Insertion of material (lexical items or entire constituents) from one language into a structure from the other language Alternation between structures from languages Congruent lexicalization of material from different lexical inventories into a shared grammatical structure These three basic processes are constrained by different structural conditions, and are operant to a different extent and in different ways in specific bilingual settings. This produces much of the variation in mixing patterns encountered. The three processes correspond to dominant models for code mixing that have been proposed. Approaches that depart from the notion of insertion (associated with Myers-Scotton 1993b) view the constraints in terms of the structural properties of some base or matrix structure. Here the process of code-mixing is conceived as something akin to borrowing: the insertion of an alien lexical or phrasal category into a given structure. The difference would simply be the size and type of element inserted, e.g. noun versus noun phrase. Approaches departing from alternation (associated with Poplack 1980) view the constraints of mixing in terms of the compatibility or equivalence of the languages involved at the switch point. In this perspective code-mixing is akin to the switching of codes between turns or utterances. […] The notion of congruent lexicalization underlies the study of style shifting and dialect/standard variation, as in the work of Labov (1972) and Trudgill (1986), rather than bilingual language use proper.

In this quotation, Muysken lists and explains the three different processes enabling codemixing, which are insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalisation. Examples will be provided for each of them. Firstly, insertion, defined as the fact of inserting "lexical items or entire constituents from one language into a structure from the other Index of notions A

Introduction

Sociolinguistics consists in studying the relationship between language and society, by considering different linguistic and social factors such as contexts, dialects, registers, bilingualism, multilingualism, gender, age, and cultural norms, amongst others. This science aims to explain speech differences and similarities between people communicating in various social and linguistic contexts, and tries to identify the social functions of language, and how language conveys social meaning. The purpose of sociolinguistics is thus to establish rules about the way language works, and the way it is shaped, thanks to the analysis of interactions between speakers. These will be the central themes of this thesis via codeswitching, borrowing, and grammatical gender attribution. Indeed, this analysis will focus on substantives codeswitched and borrowed from English, which necessarily require to be allocated a grammatical gender when used in French. The main issue will thence be to theorise and hypothesise grammatical gender assignation in French, which is well-known for being arbitrary. The issue will be to find linguistic, extralinguistic, and grammatical reasons for the attribution of the masculine or feminine gender to codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French. Additionally, considering codeswitching and borrowing as two connected linguistic phenomena, whereas they are often considered as opposite, will enable to deal with the potential existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum.

To do so, this study will be divided into three chapters. Chapter I, rather theoretical, although numerous examples will be provided, will be devoted to the introduction of key notions. Definitions will be provided for linguistic terms such as "codeswitching" and "borrowing", and the linguistic devices they are linked with -i.e. "Franglais", "codemixing", or "diglossia", amongst others, for the former; and "loanword", "loan-blend", "Gallicism", or "false Anglicism", amongst others, for the latter. Neologism, considered an in-between linguistic notion, will be defined, detailed from its creation to its adoption or rejection, and exemplified as well. Some grammatical terms such as "substantives", "determiners", and the notion of "natural gender" opposed to "grammatical gender" will also be defined and exemplified. A diachronic approach to the French language and the English language will be developed, as well as a diachronic approach to the grammars of both languages, in particular, the grammatical gender of French as we know it nowadays, and the grammatical gender English used to have.

Chapter II will aim to differentiate codeswitching from borrowing, over a first phase.

Key notions to distinguish codeswitching from borrowing will thence be detailed, via some requirements pertaining only to codeswitching -i.e. bilingualism and the question of word choice -, and some others such as linguistic creation and lexicalisation, linked with borrowing. The (popular) perception of both codeswitching and borrowing will also be examined through the viewpoint of ordinary people and specialists, as well as monolinguals and bilinguals, the latter encompassing codeswitchers and noncodeswitchers. Then, the issue of usefulness will be studied by listing the different reasons leading to use codeswitching and/or borrowing. Spoken language will be opposed to written language through globalisation and progress. The language economy principle will be taken into consideration since it is another motivation for using codeswitching and borrowing. The purpose of the third section of Chapter II will be to refute Étiemble's theory in his 1973 work Parlez-vous franglais ?. Finally, after the analysis of the various elements distinguishing codeswitching from borrowing, a link between these two linguistic phenomena will eventually be established when studying grammatical gender attribution. In linguistics, this link is called a continuum. Thus, in this thesis, we will try to demonstrate that a codeswitching -borrowing continuum does exist. Chapter III will revolve around various case studies. Four corpora were created to provide a plurality of codeswitched and borrowed occurrences. Indeed, since each of them encompasses substantives belonging to specific domains such as leisure, daily life formalities, local particularities (Corpus #1), media, entertainment, technolect (Corpus #2), music, rap (Corpus #3), as well as food, diet, and marketing (Corpus #4), their analyses will provide diversified case studies. The point will be to confirm what will be stated in the two previous chapters, to add more content, and to provide complementary examples. Statistics on the percentages of masculine and feminine substantives for codeswitching and borrowing will be displayed through graphs for each corpus, as well as the reasons enabling the explanation of grammatical gender attribution.

To sum up, the main objectives of this thesis will be to provide extralinguistic, interlinguistic, metalinguistic, and grammatical reasons to explain the grammatical gender allocated to codeswitched as well as borrowed substantives, and to demonstrate the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum.

Chapter I -Introducing key notions

The first chapter of this thesis will be mainly theoretical. Indeed, before getting to the heart of the matter, many definitions need to be provided, and several terms need to be explained and exemplified, so that each notion introduced will be clearly defined and valid scientifically. This chapter will be divided into three parts. In these parts, definitions of linguistic and grammatical terms will be provided. The linguistic terms that need to be defined are "codeswitching" -a non-lexicalised linguistic device -, "borrowing" -a lexicalised linguistic device -, and "neologism" -an in-between linguistic notion. The grammatical terms that will be developed are "substantives", "determiners", and "natural gender" as well as "grammatical gender". Moreover, a diachronic approach to both French and English will be developed, as well as a study of French grammatical gender and English grammatical gender.

Given the topic of this thesis, laying the foundation of codeswitching, as well as the linguistic phenomena depending on it, and doing the same for borrowing, seems unavoidable. As the two languages at stake are English and French, a study of their histories will be necessary so as to better understand the notion of "gender". Insofar as possible, each previously mentioned element to be defined will be analysed as follows: codeswitching first, and then borrowing. This way, the fact that these two notions are linked via a continuum will be highlighted by the form as well as by the substance.

Definitions of linguistic terms

The first part will mostly revolve around definitions of some non-lexicalised linguistic devices, "codeswitching" and its variants like "Franglais", "codemixing" and "language alternation" will first be defined and exemplified, then the codeswitchingrelated linguistic phenomena such as "diglossia" and "convergence" vs. "divergence", as well as the potential consequences of codeswitching like language death and language shift will be analysed. Then in the second sub-part, lexicalised linguistic devices such as "borrowing" and the different types of borrowing that exist -"loanwords", "loanshift", "loan-blend" and "loan-translation", also known as "calque" -will be detailed. Defining the linguistic phenomena linked with borrowing like "Gallicisms", "Anglicisms" and "false Anglicisms" will also be one of the aims of this first part. Finally, in the third subpart, neologisms will be thoroughly defined and studied.

Definitions of some non-lexicalised linguistic devices

In this sub-part, codeswitching and some other linguistic features will be defined and exemplified. Moreover, we will have a closer look at some phenomena linked to codeswitching, the effects of codeswitching, and the possible consequences it can have.

Codeswitching

By definition, one can easily deduce that codeswitching 1 refers to a change of codei.e. language -, that is to say, a shift in language. It corresponds to a transition from one language to another, within the same utterance, or in a conversation. Codeswitching 1 Also written "code switching" or "code-switching".

implies that there are two sorts of languages: according to Myers-Scotton [1993], the first sort of language is labelled "the Matrix Language" (ML) -i.e. the dominant language of the utterance -and the second sort of language is called "the Embedded Language" (EL), referring to the language inserted into the utterance, to wit, the codeswitched word(s). Regarding the role of languages when they mix in codeswitching, Myers-Scotton [1993: 20] states that "the participating languages are labelled in the following way. The "base" language is called the Matrix Language (ML) and the "contributing" language (or languages) is (or are) called the Embedded Language(s) (EL)".

Codeswitching has recently become a sociolinguistic phenomenon to study. Indeed, linguists started to take a real interest in it in the 1970s. However, as [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF]Redouane [ : 1921] ] quoting Naseh [1997: 202] states: "the earliest definition of codeswitching dates back to [START_REF] Weinreich | Languages in Contact[END_REF], who defines bilingual people as individuals who switch "from one language to the other according to appropriate changes in speech situation"". Bentahila [1983: 302] defines codeswitching as "the use of two languages within a single conversation, exchange or utterance". For Paradis, Genesee, and Crago [2011: 88], it represents the "use of elements from two languages in the same utterance or in the same stretch of conversation". As for Gardner-Chloros [2009: 4], she gives the following definition for codeswitching: Such varied combinations of two or more linguistic varieties occur in countless bilingual societies and communities, and are known as code-switching. It refers to the use of several languages or dialects in the same conversation or sentence by bilingual people. It affects practically everyone who is in contact with more than one language or dialect, to a greater or lesser extent. Numerous local names designate such mixed talk: Tex-Mex, Franglais, BBC Grenglish, Chinglish, Spanglish, Tuti Futi, etc.

According to Gumperz [1982: 56], codeswitching represents "the juxtaposition within the same speech exchange of passages of speech belonging to two grammatical systems or subsystems". To exemplify codeswitching, consider the following examples of French-English codeswitching: « La fan zone tour Eiffel » [Paris: 2016]; « La fan zone officielle de Paris propose de nombreuses animations et une diffusion des matches en direct sur écran géant » [Paris: 2016]; « Des débats à base de punchlines » [Gala: 2016]. The first two sentences are extracted from the official website of the Paris tourism office, and the third sentence is extracted from an article on Laurent Baffie, a French humourist. In these three sentences, French and English are mixed. Bold substantives are English words inserted into French utterances. Conversely, codeswitching can also be illustrated thanks to English sentences punctuated with French substantives, as in the following example sentence extracted from an article in which a mother explains how she uses her "high school French to raise a bilingual toddler": "If I said pommes de terre, he'd say potato" [The Washington Post: 2017]. In this sentence, the codeswitched term is « pommes de terre ».

Codeswitching occurs more often in conversations than in written samples as the various definitions suggest. It is said to be a spoken phenomenon rather than a written phenomenon. The fact of constantly switching from one language to another, in our case of study, from French to English or from English to French, cannot only be explained by the previous definitions. Actually, context plays a major role but, as it has been made clear, codeswitching will be studied in context in the second and third chapters of this thesis. For Heredia and Brown [2005]:

Speakers of more than one language (eg., bilinguals) are known for their ability to code-switch or mix their languages during communication. This phenomenon occurs when bilinguals substitute a word or phrase from one language with a phrase or word in another language.

Heredia and Brown bring a specific element that was not provided in the previous definitions. Indeed, they mention the fact that codeswitching acts on words or phrases whereas the previous authors refer to codeswitching as the shift from one language to another, which is a global approach. Heredia and Brown thus point out the fact that mixing languages is called codeswitching when at least two languages can be identified on a lexical level, and not on a grammatical level, for instance, which would correspond to codemixing that will be developed in one of the next sub-parts.

Apparently, authors, linguists, sociolinguists, and more generally, specialists seem to agree as they all define codeswitching as a blend of two or more languages. To exemplify the notion of codeswitching, let us consider the following instances: « La Villa des Coeurs Brisés 2, NT1 : Lucie Mariotti la love coach du programme, est-elle légitime ? » [Téléstar: 2016] vs. « La Villa des Coeurs Brisés 2, NT1 : Lucie Mariotti la coach en amour/relations amoureuses du programme, est-elle légitime ? ». In the first sentence, French is the Matrix Language (ML), that is to say, the dominant language of the utterances, and English is the Embedded Language (EL) -i.e. the language inserted into the French utterances. Let us now consider another instance where English is the Matrix Language and French the Embedded Language: e.g., "I'm going to say the first ten en français" [Gearon 1999: 50] vs. "I'm going to say the first ten in French".

The first example is considered codeswitching since English and French are mixed. It is thus a case of codeswitching in which ML is French and EL, the language inserted into the sentence, is English. On the contrary, the second instance illustrates a case of codeswitching in which ML is English and EL is French. Now that codeswitching has been broadly defined, let us consider other nonlexicalised linguistic devices more or less closely linked with codeswitching.

Franglais

According to Oxford Dictionaries, Franglais represents "a blend of French and English" -i.e. English terms being inserted into French sentences. For instance, as run as a headline on 26 July 2015 by Closer, a French magazine, « Mariah Carey folle amoureuse : la diva veut déjà un enfant avec son nouveau boyfriend ». In this example, the English substantive "boyfriend" is used instead of the French translation « petit ami ». Moreover, this term is sometimes preferred over its French translation in French tabloid newspapers, as shown in the following examples: « Timor Steffens : le nouveau boyfriend de Madonna » [Elle: 2014]; « Roi de la nuit et discret : boyfriend de… » [French Morning: 2014]; « Amber Rose : la star aurait-elle un nouveau boyfriend ? » [Public: 2016]. In the last instance, the borrowed substantive "star" is also employed. However, some other English words are also used in French tabloids, such as the adjective « topless » instead of the French equivalent « seins nus »: e.g., « Louane et ses photos topless dans la presse » [Téléstar: 2016]; « Lily Rose Depp, radieuse, pose topless pour Vogue » [Gala: 2017]; « Des photos de Kate Middleton topless dans la presse française » [Elle: 2012]. In these sentences, « topless » is used as an adjective, but it is recorded as a masculine substantive in the French dictionary Larousse. Therefore, contrary to "boyfriend", which is a codeswitched substantive, « topless » is lexicalised.

Franglais can also correspond to "unidiomatic French spoken by an English person", according to Oxford Dictionaries. For instance, a native English speaker could say *« Je suis 18 ans » instead of « J'ai 18 ans » because, in English grammar, the copula "be" is required to indicate the age -i.e. "I am 18" -contrary to the French grammar requiring the use of "have" (avoir). Similarly, a native English speaker could be confused by the use of French pronominal verbs because they do not exist in English. Reflexive verbs are conjugated with reflexive pronouns in accordance with the person the subject refers to. Thus, a native English speaker could say *« J'ai cassé ma jambe » instead of « Je me suis cassé la jambe », translated "I broke my leg" in English. These examples are therefore verbal and not nominal, contrary to the previous example sentences with "boyfriend" and « topless ».

Moreover, Franglais can correspond to a French speaker using too many English words or phrases. Although this definition suggests that the phenomenon is spoken, it can also be written in some specific cases such as the written press. Indeed, Franglais is often noticed in French tabloids, in which English words are inserted, sometimes aplenty, either as article titles -as shown in the previous examples -or as headlines, as illustrated thanks to the following five examples: These instances represent screenshots of French tabloids with the name of the magazines, a brief description of what can be found in them and, for two of them, article headlines. These are the top results that appear when looking up each of these five online tabloids on the Internet. On the screenshots, the English terms have been underlined in red. In the five different tabloids, twenty-four English terms are inserted.

The recurrence of some terms is blindingly obvious. Indeed, the most recurring English substantive is "people", appearing eight times, and the second is "star", seven times. Both of them can also be seen in phrases, combined with "news": "news people" (four times) and "news de stars" (once). Another expression noticed twice in one online tabloid is "royal blog". There are also « youtubeur » -Frenchified since the -eur ending is French vs. -er ending in English "youtuber" -, and "livenews". Some of the occurrences noted in these screenshots are proof of an abundant use of Franglais -i.e. English substantives employed in French, as suggested in the given definition -and French tabloid newspapers are a prime example of this phenomenon.

The main reason for the use of Franglais in French tabloids might be the fact that newspaper journalists have to catch the reader's eye and to be concise. Inserting English terms in French magazines and headlines is therefore a way of catching the attention as well as a means of getting straight to the point by using a minimum of words to economically convey the same idea -i.e. the linguistic economy principle [Martinet 1955]. Indeed, "boyfriend", "topless", "news people", "news de stars" and "livenews", which could respectively be translated by « petit ami/petit copain », « seins nus », « les nouvelles des célébrités/des stars », « les informations/infos en direct », are shorter in English than in French. However, the use of "people", "star" or "royal blog" is probably chosen with the aim of catching the reader's attention but not in order to be succinct since using these English terms is not shorter than using their French equivalents. Thus, the reason might be trend and the fact that tabloid journalists think that Franglais sounds nicer than French.

Finally, even though the observed terms are either codeswitched substantives -e.g., "boyfriend", "people", "livenews" -, or borrowings -e.g., « star » and « topless » -, they are all (except « youtubeur ») employed in French as they are spelt in English. Some modifications can nevertheless occur so that the word borrowed from a source language adapts to the target language. These modifications are generally grammatical, as shown in the following example sentence: e.g., « Trump interviewé par le Times britannique » [LPH: 2016]. In this example, we can talk about Franglais for two main reasons. Firstly, the loanword « interview » is used in the past participle and agrees in number and gender (i.e. the masculine gender: -é ending), in accordance with the French grammar rule. Secondly, the fact of saying « le Times » in French, instead of "The Times", is proof that the speaker attempts to "Frenchify" the name of the British national daily newspaper, replacing the article "the" by its French equivalent « le ». Besides, regarding the general organisation of French sentences, it simply sounds better to change "the" into « le » as newspapers are masculine in French and are thus preceded by a masculine determiner. For instance, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Independent, The Guardian, and The Sun are all translated « Le New York Times », « Le Washington Post », « L'Independent », « Le Guardian », and « Le Sun » in French. The whole sentence, which is an article title, is an example of Franglais. Indeed, as already explained, Franglais represents a blend of English and French -i.e. English terms being inserted in French utterances. This definition does not imply that the inserted words need to be codeswitched and/or borrowed. However, what this definition suggests is that several English words, or several words looking and/or sounding English, have to be inserted into a French utterance for the sentence to be labelled Franglais. These foreign words or groups of words can either look foreign and be borrowed from English to French -e.g., « interview », lexicalised in French, which means that it entered French dictionaries -, or be codeswitched. Therefore, for a sentence to be considered Franglais, it can be hypothesised that the quantity of words inserted matters more than the fact that these words are codeswitched and/or borrowed.

Franglais words can be lexicalised or not. They are not lexicalised when they correspond to codeswitching. However, when they imply borrowed words or phrases, Franglais words are lexicalised and become therefore loanwords. Some recent terms used in French such as "goodies", "haters", "émission de dating", and « blogueur » are proof that Franglais terms can be lexicalised or not. Indeed, they can be assimilated to Franglais because when looking them up on the Internet we notice that they are used by numerous French websites. "Goodies", "haters" and "dating", having respectively for French equivalents « (petits) cadeaux », « détracteurs » and « rendez-vous galant », are codeswitched substantives because they are not lexicalised -i.e. they are not recorded in French dictionaries -whereas « blogueur » is a loanword -i.e. it is lexicalised since it is recorded as a masculine substantive in the French dictionaries Larousse and Robert, « blogueuse » being mentioned as the feminine form for « blogueur ». The spelling of « blogueur » -borrowed from the English "blogger" -underwent some changes since it has been Frenchified -i.e. [gg] changed into [gu] -and the suffix -er changed into -eur, both in accordance with the French spelling rules.

To sum up what Franglais is and what it encompasses, consider the following quotation by Rowlett [2006: 425], in which he mentions an element that has not been dealt with in this part -i.e. the fact that Franglais can be used for humorous effects:

The term franglais encompasses combinations of French (français) and English (anglais) or various kinds. First, it refers to any variety that has developed naturally as a mixture of the two languages as a result of long-standing contact. Such varieties are spoken, for example, in New Brunswick (Canada) and northern Maine (United States). Second, the term refers to code switching between the two languages in what on some cases are again long-standing bilingual or diglossic settings. This occurs, for example, in Quebec (Canada), where, especially In Montreal since the 1960s, Anglophones frequently switch to French midsentence, just as Francophones would switch to English. Finally, Franglais refers to the phenomenon whereby native English or French speakers pepper their speech with lexis from the other language for humorous effect, to show off, or because of gaps in their native lexis.

In his definition, Rowlett evokes the blend between French and English, which characterises Franglais, and alludes implicitly to the fact that Franglais terms can either be lexicalised or not by referring to diglossic situations, bilingualism, and codeswitching.

The word Franglais is not a scholarly term. It could be considered as a popularisation of the terms "codeswitching" and "borrowing" is some cases. Indeed, everybody knows what Franglais means and what it refers to, but people, even codeswitchers, cannot know the term "codeswitching" if they are not familiar with linguistics. However, it seems important to point out the fact that Franglais has negative connotations that "codeswitching" or "borrowing" do not have, as developed hereunder.

According to Thody [1995: 1], "the word "franglais" was popularised in France by the publication in 1954 of Parlez-vous franglais ? by philosopher and literary critic René Etiemble". According to Bogaards [2008: 13], this term was invented by Rat and then popularised by Étiemble:

Le terme franglais, forgé, paraît-il, par Maurice Rat en 1959 pour désigner « ce français émaillé de vocables britanniques, que la mode actuelle nous impose » a fait fortune, grâce surtout au livre d'Étiemble, paru quelques années plus tard.

As mentioned, talking Franglais is most of the time despised and disapproved and the word Franglais itself is a quite derogatory term. Indeed, this term generally expresses the uselessness of talking Franglais and the abundant use of Franglais words. Furthermore, Franglais is disesteemed as it is generally associated with the notion of buzzwords or vogue words. [START_REF] Pergnier | Les anglicismes : danger ou enrichissement pour la langue française[END_REF], quoted by Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 45, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008], refutes this argument:

Pergnier believes that the phenomenon of franglais described and condemned by Etiemble (1964) extends far beyond the notion of fashion. According to him, it is a natural process of Anglicisation, accounted for by specific facts carrying systematic consequences.

Such disregard towards Franglais might be reinforced by the fact that this phenomenon is more and more perceived as a "real language". Bogaard [2008: 13] proves this false since Franglais acts upon vocabulary and in any case upon syntax:

De plus en plus, le franglais ou le franricain, comme l'ont proposé par la suite d'autres (cf. Hagège 1987), semble avoir pris le statut d'une véritable langue, langue qui est en train de remplacer, de façon inéluctable, le français, tout comme le latin vulgaire des soldats romains, porteurs d'une culture et d'une technologie très évoluées, a écrasé les dialectes qui avaient cours dans une Gaule encore peu développée. Pour se rassurer, il suffit de se rendre compte que l'écart culturel et technologique entre la France et le monde anglo-saxon ou, si on veut, les Etats-Unis ne ressemble en rien à ce qui séparait les tribus gauloises du monde gréco-romain du début de notre ère. Aussi n'est-il pas surprenant de pouvoir constater […] que le franglais se manifeste surtout dans la partie la plus perméable et la moins structurée de la langue : le lexique. On peut citer encore une fois Philip Thody (1995 : 108) qui conteste le statut de langue du franglais, en faisant valoir qu'il s'agirait alors d'une langue qui « se compose principalement de noms, avec seulement quelques rares adjectifs, très peu d'adverbes et pratiquement pas de pronoms, de prépositions, de conjonctions, d'articles définis ou indéfinis ». Bref, s'il fallait décrire le franglais comme une langue, il s'agirait d'une langue sans syntaxe, ce qui constitue manifestement une contradiction.

In his definition, Bogaards puts things back into their context by tackling two essential points. He first explains that Franglais cannot be considered as a threat for French and cannot be compared with other languages such as Latin that became predominant at one time, simply because the cultural and technological contexts of these two periods stand no comparison. Secondly, according to him, Franglais cannot be considered as a "real language" since it mostly concerns the lexicon -and more particularly substantives, adjectives and adverbs -and in no case the syntax. As a result, considering Franglais as a "real language" makes no sense, for a language without syntax is not a language. Now that Franglais, a non-lexicalised linguistic device, has been defined, explained, and exemplified, another non-lexicalised linguistic device called "codemixing" will be studied.

Codemixing

Codemixing is sometimes considered as a synonym for codeswitching. However, as will be demonstrated, they are not similar. For Muysken [2000: 1], codeswitching is "the rapid succession of several languages in a single speech event," [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF][Redouane : 1921] ] whereas codemixing makes reference to "all cases where lexical items and grammatical features from two languages appear in one sentence" [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF][Redouane : 1921]]. According to Annamalai [1989: 48] "switching is normally done for the duration of a unit of discourse, but mixing is not normally done with full sentences from another language with its grammar" [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF][Redouane : 1921]]. To exemplify these definitions, let us consider the following instance extracted from Young [2002: 135]: « Who cares si tu trouves que chu comme snob ou whatever ». In this sentence, both English and French are used. This is an example of codemixing since, as required by this phenomenon, two languages, and their respective grammars, alternate in one sentence -i.e. "who cares" (English) and « si tu trouves que chu » (French), « chu » being the contracted form of « je suis » or « j'suis ». However, codeswitching occurs on smaller units -i.e. only on one or more words or phrases, but not on full sentences or parts of sentences -, as in the Therefore, codeswitching is the fact of introducing a foreign word, expression or group of words into a sentence, whereas codemixing refers to the fact of combining at least two languages through whole sentences. For example, « On a eu comme deux trois fight (sic) » [Young 2002: 175] is codeswitching, whereas "Alors vous avez, quickly please, get your sheet, worksheets, and that's page quarante-trois" [Gearon 1999: 50] is codemixing.

For Bentahila and Davies [1983], quoted by [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF]Redouane [ : 1921]], the "act of choosing one code rather than another must be distinguished from the act of mixing the two codes together to produce something which might itself be called a third code". Maschler [1998: 125] also talks about a third code when defining codemixing as: "using two languages such that a third, new code emerges, in which elements from the two languages are incorporated into a structurally definable pattern".

