Introduction French Language(S) in Contact Worldwide

Home , African French, American French, Aspirated h, Canadian French, European French, French Guianese Creole

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35

brill.com/jlc

Introduction

∵

French Language(s) in Contact Worldwide History, Space, System, and other Ecological Parameters

Françoise Gadet Université Paris Ouest Nanterre La Défense & CNRS MoDyCo [email protected]

Ralph Ludwig Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg [email protected]

Abstract

The awareness of language that culminated in France with the French Revolution has remained dominant till the present day: a nation une et indivisible corresponds to a concept of the national language as a homogenous entity, self-sufficient and free from outside and dialectal influences. This conception is contradicted by two historical facts, however. Firstly, various waves of language contact were constitutive of the emergence and development of the French language from the very beginning. Secondly, a new structure of varieties developed through the colonial expansion of France outside Europe, in which many forms of language contact are of significant importance. The best way to capture this diversity adequately is to adhere to a broadly ecological approach (linguistic ecology) that takes into account various parameters, such as history, social context, competence, and universals. This is demonstrated with samples of transcribed speech from Togo, Guadeloupe and Nova Scotia. The linguistic ecology approach is the guiding principle of all the articles in this volume.

* The authors would especially like to thank France Martineau and Steve Pagel for their insightful remarks and stimulating discussions.

4 Gadet and Ludwig

Keywords francophonia discontinua – ecology – Togo – Guadeloupe – Nova Scotia – Ewe – Creole – English

The often complex history of the French language worldwide has given rise to a great diversity of vernaculars all around the world, in what could be called (following the tradition for English) “colonial French” or “post-colonial French”, i.e. French as it is spoken in every territory beyond the original European ones – “le berceau”. The diversity of French1 today is the result of complex ecological factors, events and processes, concerning its history and more particularly its contacts. The various types of contact with languages of different types, the relationships to standardisation and norms, and the degree of vitality (several Francophone situations are today obsolescent or close to attrition) are to be considered in relation to the consequences of two historical peculiarities: colonial expansion during the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries (mainly in America first and then in Africa); and the effects of normative pressures in France itself after the high time of standardisation in the 17th century. French is therefore of great interest for general linguistics due to the diversity its vernaculars offer, fanning out as far as creole languages: French-based creoles are among the most widespread, and belong to two different geographic areas. There are many different ways of speaking French, and this gives it its importance, more than its number of speakers, which remains modest: with roughly 90 million L1 speakers, together with about 20 million L2 speakers, French is usually ranked the 11th or 12th most spoken language in the world; English, by comparison, is probably the second (after Chinese) or the third (after Spanish). The French language appears to be the outcome of manifold language contacts and continues to be involved in contacts with a wide range of languages worldwide. The attitudes and linguistic competence of French speakers in our modern world are the product of a long history of French language contact and can only be understood with such a background in mind. That is why this introduction will start by characterising what we call “Francophonia discontinua”, in a brief recap of the contact history of French in France and worldwide, and a review of the main corpora available (Part 1). Part 2 will present the analytical framework used to encompass the several factors

1 Unfortunately, the term “Frenches”, by analogy with “Englishes” to convey a pluralistic conception of the language, does not exist. But we mean here a plural when using the word “French” for the language.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 5 for studying the ecology of present-day French worldwide. Part 3 presents three exemplary cases chosen among the (very numerous) situations not illustrated otherwise in this issue: based on fine-grained corpus approaches, these cases provide insight into the complexity of Francophone situations. Finally Part 4 is a presentation of the global project and of the five articles of this issue of Journal of Language Contact.

1 French Language: Francophonia discontinua and the Role of Contact

1.1 Language Contact as Midwife for the French Language The history of French in France itself can be looked at as a long and constant history of different kinds of contacts.2 It is common knowledge that French developed from an oral variety of Latin spoken in Gaul. When Caesar conquered the Celts between 58 and 51 BCE his soldiers spoke a variety of Latin in different guises. This basic variety of modern Romance met with a Celtic substratum and absorbed, in particular, lexical traces of the Celtic language. New dominant constellations in language contact resulted from the collapse of the Roman Empire as a consequence of the German invasions. The Franks left the most lasting superstratum traces, according to Wartburg’s theory (1946 / 1971). These early centuries of Romance and French language history were characterised by social processes of “colonisation“ and “migration“; and on the linguistic level by “language contact”, “dominance of orality”, “demarcation” (sometimes referred to as “simplification” – see below Part 2.1.), such that the concept of “creolisation” has been put forward as a central hypothesis for describing the emergence of the Romance languages (see in particular a discussion in Schlieben-Lange, 1977; also Mufwene, 2001, 2008). In this context the statement that Roman colonisation led in general to the development of a “Romania discontinua” is also relevant. This term refers to the formation of a linguistic and cultural area which was not completely coherent geographically – Greece was not linguistically Romanised, the Mediterranean area was a language threshold, and Dacia, a province colonised after 106 CE, was separated by a linguistic-cultural corridor. Amado Alonso, who introduced the term Romania Continua, considered that geographical

2 See in particular Amit (2013). It is also a major theme in the influential book by Lodge (1993) and such a stance appears to be among the objectives of Kremnitz (2013) for France within and beyond the Hexagon, as well as of Pöll (2001) for French outside France. Such ways of looking at French are not (not yet?) the mainstream perspective for considering this language.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

6 Gadet and Ludwig proximity played an important role in the development of a common language type. At the same time he placed French close to Romanian typologically, although isolated in terms of language geography, since he (like Wartburg) considered French as a “hybrid language” (his words) that achieved a particular status through the strong influence of language contact.3 The first coherent French text, the Oaths of Strasbourg (842), displays the occasional influence of written Latin alongside central French grammatical features and could therefore be said to be “hybrid”. As French became established as a written language soon after the turn of the millennium and eman- cipated itself from the diglossic role of the Low Variety with respect to Latin, it incorporated many “copies”4 from Latin, and then from Italian. Many French people are probably not aware of the fact that basic terms such as “chiffre”, “sucre” or “jupe” come from Arabic, transmitted through Moorish Spanish.5 French also acts as a “donor language”. The Anglo-Norman dialect which invaded England with William the Conqueror in 1066 was widespread in the English upper class by the 14th century, and bequeathed a number of lexical

3 Cf. Alonso (1945 / 1952: 118 s.): “El francés actual, con su carácter tan apartadizo de los otros idiomas románicos, es, pues, el resultado de una doble hibridación eficaz: la una, la acción del sustrato céltico, más triunfante que en ninguna otra región románica; la otra, la acción del superstrato franco, incomparablemente más persistente que la de ningún otro superstrato germánico. […] el francés, nacido en territorio galo nunca bien latinizado y luego ger- manizado más intensamente que ninguna otra región del imperio, es un idioma de mestizaje […].” And: “[…] dentro de la Romania continua el francés resulta inagrupable” (ibid.: 126). “Present-day French, with its very different character from the other Romance languages, is thus the outcome of a double efficient hybridization: on the one hand the influence of the Celtic substrate, which is more prevalent here than in any other Romance area, and on the other hand the influence of a Frankish superstratum, which is incomparably more lasting than for any other Germanic superstratum. […] French, born in Gaul, a territory that was never entirely Latinized and was more intensively Germanized than any other area in the empire, is a mixed language.” And: “Within Romania continua French turns out to be unclas- sifiable.” Of course today Alonso’s classification is not defensible as such. Still, two points re- main worthy of consideration: the importance of language contact in the development of French, and the fact that isolated language areas might be more accessible to contact influences (as is the case for Romanian). 4 The concept of “code copying” as used here is based on the definitions by Johanson (2002; 2005), further developed in e.g. Kriegel, Ludwig, and Henri (2009). This term is not very different from the concept of “replication” used by Matras (2009). Johanson’s distinction between “overt copies” (copies of form and function/structure) and “covert copies” (only function/structure) is close to Matras’ dichotomy between “pattern replication” and “matter replication”. 5 They can have an idea of it thanks to several popularisations by Henriette Walter (see e.g. 1998).

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 7 copies to the English language.6 Another contact phenomenon which influenced Old and Middle French is the reciprocal influence of dialects, which were harmonized to some extent by the crystallisation of a standard written French. Nevertheless, the fact that French was characterised by contact has been constantly underestimated, invisibilized or even suppressed from the 17th century on. As early as the 16th century purists refused to accept the influx of Latin and Italian terms. In the 17th century a strongly puristic style developed. Abbé Bouhours took great trouble to place French above other European languages in his polemical treatises. If “pure French” is claimed to be “the clearest” and therefore superior to any other language (an attitude which was crowned by Rivarol’s essay De l’Universalité de la langue française, 1783), any contact with other languages which operates with copies can only be looked upon as nega- tive. New contact varieties are denigrated as “charabia”, “baragouin” or “petit nègre”. Indeed language contact as an inherent and productive phenomenon for French was systematically suppressed at the time of the French Revolution as in Grégoire’s Rapport sur la nécessité et les moyens d’anéantir les patois et d’universaliser l’usage de la langue française (1794). The perception of pure language as a culturally central symbol for a “nation une et indivise” caused the contact characteristics of the French language to fade into the background.

