusatory finger toward Quebec
Quebeckers: -“les Québécois luttent et se battent pour tout traduire” the Quebecois combat and fight to translate everything
Final score: -“Ouais!” Yeah!
Quebec: -“Thumbs up le Québec” Thumbs up Quebec
V10: Anaïs (FF): Affect Her affect: -“j’espère” I hope
Audience’s/viewer’s affect: -“vous allez bien” you’re doing well
Marie Michelle’s affect: -“Voulez-vous un autr’ café? Do you want another coffee? -“Qu’est-ce que vous voulez?” What do you want?
Judgement Of Marie Michelle: -“très bien” very well/good (her order in a restaurant)
248 Appreciation The video: -“t’as trouvé ça écœurant” you found it (the video) cool (QF)
Attitudinal lexis After presenting the video: -“Yay!”
Marie Michelle (FF): Affect Audience’s affect: -“Si vous avez kiffé la vidéo: you liked the video
Anaïs’s affect: -“Veux-tu un refill?” Do you want a refill? -“Est-ce que vous voulez…? Do you want...? (2)
Her own affect: -“Je veux juste du ketchup” I just want ketchup
Attitudinal lexis Arriving at the French party: -“Yay!”
Text + VO: Affect Marie Michelle’s affect: -“Malaise!” UNEASE!
Of others toward the French: -“On sait se faire désirer” We know how to make ourselves desired
Judgement Of the French: -“On sait se faire désirer” We know how to make ourselves desired
Appreciation Comparing Quebecois vs. French culture: -“Quand c’est l’inverse, c’est quelque peu différent” When it’s the other way around, it’s somewhat different
Subscribing process: “et ça fait un truc super cool. Sympa non? Beaucoup plus simp’ pour t’abonner” and it does a super cool thing. Nice right? A lot simpler to subscribe
249 APPENDIX F: DISTRIBUTION OF TARGETS OF EVALUATION, BY SUB-GENRE
Language activism videos (V1, V2 + V3, V7, V9):
Self Other Self + Aud. QF FF QF v. Other ALL in vid. Other FF in vid.
Suzie 2 n/a n/a 0 20 15 6 14 57 (QF) (3.5% (0%) (35.1%) (26.3%) (10.5%) (24.6%) )
Int. 0 2 (50%) 0 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (50%) 0 (0%) 4 (0%) (0%) (0%)
Marine 2 1 (4%) 0 0 9 (36%) 5 (20%) 0 (0%) 8 (32%) 25 (FF) (8%) (0%) (0%)
Mikael 2 1 0 0 6 16 0 (0%) 2 (7.4%) 27 (QF) (7.4% (3.7%) (0%) (0%) (22.2%) (59.3%) )
Audrey 0 n/a n/a 1 30 0 (0%) 3 13 47 (QF) (0%) (2.1% (63.8%) (6.4%) (27.7%) )
Solange 7 n/a n/a 0 29 1 1 15 53 (QF/FF) (13.2 (0%) (54.7%) (1.9%) (1.9%) (28.3%) %)
ALL 13 4 0 1 94 37 12 52 213 (6.1% (1.9%) (0%) (0.5% (44.1%) (17.4%) (5.6%) (24.4%) ) )
Guessing game videos (V4 + V5, V6, V8):
Self Other Self + Aud. QF FF QF Other ALL in vid. Other v. FF in vid.
250 Théo 1 15 0 (0%) 0 7 9 0 30 62 (FF) (1.6%) (24.2%) (0%) (11.3%) (14.5%) (0%) (48.4%)
PL (QF) 10 12 0 (0%) 0 3 6 0 25 56 (17.9%) (21.4%) (0%) (5.4%) (10.7%) (0%) (44.6%)
Text-V4 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 1 1 (0%) (0%) (100%)
Cath 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 2 1 0 11 14 (QF) (0%) (14.3%) (7.1%) (0%) (78.6%)
Léa (FF) 1 2 1 (5.3%) 0 3 5 0 7 19 (5.3%) (10.5%) (0%) (15.8%) (26.3%) (0%) (36.8%)
Lysandre 8 6 1 (3.8%) 0 3 5 0 3 26 (QF) (30.8%) (23.1%) (0%) (11.5%) (19.2%) (0%) (11.5%)
Emy (FF) 4 11 1 (1.9%) 0 15 8 0 15 54 (7.4%) (20.3%) (0%) (27.8%) (14.8%) (0%) (27.8%)
ALL 24 46 3 (1.3%) 0 33 34 0 92 232 (10.3%) (19.8%) (0%) (14.2%) (14.7%) (0%) (39.7%)
Vignettes (V10):
Self Other in Self + Aud. QF FF QF v. Other ALL vid. Other in FF vid.
Anaïs (FF) 0 1 0 (0%) 0 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 6 7 (0%) (14.3%) (0%) (0%) (85.7%)
Marie 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 5 Michelle (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (QF)
251 Txt + VO 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 0 2 1 4 7 V10 (0%) (0%) (0%) (28.6%) (14.3%) (57.1%)
ALL 0 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 0 0 2 1 15 19 (0%) (0%) (0%) (10.5%) (5.3%) (78.9%)
Distribution of targets of evaluation in all videos:
Self Other Self + Aud. QF FF QF v. Other ALL in vid. Other FF in vid.
