Cover not available
Part of
Constructions in Contact 2: Language change, multilingual practices, and additional language acquisition
Edited by Hans C. Boas and Steffen Höder
[Constructional Approaches to Language 30] 2021
► pp. 55–80

“Ok, qui d’autre na, nobody on the line right now?”

A Diasystematic Construction Grammar approach to discourse markers in bilingual Cajun speech

 | Université de Neuchâtel
Discourse markers (DMs) in bilingual speech have received much attention in language contact studies because their semantic and syntactic detachability make them easy targets for being used bilingually. Though past studies on multilingual DM usage have provided rich insights, open questions remain with regard to non-salient examples and the emergence of mixed code DMs. This paper looks at the DM system of Cajun bilinguals in Louisiana using a Diasystematic Construction Grammar approach. The analysis demonstrates that the DM systems of Cajun bilinguals are simultaneously active. Besides using DMs outside of their native languages, evidence of the congruence of the two systems is further supported by the documentation of mixed code DMs such as na, yeah mais and mais yeah.
Keywords: discourse markers, language contact, bilingualism, Diasystematic Construction Grammar, Cajun French, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Historical background and current language contact situation
  • 3.Data and methods
  • 4.Overview of DM use across both languages
  • 5.Signs of congruence of two DM systems in Cajun bilinguals
    • 5.1The DM na and mais yeah/yeah mais
    • 5.2DMs at the border of language switching
  • 6.Discussion and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.30.03bou
References (49)
References
Aijmer, K. (2013). Understanding pragmatic markers: A variational pragmatic approach. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Aijmer, K., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M. (2004). A model and methodology for the study of pragmatic markers: The semantic field of expectation. Journal of Pragmatics 36(10), 1781–1805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anthony, L. (2017). AntConc (Version 3.5.5). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from [URL], date of access 02.102018.
Bernard, S. K. (2003). The Cajuns: Americanization of a people. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C. (2010). On the equivalence and multifunctionality of discourse markers in language contact situations. In T. Harden, & E. Hentschel. (Eds.), 40 Jahre Partikelforschung (pp. 301–315). Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.Google Scholar
Boas, H. C., & Weilbacher, H. (2006). The unexpected survival of German discourse markers in Texas German. CLS 42–1: The Main Session. Papers from the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 1–15.Google Scholar
(2007). How universal is the pragmatic detachability scale? Evidence from Texas German discourse markers. In F. Hoyt, N. Seifert, A. Teodorescu, & J. White (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Texas Linguistic Society IX Conference (pp. 33–58). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Brasseaux, C. A. (1992). Acadian to Cajun: Transformation of a people 1803–1877. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Burgess, R. (2017, May 24). French immersion education expands into Evangeline Parish. The Acadiana Advocate. Retrieved from [URL], date of access 10.20.2018.
Chevalier, G. (2002). La concurrence entre ‘ben’ et ‘well’ en chiac du sud- est du Nouveau-Brunswick (Canada). Cahiers de sociologie, 7(1), 65–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007). Les marqueurs discursifs réactifs dans une variété de français en contact intense avec l’anglais. Langue française, 154(2), 61–77. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dajko, N., & Carmichael, K. (2014). But qui c’est la différence? Discourse markers in Louisiana French: The case of but vs. mais . Language in Society, 43(2), 159–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Rooij, V. A. (2000). French discourse markers in Shaba Swahili conversations. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 447–467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S., & Horvath, B. M. (2002). Sounding Cajun: The rhetorical use of dialect in speech and writing. American Speech, 77(3), 264–287. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dubois, S., Noetzel, S., & Salmon, C. (2006). L’usage des pratiques bilingues dans la communauté cadienne. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de linguistique appliquée, 9(2), 207–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1999). New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society 28(2), 185–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fried, M., & Östman, J. (2004). Construction grammar and spoken language: The case of pragmatic particles. Journal of Pragmatics, 37(11), 1752–1778. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuller, J. M. (2001). The principle of pragmatic detachability in borrowing: English-origin discourse markers in Pennsylvania German. Linguistics 39(2), 351–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goss, E. L., & Salmons, J. C. (2000). The evolution of a bilingual discourse marking system: Modal particles and English markers in German-American dialects. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 469–484. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36(1), 3–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008). Studying bilinguals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Höder, S. (2012). Multilingual constructions: A diasystematic approach to common structures. In K. Braunmüller, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Multilingual individuals and multilingual societies (pp. 241–257). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Constructing diasystems: Grammatical organisation in bilingual groups. In T. A. Åfarli, & B. Mæhlum (Eds.), The sociolinguistics of grammar (pp. 137–152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klingler, T. A. (2015). Beyond Cajun: Toward an expanded view of Regional French in Louisiana. In M. D. Picone, & C. E. Davies (Eds.), New perspectives on language variety in the South: Historical and contemporary approaches. (pp. 627–640). Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. 3 Rd Edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from [URL], date of access 02.10.2018.
Marshall, M. M. (1996). Le rôle de la langue français en Louisiane de ses origines jusqu’aux temps présents. Plurilinguismes, 11(1), 7–36.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (2000). What can bilingual conversation tell us about discourse markers?:Introduction. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 437–445. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Y. (1998). Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics, 36(2), 281–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000). Fusion and the cognitive basis for bilingual discourse markers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 4(4), 505–528. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, P. (2000). Bilingual speech: A typology of code-mixing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2011). Code-switching. In R. Mesthrie (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of sociolinguistics (pp. 301–314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Social motivations for codeswitching: Evidence from Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
(2002). Contact linguistics: Bilingual encounters and grammatical outcomes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Na!. (2019). In Larousse.fr. Retrieved August 8, 2019, from [URL]
Neumann-Holzschuh, I. (2008). Oui YEAH! Zur Syntax und Pragmatik ‘gedoppelter’ Diskursmarker im Louisiana-Französischen. In E. Stark, R. Schmidt-Riese, & E. Stoll (Eds.), Romanische Syntax im Wandel (pp. 469–485). Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Ok. (2020). In Larousse.fr. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from [URL]
Picone, M. D. (1996). Stratégies lexicogéniques franco-louisianaises. Plurilinguismes, 11(1), 63–99.Google Scholar
(2003). Anglophone Slaves in Francophone Louisiana. American Speech, 78(4), 404–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015). French Dialects of Louisiana: A revised typology. In M. D. Picone, & C. E. Davies (Eds.), New perspectives on language variety in the South: Historical and contemporary approaches. (pp. 267–287). Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I’ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: Toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics, 18(7), 581–618. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salmons, J. (1990). The bilingual discourse markings: Code-switching, borrowing, and convergence. Linguistics, 28(3), 453–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torres, L. (2006). Bilingual discourse markers in indigenous languages. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 9(5), 615–624. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. (2016). Vers l’identification des néologismes lexicaux du français de Louisiane. In. I. Neumann-Holzschuh, & B. Bagola (Eds.), L’Amérique francophone – Carrefour culturel et linguistique (pp. 281–304). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Valdman, A., Klingler, T. A., Marshall, M. M., & Rottet, K. J. (1998). Dictionary of Louisiana Creole. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, A., Rottet, K. J., Arcelet, B. J., Guildry, R., Klingler, T. A., LaFleur, A., Lindner, T., Picone, M. D., Ryon, D. (2010). Dictionary of Louisiana French: As spoken in Canjun and American Indian communities. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.Google Scholar
Weinreich, U. (1954). Is structural dialectology possible?. Word 10(2), 388–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1964). Languages in contact: Findings and problems. London: Mouton.Google Scholar