#language varieties

Background

hey so OFFQc is a pretty cool resource if you’re interested in learning more about the particularities of french spoken in quebec (and, to a certain extent, elsewhere in canada), especially since most language courses (in my experience) focus on “standard” french, even those taught in anglophone canada. the author covers everything from pronunciation to idioms to vocab and slang.

for instance, there’re entries like this about “tu” constructions used in asking yes-no questions

C’est cher. It’s expensive. C’est-tu cher? Is it expensive?

C’est bon. It’s good. C’est-tu bon? Is it good?

J’ai raison. I’m right. J’ai-tu raison? Am I right?

Tu m’aimes. You love me. Tu m’aimes-tu? Do you love me?

J’ai fait ça. I did that. J’ai-tu fait ça? Did I do that?

T’as appelé. You called. T’as-tu appelé? Did you call?

Tu is placed after the conjugated verb (c’est-tu bon?). In composed tenses (like the passé composé), the tu is placed after the auxiliary, not the past participle (j’ai-tufait ça?).

or entries like this about how quebec french turns alveolar stops into affricates before high front vowels (affectionately called “dzidu” and “tsitsu” by the author)

When the letter doccurs before the French i or usound, it’s pronounced dz.

Di and du are pronounced dzi and dzu.

When the letter t occurs before the French i or u sound, it’s pronounced ts.

Ti and tu are pronounced tsi and tsu.

To describe this phenomenon (and to help you remember), a word that contains the sounds dzi or dzuis called a dzidzu word. A word that contains the sounds tsi or tsu is called a tsitsu word.

For example, différent is a dzidzu word. It’s pronounced dzifférent in Québec. Tube is a tsitsu word. It’s pronounced tsube. On the other hand, doux is not dzidzuated and matin is not tsitsuated. That’s because the letters d and t in those words are not followed by the French i or u sounds.

Pidgin = a language developed by adults who do not share a language

Creole = a language developed by children who grow up in Pidgin-speaking communities

Pidgin languages originally developed.....

around trade posts in West Africa (-> linguistic diversity)

during the slave trade from the 1500s onwards (-> continued to be used on the New World plantations)

The spread of English-based pidgins and creoles:

Today, English pidgins and creoles (EPC) are mainly spoken in.....

West Africa (-> mainly pidgins)

the New World (between the US and Brazil) (-> creolised varieties)

the Pacific (Polynesia, PNG, Australia) -> (both pidgins and creoles)

Pidgins:

pidgins arise in contact situations

this language variety is no one’s native language

they tend to be linguistically impoverished

they are linguistically mixed (one language, usually the ‘prestige language’, tends to supply the majority of the vocabulary (= lexifier language))

Superstrate vs. substrate:

Pidgins are the result of an interaction between a superstrate language and one or several substrate languages. 

Superstrate -> usually the lexifier language that tends to supply the majority of the vocabulary

Substrate -> the language(s) that contribute (mainly) phonological and (some) grammatical features 

Usually, pidgins are not structurally fixed, but sometimes, they ‘stabilise’ over time and become a ‘stabilised and extended pidgin’ (e.g. Tok Pisin in Papua New Guinea).

Lexicon and word formation:

pidgins have a limited vocabulary that extends over time (but is rarely as complex as the superstrate) -> fewer words overall

fewer function words

stylistic conventions in the lexifier language are frequently ignored

Syntax:

Early Pidgins have no or few fixed grammatical structures. Grammatical categories such as tense, aspect, and mood are marked adverbially, if at all.

Pidgins that become expanded or fixated over time often do so through grammaticalisation of formerly independent words. 

Phonology:

The sound systems of early pidgins are much reduced. Rare sounds merge with other sounds, usually as a function of the phonology of the substrate languages. Again, this feature is expanded over time (frequently through the contact with the superstrate language). 

Example:

-> Hawai’ian Pidgin English:

“Haus ai stei go in Japan taim” -> “When I lived in Japan I stayed inside the house”

Creoles:

= nativised pidgins

Creoles are much expanded vis-a-vis the pidgins they derive from. They are expanded both socially and linguistically.

Nowadays, creoles are frequently spoken in countries where Standard English is the official language.

In places where creoles are spoken, creole features tend to be used variably -> the creole continuum

basilect (fewest standard forms) -----> mesolect(s) -----> acrolect (most standard-like)

.

Here’s a little overview to help understand the differences between pidgins, creoles, and other language varieties: 

.

Source:

Guys. Guys. Anyone remotely interested in linguistics and / or multilingualism and / or debates about language and / or people being mad about things.

I found my favourite EU related publication of all times.

So. In the EU, especially in its many political debates and thousands of projects people from all over Europe and thus with a lot of different mother tongues and varying degrees of language skills meet. They talk, and debate, and write a lot of papers. So much paperwork. So much writing in English. Everyone actually brings some things over from their native tongue(s): an accent, grammatical errors, and, very important, lexical errors. These errors simply come from a transfer of the patterns of your native language. And, actually, people make do and understand each other, and manage to work together. And to write so. many. reports. and other paperwork.

That was the introduction, here comes my amazing discovery:

There is this document by the European Court of Auditors which lists the most frequently misused / abused lexemes of the English language in the EU context.

And I adore the arguments in the introduction of this paper so fucking much.

Please behold this beauty.

The text:

“During the last couple of years, I have heard two main objections to this basic premise. The first is an English-as-a-lingua-franca type of reasoning, i.e. that international English has taken on its own momentum and, to a certain extent, has its own rules. Native speaker usage, therefore, is no longer necessarily a model that needs to be followed. I must admit that I never found this particularly convincing to start with, but, more importantly, I do not hold it to be relevant here. Our most important ‘client’ is the European taxpayer (see ‘citizen’, below) and it does seem to be reasonable that English-speaking readers should be able to read our documents in versions that are linguistically at least as good as the translated versions (something that is currently often not the case).”

Let me get straight that my university favoured structuralism & a descriptive approach/linguistic descriptivism and had a stance against being prescriptive. I am all for team “It works. It’s amazing. It’s called ‘variation’, not ‘wrong’. It’s a sub-type of all the world EnglisheS there are. Why change it.” On the other hand, I am a naturally gifted grammar nazi so I understand, of course, that people might get mad reading reports and publications in their butchered native tongue.

So I love this document solely for existing with all my heart. It’s so FUNNY.

Text:

“words that are used with a meaning, often derived from other languages, that is not usually found in English dictionaries (‘coherent’ being a case in point). Some words are used with more or less the correct meaning, but in contexts where they would not be used by native speakers (‘homogenise’, for example). Finally, there is a group of words, many relating to modern technology [...]  one normally used in English-speaking countries, which they may not actually know, even passively (‘GPS’  or ‘navigator’  for ‘satnav’,   ‘SMS’  for ‘text’,   ‘to send an SMS to’  for ‘to text’,   ‘GSM’ or even ‘Handy’  for ‘mobile’  or ‘cellphone’,   internet ‘key’,   ‘pen’  or ‘stick’  for ‘dongle’,   ‘recharge’  for ‘top-up/top up’,   ‘beamer’ for projector etc.)” I recognize, among others, French (to precise) and German natives (handy & beamer). I AM INTRIGUED.

Do you not yet have enough of random stuff about the EU and the English language? Wanna see that list of most deplorably misused words? The document can be found here:

https://www.eca.europa.eu/Other%20publications/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION/EN_TERMINOLOGY_PUBLICATION.pdf

Also, please appreciate our auditor’s humour. I do, even though I, indeed, cannot see a problem with the examples he uses:

Text (the important part):