Lang. 13 4 0 (0%) 1 94 37 12 52 213 activism (6.1%) (1.9%) (0.5%) (44.1%) (17.4%) (5.6%) (24.4%)
Guessing 24 46 3 0 (0%) 33 34 0 (0%) 92 232 games (10.3%) (19.8%) (1.3%) (14.2%) (14.7%) (39.7%)
V10 0 (0%) 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 1 15 19 (5.3%) (10.5%) (5.3%) (78.9%)
ALL 37 (8%) 51 3 1 127 73 13 159 464 (11%) (0.6%) (0.2%) (27.4%) (15.7%) (2.8%) (34.3%)
252 APPENDIX G: SOCIAL ACTOR ANALYSIS V1 Suzie (QF): Individual Group
Suzie: Audience: -I (47) -you (8) -me (3) -guys
General you: People on the internet: -you = general “you” (6) -a lot of people on the Internet -they Server from anecdote: -them -a French guy Quebeckers: Describing hypothetical individuals: -We (29) British person: -Quebeckers -somebody -us -I -a lot of people
Quebecker: Her parents: -someone -they (2) -my parents French person: -them -A France person French people: -They (13) -them (2) -snob people -A lot of French people -people from France
Suzie + audience: -we
Other: -everyone=compared to British person -a lot of people -people
V2 + V3 Interviewer:
253 Individual Group
-Marine Marine + Mikael: -Mikael -you (9) -you guys (3)
French speakers: -French
All in video: -We
Marine (FF): Individual Group Indeterminate
Marine: Quebeckers: -you (4)=Mikael or all -I (17) -they (4) Quebeckers -Marine (2) -we (3) -you =Mikael, all Quebeckers, or -me (2) -you (2) general “you” -Quebecker people (2) -you (4)=Mikael or audience Mikael: -all Quebec people -you (4) -him French people: -French people -general “you” (2) -we (6)
Audience: -you (2) -people
Marine + audience: -We (2)
Indeterminate “we”: -on (“we”) -we= Marine + audience or all French people
Mikael (QF): Individual Group Indeterminate
Mikael: Quebeckers: -you (2)=Marine or all French
254 -I (33) -We (3) people -je (5) -Mikael (2) French people: -me -They (3) -the women Marine: -France -you (10)
Interviewer: -she (3) general “you”: -you (10)
Other: -my mother
French person: -a lesser French speaker
V4 + V5 Théo: Individual Group Indeterminate
Théo: Audience: -on=French people or general -je (49) -vous (9) “you” -me (4) -tout le monde -tu=French people or general -moi (4) “you” -Théo Théo + audience: -on PL: -tu (21) Théo + PL: -PL (7) -on (3) -il (5) -toi (3) America: -te (3) -L’Amérique -lui (2) -vous -le -un YouTubeur francophone French people: -tous les Français qui Stromae: regarderont -Stromae (2) -tout le monde -on
255 Céline Dion: -Céline Dion PL’s audience: -PL Cloutier family General “you”: -tu (8) Other: -te -les bûcherons québécois -toi -on
Hypothetical person: -quelqu’un (2) -elle
PL: Individual Group
PL: PL + Théo + audience: -je (63) -on -moi (16) -me (10) PL + Théo: -PL Cloutier (2) -on (5) -tous les deux Théo: -tu (28) Audience: -Théo (10) -vous (10) -toi (7) -des abonnés -te (6) -you PL’s audience: -Théo Gordy -la PL Cloutier family -pas un ami imaginaire -il PL + audience: -mon coup de cœur, euh, francophone, eh -on français sur YouTube -nous
General “you”: Quebeckers: -tu (6) -on (4) -on (3) People in general: Céline Dion: -beaucoup de monde -Céline -Céline Dion Other: -ma Québécois préférée -des bûcherons -ils (les bûcherons)
256 His cats: -mes chats -leur
Other: -le perdeur -le grand perdeur -une fille
V6: Cath Individual Group
Cath: Audience: -je (34) -tout le monde -moi -vous (13)
Léa: Cath + Léa: -Léa (4) -on (5) -elle (4) -nous -Léa Choue -tu Cath + audience: -nous (2) General “you”: -on -tu (2) Quebeckers: -on (7) Hypothetical Quebecker: -nous (3) -quelqu’un (2) French people: -vous (2)
Describing past in Quebec: -beaucoup de personnes
Léa Individual Group
Léa: Audience: -je (13) -vous (2) -moi (7) -tous -Léa
257 -me Léa + Cath: -on (4) Cath: -tu (2) French people: -toi (2) -nous
General “you”: French people in Toulouse: -tu (2) -on (5) -te -nous (2) -toi French people in Bordeaux: Other: -ils -une personne -un gars Quebeckers: -une fille -vous (2)
Other: -les gens du sud
V7: Audrey: Individual Group
Audrey: Audience: -je (18) -vous (29) -moi -me Audrey + audience: -on (2) General “you”: -on (7) Quebeckers: -on (22) Viewer: -les Québécois (16) -tu (3) -nous (6) -te -ils (2) -des Québécois (2) Hypothetical person: -certaines personnes (2) -un Québécois (6) -vos chers amis québécois -quelqu’un (2) -une Québécoise French people: -lui -les Français (5) -il -ils -vous
258 Other: -tes amis -les p’tits copains -les petites copines -vos gosses -vos enfants -vos amis
V8: Lysandre: Individual Group
Lysandre: Lysandre + Emy: -Je (25) -on (7) -moi (3) -I (2) French people: -des Français Emy: -tu (8) Lysandre + audience: -toi -nous -te -Emy Other: -des autres General “you”: -on (2) -tu (3) -soi
Céline Dion: -Céline Dion
Emy: Individual Group
Emy: Emy + Lysandre: -je (27) -on (3) -moi (8) -me (7) Audience: -la personne d’Emy LTR -vous -I (3) French people:
