The Linguistic Context 34

Home , BBC Radio Jersey, British Islands, Courts of Jersey, French of France, Les Landes, Middle French

Variation and Change in Mainland and Insular Norman Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory

Series Editor

Brian D. Joseph (The Ohio State University, USA)

Editorial Board

Artemis Alexiadou (University of Stuttgart, Germany) Harald Baayen (University of Alberta, Canada) Pier Marco Bertinetto (Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa, Italy) Kirk Hazen (West Virginia University, Morgantown, USA) Maria Polinsky (Harvard University, Cambridge, USA)

Volume 7

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ealt Variation and Change in Mainland and Insular Norman

A Study of Superstrate Influence

Mari C. Jones

LEIDEN | BOSTON Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Jones, Mari C. Variation and Change in Mainland and Insular Norman : a study of superstrate influence / By Mari C. Jones. p. cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-25712-2 (hardback : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-90-04-25713-9 (e-book) 1. French language— Variation. 2. French language—Dialects—Channel Islands. 3. Norman dialect—Variation. 4. French language—Dialects—France—Normandy. 5. Norman dialect—Channel Islands. 6. Channel Islands— Languages. 7. Normandy—Languages. I. Title.

PC2074.7.J66 2014 447’.01—dc23 2014032281

This publication has been typeset in the multilingual “Brill” typeface. With over 5,100 characters covering Latin, IPA, Greek, and Cyrillic, this typeface is especially suitable for use in the humanities. For more information, please see www.brill.com/brill-typeface.

ISSN 2210-6243 ISBN 978-90-04-25712-2 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-25713-9 (e-book)

Copyright 2015 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff and Hotei Publishing. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill NV provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change.

This book is printed on acid-free paper. Contents

Editor’s Preface vii Acknowledgements viii

1 Introduction 1

2 The Historical Context 16

3 The Linguistic Context 34

4 The Sociolinguistic Context 65

5 Phonetics and Phonology 83

6 Liaison 100

7 Morphosyntax 117

8 Lexis 143

9 The Influence of Norman on Its Superstrate Languages 166

10 Concluding Remarks 194

Bibliography 199 Index 226

Editor’s Preface

My original conception of the Empirical Approaches to Linguistic Theory (EALT) series was that it would be eclectic, since there are many paths to being empirical and certainly many ways in which theory can be served. And, I am proud, at least moderately so, that the volumes to date have indeed been varied, with each one offering its own “take” on empiricism and on theory. The present volume, Variation and Change in Mainland and Insular Norman: A study of superstrate influence, by Mari C. Jones, tackles empiricism from a different perspective, namely via fieldwork involving interviews, a standard element of sociolinguistic work, and via the use of questionnaires, another sociolinguistic staple. In this way, it could not be more empirical, as author Jones has gotten her hands dirty, so to speak, with real data provided by real speakers. Moreover, the target of her investigation, Norman, the language historically and still to this day of Normandy and the Channel Islands, is an endangered language, so that with this volume, EALT makes a contribution to the all-too-pressing need to study threatened languages while there are still speakers and while the languages still have some viability. In these ways, therefore, Jones’s monograph constitutes a first for the series, both methodologically speaking and in terms of content. Similarly, thinking about content from a different angle, it can be noted that this work aims to present an account of aspects of the phonology, morphosyntax, and lexicon of Norman, thus covering a fuller range of domains of grammar than any previous volume in the series. As for theory, Jones addresses head-on the matter of variation and change in a language contact situation, embedding her work in theories of superstrate- substrate interaction. This contribution continues what I trust readers are finding to be an informative and enriching series. I, for one, am excited about the directions the series is going in and will continue to do my best to deliver high-quality interesting works.

Brian D. Joseph EALT Series Managing Editor Columbus, Ohio USA 5 October 2014 Acknowledgements

Writing this monograph has brought me into contact with many generous people. I am particularly grateful to speakers in the five Norman speech communities who gave so readily of their time and whose warm welcome made the fieldwork a very memorable experience. Special thanks go to Rémi and Véronique Pézeril, Anthony Scott Warren, Geraint Jennings, Colin Ireson, Yan Marquis, Anna and Geoff Allez, Séverine Courard and Richard Axton for introducing me to speakers in these communities and for their kindness and hospitality. I would also like to acknowledge the support of the British Academy, whose research grant (SG110225) funded a large part of the fieldwork in mainland Normandy. My warm thanks go to Nicholas Zair and Magnus Ryan for reading through drafts of individual chapters and, on a personal note, to Stephen Hampton, Susanna Avery-Quash, James Carleton Paget, Andrew Lever, Robert Ross-Russell and Silke Mentchen. The book is dedicated to my parents, Eirwen and Philip Jones, whose support and encouragement are constant and unconditional. Diolch o galon i chi i gyd. Chapter 1 Introduction

It is often forgotten, on both sides of the English Channel, that the Norman linguistic territory is a fragmented one. The defeat of King John of England’s army at Rouen in 1204 at the hands of the French king, Philippe Auguste, led to the separation of the Duchy of Normandy into two domains, with the Norman mainland formally becoming part of the kingdom of France and the Channel Islands henceforth maintained in allegiance to the English Crown. This territorial split has now lasted for more than 800 years. The fracture had no immediate linguistic repercussions. Contact was maintained between mainland and insular Normandy via fishing and other trade activities. However, despite these links, the fact remained that, after 1204, apart from occasional periods when English force of arms detached areas from French control (see Chapter 2), the two Norman territories found themselves governed by opposing powers, who frequently played out their differences on the battlefield. As the centuries progressed, mainland and insular Normandy found themselves on different sides of an ever-widening linguistic gulf, with Norman co-existing alongside two of Europe’s most influential standard languages, namely French and English. Contact with their powerful linguistic neighbours has produced similar outcomes on the mainland and in the islands. Norman has undergone significant territorial contraction and speaker reduction and has witnessed the breaking down of its diglossic relationship with the local standard language as similar social factors, including demographic movement, intermarriage and stigmatization, have contributed to the loss of Norman from its former strongholds, such as the family domain. This, in turn, has prompted concerns for its future.

1.1 The Norman Territory

The present-day region of Normandy, named after the Vikings of Scandinavia, or ‘northmen’, covers some 11,900 square miles (30,821km2).1 Most of the

1 In Old Norse, the term víkingar was reserved for seafarers who participated in warrior voyages across the oceans, the expression fara í víkingu meaning ‘to go an an expedition’. Although the victims of the Vikings do not seem to have distinguished between Danes, Norwegians and Swedes in the terms they use to refer to them, the Scandinavians themselves were conscious

territory (11,825 square miles or 30,627km2) lies in north-west France, and makes up roughly 5% of that country. It is divided into five départements or administrative regions, namely Seine Maritime2 (surface area: 6,278km2, population: 1,250, 411) and Eure (surface area: 6,040km2, population: 586,543) which constitute Haute Normandie ‘Upper Normandy’; and Manche (surface area: 6,938km2, population: 498,747), Orne (surface area: 6,103km2, population: 291,642) and Calvados (surface area: 5,548km2, population: 683,105) which constitute Basse Normandie ‘Lower Normandy’.3 As may be seen, population den- sity in Seine Maritime is far greater than elsewhere in Normandy. Mainland Normandy also divides into smaller geographical areas, whose names are often based on local topography (see Map 1.1). Some 75 square miles of the Norman territory (roughly 194 km2) form a small archipelago lying in the English Channel, off the west of the Cotentin peninsula. Though situated geographically closer to France than to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands are dependencies of the British Crown, yet they have never formed part of the Kingdom of England (see §2.3). The Channel Islands do not form a political unit—which may go some way towards accounting for the fact that islanders tend to define their identity with respect to their individual island, rather than with reference to the archipelago as a whole (Jones 2008b: 253n; Rosen 2014: 195). They are divided administratively into two Bailiwicks, each with a non-political chief citizen known as a Bailiff, who serves as senior judge in the Royal Courts of Jersey and Guernsey, and moderator of each of those two islands’ parliamentary assemblies. The Bailiwick of Jersey comprises the island itself, which has a surface area of 45 square miles (116.5km2) and a population of 97,857 (2011)4 and two rocky reefs, the Minquiers and the Ecrehous. The other islands in the archipelago, belonging to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, are Guernsey (surface area: 25 square miles [64.75km2], population:

of these distinct ethnic allegiances, even if they spoke the same tongue, albeit with dialectal differences (Renaud 2002: 13–14). 2 Before 1955, the département of Seine Maritime was known as Seine Inférieure. Seine Inférieure is therefore the name used to refer to this area in the Atlas Linguistique de la France (see §1.3.2). 3 These figures, relating to the population as recorded in 2010, are taken from the website of the French National Institute of Statistics http://www.insee.fr/en/ (last accessed 22 April 2014). 4 These figures are taken from the 2011 Census of Jersey http://www.gov.je/SiteCollection Documents/Government%20and%20administration/R%20CensusBulletin1%2020111208% 20SU.pdf (last accessed 22 April 2014). At the time of writing, the French government is exploring ways to reduce the number of administrative regions of France. It is suggested that, as part of these reforms, Haute Normandie and Basse Normandie may be united as one region. Introduction 3

PAYS DE BRAY

OUEN É DIEPPE R U D G

R EVREUX E U DE N O PLAINE I B A U L E St. ANDR

N E

H C

GN E

’ TA

AY D

S S HE

SEINE-

I Y

O A MOR P

MARITIM E X M BERN

U EURE

U PE RC

N A O

C R O

Ç E N

D V

VRE U S

E S L

I I

Y L

A O

’

M D

LE HA

LISIEUX E

H N N

UGE G

D’A A P

S Y M

PA A ALENÇO

GEN TA C AR

ORNE

CAEN PLAINE CAEN YEUX HOULME ADOS BA

CA LV GE

VIRE

BESSIN BOCA AINT LÔ S 0 km

L I

IR E H DE VA C SA N G A

ANCHE R ANCES

V VRANCHES

M A A COUT COTENTIN CHERBOUR E GU HA o5 JERSEY ALDERNEY RK SA GUERNSE Y Map 1.1 Normandy. 4 Chapter 1

63,085 [2012]),5 Alderney (surface area: 3 square miles [7.8km2], population: 1,903 [2013]),6 Sark (surface area: 2 square miles [5.2km2], population: 610), and five islands of under 1 square mile (2.5km2): Herm, Jethou (combined population: 97), Brecqhou (estimated population no more than 40), uninhabited Burhou off Alderney, and a tidal island called Lihou, off Guernsey’s west coast, which does not have a permanent population. Jersey is divided into twelve administrative divisions, namely the parishes of St. Helier, St. Ouen, St. Mary, St. Peter, St. Lawrence, St. John, St. Martin, Trinity, St. Saviour, St. Sampson, St. Clement and Grouville. Its town is situated in St. Helier (see Map 1.2). Guernsey is divided into the parishes of St. Peter in the Wood, Torteval, St. Martin, St. Andrew, Forest, St. Sampson, Câtel, St. Peter Port, St. Sampson and the Vale. Its town is situated in St. Peter Port (see Map 1.3). As will be seen in Chapter 3, the variation shown by Norman in the different Channel Islands has led to its designation as separate dialects, namely Jèrriais (Jersey), Guernésiais (Guernsey), Sercquiais (Sark) and the now extinct Auregnais (Alderney).7 These dialects are often referred to collectively

01 2 St. John miles St. Mary St. Ouen Trinity St. Martin St. Lawrence N r u St. Peter o i v St. Helier a Gorey S

t S Grouville St. Brelade St. Aubin St. Helier e Clem nt St.

Map 1.2 The Parishes of Jersey.

5 These figures are take from the Guernsey annual population bulletin, 2012 http://www.gov .gg/article/106608/Guernsey-Annual-Population-Bulletin-2012 (last accessed 6 April 2014). 6 Figure taken from the 2013 Census of Alderney http://www.alderney.gov.gg/article/108021/ Alderney-Census---Press-Release (last accessed 23 March 2014). 7 Auregnais (represented by point 396 in the Atlas Linguistique de la France), died out during the 1950s. For further information, see Emanuelli (1906, 1907); Le Maistre (1982); Jones (in press) and the following websites: Pages Jèrriaises http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/ geraint/jerriais/bott.html (last accessed 22 April 2014), Société Jersiaise: http://members Introduction 5

St. Sampson Vale

Vale St. Sampson

St. Câtel Peter Port

St. St. Peter in the St. Andrew Wood Saviour St. Martin

Torteval Torteval Forest

Map 1.3 The Parishes of Guernsey. as Insular Norman or, less accurately, ‘Channel Island French’. Speakers of the insular dialects often also refer to their own speech as ‘Jersey French’, ‘Guernsey French’ or ‘Sark French’.

1.2 Language Contact

Despite the many academic publications that have appeared in the field of language contact during the past decades, Uriel Weinreich’s seminal study, Languages in Contact (1953) [1964], which considers the mechanisms and socio-cultural setting of contact-induced language change, still retains its place as an important point of reference. Weinreich’s investigation takes the bilingual individual as the locus of the contact: ‘Two or more languages will be said to be in contact if they are used alternately by the same person’ (1964:

.societe-jersiaise.org/sdllj/aurgnais.html (last accessed 22 April 2014). Some extracts written in Auregnais are included in Jennings and Marquis (2011). 6 Chapter 1

1), with any points of difference between their linguistic systems considered vulnerable and therefore potentially subject to contact-based change. The study examines language contact in its broadest sense: ‘For the purposes of the present study, it is immaterial whether the two systems are “languages”, “dialects of the same language” or “varieties of the same dialect” ’ (1964: 1). Notable studies that have subsequently sought to build on and refine Weinreich’s work include Peter Trudgill’s Dialects in Contact, where contact is examined specifically between ‘varieties of language that are mutually intelligible at least to some degree’ (1986: 1) and Peter Auer, Frans Hinskens and Paul Kerswill’s volume Dialect Change, which considers the effects of contact on language varieties ‘used in a geographically limited part of a language area in which [they are] “roofed” by a structurally related standard variety’ (Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 1). The fact that Norman co-exists with two typologically different standard languages, one Romance, one Germanic, presents an opportunity to examine contact-induced language change between two different kinds of linguistic system. The interaction between Mainland Norman and French, two related, structurally similar oïl varieties, is an example of dialect contact (cf. Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 16).8 For Günter Bellmann, these varieties exist in a diaglossic relationship with one another—in other words, a continuous intermediate scale of features exists between what might be termed the ‘poles’ of ‘pure’ dialect and the standard language (1998: 23–24) (cf. Carton 1981: 17). The interaction between English and Insular Norman, on the other hand, is an example of language contact (Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 16).9 The varieties are not structurally related and they exist in a diglossic (in the sense meant by Ferguson 1959) rather than in a diaglossic relationship. In other words, whereas a speaker can switch between Mainland Norman and French without there being any ‘abrupt’ point of transition between the varieties, this is not possible between Insular Norman and English. Thus, although Norman is an endangered linguistic variety both on the mainland and in the Channel Islands, the mechanisms by which language change occurs may, at times, differ (cf. Auer 2005: 27).

8 Broadly speaking, the term langue d’oïl is used to denote the Gallo-Romance dialects spoken to the north of the Loire. The dialects spoken to the south of the Loire are referred to collectively as the langue d’oc (see Lodge 1993). 9 Trudgill (1994: 13) distinguishes between dialect contact and language contact on the basis that the former involves mutually intelligible varieties and the latter non-mutually- intelligible varieties. He does, however, acknowledge that, in practice, such a distinction is less clear-cut than it first appears, as mutual intelligibility is, of course, a matter of degree (cf. Thomason 2001: 2). Introduction 7

On the mainland, Norman may undergo structural dialect loss, or de-dialectalization, via increasing ‘infiltration’ from the linguistic features of standard French. However, in the Channel Islands, dialect loss is more functional, as Norman becomes increasingly replaced by another language variety via dialect shift (Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 11). In other words, since Insular Norman is ‘roofed’ by a standard to which it does not orient itself linguistically (cf. Auer and Hinskens 1996: 6), it can potentially be simply ‘traded in’ for a completely different linguistic variety, leaving its final linguistic structure more ‘intact’ than that of its mainland counterpart which is in a diaglossic relationship with its linguistic ‘roof’ (or, to use Kloss (1967)’s term, Dachsprache) (Auer 2005: 27; cf. Huffines 1989). Studies of the same linguistic variety in contact with more than one other variety are strongly advocated by Weinreich (1964: 113) since, ‘with the structure of that one language constant, the mutual influences of it on the others, and vice versa, can be described in fully comparable terms’. He cites the case of Yiddish as an example of one such variety which has, during the course of its history, ‘experienced particularly multifarious and intimate contacts with others.’ Indeed, since Weinreich’s day, studies of the impact of political borders on pre-existing dialect landscapes have been made in the context of several varieties (see, among others, Kremer 1979; Kremer and Niebaum 1990; Hinskens 1993; Gerritsen 1999; Amara 1999; Kallen, Hinskens and Taeldeman 2000). And yet, as Woolhiser notes (2005: 243), studies of Western Romance dialect landscapes, within Europe, are fewer (although see Pohl 1978; Goebl 2000). The aim of the present study is to examine the way in which contact with its two typologically different superstrates has influenced the development of Norman within its mainland and insular territories. Following Weinreich, the structural analysis (presented in Chapters 5–8) is complemented by a consideration of the socio-cultural and linguistic context (Chapters 2–4). Chapter 2 has a historical focus. It explains the reasons for the Duchy’s territorial and linguistic ‘split’ and for the progressive decline of Mainland and Insular Norman—although the political autonomy and specific circumstances of the individual Channel Islands means that, while certain common trends can be identified, the particular linguistic history of each island will differ.10 Chapter 3 presents linguistic background to the data analyzed in the study.

10 For a more in depth treatment, the reader is referred to the following works: Mainland Normandy: Goube (1815); Palgrave (1851–64); De Bouard (ed) (1970); Mabire and Ragache (1976); Leménorel (ed) (2004); Jersey: Syvret and Stevens (1998); Guernsey: Tupper (1876); Le Huray (1952); Marr (1982); Johnston (1994); Sark: Ewen and De Carteret (1969); Alderney: Venne and Allez (1992). 8 Chapter 1

It outlines the relationship between the different varieties of Norman, describes the most salient differences between Norman and standard French and gives examples of the geographically-based internal variation that exists within different parts of the Norman linguistic territory.11 Chapter 4 provides a sociolinguistic profile of the contemporary Norman speech communities. Original data are used to examine linguistic practice and domains of usage within the mainland and insular territories. The effects of superstrate contact in Mainland and Insular Norman are analyzed in Chapters 5 to 8. Taking as its reference point the work of the nineteenth-century dialectologist Charles Joret, Chapter 5 assesses the extent to which the superstrate languages have influenced the phonetic features identified as characteristic of Norman.12 Chapter 6 uses the protocol elaborated for the Phonologie du Français Contemporain ‘Phonology of Contemporary French’ project (Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b) to consider liaison usage, with a view to examining the effects of contact on this prosodic feature. In order to determine whether contact with their superstrate languages is causing Mainland and Insular Norman to diverge morphosyntactically, Chapter 7 examines variables where Norman differs from one or both of these languages. Chapter 8 examines the effects of contact on the lexical relationship between Mainland

11 As these areas may exhibit extensive and often complex variation, especially with regard to phonology, some of the features described will inevitably differ slightly according to location. For specific details of particular varieties of Mainland and Insular Norman, see Mainland Norman: Dumeril and Dumeril (1849); Bourdon, Cournée and Charpentier (1993); Marie (2012); Trésor de la Langue Normande (2013); Manche: Romdahl (1881); Fleury (1886); Brouchon (1949); Marguerie (1957, 1960); Mauvoisin (1963); Lecoq (1969); Bosquet (1970); Dorléans (1970); Erard (1972); Maury (1972); Marie (1973); Lepelley (1974); Ledot (1974); Gancel (1975, 1980); Lelièvre (1979); Dorange (1990); Laîné (1991, 2006); Camuzard (1996); Fromage (2008); Calvados: Joret (1881); Guerlin De Guer (1889, 1901); Boissel (1970); Brasseur (1972); Marie-Main (1975); Anquetil-Amchin (1978); Le Jeune (1982); Hauchard (1988); Guéroult (1991); Dubos (1994); Orne: Fennolosa-Maillard (1969); Touzeil-Divina (1969); Dolbecq (1970); Lagrange (1980); Drieux-Nabet (1983); Porcher (1984); Seine Maritime: De Fresnay (1881); Valls (1967, 1971); Thorel (1972); Neil (1977); Mensire (1977); Lozay (1982); Hébert (1984); Yard (2012 [1939]); Eure: Robin, Le Prévost, Passy and De Blosseville (1879); Barbe (1907); Jèrriais: Le Maistre (1966); Spence (1957b, 1960: 16–28, 1985, 1987, 1990, 1993); Liddicoat (1994); Jones (2001); Société Jersiaise (2008a, b); Guernésiais: Métivier (1870); Lewis (1895); Jones (2008a); Tomlinson (1981, 2008); Sjøgren (1964); Collas (1931); De Garis (1982, 1983); Sercquiais: Liddicoat (1989, 1994, 2001); Jones (2012a). 12 Although the focus of Chapter 5 is primarily phonetic, for the sake of completeness, the morphological variable (singular and plural suffixes) examined by Joret in this context is also included. Introduction 9 and Insular Norman by exploring variation and borrowing within the vocabulary of both territories. Chapter 9 concludes the study by considering two further interesting theoretical questions, namely the claim made by Weinreich that ‘language shift does not exclude linguistic influence in the opposite direction’ (1964: 109) and Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill’s suggestion that the loss of a dialect differs from that of a language in that some of its linguistic features will inevitably be recycled into regiolects (2005: 11). Its co-existence with two different superstrates makes Norman a compelling linguistic variety to explore for such ‘bi-directional’ language contact. Therefore, in this chapter, the contact situation is considered from a ‘reverse angle’ by exploring the substrate effect of Mainland and Insular Norman on the local varieties of, respectively, French and English that are spoken within the Norman linguistic territory. Dialect change is often framed within the context of convergence and divergence: in other words, whether change operates to make the linguistic variety under study structurally closer to, or more distant from, its neighboring varieties (cf. Trudgill 1986; Auer, Hinskens and Kerswill 2005). As the term ‘convergence’ is commonly used in Linguistics to describe a Sprachbund context, involving mutual, bi-lateral influence between two or more varieties of similar prestige, all of which undergo structural modification (cf. Gumperz and Wilson 1971), Klaus Mattheier (1996: 34) has instead proposed the term ‘advergence’ to describe a situation of ‘uni-lateral’ convergence involving an asymmetrical prestige (and dominance) relationship between the varieties in question, and where the less prestigious variety typically undergoes most, if not all, the structural change.13 An example of one such asymmetrical relationship would be that which usually exists between a standard language and its associated dialects within a given territory where, as a result of elaboration and codification (or Ausbau, Kloss 1967), the former is considered by the speech community to be the aspirational ‘norm’ and the model of what is deemed to be ‘correct usage’. Of course, in this context, advergence does not imply that a dialect’s phonological or morphosyntactic structure will necessarily be taken over completely by that of the standard. In some cases, it may be that the individual (surface) linguistic features will remain distinct, but that the underlying structural patterns may start to reflect those of the standard. Such a situation could presumably give rise either to quantitative variation between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ variants or, in certain cases, to a ‘fudged’ dialect, including, for example, phonetically intermediate forms not found in any of the original varieties pre-contact (Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 46; cf. Trudgill 1986: 60–62). Contemporary

13 Heine and Kuteva (2005: 9) prefer the term ‘grammatical replication’ on the grounds that it implies directionality from the source language to the replica language. 10 Chapter 1 linguists increasingly refer to any reduction of structural variation in this (dialect—standard) context as Abbau (‘demolition’, ‘dismantling’), as distinct from Ausgleich (‘compromise’), or levelling that occurs between related dialects of similar (in practice, usually lesser) prestige (cf. Auer and Hinskens 1996: 4). As an oïl variety, Mainland Norman is closely related to its (more prestigious) ‘roof’, standard French. The linguistic situation of Insular Norman is, however, more complex, as two superstrates form part of the Channel Island linguistic landscape. Up until the twentieth century, standard French served as the de facto standard language of the Channel Islands, and this variety is still generally considered to be the ‘roofing’ language for written Insular Norman.14 However, within the archipelago, standard French has always functioned as an exoglossic standard and, despite enjoying exclusive use in so-called ‘High’ domains from the Middle Ages right up until the time when English started to predominate (Brasseur 1977; Jones 2001, 2008a; see also §2.3), it was never spoken as a native language. Today, standard French remains functionally differentiated from both Norman and English, being reserved for formulaic, ceremonial usage, such as for the opening prayers and for oral voting in meetings of the Channel Island parliamentary assemblies. For most contemporary speakers of Insular Norman, therefore, the linguistic relationship with standard French is akin to that which one would have with a ‘foreign’ language. Like other British citizens, these speakers will have encountered French via the education system, albeit generally a few years earlier than in the United Kingdom, but they do not speak it natively nor, for the most part, does French have much relevance for their daily lives, although its structural similarity to Norman means that most speakers of Insular Norman can understand French reasonably well.15 As will be seen in §4.5.2, although the Norman of Jersey (though not of Guernsey or Sark) is undergoing codification and elaboration as an embryonic endoglossic standard (Sallabank 2013: 171), English is now the official standard language of the archipelago and has been for many decades, its presence reflecting the well-established contact between Channel Islanders and the

14 As an example of this, see grammars such as Birt (1985) (Jèrriais) and Tomlinson (2008) (Guernésiais), where the written morphological endings documented for Insular Norman tend to be heavily influenced by the spelling conventions of standard French (cf. Sallabank 2013: 47, 171). 15 In 1912, a law was passed stating that French should be taught for an hour per day in all Jersey’s schools. However, Brasseur has claimed that this time allowance was rarely applied (1977: 98). Introduction 11

British mainland (see §2.3).16 The linguistic corollary of this is that, while the potential for Abbau exists on the mainland, the typological distance between Insular Norman and English means that it cannot occur within the archipelago. Of course, any Abbau-type advergence that occurs between Mainland Norman and French will inevitably create divergence between Mainland and Insular Norman. Thus, as Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill (2005: 12) argue, dialect convergence and divergence ‘do not constitute autonomous, separate types of linguistic change in themselves; rather, they are epiphenomena, resulting from common processes of linguistic change’ (cf. also Boeschoten 1997).

1.3 Methodology

In Weinreich’s words, ‘In developing the theoretical and practical tools of interference study, there are certain additional advantages in selecting for analysis cases of language contact which are accessible to observation by direct field techniques and can consequently be described according to the most rigorous standards’ (1964: 114). The data analyzed in the present study were collected between 2008 and 2012 via face-to-face interviews with native speakers of Mainland and Insular Norman.17 On the mainland, speakers were interviewed in two separate locations, namely the canton of Bricquebec in the Cotentin peninsula (département of Manche, Lower Normandy) and that of Yvetot in the Pays de Caux (département of Seine Maritime, Upper Normandy).18 These cantons were chosen as they represent areas in the west and east of the province where it is claimed that Norman is still heard frequently. Both varieties have been codified to some degree in, respectively, UPNC (1995) and Hébert (1984), works to which Mauvoisin (1995) accords the status of grammars. The distinct sociolinguistic identities of these varieties are demonstrated by the fact that the glossonym ‘Cauchois’ is generally used by speakers and non- speakers from all over Normandy to refer to the variety of Norman spoken in département of Seine Maritime (Bulot 2006: 37), whereas the speech of the

16 English was formally made an official language of Guernsey in 1926 and an offical language of Jersey in 1946 (the other being French). 17 The study does not examine the speech of semi-speakers as defined by Dorian (1977). 18 France’s basic municipal unit is called a commune. Each commune is headed by a mayor and is usually the level at which basic services are provided. The canton represents a collection of several neighbouring communes, located around a central ‘main town’. 12 Chapter 1

Cotentin is generally referred to as ‘Norman’.19 The field locations also contrast well sociolinguistically in that Seine Maritime has been subject to sustained contact with French for far longer than the Cotentin peninsula (see §2.2). 94 interviews were conducted with individuals who, as well as being native speakers of Norman, were also, inevitably, fluent in the local standard language. Interviews were conducted with 37 speakers in mainland Normandy (27 in the Cotentin peninsula and 10 in the Pays de Caux), 29 in Guernsey, 21 in Jersey and 7 in Sark. The widespread cessation of intergenerational transmission throughout the mainland and the islands (see §4.2) means that most speakers interviewed were aged over sixty and, for this reason, the present study does not consider age-related variation. As Weinreich (1964: 3) and others have noted, extra-linguistic factors (such as manner of learning each language, language attitudes and proficiency in each language) can have a bearing on an individual’s speech (cf. Jones 2005a). This study has attempted to mini- mize such influence by keeping the sample as homogeneous as possible, but it is clearly impossible for these factors to be precluded completely. Data were collected via three questionnaires: one sociolinguistic (analyzed in Chapter 4), one phonological (analyzed in Chapter 5) and one lexical (analyzed in Chapter 8). In the interests of obtaining data that could be used for subsequent cross- and intra- dialectal comparison, the precise variables selected for the questionnaires correspond to those investigated in a piloted pan-Norman linguistic survey (Patrimoine Linguistique en Normandie, hereafter, PLN). Although the PLN survey was not completed, some of its findings have been reported (see, for example, Bougy 2009). Part of each interview also consisted of (recorded) free conversation, and this forms the basis of the analysis of liaison and morphosyntax presented in Chapters 6 and 7. 18 mainland speakers declared that, although able to recall words in isolation and thus give full responses to the sociolinguistic, phonological and lexical questionnaires, they no longer felt comfortable engaging in a sustained conversation in Norman and have therefore been excluded from this part of the study. The fact that all 19 mainland speakers who agreed to participate in the free conversation came from the Cotentin peninsula is indicative of the greater vitality of Norman in this area. In an attempt to lessen the observer’s paradox (Labov 1972: 32) during interviews in the Cotentin peninsula, Jersey and Guernsey, I was accompanied by a fluent speaker of the local variety of Norman who was well known to

19 Within the Cotentin peninsula, however, separate glossonyms are used to refer to the varieties of Norman spoken in specific localities. For example, the Norman of Créances is usually known as ‘Créançais’ (see, for example, Fromage 2008). Introduction 13 the people being interviewed and who often took the lead in the conversation. Working with a local research assistant in this way has proved an effective means of enhancing the elicitation of casual speech, especially in cases where the researcher is not a native speaker of the variety under investigation (Milroy and Gordon 2003: 75; Bowern 2010: 351). Involving a research assistant also made it possible to use social networks to locate speakers via the friend- of-a-friend technique sampling technique (Milroy 1987), whose effectiveness has been demonstrated in previous studies of Norman (see, for example, Jones 2001: 45–47). For Sark, access to the social network was gained with the assis- tance of a local historian and, in the Pays de Caux, participants were identified via a local Norman association (see §4.5.1). The free conversation was always conducted in the local variety of Norman. As conversations inevitably varied in length, in an attempt to maintain consistency, thirty minutes of data have been analyzed in each case.20 As the study investigates naturalistic speech, chance inevitably plays a part in whether or not speakers produce tokens of the variable under scrutiny. However, by choosing variables that occur relatively frequently, it was hoped that enough tokens would be produced to allow meaningful analysis.

1.3.1 Transcription The extensive range of different types of data presented in this study make transcription a complex matter. All the original data obtained via my own fieldwork are transcribed using the International Phonetic Alphabet (hereafter, IPA). Where relevant, provenance is indicated as follows: mainland Normandy (MN), Jersey (J), Guernsey (G), Sark (S). Where variation internal to mainland Normandy is discussed, provenance is highlighted according to region, for example Cotentin peninsula (C) and, within this area, Magneville (M) [centre], Val de Saire (VdS) [north-east]; Pays de Caux (PdC). Where individual dialect forms do not form the central focus, the relevant lexeme (which for reasons of accessibility is given in standard French) is represented in large capitals. Such representations are not intended to suggest any form of etymon, Latin or otherwise. As is conventional, Latin etyma are given in small capitals. All written data are left in their original spellings. In some cases, for example Chapters 5 and 8, orthographic forms are used as shorthand to represent a group of variants of the same lexical item. These variants may either be drawn from the same variety of Norman or else are common

20 The importance of maintaining consistency of interview length is emphasized by, for instance, the Phonologie du Français Contemporain project (cf. Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b: 33). 14 Chapter 1 to more than one variety of Norman. If the variant in question exists in Jèrriais, for reasons of accessibility, it is cited using the spelling of Le Maistre’s (1966) Dictionnaire Jersiais-Français, whose principles are reasonably close to those of standard French: the main exception being that the digraph th is used to represent the sound [ð], which arises from the assibilation of intervocalic r (cf. Spence 1957b). Where a lexical item is found only in Guernsey, or where usage particular to Guernsey is being highlighted, the Guernésiais spelling of De Garis (1982) is used. For usage particular to Sark, the relevant form is usually transcribed in the IPA, as no separate orthography has yet been devised for Sercquiais. Where a term is found only in Mainland Norman, or where usage particular to Mainland Norman is being highlighted, the spelling used is generally based on that of Bourdon, Cournée and Charpentier (1993) and UPNC (1995). Standard French and English spellings are used to represent words of French/English when phonetics are not central to the discussion (for example, in Chapters 8 and 9). The data for Chapter 9 are drawn from a combination of notes and observations made during my own fieldtrips and also from the reanalysis of data presented in Ramisch (1989); Barbé (1985, 1994, 1995); Viereck (1988); Brasseur (1990); Schortz (1998); and Lepelley (2010b).

1.3.2 Diachrony In order to provide the study with a diachronic dimension, the variables discussed in Chapters 5 to 8 are also examined in the Atlas Linguistique de la France (Gilliéron and Edmont 1902–1910, hereafter, ALF), Collas’ (1931) critical examination of the ALF for data points in Guernsey, and the Atlas Linguistique et Ethnographique Normand (Brasseur 1980, 1984, 1997, 2010, hereafter, ALEN).21 The ALF data were collected between 1897 and 1901—the Channel Island data points being visited in 1898 and those in mainland Normandy between 1897 and 1899, making the work an important source of late nineteenth century usage. The ALEN data were collected between 1970 and 1976 and, accordingly, this Atlas is a useful source of forms current during the third quarter of the twentieth century. As this study’s points of enquiry in mainland Normandy do not match exactly those of the ALF and ALEN, usage is, in each case, compared with the closest geographical locations available. For the ALF, the data points examined are 386 (Fresville) and 395 (Les Moitiers d’Allonne) in the Cotentin peninsula and 259

21 Feeling that the large-scale nature of the ALF causes it inevitably to miss some detail, Collas (1931) re-examines all the features investigated with respect to Guernsey, thus recording in more depth the variation present in early twentieth-century Guernésiais. Introduction 15

(Bertrimont) in the Pays de Caux. For the ALEN, they are 9 (Magneville) in the Cotentin peninsula and 108 (Le Torp-Mesnil), 109 (Touffreville-la-Corbeline), 110 (Bolleville) and 111 (Ourville-en-Caux) in the Pays de Caux. For ease of comparison, the data drawn from the ALF and ALEN are transcribed in the IPA rather than in the less widely known phonetic script used in these Atlases.22 Slight differences between the systems mean that, occasionally, transcriptions in the present study may not reflect every detail of the pronunciation recorded in the Atlases. Finally, transcription of the sound r warrants some explanation. The Notice to the ALF states that, in that Atlas, the symbol r has ‘la même valeur qu’en français’ (Gilliéron and Edmont 1902: 19)23—by which the authors presumably mean standard French. However, in the ALF’s constituent maps, the same symbol is used to represent both the r of the Channel Islands—where, apart from certain pockets in Jersey, it is usually realized as a voiced alveolar trill [r] (Spence 1960: 26; cf. §3.1.1.2(ii)) and that of the mainland—where, at the time the ALF was being compiled, it may, in some areas, have been realized as a voiced uvular fricative [ʁ], as in modern standard French. The exact phonetic value of the r in the ALF’s transcriptions in Normandy is therefore unclear and the present study simply reproduces that symbol ([r]). This issue does not arise in the ALEN, which provides more detailed information with regard to the realization of r at each of its data points.

22 For a comparison of these phonetic alphabets, see Lepelley (1999a: 56–57). 23 ‘the same value as in French’. Chapter 2 The Historical Context

2.1 The Norman Territory Pre-1204

Latin was first taken to the region that would become Normandy by the Roman armies of Julius Caesar during the first century BC. Caesar subjugated the local Celtic tribes, known as Gauls, who had lived there since the Bronze Age.1 After the collapse of the Roman Empire, in the fifth century, the mainland territory was invaded and settled by Germanic tribes, known as the Franks, under whose rule it formed part of Neustria, itself under the rule of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty between the sixth and eighth centuries. Between the late fourth and early seventh centuries, migration from the British Isles to Armorica created the region that was to be known as Brittany and it may be presumed that the Channel Islands formed part of this new entity, both linguistically and politically (Galliou and Jones 1991: 128; Coates 1991: 7). The modern names of the Channel Islands are, however, all of Scandinavian origin, with three bearing the distinctive ending –ey, meaning island. It is speculated that ‘Guernsey’ derives from ‘Grani’s island’ or perhaps ‘Warinn’s island’. There may equally be some association with Old Norse grön ‘pine’ (Coates 1991: 118). Alderney may be either a corruption of Old Norse Adreni ‘island near the coast’ or else adla renna ey (wave—stong current—island). For Jersey, suggestions range from ‘Geirr’s island’ to ‘grassy isle’, with the first syllable derived from Frisian gers. The Vikings’ first recorded appearance in the Bay of the River Seine, a water- way bounded by the Cotentin peninsula in the east and the modern port of Le Havre in the west, is in 820. Although their raid was repelled, the same fleet subsequently sailed up the mouth of the Loire and made a successful attack on the area known today as La Vendée. From then on, regular seasonal incursions took place. Coastal towns were destroyed and the Vikings also sailed up rivers to raid inland areas. Nantes was sacked in 843, Bordeaux in 844 and, in 845,

1 Although the Romans did not occupy the Channel Islands, it has been claimed on the basis of the Antonine Itinerary (c.284), which lists the islands in the sea between Gaul and Britain, that they gave the names Caesarea, Sarnia and Riduna to Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney, respectively. However, it is also possible that the former at least may refer to one of the Scilly Isles. Ewen and De Carteret (1969: 16) make a case for Sarnia being identified with Sark and academic reflection has satisfactorily shown the Roman name for Guernsey to have been Lisia, or a variant thereof (Langouët 1986: 124; Coates 1991: 14–17).

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004257139_003 The Historical Context 17 the longboats reached Paris. The Viking presence was first felt in Normandy around 876 (Neveux 1998; Skråmm 2004a). A base was established at Rouen and many towns were sacked, including St. Lô and Evreux. By 911, the attacks had become so persistent that, in an attempt to keep other raiders at bay, in the Treaty of Saint Clair-sur-Epte, Charles the Simple, the King of the West Franks, ceded an area around the lower reaches of the Seine to Rollo, leader of a Viking band that had settled there and who, according to the Sagas, was the son of the Norwegian Rognwald of More. This territory, with Rouen as its capital, formed the kernel of what was to become Normandy. It was later extended—in 924, 933 (at which date the Channel Islands were annexed) and 1050—to give the territory the boundaries that remain largely those of the modern region. The Vikings adapted quickly to the language, religion and customs of the people whose lands they now ruled. Rollo had converted to Christianity under the terms of the Treaty2 and the fact that the Vikings travelled on their expe- ditions solely in groups of male warriors led to intermarriage with the local women, thereby accelerating linguistic assimilation, which seems to have occurred within three generations. No runic inscription has been found in Normandy, nor do any traditional Viking tales survive (Wheaton 1831: 260). In fact, it is documented that Rollo’s grandson, Richard (d. 996), had to be sent to Bayeux to learn Danish, as the language had already disappeared from Rouen by that time, being replaced by the Romance vernacular of the area. And yet, although the Viking tongue did not survive very long, the vocabulary of modern Norman and the territory’s toponymy both contain clear evidence of the region’s Norse linguistic heritage: examples include, among many fale ‘stomach’, mucre ‘mould, humid’, sud ‘south’ (De Gorog 1958; Renaud 2002) and bec ‘brook’ (cf. also placenames such as Bricquebec < Old Norse brekka ‘slope’ + bec ‘brook’; Quettetot < Ketill [personal name] + topt ‘building plot’).3 By the elev- enth century, mainland Normandy was dotted with monasteries and abbeys that had become centres of learning, many of which were built in the distinctive Norman architectural style. Normandy first became somewhat tenuously linked with England in 1066 when William, the territory’s seventh Duke, became the King of England by right of conquest, a feat which earned him the sobriquet ‘William the Conqueror’. At his death, however, his domains were separated, his eldest son, Robert, becoming Duke of Normandy and another of his sons, William Rufus,

2 Despite his official conversion to Christianity, it seems that, on his deathbed, Rollo made sacrifices to the Viking gods as well as giving money to the Church. 3 For further details and examples, see Lepelley (1999a, b); Skråmm (2004b); Hall (2013) and, for Jèrriais, Spence (1993). 18 Chapter 2 becoming King of England. Strong economic, juridical and linguistic ties were maintained between mainland and insular Normandy. Indeed, describing the islanders during the Middle Ages, Le Patourel states that they ‘were of the same racial blend as the Normans of the Cotentin, they spoke the same dialect, with their own local variations, traded with the same money and lived under the same customary law’ (1937: 35). The Norman domains were subsequently reunited under the same Crown by another of William the Conqueror’s sons and successor to William Rufus, Henry i of England, who defeated his brother, Robert, at the Battle of Tinchenbray (1106). However, in 1204, Henry’s great-grandson, King John ‘Lackland’ of England, lost the Duchy to King Philippe II of France. Henceforth, apart from mainland Normandy’s brief annexation (1417 to 1450) to the English Crown during the Hundred Years’ War, the Duchy would remain divided into its mainland and insular territories.

2.2 Post-1204: The Mainland

After becoming part of the Kingdom of France, the Duchy of Normandy sur- vived as a separate political entity by the intermittent installation of a duke. In practice, it became a territorial unit often granted by the French king as an appanage to a close member of his family, such as a son or brother, until the ducal ring was smashed on November 9th 1469 by order of King Louis XI, who was fearful that the territory might serve its holder as a basis for rebellion against royal power.4 Thereafter, Normandy was governed as a province. Despite being governed by the French Crown, after 1204 the Duchy of Normandy was maintained in all its territorial integrity as a discrete unit within the royal demesne. It was allowed to keep many of its institutions such as its customary law, as enshrined in the Très Ancien Coutumier (authored between 1200 and 1245), its trading rights on the lower Seine and its Plantagenet-based administrative system. Normandy’s sovereign court, the Exchequer, which is first referred to by that name in 1176, was maintained, and seems to have conducted its business, in Norman and matters such as the application of justice and control of local finances were left, as before, in the hands of officials, known as Bailiffs (baillis). However, despite these appearances to the contrary, change was afoot. Frenchmen, often with a tradition of service to the king, were put

4 James II of England and the Dauphin Louis-Charles, the second son of Louis XVI of France, were also, subsequently, given the title Duke of Normandy (in the seventeenth and eight eenth centuries respectively) although, in both cases, the title was strictly honorary. The Historical Context 19 at the head of the Bailiwicks (baillages) and the Exchequer became an extension of the king’s Court, judging people with Norman law but interpreting that law as Frenchmen. Normans also became prominent in royal circles, a notable example being Enguerrand De Marigny (1260–1315), a French chamberlain and minister to Philippe IV (‘le Bel’). The following centuries brought prosperity to Normandy. The port of Rouen had become an important hub of French internal trade in the thirteenth century and the areas around the Seine, Eure and Oise rivers were also centres of economic development. Favier (1970b: 233) notes that the year 1424–1425 alone brought 390 ships to the port of Dieppe and ship-building flourished along the Seine estuary. By the sixteenth century, all manner of goods were criss-crossing Normandy: salt from Brittany, wine from Bordeaux, dyed cloth from Aquitaine, fruit from the Algarve, oil from Morocco and sugar from Madeira. This contributed further to the growth of Rouen—at that time the fourth most populous city in the realm—as an important financial centre and a port for both internal and external trade, which brought increasing numbers of Norman merchants to Paris. Dieppe and Honfleur were developed as gateways for commerce with the New World, the former becoming France’s premier port by the seventeenth century. However, while Upper Normandy was a centre of intensive maritime activity and commerce, with the concomitant and inevitable population mixing, the fortunes of Lower Normandy were different.5 Its fishing and shipbuild- ing industries remained predominantly local and attracted fewer outsiders for trade and regular employment. The sixteenth century also brought important structural changes to the region. In 1515, the Exchequer, hitherto an itinerant assembly, was renamed as the Parlement de Normandie, gaining a fixed home in Rouen. It started to apply the Roman law of France rather than the customary law of Normandy which, henceforth, would only survive through the legal systems of Guernsey and Jersey. The geographical division between Upper and Lower Normandy became institutionalized when the edict of Cognac (1542) divided the province into two separate généralités, or administrative and fiscal units, one based at Rouen, the other at Caen, although Normandy continued to form a legal entity until 1791, when it was divided into its five modern départements by the Revolutionary government.

5 Upper Normandy also saw less prosperous times. For example, after the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes (1685), many of the region’s Protestants, or Huguenots, left France, dealing a severe blow to Normandy’s economy. Industries in which the Huguenots had been particularly active, such as textiles, were severely affected. Rouen, for example, took nearly a century to recover. 20 Chapter 2

Although the spread of French in Upper Normandy must certainly have gathered momentum in the region’s towns and ports at this time, it is likely that, during the Ancien Régime, most of the province’s population was left unaf- fected. France at that time has been likened to an ‘agro-literate’ society where the State was interested in ‘extracting taxes, maintaining the peace and not much else, and has no interest in promoting lateral communication between its subject communities’ (Grillo 1989: 28, citing Gellner 1983: 10). However, evidence suggests that, in certain circles, the king’s language had begun to spread. Lodge, for example, indicates that, between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries, Parisian spellings came to replace regional ones in administrative documents (1993: 123) and, in 1539, François I issued the Ordinance of Villers- Cotterêts whereby ‘tous arrestz ensemble toutes aultres procedures, soit des cours souveraines ou aultres subalternes et inferieures, soit de registres, enquetes, contrats, commissions, sentences, testaments ou aultres quelquon- ques actes ou exploits de justice ou qui en dependent [. . .] soient prononcez enregistrez et deliverez aux parties en langage maternel françois et non aultre- ment’ (Lodge 1993: 126).6 The Revolution was to mark a linguistic turning point and, like every other part of France, Normandy was affected irrevocably. The following pronounce- ments, made to the Revolutionary government, exemplify well the jaco- bin mindset.7 In September 1791, the French statesman Charles Maurice De Talleyrand-Perigord stated, in a report on public education, that it was time to put an end to the state of inequality that he perceived to exist between French citizens who could and could not speak the language of the new French Republic. He recommended that a primary school be established in each parish, where teaching would be exclusively in French and where the French language would be studied as a subject in its own right: ‘les écoles primaires vont mettre fin à cette étrange inégalité: la langue de la Constitution et des lois y sera enseignée à tous; et cette foule de dialectes corrompus, derniers restes

6 ‘All legal decisions and all procedures pertaining either to the highest courts or to the lower or inferior ones whether they concern records, inquests, contracts, commissions, wills or whatever other legal acts or instruments or whatever is dependent thereon [. . .] should be pronounced, registered and delivered to the litigants in the French vernacular language and in no other way’. However, not all commentators agree that Villers-Cotterêts was as draco- nian a linguistic measure as it may appear. Peyre (1933) and Fiorelli (1950), for example, argue that the Ordinance’s main aim was to remove Latin as a judicial and administrative language, in place of which either French or local vernaculars were to be used—although Brun (1951) and Lodge (1993) maintain that this was restricted to northern vernaculars only. 7 For a detailed treatment see, among others, De Certeau, Julia and Revel (1975); Adamson (2007); and Judge (2007). The Historical Context 21 de la féodalité, sera contrainte de disparaître’.8, 9 On 27 January 1794, Bertrand Barère similarly advocated the linguistic homogenization of France ‘Écrasons donc l’ignorance, établissons des instituteurs de langue française dans les cam- pagnes!’ He continues: ‘Il faut populariser la langue, il faut détruire cette aris- tocratie de langage qui semble établir une nation polie au milieu d’une nation barbare. Nous avons révolutionné le gouvernement, les lois, les usages, les mœurs, les costumes, le commerce et la pensée même; révolutionnons donc aussi la langue, qui est leur instrument journalier’.10, 11 This was followed, later that year (4 June), by the report of l’Abbé Henri-Baptiste Grégoire, who had conducted a survey which estimated that only some 11.5% of France’s population of 26 million had complete control of the standard language. The title of Grégoire’s report, ‘Rapport sur la nécéssité et les moyens d’anéantir le patois et d’universaliser la langue française’, leaves no doubt about the linguistic policy he thought the Republic should adopt.12 Under the Revolutionary banner, therefore, language was explicitly linked to liberty, democracy and unity. The link between language and the education system was further strengthened when the Jules Ferry laws of 1881 and 1882 established free, compulsory and secular primary education throughout France, a ministerial order of 7 June 1880 having proclaimed that ‘Le français sera seul en usage dans l’école’:13 the use of any dialect or regional language—even in the playground—was therefore severely punished (Weber 1977; Morvannou 1980). By the end of the nineteenth century, as a result of this educational policy and also the compulsory military service that, since 1792, had drawn together recruits from all over France, with

8 ‘The primary schools will put an end to this strange inequality: the language of the Constitution and of the laws will be taught to everyone; and this group of corrupt dialects, the last vestiges of feudalism, will be forced to disappear’. 9 Extracts from the report may be consulted at http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/ HIST_FR_s8_Revolution1789.htm (last accessed 22 April 2014). 10 ‘Let us therefore crush this ignorance, let us establish French-speaking schoolteachers in all parts of the countryside [. . .] We must make the language accessible to everyone, we must destroy this aristocracy of language that seems to establish a polite nation in the midst of a barbaric one. We have revolutionized government, laws, practices, manners, dress, business and even thought; let us therefore also revolutionize language, which is their everyday instrument.’ 11 The full text of the report may be consulted at http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/ barere-rapport.htm (last accessed 22 April 2014). 12 ‘Report on the necessity and the means of extinguishing patois and of universalizing the French language’. The full text of the report may be consulted at http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/ axl/francophonie/gregoire-rapport.htm (last accessed 22 April 2014). 13 ‘Only French shall be used at school’. 22 Chapter 2

French necessarily becoming the common tongue, hardly any monolingual dialect speakers remained, especially in northern France. Normandy continued to develop economically despite the difficulties endured by its ports first during British blockades in the Napoleonic Wars and, subsequently, through occupation in the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). An important naval port was completed in Cherbourg, at the tip of the Cotentin peninsula, in the 1850s and Le Havre became the world’s leading coffee port, even rivalling Liverpool and Bremen’s trade in cotton. Although the population remained steady throughout the century, at some 2.4 million, this figure hides the significant demographic redistribution that occurred at this time. In the towns of Upper Normandy, especially in the Seine Valley, whose industries were booming in the industrial revolution, the population grew steadily (notable examples include Le Havre, Rouen and Elbeuf, all of which were involved in the manufacture and export of textiles). Yet, outside the towns, large parts of rural Normandy, left untouched by this prosperity, were becoming depopu- lated. This was particularly acute in Lower Normandy which, with the exception of Cherbourg, witnessed relatively little economic development. The advent of the railways helped open up Normandy, bringing goods to and from the ports and putting affluent upper- and middle-class Parisians within easy reach of the beaches of the Seine’s left bank (for example, jour- neys on the Paris-Trouville line, which opened in 1846, took less than three hours). Although the resorts of Deauville and Cabon in Lower Normandy also benefited from the new fashion for taking the sea air, the distances involved again favoured Upper Normandy and the resorts of Dieppe, Saint Valéry en Caux, Etretat, Le Tréport and Trouville all prospered during this period, with the prospect of work in the tourist industry attracting permanent residents as well as the more temporary visitors. The popularity of these resorts increased still further when they were captured in the paintings of the Impressionists, whose very movement takes its name from Claude Monet’s painting of sunrise at Le Havre, Impression, soleil montant. Both World Wars contributed to the advance of French, although in different ways. Normandy was not a battleground in the First World War but its ports and naval dockyards were of high strategic importance and, along with the vital armament and textile industries, drew people from the countryside, and from other parts of France, to the region’s towns. Rouen again played a prominent role, being used by the British as a supply base and, when the Germans invaded and subsequently occupied Belgium in 1914 as part of the Schieffen plan, the city housed the Belgian government in exile in one of its suburbs, Sainte Adresse: a presence which is reflected in the large increase in French-Belgian marriages during this period, with their inevitable linguistic consequences. The Historical Context 23

The horrific casualties borne in the War, during which France is estimated to have lost 1,697,800 (4.3%) of its total population, principally via the deaths of young male soldiers, only served to exacerbate the rural depopulation. Normandy was at the centre of the fighting in the Second World War. Its proximity to England meant that the region was heavily occupied by German soldiers and hence bombed relentlessly by the Allies. During the D-Day landings of 6 June 1944 it also became the starting point for the Liberation of France and, subsequently, of Europe by British, American and Canadian troops. The destruction Normandy suffered, both to its towns and infrastruc- ture, meant that, after the War, the region had to be almost entirely rebuilt. Reconstruction provided economic incentives for people to leave the farms and work in the towns, especially since developments in mechanization were leading to the need for an ever smaller rural workforce. This again served to encourage the spread of French and the loss of Norman, as did the industries that were developed during the course of the century. Some of these were established during the inter war years—for example, the cross Channel fer- ries at Le Havre, which today is the fifth busiest trading port in Europe and a major centre for container shipping, or the hydrocarbon treatment centres, oil refineries and pharmaceutical and glass industries of Seine Maritime. Others were brought to the region as part of the post-Second World War regeneration, for example the industrial dairies of the Pays de Caux, the continuing development of the military naval base at Cherbourg, the car manufacturing industries of the Seine Valley and the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant at La Hague, the largest of its kind in the world. The tourist industry has continued to thrive, bringing some 10 million visitors annually to the region’s towns, resorts and D-Day beaches. Rouen is also Europe’s main port for the export of grain and a major hub for France’s agro-industries. During the second half of the twentieth century, the growth of these industries was accompanied by a steady decrease in the agricultural population and, as Frémont (1981) observes, a sharp increase in the non-agricultural residences and second homes owned by people from outside the area. The spread of French in Normandy has therefore resulted, on the one hand, from the region’s particular socio-political and economic history and, on the other, from being part of a country where, since 1789, language has been firmly tied to national identity. In 1992, Article 2 of the 1958 French Constitution was amended to state explicitly that ‘La langue de la République est le français’,14 and this was used as grounds for France’s decision not to ratify the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, which it signed in 1999.

14 ‘French is the language of the Republic’. 24 Chapter 2

Such is the strength of feeling about the national language that, although the Assemblée Nationale (the Lower House of the French Parliament), voted on 22 May 2008 to modify the text of the Constitution by inserting the clause ‘Les langues régionales appartiennent à son patrimoine’,15 this amendment was rejected by the Sénat (the Upper House) on 18 June after the Académie Française, the French language’s foremost regulatory body, expressed its vehe- ment opposition to the proposed change. As a northern (oïl) dialect, Norman’s close linguistic affinity to standard French has meant that, unlike unrelated languages such as Basque and Breton, or even more closely related ones such as Catalan and Occitan, it was not initially included in the 1951 Deixonne Law, which allowed for the provision of some teaching of regional varieties within the French education system. The Cerquiglini report, commissioned in 1999 by the French government with the aim of analyzing the European Charter’s compatibility with the French Constitution as amended in 1992, effectively rebaptized as ‘langues de France’ (‘languages of France’) many of what were traditionally classed as ‘patois d’oïl’ (‘oïl dialects’) although, to date, Norman’s newfound status seems to be more abstract than actual. Under the terms of the Savary Memorandum (21 June 1982), the provision of the Deixonne Law was notionally extended to all regional languages, which led to Norman gaining some presence in the schools (see §4.5.1). The Bayrou Memorandum (20 April 1995) went on to reaffirm the State’s backing for the teaching of regional languages but, in practice, Gallo is the only oïl variety whose status was improved by this piece of legislation. At the time of writing, no official signage or documents are available in Norman. Given that France does not engage in any form of linguistic census, estimat- ing current speaker numbers of Mainland Norman with any degree of accu- racy is difficult, but based on data analyzed by the French National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies (hereafter, INSEE) (Cassan, Héran and Toulemon 2000), Bulot and Jones (2009: 9) put the approximate figure at 1%, and, according to Bulot (2006: 35), this represents the total number of speakers of Mainland Norman as being some 29,00016 (cf. Jigourel 2011: 34 who esti- mates that between 30,000 and 40,000 speakers exist). While this total conceals local fluctuations—for example, in the INSEE sample of 14,200 the number of respondents speaking Norman in Manche was 5.7%, compared to 1.1% in Calvados, 0.6% in each of Seine Maritime and Eure and 0.2% in Orne (Bulot

15 ‘Regional languages form part of its [France’s] heritage’. 16 INSEE Étude de l’histoire familiale http://www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_ id=0&ref_id=irsoc033 (last accessed 22 April 2014) and INSEE (2000). The Historical Context 25

2006: 34)17—the intergenerational transmission of Norman is in decline, even in its former rural strongholds, and opportunities to speak and hear it become fewer with the passing of each decade (see Chapter 4). The same INSEE survey found that, in 1999, more than 70% of the then adult men whose fathers usually spoke to them in an oïl dialect did not do likewise with their own children (Héran, Filhon and Deprez 2002: 3). It also revealed that, whereas prior to 1930, one person in every four living in metropolitan France spoke a regional variety with their parents, only 3% of children born in the 1980s and 1990s still did so (Clanché 2002: 3).