1.2 The “New Francophonia discontinua” There was, therefore, great scepticism concerning the “contamination of French” and more or less the same puristic attitude can be found in Francophone Belgium. Gradually a “francophonia discontinua”7 developed as a product of French colonisation and expansion outside Europe, and the representation of French as a language with a centre (Paris) and so-called peripheral areas started to develop – the “periphery” starting with Belgium and Switzerland as well as places in France away from Paris. The possible designations of these varieties are a controversial issue, as all the terms used are more or less problematic in different ways (see “peripheral”, “expatriate”, “exported French”, etc.). The varieties of French that are remote from the linguistic “centre” started little by little to gain some autonomy due to their being separated from the centre,8 and they

6 For details on Anglo-Norman copies in Middle English and the influence of this French dialect beyond the lexical domain, see Schendl (2012). 7 For a general picture of this “francophonia discontinua”, see Sanaker, Holter, and Skattum (2006). 8 It is a little more complicated than that as, despite the difficulty of travelling in the early ages of this expansion, some of the migrants especially in Canada made recurrent returns to their

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

8 Gadet and Ludwig manifest a huge diversity of linguistic contacts and thus constitute a remar- kable forum for the study of the potential of the French language. France only succeeded rather late in accomplishing its colonial ambitions. The French crown began the struggle for territories in the New World long after the field had been occupied by Portugal, Spain and England. The territories became centres for the spread of the respective conquering languages. The 16th century brought France few victories: it failed to colonise the Brazilian coast in 1526–1536. Jacques Cartier annexed areas in Canada for France in 1533–1536 but French colonisation of America and India was forbidden in the Treaty of Crépy, signed in 1544. In the second half of the 16th century it also failed in Florida and Carolina. However, a victorious colonial era began with the new century. In 1608 Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec. From 1625 onwards Boucaniers and Flibustiers conquered Haiti and in 1635, the French flag flew for the first time in Martinique and Guadeloupe. In 1673 the French East India Company purchased a small village on the East coast of South India where they established the trading station Pondichéry. In 1682 France claimed areas on the Mississippi, and founded La Nouvelle Orléans in Louisiana in 1718. In contrast to other colonial powers such as Spain whose territories achieved independence at the beginning of the 19th century, France began a second phase of colonial expansion on the African continent, in Asia and in the Pacific. Algeria was conquered in 1830, but the French colonisation in Africa which had started in the 17th century was only completed by the massive penetration of the hinterland at the end of the 19th century with the colonisation of Chad in 1900. Belgium‘s colonial “possessions”9 can be said to have entered Francophonie only later, as the Congo was owned personally by the king, who relinquished it to the Belgian state in 1907 (see a summary in Queffélec, 2008). New Caledonia was declared a French colony in 1853, and in 1863 Cambodia became a French protectorate. Unlike the hispanophone alliance, French de- colonisation began quite late (with the exception of Haiti in 1804). Most African countries gained their independence in 1960, the last one being Algeria in 1962, after a long and bloody war.

home country, as has been shown in particular by Frénette, Rivard, and Saint-Hilaire (2012), and several papers on specific North American situations in Valdman, Auger, and Piston- Hatlen (2005). 9 On the role of Belgium’s colonial power in Africa, see Manessy (1994; 1995), Barrat (1997), Queffélec (2008) on the differences between French and Belgian colonial projects and their consequences on the role accorded to local languages, especially in teaching; and Calvet (2010, in particular chapter 4).

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 9

1.3 New Linguistic Variation Within Contact: Current State of Research and Corpus Collection Both in France and within the colonial empire an awareness of language emerged which emphasized the unity of the national language, focused on Paris as the centre of correct language. This ideology played a great role from the 18th century on as the classical literary language in mainland France. The education system exported to the colonies also advocated this monocentric, centripetal way of looking at the French language which had proved to be efficient in metropolitan France (see Calvet, 2010 on the exportation to Africa). In such a cultural tradition, a new way of seeing things could only develop very slowly. This took place in two stages. First an academic interest in modern francophone speech varieties had to develop, which occurred quite late (and primarily for Europe, in particular Belgium). Whereas a dialectología española developed rather early in the 20th century in the hispanophone world – just think of the work by Kany (1945 / 1951) – a systematic linguistic interest in a worldwide diatopic dimension in French appeared much later, starting with the pioneering work of Valdman (1979) and Robillard and Beniamino (1993; 1996). And secondly, language contact - as a factor/cause of variation - was not systematically addressed as a topic of discussion. Attention focused, and still focuses, on single, “spectacular” contact varieties based on French, such as Michif and Chiac in North America and Nouchi and Camfranglais in Africa,10 as well as the creole languages. But meanwhile, especially in an ecolinguistic approach, it must be emphasized that multilingualism and language contact became a central factor in a systematic-typological study of the entire Francophonie, and there is thus a real research need for it. As contact appears primarily - though not exclusively - to take place in situations of orality, phenomena linked to oral, face-to-face and pragmatico- interactional aspects will play a decisive role in an adequate description of francophone contact constellations (see Drescher and Neumann-Holzschuh, 2010). The compilation of oral corpora is an important prerequisite for this, and more of them are still badly needed. Although some progress has been made, French still lags behind other well documented occidental languages to a certain extent.

10 For North American hybrid languages, see the references in the article by Papen (this issue), as well as Perrot (2005) and Pöll and Schafroth (2010). For African ones, see Kiessling and Mous (2006) concerning in particular Nouchi in Ivory Coast and Camfranglais in Cameroon (for the latter, see also Féral, 2010). See also Italia and Queffélec (2010) for the study of a basilectal variety in Gabon.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

10 Gadet and Ludwig

Corpora appeared late in comparison with other major European languages (especially English, Italian or German). A consequence of this delay in the uptake of corpus-based approaches to French is that there is no equivalent for French of, say, the Handbook of Varieties of English (Kortmann and Schneider, 2004 - see in particular the synopsis by Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi11), continuing an already long-established tradition in studies of English. Corpus-based studies of French are still wanted, for variational diatopic descriptions, for analysis of the effects of contact, and for theoretical generalisations or explana- tions (see e.g. Schneider, 2007). Gadet (2013a) presented a database of the currently available corpora of French outside France, and a commentary/synthesis (2013b; see also Cappeau and Gadet 2007). Among large corpora, two document varieties of French worldwide: PFC (see the site) and CIEL-F (see the site, and Gadet, Ludwig, Mondada, Pfänder, and Simon, 2012; it is also referred to in this issue by Boutin). For more specific corpora see also, for Canada, the CFPQ and the ongoing Canadian project Le français à la mesure d’un continent (one of its objectives being the constitution of a corpus on varieties of North American French - see Gadet and Martineau, 2012). For Africa, see several issues of the journal Le Français en Afrique as well as the ongoing project Contemporary French in Africa and the Indian Ocean - CFA, see the site). For a pan-francophone lexical data base concerning all “French-speaking” areas, see http://www.bdlp.org/. In contrast to hexagonal French, corpora of French outside France started to be collected earlier and are still more numerous, probably because linguists interested in ordinary oral varieties of French had no other way than gathering corpora to document the structural specificities of a particular variety, especially for those varieties for which there was no descriptive tradition and no or little literary production. In North America collection started at the end of the 1960s, and a little later, in the early 1980s, for African French. As a consequence of the fact that French has always been considered as a monocentric language (see Lüdi, 1992 or Vigouroux, 2013), at the time when these worldwide oral corpora were started, research institutions in France itself were more interested in setting up a huge program concerning written data (Frantext). Thus the collection of spoken material started only at the end

11 See also Szmrecsanyi and Kortmann (2009), continuing Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi (2004). Specialists of 60 L1 and L2 vernacular varieties of English speaking areas worldwide were asked to document a catalogue of 76 well established non standard features, concerning 11 “core areas” of morpho-syntax. These features were to be classified into: a) “pervasive if not obligatory”, b) “exists but not frequently”, and c) “does not exist or is not documented”. Building a similar grid for French seems, for the time being at least, to be out of the question.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 11 of the 1970s, and it has been more or less the same in other European countries such as Belgium (where the VaLiBel program on Belgian varieties started in 1977 - see the site). The absence in Europe, and particularly in France, of a French- speaking public policy concerning spoken corpora contrasts with what happe- ned in Quebec where corpora were collected from the 1970s onwards, following a political impetus which led ultimately in the 1980s to the defining of a local norm, the “français standard d’ici” (strongly prohibiting copies of English). Oral corpora documenting precisely the situated interactions of speakers are of central importance within our ecological perspective which distin- guishes – as will now be explained – different levels and considers authentic situational linguistic data as the basis for analysis.