259 Lysandre: -on (2) -tu (19) -Nous -elle (6) -te (5) Quebeckers: -toi (3) -vous (2) -you (3) -les Québécois
General “you”: Other: -tu (2) -les gens qui parlent français -on -te
Céline Dion: -Céline (3) -te
V9: Solange: Individual Group
Solange: Audience: -je (38) -vos yeux -moi (4) -me (7) Solange + audience: -Solange (4) -on (2) -elle (2) -nous -a Solange + childhood friends: General “you”: -on (2) -on (2) -tu French people: -vous -les Français (9) -ils (2) Viewer: -on (2) -te Quebeckers: Other (QF): -les Québécois (10) -il (le personnage principal) (5) -ils (5) -le personnage principal (2) -vous (6) -Ken Scott -eux (2) -Patrick Huard -le Québec (2) -le banquier -je (personifying “le Québec”) (2) -la fille -leur
260 -elle (la fille) -on -le Québécois de tous les jours -amis québécois -moi (personifying “le Québec”) Other (FF): -acteurs -Isabelle Doval -les Québécois (referring to Quebecker -José Garcia actors’ casting) -les rappeurs québécois Other: -enfants d’immigrés -quelqu’un Others: -des amis -y en a -des anglophones
V10: Anaïs: Individual Group
Anaïs: Audience: -je (6) -vous (2) -Anaïs Anaïs + Marie Michelle: Marie-Michelle: -on -vous (4) -Marie-Michelle (2) Anaïs + audience: -elle -on -tu -Mademoiselle French people: -les Français Viewer: -tu
Marie-Michelle: Individual Group
Marie-Michelle: Marie-Michelle + Anaïs: -je (2) -on -moi Audience: Anaïs: -vous (4) -tu
261 -Anaïs Quebeckers: -Amandine -les Québécois -vous (2)
VO and text: Individual Group
Viewer: Audience: -tu (2) -vous -te French people: Quebecker: -on -une Québécoise (2) -un Québécois Quebeckers: -on French person: -une Française (2) -un Français
262 APPENDIX H: DISTRIBUTION OF REFERENCES TO SOCIAL ACTORS Language activism videos (V1, V2+ V3, V7, V9):
Self + Gen. Other Self other Aud. “you”/ QF French Other ALL in vid. in vid. on / tu
Suzie 49 n/a n/a 10 6 37 20 7 (5.4%) 129 (QF) (38%) (7.8%) (4.7%) (28.7%) (15.5%)
Int. 0 13 1 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (6.7%) 15 (0%) (86.7% (6.7%) )
Marine 21 5 0 (0%) 5 2 12 7 11 63 (FF) (33.3 (7.9%) (7.9%) (3.2%) (19%) (11.1%) (17.5%) %)
Mikael 41 13 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 10 4 6 2 (2.6%) 76 (QF) (53.9 (17.1% (13.2%) (5.3%) (7.9%) %) )
Audre 20 n/a n/a 35 7 60 7 8 (5.8%) 137 y (QF) (14.6 (25.5%) (5.1%) (43.8%) (5.1%) %)
Solang 55 n/a n/a 5 4 (3%) 50 15 5 (3.7%) 134 e (41%) (3.7%) (37.3%) (11.2%) (QF/F F)
ALL 186 31 1 55 29 163 55 34 (6.1%) 554 (33.6 (5.6%) (0.2%) (9.9%) (5.2%) (29.4%) (9.9%) %)
Guessing game videos (V4 +V5, V6, V8):
Self + Gen. Other Self other in Aud. “you”/o QF French Other ALL in vid. vid. n/tu
Théo 56 43 3 12 11 4 6 4 (2.9%) 139 (FF) (40.3 (30.9%) (2.2%) (8.6%) (7.9%) (2.9%) (4.3%) %)
PL (QF) 91 55 6 15 9 8 0 (0%) 7 (3.7%) 191
263 (47.6 (28.8%) (3.1%) (7.9%) (4.7%) (4.2%) %)
Cath 35 10 5 (6%) 17 2 13 2 0 (0%) 84 (QF) (41.7 (11.9%) (20.2% (2.4%) (15.5%) (2.4%) %) )
Léa 22 3 4 3 4 2 10 3 (5.9%) 51 (FF) (43.1 (5.9%) (7.8%) (5.9%) (7.8%) (3.9%) (19.6%) %)
Lysandr 30 11 7 1 6 1 1 1 (1.7%) 58 e (QF) (51.7 (19%) 12.1%) (1.7%) (10.3%) (1.7%) (1.7%) %)
Emy 46 36 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 4 (4%) 7 3 (3%) 1 (1%) 101 (FF) (45.5 (35.6%) (6.9%) %)
ALL 280 158 28 49 36 35 22 16 624 (44.9 (25.3%) (4.5%) (7.9%) (5.8%) (5.6%) (3.5%) (2.6%) %)
Vignettes (V10):
Self + Gen. Other Self other Aud. “you”/ QF French Other ALL in vid. in vid. on/tu
Anaïs 6 9 1 4 (19%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (4.8%) 0 21 (FF) (28.6 (42.9%) (4.8%) (0%) %)
Marie- 3 5 1 4 0 (0%) 1 (7.1%) 0 (0%) 0 14 Michelle (21.4 (35.7%) (7.1%) (28.6%) (0%) (QF) %)
VO + 0 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 0 (0%) 4 4 0 12 text in (0%) (33.3%) (33.3%) (33.3%) (0%) V10
ALL 9 14 2 12 0 (0%) 5 5 0 47 (19.1 (29.8%) (4.3%) (25.5%) (10.6%) (10.6%) (0%) %)
264
265 References Abbasi, A., Chen, H., & Salem, A. (2008). Sentiment analysis in multiple languages: Feature selection for opinion classification in web forums. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 26(3), 12. Abidin, C. (2016). “Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?”: Influencer selfies as subversive frivolity. Social Media+ Society, 2(2), 2056305116641342. Aboud, F. E., Clement, R., & Taylor, D. M. (1974). Evaluational reactions to discrepancies between social class and language. Sociometry, 239-250. Agha, Asif. Language and Social Relations. No. 24. Cambridge University Press, 2007. Albury, N. J. (2017). Mother tongues and languaging in Malaysia: Critical linguistics under critical examination. Language in Society, 46(4), 567-589. Albury, N. J. (2017b). How folk linguistic methods can support critical sociolinguistics. Lingua, 199, 36-49. Les allophones en hausse dans les écoles francophones