2.3 Post-1204: The Islands18

As a result of the Duchy of Normandy’s territorial ‘split’ in 1204, the Channel Islands became formally annexed to the English Crown in 1259. No attempt was made to introduce English law and, in many respects, Norman law and custom still form the basis of Channel Island governance. The islands’ current status as a possession of the Crown but administered separately from the rest of the Kingdom has its roots in this period. Today, the islands are not represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and it is not that body but, rather, the Crown which is responsible for them in terms of defence and diplomatic representation. The United Kingdom Parliament legislates for the islands only by Acts which are explicitly extended directly to them by Order of the Privy Council. To all intents and purposes, Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney are self-gov- erning, each with its own elected legislative body, known as the States. Until December 2008, when it held its first elections, Sark was technically a feudal state, headed by a Seigneur who held the island as a fief from the British Crown, though in practice governed by the assembly of Chief Pleas, in part appointed and in part served by tenants (see below) of the ancient manorial holdings into which the island is divided. Many laws passed by the States of Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney require Royal Sanction by Her Majesty’s Privy Council, as representative of the Queen, the islands’ head of state, though much other legislation is effected locally by way of ordinance or regulation. Although part of

17 Bulot (2006: 16) notes that the INSEE sample was possibly skewed towards people living in the département of Manche and aged over 60. 18 This section has drawn upon material from within Mari C. Jones ‘Channel Island English’, in Daniel Schreier, Edgar W. Schneider and Jeffrey P. Williams (eds) The Lesser Known Varieties of English, (2010), © Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission. 26 Chapter 2 the British Islands under United Kingdom law,19 the Channel Islands do not form part of the United Kingdom, nor part of the European Union, though they have a particular, essentially commercial, relationship with the Union under Protocol 3 of the United Kingdom’s Treaty of Accession of 1972. Channel Islanders are therefore all full British Citizens but not automatically European Citizens. The functions of the Bailiwicks in the provision of global financial services, are often characterized as of a ‘tax haven’ character.20 No immediate anglicization followed the annexation of the Channel Islands to the English Crown. Strong trade links with France were maintained, with the common activity of fishing probably representing a major source of contact with the mainland population, and the currency used was the French standard Tournois. Despite such links, however, France was now, politically at least, the enemy and, during subsequent centuries, fears of a French invasion led to the progressive fortification of Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney. All of these and Sark too, not withstanding that island’s strong natural defences, were to suffer attack, the last leading to the Battle of Jersey (1781). The modern linguistic history of Sark begins in 1565, when the island was colonized from Jersey by Hélier De Carteret and his 39 ‘tenants’ (feudal land- owners), most of whom originated from the parish of St. Ouen in north-west Jersey (see Map 1.2). Evidence exists in Sark of Neolithic settlement (Ewen and De Carteret 1969: 15) but, for most of its history, the island had been virtually uninhabited except for occasional use by Channel pirates. However, after the first French War of Religion broke out in 1562, the parish of St. Ouen was felt to be especially vulnerable to attack from the French via Sark and this led to the decision to have Sark settled by Jerseymen. Although De Carteret and his tenants would have spoken a variety of Jèrriais, over the subsequent centuries, the speech of Jersey and Sark diverged greatly (Brasseur, 1978b: 302, see also Chapter 3).21

19 The term ‘British Islands’ is used to refer to the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and should not be confused with the British Isles, which includes Ireland. 20 These functions have increasingly in recent years led to the governments of the Channel Islands voluntarily participating in direct relations with third parties internationally, in part in reaction to arising issues and in part as a consequence of the more general development of their economies and an awareness of the necessity of regulation. 21 Examples of differences between Jèrriais and Sercquiais include the presence of the uvular fricative [ʁ] (often devoiced word-finally to [χ] in Sercquiais), which corresponds to the apical trill [r] of Jèrriais; or the labialization in Sercquiais of [ɛ] and [ɛ̃] after a labial or labio-dental consonant. The similarities that remain include Sercquiais 3PL past definite forms ending in [idr] (e.g. [i vɑ̃di:dr] ‘they sold’), which are also found in the variety The Historical Context 27

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw considerable change on the religious front. The Channel Islands remained part of the Norman Diocese of Coutances until 1568–1569, and their religion, on the whole, Catholic until the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I. The fact that a French translation of the Prayer Book, introduced by the first Act of Uniformity of 1549, was issued for use in the churches of Calais, Guisnes, Jersey and Guernsey is proof that, at this time, the islands were still strongly francophone. Although the Prayer Book was intended to bring the Channel Islands into the same religious fold as Wales and England, it was partly for linguistic reasons that, in due course, the islands adopted the Protestant teachings favoured by the French Huguenots (Calvinism) rather than embracing the Elizabethan church settlement, and that many French religious and later political refugees made their home in the islands—the former as a response to troubles in France in the sixteenth century, and again in a second wave after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685; the latter in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. It is impossible to pinpoint the growth of English in the Channel Islands to one specific period. The increase in the number of English troops garrisoned in the Channel Islands grew steadily in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, with their strategic significance as military bases coming to the fore as England became increasingly involved in wars beyond its shores. During the Napoleonic Wars, almost 6,000 men were garrisoned in Guernsey, whose population in 1800 was recorded as 16,155 (De Guerin 1905: 80–81; Crossan 2007: 40) and Alderney’s attractiveness as an outpost at this time resulted in some 400 troops being stationed there, when the native population was no more than 900 (Venne and Allez 1992: 43). The troops inevitably brought the tradespeople and local inhabitants into contact with English and the increased opportunities for work in London at this time also left its mark on the islands linguistically. However, it is the nineteenth century that is held by many as the start of their anglicization ‘proper’ as islanders increasingly began looking towards the outside world: ‘C’est à partir de cette époque, après 1815, que la langue anglaise commence à se répandre et à être couramment parlée dans les îles, ce qui n’avait pas été le cas jusque-là’ (Guillot 1975: 47).22 In 1815, William Berry described Guernsey as a society where ‘the old Norman French’ was ‘generally spoken by all ranks’ and the merchants of its town, St. Peter Port, co-existed with inhabitants of the rural parishes who were

of Jèrriais spoken in St. Ouen parish, although not anywhere else in Jersey (Liddicoat 1994: 184). 22 ‘It is from this period, after 1815, that the English language starts to spread and to be spoken fluently in the islands, which had not been the case hitherto’. 28 Chapter 2

‘shut out from agricultural communication with the rest of the world’ (1815: 284, 298–300). The situation seems to have been similar in Jersey, where Henry Inglis described an island where Jèrriais was still very much the common tongue—even among the gentry—and where knowledge of standard French and English was still quite limited: ‘the universal language is still a barbarous dialect’ (1844: 72).23 Of Alderney, he stated ‘there are few English residents’. Less than a century on, both the linguistic and economic picture had changed beyond all measure: ‘During the present century, the English language has, both in Guernsey and Jersey, made vast strides, so that it is difficult now to find a native even in the country parishes who cannot converse fairly well in that tongue’ (Ansted and Latham 1893: 387). The nineteenth century saw a steep increase in the populations of all the islands. The 1901 census indicated that 25.6% of Guernsey’s population was non-native born and, at 33.1%, the figure for non-natives in St. Peter Port was even higher.24 In 1847, work began on the construction of a breakwater in Alderney. Completed in 1861 and complemented by a chain of ten forts, its aim was to make the island a ‘Gibraltar of the Channel’ (States of Alderney 1974: 41). Such building operations required the importation of a large labour force and led to the population trebling within five years. In 1861, fewer than half the recorded population of 4,932 were of Channel Island origin. As native- born inhabitants were now outnumbered, Auregnais began to fall rapidly into disuse. English therefore became the official language of the island almost a century before this occurred elsewhere in the archipelago. By 1901, Marquand was commenting that ‘Alderney is the least French of the Channel Islands. The local patois [. . .] is rarely heard’ (Venne and Allez 1992: 43). Sark was later to anglicize than the other islands owing to the fact that it was only rarely visited by Englishmen before the nineteenth century. Indeed, in 1787, one of John Wesley’s missionaries who had been visiting the island reported that, at that time, not a single family understood English (Ewen and De Carteret 1969: 105). It seems likely that the anglicization of Sark stems from the arrival in the island of English-speaking miners from Cornwall who, in the 1830s and 1840s, were brought to work in a lead-silver mine in Little Sark, which is attached to Sark by a narrow isthmus. Not only did the miners double the then 250-strong population (Ewen and De Carteret 1969: 100) but, moreover, after the mines closed

23 John Stead presents a different view, describing Jèrriais as ‘daily falling into disuse and discredit’ (1809). 24 A useful and informative account of migration in nineteenth-century Guernsey is given in Crossan (2007). The Historical Context 29 in 1847 many of those who departed were accompanied by a Sark bride, thus decreasing further the pool of native speakers of Sercquiais. Trade with England, in particular the development of the horticultural industry, extended the commercial expansion, hitherto centred on the towns, to the whole of Jersey and Guernsey and integrated the economies of the Channel Islands firmly with the United Kingdom. This was facilitated, at the end of the eighteenth century, by the establishment of a regular packet service. The continued improvement in communication, with the sailboats being replaced by steamers, allowed tourism to be set on a serious footing for the first time. The steamers brought thousands of people from the United Kingdom to the Channel Islands each year and the introduction of excursion cars to take the boat passengers for tours around the islands ensured that even the most rural parishes were brought into contact with the visitors. Immigration also had a part to play, with many of those who left England towards the end of the notorious ‘Hungry Forties’ attracted to the Channel Islands by a number of booming industries—such as construction, ship-building and granite quarries. By the nineteenth century, English was also having a noticeable impact on the education system and, although its introduction seems to have occurred in a somewhat ad hoc fashion rather than as the result of explicit policy, it was certainly reinforced by practical considerations: for example by the end of the nineteenth century, a command of English was essential for anyone running businesses in the horticultural industry owing to its reliance on trade with the United Kingdom. The fact that Norman had no formal presence in the primary school meant that the effective replacement of one ‘High’ variety with another is unlikely to have been a direct factor in its decline. However, as Crossan notes for Guernsey, in words equally applicable to the whole of the archipelago, the loss of yet another domain to English ‘reflected developments which had already taken root in society at large and were tending over the long run to transform [the Channel Islands] from a diglossic society, where a non-native standard was used in formal contexts but not spoken at home, into a mono- glot one where English was solidly ensconced in both high and low functions’ (2005: 876). By the end of the nineteenth century, this steady language shift, most notable among the educated classes, had been coupled with a tendency to model the Channel Islands on England culturally. For example, in St. Peter Port, whole streets of Regency-style houses had been built and renaming of streets (in English) became common practice in Jersey, Guernsey and Alderney. Islanders soon began to realize the implications of this bourgeoning anglicization for their native dialects. ‘Les temps changent; la navigation à vapeur, après avoir été une source de prosperité pour l’archipel, pourrait bien aussi déterminer 30 Chapter 2 sa ruine. Ces îles sont désormais trop près de Londres; l’élément anglais s’y implante rapidement, et trop de voix interessées jasent sur ce petit monde’ (N.N. 1849: 962).25 Comments made about Guernésiais at this time hint that English borrowings were starting to appear—for example, a guidebook observes how amusing it was ‘to wait for the English words to peep out of so different a language’ (Anonymous 1847). It was also becoming clear that the repercussions of this language contact might be severe: ‘Being proud of my native isle, and of much that belongs to it, I often feel sorry that our good old local tongue is practically dying out, offering but little, if any, resistance to the inroads of the English language’ (Bougourd 1897: 183). Indeed, in Guernsey it was even being observed that a variety of English was forming that differed from that spoken on the British mainland: ‘The language of the townspeople, from their constant intercourse with strangers, is very intelligible English, though spoken with a peculiar accent, and frequently interlarded with the mother-tongue.’ (Dublin University Magazine 1846: 630). In Sark, a number of wealthy English families had established holiday residences by the mid-nineteenth century and the development of Sark’s tourist industry, which brought visitors to the island regularly in the latter half of the nineteenth century, must also have contributed to its anglicization. By the end of the century, linguistic change was apparent here too: writing in the Guernsey Magazine of December 1875, the local historian Louisa Lane Clark observed: ‘The Sark patois is undergoing changes and gradually becoming extinct. The children do not now pronounce it so well nor so clippingly, nor with that seemingly-careful and sharp sounding of every vowel and consonant, to be noticed in the speech of the older generation’. The last twenty years of the nineteenth century brought an influx of immigrants to Sark who became permanent residents. This ‘transformed the character of the island community [. . .] from a homogeneous group of people born in the island into a diverse assemblage with a steadily shrinking propor- tion of island-born inhabitants’ (Ewen and De Carteret 1969: 108). This was to recur in the years following the First World War, when high taxes in the United Kingdom brought another wave of immigration to Sark. The feeling that the encroachment of English society was leading the Channel Islands to lose grasp of both their cultural and linguistic identity became manifest in a number of different ways across the archipelago. The

25 ‘Times change; after having been a source of prosperity for the archipelago, steam ships could also be the source of its ruin. These islands are henceforth too close to London; the English element is becoming implanted rapidly, and too many interested voices chatter about this little world’. The Historical Context 31

Société Guernésiaise (1867)26 and the Société Jersiaise (1873) were founded, with the stated aims of preserving objects, monuments and documents pertaining to the history of these islands (see §§4.5.2, 4.5.3);27 Frederick C. Lukis (1788–1871) excavated and strove to preserve the dolmens and menhirs of the archipelago (Sebire 2003) and the history of the Bailiwicks was written (see, among others, Tupper 1854; De la Croix 1858, 1860). Creating an identity that was demonstrably distinct from that of the United Kingdom may have been one reason why it was this century that witnessed the first major writings in Jèrriais and Guernésiais, which influenced the renewal of interest in dialect literature in the Cotentin peninsula (Lebarbenchon 1908, 1988; Lepelley 1999a; Jones 2008a, 2012c; Jigourel 2011). The inroads made by English in the nineteenth century continued apace in the twentieth. The Income Tax Laws of Guernsey (1920) and Jersey (1928) were the first pieces of substantial Channel Island legislation to be drafted in English and were also modelled on English, rather than Norman, law. In Jersey and Guernsey, local currency was set at parity with the British pound ster- ling (McCammon 1984: 185) and communications with the British mainland improved further, leading to the opening of airports in Alderney (1935), Jersey (1937) and Guernsey (1939). In Sark, many island families sold their properties to wealthy immigrants during the first quarter of the twentieth century, which led to a further dilution of the local community. As already discussed, English became an official language of Guernsey in 1926 and has been a recognized language of the States of Jersey since 1946. Jersey’s last French-language newspaper ceased publication at the end of 1959. The Second World War dealt a devastating blow to the civilian population of the Channel Islands when the archipelago was demilitarized by the British in 1940 and subsequently occupied by Germany until 1945 (see Bunting 1996). One fifth of the population of Jersey, over half that of Guernsey and all but eighteen residents of Alderney (though no-one from Sark)—mainly women and children in each case—chose to be evacuated to the United Kingdom. Although therefore in the Second World War, unlike in the First, significant numbers of the Norman speech community were not killed, their evacuation meant that, for the best part of five years, many of the archipelago’s children were denied

26 The Société Guernésiaise has no link with the current society of the same name which was established in 1882 as the Guernsey Society of Natural Science and Local Research (the renaming as the Société Guernésiaise dates from 1922). 27 Although the societies initially showed some activity with respect to language, this subsequently faltered. The Société Jersiaise’s Section de la langue Jèrriaise dates from 1995 (see §4.5.2). 32 Chapter 2 the opportunity of growing up in a Norman-speaking environment and were raised instead with English as their mother tongue. On their return, many older evacuees preferred to continue using English, which they saw as the key to social advancement and the outside world. Despite the fact that anglicization was already well advanced before the War, this unprecedented population movement and its repercussions for the islanders’ ability in, and their attitude towards, Norman was undoubtedly a pivotal point in the sociolinguistic history of the speech community. In Alderney, evacuation preceding the invasion had been far more comprehensive than in the other islands—with even some of the eighteen residents who chose not to be evacuated in the first wave later leaving for Guernsey (Bunting 1996: 13). Although some islanders did return after the War, the construction in Alderney of Helgoland, Sylt and Norderney slave labour camps where thousands of Slavs and French Jews were beaten or worked to death, a situation which Bunting describes as ‘the greatest mass murder which has ever occurred on British soil’ (1996: 289) meant that, after the German surrender, Alderney was desolated and full of concrete bunkers and, consequently, islanders were unable to resettle there immediately and could only return as and when houses were available for them.28 The community that had existed before the War was lost forever and Auregnais was quick to follow (Le Maistre 1982). By contrast, Liddicoat states that, at the end of the Second World War, Sark’s population was still predominantly Norman (1994: 7) and, in 1955, the Sark cor- respondent of the Jersey Evening Post wrote that twenty-one out of the thirty- six tenants were more fluent in Sercquiais than in English. However, surely and steadily, the combination of migration and tourism took its linguistic toll in Sark also. By 1960, only half the population was island-born and, by 1967, 61% of the dwellings were in the hands of ‘outsiders’ (Ewen and De Carteret 1969: 112). Since the Second World War, anglicization has been further strengthened by the fact that low taxation has made the Channel Islands a haven for high- income earners and those servicing the finance industry, the latter employing some 20% of the workforce in Jersey and Guernsey. Indeed, the last censuses of Guernsey (2001) and Jersey (2011) recorded that, at that time, individuals born in the United Kingdom represented around 36% of the population of the former and 31% of the population of the latter. Intermarriage between islanders and immigrants has also accelerated the decline of Norman within the family domain. The tourist industry has continued to grow steadily, with daily sea and air services operating between the archipelago and the United Kingdom. In

28 Helgoland, Sylt and Nordeney are also the names of Frisian islands and the slave labour camps should not be confused with them. The Historical Context 33

2003 alone, some 865,000 passenger movements were made between Guernsey and the United Kingdom. Although these movements are connected with business as well as tourism, they demonstrate how closely linked the Channel Islands are today with mainland Britain. For all these reasons, the latter half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first have witnessed the progressive and widespread decline of Norman as an everyday means of communication, as Channel Islanders look increasingly to English. Norman has no status as an official language in any part of the archipelago and the most recent censuses of Jersey (2001) and Guernsey (2001) to investigate language use recorded that, at that time, only 2,874 inhabitants of Jersey (3.2%) and 1,327 inhabitants of Guernsey (2%) were able to speak Norman fluently. A further official estimate, in 2012,29 put the number of fluent speakers Jèrriais at less than 1% (in other words, fewer than 1,000) and Marquis and Sallabank (2013) estimate the number of fluent speakers of Guernésiais at no more than a few hundred.30 At the end of the twentieth century, it was estimated that fewer than 20 of the 610 permanent inhabitants of Sark spoke Sercquiais (3.5%) (Brasseur 1998: 152). Statistical information, however, allows only a superficial comparison to be drawn between the speech communities of Mainland and Insular Norman. Many linguists, including Weinreich, have long emphasized that language contact is best understood in a broad psychological and socio-cultural setting (1964: 4) (cf. for example Dorian 1981, 1989; Jones 1998a). Chapter 4 uses a combination of quantitative and qualitative data to present a more meaningful sociolinguistic profile of these speakers.

29 http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ R%20JASS2012%2020121204%20SU.pdf (last accessed 22 April 2014). 30 The censuses of Guernsey and Jersey have recently been replaced by annual population surveys. These contain some information about language in Jersey but not in Guernsey. Chapter 3 The Linguistic Context

This chapter provides a broad general description of Mainland and Insular Norman. It also gives further bibliographical references for some of their most salient linguistic features, including many of the variables discussed in Chapters 5 to 8. The main points of contrast between Norman and French are outlined, as are the linguistic relationship between the different varieties of Norman and the regional variation that exists within Mainland and Insular Norman.

3.1 Some Points of Contrast between the Linguistic Systems of Norman and French

3.1.1 Phonology 3.1.1.1 Vowels

Table 3.1 The vowel system of Norman (homogenized)

Oral vowels

[i] [i:] [y] [y:] [u] [u:] [e] [e:] [ø] [ø:] [o] [o:] [a] [ɑ:]

and the schwa, [ə].

Nasal vowels

[ẽ] [ẽ:] [ø̃] [ø̃:] [õ] [õ:] [ɛ̃] [ɛ̃:] [ɑ̃] [ɑ̃:]

Table 3.2 The vowel system of standard French

Oral vowels

[i] [y] [u] [e] [ø] [o] [ɛ] [œ] [ɔ] [a] [ɑ]

and the schwa, [ə].

Nasal vowels

[ɛ̃] [ œ̃ ] [ɔ̃] [ɑ̃]

(i) Unlike in standard French, vowel length is phonemic in Norman (Collas 1931: 49; Lepelley 1974: 12, 102; Tomlinson 1981: 46; Hébert 1984: 2–12; Spence 1985, 1993: 46; Liddicoat 1989: 691, 1994: 21; Liddicoat 1994: 233; Hall 2008: 14). Long and short vowels contrast most frequently in word-final position where, according to Spence, the long vowels (found in plural forms, especially when these are monosyllables) derive from earlier V(owel)+[s] (1984: 349), hence: gardin— gardins [gardẽ]—[gardẽ:] ‘garden’—‘gardens’ (MN, VdS); raie-raies [rɛ]—[rɛ:] ‘furrow’—‘furrows’ (J); cat—cats [kɑ]—[kɑ:] ‘cat’—cats’ (G); [tru]—[tru:] ‘hole’—‘holes’ (S). Vowel length also contrasts in masculine—feminine oppositions in both adjectives and past participles used adjectivally: the long vowel in each case deriving from earlier V+[ə] in the feminine form, hence juché—juchée [ʒykji]—[ʒykji:] ‘perched’ (MN, VdS); mârri—mârrie [mɑ:ri]—[mɑ:ri:] ‘angry’ (J); perdu—perdue [pɛrdy]—[pɛrdy:] ‘lost’ (G); [bʎʏ]—[bʎʏ:] ‘blue’ (S). (ii) The secondary diphthongization of vowels is characteristic of all dialects of Insular Norman but is especially common in Guernésiais (Spence 1984: 349; Brasseur 1978b: 278). The common [aj] diphthong (often realized as [ɑj] or [ɒj]) comes from [e], itself from Latin tonic free a:1 hence mare >

1 Collas rejects the suggestion that this development may represent a relic of the original diphthongization of Latin a (1934: 218). 36 Chapter 3

Fr. mer [mɛʁ] ‘sea’ is G. maïr [mɑjr] ([mɛ] (MN, M), [mɛ] (J), [mwɛʁ] (S)). This development separates Guernésiais from other insular dialects, although Fleury (1886) notes a similar development for Haguais on the north-west tip of the Cotentin peninsula. (iii) In Norman, the low back unrounded vowel [ɑ] is retained to a greater extent than in standard French, where it is merging with the low front unrounded vowel [a] (cf. Martinet 1945; Battye, Hintze and Rowlett 2000: 9; Fagyal, Kibbee and Jenkins 2006: 31). In some varieties of Jèrriais and Guernésiais, it is commonly realized as the low back rounded vowel [ɒ]; (cf. [kɒ] ‘cat’). (iv) Jèrriais, Sercquiais and some varieties of Mainland Norman maintain a phonemic contrast in their front unrounded half close and half open nasal vowels ([ẽ] / [ɛ̃]) (Hébert 1984: 2; Liddicoat 1994: 119). The half close vowel occurs in words such as gardîn [gardẽ] ‘garden’(J); lînge [lẽ:ʒ] ‘household linen’ (J); lapîn [lapẽ] ‘rabbit’ (J); [amẽ] ‘friend’ (S); and [vẽ] ‘wine’ (S). In standard French, the half close front unrounded nasal vowel ([ẽ]) is unknown and the corresponding words all contain its half open counterpart, [ɛ̃]. (v) Although Collas (1931) describes the nasal vowel system of Guernésiais as being similar to that of other Norman varieties, Tomlinson (1981: 34) only lists [ã] and [õ] for the contemporary dialect and states that, in some cases, the distinction between oral and nasal vowels is not clear-cut. The nasal quality of the nasal vowels of Guernésiais is certainly weaker than in standard French and partial denasalization is common, especially with regard to [ɛ̃], whether this has developed from Latin aN (nasal consonant)+C (oral consonant): [gɛ̃:b] ‘leg’, (see (vi) below) or from Latin oN+C: paondre [pɛ̃:dɹ] ‘to lay an egg’ (G) < ponere). Guernésiais has many nasal diphthongs. Sjøgren (1964: xxxviii) lists 27, though not all are phonemic. The most common of these include:

[ɔ̃j] from Latin tonic free a + nasal consonant: panem > poîn [pɔ̃j] ‘bread’ (G); fame > foîm [fɔ̃j] ‘hunger’ (G) (cf. pan [pɔ̃], fam [fɑ̃] (MN, M); pain [pɛ̃], faim [fɛ̃] (J); [pɛ̃], [fẽn] (S)) (Brasseur 1978b: 292–293); and [ɛ̃j] from Latin tonic free i + nasal consonant: vinum > vin [vɛ̃jɲ] ‘wine’ (G); matutinum > matin [matɛ̃jɲ] ‘morning’ (G).

(vi) As in central French,2 Latin aN + C fell together with eN + C in Jèrriais, Sercquiais and most varieties of Mainland Norman, hence gambam > jambe [ʒɑ̃:b] ‘leg’ (Fr.); gaumbe [gɑ:̃b] (MN, PdC); gambe [gɑ̃:b] (J); [gɑ̃:b] (S); and centum > cent [sɑ̃] ‘one hundred’ (Fr.); chent [ʃɑ̃] (MN, PdC); chent [ʃɑ̃] (J);

2 Standard French developed from Francien, a central French dialect. The term ‘Francien’ is a nineteenth-century invention. The Linguistic Context 37

[ʃɑ̃t] (S). However, in Guernésiais and some parts of the Norman mainland, this development did not occur, hence [gɛ̃:b], but [ʃɑ̃] (MN, M; G) (cf. Brasseur 1978b: 292–296). (vii) In Sark and some parts of Lower Normandy, such as the Bessin region and the Plain of Caen (see Map 1.1), [ɛ] and [ɛ̃] diphthongize after a labial or labio-dental consonant ([m], [p] [b], [v], [f]) (Lepelley 1999a: 85). Brasseur also observes this development in Magneville for infinitive endings corresponding to the French –er conjugation (which end locally in [œ]): [bwɛʁ] ‘to drink’ (S); [mwɛʁ] ‘mother’ (S); soupaer [supwœ] ‘to dine’ (MN, M) (1978b: 286–287).

3.1.1.2 Consonants

Table 3.3 The consonantal phonemes of Norman (homogenized) (after Hall 2008: 12)

Bilabial Labio- Dental Affricate Palato- Palatal Velar Uvular Glottal dental alveolar

Stop p b t d k g Fricative f v s z tʃ dʒ ʃ ʒ ʁ h Nasal m n ɲ ŋ Lateral l ʎ Trill r

Table 3.4 The consonantal phonemes of standard French

Bilabial Labio- Dental/ Palato- Palatal Velar Uvular dental alveolar alveolar

Stop p b t d k g Fricative f v s z ʃ ʒ ʁ Nasal m n ɲ ŋ Lateral l 38 Chapter 3

(i) Like standard French, Norman has not preserved much trace of the Latin glottal fricative [h]. The Norman phoneme, also realized allophonically as the voiceless uvular fricative [χ] or the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] in Manche, Calvados and north-west Eure (cf. Laîné 2006), is a borrowing from Germanic which dates from the domination of Gaul by Frankish tribes (see §2.1) and occurs most frequently in words of Germanic origin such as haine ‘hatred’ and honte ‘shame’, commonly referred to in French as ‘h aspiré’ words (Lepelley 1978: 73; Marie 2012: xxvi). (ii) In many varieties of Norman, [r] is an apical trill whereas in standard French it is a uvular fricative [ʁ]. The trilled pronunciation was common in standard French as late as the seventeenth century but, by the eighteenth century, it had been supplanted by the uvular fricative of Parisian pronunciation, although it is still present in many varieties of regional French (Ager 1990: 24). As will be seen below (§3.3.2.1), in parts of Jersey, intervocalic [r] may become [ð] as the result of assibilation (Spence 1957b; Jones 2001: 33–34). In non-assibi- lating contexts, the apical trill may sometimes be realised in Insular Norman as the English alveolar continuant [ɹ] although this is not systematic (Liddicoat 1990: 200). In Sark, a voiced uvular fricative ([ʁ]) is often heard (which may devoice word-finally to [χ]), although [r] is also present (Brasseur 1978b: 280; Liddicoat 1989: 690). Variation in the pronunciation of r is also widespread on the mainland (Bloch 1927). In the Val de Saire, r often weakens to a yod or is elided (Lepelley 1974: 82, 1978: 74, 1999a: 79–80; Marie 2012: xxvi). Elision also occurs in the Pays de Caux when r is intervocalic (Hébert 1984: 17; Lepelley 1999a: 79–80). Fleury (1886) describes the intervocalic r of la Hague as ‘dévibré’ (‘non vibrating’) and in western Orne and southern Manche (L’Avranchin), it is realised as an alveolar trill. In many varieties of Mainland Norman, the apical trill is becoming increasingly replaced by the voiced uvular fricative [ʁ], possibly owing to contact with standard French (cf. Brasseur 1978b: 280; Hall 2008: 13). Like other consonants, r is often elided word-finally (Marie 2012: xxvi). (iii) In standard French, the affricates [tʃ] and [dʒ] only occur in English borrowings such as gin and bridge (Spence 1987: 119). However, in Norman, these sounds can also occur as outcomes of the palatalization of [k] and [g]: canem > quyin [tʃji] (MN, VdS); [tʃɑ̃] (S) ‘dog’; *werra > dgèrre [dʒɛ:r] (J) ‘war’ (Lechanteur 1948: 121; Spence 1984: 348; Liddicoat 1994: 73; Marie 2012: xxiv– xxv). Sercquiais is the only oïl dialect to preserve the affricate [dʒ] as a reflex of Latin yod: iuvenem > [dʒɔn] (S) ‘child’ (Liddicoat 1989: 690). (iv) The palatal lateral [ʎ] is present in Sercquiais, in some western varieties of Mainland Norman and in north-western Jèrriais—both word-finally and as the reflex of the palatalization of Latin [l] when present as the second element of consonant clusters beginning with [p] [b] [k] [g] or [f]: flammulam > The Linguistic Context 39 fliambe [fjɑ̃b] ‘flame’ (J); butticulam > [butɛʎ] ‘bottle’ (S) (cf. Liddicoat 2008; Hall 2008: 12; Pezeril 2012: 40; Marie 2012: xxv). However, in other parts of the archipelago and the mainland, [ʎ] may delateralize to [j] or depalatalize to [l] (cf. Guerlin De Guer 1889; Lechanteur 1968: 195–198; Lepelley 1978: 73; Jones 2001: 34–35; Liddicoat 2008; Marie 2012: xxvi). (v) The velar nasal [ŋ] entered standard French in the twentieth century via English borrowings, such as le shopping [ʃɔpɪŋ]. It is now usually listed as a phoneme of the language, albeit with a restricted distribution (it only appears word-finally). The velar nasal also occurs in English borrowings in Insular Norman and (via French) in Mainland Norman. Although some of these borrowings are now well established (for example blanket [blæŋkɛt] ‘blanket’ (J); dinghy [diŋi] ‘small boat’ (J)) [ŋ] is not considered to be a phoneme of Norman (Spence 1987: 119).

3.1.1.3 Glides Like standard French, Norman has three glides, the front unrounded palatal [j], the front rounded labio-palatal [ɥ] and the back rounded labio-velar [w]. It has been recorded that, in Jèrriais, the front rounded glide [ɥ] may be replaced by the back rounded glide [w], possibly owing to English influence (Spence 1960: 27; Liddicoat 1994: 124).

3.1.2 Morphosyntax The following represent some of the main morphosyntactic features shared by mainland and insular varieties of Norman but not by standard French. In each case, they are illustrated with reference to Jèrriais and accompanied by bibliographical references to the other varieties. Where this eases accessibility, the Jèrriais spelling is included alongside the transcribed forms. a) Determiners Articles (Lepelley 1974: 103–104; Tomlinson 1981: 40; Hébert 1984: 31–32; Birt 1985: 14–15; Liddicoat 1994: 234–236)

Definite masculine singular: lé/ l’ [l]3 / [le] feminine singular: la [la] plural: les [le:/lej] (pre-vocalic forms: l’ [l] (m.sg.); l’ [l] (f.sg.); l’s [lz] (pl.))

3 The masculine definite article of Jèrriais often becomes contracted to [l] before a consonant (Birt 1985: 15). 40 Chapter 3

Indefinite masculine singular: un [ø̃] feminine singular: eune [ø̃n] plural: des [de:/dej] (pre-vocalic forms: un [ø̃n] (m.sg.); d’s [dz] (pl.).

Possessive adjectives (Lepelley 1974: 105–106; Hébert 1984: 33; Birt 1985: 22; Liddicoat 1994: 255)

Pre-consonantal forms Singular Plural Masculine Feminine Masculine + Feminine ‘My’ man [mɑ̃] ma [ma] mes [me:]/[mej] ‘Your’ tan [tɑ̃] ta [ta] tes [te:]/ [tej] ‘His/Her’ san [sɑ̃] sa [sa] ses [se:]/ [sej]

‘Our’ nouotre [nwɔtɹ]/ nouotre [nwɔtɹ]/ nouos [nwɔ]/ ^not’ [nɔt]4 ^not’ [nɔt] ^nos [nɒw] ‘Your’ vouotre [vwɔtɹ]/ vouotre [vwɔtɹ]/ vouos [vwɔ]/ ^vot’ [vɔt] ^vot’ [vɔt] ^vos [vɒw] ‘Their’ lus [ly:] lus [ly:] lus [ly:]

Pre-vocalic forms Singular Plural ‘My’ mén [mən]/[mɛn] /m’n [mn] mes [mez]/[mejz] / m’s [mz]5 ‘Your’ tén [tən]/[tɛn]] /t’n [tn] tes [tez]/[tejz] / t’s [tz]/ [ts] ‘His/Her’ sén [sən]/[sɛn]]/s’n [sn] ses [sez]/[sejz]/ s’z [sz]/[ss]

‘Our’ nouos [no:z] nouos [no:z] ‘Your’ vouos [vo:z] vouos [vo:z] ‘Their’ lus [ly:z] lus [ly:z]

4 In contemporary Jèrriais the forms marked ^ are more commonly heard in conversation than the forms not marked in this way (Birt 1985: 22). 5 Note that all pre-vocalic forms of plural adjectives and pronouns ending in final [z] are frequently realised with final [ð] in north-western Jèrriais (cf. §3.3.2.1). The Linguistic Context 41 b) Personal Pronouns (Lepelley 1974: 112–114; Tomlinson 1981: 55–62; Hébert 1984: 36–39; Liddicoat 1994: 240–249)

The pronominal system of Jèrriais6 Subject pronouns ‘I’ jé/j [ʒə] ‘You’ tu/t’ [ty] ‘He’ i [i] (pre-vocalic form: il [il]) ‘She’ ou/alle (post-verbal) [u/al] (pre-vocalic form: oulle [ul]) ‘We’ jé/j [ʒə] ‘You’ ou [u:] (also used as the 2SG polite form) (pre-vocalic form: ous [u:z]) ‘They’ i (m. + f.) [i] (pre-vocalic form: il [il]) Impersonal nou [nu] (pre-vocalic form: nou-z [nu:z])

Direct object pronouns (disjunctive) ‘Me’ mé [me] ‘Us’ nouos/nos [nwɔ] ‘You’ té [te] ‘You’ vouos/vos [vwɔ] ‘Him’ li [li] ‘Them’ ieux [jœ:] ‘Her’ lyi [ji]

Direct object pronouns (conjunctive). ‘Me’ m’/mé [m/me] ‘You’ t’/té [t/te] ‘Him’ l/lé [l/le] ‘Her’ l/la [la/l] ‘Us’ nouos/nos [nwɔ] (pre-vocalic form: [nwɔ:z]) ‘You’ vouos/vos [vwɔ] (pre-vocalic form: [vwɔ:z]) ‘Them’ les [le:] (pre-vocalic form: l’s [lz])

Indirect object pronouns These differ from the direct object pronouns in the third person only: ‘To him’ lî [li] ‘To her’ li [ji] ‘To them’ lus [ly:] (pre-vocalic form: [ly:z]). Lus [ly:] also functions as the 3PL reflexive pronoun (= Fr. se [sə])

The following features distinguish the pronominal system of Norman from that of standard French.

6 For details of the positional variants of these pronouns, see Liddicoat (1994: 241–247). 42 Chapter 3

(i) In traditional Norman, [ʒ(ə)] functions as both the 1SG and 1PL subject pronoun, hence j’pâlons [ʒpɑ:lõ] cf. Fr. nous parlons [nu paʁlɔ̃] ‘we speak’ (Robin et al., 1879: 241; Romdahl 1881: 67; Fleury 1886: 61; Guerlin De Guer 1901: 157; Barbe 1907: 71; Hébert 1984: 36; Birt 1985: 16; Liddicoat 1994: 240; UPNC 1995: 60–61; GNN n.d.: 8). (ii) The impersonal pronoun of Norman has the form nou [nu] (J); (no [no] (MN)) + 3SG verb (liaison form [nu:z] (J) ([no:z] MN) (cf. [ɔ̃] (Fr.)). According to Lepelley, the Norman form derives from the construction l’on, with the initial lateral becoming a nasal and the vowel denasalizing (1999a: 88–89).7 (iii) Norman does not have a specific feminine 3PL subject personal pronoun. i [i] (il’ [il] pre-vocalically) serves for both genders (cf. Fr. ils [il] masc., [ɛl] elles fem.; pre-vocalically [i(l)z], [ɛlz]). (iv) ous [u:], a reduced form of the 2PL pronoun vous [vu:] is used in inverted forms of the present indicative (Tomlinson 1981: 56; De Garis 1983: 324; Birt 1985: 49; Lepelley 1999a: 89–90), hence sav’ous? [savu:] (cf. savez-vous? [savevu] ‘do you know?’ (Fr.)). (v) when a demonstrative pronoun is qualified by a nominal complement or by a relative clause, a context where standard French has celui de, à, qui, the Norman construction is le syin [lsji] (MN, VdS); lé chein [lsjɛ̃] (J); le sian [lsjɑ̃] (G); [lsjɛ̃] (S). Lepelley suggests that this form may derive from the possessive pronoun (cf. le sien (Fr.)) (1999a: 89). c) Noun Morphology A morphological singular-plural opposition is present in nouns and adjectives deriving from Latin words ending in -ellum/ -ellos: cultellum > couté [kute] ‘knife’ (J); cultellos > coutchieaux [kutʃow] ‘knives’ (J). d) Verb Morphology (i) Unlike in standard French, the past definite tense is still widespread in spoken Norman (Moisy 1886: 81; Fleury 1886: 74ff; Guerlin De Guer 1901: 170ff; De Garis 1983: 331ff.; Birt 1985: 104ff.; Liddicoat 1994: 183ff.). Hébert (1984: 52) notes, however, that it is now disappearing in the Pays de Caux (see §7.1(i)). The endings of the first conjugation of the past definite (< Latin -are verbs) are brought in line with those of the other conjugations via the generalization of the thematic vowel [i]: tu m’téléphonis [tymtelefuni] ‘you telephoned me’ (J); j’d’màndis [ʒdmẽdi] ‘I asked’ (G); [itʁavɑʎɪ:dɹ] ‘they worked’ (S). This

7 Fleury (1886: 66) claims that the impersonal pronoun no [no] has been found as far back as the fifteenth century. Spence (1993: 32) suggests that the liaison form may occur due to confusion with the 1PL pronoun of standard French nous ([nu]). The Linguistic Context 43 also affects some irregular verb conjugations, hence je voulis [ʒvuli] ‘I wanted’ (MN, VdS). (ii) Unlike English but like standard French, the subjunctive mood of Norman is usually morphologically distinct from its indicative counterpart (Fleury 1886: 87; De Garis 1983: 345–346; Hébert 1984: 51; Birt 1985: 210–214; Liddicoat 1994: 177–183; UPNC 1995: 234–235, 237–238, 241–242; Tomlinson 2008: 114).8 The imperfect subjunctive, now virtually defunct in spoken French, generally survives in traditional Norman (Lepelley 1974: 127; Tomlinson 1981: 110–111; Hébert 1984: 52; Birt 1985: 221; Liddicoat 1994: 173–177; Jones 2000). (iii) In compound tenses, ‘to have’ is used as the auxiliary of a greater number of verbs than in standard French: ‘les temps composés du verbe sont presque toujours formés au moyen de l’auxiliaire avoir’ (Lepelley 1974: 131, cf. Guerlin De Guer 1901: 197; UPNC 1995: 160–162),9 although this is not borne out by all Mainland Norman metalinguistic sources. Fleury, for example, states that the auxiliaries ÊTRE ‘to be’ and AVOIR ‘to have’ ‘s’emploient en haguais tout à fait comme en français’ (1886: 75),10 (cf. GNN n.d.: 38). Insular Norman usage is certainly mixed (Birt 1985: 200; Liddicoat 1994: 203; Tomlinson 2008: 100).11 e) Adjectives (i) All Norman nouns have a grammatical gender (masculine or feminine) which, as in French (Price 2003: 27–74), may be marked in a number of different ways, such as by the determiner and adjectival agreement (Fleury 1886: 58–59; Guerlin De Guer 1901: 145–151; Lepelley 1974: 107–109; Hébert 1984: 21–26; Birt 1985: 30–31; Liddicoat 1994: 213–216; UPNC 1995: 28–32; Tomlinson 2008: 22; cf. Price 2003: 27–74). Hence un garçon heûtheux [œ̃garsõœ:ðœ:] ‘a happy

8 For verbs of the first conjugation (corresponding to French –er verbs) the three persons singular and the third person plural of the Norman subjunctive are, as in French, homophonous with the indicative (GNN n.d.: 25; Lepelley 1974: 126; Birt 1985: 250ff.; Liddicoat 1994: 170; UPNC 1995: 173ff.; Tomlinson 2008: 116). 9 ‘The compound tenses of the verb are almost always formed on the basis of the “to have” auxiliary’. 10 ‘[. . .] are used in the dialect of La Hague in exactly the same way as in French’. 11 For Jèrriais, Birt states that ÊTRE ‘to be’ is used with verbs of motion (quoting specifically ALLER ‘to go’, VENIR ‘to come’ and ARRIVER ‘to arrive’ but he adds that AVOIR ‘to have’ is frequent with SORTIR ‘to go out’ and ENTRER ‘to enter’) (1985: 200). For Guernésiais, Tomlinson describes ÊTRE as the auxiliary used with VENIR ‘to come’, REVENIR ‘to come back’, ARRIVER ‘to arrive’, PARTIR ‘to leave’ and ALLER ‘to go’ (2008: 100). Liddicoat (1994: 203) describes ÊTRE as used with ARRIVER ‘to arrive’, DEVENIR ‘to become’, ENTRER ‘to enter’, MOURIR ‘to die’, NAÎTRE ‘to be born’, PARTIR ‘to leave’, REVENIR ‘to come back’, RESTER ‘to stay’, RETOURNER ‘to return’ and SORTIR ‘to go out’ in both Jèrriais and Sercquiais. 44 Chapter 3 boy’—eune fil’ye heûtheuse [ønfilœ:ðœ:z] ‘a happy girl’ (J); un p’tit garçon [œ̃ptigarso�] ‘a small boy’—eune p’tite fil’ye [ønptitfil] ‘a small girl’ (J). (ii) Attributive adjectives of colour are frequently placed before the noun they qualify: eune vèrte pomme [œnvɛrtpum] (J) (cf. une pomme verte [ynpɔmvɛʁt] ‘a green apple’ (Fr.) (GNN n.d.: 40; Tomlinson 1981: 47; Hébert 1984: 28; Birt 1985: 43; Liddicoat 1994: 217; UPNC 1995: 36–37; Jones 2001: 111, 2002: 154–155). f) Prepositions In Norman, the various meanings of the preposition ‘with’ (unmarked, instrumental, comitative) are conveyed by more than one preposition (Dumeril and Dumeril 1849: 3; Decorde 1852: 45; Robin et al. 1879: 32–33; Romdahl 1881; De Fresnay 1881: 29; Fleury 1886: 73; Barbe 1907: 10; FEW 1946 volume 2, II: 1417; Le Maistre 1966: 3; Lepelley 1974: 135; De Garis 1982: 214; Hébert 1984: 38; Birt 1985: 166; Liddicoat 1994: 282; UPNC 1995: 117; Tomlinson 2008: 21). Jèrriais has three different prepositions, each with a distinct function. Auve [ov] is the unmarked form, which also tends to be used when the referent is animate, hence:

P’têt qué d’main, j’éthons eune chance de pâler auve not’ vaîsîn ‘Perhaps tomorrow we will have an opportunity to speak to our neighbour’.

When the instrumental function is being conveyed and the object is inanimate, atout [atu] is used:

Frappez l’cliou atout chu marté ‘Strike the nail with this hammer’.

The third preposition, acanté [akɑ̃te] conveys a comitative meaning:

Je m’en vais acanté lyi ‘I am going along with her’ (Birt 1985: 166).

Based on evidence from metalinguistic sources, it also seems possible to suggest that, traditionally, there existed a two-fold opposition (unmarked—instrumental) for Sark, and a two or possibly three-fold (unmarked—comitative— [possibly] instrumental) opposition for Guernésiais and Mainland Norman. Metalinguistic sources suggest that, in the case of the mainland, this division may not currently be very robust (Lepelley 1974; Hébert 1984; UPNC 1995).12

12 As a case in point, the title of the Norman teaching manual, V’n-ous d’aveu mei ‘Will you come with me?’ (Gancel 2004), uses unmarked AVEC as opposed to the comitative form. The Linguistic Context 45

3.1.3 Lexis Although different varieties of Norman share many cognates with French, examples of which are given in Table 3.5, some of these have different meanings (Table 3.6; see also Liddicoat 1994: 331–333 for a detailed discussion of Jèrriais and Sercquiais, and Le Marquand 1905: 35 and Collas 1934: 222–224 for Guernésiais). For Mainland Norman, glossaries of local terms are published in the journal Parlers et Traditions Populaires de Normandie.13

Table 3.5 Cognates with the same meaning in French and Norman (after Brasseur 1978a, b)

French Cotentin Jersey Guernsey Sark (Magneville) miel mjɛl mjɛ mji mjɛl mɪ ‘honey’ mer mɛʁ mɛ me mɑjr mwɛʁ ‘sea’ noeud nø nu nœ naw nœwk ‘knot’

Table 3.6 Cognates with different meanings in French and Norman

French Cotentin Jersey Guernsey Sark fossé fɔse fosaj fose fɔsɑj fɒusɛt ‘ditch’ ‘hedge’ ‘hedge’ ‘hedge’ ‘hedge’ chausse ʃos kauʃ ko:ʃ kauʃ kɑuʃ ‘armour ‘woollen sock’ ‘stocking’ ‘sock’ ‘stocking’ for the legs’

13 http://leviquet.com/ (last accessed 22 April 2014). 46 Chapter 3

The productivity and meaning of derived forms may also differ from standard French. For example, suffixes bearing the underlying structure [əri:] (corresponding to French –erie) are far more common in Norman (Liddicoat 1994: 310–311; Jones 2008a: 139–140—cf. Norman menterie [mɑ̃təʁi] ‘a lie’, where standard French has mensonge [mɑ̃sɔ̃:ʒ] Brasseur 1990: 115). Moreover, although, in standard French and Norman alike, the suffix denotes a place where an activity is carried out (boulangerie [bulɑ̃ʒəʁi] ‘baker’s’ (Fr.); quincaillerie [kɛ̃kajəʁi] ‘ironmonger’s’ (Fr.); cf. lavethie [lavði:] (J); [lavri:] (G); [lavdʒɪ:] (S); [lavʁi:] (MN) ‘wash-house’), in Norman, it also frequently denotes the noun representing the action of a verb: brûl’lie [brulli:] (J); [brulri:] (G); [brullɪ:] (S); [bʁœləʁi:] (MN) ‘the act of burning something’; (the French equivalent, brûlerie [bʁyləʁi] denotes a coffee roasting plant).

3.2 The Relationship between the Different Varieties of Norman14

In 1883, the dialectologist Charles Joret published a study entitled Des Caractères et de l’extension du patois normand, a work that was to have significant impact on Norman dialectology. In his study, based on responses obtained from primary school teachers and inspectors, Joret concluded first, that the Norman linguistic area was not homogeneous since the boundary lines of the features he examined did not coincide (Joret 1883: xix; Collas 1934: 217); and, second, that, as illustrated in Map 3.1, the Norman dialects form part of two linguistic groupings within the langue d’oïl (Joret 1883: xvii) namely: • The Normano-Picard (or ‘North-West French’) area. This includes the varieties spoken in the Channel Islands, the north of Manche and Eure, most of Calvados and all of Seine Maritime. It also encompasses northern parts of Oise, the Somme, eastern parts of Nord, a small part of north-west Aisne, the Pas de Calais and a part of Belgium. • The Ouest d’Oïl (or ‘West French’) area. This includes the Channel Islands, Manche, Calvados, all apart from the very east of Orne, Seine Maritime and Eure and also Upper Brittany, Mayenne, Sarthe, Loire-Atlantique, Maine-et-Loire, Indre-et-Loire, Vienne, Deux Sèvres, La Vendée, Charente and Charente-Maritime.

All varieties of Insular Norman therefore fall inside both these linguistic groupings. However, as will be seen in §3.3.1.1, the fact these isoglosses bisect

14 This section has drawn upon material from within Mari C. Jones Jersey Norman French (2001), © Wiley Publishing, reproduced with permission. The Linguistic Context 47 mainland Normandy has implications for regional variation within the conti- nental territory. Joret’s work examined five phonetic and two morphological developments within the Norman dialect area. This enabled him to define the features that characterized and determined the geographical extension of Norman at the end of the nineteenth century.15 These developments represent a useful

0 300 km Pas-de- Calais Nord

Somme A Seine- E AR Maritime D Aisne AR -PIC Oise NOEure Manche NORMA Val-d’Oise Calvados Yvelines Orne Seine- Marne et-Marne Côtes-d’Armor Eure- Essonne Aube Finistère Mayenne A et-Loir lle-et- E Vilaine R A Sarthe Morbihan Loiret H Yonné C

Loire- N Maine- Loir- Atlantique E et-Loire Indre- et-Cher R et-Loire F Cher Nièvre

T S Deux- Vendée E Indre Sévres W Vienne Allier

Creuse Charente- Maritime Haute- Puy- Charente Vienne de-Dôme

Corrèze Haute- Dordogne Cantal Loire

Gironde Lot Lozère

Map 3.1 The Normano-Picard and West French linguistic groupings.

15 Fleury (1886: 3–4) disagrees with some of the narrow phonetic detail noted by Joret with regard to the dialect of La Hague, spoken in the north-west of the Cotentin peninsula. However, this has no significant bearing on the present chapter, in which the phonetic 48 Chapter 3

starting point from which to consider the relationship between the different varieties of Norman. For ease of comparison, the ordering follows that of Joret (1883: 108–109). Chapter 5 considers the extent to which this historical situation has changed as a result of the contact that has taken place between Norman and its superstrates since the time of Joret’s survey.

(1) West French maintenance of Latin tonic free [e] (Fleury 1886: 34; Guerlin De Guer 1901: 22–24; Collas 1931: 32; Spence 1957a: 82, 1984: 348, 2003: 165; Lechanteur 1968: 204–205; Brasseur 1978a: 56–57; Lepelley 1978: 72, 1999: 63–64; Marie 2012: xxi). In central French, tonic free [e] (from Classical Latin long e and short i) diphthongized to [ej] around the sixth century. In the twelfth century, this diphthong differentiated to [oj] > [oe] > [ue], becoming [we] by the thirteenth century. This further developed to [wɛ] and, by the thirteenth century, to [wa] in Paris. This popular pronunciation was adopted more widely from the end of the eighteenth century (credere > croire [kʁwa:ʁ] ‘to believe’ (Fr.)). In the Norman and West French area, the diphthong remained as [ej] and, in the twelfth century, it simplified to [e] or [ɛ].

(2) Normano-Picard non-palatalization of Latin [k] before ‘a’ (Collas 1931: 43; Spence 1957a: 82, 1984: 347–348, 2003: 162–163; Lechanteur 1968: 188–195; Brasseur 1973, 1978a: 52–53; Lepelley 1978: 71, 1999a: 58–9; Marie 2012: xix). Before a, Latin [k] palatalized to [ʃ] in central French (VLat. camisiam > chemise [ʃəmi:z] ‘shirt’ (Fr.), vaccam > vache [vaʃ] ‘cow’ (Fr.)) but not in the Normano-Picard area. According to Brasseur, however, contact with French has led to this division becoming less ‘sharp’ in the east of the Calvados area. Brasseur finds some evidence of a mixture of ‘French’ and ‘Normano-Picard’ palatalization outcomes, even within the same village (1973: 312).

(3) Normano-Picard and West French closure of [a] to [ɛ] in syllables closed by [r] (Lepelley 1978: 73, 1999a: 66; Brasseur 1978a: 58–60; Spence 2003: 166; Marie 2012: xxii). In a syllable closed by [r], [a] is maintained in central French (sarc(u)lare > sarcler [saʁkle] ‘to hoe’ (Fr.)) but becomes [ɛ] in the Normano- Picard and West French areas.

developments are discussed in a broad sense and, more specifically, in terms of their divergence from standard French. The Linguistic Context 49

(4) Normano-Picard palatalization to [ʃ] of Latin [k] before a front vowel (Collas 1931: 43; Spence 1957a: 82, 1984: 347, 2003: 163; Lechanteur 1968: 195; Lepelley 1978: 71–72, 1999a: 60–61; Brasseur 1978a: 53; Marie 2012: xx). Before a front vowel, [i, e, ɛ] and the yod, [j], Latin [k] palatalized via [ts] to [s] in central French (centum > cent [sɑ̃] ‘one hundred’ (Fr.)). This palatalization also occurred with ti when simultaneously post-consonantal and pre-vocalic (VLat. rad(i)cina > racine [ʁasin] ‘root’ (Fr.); VLat. fortia > force [fɔʁs] ‘force’ (Fr.)). In the Normano-Picard area, both these developments become [ʃ].

(5) Singular—plural opposition (Collas 1931: 49; Lechanteur 1968: 201–204; Lepelley 1999a: 87; Marie 2012: 368) The late Latin suffix –ellum / –ellos yielded Old French words such as coutel ‘knife’, batel ‘boat’, chastel ‘castle’. With the vocalization of pre-consonantal [l], central French reflexes of the plural forms were realized as [ɛaws], a triphthong which, by the end of the sixteenth century, had levelled to [o], hence batels > bateaux. In Norman, the [ɛ] of the triphthong often closes further, producing plural forms such as [batja:w], [batjɑ:] or [batjo:]. This development did not affect the singular, which remained with an –el suffix but, in central French, a new analogical singular was created on the basis of the new plural form, leading to the neutralization of the [ɛl]—[o] singular-plural opposition in these words (bateau—bateaux [bato]—[bato]). In Norman, no new analogical singular developed and the singular -el suffix was retained. With the deletion of the final consonant, this has given the typical Norman opposition [bate]—[batjo:].

(6) Development of the Old French diphthong [yj] (Collas 1931: 33–34; Spence 1957a: 82–83, 1993: 44–45, 2003: 165–166; Lechanteur 1968: 208–211; Brasseur 1978a: 60–61; Lepelley 1999a: 76; Marie 2012: xxvii). The Old French diphthong [yj] (from Latin tonic short o / long u followed by a yod) became [ɥi] in central French, with a shift of stress to the second element of the diphthong (noctem > nuit [nɥi] ‘night’ (Fr.)). The development of the [yj] diphthong is not uniform across Normandy. In much of Upper Normandy (the Pays de Bray, Pays de Caux and Pays du Vexin, see Map 1.1), a similar development occurred to that of central French (Joret 1883: 154; cf. Hébert 1984: 20). However, in Lower Normandy, the diphthong reduced to [y] in some words whereas in others, there was an initial shift of stress to [ɥi], as in central French, and a subsequent assimilation of the semi-vowel, giving [ji]. If the yod did not palatalize the preceding consonant, it was absorbed, giving [i]. The fact that the synchronic realization of this phonetic feature varies according to individual words, rather than to phonetic 50 Chapter 3

environment, leads Brasseur (1978a: 61) to speculate that, in some parts of Lower Normandy, forms with both outcomes ([y], [i]) may once have occurred in free variation. He notes, however, that today, forms in [y] are more common in the Cotentin peninsula than in the Channel Islands. In Insular Norman, when the [i] realization is preceded by a yod or a palatal consonant, it tends to open to [ɛ] (hence [ɲɛ] ‘night’) which, in final position, can also reduce to [i]. Although it does not feature in his original questionnaire, at a later stage in his enquiry Joret also examined the development of Latin long e before a yod which, in certain contexts, could also yield the diphthong [ɥi] in central French (cf. tegulam > tuile [tɥil] ‘tile’) (Lechanteur 1968: 208–211; Spence 2003: 165–166).

(7) Masculine and feminine forms of the singular definite article Joret also considered the masculine and feminine forms of the singular definite article, in order to determine the extent to which the characteristic Picard feature of phonetically undifferentiated masculine and feminine forms was also present in Norman (cf. Dauby 1979: 29; Dickès 1992: 41). All varieties of Norman share an identical outcome for this morphological feature, namely that the articles are always phonetically distinct, although this does not mean that the forms themselves are uniform throughout the Norman territory: for example, in the Val de Saire (in the north-east of the Cotentin peninsula), the masculine definite article is [l] (Lepelley 1974: 103), whereas in the Pays de Caux it is usually realised as the metathesized form [œl] (Hébert 1984: 31). This feature is not considered further in the present study.

Building upon Joret’s work, Brasseur (1978a) discusses nineteen phonetic features common to all extant varieties of Mainland and Insular Norman (the former represented by the variety spoken in Magneville, in the centre of the Cotentin peninsula). Other work has described the parallel secondary developments shown by mainland and insular dialects with regard to, for example, diphthongization (Lechanteur 1948: 114) and palatalization (Guerlin De Guer 1899). Spence observes that Jèrriais, Guernésiais and Sercquiais still contain a number of phonetic features which were mentioned by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century writers and grammarians as being characteristic of Norman (1984: 348–349, 1993: 45; cf. also Hublart 1979: 66–80; Spence 1984: 348–349, 1993: 45). Despite having identified features which were representative of the Norman dialect, Joret concluded that there was no homogeneous Norman linguistic area since the boundary lines of the features in question did not coincide (Collas 1934: 217). Indeed, he found that only one of the features, the The Linguistic Context 51 non-palatalization of [k] before a, was actually to be found over the whole of the so-called ‘Norman domain’ (Joret 1883: 150). However, not even this feature proved an ideal match as it extended beyond the territory to the south (Joret 1883: 110). Joret realized that the isoglosses marking the southern limits of, respectively, the non-palatalization of [k] before a and the development of [k] to [ʃ] before a front vowel were geographically very close and was the first to identify their importance. For this reason, the part of the isoglosses that crosses Normandy was named the Ligne Joret ‘Joret Line’ in his honour (Lechanteur 1968, see Map 3.2). Joret did point out, however, that, although both these isoglosses involved modification of the same consonant ([k]), they did not coincide: the [k] before front vowel isogloss being a little more to the north. He also noted that some places, such as the valley of the Drouanne, displayed the char- acteristically ‘Norman’ development of [k] before a but the ‘central French’ development of [k] before a front vowel (1883: 126–127)16—although he did suggest that the latter might have been a more recent development, caused by superstrate influence from standard French. Joret further observed that, in southern Normandy, the isoglosses did not coincide with the political frontier of the province (1883: 144). Moreover, he suggested that, in medieval times, the location of the isogloss might have been different—noting, for example, that the town known today as Chambray [ʃɑ̃bʁe] was still called Cambray in 1390 (1883: 140). The Ligne Joret has become an important isogloss in the study of French dialectology. In the 1960s, it was researched extensively by Lechanteur (1968: 189–190), who made a few modifications to Joret’s work, noting that, despite its clarity in the east and west of Normandy, the line became less distinct towards the centre of the region, where the superstrate influence of standard French was more prominent (1968: 188–190). The Channel Islands are identified as lying in the heart of the Norman zone (1968: 189) (see Map 1.1). In a further refinement, Lepelley also describes the north Norman development to [v] (as opposed to [g]) of Germanic [w] (and certain, late-introduced words of Latin beginning with the letter v, which become assimilated to [w]), as another linguistic feature that coincides with the Ligne Joret (1978: 72–73, 1999a: 61; cf. Marie 2012: xxiii)—although Joret himself makes no mention of it. Lepelley cites as examples Germanic wer-wulf (‘werewolf’), which becomes varou in northern Mainland Norman, vârou in Guernésiais and varou/ vathou

16 Lepelley uses the term ‘Delta’ to refer to the region between the two isoglosses—namely, where the ‘Norman’ development occurs with [k] before a but not with [k] before a front vowel (1999a: 61). 52 Chapter 3

Dieppe

Cherbourg

Le Havre

Rouen Bayeux Saint-Lô Lisieux Caen Bernay Les Andelys Countances Évreux

Vire Avranches Argentan

Alençon Mortagne

k + a > k k + ɛ, e, i > w > v 0 50 km

Map 3.2 The Ligne Joret. or ouathou/ouéthou in Jèrriais but loup-garou in standard French; and the French surname Gautier, which becomes Vautier to the north of the Ligne Joret. Discussing the origins of the Ligne Joret, Lepelley suggests that this bundle of isoglosses may designate the limit of Saxon influence after their arrival in Neustria in the fourth or fifth century (1999a: 61) (see §2.1). Lechanteur (1968: 194–195) also admits the plausibility of a Germanic substrate, although he adds that this is only one of several possible explanations.

3.3 Variation within Norman

Despite their many shared linguistic features, the varieties spoken within the Norman territory are not homogeneous. For all that Guernsey and Sark may lie close to one another geographically, speakers of Guernésiais and Sercquiais cannot readily understand one another. Moreover, even though Sercquiais developed from the variety of Jèrriais spoken in north-west Jersey after Sark was colonized from Jersey in the sixteenth century (Ewen and De Carteret 1969; Spence 1993: 53) (see §2.3), there is no longer any striking resemblance between these two varieties (Brasseur 1978b: 302). Although some degree of mutual comprehension is possible between Jèrriais, Guernésiais and Sercquais, The Linguistic Context 53 it is limited and often varies from one speaker to the next (see §4.7).17 Brasseur claims that, of all the varieties of Insular Norman, the most difficult for a speaker of Mainland Norman to understand is the Guernésiais of south-west Guernsey (1977: 100) (see Map 1.3). Brasseur has calculated that, of the four extant varieties of Norman, it is Sercquiais which diverges most greatly from standard French (1978b: 302). His survey highlights 43 differences between these two varieties compared to 37 between Mainland Norman and standard French, 36 between Guernésiais and standard French and 34 between Jèrriais and standard French. However, the differences between the varieties themselves remain so salient that it is impossible to suggest that any one variety of Norman has any particular affinity with another. Brasseur cites four instances when Sercquiais displays a feature similar to the mainland variety spoken in Magneville (as opposed to Jèrriais and Guernésiais, which share those particular features with standard French), three instances when Sercquiais shares the same development as Guernésiais (as opposed to Jèrriais and the Norman of Magneville) and three instances when it shares the same development as Jèrriais (as opposed to Guernésiais and the Norman of Magneville) (1978b: 302–303).18 Clearly, these scores will differ slightly according to the precise varieties of Mainland Norman, Jèrriais and Guernésiais examined for, as will be outlined below, apart from in the case of Sark, considerable regional differences exist within these dialects.19

3.3.1 Regional Variation in Mainland Norman 3.3.1.1 Phonology The most salient regional differences within Mainland Norman are phonological in nature. For example, Lepelley (1999a: 55) lists eight different regional pronunciations for the infinitive remoucher ‘to re-light a fire’: [remuʃje] [remuʃi], [remukje], [remuki], [remoki], [remɔkji], [remotji], [remotʃi]. Given the extent of this variation, the observations made below are inevitably broad.

17 Dorian (1981: 92) comments on how attitudes towards speech-forms may affect one’s ability to understand them, an opinion also shared by Hindley (1990: 218). 18 Spence (1984: 350–351) outlines some points of divergence between Guernésiais and Jèrriais and between Jèrriais and the dialects of Mainland Norman (1957a: 85–89). See also Collas (1934: 218–221) for a detailed exposition of three points of divergence between Jèrriais and Guernésiais. 19 Sercquiais is now relatively homogeneous (Brasseur 1978a: 52), although islanders report that, in former times, Little Sark had its own distinct variety although, to the best of my knowledge, no data exist to corroborate this claim. Emanuelli (1906, 1907) makes no mention of any regional variation in Auregnais. 54 Chapter 3

Mainland Normandy divides linguistically on both a north-south axis (the territory lying above and below the Ligne Joret) and an east-west axis (the territory lying inside and outside the ‘West French’ area, cf. §3.2 above and Pezeril 2012: 39–40). Some of these ‘broad’ features are illustrated in Tables 3.7 and 3.8. More localized features include, for example, the tendency in the north-west of Normandy for [i] and [y] to lower to, respectively, [e]/[ɛ] and [ø] before a nasal consonant, hence cuisine [kɥizin] ‘kitchen’ (Fr.) and lune [lyn] ‘moon’ (Fr.) are realized as [tʃɥi:zɛn] and [lœn] (Lepelley 1999a: 81; Marie 2012: xxvii cf. ALEN Map 1328 Cousine ‘Cousin’).

3.3.1.2 Morphosyntax (i) In the context of a palatal, Latin tonic free [a] developed to [je] (as opposed to [e] (Price 1973: 72). When preceded by [ʒ], [ʃ], [ɲ] or [ʎ], this reduced to [e] in the standard language, during the Middle French period. The development was not uniform across the Norman territory. Although reduction to [e] is found in the East, the outcome is [ji] in parts of Lower Normandy to the north of the Ligne Joret. In the Cotentin peninsula, this is often realized as [i] and, in the Bessin area of Calvados, [je] (Lepelley 1978: 73, 1999a: 69–70). Hence ‘to look for’ is trachi [tʁaʃe] in the Pays de Caux (De Fresnay 1881: 265) but [tʁaʃji]

Table 3.7 Features demarcated by the Ligne Joret

North of the Ligne Joret South of the Ligne Joret

1. Palatalization of [k] and [g] before a Cat (Fr. chat) [ʃa] [k] [ka] [ʃ] [ʃa] Leg (Fr. jambe) [ʒɑ̃:b] [g] [gɑ̃:b]/ [gɛ̃:b] [ʒ] [ʒɑ̃:b]

2. Palatalization of [k] before a front vowel One hundred (Fr. cent) [sɑ̃] [ʃ] [ʃɑ̃] [s] [sɑ̃]

3. Development of Germanic [w] and some Latin [v] Hatch/trapdoor (Fr. guichet) [giʃɛ] [vitʃɛ] [giʃɛ] Wasp (Fr. guêpe) [gɛp] [vɛ:pʁ] [gɛ:p] The Linguistic Context 55

Table 3.8 ‘West French’ features (Lepelley 1999a: 63–68)

Inside the ‘West French’ Outside the ‘West French’ area area

1. Development of Latin long [e] and short [i] [e] [fe] [wa] [fwa] Faith (Fr. foi) [fwa]

2. Development of Latin long [o] and short [u] [u] [ku:] [ø] / [œ] [kø] Tail (Fr. queue) [kø]

3. Development of [e] after a labial consonant [p], [b], [f], [v], [m] Frying pan (Fr. poêle) [pwal] [e] [pɛl] [wa] [pwal] Although cf. Bessin ([pwɛl])

4. Closure of [ar] to [ɛr] Coal (Fr. charbon) [ʃaʁbɔ̃] [ɛr] [kjɛʁbõ] [ar] [ʃaʁbɔ̃]

in the Val de Saire (Lepelley 1974: 121). This development also affects past participles: travailli [tʁavɒje]—[tʁavɒji] (ALEN Maps 1214 (Chercher ‘To look for’), 1224 (Il a bien travaillé ‘He has worked well’). (ii) When no palatal is involved, infinitives corresponding to the –er conjugation of French frequently end in [o] in the Val de Saire in the north-east tip of the Cotentin peninsula, (as opposed to [e]), a phenomenon known locally as ‘potement’. Hence dounaer [duno] ‘to give’, alaer [alo] ‘to go’ (Marie 2012: xxviii–ix). In La Hague, on the north-west tip of the Cotentin peninsula, the infinitival ending of these verbs is [a]: [duna], [ala]. (iii) The past participles of ‘to read’ and ‘to harm’ (lu [ly], nui [nɥi] (Fr.)) show some variation across the Norman mainland. The former is luuzu [ly:zy] in the north of the Cotentin peninsula and varies between [ly] and [li] in Calvados and Seine Maritime, although the former is slightly more widespread. For the most part, the past participle of nuire is [nɥi], as in French, but the form nuuzu [ny:zy] is common in the north of the Cotentin peninsula, as is [njœ] in parts of Calvados (cf. ALEN Maps 1273 (Nuire ‘To harm’) and 1239 (Lire ‘To read’)). 56 Chapter 3

3.3.1.3 Lexis Table 3.9 gives some examples of words that vary according to a broad ‘East’ (Eure, Seine Maritime)—‘West’ (Manche, Orne, Calvados) division. Although, as administrative divisions have no bearing on distribution patterns, different lexical items may be used within the same département or region and, con- versely, the same lexical items may be used across more than one département or region. Table 3.9 therefore necessarily represents a simplified account.

Table 3.9 Some examples of broad ‘East—West’ regional variation in the lexis of Mainland Norman20

Lower Normandy Upper Normandy

‘Apron’ (Fr. Tablier) devaunté [dvɑ̃te] tabliyi [tablje] ‘Dishcloth’ (Fr. Lavette) bouissoun [bwisõ] lavette [lavɛt] ‘To eat’ (Fr. Manger) mouogi [mu:ʒi] mâqui [mɒk’e] ‘Lazy’ (Fr. Paresseux) fainiaunt [fenjã] calaeu [kalœ], f fainiaunt [fenjã] ‘To make cider’ pilaer [pile] brassaer [bʁɑse] (Fr. Faire le cidre) ‘Parents’ (Fr. Parents) gens [ʒɑ̃] [paʁɑ̃:] ‘To speak’ (Fr. Parler) prêchi [pre:ʃ i] (M) [paʁle]/[pɑ:le] (SM) câosaer [ko:ze] (O, C) [ko:ze] (SM, e) ‘Tired’ (past participle) lassaé [lɒ:se] fatigui [fatidʒe]21 (Fr. Fatigué) ‘Thirst’ (Fr. Soif ) sei [se]/[sɛ] [swɛf]

‘Washing basin’ tchue [tʃyv] bachin [bakje] (SM) (Fr. Cuve à lessive)

Key: M: Manche, C: Calvados, E: Eure, O: Orne, SM: Seine Maritime

3.3.2 Regional Variation in Jèrriais Jèrriais is usually divided linguistically into east and west. The eastern varieties differ most from standard French mainly owing to secondary develop-

20 Where no orthographic form is given in Table 3.9, it is similarly absent from dictionaries of contemporary Norman. 21 In Norman unified orthography, underlining the graphemes indicates that they represent [dʒ] rather than [g]. The Linguistic Context 57 ments in the vowel system (Spence 1993: 20). Map 3.3 indicates the location of these varieties and the areas of even more localized variation that are to be found within them. As with Mainland Norman, internal variation within the Channel Islands has never been bound up with administrative or other territorial boundaries. However, the practice of referring to varieties of Jèrriais and Guernésiais by the name of parishes is so well established in the islands, including among the speakers themselves, that it has been followed in this study in order to avoid confusion with previous studies (Brasseur 1998: 141; Jones 2001: Chapter 2) In practice, many linguistic features are constant across several parishes, whilst others may vary within the same parish (Le Maistre 1966: 161; De Garis 1982: xi, 1983: 321; Brasseur 1998: 141).

