Cover not available
Part of
Positioning the Self and Others: Linguistic perspectives
Edited by Kate Beeching, Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 292] 2018
► pp. 127–153

Chapter 6
Metacommenting in English and French

A variational pragmatics approach

Metacommenters allow speakers to take some distance from a particular lexical selection, or enter into a negotiation with their interlocutors. A variational pragmatics approach is taken to the investigation of metacommenting in English and French, in Europe and Canada/the US, drawing on a range of time-dated corpora.

English and French draw pragmatically on similar linguistic resources for their pool of metacommenters, subjectivity being expressed through sort of/kind of and like in English, and genre, comme and post-posed quoi in French, while intersubjectivity is inherent in the personal pronouns in if you like/if you will in English and si tu veux/si vous voulez in French.

The linguistic forms used for the purpose of metacommenting arise from items with similar core meanings in the two languages, but develop, increase and decrease in frequency at different rates across national varieties, giving rise to regional differences and indexicalities.

Keywords: pragmatic marker, metacomment, variational pragmatics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background/literature review
    • 2.1Subjectivity and PMs
    • 2.2Identity, indexicality and PMs
    • 2.3From variationist to variational
      • 2.3.1What is a pragmatic variable?
      • 2.3.2A variational and corpus linguistic approach to pragmatic variables
    • 2.4Metacommenting in English and French
      • 2.4.1 if-ECs
      • 2.4.2PMs derived from type-noun constructions: Sort of, kind of and genre
      • 2.4.3Similatives
      • 2.4.4Post-posed quoi
      • 2.4.5Examples from the corpora (see 3.1 for details of the corpora investigated)
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1The corpora investigated
    • 3.2Raw rates of occurrence per 10,000 words
    • 3.3Classifying the markers into functional sub-types
  • 4.Findings
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 17 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.292.06bee
References
Aijmer, Karin
2002 English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate
2002 Gender, Politeness and Pragmatic Particles in French. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Social Identity, Salience and Language Change: the Case of Post-Rhematic quoi .” In The French Language and Questions of Identity, ed. by Wendy Ayres-Bennett, and Mari C. Jones, 140–149. Oxford: Legenda.Google Scholar
2016 Pragmatic Markers in British English. Meaning in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Reflexivity and Discourse-pragmatic Variation and Change”. In Variation(s) en question. Hommages à Françoise Gadet, ed. by Harry Tyne, Mireille Bilger, Paul Cappeau, and Emmanuelle Guerin, 157–179. Bruxelles: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Brems, Lieselotte, and Kristin Davidse
2010 “The Reanalysis and Grammaticalization of Nominal Type Noun Constructions with kind of/sort of: Chronology and Paths of Change.” English Studies 91: 180–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel
1996 Pragmatic Markers in English. Grammaticalization and Discourse Functions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “ If you choose/like/prefer/want/wish: the Origins of Metalinguistic and Politeness Functions.” In Late Modern English Syntax, ed. by Marianne Hundt, 271–290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle
2006 “Social Stereotypes, Personality Traits and Regional Perception Displaced: Attitudes towards the ‘New’ Quotatives in the U.K.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 10 (3): 362–381. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buchstaller, Isabelle, and Alexandra D’Arcy
2009 “Localized Globalization: a Multi-local, Multivariate Investigation of Quotative be like .” Journal of Sociolinguistics 13 (1): 291–331. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny
2005 “Syntactic Variation and beyond: Gender and Social Class Variation in the Use of Discourse-new Markers.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 9 (4): 479–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, Claudia
2013 “The Evolution of Three Pragmatic Markers: As it were, so to speak/say and if you like .” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 14 (2): 161–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clyne, Michael
1992 “Introduction.” In Pluricentric Languages: Different Norms in Different Countries, ed. by Michael Clyne, 1–9. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Coates, Jennifer
2013 Women, Men and Everyday Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Arcy, Alexandra
2007 “ ‘Like’ and Language Ideology: Disentangling Fact from Fiction.” American Speech 82 (4): 386–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Detges, Ulrich, and Richard Waltereit
2009 “Diachronic Pathways and Pragmatic Strategies: Different Types of Pragmatic Particles from a Diachronic Point of View.” In Current Trends in Diachronic Semantics and Pragmatics, ed. by Maj-Britt Mosegaard Hansen, and Jacqueline Visconti, 43–61. Bingley: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dostie, Gaétane
2009 “Discourse Markers and Regional Variation in French. A Lexico-semantic Approach.” In Sociolinguistic Variation in Contemporary French, ed. by Kate Beeching, Nigel Armstrong, and Françoise Gadet, 201–214. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fedriani, Chiara, and Piera Molinelli