du Québec (2017, March 11). Retrieved from https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1025626/allophones-hausse-ecoles- francophones-quebec-oqlf Armstrong, N., & Smith, A. (2002). The influence of linguistic and social factors on the recent decline of French ne. Journal of French Language Studies, 12(1), 23-41. Ashby, W. J. (1981). The loss of the negative particle ne in French: A syntactic change in progress. Language, 674-687. Ashby, W. J. (1992). The variable use on versus tu/vous for indefinite reference in Spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies, 2(2), 135-157. Asselin, C., & McLaughlin, A. (1994). Les immigrants en Nouvelle-France au XVIIe siècle parlaient-ils français. Les origines du français québécois, 101-130. Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso Books. Androutsopoulos, J. (2013). Participatory culture and metalinguistic discourse: Performing and negotiating German dialects on YouTube. Discourse, 2, 47-71. Androutsopoulos, J. (2010). Localizing the global on the participatory web. The handbook of language and globalization, 203-231. 266 Babcock, R. D. (2015). Rhetorical argument, folk linguistics, and content-oriented discourse analysis: A follow-up study. Ampersand, 2, 61-69. Baldry, A., & Thibault, P. J. (2006). Multimodal transcription and text analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook. London: Equinox. Ballard, T. (2016). YouTube video parodies and the video ideograph. The Rocky Mountain Review, 10-22. Banks, D. (2010). The interpersonal metafunction in French from a Systemic Functional perspective. Language Sciences, 32(3), 395-407. Banks, D. (2017). A Systemic Functional Grammar of French: A Simple Introduction. Routledge. Barbaud, P. (1984). Le Choc des Patois en Nouvelle-France: Esssai Sur L'Histoire de la Francisation Au Canada. PUQ. Baron, N. S. (2002). Alphabet to email: How written English evolved and where it's heading. Routledge. Baron, N. S. (2003). Why Email Looks Like Speech. Baron, N. S. (2010). Discourse structures in instant messaging: The case of utterance breaks. Language@ Internet, 7(4). Barton, D. (2015). Tagging on Flickr as a social practice. In Discourse and Digital Practices (pp. 60-77). Routledge. Barton, D., & Lee, C. (2013). Language online: Investigating digital texts and practices. routledge. Barra-Jover, M. (2004). Interrogatives, négatives et évolution des traits formels du verbe en français parlé. Langue française, (1), 110-125. Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents. Springer. Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French (No. 104). John Benjamins Publishing. Bell, A. (1991). The language of news media (pp. 84-85). Oxford: Blackwell.
267 Bélair-Cirino, M. (2019, October 8). Le gouvernement Legault renonce à une interdiction du «Bonjour-“Hi”». Le Devoir. Retrieved from https://www.ledevoir.com/politique/quebec/564268/bonjour-hi-et-cabinet-legault Benson, P. (2015). YouTube as text: Spoken interaction analysis and digital discourse. In R.H. Jones, A. Chik, & C.A. Hafner (Eds.), Discourse and digital practices: doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge. Benson, P. (2016). The Discourse of YouTube: Multimodal Text in a Global Context. Routledge. Blommaert, J. (Ed.). (1999). Language Ideological Debates. Walter de Gruyter. Blommaert, J. (2007). Sociolinguistics and discourse analysis: Orders of indexicality and polycentricity. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 2(2), 115-130. Bou-Franch, P., Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Blitvich, P. G. C. (2012). Social interaction in YouTube text-based polylogues: A study of coherence. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17(4), 501-521. Bouchard, P., & Maurais, J. (1999). La norme et l’école. L’opinion des Québécois. Terminogramme, 91(92), 91-116. Bouchard, C. (1998). La langue et le nombril: histoire d'une obsession québécoise. [Saint- Laurent, Québec]: Fides. Bouchard, C. (2008). Obsessed with language: a sociolinguistic history of Quebec (Vol. 55). Guernica Editions. Bourhis, R. Y., & Lepicq, D. (1993). Québécois French and language issues in Quebec. Trends in Romance linguistics and philology, 5, 345-381. Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Language policies and language attitudes: Le monde de la Francophonie. In Sociolinguistics (pp. 306-322). Macmillan Education UK. Bouvier, G. (2015). What is a discourse approach to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media: connecting with other academic fields?. Brown, G., Gillian, B., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge university press. Bucholtz, M. (2010). White kids: Language, race, and styles of youth identity. Cambridge University Press.