North-west 1 Les Landes North-east 2 L’Étacq 1 3 3 Lé Mont Mado North 4 Lé Faldouët 2 7 5 La Rocque 6 La Moie N West Centre 7 Rozel East 4

01 2 6 5 miles

South-east

Map 3.3 The linguistic divisions of Jèrriais (after Le Maistre 1966).

The varieties of Jèrriais spoken in Les Landes, L’Étacq and La Moie (within the western linguistic area) and those of Lé Faldouët and La Rocque (within the eastern linguistic area) are felt locally to be highly distinctive. The Lé Mont Mado variety spans the northern periphery of both areas. For details of the main linguistic features of these highly localized varieties, see Jones 2001: 35–36).

3.3.2.1 Phonology Table 3.10 below gives examples of regional variation within the phonology of Jèrriais. As mentioned above, the situation is often not clear-cut, with more than one realization observable within the same parish and features considered typical of one geographical grouping occasionally found elsewhere. Such developments may be attributable to lexical diffusion or may even be idiolectal. 58 Chapter 3

Table 3.10 Regional phonological variation in Jèrriais

Western Jersey Eastern Jersey

1. Secondary diphthongization of preconsonantal [u:] Housefly (Fr. mouche) [muʃ] [mu:k] (O, P, Mie, B) [mowk] (J, L, T) [mawk] (G, M)

2. Secondary diphthongization of [o:] Thing (Fr. chose) [ʃo:z] [ʃo:z] (O) [ʃawz] (T, H, Sv, M, G, C) [ʃowz] (J, P, Mie, B)

3. Development of [œ:] To see (past participle) [vœ:] (P, B) [vaj] (J, H, T, M, G, Sv) (Fr. vu) [vy] [vɑ:] (La) [vœy]22 (T, H, L, J)

Sure (Fr. sûr) [syʁ] [sœ:] (P, B) [saj] (J, H, T, M, G, Sv) [sɑ:] (La) [sœy] (T, H, L, J)

4. Secondary diphthongization of word final [e] Me (Fr. moi) [mwa] [mɛ] (Mie, P, B, O) [mej] [møj] (R) The (pl.) (Fr. les) [le] [le:] (Mie, P, B) [lej] [lɛ:] (O)

22 Similar developments are attested in Lower Normandy. For example, Lechanteur (1948: 121) mentions the occurrence of the diphthongs [œy] and [aœ] in words such as deux ‘two’. 23 As the assibilation of of intervocalic [r] to [ð] is not found in Sercquiais, even though Sark was colonized from Jersey in the sixteenth century (see §2.3) it would seem that the development in Jèrriais post-dates this event. Spence (1957a: 86n.3) claims that the substitution of [dʒ] for etymological r in some words of Sercquiais may indicate some weakening of intervocalic [r] here also—an example of this would be [mdʒu:k] (‘stinking mayweed’) < Vulgar Latin *amarusca. 24 The assibilation of intervocalic [r] has far-reaching phonological and morphological consequences for Jèrriais, including in the formation of the future and conditional tenses. (Spence 1957b, 1987, 1990: 213). The Linguistic Context 59

Western Jersey Eastern Jersey

5. Assibilation of intervocalic [r]23, 24 Mother (Fr. mère) [mɛ:ʁ] [mɛð] (O, B, Mie, P, J [mɛr] (L, south T, Hour (Fr. heure) [œ:ʁ] north T, north M) south M) [œð] (O, B, Mie, P, J, T, M) [œr] (M)

6. Development of intervocalic [z]25 House (Fr. maison) [mezɔ̃] [mɛ:ðõ] (O) [me(j)zõ] Birds (Fr. des oiseaux) [dezwazo] [deð wɛ:ðjo:] (O) [dɛz wejzja:w]

Key: B: St. Brelade, H: St. Helier, J: St. John, G: Grouville, L: St Lawrence, La: Les Landes (north western St Ouen) M: St. Martin, Mie: St. Mary O: St. Ouen, P: St. Peter, R: Rozel (north eastern St. Martin) Sv: St Saviour, T: Trinity

3.3.2.2 Morphosyntax Morphological variation within Jèrriais is less common than phonological and lexical variation. Le Maistre (1979a: 3) observes that certain 3PL forms of the past definite are restricted to the north-west (St. Ouen parish), for example i’ vidrent [ivi:dɹ] ‘they saw’; il’ eûdrent [ily:dɹ] ‘they had’; i’ trouvîdrent [itruvi:dɹ] ‘they found’; i’ vindrent [ivẽ:dɹ] ‘they came’; i’ fûdrent [ify:dɹ] ‘they went’; (cf. i’ vitent [ivi:t]; il’ eûtent [ily:t]; i’ trouvitent [itruvi:t]; i’ vintent [ivẽ:t] and i’ fûtent [ify:t] elsewhere in Jersey) but adds that these highly localized forms are no longer heard very frequently.

3.3.2.3 Lexis Regional variation is widespread in the lexis of Jèrriais as Table 3.11 illustrates (adapted from Spence 1993: 22–23, with transcriptions added).

25 Spence (1993: 54) suggests that this increasingly sporadic feature of north-western Jèrriais (cf. Le Maistre 1993: 15) may be due to a form of hypercorrection that developed from attempts to regularize [ð] as the replacement for a weakened intervocalic [r] (over [z], the alternative replacement to have emerged in this context), thus leading to the intrusion of [ð] into the domain of etymological [z] also. 60 Chapter 3

Table 3.11 Regional variation in the lexis of Jèrriais26

Western Jersey Eastern Jersey

‘Acorn’ (Fr. gland) tchênelle [tʃɛ:nɛl] gliand [gjɑ̃] ‘To attend to lobster-and cliav’ter [kjavte] marânder (south-east) crab-pots’ [marɑ̃de] ‘To be on the point of couarder [kwarde] couinner [kwine] becoming broody’ (of hen) ‘Butterfly’ (Fr. papillon) papillote [papijɔt] papillon [papijõ], paoupillon (south-east) [paupijõ] ‘Dry drain’ (Fr. tranchée drove (north-west) [dɹɔv], dovre [dɔvr], drogue [dɹɔg] à ciel ouvert) dovre [dɔvr] douvre [duvr] ‘Hogweed’ (Fr. berce) paînfais m. [pɛ̃fei] bênarde f. [bɛ:nard] ‘Line from lobster-pot bandé [bɑ̃de] haûlinne [haulin] to surface’ ‘Litter’ (mainly of câlée [kɑ:lɛ] fourcée [fursɛ:] piglets) (Fr. portée) (and fourcée [fursɛ:]) ‘Pile of sea-weed pèrreuse [pɛrœ:z] couerte [kwɛrt] weighed down by stones’ ‘Roof’ (Fr. toit) couvèrtuthe (north-west) east, most west lief [jɛf] [kuvɛrtyð] ‘Scallop’ (Fr. coquille Saint-Jacques) vanné [vane] pitounne [pitun] ‘Spider’ (Fr. araignée)27 pêtre [pejtr] aithangnie [ɛðaɲi:] (north-west) ithangnie [ɛðaɲi:]) ‘Spider crab’ hueûlîn [wœ:lẽ] pihangne [pihan] (Fr. Araignée de mer)

3.3.3 Regional Variation in Guernésiais Guernésiais divides linguistically into northern and southern varieties (Lewis 1895; Collas 1931, 1934; Jones 2008a: 41–45). The northern group is traditionally referred to as the (generally more conservative) ‘Low Parishes’ or ‘bas pas’

26 Where no French equivalent is given in Table 3.11, the term is absent from dictionaries of contemporary French. 27 In western Jersey, aithangnie means ‘spider’s web’, as araignée did in Old French; pêtre is derived from the same root as pédestre ‘walk’ (adj). The Linguistic Context 61

(St. Sampson, the Vale and St. Peter Port) and the southern group as the ‘High Parishes’ or ‘hauts pas’ (St. Peter, Torteval, St. Martin, St. Saviour, Forest) (see Map 1.3)28 The parishes of Câtel and St. Andrew form a transition zone between the groupings and contain linguistic features prevalent in both although, in legal terms, these parishes are territorially part of the High Parish agglomeration.29 De Garis (1982: xi) and Lukis (1981: 2) note that the local variety spoken in St. Martin parish contains significant phonetic and lexical differences from the other High Parishes (cf. Table 3.12).

3.3.3.1 Phonology

Table 3.12 Regional phonological variation in Guernésiais30

Low Parishes High Parishes

1. Secondary diphthongization of final [o] Hot (Fr. chaud) [ʃo] [ko:] (C, Sp, V, F, M) [kow] (M, A, F) [kaw] (F, P)31 Water (Fr. eau) [o] [jo:] (C, V, M, A, F, Sv, Sp] [jow] (M, F) [jaw] (P)32

2. Lowering of [ɛ] before a final consonant (especially [r], [t]) To put (Fr. mettre) [mɛtʁ] [mɛtɹ] [mɑtɹ] (P, T) Straight (Fr. droit) [dʁwa] [dɹɛt] [dɹɑt] (P,T) Pigsty (Fr. porcherie) [pɔʁʃəʁi] [pɛrk]‘parc’ (à pouchiaoux) [pɑrk] (P,T) Light (Fr. léger) [leʒe] [leʒje] (V) [lʒɑr] (P, T)

28 The terms ‘Low’ and ‘High’ refer to the relative heights above sea-level of the north and south of Guernsey. 29 The High and Low Parishes have been distinguished legally since at least 1526. In a state- ment of 1579, St. Martin was defined as one of the Low Parishes. However, its present categorization as a High Parish clearly dates back several centuries: in the late seventeenth century, Lord Hatton commented that, in terms of court session, the parish had only ‘of late’ been added to the ‘High’ Parishes. 30 Collas (1931), Sjøgren (1964) and De Garis (1982) are sometimes at slight variance with one other in terms of their discussion of the regional phonological features of Guernésiais. No evidence exists to suggest that this is due to any major shift in pronunciation that may have occurred in these areas during the time that elapsed between these studies. 31 Tomlinson (1981: 151) also records [kaw] for Torteval. 32 Tomlinson (1981: 154) also records [jaw] for Torteval. 62 Chapter 3

Table 3.12 Regional phonological variation in Guernésiais (cont.)

Low Parishes High Parishes

3. Diphthongization of final [ɔ̃] House (Fr. maison) [mezɔ̃] [mɛ:zɔ̃] [me:zɑ̃w] (P) Boy (Fr. garçon) [gaʁsɔ̃] [garsɔ̃] [garsɑ̃w] (P) Season (Fr. saison) [sezɔ̃] [se:zɔ̃] [se:zɑ̃w] (P)

4. Lowering of [ɛ̃] Well (Fr. bien) [bjɛ̃] [bjɛ̃] [bjɑ̃] Apron (Fr. tablier) [tablije] d’vànté [dvɛ̃te] [dvɑ̃te]

5. Secondary diphthongization of [u] (from pretonic o) To go to bed (Fr. se coucher) [skwɔʃjɛ] (V) [kuʃjɛ] (P) [səkuʃe] [skwaʃjɛ] (M) Butcher (Fr. boucher) [buʃe] [bwɔʃjɛ] (V) [buʃjɛ] (P) [bwaʃje] (M)

6. Pronunciation of final consonants It is cold (Fr. il fait froid) [ilfɛfʁwa] [i fe frɛt] (V) [i fe frɛ] Egg (Fr. oeuf) [œf] [œf] (V) [Ø]

7. Palatalization of [k] before secondary front vowels Coal (Fr. charbon) [ʃaʁbɔ̃] [tʃɛrbõ] V( ) [tʃɛrbɛ̃] (P), [k’ɛrbõ] (M) Leather (Fr. cuir) [kɥir] [tʃɥir]/[ k’ɥir] (V) [kɥir] (P, M) Backside (Fr. cul) [kyl] [tʃy] [tʃy]

Key: A: St. Andrew, C: Câtel, F: Forest, M: St. Martin, P: St. Peter in the Wood, Sp: St. Sampson, Sv. St. Saviour, T: Torteval V: Vale

3.3.3.2 Morphosyntax Regional morphological variation within Guernésiais is much less marked. Notable examples include: (i) The occasional variation of grammatical gender between the High and Low Parishes—for example, veste [vɛst] ‘vest’ and poussière [pusje:r] ‘dust’ are both masculine in the former but feminine in the latter. The Linguistic Context 63

(ii) The reduction of the [je] infinitival suffix to [e] in verbs where the ending is preceded by [ʃ] and [ʒ] in Torteval parish, and also in the Les Marchez area in the south-east of St. Peter in the Wood (see Map 1.3): s’couochier [skwɔʃ(j)e] ‘to go to bed’, trachier [traʃ(j)e] ‘to look for’.

3.3.3.3 Lexis The vocabulary of Guernésiais also varies within Guernsey. Table 3.13 illustrates this variation by means of a small selection of lexical entries drawn from Collas (1931, 1934) and De Garis (1982).

Table 3.13 Regional variation in the lexis of Guernésiais

Low Parishes High Parishes

‘Acorn’ (Fr. gland) gllànd [dʒjɑ̃] tchêno [tʃe:ɲo] ‘Comb’ (Fr. peigne) déboutcheux [debutʃœ] démêlaeux [deme:lɛw] ‘Crumb’ (Fr. miette) miette [mjɛt] miaette, berion (St. Martin’s) [mjɑt] [bɛriɑ̃w] ‘To forget’ (Fr. oublier) renbillaïr [rõbijɑj] renbillaïr, oubillaïr (St. Martin’s) [rõbijɑj] [ublijɑi] ‘Pear tree’ (Fr. poirier) pèrier [perje] priller [pɹije] ‘Spider’ (Fr. araignée) crabbe33 [krɑb] irognie (south-east) [irɔ̃ɲi:] irogne (Torteval) [irɔ̃jn] ‘Whiting’ (Fr. merlan) liotin [liɔtẽ] lu [ly] ‘Wick’ (Fr. mèche) meche [mɛʃ] maeche, émouquillon (St. Martin’s) [meʃ], [emɔwkijɑ̃w]

3.3.4 Summary The presence of regional variation does not seem to pose problems of intelligibility within any given part of the Norman territory, although some people claim that they do not always find it easy to converse in Norman with speakers from outside their locality (cf. §4.7). Leaving aside for a moment the fact that the current decline in speaker numbers inevitably means that such highly localized forms are less frequently heard in general (cf. Spence 1985: 157 n.13), it is interesting to speculate whether these forms actually have a greater chance

33 Collas notes that, by 1934, [krɑb] had also been heard in the parishes of Torteval and St. Martin’s (1934: 223). 64 Chapter 3 of survival in Insular Norman than in Mainland Norman, since being functionally replaced by its superstrate, rather than being ‘infiltrated’ by it (= Abbau) may allow the former to disappear in a more linguistically ‘intact’ state (§1.2). This would represent a major cause of divergence between the Norman spoken in the mainland and in the islands. Chapter 4 The Sociolinguistic Context

The importance of understanding language change in its social context has been axiomatic since Labov’s early studies (see, for example, Labov 1972). Where languages are in decline, this ‘dual focus’ has been well emphasized (see among others, Dorian 1981, 1989; Grenoble and Whaley 1998a; Jones 1998a; Grinevald and Bert 2011; Spolsky 2011), with speaker attitudes and social identity often proving key to both motivating language change and ensuring successful revitalization (Trudgill 1986; Fishman 1991, 2001; Grenoble and Whaley 2006; Jones and Ogilvie 2013). The following discussion complements and completes the historical background to the present study given in Chapter 2 by presenting a profile of the speech communities of contemporary Norman. The sociolinguistic data analyzed here were collected at the same time as the linguistic data and are both quantitative and qualitative in nature (for a discussion of the methodology, see §1.3). Quotations used in the qualitative analysis have been translated into English and, in each case, the source speech community is indicated.1 Speakers were questioned about the presence of Norman in daily life within their speech community (how often they speak the variety, to whom and in what context); their literary skills; how they perceive the future of Norman in their speech community (language transmission, language revitalization) and the extent to which they are able to understand other varieties of Norman. The chapter thus provides an important contextual framework for the linguistic data analyzed and discussed in subsequent parts of this study.

1 In the quantitative analysis, the percentages included alongside the raw data are intended as no more than broad indicators of the relative patterns and tendencies, for the purpose of facilitating comparison between the different speech communities and should not be considered as precise measurements. The figures for Sark, which on occasion may appear rather high (cf. Table 4.3) have been affected by the small size of the sample.

4.1 Frequency of Use

Table 4.1 ‘How often do you speak Norman?’

Daily A few times per Less than a few Never week times per month

Cotentin 29.6% (8) 33.3% (4) 37% (10) 0% Pays de Caux 0% 20% (2) 80% (8) 0% Jèrriais 23.8% (5) 52.3% (11) 23.8% (5) 0% Guernésiais 41.4% (12) 20.7% (6) 37.9% (11) 0% Sercquiais 14.3% (1) 85.7% (6) 0% 0%

Despite the decline in speaker numbers, Norman still represents an everyday language for many people, especially when a spouse or another family member also speaks it (see Table 4.1). Indeed, the linguistic repercussions of the death of a spouse were plain, with several interviewees from the Channel Islands and the Cotentin peninsula stating how they had gone overnight from speaking Norman every day to hardly using it at all. Many people drew a contrast between the present situation and that of some sixty to seventy years previously when, to quote one Jèrriais speaker, whose comment is equally applicable to all the Norman speech communities studied, ‘simply everyone spoke Jèrriais—you would never think of speaking English and it was very rare to hear it, except in Town [St. Helier]’. As Hall puts it ‘In rural (Lower) Normandy in general, [. . .] there is great awareness of Norman. Among the oldest people, it would be exceptional if someone had not spoken it as a child, so any Norman family with old enough members is likely to contain a Norman speaker’ (2008: 305). The Pays de Caux, however, reveals a different pattern of usage in that Cauchois was not found to be considered an everyday spoken language (‘Cauchois doesn’t come naturally any more, not even to older people’ (PdC)). Many of those interviewed speak Norman no more than a few times per month. Moreover, from their comments, it became clear that, for many Cauchois, the act of speaking Norman does not carry the same meaning as it does in the Cotentin peninsula: ‘It’s a weakened patois [un patois attenué]’, ‘Pure Cauchois no longer exists’; ‘Today, Cauchois is more a matter of words than sentences, you know: cha va ti tei? [ʃavɑtite]; i fait freid [i fefʁɛ]; a c’té arlévaée [astaʁləvɛj] The Sociolinguistic Context 67 and things like that’2 (cf. Bulot 2006: 144, 146, 202); ‘Some people think they are speaking patois when they are really speaking French with a few patois words: it’s not patois really’. Here, then, and probably also in similarly Gallicized parts of Upper Normandy, when people say they are ‘speaking Norman’ they may actually mean that they are speaking a variety of French that includes some Norman words and expressions. Indeed, greetings, such as boujou [buʒu] ‘hello’, names of animals, such as vaque [vak] ‘cow’ and household terms, such as cllaunque [klɑ̃ʃ] ‘door handle’ were cited as examples of the ‘Cauchois that young people use’ (PdC) (cf. Schortz 1998; Bulot 2006; Lepelley 2010b). Another point of contrast between the age-groups is that older people often retain more of a marked regional pronunciation: ‘People can tell I am Cauchois from my accent’ (PdC) (cf. Hall 2008: 269). Writing of a similar context, Carton (1981: 17) cites four reference points within a linguistic continuum, the ‘poles’ of which are represented by, (i) standard French and (iv) dialect (which Carton terms ‘patois’) (see Table 4.2; cf. Bulot 2006: 39 for Cauchois). In between these ‘poles’ lie reference point (ii) regional French, with an obvious dialect colouring (see Chapter 9) and point (iii) dialect with French features, which Carton terms ‘français local ou dialectal’. It would seem that, for many Cauchois, the disappearance from the area of the ‘lowest pole’ (iv) and, to a large extent, reference point (iii), has led to point (ii) moving ‘downwards’, as it were, to occupy the vacated slot—i.e. becoming the new ‘lowest pole’ and thus acquiring the ‘lowest pole’ glossonym. It is interesting to note that Bulot found that schoolchildren aged between fifteen and eighteen used the term ‘Cauchois’ to refer to their own speech even though this is essentially French, albeit a French that contains certain stereotypical local features such as the replacement of [ʃ] by [k] in vache (cf. §3.2) and ‘des pratiques relevant du continuum français/cauchois que ces locuteurs identi- fient comme du cauchois’ (2006: 141).3 Bulot suggests that, for most people, the term ‘Cauchois’ has now come to mean this, rather than the traditional dialect: ‘Autrement dit, la catégorisation sociale du cauchois n’est évidemment pas celle des linguists du système [. . .] ni meme celle des militants de la langue prompts à decider ce qui est du vrai ou du faux cauchois voire [. . .] à distancier des systèmes; effectivement les jeunes declarent une pratique qu’ils exemplifient.

2 ‘How are you?’; ‘It’s cold’; ‘This afternoon’. 3 ‘Linguistic practices drawn from the French/Cauchois continuum that these speakers identify as Cauchois’. 68 Chapter 4

Table 4.2 A typology of diatopic linguistic varieties in France (after Carton 1981: 17)

Variétés Dialectalité Marques Dialectales Étendue de Quantité Qualité l’aire de diffusion

Langue (i) français — absence — maximale commun Mélange à (ii) français ‘français’ minimale minimale grande dominante français commun Mélange à (iii) français ‘patois’ moyenne moyenne petite dominante local ou français dialectal commun Patois (iv) patois ‘patois’ maximale maximale minimale

Ces exemples semblent faire état d’une modernité dialectale fortement mar- quée par le plurisystème français’ (2006: 141–142).4 Although the size of the sample makes it difficult to generalize about the findings, the general patterns of usage presented in Table 4.1 reveal the impru- dence of assuming that Norman is not a vital speech variety in the Cotentin peninsula and the Channel Islands simply because it is spoken only by a small number of inhabitants. For some speakers, Norman is an important, if not the principal, linguistic vehicle of their daily lives. However, as Marquis and Sallabank (2013) note for Guernsey, the fact that speakers are becoming increasingly isolated may bring into question the extent to which it is still meaningful to talk about a ‘speaker community’ in this context.

4 ‘In other words, the social categorization of Cauchois is clearly not that of structural linguists [. . .] or even that of language activists who seek to decide what is ‘true’ or ‘false’ Cauchois [. . .] in other words, they seek to distance the two systems; in fact, the young people are reporting on a practice that they themselves adopt. These examples seem to constitute evidence of the existence of a modern form of the dialect that is heavily marked by French’. The Sociolinguistic Context 69

4.2 Language Transmission

None of the mainland speakers interviewed had transmitted Norman to their offspring (‘Children don’t speak Cauchois today’; ‘No-one under the age of thirty can even read the Cauchois stories in the Courrier Cauchois’) (a local newspaper) (cf. Bulot 2006: 39, 181–182; Jigourel 2011: 32, 34). Although some degree of intergenerational transmission is present within the archipelago (see Table 4.3), this is without exception among older rather than younger speakers (see Table 4.4; cf. Sallabank 2013: 95). In other words, ‘tip’ towards the superstrate (Dorian 1981: 51) has already taken place throughout both the mainland and the archipelago. This means that, if no action is taken, the current steady decrease in speaker numbers of Norman is certain to continue unchecked (cf. Sasse 1992: 13).

Table 4.3 Intergenerational transmission of Norman

Island Children can speak Children cannot No children Norman speak Norman

JERSEY 5 (23.8%) 13 (61.9%) 3 (14.3%) GUERNSEY 5 (17%) 17 (58.6%) 7 (24%) SARK 2 (28.6%) 2 (28.6%) 3 (42.9%)

Table 4.4 Ages of parents who have transmitted Norman to their children5

Island

JERSEY 70+, 70+, 82, 85, 85 GUERNSEY 59, 80, 80+, 82, 93 SARK 80, 84

5 In Table 4.4, the figure ‘X+’ indicates that the precise age of an informant is unclear, but that sufficient information was obtained during the course of the interview to establish that they were over the age of X. 70 Chapter 4

Common reasons given for not passing on their native tongue to the next generation include intermarriage with non-dialect speakers (cf. Mougeon and Beniak 1989: 292; Kibrik 1991: 259; Brenzinger 1992: 225); the feeling that children are best served by learning the language of wider currency, ‘It wouldn’t help her, you see, to have spoken Guernsey French’ (G) (cf. McKinnon 1982: 53); and that speaking Norman somehow marks its speakers as second class or backward: ‘We deform French words’ (PdC) (cf. Boissel 1986: 59; Bulot 2006: 154). One speaker even went as far as saying that she had not spoken Norman to her children because ‘After all, we are civilized, you know’ (C). It is possible that children growing up in a Norman-speaking home may acquire a passive knowledge of the dialect even if it is not transmitted to them directly. However, the children of these ‘passive’ speakers are, in turn, far less likely to acquire any knowledge of Norman. As one person commented: [‘When I speak Guernésiais] my grandchildren say “Nanny is talking gibberish” ’ (G). The sense of linguistic inferiority that some speakers feel is also revealed in the way in which they refer to Norman. On the mainland, it may be called jargon ‘jargon’, galimatias ‘gibberish’, mélange ‘mixture’, français écorché ‘flayed French’, français ébréché ‘damaged French’, français démanché ‘dislo- cated French’, français déparé ‘marred French’, français démodé ‘old-fashioned French’, français renié ‘disowned French’, français dédit ‘retracted French’, fran- çais injurié ‘offensive French’, français déjoué ‘frustrated French’ (Boissel 1986: 61; Brasseur 1990: 7). In the Channel Islands, locals often refer to standard French as ‘good French’ (Sallabank 2013: 44)—their own varieties, by implication, being ‘bad French’ (cf. Sole 2007).

4.3 Interlocutor

The present study confirms the importance of social networks for the maintenance of a (stigmatized) dialect in competition with a more socially dominant standard language (cf. Pala 2009). Speaking to members of one’s family and, in particular, one’s spouse and siblings proves the most regular context for the use of Norman within the Cotentin peninsula and the Channel Islands. For some speakers, meetings with a sibling now constitute the only context in which they ever use the dialect. None of the participants from the Pays de Caux spoke Norman to any member of their family—apart from the odd word or expression ‘for fun’ (cf. Bulot 2006: 168). The Pays de Caux also stands apart with regard to language use in previous generations: whereas interviewees from the Cotentin peninsula and the Channel Islands had, without exception, spoken Norman to at least one of their parents, only three Cauchois interviewees The Sociolinguistic Context 71

(out of ten) had done so. In fact, six participants, all of whom had learnt Cauchois from a grandparent, stated that their parents had known no more than the odd word of Norman and that they had spoken mostly French with a few words of Norman ‘mixed in’. The fact that relatives no longer tend to live in close proximity means that, today, grandparents are not called upon as often to look after their grandchildren and this leads to the loss of another important means of language transmission and reinforcement. Outside the family, opportunities for speaking Norman are less regular. Although many people have friends with whom they always speak the dialect (‘If I spoke English to TS, he would ask himself what on earth was happening’ (J)), the death of these friends can reduce the lack of opportunity to speak Norman much in the same way as the death of a spouse: ‘All my friends who speak Guernésiais are dead’ (G). Moreover, whereas in times gone by, Norman could be used to start a conversation with a stranger, today it no longer represents the ‘default’ variety in this context and, even if people still know other dialect speakers, the regularity with which they encounter them is largely a matter of chance (Sallabank 2013: 96–97). The role of neighbours within the social network of many speakers has also changed. In former times, neighbours would often be friends who lived, and sometimes also worked, side by side, growing up with one another and participating greatly in each other’s lives. Changing lifestyles mean that communities are no longer as tightly knit. People’s neighbours change more frequently and they rarely get to know one another to the same extent: ‘It’s more a case of ‘metro-boulot-dodo now’ (C);6 ‘People don’t really live in the communes any more—they commute to Cherbourg (C); ‘We don’t even know who our neighbours are any more, let alone whether or not they speak patois’ (J).

4.4 Setting

The home remains the primary and, in many cases, the only, environment for speaking Norman. Many interviewees could recall Norman being used during their childhood in certain local shops in the Cotentin peninsula and the Channel Islands: ‘When we were young, you just didn’t think of speaking English. You’d never ask for stuff in shops in English’ (G). However, this practice seems to have depended on locality and, in many cases, the individual shop- keeper. Today, local shops do not represent a Norman-speaking domain for any

6 ‘commute, work, sleep.’ 72 Chapter 4 of the speakers interviewed. Cafés where ‘old men played dominos and spoke patois’ (C) also seem to have all but disappeared. Norman has never been used by official institutions such as the school and the Church (cf. Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 7). It has an optional, extracurricu- lar, presence in the education system in Jersey, Guernsey and, to a much lesser extent, on the mainland (see Jones 2007 and §4.5 below) but these are recent initiatives and, as seen in many contexts of language obsolescence, the school has generally been a prominent force in the promotion of the superstrate language. Most participants from the Cotentin peninsula and the Channel Islands claimed not to have spoken anything but Norman on starting school, aged five or six years’ old. The fact that all those interviewed in the Pays de Caux could speak French before they started school suggests that Gallicization may have occurred here at least a generation before it reached the Cotentin peninsula. Norman was forbidden in the classroom throughout the Norman territories (Jones 2001: 60, 2008a: 15–17; Crossan 2005b; Marquis and Sallabank 2013) and many people commented on how hard they had found it to adapt to this linguistic requirement: ‘You were encouraged to speak English at school but we didn’t know any English’ (J). However, children who ‘forgot themselves’ do not seem to have been punished as barbarically as has been reported, for example, in Wales and Brittany, where use of the ‘Welsh Not’ (Jones 1998a: 10) and symbole (Elegoet 1978), respectively, led to children effectively being made to spy on their classmates in order to avoid being whipped at the end of the school day. Moreover, whatever the rule in the classroom, Norman seems to have been widely spoken in the playground. Indeed, a parallel of sorts may be drawn with the Church, where a similar ‘inside’ vs. ‘outside’ rule seems to have applied, with Norman excluded from the religious service itself but commonly heard afterwards, when people gathered together outside in the churchyard to exchange local news. Recent revitalization initiatives in Guernsey and Jersey have included the introduction of church services in Norman for special occa- sions such as Easter, Christmas and the Harvest. Some speakers are regular attenders at local Norman focus groups (see §4.5). Although the precise nature of these groups vary, with some organized around social events and others around the discussion and translation of texts, they all provide contexts where Norman is, for once, seen as primary and serve as venues where speakers can refresh and revitalize their language skills: ‘My Jèrriais was in my head somewhere but I had to do classes to get it out again’ (J). For some elderly speakers, whose dialect network has been depleted by the death of friends or relatives, the act of aller au patois7 has become the

7 ‘to go to patois class.’ The Sociolinguistic Context 73 sole means for them to use their native tongue (cf. Marquis and Sallabank 2013 for Guernésiais).

4.5 Language Revitalization

Initiatives promoting the revitalization of Norman differ across the territory. Jersey, for example, boasts a programme of reasonably extensive language planning whereas in Sark, no such initiative exists. Although language planning is autonomous within each speech community, many of the associations mentioned in this section contribute to the annual cultural festival known as the Faête ès Normaunds which, since its establishment in 1998 at Montebourg in the Cotentin peninsula, has rotated each year between Jersey, Guernsey and the Norman mainland, providing a forum for interaction and exchange (Johnson 2008; Hall 2008: 306; Jigourel 2011: 33, 53).8 The Faête, which brands itself as ‘la grande réunion des cousins normands’9 led, in 2000, to the creation of L’Assembllaée ès Normaunds, a federation of mainland and insular associations with the common aim of promoting Norman language and culture (Jigourel 2011: 33).

4.5.1 Mainland Normandy As discussed in §2.2, France has not ratified the 1992 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Consequently, no revitalization initiatives in support of Norman are undertaken by the French State. Norman is generally excluded from all official domains (Bulot 2006: 142) although, as a result of the 1982 Savary Memorandum, it has gained a small toe-hold in secondary education. At their height, optional weekly classes were provided in seven collèges in the département of Manche (Beaumont, Les Pieux, Bricquebec, Portbail, Saint-Jean-de-Daye, Gavray and Avranches cf. Jigourel 2011: 31).10 However, at the time of writing, they are now only available only at Briquebec and Les Pieux. A number of focus groups (cercles normands) have been established but their existence depends entirely on the goodwill and availability of at least one volunteer with sufficient interest in Norman to be willing to co-ordinate each group.

8 ‘Norman festival’. The festival also goes by the name of the Fête des Rouaisons ‘Rogation Festival.’ 9 ‘the big meeting of Norman cousins’ (last accessed 22 April 2014). 10 In France, students attending a collège are generally aged between eleven and fifteen. 74 Chapter 4

In the Cotentin peninsula, the most active association behind the promotion of Norman is Magène, founded in 1989, which initially formed a section of the Groupe Folklorique Charles Frémine de Bricquebec but which, from 2000 onwards, has operated independently.11 Magène’s main focus is musical and it stages regular concerts and produces CDs of Norman songs and contemporary musical works (Jigourel 2011: 40–41). Magène also has a publishing arm and, together with another local press, Le Pucheux, publishes books in Norman by traditional and modern writers.12 Other activities have included forming part of the team that compiled the Norman dictionary, Trésor de la langue normande (2013).13 Norman can also boast three blogs, providing information on Norman language and cultural activities14 and local newspapers (such as Le Courrier Cauchois (Yvetot), Le Publicateur Libre (Domfront) and L’Eveil de Pont-Audemer (Pont Audemer)) sometimes carry short stories in Norman or articles focusing on Norman language (Jigourel 2011: 159). Its presence in the broadcast media is more limited, although, at the time of writing, the president of Magène makes a regular weekend Norman language broadcast entitled ‘Parlez-vous normand?’15 on the local radio station France Bleu Cotentin.

4.5.2 Jersey In Jersey, language planning is more advanced than in any other part of the Norman territory (see, for example, Jones 1998b, 2001, 2007, 2008b; Jigourel 2011; Scott Warren and Jennings 2015). This has undoubtedly been facilitated

11 www.magene.com (last accessed 22 April 2014). 12 http://dbiville.perso.neuf.fr/Le_Pucheux.htm (last accessed 22 April 2014). 13 Other active mainland groups include Manche: Les Amis du Donjon (Bricquebec), Parlers et Traditions Populaires de Normandie (St Lô) Université Inter-âges de Saint-Lô, Université Inter-âges de Granville, Société Régionaliste Normande Alfred Rossel (Cherbourg), Université Populaire Normande du Cotentin (Cherbourg), Prêchi Normand (St Georges la Rivière), Université Populaire de Coutançais (Agon-Coutainville); Calvados: Université Inter-âges de Caen, Les Blaudes et les Coeffes (Caen); Orne: Le Point d’Alençon (Alençon), Le Temps de Lire (Athis-de-l’Orne); Seine Maritime: L’Université Rurale Cauchoise (Yvetot); Eure: Déjuquaé (Le Neubourg) and La Chouque (St. Philbert-sur-Risle) http://www.lachouque. fr/ (last accessed 22 April 2014). Some of these groups publish periodicals (such as La Vouée du Dounjon, Le Pucheux, Patrimoine Normand, Culture Normand, Le Vezillant, Le Viquet and Les Boues-jaun). 14 http://languenormande.wordpress.com; http://normandie.cultureforum.net/f9-languenormande; http://normanring.forum-actif.net/f14-nout-lungue-eud-nourmandie (last accessed 22 April 2014) 15 ‘Do you speak Norman?’ The Sociolinguistic Context 75 by the fact that a standardized Jèrriais, based on the variety spoken in St. Ouen parish, in north-west Jersey, has been created via metalinguistic works such as Le Maistre (1966) and Birt (1985). However, at the time of writing, the States of Jersey has no formal language plan for Jèrriais. Initiatives were slow to get off the ground until comparatively recently and, for many years, amounted to little more than poorly attended adult evening classes, a Jersey French evening (Sethée Jèrriaise) established in 1912 as part of the island’s cultural festival, the Eisteddfod, monthly social events organized by the Assembliée d’ Jèrriais, (founded in 1951) and a weekly five-minute programme, La Lettre Jèrriaise, on BBC Radio Jersey (first broadcast in 1982). However, the turn of the new century witnessed a greater momentum. Most significantly, L’Office du Jèrriais was established in 1999, funded by the States of Jersey. L’Office is responsible for promoting Jèrriais within Jersey and, in 1999, established a programme in the island’s primary schools to teach it to pupils aged between nine and eleven on an optional, extra-curricular basis.16 This was extended to the secondary school in 2001. Since 2012, most of the teaching has taken place in four after- school specialist centres, known as Pallions, where parents are invited to attend classes alongside their children. Classes are offered to students aged eight and above and a secondary school level academic qualification is also now available. Outside the Pallions, a six-week course in Jersey Studies, followed as part of the school curriculum by all the island’s eight-year-old schoolchildren, also includes a focus on Jèrriais. Language classes for adults are offered at beginner and intermediate levels. L’Office which, at the time of writing, has three full-time staff and five part- time native-speaker community educators, has established active links with the Education Society of the European Regions and the British and Irish Council, which enables regular interchange to take place with teachers of minority languages in the United Kingdom. Jersey’s biggest society, La Société Jersiaise (established in 1873) includes a language section (Section de la Langue, established in 1995), which works to support and raise the profile of Jèrriais (cf. Jones 2001: 73–75)17 and has published books such as a Jèrriais volume in the First Thousand Words series (Huëlin and Nichols 2000). In 1998, one of its members launched Jèrriais on the internet via the Pages Jèrriaises website.18 At the time of writing, this contains more than 4,000 pages, including indexes of authors, topics, poetry and texts.

16 (last accessed 22 April 2014). 17 (last accessed 22 April 2014). 18 (last accessed 22 April 2014). 76 Chapter 4

Occasional articles with English translations appear in Jersey’s newspaper, the Jersey Evening Post. In addition to its work in the schools, L’Office du Jèrriais now co-ordinates all language revitalization initiatives in Jersey and has been successful in ensuring its inclusion in many high-profile contexts. Jèrriais signage is becoming increasingly common (Jigourel 2011: 44) and Jèrriais is included on the latest issue of Jersey’s banknotes (2010)19 and on the side of the island’s buses.20 New technologies are also being exploited. L’Office runs a Jèrriais blog, La Bilogu’thie,21 a Jèrriais Twitter service(#jerriais) and, has produced a Facebook interface, a smartphone app and a downloadable Jèrriais spell-checker (see Scott Warren and Jennings 2015).22 Even if steps such as these have no immediate effect on speaker numbers (Fishman 1991: 162; Heller 2003), they increase the status of Jèrriais, providing it with a presence in the community and continually rein- forcing the image of Jersey as a bilingual island (cf. Jones 2008b; Field and Kroskrity 2009).

4.5.3 Guernsey In Guernsey, few official revitalization initiatives are in place at the time of writing (cf. Sallabank 2013: 151). The Société Guernésiaise was established in 1867 but, at the time of writing, has no specific section dedicated to language. In 2013, a Language Commission was established by the States of Guernsey to raise awareness of Guernésiais and to assist the existing groups involved in its teaching and promotion.23 Voluntary initiatives underway in Guernsey include optional, extra-curricular Guernésiais lessons, for children mostly aged between seven and nine, in seven of the island’s fourteen primary schools. The programme was first established in 2004 and, at its height, it was implemented in eight of Guernsey’s primary schools (Marquis and Sallabank 2013) and in 2012, Guernsey’s Culture and Leisure Department published an introduction to Guernésiais for children, entitled Warro! A ‘Guernésiais evening’ features as part of the Guernsey’s annual Eisteddfod. As in Jersey, this provides opportunities for both native speakers and child-learners to take part in competitions through the medium

19 http://www.gov.je/TAXESMONEY/JERSEYCURRENCY/Pages/JerseyCurrencyNew.aspx (last accessed 22 April 2014). 20 (last accessed 22 April 2014). 21 (last accessed 22 April 2014). 22 http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/sdllj/spellchecker.html (last accessed 22 April 2014). 23 http://language.gg/ (last accessed 22 April 2014). The Sociolinguistic Context 77 of Norman.24 The Assembllaïe d’Guernésiais, founded in 1956, is Guernsey’s only lasting language planning initiative. It publishes regular bulletins of writings and organizes social events in Guernésiais (Jones 2007: 365). At the time of writing, Guernésiais’s only presence in the broadcast media is five minutes of news a week on BBC Radio Guernsey and a ‘saying of the week’ on a commercial radio station. The local newspaper, the Guernsey Press features a weekly collection of short phrases or proverbs in Guernésiais (Sallabank 2013: 165–166).

4.5.4 Sark Despite being founded, in 1975, to study, preserve and enhance Sark’s cultural heritage, the Société Sercquiaise has not yet undertaken any significant language maintenance or revitalization initiatives. In 2009, it launched a CD, Sark Voices, which included recordings made in the 1950s of songs in Sercquiais. Until 2009, very short pieces of Sercquais written in an idiosyncratic spelling system appeared in an island newsletter, but this has since ceased publication.

4.6 Literacy Skills

A noticeable difference is observable between mainland and insular speakers with regard to literacy skills. All mainland interviewees, whether from the Cotentin peninsula or the Pays de Caux, can read Norman and some three- quarters (26/37) are also able to write it: indeed, four speakers from the Pays de Caux declared that they now found reading Norman easier than speaking it. Given that literacy is seen as an important factor in the revitalization process (Grenoble and Whaley 1998b: 31, 2006: 102–136), this seems a significant consideration for Mainland Norman. Although Mainland Norman has no single standardized orthography (Hall 2008: 208), it does lay claim to a ‘unified’ system, elaborated in the 1940s by the Norman linguist and poet Fernand Lechanteur and refined by the association Parlers et Traditions Populaires de Normandie, founded by Lechanteur in St Lô in 1968. Lechanteur’s orthography is used in many modern publications and, as such, has the potential to serve as a symbol of ‘linguistic unity’ in much the same way as a standardized language

24 The ‘Guernésiais evening’ ran from the festival’s establishment, in 1922, until 1974 and was revived in 1986. 78 Chapter 4

(Weinreich 1964: 99)—yet its Cotentin bias means that it is not used as frequently in Upper Normandy (Bulot 2006: 143).25 The high degree of literacy in Mainland Norman is presumably linked to the fact that, as an oïl variety, it shares many linguistic similarities with standard French. As speakers have all acquired literacy skills in French at school, basic reading and writing in Norman is made possible by applying simple substitution rules to French words—such as replacing orthographic c with ch before an e (for example chent ‘one hundred’; Fr. cent); or orthographic l with ll after c, g, b, f, p (for example flleur ‘flower’; Fr. fleur) (cf. Bulot 2006: 141, 144, 147, 171). Bulot confirms that French-speakers who did not know any Cauchois still claimed to be able to ‘decode’ it (2006: 186). In Jersey and Guernsey, some two thirds of those interviewed were able to read Norman (13/21 and 19/29 respectively): ‘Reading is difficult. It was never a written language for us’ (G). Responses were often accompanied with the caveat that it depended on ‘whose’ Jèrriais or Guernésiais it was. Although Jèrriais and Guernésiais were furnished with unified orthographies during the second half of the twentieth century, local writers writing before this time used orthographies of their own devising (cf. Jones 2008a).26 These idiosyncratic spellings are often unsystematic and inconsistent but, for the most part, they are broadly phonetic and generally less French-based than the unified orthographies in their representation of Norman morphology.27 Jersey’s more developed revitalization initiatives (see §4.5.2 above) have meant that the Jèrriais unified system enjoys quite widespread currency within Jersey, being used whenever the speech community comes into contact with ‘official’ Jèrriais (such as in orders of service in church, in the Eisteddfod programme or in the publications of L’Office du Jèrriais). In Guernsey, speakers have fewer opportunities to encounter the Guernésiais unified system which, according to Marquis and Sallabank (2013), many find hard to use. As residents of the British Islands, most Channel Islanders acquire their primary basic literacy skills in English. Unlike speakers of Mainland Norman, they are therefore unable to simply ‘convert’ Norman words into English by applying ‘substitution’ rules. Consequently, success in reading may depend on factors such as frequency of exposure to a written text,

25 For details of the principles behind Lechanteur’s spelling system, see Mauvoisin (2002) and Marie (2012: xxxii–xxxx). 26 The Jèrriais spelling system was elaborated by the writer Frank Le Maistre in 1966. The Guernésiais system was largely developed by Marie De Garis in 1967 (see De Garis 1982, 2012). 27 The existence of multiple orthographies of this kind is not uncommon in endangered speech communities (Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 11). The Sociolinguistic Context 79 how closely the spelling used by a particular writer represents local pronunciation and whether the reader and writer come from the same locality. Indeed, it emerged that individuals declaring themselves able to write Jèrriais (10/21) and Guernésiais (15/29) usually meant no more than they could set these varieties down on paper using their own system (rather than claiming to be able to use the unified spelling system) (cf. Sallabank 2013: 103). No spelling system has been developed for Sercquiais and, apart from the odd phrase in the newsletter referred to above, the only reading material, Métivier’s nineteenth-century translation of the Parable of the Sower (see Jones 2008a: 22) uses the writer’s own system. Unsurprisingly, therefore, none of the speakers interviewed on Sark claimed to be able to read or write Sercquiais.

4.7 Mutual Intelligibility

Questions about the extent to which speakers can understand other varieties of Norman during, for example, visits to other parts of the territory, or encoun- ters at the Faête ès Normaunds, elicited a mixture of responses even within the same speech community. Speakers of Jèrriais generally seem to be able to understand the Norman of the Cotentin peninsula: ‘Their Norman is almost the same as ours’; ‘You have to think hard, but you can understand them’; ‘Some people from Normandy understand words from our patois. They are often the same’; ‘They speak the same patois as us in Cap de la Hague’; ‘I can understand the Normans but not the Parisians,’ but it was also observed that ‘They pronounce things differently—I can’t always get all the words’. Notwithstanding the individual considerations that are clearly in play, Channel Islanders seem to have less difficulty in understanding mainland speakers than vice versa. This may result from the fact that islanders tend to visit the mainland quite frequently, both for tourism and also to make large domestic purchases, as a greater selection of goods is often available on the mainland than within the archipelago—although the extent to which such trips would bring them into contact with Norman speakers is a moot point. By contrast, only one out of the ten Pays de Caux participants and three of the twenty-seven Cotentin participants had ever visited the Channel Islands. Its numerous English lexical borrowings and calques (see Chapter 8) can make Insular Norman seem very different from Mainland Norman and speakers are clearly aware of this: ‘The patois of the islands are very different to ours’ (C), although comments such as ‘It [Insular Norman] sounds like English’ (C) are somewhat exaggerated. As has been documented for other minority and endangered speech communities, mainland speakers are certainly aware of regional linguistic 80 Chapter 4

differences, (cf. Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 167): ‘They speak differently in Upper Normandy, their accent is difficult to understand’ (C); ‘In Cauchois, we don’t pronounce the r’ (PdC); ‘There are East-West differences even within the Pays de Caux’ (PdC); ‘The speech of the coast is different to the speech they use inland’ (PdC) (cf. Bulot 2006: 155). However, the extent to which people are able to understand the speech of different parts of the territory varies from person to person, as the following comments reveal: ‘They have different accents in different parts of Normandy but I can understand most of them. Lots of words are similar’ (C); ‘They speak differently in different communes but within the Cotentin we understand them all’ (C). Many mainland speakers are conscious of the linguistic results of contact with French: ‘There are no pure patois speakers left’ (PdC); ‘They still have the [Norman] accent, but the words are more and more French (C) (cf. Bulot 2006: 195). Insular speakers share this awareness of language contact: ‘We put English words in our Guernsey French’ (G); ‘I can’t speak without using English words— I say things like ‘va ramasser mes slippers’ [‘go and get my slippers’] (J). They also recognise the linguistic distance that exists between Norman and standard French and opinions differ as to the extent of the problems this poses for intelligibility: ‘People who speak good French can’t understand us’ (S); ‘We can understand them but they can’t understand us’ (G); ‘I can only understand good French if people speak slowly’ (J); ‘When I go to France with the [folk] dancing, I can have a conversation in Guernsey French with the Normans’ (G); ‘When I go to France, if I don’t know a French word, I say it in the patois and they usually understand’ (S). Inter-island variation is fully acknowledged: ‘I can understand people from Jersey but we’ve got different accents’ (G); I can only understand Guernsey French a bit’ (J); ‘When the Assembliée d’Jèrriais and the Assembllaïe d’Guernésiais meet, half the time we end up speaking English because we’ve got different accents, you see’ (J); ‘Sark [French] is more like Jersey French: it’s very different to Guernsey [French]’; ‘I can understand Jersey French if they speak slowly’ (G); ‘We have trouble speaking to the Guernseys. The [speech of the] Vale is the easiest to understand and [that of] St Peter [in the Wood] is the hardest’ (S). Speakers are also clearly aware of regional linguistic differences within each island: ‘They speak in a “flatter” way in St. Ouen than in Trinity parish but it’s all the same really’ (J); ‘We all speak differently in Guernsey but we can understand each other: you just have to listen carefully sometimes: like they say mot [mo] [for ‘word’] in the Câtel [parish] but [maw] in Torteval’ (G), ‘When you listen to Guernsey French on the radio sometimes you can understand it but sometimes I turn it off because the accents are different’ (S). On the whole, this ‘internal’ variation does not seem to cause any The Sociolinguistic Context 81 problems of comprehension, although one speaker did observe: ‘They speak differently to us in the Câtel [parish]. My wife spoke Câtel Guernsey French so we had to speak [together] in English’ (G). Such general ease of inter-regional communication contrasts with the situation in other minority-language contexts (cf. Hindley 1990: 216; Jones 1996: 56–57) and is probably due to the fact that the small size of the insular speech communities means that speakers are used to encountering features not found in their own local variety and, consequently, do not perceive this variation as an impediment to communication (Boretzky 1994: 71; Jones 2001: 58–59).

4.8 Summary

Although Norman has been in decline for well over a century, the wind of linguistic change has never been felt more keenly than by the current older generation who, in all likelihood, represent its last native speakers (although see Marquis and Sallabank 2013 for an interesting discussion of the term ‘native speaker’ in this context). This generation was born at a time when, to quote one Sercquiais speaker, whose remark might just as easily have been made about French in the Cotentin peninsula, ‘it was difficult to learn English because all you ever heard was patois’. Their lifetimes have seen the wheel turn full circle, to the point where ‘There’s no-one left to speak it to’ (G); ‘Patois is no longer necessary’ (C); ‘After us, that will be it’ (J). This change of linguistic circumstances has resulted from different lifestyles and work patterns, greater ease of transport and communication (cf. Bradley 1989: 33) and the replacement of local industries and farms by corporate conglomerates, which have often brought in a non-local (non-Norman speaking) workforce: ‘The power station changed the commune: it was lost battle after that’ (C); ‘There were sixty-five farms in Rauville-la-Bigot when I was a child. Now there are only eight’ (C). The greater population movement in Upper Normandy (see §2.2) brought about language shift at least one generation sooner than in Lower Normandy: ‘People stayed put more in the Cotentin’ (PdC); ‘Our parents and grandparents didn’t travel out of the locality much’ (C). Indeed, people generally talked about Norman starting to disappear after the First World War in the Pays de Caux but not until after the Second World War in the Cotentin peninsula, although even here earlier signs of Gallicization were evident in more urban areas such as Cherbourg. Always in a less robust social position than its superstrate, Norman had never been present in many official domains. Yet, as individuals began to switch away from even its traditional strongholds, the dialect became stigmatized: ‘People 82 Chapter 4 thought that girls who could only speak Guernsey French were “rough” and didn’t want their sons to marry them’ (G); ‘People thought you were backward if you spoke patois’ (J); ‘They ridiculed us and said it was a “deformed” French (C). The same stigmatization has been documented for many obsolescent varieties (cf. among others, Dorian 1981: 61; Huffines 1980: 52; Trudgill 1983: 130, 134; Schmidt 1985: 228; Rouchdy 1989: 101; Zepeda and Hill 1991: 141; Bulot 2006: 85; Sallabank 2013: 105–107). And yet, for all that Norman may be in decline, even stigmatized, it is clear that many older speakers have a deep emotional attachment to their native tongue (Bulot 2006: 194; Sallabank 2013: 133). As one eighty-year old informant, now deceased, commented, in words that would be marred by translation: ‘J’aime bien mon pays, j’aime bien le patois. Le patois, c’est une expression de grâce’.28

28 An approximate rendering would be ‘I love where I live, I love my patois. Patois is a divine gift’. Chapter 5 Phonetics and Phonology

This chapter begins the linguistic analysis of Mainland and Insular Norman by investigating whether their respective phonologies are showing signs of divergence due to contact from their different superstrates. It seeks to determine the extent to which the features described by Charles Joret as the defining characteristics of Norman in the late nineteenth century (§3.2) are still present in the contemporary dialect and, also, whether the difference in contact situation (‘dialect’ contact vs. ‘language’ contact, see §1.2) is giving rise to different types of language change on the mainland and in the archipelago. The chapter also examines the extent to which regional variation is still apparent within the phonology of Norman (cf. §3.3) and, where appropriate, highlights other noteworthy points of interest. Using the methodology described in §1.3, each of Joret’s five phonological variables were examined by means of a questionnaire. For the sake of completeness, Joret’s morphological variable, the singular and plural suffixes, is also included.1 In each case, the precise lexical items examined are cross- referenced with the ALF and ALEN.

5.1 An Analysis of Joret’s Variables

(1) West French maintenance of Latin tonic free [e] MOI (ALF 863), TOILE (ALF 1308), POIRE (ALF 1047, ALEN 357), SOIF (ALF 1237, ALEN 1140) FROID (ALF 612) (‘me’, ‘cloth’, ‘pear’, ‘thirst’, ‘cold’) (< me, telam, pirum, sitim, frigidum) The West French monophthong, attested in the ALF and ALEN, is retained in this context by contemporary Norman (Table 5.1). The diphthongs [ɛj] and [ej] that occur in the Insular Norman data, and also in the ALF POIRE form for Sark, are the result of secondary developments. In Sark, when final, the vowel has a tendency to centralize to [ɐ] and, when a diphthong is present, the first element may lower and back (cf. TOILE [tɒjl]). In Guernésiais, the monophthong may also lower when non-final: in the present study, this occurs most notably in the speech of Câtel parish. In parts of Manche, Latin tonic

1 As discussed in §3.2(7), Joret’s survey also considered the masculine and feminine forms of the singular definite article. However, as these are always phonetically distinct in Norman, this feature is not considered in the present study.

(and atonic) i may sometimes develop to [ø]: sitim ‘thirst’ > SOIF [sø]. This is recorded in both linguistic atlases (cf. also Fleury 1886: 36 for the speech of La Hague at the north-west tip of the Cotentin peninsula). The form [sɛf] produced by one speaker in the Pays de Caux, is an example of an intermediate or ‘fudged’ form (Trudgill 1986: 60–62, cf. §1.2) as it displays the sound change characteristic of Norman (cf. §3.2(1)), but also retains the analogical final [f] of standard French.2 Intermediate forms of this kind are also attested in the Norman of Calvados by Bougy (2009: 155), although not for this particular variable. As a secondary point, the data clearly reveal evidence of the variation that exists in the realization of [r] in Sark (see §3.1.1.2(ii)). As Liddicoat notes (1994: 445), the co-existence of [r] and [ʁ] in Sercquiais is difficult to explain and the variation is certainly not age-related. Moreover, as the ALF does not indicate which articulation is used, it is difficult to ascertain how long-standing this variation may be.

Table 5.1 West French maintenance of Latin tonic free [e]

Location MOI TOILE POIRE SOIF FROID

COTENTIN mɛ tɛ(:)l pɛ:ʁ sø fʁɛ me twɛl ALF: mɛ ALF: tjɛl, twal ALF: pɛ, pwɛr ALF: sø: ALF: fʁ̥e: sɛ: fre: ALEN: mɛ ALEN: - ALEN: pɛʁ ALEN: sœ ALEN: -

PAYS DE mɛ twɛl pe se(:) fʁe CAUX mej twal pwɛ:ʁ sɛ (:) fʁej sej fʁɛ sɛf swɛf ALF: mɛ ALF: twɛl ALF: pwɛ:r ALF: sɛ: ALF: frɛ: pɛ:r pɛ:j ALEN: mɛ ALEN: - ALEN: pe ALEN: sɛ ALEN: -

2 The final [f] of the standard French form was introduced via (false) analogy with words of the type buef ‘ox’, boeuf, pl. bues and nois ‘snow’ (nominative case) [from nix], noif (oblique case) [from nivem] (Dubois, Mitterand and Dauzat 1993: 715). Phonetics And Phonology 85

Location MOI TOILE POIRE SOIF FROID

JERSEY mɛ tɛ(:)l pɛð sɛ(:) frɛ (o, j, l, m, b) (O, J, L, T, M, H) (O, J, L, T, M, (O, J, L, T, B) (O, J, L, T, me (O, H) te(:)l (O) H) se(:) M, H) mɛj (M) peð (O) (O, J, L, M, H) fre (O) mej (J) per (J) sej (O, J, L, M, H) sɛj (T) ALF: mɛ ALF: tɛ:l ALF: pɛ:ð ALF: se: ALF: frɛ: ALEN: me ALEN: - ALEN: pɛð ALEN: se (M) ALEN: - (O, T) (O, J) sɛ (O) mɛ (J) mej (M)

GUERNSEY mɛ tɛ(:)l pɛr (P,T, Sv) sɛ(:) frɛ (T, P, C, Sv, (P, F, T, M, C, V) per (P, F, T, M, Sv, (P, F, T, M, V, F, M) te(:)l (P, F, C, Sv, M) C, V) Sv, C, V) me (F, C) (P, F, C, F, Sv) pɛjr (C, V) se (P, C) frɛj (P, F) tɛjl (P, C, T, V) pejr (C) frɛjd (T) tejl (C) frat (C) ALF: mɛ ALF: tɛ:l ALF: pe:ð ALF: sɛ: ALF: frɛ: ALEN: mɛ ALEN: - ALEN: pɛr (T) ALEN: sɛ ALEN: -

SARK mwɐ tɛjl pwɛr sɐ(:) fʁɛ mwɛj tɒjl pwɛʁ sɛ(:) fʁɛt pwer sɛj frɛt ALF: mɛ ALF: tɛ:l ALF: pe:jr ALF: sɐ: ALF: frɛ:t ALEN: mwɐ ALEN: - ALEN: pwɛʁ ALEN: sɐ ALEN: -

Key Jersey B: St. Brelade, H: St. Helier, J: St. John, L: St Lawrence, M: St. Martin, Mie: St. Mary O: St. Ouen, T: Trinity Guernsey C: Câtel, F: Forest, M: St. Martin, P: St. Peter in the Wood, Sp: St. Sampson, Sv. St. Saviour, T: Torteval, V: Vale, A: St. Andrew

As will be seen in relation to this and other variables discussed in this chapter, the present study has documented a greater variety of forms than the ALF and ALEN. The high degree of variation observed within these small speech communities is reminiscent of the ‘unusually high incidence of variation both across and within speakers’ found in Harrison and Anderson’s (2008: 43) 86 Chapter 5 investigation of Tofa, a language of south-central Siberia, with some forty to fifty remaining speakers. The fact that, in Tofa, variation cannot be correlated to social or demographic factors leads Harrison and Anderson (2008: 266) to link it, in part, to language obsolescence. In Norman, however, anecdotal evidence suggests that variation is relatively well established and devoid of any stigmatization. Accordingly, it is difficult to demonstrate convincingly that variation and obsolescence are linked in this context. One such piece of evidence is a poem written about Jèrriais in 1875, which details the variation in phonological features found in different parts of Jersey (reproduced in Jones 2001: 25–27). Evidence of considerable variation is also apparent in the work of nineteenth-century Jèrriais and Guernésiais writers, and also in Sjøgren’s (1964) linguistic study of Guernésiais (the data for which were collected in 1926—only a quarter of a century after the publication of the ALF). In this respect, therefore, the linguistic situation seems more akin to the personal pattern variation described by Dorian (1994) for the Gaelic spoken in the fisherfolk villages she studied in East Sutherland. As with Sark, the speech communities Dorian studied lacked a prestige norm. Crucially, although both East Sutherland Gaelic (hereafter, ESG) and contemporary Norman are obsolescent varieties, most of the speakers interviewed were fluent. As Dorian says of one speaker, ‘Because his Gaelic proficiency was at the very high end for ESG, his usage offers good evidence for the prevalence of variation in even the most Gaelic-dominant, high-proficiency speakers of ESG. Gaelic may have been dying in East Sutherland, but it certainly was not dying in [his] mouth’ (1994: 682) and ‘Such variation is simply an option in ESG and [he] made use of it’ (1994: 684). Dorian’s analysis of variation in fluent speakers that cannot be explained by factors relating to either age, proficiency, social class or social network leads her to suggest that, in contrast to Harrison and Anderson (2008), ‘it may be preferable to resort to obsolescence as an explanation for variability later rather than sooner’ (Dorian 1994: 687)—although, clearly, if proficiency is limited, this becomes a different matter. Given that all participants in the present study speak Norman fluently, personal pattern variant use seems a plau- sible explanation for the widespread variation documented in this chapter: with speakers who are faced with no obvious prestige form merely choosing between several ‘equal’ options.

(2) Normano-Picard non-palatalization of Latin [k] before ‘a’ CHAMP (ALF 225, ALEN 20), VACHE (ALF 1349, ALEN 797), CHAT (ALF 250, ALEN 772) (‘field’, ‘cow’, ‘cat’) (< campum, vaccam, cattum) This characteristic Normano-Picard feature is maintained by all speakers in VACHE and CHAT (see Table 5.2). With CHAMP, the same problem is encountered as in Lechanteur (1968: 190), namely that this is not used by speakers as the generic word for ‘field’ in either Mainland or Insular Norman. Phonetics And Phonology 87

Instead, courti (originally denoting a ‘courtyard’ or ‘farmyard’) is used in Guernsey, clios (‘enclosed field’) in the Cotentin peninsula, Jersey and Sark, and pyiche (literally, a ‘piece’ of land) in the Pays de Caux, although Cauchois informants also gave other alternatives. In the Cotentin peninsula, the form [kɑ̃] is still known to many informants, but with the specific definition of ‘planche de labour’ (‘a site for ploughing’) (cf. Bourdon, Cournée and Charpentier 1993: 71). For the Pays de Caux, however, both my data and the ALEN record the form as unknown (although it is documented in this location by the ALF).3 [kɑ̃] is also attested for Jersey in the ALF, Le Maistre (1966: 81) and the ALEN, where it is defined as a specific type of field that is not enclosed by hedges. No interviewee was able to confirm this usage in contemporary Jèrriais, where [kɑ̃] seems only to remain residually, via toponymy—for example, in the road names La Rue du Camp (St. Martin), La Rue du Camp Durel (St. Mary), La Rue des Camps Rautt (Trinity). In Guernsey, although the plural form [kɛ̃:] is used in the common expression [mɑ̃veparle:kɛ̃:] ‘I’m going about/around’, no participant was able to give a precise meaning to the phonetic form [kɛ̃:] in isolation and, despite the inclusion of the lexical entry camp in De Garis’ dictionary, the Dictiounnaire Angllais- Guernésiais, where it is defined as an ‘open field, strip of land’ (De Garis 1982: 231), this meaning is not confirmed by speakers. In Sark, the form [kɑ̃] is completely unknown. The ALEN describes CHAMP as ‘inusité’ (‘not used’) in Guernsey and Sark but records that, in some parts of mainland Normandy (including at data point 110) [kɑ̃] may be used in its plural form in expressions such as dauns les camps ‘in the fields’, amount les camps ‘across the fields’ and dauns ces camps ‘in these fields’, even though the corresponding singular form is not used in these areas.

Table 5.2 Normano-Picard non-palatalization of Latin [k] before ‘a’

Location CHAMP VACHE CHAT

COTENTIN kjo: vak kɑ kjow ALF: ʃɑ̃, kʎo:, kʎo:ze, ALF: vak ALF: ka, kɑ kʎø: ALEN: kɛ̃ ALEN: vɒk ALEN: kɒ

3 cf. Mensire (1977: 71) whose only mention of the form is in the expression à champ ‘[to lie down] flat.’ 88 Chapter 5

Table 5.2 Normano-Picard non-palatalization of Latin [k] before ‘a’ (cont.)