According to Muysken [2000: 3-4] there are three different processes enabling codemixing:

language", can be exemplified as follows: e.g., « Après le fruit picking, l'apple thinning » extracted from Corpus #1 [NZ2]. In this sentence, the English terms "fruit picking" and "apple thinning" are inserted into the French utterance. This is therefore an example of lexical item insertion. The following sentence « Non parce que mes parents read my mind man » [Young 2002: 134] is an example of entire constituent insertion. Indeed, "read my mind man" is inserted into the French utterance. Secondly, alternation can be defined as the mix of languages through whole sentences. For instance, « Elle vient de nous tell-er off 3 -what a bitch » [Young 2002: 142]. Finally, congruent lexicalisation is based on the change of registers, dialects, or standard variations. To exemplify this point, consider the following example sentence of codemixing between Standard French -i.e. also referred to as International French -and Martinican Creole French -creole being a language developed from pidgin, which is referred to as a « système linguistique résultant de la simplification d'une langue donnée, servant uniquement aux besoins d'une communication limitée, sans être la langue maternelle de personne (comme l'est un créole), according to Larousse: « Les réseaux sociaux peuvent être dangereux, man opozé tout sé bagay-la », translated "Social networks can be dangerous, I am against all that stuff". This sentence, which starts in Standard French and ends in Martinican Creole French, illustrates codemixing congruent lexicalisation since a change of dialect can be observed. The last part of the sentence in Martinican Creole French is extracted from Grammaire du créole martiniquais [Pinalie & Bernabé 1999: 150].

To sum up, codemixing is distinct from codeswitching because it implies a switch from one language to another, where the grammar of each language can be identified. Thus, codemixing acts on full sentences, whereas codeswitching concerns smaller units 3 Translated by "She just told us off". such as lexical items, a single foreign lexical item inserted into an utterance being enough for the sentence to be considered codeswitching.

Finally, the third and last non-lexicalised linguistic device that has to be defined and differentiated from codeswitching is "language alternation".

Language alternation

What is the difference between "language alternation" and "codeswitching"? Even though, generally speaking, little distinction is made between the two, they actually are different.

The difference between "language alternation" and "codeswitching" comes from the work of Alvarez [1998]. Language alternation is commonly used as a synonym for codeswitching. As Nilep suggests in his 2010 article, "many linguists use the term code switching to mean the use of two languages within one conversation or text". Yet, the general definition that has just been given has to be qualified. Thus, making a difference between the two might prove controversial. However, when comparing these two phenomena, one notices that they are not exactly similar.

In order to make a clear distinction between these two concepts, a definition of "language alternation" is needed. Language alternation features the alternation of two languages, and more precisely of "two recognizable grammatical systems" [Nilep 2010].

For instance, the presence of some French utterances in a conversation principally in English is called "language alternation" since French and English are discrete languages -i.e. distinct from each other in terms of form, spelling, grammar and pronunciation.

Nevertheless, it would be harder not to make "the same assertion about […] English and Scots" [Nilep 2010]. In short, what differentiates language alternation from codeswitching is the fact that the former concerns the linguistic form whereas the latter deals with the contextualisation of communication. In other words, analysing the linguistic form, also called "speech form", is tantamount to studying at least two different grammatical systems identifiable within the same utterance or in a conversation, i.e. language alternation. On the other hand, as the name suggests, the contextualisation of communication, represented by codeswitching, refers to the context, that is to say the non-verbal situation in which a codeswitched word is used, and not the co-text, namely the linguistic form. Nilep [2010] provides additional information so that the difference between these two concepts is made clearer: When a change in linguistic form (language alternation) signals a change in context (contextualization) the practice may be described as code switching. It is therefore possible to use code switching without switching "language" per se, for example by switching registers. It is also possible, at least in theory, to observe language alternation that does not effect (sic) contextualization and therefore does not count as code switching under this definition. This may be the case, for example, in what [START_REF] Carol | Duelling Languages: Grammatical Structure in Codeswitching[END_REF] calls "code switching as unmarked choice."

As an example of language alternation, let us consider the following utterance: e.g., "Alors vous avez, quickly please, get your sheet, worksheets, and that's page quarantetrois" [Gearon 1999: 50]. In this example sentence, the main language is English and the language inserted is French. The switch between English and French concerns the linguistic form, and not the contextualisation. Two different grammatical systems can clearly be identified. Indeed, we can distinguish between the French grammar in « vous avez » and the English grammar in "that's". However, in the example sentence « Le fruit picking n'est pas le seul job à envisager lorsque vous souhaitez travailler […] », extracted from Corpus #1 [NZ2], only one grammatical system can be identified -i.e. the French grammatical system. Thus, this sentence is in French and only an English codeswitched compound is inserted into the utterance. In this case, the switch concerns contextualisation. In order to contextualise the sentence, the speaker decides to codeswitch « la cueillette de fruits » to use the English equivalent "fruit picking", since it is part of the typical jobs that some long-term travellers temporarily do when living in New Zealand or Australia, for instance. The following quotation extracted from Nilep's 2010 article, entitled "Code switching and language alternation", echoes what has just been explained, through the given example, regarding contextualisation:

Contextualization refers to [START_REF] Gumperz John | Discourse Strategies[END_REF] description of the ways in which speakers give cues about how to understand an utterance. These cues are generally subtle and not related to propositional content, for example signalling the formality of the situation, the relationship between speakers, or other elements of context.

To conclude, Franglais is a blend of French and English, as in the example « À quelques heures du Victoria's Secret Fashion Show, c'est la folie en backstages ! Grâce à l'oeil de Snapchat, on peut suivre en direct la préparation du grand show ! » [Shoko: 2016],

where the substantives in bold represent Franglais words. The Franglais words inserted into utterances can either be codeswitched or borrowed, what matters most is quantity -i.e. the fact that there are several words. Franglais can also correspond to unidiomatic French spoken by a native English speaker, as in « J'ai mal à ma tête », translated from "My head hurts", whereas the idiomatic French sentence should be « J'ai mal à la tête ».

In this sub-part, it has also been demonstrated that codemixing and language alternation can actually be quite similar when they act on full sentences, and they imply the switch from one language to another, with the clear identification of two different grammatical systems, as in the example sentence « Je ne suis pas prête and at the rate I'm going je vais être en retard » [Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique: undated]. On the contrary, codeswitching is the fact of inserting at least a single foreign word, a foreign expression, or a foreign group of words into an utterance, the only grammatical system identifiable being the grammatical system of the dominant language of the sentence. For instance, « Ça sent le fake » [Corpus #2].

Thus, now that Franglais, codemixing, and language alternation have been defined and exemplified, three codeswitching-related linguistic phenomena will be analysed, namely "diglossia", "convergence" and "divergence".

Related linguistic phenomena

Just like any other linguistic or sociolinguistic phenomenon, codeswitching is not isolated and does not work on its own. It thus engenders and depends on many other linguistic or non-linguistic devices. In other words, codeswitching leads to some phenomena and is determined by some others that enable its designation as "codeswitching". Thus, the first codeswitching-related linguistic phenomenon to be studied is "diglossia".

Diglossia

According to [START_REF] Richard | Vogue word[END_REF], in sociolinguistics, "diglossia" refers to:

A situation in which two distinct varieties of a language are spoken within the same speech community. Bilingual diglossia is a type of diglossia in which one language is used for writing and another for speech.

A more detailed definition provided by Encyclopaedia Britannica [2015], along with examples, will clarify the notion of "diglossia": Diglossia, the coexistence of two varieties of the same language throughout a speech community. Often, one form is the literary or prestige dialect, and the other is a common dialect spoken by most of the population. Such a situation exists in many speech communities throughout the world -e.g., in Greece, where Katharevusa, heavily influenced by Classical Greek, is the prestige dialect and Demotic is the popular spoken language, and in the Arab world, where classical Arabic (as used in the Qur'ān) exists alongside the colloquial Arabic of Egypt, Morocco, and other countries.

Etymologically speaking, from the Greek "speaking two languages", the term diglossia was first used in 1959 by sociolinguist Charles Ferguson [1959: 244-245] who defines it as follows:

Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purpose but it is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation.

In order to deepen the understanding of the term "diglossia", let us consider the following quotation. [START_REF] Ralph | Introduction to Sociolinguistics: The Sociolinguistics of Society[END_REF], a Professor of Linguistics at Georgetown University, writes about High (H) and Low (L) varieties:

A very significant aspect of diglossia is the different patterns of language acquisition associated with the High [H] and Low [L] dialects… Most reasonably well-educated people in diglossic communities can recite the rules of H grammar, but not the rules for L. On the other hand, they unconsciously apply the grammatical rules of L in their normal speech with near perfection, whereas the corresponding ability in H is limited. In many diglossic communities, if speakers are asked, they will tell you L has no grammar, and that L speech is the result of the failure to follow the rules of H grammar.

Therefore, according to Fasold, in a diglossic situation, two dialects are in contact, each of them having its own grammar. The two varieties are distinct from each other to the extent that one is considered High (H), meaning prestigious or formal, whereas the other variety is referred to as Low (L) -i.e. a regional colloquial variety. Such a situation can be observed in Guadeloupe and Martinique, for instance. Indeed, on these islands, which are part of the French Antilles, the official language is standard French, and the regional languages are respectively Guadeloupean Creole French and Martinican Creole French, two varieties of Antillean Creole French. Thus, French is the H variety and Guadeloupean Creole French and Martinican Creole French are the L varieties. Moreover, the notions of High (H) and Low (L) varieties echo the notions of "acrolect" and "basilect". In diglossic situations, "acrolect" is referred to as the H variety, and "basilect" is assimilated to the L variety. Just as the H variety, "acrolect" "has the highest prestige or is closest to a standard form", according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, and "basilect", just as the L variety, "has the lowest prestige or is more distant from a standard form", according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Holmes and Wilson [2017: 99] sum up the difference between "acrolect" and "basilect" in the following definition and illustrate it with an example from Guyanese Creole:

[…] linguists label the variety closest to the standard an acrolect (where acro means 'high'), whereas the variety closest to the creole is labelled the basilect or 'deep' creole. These two varieties are often mutually unintelligible. […] Examples can be found in Jamaica and Guyana. So in Guyanese Creole the acrolectal form 'I told him', used by eaducated middle-class people, has […] a basilectal from 'mi tell am' used by old and illiterate rural labourers.

Using High (H) and Low (L) varieties, Schiffman [1999] makes a distinction between partial vs. total diglossia:

Researchers have noted the situation where some speakers control H but others have L as a mother tongue, and learn H as a second system. Thus in some linguistic cultures, all speakers exhibit diglossic behavior (i.e. use both H and L varieties in complementary distribution), while in others, only some members of the society do. This could be illustrated either by a society where everyone controls L, but only some actively control H, or the opposite case where everyone speaks and writes H, but some also control an L variety. We can refer to this dichotomy as total diglossia vs. partial diglossia. This factor is distinct from the issue of whether diglossia is homogeneous or heterogeneous in the area.

To illustrate the notion of "partial diglossia" opposed to "total diglossia", let us consider two different cases in a diglossic society. A case of partial diglossia would therefore come down to a situation in which everyone speaks and writes the official language, some of those speakers being able to use the regional colloquial variety. Bednarek, in his article entitled "Multiculturalism and socio-lingual conventions in Canada: a lesson for united Europe?", in Intercultural Europe: Arenas of Difference, Communication, and Mediation [2010: 255], states that Canada is an example of partial diglossia: […] in Canada, English is treated as the H variety, as it is the dominant language. Yet considering the English-French relation, […] Canadian bilingualism remains purely institutional in terms. Research confirms a very low rate of English-French bilinguals, which practically eliminates the diglossic element. Canada thus becomes an example of an officially bilingual country where one observes diglossia without practical bilingualism. […] To sum up, it would be far more accurate to speak of Canada as a country where one finds partial diglossia.

As a result, in Canada, English is the H variety and French is the L variety. For Bednarek, Canada is a country with partial diglossia since everyone speaks and writes English -i.e.

the official language -, some of these speakers being able to speak French as well, the Low (L) variety.

On the contrary, a case of total diglossia would be illustrated by a situation in which everyone speaks the regional variety -i.e. the L variety -, but only some speakers use the official language. This is the case for Jamaica, a British colony part of the Greater Antilles. In Jamaica, everyone speaks the local dialect -i.e. Jamaican Patois (Patwa) -, and English, the official language, which is generally used in everyday media, business, or government, is understood by the majority of speakers.

Finally, at the end of his quotation, Schiffman [1999] adds that partial diglossia and total diglossia are distinct from homogeneous diglossia and heterogeneous diglossia.

Therefore, in the following quotation, he distinguishes between homogeneous and heterogeneous diglossia:

Even if diglossia is total and universal, we must determine whether the L norm is in fact one variety or more than one, i.e. is it homogeneous or heterogeneous. That is, is there an L variety that can be used for communication throughout the linguistic culture and with all segments of the speech community, such that no one is forced to resort to the H variety (written formal/spoken) or some other language, as a lingua franca? In Switzerland, no one L-variety is recognized as standard; speakers must learn to accommodate to their variety that those of others, since the use of H Schriftdeutsch is not considered appropriate between Swiss citizens. Thus, Schiffman explains that even in the case of a total diglossia, homogeneity and heterogeneity have to be considered. The Low variety can either be homogeneous or heterogeneous. In the case of homogeneous diglossia, speakers can use the L variety in any situation, without having recourse to the H variety -i.e. the official language. On the contrary, heterogeneous diglossia implies that the H variety cannot be avoided. Here again, Jamaica can be an example as English (H) is the language of media, business, and government, amongst others, whereas the Jamaican Patois (L) is not used in such domains. Now that diglossia has been defined and exemplified, it appears important to deal with the problems this linguistic phenomenon can cause. Wardhaugh [2006: 94] states that:

Diglossia reinforces social distinctions. It is used to assert social position and to keep people in their place, particularly those at the lower end of the social hierarchy. Any move to extend the L variety […] is likely to be perceived to be a direct threat to those who want to maintain traditional relationships and the existing power structure.

This quotation means that in some cases of heterogeneous diglossia, there can be a conflict between speakers. As "diglossia reinforces social distinctions", the H variety being more prestigious, some speakers do not want the L variety to extend to some domains. In other words, diglossia can lead to social divide, where L variety is disesteemed because it is seen as a threat to H variety.

Moreover, in his article, Ferguson [1959: 247] deals with the three potential "trends" that could make diglossia become a problem: Diglossia seems to be accepted and not regarded as a 'problem' by the community in which it is in force, until certain trends appear in the community. These include trends toward (1) more widespread literacy (whether for economic, ideological or other reasons), (2) broader communication among different regional and social segments of the community (e.g., for economic, administrative, military, or ideological reasons), (3) desire for a full-fledged standard 'national' language as an attribute of autonomy or of sovereignty.

When these trends appear, leaders in the community begin to call for unification of the language, and for that matter, actual trends toward unification begin to take place. These individuals tend to support either the adoption of H or of one form of L as the standard, less often the adoption of a modified H or L, a 'mixed' variety of some kind.

Thus, according to Ferguson [1959: 247], diglossia is not a problem until some trends appear. The first trend is "more widespread literacy"; the second trend is "broader communication among different regional and social segments of the community"; and "desire for a full-fledged standard 'national' language as an attribute of autonomy or of sovereignty secondly" represents the third trend. In such a situation, unification is required. The problem is that speakers disagree on which variety should become the standard: some of them want the standard to be the H variety, and some others want a form of the L variety to become the standard.

Finally, diglossia is also referred to as "bidialectalism". Hazen [2001: 85] provides a definition for this notion:

As is well-recognized in sociolinguistic research (e.g. Biber & Finegan 1994;Coupland 1980; Giles & Coupland 1991;Labov 1972), people may shift sociolinguistic styles in different contexts. These styles range along a continuum between different dialects, usually standard and vernacular varieties. At the extreme ends of the style-switching continuum is often assumed to be bidialectalism. Although much discussed in educational and speech pathology debates (e.g. see Adler 1993;ASHA 1987;Wolfram, Adger & Christian 1999), no sociolinguistic study has directly assessed this supposed ability. Its name is metaphorically derived from bilingualism, where one speaker can produce two languages in nonpracticed conversation, but how analogous bidialectalism is to bilingualism is a difficult question.

To sum up this quotation by Hazel, bidialectalism represents the fact of being able to shift between language varieties. It is linked with diglossia in the sense that bidialectal speakers are able to use two dialects of a language -i.e. High (H) and Low (L) varieties. However, bidialectalism should not be confused with bilingualism. According to Hazel, determining how similar these two notions are is difficult. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "bidialectalism" as follows: "facility of using two dialects of the same language; also: the teaching of Standard English to pupils who normally use a nonstandard dialect". Thus, bidialectalism refers to the "facility of using two dialects", whereas bilingualism means to master -i.e. stronger term than "facility of using" -two different languages, and not two dialects belonging to the same language.

Besides the negative aspect diglossia can have when the H variety is preferred over the L variety by some speakers, and vice-versa, whatever the reasons are, the key point in this part was the difference between partial diglossia and total diglossia. Indeed, this differentiation is essential to link diglossia with codeswitching. Thus, as diglossia represents a situation in which two linguistic varieties coexist -i.e. High (H) and Low (L) -within the same community, codeswitching can be engendered by total diglossia, meaning that speakers of a same community can use both varieties and, consciously or unconsciously, switch from one variety to the other. However, diglossia cannot engender codeswitching when dealing with partial diglossia, that is to say when some speakers master one variety and some others master both. Those who master both varieties are likely to codeswitch but the whole community cannot be considered as a "codeswitching community" since speakers mastering only H or L will obviously not codeswitch. To sum up, diglossia is not linked with codeswitching when speakers only use one variety.

Nevertheless, diglossia can lead speakers who master H and L varieties to codeswitche.g., bidialectal speakers when H and L are dialects of the same language.

In the following sub-part, two other codeswitching-related linguistic phenomena will be developed, i.e. convergence and divergence.

Convergence vs. divergence

"Convergence" and "divergence" are two opposite linguistic devices that echo codeswitching. These terms come from the work of Giles who developed the Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) [1973], also called "Speech Accommodation Theroy" (SAT). Meyerhoff [2006: 288] defines "convergence" as follows:

Accommodation towards the speech of one's interlocutors. Accentuates similarities between interlocutors' speech style, and/or makes the speaker sound more like their interlocutor. It is assumed to be triggered by conscious or unconscious desires to emphasise similarity with interlocutors we like, and to increase attraction.

Regarding "divergence", Meyerhoff [2006: 289-290] gives the following definition:

Accommodation away from the speech of one's interlocutors. Accentuates differences between interlocutors' speech style, and/or makes the speaker sound less like their interlocutor. It is assumed divergence is triggered by conscious or unconscious desires to emphasise difference and increase social distance.

Therefore, "convergence" represents the fact of adjusting one's speech so that it corresponds to the speech of other people. As an example, when having a conversation with people using slang words, young people for instance, a speaker, who is not used to employ slang terms, would try to do it to match these young people's speech and to give the impression to belong to their group. Furthermore, establishing a connection with convergence and codeswitching would therefore give the following situation: a bilingual, who generally tries to keep the two languages he or she masters apart, would start codeswitching because the other bilinguals he or she is having a conversation with do codeswitch. Similarly, a context in which bilinguals would stop switching, because a monolingual is part of the conversation, would create convergence by stopping codeswitching to integrate the monolingual into the exchange. On the contrary, as Meyerhoff explains, divergence represents the fact of adjusting one's speech so that it differs from the speech of other people. If we reuse the examples provided for convergence, the speaker who is not familiar with slang would not try to use slang terms even if he or she were having a conversation with people who do. His or her speech would therefore, deliberately or not, remain distinct from his or her interlocutors' speech. Moreover, the link between divergence and codeswitching could be exemplified as follows: a bilingual, who generally does not switch from his or her mother tongue to his or her second language, would keep doing it even when conversing with other bilinguals who codeswitch. Similarly, if bilinguals would keep switching even though monolinguals were part of the conversation, they would create divergence because the monolinguals could not keep conversing with them, as they would not understand the whole conversation. As a consequence, an impression of separation and withdrawal would clearly be present. Nevertheless, the given examples for convergence are proof of a certain unity and shared identity. Thus, codeswitching can be both a means of creating intimacy with people and a means of excluding others from a conversation. Language is commonly seen as an essential linguistic tool linking people together, unifying a country, a nation, and creating a common history. However, when dealing with codeswitching, we quite easily notice that this is not always the case. This phenomenon has the power of linking people as well as separating them. It can be explained by the fact that since two languages are involved in a same conversation or sentence, a monolingual -i.e. someone speaking only one of the two languages at stake -cannot understand the whole conversation and will obviously miss some capital information. 4 That way, the person will be excluded.

To sum up, "convergence" means to adapt one's speech to the speech of other speakers, and "divergence" refers to the fact of adapting one's speech so that it differs from the speech of other people. As a result, the creation of intimacy implied in convergence, and the exclusion of some speakers suggested in divergence, are two opposite communicative strategies.

As codeswitching and its related linguistic phenomena -diglossia, as well as convergence and divergence -have been defined and exemplified, its effects will be studied.

Effects of codeswitching

In this section, the effects codeswitching can have on the interlocutor(s) -i.e. the hearer(s) of a conversation -, and on people around when the speaker or the participants of a conversation codeswitch will be examined. Thus, in order to better understand the effects of codeswitching, the creation of intimacy will be studied -i.e. ingroupness. Then, the functions of codeswitching will be analysed: firstly, the communicative functions, and secondly, the didactic functions.

In-groupness

As already mentioned when dealing with convergence, one of the consequences of codeswitching is the creation of intimacy. Indeed, the fact of codeswitching between bilinguals is a way of showing that the participants of the conversation belong to the same group. This is what [START_REF] Brown Penelope | Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[END_REF] call "in-groupness", one of the effects of positive politeness. Brown and Levinson [1987: 317] define "positive politeness" as follows:

Positive politeness is orientated toward the positive face of H 5 , the positive selfimage that he claims for himself. Positive politeness is approach-based; it 'anoints' the fact of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S 6 wants H's wants (e.g., by treating him as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked). The potential face threat of an act is minimized in this case by the assurance that in general S wants at least some of H's wants; for example, that S considers H to be in important respects, 'the same' as he, with in-group rights and duties and expectations of reciprocity, or by the implication that S likes H so that the FTA 7 doesn't mean a negative evaluation in general of H's face.

A short definition is required in order to demonstrate that there is a link between ingroup identity and codeswitching. "In-groupness" could be defined as the fact of belonging to a certain group of people. This objective can be achieved through physical appearance, a specific way of being dressed, attitudes, or through language as well. Therefore, codeswitching is not only a means of creating intimacy, but also a way of reinforcing in-group identity -i.e. preserving group solidarity. Besides, according to Niemiec [2014: 29]: Warchoł-Schlottmann (1994: 204) confirms this belief, saying that sometimes one gets the impression that code-mixing is a feature of misunderstood snobbery, and serves to demonstrate one's bilingualism or even to manifest one's so deep integration with a given community that it becomes impossible and improper not to codeswitch.

Therefore, codeswitching can be anchored in a bilingual community and it would be perceived as abnormal, even rude, not to switch. As an example, let us consider the following situation: it would be strange if a bilingual speaker, having a conversation with other bilinguals who switch codes, tried hard not to switch by pausing, for instance, to choose his or her words carefully -i.e. words belonging to the dominant language of the conversation -in order not to insert foreign words from a language he or she masters. It would give the impression that codeswitching has to be avoided for whatever reason.

5 H refers to the hearer. 6 S refers to the speaker. 7 FTA stands for Face Threatening Acts, see Chapter II,1.4,1.4.1,1.4.1.3, for a definition.

In the previous section, codeswitching was presented as a way of creating intimacy.

Nevertheless, it can also be the other way round if one takes a look at things from a different viewpoint: reinforcing a group identity, or simply creating it, automatically excludes some people from a conversation. This is thus quite impolite and could offend them. Moreover, it would make the conversation impossible. Let us consider the following situation to exemplify this point: three bilingual speakers are having a conversation. Their mother tongue is English but they speak French fluently. A monolingual speaker is also part of the conversation. He or she only speaks English. The conversation should therefore be in English. If the bilingual speakers start codeswitching, the monolingual participant, who does not understand French, will not know the meaning of the French words inserted into the conversation. Thus, he or she will miss some information and it will become impossible for this speaker to keep talking with the other participants. As a result, codeswitching in a conversation while there is a monolingual participant may be rude since it may exclude him or her.

Finally, in a situation where only bilinguals were conversing, monolinguals could dislike the simple fact of hearing them codeswitch, although they are not part of the conversation. These monolinguals would not be excluded from the conversation strictly speaking because they are not part of it, but they would not feel invited to take part in it.

The fact that they do not understand what bilinguals are saying, or that they think they are doing it to show off, could be potential reasons that will be studied in Chapter II in the sub-part entitled "perception".

To sum up, on the one hand, codeswitching between bilinguals is a way of creating intimacy, that is to say in-groupness, the fact of making people belong to the same group.

In this case, in-groupness is possible through language. On the other hand, codeswitching when at least one monolingual is a participant of the conversation is a way of excluding him of her. Indeed, their participation in the conversation will obviously be challenged if he or she cannot understand what the other participants say.

Plus, depending on the point of view, codeswitching can be a marker of in-group identity and can be considered rude at the same time. Now that in-groupness has been dealt with as an effect of codeswitching, the functions of codeswitching will be analysed. The communicative functions will be studied first.

Communicative functions

Linguists list numerous functions for codeswitching. Let us have a closer look at them. In order to be analysed, these functions will be categorised and exemplified. First of all, [START_REF] Gumperz John | Discourse Strategies[END_REF] and [START_REF] Michael | Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language[END_REF] have two different opinions regarding the communicative functions of codeswitching. According to Muthusamy [2009: 2], [START_REF] Gumperz John | Discourse Strategies[END_REF] calls attention to the discourse function of codeswitching, also called "the personalisation function of language". In the abstract of his article, Muthusamy [2009: 1] explains that in a conversation, the speaker "plays upon the connotation of the we-code to create a conversational effect. As a consequence, he adds that codeswitching fulfils "the relational and referential function of language", which accounts for "effective communication and interlingual unity". However, for [START_REF] Michael | Learning How to Mean: Explorations in the Development of Language[END_REF], Muthusamy [2009: 2] explains that codeswitching fulfils the "interpersonal function of communication". Thus, the language spoken, a mix of English and French, serves as a mediator. To put it differently, communication between the participants of a conversation is obviously possible thanks to this special use of language. The two linguists see codeswitching in a different way. Indeed, for Gumperz codeswitching is a tool, whereas it is a means to communicate for Halliday. In other words, a tool is the instrument used to convey a meaning or to create communicative effects, that is to say, language, instead of a means, which represents a medium thanks to which communication is enabled, that is to say, speakers, and more precisely in our case study, codeswitchers.