2 Analytical Perspectives of Language Contact: Multi-Factorial Analysis as an Ecological Approach

2.1 Levels of Ecological Language Areas – Centripetal and Centrifugal Forces In this JLC issue we are mostly concerned with the extra-European areas of Francophonie - a term which, as emphasised in Gadet, Ludwig, and Pfänder (2008), we understand as including European areas, among which France, contrary to the most frequent use of the term.12 This expanded Francophonie is definitely a very diversified “francophonia discontinua”. This discontinuity affects areas, cultures, functions and speakers. We will focus here on the great variety of these areas, illustrating our point with specific examples. We shall also attempt to show, however, that relations do exist between these contact areas. This is for us a central hypothesis, consistent with the role of contact that is often formulated in research on romanisation and the development of French out of Latin. We consider language contact as a central factor, as Husserl says a “founding” factor in the development of the new Romania discontinua – for the importance of Husserl’s concept of foundation in a new approach to linguistic ecology, see Ludwig, Mühlhäusler, and Pagel (forthcoming). If linguistic ecology – as defined e.g. by Mackey ([1980] 2001: 67) – is considered to be above all the study of types of dependencies and of interdependence, then Husserl defines a very complex,

12 For example, in many bookshops and libraries, “French literature” and “Francophone literature” are still not presented together. Several authors in the book Pour une littérature-monde (Le Bris and Rouaud, 2007) denounce this state of affairs, and contrast it with the English- speaking world where there is no equivalent distinction. The ideology behind this positions French speakers as the legitimate owners of the language - see also Vigouroux (2013).

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

12 Gadet and Ludwig abstract and thus useful model for the system of relations through his concepts of ‘foundation’ and of ‘wholes and parts’.13 This hypothesis is only acceptable within a broad-based, ecological approach to contact. The basic principle of the ecological concept is that linguistic developments – a fortiori in contact constellations – depend to some degree upon various parameters. One important task is the definition of these possible parameters followed by the description of the core factors. In this way, instead of looking at francophone areas as rigid, purely geographically limited magnitudes with obvious borders, they can be seen as dyna- mic, linguistically and historically grounded areas which we call “aires communicatives” (communicative areas – see Gadet, Ludwig, and Pfänder, 2008). These areas can be distinguished by their stock of identical perceptions, valuations, interpretations and behavioural models. Communicative areas are conceived as different from linguistic or geographical areas, both notions which are not directly concerned with social aspects. It is possible to talk of “communicative area” when the ecological contexts in which discursive events take place show similarities due to common experiences, which cannot be fully explained by geographical or linguistic criteria. For Africa it can be wondered whether there is a macro-area characterised by the use of French, even if there is neither a cultural space occupied by French nor representations of a unitary Francophone Africa (for an exploitation of the notion of “communicative area” in Ivory Coast, see Boutin, this issue). Such a definition makes even more sense in combination with a further ele- ment of the linguistic ecology which is our theoretical basis, namely the distinction between three levels. The first one, the micro-level, is that of the speaker in a concrete situation; this is what corpora of spoken language record and study. The meso-level refers to social groups and therefore to communicative areas. The investigation of specific communication situations at the micro-level make it possible to identify certain language choices, behavioural models etc. Conversely regularities, interaction and identification strategies help to understand specific interactions at the micro-level. Talking of norms, speech variations and conventions, etc. makes sense at the meso-level. Macro-levels such as “American Francophonie” or “African Francophonie” (see also Part 4) are abstract but acquire an ecological reality when connected with

13 If a part A depends on a part B, A is founded by B; so founding relations of parts constitute wholes. These founding relations can be simple, mutual, direct, indirect… Cf. Husserl 1913 and the English version of 2002, above all The Logical Investigation IIl. – For an overview of basic texts in the discussion of linguistic ecology / ecolinguistics cf. Fill and Mühlhäusler (eds.), 2001.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 13 the level of the individual speaker or group in behaviour, perception or identity.14 Does this approach make it possible to talk of “les français” (see footnote 2), as several authors do, among whom writers such as Tahar Ben Jelloun? Doing so is to situate the analysis at the meso-level. “Le français de la francophonie” on the other hand exists at a structural, abstract macro-level that some literary authors explicitly refer to.15 Alongside these more basic ecolinguistic considerations, the claim to a broad-based concept of language contact still needs to be justified. To simplify matters, the analyses of language contact should not be restricted to an investigation of borrowing, i.e. the direct systemic influence of the historical single language A on the historical single language B. We advocate a conception of language contact research which we shall now outline briefly. When we talk of language contact we broadly mean “code contact” (both between what are usually called “languages” and between “varieties” – both terms are problematic but will not be discussed here). And indeed the status of “single interaction” vs. “variety/dialect” is often difficult to establish. One well- known example is the debate around Romance languages: are they historically individual languages or dialects of Latin? Most Romance linguists now adhere to the first point of view, but the “continuity hypothesis” was defended inter alia by Wright (1982). Moreover processes of dialect contact are often important for the history of a language (as shown by Neumann-Holzschuh’s paper in this issue). In many studies on the history of the Romance languages – such as those by Wartburg and Alonso, but also more recently – language contact has often been described on the structural level as a centrifugal force. Underlying this

14 This point can be illustrated in the Spanish-speaking world, with an example from Salzmann (2013). Migrants in Madrid from various Latin American countries tend to build a common diaspora group, levelling out the differences between them and dissociating themselves from European speakers without conflicts within the group. In this case the macro-level “Latin America” makes sense for the participants. In the same vein, it is conceivable that what we call today “North-American Francophonie” may have historically been perceived as the same communicative area by different Francophones, some of them coming from Europe (most of the time France and Belgium), others having arrived earlier, either Quebecians, Acadians, Metis or Creoles. See the work by the historian Yves Frénette (e.g. his paper in Frénette, Rivard, and Saint-Hilaire, 2012), Gadet and Martineau (2012), and the project Le français à la mesure d’un continent (see the site). 15 See the poems “Adieu à la révolution” or “Libre éloge de la langue française” by the Haitian author René Depestre (Depestre, 1993). One of the questions this issue seeks to raise concerns the perception of this macro-level in the usage of French.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

14 Gadet and Ludwig conception is the idea that language contact mainly functions along the lines of “transfer”, “copying” or “replication” from one language to another. Wartburg and Alonso considered that the Celtic substrate and the Frankian superstrate had separated French from the genealogical-typological Latin core. And this hypothesis can also be extended to some African or American varieties of French which may have adopted their centrifugal tendency from other contact influences in their vicinity. The theory of centrifugal drift has often been voiced for other Romance languages in particular for Argentinian Spanish whose peculiarities are thought to be the outcome of the linguistic influence of Italian migrants. Several of the papers in this issue illustrate the centrifugal hypothesis (Papen, Fattier for systemic aspects, or Drescher in a pragmatic perspective). But it is also possible to show that language contact can have the opposite centripetal or unifying effect. Language contact can have a much broader spec- trum than phenomena of copying, transfer, borrowing, etc. In situations of informal orality speakers reorganise the linguistic resources at their disposal so as to develop a common code. Hence the processes of simplification, koineisation, and levelling, whose impact can be seen for example in the work by Lodge (2004) on the history of French in France, who followed Trudgill (2002) in questioning the possibly universal character of the forces at play. Just as the history of Old and Middle French was affected by processes of dialect contact and dialect levelling, levelling processes played a role in modern Louisiana French (see Neumann-Holzschuh in this issue), as well as in the constitution of a “Canadian French”. An important mechanism is convergence, by which features from language B are taken over by language A if they correspond to a characteristic or a process of development existing at least marginally in A (cf. Kriegel, Ludwig, and Pfänder, forthcoming).16 Following Mufwene’s theory (2001, 2008) language contact could be said to generate differentiated “feature pools” and mechanisms such as convergence that can orient the choice of concurring features. The notion of “contact” then appears to be multifactorial and much broader than structural hybridisation. It can play the role of a catalyst towards diversification or unification.

2.2 Multifactorialism and Ecological Parameters in Language Contact A list of individual ecological linguistic parameters can only be sketched here with no claim to exhaustivity. The historical overview above has already

16 A parallel can be drawn here with the search for unity of Latin American Spanish, cf. e.g. Fontanella de Weinberg (1992 / 1993) for the theory of the koineisation of Spanish in America. For the phenomena linked to koineisation processes in general, cf. Siegel (1985)

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 15 suggested that the outcome of language contact depends on many different parameters - as shown by the analyses in this issue as well as by the examples presented in part 3 of this introduction. We discuss below the ecological parameters studied in current research and arrange them along the dimensions set up in particular by Bühler (1934 / 1978): area, speakers, language, and time.17

Area The parameter “area” has already been discussed above. The continuity- discontinuity criterion is important in that geographically neighbouring languages often influence each other in such a way that they build dialect continua over and beyond political, national and symbolic borders.18 Large areas with a great number of speakers are often less sensitive to contact influence than smaller, geographically isolated language areas. An important factor in overcoming areal discontinuity is diasporicity,19 which raises issues concerning the alleged relative novelty of the phenomenon (see Blommaert, 2010, Mufwene, 2008). Migrants can discard their home language or conversely preserve it and they often do this in a metalinguistically conscious way. In our times of electronic communication and easy mobility (see Blommaert, 2010 for what he calls the “sociolinguistics of globalisation”) we can see the re-import of diasporic norms into the home country. When migrants are perceived as socially successful, diasporic norms can have a normative influence on the heritage language. The diasporic periphery thus inte- racts with the historic center, an interaction which may reinforce opening, hybridizing as well as puristic, basilectal tendencies.