Location CHAMP VACHE CHAT

PAYS DE CAUX pjɛ:ʃ vak ka plɛn ɑ:k pʁe klo: ɛʁbɑ:ʒ ALF: kɑ̃ ALF: vak ALF: kɑ ALEN: - ALEN: vak, trøl ALEN: ka

JERSEY kjo: (O) vɑk (O, T, J, L, M, H) kɑ (O, T, J, L, M, H, B) kjow (O) kjɔw (O, T, J, L, M, H, B) kʎow (J) ALF: kɑ̃ ALF: vak, vɑk ALF: kɑ ALEN: kɔ̃ (L) ALEN: vɒk (O, B, ALEN: kɑ (O, M, B) kɑ̃ (O) Mie, J, T, M)

GUERNSEY kʊrti (T, P, F, C, M, vɑk (T, P, F, C, M, Sv) kɑ (T, P, F, C, Sv, M, V) Sv, V) vak (P, F) kat (V) ALF: kʎo:, kjo: ALF: vɑk ALF: kɑ ALEN: - ALEN: vɒk (T, P, Sv, ALEN: kɒ (T, P, C, Sv) F, C, Sp) kat (C, V)

SARK kʎɒw vɑk kɒt kɑt ALF: klo:, ku:rti ALF: vɑk ALF: kɑt ALEN: - ALEN: vɒk ALEN: kɒt

The term obtained in the present study for CHAMP in Guernsey is at odds with that recorded in the ALF. Although clios is widely used in Jersey and in Sark, no speaker interviewed in Guernsey made use of this form. Since clios is also absent from previous linguistic studies of Guernésiais, such as Collas (1931) and Sjøgren (1964), my findings seem to confirm Collas’s suspicion (1931: 9) that the ALF informant interviewed in Guernsey may, in fact, have been a Jerseyman. This point will be returned to below (§§5.1(3), (5), (6)). Phonetics And Phonology 89

(3) Normano-Picard and West French closure of [a] to [ɛ] in syllables closed by [r] CHARRETTE (ALF 235, ALEN 210), CHARRUE (ALF 246, ALEN 45), CHARPENTIER (ALF 244, ALEN 950) (‘cart’, ‘plough’, ‘carpenter’) (< carrum, carrucam, carpentarium) As CHARRETTE is not investigated in the ALF, Table 5.3 records instead the ALF forms for CHAR, since this lexical item illustrates the same Norman clos- ing of [a] to [ɛ] (§3.2(3)). [a] closes to [ɛ] regularly in the above words in all areas except for the Pays de Caux, where intervocalic r is elided (Hébert 1984: 17). This corresponds with Joret’s findings (1883: 152–153) that Norman may be divided into two rough territorial groupings with respect to this feature, namely varieties spoken on the right bank of the Seine (where no closure occurs) and those spoken on the left bank (where closure does occur) (cf. De Fresnay (1881: 57, 224; Mensire 1977: 16). The ALEN also confirms this territorial ‘split’, although usage is recorded as being more mixed in the ALF. Turning briefly to morphology, two points are worthy of consideration, both in relation to CHARPENTIER. First, my findings reveal that the difference in suffixes between the Cotentin peninsula and the Pays de Caux, recorded in the ALF and ALEN, is still observable. Second, the fact that the ALF records [tʃ jɛrpɑ̃ti] for Guernsey (with an [i] suffix rather than [ɛ]), casts further doubt on the origins of the ALF Guernesey informant. Collas (1931: 67) and Sjøgren (1964: 31) both confirm that the [ɛ] suffix is more widespread in Guernésiais.

Table 5.3 Normano-Picard and West French closure of [a] to [ɛ] in syllables closed by [r]

Location CHARRETTE CHARRUE CHARPENTIER

COTENTIN tʃɛʁɛt tʃɛʁy: tʃɛʁpɑ̃tʃi tʃɛʁpɑ̃ti tʃɛʁpɑ̃t’i tʃɛʁpɑ̃tje k’ɛʁpɑ̃ti k’ɛʁpɑ̃ti

ALF: ʃa:rjo, ka:r ALF: k’je:ry, kɛ:ry ALF: kɛrpɑ̃ti(:) ALEN: tʃeʁɛt, grɛ̃ ALEN: k’ɛʁy ALEN: k’ɛʁpɑ̃ti vetyr 90 Chapter 5

Table 5.3 Normano-Picard and West French closure of [a] to [ɛ] . . . (cont.)

Location CHARRETTE CHARRUE CHARPENTIER

PAYS DE CAUX kaʁɛt kaʁy: kaʁpɑ̃tje kɛʔɛt kay: ʃaʁpɑ̃tje kaɛt kajɛt kayt ALF: ʃɑ:r, ʃa:rjo ALF: kary: ALF: karpɑ̃tje ALEN: kaɛt ALEN: kay:, ka:y ALEN: kaʁpɑ̃tje

JERSEY hɛrne (O) tʃɛðy: tʃɛrpɑ̃tʃi hɛrnej (O, L, T) (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) (O, J, L, T, M, H) hɛrnɛj tʃɛry: (J) tʃɛrpɑ̃ti (O, J, B) (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) tʃeðy: (O) tʃɛðjo (O) tʃɛrjɔw (H) tʃɛðibɔw (T) ALF: kɛ:r ALF: tʃ je:ðy ALF: tʃɛ:rpɑ̃tji ALEN: hɛrne: (O) ALEN: tʃeðy (O, T) ALEN: tʃɛrpɑ̃tʃɛ (M) hɛrnɛj (L) tʃery (T, M) tʃɛrpɑ̃tʃi (O, J, M) hɛrnɛ (J) tçery (B)

GUERNSEY tʃɛrjo (P, T, C, Sv) tʃɛry: tʃɛrpɑ̃tʃɛ tʃɛrjɔ (P, F, C) (P, F, T, M, C, Sv, V) (P, F, T, C, M, Sv, V) tʃɛrjɔw (C, V, Sv, M) tʃɛrpɑ̃tɛ (P) tʃɛrpɑ̃tjɛ (C) ALF: tʃirjɛ:t ALF: tʃ je:ry ALF: tʃ jɛ:rpɑ̃ti ALEN: k’ɛrjo (C) ALEN: tʃ jery (P, F, T) ALEN:k’ɛrpɑ̃k’ɛ (C) tʃɛrjo (F, T) tʃɛrpɑ̃tʃɛ (T)

SARK tʃɛrjɒw k’ɛry: kjɛrpɑ̃tɪ tʃɛrjɒwt tʃɛ:ry: tʃɛrpɑ̃tɪ tʃɛʁiɔwt k’ɛrpɑ̃tɛj ALF:ke:rjot ALF: tjer:yr ALF: tʃ jɛ:rpɑ̃ti ALEN: k’ɛʁjɔw ALEN: k’ɛʁɐ ALEN: k’ɛʁpɑ̃ti Phonetics And Phonology 91

(4) Normano-Picard palatalization to [ ʃ] of Latin [k] before a front vowel CENT (ALF 211), CERISE (ALF 217, ALEN 259), CINQ (ALF 289), CENDRE (ALF 210) (‘one hundred’, ‘cherry’, ‘five’, ‘cinder’) (< centum, ceresiam [VLat], quinque, cinerem) The Normano-Picard development to [ʃ], documented in the ALF, is still apparent in the speech of all interviewees for CENT, CINQ and CENDRE (Table 5.4).4 Considerable lexical variation exists for CERISE throughout the Norman linguistic territory. In the Channel Islands, all the forms recorded in the ALEN are still present, including [bajo:] (pl.), a Guernsey High Parish form, noted as [badʒjo] (sg.) / [bagjo:] (pl.) by Sjøgren (1964: 29), a cognate of badole ‘wild cherry’ which is still also current in the Cotentin peninsula (cf. Bourdon, Cournée and Charpentier 1993: 33, and Guerlin De Guer 1901: 251 for Calvados). [sɛris] is also widespread, and possibly represents a borrowing from French ([səʁiz]). The Guernésiais form [ʃli:z] is probably an allophonic variant of [ʃri:z], a form common on mainland. Once again, the ALF seems to record a Jèrriais variant for Guernsey [tʃœ:r] (cf. Collas 1931: 66; Sjøgren 1964: 29). On the mainland, the forms recorded in the ALF and ALEN are still widespread, with the elision of intervocalic r again prevalent in Cauchois (cf. De Fresnay 1881: 78). With CENDRE, many speakers of Insular Norman produce the final r as an alveolar continuant [ɹ], especially when the sound occurs after a dental stop (cf. Liddicoat 1990: 200). This pronunciation seems likely to result from English influence.

Table 5.4 Normano-Picard palatalization to [ʃ] of Latin [k] before a front vowel

Location CENT CERISE CINQ CENDRE

COTENTIN ʃɑ̃ ʃʁi:z ʃɛ̃ ʃɑ̃d ʃəʁi:z ʃɛ̃k ʃɑ̃dʁ badœl ʃɑndʁ ALF: ʃɑ̃ ALF: ʃɛri:z, ʃrejz ALF: ʃɛ̃, ʃɑ̃j̃ ALF: ʃɑ̃dr, ʃɑ̃d̥ ALEN: - ALEN: ʃɛʁiz ALEN: - ALEN: -

4 The pronunciation of CINQ with a close nasal vowel (from Latin tonic blocked [i] followed by a nasal consonant) is described by Brasseur (1978b: 294) as a more archaic pronunciation than that of standard French ‘puisqu’il s’agit là d’un e fermé nasal proche du i nasal étymologique, qui demanderait un trop grand effort articulatoire’ (‘since it is a close nasal e, close to the etymological nasal i, which would take too much articulatory effort’). 92 Chapter 5

Table 5.4 Normano-Picard palatalization to [ʃ] of Latin [k] before a front vowel (cont.)

Location CENT CERISE CINQ CENDRE

PAYS DE ʃɑ̃ ʃʁi:z ʃɛ̃ ʃɑ̃d CAUX sɑ̃ ʃi:z ʃẽ ʃɑ̃dʁ sʁi:z ʃɛ̃k ʃɔnd səʁi:z tʃɛ̃ ʃɔndʁ sɑ̃dʁ ALF: ʃɑ̃ ALF: ʃri:z, ʃi:z ALF: sɛ̃k ALF: ʃɑ̃dr ALEN: - ALEN: ʃiz, ʃʁiz ALEN: - ALEN: -

JERSEY ʃɑ̃ tʃœr (pl) (O, T) ʃɛ̃k ʃɔndr (O, J, L, T, M, tʃʌr (pl) (O, J, L, T, M) (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) H, B) (J, L, T, M, H, B) ʃẽk ʃɔndɹ sɛris (J, L) (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) seris (O) ʃĩk (O) ALF: ʃɑ̃ ALF: sɛri:z, tʃ jœ:r ALF: ʃẽk ALF: ʃɑ̃dr ALEN: - ALEN: tʃœr (pl) ALEN: - ALEN: - (O, J)

GUERNSEY ʃɑ̃ bajo: (pl) (p, t) ʃɛ̃ (P, F, C, M, Sv) ʃõd (P) (P, F, T, C, bajɔ:w (pl) ʃẽ (Sv) ʃodɹ (C) Sv, M, V) (T, M, C) ʃɛ̃j (F, T, C, V) ʃɑ̃d (P, F, Sv) ʃõ (P, F, T, C) sɛris (C, Sv, V) ʃɑ̃dr (C, M, Sv, V) ʃli:z (C) ʃɑ̃dɹ (C, M, Sv, V) ʃɛriz (Sv) ʃõdɹ (T, C) ʃod (P, C) ʃot (T, C) ʃo (P) ALF: ʃɑ̃ ALF: tʃœ:r (pl) ALF: ʃẽk ALF: ʃɑ̃dr ʃli:z (C) ALEN: - ALEN:ʃli:z (T) ALEN: - ALEN: - bɒjo (T) tʃɛri:s (T)

SARK ʃɑ̃ ʃɛriz ʃɛ̃ ʃɑ̃dr ʃɑ̃t ʃəriz ʃẽ ʃɑ̃dɹ ʃẽj ʃɑ̃d ALF: ʃɑ̃ ALF: ʃɛ:riz ALF: ʃɛ̃ ALF: ʃɑ̃dr ALEN: - ALEN: ʃɛʁiz ALEN: - ALEN: - Phonetics And Phonology 93

(5) Singular—plural opposition COUTEAU(X) (ALF 341, ALEN 1015), MORCEAU(X) (ALF 875, ALEN 1051), BATEAU(X) (ALF 115, ALEN 599), AGNEAU(X) (ALF 11, ALEN 908) (‘knife’/‘knives’, ‘piece(s)’, ‘boat(s)’, ‘lamb(s)’) (< cultellum/os, morsellum/os [VLat], ?bat (Germanic), agnellum/os) Considerable phonetic variation is found in this context, particularly in relation to plural forms (see Table 5.5). Nevertheless, most speakers maintain a singular-plural morphological opposition that is coherent within itself and usually morphologically and phonetically consistent across the words under study. In Jersey, the singular-plural opposition in these words is most commonly realized as [ɛ]—[ɔ:w], with the notable exception of the parishes of St. Ouen and St. Martin, where the oppositions [e]—[o:] and [e]—[a:w] are, respectively, most widespread (see Jones 2001: 132–133). In Guernsey, a greater diversity of realizations is recorded, with [ɛ]—[ɔ:w] again proving widespread but [ɛ]—[a:w] also frequent in the south-west (the parishes of St. Peter in the Wood and Torteval). Although the seven Sark informants also produce some phonetically diverse plural forms, given the small sample size it is meaningless to try and discern any regional pattern other than to confirm that no distinction is found between usage in Sark and Little Sark. The opposition [ɛ]—[ɔ:w] is widespread in the Cotentin peninsula. In the Pays de Caux, the opposition [ɛ]/[e]—[jɑ:] is more common (cf. Hébert 1984: 28; Mensire 1977: 32). Some signs of morphological breakdown are apparent. In mainland Normandy, a minority of speakers use the same phonetic form to denote both the singular and plural. The Norman tendency to lengthen final vowels in plural forms is sometimes observed in these ‘new’ plurals, but is not systematic. Morphological breakdown is relatively common in the Pays de Caux and has also been recorded for Calvados (Bougy 2009: 156–158) but proves virtually absent from the speech of the Cotentin peninsula. Since the Insular Norman data do not reveal any levelling of the singular-plural opposition, it seems likely that, on the mainland, this is being caused by contact with French, where a similar development occurred around the fifteenth century (Picoche and Marchello-Nizia 1991: 220). The ALF Guernsey MORCEAU form [mjo] is not easy to interpret. It was not produced by any participant in the present study and its absence from the ALEN and also from the work of Collas (1931: 91) and Sjøgren (1964: 117) suggests that, once again, the ALF’s Guernsey informant is producing a form more characteristic of Jèrriais—although as mion is attested in Métivier’s 1870 dictionary of Guernésiais, it is possible that this form was present in the dialect at the turn of the twentieth century and has since disappeared. 94 Chapter 5

Table 5.5 Singular—plural opposition

Location COUTEAU – MORCEAU – BATEAU – AGNEAU – COUTEAUX MORCEAUX BATEAUX AGNEAUX

COTENTIN kutɛ, kutjɔ:w mɔʁsɛ, mɔʁsjɔ:w bate, batʃɔ:w aɲe, aɲɔ:w kute, kutʃɔ:w mɔʁsɛ, mɔʁsjo: bate, batʃo: ɑ̃ɲe, ɑ̃ɲo: kute, kutjo: mɔʁse, mɔʁsjo: batɛ, batʃɔ:w ɑ̃ɲɛ, ɑ̃ɲɛ: kutɛ, kutjo: mɔʁsɛ, mɔʁsjɛ: batɛ, batjo: aɲɛ, aɲɑ: kutɛ, kutjɛ: mɔʁsɛ, mɔʁsjɑ: batɛ, batjɛ: kutɛ, kutjɑ: batɛ, batjɑ: ALF: kutɛ, kutjɑ: ALF: mɔrsɛ, mɔrsjɑ: ALF: bɑtɛ, batjɛ: ALF: aɲɛ:, aɲɑ: kutɛ, kutjɛ: morsɛ, morsjɛ: ɑɲɛ, ɑɲɛ: ALEN: kutɛ, ALEN: mɔʁsɛ ALEN: batɛ, ALEN: onje, kutɛw (sg only) pik’e batjɛw onjɛw

PAYS DE kutɛ, kutjɑ: mɔʁsɛ, mɔʁsjɑ: bate, batjɑ: aɲɛ, aɲo: CAUX kute, kutjɑ: mɔʁse, mɔʁsjɑ: batɛ, batjɑ: aɲo, aɲo: kutej, kutjɑ: mɔʁsɛ,mɔʁsja:w batɛ, batja:w kutɛ, kutjɑ:w mɔʁse, mɔʁsjo: bate, bate: kute, kute: mɔʁsjo, mɔʁsjo: mɔʁsjɑ, mɔʁsjo: ALF: kutjo:w (sg) ALF: mɔrsɛ (sg) ALF: bato: (sg) ALF: aɲo: (sg and pl) ALEN: kutɛ, kutjɒ ALEN: mɔʁsɛ ALEN: batɛ, batjɒ ALEN: anjɛ, kutɛ, kutɛ mɔʁsjɔw (sg only) batjao, batjao anjɒ kutjɔw, kutjɔw k’injɔ̃ anjo, anjɒ

JERSEY kute, kutʃo: (O) mɔrsɛ, morsjo: (O) batɛ, batʃo (O, T) aɲɛ, aɲɔ:w kutɛ, kutʃɔ:w mɔrsɛ, morsjɔ:w batɛ, batʃɔw (J) (O, J, L, T, H, B) (J, T, H, B) (O, J, L, T, H, B) brɛbi, brɛbi: kute, kutʃa:w (M) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsɔ:w batɛ, batjɔw (J) (O, J, L, T, kutɛ, kutʃo: (O) (J, L) batɛ, batʃaw (M) M, H, B) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsja:w bate, batʃɔw brəbi, brəbi: (M) (O, L, T, H) (J, T) mɔrse, mɔrsjɔ:w bate, batʃa:w (M) (O, T) bate batʃo: (O) mɔrse, mɔrsjo: (O) mjɔ, mjɔ: (L) mjɔw, mjɔ:w (O, J, L, T, M, H) Phonetics And Phonology 95

Location COUTEAU – MORCEAU – BATEAU – AGNEAU – COUTEAUX MORCEAUX BATEAUX AGNEAUX

ALF: kute, kutjaw ALF: mɔrse, ALF: bate, batja:w ALF: ɑɲe, kute (pl) morsjɑ:w ɑɲa:w ALEN: kutɛ, ALEN (sg only): ALEN: bɒtɛ (O) ALEN: anjɛ? kutʃo (O) mɔrsɛ (O) bɒtʃ jo (O) (O) kutɛ, kutʃaw (J) mjɔ (O) anjɔ (B) kutœj, kutʃaw (M) mjɔw (J) mjaw (M)

GUERNSEY kutɛ, kutʃa:w (P, T) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsja:w batɛ, batʃa:w aɲo, aɲɔ:w (P) kutɛ, kutʃɔ:w (P, T) (P, F, T) woɲɛ̃, woɲɛ̃: (F, C) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsjɔ:w batɛ, batʃɔ:w (C) kutɛ, kutʃo: (F, C, Sv, V) (M, C, Sv) bɛrbi, bɛrbi: (F, M, C, Sv) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsjo: batɛ, batjo: (P, F, T, M, C, kutɛ, kutjɔ:w (C, V) (M, C) (C, V) Sv, V) kutɛ, kutjo: (C) mɔrsɛ, mɔrsjœ:w batɛ, batʃo: kutɛ, kutjœ:w (Sv, V) (F, C) (Sv, V) mɔrsɛ, mɔrso: (P) batɛ, batjœ:w kute, kutjo: (C) mɔrse, mɔrsjo: (C) (Sv, V) kute, kutʃo: (C) mɔrsjo, mɔrsja:w (C) batɛ, batjɔ:w (F) kute, kutʃa:w (F) ALF: kutɛ, kutjo ALF: mjo: ALF: bate, batjɔ: ALF: brɛbi (P, T) aɲe ALEN: kutɛ (s) ALEN (sg only): ALEN: batɛ (T, Sp) ALEN: mutɛ̃ (F, P, Sv) pjɛʃ (F) batʃaw (T) (T) kutʃo (pl) (F, Sv) mɔrse (V) batʃ jo (Sp) kutʃaw (pl) (P, T)

SARK kutɐ, kutʃo: mɔrsɐ, mɔrsjɐ:w batɐ, batʃo: ɒɲɛ, ɒɲo: kutɐ, kutjo: mɔʁsɐ, mɔʁsjɐ:w batɛj, batja:w ɔɲɐ, ɔɲo: kutɛ(j), kutʃo: mɔrsɐ, mɔrsjo: batɛj, batʃo: kutɛ(j), kutjo: ALF: kutɐ, kutʃ jɔw ALF: mɔrsɐ, ALF: batɐ, batjɔ:w ALF: ɒɲɐ, aɲɒ kutɐ (pl) mɔrsjɔ:w ALEN: kutɐ, kutjo: ALEN: piʃ, pjiʃ ALEN: batɐ, bɒtj:o ALEN: ɒnjɛ, mɔʁsɐw (pl) ɒnjɒ ɔnjɛ, ɔnjɒ 96 Chapter 5

(6) Development of the Old French diphthong [yj] NUIT (ALF 929, ALEN 593), SUIVRE (ALF 1267, ALEN 1191), BRUIT (ALF 180), PUITS (ALF 1104, ALEN 518) (‘night’, ‘to follow’, ‘noise’, ‘well’) (< noctem, *sequere [VLat], brugitum, puteum) In the case of NUIT, [i] has opened to [ɛ] in Insular Norman (Table 5.6). In Guernsey’s Câtel parish, [ɛ] lowers to [a], a localized variation not attested in the ALEN even though this atlas contains a Câtel form. In the Pays de Caux, the same development occurs as in central French. Where no palatal is present (PUITS and BRUIT) the realization is [i] in all data points investigated (cf. Joret 1884: xxvi). The form brit is, however, clearly disappearing from Guernésiais, being produced by only one speaker. The retention of final [t] in NUIT, BRUIT is more common in Sercquiais than in other varieties of Norman, although the precise conditions under which this occurs are difficult to define (Brasseur 1978b: 277). Although Norman reflexes of Vulgar Latin *sequere are attested in the ALF for Guernsey and Sark and in the ALEN, for Jersey and Guernsey (cf. Joret 1884: xxviii), in contemporary Jèrriais and Sercquiais and, to a lesser extent, Guernésiais, these forms are largely replaced by the French borrowing, realised locally as [swɪvr]. SUIVRE is also a reflex of *sequere but the form has reached Insular Norman via standard French. The replacement of the French front rounded glide ([ɥ]) with the back rounded glide ([w]) is an example of sound substitution, a contact-influenced development that has probably occurred owing to the absence of [ɥ] from the phonological inventory of English and whereby speakers have simply identified one glide with another (cf. Weinreich 1964: 14). The ALF forms for Jersey and Guernsey are not reliable for SUIVRE. The Jersey form is a clear error in that souotre is not a verb but, rather, a preposition (< Old French soentre ‘after’ cf. Le Maistre 1966: 488, 486; Jones 2001: 101–102; Birt 1985: 233). The Guernsey ALF form [sjeð], with assibilation of intervocalic [r], is further confirmation that the Guernsey informant for this atlas came from Jersey, as this phonetic feature is not present in Guernésiais (Collas 1931: 11; Bloch 1927: 92; cf. §3.1.1.2(ii)). For Mainland Norman, the data confirm the entries in the ALF and the ALEN. The Cauchois form [sɥiv] shares the same development as central French. In the Cotentin peninsula, the form produced is [syʁ] (cf. Brasseur 1978a: 61). Phonetics And Phonology 97

Table 5.6 Development of the Old French diphthong [yj]

Location NUIT SUIVRE BRUIT PUITS

COTENTIN ɲi: sy:ʁ bʁi pi: ni: vatʃɛʁm njɛ ALF: ɲie ALF: sy:r ALF: bʁ̥i: ALF: pi: ni: syœ:r pø: ALEN: nji ALEN: syʁ ALEN: - ALEN: pi: py:

PAYS DE nɥi sɥiv bʁi pi: CAUX bukɑ̃ sitɛ:ʁn ALF: nɥi ALF: sɥi:vr ALF: bri: ALF: pij ALEN: nɥi: ALEN: sɥiv ALEN: - ALEN: pi:

JERSEY ɲɛ (O, J, L, T, M, sjɛð (O, J) bri (O, J, L, T, M, pi: (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) swivr (O, J, T, H, B) H, B) ɲe (O) M, H) sɑbɑ (O, T) fɔntan (M) swiv (O, L, T) swivr (O, L, H, B)

ALF: ɲɛ ALF: swo:tr ALF: bri: ALF: pi: ALEN: njɛ (T, M) ALEN: swivr (J) ALEN: - ALEN: pi: (O, M, nja (B) sjɛr (M) Mie, B) sjɛð (O)

GUERNSEY ɲɛ (P, F, T, M, C, sjɛjr (P, V) bri (C) pis (P, F, T, C, M, Sv, V) sjɛr (P, F, T, kamɑ (P, F, C, M, Sv, V) ɲɛt (C) C, Sv) Sv, V) fəwntɑjn (C) ɲat (C) sjer (P, F, C, M, tɹõj (P) Sv) tine (P) sje: (P) sjejr (P, C) swivr (P, C) 98 Chapter 5

Table 5.6 Development of the Old French diphthong [yj] (cont.)

Location NUIT SUIVRE BRUIT PUITS

ALF: ɲɛ: ALF: sje:ð ALF: bri: ALF: pi: ALEN: njɛt ALEN: sjɛr (P, T) ALEN - ALEN: pi(:)s (C, Sp, V) (P, F, T, C, Sv) njɛ (T, P, Sv)

SARK ɲɛt swivʁ brit pɪ: swɪv bʁɪ fɒwntɛn bʁit tʁɛ̃ ALF: nɛ:t ALF: si:r ALF: bri: ALF: pi: sjɛ:r ALEN: njɛt, njɛ ALEN: sɥɪ:vʁ ALEN: - ALEN: pi:

5.2 Summary

Despite extensive contact with its superstrates, Norman is still ‘intact’ phonetically, with all of the features identified by Joret still present. Indeed, the only significant evidence of contact in the data are, in Mainland Norman, the substitution of the uvular fricative [ʁ] for the apical trill [r] and, in Insular Norman, the substitution of the back rounded glide [w] for the front rounded glide [ɥ] in the SUIVRE diphthong; alveolar for dental [t] and [d]; and, occasionally, the alveolar continuant [ɹ] for the apical trill [r]. Weinreich describes sound substitution as a contact phenomenon whereby ‘the identity of other phonemes is not disturbed’ and which ‘can more easily affect phonemes with few correlations, like /r/ or /h/ in many languages, than those with multi-dimensional correlations in the phonemic pattern’ (1964: 19n.9). Spence would add to this list the presence of what he calls the ‘English type’ [tʃ] and [dʒ] affricates in Insular Norman, which regularly replace the outcomes produced by the secondary palatalization of [k] and [g] before a front vowel (1984: 347): although, as discussed in §3.1.1.2(iii), these are also attested on the mainland. The consistency with which diphthongs such as [ej] and [ɔw] replace lengthened close vowels has also been attributed to English influence (Liddicoat 1990: 200). Further to this, Sjøgren comments that hybrid Phonetics And Phonology 99 phonological systems (Norman + English; Norman + French) were observable on Guernsey as early as 1926 and that, in some parishes, the ‘English’ realizations of phonemes (such as the dark [l]) were already widely used among younger speakers of Guernésiais (1964: xxviii). Despite the decline in speaker numbers, regional variation is also still present in the phonology of Norman. Examples include, r-elision and non-raising of [a] to [ɛ] in the Pays de Caux (De Fresnay 1881; Hébert 1984: 16–17); the close final mid-vowels and assibilation of intervocalic [r] in western Jèrriais (Spence 1957b; Jones 2001: 31, 33–34) and the phonetic variation in plural endings found between eastern and western Jèrriais, northern and south-western Guernésiais and between the Norman spoken in the Cotentin peninsula and the Pays de Caux (Lepelley 1974: 103; Mensire 1977: 32; Spence 1984: 348; Hébert 1984: 28; Tomlinson 2008: 5; Pézeril 2012: 41). Sercquais does not contain regional differences but variation is certainly present here too—for example in the pronun- cation of r ([r] vs. [ʁ]) (Liddicoat 1994: 89). Significantly, and as a final point, this chapter confirms the misgivings of Collas and Bloch as to the person selected for interview on Guernsey for the ALF. Set in the context of comparative data, analysis of this individual’s phonology demonstrates beyond all doubt that he was, in fact, speaking Jèrriais. Chapter 6 Liaison

Liaison is a form of external sandhi lying at the interface between phonology and syntax and involving ‘phonological alternations whose conditioning element is a word boundary’ (Bybee 2001: 337). It has been well documented and analyzed extensively for standard French within the framework of different formal linguistic theories (see, for example, Schane 1968; Ashby 1981; Tranel 1981; Hyman 1985; Wetzels 1987; De Jong 1989; Tranel 1996; Fougeron et al. 2001; Bybee 2001; Miller and Fagyal 2005; Nguyen et al. 2007) and with reference to data drawn from a range of linguistic corpora (see, among others, Agren 1973; Malécot 1975; Korac 1979; De Jong et al. 1981; van Ameringen and Cedergren 1981; Morin and Kaye 1982, Encrevé 1988, De Jong 1994; Durand and Lyche 2003; Durand et al. 2009b). In standard French, liaison contexts are prescribed, and liaison may be either obligatory, forbidden or optional, the realization of optional liaison often being linked to the use of a high register (Delattre 1966: 49). The following taxonomy, proposed by Delattre (1966) (Table 6.1), is widely held to offer a useful summary of the situation.

Table 6.1 Delattre’s taxonomy of liaison (after Delattre 1966: 47)

Obligatory Optional Forbidden

Noun Determiner + Noun/ Plural Noun + X Singular Noun + X Pronoun/Adjective Des soldats anglais Un soldat anglais Deux autres [‘two [‘English soldiers’] [‘an English soldier’] others’] Ses plans ont réussi Son plan a réussi [‘his Un ancien ami [‘his plans have plan has worked’] [‘an old friend’] worked’]

Verb Personal Pronoun + Verb + X Verb Ils ont compris [‘they Je vais essayer have understood’] [‘I will try’] Il commençait à lire [‘he started to read’]

Obligatory Optional Forbidden

Verb + Personal Pronoun Ont-ils compris [‘have they understood ?’]

Invariable Monosyllables + X Polysyllables + X Et + X Words En une journée Pendant un jour Et on l’a fait [‘and one [‘in one day’] [‘during the course did it’] of one day’] Très intéressant Toujours utile [‘very interesting’] [‘always useful’]

Special cases Special Constructions: H-aspiré Comment allez-vous? Des héros [‘heroes’] [‘how are you?’] Accent aigu [‘acute En haut [‘up there’] accent’] + un [‘one’], huit [‘eight’], onze [‘eleven’] and derived De temps en temps forms [‘from time to time’] La cent huitième [‘the hundred and eighth’] En onze jours [‘in eleven days’]

Taking Delattre’s taxonomy as a useful point of departure, the present chapter examines whether contact with their superstrates is leading to a divergence in the liaison patterns of Mainland and Insular Norman. The many different methodologies used to study liaison in French have sometimes made it difficult to draw meaningful overarching conclusions (Durand and Lyche 2003: 261). Accordingly, the data in this chapter are analyzed with reference to the protocol developed by the Phonologie du Français Contemporain ‘Phonology of Contemporary French’ project (hereafter, PFC) (Durand and Lyche 2003; Durand and Lyche 2008; Durand, Laks and Lyche 102 Chapter 6

2009b), which has been proposed as a means of collecting robust and comparable data (Durand and Lyche 2003: 261; Durand and Lyche 2008: 34).1 Its well-documented influence on liaison patterns in French makes register an important part of the present analysis and this is examined by contrasting liaison patterns in conversation style and in reading style. The conversation- style data were collected via face-to-face interviews with speakers using the methodology described in §1.3.2 Following PFC guidelines, ten minutes of conversation style speech are analyzed per speaker (Durand Laks and Lyche 2009b: 33). Reading-style data were obtained from commercially-available recordings of prose (Le Maistre 1979a, b, c, d, 1993 and Magène 2007). In each case, the whole of the relevant recording is analyzed and the precise timings are noted. In this, second, part of the analysis, Mainland Norman is represented by the variety spoken in the Cotentin peninsula and Insular Norman by Jèrriais.3 Although, ideally, ‘strict’ PFC investigations involve recording usage over the four Labovian speech styles of a wordlist, a reading passage, a directed interview and a semi-directed interview, examining this range of contexts has not always proved straightforward and the protocol makes allowances for this (Klingler 2006; Durand and Lyche 2008: 38). However, apart from this reduction of four speech styles to two, other factors in the present study remain consistent with the PFC protocol: a similar number of speakers are selected via the same sampling method, the research questions examined are all PFC- based and the findings are compared and cross-referenced with recent PFC data (Durand, Laks and Lyche (2009a). As in other chapters, where possible, contemporary data are compared to those recorded in the ALF.4

6.1 Obligatory Liaison

According to Delattre’s (1966) taxonomy, liaison is obligatory in the following contexts:

1 http://www.projet-pfc.net (last accessed 22 April 2014). 2 Fewer Jèrriais speakers (16) participated in this part of the study since, in Jersey, the liaison data were collected separately. For the Cotentin peninsula, analysis is based on the same data as Chapter 7. 3 For a more comprehensive treatment of liaison in Jèrriais, see Jones (2012b). 4 As the ALEN tends to document words in isolation rather than in their syntactic context, these data are not examined in the present chapter. Liaison 103 • Determiner + Noun /Pronoun/Adjective5 • Personal Pronoun + Verb; Verb + Personal Pronoun • Invariable Words (monosyllables) + X • Special Cases. The analysis of these contexts in conversation-style data is given in Table 6.2. In each case, the figure on the left indicates the number of times the liaison is realized in a particular context in Norman. The figure on the right, in brackets, reflects the number of times the liaison is not realized in the same context.

6.1.1 Determiner + Noun The liaison category ‘Determiner + Noun’ cannot be compared meaningfully between Norman and standard French. This is because, in many Norman dialects, plural determiners and the ‘contracted’ forms corresponding to the French plural indefinite article DES and to ÈS (a substitute for AUX ‘to the’),6 all have two variants: (i) the pre-consonantal form: C(onsonant)+[e:]; and (ii) the pre-vocalic form: C+[ez] (or, in the case of ÈS, [e:] (pre-consonantal) and [ez] (pre-vocalic)). As may be seen below, in the plural, the vowel of the determiner is long in the pre-consonantal variant but short in the pre-vocalic variant. The short vowel corresponds to French schwa and is often syncopated (except in ÈS) and the long vowel may be diphthongized to [ej] (cf. Spence 1960). Compare the following Jèrriais forms, adapted from Lepelley (1974: 103–104, 110):

Pre-consonantal Forms l’boeu [l bœ] ‘the bull’—les boeus [le: bœ:] / [lej bœ:] ‘the bulls’ un boeu [ø̃ bœ] ‘a bull’—des boeus [de: bœ:] / [dej bœ:] ‘some bulls’ au boeu [o bœ] ‘to the bull’—ès boeus [e: bœ:] / [ej bœ:] ‘to the bulls’ man boeu [mɑ̃ bœ] ‘my bull’—mes boeus [me: bœ:] / [mej bœ:] ‘my bulls’

5 Following the PFC protocol (and Delattre 1966), in the present study, the category ‘Determiner + Noun’ includes ‘Adjective + Noun’, (singular and plural), ‘Possessive Adjective + Noun’ and ‘Numeral + Noun’. 6 ÈS is found in Old Norman as a substitute for AUX (À + LES ‘to the’) as early as the twelfth century; cf. §8.2.2.1b). 104 Chapter 6

Pre-vocalic Forms l’êfant [l ejfɑ̃ ] ‘the child’—l’s êfants [lz ejfɑ̃:]/ [lez ejfɑ̃:] ‘the children’ un êfant [ø̃n ejfɑ̃] ‘the child’—d’s êfants [dz ejfɑ̃:]/ [dez ejfɑ̃:] ‘some children’ à l’êfant [a l ejfɑ̃] ‘to the child’—ès êfants [ez ejfɑ̃:] ‘to the children’ mn êfant [mn ejfɑ̃]/ mén êfant [mɛn ejfɑ̃ ] ‘my child’—m’s êfants [mz ejfɑ̃:]/ mes êfants [mez ejfɑ�:] ‘my children’

Arguably, therefore, the [z] found after the short vowel in a sequence such as LES ENFANTS [lezejfɑ�:] ‘the children’ is not a liaison consonant for plural determiners as it is not simply ‘added’ to the pre-consonantal variant ([le:]). Indeed, in order for the pre-consonantal variant to become the pre-vocalic form it is also necessary to turn the long vowel into a short one, or to delete it completely. It seems therefore that this is best considered as suppletion rather than liaison (cf. Morin 1986; Tranel 1990).7 For this reason, articles and possessive adjectives have been excluded from the present analysis and the ‘Determiner + Noun’ category relabelled ‘Numeral/ Adjective + Noun’. In Norman, liaison occurs categorically after a numeral or qualificative adjective (Table 6.2). Usage is therefore in line with that observed for standard French (Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b: 43) and in many regional and over-

Table 6.2 Delattre’s obligatory liaison contexts in Mainland and Insular Norman

Numeral/Adjective + Personal Monosyllables + X Special Cases Noun Pronoun + Verb

Mainland 21 (0) 248 (0) 36 (4) 12 (0) Norman Jèrriais 64 (1) 104 (1) 56 (19) 28 (2) Guernésiais 16 (0) 193 (0) 63 (10) 2 (0) Sercquiais 6 (0) 5 (0) 24 (3) 3 (0)

7 Liddicoat (1994: 234–236, 244, 255) illustrates how, in Jèrriais, this suppletion is usual for the plural definite article LES and the possessive adjectives of the three persons singular, MES, TES, and SES. However, for the plural indefinite article DES he only cites forms with undeleted long vowels. This is probably an error as, lower down on the same page (p. 236), Liddicoat also cites the example [ul a dz ɑ̃mẽ:] ‘she has friends’ (with a deleted vowel) (the transcription is Liddicoat’s). Liaison 105 seas varieties of French (cf. Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2009: 296; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 192). a) Numerals The sequence ‘(Cardinal) Numeral + Noun’ is a systematic trigger for liaison in Norman, with only one exception throughout the data (given in (3) below). Its presence in the ALF confirms that this is a long-standing trigger of liaison in Mainland and Insular Norman.8 In the following examples, and throughout the chapter, where present, the liaison consonant is given in bold.

(1) [ʃɑ̃tɑ̃:] ‘one hundred years’ (MN) (2) [nɛ̃nɑ̃tɹejzɑ̃:] ‘ninety three years’ (J) (3) [vẽʔɑ̃:] ‘twenty years’ (J) (4) [le:dɑjzawt] ‘the other two’ (G) (5) [dɐyzœ:r] ‘two hours’ (S) b) Adjectives Although pre-nominal adjective position is more widespread in Insular Norman than in Mainland Norman and standard French (Tomlinson 1981: 47; Birt 1985; Liddicoat 1994: 217; Jones 2001: 111–114; cf. §7.3), the relatively small number of adjectives contained in the data confirms their general absence from everyday speech (cf. PFC studies such as Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2009: 296). The fact that only three adjectives were pre-posed in liaison contexts in Mainland Norman makes it difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions. Durand, Laks and Lyche (2009b: 43) highlight the importance of frequency of occurrence as a factor favouring liaison in this context in standard French and, as seen in Table 6.3, it is noteworthy that, in Jèrriais, frequently-used adjectives such as GRAND ‘big’ and PETIT ‘small’ always trigger liaison in conversation-style speech. The (limited) data suggest that ‘Adjective + Noun’ is an obligatory liaison category in Insular Norman, which is consistent with PFC findings for the varieties of French spoken in Vaud (Andreassen and Lyche 2009: 82), the Basque country (Eychenne 2009a: 254) and Belgium (Hambye and Simon 2009: 113), although not for the regional French of Douzens in the south of France (Eychenne 2009b: 280). The category is not a systematic liaison trigger in standard French (Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b: 43).

8 Map 933A (Loucher des deux yeux ‘To squint’). 106 Chapter 6

Table 6.3 Liaison after a pre-nominal adjective9

Context Mainland Norman Jèrriais Guernésiais

GRAND (sg) ‘big’ 2 (0) CERTAIN (sg) 2 (0) ‘a certain’ GRAND (pl) 1 (0) PETIT (pl) ‘small’ 4 (0) DERNIER (pl) ‘last’ 3 (0) MAUVAIS (sg) ‘bad’ 5 (0) JEUNE (pl) ‘young’ 2 (0) VIEUX (pl) ‘old’ (f.) 1 (0)

TOTAL 3 (0) 9 (0) 8 (0)

(6) [dɑ̃:se:dʁɛniʁzuvʁɑʒ] ‘in his last pieces of work’ (MN) (7) [ʒavõdejgrɑ̃zamẽ:] ‘we have some good (lit. ‘big’) friends’ (J) (8) [ʃede:mowvejzɛfɛ�:] ‘they are naughty children’ (G)

The Norman findings contrast with Aub-Büscher’s work on the dialect of Ranrupt (Aub-Büscher 1962), where liaison was generally found to be absent between a pre-nominal adjective and its following noun regardless of whether the adjective in question was singular or plural (cf. Morin 1981: 41). Morin reports that liaison is often absent after singular pre-nominal adjectives in the Picard dialect of Gondecourt and other Walloon dialects, although unlike the dialect of Ranrupt—but like Insular Norman—it may be present when the pre-nominal adjective is plural, hence:

(9) Un gros Ø arbre ‘a big tree’ (10) De grands [z] arbres ‘tall trees’

(examples after Morin 1981: 42, where Ø = no liaison).

9 No pre-nominal adjectives were produced by speakers of Sercquiais. Liaison 107

6.1.2 Personal Pronoun + Verb In Norman, liaison is obligatory between a personal pronoun and the following verb.

(11) [no:zapʁɛ:ʃilpatwe] lit. ‘one spoke patois’ (MN) (‘we spoke patois’ cf. §3.1.2b) (12) [ʒmɑ̃vevwɔ:zɛsplitʃ i] ‘I’m going to explain to you’ (J) (13) [inwɔ:zadi] ‘he told us’ (J) (14) [purlezatɹɑpɑj] ‘in order to catch them’ (G) (15) [ləbatɐku:zɛtvnʏ] ‘the boat you came on’ (S)10

This context is a categorical trigger in standard French, in regional French (Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2009: 296; Pustka 2009: 322) and in many varieties of non-Hexagonal French (Hambye and Simon 2009: 223; Poiré 2009: 166– 167; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 192). It is also documented in the ALF.11 This strong syntactic cohesion is unsurprising since in Norman, as in French, subject clitics cannot stand independently of their verb.12

6.1.3 Invariable Words (Monosyllables) As liaison-triggering differs according to the individual word concerned, it is not possible to group together all Norman monosyllables in the way suggested by Delattre’s taxonomy (cf. Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b: 44; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 196; Pustka 2009: 324). Table 6.4 displays the results for words which were present in all four data sets.

Table 6.4 Liaison following monosyllabic prepositions and adverbs

Monosyllabic word Mainland Norman Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais

EN ‘in’ 26 (0) 56 (0) 62 (0) 24 (0) MAIS ‘but’ 0 (4) 0 (14) 0 (3) 0 (1) PLUS ‘more’ 4 (0) 0 (3) 1 (1) 0 (1) DANS ‘in’ 6 (0) 0 (2) 0 (6) 0 (1)

10 Although see Liddicoat (1994: 351) for an example of non-liaison in this context. 11 Maps 92 (Vous avez là un beau chien ‘You have a handsome dog there’); 99 (Vous auriez dû voir comme les arbres en étaient chargés ‘You should have seem how laden the trees were’) and 507 (Vous êtes venu sans rien ‘You have come without anything’). 12 The greater number of tokens produced in Mainland Norman and Guernésiais is due to the fact that in these varieties, the impersonal pronoun (which has a distinct liaison form) tends to replace JE (which has no separate liaison form) as 1PL pronoun (§7.4(i)). 108 Chapter 6

(16) [mɛo:tfɛ:] ‘but in times gone by’ (MN) (no liaison) (17) [dɑ̃zø̃ptiviloʒ] ‘in a little village’ (MN) (18) [ɑ̃namɛðik] ‘in America’ (J) (19) [mejaʃtœ] ‘but now’ (J) (no liaison) (20) [dɑ̃:ønpjɛʃ] ‘in a place’ (J) (no liaison) (21) [ɑ̃nɑ̃dʒe:] ‘in English’ (G) (22) [ʃepyzɑ̃nɑ̃gje:] ‘it’s more in English’ (G) (23) [pʏ:ɒjzɪ] ‘more easy’ (S) (no liaison) (24) [dɑ̃:ø̃nmawg] ‘in a mug’ (S) (no liaison)13

Although individual words trigger different liaison patterns, usage is almost always regularized. EN, for example, always liaises (cf. Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2009: 296) whereas MAIS never does so (cf. Hambye and Simon 2009: 117; Pustka 2009: 329). With PLUS and DANS, liaison is categorical in Mainland Norman (cf. Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2009: 296; Pustka 2009: 324–325) but absent from Insular Norman. The results suggest that contact with its superstrate may be causing Mainland Norman to adverge with French patterns of liaison usage.

6.1.4 Special Cases The near-systematic triggering of liaison in the following fixed expressions confirms the impact of frequent co-occurrence (Bybee 2005: 24): TOUT À FAIT [tutafe] ‘exactly’ (MN, J, G—the transcription is of Guernésiais); DE TEMPS EN TEMPS [dtɑ̃zɑ̃tɑ̃:] ‘from time to time’ (MN, J—the transcription is of Mainland Norman); aen p’tit au caoup [ẽptitokaw] ‘a little at a time’ (G); DE MOINS EN MOINS [dmɛ̃zɑ̃mɛ̃:] ‘less and less’ (J, MN—the transcription is of Jèrriais); DE PLUS EN PLUS [dəpyzɑ̃py:] ‘more and more’ (J); PLUS OU MOINS [pʏzumwɛ̃:] ‘more or less’ (J, S—the transcription is of Sercquiais); PETIT À PETIT [ptitɑpti] ‘little by little’ (J); C’EST À DIRE [ʃɛtɑdið] ‘that is to say’ (MN, J—the transcription is of Jèrriais); miot à miot [mjotamjo] ‘little by little’ (MN). Both instances of Jèrriais non-liaison (Table 6.2) occur with the expression DE MOINS EN MOINS.

13 Although cf. [dɑ̃z œnɒutɛl] ‘in a hotel’ (S) where the preposition DANS does trigger liaison (Liddicoat 1994: 346). Liaison 109

6.2 Optional Liaison

Analysis of the optional liaison contexts (conversation style) is given in Table 6.5.

Table 6.5 Delattre’s optional liaison contexts in Mainland and Insular Norman

Plural Noun + X Verb + X Polysyllable + X

Mainland Norman 0 (11) 15 (82) 0 (0) Jèrriais 1 (1) 1 (128) 0 (5) Guernésiais 0 (6) 0 (111) 0 (0) Sercquiais 0 (2) 0 (20) 0 (2)

6.2.1 Plural Noun + X Notwithstanding the fact that few tokens were obtained of ‘Plural Noun + X’ for Jèrriais and Sercquiais, the data suggest that, as in French, this context represents an infrequent liaison trigger for Norman (cf. Andreassen and Lyche 2009: 83 [Vaud]; Hambye and Simon 2009: 117 [Belgium]; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 196 [La Réunion]).

(25) [le:fami:ɑ̃gjɛ:z] ‘the English families’ (MN) (no liaison) (26) [me:paðɑ̃zõdmœðe] ‘my parents lived [. . .]’ (J) (27) [le:fɑmi:lɑ̃w̃ʃɛ̃:ʒi] ‘the families have changed’ (G) (no liaison) (28) [dɐyfɑ̃miʎɑ̃tijɛr] ‘two whole families’ (S) (no liaison)

6.2.2 Verb + X A marked difference in usage is apparent between Mainland Norman, where liaison is present in approximately one in seven cases, and Insular Norman, where only a single instance was recorded.14

14 This result differs from Liddicoat’s transcriptions of ‘Verb + X’ contexts for Jèrriais, where liaison is usually present (1994: 339–345), for example: (a) [ʃtɛzɑ̃vil]‘I was in town’ (b) [ʒsumɛrvny:zɑ̃ʒɛri] ‘we came back to Jersey’ (c) [inufalɛtalɛ] ‘we had to go’ (d) [mɑ̃pɛðavɛtø̃gardẽ] ‘my father had a garden’ (e) [lðalmɑ̃:zavɛtamnɛɑ̃ʒɛri] ‘the Germans had brought to Jersey [. . .]’ 110 Chapter 6

(29) [samɛʁpʁɛ:ʃɛœ̃mjopatwe] ‘his mother spoke patois a bit’ (MN) (no liaison) (30) [ʃɛtœ̃mosgɑ̃dinav] ‘it’s a Scandinavian word’ (MN) (31) [ʃɛtœ̃ptibatɛ] ‘it’s a little boat’ (MN) (32) [ifɒjitafɔlɛ] ‘he nearly went mad’ (J) (33) [matɑ̃ttɛiʃẽdyðɑ̃ladʒɛ:r] ‘my aunt was here during the war’ (J) (no liaison) (34) [isɑ̃w̃aepruvɑjɑləfejr] ‘they are trying to do it’ (G) (no liaison) (35) [lɛ:sudaʁtɛiʃẽ] ‘the soldiers were here’ (S) (no liaison)

The ALF confirms that, in this context, liaison was generally triggered more frequently in Mainland than in Insular Norman even as long ago as the end of the nineteenth century.15 As liaison is optional in this context in standard French, it is possible that contact with the superstrate may be having some bearing on mainland usage. In French, the rate of optional liaison is often affected by both the frequency and person of the verb, with certain forms of ÊTRE ‘to be’, for example, carry- ing a strong linking power (Durand and Lyche 2008: 47). This is not the case in Insular Norman, where forms of ÊTRE are equally unlikely to trigger liaison (Table 6.6) (cf. Aub-Büscher’s findings for the dialect of Ranrupt).16 In Mainland Norman, however, all instances of liaison triggered in this context occurred with ÊTRE, most frequently with the 3SG present tense form (EST), a commonly occurring monosyllable which also triggers liaison frequently in standard French (cf. Durand, Laks and Lyche 2009b: 45) and a context which Delattre (1966) even describes as categorical for the standard language.17 Indeed, although Hébert claims that, in Cauchois, liaison is much rarer than in standard French, the 3SG present tense of ÊTRE remains one of the few attested triggers (1984: 20), which again suggests the presence of contact influence from French.

As Liddicoat’s informants are of a similar age and parish of origin to those interviewed for the present study, it is difficult to account for this difference in results. 15 Maps 32 (Les garçons sont allés dénicher des nids d’oiseaux ‘The boys have gone to look for bird nests’) and 503 (C’est un ivrogne ‘He’s a drunkard’). 16 The results for Insular Norman do not match Poiré’s investigation of liaison in Ontarian French, another variety in heavy contact with English, where monosyllabic forms of ÊTRE were frequent triggers of liaison (2009: 167). 17 Lyche and Østby (2009: 225) find that liaison with C’EST/ EST ‘it is’ / ‘is’ is decreasing in this context among younger speakers of the Parisian upper classes. Liaison 111

Table 6.6 Analysis of the category ‘Verb + X’ by verb and person

ÊTRE ‘to be’ Mainland Norman Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais

1SG (present) 0 (8) 0 (2) 0 (5) 0 (0) 3SG (present) 12 (22) 0 (19) 1 (29) 0 (13) 1PL (present) 1 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3PL (present) 2 (2) 0 (11) 0 (2) 0 (1) 1SG (imperfect) 0 (5) 0 (10) 0 (3) 0 (1) 3SG (imperfect) 0 (1) 0 (24) 0 (20) N/A18 1PL (imperfect) 0 (0) 0 (7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3PL (imperfect) 0 (3) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (2) 1SG (past def.) 0 (0) 0 (4) 0 (2) 0 (0) 3SG (past def.) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (3) N/A 3PL (past def.) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (3) 0 (0)

AVOIR ‘to have’ Mainland Norman Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais

3PL (present) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1SG (imperfect) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (0) 3SG (imperfect) 0 (10) 0 (10) 0 (9) N/A 3PL (imperfect) 0 (2) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (0) 3SG (past def.) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (3) N/A

OTHER VERBS Mainland Norman Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais

1SG (present) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (0) 0 (1) 3SG (present) 0 (7) 0 (1) 0 (2) 3PL (present) 0 (6) 0 (0) 0 (1) 0 (1) 1SG (imperfect) 0 (2) 0 (1) 0 (1) 0 (0) 3SG (imperfect) 0 (8) 0 (9) 0 (6) N/A 1PL (imperfect) 0 (0) 0 (3) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3PL (imperfect) 0 (3) 0 (3) 0 (2) 0 (0) 1SG (past def.) 0 (0) 0 (2) 0 (5) 0 (0) 3SG (past def.) 0 (0) 1 (11) 0 (9) 0 (0)

TOTAL 15 (82) 1 (128) 1 (111) 0 (20)

18 The results for Verb + X are affected by the fact that Sercquiais differs from other varieties of Norman in that all 3SG imperfect and past definite endings tend to conserve final [t], both in pre-vocalic and pre-consonantal contexts (cf. Liddicoat 1994: 346–353) 112 Chapter 6

(36) [ʃɛœ̃hʁɔʁzɛ̃] ‘he is a foreigner’ (MN) (no liaison) (37) [ʃɛtɛ̃kʁijab] ‘it is incredible’ (MN) (38) [ifalɛaʁfwoje] ‘it was necessary to dig again’ (MN) (no liaison) (39) [ʒ̥siɑkõdɥið] ‘I’m driving’ (J) (no liaison) (40) [ilvulɛønmɑʃɪn] ‘he wanted a machine’ (J) (no liaison) (41) [ikmɑ̃ʃ iɑfɛð] ‘he started to do’ (J) (no liaison) (42) [ʒ̥siakutymɒj] ‘I am used to it’ (G) (no liaison) (43) [ʃetɑ̃frɛ̃se:knudvi:z] ‘we speak in (Guernsey) French’ (G) (44) [nupuvɛaveɛnkɔõvɛrsɑsjɑ̃w̃dɔwvde:frɛ̃se:] ‘we could have a conversation with French people’ (G) (no liaison) (45) [ʃɛẽpɔrtɑ̃] ‘it’s important’ (S) (no liaison) (46) [mɑ̃fɪɛtiʃẽ] ‘my son is here’ (S) (no liaison) (47) [ilõø̃nbwʊnʃɑ�:s] ‘they have a good opportunity’ (S) (no liaison).

6.2.3 Polysyllable + X In Norman, liaison is not triggered in this context, confirming the claim made by Durand, Laks and Lyche (2009b: 43) that liaison is threatened in polysyllables everywhere in the French-speaking world (see, among others, Bordal and Legeden 2009: 196; Pustka 2009: 326).

(48) [ʒ̥pɑ:lɛsuvɑ̃ɑmɑ̃pɛð] ‘I spoke to my father often’ (J) (no liaison) (49) [ouprejø̃nɑ̃] ‘after a year’ (J) (no liaison) (50) [iltɛsuvɑ̃ɑ̃sɛr] ‘he was often in Sark’ (S) (no liaison)

6.3 Register

The effects of register on optional liaison in French are widely documented in PFC and other studies (see, among others, Delattre 1966: 49; Malécot 1975; Booij and De Jong 1987: 1005, 1015, 1018; Encrevé 1988; Green and Hintze 1990: 83; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 194; Eychenne 2009a: 253, 2009b: 278). Dialects are traditionally considered as primarily and uniformly ‘casual’ varieties, used for face-to-face, non-official interaction between family and close acquain- tances and therefore opportunities of observing dialect usage in explicitly formal contexts are relatively rare. Table 6.7 compares the results obtained from

[javwɛtønɛkɒwl] ‘there was a school’ (S) [javwɛtbɛ̃dɛ:vjɛʁdʒɑ̃] ‘there were many old people’ (S) (Liddicoat 1994: 351) In view of this apparently free variation, all examples of Sercquiais 3SG imperatives and past definites are discounted from the present analysis. Liaison 113

Table 6.7 Obligatory and optional liaison in Norman according to speech style (Conversation style in italics, reading style in bold)

Numeral/ Pronoun + Special Plural Noun Verb + X Polysyllable Adjective + Verb Cases + X + X Noun

Mainland 21 (0) 248 (0) 12 (0) — 15 (82) 0 (0) Norman 6 (0) 31 (0) 3 (0) 0 (2) 7 (37) 4 (18)

Insular 18 (0) 36 (1) 15 (0) — 1 (49) 0 (2) Norman 21 (0) 35 (0) 6 (0) 0 (4) 0 (44) 0 (2)

the analysis of Delattre’s obligatory and optional liaison contexts in both conversation style and reading style for Mainland and Insular Norman. For conversation style, ten minutes of speech have been analyzed for each individual. For reading style, as not all passages were of the same length, 48 minutes and 46 seconds are analyzed for Jèrriais and 38 minutes and 37 seconds for Mainland Norman.19 For the first three categories (the so-called ‘obligatory’ contexts) liaison is categorical in Mainland and Insular Norman, as it is in standard French. However, for the last two categories (the so-called ‘optional’ contexts), usage differs. In Insular Norman, little discrepancy occurs between conversational style and reading style (cf. Pustka 2009: 328; Boutin and Turcsan 2009: 150; Bordal and Legeden 2009: 196). However, by and large, the speakers of Mainland Norman, who do have some awareness of the norms of standard French, tend to use more liaison in ‘optional’ liaison reading-style contexts. Mainland Norman therefore seems to be adverging with its superstrate in this context also.

19 For Insular Norman, the results in Table 6.7 represent a direct comparison of the same speakers’ conversational and reading styles. In the case of Mainland Norman, however, as the combined reading style totals of individuals who had participated in the interviews came to only 7 minutes and 22 seconds, it proved necessary to extend the sample. The Mainland Norman results displayed in Table 6.7, therefore, are a comparison of the conversational style results for all participating speakers (Tables 6.2 and 6.5) and the reading- style results from an analysis of 17 recordings in Magène (2007). 114 Chapter 6

6.4 ‘Different’ Liaisons

6.4.1 3PL Liaison Form The liaison form of the Norman 3PL subject pronoun is [il] (m and f.) (§3.1.2b)

(51) [ilalɛaly:ʒwoʁnɛ] ‘they went to their day [of work]’ (MN) (52) [ilõbɑ:tilamejzõ] ‘they have built the house’ (J) (53) [ilaprɑ̃dɹõlɑ̃gje:] ‘they will learn English’ (G) (54) [ilõmẽɑtʁavɛʁdønmaʃẽpuʁhɑlɐlakʁɛm] ‘they put it into a machine to take out the cream’ (S)

Evidence of contact from French (where the liaison form is [i(l)z]) is apparent from the use of an alternative 3PL liaison form [i:z]/ [ilz] which, even though described as ‘incorrect’ by metalinguistic texts such as UPNC (1995: 62), was produced at least once in conversation style by five of the nineteen speakers from the Cotentin peninsula, with one speaker using it consistently and to the total exclusion of [il] (cf. Spence 1993: 32; Liddicoat 1994: 241):

(55) [ilzõʃwɛ:zilapʁɔdyksjɔ̃dlɛ] ‘they chose to produce milk’ (MN)

In Jersey, this contact form was realized by one speaker on just one occasion:

(56) [i:zavɛtɛlɒ] ‘they had been there’ (J)

6.4.2 ÊTRE ‘to be’ Unlike standard French, the Norman imperfect tense of ÊTRE has two stems, [e:t] and [t]:

(57) 1SG: (J’)ÉTAIS [ɛ:tɛ] (‘long’ stem) / [tɛ]) (‘short’ stem) (Tomlinson 2008: 91; Liddicoat 1994: 165; Birt 1985: 115; UPNC 1995: 172).

The ‘long’ stem triggers pre-vocalic forms of pronouns, for example:

(58) [il ɛ:tɛ vi] ‘he was old’ (J) (Liddicoat 1994: 165).

With the short stem, a significant difference occurs in Jèrriais and Sercquiais with respect to the standard French pattern, namely that in this (pre-consonantal) context, the stem ‘is treated as if it were a stem with an initial vowel and pre- vocalic forms usually precede the truncated stem’ (Liddicoat 1994: 165). Liddicoat cites the example [iltɛvi] ‘he was old’, which may presumably be interpreted as a Liaison 115 now deleted vowel triggering the presence of a liaison consonant before another consonant. The same phenomenon is documented for Guernésiais (Tomlinson 2008: 91) and for Mainland Norman (UPNC 1995: 172).20 In the Mainland Norman, Guernésiais and Sercquiais data, pre-vocalic pronouns occur regularly before the short stem. In Jèrriais, they are less frequent, appearing only in reading style (Jones 2012b) (Table 6.8).

Table 6.8 Pre-vocalic third person pronouns in Mainland and Insular Norman

3SG masculine pronoun [il] 3PL pronoun [il]

Mainland Norman 13 (0) 11 (3) Jèrriais 0 (11) 0 (2) Guernésiais 13 (0) 4 (0) Sercquiais 8 (0) 5 (0)

(59) [iltɛpaʁti:alekɔl] ‘they had left for school’ (MN) (60) [ilɛ:tɛiʃẽdyðɑ̃lɔtʃypɑsjõ] ‘he was here during the Occupation’ (J) (61) [kɛ̃iltɛɛ̃ptigarsɑ̃w̃] ‘when he was a little boy’ (G) (62) [iltɛləmwɛ:tχ] ‘he was the schoolmaster’ (S)

The ALF confirms that, at the end of the nineteenth century, the short stem was used in this context in all varieties of Insular Norman.21 A mixture of long and short stems is recorded on the mainland, with long forms predominating in Upper Normandy. This suggests that some advergence with French, which only has long stems in this context, may have been occurring on the mainland more than a century ago.

20 Tomlinson (1981: 121) records the pre-vocalic pronoun for the Guernésiais 3SG form but not for the 3PL. Birt (1985: 115) records a pre-vocalic form for the Jèrriais 3PL form, but not for the 3SG. 21 Map 510 (Il fallait le laisser où il était ‘He had to be left where he was’). 116 Chapter 6

6.5 Summary

Liaison is generally triggered in both Mainland and Insular Norman in the so- called ‘obligatory’ contexts identified by Delattre (1966).22 This suggests that, in Norman as in French, it tends to occur when the syntactic cohesion of a group is strong (cf. Léon 1992: 154), supporting Bybee’s claim that frequency of occurrence has an important bearing (2001: 173). However, in the so-called ‘optional’ contexts, a divergence of patterns is apparent, with Mainland Norman, but not Insular Norman, making some liaison in the category of ‘Verb + X’, most frequently with the 3SG of ÊTRE. Some divergence is also apparent when the effects of register on liaison are examined, with Insular Norman usage varying very little between conversational and reading style, but Mainland Norman showing a slight tendency to produce more liaison in the latter. In these contexts, where these patterns diverge, Mainland Norman invariably aligns itself with standard French usage. Advergence with French also seems a likely explanation for the more frequent presence of the innovative 3PL liaison forms [i:z] / [ilz] on the Norman mainland. Thus, Abbau, or the ‘infiltration’ of Mainland Norman by its superstrate (§1.2 cf. Chapters 5,7,8) also seems to extend to its prosodic features (cf. Rogers 1981). As Insular Norman is ‘roofed’ by an unrelated language, its liaison patterns are not exposed to contact influence of this kind. However, it is interesting to note that, in this context, usage seems to have regularized syntactically (cf. Morin and Kaye 1982: 326), suggesting that a particular construction may be acquired along with a specific liaison rule.

22 ‘Determiner + Noun’ was also found to be one of the main liaison-triggering contexts in the dialect of Ranrupt (Aub-Büscher 1962: 37, 39). Chapter 7 Morphosyntax

As discussed in §1.2, the typological similarity between Mainland Norman and its superstrate, French, provides the linguistic context for de-dialectalization via Abbau. Grammatical elements of French may potentially be incorporated into Norman either via the overt borrowing of morphosyntactic surface forms or the calquing of morphosyntactic categories. Weinreich (1964: 64) describes congruent systems with much common vocabulary as one of the main motivations for what he terms ‘grammatical interference’ and Thomason comments that ‘even features that are highly marked or highly integrated into an inter- locking structure are readily exchanged between typologically similar systems’ (2001: 77). With Insular Norman, the typological distance from its superstrate means that structural assimilation of this kind is less likely to occur. Using data collected via the methodology described in §1.3, this chapter examines a number of morphosyntactic contexts where usage differs between French and English in order to determine whether contact affects the grammar of Norman differently according to its (diaglossic or diglossic) relationship with the superstrate. The findings are grouped according to whether Norman shows advergence with French, with English or with both its superstrates. The chapter concludes by considering two possible cases of syntactic drift. In each case, the linguistic feature being examined is highlighted in bold.