268 Busque, Anne-Marie. "Québec Language Policy". The Canadian Encyclopedia, 31 July 2017, Historica Canada. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/quebec-language- policy. Accessed 02 March 2019. Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2013). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture. John Wiley & Sons. Burgess, J. E., & Green, J. B. (2009). The entrepreneurial vlogger: participatory culture beyond the professional-amateur divide. In The YouTube Reader (pp. 89-107). National Library of Sweden/Wallflower Press. Caffarel, A. (2006). A systemic functional grammar of French: From grammar to discourse. Bloomsbury Publishing. Caffarel-Cayron, A. (2017). The verbal group in French. The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 319. Cajolet-Laganiere, H., & Martel, P. (1993). Between the linguistic inferiority complex and the desire for affirmation among quebec men and women. Cahiers De l'Institut De Linguistique De Louvain, 19(3-4), 169-185. Cajolet-Laganière, H., & Martel, P. (1995). La qualité de la langue au Québec (Vol. 18). Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture. Carnap, R. (1958). Introduction to symbolic logic and its applications. Chandler, D. (2007). Semiotics: the basics. Routledge. Cherny, L. (1999). Conversation and community: Chat in a virtual world. CSLI publications. Chun, E. W. (2001). The construction of white, black, and Korean American identities through African American Vernacular English. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 11(1), 52-64. Chun, E., & Walters, K. (2011). Orienting to Arab orientalisms: Language, race, and humor in a YouTube video. Digital discourse: Language in the new media, 251-273. Corbeil, J. C. (2000). Une langue qui se planifie. Le français au Québec: 400 ans d’histoire et de vie, 306-314. Coupland, N. (2004). Stylised deception. Metalanguage: Social and Ideological Perspectives, 11, 249 Coveney, A. (2003). 'Anything you can do, tu can do better': tu and vous as substitutes for indefinite on in French. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(2), 164-191. 269 Crandall, J. (2007). Showing. Rhizome. Retrieved from https://rhizome.org/community/9343/ Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Crystal, D. (2008). Txtng: The gr8 db8. OUP Oxford. d’Anglejan, A. (1984). Language planning in Quebec: An historical overview and future trends. Conflict and language planning in Quebec, 5(29), 9. De Veirman, M., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2017). Marketing through Instagram influencers: the impact of number of followers and product divergence on brand attitude. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 798-828. Devillers, S. (2018, June 15).Vouvoyer et tutoyer dans les médias. France inter. Retrieved from https://www.franceinter.fr/emissions/l-edito-m/l-edito-m-15-juin-2018 Dumas, H. (2012, May 10). Solange te parle sans accent. La Presse. Retrieved from www.lapresse.ca Dutrisac, R. (2019, January 5). Langue française: la bilinguisation du Québec. Le Devoir. Retrieved from https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/editoriaux/544893/langue-francaise-la- bilinguisation-du-quebec Duncum, P. (2011). Youth on YouTube: Prosumers in a peer-to-peer participatory culture. The International Journal of Art Education, 9(2), 24-39. Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453-476. Eggins, S. (1994). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Erjavec, K. (2004). Beyond advertising and journalism: Hybrid promotional news discourse. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 553-578. Fairclough, N. (1989/2015). Language and power. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Psychology Press. Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 2, 258-284. Foucault, M. (1971). Orders of discourse. Social science information, 10(2), 7-30. Fought, C. (2006). Language and ethnicity. Cambridge University Press. Fowler, R. (1996). Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. Routledge. Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress, G., & Trew, T. (1979). Language and control. Routledge. 270 Freberg, K., Graham, K., McGaughey, K., & Freberg, L. A. (2011). Who are the social media influencers? A study of public perceptions of personality. Public Relations Review, 37(1), 90-92. Gardner, S., & Alsop, S. (Eds.). (2016). Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age. Equinox Publishing Limited. Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge University Press. Garrett, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2004). Adolescents’ lexical repertoires of peer evaluation:‘Boring prats’ and ‘English snobs’. Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives, 193-226. Gannes, L. (2006). Jawed Karim: how YouTube took off. Liz Gannes. Gee, J. P. (2005a). Semiotic social spaces and affinity spaces. Beyond communities of practice language power and social context, 214-232.
Gee, J. P. (2005b). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Genesee, F., & Holobow, N. E. (1989). Change and stability in intergroup perceptions. Journal of language and social psychology, 8(1), 17-38. Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. Gordon, C., Luke, M., Deborah, T., & Trester, A. M. (2013). Re-and pre-authoring experiences in email supervision. Discourse, 2, 167-181. Gossage, P., & Little, J. I. (2012). An Illustrated History of Quebec: Tradition & Modernity. Oxford University Press. Grootaers, W. A. (1999). The discussion surrounding the subjective boundaries of dialects. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 1, 115. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Hodder Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K., & Martin, J. R. (1993). Writing science: Literacy and discursive power. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Harju, A. (2016). Imagined community and affective alignment in Steve Jobs’ memorial tributes on YouTube. Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age, 62-80.