Speakers We shall here distinguish between 3 levels. At the speaker level, several factors have both social and individual aspects, as evidence of competence or loyalty towards the language of the home country. The same is true for the relationship between language and identity in

or Mesthrie (2008), and Lodge (1993; 2004) on historical processes of the koineisation of French in France. 17 Regarding the individual parameter we only give here a few specific references. Many of the issues are broached in Hickey (2010). For the dimensions of order see Ludwig, Mühlhäusler, and Pagel (forthcoming). 18 See the much-debated notion of Sprachbund. This process is also manifest in several maps of the World Atlas of Language Structures (Haspelmath, Dryer, Gil, and Comrie, 2005). 19 Cf. Cohen (1997 / 2008). North America is a historically well documented area for studying the historical effects of intricate or hierarchical diaspora: see for example Chaudenson,

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

16 Gadet and Ludwig contact situations (cf. Le Page and Tabouret-Keller, 1985; Tabouret-Keller, 1997). Indeed modern societies cause speakers to be involved in various types of situation: with family members and friends as well as in more formal, official types of situation. For varying acts of identity in these differing situations, language, register and copy techniques can be adopted or on the contrary disfavoured. At the psychological-cognitive and communicative level, a central factor in contact situations is the competence of speakers (their repertoire, see Blom and Gumperz, 1972, and Gal, 1988 for a synthesis on this notion). Far from being monolingual, most speakers in the world speak two or more languages in which they are more or less fluent.20 In Gadet, Ludwig, and Pfänder (2008) we proposed the term “primary language competence” in preference to “mother tongue”21 which often has emotive connotations as well as being misleading in situations where several languages are spoken, especially in most African countries. We adopt the following conventions: for a (quasi)native speaker having practiced French as his/her first language in the pre-school onto- genesis and at school level, we speak of “primary competence”; if this competence does not include schooling (or stops at school enrolment), we speak of “primary oral competence”. Learners urgently confronted to the social need to acquire a new language, as first generation migrants, often have a limited command of the language, limited to what they need for working. This was a characteristic phenomenon in the early stages of French colonization (Chaudenson, 1992), comprising the deportation of African slaves to plantation societies, or the imposition of French as the new language of administration and written culture in several former African colonies. In all cases, schooling was a late cultural acquisition; particularly in Africa, but also in other places, learners did not follow adequate schooling in French, and this is often still the case. Things were different for Canada, as most of the migrants were not lower class and some of them at least had received some education. For the social level, Thomason (Thomason and Kaufman 1988; Thomason 2001; 2008) has shown the importance of the social framework for language

Mougeon, and Beniak (1993), and several of the articles in Valdman, Auger, and Piston- Hatlen (2005) – see also Part 4 of this introduction. 20 See Blommaert (2010) for the shift of focus from languages to speaker resources and hence the notion of “truncated repertoires” with which migrants survive in their new countries. And, for the complex ‘Bilingualism – Multilingualism – Competences’ e.g. Myers-Scotton (2006). 21 For criticism and insightful reflections on the notions of “mother tongue” and “native speaker”, see Coulmas (1981), Berruto (2003), and on Africa, Renaud (1998).

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 17 contact. She argues that when there is a conflict, social factors are ultimately more important than structural features in the possible outcomes of contact within a given language (see Gadet and Jones, 2008 for a discussion on French). An important factor is the social functionality of a language. In multilingual societies a particular language can be the high variety in a context of diglossia, as it is the written language or the language of the dominant classes. In this case it will be the target for learners even to the point of giving up their mother tongue or to the point of aiming at multilingualism. This is a great problem for many migrants. If a language has a strong religious social function this can lead to linguistic conservatism and can hinder the absorption of copies in contact constellations and indeed strengthen it in competitive situations.

Time On the historical level the duration of contact can be of utmost significance: the longer the contact the more intense the exchanges may be. The contact phase may have taken place in the past or may still go on. On the level of chro- nology an important facet of this parameter for the expanded Francophonie is the time of the emerging contact constellation. In the course of French emi- gration and colonisation contact varieties emerged in particular places, which were then imported into areas that were conquered later: it has thus been discussed whether a creole that developed on early conquered islands in the Indian Ocean was then imported, as a fully constituted language, into later conquered areas. Furthermore hexagonal French continued to develop from the 16th to the 19th century so that the French introduced in later colonies dif- fers in several respects22 (see Part 4).

Language From the point of view of communicative medium the starting point of our ecological framework is authentic, primarily oral, interaction. In modern times however, various media have to be considered especially when investigating conventionalization in language contact. Radio, TV and internet are important

22 Let us take just one phonic example. In the first half of the 17th century it was usual to pronounce an aspirated /h/, probably throughout the European French-speaking area. This feature was ultimately given up in Paris but was conserved in some places on the “periphery” such as certain parts of Belgium. It was also transported to America, where it has persisted until now in some conservative mostly rural varieties such as Nova Scotia or New Brunswick (see the 2006 TV show La Sagouine, based on Antonine Maillet’s best- seller of 1971). The Guadeloupean Creole hay, from “haïr”, is still pronounced [hai], while the creoles of the Indian Ocean do not possess an aspirated h.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

18 Gadet and Ludwig in tying diaspora with the homeland (see Algerians in France). In Africa in particular radio programmes characterized by language alternations and hy- brids based on local French are of central importance for processes of standardisation of hybrid forms and patterns of interaction (see the paper by Drescher, this issue). From a structural-typological point of view, in the last few years several studies have discussed the relevance of structural proximity, i.e. the congruence of codes in contact (e.g. Besters-Dilger, Dermarkar, Pfänder, and Rabus, eds., 2014). Congruence is distinct from a genetic relationship; the conventio- nal genealogical model of language, propounded in particular by Bossong (2009) or Noonan (2010), which is being increasingly challenged, places Romance languages in a close genealogical relation as they all stem directly from Latin. This genealogical relation usually results in a high degree of congruence. It is claimed that contact with non-congruent languages therefore disturbs the common factors binding Romance languages. Indeed in some extreme cases it could lead to “abnormal transmission” according to Thomason and Kaufman (1988: 9 ff.) which may destroy the ordinary transmission process of transition from Latin to Romance that is visible in spite of contact influences. However, if highly congruent, and also possibly genetically related, languages come into contact then copy processes are simpler as postulated by Whitney as early as 1881, a theory which has received much attention in the last few years. From the point of view of universals, the theory that universal tendencies (or drift) towards transparency develop particularly in informal contact situations has been discussed on several occasions (see Trudgill, 2002; and, for French, Lodge, 1993, Gadet, 2010, Drescher and Neumann-Holzschuh, 2010). The most prominent aspect here is the effort to avoid ambiguity in form- function. This is achieved specifically through demarcation mechanisms, which operate differently at the encoding and the decoding levels. Examples of demarcation phenomena are the use of unmarked tenses (e.g. present or infi- nitive), parataxis and juxtaposition, reduction of irregular morphology, etc. Unmarkedness and demarcation are considered as typical of learner languages. At the encoding level this means cutting back on irregular and long, complicated forms.23 In this way mechanisms in contact situations are also

23 See Ludwig (2001). For the complex ‘linguistic simplicity – complexity – markedness’ in general see McWhorter (2011), Ferguson and DeBose (1977), Trudgill (2002), and several debates on the evolution or drift of vernaculars. Miller and Weinert (1998) show how the spontaneous spoken versions of languages are closer to one another than are the standard versions of the same languages.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 19 used in oral situations where normative constraints are not at stake (Gadet, 2008, 2010 for casual situations in Canada). The communicative-cognitive tendency to reduce semantic and morphological markedness is in constant conflict with the communicative needs of the encoding of semantically differentiated messages, which demands marked appropriate encoding means. Hence copying can take place in a situation of language contact where language A can copy resources from language B: for example modern technical terms copied in French from English. Historically, dialect copying was considered, in the 16th century as an “illustration” for ela- borating written French, and in the 20th century, Dauzat (1927 / 1946) considered regionalisms as an “enriching source” for French. Forces such as demarcation in contact situations do not have to be understood as a reduction of complexity. In contrapuntal interplay with the necessity for differentiated encoding they can act as an innovative force, leading to the emergence of new forms. Interplay with other general mechanisms can also result, e.g. with grammaticalisation processes. Copying, therefore, is not the only force for renewal and differentiation in the process of language contact. Part 2 mostly consisted in a list of virtual ecological parameters. It will now be demonstrated how – in various francophone contact areas – some of these parameters interact.

3 What has to be Described: From the Situation to Conventionalisation and Possible Outcomes of Code Contact

Up to this point we have elaborated on several of the concepts referred to in this issue. Our multifactorial ecolinguistic approach advances analytically starting from the speaker in context and relates this to the higher level of communicative area. Various language contact outcomes emerge from this investigation, the specific forms of which can be traced back to the interplay of parameters that depend on the communicative areas. We would now like to take some examples of such communicative areas in francophonia discontinua that will not be otherwise broached in this issue.