7.1 Advergence with French

(i) Past tense usage Metalinguistic works note that Norman maintains the aspectual opposition between the perfect (passé composé) and the past definite (passé simple) which was lost from standard spoken French during the seventeenth century (see §3.1.2(d)). Lepelley (1974: 125, 1999a: 90) attributes this to the fact that Norman adopted [i] as the thematic vowel of first conjugation verbs (< Latin -are) so that, unlike that of standard French, the Norman conjugation is a simple and regular one (cf. Brunot and Bruneau 1905: §712). Analysis of the data demonstrates that Mainland and Insular Norman diverge considerably in respect of the verb form used to express a past definite meaning (Table 7.1).

Table 7.1 Tokens of the past definite in contemporary Norman1

Mainland Norman 4 Jèrriais 468 Guernésiais 193 Sercquiais 46

Whereas Insular Norman makes categorical use of the past definite in these contexts ((1))–(4)), Mainland Norman shows an overwhelming preference for the perfect—in other words, the same tense that is used in contemporary spoken French (Price 2003: 316).

(1) [kɑ̃lɛzamɛʁitʃɛ̃:õatakelafalɛ:zilevnœ̃ɑbʁikbe] ‘when the Americans attacked la Falaise, he came to Bricquebec’ (MN) (2) [bu:ʒiɑsɛ̃tmaðikɑ̃ʒavɛkatɔrztʃẽzɑ̃:] ‘I moved to St. Mary’s parish when I was fourteen or fifteen years’ old’ (j) (3) [ivɑjriʃɑ̃jɑ̃dʒɛrnɛziɛĩ ʒwi:rkɑ̃w̃tlɛtimdɛdʒɛrnɛzi] ‘They came here to Guernsey and they played against the team from Guernsey’ (g) (4) [lafɛrkmɑ̃ʃ itiʃẽ] ‘The matter started here’ (s)

Indeed, the mainland data only yield four examples of the past definite ((5)– (8)), all of which were produced by the same speaker and three of which involve the verb ÊTRE ‘to be’:

(5) [kɑ̃tifymalad] ‘When he was ill’ (MN) (6) [isɑ̃fysyle:batjɔ:w] ‘They left on the boats’2 (MN) (7) [ʃafyœ̃depaʁtəmɑ̃fʁɑ̃se:] ‘It was a French département’ (MN) (8) [kɑ̃isɑ̃fɔ̃si:tdɑ̃:ljɔw] ‘When they sank into the water’ (MN)

1 As the presence of the past definite is affected by the nature of the conversation in each interview, no absolute value should be assigned to the number of tokens recorded in Table 7.1, which serves, rather, to indicate that this tense is often present in Insular Norman but rarely present in Mainland Norman. 2 The 3PL past definite of ÊTRE is traditionally pronounced [fyt] (Lepelley 1974: 130). However, this speaker uses a pronunciation which is homophonous with the 3SG. morphosyntax 119

Contact with French therefore seems to be leading to the disappearance of the past definite tense from Mainland Norman (cf. Hébert 1984: 52), although it still thrives in all three insular varieties.3 The ALF indicates that, in this context, some divergence between Insular and Mainland Norman was apparent more than a century ago.4 It records that Insular Norman makes categorical use of the past definite tense in contexts where this aspectual nuance is being conveyed but that, in Upper Normandy the use of the perfect tense is already advanced in such contexts and that this form may also be found in Manche and Orne. (cf. also Collas 1931: QQCXLI, CXLII, CXLIII, CXLIV, CLXXI).

(ii) Auxiliary usage In traditional Norman, AVOIR ‘to have’ serves as the auxiliary for a greater number of verbs than in standard French (§3.1.2d)(iii)).5 Moreover, Mainland and Insular Norman show some divergence with regard to auxiliary usage with, on the whole, mainland usage being closer to that of standard French (Table 7.2).6 Mainland Norman makes categorical use of ÊTRE ‘to be’ with seven of the intransitive ‘verbs of state’ group that are conjugated with ÊTRE in the compound tenses of French (Price 2003: 345–346) and makes near- categorical use with three others, with only ARRIVER ‘to arrive’ retaining AVOIR to any real extent.7 Insular Norman, on the other hand, makes demonstrably more use of AVOIR, although it is striking that, here too, ÊTRE is near

3 This differs from Falkert’s study of the past definite in the variety of Acadian French spoken in the Iles de la Madeleine (where it is in contact with English). In that study, the tense seems to have totally disappeared (2005: 80). 4 Maps 96 (J’eus ‘I had’); 338A (Son séjour fut bien court ‘His stay was very short’); 360 (Nous crûmes ‘We believed’); 976 (Il partit ‘He left’); 1154A (Nous ne le revîmes plus ‘We never saw him again’). 5 Many Romance varieties conform to a widespread tendency whereby use of the auxiliaries AVOIR ‘to have’ and ÊTRE ‘to be’ becomes levelled to AVOIR alone (Vincent 1982: 91–94). Such levelling has been documented for the French spoken in North America by, among others, Canale, Mougeon and Belanger (1978); Sankoff and Thibault (1980); Falkert (2005: 80); Walker (2005: 195); Picone and Valdman (2005: 153) and King and Nadasdi (2005) and for low-register spoken Hexagonal French by Sauvageot (1962: 139). 6 Using data from the French of Brussels, Baetens Beardsmore (1979: 237) finds that contact can affect auxiliary choice. 7 The so-called ‘intransitive group’ consists of the following verbs: ALLER ‘to go’, ARRIVER ‘to arrive’, DÉCÉDER ‘to die’, DESCENDRE ‘to come down’, DEVENIR ‘to become’, ENTRER ‘to enter’, MONTER ‘to go up’, MOURIR ‘to die’, NAÎTRE ‘to be born’, PARTIR ‘to leave’, RENTRER ‘to come back’, RESTER ‘to stay’, RETOURNER ‘to return’, REVENIR ‘to return, SORTIR ‘to go out’, TOMBER ‘to fall’, VENIR ‘to come’. 120 chapter 7

Table 7.2 Auxiliary usage in contemporary Norman8

ÊTRE AVOIR

Mainland Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais Mainland Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais Norman Norman

Aller 31 (100%) 3 0 (0%) 2 ‘to go’

Arriver 10 (77%) 3 (50%) 1 3 (23%) 3 (50%) ‘to arrive’

Devenir 2 (100%) 1 0 (0%) ‘to become’

Mourir9 12 (100%) 2 (29%) 0 (0%) 5 (71%) 1 2 ‘to die’

Partir 33 (97%) 1 10 (100%) 1 (3%) 1 ‘to leave’

Rentrer 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 ‘to return’

Rester 16 (94%) 2 (29%) 1 (6%) 5 (71%) 4 (100%) ‘to stay’ Retourner 2 (100%) 0 (0%) ‘to return’

Revenir 3 (100%) 1 0 (0%) 1 ‘to return’

Sortir 2 (100%) 0 (0%) 1 1 ‘to go out’

Venir 18 (95%) 5 (100%) 5 (71%) 1 (1%) 2 (29%) ‘to go’

8 The greater number of tokens produced in Mainland Norman is undoubtedly a consequence of the fact that it almost categorically replaces past definite morphological forms with the perfect (cf. §7.1(i)). morphosyntax 121 categorical with VENIR ‘to come’, REVENIR ‘to return’ and PARTIR ‘to leave’ and is also present to a lesser degree with ARRIVER. Such verb-specific variation has also been recorded in Canadian French (King and Nadasdi 2005: 105). The cross-island patterning found in this context is interesting, with all three Channel Islands showing relatively consistent usage: namely ÊTRE used more with verbs of motion (such as VENIR and ARRIVER) than with verbs of state (such as RESTER ‘to stay’ and MOURIR ‘to die’). 9 The fluctuation in auxiliary usage observed with ARRIVER and RESTER (Jèrriais), and the use of the auxiliary ÊTRE with VENIR and PARTIR (Guernésiais) are consistent with the findings of previous studies (Collas 1931: QLIV; Jones 2001: 109, 2008a: 138).

(9) [ʃɛtœ̃namẽamɛkɛtalelɑbɑ:] ‘It’s a friend of mine who went there’ (MN) (10) [kɑ̃w̃ʒeaʁivefaktœʁapaʁi] ‘When I arrived as a postman in Paris’ (MN) (11) [isõparti:purʒɛ:ri] ‘They have left for Jersey’ (J) (12) [ilevnyməvej] ‘He came to see me’ (J) (13) [nu:zavɑjɑlɑjsyno:bɑjk] ‘We had gone on our bikes’ (G) (14) [dʒənsepɑ:djukilavny] ‘I don’t know where it came from’ (S)

The ALF only contains data for ALLER and RESTER in this context. ÊTRE has been used categorically with ALLER across the whole of the Norman territory—except Jersey—for over a century.10 In the case of RESTER, change is more apparent:11 AVOIR is widespread in Manche, although ÊTRE is already categorical in this context in Orne and also in Eure where, according to the Notice to ALF, Norman was already disappearing at the end of the nineteenth century.12

9 In the context of the verb MOURIR ‘to die’, Norman, unlike standard French, makes a distinction between ‘he died’ (action) (auxiliary: ÊTRE ‘to be’) and ‘he is dead’ (state) (auxiliary: AVOIR ‘to have’) (Hébert 1984: 51; ALEN Map 1347 (Se Noyer ‘To drown’). These results represent the ‘action’ context only. 10 Map 32 (Les garçons sont allés ‘The boys went’). 11 Map 519A (Qu’il y fût resté ‘[We thought] that he had stayed there’). 12 The ALF records the use of the auxiliary AVOIR with PARTIR ‘to leave’ for just one data point in Orne and Eure apiece (Map 976, Il partit ‘He left’). However, as past definite forms were elicited in this context in many locations, no significant conclusions may be drawn. 122 chapter 7

7.2 Advergence with English

(i) Age Constructions (Birt 1985: 63; De Garis 1982: 120; Liddicoat 1994: 347) French and English differ in terms of the verb used in constructions expressing age. Compare:

(15) I am ten years’ old (English, ‘to be’): J’ai dix ans (French, ‘to have’)

Although usage is not prescribed explicitly by Mainland Norman metalinguistic sources, UPNC contains the following phrase (with AVOIR):

(16) La drényire (éfaunt) a neuf ans ‘The youngest (child) is nine years’ old (1995: 5).

Insular Norman metalinguistic sources also point to the use of AVOIR with age constructions, although Liddicoat (1994: 348) contains some evidence of ÊTRE for Sercquiais.13 Analysis reveals that AVOIR is used categorically with age constructions in the Mainland Norman data. AVOIR is also frequent in this context in Insular Norman, although ÊTRE is present to a small extent (Table 7.3)—presumably as a syntactic calque of the English construction (cf. Jones 2005b: 168; Fox 2005: 45; §8.3.1).14

(17) [ilɑsɛsɑ̃tɑ�:aʃtœ] ‘he is sixty years of age at present’ (MN) (18) [isõtu:kɑtɹəvɛ̃unɛ̃nɑ̃tʒ̥krebɛ̃] ‘They are all eighty or ninety years of age, I think’ (J) (19) [sitypœdvi:zɑjkɛ̃teɑ̃w̃zɛ�:ʃɛmɑnifik] ‘if you can speak [another language] when you are eleven, that’s great’ (G) (20) [isõvẽtʁɒjɛvẽtʃø̃inpɑ:lpɑ:lpatwɑ] ‘They are twenty-three and twenty-one years of age, they don’t speak the patois’ (S)

13 The Sercquiais sample text included in Liddicoat (1994: 348) first appears in Liddicoat (1989: 700f.), but with a change of verbal form—from the 1PL (in Liddicoat 1989) to the 1SG (in Liddicoat 1994)—and with a change of age—‘three’ to ‘five’. In both cases, the verb used is ÊTRE. 14 The results for Jèrriais confirm that the findings obtained in Jones (2005: 168) via a translation test also hold good for naturalistic data. morphosyntax 123

Table 7.3 Verbs used with ‘age’ constructions in contemporary Norman

AVOIR ÊTRE

Mainland Norman 33 0 Jèrriais 35 5 Guernésiais 15 1 Sercquiais 5 1

Two further points of interest emerge from the analysis of ‘age’ constructions in contemporary Norman. a) The numeral system of Mainland Norman shows advergence with that of standard French in the case of numbers in the seventies and nineties, which now share the base-twenty system of French (viz. ‘seventy’ SOIXANTE-DIX; ‘ninety’ QUATRE-VINGT-DIX). However, all three varieties of Insular Norman retain the traditional Norman base-ten forms (septante ‘seventy’ and neunante ‘ninety’) (cf. Collas 1931: QQ672, 752; Birt 1985: 61; Liddicoat 1994: 238; Tomlinson 2008: 66; see also ALEN Maps 1394 (Soixante ‘Sixty’) and 1395 (Quatre-vingts ‘Eighty’). Data obtained from the ALF suggest that this advergence was already present more than a century ago).15

(21) [lbunumkɑnɛ̃nɑ̃tdɑ:zɑ�:] ‘the man who is ninety two years of age’ (J) (22) [ivɑ̃jriʃɑ̃jɑ̃dʒɛrnɛziɑ̃̃ sɛptɛ̃tʃɛ̃] ‘they came here to Guernsey in (nineteen) seventy five’ (G) (23) [diəznœʃɑ̃:nɛ̃nɑ̃t] ‘nineteen ninety’ (S)

For the numeral ‘eighty’, both Mainland and Insular Norman borrow the French base-twenty form QUATRE-VINGTS. Legal documents produced in Guernsey between the eighteenth and early twentieth centuries contain evidence of a corresponding base-ten form, octante, which is also recorded in the ALF and which may conceiveably have been used in speech in former times, although QUATRE-VINGTS is the only form recorded by Collas (1931: Q671).16

15 Maps 1114, (Quatre-vingt-dix ‘Ninety’) and 1240, (Soixante-dix ‘Seventy’). Cognates of the base-ten forms are also present in dialects spoken in northern France and in Belgium and Switzerland (see, for example, Pepin 2007). 16 ALF Map 1113 (Quatre-vingts ‘Eighty’). 124 chapter 7

In Jersey, a different base-ten form, huiptante, is present (cf. Liddicoat 1994: 238; Jones 2001: 177).17

(24) [ilawiptɑ̃dœ:zɑ̃:] ‘he is eighty two years’ old’ (j)

Although Birt lists huiptante for Jèrriais, he notes that this form has generally been superseded by QUATRE-VINGTS (1985: 63). In the present study, huiptante was only produced by one speaker. b) As in French, the traditional Norman construction used to express that a person is X years’ old is AVOIR X ANS, lit. ‘to have X years’. In the data, Insular Norman speakers often omit the word ANS ‘years’, thereby producing utterances such as:

(25) [ileʃẽkɑ̃tʃẽk] lit. ‘He is fifty-five’ (j).

Such utterances (constructed additionally with the auxiliary ÊTRE) are clearly calques of colloquial English, which does not require the word ‘years’ to be inserted after the cardinal numeral. It was observed that Insular Norman may also omit ANS when AVOIR is used in ‘age’ constructions, thereby giving rise to what might be described as ‘interdialectal’ or syntactically fudged forms (cf. Trudgill 1986: 62–65), which are neither calques of English nor traditional constructions of Norman. For example:

(26) [mɑ̃pɛrɑnɛ̃nɑ̃ttɹe] lit.‘my father has ninety-three’ ‘My father is ninety- three [years of age]’ (j)

(ii) Adjective Agreement a) As standard French and Norman share largely the same system of adjective agreement (§3.1.2e)—although see the case of GRAND ‘big’ below, it is not surprising that mainland speakers generally observe traditional patterns of adjective agreement (see Tables 7.4 and 7.5). Predicative adjectives agree slightly less frequently than attributive adjectives, possibly on account of their separation from the head noun. Gender marking in adjectives is also widespread in Insular Norman although, in all three varieties, the unmarked masculine adjective may occasionally be used with feminine nouns in both attributive and predicative contexts ((27)–(29)).

17 The base-ten form huiptante is also found in parts of French-speaking Switzerland (Price 2003: §179(f)). morphosyntax 125

Table 7.4 Attributive usage

F adjective + M adjective + M adjective + F adjective + F noun M noun F noun M noun

Mainland 78/78 (100%) 68/68 (100%) 0 0 Norman Jèrriais 145/161 (90.1%) 156/158 (98.7%) 16/161 (9.9%) 2/158 (1.3%) Guernésiais 73/80 (91.25%) 107/109 (98.2%) 7/80 (8.75%) 2/109 (1.8%) Sercquiais 16/20 (80%) 31/31 (100%) 4/20 (20%) 0

Table 7.5 Predicative usage

F adjective + M adjective + M adjective + F adjective + F noun M noun F noun M noun

Mainland Norman 37/39 (94.9%) 23/23 (100%) 2/39 (5.1%) 0 Jèrriais 72/78 (92.3%) 64/66 (97%) 6/78 (7.7%) 2/66 (3%) Guernésiais 33/34 (97.1%) 11/11 (100%) 0 1/34 (2.9%) Sercquiais 8/9 (88.9%) 8/8 (100%) 0 1/9 (11.1%)

(27) [ʃtɛø̃ptipɔrt] ‘it was a little [m.] door [f.]’ (j) (28) [mɑfɑ̃mtɛɑ̃gje:] ‘my wife [f.] was English [m.]’ (G) (29) [aʃtɐyʃɛø̃nbwõvɪ:] ‘now, it’s a good [m.] life [f.]’ (S)

The fact that the feminine marked form of the adjective is also used with masculine nouns, albeit much less frequently (30), suggests that the lack of adjectival gender inflection in English may be leading some speakers of Norman to become more indiscriminate in their choice of adjectival form (cf. Jones 2001: 105–107).

(30) [ləbutʃɛtɛɑmɛ̃tʃ i:pjɛn] ‘The bucket [m.] was half full [f.]’ (J)

A similar neutralization of adjectival gender is found in many contact varieties of French spoken in North America (Hull 1956; Conwell and Juilland 1963; Thogmartin 1970; Highfield 1979; Perronet 1989; Niederehe 1991; Fox 1998: 71; Rottet 2005: 251). Weinreich (1964: 39) also discusses the lack of adjective agreement in varieties of Romansh that are in contact with Swiss German. The fact 126 chapter 7 that the neutralization of gender in predicative adjectives is also documented in low registers of French (Bauche 1929; Frei 1929; Guiraud 1965; Gadet 1992: 59) suggests that this development cannot be contingent upon English influence, although it would be imprudent to discount English influence entirely. Since gender is marked elsewhere in the Insular Norman utterance (such as by determiners and pronouns), the lessening of this distinction in the context of adjective agreement could be seen as the loss of redundancy, a commonly- found simplificatory change frequently noted in contexts where speakers are declining in numbers (Dimendaal 1992: 126; Jones 1998a: 64–67, 166–167, 170–176). It could even be speculated that contact with French is contributing to the reinforcement of this distinction in Mainland Norman. No such historically inappropriate gender agreement is recorded for Insular Norman in the ALF.18 b) The adjective GRAND (< grandem) ‘big’ warrants a separate treatment. GRAND was epicene in Old French, but an analogical feminine form (GRANDE) gained significantly in currency from about the sixteenth century (Price 1971: 208; Picoche and Marchello-Nizia 1991: 217–218). According to some metalinguistic sources, GRAND is still an epicene form in Norman (Guerlin De Guer 1901: 156; Lepelley 1974: 109; Liddicoat 1994: 213; UPNC 1995: 32) but other descriptions are mixed. For instance, Birt (1985: 31) states that, in Jèrriais, GRAND is epicene when used attributively but that the analogical feminine form GRANDE is used in the predicative position. Tomlinson’s example [grɑ̃dzegiz] ‘big churches’ (1981: 49)19 seems to imply that GRAND is not epicene in Guernésiais (the epicene feminine plural would be [grɑ̃z]): Collas, however, does record epicene GRAND for Guernésiais (1931: Q311).20 Table 7.6 demonstrates that epicene GRAND still has some currency in all four varieties of contemporary Norman but that, on the mainland, the analogical form GRANDE is more frequent in the context of a feminine noun, presumably as the result of contact with standard French, where the analogical feminine form is obligatory with all feminine nouns. 21

18 Maps 421A (Des pommes douces ‘Sweet apples’); 568A (Avec du fil blanc ‘With white thread’); 1176 (Du sable fin ‘Fine sand’). cf. Collas (1931: QXXIII, XXXIV) for Guernésiais. 19 Tomlinson (1981) does not record vowel length. 20 UPNC (1995: 32) also describes FORT ‘strong’ (< fortem) as epicene in Norman, however no tokens of this adjective are found in my data. 21 Of course, given the findings for in this section, (31) and (33)–(35) could also be interpreted as further examples of the generalization of the unmarked masculine forms of the adjective. It should be noted that the Jèrriais example cited in (Jones 2001: 106) is not, as was claimed, a straightforward case of historically inappropriate gender marking. morphosyntax 127

Table 7.6 Gender with GRAND (attributive) in contemporary Norman

f. noun + GRAND f. noun + analogical GRANDE

Mainland Norman 6 14 Jèrriais 12 1 Guernésiais 5 0 Sercquiais 4 0

(31) [mɑ̃gʁɑ̃pɛʁiʃẽkidvɛavɛdəgʁɑ̃:mẽ:] ‘my grandfather here who must have had big hands’ (MN) (epicene form) (32) [jɑvɛøngʁɑ̃dme:zõ] ‘There was a big house’ (MN) (analogical form) (33) [ø̃grɑ̃parti:de:sɛ̃twɔne:ʃtɛdəmɛ:m] ‘it was the same for many of the people of St. Ouen parish’ (j) (epicene form) (34) [ʃelagrɛ̃me:zɑ̃w̃oho:dlary:] ‘it’s the big house at the top of the road’ (G) (epicene form) (35) [sitɑø̃nfɑ̃miʎdɛkatɹdʒɔnaʃtœrteø̃grɑ̃famiʎ] ‘if you have a family of four children today, then you’re a big family’ (S) (epicene form)

As GRAND is not examined in the ALF it is not possible to determine whether or not the analogical forms found on the mainland are of long standing. In the ALEN, GRAND is recorded as epicene in the expressions GRANDES MAINS ‘big hands’ and GRANDES JAMBES ‘big legs’, both throughout the Channel Islands and also in a large part of mainland Normandy, including most of the Cotentin peninsula.22

(iii) The Subjunctive No consensus exists in metalinguistic sources as to the precise contexts in which the subjunctive is used in contemporary Norman. Accordingly, contexts were examined where the mood was attested by at least one source and where tokens were obtained from at least two different varieties.

22 Map 1399 (De Travers ‘Crooked’). 128 chapter 7

Table 7.7 Use of the subjunctive in contemporary Norman (indicatives in brackets)

Mainland Jèrriais Guernésiais Sercquiais Norman

IL FAUT QUE ‘it is necessary that’ 21(3) 10(18) 10(12) 4(0) POUR QUE ‘so that’ 8(0) 4(4) 0(4) 0(0) Verbs of influence 7(0) 12 (6) 7(2) 1(0) AVANT QUE ‘before’ 2(0) 4(3) 0(6) 2(0) ÊTRE X QUE ‘to be x that’ 1(1) 4(8) 0(4) – À MOINS QUE ‘unless’ – 5(5) – 3(0) Verbs of thinking/believing in the 6(1) 0(8) 0(10) 0(4) negative

(36) [ivafalɛknosɑ̃nɑl] ‘We have to go’ (MN) (37) [puʁkəsɛbibjɑ̃w̃ʃ] ‘. . . so that it [f.] is nice and white’ (MN) (38) [iletɑ�:kəʒəfeʃtʃ ikʃowzavɛkmezafɛ:r] ‘it’s time that I did something with my affairs’ (i.e. put my affairs in order) (j) (39) [dvɑ̃ktytɑ̃nɑʒ] ‘before you go’ (j) (40) [foknuvɑ] ‘we have to go’ (j); [vɑ] is a 3SG present indicative form (41) [aretkəʒmɛtʃønʃɑ�jhɔrdvɔtve:]̃ ‘wait while I put this out of your sight’ (G) (42) [fokʒləjɛ] ‘I have to read it’ (G); [jɛ] is a 3SG present indicative form (43) [foktɑʒɑlɑgalɛri] ‘you have to go to the gallery’ (S) (44) [dvɑ̃kətyvɛ̃dʒ] ‘before you come’ (S) (45) [krɛpɑ:kijavwɛgrɑ̃mõkidvi:zɛlɑ̃gʎɒj] ‘I don’t think there were many people who spoke English’ (S); [avwɛ] is a 3SG imperfect indicative form.

It is clear that the subjunctive still forms part of everyday spoken Norman, although distribution patterns vary (Table 7.7). Of the four varieties, it is Mainland Norman which retains the mood most consistently in the contexts examined and, of the insular varieties, it is Sercquiais. The subjunctive is holding ground least well in Guernésiais, where it is present in only two of the contexts examined, namely after IL FAUT QUE ‘it is necessary that’ and VOULOIR QUE ‘to want that’ (cf. Collas 1931: QQXVII, LXXVI, LXXXVII, CXLIX, CLXXIX; Jones 2000: 186; Tomlinson 2008: 115).23 Similar results are observed by Gadet (1992: 89) for low-register French, by Neumann-Holzschuh (2005)

23 Collas (1931: QCXCIII) also records that, in Guernésiais, the subjunctive is used after POUR QUE ‘so that’ but not after CROIRE ‘to believe’ in the interrogative (1931: QCC). morphosyntax 129 for Acadian French and by Chauveau (1998) for the French of Newfoundland and the islands of St. Pierre et Miquelon. Although the Jèrriais subjunctive is present in a greater number of contexts (cf. Jones 2001: 114), some speakers also make frequent use of the indicative in the same contexts (cf. Neumann- Holzschuh 2005). The findings indicate that contact with English may be leading to a decrease in the use of the subjunctive in Jèrriais and in Guernésiais, although this does not appear to be occurring in Sercquiais. The fact that verbs of thinking in the negative—a well-established prescribed context for the subjunctive in standard French (Price 2003: 366)—do not trigger the mood in any variety of Insular Norman (cf. Jones 2000: 186, 2001: 115; and, for a similar development in the French spoken in Massachussetts, Szlezak 2010: 116), but do so frequently on the mainland may suggest that contact with French may have introduced this opposition into Mainland Norman (cf. Neumann-Holzschuh 2005: 140). Contact with French may also be the reason why no examples of the imperfect subjunctive are present in the mainland data, despite Hébért’s claim (1984: 52) that these forms are well used in the Norman of the Pays de Caux (cf. Lepelley 1974: 127).

(46) [falɛkilalɛapi] ‘they had to go on foot’ (MN, C); [alɛ] is a 3PL imperfect indicative form (47) [ʒatɑ̃dɛkʃɑsɛtʃø] ‘I waited for it to be cooked’ (MN, C); [sɛ] is a 3SG present subjunctive form.

In Guernésiais and Jèrriais, by contrast, the imperfect subjunctive is often used in conjunction with a past-tense matrix verb. As with the present tense, the mood is most frequently triggered in the context of IL FAUT QUE and verbs of influence (cf. Jones 2000: 193, 2001: 115–116).24 Unlike in Acadian French, however, where the imperfect subjunctive is found mostly with common verbs and in the 3SG (Picone and Valdman 2005: 153; Neumann-Holzschuh 2005: 128), the imperfect subjunctive of Insular Norman is produced with a range of different verbs and persons of the verb.

(48) [uləfilõtɑ̃:dvɑ̃kʒ̥əvɛ̃siʃẽ] ‘she did it long before I came here’ (j) (49) [falɛkle:lɔɹisətɹuvi:slɑ] ‘the lorries had to be there’ (j) (50) [lzejkɔltɹɑʃɛknunpɑ:li:spɑ:ləʒɛ:rjej] ‘the schools tried to make you stop speaking Jèrriais’ (j) (51) [ivulipɑ:kle:ʒõvɑȷ̃s̃ e:dɛ̃sdowvde:kurfɹo:] ‘they didn’t want people to come to the dances in short dresses’ (G)

24 The Sercquiais data do not contain any relevant contexts. 130 chapter 7

In Guernésiais, the imperfect subjunctive is also sometimes replaced by the conditional when the matrix verb is itself in the conditional (Jones 2000: 193–199):

(52) [nunkɹerɛpɑ:kilfrɛoʃtø:r] ‘You wouldn’t think that they would do it now’ (G)

The decline in use of subjunctive in contact varieties of French is well documented (see, among others, Piron 1979; Baetens Beardsmore 1979; Gérin 1982; Laurier 1988; Rottet 1995; Brasseur 1997; Chauveau 1998; Wiesmath 2000).25 It is interesting to note that, unlike in some other contexts (Chauveau 1998: 110; Falkert 2005), the imperfect subjunctive of Insular Norman shows no sign of disappearing before its present tense counterpart (cf. Gesner 1979: 38–40). The ALF records the present subjunctive as being widespread in Insular Norman at the end of the nineteenth century.26 However, Map 519A (Nous crûmes qu’il y fût resté ‘We thought that he had stayed there’) does not document the imperfect subjunctive for any variety of Insular Norman: imperfect indicative forms are recorded for Guernésiais and Sercquais and a conditional for Jèrriais. Indeed, in Map 519A, Orne is the only mainland Norman départe- ment where the imperfect subjunctive is a majority form: conditional substitution is widespread in Manche and in Seine Maritime, a mixture of conditional and indicative forms is recorded for Calvados and informants in Eure produce a mixture of imperfect subjunctive, conditional and indicative forms. It is tempting to interpret this as evidence in support of Neumann-Holzschuh (2005)’s claim that dialects may show evidence of usage that used to be current in French prior to its standardization in the seventeenth century.

7.3 Advergence with English and French

Adjective position In standard French, the unmarked position for most adjectives is post- nominal, whereas in English it is pre-nominal.27 Compare, for example:

25 Baetens Beardsmore (1979) sees the loss of the subjunctive from the the French of Brussels as an internal simplificatory development within French which is reinforced by contact. 26 Maps 30 (Voulez-vous que j’aille? ‘Do you want me to go?); 100 (Il faut que nous ayons ‘We must have’) and 518 (Et que nous soyons ‘And that we are’). 27 Standard French also pre-poses a restricted group of adjectives (such as BEAU ‘handsome’, VIEUX ‘old’, PETIT ‘small’, GRAND ‘big, and NOUVEAU ‘new’) together with a few others, such as SEUL ‘only/lonely’, which vary their meaning according to whether they are pre-posed or post-posed (Price 2003: 106–109). morphosyntax 131

(53) Le chat noir (French): the black cat (English)

In Norman, all monosyllabic adjectives and also adjectives of colour are usually described as pre-posed (cf. §3.1.2e)(ii)). The data were analyzed in order to determine whether contact is affecting adjectival position in Mainland and Insular Norman. a) Adjectives of colour In the Insular Norman data, all adjectives of colour are pre-posed.

Table 7.8 Position of adjectives of colour in contemporary Norman

Pre-posed Post-posed

Mainland Norman 0 16 Jèrriais 28 0 Guernésiais 40 0 Sercquiais 6 0

However, despite the claims made in UPNC (1995), no evidence of this is found in Mainland Norman where, as in French, all adjectives of colour are post- posed. Indeed, in the Cotentin peninsula, one speaker explicitly commented on my use of a pre-posed adjective of colour ([dynekafe] ‘black coffee’), stating that the adjective should always follow the noun ([dykafene]). This type of word-order change, with the application of a grammatical relation of one language (French) to words of another (Norman) is highlighted by Weinreich as a common outcome of contact (1964: 30, 37, 38).

(54) [ø̃vɛstɑ̃vludavøø̃kɔlbjɑ̃] ‘a velvet jacket with a white collar’ (MN) (55) [ifɛzɛdynjɛrbœ:r] ‘he used to make black butter’ (j) (56) [tɑɛnrwoʒkot] ‘you have a red coat’ (G) (57) [sɛ:gʁɪ:ʒvœ:] ‘his grey hair’ (S)

The ALF (Map 568A Coudre un bouton avec du fil blanc ‘To sew on a button with white thread’) records only post-nominal adjectives of colour for the data points it examines in the five Norman départements whereas those noted for the Channel Islands are all pre-posed (cf. also Collas 1931: QQ319 and 395 which records exclusively pre-posed colour adjectives for Guernésiais). This suggests 132 chapter 7 that mainland usage may have diverged from its traditionally prescribed norms for more than a century. The ALEN (Map 566 Gelée blanche ‘Hoarfrost’) offers some contradic- tory evidence, recording a pre-posed adjective at various points in northern Manche and Seine Maritime, although at other points in Seine Maritime, and also in Eure and Orne, the adjective is recorded as post-posed. The presence of [bjɑ̃ʒle], a fixed-form compound noun, in Calvados and in southern Manche may indicate that adjectives of colour were originally preposed in Mainland as well as in Insular Norman. The only other adjective of colour to feature in the ALEN appears in Map 695 (Rouge gorge ‘Robin’ [lit. ‘red throat’]), where the adjective again forms part of a fixed collocation. As in standard French, it is usually pre-posed, although in the very south of Manche and in the very west of Orne it may also be post-posed.28 b) Other adjectives When the position of other adjectives in the data were examined, it became necessary to discount monosyllables such as AUTRE ‘other’ and MÊME ‘same’ and also common adjectives such as BEAU ‘handsome’, VIEUX ‘old’, GRAND ‘big’ and PETIT ‘small’. Both these groups of adjectives tend to be pre-posed in traditional Norman and in standard French (Price 2003: 106; cf. Jones 2001: 111–112). Adjectives of nationality were also discounted since, in all varieties of Norman, these always follow the noun they qualify (Birt 1985: 45; Tomlinson 2008: 23).29 The results of this further analysis are given in Table 7.9. The divergence between Mainland and Insular Norman in respect of adjective position is striking. In the Cotentin peninsula, the unmarked position for all adjectives other than the BEAU group is post-nominal whereas in Insular Norman it is clearly pre-nominal ((58)–(61)) (cf. Jones 2001: 111–112; 2002: 154–155).

28 ALEN Map 380 (Centaurée Jacée [the flower Centaurea jacea]) also records pre-posed ‘black’ in an incidental form noted for Jersey (cf. Map 407, Renouée des Oiseaux ‘Polygonum aviculare’ or ‘Common knotgrass’), where the same adjective is post-posed at various locations in Orne, Eure and Calvados). 29 The reason why adjectives of nationality seem to be resisting the Insular Norman tendency towards pre-position is unclear. The fact that post-posed adjectives of nationality occur in well-known collocations such as LA LANGUE ANGLAISE ‘the English language’ may be of some relevance here (cf. Jones 2001: 113–114). morphosyntax 133

Table 7.9 Position of unmarked adjectives in contemporary Norman

Pre-posed Post-posed

Mainland Norman 0 23 Jèrriais 65 13 Guernésiais 27 0 Sercquiais 10 1

(58) [ʃɛtɛɛnvi:difeʁɑ̃t] it was a different life’ (MN) cf. [ʃɛœndɪfʁɑ̃tfɒm] ‘it’s a different woman’ (S); [meʔjale:dɪfðɑ̃ma:wetu] ‘but there are the different words too’ (j) (59) [ʃɛlaparfɛtpɑrejs] ‘it’s the perfect parish’ (j) (60) [ʃejɑ�jtejtykɑ̃ ] ‘it’s a stubborn cat’ (G) (61) [jaø̃ʎɛtdɑ�:laʃɑ�:brʃɛø̃dubʎəʎɛt] ‘there’s one bed in the bedroom, it’s a double bed’ (S)

This tendency is so strong in Insular Norman that comparatives, superlatives and other modified adjectives are also pre-posed ((62)–(66)) (cf. Jones 2002: 154–155):

(62) [ʃɛønpy:fintɛl] ‘it’s a finer oilcloth’ (j) (63) [lejfɑmildəʒɛ:rikipɑ:lɛɑ̃gjejtɛlejpy:famøzfɑmil] ‘the families of Jersey who spoke English were the most well-known families’ (j) (64) [ø̃nasɛgrɑ̃gardẽ] ‘quite a big garden’ (j) (65) [nu:zaveɛnɑmɑdyrivɛr] ‘we had a very hard winter’ (G) (66) [lɛpʏ:gʁɑ̃:gaʁso:ɛfiʎ� ] ‘the biggest boys and girls’ (S)

Evidence from the ALF confirms that the divergence between Mainland and Insular Norman in this context is well-established. Maps 421A (Des Pommes Douces ‘Sweet apples’), 923 (Du Vin Nouveau ‘New wine’) and 1176 (Du Sable Fin ‘Fine sand’) all record pre-posed adjectives for Insular Norman and post-posed adjectives for Mainland Norman (cf. also Collas 1931: QCCXXII). Post-position is, however, recorded for Insular Norman by the ALF with the adjectives AMER 134 chapter 7

‘bitter’, BÉNI ‘blessed’, TENDRE ‘soft’ and PUR ‘pure.30, 31 Of these, only PUR featured in my data, where it was pre-posed by one speaker of Jèrriais (2 tokens) and post-posed by four speakers of Mainland Norman (1 token apiece):

(67) [ʃtɛdyʒy:pyʁ] ‘it was pure cider’ (MN) (68) [ʃte:mle:sœlkave:mønpyðrɑs] ‘we were the only ones who had a pure breed’ (j)

The fact that pre-position of adjectives is becoming increasingly unmarked in Insular Norman can admit two possible explanations (Jones 2002: 154–155). The first is superstrate contact with English, where all adjectives are pre-posed. Indeed, such contact-motivated change could occur in Insular Norman even if pre-position was not initially the most frequent pattern statistically: Heine and Kuteva (2005: 44–62) demonstrate how, under the right conditions, what they term a ‘minor use pattern’ can often become a ‘major use pattern’. The second possible explanation involves internal simplification, whereby two possible adjective positions (namely adjectives of colour and the BEAU group pre-posed vs. all others post-posed) are reduced to just one position (all pre- posed). Of course, since internal simplification of this kind could also potentially occur in Mainland Norman, the fact that pre-position has only become generalized in the insular variety, which is in daily contact with English, makes contact appear to be the most likely explanation here (cf. Posner 1996: 147). However, it may even be possible to speculate that, in this context, superstrate contact might be working both ways, with English influence tipping the Insular Norman scales in favour of pre-position and French influence tipping the Mainland Norman scales in favour of post-position.

7.4 Drift?

(i) 1PL subject pronouns The use of JE as both the 1SG and 1PL subject pronoun (§3.1.2b(i)) is described by Lepelley (1999a: 91) as being ‘très vivant [. . .] dans les patois normands’.32 Standard French makes exclusive use of JE as 1SG subject pronoun and NOUS

30 Maps 37 (Un Goût Amer ‘A bitter taste’); 125 (Eau bénite ‘Blessed water’), 1055A (Une pomme tendre ‘A soft apple’) and 1106 (Du vin pur ‘Pure wine’) cf. also Collas (1931:QQ61, XCVIII, CXXXIV, CLIV, CCVII). 31 For Guernésiais, Collas (1931) records both pre-and post-nominal TENDRE ‘soft’ QCLXII, DOUBLE ‘double’ QCCV, and FRAÎCHE ‘fresh’ (f.) QCCVI. 32 ‘extremely vital in the Norman sub-dialects’. morphosyntax 135 as 1PL subject pronoun.33 In colloquial contemporary spoken French, 1PL NOUS is frequently replaced by the impersonal pronoun ON + 3SG verb: in other words, in everyday spoken French, ON can carry the meaning of ‘we’ as well as ‘one’ (Price 2003: 208) a development which, in all likelihood, represents a simplificatory tendency involving a reduction in the number of distinct morphosyntactic forms within a given verb paradigm (cf. Désirat and Hordé 1988: 145). Examination of this variable focused on whether contact with French is affecting the distribution of the Mainland Norman impersonal pronoun (no) (§3.1.2b(ii)).34 Although contemporary metalinguistic works list JE as the (sole) 1PL subject pronoun for Mainland Norman (UPNC 1995: 60–61) in the present study, this pronoun was only used by a single individual and on one occasion (Table 7.10). Most mainland speakers express 1PL meaning by extending the use of the impersonal pronoun no + 3SG verb. In the Norman of the Cotentin peninsula, therefore, no has a dual function (impersonal/ 1PL), as the following examples illustrate:

(69) [iladmɑ̃w̃desinopʁɛ:ʃɛnɔʁmɑ̃adjɛp] ‘he asked if one spoke Norman in Dieppe’ (impersonal) (MN) (70) [kɑ̃no:knɑlsõilonopʁɛ:ʃfʁɑ̃se:] ‘when our children are there we speak French’ (1PL) (MN) (71) [no:zaynfilno:zakɑtpətjo:eladœ:zime[X]enomadikʃegalwɑ:] ‘we have a daughter, we have four little children, and the second is called [X], and I’ve been told that it is [a] Welsh [name]’ (first and second occurrences 1PL, third occurrence impersonal) (MN)

It seems likely that the use of the impersonal pronoun to convey a 1PL meaning (as seen in (70)) has arisen via a form of syntactic calquing from French

33 The use of JE as the 1PL subject pronoun was common in the spoken French of the sixteenth century (Fleury 1886: 61; Brunot 1967 vol 2: 335) cf. Palsgrave’s comments ‘But were as in comune speche they use to saye: je allons bien, je ferons bien, jauons fait ung grand exploit, and sache lyke, joyning the first person plurell of the verb in to je, whiche is the first person singuler, suche kynde of spekyng is used of none auctour approved’ (1530: 331). Though stigmatized, 1PL JE was widespread in France at the end of the nineteenth century (Flikeid and Péronnet 1989; King and Butler 2005: 177). 34 Despite its formal resemblance, the Norman impersonal pronoun no is not generally believed to be related etymologically to the French 1PL pronoun NOUS (although cf. Guerlin De Guer 1901: 162). Moisy (1886: 94) sees the Norman pronoun as a metathesized form of ON, whereas Lepelley claims that it derives from l’on, with the initial lateral becoming a nasal and the vowel denasalizing (1999a: 88–89). cf. Fleury (1883) and (1886: 65) for a discussion of this point and some useful bibliographical references. 136 chapter 7 whereby Mainland Norman is adopting the ‘French’ underlying grammatical pattern but maintaining a distinct (Norman) surface form (cf. §8.3.2). Examples such as (71) demonstrate how these different meanings of no may contrast within the same utterance.

Table 7.10 1PL subject pronouns in contemporary Norman35

JE ON

Mainland Norman 1 452 Jèrriais 470 212 Guernésiais 7 437 Sercquiais 58 20

Different varieties of Insular Norman show different patterns of usage in this context. In Jèrriais and Sercquiais, although the impersonal pronoun is commonly used to convey a 1PL meaning, 1PL JE is still widespread. By contrast, in Guernésiais, 1PL JE is virtually obsolete, with the impersonal pronoun used almost categorically to convey a 1PL meaning, in a way that parallels Mainland Norman usage (Tomlinson 1981: 93, 2008: 39; De Garis 1983: 322). In the present study, 1PL JE was used—sporadically—by just two Guernésiais speakers, both of whom were over eighty years of age (6/37 tokens [16%] and 1/31 tokens [3%]).36

(72) [ʒavɔ̃py:dfɑ̃] ‘we are not hungry any more’ (MN) (73) [no:zaynfilno:zakɑtpətjo:] ‘we have a daughter, we have four little children’ (MN) (74) [ʒərɑmɑsi:mmɑ̃kwɔzẽɛmɛʒərɑmɑsi:mdɛjpɛlpaskeʒədəmœri:mpɑ:jɛ̃di ʃẽ] ‘we picked up, my cousin and I, we picked up some shovels because we didn’t live far from here’ (j) (75) [avɛkno:zamẽ:dəlasɑ̃bjɛ:kɑ̃nusrɑ̃kõtɹnupɑ:lləʒɛ:rjɛj] ‘with our friends from the Assembliée, when we meet, we speak Jersey French’ (j) (76) [ʒ̥krɛkəʃeʃønaɑ̃jprẽj�søkə̃ ʒədire:m] ‘I think that it was that, a press, that we would say’ (G)

35 To faciliate analysis, all tokens where the impersonal pronoun does not carry a definite 1PL inclusive meaning were classified as ambiguous. 36 For these speakers, 1PL JE is not governed by any considerations of verb or tense. morphosyntax 137

(77) [kɛ̃matɛ̃tmuriʒələramɑsje:m] ‘when my aunt died, we picked it up’ (G) (78) [isɑjvpɑ:tʃ iksɛ̃jm� ɑdir] ‘they don’t know what we are saying’ (G) (79) [mɑ̃pejrɛmenupɑ:lɛtɛrʒuõdʒɛrnɛzje:] ‘my father and I, we always spoke in Guernésais’ (G) (80) [majparɑ̃:puvwɛpɑ:lɐlɑ̃gʎɒjmwɛjʃtɛləpatwɑkəʒəpɑlɛ:miʃẽ] ‘my parents could speak English but it was patois that we spoke here’ (S) (81) [ifɛzɛtɹɒwrydnutɛobʎidʒɪ:datɑ̃dɹ] lit. ‘it was too rough [i.e. the sea], we had to wait’ (S)

This extension of meaning of the impersonal pronoun seems to be an emergent change in Norman which, in the Cotentin peninsula, has almost worked through fully and, in the Channel Islands, is at different stages of progress—being at its most advanced in Guernésiais and at its least advanced in Sercquiais. Although details vary slightly between the ALF maps, the general picture that emerges is that, at the end of the nineteenth century, 1PL JE was usual in all varieties of Mainland and Insular Norman.37 Indeed, in this context, when the ALF records a pronoun with the phonetic form [nu], which could therefore conceiveably be interpreted as the Norman impersonal pronoun, it nearly always accompanies a 1PL verb and so seems more likely to be an example of the French 1PL pronoun rather than an instance of the Norman impersonal pronoun being used as 1PL. ON + 3SG verb does exist in this context, but it is rare. Interestingly, Collas notes for Guernésiais that 1PL ON is categorical for the speaker he interviewed in the south-western parish of St Peter in the Wood as far back as 1931, whereas it seems that 1PL JE is still categorical at that time in the northern and south-eastern parishes of, respectively, the Vale and St Martin (1931: QQXI, XVIII, XIX, LXXII, LXXVI, CXLII, CL, CLII, CLIX, CLXXI, CLXXIV, CLXXXI) (see Map 1.3). However, 1PL JE is also noted alongside [nu] for St. Martin parish (cf. QQCXLII Nous crûmes ‘We believed that’ and CL Nous n’en aurons guère ‘We have hardly any of it’).38

37 ALF Maps 27 (Nous allons ‘We go’); 91 (Nous avons ‘We have’); 97 (Nous n’en aurons ‘We won’t have any of it’); 100 (Que nous ayons ‘That we have’); 360 (Nous crûmes ‘We believed’); 506 (Nous sommes ‘We are’); 512 (Quand nous étions ‘When we were’); 515 (Et nous serions ‘And we would be’); 518 (Et que nous soyons ‘That we were’); 522 (Nous avons été ‘We have been’); 806A (Si nous ne mangeons pas ‘If we do not eat’); 1154A (Nous ne le revîmes plus ‘We never saw him again’) and 1201 (Nous savions ‘We knew’). 38 Collas (1931) records the use of [nu] as an impersonal pronoun in QQLXXI, CLI, CCIV, CLXX and CCIV. 138 chapter 7

The ALEN confirms that JE is a frequently-used 1PL pronoun in all départe- ments of mainland Normandy and in all three Channel Islands.39 Its findings for the Cotentin peninsula and Guernsey are therefore not consistent with the data gathered in the present study and suggest that either this change has pro- ceeded quickly during the last forty years or else that some variation has been missed owing to the smaller sample sizes (cf. Collas 1931 for the same point with regard to the ALF). Taken in isolation, the Mainland Norman data suggest that the extension of the impersonal pronoun to carry a 1PL meaning represents a straightforward case of superstrate contact whereby Norman is calquing a syntactic structure of contemporary spoken French (cf. Heine and Kuteva 2005: 93). However, when considered alongside the Insular Norman data, such a parallel development may point to a possible explanation more in keeping with Sapir’s (1921) notion of ‘drift’, defined by Trask as ‘the curious tendency of a language to keep changing in the same direction’ (1996: 150). Given the physical separation of the Channel Islands from one another and from mainland Normandy, it is unlikely that any ‘dialectic interinfluencing’, as Sapir puts it (1979: 172) has occurred in this context. Although speakers of Insular Norman may often be familiar with standard French, this is usually as the result of schooling (§1.2), which will presumably have imparted normative usage (namely NOUS = 1PL). As interaction between Channel Islanders and native speakers of French is, at best, occasional and unsustained, such casual contact seems unlikely to have brought about structural change of this kind. An explanation in terms of drift, whereby the economy-driven reduction of contrasting morphosyntactic forms in the verb paradigm of contemporary spoken French could also be operating in Norman, may therefore at least be worth considering. A similar replacement of 1PL NOUS by ON is well documented for the French spoken in Acadia (Peronnet 1989; Neumann-Holzschuh, Brasseur and Wiesmath 2005: 489), Québec40 (Seutin 1975: 151–152; Dahmen 1995; Riegel, Pellat and Rioul 1999: 19; Lagueux 2005) and Mississippi (Thogmartin 1979: 115).41, 42 It goes without saying that such developments may in fact all

39 Supplementary data to Map 1360 (Je reçois ‘I receive’). 40 1PL JE has never been attested in Québec French (King and Butler 2005: 177). It is also absent from Cadien although present in other Acadian varieties (Rottet 2005: 218). 41 1PL JE still thrives in the French of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. 42 Rottet (2005) notes that ostensibly 1PL forms such as J’avons ‘we have’ can carry a singular meaning in Louisiana, Québec and Acadia (2005: 218). This does not appear to be the case in Norman. In Newfoundland, verbs ending in the ostensibly 1PL -ONS can also be governed by the pronoun ON and can carry an impersonal meaning (On n’avons pas morphosyntax 139 be influenced by contact from French separately and independently. However, the possibility that they may represent parallel development is intriguing.

(ii) Prepositions: ‘With’ Notwithstanding the descriptions in metalinguistic works (§3.1.2f)), the present study found that, in all parts of the Norman linguistic territory, a single preposition is used to convey all the meanings encompassed in the French preposition AVEC. In the Cotentin peninsula, the form used is (d’)aveu [(d) avø] (197 tokens [118 unmarked, 40 instrumental, 39 comitative]); in Jèrriais, it is avec [avɛk] (202 tokens [172 unmarked, 4 instrumental, 26 comitative]); in Guernésiais, it is dauve [dov] (64 tokens [38 unmarked, 10 instrumental, 16 comitative]); and in Sercquiais, it is [duv] (32 tokens [22 unmarked, 3 instrumental, 7 comitative]). In Jersey, one individual consistently replaced avec by the more conservative form auve [ov], but used this alternative form as a synonym of avec rather than in order to express a different syntactic function. Auve, noted in Jones (2001: 103) as a minority form, is described by Birt (1985: 165) as having ‘largely been superseded by the loan form avec’. In Sark, [atu(t)] was used only once and as a synonym of [duv] rather than to convey an instrumental function. Unlike Liddicoat (1994: 279), the present study found no evidence of the French borrowing avec in Sercquiais.

Unmarked usage (82) [ʒəpʁɛ:ʃdavømafom] ‘I speak with my wife’ (MN) (83) [avɛkmamɛðʃe:tɛtutɑ̃ʒɛ:rjɛj] ‘with my mother it was all in Jèrriais’ (j) (84) [ɑ̃jskabɛ̃ dovtɹepi:] ‘a stool with three feet’ (G) (85) [ʃɛʏpœdɪfisiladvi:zɐduv̥lɛ:dʒɑ̃gjɛrnəzjɛjlɛjdɪfrɑ̃tpɑ:rɛs] ‘It’s a bit difficult to speak to the Guernsey people (because of) the different parishes’ (S) (86) [kɑ̃ivɛ̃atutle:tʃɛk] ‘when he comes with the cheques’ (S)

Instrumental usage (87) [siʁiskdəpjœʁnofeø̃tɑ:davøləfwẽ] ‘if there’s a chance of rain, we make a pile with the hay’ (MN) (88) [ilɑ̃kuv̥rɛlɑmɛ̃tʃ i:avɛkdyv̥rɛ] ‘he used to cover half of it with seaweed’ (j) (89) [nuvejɛpɑ:dvjɛlʒɑ̃pɑrle:kɛ̃:inmɑrʃepɑ:dovde:bɑtɑ�:] ‘we didn’t see old people going round about, they didn’t walk with sticks’ (G) (90) [illɑɑ̃vlɔpɐduvʏmørsɐdbʎɛ̃kjɛt] (S) ‘he covered it with a piece of blanket’

beaucoup de ça asteure lit. ‘one hasn’t got much of that now’, Flikeid and Péronnet 1989). 1PL ON + -ONS is frequently attested in nineteenth-century Louisiana texts, although it is not currently extant in speech (Rottet 2004). 140 chapter 7

Comitative usage (91) [ivnedybudlahʁɑglɑbɑ:api:davøle:bet] ‘they came from the tip of La Hague, over there, on foot with the animals’ (MN) (92) [mevlɑhoravɛkdɛdovreilavɛpɛrsɔnavɛkliitɛasɑ̃tusœ] ‘there I was out with Dad going to collect seaweed, there was no-one with him, he was on his own’ (j) (93) [ilalɛdovsagrɛ̃mɛr] ‘he used to go with his grandmother’ (G) (94) [ivnɛtɑlapwɛ:kduvnu] ‘he used to come fishing with us’ (S)

Although the ALF contains examples of both instrumental and comitative usage, the same surface forms are recorded in each context (Jèrriais: dauve/ auve; Guernésiais: dauve;43 Sercquiais: [duv] / [uv]).44 A variety of forms is documented for Mainland Norman (including avoe, do, d’avoe, avek) but these do not vary according to syntactic function. Simplification seems to have occurred in all varieties of contemporary Norman, which appear to have lost the oppositions described in the metalinguistic works listed in §3.1.2f). In this context, therefore, Mainland and Insular Norman appear to be converging structurally. As in §7.4(i) above, two explanations are possible. First, since both superstrate languages only have one word for AVEC (French avec; English with), it could be that they are both— separately and independently—causing the Norman opposition to be neutralized. In other words, contact with English may be motivating the loss of this distinction in Insular Norman and contact with French may be motivating it in Mainland Norman. Since—coincidentally—the resulting outcome happens to be leading to the same type of simplification within each linguistic system, Mainland and Insular Norman therefore appear to be converging in this context. An alternative explanation would be that a shared ‘internal’ simplificatory ‘drift’ may simultaneously be in progress in all varieties of Norman.

43 Collas (1931: QXVI) records unmarked [ov] / [dov] for Guernésiais. QCXI records exactly the same forms for the instrumental function. However, QQLXV and CXXVII do also note the presence of instrumental [atu] for the south-western parish of St. Peter in the Wood, although not elsewhere. QCLXXII notes that [dov] isused to express the comitative function in all parishes examined. 44 Maps 345A (Marquer avec de la craie ‘To mark with chalk’) and 568A (Coudre un bouton avec du fil blanc ‘To sew a button with white thread’) examine instrumental usage. Map 864 (Je pars si tu viens avec moi ‘I will leave if you come with me’) examines comitative usage. morphosyntax 141

7.5 Summary

This chapter has demonstrated that advergence (Hock 1991: 492; Mattheier 1996) with their typologically different superstrates is causing Mainland and Insular Norman to diverge morphosyntactically. Interestingly, it has been found that, despite undergoing shift rather than structural de-dialectalization, the structure of contemporary Insular Norman is not necessarily always more conservative in structure than Mainland Norman. Moreover, some differences in the mechanisms of language change are evident. Where Norman is in contact with English, morphosyntactic oppositions with no counterpart in the latter (such as gender-marking in adjectives [§7.2(ii)]; the subjunctive [§7.2(iii)]; the preposition AVEC [§7.4(ii)]) are potentially vulnerable and may be lost via reduction. Although such oppositions have not yet been completely eliminated, the data reveal clear signs of change in progress. Where Norman is in contact with French, oppositions with no counterpart in the superstrate are similarly vulnerable and may also become neutralized (cf. the loss of the past definite, discussed in §7.1(i)).45 However, similarity of structure means that it is also relatively easy for elements of French to be incorporated within Norman via Abbau. Indeed, Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 97) comment that a close typological fit between structures of the source language and the borrowing language can result in the borrowing of a greater range of structural features than the intensity of contact might otherwise seem to war- rant. To take a concrete example, using the ‘French’ auxiliary ÊTRE (rather than AVOIR) with a Norman verb-of-state past participle poses no obvious problem of morphosyntactic integration (§7.1(ii)). ÊTRE fits as ‘neatly’ into the syntactic structure of Norman as AVOIR would have done and, accordingly, there is no need for any other part of the Norman structure to be modified. No restriction of function takes place and, since all speakers of Norman also know French, problems of comprehension are unlikely. In other words, although change can, and does, occur via ‘replacement’ of one structure by another in both Mainland and Insular Norman, in Mainland Norman it can additionally occur via assimilation, whereby Mainland Norman becomes closer to the structure of French, its Dachsprache, or ‘roofing’ standard language (cf. Berruto 2005: 86). As a further point of contrast, in the present study, change motivated by dialect contact (Norman—French) appears to have ‘worked through’ further than that resulting from language contact (Norman—English), where more (quantitative) variation is present (cf. past tense usage (§7.1(i)); auxiliary usage

45 As discussed, although the past definite is present in written French, it is no longer present in speech (§3.1.2d)(i)). 142 chapter 7

(§7.1(ii)); adjective position (§7.3); 1PL pronoun (§7.4(i)). It would be interesting to observe whether this situation always holds true in these circumstances or whether these findings are specific to Norman. In the present study, the most fully ‘worked through’ changes in Insular Norman concern the replacement of post-posed by pre-posed adjectives (§7.3) and the redistribution of prepositions expressing the meaning AVEC (§7.4(ii)). Both these developments involve the simplification of two existing patterns of usage rather than the introduction of a ‘new’ one: in other words, the change in progress does not produce a qualitative deviation from the traditional linguistic norm, but merely a statistical one (cf. Heine and Kuteva 2005: 40). Change of this kind has been termed ‘covert interference’ by Mougeon and Beniak (1991: 160) and defined as ‘the decline of a form which has no counterpart in the superordinate language’. This contrasts with cases of overt interference (such as borrowing), where it is possible to observe a qualitative departure from traditional linguistic norms (Mougeon and Beniak 1991: 181–198; cf. Jones 2005: 168 for Jèrriais and Chapter 8 below). Change that does not involve overtly ‘new’ usage is presumably less salient to speakers and can therefore happen more easily. It is noteworthy that all three extant varieties of Insular Norman seem to be displaying similar patterns of morphosyntactic change. True, they share a similar situation of intensive contact with the same superstrate language which has been operating for approximately the same length of time and in similar sociopolitical circumstances. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Channel Islands are all physically separate from one another and speakers in one island have relatively little linguistic contact with those in another. In some cases, it is possible to speculate that any similarity in terms of language change may stem from the fact that, as these varieties of Insular Norman share essentially the same linguistic system, they also share the same ‘vulnerable points’ with regard to English. However, the generalization of 1PL ON (§7.4(i)) is harder to explain in terms of contact alone. In its mainland context, Norman may merely be calquing French syntactically. However, it is unclear why the same development should also be underway in the Channel Islands and, moreover, pre- cisely why it should currently be so much more advanced in Guernésiais than in Jèrriais and Sercquiais. It has therefore been suggested that this development, and possibly also the change in distribution of ‘with’ prepositions, may represent instances of syntactic drift, whereby ‘language varieties that have derived from a common source may evolve linguistically in similar directions as a result of inheritance of a shared tendency to develop in the same way’ (Britain and Sudbury 2002: 210). As Rosenberg finds in another linguistic context, any ‘decline of linguistic and cultural norms clears the way for language change along the lines of systematic and typologically attested (language internal) patterns’ (2005: 235). Chapter 8 Lexis

This chapter examines how the influence of their respective superstrates causes divergence in the lexis of Mainland and Insular Norman. It begins by examining the different categories of loan-words that are borrowed by Norman and the way in which these are integrated. This is followed by a discussion of loan translations and loan shifts. The chapter concludes with a comparative study of ten lexical items, which demonstrates further the far-reaching effects of superstrate contact on the vocabulary of contemporary Norman. The data analyzed in the first half of the chapter were obtained via casual speech.1 Those analyzed in the second half of the chapter were gathered via a lexical questionnaire. Both methodologies are presented and discussed in §1.3. As in other chapters, the linguistic feature being examined is highlighted in bold. Given Normandy’s Viking connections (see §2.1), it comes as no surprise that all varieties of modern Norman contain more words of Norse origin than standard French. However, this does not mean that all Norse-origin words present in French are also found in Norman (for example, vague ‘wave’ and marsouin ‘porpoise’, among others, only feature in the former). Moreover, terms may vary within Norman: for example the Jèrriais word for ‘suit’ ( fa) is unknown in Guernsey and on the Norman mainland (cf. De Gorog 1958; Spence 1993: 17; Lepelley 2010a).

8.1 Loan-words

In Norman, contact forms occur both as what Myers-Scotton terms cultural borrowings (2002: 239), which typically denote new concepts and thus fill a lexical gap (see, for example, (7), (8), (10), (13) below) and core borrowings, which duplicate existing forms in the L1 and which may also occur as ‘nonce’, or idiosyncratic, one-off loans (Poplack, Sankoff and Miller 1988; Sallabank 2013: 96) (see for example (11), (12), (17)). The presence of a borrowing in one variety of Norman does not necessarily imply that the same form will be found in another, even when it shares the same superstrate. For example, the borrowing ticl’ye [tikj̥] (< English ‘teakettle’) is commonly found in Jèrriais but, in Guernésiais, the same object is denoted by the indigenous form caudjère

1 As in Chapter 7, in this part of the analysis Mainland Norman is represented by the speech of the Cotentin peninsula.

[kodʒe:r]. In Sercquiais, the borrowing [skrẽ] (< English ‘screen’) denotes a ‘grain-riddle’ but not in Jèrriais, which uses the indigenous form, cribl’ye [kribj].2 Sjøgren records that, even as far back as 1926, English borrowings were being used in Guernésiais despite the existence of indigenous counterparts (1964: xvii). Mainland and Insular Norman occasionally borrow the same term from their respective superstrates. In some cases, outcomes will differ because the superstrates use different lexical items to denote the object in question:

(1) ‘bicycle’ > [bisikjɛt] (MN) (< Fr. bicyclette); [bɑjk] (G) (< Eng. bike); (2) ‘to be evacuated’ > [evakɥe] (MN) (< Fr. évacuer); [evakyetɑj] (G) (< Eng. evacuate)

At other times, divergence may arise from different integration patterns (cf. Weinreich 1964: 27, 44). In (3), for example, the borrowing undergoes adaptation in Mainland Norman but not in Insular Norman:

(3) ‘kilogramme’ > [tʃ ilo] (MN); [kilo] (J)

Contact can also cause divergence in ‘new’ domains, such as technology, even when the same borrowing strategy is used (Tables 8.1 and 8.2).3

Table 8.1 Norman computer terminology: borrowings

French Mainland Norman Jèrriais English numérique numɛʁik diʒital digital logiciel lɔʒisjɛl sɔftwe software ordinateur ɔʁdinatœ:ʁ kõpjutœ:, ɔrdinatœ: computer mail mɛjl imɛjl email

2 For details of English borrowings in Insular Norman, see Jones (2001: 81–82, 149–150) for Jèrriais; Tomlinson (1981, part 2); Jones (2008a: 106–114) for Guernésiais; Liddicoat (1994: 298– 300) for Sercquiais. 3 Less divergence is present where Jèrriais borrows words from French: brantchi ‘to plug in’ (Fr. brancher), clavié ‘keyboard’ (Fr. clavier), êcran ‘screen’ (Fr. écran). For a detailed discussion of Jèrriais computer terminology, see Jones (2001: 82–84). lexis 145

Table 8.2 Norman computer terminology: calques

French Mainland Norman Jèrriais English toile tɛl ɛðɑ̃ɲi: Web clef de mémoire kjedəmɛmwe:ʁ badʒɛtdəmɛmwɛð memory stick

It is also possible, however, to find the same borrowed form throughout the Norman linguistic territory. For example, reflexes of Latin camera demonstrate the influence of contact with French (as evidenced by the initial fricative): chambre [ʃɑ:̃bɹ] (J, S); chàmbe [ʃɛ̃:bɹ] (G); chaumbre [ʃɛɑ̃wbr] (MN, Thaon) ‘bedroom’ (cf. Spence 1957a: 82). In some cases, the Norman and borrowed forms may exist side by side, either in free variation (g’veux [gvœ:]—[ʒvœ:] (j) < Latin capillos ‘hair’) or as regionalisms qu’vaeux [gvɛw] (High Parishes)— [ʒvɛw] (Low Parishes) (G) (cf. Spence 1960:118; Sjøgren 1964:34).4 Forms may also be differentiated semantically, hence chandelle [ʃɑ̃dɛl] (J, S); chàndelle [ʃɛ̃dɛl] (G) ‘candle’ and candelle [kɑ̃dɛl] (J, S); càndelle [kɛ̃dɛl] (G) ‘icicle’ < Latin candelam (Spence 1957a:82, 1960: 118, 133; Sjøgren 1964:34; Liddicoat 1994:392, 425). Here, the borrowing is used to denote the ‘basic’ meaning of the word and the Norman form carries a more metaphorical meaning.