In order to analyse Gumperz's, Kow Yip Cheng's, and Malik's lists, the communicative functions of codeswitching they enumerate have to be classified and exemplified to be studied. It appears that the communicative functions they enumerate are related to the lexicon, the context, or social interactions. Therefore, these functions will be classified according to whether they refer to a lexical level, a contextual level, or a social level.

In Discourse Strategies, Gumperz [1982: 144] The functions of codeswitching Gumperz lists have to be classified and exemplified. To do so, these eleven elements will be divided up according to whether they refer to the lexicon, contextual situations, or social interactions.

On the lexical level, the statements "to convey precise meaning" as well as "to close status gap" are conditions for codeswitching. Firstly, when dealing with codeswitching, conveying precise meaning means to use a codeswitched word because it has a more accurate meaning than its equivalent in the main language of the utterance. To exemplify this point, consider the following substantive "sex friend". When used in French, this term is codeswitched. It is generally translated by « plan cul » in French. However, the meaning conveyed by "sex friend" is more appropriate when talking about a friendship with benefits, rather than the expression « plan cul » in French, which does not suggest any friendship between two people, but only a relationship based on sex. People do not seem to agree on the difference between these two concepts, as Cheek Magazine [2015] reveals in an interview in which two young women give their own definition: « « Un sexfriend, c'est un pote avec qui tu couches, sans prise de tête. Le plan cul, c'est juste un one shot » […] « Mais non, un sexfriend, c'est pas un pote, c'est un vrai ami » ».

Nevertheless, it seems that the first speaker provides a more accurate definition since, semantically speaking, the term "sex friend" implies friendship between two people, whereas « plan cul » does not. Secondly, in the article title « Instagram : Comment avoir plus de followers ? » [Public: 2016], "followers" is codeswitched. This term is not lexicalised in French and is therefore considered as a codeswitched noun. Although « abonné.e » is the French equivalent for the English substantive "follower", as the second sentence of the article demonstrates: « De quoi remplir votre quota d'abonnés au maximum », the two terms do not seem to have the exact same meaning. Indeed, in French, the term « abonné.e » refers to a "subscriber", which means that the person subscribed to the account of someone but is not necessarily active, whereas the English term "follower" suggests that this person is active -i.e. he or she follows somebody's actuality on Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram by liking, commenting, and reacting. Therefore, as "follower" does not seem to have an accurate French equivalent -i.e. a French equivalent that suggests a certain activity -it thus exemplifies one of the functions Gumperz lists: "to close status gap", which means to fill a lexical gap.

The functions listed by the author that I consider to be on a contextual level are "to ease communication", "to negotiate with greater authority", "to capture attention, i.e. stylistic, emphatic, emotional", "to emphasise a point", and "to communicate more effectively". The following instance can exemplify the statement "to ease communication": « Je ne suis pas prête and at the rate I'm going je vais être en retard ». It is extracted from the article "Mixing Languages (Code Switching) -Should I be concerned?" [undated] on Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique, in which this sentence exemplifies the fact of "using a term in the other language to not interrupt the flow of the conversation", which means "to ease communication". Furthermore, this instance can exemplify another statement classified into this category -i.e. "to communicate more effectively". Indeed, linked with codeswitching, it means to ease communication and to make it successful by codeswitching. Therefore "to ease communication" and "to communicate more effectively" are closely related. Let us consider the following situation to exemplify the function "to negotiate with greater authority": a French businessman or businesswoman can codeswitch to put up a front and to be taken more seriously when negotiating with an American businessman or businesswoman, who is also able to speak French. Moreover, it can be hypothesised that the English codeswitched terms, inserted into the conversation in French, will be directly linked with the business at stake. In other words, the key words of the conversation will be codeswitched in order "to negotiate with greater authority -e.g., "profit", "trade", "agreement", etc. "To capture attention, i.e. stylistic, emphatic, emotional" means that depending on the situation, bilinguals may codeswitch to capture their interlocutors' attention with stylistic, emphatic, or emotional effects. For instance, « THE chanson qui fait chialer votre petit coeur sensible » is a section created on the online forum of the French magazine Public. Codeswitching the English definite article "the" in French is quite common. It is a stylistic and emphatic means to insist on the fact that something is either very good (as in the example sentence, in which the emphasis is put on the fact that the songs the subscribers mention are the most beautiful and the most moving) or very bad -e.g., « C'était THE galère sur la route, aujourd'hui » as any French speaker could say after having been in a traffic jam. In addition, it should be noted that when used that way, the pronunciation of this definite article is generally Frenchified, that is to say, generally pronounced /zə/. This is due to the fact that the /ð/ sound does not exist in French. Therefore, French speakers who are not familiar with English pronunciation will pronounce the English [th] like the French [z]. However, a French-English bilingual using such stylistic and emphatic wording when conversing with another bilingual may retain the English pronunciation. Furthermore, the given instance with the use of the definite article "the" in French can also exemplify the statement "to emphasise a point", since, as it has just been explained, "the" is used in French to highlight the fact that something is either considered to be a very good thing or a very bad thing. It is therefore obviously context-dependent.

Finally, concerning social interactions, codeswitching can be used "to appeal to the literate", "to appeal to the illiterate", "to identify with a particular group", and "to establish goodwill and support". Firstly, both statements "to appeal to the literate" and "to appeal to the illiterate" make reference to speakers who either have a proficient bilingualism (literate) -i.e. they master both languages orally and in writing -or to those who have a partial bilingualism (illiterate) -i.e. speakers who can speak two languages but write only one of the two, which is generally their mother tongue and not their second language. The fact of creating intimacy -i.e. in-group identity -is suggested in the function entitled "to identify with a particular group". As explained in the previous sub-part, "in-groupness" represents the fact of belonging to a certain group of people through physical appearance or through language, for instance. Codeswitching and ingroup identity are thus closely related, as bilingual speakers will have the impression to belong to the same group when codeswitching during a conversation. Finally, the function of codeswitching in the statement "to establish goodwill and support" clearly deals with social interactions. It can be exemplified by the fact of using the interjection "go" in French to encourage someone as in: « Go! Nous croyons en toi ! ». Now that each of the functions listed by Gumperz has been detailed, exemplified, and classified into three categories, which are the lexical level, the contextual level, and the social level, the following list by Kow Yip Cheng will be similarly analysed.

The following list is an excerpt from Kow Yip Cheng's article [2003: 62] in which some conditions for codeswitching are enumerated:

• Lack of one word in either language

• Some activities have only been experienced in one of the languages • Some concepts are easier to express in one of the languages

• A misunderstanding has to be clarified • One wishes to create a certain communication effect

• One continues to speak the language latest used because of the trigger effect

• One wants to make a point • One wishes to express group solidarity • One wishes to exclude another person from the dialogue In order to be analysed and exemplified, these nine conditions can be divided into three different levels, in accordance with the reasons motivating their use. As a result, the three levels emerging from this list are, firstly, the lexical level; secondly, the contextual level; and thirdly, the social level. The first three statements -i.e. "lack of one word in either language", "some activities have only been experienced in one of the languages", and "some concepts are easier to express in one of the languages" -are lexical conditions. Then, the following conditions "a misunderstanding has to be clarified", "one wishes to create a certain communication effect", "one continues to speak the language latest used because of the trigger effect", and "one wants to make a point" refer to the context in which a conversation takes place. They can therefore be called "contextual conditions". Finally, the last two statements "one wishes to express group solidarity" and "one wishes to exclude another person from the dialogue" represent social conditions.

The lexical level encompasses statements that suggest a linguistic gap in the target language -i.e. it is compulsory or easier to use a codeswitched term. For instance, in the sentence extracted from Corpus #2 « Je vais vous faire découvrir ce qu'est un photobomb », the substantive "photobomb" is codeswitched from the English verb "photobomb", the term "photobombing" being the substantive in English. Since there is no French equivalent to refer to the fact of appearing "behind or in front of someone when their photograph is being taken, usually doing something silly as a joke"

[Cambridge Dictionaries Online], this term fills a linguistic gap. The example sentence

« […] le square juggling, le jonglage à 4 balles […] », extracted from Corpus #1 [NZ4],
exemplifies the second lexical condition. Indeed, the blogger talks about an Australian sport he or she has been practicing when living there. The activity has therefore probably only been experienced in English, and is thus referred to with its English name, although a short explanation is required in French. Finally, the article title « La friend zone, c'est quoi ? » [OhMyMag: 2017] exemplifies the last condition listed amongst the lexical conditions. Indeed, the notion of "friend zone" is easier to express in English than in French and shorter. In French, several words need to be used to refer to the compound "friend zone". It can, for instance, be referred to in French as: « le fait d'être perçu par une personne comme un bon copain ou une bonne copine avec qui il n'y aura jamais rien de plus que de l'amitié ». Therefore, the English term seems more accurate than the French equivalent, semantically speaking. Moreover, it enables the speaker to use only a term instead of a group of words in French.

Contextual conditions are the conditions for codeswitching that pertain to a given speech situation. During a conversation, one might need to clarify a misunderstanding by codeswitching. This is what Birgit Abate-Daga [2015] explains on ResearchGate, when summarising the purpose of her research on codeswitching "in German as L2 language teaching" to know if other teachers use codeswitching or not with their bilingual pupils or students: "When a pupil does not know a specific word, we use the term in the pupil's mother language for clarification. We do not do it very often but we do it to explain a very specific expression". She therefore explains that she resorts to codeswitching by using her pupils' mother tongue to clarify what has been said and thus to help her pupils understand and express themselves.

Still on a contextual level, bilinguals may codeswitch to create some communication effect. Amongst the various effects of communication such as information, teaching, persuasion, or humour, the one that has been chosen to exemplify codeswitching with the aim of creating "a certain communication effect" is prestige. Indeed, by codeswitching, some speakers want to impress their interlocutors. This has to do with the context of the conversation since, in a given speech situation, a bilingual would codeswitch in order to show off, whereas in another context, he or she would codeswitch for another reason such as putting the emphasis on a word, for instance. The notion of prestige or show off will be studied in greater detail in Chapters II and III.

Thirdly, the statement "one continues to speak the language latest used because of the trigger effect" suggests some spontaneity. In a video from YouTube [2008],8 three people are having a conversation: a mother, a father, and a child. The mother speaks Indonesian, the father speaks both English and French, and the child speaks Indonesian, English, and French. At some point during the exchange, while the child is speaking Indonesian with his mother, his father starts talking to him in English and ends his utterance in French. The child spontaneously switches to French -i.e. the last language he heard -to answer his father:

The father: -Ok, fix it then! Tiens, tu répares ? ("it" refers to the child's pants)

The child: -Je peux pas.

Finally, the fact that a speaker "wants to make a point" is a condition for codeswitching, according to Kow Yip Cheng's article [2003: 62]. Indeed, in order to make a relevant remark or to say something significant, a bilingual may codeswitch as follows: e.g., "If you were a French academic, you might say that the parrot was un symbole du Logos". [Barnes quoted in Brabanter 2004: no page number] The last two statements to be studied and exemplified are "one wishes to express group solidarity" and "one wishes to exclude another person from the dialogue". They will be analysed together since they are closely linked with in-groupness, which is characterised by the fact of creating intimacy, which can be assimilated to "group solidariy", and therefore the fact of excluding others that are not part of this group. As already explained in this sub-part dealing with the effects of codeswitching, as well as in the previous list by Gumperz [1982: 144], codeswitching can be a way of creating intimacy -i.e. in-group identity -or a way of excluding people from a conversation. For instance, on the one hand, the fact that bilinguals may codeswitch when having a conversation is a means of creating intimacy, and a means of making the participants of a conversation belong to the same group -i.e. a group of people being bilinguals in French and English, for example, will codeswitch and will therefore have the impression of being part of the same linguistic group. On the other hand, if bilinguals codeswitch in a conversation when a monolingual is also part of the conversation, the monolingual will be excluded from the conversation since he or she will not be able to understand everything. Now that Kow Yip Cheng's conditions for codeswitching [2003: 62] have been classified on three different levels -i.e. the lexical level, the contextual level, and the social level -, and that each point she lists has been exemplified, the same distribution will be done for the following list by [START_REF] Malik Lalita | Sociolinguistics: A Study of Codeswitching[END_REF], since these two lists are quite similar.

The ten communicative functions listed by [START_REF] Malik Lalita | Sociolinguistics: A Study of Codeswitching[END_REF], quoted by Muthusamy Firstly, the lexical level implies that there is a lexical gap in the target language, or that the borrowed language has a more appropriate term in its lexicon than the borrower language, or even that the speaker cannot find the appropriate lexical item. Thus, a codeswitched word is needed. For instance, the first statement "lack of facility", the second "lack of register", and the sixth "semantic significance" are conditions for codeswitching. Firstly, it can be easier for a speaker to utter the following utterance by codeswitching « […] on peut admirer […] la skyline du centre ville (sic) au loin », extracted from Corpus #1 [NZ3], rather than keeping the main language of the sentence: […] la ligne d'horizon du centre ville (sic) au loin ». Indeed, in this situation the codeswitched term seems to come more spontaneously than the French equivalent. Regarding register, bilinguals may also codeswitch when they cannot find an English or French equivalent, depending on the main language of the utterance.

« […] on peut admirer

Codeswitching can for instance be used when dealing with occupations, as in the following instance extracted from Corpus #2 « Il y a donc le community manager qui me dit […] », instead of « Il y a donc le directeur de la communication web qui me dit […] ». Finally, on a lexical level, "semantic significance" means that a term is semantically more appropriate in a language than in another language -i.e. the meaning conveyed is more accurate. The term "sex tape" can be used as an example, as it has no equivalent in French, at least no equivalent that clearly expresses that the video is homemade. Indeed, amongst the French equivalents such as « vidéo porno » or « vidéo coquine », nothing implies that the video was not recorded by "specialists". Therefore, saying « Affaire de la sex tape de Valbuena : une victoire judiciaire pour Karim Benzema » [Le Monde: 2017] conveys a more accurate and truthful meaning than « Affaire de la vidéo amateur/coquine de Valbuena : une victoire judiciaire pour Karim Benzema ».

The contextual level means that, in a given situation, codeswitching is more spontaneous, easier, or will put the emphasis on an important point for instance, contrary to the main language of the utterance. The following statements are thus contextual conditions for codeswitching: "mood of the speaker", "to emphasise a point", "habitual experience", "to address a different audience", "pragmatic reasons", and "to attract attention". According to [START_REF] Malik Lalita | Sociolinguistics: A Study of Codeswitching[END_REF], quoted by Muthusamy [2009: 4], anger and tiredness are reasons for codeswitching -i.e. when bilingual speakers are in a specific mood, they tend to codeswitch more than when they are in a right state of mind.

Therefore, in such a case, codeswitching is context-dependent. Codeswitching may also be a means of highlighting a point. Indeed, saying "Now it's really time to get up. Lèvetoi" [Grosjean 1982: 154] shows that the speaker switches to French to repeat the last part of the first sentence in order to "underline his request" [Grosjean 1982: 154].

Besides, the fact that the speaker seems to be in a hurry is even more highlighted once the French imperative form is inserted. These two assertions can be deduced from the fact that codeswitching is salient. On Sémanticlopédie, an online dictionary of semantics, salience is referred to as:

[…] ce qui vient en premier à l'esprit, ce qui capte l'attention. Cette propriété parfois appelée prosexigène (obtrusive en anglais), s'applique aux entités du discours via les caractéristiques lexicales, syntaxiques et sémantiques du discours, auxquelles il faut ajouter les caractéristiques phonétiques et prosodiques dans le cas du discours oral et les caractéristiques visuelles dans le cas du discours écrit. La notion de saillance (salience ou saliency en anglais) est ainsi liée à l'émergence d'une figure sur un fond, que cette émergence soit motivée par des aspects physiques liés à la perception de la parole ou du texte écrit, ou par des aspects plus sémantiques voire cognitifs liés à la compréhension du langage.

If this definition of salience is applied to the given example, codeswitching by inserting « Lève-toi » in the English utterance is therefore a means of catching the hearer's attention by using a language different from the main language of the utterance -i.e.

French -and by using the verb in the imperative to give an order.

Similarly, the statement "to attract attention" can be linked with the fact of emphasising a point and exemplified with the same instance. Indeed, in the sentence "Now it's really time to get up. Lève-toi", the speaker wants to attract the hearer's attention on the fact that it is high time to get up. Moreover, codeswitching can also be used in advertisements, to attract the consumers' attention. This is the case for the ad of the French brand La Roche-Posay, entitled « Devenez skin checker avec La Roche-Posay », 9which is an advertising campaign against skin cancer. The term "skin checker" is codeswitched from English and inserted into the French utterance. This might be a commercial strategy to attract the viewer's attention. Just as any other habit, codeswitching can be a recurrent behaviour -i.e. a linguistic recurrent behaviour in this case. For instance, the fact of often using the locution "you know" at the end of sentences -« tu sais » or « t'sais » in French -represents a speech mannerism, obviously linked with spontaneity since the speaker uses these locutions without even noticing it. Thus, while speaking, these verbal tics might be codeswitched. In order to explain and exemplify the statement "to address a different audience", let us consider the following situation. When having a conversation with his or her university colleagues teaching law, a French teacher teaching English will not codeswitch because it would be rude since his or her colleagues would not understand. However, once in class, when addressing his and her French students preparing a degree in English, this teacher will codeswitch because he or she knows that the students will understand. Therefore, codeswitching in this situation is a question of context, depending on the person the speaker is addressing. Being pragmatic means to be able to adapt to any situation and to act. Thus, codeswitching for pragmatic reasons means to be able to adapt one's language -i.e. to adapt language choice -to any situation. For instance, when having a conversation with a bilingual, the bilingual speaker can switch languages on a term so that his or her interlocutor understands better. The example of Birgit Abate-Daga

[2015], above-mentioned, who explains that she sometimes resorts to codeswitching with her pupils, and in particular that she uses their mother tongue for them to understand a word they do not know in German can illustrate the fact of being pragmatic. This phenomenon is therefore context-dependent.

Finally, the social level emerging from Malik's list is suggested in the statement "to show identity with a group". Just as it has been explained for the previous list by Kow Yip Cheng, showing "identity with a group" means to create intimacy -i.e. in-groupness.

For instance, when bilinguals are having a conversation, the fact that all the participants codeswitch make them belong to the same group because they share a similar characteristic: bilingualism. Nevertheless, Malik does not take into account the "exclusion" factor in the list, although it naturally results from in-group identity. Indeed, when people belong to a same group, other people not sharing the specific characteristic(s) forming this group are therefore excluded from it. Thus, monolingual speakers are excluded from a conversation in which bilingual speakers codeswitch.

As mentioned in the introduction of this sub-part, in order to clarify the effects of codeswitching, its communicative functions as well as its didactic functions have to be analysed. Communicative functions listed by Gumperz, Kow Yip Cheng, and Malik having been detailed and exemplified, the following functions to be studied are the didactic functions.

Didactic functions

In this sub-part, one of the numerous consequences codeswitching can have on the participants of a conversation, and on people around, will be developed -i.e. the didactic function. Two classic scenarios are possible: o A bilingual speaker codeswitches when having a conversation with other bilinguals. A monolingual is listening to the exchange, although he or she is not a participant of the conversation. This situation can be exemplified by instances extracted from Corpus #3, which are English codeswitched terms used in French sentences by the host of the French TV show Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! (TPMP) and his columnists. Before providing examples, it should be noted that, firstly, these speakers are not bilingual, and secondly, the codeswitched vocabulary they use actually represents media jargon. It is therefore a vocabulary they are familiar with, which does not necessitate being bilingual, and that the audience may not master as well as them. Therefore, the host and his columnists represent the bilingual speakers having a conversation, as described in the previous statement, and the audience represents the monolingual hearer, who is not a participant of the conversation. In order to exemplify this context, let us consider the following utterances: e.g., « […] si vous avez vu le pré-générique »; « […] au moment du coming next », and « On démarre par la séquence du coming next ». In this case, the didactic function takes place because the French equivalent « pré-générique » is provided so that the audience makes the link between this term and what "coming next" means. Similarly, with the example sentences « Il y aura un énorme happening dehors » and « Ils se sont fait un petit happening improbable », the audience will understand what this term means when the happening will actually take place, concerning the first sentence; regarding the second instance, the audience understands the term thanks to the broadcast video of the unexpected happening in question. Likewise, for the sentences « Remettez le liner, les chéris ! » and « Mettez un liner tout de suite ! », the meaning of "liner" is understood by the audience via images, that is to say, when the banner actually appears on the screen. Thus, regarding all these situations, the role of multimodality -which is, according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics, "the use of more than one semiotic mode in meaning-making, communication, and representation generally, or in a specific situation. Such modes include all forms of verbal, nonverbal, and contextual communication" -is crucial for the didactic function to take place, and therefore, for the audience to understand each codeswitched term. Van Leeuwen [2005: 28] defines multimodality as "the combination of different semiotic modes -for example, language and music -in a communicative artifact or event".

Multimodality is therefore represented verbally and non-verbally in the previous examples, thanks to images, or videos.

o A bilingual codeswitches (by accident) whereas his or her interlocutor is monolingual.

There are examples for which the didactic function takes place in Corpus #3. As already mentioned, some codeswitched words extracted from the TV show Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! are actually jargon words, and more precisely, media jargon. Although the host and his columnists are not bilingual, they use English substantives such as "split screen", which represents a jargon term in this context. Therefore, bilingualism is not necessary since the kind of vocabulary employed is specific to their job. However, in such a situation, their aim is to make the audience know what the codeswitched terms mean, whether they are assimilated to media jargon or not. This is where multimodality comes into play. Indeed, the TV producer displays the image corresponding to the term used, which enables the audience to understand the meaning of the codeswitched term inserted. For instance, consider the following sentences extracted from TPMP, « Est-ce que le réalisateur peut faire un split screen ? ». "Split screen" is, at first glance, incomprehensible for the audience until the image enables them to understand the meaning of this word. Thus, the audience will be able to understand what a split-screen is, without being bilingual, if a split-screen is actually displayed.

The fact that a bilingual does not know the codeswitched word the speaker has just uttered, but understands the sentence once the codeswitched term has been explained, could have been mentioned as well. Nevertheless, this kind of situation may be rare. Indeed, when two bilinguals are having a conversation, they both rightly assume that their interlocutor is able to understand any codeswitched word. Besides, due to the spontaneity codeswitching suggests, bilingual speakers do not even wonder if the bilingual interlocutor will know the codeswitched terms. Nonetheless, if the bilingual interlocutor does not understand a codeswitched word uttered by the speaker and asks him or her to explain it, metalinguistic comments will be provided. In some other cases, multimodality takes place thanks to images or videos, as demonstrated in the previous example extracted from Touche Pas à Mon Poste !, or even thanks to gestures.

Whatever the context, the didactic function is achieved as soon as monolinguals understand anyhow what is said with or without explanation. In either case, codeswitching does not always involve words that the hearer automatically gets.

However, as codeswitching is highly context-dependent, the codeswitched word can be easily understood. In other words, depending on the topic of the exchange or the moods of the participants, the hearer has the means of understanding the conversation thanks to the context. Therefore, since the effects of codeswitching have been analysed through ingroupness, the communicative functions based on the lexicon, the context, and social interactions, and the didactic functions enabled thanks to multimodality, the two main potential consequences codeswitching can have will be considered in the following subpart.

Possible consequences of codeswitching

Apart from the natural and obvious phenomena codeswitching is related with, and the various effects this linguistic phenomenon can have, it seems important to deal with its potential non-reversible linguistic consequences. Language death is one of them and will be the first consequence to be developed.

Language death

According to Meyer [2009: 42-43], language death can occur when "over time, a language loses all its speakers" and can be the "consequence of colonisation (influence of the language of the colonialists), genocide or disease". Even though it is not a sudden process, "it involves successive generations of speakers abandoning a language until only relatively few people remain as fluent speakers. Once these people die, the language dies too" [Meyer 2009: 42-43].

The first language that comes to mind when dealing with language death is obviously Latin. It is said to be a dead language as there are no longer native Latin speakers, but "its legacy survives in its direct descendants, such as Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese" [Meyer 2009: 42-43]. Thus, as Latin evolved into Spanish, Italian, French, and Portuguese, it cannot really be considered a "dead language", and should rather be seen as the starting point of many other languages, in which "its legacy survives". Similarly, Old French, Old English, or Middle English, are falsely labelled "dead languages" because they evolved into French and Contemporary English. Language death should therefore rather be referred to as "language evolution".

By increasing the number of codeswitched words in English or French, codeswitching might be a conscious or an unconscious way of avoiding, or at least, postponing language death. Indeed, bilingualism is necessary to codeswitch, therefore when a bilingual codeswitches, he or she uses two languages. Thus, speakers keep the two languages they master alive, by using them and switching them. The fact that codeswitching can really lead to language death cannot be asserted for sure. On the contrary, Romaine [1994: 54] states that:

Although the existence of bilingualism, diglossia, and code-switching have often been cited as factors leading to language death, in some cases code-switching and diglossia are positive forces in maintaining bilingualism.

In diglossic communities -i.e. countries or regions where two distinct varieties are spoken -, codeswitching can take place. Indeed, speakers may switch the two codes they master, which obviously implies being bilingual. Bilingualism, diglossia, and codeswitching can for example be observed in Provence, a French diglossic region, where French and Occitan are spoken. In this diglossic region, speakers may therefore codeswitch by mixing French and Occitan, which necessarily implies being bilingual in both varieties. Thus, as long as both varieties are used, language death -mostly for Occitan since it is spoken by fewer people than French -is postponed.

As mentioned at the beginning of this sub-part, the second potential consequence codeswitching can engender is language shift.

Language shift

Language shift can exclusively be observed in bilingual or multilingual communities. Also called "language transfer", "language replacement" or "assimilation", it represents the shift from a native language to another language collectively adopted. Bilingualism, or multilingualism, are thus, in that case, an essential prerequisite since a community cannot adopt a language they did not learn to speak. However, bilingualism or multilingualism do not necessarily lead to language shift within a community. Some countries are officially multilingual and did not move towards language shift -i.e. the adoption of a common single language. For instance, Belgium has three official languages. The most spoken language is Dutch (Flemish), then French, and finally German. Another example of a multilingual country is India having two official languages: Hindi and English. Nonetheless, there are 29 states in the country and each state has its official language(s).

The fact that these two countries are multilingual does not absolutely imply that the whole population is multilingual. Indeed, in Switzerland, for instance, German, French, Italian and Romansh are the four official languages, but depending on which region people live in, they usually speak only one language. As a result, in the Italian-speaking regions, people speak Italian but are not necessarily fluent in German, French and/or Romansh. As a consequence, the distinction between societal bilingualism or societal multilingualism, and individual monolingualism, individual bilingualism, or individual multilingualism has to be made.

