Abstract
It seems that the French native speakers do not always usedoncas argumentative connectors in oral French. In fact, its use as discourse markers has been addressed by many researchers in linguistics. To avoid the overlaps between different categories of functions established by other scholars, we propose to distinguish only two types ofdonc: the argumentativedoncand the discursivedonc. This paper exploited the discursive use of the French particledoncin the oral production of Chinese L1 speakers of French in France. We found thatdonccould have the exemplification function in non-native speech, which was not reported in native speakers’ speech. Meanwhile, from the sociolinguistic perspective, we also investigated how some social factors influence its use in nonnative speakers’ speech. Among different extralinguistic factors examined in this article, only the extracurricular contact with native speakers of French was proved to be statistically significant.
Highlights
It is assumed that donc originates in Latin dum, either through the elaboration dumque, or through dunc, a late Latin form which is believed to be the result of analogy with the pair tum/tunc
After a first data cleaning, we found that donc seems to have some discursive functions that were not reported in native speech, such as exemplification
The current article exploits the discursive functions of donc in non-native speech as well as how extralinguistic factors influence the use of donc
Summary
It is assumed that donc originates in Latin dum, either through the elaboration dumque, or through dunc, a late Latin form which is believed to be the result of analogy with the pair tum/tunc. (von Wartburg, 1928; Ernout & Meillet, 1951; Bloch and von Wartburg, 1968). Several uses of donc in old French were outlined by Hansen (1997). It could introduce the apodosis in hypothetical constructions. Donc could introduce, in Modern French, results and conclusions. It could be used as as emphatic particles with imperatives. The temporal use is said to be the original one (Gamillscheg, 1957). Its evolution to the Modern French may be considered as a semantic shift, in which case, the particle lost its original meaning and extended to some new meanings. Its evolution to the Modern French may be considered as a semantic shift, in which case, the particle lost its original meaning and extended to some new meanings. (Holm, 1988)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