8.2 Categories of Loan-words and Their Integration

While it is prudent to acknowledge Appel and Muysken’s caveat that so-called hierarchies of borrowability are best seen as hypotheses that encourage further exploration rather than as empirical, quantifiable absolutes (1993: 171), many studies suggest that content words, such as nouns and verbs, seem to be more easily borrowable than function words, such as prepositions and clitic pronouns, whose membership of a structured, closed set makes them more resistant (cf. Whitney 1881; Haugen 1950; Muysken 1981; Singh 1982; Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 74–76; Treffers-Daller 1999: 9; Myers-Scotton 2002: 240–242; Winford 2003: 51). This section examines the different categories of words that are borrowed by Mainland and Insular Norman and how they are integrated linguistically.

4 ALEN Map 1123 (Cheveux ‘Hair’) records the borrowing [ʒvœ] for Sark. 146 chapter 8

8.2.1 Content Words Content words are frequently borrowed in Norman. Nouns are either taken ‘wholesale’ from the superstrate ((8), (11), (13)), or else are subject to adaptation ((4), (5), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12)) (cf. Weinreich 1964: 44–46; Winford 2003: 46–51; Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 183). Verbs are usually integrated into Norman morphologically (14)—(21) and these forms, with lexical morphemes from one linguistic variety but derivational or inflectional morphemes from another, are termed ‘hybrids’ by Berruto (2005: 87), which he defines as ‘forms that arise through the interaction of varieties in contact’ that ‘would in no way occur in the original varieties’ and ‘sporadic manifestations that do not form para- digms’ (2005: 87, 88) (cf. also Matras 2009: 175–187). Such forms have clear links to Trudgill’s concept of ‘interdialect’ (1986: 62–65). In the examples that follow, the borrowed forms are given in bold:

(4) [no:zafɛtʁe:ukattʃ ilomɛt] ‘we went three or four kilometres’ (< Fr. kilomè- tres) (MN) (5) [ideku:vkɔmʃənaœ̃mjode:paʁtʃ ikylaʁite:] ‘that way, he finds out more about the specifics’ (< Fr. particularités) (MN) (6) [ʃeʁɛgjəmɑ̃te] ‘it’s governed by strict rules’ (< Fr. réglementé) (MN) (7) [no:zavɛde:titʃɛ:puʁtu] ‘we had tickets for everything’ (< Fr. tickets) (MN) (8) [ʒəpɑsimɑ̃ɹəutivɛjtœ:sylamɛ̃tʃ i:] ‘I put my rotivator over half of it’ (< Eng. rotivator) (J) (9) [ønvɑkkidɔntɹɛjukɑtgalõ:dəlɛparʒur] ‘A cow that yields three or four gallons of milk per day’ (< Eng. gallons) (J) (10) [dɑ̃:le:vjɛrtɑ�:lsjɑ̃tʃ ikleʒɑ̃aveʃtɛpɑ:de:tʃarpe:ʃedɛjtɛjl] lit.‘in the old days, what people had wasn’t carpets, it is lino’ (< Eng. carpet) (G) (11) [kɑ̃iltɛbeɪbi] ‘when he was a baby’ (< Eng. baby) (G) (12) [illɑɑ̃vlɔpɐduvʏmɔrsɐdbʎɛ̃kjɛt] ‘he covered it with a piece of blanket’ (< Eng. blanket) (S) (13) [kɑ̃ivɛ̃atutle:tʃɛk] ‘when he comes with the cheques’ (< Eng. cheques) (S) (14) [ivulɛaʁdifyzelezemisjɔ̃:] ‘they wanted to broadcast the programmes again’ (< Fr. rediffuser) (MN) (15) [fokʒ̥ətelefun] ‘I have to telephone’ (< Fr. téléphoner) (MN) (16) [pursprɛjele:patat] ‘to spray the potatoes’ (< Eng. to spray) (J) (17) [ʒəstɛrtõɑpɑ:lɛɑ̃ʒɛrje] ‘we start to speak Jèrriais’ (< Eng. to start) (J) (18) [nusɑ̃vɑwɛjtɑj] ‘we are going to wait’ (< Eng. to wait) (G) (19) [imiksile:ʒwœr] ‘they mixed the players around’ (< Eng. to mix) (G) (20) [le:sudɑ:rlandi:rɑ̃frɛ̃s] ‘the soldiers landed in France’ (< Eng. to land) (G) (21) [invœlpɑ:ly:bɔðrɐ] ‘they don’t want to be bothered’ (< Eng. to bother one- self ) (S) lexis 147

Myers-Scotton (1993, 2002) argues that all single-word contact forms are part of the same developmental continuum as codeswitched forms (cf. Thomason 2001: 133), whereas Poplack and Meechan (1998) generally consider them as borrowings since they pattern in the same way as their counterparts in the donor language.5 Unestablished, ‘nonce’ borrowings are not always integrated identically by all speakers. Thus, ‘Normanization’ can increase variation within the speech community (cf. Berruto 2005: 85). The following examples (22)–(25), from Mainland Norman, are typical: in each case, the first term is adapted and the second unadapted.

(22) ‘ticket’: [titʃɛ]—[tikɛ] (< Fr. ticket) (23) ‘to telephone’: [telefune]—[telefɔne] (< Fr. téléphoner) (24) ‘kilometre’: [tʃ ilomɛt]—[kilomɛt] (< Fr. kilomètre) (25) ‘to re-transmit’: [aʁdifyze]—[ʁədifyze] (< Fr. rediffuser)

Differences in the integration of loan-words are commonplace within many speech communities (Thomason and Kaufman 1988: 33; Désirat and Hordé 1988: 194; Wise 1997: 93). However, whereas this variation is often affected by the setting of the speech-event or speaker’s knowledge of the donor language, in Mainland Norman it appears to be less conditioned. The written language will, of course, also be subject to an increase in variation when well-integrated core borrowings start functioning as ‘legitimate’ synonyms of an indigenous word (cf. Jones 2001: 121–122). For example, stèrter ‘to start’ (J) and allouaïr ‘to allow’ (G) are both included in dictionaries of Insular Norman alongside the indigenous forms (c’menchi, permaette) (Le Maistre 1966: 112, 490; De Garis 1982: 4; cf. Winford 2003: 39).

8.2.2 Function Words English discourse markers may be borrowed in Insular Norman, although this occurs less frequently than with nouns and verbs:

(26) [lafɛrmtɛpɑ:bigrɑ̃səʊjavɛpɑ:lapɔsibilitɛdɛgardɛde:vɑk] ‘the farm wasn’t very big so it wasn’t possible to keep cows’ (< Eng. so) (J) (Jones 2001: 120) (27) [ezekolʃtɛlɑ̃gje:səʊkɑ̃irvãjrʃɛlɑweklɑ̃gje:prãj̃ partsylədʒɛrnɛsje:]̃ ‘at school it was English so when they [i.e. the evacuees] came back, that’s when English got ahead of Guernésiais’ (< Eng. so) (G)

5 For a detailed analysis of codeswitching in Jèrriais, see Jones (2005a). 148 chapter 8

Mougeon and Beniak (1991: 198–212) describe the borrowing of the consecutive conjunction so in Ontarian French as an example of core lexical borrowing occurring in a setting of intensive language contact. They suggest that it ‘may serve to symbolize the advanced state of acculturation of bilingual speakers who experience high levels of contact with a superordinate language’ (1991: 212). In other words, the borrowing is used by active bilinguals who speak both varieties equally in a context which Mougeon and Beniak term ‘unpatterned’ bilingualism (1987: 40). This, Myers-Scotton claims, is consistent with her view that the borrowed discourse marker has started out life as a codeswitch (2002: 239–240). Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 74) see the borrowing of conjunctions as evidence that contact is intensifying beyond the casual level (cf. Dawkins 1916; Sitaridou 2013). The greater phonetic and morphosyntactic similarity that exists between Mainland Norman and French makes clear-cut cases of borrowed conjunctions in the former less easy to identify. Indeed, the fact that so many conjunctions are cognates in both these varieties (e.g. MAIS ‘but’; DONC ‘therefore’; ET ‘and’; COMME ‘such as’; POUR QUE ‘so that’; PUISQUE ‘since’)6 probably facilitates the borrowing of others (such as AVANT ‘before’ or PARCE QUE ‘because’),7 and all the more so since, even when they are not strict cognates, many Norman forms already closely resemble those of French (for example, MÊME SI ‘even if’; DEPUIS ‘since’; AUSSITÔT QUE ‘as soon as’ and DE SORTE QUE ‘in order that’) (cf. Clyne 1967; Berruto 2005: 88).8

8.2.2.1 System Morphemes: Two Case Studies Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 97–98) have discussed how borrowing is facilitated between languages with a close typological ‘fit’ (§7.5). In order to investigate whether the greater linguistic affinity between Mainland Norman and French facilitates the transfer from the superstrate of items further down the ‘borrowability hierarchy’ into Mainland Norman more than into Insular Norman, two system morphemes were examined, namely the Norman 3PL reflexive pronoun and the plural definite article after the preposition à (§6.1.1).

6 MAIS [mɛ] (MN)—[mɛ] (Fr.) ‘but’; DONC [dõ:k] MN( )—[dɔ�:k] (Fr.) ‘therefore’; ET [e] (MN)—[e] (Fr.) ‘and’; COMME [kom], [kum] (MN)—[kɔm] (Fr.) ‘such as’; POUR QUE [puke] (MN)—[puʁkə] (Fr.) ‘so that’; PUISQUE [piske] (MN)—[pɥiskə] (Fr.) ‘since’. 7 AVANT [avɑ̃] (Fr.) ‘before’ cf. [dvɑ̃] (MN); PARCE QUE [paʁskə] (Fr.) ‘because’ cf. [ʁapɔʁke] (MN)). 8 MÊME SI [mɛ:mke] (MN) cf. [mɛmsi] (Fr.) ‘even if’; DEPUIS [dedpi] (MN) cf. [dəpɥi] (Fr.) ‘since’; AUSSITÔT QUE [dezositoke] (MN)—cf. [ositokə] (Fr.) ‘as soon as’; DE SORTE QUE [dəsɔʁtke] (MN) cf. [dəsɔʁtkə] (Fr.) ‘in order that’). lexis 149 a) The 3PL reflexive pronoun The 3PL reflexive pronoun of standard French is se (hereafter, s-form). In Mainland Norman it is lus (hereafter, l-form) (Fleury 1886: 63; Lepelley 1974: 113; UPNC 1995: 67).9 The pronoun is also present with the infinitives of reflexive verbs which have 3PL reference.

(28) I leus en vyinent et o leus en vount ‘they [m.] come and they [f.] go’ (MN) (29) Dé de lo, i les veit lus raungui ‘From there, he sees them lining (themselves) up’ (MN) (UPNC 1995: 68)

According to Fleury, in Mainland Norman s-forms may also occur in this context, although they are described as minority forms (1886: 63). UPNC sees s-forms as ‘généralement fautive parce qu’influencée[s] par le français’ (1995: 68)10 but, in fact, these are the only 3PL reflexive pronouns listed for the Pays de Caux in Hébert (1984: 37). Both l-forms and s-forms are noted for Jèrriais (Birt 1985: 79) and Guernésiais (De Garis 1993: 343; Jones 2008a: 119–120; Tomlinson 2008: 105–106), but only l-forms are attested for Sercquiais (Liddicoat 1994: 247). When the statistical frequency of s- and l-forms in the data is compared, a clear divergence is revealed. In Mainland Norman, l-forms are largely absent whereas in Insular Norman, they are frequent and seem to occur in free variation with s-forms (Table 8.3).11

Table 8.3 l-forms and s-forms in contemporary Norman

l-forms s-forms

Mainland Norman 2 26 Jèrriais 8 4 Guernésiais 6 4 Sercquiais 3 0

9 According to Fleury (1886: 63), in the Norman of Cherbourg, the l-form is leur rather than lus. 10 ‘Generally incorrect, because [they are] influenced by French’. 11 Neither the ALF nor then ALEN record l-forms for Norman (cf. ALF Map 869 (Elles se moisiront ‘They will grow mouldy’) cf. also Collas (1931: QLXXXV) for Guernésiais); ALEN Maps 737 (Les poules vont se percher ‘The hens are going to roost’); 1184 (S’asseoir ‘To sit down’) and 1347 (Se noyer ‘To drown’). 150 chapter 8

(30) [insəsõpɑ:ʁakaʃ i:tʃøjœ:] ‘they didn’t return home’ (MN) (31) [nijø̃de:dɑ:ly:maðji:t] ‘not one of the two got married’ (J) (32) [ʃelɑlətɑ̃:kəleʒɑ̃ly:rɛʒwi:] ‘that’s when the people have a good time’ (G) (33) [ilõkmɑ̃ʃɪɑ̃sɛralɛkɒwlepɪ:ɑhõzɑ̃:ilʏ:zɑ̃nali:dɹɑ̃nɑ̃gʎətɛr] ‘they started school in Sark and then at eleven years of age, they went to England’ (S) b) ÈS/AUX In Old French, the plural definite article, LES, combined with the language’s three most frequent prepositions, DE ‘of’, À ‘to’ and EN ‘in’ to give the forms DES (< DE LES); AUX (< ALS < À LES); ÈS (< EN LES). As a result of competition between AUX and ÈS, modern French only retains the former (ÈS remains only in certain fixed expressions such as Docteur ès Lettres ‘a PhD in Arts’). Most Norman varieties only retain the latter (Lepelley 1999a: 88 cf. Moisy 1886: 76; Fleury 1886: 60; Guerlin De Guer 1901: 156; Lepelley 1974: 104; Birt 1985: 17; Liddicoat 1994: 235; UPNC 1995: 20; Tomlinson 2008: 15; GNN n.d.: 10).12 Hence:

(34) Je donne un cadeau aux enfants (Fr.): J’donne un cadeau ès êfants (J) ‘I give a present to the children’.

In Insular Norman, the use of ÈS conforms exactly to the descriptions given in the metalinguistic works cited above (see Table 8.4). On the mainland, however, it is replaced by the borrowing AUX in approximately half of all contexts. As seen above, in the context of conjunctions (§8.2.2), the fact that Mainland Norman and standard French already share the singular forms of this paradigm (AU, À LA) may be facilitating the borrowing of this plural form.

(35) [ʃɛ:tɛpuʁfɛʁpjejzioptʃo:] ‘It was in order to please the children’ (MN) (36) [le:dœ:garsõ:vnejiʃẽdɔnedypɛ̃ejpul] ‘The two boys used to come here to give bread to the hens’ (J) (37) [jɑɛnkɑʃkivɑe:spɛn] ‘There is a track that goes to the greenhouses’ (G) (38) [idvi:zɛ:dʒɔnɑ̃nɑ̃gʎɒj] ‘They speak to the children in English’ (S)

12 In Norman, therefore, ÈS carries both the meaning ‘to the’ and ‘in the’ (UPNC 1995: 22): Ol es és établles ‘she is in the stables’. Lepelley states that his contraction does not occur in some parts of the Pays de Caux (1999a: 88), although Hébert (1984: 31) contains the ambiguous form [az] in a translation of the phrase C’est aux enfants ‘it belongs to the children’. It is not clear whether, in this context, [az] represents a local pronunciation of the standard form AUX (which in this liaison context would be realised as [oz]), or else a local pronunciation of ÈS (which, in this liaison context would be realised as [ɛz]) cf. Barbe (1907: 12), who records the same form for nearby Louviers. [az] is also recorded by the ALF for Seine Maritime (Map 76, Aux autres ‘To the others’). However, as all participants in this part of the survey were from the Cotentin peninsula, this has no bearing on the present analysis. lexis 151

Table 8.4 ÈS and AUX in contemporary Norman

ÈS AUX

Mainland Norman 19 15 Jèrriais 30 0 Guernésiais 25 0 Sercquiais 3 0

Patterns of usage have clearly changed in Mainland Norman, for the ALF records that, at the end of the nineteenth century, ÈS predominates in Manche, Calvados and Orne as well as in the Channel Islands (cf. also Collas 1931: QLXXXVII).13 c) Summary With both these system morphemes, superstrate contact seems to be motivating the use of different surface forms in Mainland and Insular Norman—with the former approximating French usage more closely in each case. The question therefore remains as to the mechanism behind these developments. Although Mainland Norman is gaining different surface forms, the underlying structure of the morphosyntactic system in which these forms operate has not diverged, which makes these cases more reminiscent of lexical borrowing than of the morphosyntactic advergence discussed in Chapter 7. As AUX is not an indigenous Norman form, its replacement by ÈS could be seen as a relatively straightforward instance of transfer from French. The case of the reflexive pronoun is more complex since, on the basis of the evidence provided by the available metalinguistic works, it is not possible to establish a straightforward correlation between l-forms and s-forms as, respectively, indigenous and borrowed. Here, therefore, it can only be, at best, suggested that the forms exist in free variation, that l-forms are considered as more traditional and that, on the mainland, where Norman is in contact with French, s-forms are more common in speech than they are in the Channel Islands. Thus, although studies of contact have shown that ‘there are no discernible linguistic limits to the possibilities for transferring any linguistic feature from one language to another’ (Thomason 2001: 11), the data suggest that, where Norman undergoes influence from its different superstrates, borrowability is

13 Maps 76 (Aux autres ‘To the others’) and 1122 (Jouer au quilles ‘To play at skittles’). 152 chapter 8 likely to be less hierarchical in the context of its related ‘roof’ (French) than in that of its unrelated ‘roof’ (English). Both these sets of data are consistent with Berruto’s claim (2005: 88) that convergence often occurs between genetically related varieties, presumably because the presence of numerous shared homonyms favours the appearance of others. Weinreich comments that ‘it stands very much to reason that the transfer of morphemes is facilitated between highly congruent structures’ (1964: 33).

8.3 Loan Translations

8.3.1 English The syntactic differences between English and Insular Norman make the numerous calques that form part of everyday speech relatively easy to identify (cf. Weinreich 1964: 51; Grenoble and Whaley 2006: 182). In the examples that follow, the calqued expressions are given in bold:

(39) [ʒəpɑ:si:mø̃kupjedəʒur] ‘we spent a couple of days’ (J) (40) [kɑ̃nu:zakatowtʃœnprɔpriete] ‘when we buy any property’ (J) (41) [ɛlebwɔnavɛklɑkɑrt] ‘she is good with the map’ (J) (42) [ø̃gɑ:kavɛptetʒwelɑgamlɑdvɑ̃] ‘a man who had perhaps played that game before’ (i.e. tricked people like that) (J) (43) [jonakikõprɑ̃ãȷ̃pti] ‘there are those who understand a little’ (G) (44) [ʒɛ:tɛsœlefɛ̃] ‘I was an only child’ (G) (45) [ilõŋbu:ʒiapreləprinsɛsəlizəbeθɔpitɑ] ‘They moved it afterwards to Princess Elizabeth Hospital’ (G) (46) [ʒepɑ:o:tʃø̃n] ‘I haven’t got any’ (G) (47) [dɑ̃:le:sɛsɛ̃t] ‘In the Sixties’ (G) (48) [amɑ̃tusɛw] (G) ‘on my own’ (49) [wiʃe:tɛ] ‘Yes, it was [indeed]’ (G) (50) [dʒənsɛpɑ:tʃɪkilɑ̃tɑ̃] ‘I don’t know what he means’ (S) (51) [dʒədvi:zɛkɑzɪpɑ:lɑ̃gʎɒjɑ̃tut] ‘I hardly spoke English at all’ (S) (52) [ʃɛʃənɑkɪgaʁdɛləpatwejɑ̃nalɑ̃] ‘that’s what kept the patois going’ (S) (53) [dɛ:ʃɑ:ɛdɛ:ʃɑ̃:� dəpɛʁsɒ:wn] ‘hundreds and hundreds of people’ (S) (54) [ʃɛdɪfrɑ̃:mɒ:wkɑ̃tɑ̃:dlamɛ:mʃɒwz] (S) ‘they are different words that mean the same thing’ (S)

Prepositions and adverbs are often calqued when they serve as components of a phrasal verb (cf. Jones 2001: 125–126, 2002: 153–154, 2008a: 110–111). In the examples that follow, the calques are given in bold: lexis 153

DANS ‘in’14 (55) [ʒy:mde:kõvɛrsɑsjo�:dɑ̃:lpatwɛj] ‘we had conversations in patois’ (J) (56) [dɑ̃:milwitʃɑ̃:sɛsɑ̃twit] ‘in 1868’ (J) (57) [dɑ̃:sɛχ] ‘in Sark’ (J)

HAUT ‘up’15 (58) [ibɑjiɑho:iɹetajəɹi] ‘he gave up, he retired’ (G) (59) [vlɑtulɛtɑ̃:ɛɑhaw] ‘that’s all, time’s up’ (G) (60) [mɛtɑtɛ:tɑho:] ‘lift your head up’ (G)

POUR ‘for’16 (61) [ʒərɛsti:mpurønotkatɹuʃẽʒur] ‘we stayed for another four or five days’ (J) (62) [inɑpɑ:pejɛpurʃyvijɑʒlɑ] ‘he hasn’t paid for that trip’ (J) (63) [ilɑdmɑ̃dɛpurdʒodʒ] ‘he asked for George’ (J)

BAS ‘down’17 (64) [silvøpɑ:tejkuteilmɛləfəunbɒ:] ‘if he doesn’t want to listen to you he puts the phone down’ (J) (65) [tynpøpɑ:ʃɑ:tʃ iø̃grɑ̃bwejbɒ:] ‘you can’t shake a big tree down’ (J) (66) [dɔmɑʒdɛe:tɔbjiʒidmɛtdymõddəmɛ:mbɒ:] ‘it’s a pity to have to lay people like that off’ (J) (67) [ʒəvitwɔ:le:pumjɛrbɒ:] ‘I saw all the apple trees down’ (J)

The adverb HORS (with a feminine form horte) is used to calque the English adverb ‘out’, but can additionally convey the meanings ‘outside the island’, ‘finished’, ‘gone’, and even ‘dead’ (cf. Birt 1985: 96–98):

(68) [ʒɛte:mhɔrtʃ ikbɔrdawt] ‘we were out of the island somewhere else’ (J) (69) [isõhɔrtɑly:kwɔʃi] ‘they [i.e. the hens n.f] are outside sleeping’ (J) (70) [ilavelejsisɑ̃ʃapehɔr] ‘he had left his hat outside’ (J) (71) [le:bwejtɛtuhɔr] ‘the trees were all down’ (J) (72) [isõhɔraʃtø] ‘they are dead now’ (J) (73) [nu:ze:tɛkɔpɑjhɔrdetu:tlezi:l] ‘we were cut off from all the islands’ (G) (74) [tʃikʃawzdɑ�:lɑmezaŋkieɑstɪtʃɛhorɛnunpøpɑ:pɑ:sɑj] ‘something that is in the house and that is sticking out and we can’t go past’ (G)

14 For examples of DANS ‘in’ as a calque in Guernésiais, see Jones (2002: 153, 2008a: 111) 15 cf. I fao gardai hao lé Guernesiais ‘We must keep up Guernesiais’ (Sallabank 2013: 127). 16 For examples of POUR ‘for’ as a calque in Guernésiais, see Jones (2002: 151–152, 2008a: 110). 17 For examples of BAS ‘down’ as a calque in Guernésiais, see Jones (2002: 152–153, 2008a: 110). 154 chapter 8

(75) [ʒəlmɛtrejiʃɑ̃j̃hɔrdəvɔtve:] ‘I’ll put it here out of your way [lit. sight]’ (G) (76) [dʒəswɪtʃhɔχ] ‘I switch out’ [the light] (S) (77) [otʁəmɑ�issɑhɔʁfinɪ] ‘otherwise it [the language] will be gone, finished’ (S) (78) [aʃtøilɛhɔr] ‘now he’s dead’ (S) (79) [njɑpɑ:grɑ̃dmɑ̃dmõ:disõtu:hɔr] ‘there aren’t many people [who speak Sercquiais] they are all dead’ (S)

Of course, Insular Norman may occasionally calque French, rather than English, expressions. When this occurs, integration strategies sometimes lead to a change in surface structure. For example, because of the tendency to pre- pose adjectives of colour in Jèrriais (cf. §§3.1.2e)(ii); 7.3(a)), the French word cuivre jaune ‘brass’ is calqued as jaune tchuivre.

8.3.2 French The closer linguistic affinity between the structures of Mainland Norman and French makes calques less easy to identify. They can, for example, take the form of an idiomatic expression whose component parts are adapted to Norman phonotactics, or else be replaced by French cognates (80)—(83). However, where cognates do not share the same meaning, an alternative Norman form may be substituted (cf. (84), where the French verb tirer is translated idiomati- cally as halaer [hʁale]/[hale] since the Norman cognate tiraer [tiʁe] traditionally means ‘to displace’ or ‘to move’, (Marie 2012: 332). In the examples that follow, the calqued expressions are given in bold:

(80) [aleʔɑ̃kojø̃n] ‘let’s have another one’ (Fr. encore un) (MN) (81) [lapɔʁtefʁœme:akje] ‘the door is locked’ (Fr. fermer à clef) (MN) (82) [vu:zalɛdɑ̃zœ̃kjɔwotfɛjʔjavɛpjɛ̃dəpti:kmɛ̃:puʁkupe] ‘if you went [lit. ‘go] into a field, in former times, there were lots of little paths in order to take a short cut’ (Fr. plein de [familiar]) (MN) (83) [ilɑpʁilapjɛʃ] ‘he replaced him’ (Fr. prendre la place) (MN) (84) [hʁalɛləpɔʁtʁɛ] ‘to have one’s photo taken’ (Fr. tirer le portrait) (MN).

8.4 Loan Shifts

Formal similarity between a word of English and Insular Norman can sometimes lead to the latter extending its meaning to encompass that of the English term: in other words, semantic rather than lexical borrowing occurs (Weinreich 1964: 48). This phenomenon is termed ‘loan shift’ by Appel and Muysken (1993: 165) and is considered by Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 76, 90) to be an lexis 155 example of intensive structural contact, indicating that speakers of the bor- rower language are under reasonably intense cultural pressure from another speech community (cf. Li 1983: 43–45). In the examples that follow, the loan shift is given in bold and the traditional term in parentheses:

(85) [ulapɑ:seavɛkɒnəz] (rêussi) ‘She passed with honours’ (pâsser = ‘to pass’ [movement or time] Le Maistre 1966: 390); (Jones 2001: 127) (J) (86) [isõbɛ̃sypɔrtɛ:] ‘They are well supported’ (supporter = ‘to bear, to endure’, Le Maistre 1966: 493); (Jones 2001: 127) (J) (87) [ʒetɛrʒusypɔrtɑjlɛtimdəweɪlz] ‘I’ve always supported the Welsh team’ (lit. ‘the team of Wales’ (supportaïr = ‘to bear, to endure’, De Garis 1982: 283) (G) cf. sht ologe travail pas ‘That clock doesn’t work’ (travailler ‘to work’—in the sense of employment, labour rather than of ‘to function’ (Sallabank 2013: 127).

8.5 Lexical Variation in Contemporary Norman

This section provides a brief comparison of ten lexical items in the five varieties of Norman under study. It outlines further instances of where superstrate contact is causing divergence within mainland and insular varieties. In the interests of cross- and inter-dialectal comparison, the terms examined are drawn from the PLN survey (§1.3). Where appropriate, these are also discussed in relation to the ALF and the ALEN.

(i) PETIT CHEMIN CREUX (ALEN 489) (a small lane between fields) Reflexes of CHEMIN (< camminum) are found throughout mainland Normandy. However, the longer-standing contact with French in the Pays de Caux is revealed by the fact that, whereas in the Cotentin peninsula, all forms recorded are indigenous (as evidenced by the lack of initial palatalization), in the Pays de Caux, the same forms occur alongside French borrowings (and display initial palatalization, see §3.2(2)). The borrowed form is also recorded for the Pays de Caux by the ALEN, to the exclusion of the indigenous form, and forms with no palatalization are also recorded in Jersey. The Cauchois form CAVÉE, produced by all Pays de Caux informants, and bearing the characteristic Pays de Caux [ɛj] ending (corresponding to standard French orthographic –ée [e], see Schortz 1998: 56) is widespread as a Norman borrowing in the regional French of this area (Lepelley 2010b: 43) 156 chapter 8

Table 8.5 PETIT CHEMIN CREUX in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

PETIT kɒʃ kavɛj kmẽ (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) kɑʃ (P, F, T, C, ʃmɛ̃ CHEMIN kaʃ kavej kmɛ̃ (M) M, V) ʃmẽ CREUX kmɛ̃ sɑ̃t ɑ panje kɑʃ (T) kaʃ (C, V) ʃmẽj kmine ʃmẽ ʃmẽ (P, F, c, Sv) kmɛ̃ ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - alf: - ALEN: kɒʃ ALEN: ʃmẽ vɛʁ ALEN: kmẽ d hɛrne (O) ALEN: k’ɛrjɛr (C) alen: - k’ɛʁɛ ʃmẽ ɛʁby kmẽ d hɛrnɛi (Τ) kɒʃ (f, t, c, Sv) ʃmẽ t travɛʁs tʃiljɛð (O) tʃiðjɛð (O)

(ii) NAPPE (ALEN 989) (‘tablecloth’) As attested in the ALEN, doubliyi is present in all varieties of Insular Norman and in most varieties of Mainland Norman (cf. Brasseur 1990: 69). It is, however, much better recalled in the archipelago. On the mainland, the French borrowing nappe is commonly adopted—a form which was recorded by the ALEN for the Pays de Caux over thirty years ago but which, in the present study, was only recalled by one Cauchois informant.

Table 8.6 NAPPE in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

NAPPE dublije dublije dubliji dubljɛ (P, F, C, T, dubʎi dubji tapi (O, J, L, T, M, H, B) Sv, V) dubli dubʎi nap dublijɛ (J) dubjɛ (C) dublije nap tubli (L) dublɛ (T) kuvɛʁtyð tablijɛ (O) ALF: - ALF: - ALF:- ALF: - ALF: - ALEN: dubji ALEN: dublije ALEN: dublijɛ (m) ALEN: dubijɛ ALEN: dubʎi nap dubji (O) (T, C) dubliji (O, t, m) lexis 157

(iii) IL PLEUT À VERSE (ALF 1035, ALEN 547) (‘it is raining heavily’) Although expressions based on the verb VERSER ‘to pour’ are commonly heard throughout Normandy (cf. standard French il pleut à verse ‘it is pouring with rain’), the influence of superstrate contact is also apparent. One example is the Guernésiais expression ‘it is raining bucketfuls’ i tcheit a bouquetaies (G), where bouquetaies < English ‘bucket’ (cf. i plleut à siâos (C, PdC), a calque of standard French il pleut à seaux). The Guernésiais expression ch’est coum des cats qui tcheieint ‘it is as if cats are falling’ also seems to have links with the English idiom ‘it’s raining cats and dogs’. Contact has led to the use of the French 3SG pronoun IL in mainland expressions such as il achâne ‘it is (raining) furiously’ (C) and il délache ‘it is coming undone’ (C). According to Bourdon, Cournée and Charpentier (1993: 15, 107) the Norman neuter demonstrative pronoun cha is more traditional in both latter contexts. However, much of the variation observed between Mainland and Insular Norman has no obvious superstrate influence. Colourful expressions such as i tcheit des guenaons ‘it is falling monkeys’ (G, S); i plleut des chàndelles ‘it is raining candles’ (G); i d’luge ‘it is flooding’ (J) and i plleut coum des vaques qui pissent ‘it is raining like urinating cows’ (C, PdC) are recalled readily, even by speakers in the Pays de Caux who claim not be able to engage in sustained conversation in Norman. The Cauchois expression j’allouns en avaer ‘we are going to have some [rain]’ is noteworthy since it contains what may be an example of fossilized 1PL JE (see §§3.1.2b(i); 7.4).

Table 8.7 IL PLEUT À VERSE in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

IL PLEUT ipjøkɔmvakkipis i plœ(:) i pjø a vɛrs (T) ɑ vɛrs (P, T, C, i vɛʁsə d pʎɪ: À VERSE i pjødezavɛʁs i va plœvi: i vɛrsɛ d pji: M, V) i dɛvɛrsjɛ d pʎɪ: i pjøasjo: ʒalɔ̃ɑ̃nave (O, J, M, H) ɑ vɑrs (P, T, C, Sv) i pjɐwt il aʃɑ:n ipløkɔmvaʃkipis i vɛrsɛ d pji: (O) ɑ vɛs (F, C, V) i tʃɛ dɐ: gɛnɛ̃: ilaʃɑ:ndəpjø ipløkɔmvakkipis i vɛrs d la pji: (J) ɑ vɑs (P, F, T, C) ʃɑaʃɑ:ndəvɛʁsœ i pløavɛrs i tʃɛ d la pji: a i ɑ̃ tʃɛ (P) ʃɑaʃɑndəpjø ipløasjɔ:w vɛrs (O, J, T) i ɑ̃ tʃɛ ɛ̃ tɔrɔ̃ (P, C) ʃɑdelaʃ i tʃɛ a vɛrs (B) i ɑ̃ tʃɛ ɛ̃ tɔraw (P) ʃɑaʃɑ:n i ɑ̃ vɛrs (L, M, H) ALF: i pʎœ: ALF: i plœ(:) ALF: i pʎɐ:t il pjœ: ALEN: i pjø a tɔʁɑ̃ ALEN: ʃatʃɑ̃asjɑw ALEN: i pʎɐt ɑ ʃa laʃ ʃatʃɑ̃aflo vɛrs ʃatœ̃bɛʁjẽ il ɑ̃ vɛrs ʃatœ̃basjɑw 158 chapter 8 table 8.7 IL PLEUT À VERSE (cont.)

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

ʃa dɛpwel la pi: avɛrs (T) i ɑ̃ tʃɛ ɛ̃ tɔrɔw (T, C) i vɛʁs i tʃɛ d la pi: i pjø a torɔ�: (V) (O, L, T, M) i tʃɛ de: genɛ̃: i tʃɛ d la pji: (O, H) (P, T, C, M) i dly:ʒ (H) ʃɛ la de: genɛ:̃ ki i ɑ̃ dly:ʒ (O, M) tʃɛjs (C) i tʃɛ ɑ buktɑ: (F, C, Sv) i pjø de: bʊktɑ: (C) i pjø de: ʃɑ̃daj (C) ʃɛ kɔm de: kɒ: ki tʃɛ (T) ALF: i pjø: ALF: i pjø: ALEN: il ɑ̃ tʃɛ ɑ ALEN: i pjø a bɒ (O) buktɒ (v) i vɑrsɛ d pji (b) i pjø a vɛrs (c) i dlyʒ ɛd pji (O) i pjø a vɑrs (f, t) il ɑ̃ tʃɛ ɑ tɔrɔ̃ (f, t)

(iv) GROSEILLE(S) ROUGE(S) (ALF 670 Groseille, ALEN 370 Groseilles à grappes) (‘redcurrants’/ ‘a bunch of redcurrants’) As recorded in the ALEN, the term gradile is generally used throughout Normandy, although its synonym grade, present in both the Cotentin peninsula and the Pays de Caux, is not found in the Channel Islands.18 The English borrowing (rouoge) corînthe (< currant) is frequently used in Jèrriais and Guernésiais, although absent from the ALF, which records grouaîsile for all three islands (and exclusively for Sark and Jersey). Contact with English also

18 cf. Lepelley (2010b: 85–92) for the presence of these terms in the regional French of Normandy. Brasseur (1990: 90) notes that grade is not used in the west of the Pays de Caux. lexis 159

Table 8.8 GROSEILLE(S) ROUGE(S) in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

GROSEILLE(S) gʁadil gaʁd rwoʒ gradil ruʒ gradil rudʒ gradɪl ROUGE(S) gʁad gaʁdɛl (O, J, T, H) (P, T, C, Sv) ʁudʒ gradɪl gʁadɛl rwoʒ gradɪl (O) rwowʒ gradil (V) ruʒ gradɪl gʁadɪl ruʒ gradil (M) ruʒ kurɛ̃t (P) rɔjdʒ gradɪl gad rwɔʒ gradil (J) ruʒ kurɑ̃ȷ�nt (P, F) rwoʒ kɔrẽt (O) ruʒ kurɛ̃t (P, C) rwoʒ kɔrœ̃t (L) rwowʒ kurɛ̃ȷ̃t (C) rwɔwʒ kurɛ̃ (C) ALF: grwe:zil ALF: grozɛ:j groze:l ALF: grwe:zi:l ALF: grɑ:dil ALF: grwɛ:zil grwe:ze:l (obsolete form) grwe:zil ALEN: gʁɛdil ALEN: gaʁd ALEN: grɒdil ALEN:grɑdi:l (t) ALEN: gʁadɛl (j) grɔwezejl gad grɒdiʎ (O) grɔweze:l

seems a likely reason for the inclusion of the specifier ‘red’ in this context by speakers of Insular Norman (rouoge corînthe, rouoge gradile).19

(v) SECOUER LE POMMIER (ALEN 237) (‘to shake the apple tree’) The English borrowing châtchi (< ‘to shake) is attested in the ALEN for all varieties of Insular Norman and also by Métivier (1870: 123) and Sjøgren (1964: 166) for Guernésiais. It is the only insular form elicited for ‘to shake’ in the present study, despite the fact that lochi is noted in the ALEN for Jersey and that dictionaries and glossaries of Insular Norman contain many indigenous synonyms, including louochi (Spence 1960: 156; Le Maistre 1966: 328), bachol- ler, bachoter, êcraûler, tréheuler, tréholer, êbranler, vanner (Société Jersiaise 2008a) and élotcher (Métivier 1870: 196; Sjøgren 1964: 166; De Garis 1982: 244). Unsurprisingly, the English borrowing is unknown in mainland Normandy, where lochi/locher predominates in the north and braunlaer and sécouaer in the south. Locher is also present as a borrowing from Norman in the regional French of Manche and Calvados (cf. Brasseur 1990: 109; Bulot 2006: 203; Lepelley 2010b: 109–110).

19 The present study found no evidence of [gr(ɔ)wez(e)il], the sole form noted for Sark in the ALF and ALEN. All Sark informants volunteered the forms [gradil] or [gradɪl], and understood [grɔwezil] to mean ‘gooseberry’. 160 chapter 8

Table 8.9 SECOUER LE POMMIER in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

SECOUER lɔʃi loʃe ʃɑ:tʃi (O, J, L, T, ʃɑ:tʃɛ (P, F, T, C, M, ʃɑ:kjɪ LE POMMIER loʃi M, H, B) Sv, V) ʃɑ:tʃjɪ ʃɑ:tʃe (P, C) sɑ:tʃjɪ sɑ:tʃɛ (V) ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALEN: loʃi ALEN: loʃe ALEN: ʃɒk’i (J) ALEN: ʃɑkjɛ (T) ALEN: ʃɒk’i ʃok’i (O) lwɔʃi (O)

(vi) ASSAISONNER LA SALADE (ALEN 1021) (‘to season the salad’) In Insular Norman, the most commonly found term for ‘to season the salad’ is saîsonner which is, in all likelihood, a borrowing from English. This term is unknown on the mainland, where, as the ALEN records, both assaisonner and affaiter are attested (for the latter, see also Bulot 2006: 201; Yard 2013 [1939]).20 Affaiter also occurs as a borrowing from Norman in the regional French of Upper Normandy (Lepelley 2010b: 14). The ALEN Sercquiais form [drɛʃi], presumably also an English borrowing (< to dress) was not recorded by the present study.

Table 8.10 ASSAISONNER LA SALADE in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

ASSAISONNER afeti afete sɛjzunɛ (J) sezunɑj sɛzunɐ LA asɛzune asɛzɔne sɛzɔnɛ (J, H) (P, T, C, Sv) met dy SALADE pʁepaʁe sɛjzɔnɛ (H) sejzunɑj (C) sej e dy asɛjzɔnɛ (J) salɑj (T) pwɛjvʁ asezɔnɛ (O) pɛjvrɛ ɛ salɛ (O, J) mɛt dy pejv e dy sɛl (O)

20 Brasseur (1990: 14) claims that affaiter is unknown in the Norman of the Pays de Caux. lexis 161

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALEN:asɛzunœ ALEN: afete ALEN: asezonɛ (O) ALEN: ALEN: afɛte asezunɛ (t) asɛzunɒj drɛʃi asɛzone asezunøj (m) (t, v) afʁite

(vii) DÉBARRAS (ALEN 965) (‘somewhere to store junk’) Borrowings are often used for DÉBARRAS in both Mainland and Insular Norman, the most widespread being, respectively, French cagibi ‘store cup- board’, with fourre-tout ‘holdall’ also common in the Pays de Caux, and English shed, a form also recorded for Sark and Guernsey in the ALEN. Of all the Channel Islanders, Jèrriais speakers were most likely to produce an indigenous term, using both the locative expression souos lé dgré ‘under the stairs’ and the nominal form souosdgré, which is also recorded in the ALEN. The other Jersey ALEN form, èrtithe-tout (a small storeroom) is still heard in north-western Jersey (cf. Le Maistre 1966: 221; Société Jersiaise 2008a: 135). The related form ratire is common in the Cotentin peninsula and is also present as a borrowing in the regional French of Manche and Calvados (Brasseur 1990: 150; Lepelley 2010b: 148).

Table 8.11 DÉBARRAS in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

DÉBARRAS kaʒibi kaʒibi swɔdgre (O) ʃɛd (M, C, V) ʃɛjd ʁati:ʁ fuʁtu swɔ: le: dgrɛ: (O, J, M) ʃnɑ (P, F) kasty ʁakwɑ̃ swo: le: dgre: (O) puti (P) swɔ: lɛ: grɛ: (L, T, H, B) swo: le: grej (O) ɛrtiðtu (O) ʃɛd (O) ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALF: - ALEN: ALEN: ʁatiʁtu ALEN: swodgrɛ (O, j, m) ALEN: ʃɛd (v) ALEN: ʃɛd kastu̞ ʁibwi rtiðtu (O, j) staɔr (t, c) ʁatiʁtu̞ kabylo rtijtu (j) ʁatʁivɛʁmɛn 162 chapter 8

(viii) JONQUILLE (ALEN 423) (‘daffodil’) The ALEN records distinct terms for JONQUILLE in Jèrriais (g’zette) and Guernésiais (pouorriaon). Although the local term is still well known in Jersey, it was produced by a minority of informants in Guernsey where, as in Sark, the English borrowing daffodil predominates. The Mainland Norman term (pourioun) is better recalled in the Pays de Caux than in the Cotentin peninsula, where the French borrowing jonquille is widespread, although the ALEN indicates that pourioun may be heard to the north and south of the area investigated in the present survey (cf. Brasseur 1990: 140; Yard 1939 [2013]: 295). Lepelley (2010b: 139) confirms the presence of pourioun as a borrowing in the regional French of Manche, Calvados and Orne.

Table 8.12 JONQUILLE in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

JONQUILLE ʒɔ�:ki pɔʁjõ gzɛt purjaw (P) ʒɔ�:tʃ il pɔjõ (O, J, L, T, M, purjɛ̃ (P, C) — H, B) ALF: - ALF: - ALF:- ALF: - ALF: - ALEN: ʒɔ̃kil ALEN: pojõ ALEN: gzɛt ALEN: pwɔrjɔ̃ (V) ALEN: - ponjõ (O, M) pwɔrjɛ̃ (P, F, T, Sv) pojɑw

(ix) (Prendre) LE GOÛTER (ALF 657 cf. ALEN 1018 collation du matin) (‘to have a snack’) The mid-morning snack eaten in the fields is generally known as collatioun or pan de dyis heures ‘ten o’clock bread’ in the Cotentin peninsula and the Pays de Caux (Brasseur 1990: 55, 68; Bulot 2006: 177–178, 202), although ALEN data suggest that the French borrowing casse-croûte is frequent elsewhere in Seine Maritime and in parts of Orne (cf. Brasseur 1990: 47). More diversity is found in Insular Norman. Although the ALEN only records a term for Guernsey, the present study found that this type of snack is still well known throughout the archipelago and is frequently denoted by the English borrowing leuntch. In Guernsey, leuntch may be used for any kind of snack, and the term has been borrowed back semantically into Guernsey English (in the English of the United Kingdom, lunch can only denote the midday meal). Other indigenous terms recorded for this item include bouochie ‘a mouthful’ (J) which can refer lexis 163

Table 8.13 LE GOÛTER in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

GOÛTER kolɑ(:)sjɔ̃ kolɑ(:)sjɔ̃ lʌnʃ (O, J, lɔnʃ (P, F, T, C, Sv, V) kupwɛj d tɑj kolasjɔ̃ (p.m bizɑ T, H) lʌnʃ (P, C) bisak mainly) pɛ̃tdizø bwɔʃ i: (O, J, lɔntʃ (V) dvɑ̃ dajnɐ (a.m. only) L, T, M, H, B) ɑ̃trədaw (V) (a.m.) buʃi: (J, M) bətʃ i: (P, M) bɛtʃi: (P, Sv, V) bisɑ (M) kupɑj d tej (P, T, C) mjɛ matɛ̃ (a.m.) (P, C) mjɛ matɑj (a.m.) (T, M) mjɛ ɑrləvɑ: (p.m.) (T) ALF: fe: kola:sjɔ̃ ALF: fe ALF: bɛ:ð dy ALF: gu:tɛ ALF: bɛ:r lɛ fer kolasjɑ̃ɔ̃ kola(:)sjɔ̃ tɛ tɛ ALEN: - ALEN: dizø ALEN: - ALEN: lɔnʃ (a.m.) (F) ALEN: - (a.m.) bisɒ (a.m.) (T)

to the morning and afternoon snack alike, mio-matin ‘half morning’ (G) for the morning snack (the corresponding afternoon snack is termed mio-arleuvaïe ‘half afternoon’), bétchie ‘a beakful’ (G) and entre-deux ‘between two [meals]’ (G). One speaker in Guernsey and Sark apiece produced the ALEN Guernsey form bisak (for the morning snack only). As this word originally denoted (as it still does) the small bag in which the snack is carried to the fields (cf. De Garis 1982: 228), its use to denote the snack itself may either be an example of metonymy, or else a mistake. In Sark, the term [dvɑ̃ dajnɐ] ‘before dinner’ is frequently used to refer to the morning snack, with the very British-styled [kupwɛj d tɑj] ‘cup of tea’ preferred in the afternoon.

(x) PAILLE DE SEIGLE, GLUI (ALF 652, ALEN 160) (‘thatch’) The form glyi is recorded in both the ALF and ALEN for all varieties of Mainland and Insular Norman. This term is still found throughout the whole linguistic territory, although borrowings from the superstrate are also common in the Pays de Caux (chaume < French) and in Guernsey (thatch < English). The different phonetic realizations present across the territory demonstrate well the various development of initial Consonant + [l] described in §3.1.1.2(iv) and analyzed in Liddicoat (2008). In Jersey, the [l] of the initial consonant cluster 164 chapter 8

Table 8.14 PAILLE DE SEIGLE in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

PAILLE DE gy gly gi (O, J, T, M) dʒik (C) gʎɪ SEIGLE gjy ʃo:m gji (M) dʒi (P, T, M, C) gi (T) ALF: gʎy: ALF: gly: ALF: gji: ALF: gji: ALF: gʎi: gʎy d sɛgʎ gʎi: ALEN: gʎy ALEN: gly ALEN: gʎi (O) ALEN: dji (T) ALEN: gʎi gjy føʁ lõ gji (O, T, B) gjik (C)

has either been preserved, reduced to a yod or lost completely. In Sark, it has palatalized to [ʎ] and, in Guernsey, the delateralized palatal, attested in both linguistic atlases, frequently disappears, but can cause the secondary palatalization of the initial consonant ([dʒi]). In the Cotentin peninsula, palatal [ʎ] usually delateralizes to [j] or may even disappear altogether ([gjy]/[gy]).21 The Pays de Caux falls outside the geographical area generally associated with the palatalization of initial Consonant + [l].

8.6 Summary

During the course of the interviews, it was common to hear speakers commenting that people ‘on the mainland’ or ‘in the islands’ had ‘different words for things’. Lexical variation and diversity can arise for reasons other than superstrate contact (cf. Table 8.15, where borrowing plays no obvious motivating role in the diversity of forms recorded for ENFANT ‘child’). However, the present chapter has demonstrated how the abundance of contact phenomena

21 In Guernsey, speakers from Câtel parish tend to pronounce a reflex of GLUI with a final consonant (Table 8.15). As this form is also noted by Collas (1931: 46) for the Vale and by Sjøgren (1964: 83) for the parishes of Câtel, St. Sampson and St. Andrew, it may therefore be that it is characteristic of the north of Guernsey (see Map 1.3). Interestingly on this point, although born in St. Peter Port, the Guernsey poet George Métivier identified with Câtel parish (where his grandfather had settled) to such an extent that he wrote under the pen-name un Câtelain ‘a man from Câtel parish’ (see Jones 2008a). This may account for the fact that Métivier’s (1870) dictionary records GLUI as gllic (1870: 256). lexis 165 such as borrowings, calques and loan shifts, different integration strategies and the fact that speakers draw loan-words from two different linguistic reposito- ries mean that lexical divergence between Mainland and Insular Norman can be considerable, despite their many shared cognates.

Table 8.15 ENFANT in contemporary Norman

COTENTIN PAYS DE CAUX JERSEY GUERNSEY SARK

ENFANTS knɑ:l ɛfɑ̃: mus (O, J, L, T, krɔɲɛ�: (P, T, C, M, dʒɔn ptʃo: pti:bezo: M, H, B) Sv, V) ɛfɑ̃: bəzo: ptʃo: (O) kroɲɛ̃: (P) pti:kajo: ptʃɔ:w (O, M, H) krɔɲɔŋ (V) petʃo: avɛr (T) ɛfɛ�: (P, F, T, C, M, avjɛr (O, T, H) Sv, V) efɑ̃: (O) efɛ̃: (P, T, Sv) ejfɑ̃: (O, T, J, L, mus (P, F, C, V) M, H) pti: (H, B) ALF: ɛfɛ̃ɑ̃ ALF: ɛfɑ̃ ALF:ɑ̃fɑ̃ ALF: efɑ̃ ALF: ɛfɑ̃ ɛfɛ̃ knɑ:j ALEN:- ALEN: - ALEN: - ALEN:- ALEN: - Chapter 9 The Influence of Norman on Its Superstrate Languages

The preceding chapters have demonstrated that, within the overarching context of language shift, contact with their different superstrates is causing Mainland and Insular Norman to diverge morphosyntactically, lexically and, to a lesser degree, phonologically. As Weinreich notes (1964: 109) ‘language shift does not exclude linguistic influence in the opposite direction’ (see §1.2) and the present chapter concludes this study by examining the way in which Norman has itself influenced its superstrates, resulting in the production of distinctive local varieties of French and English which are present throughout, respectively, the mainland and insular territories, regardless of whether or not speakers also know Norman. For pragmatic reasons, the chapter focuses on a common core of features found in the traditional speech of older people. As age- and geographically- governed variation are present within both the regional French of Normandy and the regional English of the Channel Islands (Lepelley 1973: viii, 1999a: 94, 2010: 8; Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983; Schortz 1998: 35–38), not all the features described are found in the speech of every individual and the present discussion is therefore necessarily illustrative rather than exhaustive. The chapter also describes some non-standard morphosyntactic features with a geographically diffuse distribution that may occur alongside the contact forms (cf. Ramisch 1989; Schortz 1998; Jones 2010; Rosen 2014). When pronunciation is not the main focus of discussion, examples are cited in standard French and English spelling. As in other chapters, further bibliographical references are provided for each of the features described and, where appropriate, the linguistic feature being examined is highlighted in bold.

9.1 The Influence of Mainland Norman on the Regional French of Normandy

Their close linguistic relationship means that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish Mainland Norman from the local form of French spoken within mainland Normandy ‘En Normandie comme dans la majeure partie de la France d’oïl, il est souvent malaisé de distinguer le dialecte de la forme que prend le fran- çais localement puisque les régionalismes se nourrissent du dialecte, presque

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004257139_010 the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 167 exclusivement’ (Brasseur 1990: 11).1 Brasseur comments that, even if one attempts to distinguish between these varieties using phonetic criteria, ‘ceci ne vaut pas pour tous les mots ni pour les régions où la phonétique dialectale ne se différencie guère de celle du français commun’ (1990: 11).2 This view is echoed by Lepelley (1999a: 93, 2010b: 6), who writes that, whereas it is relatively easy to distinguish a dialect from standard French by, for example, com- paring the forms with those of a current dictionary of the standard language, it is more difficult to draw an objective distinction between a dialect and the corresponding local variety of regional French due to the absence of any normative reference point for the latter (cf. also Hall 2008: 246). Indeed, Schortz (1998) describes the everyday speech of some older people in Senneville-sur- Fécamp (Pays de Caux, Upper Normandy) as a mixture of regional French and dialect (cf. Hall 2008: 39 for Lower Normandy). The complexity of the linguistic situation, with differences in the vitality of Norman across the region (Brasseur 1995: 107), contrasting demographic patterns (both at a micro-level within different families and at a macro-level within the region as a whole) and linguistic variation between the Norman spoken to the north and south of the Ligne Joret (cf. Table 3.7) make it difficult to present anything other than a general over- view of the regional French of Normandy.3, 4

9.1.1 Phonology The following description represents what may be considered a ‘broad regional accent’. Not all the features listed will be present in every case. Moreover, although some features, such as phonemic vowel length in the context of plural nouns and feminine adjectives, are evidently due to the substrate influence of Norman (§9.1.1.1(i)), in other cases the underlying motivation is not clear-cut, especially when similar developments are attested in other non-standard

1 ‘In Normandy, as in most of oïl France, it is often difficult to distinguish the dialect from the local form of French since regionalisms are drawn almost exclusively from the dialect’. 2 ‘[. . .] this does not hold good for all words nor for areas where the phonetics of the dialect are not very different from that of French’. Brasseur cites the examples of the varieties spoken in south of the Caen-Falaise plain, in Le Merlerault, on the Evreux-St André plateau, in the Vexin and on the Madrie plateau. 3 Walter (1982: 130–135), for example, notes differences in the vowel and consonant systems of all five Norman départements (cf. Bulot 1998; Hall 2008: 243). 4 Examples of texts written in the regional French of Normandy and containing evidence of Norman substrate features are given in Lepelley (1995, 1999a: 101–102). Of particular interest are the nineteenth-century memoirs of Pierre Rivière, from Calvados, who was convicted of killing his mother, sister and brother in 1835 (see Foucault 1973). Lepelley (1980) considers Rivière’s language as a good example of the regional French spoken in Lower Normandy during the mid-nineteenth century. 168 chapter 9 varieties of French. It is possible that, in such cases, substrate contact may be one of several factors contributing to a particular linguistic outcome.

9.1.1.1 Vowels (i) The regional French of Normandy distinguishes between the singular and plural of nouns and adjectives ending in a vowel via an opposition of length— in other words, where the fall of final [s] has brought about compensatory lengthening: for example chat—chats [ʃɑ]—[ʃɑ:] ‘cat’—‘cats’; ami—amis [ami]—[ami:] ‘friend’—‘friends’; mou—moux [mu]—[mu:] ‘soft’; bon—bons [bɔ̃]—[bɔ̃:] ‘good’. In standard French, these forms are all invariable: [ʃɑ] (sg.)—[ʃɑ] (pl.); [ami] (sg.)—[ami] (pl.); [mu] (sg.)—[mu] (pl.); [bɔ̃] (sg.)— [bɔ̃] (pl.)) (cf. Walter 1982: 132; Schortz 1998: 80–81; Lepelley 1999a: 102–103, 1978: 75–76),5 and the only context in which vowel length is fully phonemic occurs with [ɛ] (for example mettre [mɛtʁ] ‘to put’ vs. maître [mɛ:tʁ] ‘master’), although this has no bearing on the singular—plural distinction (Battye, Hintze and Rowlett 2000: 84). An opposition of length may also occur between the final vowels of the masculine and feminine forms of adjectives or past participles used adjectivally (cf. Lepelley 1975, 1999a: 103; Schortz 1998: 82)—in other words, where compensatory lengthening has been motivated via the fall of final schwa in the feminine: joli—jolie [ʒɔli] (m.)—[ʒɔli:] (f.) ‘pretty’; aimé—aimée [eme] (m.)—[eme:] (f.) ‘loved’ (cf. standard French invariable [ʒɔli], [eme]). Norman displays the same phonemic lengthening in these contexts (§3.3.1.1.1(i)) so it is likely that this distinction of length is present in the regional French of Normandy because of the substrate influence of Norman. As the influence of standard French comes to predominate, it seems that this opposition is steadily disappearing (Walter 1982: 131; Schortz 1998: 80; Hall 2008). (ii) Close and nasal vowels frequently lengthen in penultimate syllables: maison [me:zɑ̃] ‘house’, orienter [ɔʁjɑ̃:te] ‘to direct’ (Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983). (iii) As in standard French, the nasal vowels [œ̃], [ɔ̃], [ɛ̃] and [ɑ̃] are all present in the phonemic inventory of the regional French of Normandy. However, Schortz notes the additional presence of [ẽ] in the Pays de Caux (1998: 71): lapin [lapẽ] ‘rabbit’, suggesting contact from Norman, where [ẽ] is a fully phonemic nasal vowel (§3.1.1.1(iv)). Interestingly, Walter claims that, as in standard French, [œ̃] is becoming increasingly merged with [ɛ̃] in the regional French

5 As Walter notes, the long vowel may sometimes be realized as a diphthong: mot—mots [mo]—[mow] ‘word’—‘words’ (1982: 132). the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 169 of Normandy (1982: 133), which may be further evidence of influence from the standard language (cf. Maddieson 1984: 251; Fagyal, Kibbee and Jenkins 2006: 33). (iv) In those parts of the Norman mainland where Latin aN + C did not fall together with Latin eN + C (§3.1.1.1(vi)) some conservative varieties of the regional French spoken in in the Cotentin peninsula distinguish between words that are homophones in the standard language: sang [sɑ̃] ‘blood’—cent [sæ̃] ‘one hundred’; tante [tɑ̃:t] ‘aunt’—tente [tæ̃t] ‘tent’; avant [avɑ̃] ‘before’— avent [avæ̃] ‘Advent’ (Lepelley 1999a: 103). (v) The nasal vowels [ɑ̃] and [ɔ̃] may be substituted for one another in the regional French of Normandy: emplacement [ɑ̃plasmɔ̃] ‘site’; pensé [pɔ̃se] ‘to think’ (past participle) (Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983) (cf. standard Fr. [ɑ̃plasmɑ̃]; [pɑ̃se]). This can affect the masculine singular possessive adjectives mon [mɔ̃] ‘my’; ton [tɔ̃] ‘your’ (fam.); son [sɔ̃] ‘his/her’ which, as in Norman, may be realized as [mɑ̃], [tɑ̃] and [sɑ̃] (§3.1.2a); Schortz 1998: 85). The realization of [ɑ̃] as [ɔ̃] is also well documented for other non-standard varieties of French (Gadet 1992: 34; Hornsby 2006: 34; Fagyal, Kibbee and Jenkins 2006: 33). (vi) The realisation of mid-vowels may frequently differ from the standard language (Lepelley 1978: 75). For example, the vowels of mère [me:ʁ] ‘mother’; père [pe:ʁ] ‘father’; fenêtre [fənet] ‘window’ and bête [bet] ‘beast’ are more close (cf. standard Fr. [mɛ:ʁ]; [pɛ:ʁ]; [fənɛtʁ]; [bɛt]) whereas those of past participles such as pensé [pɑ̃sɛ] ‘to have thought’ are more open (cf. standard Fr. [pɑ̃se]) (Lepelley 1980: 72; Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983; Schortz 1998: 64–65). In word-final, stressed position [e] and [ɛ] may merge (Martinet 1945: 22; Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983; Schortz 1998; Tyne 2003). This occurs most often in the speech of older people and, although present to some extent across the whole mainland territory, the development appears to be more widespread in Lower than Upper Normandy (Hall 2008: 195). A similar development has been recorded in the French spoken in the south of France (Coquillon 2007; Lonnemann and Meisenburg 2007) and in the Nord-Pas-de- Calais (Hornsby 2006). (vii) Although they are becoming merged in standard French, [a] and [ɑ] remain distinct in the regional French of Normandy (Walter 1977: 41–42; Tranel 1987: 62; Gadet 1989: 94; Fagyal, Kibbee and Jenkins 2006: 31; cf. Martinet 1945: 76). Moreover, the opposition is maintained more widely in Lower Normandy than in Upper Normandy (Hall 2008: Chapter 3), presumably owing to the greater intensity and length of contact with standard French in the latter area (Schortz 1998: 66). 170 chapter 9

9.1.1.2 Consonants (i) As in Norman, the so-called ‘aspirate h’ of French, which has not been pronounced in the standard language since the eighteenth century (Price 1971: 35), is strongly aspirated in the regional French of Normandy (Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983; Ager 1990: 24; Hall 2008: 13, 23), principally in words of Germanic origin haie [hɛ] ‘hedge’, halle [hal] ‘market hall’ but also in Norman(-influenced) pronunciations of some lexical items derived from Latin (dehors [dəχɔʁ] ‘outside’) and many place-names with initial orthographic h, such as Hauteville [χo:tvil].6 As in Norman, the glottal fricative may be realized allophonically as the voiceless uvular fricative [χ] or the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] (§3.1.1.2(i)). These pronunciations are limited to lexical items where etymological h is still present orthographically. Contact with standard French is leading to the progressive loss of [h] from the regional French of Normandy. This is especially prevalent in Upper Normandy (Lepelley 1999a: 71). (ii) r is pronounced variably in the regional French of Normandy. In the conservative speech characteristic of the south of Manche and the west of Orne, it is realized, as in Norman, as an apical trill ([r]) (Lepelley 1978: 75, 1999a: 102). Elsewhere, such as in the north of Manche (although not in the Val-de-Saire), it may be realized as a uvular fricative, which is often devoiced intervocali- cally: carton [kaʁtɔ̃] ‘cardboard’, pré [pʁe] ‘meadow’ (Walter 1982: 134). In initial position, r may be partially aspirated: raie [ʁhe] ‘furrow’. Word-finally, it is frequently elided: jour [ʒu] ‘day’ (Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983), especially in areas such as the Pays de Caux, where elision also occurs in the local variety of Norman (Schortz 1998: 57).7 (iii) In standard French, the palatalization of Latin [l] + [j] produced the outcome [j], via the intermediary stage of the palatal lateral [ʎ]. Although [ʎ] did not disappear completely from the phonological system of standard French until the nineteenth century (Lepelley 1980: 72), the yod was pronounced frequently in this context from the seventeenth century onwards: filiam > fille [fij] ‘girl’, paleam > paille [paj] ‘straw’ (Fouché 1961: 918; Price 1971: 52). In the regional French of Normandy, word-final reflexes of the palatalization of Latin [l] + [j] tend to develop to [l]: [fil], [pal] (cf. (Lepelley 1980: 72–73; Boissel 1986: 61), a development which reflects the corresponding outcome in Norman (§3.1.1.2(iv)).

6 cf. ALEN Map 1400 (Haut ‘High’). 7 The partial aspiration of r and h can lead to instances of homonymic clash in the regional French of Normandy where this does not occur in the standard language, for example between raie ‘furrow’ and haie ‘hedge’ the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 171

(iv) Varieties of regional French spoken to the north of the Ligne Joret may contain the three phonetic features associated with the bundle of ‘Joret’ isoglosses (see §3.2), namely the non-palatalization of [k] before [a]: vache [vak] ‘cow’ (< vaccam), sèche [sɛk] ‘dry’ (f.) (< siccam) (cf. standard French [ʃ]); its realization as [ʃ] before a front vowel: cent [ʃɑ̃] ‘one hundred’ (< centum) (cf. standard French [s]); and the development of Germanic [w] to [v]: guêpe [ve:p]/ [ve:pr] ‘wasp’ (< *wefsa, vespam) (cf. standard French [g]) (Schortz 1998: 59, 60, 61, 176). These features occur most frequently in the speech of bilinguals. (v) In areas where it is also present in Norman, palatal [ʎ] may replace [l] in the onset combinations [bl pl ɡl kl fl] in the regional French of bilingual speakers: bleu [bʎø] ‘blue’, fleur [fʎœ:ʁ] flower’ (cf. §3.1.1.2(iv); Hall 2008: 22–23).