According to Hoffman [1991: 186], language shift appears "when a community does not maintain its language, but gradually adopts another one". The consequence of language shift is language death. Therefore, language death results from language shift. One can easily guess that within a bilingual or multilingual country, speakers of more than one language are inevitably codeswitchers; and this is what happens in Canada, for example. In the following quotation, Fortin [2009: 8-9] deals with the situation of Quebec recognising two official languages, namely English and French.

Quebec shares a border with the U.S.A. and French is not the only official language in its country: Canada; most inhabitants are English speakers. The Quebecers are only six million among 300 million English speakers in North America (The Economist 2001). Another difference is that the province of Quebec was first colonized by the French and after that, in 1759, by the English imposing its English language on the inhabitants. English in Quebec have for a long time influenced its population whereas in France Anglicisms seem to have become mostly pervasive since the beginning of the twentieth century (The Economist 2001). There are, in Quebec, a lot of English expressions in cities' names such as Thedford Mines, Blake Lake, and streets' names such as La rue Bridge and La rue King (Forest 2006: 45). There are parts of the English influence that date back to the time of English colonization of Quebec. Through Fortin's explanations and the examples she gives in the above quotation, it is proved that Quebec is constantly exposed to the influences of both French and English.

Thus, for the Quebecers who are fluent in both languages, codeswitching is unavoidable.

Finally, it seemed important to mention a linguistic phenomenon opposed to language shift, to wit, "language maintenance". In her 2013 article, Potowski, who considers language shift both individually and collectively, defines "language maintenance" as such:

I also return quite frequently to the basic tenet emphasized by Fishman (1991) that language maintenance must involve intergenerational transmission of the language; that is, it must be passed on from parents to children over successive generations. If intergenerational transmission of a language ceases, it can be said that the speakers have shifted to another language.

Therefore, contrary to language shift that can be contemplated "at both the individual level and the group level" [Potowski 2013], language maintenance can only be reached when a language is transmitted from generation to generation. Now that I have defined and exemplified codeswitching, its related linguistic phenomena, its effects, and its possible consequences, the following section will deal with borrowing, a linguistic notion referring to lexicalised words.

Definitions of some lexicalised linguistic devices

Borrowing is too often only associated with loanwords. However, just like loanshifts, loan-blends, or loan-translations, loanwords are just a specific type of borrowing.

Borrowing

Borrowing is one of the twelve word-formation processes put forward by French lexicologist [START_REF] Tournier | Précis de Lexicologie Anglaise[END_REF]. The main aim of borrowing is to fill a lexical gap. This is especially true when the borrowed word has no equivalent in the recipient language, such as « sketch ». This word refers, amongst others, to a short comic scene in English, and has the same meaning in French. It has been directly borrowed from English and has no equivalent in French. This is the same for the word « week-end » borrowed from English "weekend" and to which a hyphen has been added in French. 10 However, some words borrowed from a foreign language do have an equivalent in the language they are incorporated in. This is the case for « hold-up » borrowed from 10 Since the 2016 French spelling reform, the hyphen can be deleted and « week-end » can henceforth be spelt as in English: "weekend".

English but that has two other equivalents in French: « braquage » and « attaque à main armée ». Similarly, in French, the word « teaser » has been borrowed from English as such when referring to the trailer of a film, but still has an equivalent, which is « bandeannonce ». The difference between borrowings having no equivalent -i.e. compulsory borrowings -, and borrowings having an equivalent -i.e. optional borrowings -will be developed later in this thesis.

Regarding the principal motive for borrowing, Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 64, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] writes:

The reasons for borrowing remain above all functional -the need to express new things that do not yet have a word in common usage in French, and which in this world of globalisation are in any case understood in English. Introducing English words allows speakers to go beyond the physical and linguistic areas of daily life. It also lets the speakers play with words, in order to reinforce a statement or differentiate concepts. It is, in fact, another means of expression for French L1 speakers, in written and oral discourse. Furthermore, it is also undeniable that in today's globalised world, English enjoys a particular prestige, and it seems that a concept originating from American/English discourse is willingly adopted as a marker of 'updatedness', especially among the young, but not only among them. Dumping commercial : le dumping est une pratique fréquente dans le commerce international, permettant à des entreprises exportatrices de s'implanter sur un marché nouveau, où les habitudes des consommateurs ne leur permettraient pas de vendre leurs produits s'ils étaient proposés au même prix que ceux de leurs concurrents locaux. Cela peut conduire à des ventes à un prix inférieur au prix de revient. Le dumping est interdit par l'OMC (Organisation mondiale du commerce), car il est considéré comme une concurrence déloyale.

Dumping social : Avantage concurrentiel dont bénéficient les pays aux coûts de travail faibles en raison des bas salaires qui y sont pratiqués et de l'absence de protection sociale.

Moreover, the author explains that linguistically speaking, English has a prominent place in today's globalised world since concepts coming from English are likely to be adopted in French as they represent "a marker of updatedness". For example, on the social network Twitter, users can "follow" or "unfollow" other users. Although they have for French equivalents « suivre » and « se désabonner », the use of the English verbs "follow" and "unfollow" -though not (yet) lexicalised in French -is spreading. This the same meaning might explain why "unfollow" is spreading in French. Besides, as "unfollow" is often used because it is shorter than « se désabonner » and the complement required in French, using the English antonym "follow" seems logical, and lexically coherent. Finally, with a view to coherence once again, as people following other people on Twitter or Instagram are called "followers", using the verbs "follow" or "unfollow" makes sense.

Even though borrowing words from English to French can be badly perceived by scholars or even by ordinary people -as will be demonstrated later in this thesis -, Miriam Ben Rafael notes that borrowing is in no instance a threat to French. As demonstrated, Anglicising the French lexicon is ineluctable since many new words linked with progress and "new realities" come from English. This will be developed in greater detail in the next chapter, in the section dealing with the usefulness of codeswitching and borrowing. Nevertheless, this does not mean that French is endangered. Although need motivates borrowing, French is able to create its own words naming new things, concepts, or notions to expand its vocabulary, and does not only borrow words from English. For instance, the English substantive "phishing", referred to as a fraud on the Internet, is called « hameçonnage » in French. Obviously, the English term can be used in French and is actually often heard compared to « hameçonnage », but it is not lexicalised. Indeed, it cannot be found in French dictionaries contrary to its equivalent « hameçonnage ».

Finally, this quotation, especially when the author alludes to globalisation, illustrates the following quote by Kemmer [2013]: "borrowing is a consequence of cultural contact between two language communities". What is meant through this quotation is that the word to be borrowed has to refer to the same cultural aspect of two distinct languages in order to fill a lexical gap in the borrower language. The contact between these two "language communities" is therefore cultural before being linguistic.

In other words, the linguistic aspect is an end per se so that the communication is enabled. What comes first is that the borrower language is interested in the cultural aspect of a language to find similarities with its own culture, and only then borrows the corresponding word that its lexicon missed.

Borrowing aims to introduce a "local colour" by creating a stylistic effect, as mentioned by Vinay and Darbelnet [1958: 47]. It is the case for « pop-corn » (spelt "popcorn" in English), which was invented in America. This term has been borrowed in French and has no equivalent -vs. Canadian French « maïs soufflé ». Although a hyphen has been added in French, « pop-corn » is clearly identified as an English word. The notion of "local colour" is therefore present in this substantive since neither "pop" nor "corn" are French words. According to the online version of Oxford Dictionaries, the concept of "local colour" introduced by Vinay and Darbelnet [1958: 47] could be defined as "the customs, manners of speech, dress or other typical features of a place or period that contribute to its particular character". The message conveyed will depend on the context. This linguistic creation can act upon a substantive, an adjective, a verb or an adverb. As they are rarely subjected to borrowing, other grammatical categories such as prepositions, pronouns, determiners, coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are not really productive or relevant. Campbell [1998: 62] adds some features to his definition of borrowing by mentioning that, aside from lexical items, other linguistic elements can be borrowed:

It is common for one language (actually speakers of the language) to take words from another language and make them part of its own vocabulary: […] the process is called linguistic borrowing. Borrowing, however, is not restricted to just lexical items taken from one language into another; any linguistic material -sounds, phonological rules, grammatical morphemes, syntactic patterns, semantic associations, discourse strategies or whatever -can be borrowed, that is, can be taken over from a foreign language so that it becomes part of the borrowing language.

Thus, according to Campbell, any linguistic material can be borrowed from a foreign language to be adopted in another language. For each non-lexical item he lists, examples of borrowing from English to French will be provided, when possible. Firstly, it appears that French does not borrow phonological rules, grammatical morphemes, or discourse strategies from English. However, both « boys band » and « girls band », although the spelling is incorrect (from the English "boy band" and "girl band"), are examples of borrowed syntactic patterns. Indeed, in English, adjectives are placed before the noun, when they are attributive. In the compounds "boy band" or "girl band", "band" is the headword and "boy" and "girl" are the adjectives. The English syntactic pattern is therefore borrowed in such a case. Nevertheless, the French structure has been retained since N2s "boys" and "girls" agree in number since the expressions imply that there are obviously more than one boy or one girl in the band. This agreement does not exist in English compounds because N2 act as adjectives and English adjectives do not agree in number and gender. Finally, we talk about semantic association when a word creates an association of ideas in the mind of the speaker and/or hearer. For instance, the French substantive « nurse », borrowed from English, is a case of semantic association because when referring to a nanny, one assumes it is a woman.

To conclude, borrowing does not only refer to lexical items, but it seems that borrowing linguistic material is not very productive from English to French.

Before dealing with the different forms of borrowing, it is worth noting that a word can be borrowed several times -or at least twice. Actually, a word can come from a source language (English for example), be borrowed by a target language (French for instance), and come back to the source language (English) with a different spelling and/or pronunciation, and/or with a different meaning. This phenomenon is called "reborrowing", but also "back-borrowing" [Benson 1959;Temmerman 1995;Campos 2011]. The result of reborrowing is known as a "doublet". It means that the original word and the reborrowed word coexist or, as it is the case for many doublets, only the more recent word survives, that is to say, the reborrowed word. To illustrate this, let us consider the following example:

Cotte (French) ð riding coat (English) ð redingote (French) ð redingote (English).
In this example, the English word "riding coat" has its origin in the original French word « cotte » that has been re-used in French and changed into « redingote » before being borrowed as it is in English. Thus, the French word « redingote » is a doublet as the original word « cotte » has been reborrowed after it inspired English to generate "riding coat". The doublet « redingote » has itself been influenced by "riding coat", which finally became "redingote" in English as well.

The word "loan" designates the single shift of a word from one language to another.

However, the process of reborrowing can sometimes be more complex as the original word can be borrowed by different languages, before coming back to the original language in a very different form. Reborrowing is therefore the consequence of more than one loan when the language where the word ends up is the originating language.

A quotation by Crystal [2003: 126], in which he takes heed of the meaning of "borrowing", shows that the term may not be really appropriate:

When one language takes lexemes from another, the new items are usually called loan words or borrowings -though neither term is really appropriate, as the receiving language does not give them back.

The receiving language does not give the borrowing back strictly speaking but actually, the source language may decide to re-use it. Moreover, the fact that the receiving language borrows a term from the source language does not mean that this term disappears from the source language. Bogaards [2008: 17] also takes an interest in the word "borrowing". Nonetheless, contrary to Crystal, he does not only take heed of the meaning of the word but of the process used by the borrower as well:

Il y a plusieurs raisons qui font que l'emprunt linguistique est un type de transfert de biens plutôt original. Tout d'abord la langue emprunteuse s'approprie les mots de l'autre langue à l'insu et sans demander l'aval de ceux qui en sont les dépositaires, à savoir les locuteurs natifs. En droit, ce genre de comportement serait tout simplement qualifié de vol. D'autant plus que, de la part des emprunteurs, il n'y a aucune intention de rendre les objets subtilisés en l'état. Si parfois un mot est adopté dans une autre langue et qu'il revienne dans la langue de départ, c'est toujours sous une forme inattendue et avec un contenu complètement différent.

[…] La langue emprunteuse se permet d'adapter les éléments pris à d'autres langues à ses propres besoins, voire de les y intégrer au point de faire oublier, ou presque, leur origine première. La langue d'arrivée se comporte en maître absolu qui décide non seulement de la forme mais aussi du sens qu'aura tel ou tel mot étranger.

In this quotation, Bogaards [2008: 17] compares lexical borrowing to any other act of appropriating something without asking for permission -i.e. stealing, in this case. He also compares the recipient language to an absolute master deciding on how the borrowed word can best serve the receiving language, in terms of form and meaning, to the extent that the foreign origin of the word can sometimes be forgotten or almost indistinguishable.

The previous instance given exemplifies Bogaards's quotation: the English word "redingote" comes from the French « redingote », itself derived from "riding coat", which stemmed from « cotte ». Similarly, « paquebot », borrowed from French to English, comes from the English "packet boat", as explained by the French online dictionary Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé (TLFi).

As mentioned by Hoffer [2005: 53], "the speakers of a language have various options when confronted with new items and ideas in another language". Hockett, in his book A Course in Modern Linguistics [1958], classifies these options as follows: (1) Loanwords,

(2) Loanshift, (3) Loan-translation, and (4) Loan-blend.

Loanword

A loanword, which refers to the result of the process of borrowing, "is a word borrowed from another language (i.e. coming from the xenolexis)"11 . Also spelt "loan word" or "loan-word", this element has the defining feature of coming from a donor language and being introduced into a recipient language as such, that is to say, without being subjected to any semantic or spelling modifications. Regarding this particularity, Haugen [1950: 214] writes: "loanwords show morphemic importation without substitution". For instance, "starter" and "sponsor" are English loanwords lexicalised in French. They have been borrowed from English and inserted into the French lexicon without being submitted to any changes: they have the same meaning in both English and French and are spelt the same. Similarly, « lingerie » is a French loanword lexicalised in English, and has not undergone any semantic or orthographic changes once adopted in English. Campbell [1998: 63] defines a loanword as follows:

A loanword is a lexical item (a word) which has been 'borrowed' from another language, a word which originally was not part of the vocabulary of the recipient language but was adopted from some other language and made part of the borrowing language's vocabulary.

Then he provides two instances of borrowing:

For example, Old English did not have the word pork; this became an English word only after it was adopted from French porc 'pig, pork', borrowed in the late Middle English period -so we say, as a consequence, that pork is a French loanword in English. French has also borrowed words from English, for example bifteck 'beefsteack', among many others. Loanwords are extremely common; some languages have many.

In the last example given, in addition to the spelling change, a phonetic change naturally occurs. Indeed, in "beef", the letters [ee] giving the long sound /i:/ have been changed

into [i] in French. Thus, in French, "beef" is sometimes written « bif » and is therefore not pronounced /bi:f/ but /bif/. Moreover, as the diphthong /eɪ/ does not exist in French,

[ea] has been changed into [e] to give the sound /e/. Hockett (1958) [in Hoffer 2005: 53] states that the borrowed word has to stick to the grammar of the language it is adopted by: Speakers may adopt the item or idea and the source language word for each. The borrowed form is a loanword. These forms now function in the usual grammatical processes, with nouns taking plural and/or possessive forms of the new language and with verbs and adjectives receiving native morphemes as well.

This is, for instance, the case for the word « flyer ». This substantive has been borrowed from English but still has French equivalents such as « prospectus » or « tract ».

Nevertheless, as it has been adopted in French, « flyer » takes the French plural form Other adjectives can however either take the plural form or keep their singular form in the plural. Both forms are acceptable. This is the case, for instance, for the word « chic » employed by Bogaards in his example. « Les soirées chic/s » can actually either be written with an -s to « chic » or not.

«
Finally, the classification by Thody [1995: 107] dividing English or American loanwords used in French into four categories is, semantically speaking, quite relevant as it is clearly linked to today's globalised world:

a: business, commerce and politics (big bang, boss, business, businessman, challenge, clash, club, design, discount, dumping, garden-party, golden boy, has been, in, job, kidnapping, leader, leadership, lifting, listing, loser, marketing, meeting, planning, score, shopping, show room, slogan, sponsor, sponsoring, sponsoriser, staff, stress) b: food, drink and travel (airbag, baby blues, baby-sitter, break, cocktail, crash, duty free, fairplay, kitsh, popcorn, pressing, scanner, side-car, squat, squatter, stand by, standing, stop, stopper, week-end) c: the arts, the media and sport (best of, best-seller, black-out, box office, cartoon, casting, come-back, drive, fan, flash, foot, footing, free style, goal, happy end, hobby, horse-ball, interview, net, outsider, playboy, puzzle, remake, remix, scoop, sex-symbol, show, sitcom, soap, sprinter, star, supporter, talk-show, thriller, timing, walkman) d: youth, clothes and entertainment (baby-boom, baby-foot, call girl, dealer, DJ, drag queen, fitness, fix, flash, flirt, fun, gay, glamour, hard, match, overdose, rap, All these examples clearly illustrate the notion of restriction of meaning, except the first one which is not correct, since « une star » does not only refer to an actor or an actress but also to a singer or a TV announcer, for instance.

Inversely, enlargement of meaning refers to the change from a specific sense to a general sense. Bogaards [2008: 25] gives his own definition and provides some instances:

[…] On peut relever les extensions de sens. Then, Bogaards [2008: 26] deals with homologues, which, according to him, resemble enlargements of meaning:

Un phénomène qui ressemble beaucoup à ces extensions de sens, mais qui mérite tout de même une place à part est ce que J. Humbley (1974 : 58-59) Thus, she explains that "the reduction process of the signifiés" -i.e. a reduction of meaning -is more frequent than semantic amplification -i.e. the meaning of an English term lexicalised in French is expanded to acquire a new sense in addition to the original meaning of the English word. Then, she adds that another frequent process consists in recovering or adding new meanings or meanings that had not been adopted when the English word was lexicalised in French.

Grammatical extensions also have to be considered when dealing with loanwords. Bogaards [2008: 26-27] The English signifier may also lose its original meaning and receive a new one (sic); the signifier remains more or less bound to the semantic field it belongs to in English, though it experiences a sort of bifurcation, causing the new signified to differ from the original one (sic), as in: Cake: Fr: fruit cake versus Eng: any cake Foot: Fr: football versus Eng: foot Square: Fr: small public garden versus Eng: square/quadrilateral place (e.g Trafalgar Square)

Poster: Fr: decorative poster versus Eng: advertisement poster Except for the first example that has the same meaning in French as in English -« cake » can utterly be used to refer to salty or sweet cakes -, all the examples Miriam Ben Rafael provides illustrate a case of semantic alteration. Indeed, the word « foot » in French is a shortening referring exclusively to « football »; a « square » in French does not necessarily refer to a square or quadrilateral place but to any small public garden regardless of its shape; and the word "poster" usually referring to advertisement posters in English -though it can refer to decorative posters as well -is solely used to make reference to decorative posters in French.

It should be noted that for [START_REF] Pergnier | Les anglicismes : danger ou enrichissement pour la langue française[END_REF]: 55, quoted in Bogaards 2008: 30], the term « square » is a false Anglicism, and not a case of semantic alteration:

Un autre terme qui aurait pu être inclus dans la liste des faux anglicismes est square dont M. Pergnier (1989 : 55) fait remarquer qu'il désigne en français un jardin public de n'importe quelle forme, alors que le mot anglais est utilisé pour parler d'une place, avec ou sans jardin public, mais qui est obligatoirement de forme carrée. Bogaards [2008: 28] According to Bogaards, semantic alteration is represented by words whose meaning has changed so much since their adoption in French that they do not even look or sound English. He gives instances such as the substantives « goal » or « shopping », the false Anglicism « pressing », and the doublet « paquebot ». [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The analysis of linguistic borrowing[END_REF] first main category of lexical borrowing is loanwords, the second category being loanshifts. He divides loanwords into subcategories. The first category is pure loanword and the second category is loan-blend. For Hilts [2003: 74] rephrasing Haugen's words [1950: 214], pure loanwords represent "words in which the form is borrowed, with more or less complete phonemic substitution". This is the case for the French borrowed substantive « kidnappeur » to which a [u] has been added between the

[e] and the [r], whereas it is spelt "kidnapper" in English. Therefore, "kidnapper" has been borrowed from English, but has also been subjected to a phonemic substitution since the English ending -er has been changed into the French masculine ending -eur, -euse being the feminine form -e.g., « kidnappeuse ».

The following type of borrowing to be studied is "loanshift", which Hockett [1958] lists as the second category of lexical borrowing.

Loanshift

Also known as semantic extension, a loanshift is "a word borrowed from another language in which native morphemes have replaced some of the original morphemes in the borrowed word -eg: smearcase < Ger schmierkäse" [Webster's New World College Dictionary]. Haugen [1950: 214] clearly sums this up: "loanshifts show morphemic substitution without importation". According to Hilts [2003: 74], for [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour[END_REF], loanshift means that the "borrower word changes meaning". [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour[END_REF] distinguishes between loan homonyms and loan synonyms. Hilts [2003: 76] explains the following:

Loan homonyms have equal forms, sometimes loss of borrower meaning and added lender meaning.

[…] These have no semantic aspects in common with the native word, as with AmP15 grosseria 'rude remark', which is also now associated with the meaning 'grocery' for Portuguese-English bilinguals, based solely on the similarity of forms.

Loan synonyms (which Weinreich (1953) refers to as polysemy), have two subtypes, which add only a new distinction of meaning to the native word. The use of "synonym" here is misleading; although there may be some semantic overlap between the two meanings, there must necessarily also be some difference.

Thus, loan homonyms have similar forms. Moreover, they can lose the borrower meaning and be added a lender meaning. On the contrary, loan synonyms suggest the presence of two subtypes, which exclusively concerns the native word.

According to Hockett (1958) [in Hoffer 2005: 53]:

Another process that occurs is that of adapting native words to the new meanings. A good example from the early Christian era in England is Easter, which had earlier been used for a pagan dawn goddess festival. Other loanshifts in English include God, heaven, and hell.

A loanshift is thus also called semantic extension as the meaning of a word taken from a foreign language is extended in order to correspond to that of the borrower language. The following quotation by Romaine [1995: 56-57], in which she provides examples, illustrates this point:

Another type of borrowing, which [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour[END_REF] identifies, is called a 'loanshift.' This consists of taking a word in the base language and extending its meaning so that it corresponds to that of the word in the other language. This type of loanshift has also been called (semantic) extension. For example, Portuguese/English bilinguals in the United States have taken the Portuguese word grosseria -'rude remark' -and have extended it to refer to a 'grocery store' instead of borrowing the English term. In this case the phonetic similarity between the Portuguese and English terms motivates the shift. Another example can be taken from Clyne (1967), in which German/English bilinguals in Australia have taken the German term Magasin -'storeroom' -and extended its meaning to refer to 'magazine.'

The underlying meaning of the term "loanshift" does not imply that the word changes its meaning to keep only the latest, but it rather implies that this word has synonyms. Regarding this specificity, Burton [Chapter 14: 409, in Adams, Janse & Swain: 2002] explains that:

One might indeed argue that the term "loan-shift" is in itself imprecise, as it tends to suggest a wholesale change in semantic reference, whereas what normally happens in a loan-shift is not that a word moves from one meaning to another, but that it acquires a new range of meaning while retaining the old.

Nevertheless, as Romaine [1995: 57] suggests, the new meaning of a word can sometimes replace the old meaning:

In time, the new meaning may replace the old one. Weinreich (1968) says, for example, that the Italian American term fattoria originally meant 'farm', but then took on the meaning of 'factory'. The original meaning slowly disappeared.

Furthermore, another important particularity linked with loanshifts is explained and exemplified in the following quotation by Romaine [1995: 57], in which she states that words in the two different languages do not necessarily have to sound alike phonetically or even to be morphologically similar to form a loanshift. Loanshifts are actually linked to semantics:

The words in the two languages do not have to resemble each other phonetically for a loanshift to take place. Grosjean (1982: 318) cites the Portuguese/English bilinguals' use of Portuguese frio -'cold spell' -to mean 'infection' by analogy with English 'cold'.

Loanshift being defined and exemplified, "loan-blend", the third type of borrowing according to Hockett [1958], needs to be analysed.

Loan-blend

In linguistics, a blend is a word made up of two words like "motel", from "motor" and "hotel", or "brunch", made from "breakfast" and "lunch". A loan-blend is therefore a word composed of both native and foreign components. The word "motel" is a blend in English, but as it is used in French as well, since it does not have any equivalent -and considering the fact that it is a typical example of the Anglo-Saxon culture -it can be considered as a loan-blend in French. Moreover, the word "hotel" exists in French, which is why « motel » can be assimilated to a loan-blend. On the contrary, "brunch" cannot be considered a loan-blend when used in French since neither "breakfast" nor "lunch" exists in French.

Hockett [1958], quoted in Hoffer [2005: 54], defines a loan-blend as:

A form in which one element is a loanword and the other is a native element, as in the borrowed preost (priest) plus the native -had (hood) in Old English to produce preosthad (priesthood).

As for Haugen [1950: 214], "loanblends show morphemic substitution as well as importation". Loan-blends, according to him, are part of the second subcategory of loanwords, "and [are] characterized by conjoining native and borrowed phonological forms and/or meanings to form a word, irrespective of the level of phonological borrowing" [Hilts 2003: 74]. According to Hilts [2003: 74-75], [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour[END_REF] divides loan-blends into three categories: the blended stem (i.e. mixed monomorpheme), the blended derivative (i.e. mixed types of morphemes) and the blended compound (i.e. mixed free morphemes).

For Weinreich [1953: 47-52], loan-blends are assimilated to "transfer" and "reproduction". In other words, some elements -i.e. letters, syllables or sounds -are transferred from language A to language B, and some others are reproduced so that there is a mix of language A and B. The following example has been found in a paper entitled "Language contact: A case study of French Americans in California and Oregon", by Lindenfeld, published in The Life of Language by Hill, Mistry, and Campbell [1998: 95-96].

Ils ont remouvé son estomac. 'They removed his stomach' StF: Ils lui ont enlevé l'estomac The English lexeme remove has blended with the French past participle marker -é (instead of English -ed). Note also the English-influenced syntax, in comparison with the Standard French, in which the possessor is represented by lui 'to him' before the verb rather than son 'his' before the direct object.