271 Hazell, C. (2019: August 2). The Rise of the Social Media Influencer. Viewpoint. Retrieved from https://viewpoint.pointloma.edu/the-rise-of-the-social-media-influencer/ Helland, K. I. (2015). Multilingualism, Identity, and Ideology in Popular Culture Texts: A Multimodal Critical Discourse Analysis. Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. Sage. Herring, S. (1996). Two variants of an electronic message schema. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series, 81-108. Herring, S. C. (1999, January). Interactional coherence in CMC. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. 1999. HICSS-32. Abstracts and CD-ROM of Full Papers (pp. 13-pp). IEEE. Herring, S. C. (2001). Computer-mediated discourse. The handbook of discourse analysis, 612634. Herring, S. C., Scheidt, L. A., Bonus, S., & Wright, E. (2004, January). Bridging the gap: A genre analysis of weblogs. In 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the (pp. 11-pp). IEEE Herring, S. C., Barab, S., Kling, R., & Gray, J. (2004). An approach to researching online behavior. Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning, 338. Herring, S. C. (2013). Discourse in Web 2.0: Familiar, reconfigured, and emergent. Discourse, 2, 1-25. Hodge, B. & Kress, G. R. (1988). Social semiotics. Cornell University Press. Horner, W. B. (1988). Rhetoric in the classical tradition. St. Martin's Press. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles (Vol. 54). John Benjamins Publishing. Hyland, K. (2002). Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual review of applied linguistics, 22(1), 113-135. Irvine, J. T. (2001). "Style" as distinctiveness: the culture and ideology of linguistic differentiation. In P. Eckert & J.R. Rickford (eds), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (21-43). Cambridge : CUP. Ivković, D. (2013). The Eurovision Song Contest on YouTube: A corpus-based analysis of language attitudes. Language@ Internet, 10(1).
272 Jarrett, K. (2008). Beyond broadcast yourself™: the future of YouTube. Media International Australia, 126(1), 132-144. Joffrin, L. (2011, September 1). Qui vous autorise @ me tutoyer? L’Obs. Retrieved from https://www.nouvelobs.com/signatures/laurent-joffrin/20110901.OBS9605/qui-vous- autorise-me-tutoyer.html Jaworski, A., Coupland, N., & Galasinski, D. (Eds.). (2004). Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (Vol. 11). Walter de Gruyter. Jaworski, A., & Sachdev, I. (2004). Teachers’ beliefs about students’ talk and silence: Constructing academic success and failure through metapragmatic comments. Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives, 227-244. Jefferson, G. (1983). Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: Caricature versus capturing pronunciational particulars. Tilburg Univ., Department of Language and Linguistics. Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: where old and new media collide. Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Mit Press. Jepson, K. (2005). Conversations—and negotiated interaction—in text and voice chat rooms. Language Learning & Technology, 9(3), 79-98. Jin, S. V., Muqaddam, A., & Ryu, E. (2019). Instafamous and social media influencer marketing. Marketing Intelligence & Planning. Johnstone, B., & Kiesling, S. F. (2008). Indexicality and experience: Exploring the meanings of/aw/‐monophthongization in Pittsburgh. Journal of sociolinguistics, 12(1), 5-33. Jones, R. H. (2013). Multimodal discourse analysis. In C.A. Chapelle (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Jones, R. H., Chik, A., & Hafner, C. A. (Eds.). (2015). Discourse and digital practices: doing discourse analysis in the digital age. Routledge. Kavanagh, B. (2010). A cross-cultural analysis of Japanese and English non-verbal online communication: The use of emoticons in weblogs. Intercultural Communication Studies, 19(3), 65-80. Kavoori, A. (2011). Reading YouTube: The critical viewers guide. Peter Lang Publishing. 273 Keen, A. (2007). The cult of the amateur. New York. Kiernan, P. (2018). Language, Identity and Cycling in the New Media Age. Kiesling, S. F. (2009). Style as stance. Stance: sociolinguistic perspectives, 171-194. Kircher, R. (2009). Language attitudes in Quebec: A contemporary perspective (Doctoral dissertation). Kircher, R. (2012). How pluricentric is the French language? An investigation of attitudes towards Quebec French compared to European French. Journal of French Language Studies, 22(03), 345-370. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2007). Online memes, affinities, and cultural production. A new literacies sampler, 29, 199-227. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (Eds.). (2010). DIY media: Creating, sharing and learning with new technologies (Vol. 44). Peter Lang. Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge. Kress, G. R., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. Psychology Press. Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns (No. 4). University of Pennsylvania Press. Laberge, S. (1977). Etude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montréal. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Montreal. Lagacé, P. (2020, January 30). I am bilingue. La Presse. Retrieved from https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/202001/30/01-5258956-i-am-bilingue.php Lambert, W. E., Hodgson, R. C., Gardner, R. C., & Fillenbaum, S. (1960). Evaluational reactions to spoken languages. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60(1), 44. Lange, P. G. (2007). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361-380. Lange P (2009) Videos of affinity on YouTube. In: Snickars P and Vonderau P (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 70–88. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2007a). Sampling “the new” in new literacies. A new literacies sampler, 29, 1-24.
274 Lawn, R. (2012). Tu and Twitter: Is it the end for ‘vous’ in French? BBC. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19499771 Laporte, P. E. (1984). L’attitude des Québécois francophones à l’égard du français au Québec: idées pour une problématique de recherche. Le statut culturel du français au Québec. Actes du congrès Langue et société au Québec, 2. Leduc, L. (2011, February 14). La langue, un débat sans fin. La Presse. Retrieved from https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/national/201102/13/01-4369914-la-langue-un-debat- sans-fin.php Leduc, L. (2019, November 4). L’État québécois «doit parler d’une seule voix» en français, dit Jolin-Barrette. La Presse. Retrieved from https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/201911/04/01-5248296-letat-quebecois-doit- parler-dune-seule-voix-en-francais-dit-jolin-barrette.php Lee, C. (2013). My English is so poor… so I take photos. Meta-linguistic discourse of English online’. In D. Tannen & AM Tester (eds.) Discourse, 2. Liebscher, G., & Dailey‐O'Cain, J. (2009). Language attitudes in interaction 1. Journal of sociolinguistics, 13(2), 195-222. Lindgren, S. (2012). ‘It took me about half an hour, but I did it!’ Media circuits and affinity spaces around how-to videos on YouTube. European Journal of Communication, 27(2), 152-170. Lingel, J., & Naaman, M. (2012). You should have been there, man: Live music, DIY content and online communities. New Media & Society, 14(2), 332-349. Lodge, R. A. (1993). French, from dialect to standard. Psychology Press. Loewen, C. (2018, January 2). Quebec allophones, anglophones more likely than francophones to live below poverty line, study finds. CBC.ca. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-allophones-anglophones-more-likely- than-francophones-to-live-below-poverty-line-study-finds-1.4470365 Long, D. (1999). Mapping nonlinguists’ evaluations of Japanese language variation. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 1, 199-226. Machin, D., & Mayr, A. (2012). How to do critical discourse analysis.