9.1.2 Morphosyntax 9.1.2.1 Contact Features in the Regional French of Normandy The regional French of Normandy differs less from the standard language in terms of its morphosyntax than in terms of its phonetics and lexis (Schortz 1998: 76–104). Although the following contact features may be found in the speech of some bilinguals, they are less common in the speech of French monolinguals, especially those in the current middle or younger generations.

(i) 1pl subject pronoun (Lepelley 1980: 75) Je may serve as a 1PL pronoun in the regional French of Normandy. This occurs as the result of direct transfer from the Norman substrate (Marie 2012: 413; cf. §3.1.2b):

(1) Si n’y fut pas revenu il y a quinze ans j’aurions bien eu du hasard lit. ‘If he hadn’t come back from there fifteen years ago we would have had some uncertainty’.

(ii) Impersonal pronoun (Schortz 1998: 92) The Norman impersonal pronoun no may replace French on in the regional French of Normandy and, as in the standard language, may carry a 1PL meaning (Marie 2012: 414; §3.1.2b)(ii), §7.4(i)))

(2) Alors no montait là-dessus ‘So we used to go up there’. 172 chapter 9

(iii) Plural noun morphology (Lepelley 1980: 76; Schortz 1998: 81) Morphologically distinct forms are present in the regional French of Normandy for nouns which are invariable in standard French [batɛ—batʃo:] ‘boat—boats’; [kutɛ—kutʃo:] ‘knife—knives’. These forms clearly occur due to substrate influence from Norman (Lechanteur 1968: 201–204; Hébert 1984: 28–29; Lepelley 1999a: 87; UPNC 1995: 12–13; Marie 2012: 368; §3.1.2c), §3.2(5)).

(iv) Gender (Schortz 1998: 77) Where a noun of Norman has a different gender from its standard French cognate, the Norman gender is sometimes used in the regional French of Normandy. Typical examples include:

la bol (f.) (St. Fr. le bol (m.)) ‘bowl for drinking’ (cf. Norman la bole (f.)) la crabe (f.) (St. Fr. le crabe (m.)) ‘crab’ (cf. Norman la crabe (f.)) la froid (f.) (St. Fr. le froid (m.)) ‘the cold’ (cf. Norman la freid (f.))

(v) Verb morphology (Lepelley n.d; Schortz 1998: 93–96) The verbal stems of the regional French of Normandy may differ from those of the standard language:

(3) Tu veyes [vɛj] bien l’église (cf. St. Fr. [vwa]) ‘You can see the church’ (4) Je crairais [kʁɛʁɛ] bien (cf. St. Fr. [kʁwaʁɛ]) ‘I should think so.’

9.1.2.2 Features Shared with Other Non-standard Varieties of French More diffuse non-standard features are also present in the morphosyntax of the regional French of Normandy (see §9.2.2.2 below for a similar category of features in Channel Island English). As will be seen, however, substrate contact from Norman cannot be completely excluded as a motivating factor in all of these cases, which may therefore have multiple causation (cf. Viereck 1988: 475 for Channel Island English).

(i) Auxiliary verbs (Lepelley 1980: 76; Schortz 1998: 95–96; Bulot 2006: 170) In the regional French of Normandy, avoir ‘to have’ is frequently used as an auxiliary in compound tenses of intransitive verbs such as rester ‘to stay’, sortir ‘to go out’, partir ‘to leave’ and mourir ‘to die’. In the standard language, these verbs would require the auxiliary être ‘to be’ (Price 2003: 345–346).

(5) Il a mouru ‘he has died’ (cf. St. Fr. il est mort) the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 173

A similar auxiliary distibution pattern is present in Norman (cf. Guerlin De Guer 1901: 197; Lepelley 1974: 131; UPNC 1995: 160–162; §3.1.2d(iii), §7.1.(ii)). However, since non-standard auxiliary usage of this kind is also found in many varieties of extra-Hexagonal, regional and low-register French (cf. Canale, Mougeon and Belanger 1978; Sankoff and Thibault 1980; Grevisse 1988: 782; Gadet 1992: 55; Esch 2002) it is not possible to directly attribute the generalization of avoir in the regional French of Normandy to substrate contact.

(ii) Doubly filled complementizers (Hall 2008: Chapter 5) Doubly filled complementizers occur frequently in both the regional French of Normandy and in Norman (Hébert 1984: 43; UPNC 1995: 226; Marie 2012: 393).

(6) [la maison] où que c’est qu’est Mme Toquet (lit. ‘the house where that it-is that-is Mme Toquet’) ‘The house where Mme Toquet lives’ (Hall 2008: 214) cf. the Norman utterance:

(7) J’âlouns veî le hammé ioù que restaient ses gens [ʒalõveləhʁamejukʁɛstɛse:ʒɑ̃] ‘We are going to see the village where his parents lived’ (Marie 2012: 393).8

As similar constructions occur in other non-standard varieties of French, both within France (cf. Rowlett 2007: 195–196) and the wider French-speaking world (Starets 2002; Sankoff 1973), they cannot be shown to have been motivated solely by substrate influence.

(iii) Re- prefix (Schortz 1998: 101) The prefix re- is more widespread in the regional French of Normandy than in standard French. It can have both an iterative value:

(8) On va ravoir du mauvais temps lit. ‘one is going to have bad weather again’ (9) Ça rétait pareil ‘it was the same thing again’

8 In Norman unified orthography, underlining the grapheme indicates that it represents an aspirate /h/. 174 chapter 9 and a non-iterative value:

(10) Là y ravait un trou ‘There was a hole there’ (rather than ‘there was a hole there again’).

The prefix is common in Norman (Marie 2012: 410–411) but, as Grevisse (1988: §172.8) notes, it is also widespread in low-register French and in other regional varieties of French.

(iv) Interrogative particle (Schortz 1998: 98–99) Although absent from the standard language, the particle [ti] may be used in interrogative and exclamative constructions of the regional French of Normandy:

(11) Vous êtes ti de Senneville? ‘Do you come from Senneville?’

This particle is present in similar constructions in Norman

(12) Je savouns-t-i? [ʒəsɑvõti] ‘Do we know?’ (Marie 2012: 417) and is also widespread in non-standard varieties of French (Grevisse 1988: 387).

(v) 3SG subject pronoun (Schortz 1998: 88–89; Hall 2008: 22). The 3SG feminine subject pronoun of the regional French of Normandy may be realized as [a] (with the liaison or post-verbal form [al])

(13) La maîtresse, elle [a] nous avait commandé un car lit. ‘The schoolteacher, she had ordered us a coach’

Although this pronoun is realized identically in Norman (Brasseur 1983: 55; Marie 2012: 412; §3.1.2b), Bauche (1929: 109) also describes it as a feature of low- register French.

(vi) 3PL subject pronoun (Schortz 1998: 88; Hall 2007: 187, 2008: 22) The liaison form of the 3PL subject pronoun may be realized as [il] in the regional French of Normandy (cf. standard French [ilz]/ [i:z]).

(14) Fallait qu’ils [il] attendent qu’ils [il] en auraient un tas ‘They had to wait until they had a pile’ the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 175

Contact with Norman, where the liaison form of the 3PL subject pronoun is also [il] seems a likely explanation in this case (Marie 2012: 412; §3.1.2b), §6.4.1). And yet, as Pustka illustrates for La Vendée (2009: 234), it appears that Norman is not the only dialect to produce this substrate influence on the local variety of regional French (Marie 2012: 412).

(vii) 3PL feminine subject pronoun (Lepelley 1980: 76; Schortz 1998: 89) The 3PL feminine subject pronoun of standard French (elles) is often replaced by the masculine pronoun (ils) in the regional French of Normandy:

(15) Elle dit qu’on y laisserait les deux filles; qu’ils [=les deux filles] s’occuperaient à amenager ‘She said that they would leave the two girls there; that they [= the two girls] would see to everything’.

As seen in §3.1.2b(iii), in some parts of the Cotentin peninsula, the 3PL subject pronoun of Norman does not traditionally vary for gender either (Lepelley 1974: 112; Marie 2012: 412).9

(16) Il ount ‘they [f.] have’ (UPNC 1995: 63)

However, given that the same feature is found in several different regional varieties of French, albeit with limited diffusion, and is described by Blanche- Benveniste (1997) as an archaism, motivations other than contact influence from Norman cannot be discounted.

(viii) Demonstrative pronouns (Schortz 1998: 91) The Norman possessive pronouns lé syin [lsji] ‘that belonging to him’, la syine [la sjɛn] ‘that belonging to her’, les syins [lesji] ‘that belonging to them [m.]’, les syines [le sjɛn] ‘that belonging to them [f.]’ (Lepelley 1974: 116–117; Marie 2012: 391) may be used in the regional French of Normandy in place of the demonstrative pronouns (St. Fr. celui, celle, ceux, celles):

(17) Les syines qui sont dehors ‘Those who are outside’

9 Marie (2012: 412) suggests that, in varieties of Norman where the 3PL subject pronoun does vary for gender (see for example Hébert 1984: 36; UPNC 1995: 62–63), usage may be calqued on French. 176 chapter 9

Valls (1967: 39), notes that a similar construction is found outside Normandy.

9.1.2.3 Features Not Attributable to Contact The regional French of Normandy contains some non-standard morphosyntactic features which do not appear to admit a contact-based explanation. These include:

(i) Negative constructions (Schortz 1998: 99) As in many other regional and low-register varieties of French (Gadet 1992: 78; Battye, Hintze and Rowlett 2000: 234) preverbal ne is generally omitted from negative constructions in the regional French of Normandy

(18) On sait pas ‘One doesn’t know’

(ii) Conditional tense (Schortz 1998: 96–97) Unlike in the standard language, falloir ‘to have to’ / ‘to be necessary that’ may be followed by the conditional tense in the regional French of Normandy

(19) Faut qu’ils seraient bien dedans ‘They must be comfortable there’ (20) Faut qu’il serait parti ‘He must leave’

Similar usage has been documented for other non-standard varieties of French, both inside and outside the Hexagon (Clédat 1927; Cohen 1965; Brunot and Bruneau 1969: 320; Fleischman 1982; Grevisse 1988: §869; Gadet 1992: 89).

(iii) Prepositions (Carton, Rossi, Autesserre and Lyon 1983) a) In the regional French of Normandy, an infinitive may be used after the preposition pour ‘in order that’ in clauses of purpose, whereas standard French would require a subjunctive:

(21) Pour vous rentrer ‘So that you return’ (cf. standard French pour que vous rentriez) (cf. Hornsby 2006 for the regional French of the Nord-Pas-de-Calais). b) In possessive constructions, the preposition à often replaces de: the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 177

(22) Le frère à Charles ‘Charles’ brother’.

This is a well-documented feature of non-standard French (Grevisse 1988: §346).

9.1.3 Lexis Borrowings from Norman abound in the regional French of Normandy. Although some of these enjoy a widepread diffusion throughout the Norman territory (such as piler ‘to make cider’ or clenche ‘latch’, see (ii) below), others are more localized, hence, to quote Lepelley (1999a: 94), ‘Tout relevé des termes régionaux doit donc être accompagné de leur localisation’ (cf. Schortz 1998: 27f).10, 11 Alongside more established loan-words, nonce borrowings from Norman may occur spontaneously in the mouths of bilingual speakers and their assimilation is facilitated by the close linguistic relationship between Norman and French (Lepelley 1999a: 94). The following represent selective examples of regional vocabulary used widely throughout the whole of Normandy, including by people who cannot speak Norman. Although many of these regional terms owe their presence to the Norman substrate, it will be seen that this is not always the case. Unlike syntactic differences from standard French, regional lexical differences such as these do not appear to be stigmatized (Bulot 2006: 159). Moreover, unlike spe- cialized terms denoting, for example, specific agricultural or fishing equipment and which may fall out of use along with the object in question, many of these terms are likely to survive indefinitely in the regional French of Normandy (cf. Schortz 1998: 242). (i) Some established borrowings from Norman represent what Myers- Scotton terms ‘cultural’ loans (2002: 239) which typically denote concepts pertaining to specific aspects of local life and for which equivalent words do not exist in standard French. Cultural loans enter the regional French of Normandy to fill a lexical gap. In the following examples, the terms of regional French are given in italics and the corresponding Norman terms are given in

10 ‘Every time regional terms are taken down, their location should also be noted’. 11 For specific details of regional terms and the localities in which they are used, see Lepelley (1993a, 1993b, 2010b). Schortz (1998: Chapter 4) and Bulot (2006: 169–179) give informative accounts for the Pays de Caux and Lepelley (1980: 89–90) discusses the regional terms found in the Rivière memoirs (see note 4 above). 178 chapter 9 the IPA: assemblée [asɑ̃bje:] (a local festival), vergée [vɛrʒi] (a common unit of measurement comprising 40 perches [pɛʁk]/[pɛʁʃ]: one perche comprises 200 square metres, Lepelley 1980: 89); lanet [lanɛ] ‘fishing line’, mucre [mykʁ] ‘humid’, locher [lo:ʃe] ‘to shake’ (e.g. a tree to cause its fruit to fall), pouque/ pouche [puk]/[puʃ] ‘a big hessian bag’ (e.g. for potatoes), bourotter [buʁɔte] ‘to walk like a duck’ (Lepelley 1974: 227), redot [ʁədo] ‘a child born a long time after his other siblings’, moque [mok] ‘a cup/bowl with a handle for drinking cider’ and banneau [bɔnœ] a particular type of cart. ‘Core’ loans (Myers-Scotton 2002: 239) also occur as alternatives to terms that do exist in standard French: achocre [aʃɔkʁ̥] ‘clumsy’, éluger [elyʒi] ‘to irritate someone’, fale [fal] ‘stomach’, melle [mel] ‘ring’, muler [myle] ‘to sulk’, super [sype] ‘to slurp’, horzain [hɔʁzẽ] ‘stranger’ and grades [gʁad] ‘currants’ (red/black/white). (ii) Some words form part of the lexis of both standard French and the regional French of Normandy, but in each case have different meanings. With the exception of boujou, the following examples are listed and transcribed in their standard French forms: clenche [klɑ̃:ʃ] ‘door handle’ (St. Fr. ‘latch’); piler [pile] ‘to make cider’ (St. Fr. ‘to grind’), carte [kaʁt] ‘satchel’ (St. Fr. ‘map’), tuile [tɥil] ‘frying pan’ (St. Fr. ‘tile’), barrer [baʁe] ‘to lock’ (St. Fr. ‘to block’), fossé [fɔse] ‘an embankment running along the side of a ditch’ (St. Fr. ‘ditch’; Lepelley 1980: 81), bateau [bato] ‘wishbone’ (St. Fr. ‘boat’), banque [bɑ ˜:k] ‘an embankment’ (St. Fr. ‘bank [for commerce]’), boujou [buʒu] (a greeting that can be said either on arrival or departure) (St. Fr. bonjour [bɔ̃ʒu:ʁ] ‘good day’, Schortz 1998: 125). Boissel (1986: 65) describes how Norman-dominant bilingual speakers may modify French words by analogy with Norman. He observes, for example, that in the regional French of Normandy, fossé [fɔse] may be remodelled as fosseau [fɔso] owing to the fact that Norman forms such as couté [kute] ‘knife’ and tonné [tɔne] ‘barrel’ have the standard French cognates couteau [kuto] and tonneau [tɔno]. Boissel further notes (1960: 60, 65) that ‘hybrid’ forms may be created in the regional French of Normandy on the basis of Norman collocations. Examples include tillée à pot [tileapo] ‘ladle’ (St. Fr. louche) (cf. MN quilli à pot [tʃiʎiɑpo]) and moucheus de pouquette [muʃœdəputʃɛt] (St. Fr. mouchoir) (cf. MN moucheus de pouquette [muʃœdəputʃɛt]). (iii) Words that represent archaisms in standard French but form part of everyday usage in the regional French of Normandy include the following, which are listed and transcribed in their standard French forms acre [ɑ:kʁ̥] (a unit of measurement of four vergées), dîner [dine] ‘to dine’, brésillier [bʁesije] ‘to cut into pieces’, purer [py:ʁe] ‘to drip’, essaver [esave] ‘to damage one’s skin’ and il verse [ilvɛʁs] ‘it’s pouring with rain’. the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 179

(iv) Lepelley (1999a: 97, 100) lists idioms and other expressions that are widespread within mainland Normandy but unknown elsewhere in France. Examples include:

(23) Adroit de ses mains comme un cochon de sa queue ‘As skillful with his hands as a pig is with its tail’ (i.e. ‘useless’) (24) Sarcle ton gardin, il est bien plus grand que le mien ‘Weed your own garden, it’s bigger than mine’ (i.e. ‘mind your own business’) (25) Ce qui vient de flot s’en va de jusant ‘What arrives with the tide leaves at the ebb’ (i.e. ‘easy come, easy go’).

9.2 The Influence of Insular Norman on the English of the Channel Islands12

9.2.1 Phonology Despite their shared Norman substrate, the varieties of English spoken in the Channel Islands, like those of the regional French spoken in Normandy, are not phonologically identical. Even when they speak Insular Norman natively, the accents of the now elderly islanders who were evacuated to the United Kingdom during the course of the Second World War are often more ‘English- sounding’ than those of their contemporaries who stayed in the islands during the Occupation (§2.3). Moreover, the fact that significant numbers of the current inhabitants of the Channel Islands are immigrants means that many United Kingdom accents of English are prevalent, with intermarriage also leading to the presence of non-local features in the English of island-born children. As elsewhere in the British Islands, extralinguistic influence such as the broadcast media may also have a part to play in the increasing presence of linguistic features such as th-fronting and t-glottalization in the speech of younger islanders (cf. Ramisch 2007: 180). As with the analysis of the regional French of Normandy, given in §9.1 above, this section focuses on the English of speakers considered to have a ‘broad local accent’. Although there has been ample opportunity for the phonological development of Channel Island English to have been influenced by varieties of English that are spoken in the United Kingdom, the particular prominence of any one English input variety over others cannot be demonstrated conclusively.

12 This section has drawn upon material from within Mari C. Jones ‘Channel Island English’, in Daniel Schreier, Edgar W. Schneider and Jeffrey P. Williams (eds) The Lesser Known Varieties of English, (2010), © Cambridge University Press, reproduced with permission. 180 chapter 9

Certainly, immigrants from the United Kingdom have not tended to come from one particular area.13 Although not all the features listed in this section show influence from the Norman substrate, some clearly do, most notably the trilling of initial pre-vocalic r (§9.2.1.2(ii)) and the dental, unaspirated realization of [t], [d] (§9.2.1.2(iv)). h-dropping, too, may to be due to Norman influence (§9.2.1.2(i)), although this is also a feature of many varieties of English. Ramisch (2007: 180) also suggests that the rounded realization of strut, present in the English of Jersey, Guernsey, Sark and Alderney, may be attributable to the Norman substrate (§9.2.1.1). The fact that this feature is so prominent in the English spoken in Alderney, where the Norman dialect died out completely around the time of the Second World War (§2.3) is testimony to the persistence of substrate features of this kind.

9.2.1.1 Vowels Typical vowel realizations in Channel Island English (after Ramisch 2007: 181) kit I ~ Ï dress ɛ ~ ɛ̈ trap æ lot ɒ ~ɒ̈ strut ɔ ~ ʌ foot ʊ bath ɑ: ~ ɑ̟: cloth ɒ ~ ɒ̈ nurse ɜ: ~ ə: fleece i: ~ ɪi face eɪ ~ e̞ɪ palm ɑ: ~ ɑ̹: thought ɔ: ~ o: goat ɔʊ ~ əʊ goose u: ~ ʉ: price ɒɪ ~ ɑɪ ~ aɪ choice ɔɪ ~ oɪ mouth aʊ

13 See Ramisch (1989: 164–178) for detailed analysis of this point with respect to the English of Guernsey. the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 181 near ɪə ~ iə14 square ɛə start ɑ: ~ ɑ̹: north ɔ: ~ o: force ɔ: ~ o: cure jʊə happy i ~ i: letter œə ~ ə horses ɪ ~ ɪ̈ comma ə

Popular views about the accent of Jersey include the claim that speakers ‘sound South African’. This may be due to the tendency towards a close realization of dress and trap and, in Jersey in particular, a very back realization of bath, palm and start.

9.2.1.2 Consonants (i) All conservative accents of the Channel Islands display h-dropping, leading to hypercorrections such as:

(26) My mother was very hill (St. Eng. [ɪl]) and I was the heldest (St. Eng. [eldɪst]) and I stayed to ’elp (St. Eng. [hɛlp]) my mother

(ii) Initial pre-vocalic r tends to be trilled throughout the archipelago (Viereck 1988: 473–474). Though by no means a feature of the speech of every individual, realization of non-pre-vocalic word-final r is prevalent throughout the archipelago, both in simplex codas [ɹ] (engineer, father) and in coda clusters [ɹd] (injured). This may be due to contact from the Norman ending corresponding to French –eur [øʁ], or else to the influence of southern counties English that may have served as an input variety. Uvular r characterizes the English of many inhabitants of Sark (red [ʁɛd], run [ʁʌn]). (iii) Medial yod is often present in all varieties of Channel Island English after an initial voiced consonant such as garden [gja:dn], beard [bjiəd] (Viereck 1988: 473–474). (iv) [t] and [d] are often dental and unaspirated.

14 The English of Guernsey reveals evidence of what probably represents input from southern varieties of English in that the word here is pronounced [jœ], i.e. with a shift of weight from the near diphthong. 182 chapter 9

9.2.1.3 Prosodic Features (i) In the case of polysyllabic words, the main stress of Channel Island English often falls on a different syllable from that of standard English: bed’room, Liver’pool, daffo’dils, rail’way. Moreover, the difference between stressed and unstressed syllables may be less marked than in standard English, with secondary stress falling on non-tonic syllables: ['tɔ 'ma 'təʊz] (Hublart 1979: 47; Tomlinson 1981: 20; Ramisch 1989: 164n.1, 2007: 179). Norman influence, however, cannot be demonstrated conclusively in each case. (ii) Channel Island English has a distinctive intonation pattern in declarative sentences, with rising intonation in sentence-final position instead of the falling intonation of standard English. This rising intonation pattern was already prevalent before it became more widespread in many varieties of United Kingdom English.

9.2.2 Morphosyntax Given the greater linguistic distance that exists between them, the Norman substrate influence is more clearly demonstrable in the morphosyntax of Channel Island English than it is in that of the regional French of Normandy. This section is illustrated with examples from Jèrriais (J) and Guernésiais (G). Rosen’s comparative analysis of the morphosyntactic inventories of Jersey English and Guernsey English supports the view that Channel Island English forms a ‘morphosyntactically unified variety’ (2014: 179).

9.2.2.1 Contact Features in the Regional English of the Channel Islands (i) ‘There’s’ + time reference (Tomlinson 1981: 18; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 150, 1994: 459–461; 2007: 182; Jones 2001: 168; Rosen 2014: 141–142) In standard English, the present perfect followed by the preposition for and a reference to the time involved are required in an expression such as:

(27) I’ve been a farmer for ten years.

In Channel Island English, however, the construction there’s + time reference + present tense is commonly used:

(28) There’s ten years I’m a farmer cf. y’a dgiex ans qué j’sis fermyi [jɑdʒɛzɑ̃:kʒəsifɛrmi] (J).

The English construction is clearly a syntactic calque of Norman.

(ii) The definite article (Brasseur 1977: 101; Ramisch 1989: 113–124, 2007: 179; Jones 2001: 170–171; Rosen 2014: 165–167) the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 183

Non-standard use is made of the definite article in the following contexts: a) Names of languages:

(29) Now everyone speaks the English b) Before a plural noun with generic reference:

(30) The Jersey people are quite stubborn, you know c) Adverbials of position, especially with the name of streets:

(31) He’s got a chain of h’m shops in the, in the Fountain Street (Ramisch 1989: 114) d) Adverbials of time expressing a regular repetition:

(32) He gives the news out on the wireless in h’m in patois on the Friday (Ramisch 1989: 115)

Norman has definite articles in each of these contexts. Compare, for example, the following as translations for (29)–(32):

Auch’t’haeure nou pâle tous l’Angllais [oʃtœrnupɑ:ltu:lɑ̃gje:] (G) Les Jèrriais sont un mio têtus, dis [le:ʒɛ:rjɛ:sõø̃mjote:ty:di] (J) Il a des choppes dans la Rue d’la Fontaine [ilɑde:ʃopdɑ̃:lɑry:dlafõtɑ̃ȷ̃n] (G) Il annonce les nouvelles sus l’radio en patouais lé véndredi [ilanõslɛ:nuvɛlsylrɑdjoɑ̃patwelvɑ̃dɹədi] (J).

Substrate contact is therefore once again the most likely explanation for the English constructions.

(iii) ‘Isn’t it?’ as a tag question (Brasseur 1977: 101; Hublart 1979: 48; Tomlinson 1981: 19; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 149) Isn’t it is used in Channel Island English as a universal tag question:

(33) She did well, isn’t it?

Although this construction also functions as a tag question in other varieties of regional English (Ramisch 1989: 149–150) it is possible that contact with Norman may account for the presence of this form in Channel Island English, 184 chapter 9 where it could represent a calque of the Norman invariable tag n’est-che pon? [nɛʃpõ] (J) (‘isn’t it?’):

(34) Oulle est hardi belle, not’ fil’ye, n’est-che pon? [ulehardibɛlnɔtfilnɛʃpõ] (J) (Birt 1985: 237) lit. ‘She’s very pretty, our daughter, isn’t it?’

(iv) ‘But yes’ (Hublart 1979: 48; Tomlinson 1981: 19; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 154, 1994: 458, 2007: 179; Jones 2001: 171; Rosen 2014: 161) The expression but yes is used in Channel Island English as an emphatic form of the affirmative with a meaning akin to standard English ‘yes indeed’ or ‘yes of course’. For example:

(35) Did your parents speak Jèrriais?—But yes.

The presence of this discourse feature seems due to contact, representing a calque of the expression mais oui [mejwi] (J) ‘but yes’, which may be used in Insular Norman as an emphatic form of the affirmative.

(v) The conditional (Jones 2001: 172; Rosen 2014: 170) Conditional clauses of Channel Island English are frequently formed without the conjunction if, which would be necessary in standard usage. For example:

(36) You’d have seen that, you’d never have thought there was any news in it

This is clearly formed on the basis of a construction such as:

(37) J’éthais l’temps, j’pouôrrais l’vaie aniet [ʒɛðeltɑ̃:ʒpurelvejaɲɛ] (J) lit. ‘I had the time, I would be able to see him today’, meaning ‘If I had had the time, I would have been able to see him today’ which is commonly found in Norman—and in spoken standard French (Price 2003: 326).

(vi) Pronouns (Jones 2001: 173; Rosen 2014: 169–170) English and Norman differ in terms of pronoun usage. In English, unless the referent has an obvious gender, the gender-neutral pronoun it is used:

(38) She’s a girl but It’s a table. the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 185

Since all nouns carry a grammatical gender in Norman, pronouns referring to them are also marked for gender. For example, when talking about a chair, since the noun (tchaise (J)) is feminine in Norman, a speaker might say:

(39) Est-alle grande? [etalgrɑ̃d] (J) ‘Is it (lit. ‘she’) big?’ using the feminine singular subject pronoun alle, whereas in English the neuter pronoun it would be used in this context. Under the influence of Norman, a masculine or feminine pronoun may be used in Channel Island English to refer to inanimate objects, hence:

(40) He’s a Jersey cart (the Norman for ‘cart’, hernais (J), is masculine) (41) Mind that, she’s hot, eh! (i.e. the plate—the Norman for ‘plate’, assiaette (G), is feminine).

(vii) Prepositions (Tomlinson 1981: 18; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 133– 139; Barbé 1994: 706–717; Rosen 2014: 162–165) Prepositions used in Channel Island English often differ from those which would be used in the same contexts in standard English. Again, this seems to be due to contact with the Norman substrate. Examples include:

(42) He wrote a letter for thank me (St. Eng. to) cf. Il écrit enne laettre pour m’r’merciaïr [ilekriɛnlɛtɹpurmərɛmɛrsjɑj] (G) (43) That was on the ‘Evening Post’ (St. Eng. in) cf. Ch’tait sus l’ ‘Evening Post’ [ʃtɛsylivnɪŋpəʊst] (J) (44) I bought it to the Forest Stores (St. Eng. at) cf. J’l’ai acatai à la Forest Stores [ʒleɑkɑtɑjɑlafɒrɪststɔ:z] (G) (45) The wheel to my cart (St. Eng. of ) cf. La reue à mon tchériot [larœ:ɑmɑ̃tʃɛrjo] (G)

Although the use of positional to ((44) above) is widespread in Channel Island English (Viereck 1988: 474; Barbé 1994: 706–717), Barbé (1994: 707) notes that this preposition also features in certain varieties of English spoken in Hampshire, Somerset and New England.

(viii) Demonstrative Pronouns (Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 148: Rosen 2014: 161) The adverbs here and there often accompany the demonstrative that in what appear to be calques of the Norman construction: 186 chapter 9

(46) [When] that there Jerseyman [shows up again] cf. chu Jerriais là [ʃyʒɛ:rjɛ:lɑ] (G) (Guppy 1975).

The contact features listed in (i)–(viii) above are relatively stable in the English of many older Channel Islanders, regardless of their ability to speak Norman. These features therefore differ in status from the following which, although they may also be influenced by contact, mostly occur in the speech of bilinguals and hence are likely to be shorter lived.

(ix) Home may be used in the sense of standard English ‘at home’ (Tomlinson 1981: 20; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 139–140; Rosen 2014: 163)

(47) I worked home

Tomlinson suggests that this is due to the fact that, in the setting of language contact, confusion has occurred with the adverbial sense of ‘home’ that is used in standard English when a destination is being referred to, for example I went home.

(x) The present perfect appears in contexts where the past definite would be more usual in standard English (Rosen 2014: 141):

(48) I’ve been swimming when I’ve been to get the seaweed in the cart

In Insular Norman, a present perfect would be common in this context if the speaker wished to convey a present perfective, rather than a past definite, meaning.

(xi) The third person singular form is frequently uninflected (Barbé 1995: 3; Rosen 2014: 142–144)

(49) She speak

(xii) Destinational at often occurs after go (Barbé 1995: 3)

(50) They used to go at the Catholic schools

9.2.2.2 Features Shared with other Non-standard Varieties of English Channel Island English also contains the following features of non-standard English that have a more diffuse distribution throughout the British Islands. the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 187

Despite their diffuse distribution, it is not always easy to exclude the possibility of substrate contact with Norman and, in such cases, it is possible that the feature in question may have arisen from more than one motivation (Viereck 1988: 475).

(i) Emphatic use of personal pronouns (Brasseur 1977: 101; Hublart 1979: 48; Tomlinson 1981: 19; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 124–129, 1994: 457, 2007: 179; Jones 2001: 169; Rosen 2014: 156–157) The use of the accusative form of the personal subject pronouns me, you, him, her, us and them as emphatic forms at the beginning or end of an utterance is widespread in Channel Island English:

(51) Me, I’m from St. Ouen’s / I’m from St. Ouen’s, me

This parallels the emphatic use of such pronouns in Norman:

(52) Oulle a tréjous ’te d’même, lyi [ulatɹeʒutɛdmɛ:mji] (J) (Birt 1985: 238). lit. ‘She’s always been the same, her’ (53) Jé n’veurs pas y allaïr, mé [ʒnəvœrpɑ:jalɑjme] (G) ‘I don’t want to go, me’

That this feature is salient to speakers of Guernsey English may be seen from the fact that Le Pelley chose the title I am Guernsey, me! for an article he wrote for the Review of the Guernsey Society (1975). Dillard, however, (1985: 107) notes that personal pronouns may be used in a similar way in Cajun English and, citing Shorrocks (1981: 542), Ramisch observes that such usage is also found in the variety of English spoken in parts of Greater Manchester. While it is impossible to discount the influence of this regional variety of English on the speech of the Channel Islands, the lack of any intrinsic demographic connection between the archipelago and Greater Manchester suggests that contact may represent a more likely explanation.

(ii) The particle eh (Hublart 1979: 48; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 111, 1994: 458–491, 2007: 181; Jones 2001: 168–169; Rosen 2014: 69–102) This is possibly the feature of Channel Island English about which speakers are most conscious. In informal speech, the particle eh is extremely frequent and occurs as both a tag at the end of a question, with a meaning akin to English ‘isn’t it?’/ ‘aren’t they?’/ ‘don’t you think?’:

(54) That’s the one, eh? 188 chapter 9 and as a phatic particle used to maintain the connection between speaker and hearer. In the latter context, it may be used so frequently by some speakers that it could almost be seen as a marker of the end of a clause.

(55) You used to get all little shops, eh. I mean you get towns in England that have changed too, eh. No more little shops. Well, it’s like that in Jersey now too, eh (Ramisch 1989: 111).

Rosen, who consideres the particle to be the perceptually most prominent feature of Jersey English, attributes it with four main pragmatic functions: to seek a response, to emphasise, to request repetition and to ‘floor-hold’ (2014: 76, 205). Such usage is common in Norman, and also in standard French, where the particle involved is hein? [ɛ̃]:

(56) Tchique tu fais, hein? [tʃiktyfɛʔɛ̃] (J) ‘What are you doing, eh?’

Contact is therefore again a likely explanation and, indeed, Rosen (2014: 88) found that the particle was used far more often by bilingual speakers than monolingual speakers. However, as Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvik note (1985: 814) the same particle also occurs in other varieties of English, including Canadian English, New Zealand English and Scottish English (cf. also Gold 2005, 2008; Tagliamonte 2006; Starks, Thompson and Christie 2008: 1280–1281; Miller 2008; Columbus 2010: 219–222).

(iii) Agreement in existential there constructions (Tomlinson 1981:18; Viereck 1988: 474; Ramisch 1989: 92–96, 1994, 2007: 181; Jones 2001: 168; Rosen 2014: 124–140) Existential there’s may be used in Channel Island English with a plural subject. This seems to be attributable to the fact that, in Norman, the most commonly used existential construction with presentative function, y’a, contains a singular verb.

(57) There’s two castles in Jersey (cf. Y’ a deux châtchieaux en Jèrri [jadœ:ʃɑtʃɔ:wɑ̃ʒɛ:ri] (J); St. Eng. ‘There are two castles in Jersey’).

However, this feature may also be observed in many varieties of non-standard English and is common in many varieties of English spoken outside the British Isles (Miller and Brown 1982: 16; Petyt 1985: 237; Quirk, Greenbaum, Leech and Svartvig 1985: 8–9; Britain and Sudbury 2002; Crawford 2005; Walker 2007). Rosen therefore follows Britain and Sudbury (2002)’s argument, suggesting the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 189 that, in Channel Island English, contact might have accelerated this instance of language change, rather than representing its direct cause.

(iv) Pronominal apposition (Ramisch 1989: 156–157; Rosen 2014: 158) Linked to §9.2.2.2(i) above is the emphatic use of a personal pronoun immediately after its antecedent. For example:

(58) [. . .] and the teacher, she was angry, eh.

Although this feature, termed pronominal apposition by Ramisch, who describes its usage in Guernsey English (1989: 156–157), is also widespread in colloquial English it may, in this context, reflect transfer of a widely used Norman construction:

(59) Et la p’tite fille, all’ est bouanne [elaptitfilalebwɔ̃n] (G) lit. ‘And the little girl, she is good’

This is supported by Rosen’s analysis of Jersey English, where the feature is used slightly more frequently by bilinguals than monolinguals (2014: 158).

(v) FAP (Viereck 1988: 474; Barbé 1994: 708–712, 1995: 5–20; Rosen 2014: 103–124) The term ‘FAP’ was coined by Barbé in her 1985 study of Guernsey English to refer to a construction identified more widely in Channel Island English by Viereck (1988: 474). It is analyzed in detail for Jersey English by Rosen (2014). FAP involves the use of a ‘First verb’ (usually to go or to come) plus the conjunction And plus the Plain infinitive, for example:

(60) We went and live there (61) A girl came and see me

Barbé (1994: 710) hypothesizes that FAP may have arisen either through contact with Norman, where the use of a plain infinitive following a first verb is common:15

(62) J’fus veies John [ʒəfyvejdʒɔn] (G) cf. Channel Island English ‘I went and see John’

15 In her analysis of Jersey English, Rosen finds FAP to be more common in the speech of bilinguals than in that of monolinguals (2014: 116). 190 chapter 9 or that, alternatively, it may have arisen as an interdialect form (cf. Trudgill 1986), namely as a conflation of the two standard English alternatives I went and saw John and I went to see John. Another possibility is that FAP may have arisen by speakers generalizing the pattern first verb + and + uninflected second verb, which occurs frequently in standard English when the first verb is also uninflected (e.g. I’ll go and see). The construction may also perhaps occur as a result of the generalization of a perceived pattern of standard English in sentences such as I went and shut the door, where the past form (shut) is identical to the infinitive (Pullum 1990: 231). Barbé (1995: 8) has also found occasional examples of this construction in American English and in South African English. Brinton (1988: 124–125) claims that it was already in existence in Old English, where it served to indicate new circumstances in a narrative sequence.

9.2.2.3 Features Not Attributable to Contact Channel Island English also contains morphosyntactic features found in several other non-standard varieties of English. These are less likely to be attributable to contact from Norman. The most commonly attested include:

(i) Unmarked plurality with nouns of measurement (Ramisch 1989: 160–161, 1994: 458, 2007: 179; Rosen 2014: 172)

(63) They pay 200 pound a week

(ii) Adverb formation without -ly (Ramisch 1989: 161; Rosen 2014: 173)

(64) He runs along quite slow

(iii) Non-standard past tense forms (Ramisch 1989: 161; Viereck 1988: 474; Barbé 1994: 701; Rosen 2014: 144–145)

(65) He seen him/ I done it/ You hurted me

(iv) The use of what as a generalized relativizer (Barbé 1994: 703; Rosen 2014: 148–156):

(66) He learnt a lot of things what was said in the quarry (St. Eng. which/that)16

16 Note also the use of non-standard was. the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 191

(v) The generalization of the -s verbal ending to all persons of the present tense (Viereck 1988: 474; Barbé 1994: 701):

(67) I goes back home

(vi) Multiple negation (Viereck 1988: 475; Ramisch 1989: 162–163, 2007:179; Barbé 1994: 702–703; Rosen 2014: 168)

(68) He don’t know nothing cf. I’n’sait rein [inserɛ̃] (J)

Although this, last, feature also occurs in many varieties of British English (Cheshire, Edwards and Whittle 1989: 205–206; Anderwald 2002: 101–115; Kerswill and Williams 202: 102); its occurrence in the English of the Channel Islands may possibly be reinforced by the discontinuous negation of Norman. Some of the above features (e.g. §9.2.2.1 (vii) (44); (xi); §9.2.2.2 (i); (ii)) are highly salient to speakers of Channel Island English and appear prominently in caricatures of everyday speech (such as the Stone De Croze cartoon strip in the Guernsey Press newspaper (G), the Book of Ebenezer le Page (Edwards 1982) (G) and Jones (1967) (J). Other features, however, (such as FAP) are less well documented and, as Rosen notes (2014: 124), are likely to pass unnoticed, even by speakers who use them on a daily basis.17

9.2.3 Lexis As seen with the regional French of Normandy (§9.1.3), nonce borrowings occur spontaneously in Channel Island English when a bilingual is unable to recall the precise English term required. For example:

(69) My bike is foutu [futy] ‘broken’ (G)18 (70) That’s the faûcheuse [fowʃœ:z] ‘mowing machine’ (J)

Many established Norman loan-words in Channel Island English are ‘cultural’ borrowings. These are local terms that would not be understood by speakers of Mainland Norman (cf. Dressler 1992: 102–103). The following examples, where

17 Other linguistic features of Channel Island English, such as assertive yet, prenominal plenty and the use of the interrogative construction is it (that), are discussed for Guernsey by Barbé (1995) and for Jersey by Rosen (2014). No evidence of these features was found in my data. 18 Note additionally the semantic bleaching of foutu. 192 chapter 9 the corresponding Norman terms are transcribed in the IPA, are drawn from the vocabulary of Channel Island public administration: douzaine [duzɛn] (J, S) [duzojn] (G) (parish council); connétabl’ye [kɔnetabj] (J), connêtable [kunɛtɑbj] (G) (‘constable’, the municipal head of the parish) and centenier [ʃɑ̃tɲi], vingtenier [vẽtɲi] (officers of the parish honorary police force) (J) (cf. Ogier 2005). Given its historical role as the official language of the archipelago, borrowings from standard French abound in fields such as administrative, fiscal and legal (especially land administration) matters: Procureur (G) (Attorney General), Jurat (J, G) (a member of the Royal Court in Guernsey, Alderney and Jersey), Greffe (J, G) (office of the Clerk to the States and Court), Billet d’État (G) (agendas and associated material published prior to meetings of the States in Alderney and Guernsey), Seneschal (S) (Sark’s judge, who also presides at the Chief Pleas, the manorial court of the island of Sark (S)), contrat (title deed), partage (the official term in the Channel Islands for a division or sharing, most commonly found when an estate is inherited and then divided between heirs), vergée [vɛrʒi] (J, G) (a unit of measurement in all the Channel Islands).19 Borrowings from Insular Norman that have become established in other fields (the Norman term is transcribed in the IPA) include bannelais [banlej] (J) (organic road sweepings used for compost), brancage [brɑ̃kɑʒ] (J) (hedge- trimming and yearly official inspection of hedgerows carried out by parish authorities), chouques [ʃuk] (J) ‘logs’, temps pâssé [tɑ̃pɑ:se] (J) ‘time past’, côtil [kowti] (J) ‘steep hillside field’, cliouque [kjowk] (J) ‘seaweed’, vraic [vrɛ] (J, G) ‘seaweed used for fertilizer’, bachîn [baʃẽ] (J, S) [baʃɑ̃j̃] (g) ‘large metal bowl’, douit [dwi] (G) ‘stream’, boud’lot [budlõ] (G) ‘Guy Fawkes’ (a stuffed effigy burnt on bonfires on 5 November), gâche mêlaie (G) [gɑ:ʃme:lɑj] (a type of cake), patin [patɑ̃j̃] (G) (a device for catching spider crabs). The lexis of older speakers is also peppered with greetings, such as mon vier [mɑ̃vjɛr] (J, G) ‘my old man’, and exclamations, e.g. caw chapin [ko:ʃapɑ̃j̃] (G) ‘goodness’ (derived via folk etymology from gâche à pain [gɑ:ʃɑpɔ̃j̃] ‘bread cake’).

19 As the term vergée was once used in standard French, it might be possible to claim that its presence in Channel Island English is due to borrowing from standard French rather than from Norman. However, since the term has been obsolete in standard French for many centuries, this seems unlikely. Vergée might even derive from the English term verge as a linear measurement (Darryl Ogier, Archivist of Guernsey, personal communication). the influence of norman on its Superstrate languages 193

9.3 Summary

The substrate influence of Norman on its Dachsprachen, or ‘roofing’ languages, has resulted in the emergence of distinctive local varieties of French and English. Although not all features described in this chapter are necessarily present in the speech of all the inhabitants of the respective Norman territories, it is clear that many of them have arisen in the speech of bilinguals via the process of substrate contact. As French and English have become increasingly dominant in these territories, many of these features have even gained some presence in the speech of monolinguals who cannot speak Norman.20 While not openly stigmatized, many of these non-standard features are consciously corrected at home and at school, so that the speech of the younger and middle generations often differs from that of more conservative, older speakers who have experienced less contact with outside influences. More detailed and systematic studies (to complement those such as Ramisch 1989 and Rosen 2014) should made of these regional varieties (of Sark English and Alderney English in particular) before they, in turn, start to disappear.

20 The features described in the present chapter are not generally found in the French or the English of more recent immigrants to the Norman territories, since they usually have little contact with Norman. However, some of the particularly salient features (such as the particle eh [§9.2.2.2(ii)]) may occasionally be adopted. Chapter 10 Concluding Remarks

The current sociolinguistic situations of Mainland and Insular Norman are such that they have been effectively replaced as the daily language of conti- nental Normandy and the Channel Islands by, respectively, French and English (§§2.2–2.3; §§4.1–4.4). The high status and economic power of these standard languages make competition impossible from Norman, a little-spoken variety with limited relevance beyond Normandy. Opportunities for using Norman are decreasing steadily throughout the territory and evidence of language contact is apparent, even the mouths of fluent native speakers whose home language is Norman. On the question as to why a speaker’s regularly-used L1 might become affected in this way, Sharwood- Smith and Van Buren suggest that change occurs not because of a lack of use but rather ‘because of a lack of confirming evidence that the L1 is the way it is’ (1991: 23). In other words, if speakers hear (contact-induced) innovative usage from their fellow-speakers, they may well be inclined to adopt such usage themselves in place of more traditional norms. Such an explanation has links with the process of accommodation which Trudgill, among others, recognises as a possible conduit for language change: ‘[. . .] speakers accom- modate to each other linguistically by reducing dissimilarities between their speech patterns and adopting features from each other’s speech. If a speaker accommodates frequently enough to a particular accent or dialect [. . .] then the accommodation may in time become permanent’ (1986: 39). Trudgill adds that the likelihood of accommodation becoming permanent increases if atti- tudinal factors are favourable: thus, in the case of language shift, the greater prestige of the dominant language would certainly come into play. Auer and Hinskens (2005: 335) see language change as incipient when speakers start using an innovation with people other than those from whom they originally heard this innovation (their so-called ‘model speakers’). In other words, with time, an innovation can become a speech ‘habit’ and change becomes expe- dited when ‘second-tier’ innovators form part of the same multiplex and dense social network as the model speakers. It seems reasonable to assume here too that any positive connotations associated with particular innovations (such as links to the more prestigious standard) would facilitate the progress of a particular innovation. Of course, the fact that the process of accommodation may exist within a given speech community at different stages of completeness will

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ��5 | doi ��.��63/9789004257139_011 concluding remarks 195 lead to the existence of quantitative variation between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ variants (cf. Hinskens, Auer and Kerswill 2005: 45). In the Norman context, the existence of two different ‘roofing’ languages means that, where innovation is motivated by language contact, the mainland and insular varieties have the potential to diverge. This study has presented a comparative and systematic analysis of the effects of superstrate contact on five different varieties of Norman: two spoken on the mainland and in contact with French, and three spoken in the Channel Islands and in contact with English. It has focused in turn on phonology, external sandhi (liaison), morphosyntax and the lexis. Notwithstanding its dwindling numbers of speakers, Norman was found to be relatively intact phonologically insofar as all five of the features identified by Joret (1883) as the defining characteristics of Norman are still present in the mainland and insular varieties (§5.1). However, alongside this, the influence of contact is nonetheless apparent and this has led to a certain amount of divergence between these varieties. On the mainland, the ‘Norman’ apical trill [r] is frequently replaced by the ‘French’ uvular fricative [ʁ] (cf. Weinreich 1964: 19). In the Channel Islands, the traditionally dental and unaspirated [t] and [d] are often reinterpreted as alveolar and aspirated, as they are in English (cf. Weinreich 1964: 18) and the apical trill is, in certain phonetic contexts, replaced by the ‘English’ alveolar continuant [ɹ]. The absence of a front rounded glide [ɥ] from English also seems to be motivating the increasing under-differenti- ation of the back rounded glide [w] and the front rounded glide [ɥ] in Insular Norman (cf. Weinreich 1964: 18). Divergence between Mainland and Insular Norman is also apparent in the context of liaison. The so-called ‘obligatory’ liaison contexts of French likewise trigger liaison in both these varieties (§6.1). Yet, in so-called ‘optional’ contexts, mainland usage is much more in line with the standard French pattern than is the case with insular usage (§6.2). Moreover, whereas register has little bearing on the liaison patterns of Insular Norman, in Mainland Norman, as in French, increasing formality of speech often gives rise to more frequent triggering in ‘optional’ contexts (§6.3). Where they differ from those of their corresponding superstrates, Norman morphosyntactic oppositions can also be vulnerable. In Mainland Norman, morphosyntactic categories that are absent from French are often abandoned (cf. past definite tense usage [§7.1(i)], adjective position [§7.3], the 1PL subject pronoun [§7.4(i)], the preposition ‘with’ [§7.4(ii)]) (cf. Weinreich 1964: 42ff). Additionally, the typologically similar and relatively congruent linguistic systems of Norman and French, with much common vocabulary, have led 196 chapter 10 to Abbau-related developments. These include the transfer of morphemes from French to Norman (cf. the ÊTRE auxiliary [§7.1(ii)], the 3PL reflexive pronoun [§8.2.2.1a)], AUX [§8.2.2.1b)]) and the transfer of grammatical relations from French, with French word order becoming applied to Norman adjective position (§7.3) (cf. Weinreich 1964: 3137, 37–39). In these mainland contexts, the language change is generally quite well ‘worked though’, with the surface structure of Norman mapped onto that of French to a reasonably advanced degree and little residual trace remaining of the traditional Norman feature. In other words, French morphosyntactic categories have been integrated within the typologically similar structure of Norman quite easily and quite extensively. Morphosyntactic categories of Insular Norman may also be abandoned when they find no counterpart in English (cf. gender agreement in adjectives [§7.2(ii)], the subjunctive [§7.2(iii)], adjective position [§7.3]). However, the greater typological distance between these varieties makes the assimilation of system morphemes and other well integrated forms far less likely. In this context, language change seems less well advanced, with greater variation apparent between innovative and traditional forms than in the case of Mainland Norman. This suggests that its relative lack of congruence with that of French leaves the Insular Norman linguistic system more structurally intact. In other words, certain types of its structural features are ‘safer’ from the reach of contact (cf. Woolhiser 2005: 261). Contact phenomena abound in the lexis of Mainland and Insular Norman, taking the form of borrowings, calques and loan shifts (§§8.1–8.4) (Weinreich 1964: 47ff, 53ff). Divergence is caused by the fact that, on the mainland and in the islands, different superstrates serve as donor languages. This means that, in the case of borrowings, different lexical items may be transferred or, in the case of loan translations, different syntactic templates may be followed. In instances where the same lexical item is borrowed into both Mainland and Insular Norman, differences in the phonemic systems of French and English cause these to be integrated differently (cf. Weinreich 1964: 26–28). Of course, lexical diversity may also be present for reasons other than superstrate contact (§8.6). The study ends by exploring Weinreich’s claim that, even when one variety is dominant sociolinguistically, contact-induced change may still occur in both directions (1964: 109). As has been seen, Norman is spoken in its mainland and insular territories by decreasing numbers of people. Its superstrate languages clearly predominate in all domains. And yet, because of the Norman linguistic features that have been transferred into these superstrate languages, the regional French of Normandy diverges linguistically from that spoken concluding remarks 197 elsewhere in France (§9.1). In the same way, the regional English of the Channel Islands diverges linguistically from the varieties of English spoken in United Kingdom (§9.2). Even though factors such as population mobility, increased access to the standard language via the education system and the media, and the general globalizing tendency towards greater homogenization of speech may mean that this divergence is already starting to decrease (Jones 2010; Rosen 2014: 181–193), it is intriguing to consider that, should revitalization efforts fail to gain momentum then, for a while at least, Norman will live on via the distinctive local varieties of its superstrates which bear its imprint. This would truly represent a new stage in Norman’s divided linguistic existence.

Bibliography

Adamson, R. 2007. The Defence of French. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ager, D. 1990. Sociolinguistics and Contemporary French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Agren, J. 1973. Enquête sur quelques liaisons facultatives dans le français de conversation radiophonique. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Alderney Labour Market and Population Bulletin 2011 http://www.alderney.gov.gg/ article/100669/Alderney-Labour-Market-Population-Bulletin-Q4–2011 (last accessed 3 July 2013). Amara, M.H. 1999. Politics and Sociolinguistic Reflexes: Palestinian Border Villages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ameringen, A. van and H.J. Cedergren 1981. Observations sur la liaison en français de Montréal. In D. Sankoff & H.J. Cedergren (eds), Variation Omnibus, 141–149 Edmonton: Linguistic Research. Anderwald, L. 2002. Negation in Non-Standard British English. Gaps, Regularization and Asymmetries. London: Routledge. Andreassen, H. and C. Lyche 2009. Le français du canton de Vaud: Une variété auto- nome. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 63–93. Paris: Hermès. Anonymous 1847. The Channel Islands or a peep at our neighbours. In J. Stevens Cox (ed.) (1970) Guernsey in Queen Victoria’s Reign, 5–23. Guernsey: Toucan Press. Anquetil-Amchin, J. 1978. Le Parler des pêcheurs de Grandcamp (Calvados). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Ansted, D.T. and R.G. Latham 1893. The Channel Islands. (3rd ed., revised by E. Toulmin Nicolle). London: W.H. Allen. Appel, R. and P. Muysken 1993. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Arnold (1st edition 1987). Ashby, W.J. 1981. French liaison as a sociolinguistic phenomenon. In W.W. Cressey and D.J. Napoli (eds), Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages, 46–57. Washington: Georgetown University Press. Aub-Buscher, G. 1962. Le parler rural de Ranrupt (Bas-Rhin). Essai de dialectologie vosgi- enne. Paris: Klincksieck. Auer, P. 2005. Europe’s sociolinguistic unity, or: a typology of European dialect/standard constellations. In N. Delbecque, J. van der Auwera and D. Geeraerts (eds), Perspectives on Variation. Sociolinguistic, Historical, Comparative, 7–42. Berlin: New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Auer, P. and F. Hinskens 1996, The convergence and divergence of dialects in Europe. New and not so new developments in an old area. Sociolinguistica 10: 1–30. 200 bibliography

———. 2005. The role of interpersonal accommodation in a theory of language change. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, 335–357. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Auer, P., F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), 2005. Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baetens Beardsmore, H. 1979. Les Contacts des langues à Bruxelles. In A. Valdman (ed.), Le Français hors de la France, 223–247. Paris: Champion. Ball, R. 1997. The French Speaking World. London: Routledge. Barbe, L. 1907. Dictionnaire du patois normand en usage à Louvier et dans les environs. Louviers: Izambert. Barbé, P. 1985. A study of Guernsey English. Unpublished manuscript. ———. 1994. Guernsey English: my mother tongue. Report and Transactions of La Société Guernesiaise 23/4: 700–723. ———. 1995. Guernsey English: a syntax exile? English World-Wide 16: 1–36. Barère, B. 1794. Rapport du Comité de Salut Publique sur les idiomes http://www.tlfq .ulaval.ca/axl/francophonie/barere-rapport.htm (last accessed 22 March 2014). Battye, A., M-A Hintze and P. Rowlett 2000. The French Language Today. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Bauche, H. 1929. Le Langage populaire. Paris: Payot. (Reprinted 1946). Bellmann G. 1998. Between base dialect and standard language. Folia Linguistica 32/1– 2: 23–34. Berruto, G. 2005. Dialect/standard convergence, mixing, and models of language contact: the case of Italy. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, 81–95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Berry, W. 1815. The History of the Island of Guernsey. London: John Hatchard. Bougourd, J.M. 1897. Our insular dialect. Transactions of the Guernsey Society of Natural Science and Local Research 3: 183–192. Birt, P. 1985. Lé Jèrriais pour tous. A Complete Course on the Jersey Language. Jersey: Don Balleine. Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1997. Approches de la langue parlée en français. Paris: Ophrys. Bloch, O. 1927. L’assibilation d’R dans les parlers gallo-romans’. Revue de Linguistique Romane 3: 92–156. Boeschoten, H. 1997. Convergence and divergence in migrant Turkish. In K. Mattheier (ed.), Dialect and Migration in a Changing Europe, 145–154. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Boissel, P. 1970. Étude du parler de la region de Littry (Calvados). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. bibliography 201

———. 1986. “Marcel, marchiez trachi la pouque dans le bigar” ou aspects de la conscience linguistique dans le Bessin en 1984. Annales de Normandie 36/1: 57–73. Booij, G.E. and D. De Jong 1987. The domain of liaison: theories and data. Linguistics 25: 1005–1025. Bordal, G. and G. Legeden 2009. La prononciation du français à l’île de la Réunion: évolution des variations de la norme. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 175–202. Paris: Hermès. Boretzky, N. 1994. Interdialectal interference in Romani. In Y. Matras (ed.), Romani in Contact, 69–94. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Bosquet, Y. 1970. Étude du parler de Montgardon (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Bougy, C. 2009. Pratiques dialectales en Normandie. In M.C. Jones and T. Bulot (eds), Sociolinguistique de la langue normande, 149–164. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bourdon, J.-P., A. Cournée and Y. Charpentier 1993. Dictionnaire normand-français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Boutin, B.A and G. Turcsan. 2009. La prononciation du français en Afrique: la Côte d’Ivoire. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 131–152. Paris: Hermès. Bowern, C. 2010. Fieldwork in contact situations. In R. Hickey (ed.), The Handbook of Language Contact, 340–358. Oxford: Blackwell. Bradley, D. 1989. The Disappearance of Ugong in Thailand. In N.C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 33–40. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brasseur, P. 1972. Géographie linguistique de la Plaine de Caen. Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Caen. ———. 1973. L’isoglosse du k issue de c + a latin dans le department du Calvados. In G. Straka and W. Stumpf (eds), Les Dialectes romans de France à la lumière des atlas régionaux, 311–320. Paris: CNRS. ———. 1977. Le français dans les îles anglo-normandes. Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature 16: 97–104. ———. 1978a. Les principales caractéristiques phonétiques des parlers normands de Jersey, Sercq, Guernesey et Magneville (canton de Bricquebec, Manche), première partie. Annales de Normandie 25/1: 49–64. ———. 1978b. Les principales caractéristiques phonétiques des parlers normands de Jersey, Sercq, Guernesey et Magneville (canton de Bricquebec, Manche), deuxième partie. Annales de Normandie 25/3: 275–306. ———. 1980, 1984, 1997, 2010. Atlas linguistique et ethnographique normand. Paris: CNRS, (2010: Caen: Presses Universitaires de Caen). ———. 1983. La langue de deux récits enregistrés dans le pays de Caux. Études Normandes 4: 53–62. 202 bibliography

———. 1990. Le Parler normand: mots et expressions du terroir. Paris: Rivages. ———. 1995. Les parlers normands. Français de France et français du Canada, 105–144. Centre d’études linguistiques Jacques Goudet, Université de Lyon III Jean Moulin. ———. 1997. Créoles à base lexicale française et français marginaux d’Amérique du Nord: quelques points de comparaison. In M.C. Hazaël-Massieux and D. De Robillard (eds), Contacts de langues, contacts de cultures, créolisation, 141–166. Paris: L’Harmattan. Brenzinger, M. 1992. Lexical retention in language shift: Yaaku/Mukogodo-Maasai and Elmolo/Elmolo-Samburu. In M. Brenzinger (ed.), Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, 213–254. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Brinton, L.J. 1988. The Development of English Aspectual Systems. Aspectualizers and Post-Verbal Particles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Britain, D. and A. Sudbury 2002. There’s sheep and there’s penguins: convergence, ‘drift’ and ‘slant’ in New Zealand and Falkland Island English. In M.C. Jones and E. Esch (eds), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra- Linguistic Factors, 209–240. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Brouchon 1949. Étude du patois de Moon-sur-Elle (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Paris. Brun, A. 1951. En langage maternel françois. Français Moderne 19: 81–86. Brunot, F. 1967. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nous jours. (2nd ed.) Paris: A. Colin. Brunot, F. and C. Bruneau 1905. Histoire de la langue française, des origines à 1900. Paris: A. Colin. ———. 1969. Précis de grammaire historique de l’ancien français. Paris: Masson. Bulot, T. 1998. Parler Rive Gauche, parler Rive Droite ou les représentations de l’espace urbain à Rouen. In Rouen: reconstruction, langages (Sociolinguistique normande: langues en ville), 59–71. Republished in T. Bulot (ed.), 2001. Espaces de discours (Pratiques langagières et représentations sociolinguistiques): volume 2, 248–264. Mont-St-Aignan, France: Université de Rouen. ———. 2006. La Langue vivante: L’identité sociolinguistique des Cauchois. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bulot, T. and M.C. Jones 2009. Une ou des langues normandes? Politique linguistique et territorialisation. In M.C. Jones and T. Bulot (eds), Sociolinguistique de la langue normande, 7–19. Paris: L’Harmattan. Bunting, M. 1996. The Model Occupation. The Channel Islands under German Rule 1940– 1945. London: Harper Collins. Bybee, J. 2001. Frequency effects on French liaison. In J. Bybee and P. Hopper (eds), Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure, 337–359. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. bibliography 203

———. 2005. La liaison: effets de fréquence et constructions. Langages 158: 24–37. Camuzard, A. 1996. Comparaison phonétique, morphosyntaxique et lexicale du parler de Melle (Deux-Sèvres) et du parler de la Hague (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Canale, M., R. Mougeon and M. Belanger 1978. Analogical levelling of the auxiliary Être in French. In M. Suñer (ed.), Contemporary Studies in Romance Linguistics, 41–61. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Carton, F. 1981. Les parlers ruraux de la région Nord-Picardie: situation sociolinguistique. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 29: 15–28. Carton, F., M. Rossi, D. Autesserre and P. Léon 1983. Les Accents des Français. Paris: Hachette. Available online at: http://accentsdefrance.free.fr (last accessed 22 March 2014). Cassan, F., F. Héran and L. Toulemon 2000. Étude de l’histoire familiale: l’édition 1999 de l’enquête Famille. Courrier des Statistiques, INSEE 93: 25–37. Cerquiglini, B. 1999. Les Langues de la France. Available online at: http://www.dglflf. culture.gouv.fr/lang-reg/rapport_cerquiglini/langues-france.html (last accessed 22 March 2014). Chauveau, J.-P. 1998. La disparition du subjonctif à Terre-Neuve, Saint-Pierre et Miquelon et en Bretagne: propagation ou récurrence? In P. Brasseur (ed.), Français d’Amérique: variation, créolisation, normalisation, 105–119. Avignon: Centre d’Études Canadiennes, Université d’Avignon. Cheshire, J., V. Edwards and P. Whittle. 1989. Urban British dialect grammar: the question of dialect levelling. English World-Wide 10/2:185–225. Clanché, F. 2002. Langues régionales, langues étrangères: de l’héritage à la pratique. INSEE Première 830. Also available online at: http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/ ip830.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). Clédat, L. 1927. En marge des grammaires: futur dans le passé, ses valeurs modales. Revue de Philologie Française 39: 17–41. Clyne, M 1967. Transference and Triggering. The Hague: Nijhoff. Coates, R. 1991. The Ancient and Modern Names of the Channel Islands: A Linguistic History. Stamford: Paul Watkins. Cochet, E. 1933. Le Patois de Gondecourt. Paris: Droz. Cohen, M. 1965. Le Subjonctif en français contemporain. (2nd ed.) Paris: SEDES. Collas, J.P. 1931. A critical examination of the ‘Atlas Linguistique de la France’ in so far as it concerns the Island of Guernsey. Unpublished B.Litt dissertation, University of Oxford. ———. 1934. Some aspects of the Norman dialect in the Channel Islands, with special reference to Guernsey. Report and Transactions of La Société Guernésiaise 12: 213–25 [published 1939]. 204 bibliography

Columbus, G. 2010. ‘Nice day, eh?’: Canadian and New Zealand eh compared. In B. Heselwood and C. Upton (eds), Proceedings of Methods XIII. Papers from the Thirteenth International Conference on Methods in Dialectology, 2008, 219–228. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Conwell, M. and A. Juilland 1963. Louisiana French Grammar, volume 1: Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Coquillon, A. 2007. Le français parlé à Marseille: exemple d’un locuteur PFC. In S. Detey and D. Nouveau (eds), PFC: enjeux descriptifs, théoriques et didactiques; Bulletin PFC 7: 145–156. Available online at: http://www.projet-pfc.net/ (last accessed 22 March 2014). Coulomb, Y. 1967. Étude de parler d’Orval. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Crawford, W.J. 2005. Verb agreement and disagreement: a corpus investigation of con- cord variation in existential there + be constructions. Journal of English Linguistics 33/1: 35–61. Crossan, R-M. 2005. The retreat of French from Guernsey’s public primary schools, 1800–1939. Report and Transactions of La Société Guernésiaise, 25/5: 851–888. ———. 2007. Guernsey 1814–1914: Migration and Modernisation. Woodbridge: Boydell. Dahmen, W. 1995. Français parlé québecois—français parlé de France: Konvergenz und Divergenz. In W. Dahmen et al. (eds), Konvergenz und Divergenz in den romanischen Sprachen, 223–237. Tübingen: G. Narr. Dauby, J. 1979. Le Livre du ‘Rouchi’, parler picard de Valenciennes. (2nd ed.) Amiens: Musée de Picardie. Dauzat, A. 1927. Les Patois. Paris: Delagrave. Dawkins, R.M. 1916. Modern Greek in Asia Minor: A Study of the Dialects of Silli, Cappadoccia and Phársa with Grammars, Texts, Translations, and Glossary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cited in Thomason and Kaufman 1988). De Bouard, M. (ed.) 1970. Histoire de la Normandie. Toulouse: Privat. De Certeau, M., D. Julia and J. Revel 1975. Une politique de la langue: la Révolution fran- çaise et les patois. Paris: Gallimard. Decorde, J.-E 1852. Dictionnaire du patois du Pays de Bray. Available online at: http:// gutenberg.ca/ebooks/decorde-dictbray/decorde-dictbray-00–h-dir/decorde- dictbray-00–h.html (last accessed 22 March 2014). De Fresnay, A.G. 1881. Memento du patois normand. Rouen: Ch. Métérie. De Garis, M. 1982. Dictiounnaire Angllais-Guernesiais. (3rd ed.) Chichester: Phillimore. ———. 2012. Dictiounnaire Angllais-Guernesiais (revised and enlarged 4th ed.), Chichester: Phillimore. ———. 1983. ‘Guernesiais: a grammatical survey’, Report and Transactions of La Société Guernésiaise 21/3: 319–353. bibliography 205