Moreover, what Lindenfeld does not mention is the fact that there is a difference in spelling from English to French. Indeed, the past participle « remouvé » has been Frenchified since a [u] has been added after the [o] to give the sound /u/ in French.

Thence, in order to stay closer to the pronunciation of the English verb "remove", the spelling had to be modified in French.

"Hybrid" is a synonym for loan-blend. As evidenced by « remouvé » in the previous example, a hybrid word is composed of one part derived from a language, and another part coming from a distinct language. As instances for hybrid, let us consider the following words: the verbs « marketer », « flasher », « performer », « liker » as well as the substantive « piratage », and the compound « voix off ». They can all be considered hybrids. The verbs « marketer », « flasher », « performer », and « liker » are composed of one part derived from English -i.e. "market", "flash", "perform", and "like" -, and another part coming from French since the French verb ending -er is added to the root words.

Regarding the substantive « piratage », it comes from the English "pirating", used when referring to the illegal copy of musical work, for instance. The first part of « piratage » coming from English is retained; however, the English suffix -ing is changed into the French suffix -age. Finally, for the compound « voix off », the first part of the word is French (« voix »), and the second part is English ("off"). Furthermore, in his article, Juan

Gómez Capuz [1997: 88] paraphrases [START_REF] Weinreich | Languages in Contact[END_REF] and [START_REF] Humbley | Vers une typologie de l'emprunt linguistique[END_REF] Thus, according to the three given categories of loan-blends, in French, the verbs « marketer », « flasher », « performer », and « liker » are loan-blends with "indigenous stem and transferred affix"; the substantive « piratage » is an example of loan-blend with "transferred stem and reproduced derivative affix"; finally, « voix off » is a hybrid compound.

Finally, the fourth and last type of borrowing, according to Hockett's classification [1958], is "loan-translation", also called "calque", and will constitute the following subpart.

Loan-translation or calque

According to Hockett [1958], quoted in Hoffer [2005: 53], a loan-translation also known as "calque", "occurs when the native language uses an item-for-item native version of the original". He gives the following examples: the word "loanword", being a loan-translation of the German "lehnwort", and the phrase "marriage of convenience", coming from the French « mariage de convenance ». Conversely, the word "calque" is a loanword from French. Moreover, "calque", also used as a verb, is a synonym for loantranslation as it means to copy.

Gómez Capuz [1997: 88] divides the features of loan-translation into four categories:

1. Loan translation consists of the reproduction of a foreign lexical complex by means of native material, usually after having analysed the elements of this foreign complex.

2. As this reproduction tends to be faithful to the model, the loan translation is said to be a borrowing caused by translation, an "emprunt par traduction" in Deroy's words (215) or a "Lehnübersetzung" as defined in the German tradition (Betz 136).

3. As the model is composed of two or more elements, firstly analysed and later translated, it becomes clear that the "loan translation" is always a polymorphemic unit (although graphically either univerbal or multiverbal).

4. In relation to this, another important idea set out by French and German scholars is that "loan translation" (unlike "semantic borrowing") creates a new lexical unit in the receiving language (Deroy 215-16 and Zindler 31): gratte-ciel (< English skyscraper) is a new compound in French, whereas réaliser in the sense of "be conscious of" (< English to realise) is not a new lexical unit in French, but only a new acquired meaning (Humbley 62).

The "lexical loan translation" is therefore the morphemic substitution of a polymorphemic unity of a foreign language by means of elements, previously existing in the receiving language as independent lexemes, but new as a lexical compound with a global sense. Smith [2006: 33] classifies the different types of calques into five categories: firstly, "semantic calque"; secondly, "phraseological calque"; thirdly, "loan-translation"; fourthly, "syntactic calque"; and fifthly, "morphological calque". These categories will be defined and exemplified. When the meaning of a word is borrowed from the source language to the target language, as in the example « fait main », in French, from English "handmade", we talk about semantic calque. A phraseological calque is a word-for-word translation of idioms, as in the French expression « Ce n'est pas ma tasse de thé », calqued on the English phrase "It is not my cup of tea". Conversely, English calqued the French term « marché aux puces » to give "flea market", which is thus another example of phraseological calque. When a word or phrase is borrowed from a source language either by a word-for-word translation -e.g., « informatique en nuage » in French coming from the English "cloud computing" -or a root-for-root translation -e.g., French

« garde-feu » coming from English "fireguard" -we talk about loan-translation.

Regarding loan-translations, Hilts [2003: 77] explains:

Loan-translations (or calques) are another type of loanshift, according to Haugen, and are defined as the importation of a particular structural pattern in the form of a non-compositional combination of two semantic elements.

Syntactic calque represents the fact of borrowing a foreign syntactic construction to create an equivalent term in the target language. For instance, the French compound « science-fiction » was calqued on the English compound "science fiction". Similarly, French calqued the expression « être en charge de » on the English phrase "be in charge of". Finally, a morphological calque can result in the adoption of a foreign suffix in a target language. For example, the English suffix -ing is quite productive in French to create false Anglicisms such as « pressing », « lifting », or « planning ».

Now that the different types of borrowings, namely, loanwords, loanshift, loanblend, and loan-translation, also referred to as calque, have been dealt with, some other linguistic phenomena related to borrowing have to be considered.

Related linguistic phenomena

Just like any other linguistic or sociolinguistic phenomenon, borrowing is not isolated and does not work on its own: it engenders and depends on other linguistic devices. In other words, borrowing leads to some phenomena, and is determined by some others that enable its designation as "borrowing". Thus, the borrowing-related linguistic phenomena to be studied are "Gallicisms", "Anglicisms", and "false Anglicisms".

Gallicism

A "Gallicism" is a loanword, a word or a phrase borrowed from French and used in English. When speaking or writing in English, a Gallicism is the result of a direct translation from French. In the Oxford Dictionaries [2015], a Gallicism is defined as "a

French idiom, especially one adopted by speakers of another language". Indeed, contrary to French that borrows, most of the time, English words rather than expressions, English often borrows French phrases 16 -i.e. expressions such as « comme ci comme ça », or idioms like « coup de main ». The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics defines an idiom as follows:

A phrase or grammatical construction that cannot be translated literally into another language because its meaning is not equivalent to that of its component words. Common examples, of which there are thousands in English, include follow suit, hell for leather, flat broke, on the wagon, well hung, etc. By extension, the term is sometimes applied more loosely to any style or manner of writing that is characteristic of a particular group or movement.

An idiom is therefore a metaphorical or full of imagery locution peculiar to a language that has a meaning only in its entirety, but not word by word. Each and every word composing an idiom obviously has a meaning, but, once put together, the terms acquire a new sense. This is why word-for-word translations are impossible, and the very fact of trying to explain them in another language is impossible, for the motivation behind the idioms is hard to explain. In other words, the reasons why some words, each having a meaning, give another meaning when put together are extremely hard to explain. Lakoff [1987: 448] defines motivation as follows:

The relationship between A and B is motivated just in case there is an independently existing link, L, such as A-L-B fit together. L makes sense of the relationship between A and B.

For instance, "kick the bucket", "break a leg!", "spill the beans", and "pay through the Most of the time, while using a borrowing from French, English stays true to the spelling -i.e. accents and hyphens are respected -, and to the pronunciation as well even if it often means to lengthen some vowels as in « déjà vu » or « voilà », where the letters

[u] and [à] sound like long vowels when pronounced by an English speaker. Thus, the word or expression looks and sounds as French as possible. This is the same for phrases like « au contraire », « c'est la vie », or « chef d'oeuvre », for instance. These French spellings have been fully adopted in English and that is why these groups of words are easily identified as French expressions.

This might be one of the reasons why false Gallicisms do not exist contrary to false Anglicisms.17 A false Gallicism could be defined as a word or phrase that looks and/or sounds French but that has no meaning at all, or a different meaning in the language it seems to be borrowed from.

Another potential reason for the absence of false Gallicisms in English could be the following: French has had a great influence on English;18 nonetheless, nowadays English plays a major role in French in terms of lexical expansion, engendering a rapid and frequent emergence of new Anglicisms, borrowings, and codeswitched words. As Gallicisms are not so much integrated in the English language nowadays, which means that borrowing from French is not productive in English, false Gallicisms are thus not really inclined to be created, contrary to false Anglicisms, derived from the persistent and perdurable influence of English on French.

The second borrowing-related phenomenon that has to be developed is "Anglicism".

Anglicism

When "a word or a phrase is borrowed from English into a foreign language", we talk about "Anglicism", according to the online version of Oxford Dictionaries. Anglicisms are clearly identifiable, as they look foreign for native speakers of other languages. For instance, words like « toast » and « job » are Anglicisms. Thody [1995: 1] gives the following definition:

'Franglais' words are Anglicisms and Americanisms which are still visibly recognisable as such, terms which are as clearly foreign in origin as 'joie de vivre' or 'folie des grandeurs' are in English.

In other words, Anglicisms are to French what Gallicisms are to English.

The fact that Anglicisms generally look foreign and are not, for example, translated from English to French once assimilated, makes a clear difference between Quebec's Anglicisms and French Anglicisms. Fortin [2009: 8] explains this fact:

Through the influence of English on French, there are distinctions between the French language in different nations such as France and Quebec especially through English loanwords. Both these cultures have borrowed different loanwords from English (Tournier 1998: 5). Quebec's Anglicisms are different from those in France.

The French in France seem to be more independent as mentioned in the article Anglicisme : n'empruntons que le strict nécessaire from the University of Montreal (2008). They borrow words in a more direct way from the English language which means that they do not change the English form. Pressing, week-end, ticket, drive-in, e-mail are examples of direct borrowings (2008: 2).

Then, she continues explaining that this difference is in great measure due to geographic reasons:

In Quebec, direct borrowing is generally frowned upon by its population so the Anglicisms in French from Quebec are often not entirely obvious, especially at the level of structure; the speaker is often not aware of the fact that the word pronounced is an Anglicism, e.g. in expressions like: végétable/vegetable, pinotte/peaunuts (sic), liqueur/liquors, moé itou/me too (Forest 2006: 67). Anglicisms in Quebec are often deeply encrusted in the language and, to some extent, without the speaker's knowledge if no warning is made (Forest 2006: 10). In addition, French Canadians are exposed to English influence more than any other French community (Pivot 1998: 10). Quebec shares a border with the U.S.A. and

French is not the only official language in its country, Canada; most inhabitants are English speakers.

Therefore Anglicisms have the particularity to be instantly recognisable in the French language spoken in France. However, as Canadian French translates most of its Anglicisms, its borrowings can actually be assimilated to loan-translations and loanshifts. For instance, « banc de neige » is the loan-translation for "snow bank", and « parquer » is the loanshift of the verb "park".

According to Forest and Boudreau [1999: IX, quoted in Fortin 2009: 10-11],

Anglicisms in French can be divided into six categories:

• Semantic Anglicism: It is a word used in the French language where the original meaning has been kept or a different evolution has been realized with time where the meaning differ (sic) to some extent. • Lexical Anglicism: It is a word or an expression that have (sic) been borrowed either exactly as it is in English or with some minor readjustments. • Syntactic Anglicism: It is the "calque" of an English construction. The Quebecers are recognized to use such borrowings to a great extent; they translate into French an English expression with a similar construction. • Morphological Anglicism: This is a rare borrowing which refers to when the form is borrowed but the meaning in the French language has a totally different meaning from the English one. • Phonetic Anglicism: It is when the pronunciation is borrowed.

• Graphical Anglicism: It is a word written in a similar form to the English one or a word that does not follow the rule from the French language such as punctuation and type of abbreviation (ex.: pm, blvd). Picone [1996], quoted in Bogaards [2008: 22-23] Additional information and examples will be provided to analyse the ten elements listed by Picone [1996] and Rey-Debove [1980]. Firstly, « emprunt intégral » refers to loanwords. As the French designation suggests, it represents a borrowed word introduced as such in the target language, which means that the term is adopted without being semantically or orthographically modified. Picone, as well as Thody [1995: 107],

give the substantive « week-end » as an example of loanword. Although a hyphen has been added in French, contrary to the original English spelling "weekend", this addition does not seem to be considered as a spelling modification. Moreover, as already mentioned the hyphen can now be deleted since the 2016 reform on French spelling.

Other substantives such as « playlist » and « crossover », when referring to a type of car, are loanwords borrowed from English to French. On the contrary, "ricochet" is a loanword from French to English. Secondly, Anglicisms listed in second and third positions -i.e. « emprunt (calque) sémantique » and « emprunt (calque) structural » -can be gathered to be analysed. They both represent loan-translations. The first loantranslation deals with semantics, which means that the meaning of a word is borrowed from one language to the other, as in the French expression « lune de miel », borrowed from English "honeymoon", the French phrase « fait maison », calqued from English "homemade" or "home-made", or the Quebec French calque « tomber en amour », translated from English "fall in love". The other loan-translation listed is "structural calque", also called "syntactic calque", which represents the fact of borrowing a foreign construction to create an equivalent term in the borrower language. For instance, the French phrase « prêt-à-porter » is the syntactic calque of the English expression "ready to wear". The fourth category Picone lists encompasses pseudo-Anglicisms. Also called "false Anglicisms", they represent words that seem to have an English origin, in terms of spelling and pronunciation, but that have no meaning in English. For example, the French substantives « clip », « drive », and « open space » are false Anglicisms. They look and sound English, have a meaning in French, however, their English equivalents are respectively "video" or "music video", "drive in" or "drive thru", and "open plan". Picone also deals with "hybrid", which he assimilates to a subclass of false Anglicisms.

According to Gómez Capuz [1997: 88], paraphrasing [START_REF] Weinreich | Languages in Contact[END_REF] and [START_REF] Humbley | Vers une typologie de l'emprunt linguistique[END_REF], hybrid is a synonym for loan-blend -i.e. one element of a language is combined with one element of another language to form a word. This is the case for the French verb « marketer », which is a blend since the French verb ending -er is added to the English word "market". Similarly, « listage » comes from the English "listing", whose « barman » (vs. English "bartender") and its plural form « barmen », « tenniswoman » (vs.

English "female tennis player"), and loanwords such as « no man's land ». Acronyms can also be borrowed from English to French. Amongst the provided examples, « SMS », meaning Short Message Service, and « SOS », to call for help, can be added to the list of borrowed acronyms. Finally, locutions and proverbial expressions can also be borrowed from one language to another. For instance, in addition to « fifty-fifty », borrowed from English to French, we can mention "a contrario", which is borrowed from Latin to French, or "au contraire" and "joie de vivre", borrowed from French to English.

Finally, Bogaards [2008: 24] cites Humbley who draws attention to phraseological borrowing:

Dès 1974, J. Humbley, dans une analyse très riche des mécanismes de l'emprunt, avait encore attiré l'attention sur des emprunts phraséologiques comme une épaule sur laquelle pleurer, d'après l'anglais a shoulder to cry on, ou un cadavre dans le placard d'après a skeleton in the cupboard. Dans ce cas, le calque sémantique reprend également des locutions entières de l'autre langue, mais en les traduisant (Humbley 1974 : 63). Par ailleurs, cet auteur donne l'exemple de yéyé, où c'est uniquement la forme, inspirée des Yeah ! Yeah ! des chansons pop, qui a été empruntée, le sens du mot français ne correspondant aucunement à celui de son modèle anglais (Humbley 1974 : 55).

In his article, [START_REF] Renner | Réflexions sur l'usage et le traitement lexicographique des emprunts à l'anglais et des officialismes dans la langue française du tourisme[END_REF] advises to use the term "Anglicism" with caution: As [START_REF] Renner | Réflexions sur l'usage et le traitement lexicographique des emprunts à l'anglais et des officialismes dans la langue française du tourisme[END_REF] demonstrates by way of the example « cottage », some words borrowed from English cannot be called "Anglicisms" anymore as they entered the French lexicon decades ago and are fully integrated in it. Thus, certain French dictionaries, like Le Petit Robert, give indications about the origin of some words and their official French equivalents. [START_REF] Renner | Réflexions sur l'usage et le traitement lexicographique des emprunts à l'anglais et des officialismes dans la langue française du tourisme[END_REF] explains that:

Certains dictionnaires se font les porte-voix des efforts institutionnels de francisation. C'est par exemple le cas du PR, qui fournit des informations métalinguistiques sur les emprunts critiqués et leurs substituts officiels, ou « officialismes ». Sont utilisés :

-le marqueur d'emploi « anglic. », défini comme suit par Josette Rey-Debove et Alain Rey : « anglicisme : mot anglais, de quelque provenance qu'il soit, employé en français et critiqué comme emprunt abusif ou inutile (les mots anglais employés depuis longtemps et normalement en français ne sont pas précédés de cette marque) ».

-l'indication de recommandation officielle, qui apparaît immédiatement après la définition du mot-vedette (ex. : camping-car / motor-home (> autocaravane), package (> forfait), tour-opérateur (> voyagiste, organisateur de voyages)). Ces deux types d'informations ne sont pas systématiquement liés. Camping-car par exemple n'est pas stigmatisé comme anglicisme dans le PR, probablement à cause de sa bonne implantation en français et de sa qualité de faux anglicisme (c'est-à-dire de mot formé d'éléments anglais, mais qui n'est pas attesté en anglais), mais la recommandation autocaravane apparaît cependant en fin d'article. Le PR, qui se veut descriptif plutôt que prescriptif, signale donc implicitement à la fois que camping-car est d'usage courant et qu'un équivalent recommandé par les pouvoirs publics est disponible.

Moreover, some bilingual dictionaries give precise indications about the use of some Anglicisms. [START_REF] Renner | Réflexions sur l'usage et le traitement lexicographique des emprunts à l'anglais et des officialismes dans la langue française du tourisme[END_REF] states that:

Certains dictionnaires bilingues relaient aussi parfois des informations sur l'usage, sans référence directe cependant à l'existence de recommandations officielles. C'est par exemple le cas du Grand dictionnaire Hachette-Oxford, qui utilise le marqueur d'emploi « controv », qui signifie « usage critiqué », aux entrées d'anglicismes comme camping-car ou tour-opérateur. De manière quelque peu surprenante, ce marqueur apparaît dans la partie français-anglais du dictionnaire, mais pas dans sa partie anglais-français, alors que c'est là, au moment de l'encodage pour l'anglophone apprenant, que cette information semble être la plus précieuse.

Therefore, the definition given at the beginning of this sub-part to explain what Anglicisms are is too restrictive. Anglicisms do not only include all the words borrowed from English since some of them, like « cottage », are so integrated into the French vocabulary that they do not show any English origin. Bogaards [2008: 37] states that the word "Anglicism" is often negatively connoted:

Le terme « anglicisme » n'est pas seulement un terme appartenant à la description scientifique. Dans le langage quotidien, il est utilisé surtout pour porter un jugement de valeur. Selon certains, tous les éléments d'origine étrangère sont des barbarismes qu'il faut éviter et combattre parce qu'ils entament l'intégrité de la langue. […] Force est de constater que le terme « anglicisme » n'est pas toujours employé de façon neutre, même dans les traités de linguistes ou dans les dictionnaires.

It would be illogical to deal with Anglicisms without going into false Anglicisms. As a result, they will constitute the third and last sub-part of the study analysing linguistic phenomena linked with borrowing.

False Anglicism

A "false Anglicism" or "pseudo-Anglicism", "false borrowing", "pseudo-loan" but also "apparent Anglicism" [Serianni 1987;Fanfani 1991;[START_REF] Furiassi Cristiano | False Anglicisms in Italian Monolingual Dictionaries: a Case Study of Some Electronic Editions[END_REF], or even sometimes "Franglicism", is, in a different language from English, a word made up from at least one lemma or morpheme whose evident English origin leads to falsely attribute an English etymology to the construction in its entirety. According to Furiassi [2003: 123], false Anglicisms are:

Autonomous coinages which resemble English words but do not exist in English, or as unadapted borrowings from English which originated from English words but that are not encountered in English dictionaries, whether as entries or as subentries. Furiassi [2010: 34] also provides a definition of pseudo-Anglicisms. For him, a pseudo-Anglicism is:

A word or idiom that is recognizably English in its form (spelling, pronunciation, morphology, or at least one of the three), but is accepted as an item in the vocabulary of the receptor language even though it does not exist or is used with a conspicuously different meaning in English.

In the following quotation, Onysko [2007: 52], quoted by Furiassi and Gottlieb [2015: 6],

gives his own definition of pseudo-Anglicisms:

The term "pseudo Anglicism" describes the phenomenon that occurs when the RL [receptor language] uses lexical elements of the SL [source language] to create a neologism in the RL that is unknown in the SL. Some authors such as Heath [1994: 383-384] do not even use the term "Anglicism", whether it is appended to the words "false" or "pseudo-", and have a preference for "borrowing of grammatical morphemes" over any other label. Furiassi and Gottlieb [2015: 5], for whom "false" and "pseudo-" convey a negative connotation, propose a more neutral appellation:

To avoid the negative connotations of pseudo-and false while also eschewing the trendiness of the term creative (as in the otherwise tempting term creative coinages), ideally a neutral label like English-based neologism might replace the commonly used terms false Anglicism and pseudo-Anglicism, the latter of which has been preferred in most scholarly publications, especially by authors from Germanic speech communities, while the former is widely used in studies on the Romance languages.

Furiassi and Gottlieb [2015: 5] nevertheless concede that the label "English-based neologism" would not be restrictive enough: However, a label like English-based neologism would include two "unwanted" types of neologisms: (1) coinages by non-English native speakers meant for intra-English communication and (2) any all-English neologism coined in speech communities belonging to the inner circle of native-speaking Anglophone societies, as defined by Kachru (1985). For this reason, and for lack of true alternative, in this article we will use the terms pseudo-Anglicism and false Anglicism.

The English equivalent of the pseudo-Anglicism will have a structure similar to the French structure, though not identical. This is the case for the word « camping ». This noun is a false Anglicism as the actual English word to refer to a site for camping is "campsite" in British English, or "campground" in American English. Thus, « camping » is not an Anglicism in the strict sense. Generally speaking, this phenomenon will lead the speaker, whose mother tongue is not English, or who does not have a perfect mastery of English, to use the pseudo-Anglicism instead of the equivalent form when he or she speaks English with a basic level of proficiency. On the contrary, an English speaker would translate any false Anglicism by using the actual English term, as MacKenzie [2012: 33] explains whilst defining pseudo-Anglicisms as:

Coinages that resemble words from the 'prestige' language, English, but which would not be recognized or understood by monolingual English speakers, and which, if translated from a source text into English by a native speaker, would be substituted by a genuine English word.

Here are some examples of false Anglicisms: « basket », the French equivalent for "basketball", is a pseudo-Anglicism as the English word "basket" means « panier » in French. It is the same for « baskets » having "tennis shoes" as an English equivalent.

Similarly, the very common word « parking » is a false Anglicism since it refers to a "car park" in British English, or a "parking lot" in American English.

All these words definitely look and sound English when used by a native French speaker. However, they are considered false Anglicisms as they cannot be used as such in English, since they either have a different meaning, or do not exist at all. This could obviously lead to misunderstandings. The French words « basket » or « parking » have been subjected to a semantic shift from English to French to become false Anglicisms.

There is nevertheless another meaning for false Anglicisms. Some linguists sometimes falsely condemn a phrase that is not necessarily an Anglicism. The term "false Anglicism" is thus not used to signal that the expression looks and/or sounds English without being English, but rather to indicate that it is ascribed to English by mistake. The usage of the word « sandwich » in French is sometimes discouraged on the pretext that it is an English word.

Origin

Some false Anglicisms are French creations whose origin is generally attributable to publicists, inventors or commercial companies. Thus, in French, the word « fooding » is a mix of two English words: "food" and "feeling". In linguistics, this lexical creation is called a blend and refers to the fusion of two words reduced to form one: "food" and "feeling" give the word « fooding». Meaning in French « l'art du bien-manger et du bien vivre », it refers to the fact of eating gourmet cooking in a nice place (at the restaurant or at home). The English substantive "pin", to refer to a "badge", became « pin's » in French.

In this example, it is quite obvious that an orthographic modification, and thus a phonetic change, have occurred in the French form: the apostrophe -s has been added for no reason. However, Bogaards [2008: 42] quoting Tournier [1998: 576], provides a possible explanation to this orthographic modification:

Un des faux anglicismes les plus originaux est aussi le pin's, que J. Tournier (1998 : 576) décrit comme « une formation de quelque francophone illettré qui a voulu enjoliver le mot pin de cette arabesque, pour "faire anglais" ».

It is therefore quite surprising to borrow an English term and to change its spelling in order to look and sound English, as Tournier [1998: 576] suggests, since, by modifying it, it becomes a false Anglicism.

The masculine compound « baby-foot » is also a false-Anglicism. This French registered trademark means "table football" in BE, and "foosball" or "table soccer" in AE.

Similarly, « klaxon », from the name of the British firm Klaxon that invented the first car horns, is referred to as a car horn, in English. However, in French, another spelling is also acceptable: « claqueson » from the 1959 novel Zazie dans le métro (Zazie or Zazie in the metro, depending on the translation), by Raymond Queneau. The word « klaxon » actually is an antonomasia -i.e. the use of a proper noun by way of a common noun. Some other loanwords sometimes based on a regional or passed -i.e. dated -use of a term, considerably spread out in French even though they are rarely used in English.

For instance, "WC" or "water-closet" has almost completely disappeared from the everyday English language, and has often been replaced by "toilets", "rest-room" (also written "restroom") in AE, or even "bathroom". Indeed, for many native English speakers, "wc" or "w/c" means "week commencing" when indicating a date. The French equivalent would be « semaine du ».

Moreover, these examples are rarely used or understood in Quebec French, except « baby-foot » and « klaxon ». As already stated, « baby-foot » is a brand name and Klaxon is the name of a company, it is thus logical that Quebecers know these words. The terms « baby-foot » and « klaxon » are called "eponyms" -i.e. words derived from names.

According to Boggards [2008: 27], eponyms are:

[…] Des mots formés à partir de noms propres ou de noms de marques. Dans la plupart des cas, il s'agit de phénomènes ou de produits originaires d'autres pays qui ont été introduits en France avec leur nom d'origine, directement ou par l'intermédiaire de l'anglais.

Nevertheless, other false Anglicisms such as « play-back » or « dancing » are not brands and might not be understood or used in Quebec. Generally speaking, such lexical differences in the French from France and Quebec French are probably due to what has already been explained by Fortin [2009: 8] when dealing with Anglicisms.20 She states that French Anglicisms are different from Quebec French Anglicisms since Canadian French, due to its proximity with America, translates many of the Anglicisms, which means that, most of the time, they cannot be perceived as Anglicisms, whereas the French from France uses direct borrowings without any translation.