275 MacLaury, R. E. (1987). Coextensive semantic ranges: Different names for distinct vantages of one category. CLS, 23(I), 268-282. Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing. Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Publishing. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Martineau, F., & Mougeon, R. (2003). A sociolinguistic study of the origins of ne deletion in European and Quebec French. Language, 118-152. Mase, Y. (1999). Dialect Consciousness and Dialect Divisions : Examples in the Nagano-Gifu Boundary Region. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 1, 71. Müller E (2009) Where quality matters: Discourses of the art of making a YouTube video. In: Snickars P and Vonderau P (eds) The YouTube Reader. Stockholm: National Library of Sweden, pp. 126–139. Muniandy, A. V. (2002). Electronic discourse (E-discourse): spoken, written or a new hybrid? Myers, G. (2009). The discourse of blogs and wikis. Bloomsbury Publishing. Nardi, B. A. (2005). Beyond bandwidth: Dimensions of connection in interpersonal communication. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14(2), 91-130. Nash, C. M. (2005, January). Cohesion and reference in English chatroom discourse. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 108c-108c). IEEE. Nocera, J. L. A. (2002). Ethnography and hermeneutics in cybercultural research accessing IRC virtual communities. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 7(2), JCMC721. Oakes, L., & Warren, J. (2007). Language, citizenship and identity in Quebec (Vol. 27). Basingstoke/England/New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Oakes, L. (2007). Whose French? Language Attitudes, Linguistic Insecurity and Standardisation in Quebec. Language Issues in Canada. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 64- 85. Oakes, L. (2008). Language planning and policy in Québec. Studies in French applied linguistics, 21, 345.
276 O'Halloran, K. L. (2008). Systemic functional-multimodal discourse analysis (SF-MDA): Constructing ideational meaning using language and visual imagery. Visual Communication, 7(4), 443-475. O'Halloran, K. L., Tan, S., Smith, B. A., & Podlasov, A. (2011). Multimodal analysis within an interactive software environment: critical discourse perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 8(2), 109-125. Page, R. (2012). The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & communication, 6(2), 181-201. Palfreyman, D., & Khalil, M. A. (2003). “A Funky Language for Teenzz to Use:” Representing Gulf Arabic in Instant Messaging. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 9(1), JCMC917. Pelletier, F. (2019, April 2019). La langue de chez nous. Le Devoir. Retrieved from https://www.ledevoir.com/opinion/chroniques/552317/la-langue-de-chez-nous Pentzold, C., & Seidenglanz, S. (2006, August). Foucault@ Wiki: first steps towards a conceptual framework for the analysis of Wiki discourses. In Proceedings of the 2006 international symposium on Wikis (pp. 59-68). ACM. Petrie, H. (1999). Writing in cyberspace: A study of the uses, style and content of email. Unpublished Paper sponsored by MSN Microsoft. Poirier, C. (1994). La langue parlée en Nouvelle-France: vers une convergence des explications. Les origines du français québécois, 237-273. Pöll, B. (2001). Francophonies périphériques: histoire, statut et profil des principales variétés du français hors de France. Editions L'Harmattan. Posteguillo, S., Esteve, M. J., & Gea-Valor, M. L. (Eds.). (2009). The texture of Internet: Netlinguistics in progress. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Preston, D. R. (1988). Change in the perception of language varieties. Historical dialectology: Regional and social, 475-504. Preston, D. R. (1994). Content-oriented discourse analysis and folk linguistics. Language Sciences, 16(2), 285-331. Preston, D. R. (1996a). Whaddayaknow?: The modes of folk linguistic awareness. Language Awareness, 5(1), 40-74. 277 Preston, D. R. (1996b). Where the worst English is spoken. Focus on the USA, 297-360. Preston, D. R. (Ed.). (1999a). Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing. Preston, D. R. (1999b). A language attitude approach to the perception of regional variety. In: Handbook of perceptual dialectology (Vol. 1). John Benjamins Publishing, 359-73. Preston, D. R. (2004). Folk metalanguage. Language Power and Social Process, 11, 75-104. Preston, D. (2011a). Methods in (applied) folk linguistics: Getting into the minds of the folk. AILA Review, 24(1), 15-39. Preston, D. R. (2011b). Perceptual dialectology: Nonlinguists' views of areal linguistics (Vol. 7). Walter de Gruyter. Raun, T. (2012). DIY therapy: Exploring affective self-representations in trans video blogs on YouTube. In Digital cultures and the politics of emotion (pp. 165-180). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Raclaw, J. (2008). Two patterns for conversational closings in instant message discourse. Colorado Research in Linguistics, 21(1), 4. Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents. Longman, London. Reinke, K. (2005). La langue à la télévision québécoise: aspects sociophonétiques. Gouvernement du Québec, Office québécois de la langue française.