3.1 Case 1: Togo Togoland was founded as a German colony in 1884. German missionaries first put Ewe, one of the main African languages of this region, into writing. After the first World War Togoland was divided, and the eastern part became a French colony. The French strongly influenced the country’s culture and administration, as everywhere in “French speaking” Africa (Calvet, 2010). While the

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

20 Gadet and Ludwig western part became part of Ghana in 1957, the French part became inde- pendent in 1960 as the Republic of Togo. The official language is French, and Ewe and Kabiyé are both recognized as national languages, among the 50 or so languages currently spoken in the country. The following extract is part of a conversation that took place in the village of Agou Akoumawou near Kpalimé. The speakers Koffi Amevo and Théodor Afotou are around 50 years old. Their primary language is Ewe-Mina. Here they speak French because the German student Stefanie Müller, well-known to them, is present recording the conversation.24 Théodore Afotou is a primary school teacher, and Koffi Amevo a taxi driver; both also farm fields. They are speaking about chemical additives used in harvested edible products to extend their shelf life. If this food is consumed too fast, the additives can provoke gas- trointestinal complaints:

(1) Koffi Amevo: Ce qui est marrant de ça aussi (…) si tu as mis ça pour garder les nourritures et tu n’as pas (…) tu ne fais pas longtemps avant de manger ça tue les gens aussi (…) parce que parce que c’est que eehh les maladiques-là (…) eeehh Théodore Afotou: Intestinaux Koffi Amevo: Ouais (…) docavitsotsodo ema eeehh Théodor Afotou: Ulcère Koffi Amevo: Ulcère et ....c’est n’est pas ulcère on l’appelle ẽẽ (…) Cette maladie qui coupe les-les .... Théodor Afotou: Les intestins Koffi Amevo: Ouais ouais c’est pourquoi moi je crains de ça aussi (…) c’est pourquoi que je ne veux pas acheter le maïs dans le marché aussi c’est pourquoi que je fais tous les jours mon fort pour gagner un peu et je vais utiliser mon sous pour ce que je trouve grâce à Dieu cette année j’ai gagné un peu (…) avec aide de mon grand frère qui est en Europe aussi....

It is easy to see that Koffi Amevo in particular does not speak normative French as it is still taught with severe discipline in Togolese schools. Like most Togolese of his generation, he probably only has a basic primary education. Access to school education, the main way of learning French and the only access to normative French, is limited. Several linguistic characteristics are noticeable:

24 The recordings and transcriptions of Togo French were made by Stefanie Müller for CIEL-F. We thank her and her husband Patrick Afotou for this example and their help in its interpretation. The cited example is part of the CIEL_F recordings.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 21

- The linguistic alternation to Ewe follows the name of the illness not known in French: “docavitsotsodo”. “Émá” is an Ewe demonstrative pronoun often used when searching for a word. - A typical copy from Ewe, which has no article, is the use of a noun without an article: “avec aide de mon grand frère”. At the same time there is here a general tendency to demarcation. This specific demarcation of article drop avoids a possible mistake in the gender of the noun. - Another feature that is characteristic of French contact situations is constructions with prepositions such as “je crains de ça” or “dans le marché”. These constructions may reflect both copies from the contact language and demarcation due to partial competence in French. “Je crains de ça” is analogous to “J’ai peur de ça”, but it also copies a tendency of Ewe to mark anaphoric reference. Analogical forms are a major means of reducing irregularity – a form of demarcation. Demarcation is then the origin of the emergence of new features in contact situations that are not, or not only, deducible directly from one of the contact languages.

“Dans (le marché)” could be a copy of the post-position “-me” in Ewe, see:

Me yi asi-me 1sgo g market-in (I go to the market)25

French as a language with macro-ecological value is here used to make the communication accessible to non-Togolese speakers. Not for nothing is this national and international opening a perceived necessity, apparent in the hint from Koffi Amevo about his brother in Europe.

3.2 Case 2: Guadeloupe The French took possession of the island of Guadeloupe in 1635. After an initially slow settlement, a plantation society developed at the end of the 17th century. A large number of African slaves were deported to the island for extensive sugar cane cultivation. Guadeloupe Creole came into existence be- fore the turn of the 18th century. When slavery was abolished in 1848 indentu- red labourers came to the island for plantation work, most of them from India.

25 “-me” is a much-used postposition in Ewe, cf. me se e-me 1sg understand this-in (‘I understand’, literally ‘I understand it inside’).

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

22 Gadet and Ludwig

They quickly lost their original languages and adopted Creole. Guadeloupe became a French “département d´Outre-Mer” in 1946. The French educational system now encompasses almost everybody and bilingual competence in French and Creole is the rule in various grades. Since 1983 Creole can officially be taught. The first example is an extract from a conversation between Sylvestre Darceni and Hector Poullet in the presence of Ralph Ludwig who remains silent. Sylvestre is a carpenter who was 65 years old at the time of recording. Hector Poullet is a teacher, poet, and author and like Sylvestre he lives in Capesterre-L’Habituée, a poor part of the town. The conversation takes place in Sylvestre’s house and the topic is his youth and the purchases he used to make for his mother:

(2) Sylvestre Darceni: eh bien j’achetais du morue . l’ail . sel . je connais tous les articles hein qu’il fallait à ma mère . morue . l’ail . sel . < suc > . et œ un petit bouteille-vin […] qu’est-ce qu’il lui manque encore (ou du farine- froment) deux morceaux de savon . puisqu’il faut le savon pour laver . et p/ et œ du vinaigre . tous les articles du ménage de la cuisine (Recording Ralph Ludwig, CIEL-F-GUA)

The primary language of Sylvestre is Creole. He has always spoken French – otherwise he could not have been a member of the town council as he was for many years. In the quoted extract, demarcations can be seen as copies from Creole but also as general tendencies towards unmarkedness in oral contexts:

- Guadeloupe-Creole is an aspect language and marks tense only in a subordi- nate way. As there is no tense agreement in Creole, the past tense agreement that is obligatory in French is missing (j’achetais… je connais… il lui manque…); - Another characteristic feature is the unmarkedness in nominal determination: since Creole mostly encodes indefinite quantifications without an article and does not provide for the French partitive in the ordinary basilect, Sylvestre does not use de + article in enumerating the purchases (sel, suc). In l’ail the definite article is apparently present, but it is in fact a copy of the Creole word lay, in which the French article has been agglutinated with no grammatical role. - Finally the Creole non-marking of gender appears in Sylvestre’s speech as the generalised masculine form (du morue, un petit bouteille vin, the latter analogous to Creole without de).26 The comparison with the Togolese speaker in (1) is interesting: neither of the primary languages differentiates gender, but

26 For Guadeloupe-Creole see Colot and Ludwig (2013); for some modern investigations on West Indies French see Thibault (2012).

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 23

the two speakers react differently in French: article drop in the first case, neutralisation of the masculine used as the unmarked form in the second.

A second example shows other ecolinguistic characteristics. The conversation was recorded in a very popular snack-bar (Saint-Claude/ Caféière; restaurant- snack “Le Sprint”, 15/07/09). Two middle-aged Guadeloupean residents are about to finish their meal accompanied by beer and rum. V.L. is talking about his sports activities and his knowledge of martial arts, as well as his pro- independence political and cultural activities. He gives his opinion on slave history, racist prejudices etc.

(3) VL: bon fanmi maman-mwen sé nèg . dans ma famille y a nèg noir, noir foncé . le noir qui a créé tout ( ) Dieu n’a pas mis de races de couleurs […] mé an ka di-w la vérité alle alle dans les archives . ou ké vwè la vérité veut/ dire que les juifs/ qui a créé la métallurgie ? qui a créé l’ampoule ? (Recording Ralph Ludwig; Transcription in Ludwig and Bruneau-Ludwig, 2012) fanmi maman-mwen sé nèg family mother 1sg foc.is negro (my mother’s family is negro) mé an ka di -w but 1sg prog tell 2sg (but I can tell you) ou ké vwè 2sg fut see (you will see)

V.L. was around 50 years old at the time of the recording. He is proficient in Creole as well as in standard or near-standard French. The frame of the conversation is Creole but he frequently alternates to French. Hybridity here then means alternations in speech for a bilingual listener. The speaker delibe- rately constructs a strong image (for example he demonstrates his training in martial arts by flexing his muscles). By using both languages he identifies him- self with a popular Creole culture of proximity but also shows his participation in French culture and his international openness. He pursues this attitude over more than an hour. This shows that the adequate use of alternations has become a social pattern of action, the mastery of which is necessary for everyday communication in Guadeloupe.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

24 Gadet and Ludwig

3.3 Case 3: Nova Scotia Our last case will be taken from a corpus collected in the Baie Sainte-Marie area (Clare County, Nova Scotia, Canada). The corpus consists of broadcast recordings, namely radio programmes in which the host discusses different specific topics with invited members of the Nova Scotian French-speaking community. It was collected and studied by Cristina Petras (2007).27 Nova Scotia is the historical basis of the mythical Acadia, from where the French-speaking population was deported at the time of the Grand Dérangement (1755–1963). Some of the French-speaking members escaped or came back and today French is still spoken but by a very small part of the population of Nova Scotia, except in some areas such as Baie Sainte-Marie where French is dominant. As French-speaking people are quite few in number, they all have to be bilinguals, using French mainly at home and within certain specific institutions (in particular they have first degree schools and even a small university). This is the case of the Radio CIFA (“Radio communautaire”) from which the recordings are taken.