Formation

False Anglicisms are the result of various types of creation. They will be analysed thanks to several examples, and explained through some of the twelve word-formation processes put forward by French lexicologist [START_REF] Tournier | Précis de Lexicologie Anglaise[END_REF].

The reduction of an English compound to the right part of the word results in some pseudo-Anglicisms. This is what Tournier calls "shortening" or "clipping", « troncation » in French. For instance, « tennis » in French is the clipped form of "tennis shoes", "tennis" only referring to the sport in English. This is a case of shortening by clipping, the signified remaining the same but the signifier being morphologically reduced. We talk about "fore-clipping", also known as "aphaeresis", when the beginning of a word is cut out as in "phone" for "telephone". In The Funny Side of English, Booty [2004: 19] defines "apheresis" as follows: "The removal of an element from the beginning of a word, usually for informal economy of expression, is known as apheresis. For example, COPTER is an aphetic word as it comes from HELICOPTER". However, the example chosen refers to "back-clipping", also known as apocope, as the end of the word is cut out: « tennis » instead of "tennis shoes". Booty [2004: 20-21] refers to apocope as "the removal of an element from the end of a word, usually for informal economy of expression […]. For instance, CINEMA is an apocopic word as its original word is CINEMATOGRAPH".

Similarly, « fast-food », which means in French « la restauration rapide », is the shortened form of the English term "fast-food restaurant". "Warning lights" already being itself the abbreviation of "hazard (warning) lights" in BE -"hazard warning flashers" in AE -is also a case of shortening by clipping, and more precisely a case of back-clipping, as the French pseudo-Anglicism is « les warnings ».

Moreover, in order to highlight the fact that these examples are false Anglicisms, it seems important to mention that, in English, "tennis shoes", "fast-food restaurant", and "warning lights" can respectively only be shortened to give "shoes", "restaurant", and "lights", three cases of fore-clipping, as the determined is on the right, and cannot be removed. 21 The headword, placed on the right in English, is defined by the word placed on the left. Therefore, in "fast-food restaurant", "fast-food" determines the type of restaurant that is under examination. Similarly, in "tennis shoes", "tennis" determines the type of shoes that is being considered. This is why, in English, truncating these words is impossible. Bogaards [2008: 27-28] provides other examples of back-clipping, also known as "apocope", forming pseudo-Anglicisms, and states that:

Il faut relever aussi les cas assez nombreux de troncation. Il s'agit d'expressions raccourcies comme gospel pour l'anglais gospel song, camping pour camping site, dancing pour dancing hall, basket pour basketball, spirite pour spirit rapper (sic), living pour living room, self pour self service restaurant ou vanity pour vanity case. Ce phénomène illustre bien une des différences fondamentales entre le français et l'anglais. En anglais, gospel song (littéralement « chant évangélique ») est un type de song (« chant ») et le sens de l'ensemble est donc dominé par le mot qui se trouve à la fin de l'expression. En français, par contre, ce type de mot composé est normalement classifié d'après le premier élément : un grain de beauté est une sorte de grain, pas une forme de beauté. En d'autres termes, au niveau du sens, l'accent de l'ensemble se trouve au début. C'est pour cette raison que le premier élément du mot composé anglais, qui n'avait encore aucun sens indépendant en français, a pu prendre la place de l'ensemble de cette langue. Il va sans dire que, employés dans un contexte anglais, des mots comme gospel ou self ne pourraient que prêter à confusion parce que, dans cette langue, ils ont une tout autre signification.

Another type of formation consists in adding an English inflection or an English suffix to a French word. A distinction between inflection and suffix has to be made.

Crystal [2008: 243] offers the following definition for "inflection", also written "inflexion":

A term used in MORPHOLOGY to refer to one of the two main CATEGORIES or processes of WORD-FORMATION (inflectional morphology), the other being DERIVATION(AL). These terms also apply to the two types of AFFIX involved in word-formation. Inflectional affixes signal GRAMMATICAL relationships, such as plural, past TENSE and possession, and do not change the grammatical CLASS of the STEMS to which they are attached; that is, the words constitute a single PARADIGM, e.g. walk, walks, walked. A word is said to inflect for past tense, plural, etc. In traditional (prelinguistic) grammatical studies, the term 'accidence' was used in this sense, as was the term flexion.

Regarding the term "suffix", Crystal [2008: 464] gives the following definition:

A term used in MORPHOLOGY referring to an AFFIX which is added following a ROOT or STEM. The process of suffixation or suffixing is common in English, both for the DERIVATIONAL formation of new LEXICAL items (e.g. -ize, -tion) and for expressing GRAMMATICAL relationships (INFLECTIONAL endings such as -s, -ed, -ing).

To sum up, inflections are linked with grammar, and suffixes are linked with the lexicon. This phenomenon is related to the word-formation process known as "suffixation".

Suffixation refers to the "presence of an autonomous base and of a suffix which is a nonautonomous base. The suffix is a non-autonomous base attached after an autonomous base". 22 Moreover, suffixation is often called derivation as it, most of the time, changes the grammatical category "of the word to which the suffix is attached". 23 This explains why derivation can be subdivided into class-maintaining derivation and class-changing derivation. "The result of suffixation is a suffixed form or a derivative (if the suffix is class-changing)". 24 For instance, « forcing », as in the French expression « faire le forcing », comes from the verb « forcer » (English, force) and means go all out, or make intensive efforts. The French substantive « forcing » is thus a derivative as the verb « forcer » has been changed into a noun to which the English suffix -ing replaced the French ending for verbs of the first group ending in -er. Regarding « recordman » or « recordwoman », to which "man" and "woman" are attached to the right of the loanword "record", they are false Anglicisms as the actual English word is "record holder". It is exactly the same for the words « tennisman » and « tenniswoman » meaning "male/female tennis player". These examples of pseudo-Anglicisms clearly have no meaning in English. Moreover, the assimilation of these words ending in -man -as many neologisms -is facilitated by the presence, in French, of -mane as in the substantive « toxicomane », "drug addict" in English. The given examples represent the fusion of two words to form one new word: -man and -woman are attached to "record" and "tennis" to form « recordman », « recordwoman », « tennisman », and « tenniswoman ». The creation of these words was enabled thanks to "compounding". Suffixation can also be observed in the addition of the English suffix -ing to form false Anglicisms. It is for instance the case for words such as « parking » or « smoking », which have a complete different meaning in English. The pronunciation of the consonant [ŋ] is obviously different when used in French. In other words, borrowing the suffix -ing did not have repercussions on French phonological system. It is therefore a morphological borrowing rather than a phonological borrowing. Bogaards [2008: 43] explains that:

Pour ce qui est du domaine de la prononciation, il semblerait que, sous l'influence de l'anglais, un nouveau phonème se soit ajouté au système français : la consonne [ŋ] qu'on entend à la fin de mots comme bowling ou fading. Cette consonne vélaire pouvait facilement trouver sa place à côté des autre consonnes nasales, [m], [n] et Although the suffix -ing is very productive in the creation of French pseudo-Anglicisms and is thus English connoted, this sound perfectly adapts to the French pronunciation by being pronounced [n] or [ɲ] as in « agneau ». Moreover, this sound has the particularity to be almost exclusively found at the end of words. Bogaards [2008: 43] states that:

Ce nouveau phonème, si tant est qu'on peut le qualifier ainsi, se comporte d'ailleurs de façon assez inhabituelle. Si les autres consonnes du français peuvent s'employer librement en début ou en fin de syllabe, le [ŋ] ne se rencontre qu'à la fin, et presque uniquement en fin de mot.

As many English words ending in -man or -ing, such as "businessman", "gentleman", "kidnapping", or "dumping", have been borrowed from English to French, these two "endings" (let us call them "endings" in French, as they are neither inflections, nor suffixes) appear to be extremely productive, and that is why they generate a lot of pseudo-Anglicisms, including « lifting » ("face-lift" or "facelift" in English), « zapping » ("channel hopping" in English), and « rugbyman » ("rugby player" in English). To illustrate the craze for these endings, let us consider the following quotation by Bogaards [2008: 20]:

Finalement, il n'est pas superflu de rappeler, comme l'a fait J. Humbley (1974 : 48), que l'emprunt de n'importe quel élément dans une langue passe nécessairement par le stade lexical. Si le français s'est enrichi du phonème [ŋ] ou du morphème -man, c'est à cause de l'emprunt préalable d'éléments lexicaux comportant ces éléments, comme parking ou barman. C'est par analogie avec un certain nombre de modèles qui ont été empruntés à une autre langue que les locuteurs vont exploiter la productivité de ce qu'ils découvrent comme une règle ou comme un système. Dans l'étude de l'emprunt, le vocabulaire jouera donc un rôle de première importance.

Blending is also a means of creating pseudo-Anglicisms. Indeed, as previously mentioned, the substantive « fooding » is a blend, that is to say, the result of compounding by blending. It is due to the "juxtaposition of two autonomous lexical bases, with a blend" -i.e. a fusion of two words reduced to form one: « fooding » is the blend of "food" and "feel(ing)". 25Finally, the part for the whole, also known as specific synecdoche, which means to use the part of something to refer to the entire whole, can be at the origin of pseudo-Anglicisms. For instance, « flipper » is the French word for "pin table" or "pinball machine", whereas the word "flipper" in English refers to the lateral button used to throw the ball. This kind of creation is a particular case of metonymy called synecdoche.

The opposite process is the whole for the part, meaning to use an entire whole to only refer to a part of it, as in the following example: "The police came to arrest the man who had been stealing several cars". In this sentence, "police" only refers to a policeman, or a few policemen, but not to the police as a whole. Similarly, when sports commentators say in French « La France est championne ! », it is actually not the whole country that has won but only a French team. In this case, France is referred to as a whole to distinguish it from the opponent team. Sports commentators could therefore say « La France est championne ! L'Italie a encore perdu… ». Another type of formation at the origin of pseudo-Anglicisms can be observed in the French word « pompom girl ». Less commonly called « une meneuse », it has for English equivalent "cheerleader". The kind of creation associated to « pompom girl » is a metonymy. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines a metonymy as follows:

A figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is associated (such as "crown" in "lands belonging to the crown"). Thus, in English, "pompom" being the fluffy ball cheerleaders shake as they dance, referring to cheerleaders in French with the compound « pompom girl » is a case of metonymy.

In Metonymy, Littlemore [2015: 4] gives the following definition and provides an example:

Metonymy is a figure of language and thought in which one entity is used to refer to, or in cognitive linguistic terms 'provide access to', another entity to which it is somehow related. In order to illustrate this, let us look at an example: The trains are on strike. (BofE) In order to understand this sentence, we use our knowledge of trains, including the fact that they have drivers, and that without these drivers no trains will run, to infer that it is not the actual trains that are on strike, but the drivers of those trains.

Thus, if we consider once again the example « pompom girl » and we use Littlemore's analysis, one uses their knowledge of "pompom" and the fact that they are shaken by cheerleaders to understand that a « pompom girl » is a person who shakes pompoms as they dance.

In order to make the difference between metonymy and synecdoche clear, consider the following quotation by Seto [1999: 91-92]:

Metonymy is a referential transfer phenomenon based on the spatio-temporal contiguity as conceived by the speaker between an entity and another in the (real) world. […] Metonymy is an E(ntity)-related transfer. […] Synecdoche is a conceptual transfer phenomenon based on the semantic inclusion between a more comprehensive and a less comprehensive category. This definition of synecdoche is abbreviated as: Synecdoche is a C(ategory)-related transfer.

Non-lexicalised and lexicalised linguistic devices such as codeswitching and borrowing, the different types of codeswitching and borrowings, and the linguistic phenomena they depend on and engender being defined and exemplified, this study will henceforth focus on neologism: a linguistic notion referring to new words that can either remain non-lexicalised or become lexicalised, they can thus either be linked with codeswitching or borrowing.

Definition of an "in-between" linguistic notion: neologism

Neologisms pertain to the evolution of a language, as the following quotation by Quemada [1971: 138] suggests:

Une langue qui ne connaîtrait aucune forme de néologie serait déjà une langue morte, et l'on ne saurait contester que l'histoire de toutes nos langues n'est, en somme, que l'histoire de leur néologie.

Neologising is a natural phenomenon each and every human has in common, and, as mentioned by Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 4-8], it is more precisely a: Manifestation de l'activité symbolique de l'homme, les mots sont nés de la volonté de représenter les choses, les idées et les faits par des sons, des signes qui en sont des substituts. Quelle que soit l'interprétation, métaphysique, biologique ou linguistique, le langage est toujours inscrit dans un processus langagier créatif et donc néologique. […] Ainsi, néologisant par nécessité, par plaisir ou par idéal, l'être humain adulte nourrit abondamment la langue qui lui est contemporaine au fil de son activité incessante.

Therefore, in order to name new things, ideas, concepts or notions, humans perpetually neologise by necessity, pleasure, or for the sake of perfection. What Pruvost and Sablayrolles mean when writing « néologisant […] par idéal » can be explained by the following quotation extracted from Littré au XXIe siècle : le colloque du bicentenaire, by Mourlet [2003: 26]: « Mais le néologisme idéal se révèle en réalité le mot d'hier revenu aujourd'hui par les voix provinciales ou exhumé pour une nouvelle vie ». In this case, neologising for the sake of perfection therefore means to reuse old words, to bring them up to date. Defining neologisms will be the starting point of this section. Then, the process enabling the formation of neologisms will be analysed. Their lifetime will be studied from two angles. The reasons why they officially enter the lexicon, or not, will also be analysed. Subsequently, the journey taken by neologisms, from their creation to their possible full assimilation into a language, including codeswitching and "successful codeswitching", will be scrutinised step by step. Nonce words will be opposed to neologisms, and given a definition. Finally, the study of nonce borrowings will end this section on neologisms.

What is a neologism?

A "neologism" could simply and clearly be defined as a newly created word or phrase, or as an already existing word having a new sense.

At the very beginning of their book entitled Les Néologismes, Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 3] give their own definition for "neologism":

Une définition simple et contemporaine du mot « néologisme » peut, à travers une étymologie transparente (néo, nouveau ; logos, parole, discours), se limiter dans une toute première approche à celle l'assimilant à un « mot nouveau » ou au « sens nouveau d'un mot existant déjà dans la langue ». On prend vite cependant conscience, dans une seconde approche, que le processus de formation des nouvelles unités lexicales est plus complexe qu'il n'y paraît et que le néologisme représente un concept difficile à cerner. A la fois phénomène naturel de la langue et de la communication, postulat sur le fonctionnement même d'une langue, processus qui ne laisse personne indifférent et implique même un jugement sur l'usage, le néologisme relève aussi de la réflexion philosophique sur le temps qui s'écoule. Some English neologisms used in French can perfectly exemplify this definition -e.g., "manspreading", "mansplaining", "manterrupting", and "bropropriating", having for respective French equivalents « étalement masculin », « mecsplication », and « hommeterruption »; "bropropriating", having no equivalent in French, makes reference to a man who would appropriate the idea(s) of a woman. "Bro-" is added before "propriating" to show that the appropriation is done by a man, and to oppose it to the term "woman". In "bropropriating", "bro" refers to a mate, or a pal (« copain » in French). Some of the key notions mentioned by the authors to define neologisms can be observed in these substantives. Firstly, they are new words; secondly, "mansplaining", "manterrupting", and "bropropriating" present a complex lexical formation-process (vs. the blend "manspreading") since the beginning of the words "explaining", "interrupting", and "appropriating" have been cut out and replaced with man-and bro-. These are therefore special cases of prefixation. According to the Glossary of Linguistic Terms:

Prefixation is a morphological process whereby a bound morpheme is attached to the front of a root or stem. The kind of affix involved in this process is called a prefix. The prefix un-attaches to the front of the stem selfish to form the word unselfish.

Thus "man-" and "bro-" might be considered as prefixes once "ex-", "in-", and "ap-" are cut out. It should also be noted that "interrupting" is a gerund. However, the deletion of "in-" to replace it with "man-" gives "manterrupting", which is a substantive as mansplaining, bropropriating, and manspreading. Thirdly, these four substantives are completely in the spirit of the times. It is especially the case with, "manspreading", which has been created to refer to a masculine behaviour on public transport consisting in spreading one's legs when sitting, and thus covering more than one seat, and "manterrupting", which has been particularly used during the 2016 first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the USA, but also in France to refer to the attitude of the male candidates towards Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, during the 2016 Republicans debate. To sum up, these four neologisms represent new words in favour of feminism that describe phenomena that are not recent, but that were not named so far. Martincová [1983: 10-11] gives the following definition for neologisms:

Des nouvelles désignations, nouveaux mots, des expressions formées d'un seul ou de plusieurs mots, des mots avec de nouvelles significations sont englobés sous la catégorie des néologismes.

According to Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 10], three types of neologisms can be observed:

[…] que lesdits néologismes soient créés avec les ressources morphologiques de la langue -c'est la néologie classiquement appelée formelle -ou qu'ils résultent de nouveaux sens attribués à des mots existants déjà -c'est la néologie généralement dite sémantique -, ou bien encore qu'ils résultent d'un emprunt à un dialecte, une langue étrangère ou ancienne.

What Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 10] call « la néologie formelle » represents new words created thanks to the "morphological resources" of a language. For instance, the substantive « courriel » comes from the contraction of « courrier électronique ». Before being officially adopted in 1997 by L'Office québécois de la langue française [Mercier 2012], « courriel » was obviously a neologism. Although different scholars fight over who coined this term first, « courriel » is said to have been employed for the first time in 1985 [Clas quoted by Mercier 2012]. "Semantic neology", also known as "neosemy", refers to words that already existed in a given language and that acquired a new meaning. This is the case for the word « souris » that used to refer to a rodent but which acquired another meaning further to the creation of computers. Thus, by creating semantic neologisms, neosemy engenders polysemy. Finally, neologisms borrowed from a foreign language, and incorporated into a target language without any modification or with negligible modifications, gave words such as « e-commerce ». This word has been borrowed from English as such and became part of the French lexicon.

Amongst the examples provided in this sub-part, some neologisms are lexicalised, this is the case for « e-commerce », and some others such as "mansplaining" are not. Such difference shows that this notion encompasses either the result -i.e. the fact that some neologisms are lexicalised and therefore recorded in dictionaries -or the process -i.e. the fact that amongst the neologisms that are not yet lexicalised, some will be lexicalised and some others will not. The distinction between adoption and rejection will be discussed in another sub-part.

Neologisms being now defined, let us have a closer look at the process enabling their formation.

Process

Neologisms can only be created if the language allows them to be generated -i.e. if new words are needed in a language to refer to new concepts or notions. Then, a sort of systematisation can be observed in their formation. Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 9] explain the following:

Pour que, selon la formule de Joseph Vendryes (Le Langage, 1921), la langue puisse jouer son rôle en tant qu'« acte social » répondant à un besoin de communication, il faut que celle-ci permette la création de mots nouveaux. Pour suivre l'évolution de la société, toute langue vivante doit en effet intégrer des mécanismes de néologie propres à créer les nouvelles unités lexicales qu'imposent le progrès des connaissances et les transformations des techniques. Cette dynamique générale donne obligation au lexique d'offrir ce que les linguistes appellent des « séries ouvertes » autorisant la création lexicale nécessaire à l'indispensable renouvellement du lexique.

Just like borrowing or codeswitching, some grammatical categories are more liable to engender neologisms, and it is actually impossible to create, for instance, new pronouns or determiners, as Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 10] point out:

C'est principalement à André Martinet que l'on doit le rappel de l'utile distinction établie entre, d'une part, les mots grammaticaux appartenant à des « séries fermées » et d'autre part, les mots lexicaux appartenant aux « séries ouvertes ». Les mots grammaticaux, les mots-outils, font partie des séries fermées parce qu'il est pour ainsi dire impossible, à l'échelle d'une vie, d'inventer par exemple de nouvelles conjonctions de coordination et encore moins d'imaginer d'autres pronoms personnels, seule la longue histoire d'une langue autorise une évolution marquante dans le domaine du vocabulaire grammatical. Inversement, les mots lexicaux appartiennent à ses séries ouvertes parce qu'ils doivent pouvoir être fabriqués au fur et à mesure des besoins qui, par définition, sont constants, illimités et imprévisibles.

French neologisms are often created thanks to root words borrowed from English, to which French affixes are added. To illustrate this, consider the following neologisms:

« wedding planneur » for a man, and « wedding planneuse » for a woman. Bogaards [2008: 27] explains this type of formation and provides several examples: Un autre type d'anglicismes qu'il est utile de traiter à part est constitué par les formations morphologiques. Ici, ce sont les lois réglant la formation des mots en français qui mènent à des éléments nouveaux comme briefer, consumériste, dribbleur, glamoureux, sponsoriser, stressant ou surbooké. Chaque fois, c'est un mot emprunté à l'anglais qui forme la base, mais ensuite ce sont les procédés du français même qui ont créé les dérivés. Ce type d'anglicismes est relativement fréquent dans le langage des sports où on rencontre des verbes comme driver, shooter, shunter, slicer, smasher et sprinter, ou des noms du type crawleur, handballeuse, basketteur ou sprinteuse. […] Le mot speakerine, enfin, forme un cas hybride parce que c'est un suffixe allemand qui est employé sur une racine anglaise pour former le féminin de speaker. Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 62, in Rosenhouse & Kowner 2008] writes about French and the formation of new words that:

The creation of new words appears frequently in French […]: verbs get formed based upon borrowings, following generally the French first verbal model which usually ends -er: tester, (se) doper, mixer; nouns are formed by adding the French suffixes -tion, -eur (m), -euse (f), -age, -iste as in sponsorisation, sprinteur and sprinteuse or prefixes like sur and anti. One then finds families of words, such as the various derivations from the borrowings dope and doping ¦ dopeur, dopage, antidopage; or the derivations of stock ¦ the verb stocker, and the nouns stockage, stockiste or surstockage. Adjectives are also formed by adding the suffixes -ant and -ard, thus: flash ¦ flashant; stress ¦ stressant; snob ¦ snobinard.

Once it is definitely part of a language, or of a technical language, a false Anglicism, in the manner of a loanword, can evolve semantically as well as morphologically. It thus gives rise to derived words. For instance, « relooking », referring to a change of appearance, has been created from the loanword « look », the English connoted -ing ending, and the prefix re-. It is a case of prefixation and suffixation. Words like « relooker », « relookage », and « relookeur.euse » have also been generated. The recursive patters enabling the creation of substantives such as « relooking » and its variants are the -ing, -age and -eur.euse suffixes that create substantives. Similarly, « surbooking/surbooking», a partial Gallicisation of the English word "overbooking", gives the verb « sur-booker/surbooker », the past participle « sur-booké/surbooké », also used as an adjective, and substantives such as « surbookage » and « sur-book/surbook ». Prefixation -i.e. the addition of "an element placed at the beginning of a word to adjust or qualify its meaning (e.g. ex-, non-, re-) or (in some languages) as an inflection", according to The Oxford English Dictionary -can also be observed in English neologisms used in French, such as: e.g., « e-learning », « e-commerce », or « e-sport », in which [e] is the prefix followed by a hyphen.

A more recent term that has emerged in French is the English expression "wedding planning". Contrary to the two previous instances, « wedding planning » offers a more restrictive prospect of semantic evolution. Indeed, the two derived forms, which are used in French to refer to the person organising weddings are « wedding planneur », for a male, hence the -eur ending, or « wedding planneuse » for a woman, hence the -euse ending.

There are also cases of back-formation: a part of a word -generally the end of the word -is cut out to create a new word. This is the opposite process of suffixation. The Oxford English Dictionary defines and exemplifies "back-formation" as follows:

A word that is formed from an already existing word from which it appears to be a derivative, often by removal of a suffix (e.g., laze for lazy and edit from editor).

In The Funny Side of English, Booty [2004: 29] gives a definition for "back-formation"

along with examples, and provides information about Murray, the coiner of this term:

The creation of one word from another by removing rather than adding an element is called back-formation. The word LOOKER, which dates back to the 14 th century, was formed from LOOK, which was in existence before the 12 th century, with the addition of -ER. This is the usual process of word-making. Now take the case of EDITOR. You may think that EDITOR was formed from EDIT. No, you are wrong. EDITOR was in use long before EDIT. EDITOR came into use in 1649; EDIT in 1791 with the deletion of OR. So EDIT is a back-formation. The term back-formation was coined by Sir James Murray (1837Murray ( -1915)), editor of the great Oxford English Dictionary. Its verbal form, back-form, is also a back-formation. Bogaards [2008: 27] gives the following example: « Une dérivation inversée, où un suffixe a été enlevé pour créer un substantif à partir d'un verbe, se montre dans le mot squat ». Moreover, it should be noted that in order to determine if the creation of a word is a case of back-formation, a diachronic analysis is required to make sure that the end of an already existing word has been cut out to create a new word. Other examples of backformation are the creation of the verb "injure", coming from the substantive "injury", or as mentioned by Nordquist in his 2017 article entitled "back-formation (words)", "the verb diagnose from the older English noun diagnosis".

The objective of this sub-part was to deal with some of the different processes enabling the creation of neologisms; the lifetime of these newly-created words now has to be analysed.

Lifetime

The lifetime of neologisms has to been understood in two distinct ways. The first deals with the meaning of the word "neologism", that is to say, the fact that a neologism is labelled a new word; and the second deals with the lifetime of neologisms before their official entry into dictionaries -i.e. their lexicalisation -or their rejection. Regarding this point, Tournier [1993: 15] makes the distinction between « zone floue » and « zone sûre », respectively "blurred area" and "real area", in English. The "blurred area" encompasses all the words that are not officially part of a lexicon -i.e. they are used but not lexicalised (yet) and cannot therefore be found in dictionaries. Neologisms are generally listed in this category before their official integration into a language. On the contrary, the words that have been officially adopted in a language -i.e. lexicalised words being in dictionaries -are in the "real area". Whether words are in the "blurred area" or the "real area", they all form the lexicon of a language -i.e. « lexique réel », according to Tournier. Therefore, when neologisms are not lexicalised yet, they are in the "blurred area"; once lexicalised, they enter the "real area".