Reinke, K., & Ostiguy, L. (2016). Le français québécois d’aujourd’hui (Vol. 62). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG. Rensink, W. G. (1999). Informant Classification of Dialects. Handbook of perceptual dialectology, 1, 1. Richer, J. (2019, August 11). Le français est bafoué dans une communication du ministère de l’Immigration. La Presse. Retrieved from https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/201908/11/01-5237023-le-francais-est-bafoue-dans- une-communication-du-ministere-de-limmigration.php Rossano, F., Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). Gaze, questioning and culture. Conversation analysis: Comparative perspectives, 187-249.
278 Ryan, E.B., Giles, H., & Sebastian, R.J. (1982). An integrative perspective for the study of language attitudes toward language variation. In E.B. Ryan & H. Giles (Eds.), Attitudes towards language variation (1-19). London: Arnold. Ryshina-Pankova, M., & Kugele, J. (2013). Blogs: A medium for intellectual engagement with course readings and participants. Discourse, 2, 183-200. Saint-Yves, G. (2006). L'Anglicisme ou le "mea culpa" des Québécois: éclairage historique. The French Review, 354-369. de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Sankoff, G., & Vincent, D. (1977). L'emploi productif du ne dans le français parlé à Montréal. Français (Le) Moderne Paris, 45(3), 243-256. Schiffrin, D. (1985). Everyday argument: The organization of diversity in talk. Handbook of discourse analysis, 3, 35-46. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers (No. 5). Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1990). The management of a co-operative self during argument: The role of opinions and stories. Conflict talk: Sociolinguistic investigations of arguments in conversations, 241-259. Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to Discourse: Blackwell textbooks in linguistics. Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Oxford. Scott, K. (2015). The pragmatics of hashtags: Inference and conversational style on Twitter. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 8-20. Shifman, L. (2012). An anatomy of a YouTube meme. New Media & Society, 14(2), 187- 203 Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193-247. Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication, 23(3), 193-229. Snickars, P., & Vonderau, P. (Eds.). (2009). The YouTube Reader (p. 9). Stockholm: National Library of Sweden. Sotillo, S. M. (2010). SMS texting practices and communicative intention. In Handbook of research on discourse behavior and digital communication: Language structures and social interaction (pp. 252-265). IGI Global. 279 Strangelove, Michael. (2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos by ordinary people. University of Toronto Press. Tagg, C. (2012). Discourse of text messaging: Analysis of SMS communication. Bloomsbury Publishing. Tagliamonte, S. A., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language. American speech, 83(1), 3-34. Tannen, D., & Trester, A. M. (Eds.). (2013). Discourse 2.0: language and new media. Georgetown University Press. Ten Have, P. (2007). Doing conversation analysis. Sage. Thibault, P. (1991). La langue en mouvement: simplification, régularisation, restructuration. Linx, 25(2), 79-92. Thorne, S. L., & Ivković, D. (2015). Multilingual Eurovision meets plurilingual YouTube. Dialogue in multilingual and multimodal communities, 27, 167. Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7(4), 277-289. Troll [Def. 2] (verb) In Merriam-Webster Online, Retrieved March 2, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing a sociocultural orientation to variation in language. Language & Communication, 31(1), 86-94. van Compernolle, R. A. (2014). Sociocultural theory and L2 instructional pragmatics (Vol. 74). Multilingual Matters. van Dijk, T. A. (1988). News as discourse. van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249- 283. van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Introducing social semiotics. Routledge. Varenne, H., Andrews, G., Hung, A. C. Y., Wessler, S., Tannen, D., & Trester, A. M. (2013). Polities and politics of ongoing assessments: Evidence from video-gaming and blogging. Discourse 2.0: Language and new media, 27-45.
280 Varnhagen, C. K., McFall, G. P., Pugh, N., Routledge, L., Sumida-MacDonald, H., & Kwong, T. E. (2010). Lol: New language and spelling in instant messaging. Reading and writing, 23(6), 719-733. Vatikiotis, P. (2014). New media, democracy, participation and the political. Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, 5(3), 293-307. Villeneuve, A. J. (2017). Normes objectives et variation socio-stylistique: le français québécois parlé en contexte d’entrevues télévisées. Arborescences: revue d'études françaises, (7), 49-66 Virtanen, T. (2013). Mock performatives in online discussion boards: Toward a discourse- pragmatic model of computer-mediated communication. Discourse, 2, 155-166. Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55(1), 63-78. Walsh, O. (2014). ‘Les anglicismes polluent la langue française’. Purist attitudes in France and Quebec. Journal of French Language Studies, 24(3), 423-449. Walsh, O. (2016). Linguistic purism: Language attitudes in France and Quebec (Vol. 41). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A technology for conversational knowledge management and group collaboration. Communications of the association for information systems, 13(1), 19. Way, L. C. (2015). YouTube as a site of debate through populist politics: the case of a Turkish protest pop video. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 10(2), 180-196. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246. West, L., & Trester, A. M. (2013). Facework on Facebook. Discourse, 2, 133-154. Williams, L., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2009). On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences, 31(4), 409- 427. Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about–a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. Methods of critical discourse analysis, 1, 1-13. Wolf, C. T. (2016). DIY videos on YouTube: Identity and possibility in the age of algorithms. First Monday, 21(6). 281 Young, L., & Harrison, C. (Eds.). (2004). Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change. A&C Black. Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and social media: How we use language to create affiliation on the web (Vol. 6). A&C Black. Zhong, J. (2009). Linguistic and Socio-stylistic Variation of the Generic Subject Clitics On- tu/vous: Comparative Study Between French L1 and French L2. M.A. Thesis, University of Florida.
282