Home A corpus-based study of quoi in French native speech
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A corpus-based study of quoi in French native speech

  • Delin Deng ORCID logo EMAIL logo and Fenqi Wang ORCID logo
Published/Copyright: November 7, 2023

Abstract

Based on data drawn from two corpora collected in Orléans, France, in two waves (ESLO 1, 1968–1971; ESLO 2, 2008–) over a 40-year period, this paper investigated the use of quoi as a discourse marker (DM) in the speech of 234 French native speakers. Our results indicate that the DM quoi has increased in frequency in the more recent corpus. The distribution of its discursive functions has changed between the two corpora. Meanwhile, we also demonstrate that the DM quoi is mainly used in final position and this tendency continues to increase in ESLO 2. Regarding the relation between function and particle position, the planning function is the only function favored by medial position in ESLO 1, while in ESLO 2, the quantification function also becomes one of the favored functions in this position. We suggest that this might indicate potential competition for the same position. Meanwhile, we also point out that the benchmarking function is quasi-categorically used in final position in ESLO 2. The relation between functions and positions changes between the two corpora.


Corresponding author: Delin Deng, Department of Linguistics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA, E-mail:

References

Andrews, Barry. 1989. Terminating devices in spoken French. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 27(3). 193–216. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral.1989.27.3.193.Search in Google Scholar

Baude, Olivier & Céline Dugua. 2011. (Re)faire le corpus d’Orléans quarante ans après: Quoi de neuf, linguiste? Corpus 10. 99–118. https://doi.org/10.4000/corpus.2036.Search in Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate. 2002. Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.104Search in Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate. 2007a. La co-variation des marqueurs discursifs bon, c’est-à-dire, enfin, hein, quand même, quoi et si vous voulez: Une question d’identité? Langue Française 154. 78–93. https://doi.org/10.3917/lf.154.0078.Search in Google Scholar

Beeching, Kate. 2007b. Social identity, salience and language change: The case of post-rhematic quoi. In Wendy Ayres-Bennett & Mari C. Jones (eds.), The French language and questions of identity, 140–149. Leeds: Legenda.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2021. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer. version 6.1.24 [Computer program]. Available at: http://www.fon.hum.uva.nl/praat.Search in Google Scholar

Chanet, Catherine. 2001. 1700 occurrences de la particule quoi en français parlé contemporain: Approche de la “distribution” et des fonctions en discours. Marges Linguistiques 2. 56–80.Search in Google Scholar

Chanet, Catherine. 2004. Fréquence des marqueurs discursifs en français parlé: Quelques problèmes de méthodologie. Recherches sur le Francais Parle 18. 83–107.Search in Google Scholar

Delafontaine, François. 2020. Unités grammaticales et particule discursive quoi. Studia Linguistica Romanica 4. 74–91.Search in Google Scholar

Denturck, Elien. 2008. Étude des marqueurs discursifs: L’exemple de quoi. Gent: Universiteit Gent Master of Linguistics and Languages thesis.Search in Google Scholar

Galmiche, Michel. 1990. Hyponymie et généricité. Languages 98. 33–49.10.3406/lgge.1990.1579Search in Google Scholar

Grize, Jean-Blaise. 2015. Logique naturelle et communication. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Search in Google Scholar

Gülich, Elisabeth. 1970. Makrosyntax der Gliederungssignale im gesprochenen Französisch (Structura 2). Munich: Fink.Search in Google Scholar

Hölker, Klaus. 1988. Zur Analyse von Markern: Korrektur- und Schlussmarker des Französischen. Stuttgart: Steiner.Search in Google Scholar

Hölker, Klaus. 2010. Frz. quoi als Diskursmarker. Linguistik Online 44(4). 87–97. https://doi.org/10.13092/lo.44.405.Search in Google Scholar

Lansari, Laure. 2020. A contrastive view of discourse markers: Discourse markers of “saying” in English and French. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-030-24896-3Search in Google Scholar

Lefeuvre, Florence. 2006. Quoi de neuf sur “quoi”? Étude morphosyntaxique du mot “quoi”. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Search in Google Scholar

Lefeuvre, Florence. 2011. Bon et quoi à l’oral: Marqueurs d’ouverture et de fermeture d’unités syntaxiques à l’oral. LinxL Revue des Linguistes de l’université Paris X Nanterre 64–65. 223–240. https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.1422.Search in Google Scholar

Lefeuvre, Florence, Mary-Annick Morel & Sandra Teston-Bonnard. 2011. Valeurs prototypiques de quoi à travers ses usages en français oral. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 112(1). 37–59.Search in Google Scholar

Overstreet, Maryann & George Yule. 2021. General extenders: The forms and functions of a new linguistic category. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108938655Search in Google Scholar

Ranger, Graham. 2018. Discourse marker uses of like: From the occurrence to the type. In Graham, Ranger (ed.), Discourse markers: An enunciative approach, 227–274. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-70905-5_6Search in Google Scholar

Teston-Bonnard, Sandra. 2006. Propriétés topologiques et distributionnelles des constituants non régis: Application à une description syntaxique des particules discursives. L’information Grammaticale 112. 46–48. https://doi.org/10.3406/igram.2007.3875.Search in Google Scholar

Trudgill, Peter. 1972. Sex, covert prestige and linguistic change in the urban British English of Norwich. Language in Society 1. 179–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500000488.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-06-10
Accepted: 2023-04-24
Published Online: 2023-11-07

© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Editorial 2023
  4. Research Articles
  5. Tapped /r/ in RP: a corpus-based sociophonetic study across the twentieth century
  6. Revisiting English written VP-ellipsis and VP-substitution: a dependency-based analysis
  7. Agreeing objects in Zulu can be indefinite and non-specific
  8. On the semantics of (negated) approximative kaada in Classical Arabic: a case for embedded exhaustification
  9. Imperatives as persuasion strategies in political discourse
  10. Primate origins of discourse-managing gestures: the case of hand fling
  11. Basic word order typology revisited: a crosslinguistic quantitative study based on UD and WALS
  12. The effect of L2 German on grammatical gender access in L1 Polish: proficiency matters
  13. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: brief assessments
  14. Validation of two measures for assessing English vocabulary knowledge on web-based testing platforms: long-form assessments
  15. Cerebral asymmetries in the processing of opaque compounds in L1 Polish and L2 English
  16. Are preschool children sensitive to the function of accessibility markers? A visual world study with German-speaking three- to four-year-olds
  17. Sensory experience ratings (SERs) for 1,130 Chinese words: relationships with other semantic and lexical psycholinguistic variables
  18. A corpus-based study of quoi in French native speech
  19. The overlooked effect of amplitude on within-speaker vowel variation
  20. Contextualized word senses: from attention to compositionality
  21. Words of scents: a linguistic analysis of online perfume reviews
  22. Constraction: a tool for the automatic extraction and interactive exploration of linguistic constructions
  23. The Red Hen Anonymizer and the Red Hen Protocol for de-identifying audiovisual recordings
  24. Novel metaphor and embodiment: comprehending novel synesthetic metaphors
Downloaded on 7.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/lingvan-2023-0027/html
Scroll to top button