Neologisms have the particularity to remain "new" -at least, people still call them new -even though they entered the lexicon some years ago and have long been lexicalised. It can last for years and years, although one cannot tell that, for instance, after some years of usage, a word cannot be called a neologism anymore, but it seems that they keep being labelled so even if they are commonly used. Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 36] discuss the inconsistent temporality of a neologism: Combien de temps un néologisme mettra-t-il à mourir ? Dix ans environ, laisse-t-on entendre dans les années 1970. Lorsque Pierre Gilbert recense les néologismes pour le Dictionnaire des mots nouveaux, il dépouille un corpus de livres et de périodiques choisis dès 1955 « et plus systématiquement à partir de 1966 ». Et dans l'article déjà cité consacré à la néologie, Louis Guilbert y fait écho en admettant une durée de vie possible « d'un peu plus de dix ans » pour un néologisme. Cependant, à la même question posée au XXI ème siècle, dans un univers marqué par l'omniprésence des médias et la diffusion instantanée des mots, les linguistes ont tendance à restreindre à moins de cinq ans la durée accordée au « sentiment de la néologie ».

Regarding the duration of the label "neologism", Pruvost and Sablayrolles explain that, in the 20 th century, Guilbert suggested a ten-year lifetime for neologisms, whereas in the 21 st century, linguists limited this perception to less than five years. This means that progress and globalisation enable the creation of a larger number of neologisms, compared with the previous century; however, due to the afflux of new words, the duration of the label "neologism" is halved. This is proof of the constant evolution of languages and of the labels characterising words. Moreover, thanks to progress and globalisation, electronic corpora were created, which enables to find the words created more easily.

As for Crystal [2003: 132], in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, he does not estimate the lifetime of neologisms in years, but he states that neologisms are considered new until their use has spread so much that people do not pay attention to the fact that they use neologisms anymore, or until they stop being used -i.e. in case of rejection. This is summed up in the following quotation: "a neologism stays new until people start to use it without thinking, or alternatively until it falls out of fashion, and they stop using it altogether". The first part of Crystal's quote echoes the following quotation by Sablayrolles [2000: 166], in which he states that once neologisms are lexicalised and spread amongst speakers, they are not new anymore:

Le néologisme doit être envisagé avec un sentiment de nouveauté non par les individus mais par un ensemble de locuteurs. Le mot en question est ensuite repris, intégré dans la langue et le sentiment de nouveauté disparaît.

The lifetime of neologisms is thus quite variable, which leads to deal with their adoption or rejection and more precisely, the reasons for their adoption or rejection.

Adoption vs. rejection

Neology is an "in-between" linguistic phenomenon because, due to the newness characterising neologisms, it is quite unpredictable to tell for sure which neologisms will be adopted and which will die. As noted by Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 8], « seul le temps qui s'écoule et ses contingences fera le départ entre les mots nouveau-nés qui intégreront la langue et ceux qui ne survivront pas ». They are learnedly called assimilated neologisms or non-assimilated neologisms, whether they enter the lexicon or not.

Crystal [2003: 132] discusses the adoption and the rejection of neologisms:

There is never any way of telling which neologisms will stay and which will go. Blurb, coined in 1907 by the American humorist Gelett Burgess (1866Burgess ( -1951)), proved to meet a need, and is an established lexeme now. On the other hand, his coinage of gubble, 'to indulge in meaningless conversation', never caught on. Lexical history contains thousands of such cases. In the 16 th century -a great age of neologisms (p. 60) -we find disaccustom and disacquaint alongside disabuse and disagree. Why did the first two neologisms disappear and the last two survive? We also find effectual, effectuous, effectful, effectuating, and effective. Why did only two of the five forms survive, and why those two, in particular? The lexicon is full of such mysteries.

Thus, for Crystal, no one can predict which newly-created terms will become lexicalised, and which terms will eventually be rejected. There is therefore a difference between need -i.e. the motivation for unofficially integrating a new word into a lexicon -and the spread of this term amongst speakers, including the frequency of use. In his article, Guilbert [1973: 24] sums this up as follows:

Le néologisme n'a de vie que le temps de l'élocution du créateur s'il ne répond pas à certaines exigences de la communauté linguistique. L'étude des conditions d'acceptabilité du néologisme et de sa diffusion est donc l'aspect complémentaire nécessaire de celle de sa création.

Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 8-9] mention the positive and negative forces that exert on neologisms:

Il n'est pas inutile que des forces régulatrices s'exercent pour peser en quelque sorte sur l'évolution de la langue : le néologisme doit faire ses preuves et surmonter les réticences de ceux qui ont une longue expérience de la langue. Des voix diverses s'élèvent naturellement contre ce qui est perçu comme un abus de langage, annonçant périodiquement la fin du bon français érodé par une néologie brouillonne, étouffante et fondée sur trop d'emprunts aux langues étrangères. Ce sera par exemple Henri Estienne qui, avec De la Précellence du langage françois (1579), raillera les emprunts faits à l'italien au XVI e siècle et René Etiemble qui, avec Parlez-vous franglais ? (1964), stigmatisera les anglicismes au XX e siècle.

Even though adopting neologisms can be a controversial topic, they end up being fully integrated in the language, as Pruvost and Sablayrolles [2003: 62] state:

Les néologismes ne gardent qu'un temps ce statut (sauf éventuellement des créations littéraires). Ils sont condamnés à disparaître ou à devenir conventionnels pour se fondre dans la masse du lexique. C'est ainsi que même des néologismes qui ont suscité de violentes polémiques, insoupçonnables aujourd'hui, sont parfaitement intégrés et nul n'y trouve à redire. Utiliser, alarmiste (1792) ont été violemment critiqués comme l'avaient été auparavant ambulance (1752) ou stabiliser (1780). Qui s'en offusque encore et en demande le bannissement ? […] Les dictionnaires et les pouvoirs publics exercent […] une influence déterminante dans l'institutionnalisation du lexique.

Newly-created words are only labelled "neologisms" for a while. If a term is popularly used, adopted, and recognised as such, it stops being considered a neologism. In other words, neologism is a question of perception.

There is one major reason for neologisms: need. Creating a neologism obviously means filling a lexical gap. A lot of neologisms used in French originate from English. It simply reflects the impossibility to find a French equivalent or, if one has been found, this equivalent could not perfectly represent -i.e. define, express, or designate -the new notion or concept. Thus, the English term is preferred as it is more appropriate than any other French term(s). Another reason might be the fact that, in today's globalised world, due to progress, newly-created words, referring to emerging concepts or notions, come from the Anglo-Saxon world, and therefore from the English language. For example, the term "selfie" appeared for the first time in 2002, on the Australian online forum ABC, as explained in a 2013 article from The Guardian, entitled "Selfie: Australian slang term named international word of the year":

It seems almost certain the selfie originated in Australia with a young drunk first using the word to describe a self-portrait photograph more than a decade ago. Oxford Dictionaries revealed this week the earliest known usage is from a 2002 online ABC forum post. The next recorded usage is also from Australia with the term appearing on a personal blog in 2003. "It seems likely that it may have originated in the Australian context," dictionary editor Katherine Martin said. "The earliest evidence that we know of at the moment is Australian and it fits in with a tendency in Australian English to make cute, slangy words with that 'ie' ending." […] Oxford Dictionaries says in mid-September 2002, an Australian wrote on ABC online: "Um, drunk at a mates 21st, I tripped ofer [sic] and landed lip first (with front teeth coming a very close second) on a set of steps. I had a hole about 1cm long right through my bottom lip. And sorry about the focus, it was a selfie."

Similarly, in 2007, Apple invented smartphones. As this brand is an American multinational technology company, the concept of smartphone and thus, the term created to refer to it, have an Anglo-Saxon origin and are therefore referred to with an English term.

In the following sub-part, it will be demonstrated that before being lexicalised -i.e. officially adopted in a language -words have to pass through at least three crucial phases.

From codeswitching to "successful codeswitching", to borrowing

The process leading to borrowing, which is actually the same for neologisms, could be divided into three different steps, as follows: before being adopted, a neologism, if it seems to come from a foreign language -i.e. if it has the orthographic and/or phonetic features of a foreign language -can be assimilated to codeswitching. For instance, the words "trackpad" and "touchpad", both defined as "a special area on a laptop or other computer that you touch in order to move the cursor or give an instruction" [Cambridge Dictionaries Online], are neologisms in English as well as in French. Though they both are officially translated in French as « pavé tactile », this equivalent is hardly ever used, and the English terms are therefore preferred over the French translation. As a consequence, "trackpad" and "touchpad" can be considered codeswitching in French. This therefore suggests that bilingualism is not a prerequisite to be able to codeswitch in some cases.

Then, the intermediate step I call "successful codeswitching" is a key level. Indeed, the codeswitched word, in that case, the neologism, can be integrated into the category "successful codeswitching" as it starts being used by a greater number of speakers. For that reason, the neologism is said to be adopted and will be considered fully adopted once lexicalised -i.e. once it is recorded in dictionaries. Once "trackpad" and "touchpad" are used by more and more French speakers, they will enter the category "successful codeswitching", and will probably be officially adopted in the French vocabulary -i.e. they will be in French dictionaries. This is the case, for instance, for the verbs « liker » and « retweeter », as well as for the substantives « bomber », « burn out », and « lose ». All these words, coming from English, were considered neologisms when they entered the French vocabulary. Some of them, especially « liker » and « retweeter », are still considered neologisms. They were also assimilated to codeswitching since, due to their newness as well as their meaning, and the fact that, for instance, the verbs are only used in a specific context -i.e. social networks -, their use was not spread enough amongst speakers. Then, considering the fact that their use has significantly spread, and has thus become recurrent amongst French speakers, they eventually entered the "successful codeswitching" category. Finally, due to the fact that these words became frequently used because their meaning refers to a specific context (e.g., « retweeter »), situation (e.g., « burn out »), or register (e.g., « lose »), French officially borrowed them. As a result, the verbs « liker » and « retweeter », as well as the substantives « bomber » and « lose », are in the 2018 edition of the French dictionary Le Robert. Regarding the compound « burn out », it appears in the French dictionary Larousse. Finally, as it has just been explained, when it is fully assimilated into a language, this assimilation coming with lexicalisation, a foreign neologism becomes a borrowing.

When a word has become part of a language because its use has spread amongst a majority of speakers, it is assimilated. Then, it becomes lexicalised -i.e. officially adopted -and enters dictionaries.

Thus, any foreign word that used to be a neologism is different from codeswitching in terms of diffusion and frequency of use. It therefore starts to be employed by a majority, proof that it has been adopted, and becomes successful codeswitching -e.g., "trackpad" and "touchpad".

Once a word enters the transitional category "successful codeswitching", it will eventually become a loanword, a loanshift, a loan-blend, or a calque. Lexicalisation is thus the logical consequence of successful codeswitching. The only step that can be tricky for a neologism, as for any other foreign word competing for the status of borrowing, is codeswitching because at this stage, either its usage spreads out and the word is likely to be adopted, or it is rejected and will therefore never reach the next two levels. For example, the word "replay" borrowed from English and used in French, as in the sentence extracted from Corpus #2 « Vous pouvez repasser le replay », has not been lexicalised in French -i.e. it is not in French dictionaries such as Larousse or Le Robert (yet) -even though there is no other French equivalent for that term in this special context. As a consequence, as it has no French equivalent, this word can be considered "successful codeswitching" for now, and will probably be lexicalised some time soon.

When it starts being used by more and more people -i.e. when the neologism becomes "successful codeswitching" -, there is no way back and the word simply and naturally evolves towards borrowing.

The following sub-part will discuss the difference between neologisms and nonce words, leading us to finally deal with nonce borrowings.

The particular case of nonce words

Crystal [2003: 132], distinguishes between "neologisms" and "nonce words": Anglo-Saxon forms, borrowings, and the use of affixes account for most of what appears within the English lexicon, but they do not tell the whole story. People do some creative, even bizarre things with vocabulary, from time to time, and a fascinating topic in lexicology is to examine just what they get up to. The general term for a newly-created lexeme is a coinage; but in technical usage a distinction can be drawn between nonce words and neologisms. Then, Crystal [2003: 132] gives a definition for "nonce words":

A nonce word (from the 16 th -century phrase for the nonce, meaning 'for the once') is a lexeme created for temporary use, to solve an immediate problem of communication. Someone attempting to describe the excess of water on a road after a storm was heard to call it a fluddle -she meant something bigger than a puddle but smaller than a flood. The newborn lexeme was forgotten (except by a passing linguist) almost as soon as it was spoken. It was obvious from the jocularly apologetic way in which the person spoke that she did not consider fluddle to be a 'proper' word at all. There was no intention to propose it for inclusion in a dictionary. As far as she was concerned, it was simply that there seemed to be no word in the language for what she wanted to say, so she made one up, for the nonce. In everyday conversation, people create nonce words like this all the time.

The main information that emerges from Crystal's definition, and that will be observed through other examples, is that nonce words are created through certain processes. The two major processes enabling the formation of nonce words that will be studied are "nonce blend" 26 and "nonce compound". The word "fluddle" is a blend of "puddle" and "flood", as explained in the above quotation by Crystal. It is thus a nonce blend. Other instances of nonce blends can be found in Quinion's 1996 article, in which he mentions, amongst others, Lewis Carroll's nonce blend creations in Alice Through the Looking Glass:

An older term for the result of this technique is portmanteau word, which was coined by Lewis Carroll in Alice Through the Looking Glass in 1872 to explain some of the words he made up in the nonsense poem Jabberwocky: "Well 'slithy' means 'lithe' and 'slimy'… you see it's like a portmanteau -there are two meanings packed up in one word". This term is much less comprehensible to us now that the literal sense of portmanteau has gone out of use. It derives from the French term for a large stiff carrying case for clothes, which is hinged in the middle so that it falls open into two halves. Though many of Carroll's inventions didn't survive, a couple have become part of the language: galumph (gallop + triumph), and chortle (chuckle + snort). His term mimsy (flimsy + miserable) already existed in the language, but his re-definition of it certainly affected the sense.

The concept of "nonce compound" is clarified thanks to a definition by Kane [1988: 309], illustrated by examples:

In certain compounds (two or more words treated as one) the hyphen separates the individual words. English does not treat compound with much consistency. Some are printed as separate words (contact lens, drawing room, milk shake); some as single terms (gunboat, footlight, midships); and still others are hyphenated (gun-shy, photo-offset). Some compounds are treated differently by different writers; you cannot tell how any particular compound is conventionally written without consulting a dictionary or observing how publishers print it. The examples we just saw are all conventional compound words. Another kind exists called the nonce compound. This is a construction, usually a modifier, made up for a specific occasion and not existing as a standard idiom. In the following sentence, the first compound is conventional; the other two are nonce expressions: Old-fashioned, once-in-a-lifetime, till-death-do-us-part marriage. (Leslie Aldridge Westoff). Nonce compounds are always hyphenated. Now that these two nonce word-formation processes -i.e. "nonce blend" and "nonce compound" -have been defined, let us have a closer look at a type of nonce word: "stunt word". This term, also called a jocular word, appeared in the late 20 th century and is defined as follows by [START_REF] Mcarthur Tom | The Oxford Companion to the English Language[END_REF]:

A word created and used to produce a special effect or attract attention, as if it were part of the performance of a stunt man or a conjuror. "Abracadabra" is, for instance, considered a stunt word. This magic word, used by magicians before something magic happens has actually no real meaning. It is therefore a nonsense word used to create a "special effect or attract attention", as explained by McArthur in the above definition. Thus, "abracadabra" is a stunt word, but also a loanword borrowed from Greek and used in English as well as in French.

The following sub-part will be devoted to a type of nonce word called "nonce borrowing".

Nonce borrowing

This is a quite recent term as it has become current in the 1980s. A nonce borrowing consists in the introduction of a foreign word into an utterance. Compared to an established borrowing, a nonce borrowing is not part of the language in which it has been introduced; the word is thus not lexicalised in the target language. Such a definition could lead to draw hasty conclusions by wrongly associating a nonce borrowing with a codeswitched word. However, there is more than meets the eye.

Firstly, in the abstract of their article, [START_REF] Stammers Jonathan | Testing the nonce borrowing hypothesis: Counter-evidence from English-origin verbs in Welsh[END_REF] distinguish between nonce borrowing and borrowing in accordance with the Nonce Borrowing

Hypothesis (NBH):

According to the nonce borrowing hypothesis (NBH), "[n]once borrowings pattern exactly like their native counterparts in the (unmixed) recipient language" (Poplack & Meechan, 1998a, p. 137). Nonce borrowings (Sankoff, Poplack & Vanniarajan, 1990, p. 74) are "lone other-language items" which differ from established borrowings in terms of frequency of use and recognition. Lone other-language items are singly occurring words from the "donor" language which are preceded and followed by words or phrases from the "recipient" language. Whether such otherlanguage words belong only to the donor language (and are classed as codeswitches) or to both the donor and the recipient language (and are classed as borrowings) is both a theoretical and a practical issue. Poplack & Meechan (1998a) suggest that this question can be settled by measuring the linguistic integration of donor-language words, so that infrequent donor-language words which behave like their recipient-language counterparts are categorised as (nonce) borrowings. This suggests that frequency of use need play no role in the extent to which otherlanguage items are linguistically integrated into the recipient language.

Thus, according to Stammers and Deuchar, nonce borrowings are less frequently used and less spread than established borrowings. Nonce borrowings are borrowed from a language and inserted into the borrower language. They explain that, once adopted in a language, nonce borrowings are combined with words or expressions belonging to the borrower language. Finally, they explain that when Poplack and Meechan propose "measuring the linguistic integration of donor-language words, so that infrequent donor-language words which behave like their recipient-language counterparts are categorised as (nonce) borrowings", this suggests that recurrence is not taken into account. Poplack [2004: 3] makes a distinction between established borrowing and nonce borrowing:

[…] The social characteristics of recurrence and diffusion are not always satisfied. This results in what has been called, after [START_REF] Weinreich | Languages in Contact[END_REF]Weinreich ( /1958)), nonce borrowing [START_REF] Poplack Shana | The social correlates and linguistic processes of lexical borrowing and assimilation[END_REF]Sankoff et al., 1990). Like its established counterpart, the nonce loan tends to involve lone lexical items, generally major-class content words, and to assume the morphological, syntactic, and often, phonological identity of the recipient language.

Similarly to what Stammers and Deuchar explain in their 2012 article, Poplack states that, contrary to established borrowings, nonce borrowings are neither recurrent nor spread. Furthermore, nonce borrowings adopt the morphology, syntax, and phonology of the borrower language, contrary to loanwords.

Then, Poplack [2003: 4] establishes some common points between codeswitching (CS) and nonce borrowing:

Like CS, on the other hand, nonce borrowing is neither recurrent nor spread, and necessarily requires a certain level of bilingual competence. Distinguishing nonce borrowing from single-word CS is conceptually easy but methodologically difficult, especially when they surface bare, giving no apparent indication of language membership.

Therefore, codeswitching and nonce borrowing do not occur repeatedly, do not propagate, and necessitate being bilingual. These are all the features codeswitching and nonce borrowing have in common. Thus, one cannot distinguish between codeswitching and nonce borrowing in the following example sentence: « […] des gens qui jouais (sic) au hacky sack […] », extracted from Corpus #1. Indeed, the English term in bold is used spontaneously, in a specific context; thus, it is not likely to become recurrent or to propagate since « footbag » is the French equivalent, and its use implies that the speaker is bilingual, or that he or she has, at least, a certain mastery of English. However, as Poplack suggests, it is hard to exemplify the difference between codeswitching and nonce borrowing. Indeed, the author gives one distinctive feature differentiating these two linguistic phenomena: contrary to codeswitching, nonce borrowings can give no indication on the language they belong to.

However, the difference between these two notions remains unclear. As a result, a new characteristic has to be added to the definition of nonce borrowings. Contrary to codeswitching, a nonce borrowing provisionally fills a lexical gap. One of the main features of codeswitching is the notion of choice. 27 Indeed, a speaker always has the choice between the two languages he or she masters. When mixing them, we therefore talk about codeswitching; but it implies that the speaker had the choice between going on with the main language of the utterance, or introducing a foreign word. Nevertheless, choosing a nonce borrowing means that there was no word in the language the speaker was using to express what he or she wanted to say, hence the decision of introducing a foreign word at the time. In this way, codeswitching and nonce borrowings are clearly 27 The question of choice will be developed in Chapter II, 1.3. distinct. Thus, in the example sentence « Mon crew au top […] » [Corpus #3], "crew" does not fill a lexical gap since its French equivalents is « équipe ». The sentence is therefore codeswitching. On the contrary, in « En 10 ans, la sex-tape de Kim Kardashian a rapporté 100 millions de dollars » [Closer: 2017], the term "sex tape" which does not exist in French fills a lexical gap. This term is sometimes used in French because there is no satisfactory term to refer to a homemade film in which people tape their lovemaking.

Indeed, the French equivalents « vidéo porno » or « vidéo coquine » do not imply that the record is homemade. This sentence is therefore an example of nonce-borrowing.

To conclude, consider the following quotation by Poplack and Meechan [1998: 137], which is a short summary of what differentiates nonce borrowing from codeswitching, and mostly from established borrowing: "nonce borrowing differs from codeswitching, and resembles established borrowing in all but its extralinguistic characteristics of recurrence and diffusion". Therefore, in the above quotation, Poplack and Meechan, explain that nonce borrowings are different from codeswitching, but share similar linguistic characteristics with established borrowings, which does not include the notions of frequency of use and diffusion that differentiate them. Indeed, established borrowings are more frequently used and more spread than nonce borrowings.

Synthesis

The first part of Chapter I was divided into three main sections aiming to respectively define "codeswitching", "borrowing", and "neologism".

In the first section, definitions for "codeswitching", "Franglais", "codemixing", and "language alternation" were provided in order to clearly identify their formation, role and characteristics. Their related linguistic phenomena, namely "diglossia" and "convergence" vs. "divergence", and the effects of codeswitching as well as its possible consequences -i.e. "language death" and "language shift" -have also been analysed. In the second section, the given definitions were about some lexicalised linguistic tools such as "borrowing", "loanword", "loanshift", "loan-blend", and "loan-translation" (or "calque"). "Gallicism", "Anglicism", and "false Anglicism" were then defined and studied as borrowing-related linguistic phenomena. Finally, in the third section, neologism and the fact that it is at the beginning of the codeswitching -"successful codeswitching"borrowing chain was examined thanks to definitions, the study of its formation, lifetime, and adoption or rejection. The special case of nonce words and the study of nonce borrowings were the last matters discussed. They were opposed to neologisms, establish borrowings, and codeswitching. To sum up the differences and similarities of all these discursive and linguistic phenomena, consider the following recap chart,28 in which frequency of use and spreading, lexicalisation, bilingualism, and lexical gap filling are taken into consideration:

Frequency of use and spreading Lexicalisation Bilingualism Lexical gap filling

Neologism ✓ or ✗ ✓ or ✗ ✗ ✓ Nonce word ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ Nonce blend ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ Nonce compound ✗ ✗ ✗ ✓ Stunt word ✓ or ✗ ✓ or ✗ ✗ ✓ Nonce borrowing ✗ ✗ ✓ ✓ Established borrowing ✓ ✓ ✗ ✓ when compulsory ✗ when optional Codeswitching ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ Figure 2

-Main features characterising some discursive and linguistic phenomena

The second part of this chapter will revolve around the definitions of some grammatical features linked with the ongoing research, such as substantives, determiners, natural gender, and grammatical gender, in order to explain the role of determiners in relation to substantives, and to eventually theorise grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching and borrowing.

Definitions of grammatical terms

In this part, grammatical notions such as substantives, determiners, and gender will be defined and analysed. Firstly, substantives will be at stake in this part, considering that this thesis is based on the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French -i.e. English substantives inserted into French utterances. Then, determiners will also be devoted a sub-part, since, in most of the instances provided throughout this thesis, English codeswitched and borrowed substantives are preceded by French determiners, in accordance with French grammar.

Thus, determiners are a key point in determining grammatical gender attribution.

Finally, both natural gender and grammatical gender will be developed.

Substantives

Firstly, we will give different definitions for "substantive". Secondly, the singular and plural forms substantives can take will be developed to see if the rules of English grammar are respected when codeswitching or borrowing substantives, or if French rules apply to these words. In other words, we will try to determine which grammar dominates when codeswitching or borrowing.

Etymology and general definition

A substantive, which is a synonym for "noun", is defined as a part of speech, also known as word class, just as verbs, adjectives, or conjunctions, for instance. In order to scientifically define what a substantive is, consider the following definitions provided by specialists. Chalker and McArthur [1992], quoted by Nordquist in his undated article entitled "Substantive (grammar)", define a substantive as follows:

A [substantive is a] grammatical term that in the Middle Ages included both noun and adjective, but later meant noun exclusively. It is not usually found in later 20C English grammars.

[…] However, the term has been used to refer to nouns and any other parts of speech serving as nouns ('the substantive' in English). The adjective local is used substantively in the sentence He had a drink at the local before going home (that is, the local public house).

As for Chauncey Fowler [1855: 242], he gives the following definition:

Substantive (Latin substantivus, substantia) strictly denotes that which stands under, or is a foundation of accidents or attributes, and which, therefore, may be considered as independent, and may stand by itself. A substantive noun or a substantive is, then, a name which can stand by itself, in distinction from an adjective noun or an adjective. It is the name of an object of thought, whether perceived by the senses or the understanding. The name of whatever exists, or is conceived to exist, is a noun. According to Becker, it is a notional word. Substantive and noun are, in common use, convertible terms.

Finally, Lyons in Natural Language and Universal Grammar: Essays in Linguistic Theory [1991], quoted by Nordquist [undated], gives the following definition for "substantive":

In Aristotelian, and scholastic, terminology, 'substance' is more or less synonymous with 'entity'. It is this by now almost obsolete sense of 'substance' which gave rise to the term 'substantive' for what, in modern terminology, are normally called nouns.

To sum up, a substantive is a grammatical term referring to a part of speech that is independent [Chauncey Fowler 1855: 242], and which is even assimilated to an "entity",

as Lyons [1991] suggests. Moreover, substantives are used to name objects (e.g., table ); people (e.g., "the teacher", "Peter": proper noun); animals (e.g., "elephant"), places (e.g., "the city centre", "New Zealand": proper noun), concepts (e.g., "liberty"); notions, ideas, or anything that can be named. Now that basic definitions for substantives have been given, in the following subpart, the singular and plural forms substantives can take will be developed.

Singular and plural forms

The purpose of this sub-part is to eventually determine if it is the French grammar rules that prevail when English substantives are codeswitched or borrowed, or if the rules of English grammar are respected or, at least, have a part to play in gender attribution.