(4) Nova Scotia Broadcast 2228

(172) F 2 : ouais and then / si somebody neede d’aller à Halifax / qu’i needont which je sons wellment plus cheap que use an ambulance (173) H 1 : hm (174) F 2 : so je pouvons si somebody dans le wheelchair neede d’aller à Halifax pour des tests or something / but j’avons un contract avec la schoolboard so je pouvons rinque faire c’te trip-là / là we can but avec notre autre van icitte / ça je pourrons n’en faire dans la semaine si somebody neede (Vol. 2: 245)

In spite of the great number of English copies, it can still be said that French is the matrix language. The kind of French spoken in Nova Scotia is Acadian, and it includes conservative features which have been lost in most other places (and even in neighbouring New Brunswick). As was first shown in the

27 We could also have presented here a corpus collected for CIEL_F in Baie Sainte Marie by Phil Comeau, who made recordings in particular at the Town Council of the small town he is originally from (also located in Clare County). In the examples of the Petras corpus reproduced here we keep her mode of transcription, except for the designation of the English elements in capitals. 28 This programme was chosen here because it is among the most anglicized of the whole corpus, thus clearly revealing which are the English categories used. In most of the other broadcasts the use of English is far less frequent.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 25 influential article by Flikeid (1989), speakers are perfectly aware of the two languages, and they use different strategies to introduce English in their French, such as metalinguistic markers, parenthetisation, repetition, translation, asides… In extract (4) all the transitions are in English (so, and then, but). Verbs are all conjugated with a French suffix even when the basis is English (i needont). It can be observed that the professional lexicon is in English (wheelchair, test, contract, schoolboard). Although there is no particular language policy on the radio, the frame of casual discussions favours the local variety of French and the studio hosts seem to be eager to help interactants expressing themselves in French without impe- ding them from speaking their own way, as can be seen in the following example of reformulation by the host F1 (in fact a repetition with translation, at turn (47)):

(5) Nova Scotia Broadcast 1

(46) F 2 : ça veut point dire qu’i faut que tu gives up (47) F 1 : ça veut point dire qu’i faut que t’abandonnais cela (Vol 2, p. 5)

3.4 Conclusions from the Cases: Possible Outcomes of Language Contact and Degrees of Conventionalisation These cases illustrate the complex interplay between the various parameters involved and show how polymorphous the ways of speaking French worldwide can be; a correlation can be established between the non-primary language competence, demarcation and structural copies. More precisely the interplay of parameters and the activation of cognitive strategies hints at the way in which new features can emerge in contact situations that can only partially be explained as pure copies. One possible outcome of language contact then is the development or at least the increase in the “gestalt” value of individual varieties of French (in the sense of “les français”). Reduction of markedness and copies may (at first) be a consequence of poor competence; but through many occurrences in practice by many speakers these features can become characteristic for a specific linguistic area, even to the point of raising metalinguistic awareness in speakers. Thus new varieties can develop. Epistemologically, however, a problem arises: can some of the features of the individual speaker’s ordinary use of French as found in corpora be taken as representative of conventionalisation (beginning, advanced or completed)? In many studies of individual “varieties” in Francophonie, features noticed in the speech of specific speakers are casually taken at face value and too rapidly as- sumed to be characteristic of the local French, without any real evidence of

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

26 Gadet and Ludwig whether they concern the mode of speaking of one or a few speakers, or whether they concern the norm of a whole group (see Boutin and Gadet, 2012, or Vigouroux, 2013 for critical considerations on this way of thinking applied to French in Africa). In the first case we are talking of the French of a few conver- sations by some speakers in place X; in the second case and only in this case, would it be possible to speak of a “Xese local French” in an encompassing sense. Another type of outcome of French language contact, as shown in the analysis of these three cases, is related to strategies of hybridisation in communication through alternation (which does not exclude the simultaneous appearance of other phenomena of language contact). Here a command of French gains the status of a multilingual pattern of action in social interactions. Finally we would at least like to hint at another type of outcome of French language contact not broached in the cases described here. This refers to systemic outcomes of contact that go hand in hand with the emergence of contact idioms. Either in the form of “mixed languages” or “creoles” these radically challenge the genetic classification as French.29

4 Typological Considerations and the Perspective of the Present Issue

This fourth part will conclude the introduction by considering the types of ecologies of French in contact worldwide. For this task, our 3-level model appears quite interesting. After having presented examples at the micro-level of speakers in situation in their relation to their societal environment (meso- level), we will now turn to more abstract questions concerning typological criteria at the macro-level. Our main concern in planning this issue was the extent to which it is possible, and on what criteria, to define the possible differences between the two macro-ecologies “American Francophonie” vs. “African Francophonie”, and to see what perspectives the different papers presented here lead to. Different parameters that play a role are considered (both in our short examples and in the five articles), in particular the two parameters of “structural congruence” and of “speaker competence”.

29 For the problems of defining the concepts of “mixed language” or “creole” see e.g. several articles in Kouwenberg and Singler (2008), and Simonin and Wharton (2012 - more particularly the chapters “Alternances et mélanges codiques”, “Créoles et créolisations”, and “Frontières”).

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 27

African ecologies are all characterized by a strong multilingualism. But there are huge differences depending on whether or not there is a national or regional lingua franca, such as Wolof in Senegal or Sango in the Central African Republic (or several as in the case of the Congo Democratic Republic). All the African languages are typologically very distant from French, so that the possible congruence between French and the languages with which it is in contact is weak. In our example from Togo, the speakers exhibit a primary oral competence. At least for one of them the target variety, i.e. normative French acqui- red through school and through access to writing, is quite out of reach, and his oral French is open to hybridisation. Similar configurations are to be found more or less everywhere in African countries. A situation without a national lingua franca is illustrated in Boutin’s article on Ivory Coast, a country where French is in competition with several languages which have long been in contact (and still are); and none of them has much congruence with French. If we now turn to the American contact ecologies, the picture is quite different. Several of them illustrate the phenomenon of the creolisation of French which now leads to contact between French and French-based creoles. The example of Guadeloupe showed what functional possibilities are thus open (but see the contrasting evolutions of Martinique and Guadeloupe). Congruence between French and Creole is in all cases much stronger than for African languages. The article by Fattier, in the framework of Chaudenson’s theory of historical creolisation, illustrates hybridisation processes. In spite of historical differences between Haiti and Guadeloupe the linguistic situations share some tendencies. To characterise these ecologies, the “time” factor has historically played, and still plays, a great role. For Africa, except for an early implantation in Saint- Louis du Senegal at the beginning of the 17th century (and some coastal esta- blishments), French was mostly imported in the 19th century, two centuries after its importation into North America, by which time it had become more standardized. Furthermore it can be wondered how similar the backgrounds of the initial settlement populations were in Africa and in America. In America contact with languages belonging to highly different structural types than French is mostly a historical recollection: contacts between French and Amerindian languages did take place in the early stages of colonisation but only gave birth to a small number of words kept in French. The emergence of a contact language (Michif, see the paper by Papen) between two such divergent languages shows the great variability of possible Francophonie contact situations. Such languages are quite interesting from a scientific point of view, but they remained marginal in American Francophonie and Michif is no longer a living language.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

28 Gadet and Ludwig

In strong contrast with Africa where there is much more discontinuity, the pervasive contact language in America is also of European origin, namely English. Historically, there has been competition between English and French, especially in Canada, the point of departure for different waves of diaspora of French. This has given rise to large-scale processes of copy and hybridisation. American situations range from a complex contact situation in Louisiana (with at least three languages, English, several types of French, and a French- based Creole – and other historical influences – see the article by Neumann- Holzschuh) to the only living “mixed” language concerning French, Chiac spoken in New Brunswick (see Papen’s article), through the more “ordinary” contact situation of Nova Scotia, which can be compared mutatis mutandis to what goes on in various other places in Canada. The question of speaker competence is also very different in America and in Africa. Cases where a primary competence is enlarged to other languages are found mostly in Africa, but are also encountered in America (for example in Haiti; also in Guyana, where a multiple contact situation includes French, Creole and several local languages). In American Francophonie the dominant English-French contact concerns two Indo-European languages, both with a long-standing tradition of writing and schooling. An important factor in language contact ecologies both in Africa and in America is the balance between two complexes which lead to different outcomes: on the one hand ‘reduction of markedness - simplification - koineisation’ (basilectalisation, which leads to convergence) and on the other ‘increase in markedness – copy of marked structures – means of encoding’ (vernaculari- sation and hybridization, a diverging force). Until recently the much discussed concept of “congruence” was mostly thought of in empirical terms of structures. But Drescher’s article shows that, besides the structural proximity or distance between language types a pragmatico-cultural dimension can play a role in more or less informal public media contexts where patterns of hybrid linguistic interaction appear. In her study of Cameroonese French the speakers establish a discursive model and conversa- tional conventions which are fairly close to the oral culture of the African contact languages. This shows the interplay between structural and cultural factors. In Gadet, Ludwig, and Pfänder (2008) we introduced still another criterion, the axis of vitality vs. obsolescence of the languages in contact situations. This criterion plays a role only in the American ecologies, between major Indo- European languages in a competing relationship which can lead to the weake- ning of French. It is the case in Louisiana, as shown by Neumann-Holzschuh, where French is now a minority language tending to attrition (as is already

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 29 close to being the case in Newfoundland, New England or Missouri, and to a lesser degree in Western Canada). In Africa on the contrary, competition with an Indo-European contact language did not take place, or at least not to the same extent (see the specific case of Cameroon, in the guise of Pidgin-English, a language derived from English). Our comparison between American and African macro-ecologies of French necessarily has its limits, the first one being the number of possible situations addressed, among which only a few were chosen here so as to illustrate various configurations of the outcomes of language contact. Many situations of contact with French have not even been mentioned, even though they exhibit still different types of contact ecologies.