De Gorog, R.P. 1958. The Scandinavian Element in French and Norman. New York: Bookman Associates. De Guérin, T.W.M. 1905. The English garrison of Guernsey from early times. Transactions of the Guernsey Society of Natural Science and Local Research 5: 66–81. De Jong, D., E. Poll and W. Woudman. 1981. La liaison: l’influence sociale et stylistique sur l’emploi de la liaison dans le français parlé à Tars. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Groningen. De Jong, D. 1989. A multivariate analysis of French liaison. In M.E.H. Schouten and P.T. van Reenan (eds), New Methods in Dialectology, 19–32. Dordrecht: Foris. ———. 1994. La sociophonologie de la liaison orléanaise. In C. Lyche (ed.), French Generative Phonology: Retrospective and Perspectives, 95–130. AFLS/ESRI. De la Croix, M. 1858–60. Jersey, ses antiquités, ses institutions, son histoire. Jersey: C. Le Feuvre (2 volumes). Delattre, P. 1966. Studies in French and Comparative Phonetics. The Hague: Mouton. Désirat, C. and T. Hordé 1988. La Langue française au 20e siècle. Paris: Bordas. Dickès, J.-P. 1992. Le Patois boulonnais. Boulogne-sur-Mer: La Société d’Impression du Boulonnais. Dillard, J.L. 1985. Towards a Social History of American English. Berlin: Mouton. Dimmendaal, G. 1992. Reduction in Kore reconsidered. In M. Brenzinger (ed.), Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, 117–135. Berlin and New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Dolbecq, M-T. 1970. Le parler local de Bréel (Orne). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Dorange, S. 1990. Étude d’un idiolecte de la region du Val de Saire (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Dorian, N.C. 1977. The problem of the semi-speaker in language death. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 12: 23–32. ———. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death: evidence from ESG. Language 54: 590–609. ———. 1981. Language Death: The Life Cycle of a Scottish Gaelic Dialect Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ———. 1994a. Varieties of variation in a very small place: social homogeneity, prestige norms and linguistic variation. Language 70: 631–696. ———. 1994b. Stylistic variation in a language restricted to private-sphere use. In D. Biber and E. Finegan (eds), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, 217–232. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. (ed.) 1989. Investigating Obsolescence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorléans, E. 1970. Étude du parler de Pont-Hébert (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. 206 bibliography

Dressler, W. 1991. The sociolinguistic and patholinguistic attrition of Breton phonology, morphology and morphonology. In H.W. Seliger and R.M. Vago (eds), First Language Attrition, 99–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drieux-Nabet, N. 1983. Le parler local de Saint-Fraimbaul (Orne). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Dubois, J., H. Mitterand and A. Dauzat (eds) 1993. Dictionnaire étymologique et historique du français. Paris: Larousse. Dubos, R. 1994. Dictionnaire du patois normand. Condé-sur-Norieau: Charles Corlet. Duméril, E.P., and A.E.S Duméril 1949. Dictionnaire du patois normand. Caen: B. Mancel. Durand, J. and C. Lyche 2003. Le projet ‘Phonologie du Français Contemporain’ (PFC) et sa méthodologie. In E. Delais and J. Durand. (eds), Corpus et variation en phonologie du français: méthodes et analyses, 212–276. Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail. ——— 2008. French liaison in the light of corpus data. Journal of French Language Studies 18/1: 33–66. Durand, J., B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), 2009a. Phonologie, variation et accents du Français. Paris: Hermès. ——— 2009b. Le projet PFC: une source de données primaires structurées. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 19–62. Paris: Hermès. Edwards, G.B. 1982. The Book of Ebenezer Le Page. Harmondsworth: Penguin. Elegoet, F. 1978. Nous ne savions que le Breton et il fallait parler français—mémoires d’un paysan du Léon. La Baule: Breizh hor Bro. Emanuelli, F. 1906. Le parler populaire de l’île anglo-normande d’Aurigny. Revue de Philologie Française et de Littérature 20: 44–53. ———. 1907. Le parler populaire de l’île anglo-normande d’Aurigny, suite. Revue de Philologie Française et de Littérature 21: 136–142. Encrevé, P. 1983. La liaison sans enchaînement. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales 46: 39–66. ———. 1988. La Liaison avec et sans enchaînement. Paris: Seuil. Erard, M. 1972. Étude du parler de Saint-Martin-de Chaulieu (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Esch, E. 2002. My Dad’s auxiliaries. In M.C. Jones and E. Esch (eds), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors, 111–139. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Ewen, A.H. and A.R. De Carteret 1969. The Fief of Sark. Guernsey: The Guernsey Press Co. Ltd. Eychenne, J. 2009a. La prononciation du français au Pays Basque. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 231–258. Paris: Hermès. bibliography 207

———. 2009b. Une variété de français conservatrice en Languedoc. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 259–284. Paris: Hermès. Fagyal, Zs, D. Kibbee and F. Jenkins 2006. French: A Linguistic Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Falkert, A. 2005. Quelques spécificités du français acadien des îles de la Madeleine. In P. Brasseur and A. Falkert (eds), Français d’Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques, 71–82. Paris: L’Harmattan. ——— 1970a. La Normandie Royale. In M. De Bouard, (ed.), Histoire de la Normandie, 195–217. Toulouse: Privat. ———. 1970b. La Tourmente. In M. De Bouard, (ed.), Histoire de la Normandie, 219–253. Toulouse: Privat. Fennolosa-Maillard, J. 1969. Le parler local de Passais-la-Conception (Orne). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Ferguson, C.A. 1959. Diglossia. Word 15: 325–340. Fiorelli, P. 1950. Pour l’interprétation de l’ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts. Français Moderne 18: 277–288. Fishman, J.A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon, Philadelphia, Adelaide: Multilingual Matters (Multilingual Matters 76). ——— (ed.) 2001. Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fleischman, S. 1982. The Future in Thought and Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleury, J.F.B. 1883. No normand et on français. Romania 12: 342–345. ———. 1886. Essai sur le patois normand de la Hague. Paris: Maisonneuve et Leclerc. Flikeid, K. and L. Péronnet 1989. N’est-ce pas vrai qu’il faut dire ‘J’avons été’?: Divergences régionales en acadien. Français Moderne 57: 219–228. Foucault, M. 1973. ‘Moi, Pierre Rivière, ayant égorgé ma mère, ma soeur et mon frère’, un cas de parricide au XIXe siècle. Paris: Gallimard-Julliard. Fouché, P. 1952. Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Klincksieck (volume 1). ———. 1959. Traité de la prononciation française. Paris: Klincksieck ———. 1961. Phonétique historique du français. Paris: Klincksieck (volume 3). Fougeron, C., J.P. Goldman and U. Frauenfelder. 2001. Liaison and Schwa Deletion in French: An Effect of Lexical Frequency and Competition? Aalborg: Eurospeech. Fox, C.A. 1998. Le transfert linguistique et la réduction morphologique: le genre dans le français de Cohoes. In P. Brasseur (ed.), Francais d’Amérique: variation, créolisation, normalisation, 61–74. Avignon: Centre d’Études Canadiennes, Université d’Avignon. ———. 2005. La variation syntaxique à Woonsocket: ébauche d’une grammaire du franco-américain. In P. Brasseur and A. Falkert (eds), Français d’Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques, 39–48. Paris: L’Harmattan. 208 bibliography

Frei, H. 1929. La Grammaire des fautes. (Rept. 1971) Geneva: Slatkine Reprints. Frémont, A. 1981. Paysans de Normandie. Paris: Flammarion. Fromage, J. 2008 Parler comme chez nous. Créances: Aubert Graphic. Gadet, F. 1989. Le Français ordinaire. Paris: Armand Colin. ———. 1992. Le Français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. ———. 2003/2007. La Variation sociale en français. Paris: Ophrys. Galliou, P. and M. Jones 1991. The Bretons. Oxford: Blackwell. Gancel, H. 1975. Étude du parler de la region de Saint-Georges-de-Rouelley (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ———. 1980. Le parler normand du Saint-Lois (Manche). Thèse d’Etat, Université de Caen. ———. 2004. V’n-ous d’aveu mei? Mes prémyires léouns de normaund. Sainte Marie Outre l’Eau: Duflot. Gellner, E. 1983. Nations and Nationhood. Oxford: Blackwell. Gérin, P. 1982. ‘Je suis fier que tu as pu venir’. Remarques sur le mode, dans l’usance franco-acadienne, des propositions subordonnées introduites par que complétant des verbes ou locutions exprimant un sentiment. Si que 5: 25–41. Gerritsen, M. 1999. Divergence of dialects in a linguistic laboratory near the Belgian- Dutch-German border: similar dialects under the influence of different standard languages’. Language Variation and Change 11/1: 43–66. Gesner, E.B. 1979. Description de la morphologie verbale du parler acadien de Pubnico (Nouvelle-Ecosse) et comparaison avec le français standard. Québec: Centre International de Recherche sur le Bilinguisme. Giacalone Ramat, A. 1979. Language function and language change in minority languages. Journal of Italian Linguistics 4/ 2: 141–162. Gilléron, J. and E. Edmont 1902–1910. Atlas linguistique de la France. Paris: Honoré Champion (35 volumes). ———. 1902. Notice servant à l’intelligence des cartes. Paris: Honoré Champion. Goebl, H. 2000. Langues standards et dialectes locaux dans la France du sud-est et de l’Italie septentrionale sous le coup de l’effet frontière: une approche dialectomé- trique. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 145: 181–215. Gold, E. 2005. Canadian ‘Eh?’, a survey of contemporary use. Proceedings of the 2004 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg. Available online at http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cla-acl/actes2004/ Gold-CLA-2004.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). ———. 2008. Canadian eh? From eh to zed. Anglistik 19/2: 141–156. Goube, I-J.C 1815. Histoire du Duché de Normandie. Paris: Thomine; Rouen: Mégard. Grammaire normative du normand n.d. Available online at: http://www.scribd.com/ doc/100722533/Langue-Nouormande-Norman-Grammar (last accessed 10 January 2013). bibliography 209

Green, J. and M.-A. Hintze 1990. Variation and change in French linking phenomena. In J. Green and W. Ayres-Bennett (eds), Variation and Change in French, 61–88. London: Routledge. Grégoire, l’Abbé H.-B. 1794. Rapport sur la nécessité et les moyens d’anéantir les patois et d’universaliser la langue française. Available online at: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/ axl/francophonie/gregoire-rapport.htm (last accessed 22 March 2014). Grenoble, L.A. and L.J. Whaley (eds) 1998a. Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——— 1998b. Towards a typology of language endangerment. In L.A Grenoble and L.J. Whaley (eds), Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response, 22–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2006. Saving Languages: An Introduction to Language Revitalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grevisse, M. 1988. Le Bon Usage. (12th ed.) Paris and Gembloux: Duculot. Grillo, R. 1989. Dominant Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Grinevald, C. and M. Bert. 2011. Speakers and communities. In P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, 45–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guerlin De Guer, C. 1899. Essai de dialectologie normande. La palatalisation des grou- ples initiaux gl, fl, kl, pl, bl étudiée dans les parlers de 300 communautés du départe- ment du Calvados. Paris: E. Bouillon. ———. 1901. Le Parler populaire dans la commune de Thaon (Calvados). Paris: Bouillon. Guernsey Census 2001. Available online at: http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id= 2329&p=0 (last accessed 22 March 2014). Guernsey Annual Population Bulletin 2012. Available online at: http://www.gov.gg/ article/106608/Guernsey-Annual-Population-Bulletin-2012 (last accessed 22 March 2014) Guéroult, N. 1991. Étude du parler de la région de Falaise. Thèse DEA, Université de Caen. Guespin, L. 1985. Introduction. Matériaux pour une glottopolitique. Cahiers de Linguistique Sociale 9: 135–150. Guillot, C. 1975. Les Îles anglo-normandes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Guiraud, P. 1965. Le Français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Gumperz, J.J. and R. Wilson 1971. Convergence and creolization: a case from the Indo- Aryan/Dravidian border. In D.H. Hymes (ed.), Pidginization and Creolization of Languages, 151–168. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guppy, A.W. 1975. A Selection of ‘Stone De Croze’ Strip Cartoons as featured in the Guernsey Evening Press and Star. Guernsey: The Guernsey Press. Hall, D. 2007. Le français de Rouen (Haute-Normandie, France): une variété de français qui représente bien sa ville. Bulletin du Projet ‘Phonologie du Français Contemporain’ 7: PFC: Enjeux descriptifs, théoriques et didactiques 2007: 171–192. Available online at: 210 bibliography

http://www.projet-pfc.net/bulletins-et-colloques/cat_view/918–bulletins-pfc/931– bulletin-pfc-nd7.html (last accessed 22 March 2014). ———. 2008. A sociolinguistic study of the regional French of Normandy. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania. ———. 2013. Twentieth-century varieties reflecting mediaeval settlement in Normandy: combining modern and historical dialectology. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia: International Journal of Linguistics. Available online at: http://www .tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03740463.2012.746404 (last accessed 22 March 2014). Hambye, P. and A.C. Simon. 2009. La prononciation du français en Belgique. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 95–130. Paris: Hermès. Harrison, K.D. and G.D.S. Anderson 2008. Tofa language change and terminal generation speakers. In K.D. Harrison et al. (eds), Lessons from Endangered Languages, 243–270. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Hauchard, V. 1988. Étude du parler normand du canton de Condé-sur-Noireau (Calvados). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Haugen, E. 1950. The analysis of linguistic borrowing. Language 26: 210–232. Hébért, J. 1984. Présentation du dialecte cauchois. Yvetot: Fédération des Foyers Ruraux de la Seine-Maritime. Heine, B and T. Kuteva 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heller, M. 2003. Globalization, the new economy, and the commodification of language and identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 7: 473–492. Héran, F., A. Filhon and C. Deprez 2002. Language transmission in France in the course of the twentieth century. Population et Sociétés 376. Available online at: http://www. ined.fr/fichier/t_publication/65/publi_pdf2_pop_and_soc_english_376.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). Highfield, A.R. 1979. The French Dialect of St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands: A Descriptive Grammar with Texts and Glossary. Ann Arbor: Karoma. Hindley, R. 1990. The Death of Irish. London: Routledge. Hinskens, F. 1993. Dialect als lingua franca? Dialectgebruik in het algemeen en bij grensoverschrijdend contact in het Nederrijnland en Twente’. In L. Kremer (ed.), Diglossiestudien. Dialekt und Hochsprache im niederländisch-deutschen Grenzland, 209–245. Vreden: Landeskundliches Institut Westmünsterland. Hinskens, F., P. Auer and P. Kerswill 2005. The study of dialect convergence and divergence: conceptual and methodological considerations. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, 1–48. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hock, H.H. 1991. Principles of Historical Liguistics. (2nd ed.) Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. bibliography 211

Hornsby, D.C. 2006. Redefining Regional French. Oxford: Legenda. Hublart, C. 1979. Le Français de Jersey. Unpublished thesis, Université de l’Etat à Mons. Huëlin, L. and R. Nichols 2000. Les Preunmié Mille Mots. Jersey: Société Jersiaise. Huffines, M.L. 1980. Pennsylvanian German: maintenance and shift. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 25: 43–57. ———. 1989. Case usage among the Pennsylvanian German sectarians and non sectarians. In N.C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 211–226. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hull. A. 1956. The French Canadian dialect of Windsor, Ontario: a preliminary study. Orbis 5: 35–60. Hyman, L. 1985. A Theory of Phonological Weight. Dordrecht: Foris. Inglis, H. 1844. The Channel Islands. (4th ed.) London: Whittaker and Co. INSEE/INED 1999. L’enquête ‘l’Étude de l’histoire familiale’. Available online at: http:// www.insee.fr/fr/themes/document.asp?reg_id=0&ref_id=irsoc033 (last accessed 22 March 2014). Jennings, G. and J. Marquis (eds) 2011. The Toad and the Donkey. An Anthology of Norman Literature from the Channel Islands. London: Francis Boutle. Jersey Census 2011. Available online at: http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/ Government%20and%20administration/R%20CensusBulletin1%2020111208%20 SU.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). Jigourel, T. 2011. Patois et chansons de nos grands-pères en Basse Normandie. Romorantin: Editions CPE. Johnson, H. 2008. Constructing islandness on Jersey: a study of language and La Fête Nouormande. Available online at: http://sicri-network.org/ISIC3/l.%20ISIC3P%20 Johnson.pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). Johnston, P. 1994. A Short History of Guernsey. (4th ed.) Guernsey: Guernsey Press Co. Jones, D. 1967. The ‘are and the tortus; Cinderella; Garfawkesnart; Rumple le Stiltskin; Redrardinood. Island Topic, July–December. Jones, M.C. 1996. The role of the speaker in language obsolescence: the case of Breton in Plougastel-Daoulas, Brittany. Journal of French Language Studies 6/1: 45–73. ———. 1998a. Language Obsolescence and Revitalization. Linguistic Change in Two Sociolinguistically Contrasting Welsh Communities. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ———. 1998b. Death of a language, birth of an identity: Brittany and the Bretons. Language Problems and Language Planning 22/2: 129–142. ———. 2000. The subjunctive in Guernsey Norman French. Journal of French Language Studies 10/2: 177–203. ———. 2001. Jersey Norman French: A Linguistic Study of an Obsolescent Dialect. Oxford: Blackwell (Publications of the Philological Society, 34). ———. 2002. Mette a haout dauve la grippe des Angllaïs: Convergence on the island of Guernsey. In M.C. Jones and E. Esch (eds), Language Change: The Interplay of 212 bibliography

Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors, 143–168. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. ———. 2005a. Some social and structural correlates of intrasentential code-switching in Jersey Norman French. Journal of French Language Studies 15: 1–23. ———. 2005b. Transfer and changing linguistic norms in Jersey Norman French. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 8/2: 159–175. ———. 2007. Channel Island French. In D. Britain (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 358–367. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2008a. The Guernsey Norman French Translations of Thomas Martin: A Linguistic Study of an Unpublished Archive. Leuven: Peeters (Orbis Supplementa, 31). ———. 2008b. Identity planning in an obsolescent variety: the case of Jersey Norman French. Anthropological Linguistics 50/3–4: 249–265. ———. 2010. Channel Island English. In D. Schreier, P. Trudgill, E.W. Schneider and J.P. Williams (eds), The Lesser-Known Varieties of English, 35–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2012a. Variation and change in Sark Norman French. Transactions of the Philological Society 110/2: 149–170. Available online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley .com/doi/10.1111/j.1467–968X.2012.01288.x/pdf (last accessed 22 March 2014). ———. 2012b. Liaison patterns and usage in Jersey Norman French. Probus 24/2: 197–232. ———. 2012c. La littérature récente (après 1950) des îles anglo-normandes. Bien Dire et Bien Aprandre 28: 87–95. ——— (in press) Auregnais: Insular Norman’s Invisible Relative. Transactions of the Philological Society. Jones, M.C. and S. Ogilvie (eds) 2013. Keeping Languages Alive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Joret, C. 1881. Essai sur le patois normand du Bessin. Paris: Vieweg. ———. 1883. Des Caractères et de l’extension du patois normand. Paris: Vieweg. ———. 1884. Mélanges de phonétique normand. Paris: Vieweg. Judge, A. 2007. Linguistic Policies and the Survival of Regional Languages in France and Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kallen, J., F. Hinskens and J. Taeldeman (eds) 2000. Merging and Drifting apart. Convergence and Divergence of Dialects across Political Borders. Special edition of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (145). Kerswill, P. 1996. Divergence and convergence of sociolinguistic structures in Norway and England. Sociolinguistica 10: 90–104. Kerswill, P. and A. Williams. 2002. ‘Salience’ as an explanatory factor in language change: evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. In M.C. Jones and E. Esch (eds), Language Change: The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-Linguistic Factors, 81–110. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. bibliography 213

Kibrik, A.E. 1991. The problem of endangered languages in the USSR. In E.M. Uhlenbeck and R.H. Robins (eds), Endangered Languages, 257–273. Oxford: Berg. King, R. and G. Butler 2005. Les Franco-Terreneuviens et le franco-terreneuvien. In A. Valdman, J. Auger and D. Piston-Hatten (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord, 169–185. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. King, R. and T. Nadasdi 2005. Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient mourir en français acadien. In P. Brasseur and A. Falkert (eds), Français d’Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques, 103–111. Paris: L’Harmattan. Klingler, T. 2006. PFC en terrain louisianais: défis et adaptation du protocole. Inter- national conference, Phonologie du français contemporain: données et enjeux théoriques, Paris, MRSH, 3–5 February 2006. Kloss, H. 1967. ‘Abstand languages’ and ‘Ausbau languages’, Anthropological Linguistics 9/7:29–41. Korac, C. 1979. The role of speech style in the realization of optional liaison in French: a pilot study. La Linguistique 15: 149–154. Kremer, L. 1979. Grenzmundarten und Mundartgrenzen. Cologne: Böhlau Verlag. Kremer, L. and H. Niebaum 1990. Zur Einführung: Grenzdialekte als Gradmesser des Sprachwandels. In L. Kremer and H. Niebaum (eds), Grenzdialekte. Studien zur Entwicklung kontinentalwestgermanischer Dialektkontinua (Germanistische Linguistik 101–103). Zurich/ New York: Olms. Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lagrange, R. 1980. Pommes et poires dans la region de Domfront (Orne). Étude de vocabulaire. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Lagueux, P.-A. 2005. Caractéristiques morphosyntaxiques du français québécois. In P. Brasseur and A. Falkert (eds), Français d’Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques, 57–69. Paris: L’Harmattan. Laîné, S. 1991. Etat linguistique et conscience linguistique dans le Bocage valognais. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ——— 2006. Évolution phonétique des toponymes dans le Nord-Cotentin. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université de Caen. Langouët, L. 1986. Les îles anglo-normandes à l’époque gallo-romaine. In P. Johnston (ed.), The Archaeology of the Channel Islands, 121–137. Chichester: Phillimore. Laurier, M. 1988. Le subjonctif dans le parler franco-ontarien: un mode en voie de disparition. In R. Mougeon and E. Beniak (eds), Le français canadien parlé hors Quebec. Aperçu sociolinguistique, 105–126. Laval: Presses de l’Université Laval. Lebarbenchon, R.-J. 1980. Des filles, une sorcière, Dame Toumasse et quelques autres: chronique dialectale et poétique des femmes d’antan. Cherbourg: Azeville. ———. 1988. La Grève de Lecq. Littératures et cultures populaires de Normandie. Cherbourg: Isoète. 214 bibliography

Lechanteur, F. 1948. Le Nouvel Atlas linguistique de la France: l’enquête en Basse Normandie. Français Moderne 16: 109–122. ———. 1968. Quelques traits essentiels des parlers de la Basse-Normandie et plus par- ticulièrement du département de la Manche. Studier i Modern Språkvetenskap 3: 185–223. Lecoq, E. 1969. Glossaire des patois normands du Nord de la Manche. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Ledot, M. 1974. Recherches sur le parler local de Blainville-sur-Mer (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Le Feuvre, G.F. 1976. Histouaithes et Gens d’Jèrri. Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1983. Jèrri Jadis. Jersey: Don Balleine. Le Huray, C.P. 1952. The Bailiwick of Guernsey. London: Hodder and Stoughton (revised edition, ed. J. Uttley, 1969). Le Jeune, T. 1982. Étude du parler de Vire et de Vaudrey (Calvados). Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Caen. Lelièvre, V. 1979. Recherches sur le parler local de Gratot (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Le Maistre, F. 1947. The Jersey language in its present state. The passing of a Norman heritage. Paper read before the Jersey Society in London, 8th July 1947. London: The Jersey Society. ———. 1966. Dictionnaire Jersiais-Français. Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1979a. The Jersey Language. (Booklet to accompany Cassette 2). Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1979b. The Jersey Language. (Booklet to accompany Cassette 3). Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1979c. The Jersey Language. (Booklet to accompany Cassette 4). Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1979d. The Jersey Language. (Booklet to accompany Cassette 5). Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1982. The Language of Auregny/ La Langue normande d’Auregny. (Booklet and cassette recording). Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 1993. The Jersey Language. (Booklet to accompany Cassette 1). Jersey: Don Balleine. Le Marquand, E.D. 1905. The Guernsey dialect and its plant names. Report and Transactions of the Guernsey Society of Natural Science and Local Research, 5: 31–47. Leménorel A. (ed.) 2004. Nouvelle Histoire de Normandie. Toulouse: Privat. Léon, P. 1992. Phonétisme et prononciations du français avec des travaux d’application et leurs corrigés. Paris: Nathan. Le Patourel, J. 1937. The Medieval Administration of the Channel Islands 1199–1399. London: Oxford University Press. bibliography 215

Le Pelley, J. 1975. I am Guernsey—Me! The Review of the Guernsey Society 21: 17–19. Lepelley, R. 1973. Le parler normand du Val de Saire. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Université de Lille III. ———. 1974. Le Parler Normand du Val de Saire (Manche). Published as Cahiers des Annales de Normandie 7. Caen: Musée de Normandie. ———. 1975. Français régional de Basse-Normandie: Les marques du genre et du nom- bre dans les adjectifs à finale vocalique. Français Moderne 43: 1–11. ———. 1978. Parler de Normandie. In J-R Ragache (ed.), Normandie: Ecologie, Economie, Art, Literature, Langue, Histoire, Traditions Populaires, 69–84. Paris: Christine Bonneton. ———. 1980. Les régionalismes dans le mémoire de Pierre Rivière, paysan normand du XIXe siècle. La Linguistique 16/2: 67–90. ———. 1993a. Dictionnaire du français régional de Normandie. Paris: Christine Bonneton. ——— 1993b. Vocabulaire français régional: les rapports entre la Basse et la Haute Normandie. Revue de la Manche 35: 77–82. ———. 1995. Paroles de Normands: textes dialectaux du XIIe au XXe siècle. Caen, France: Presses Universitaires de Caen / Condé-sur-Noireau: Charles Corlet. ———. 1999a. La Normandie dialectale. Petite encyclopédie des langages et mots régio- naux de la province de Normandie et des îles anglo-normandes. Condé-sur-Noireau: Presses Universitaires de Caen. ———. 1999b. Noms de lieux de Normandie et des îles anglo-normandes. Paris: Christine Bonneton. ———. 2010a. Mots et parlures de la Normandie. Cherbourg-Octevile: Isoète. ———. 2010b. Le Parler de Normandie. Paris: Christine Bonneton. ———. n.d. Le système des oppositions phono-morphologiques de la conjugaison française en Basse Normandie. Available online at: http://www.crisco.unicaen.fr/ Rene-LEPELLEY.html (last accessed 22 March 2014). Lewis, E.S. 1895. Guernsey: Its People and Dialect. Baltimore: Modern Language Association of America. Li, C. 1983. Languages in contact in western China. Papers in East Asian Languages 1: 31–51. (Cited in Thomason and Kaufman 1988). Liddicoat, A.J. 1989. A brief survey of the dialect of Sark. Report and Transactions of La Société Guernésiaise 22 ⁄ 4: 689–704. ———. 1990. Some structural features of language obsolescence in the dialect of Jersey. Language Sciences 12/2–3: 197–208. ———. 1994. A Grammar of the Norman French of the Channel Islands. The Dialects of Jersey and Sark. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. ———. 2001. Lexicon of Sark Norman French. Munich: Lincom Europa. 216 bibliography

———. 2008. The erosion of Norman French dialect features: evidence from linguistic atlases. In From the Southern Hemisphere: Parameters of Language Variation. E-proceedings of the Australian Linguistic Society. Available online at http://ses. library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/7106 (last accessed 22 March 2014). Lodge, R.A. 1993. French: From Dialect to Standard. London and New York: Routledge. Loi Deixonne 1951. Loi no 51–46 du 11 janvier 1951 relative à l’enseignement des langues et des dialectes locaux. Available online at: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/europe/ France-loi_Deixonne-texte-1951.htm (last accessed 22 March 2014). Lonnemann, B. and T. Meisenburg 2007. Une leçon d’école buissonnière en français du Midi. In S. Detey and D. Nouveau (eds), PFC: enjeux descriptifs, théoriques et didactiques Bulletin PFC 7: 217–226. Available online at: http://www.projet-pfc.net/ (last accessed 22 March 2014). ——— 2009. Une variété française imprégnée d’occitan. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 285–306. Paris: Hermès. Lozay, G. 1982. Analyse d’une situation linguistique en pays de Caux. Le canton de Yerville. Thèse de troisième siècle, Université de Rouen. Lukis, E.F. 1981. An Outline of the Franco-Norman Dialect of Guernsey as a Written Language. (revised ed.) Guernsey: Europrint. Lyche, C. and K.A. Østby 2009. Le français de la haute bourgeoisie parisienne: une variété conservatrice. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 203–230. Paris: Hermès. Mabire, J. and J.-R. Ragache 1976. Histoire de la Normandie. Paris: Hachette. Mackinnon, K. 1982. Scottish opinion on Gaelic. Social Sciences Reports Series 14. Maddieson, I. 1984. Patterns of Sounds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Magène. 2007. Veillie normaunde. CD. Maguire, G. 1991. Our Own Language. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Malécot, A. 1975. French liaison as a function of grammatical, phonetic and paralin- guistic variables. Phonetica 32: 161–179. Marguerie, L. 1957. Le parler de Cerisy-la-Salle (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ———. 1960. Étude philologique d’un parler de la Manche: Cerisy-la-Salle. Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Caen. Marie, E. 1973. Le langage maritime à Saint-Germain-des-Vaux et à Auderville (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ———. 2012. Dictionnaire normand-français. Bayeux: OREP. Marie-Main, C. Étude sur le parler et la vie des pêcheurs de Trouville-sur-Mer (Calvados). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Marr, L.J. 1982. The History of Guernsey. Chichester: Phillimore. bibliography 217

Marquis, Y, and J. Sallabank 2013. Speakers and language revitalization: a case study of Guernésiais (Guernsey). In M.C. Jones and S. Ogilvie (eds), Keeping Languages Alive, 331–354. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Martinet, A. 1945. La Prononciation du français contemporain: témoignages recueillis en 1941 dans un camp d’officiers prisonniers. Paris: Droz. Mattheier, K. 1996. Varietätenkonvergenz. Überlegungen zu einem Baustein einer Theorie der Sprachvariation. Sociolinguistica 10: 31–52. Matras, Y. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Maury, N. 1972. Le système vocalique d’un parler normand: Liesville-sur-Douve (Manche). Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Caen. Mauvoisin, J. 1963. Étude du parler local de Créances (Manche). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ———. 1995. Le normand: une langue. Le Viquet 110: 51–55. ———. 2002. Principes essentiels d’orthographe normalisée normande. In Ecrire les langues d’oïl, 173–180. Charleroi: micRomania. McCammon, A.L.T. 1984. Currencies of the Anglo-Norman Isles. London: Spink. Mensire, R. 1977. Le Patois cauchois. (2nd ed.) Yvetot: Société Cauchoise de Presse. Métivier, G. (n.d.) The Sermon on the Mount and the Parable of the Sower in the Franco- Norman Dialects of Guernsey and Sark. Guernsey: Thomas-Mauger Bichard. ———. 1870. Dictionnaire franco-normand ou recueil des mots particuliers au dialecte de Guernesey, faisant voir leurs relations romanes, celtiques, tudesques. London/ Edinburgh: Williams and Norgate. Miller, J. 2008. Scottish English: morphology and syntax. In B. Kortmann and C. Upton (eds), Varieties of English, vol 1: The British Isles, 299–327. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Miller, J. and K. Brown 1982. Aspects of Scottish English syntax. English World-Wide 3: 3–17. Miller, J.S. and Zs Fagyal. 2005. Phonetic cues to common and special cases of liaison. Looking for a prosodic domain. In R.S. Gess and E.J. Rubin (eds), Theoretical and Experimental Approaches to Romance Linguistics: Selected Papers from the 34th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (LSRL), Salt-Lake City, Utah, 179–196. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Milroy, L. 1987. Observing and Analyzing Natural Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Milroy, L. and M. Gordon 2003. Sociolinguistics: Method and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. Moisy, H. 1886. Dictionnaire de patois normand. Caen: H. Delesques. Morin, Y.-C. 1981. Où sont passés les s finals de l’ancien français? In D. Sankoff and H. Cedergren (eds), Variation Omnibus, 35–47. Edmonton: Linguistic Research. ———. 1986. On the morphologization of word-final consonant deletion in French. In H. Andersen (ed.), Sandhi Phenomena in the Languages of Europe, 167–210. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. 218 bibliography

———. 1990. La prononciation de /t/ après ‘quand’. Linguisticae Investigationes 14/1: 175–189. ———. 2005. La liaison relève-t-elle d’une tendance à éviter les hiatus? Réflexions sur son évolution historique. Langages 158: 8–23. Morin, Y.-C. and J. Kaye. 1982. The syntactic bases for French liaison. Journal of Linguistics 18: 291–330. Morvannou, F. 1980. Le Breton: la jeunesse d’une vieille langue. Saint Brieuc: Editions Presses populaires de Bretagne. Mougeon, R. and E. Beniak 1987. The extralinguistic correlates of core lexical borrowing. In K. Denning et al. (eds), Variation in Language: New Ways of Analyzing Variation, 337–347. Stanford: Stanford University Press. ———. 1989. Language contraction and linguistic change: the case of Welland French. In N.C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 287–312. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1991. Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction. The Case of French in Ontario, Canada. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Muller, B. 1985. Le Français d’aujourd ‘hui. Paris: Klincksieck. Myers-Scotton, C. 1993. Duelling Languages. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ———. 2002. Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. N.N. 1849. Les Îles de la Manche, Jersey et Guernsey en 1848 et 1849. Revue des Deux Mondes 4: 937–967. Neumann-Holzschuh, I. 2005. Le subjonctif en français acadien. In P. Brasseur and A. Falkert (eds), Français d’Amérique: approches morphosyntaxiques, 125–144. Paris: L’Harmattan. Neumann-Holzschuh, I., P. Brasseur and R. Wiesmath 2005. Le français acadien au Canada et en Louisiane. In A. Valdman, J. Auger and D. Piston-Hatten (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord, 479–503. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. Neveux, F. 1998. La Normandie des ducs aux rois: Xe–XIIe siècle. Rennes: Ouest-France. Nguyen, N., S. Wauquier-Gravelines, L. Lancia and B. Tuller. 2007. Detection of liaison consonants in speech processing in French: experimental data and theoretical implication. In P. Prieto, J. Mascaró and M.J. Sole (eds), Segmental and Prosodic Issues in Romance Phonology, 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Niederehe, H.-J. 1991. Quelques aspects de la morphologie franco-terreneuvienne. In B. Horiot (ed.), Français du Canada—français de France, 161–172. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. Nouvel, A. 1978. Le Français parlé en Occitanie. Montpeller: the author. Ogier, D.M. 2005. The Government and Law of Guernsey. Guernsey: States of Guernsey. Olshtain, E. and M. Barzilay 1991. Lexical retrieval difficulties in adult language attrition. In H.W. Seliger and R.M. Vago (eds), First Language Attrition, 139–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. bibliography 219

Pages Jèrriaises. Available online at: http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/ jerriais.html (last accessed 18 April 2014). Pala, E. 2009. The role of social networks in dialect maintenance. Unpublished MPhil thesis, University of Cambridge. Palgrave, F. 1851–1864. History of Normandy and England. London: J.W. Parker. Palsgrave, J. 1969 [1530]. L’Esclarcissement de la langue francoyse. Menston: Scholar Press. Pepin, N. 2007. Catégoriser la langue, catégoriser les locuteurs, emblèmes et identitée située: le case de septante—soixante-dix, nonante—quatre-vingt-dix. In W. Ayres- Bennett and M.C. Jones (eds), The French Language and Questions of Identity, 150– 159. Oxford: Legenda. Péronnet, L. 1989. Le Parler acadien du sud-est du Nouveau Brunswick: éléments gram- maticaux et lexicaux. New York: Peter Lang. Petyt, K.M. 1985. Dialect and Accent in Industrial West Yorkshire. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Peyre, H. 1933. La Royauté et les langues provinciales. Paris: Presses modernes. Pézeril, R. 2012. Le Parler normand. Sayat: De Borée. Picoche, J. and C. Marchello-Nizia 1991. Histoire de la langue française. Paris: Nathan. Picone, M.D. and A. Valdman 2005. La situation du français en Louisiane. In A. Valdman, J. Auger and D. Piston-Hatten (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord, 143–165. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. Piron, M. 1979. Le Français de Belgique. In A. Valdman (ed.), Le Français hors de la France, 201–221. Paris: Champion. Pohl, J. 1978. Communication field and linguistic field: the influence of the border (France and Belgium) on the French language. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 15: 85–90. Poiré, F. 2009. Le français canadien en milieu minoritaire: le cas du sud-ouest ontarien. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 153–173. Paris: Hermès. Pope, M.K. 1934. From Latin to Modern French. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Poplack, S. and M. Meechan 1998. How languages fit together in code-mixing. International Journal of Bilingualism 2: 127–138. Poplack, S., D. Sankoff and C. Miller, 1988. The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation. Linguistics 26: 47–104. Porcher, C. 1984. Le parler local de la region fertoise (Orne). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Posner, R. 1996. Linguistic Change in French. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Price, G. 1971. The French Language: Present and Past. London: Arnold. ———. 2003 A Comprehensive French Grammar. (5th ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 2008. A Comprehensive French Grammar. (6th ed.) Oxford: Blackwell. 220 bibliography

Pullum, G.K. 1990. Constraints on intransitive quasi-serial verb constructions in modern colloquial English. Working Papers in Linguistics (Ohio: The Ohio State University) 39: 218–239. Pustka, E. 2009. PFC et la phonologie du français en Vendée. In J. Durand, B. Laks and C. Lyche (eds), Phonologie, variation et accents du français, 307–335. Paris: Hermès. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartik, J. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of The English Language. London: Longman. Ramisch, H. 1989. The Variation of English in Guernsey, Channel Islands. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. ———. 1994. English in Jersey. In W. Viereck (ed.), Regional Variation, Colloquial and Standard Languages, 452–462. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. ———. 2007. English in the Channel Islands. In D. Britain (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 176–182. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press. Renaud, J. 2002. Les Vikings et la Normandie. Rennes: Ouest-France. Rickard, P. 1974. A History of the French Language. London: Hutchinson and Co. Robin, P-E., A. Le Prévost, A.-F. Passy and E.P. De Blosseville 1879. Dictionnaire du patois normand en usage dans le département de l’Eure. Evreux: Hérissey. Rogers, I. 1981. The influence of Australian English intonation on the speech of two British children. Working Papers of the Speech and Language Research Centre, Macquarie University 3: 25–42. Romdahl, A. 1881. Glossaire du patois du Val de Saire (Manche). Linköping: Ridderstads Boktryckeri. Rosen, A. 2014. Grammatical Variation and Change in Jersey English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Rosenberg, P. 2005. Dialect convergence in the German language islands (Sprachinseln). In P. Auer, F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, 221–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rottet, K.J. 1995. Language shift and language death in the Cajun French-speaking communities of Terrebonne and Lafourche parishes, Louisiana. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Indiana University, Bloomington. ———. 2004. Attestation et disparition du type ‘j’avons’ en français acadien. Paper presented at the international conference, Grammaire Comparée des Variétés de Français d’Amérique, Avignon, May 2004. ———. 2005. Variation et étiolement en français cadien. In A. Valdman, J. Auger and D. Piston-Hatten (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord, 243–260. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. Rouchdy, A. 1989. ‘Persistence’ or ‘tip’ in Egyptian Nubian. In N.C. Dorian (ed.), Investigating Obsolescence, 91–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. bibliography 221

Rowlett, P. 2007. The Syntax of French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sallabank, J. 2013. Attitudes to Endangered Languages: Identities and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sankoff, G. 1973. Above and beyond phonology in variable rules. In G. Sankoff (ed.) The Social Life of Language, 81–93. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sankoff, G. and P. Thibault 1980. The alternation between the auxiliaries avoir and être in Montreal French. In G. Sankoff (ed.), The Social Life of Language, 311–345. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Sapir 1921 [1979]. Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech. London: Granada. Sasse, H.-J. 1992. Theory of language death. In M. Brenzinger (ed.), Language Death. Factual and Theoretical Explorations with Special Reference to East Africa, 7–30. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Sauvageot, A. 1962. Français écrit, français parlé. Paris: Hachette. Schane, S. 1968. French Phonology and Morphology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Schmidt, A. 1985. Young People’s Dyirbal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schortz, M. 1998. Le Parler de Senneville-sur-Fécamp. Uppsala, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Scott Warren, A. and G. Jennings 2015. Jèrriais in the twenty-first century. In M.C. Jones (ed.), Endangered Languages and New Technologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sebire, H.R. 2003. Frederick Corbin Lukis: a remarkable archaeologist and polymath. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Southampton. Seutin, E. 1975. Description grammaticale du parler de l’I�le-aux-Coudres. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal. Sharwood Smith, M. and P. Van Buren 1991. First language attrition and the parameter setting model. In H.W. Seliger and R.M. Vago (eds), First Language Attrition, 17–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shorrocks, G. 1981. A grammar of the dialect of Farnworth and district (Greater Manchester County, formerly Lancashire). Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sheffield. (Cited in Ramisch 1989, p. 126). Singh, R. 1982. On some ‘redundant compounds’ in Modern Hindi. Lingua 56: 345–351. Sitaridou, I. 2013. Greek-speaking enclaves in Pontus today: the documentation and revitalization of Romeyka. In M.C. Jones and S. Ogilvie (eds), Keeping Languages Alive, 209–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sjøgren, A. 1964. Les Parlers bas-normands de l’île de Guernsey. I: Lexique français- guernesiais. Paris: Klincksieck. Skråmm, Y. 2004a. Chronological stages in the foundation of Normandy. Available online at: http://www.viking.no/e/france/colonisation_map.html (last accessed 22 March 2014). 222 bibliography

———. 2004b. Place names based on a Scandinavian personal name element. Available online at: http://www.viking.no/e/france/personal-place-names.htm (last accessed 22 March 2014) Société Jersiaise 2008a. Dictionnaithe Jèrriais-Angliais. Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 2008b. Dictionnaithe Angliais-Jèrriais. Jersey: Le Don Balleine. Sole, S. 2007. The Bad French. DVD Guernsey: BBC Guernsey. Spence, N.C.W. 1957a. Jèrriais and the dialects of the Norman Mainland. Bulletin de la Société Jersiaise 17: 81–90. ———. 1957b. L’Assibilation de l’r intervocalique dans les parlers jersiais. Revue de Linguistique Romane 21: 270–288. ———. 1960. Glossary of Jersey French. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1984. Channel Island French. In P. Trudgill (ed.), Language in the British Isles, 345–351. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1985. Phonologie descriptive des parlers jersiais: I. Les voyelles. Revue de Linguistique Romane 49: 151–165. ———. 1987. Phonologie descriptive des parlers jersiais: II. Les consonnes. Revue de Linguistique Romane 51: 119–133. ———. 1990. Sporadic changes in Jersey French. In J.N. Green and W. Ayres-Bennett (eds), Variation and Change in French, 210–225. London: Routledge. ———. 1993. A Brief History of Jèrriais. Jersey: Don Balleine. ———. 2003. Parlers jersiais et parlers bas-normands. Revue de Linguistique Romane 67: 159–177. Spolsky, B. 2011. Language and society. In P.K. Austin and J. Sallabank (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages, 141–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Starets, M. 2002. The complementizer c with the wh-word quo in a Franco-Ontarian vernacular of south-western Ontario. Journal of French Language Studies 12: 55–71. Starkks, D., L. Thompson and J. Christie 2008. Whose discourse particles? New Zealand eh in the Niuean migrant community. Journal of Pragmatics 40/7: 1279–1295. States of Alderney 1974. Alderney: A Short History and Guide. Guernsey: Guernsey Press Co. Ltd. States of Guernsey 2010. Our Way of Life: A Cultural Strategy for Guernsey 2010–14. Available online at: http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4685&p=0 (last accessed 22 March 2014). Stead, J. 1809. A Picture of Jersey. London: Longman. Svenson, L. 1959. Les Parlers du marais vendéen. Gothenburg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. Syvret, M. and J. Stevens 1998. Balleine’s History of Jersey. West Sussex: Phillimore and Co. bibliography 223

Szlezak, E. 2010. Aspects morphosyntaxiques des variétés du français canadien parlées au Massachusetts. In M. Drescher and I. Neumann-Holzschuch (eds), La Syntaxe de l’oral dans les variétés non-hexagonales du français, 111–121. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Tagliamonte, S. 2006. ‘So cool, right?’: Canadian English entering the 21st century. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 51/2–3: 309–331. Thogmartin, C.O. 1970. The French dialect of Old Mines, Missouri. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Michigan. ———. 1979. Old Mines, Missouri et la survivance du français dans la haute vallée de Mississippi. In A. Valdman (ed.), Le Français hors de la France, 111–118. Paris: Champion. Thomason, S.G. 2001. Language Contact. Washington: Georgetown University Press. ——— and T. Kaufman 1988. Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press. Thorel, J-L. 1972. Étude d’un parler du Pays de Caux (Doudeville). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Rouen. Tomlinson, Harry 1981. Le Guernesiais—étude grammaticale et lexicale du parler normand de l’île de Guernesey. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Edinburgh. ———. 2008. A Descriptive Grammar of Guernsey French. Guernsey: Melody Press. Tomlinson, Hazel (ed.) 2006. P’tites Lures Guernésiaises. Jersey: ELSP. Touzeil-Divina, F. 1969. Le parler local du canon de Flers (Orne). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. Tranel, B. 1981. The treatment of French liaison: descriptive, methodological and theoretical implications. In H. Contreras and J. Klausenburger (eds), Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Symposium on Romance Linguistics, 261–281. Seattle: University of Washington Press. ———. 1987. The Sounds of French: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1990. On suppletion and French liaison. Probus 2/2: 161–208. ———. 1996. French liaison and elision revisited: a unified account within Optimality Theory. In C. Parodi, C. Quicoli, M. Saltarelli and M.L. Zubizarreta (eds), Aspects of Romance Linguistics, Selected Papers from the Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages XXIV March 10–13, 1994, 433–455. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Trask, L. 1996. Historical Linguistics. London: Arnold. Treffers-Daller, J. 1999. Borrowing and shift-induced interference: contrasting patterns in French-Germanic contact in Brussels and Strasbourg. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2: 1–22. Trésor de la langue normande (TLN) 2013. Marigny: Eurocibles. Trudgill, P. 1983. On Dialect. Social and Geographical Perspectives. Oxford: Blackwell. 224 bibliography

———. 1986. Dialects in Contact. Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1994. Language contact and dialect contact in linguistic change. In U.-B. Kotsinas and J. Helgander (eds), Dialektkontakt, Sprakkontakt och Sprakförändring i Norden, 13–22. Stockholm: Författarna. Tupper, F.B. 1854. The History of Guernsey and its Bailiwick. Guernsey: S. Barbet. Tyne, H. 2003. Introduction et remarques sur le point d’enquête PFC à Cherbourg. La Tribune Internationale des Langues Vivantes 33: 159–165. Université Populaire Normande du Coutançais (UPNC) 1995. Essai de grammaire de la langue normande. Périers: Garlan. Valls, J. 1967. Étude philologique du parler de Goderville (Seine-Maritime). Unpublished Master’s thesis, Université de Caen. ———. 1971. Étude d’un parler du Pays de Caux. Thèse de troisième cycle, Université de Caen. Venne, R. and G. Allez 1992. Alderney Annals. Alderney: The Alderney Society. Viereck, W. 1988. The Channel Islands: an anglicist’s no man’s land. In J. Klergraf and D. Nehls (eds), Essays on the English Language and Applied Linguistics on the Occasion of Gerard Nickel’s 60th Birthday, 468–478. Heidelberg: Julius Gros. von Wartburg, W. 1922–. Französiches etymologisches Wörterbuch: eine Darstellung des galloromanischen Sprachschatzes. Tübingen: JCB Mohr. Walker, D.C. 2005. Le français dans l’ouest canadien. In A. Valdman, J. Auger and D. Piston-Hatten (eds), Le Français en Amérique du Nord, 187–205. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université de Laval. Walker, J.A. 2007. ‘There’s bears back there’. Plural existentials and vernacular univer- sals in (Quebec) English. English World-Wide 28/2: 147–166. Walter, H. 1977. La Phonologie du français. Paris, France: Presses Universitaires de France. ———. 1982. Enquête phonologique et variétés régionales du français. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Weber, E. 1977. Peasants into Frenchmen. The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914. London: Chatto and Windus. Weinreich, U. 1953. Languages in Contact. (Reprt. 1964) London: The Hague: Paris: Mouton. Wetzels, W.L. 1987. The timing of latent consonants in modern French. In C. Neidle and R. Nuñez Cedeño (eds), Studies in Romance Languages, 283–317. Dordrecht: Foris. Wheaton, H. 1831. History of the Northmen. London: John Murray. Whitney, W.D. 1881. On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philosophical Association 12: 1–26. Wiesmath, R. 2000. Enchaînement des propositions dans le français acadien du Nouveau-Brunswick, Canada. Place de ce parler parmi d’autres variétés d’outre-mer. Unpublished dissertation, University of Freiburg. bibliography 225

Winford, D. 2003. An Introduction to Contact Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Wise, H. 1997. The Vocabulary of Modern French. London: Routledge. Woolhiser, C. 2005. Political borders and dialect divergence/convergence in Europe. In P. Auer, F. Hinskens and P. Kerswill (eds), Dialect Change: Convergence and Divergence in European Languages, 236–262. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yard, F. 2013 [1939]. Le Parler normand entre Caux, Bray et Vexin. Fontaine-le-Bourg: Le Pucheux. Zepeda, O. and J.H. Hill 1991. The condition of Native American languages in the United States. In E.M. Uhlenbeck and R.H. Robins (eds), Endangered Languages, 135–155. Oxford: Berg. Index

Abbau 10, 11, 64, 116, 117, 141, 196 Diglossia 1, 6, 29, 117 Accommodation, linguistic 194 Divergence, linguistic 8, 9, 11, 48 n.15, 53, 64, Advergence see also convergence 9, 11, 108, 83, 101, 116, 117, 119, 132, 133, 141, 143, 144, 149, 113, 115–116, 117–134, 141, 151 151, 155–165, 166, 195, 196, 197 Alderney Dorian, Nancy 11 n.17, 33, 53 n.17, 65, 69, 82, Census 4 n.6 86 History 7 n.10, 16, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 Population 4 n.6, 27, 28 England 1, 2, 17–18, 23, 27, 29 Second World War 31–32, 180 English 1, 6, 9, 10, 11, 14, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, States of 25, 192 33, 38, 39, 43, 66, 71, 72, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 91, Atlas Linguistique de la France 2 n.2, 4 n.7, 96, 98, 99, 110 n.16, 117, 119 n.3, 122–130, 14–15, 83–99, 102, 105, 107, 110, 115, 119, 121, 130–134, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 147, 152–154, 123, 126, 127, 130, 131–132, 133–134, 137–138, 154–155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 179, 140, 149 n.11, 150 n.12, 151, 155–165 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, Atlas Linguistique et Ethnographique 190, 191, 192 n.19, 193, 194, 195, 196 Normand 14, 15, 54, 55, 83–99, 102 n.4, Regional English of the Channel Islands 121 n.9, 123, 127, 132, 138, 145 n.4, 149 n.11, 9, 166, 172, 179–192, 193, 197 155–165, 170 n.6 Lexis 191–192 Auer, Peter 6–7, 9–10, 11, 194–195 Morphosyntax 172, 182–191 Ausbau 9 Phonology 179–182 Auregnais 4, 53 n.19 European Charter for Regional or Minority Language transmission 4 n.7, 28, 32 Languages 23, 24, 73

Basque 24, 105 France Belgium 22, 46 Constitution 20, 23, 24 French of 105, 109, 119 n.6, 123 n.15, Education system 20, 21, 24 130 n.25 First World War 22–23, 81 Bellmann, Günter 6 History 1–2, 18–25 Breton 24 Linguistic legislation 23, 24, 73 Revolution 20–21 Canada Second World War 22, 23, 81 French of 110 n.16, 119 n.3, 121, 125, 129, Franks 16, 17, 38 138, 148, 173, 176 French see also Belgium, Canada, English of 188 Switzerland 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, Catalan 24 15, 15 n.23, 20, 21 nn.10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 24, 27, Channel Islands see Alderney, Guernsey, 28, 31, 34–46, 48, 49, 40, 51,52, 53, 54, 56, 60 Jersey, Sark nn.26, 27, 67, 68 n.4, 70, 71, 72, 78, 80, 81, 82, Channel Island English see also Regional 84, 91, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100–101, 102, 103, English of the Channel Islands 104, 105, 107, 108, 109, 110, 110 n.16, 112–113, Regional linguistic variation 56–60, 60–63 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 n.9, 121, 122–130 Convergence, linguistic 9, 11, 140, 152 130–134, 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 154, 155, 156, De Garis, Marie 8 n.11, 14, 42, 43, 44, 57, 61, 63, 157, 160, 161, 162, 163, 166, 168, 169, 170, 171, 78 n.26, 87, 122, 136, 147, 149, 155, 159, 163 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 181, 184, 188, Diaglossia 6–7, 117 192, 193, 194, 195, 196 Index 227

Regional French of mainland 1pl 42, 107 n.12, 134–139, 142 Normandy 9, 166–179, 193, 196 Reflexive 148, 149–150, 151, 196 Lexis 155, 158 n.18, 159, 160, 161, 162, Subjunctive mood 43, 127–130, 141, 171, 177–179, 191 196 Morphosyntax 171–177, 182 Phonology see also Regional variation Phonology 167–171 34–39, 47–52, 83–99, 195 Frisian 16 Regional variation 53 ‘Fudged’ forms see also Interdialect forms 9, Lexis 63, 155–165 84, 124 Morphosyntax 62–63 Phonology 61–62, 80, 83–99 Gaelic, East Sutherland 86 Sociolinguistics 65–66, 68, 70–73, 77–82 Gallo 24 Guernsey Germany Census 4 n.5, 28, 32–33 German military forces 22, 23, 31–32 Education system 10, 29, 72, 76, 197 Guernésiais History 17, 18, 25–33 Domains of use 1, 8, 10, 29, 32, 71–73, 81, Population 2–3, 27, 28 144, 196 Second World War 31, 32, 179 Language planning and revitalization States of 25, 76, 192 65, 72, 76–77, 197 Tourism 29, 32–33 Guernsey Language Commission 76 Trade 1, 18, 26, 27, 29 L’Assembllaïe d’Guernésiais 77, 80 La Société Guernésiaise 31, 76 Hinskens, Frans 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 194, 195 Language transmission 12, 65, 69–70, 70–71 Intelligibility, mutual 6, 52–53, 63, 65, 79–81 Lexis see also Regional variation 45–46, Interdialect forms 124, 146, 190 87, 88, 96, 108, 143–165, 195 Interference Loan shifts 154–155, 165, 196 Covert 142 Loan translations (calques) 79, Overt 142 152–154, 165, 196 Loan-words (borrowings) 30, 39, 79, Jèrriais 80, 96, 123, 143–152, 158, 159, 160, 161, Domains of use 1, 8, 10, 32, 71–73, 81, 144, 162, 163, 165, 192, 196 196 Liaison 101, 103–112, 114–116, 195 Language planning and revitalization Morphosyntax see also Regional 65, 72, 73, 74–76, 78, 197 variation 39–44, 49, 50, 89, 93–95, L’Assembliée d’Jèrriais 75, 80 117–142, 195, 196 La Société Jersiaise 4 n.7, 8 n.11, 31, 75 Adjective agreement 43–44, 124–127, L’Office du Jèrriais 75, 76, 78 141, 196 Language transmission 12, 65, 69–70, Adjective position 44, 105, 130–134, 70–71 142, 196 Lexis see also Regional variation 45–46, Auxiliary usage 43, 119–121, 141, 196 57, 87, 88, 108, 143–165, 195 Past definite tense usage 42–43, Loan shifts 154–155, 165, 196 117–119, 141, 186 Loan translations (calques) 79, 124, Prepositions 44, 107–108, 139–140, 145, 152–154, 165, 196 141–142, 148, 150–151, 152–153, 185 Loan-words (borrowings) 39, 79, 96, Pronouns 42, 104, 107, 114–115, 115 123, 139, 143–152, 158, 159, 160, 161, n.20, 126, 185–186, 187, 189 165, 192, 196 Impersonal 42, 107 n.12, 135–139 Liaison 101, 102, 103–116, 195 228 Index

Jèrriais (cont.) Le Maistre, Frank 4n.7, 8 n.11, 14, 32, 44, 57, Morphosyntax see also Regional variation 59, 75, 78 n.26, 87, 96, 102, 147, 155, 159, 161 39–44, 49, 50, 78, 93–95 117–142, 195, 196 Lechanteur, Fernand 38, 39, 48, 49, 50, 51, Adjective agreement 43–44, 124–127, 52, 58 n.22, 77, 78 n.25, 86, 172 141, 196 Ligne Joret isogloss 51–52, 54, 167, 171 Adjective position 44, 105, 126, 130–134, 142, 154, 196 Mainland Norman Auxiliary usage 43, 119–121, 124, 141, 196 Domains of use 1, 8, 10, 24, 71–73, 81, 144, Past definite tense usage 42–43, 59, 196 117–119, 141, 186 Language planning and revitalization Prepositions 44, 96, 107–108, 139–140, 65, 72, 73–74, 77, 197 141–142, 148, 150–151, 152–153, 185 Cercles normands 73, 74 n.13 Pronouns 40 n.5, 41–42, 104, 107, 113, Language transmission 12, 25, 65, 69–70, 114–115, 126, 185, 187 70–71 Impersonal 41, 42, 135–139 Lexis see also Regional variation 17, 1pl 41, 42, 134–139, 142 45–46, 87, 88, 108, 143–165, 195 Reflexive 148, 149–150, 151, 196 Loan shifts 165, 196 Subjunctive mood 43, 127–130, 141, Loan translations (calques) 145, 154, 196 157, 165, 196 Phonology see also Regional variation Loan-words (borrowings) 39, 91, 123, 34–39, 47–52, 83–99, 195 143–152, 155, 156, 161, 162, 163, 165, Regional variation 53 196 Lexis 59–60, 155–165 Liaison 101, 102, 103–116, 195 Morphosyntax 59 Morphosyntax see also Regional variation Phonology 57–59, 80, 83–99 39–44, 49, 50, 93–95, 117–142, 195–196 Sociolinguistics 65–66, 70–73, 77–82 Adjective agreement 43–44, 124–127 Jersey Adjective position 44, 105, 130–134, Census 2 n.4, 32, 33 142, 154, 195, 196 Education system 10, 29, 72, 75, 197 Auxiliary usage 43, 119–121, 141, 173, History 17, 18, 25–33 196 Population 2, 28 Past definite tense usage 42–43, Second World War 31, 32, 179 117–119, 120 n.8, 121 n.12, 141, 195 States of 25, 31, 75, 192 Prepositions 44, 107–108, 139–140, Tourism 29, 32 142, 148, 150–151, 195 Trade 1, 18, 26, 29 Pronouns 42, 104, 107, 113, 114–115, 157, Joret, Charles see also Ligne Joret isogloss 8, 174–176 46–51, 83, 89, 96, 98, 171, 195 Impersonal 42, 135–139, 171 1pl 42, 134–139, 142, 157, 171, 195 Kerswill, Paul 6–7, 9, 11, 191, 195 Reflexive 148, 149–150, 151, 196 Subjunctive mood 43, 127–130 Language change Phonology see also Regional variation Mechanisms of 5, 6, 141, 151, 194–195 34–39, 47–52, 83–99, 171, 195 Language Planning and Revitalization Regional variation 53, 79–80 see also Guernésiais, Jèrriais, Mainland Lexis 56, 155–165 Norman, Sercquiais 65, 77, 197 Morphosyntax 54–55 Latin 13, 16, 20 n.6, 35, 36, 38, 42, 48, 49, 50, Phonology 53–55, 80, 83–99 51, 54, 55, 58 n.23, 83, 84, 86, 87, 91, 92, 96, Sociolinguistics 11–12, 65–68, 70–73, 117, 145, 169, 170 77–82 Index 229

Mainland Normandy Sercquiais Départements Domains of use 1, 8, 10, 29, 71–73, 81, 144, Calvados 2, 8 n.11, 24, 38, 46, 48, 54, 196 55, 56, 74 n.13, 84, 91, 93, 130, 132, 151, Language planning and revitalization 159, 161, 162, 167 n.4 65, 73, 77 Eure 2, 8 n.11, 24, 38, 46, 56, 74 n.13, La Société Sercquiaise 77 121, 130, 132 Language transmission 12, 65, 69–70, Manche 2, 8 n.11, 11, 24, 25 n.17, 38, 46, 70–71 56, 73, 74 n.13, 83, 119, 121, 130, 132, Lexis 45–46, 87, 88, 108, 143–165, 195 151, 159, 161, 162, 170 Loan translations (calques) 79, Orne 2, 8 n.11, 24, 38, 46, 56, 152–154, 165, 196 74 n.13, 119, 121, 130, 132, 151, 162, Loan-words (borrowings) 39, 79, 96, 170 123, 139, 143–152, 158, 159, 160, 161, Seine Maritime 2, 8 n.11, 11, 12, 162, 165, 192, 196 23, 24, 46, 55, 56, 74 n.13, 130, 132, Liaison 101, 103–112, 114–116, 195 150 n.12, 162 Morphosyntax 39–44, 49, 50, 93–95, Education system 20, 21, 24, 72, 73, 197 117–142, 195, 196 First World War 22–23, 81 Adjective agreement 43–44, 124–127, History 16–25 141, 196 Population 2, 22 Adjective position 44, 105, 130–134, Second World War 23, 81 142, 196 Tourism 22, 23, 79 Auxiliary usage 43, 119–121, 141, 196 Trade 1, 19, 22, 23 Past definite tense usage 42–43, Mattheier, Klaus 9, 141 117–119, 141, 186 Métivier, George 8 n.11, 79, 93, 159, 164 n.21 Prepositions 44, 107–108, 139–140, Methodology 11–15, 65, 83, 101–102, 113, 117, 141–142, 148, 150–151 143 Pronouns 42, 104, 107, 114–115, 126, 185, 187 Norman Conquest 17 Impersonal 42, 135–139 Norse 1 n.1, 16, 17, 143 1pl 42, 134–139, 142 Reflexive 148, 149–150, 151, 196 Occitan 24 Subjunctive mood 43, 127–130, 141, 196 Phonology 30, 34–39, 47–52, 83–99, 195 Phonologie du français contemporain Regional variation 53 n.19 project 8, 13 n.20, 101–102, 103 n.5, 105, Sociolinguistics 65–66, 70–73, 77–82 112 Simplification 48, 126, 130 n.25, 134, 135, 140, 142 Redundancy, loss of 126 Social networks 13, 70, 71, 72, 86, 194 Romansh 125 Switzerland French of 123 n.15, 124 n.17 Sark German of 125 Chief Pleas 25, 192 Syntactic drift 117, 134–140, 142 First World War 30 History 17, 18, 25–33 Tofa 86 Population 4, 28, 33 Trudgill, Peter 6, 9, 65, 82, 84, 124, 146, 190, Second World War 31–32 194 Tourism 30, 32 Typology, linguistic 6, 7, 11, 117, 141, 142, 148, Semi-speakers 11 n.17 195–196 230 Index

United Kingdom see also England, Wales 2, Wales 27, 72 10, 25–26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 75, 162, 179–180, Weinreich, Uriel 5–6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 33, 78, 96, 182, 197 98, 117, 125, 131, 144, 146, 152, 154, 166, 195, History 17–18, 27 196

Vikings 1, 16–17, 143 Yiddish 7