2013 “Ut ita dicam and Cognates: a Pragmatic Account”. Journal of Latin Linguistics 12 (1): 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne, and Marina Yaguello
2004 “Discourse Markers across Languages? Evidence from English and French”. In Discourse Across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Carol Lynn Moder, and Aida Martinovic-Zik, 129–147. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleury, Serge, Florence Lefeuvre, and Mat Pirès
2012 ”Etude syntaxique, discursive, lexicométrique et sociolinguistique du mot quoi dans le Corpus du français parlé parisien des années 2000.” In Regards croisés sur la langue française: usages, pratiques, histoire. Mélanges en l’honneur de Sonia Branca-Rosoff, ed. by Yana Grinschpun, and Judith Nyee-Doggen, 97–112. Paris: PUF. submitted 21 April 2015 to [URL].Google Scholar
Ghezzi, Chiara
2013 Vagueness Markers in Contemporary Italian: Intergenerational Variation and Pragmatic Change. Ph.D. dissertation. Pavia: University of Pavia.Google Scholar
Holmes, Janet
1986 “Functions of you know in Women’s and Men’s Speech.” Language in Society 15 (1): 1–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 “ Sort of in New Zealand Women’s and Men’s Speech.” Studia Linguistica 42 (2): 85–121. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Women, Men and Politeness. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Isambert, Paul
2016.”Genre: une mode récente mais qui vient de loin.” Journal of French Language Studies 26 (1): 85–96.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara, Jennifer Andrus, and Andrew E. Danielson
2006 “Mobility, Indexicality and the Enregisterment of “Pittsburghese”.” Journal of English Linguistics 34 (2): 77–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lucy, John
ed. 1993 Reflexive Language. Reported Speech and Metapragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
1994 Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol.1: Internal Factors.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2001 Principles of Linguistic Change. Vol. 2: Social Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Margerie, Hélène
2010 “On the Rise of (Inter)subjective Meaning in the Grammaticalization of kind of/kinda .” In Subjectification, Intersubjectification and Grammaticalization, ed. by Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte, and Hubert Cuyckens, 315–348. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miriam Meyerhoff, Erik Schleef, and Laurel MacKenzie
2015 Doing Sociolinguistics. A Practical Guide to Data Collection and Analysis. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mihatsch, Wiltrud
2009 “The Approximators French comme, Italian come, Portuguese como and Spanish como from a Grammaticalization Perspective.” In Grammaticalization and Pragmatics: Facts, Approaches, Theoretical Issues, ed. by Corinne Rossari, Claudia Ricci, and Adriana Spiridon, 65–91. Oxford: Emerald. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 “Type-noun Binominals in Four Romance Languages”. Language Sciences 53. Special issue Binominal Syntagms as a Neglected Locus of Synchronic Variation and Diachronic Change: towards a Unified Approach, ed. by Lieselotte Brems, Bernard De Clerck, und Katrien Verveckken, 136–159.Google Scholar
Ochs, Eleanor
1992 “Indexing Gender”. In Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon, ed. by Alessandro Duranti, and Charles Goodwin, 335–358. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pichler, Heike
2010 “Methods in Discourse Variation Analysis: Reflections on the Way forward.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 14 (5): 581–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The Structure of Discourse-Pragmatic Variation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnedecker, Catherine
2016 “Si tu veux/si vous voulez : caractéristiques syntaxiques et fonctions sémantico-pragmatiques des hypothétiques en si portant sur le dire.” Journal of French Language Studies 26 (1): 45–66.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Klaus P.
2008 “Small Talk in England, Ireland, and the U.S.A”. In Variational Pragmatics. A Focus on Regional Varieties in Pluricentric Languages, ed. by Klaus P. Schneider, and Anne Barron, 99–139. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 “Variational Pragmatics”. In Variation and Change. Pragmatic Perspectives, ed. by Mirjam Fried, Jan-Ola Östmann, and Jef Verschueren, 239–267. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael
2003 “Indexical Order and the Dialectics of Sociolinguistic Life.” Language and Communication 23: 193–229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali
2006 Analysing Sociolinguistic Variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali, and Alex D’Arcy
2004 “He’s like, she’s like. The Quotative System in Canadian Youth.” Journal of Sociolinguistics 8: 493–514.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Peaks beyond Phonology: Adolescence, Incrementation and Language Change.” Language 85 (1): 58–108. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Terkourafi, Marina
2011 “The Pragmatic Variable: toward a Procedural Interpretation .” Language in Society 40: 343–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
2016 “On the Rise of Types of Clause-final Pragmatic Markers in English.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 7 (1): 26–54.DOI logoGoogle Scholar