References

Alonso, Amado 1945 / 1952. Partición de la lenguas romances de Occidente. Reimpression in Amado Alonso, Estudios lingüísticos I. Themas españoles: 101–127. Madrid: Gredos. Amit, Aviv. 2013. Continuité et changements dans les contacts linguistiques à travers l’histoire de la langue française. Paris: L’Harmattan. Barrat, Jacques. 1997. Géopolitique de la Francophonie. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France. Berruto, Gaetano. 2003. Sul parlante nativo (dell’italiano). In Hans-Ingo Radatz and Rainer Schlösser (eds.), Donum Grammaticorum. Festschrift für Harro Stammerjohann: 1–14. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Besters-Dilger, Juliane, Cynthia Dermarkar, Stefan Pfänder and Achim Rabus (eds.). 2014. Congruence in Contact-Induced Language Change. Language Families, Typological resemblance, and Perceived Similarity. Berlin: de Gruyter. Blom, Jan-Peter and John Gumperz. 1972. Social meaning in linguistic structure: Code switching in Norway. In John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.), Directions in Sociolin- guistics: 407–434. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Blommaert, Jan. 2010. The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bossong, Georg. 2009. Divergence, convergence, contact. Challenges for the genealogical classification of languages. In Kurt Braunmüller and Juliane House (eds.), Convergence and Divergence in Language Contact Situations: 13–40. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: Benjamins. Boutin, Béatrice Akissi and Françoise Gadet. 2012. Comment ce que montrent les fran- çais d’Afrique s’inscrit/ne s’inscrit pas dans les dynamiques des français dans une perspective panfrancophone. Le français en Afrique n° 27: 19–34.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

30 Gadet and Ludwig

Bühler, Karl [1934] 1978. Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungstheorie der Sprache. Frankfurt a. M. / Berlin / Wien: Ullstein. Calvet, Louis-Jean. 2010. Histoire du français en Afrique. Une langue en copropriété? Paris: Organisation Internationale de la francophonie. Cappeau, Paul and Françoise Gadet. 2007. Où en sont les corpus sur les français parlés? Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée XII-1: 129–133. CFA http://www.hf.uio.no/ikos/english/research/projects/cfa/index.html. CFPQ http://pages.usherbrooke.ca/cfpq/index.php. Chaudenson, Robert. 1992. Des îles, des hommes, des langues. Langues créoles-cultures créoles. Paris: L’Harmattan. Chaudenson, Robert, Raymond Mougeon and Edouard Beniak. 1993. Vers une approche panlectale de la variation du français. Paris: Didier-Erudition. CIEL_F. http://ciel-f.org/. Cohen, Robin. 1997 / 2008. Global Diasporas. An Introduction, London: Routledge. Colot, Serge and Ralph Ludwig. 2013. Guadeloupean Creole and Martinican Creole. In Susanne Michaelis, Philippe Maurer, Martin Haspelmath and Magnus Huber (eds.), The Survey of Pidgin and Creole Languages. Vol. II: Portuguese-based, Spanish-based, and French-based languages: 205–219. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Coulmas, Florian. 1981. Introduction: The concept of native speaker. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), A Festschrift for Native Speaker: 1–25. The Hague: Mouton. Dauzat, Albert. 1927 / 1946. Les patois. Evolution, classification, étude. Paris: Delagrave. Depestre, René. 1993. Anthologie personnelle. Paris: Actes Sud. Drescher, Martina and Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh. 2010. Les variétés non-hexagonales du français et la syntaxe de l’oral. Première approche. In Martina Drescher and Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh (eds.), La syntaxe de l’oral dans les variétés non- hexagonales du français: 9–35. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Féral, Carole de. 2010. Pourquoi on doit seulement speak comme les white? – Appropriation vernaculaire du français chez les jeunes au Cameroun. In Martina Drescher and Ingrid Neumann-Holzschuh (eds.), La syntaxe de l’oral dans les varié- tés non-hexagonales du français: 53–64. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. Ferguson, Charles and Charles DeBose. 1977. Simplified registers, broken languages and pidginization. In Albert Valdman (ed.). Pidgin and Creole Linguistics: 99–125. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fill, Alwin and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.). 2001. The Ecolinguistics Reader. Language, Ecology and Environment. London / New York: Continuum. Flikeid, Karen. 1989. Moitié anglais, moitié français: emprunts et alternance de langues dans les communautés acadiennes de la Nouvelle-Ecosse. Revue québécoise de linguistique théorique et appliquée 8–2: 177–228. Fontanella de Weinberg, Beatriz. 1992 / 1993. El español de América. Madrid: MAPFRE. Le français en Afrique, http://www.unice.fr/ILF/ofcaf.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 31

Le français à la mesure d’un continent, www.continent.uottawa.ca. Frénette, Yves, Etienne Rivard and Marc Saint-Hilaire (eds.). 2012. La francophonie nord-américaine. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Gadet, Françoise. 2008. Les français ‘marginaux’ dans une perspective dialinguistique. In Luc Baronian and France Martineau (eds.). Le français d’un continent à l’autre: 171–191. Quebec: Presses de l’Université Laval. Gadet, Françoise. 2010. What can be learned about the grammar of French from corpora of French spoken outside France. In Grammatik und Corpora 2009. : 87–120. Marek Konopka, Jacqueline Kubczak, Christian Mair, Frantisek Sticha and Ulrich Wassner. Tübingen: Narr. Gadet, Françoise. 2013a. Banque de données sur les français hors de France. En collabo- ration avec Nicoletta Michelis. Site de la DGLFLF. http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/ recherche/corpus_parole/BDD_Corpus_oraux_des_francais_hors_de_France.htm. Gadet, Françoise. 2013b. Des corpus pour le français hors de France. Présentation de l’inventaire. Site de la DGLFLF. http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/recherche/Intro _CorpusFHF_170313_2.pdf. Gadet, Françoise and Mari Jones. 2008. Variation, contact and convergence in French spoken outside France. Journal of Language Contact: 238–248. http:// www.jlc-journal.org. Gadet, Françoise, Ralph Ludwig and Stefan Pfänder. 2008. Francophonie et typologie des situations. Cahiers de Linguistique 34/1: 143–162. Gadet, Françoise, Ralph Ludwig, Lorenza Mondada, Stefan Pfänder and Anne- Catherine Simon. 2012. Un grand corpus de français parlé: le CIEL-F. Choix épisté- mologiques et réalisations empiriques. Revue française de linguistique appliquée 17/1: 39–54. Gadet, Françoise and France Martineau. 2012. Le français panfrancophone saisi à travers un maillage de réseaux. Cahiers de linguistique 38–2: 63–88. Gal, Susan. 1988. Linguistic repertoire. In Ulrich Ammon, Norbert Dittmar and Klaus Mattheier (eds.). Handbuch der Soziolinguistik / Handbook of sociolinguistics, Berlin / New York: de Gruyter: 286–292. Grégoire, Abbé H. 1794. Rapport Sur la nécessité & les moyens d’anéantir le patois, & d’universaliser l’usage de la langue française. Séance du 16 prairial, l’an deuxième de la République une & indivisible; Suivi du Décret de la Convention nationale, Imprimés par Ordre de la Convention Nationale. Édition fac-similé, Nîmes: Lacour. Haspelmath, Martin, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil and Bernard Comrie (eds.). 2005. The World Atlas of Language Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hickey, Raymond (ed.). 2010. The Handbook of Language Contact. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Husserl, Edmund. 1913. Logische Untersuchungen II/1: Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis, second, revised edition. Unchanged reprint, Tübingen: Niemeyer.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

32 Gadet and Ludwig

Husserl, Edmund. 2001. Logical Investigations, vol. 2, translated by J. N. Findlay from the Second German edition of Logische Untersuchungen. London / New York: Routledge. Italia, Magali and Ambroise Queffélec. 2010. Gestion du verbe français chez des locu- teurs gabonais analphabètes, peu et moyennement scolarisés, Le français en Afrique n° 26: 85–96. Johanson, Lars. 2002. Contact-induced change in a code-copying framework. In Mari Jones and Edith Esch (eds.), Language Change. The Interplay of Internal, External and Extra-linguistic Factors: 285–313. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Johanson, Lars. 2005. On copying grammatical meaning. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 58/1: 75–83. Kany, Charles E. 1945 / 1951. American-Spanish Syntax. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kiessling, Roland and Maarten Mous. 2006. Vous nous avez donné le français, mais nous sommes pas obligés de l’utiliser comme vous le voulez. Youth Languages in Africa. In Christa Dürscheid and Jürgen Spitzmüller (eds.). Perspektiven der Jugendsprachforschung / Trends and developments in youth language research: 385–401. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Kortmann, Bernd and Benekikt Szmrecsanyi. 2004. Global synopsis. Morphological and syntactic variation in English. In Bernd Kortmann and Edgar Schneider (eds.): 1142–1202. Kortmann, Bernd and Edgar Schneider. (eds.). 2004. A Handbook of Varieties of English. Tome 2. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter. Kouwenberg, Silvia and John V. Singler (eds.). 2008. The Handbook of Pidgin and Creole Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Kremnitz, Georg (ed.). 2013. Histoire sociale des langues de France. Rennes: Presses de l’Université de Rennes. Kriegel, Sibylle, Ralph Ludwig and Fabiola Henri. 2009. Les rapports entre créole et bhojpouri à Maurice: contact de langues et actes identitaires. In Vinesh Hookoomsing, Ralph Ludwig and Burkhard Schnepel (eds.). Multiple Identities in Action: Mauritius and some Antillean Parallelisms: 203–252. Frankfurt a. M.: Peter Lang. Kriegel, Sibylle, Ralph Ludwig and Stefan Pfänder. Forthcoming. Convergence in language contact. On the interaction of structures, speaker’s perception, and change. Le Bris, Michel and Jean Rouaud (eds.). 2007. Pour une littérature-monde. Paris: Gallimard. Le Page, Robert B. and Andrée Tabouret-Keller. 1985. Acts of Identity, Creole-Based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lodge, R. Anthony. 1993. French, from Dialect to Standard, London / New York: Routledge.

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 33

Lodge, R. Anthony. 2004. A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lüdi, Georges. 1992. French as a pluricentric language. In Michael Clyne (ed.). Pluricentric Languages. Differing Norms in Different Nations: 149–78. Berlin / New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Ludwig, Ralph. 2001. Markiertheit. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals. An International Handbook, Vol. 1: 400–419. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Ludwig, Ralph and Florence Bruneau-Ludwig. 2012. Langue(s) et communication en Guadeloupe: vers une approche écolinguistique. Cahiers de linguistique 2012/2: 139–166. Ludwig, Ralph, Peter Mühlhäusler and Steve Pagel (eds.). Forthcoming. Linguistic Ecology and Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Approaches to Language Contact. Ludwig, Ralph, Peter Mühlhäusler and Steve Pagel. Forthcoming. Linguistic ecology and language contact: Overview and perspectives. In Ralph Ludwig, Peter Mühlhäusler and Steve Pagel (eds.). Mackey, William F. [1980] 2001. The ecology of language shift. First published in Peter H. Nelde (ed.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachkonflikt: 35–41. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Quoted from the reprint in Alwin Fill and Peter Mühlhäusler (eds.): 67–74. Maillet, Antonine. 1971. La sagouine. Montréal: Leméac. Manessy, Gabriel. 1994. Le français en Afrique Noire. Mythe, stratégies, pratiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. Manessy, Gabriel. 1995. Créoles, pidgins, variétés véhiculaires, Paris: Éditions du CNRS. Matras, Yaron. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McWhorter, John H. 2011. Linguistic Simplicity and Complexitiy: Why Do Languages Undress? Boston / Berlin: de Gruyter. Mesthrie, Rajend. 2008. Pidgins/Creoles and contact languages: An overview. In Silvia Kouwenberg and John V. Singler (eds.): 263–286. Miller, Jim and Regina Weinert. 1998. Spontaneous Spoken Language : Syntax and Discourse. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mondada, Lorenza. 2007. Le code-switching comme ressource pour l’organisation de la parole-en-interaction. Journal of Language Contact 1: 168–196 [www.jlc-journal.org]. Mufwene, Salikoko. 2001. The Ecology of Language Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mufwene, Salikoko. 2008. Language Evolution: Contact, Competition and Change. London: Continuum. Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2006. Multiple Voices. An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden: Blackwell.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access

34 Gadet and Ludwig

Noonan, Michael. 2010. Genetic classification and language contact. In Raymond Hickey (ed.): 48–65. Pan-Francophone database http://www.bdlp.org/. Perrot, Marie-Eve. 2005. Le chiac de Moncton: description synchronique et tendances évolutives. In Albert Valdman, Julie Auger and Deborah Piston-Hatlen: 307–326. Petras, Cristina Anca. 2007. Les emprunts et la dynamique linguistique. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Universities of Iacu and Avignon. PFC. http://www.projet-pfc.net/?accueil:intro. Pöll, Bernhard. 2001. Francophonies périphériques: Histoire, statut, et profil des princi- pales variétés du français hors de France. Paris: L’Harmattan. Pöll, Bernhard and Elmar Schafroth (eds.). 2010. Normes et hybridations linguistiques en francophonie. Paris: L’Harmattan. Queffelec, Ambroise. 2008. L’évolution du français en Afrique noire, pistes de recherche. In Karen Holter and Ingse Skattum (eds.). La francophonie aujourd’hui, réflexions critiques: 63–76. Paris: L’Harmattan. Renaud, Patrick. 1998. Absoute pour un locuteur natif, Le français en Afrique n°12: 257–272. Rivarol, Antoine de [1783] 1836. De l’universalité de la langue française. Reprint in Antoine de Rivarol, Nouveau dictionnaire de la langue française d’après l’Académie: I–XXIV. Paris: Pourrat Frères. Robillard, Didier de and Michel Beniamino (eds.). 1993 / 1996. Le français dans l’espace francophone. 2 volumes. Paris: Slatkine. Salzmann, Tabea. 2013. Language Use and Communication in Urban Spaces: A Comparative Analysis of Spanish Migrants’ Speech in Lima and Madrid. Doctoral thesis, University of Halle. Sanaker John Kristian, Karen Holter and Ingse Skattum. 2006. La francophonie - une introduction critique. Oslo: Academic Press. Schendl, Herbert. 2012. Middle English : Language Contact. In Alex Bergs and Laurel Brinton (eds.), Historical Linguistics of English: 505–519. Berlin / New York: de Gruyter. Schlieben-Lange, Brigitte. 1977. L’origine des langues romanes – un cas de créolisation? In Jürgen M. Meisel (ed.), Langues en contact – pidgins – creoles – languages in contact: 81–101. Tübingen: Narr. Schneider, Edgar. 2007. Postcolonial English. Varieties around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Siegel, Jeff. 1985. Koines and koineization. Language in Society 14/3: 357–378. Simonin, Jacky and Sylvie Wharton. 2012. (eds.) Sociolinguistique du contact. Dictionnaire des termes et concepts. Lyon: ENS Editions. Szmrecsanyi, Benedikt and Bernd Kortmann. 2009. Vernacular universals and anglo- versals in a typological perspective. In Markku Filppula, Juhani Klemola and Heli

journal of languageDownloaded contact from Brill.com09/27/2021 7 (2014) 3-35 09:50:50AM via free access

Introduction 35

Paulasto (eds.). Vernacular Universals and Language contacts. Evidence from varieties of English and beyond: 33–53. New York and London: Routledge. Tabouret-Keller, Andrée. 1997. Language and identity. In Florian Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics: 315–326. Oxford: Blackwell. Thibault, André. (ed). 2012. Le français dans les Antilles: Etudes linguistiques. Paris: L’Harmattan. Thomason, Sarah G. 2001. Language Contact: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Thomason, Sarah G. 2008. Social and linguistic factors as predictors of contact-induced change. Journal of Language Contact 2: 42–56 [www.jlc-journal.org]. Thomason, Sarah G. and Terrence Kaufman. 1988 : Language Contact, Creolization, and Genetic Linguistics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Trudgill, Peter. 2002. Linguistic and social typology. In Jack Chambers, Natalie Schilling- Estes and Peter Trudgill (eds.). Handbook of Linguistic Variation and Change: 707–728. London: Routledge. Valdman, Albert. (ed.). 1979. Le français hors de France. Paris: Honoré Champion. Valdman, Albert, Julie Auger and Deborah Piston-Hatlen. (eds.). 2005. Le français en Amérique du nord. Etat présent. Québec: Presses de l’Université Laval. VaLiBel http://www.uclouvain.be/valibel. Vigouroux, Cécile B. 2013. Francophonie. Annual Review of Anthropology 42: 379–97. Walter, Henriette. 1998. L’Aventure des mots français venus d’ailleurs, Paris: Robert Laffont. Wartburg, Walther von. 1946 / 1971. Evolution et structure de la langue française. Berne: Francke, 10e édition. Whitney, William D. 1881. On mixture in language. Transactions of the American Philological Association (1869–1896) 12: 5–26. Wright, Roger. 1982. Late Latin and Early Romance in Spain and Carolingian France. Liverpool: Cairns.

journal of language contact 7 (2014) 3-35 Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 09:50:50AM via free access