Nouns can be both singular and plural, except when, in French and English, they refer to substances or materials like "petrol" (Fr. « l'essence »), to abstract nouns such as "anger" (Fr. « la colère »), or "time" (Fr. « le temps »), for instance. These nouns are prototypically uncountable -i.e. they cannot take the plural form. Generally, for regular plural nouns -i.e. countable -, in both English and French, an -s is added at the end of the word to form the plural -e.g., face ð faces -, with obviously some special cases.

Regarding English uncountable substantives, when they are codeswitched 29 In English, words ending in -y form their plural in -ies -e.g., a copy ð some copies.

Words ending in -s or -z in the singular, take an -es ending in the plural -e.g., bus ð would become « Perdue au milieu des bushes […] » in the plural since, in both English and French, the plural form of the borrowed substantive "bush" is "bushes".

Finally, when -man or -woman are added at the end of some words, they become -men and -women in English in the plural and follow the same rule in French.

Although they are known for generating numerous false Anglicisms, they nevertheless respect the English rules required to form the plural. As a result, in French, « rugbyman » and « tenniswoman » become « rugbymen » and « tenniswomen » in the plural. Thus, even if they are not actual English words -i.e. they are false Anglicisms, so they look and sound English but are not -, they are surprisingly subjected to English grammar rules. In this sub-part, we deliberately focused on some English and French singular and plural forms, and not on all of them, because these are likely to be found in the various examples provided in each of the chapters of this thesis. Now that some particularities of English and French grammars have been developed, regarding the singular and plural forms of substantives, determiners will be devoted a section.

Determiners

In both English and French, determiners precede substantives. They give an indication on the substantives they precede and thus, as the name suggests, determine whether they are singular -e.g., "a, one, un"; plural -e.g., "many, quelques, des, certains";

definite -e.g., "the, le, la"; or indefinite -e.g., "a, an, un, une". In French, they also bring information on the grammatical gender -i.e. masculine « le, un, du », or feminine « la, une, de la ». All substantives are thus preceded by a determiner, even if it is a Ø determiner -e.g., "At the time when…" ð « À l'époque où… » vs. "Ø time flies" ð « Le temps passe vite ». Determiners include articles, demonstratives, and possessives such as: "a, an, the" (articles); "this, that, these, those" (demonstratives); "my, your, his, her, its, our, your, their" (possessives) -e.g., "Is the shop still open in the evening?"; "These oranges are very juicy"; "My car has been stolen".

There are many other determiners. The following listed determiners are quantifiers:

"a few, a little, all, another, any, both, each, either, enough, every, few, fewer, less, little, many, more, most, much, neither, no, other, several, some" -e.g., "Both my parents are teachers"; "Is there enough coffee for everyone?"; "Neither child understood what was happening". Numerals can act as determiners as well in order to specify how many things, people, or places are being considered: e.g., "She goes swimming two days a week".

Thus, determiners give an indication about the specificity or generality of the substantive they precede. In other words, determiners can either be definite or indefinite. Definite determiners are used when the interlocutor already knows the referent the noun refers to, or in general terms, when the noun has beforehand been introduced. Definite determiners include the definite article "the", all the possessives previously enumerated plus "whose", demonstratives previously listed, and the interrogative determiner "which". Contrary to definite determiners, indefinite determiners refer to something that has not been previously named. They include the indefinite articles "a", "an", and "any", the interrogative determiner "what", and the pronouns or adjectives, depending on the context, "another" or "other": e.g., "She read another book" (adjective) vs. "I want others" (pronoun); "The milk that is on the Nonetheless, it could be possible to codeswitch an English determiner before a borrowing. This will not be developed since this thesis is based on the study of codeswitched and borrowed substantives, and not on codeswitched determiners.

Substantives and determiners have been defined, developed, and exemplified. The third section of this part will deal with another grammatical feature, that is to say, gender: natural gender as opposed to grammatical gender.

Gender

The etymology of the term, from the Greek yevos and the Latin genus, refers to the notions of "class" and "type". "Gender in language, which can be referred to by the general term linguistic gender, can be defined at the most basic level as a system of noun classification reflected in the behavior of associated words" [Hockett quoted in Corbett 1991: 1]. Gender classifies everything that language enables to name. It thus refers to a grammatical category, which classifies words -sometimes arbitrarily -in opposite groups: masculine, feminine, neuter, or even inanimate depending on the language that is being analysed. Generally, in French, nouns referring to animate beings pertaining to men or women, male or female, respectively carry the masculine gender or the feminine gender.

A distinction between natural gender and grammatical gender needs to be made.

Natural gender

For Corbett [1991: 9], a natural gender system is "a system where given the meaning of a noun, its gender can be predicted without reference to its form". For instance, in English, natural gender can be observed in words such as "waiter/waitress", "waiter" referring to men, and "waitress" to women; "widow/widower", "widow" referring to women, and "widower" to men; and "bull/cow", "bull" referring to the male bovine, and "cow" to the female bovine. Natural gender includes humans and animals. In other words, natural gender indicates what the sex of the referent of the noun is -i.e.

animal or person (male of female).

English has no grammatical gender, only a natural gender. Indeed, in English, masculine and feminine genders only apply to humans, except some irregularities such as ships, spiders, pets/domestic animals, and certain objects like cars when affect comes into play. According to Curzan [2009: 21], exceptions can be split into two categories:

The exceptional nouns, those that can flout the biological sex-linguistic gender correlation, have traditionally been divided into two basic types: conventionalized references and emotive (or affective) references. The conventional gender assignments of certain inanimate nouns seem to hold irrespective of the attitude of the speaker, and they are fairly consistent within speech communities (e.g., ship as she). Proper names could be included in this category, given that their genders are learned and conventional, and they apply even when the name is used for an inanimate object (Whorf 1956: 90-91).

For Whorf [1956: 90], English gender is a grammatical category as exceptions are not always natural or cultural, and just have to be learnt to be used. He gives the following examples to illustrate the fact:

Nor would knowledge of any 'natural' properties tell our observer that the name of biological classes themselves (e.g. animal, bird, fish, etc.) are 'it'; that smaller animals usually are 'it'; larger animals often 'he'; dogs, eagles, and turkeys usually 'he'; cats and wrens usually 'she'; body parts and the whole botanical world 'it'; countries and states as fictive persons (but not as localities) 'she'; cities, societies and corporations as fictive persons 'it'; the human body 'it'; a ghost 'it'; nature 'she'; watercraft with sail or power and named small craft 'she'; unnamed rowboats, canoes, rafts 'it,' etc. Curzan [2009: 21] disagrees with some of the examples chosen by Whorf:

Whorf's attempt at gender categorization, however, potentially muddles the situation more than it clarifies it. With the phrase "as a fictive person" appearing throughout the description, Whorf undermines the distinction between conventional gender, personification, and colloquial variation due to emotive gender assignment.

[…] While the use of she for nature seems fairly clearly conventional, the use of he for dogs, to pick one example, is more problematic because the pronoun references for dogs have more potential to fluctuate from it to he and for many speakers, also to she, depending on the dog, the circumstance, and the speaker. The choice of pronoun depends greatly on the psychological and sociological attitude of the speaker toward the referent as well as the attributes of the referent.

Besides some peculiarities, in English, there is no particular gender strictly speaking: "a house" or "a castle" are both neuter nouns that are not connoted -i.e. words denoting things that have no sex are neuter gender, and are thus not connoted; whereas in French, « une maison » is a feminine substantive, and « un château » is a masculine substantive. This particularity of the English language explains why adjectives and articles do not agree in number and gender, whereas it is the case in French.

For Curzan [2009: 20] English is nevertheless a pronominal gender system:

English has become a pronominal gender system, in which the personal pronouns he/ she/ it reflect a triple-gender system and the relative pronouns who/ which distinguish only between the animate and the inanimate. While many speakers and scholars have remarked on the system's superficial simplicity, those who have tried to describe the system in detail have been struck by its complexity. As Erades (1956:2) states, "[T]he gender of English nouns, far from being simple and clear, is complicated and obscure, and the principles underlying it are baffling and elusive, no less, and perhaps even more so, than in other languages."

Curzan states that English is a "pronominal gender system". This means that the personal pronouns "he" and "she" refer respectively to the masculine and the feminine, "it" is neuter, and the relative pronouns "who" and "which" make the difference between the animate and the inanimate. This is thus a quite simple gender system for speakers, and even for learners for instance, compared with French. Then she continues:

Such a statement might seem absurd given that most nouns in Modern English follow the traditional semantic formulation of the system in which pronominal gender corresponds to distinctions of "real-word" biological sex. But most is not enough: the key to understanding the natural gender system in Modern English lies in the exceptions, the inanimate nouns that can take gendered pronouns and the human or other animate nouns that can take it. As Erades correctly notes, these exceptions do not prove the traditional rule of natural gender, but rather they prove the rule wrong (although rule is probably too strong a word to apply to natural gender agreement in any circumstances).

Curzan suggests taking an interest in exceptions in order to understand how Modern English natural gender system works. This means to deal with the inanimate substantives that are attributed gendered pronouns -e.g., a car can be referred to as "she" -, and humans or animates that are attributed the personal pronoun "it" -e.g., an unborn baby can be referred to as "it". Nevertheless, according to her quoting Erades, these exceptions, as the name suggests, only "prove the rule wrong" concerning the natural gender system based on biological sex, and thus does not really explain how it works.

She finally concludes by dealing with the deceptive simplicity of the English gender system and its exceptions:

The natural gender system is not a simple one-to-one correspondence between biological sex and linguistic gender with scattered exceptions. Theoretical notions of gender in other disciplines complicate the role of biological sex in the construction of gender in useful ways here; and they support the argument that, in fact, the exceptions to the system as traditionally defined form patterns that need to be addressed in any formulation of the system, because English speakers are consistently inconsistent in their choice of gendered pronouns according to strict natural gender rules (see, for example, Marcoux 1973). Whorf [quoted in Curzan 2009: 20] makes a distinction between "overt" and "covert" grammatical categories: [START_REF] Whorf Benjamin | Language, Thought and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf[END_REF] draws the important distinction between overt and covert grammatical categories: an overt category is one having a formal mark that is present in every sentence containing a member of the category (e.g., English plural); a covert category includes members that are marked only in certain types of sentences. (Whorf labels the distinctive treatment required in such environments "reactance"). In English, gender is a covert category marked only by the reactance of singular third-person pronouns and the relative pronouns who/ what/ which (which indicate animacy).

To sum up, an "overt category" refers to the grammatical features that apply to substantives and verbs for instance -e.g., the plural form, or the -ing ending applied to the continuous form of verbs. A "covert category" encompasses grammatical features identified "only in certain types of sentences" -e.g., "he" for the masculine opposed to "she" for the feminine, or "it" for neuter gender. In English, gender is therefore a covert grammatical category including opposite "members".

Finally, Curzan [2009: 17] differentiates between formal and semantic gender:

Where does the term "natural gender" fall in this dichotomous classification system of formal and semantic gender? […] Given the very different and widespread use of this term in most gender scholarship, particularly work focused on English, it is preferable to define natural gender systems as a subset of strict semantic ones: a tripartite gender system (masculine, feminine, neuter) in which the classification of nouns corresponds for the most part to the real-world distinctions of male animate (or male human), female animate (or female human), and inanimate (or nonhuman). In other words, while semantic gender systems are predictable based on features of the referent, the relevant features are not necessarily biological sex, and the categories can be much more numerous.

Thus she suggests considering natural gender systems as a subset of semantic gender systems, based on the referent's characteristics -i.e. masculine, feminine, or neuter.

These characteristics are not necessarily linked with biological sex -i.e. "male animate (or male human), female animate (or female human), and inanimate (or non-human)".

To sum up, natural gender tends to characterise English gender attribution. Natural gender includes humans as well as animals. It determines the sex of the referent of the substantive, without any indications on its form -i.e. animal or human (male or female).

The notion of "natural gender" has been detailed, and different definitions given by specialists on what it is and what it includes were provided. Grammatical gender will be developed in the following sub-part.

Grammatical gender

Grammatical gender is a means of classifying substantives -i.e. masculine or feminine. French nouns are categorised according to two genders: the masculine and the feminine, neuter gender having disappeared since « le bas latin », "Low Latin" in English. 30 However, several languages such as Greek, Latin, or German classify their nouns in three distinct genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Romaine [1999: 70-72] gives the example of a language spoken by Aboriginal Australians, in North Queensland, using more than three genders:

Still other languages have more noun classes than German. In such cases the connection between gender, as it is commonly rather than technically understood, and grammar becomes even more obscure and problematic. An example of a language with four is Dyirbal, spoken by Aboriginal Australians in North Queensland. Each noun must be preceded by a classifier telling what category it belongs to. The so-called bayi class includes men, kangaroos, possums, bats, most snakes, the moon, and others. The balan class includes women, bandicoots, dogs, and anything connected with fire or water, sun, stars, and others. The balam class includes all edible fruits and the plants that bear them, ferns, honey, cigarettes, and so on. The bala class includes body parts, meat, bees, most trees, mud, stones, and more.

Romance languages such as French, Spanish, Portuguese, or Italian are used to a single form of grammatical gender: the masculine and the feminine. Speaker of these languages may not know that languages such as Dyirbal, having four different genders, exist. What is the most confusing is the fact that Dyirbal gender distribution mixes different categories that may not really make sense for Europeans. Indeed, a part of humans -e.g., men -, certain animals -e.g., kangaroos, most snakes -, and elements as the moon represent a class named "bayi"; women, some other animals like bandicoots or dogs, anything linked with fire, water, and other elements represent another class called "balan"; the third class "balam" encompasses edible fruits and their plants; finally, body parts, meat, insects like bees, most trees, etc. belong to the "bala" class.

Then she explains how these four genders work from the cultural point of view of the Aboriginal Australians in North Queensland:

To understand how it is organized, it is not sufficient to look at linguistic structure and formal principles. We must understand something of Dyirbal culture. The first class obviously includes human males and animals, while the second contains human females, birds, water, and fire. The third has nonflesh food, and the last, everything not in the other classes. There is also a general rule at work that puts everything associated with the entities in a category in that particular class. Fish are in the bayi class with men because they are seen as animals, and so are fishing lines, spears, and so on because they are associated with fish. This shows that sharing similarities is not the only basis for categorization. Cultural beliefs too affect classification. In order to understand why birds are not in the first category one has to understand that to the Dyirbal birds are the spirits of dead human females. Therefore, they belong in the second class with other female beings. Similarly, according to Dyirbal myth, the moon and sun are husband and wife, so the moon goes in the class with men and husbands, whereas the sun belongs with females and wives.

Regarding Dyirbal gender distribution, what makes sense for French speakers, for instance, is to make the distinction between males and females in gender attribution, like we do. Even though, at first sight, Dyirbal gender attribution can be confusing because the French culture is totally different from the Aboriginal culture as, amongst others, we do not make "mythical associations", it is actually clearer and more definite than French grammatical gender attribution. Indeed, the different elements belonging to the four different classes are distinctly identified. Moreover, gender attribution is based on similarities that humans, objects, animals, or elements share. Cultural beliefs also have to be taken into consideration -e.g., "birds are the spirit of dead women" and, since the moon and the sun are considered husband and wife, the moon goes in the "men and husbands" category, and the sun therefore goes in the "females and wives" category. As a result, the culture in its entirety has to be understood so that the linguistic and grammatical aspects, like gender attribution, can be understood as well.

Thereupon, Romaine [1999: 70-72] adds another feature to the classification of nouns in accordance with the Dyirbal culture:

There is one further principle at work. If some members of a set differ in some important way from the others, usually in terms of their danger or harmfulness, they are put into another group. Thus, although fish are in class I with other animate beings, the stonefish and garfish, which are harmful and therefore potentially dangerous, are in class II. There is nothing in objective reality corresponding to the Dyirbal noun categories in the sense that the classes do not correspond to groups of entities which share similar properties, but the rationale for the categorization tells us something about how Dyirbal people conceive of their social world and interact with it.

The author gives another feature to help understand gender distribution in Dyirbal.

Indeed, according to what she explains, danger and harmfulness also play a role, which is why certain animals are in the first class, and some others are in the second class.

Therefore, Aboriginal people have a connexion with their environment that is completely different from the conception Europeans have of theirs, which is, in a sense, more objective since it is not a mythical conception.

She finally concludes with the modifications that occurred throughout time concerning these classes:

Although to English speakers the system might seem quite arbitrary and therefore unlearnable except by memorizing which nouns belong in which class, to children being socialized into Dyirbal culture, it will seem quite natural. Dyirbal is, however, dying out, and the traditional way of life associated with speaking Dyirbal is fast being eroded by English-speaking culture. Children are no longer acquiring Dyirbal as their native language. The remaining speakers speak a much altered form of Dyirbal in which the noun classification system is being restructured. Now only females are assigned to the second class (balan). The other members such as water and fire are being reassigned to the residue class IV (bala). The mythical associations are now lost, so that birds, which are the spirits of dead human females, are now being transferred from class II to class I. similarly, the "dangerous items" such as the garfish and stonefish, which formerly belonged to class II by association, are now in class I because they are animates. What has happened is that a system that could be understood only with reference to the world view of its speakers has now become more strictly based on meaning.

Nowadays, Dyirbal gender system is different from what it used to be. For instance, the second class encompasses only females, some elements such as water and fire have changed class, some "mythical associations" do not exist anymore, and dangerous fish are now considered inanimates. Concerning gender attribution, there is therefore a shift between the mythical conception Dyirbal people have of the world and the current gender distribution that has now something to do with semantics. This is still different from the way French speakers use grammatical gender, but even though some changes have occurred, Dyirbal gender attribution can still be logically explained, contrary to French grammatical gender. Romaine [1999: 71] also deals with another language, spoken in Australia as well, but which seems unambiguous compared to Dyirbal:

However, there are other languages, such as Kala Lagaw Ya, spoken in the western Torres Strait in Australia, in which nouns denoting males are singled out as masculine and all others are feminine (with the exception of the word for 'moon', which is masculine). In such languages we can say that gender is fairly straightforward and is governed partly by semantic principles that select a smaller group of nouns as feminine or masculine and assign the rest to a kind of ragbag category. This residue class includes everything else not in the smaller category.

Kala Lagaw Ya gender attribution is thus simple and easy to understand since substantives referring to males are masculine, and all other substantives are feminine, except the moon (masculine). This gender distribution is therefore simpler than the Dyirbal gender system because it makes no "mythical associations", and more definite than the French gender system that does not make distinct categories.

Therefore, gender systems are multiple, can vary a lot from one culture and one language to the other even within the same country -e.g., Dyirbal and Kala Lagaw Ya -, and rely heavily on worldviews and systems of belief. This is exemplified in the following quotation by Romaine [1999: 69-70] briefly presenting the Ojibwa language,31 also called Anishinaabemowin, or Ojibwemowin, and its gender system:

[…] The Ojibwa gender system relies on animacy, but their notions of animacy are not the same as ours (e.g., snow, snowshoes, and cooking pots are animate), which clearly reflects a different culture and world view.

Once again, this gender system is entirely different from the French or the English gender systems, as it is based on animacy, which encompasses items that are not considered animate in English or French -e.g., snow, snowshoes, or cooking pots.

To sum up, the notion of grammatical gender was studied from a different point of view since I decided to focus on gender systems that are completely different from the systems that Europeans, and for instance French, English, Italian, German, or Spanish speakers are familiar with. The conclusion that can be drawn from this development is that in French, as well as in English, gender attribution is not as suffused with cultural aspects or myths than Dyirbal, and is neither based on semantics like Kala Lagaw Ya nor on animacy like Ojibwa.

This reminds us of « l'arbitraire du signe », which, according to Saussure [1964],

means that there is no natural link between the signifier and the signified -i.e. between the form of a word and its meaning -since, amongst all the languages, a concept -i.e. a signified -is produced differently. For instance, for the signified « piscine », different graphic and phonic realisations are possible such as "swimming pool" in English, or "piscina" in Spanish.

Synthesis

In this part based on grammar, substantives have been defined. Then, their singular and plural forms have been developed and exemplified to see if French grammar rules are respected when codeswitching or borrowing, or if English grammar rules prevail. It has been illustrated that, since English substantives are inserted into French sentences,

French being the main language of the utterances, the grammar that prevails is the French grammar, except when dealing with false Anglicisms, which are subjected to the rules of English grammar when plural, although they are not actual English words, as the name suggests. It was also important to devote a section to determiners considering that they carry the notion of grammatical gender attributed to English substantives borrowed or codeswitched in French. Natural gender and grammatical gender were also defined and studied. English has a natural gender, which determines the sex of the referent without taking into account its form, whereas French also has a grammatical gender. Regarding grammatical gender, although its attribution can be hard to explain when dealing with codeswitching and borrowing because, firstly, English and French have a different gender system, and secondly, the French gender system cannot be logically explained, it is quite easy to codeswitch and borrow from English to French, and relatively simple to hypothesise on grammatical gender attribution when dealing with codeswitching and borrowing, as these two languages have common roots and cultures that are not so different. Indeed, compared with the gender system of Dyirbal, for instance, that is completely different from English or French because it is mostly based on culture and myths, it would be harder to write this thesis if the culture and world view of the borrowed language were completely different from the culture and world view of the borrower language. The theme of this thesis mostly raises linguistic and grammatical issues rather than cultural and mythical issues like Dyirbal, Kala Lagaw Ya, or Ojibwa do.

In the following part entitled "diachronic approach", the history of French, as well as the history of English, will be quickly developed. Secondly, we will deal with the history of the French grammatical gender and the history of the English grammatical gender.

The main objective of this part will be to highlight the differences and similarities between French and English.

Diachronic approach

In this part, the histories of French and English, and more particularly the study of their gender, will be developed from a diachronic angle. Firstly, the origin of French and

English will be at the heart of this part; secondly, French grammatical gender will be analysed, as well as the shift from grammatical gender to neuter gender concerning English. In other words, thanks to a diachronic analysis, French and English similarities and differences will be highlighted.

History

French is part of the Romance languages, a group of languages that includes Spanish, Italian, Portuguese and Romanian, all originating from Latin, the language of the Ancient Romans. Contrary to French, English is a Germanic language. Germanic language includes German, Dutch, Danish, Norwegian, and Swedish, amongst others. Even though these two groups are quite distinct, they all belong to "the same family of languages called Indo-European languages, also including languages such as Hindi, Urdu and

Bengali" [Dawson 2004 The first language to be developed from a diachronic angle is French; then, the history of English will be traced, before dealing with the history of grammatical gender for both languages.

The French language

In "The Origins of French", Dawson [2004: 1] lists the ancient languages that influenced French:

• Gaulish, the language of the Celtic peoples […] who inhabited primarily the territory of what is now modern-day France, prior to the Roman invasions. • Latin, the language of the invading Romans.

• Frankish, the language of the Germanic peoples who occupied this territory after the fall of the Roman Empire, and who gave France its name. • Old Norse, the language of the Vikings, who occupied many of the coastal and inland navigable areas of northern France before being granted the area now known as Normandy (meaning "Land of the Norsemen").

Although French has been influenced by Gaulish, Frankish, and Old Norse, "it is from Latin that French derives the most" [Dawson 2004: 2]. As Dawson [2004: 2] explains:

The first invasions occurred between 124 BC and 118 BC where the Romans took control of South-Eastern France, whilst between 58 BC and 52 BC Julius Caesar undertook the conquest of the remaining Northern and Western parts of Gaul. The most significant aspect of Latin influence on French lies in the area of vocabulary.

The majority of the most commonly used words in French today -including the grammatical words like articles, auxiliaries and prepositions, and the most common nouns, adjectives and verbs -can be traced in an unbroken line of descent from Latin.

Long before the Latin influence, after the Neolithic period, there were only three peoples on the French territory: the Ligurians (Provence and Southern Alps), the Iberians (Languedoc-Roussillon), and the Aquitains (Southwest). They all spoke non-Indo-European languages, and some languages such as the Aquitaine and the Basque languages are said to originate from this period.

The Indo-European influence started in the 6 th century BC with the introduction of Gallic, a Celtic language. After the Roman invasion, which started in the 1 st century BC and ended with Julius Caesar in -50 BC, Gallo-Roman emerged. It was a mix of Latin and Gallic. It was then replaced with Roman, between 800 and 1000.

With the spread of Christianity, Old French appeared between the 2 nd and 9 th century [Walter 1988: 27], and between the 12 th century and the 16 th century, French spread [Walter 1988: 27]:

LE TEMPS DES CHRETIENS II e -IX e
Diffusion du christianisme et naissance de « l'ancien français ». Charlemagne restaure l'enseignement en latin.

L'AFFIRMATION DU FRANÇAIS XII e -XVI e Diffusion du français. Ordonnance de Villers-Cotterêts, François I er impose le français écrit, qui détrône le latin.

In the 16 th century, peasants still spoke the local dialect of the region they lived in; but in the 19 th and 20 th centuries, although they did not disappear, dialects were almost abolished and French people learnt French at school, as Walter explains [1988: 27]:

LE TEMPS DE L'ECOLE
XIXe -XXe Rapport de l'abbé Grégoire à la Convention sur la nécessité absolue d'abolir les patois. Tous les Français apprennent le français à l'école. La Grande Guerre et le déclin des patois.

In her 1988 book, Le français dans tous les sens, Walter proposes to develop the history of French in ten major points -three of them have been listed above. Here is the summary that can be found page 27 of her book: Dealing with French first seemed obvious as this language has had an influence on English. Nowadays, it is significantly different. Indeed, French is clearly much more influenced by English than it influences it, due to globalisation and technological progress, amongst others. In a 2014 online article entitled "The Many Origins of the English Language", Durkin details the influence of numerous languages on English.

Regarding the influence of French on English, he states that:

The elephant in the room […], is how Latin and French dominate the picture in just about every period. Even the Anglo-Saxons borrowed from Latin (e.g. fork, street, wine), and ever since the Norman Conquest English has been borrowing hugely from French and Latin -quite often taking the same word partly from each of these languages, especially in the medieval period. Words like government, pay, science, or war (from French), or action, general, person, and use (French and/or Latin) have become an indispensable part of English. Even among the 1000 most frequently used words in modern English, not far short of 50 percent have come into the language from French or Latin.

French influenced the English language in various domains such as law (e.g., assize, heir), government (e.g., Parliament), business (e.g., rental, debt), cuisine (e.g., mustard, grape), dance (e.g., pas de deux), fashion (e.g., couturier, boutique), arts (e.g., canvas), etc. Durkin also gives a list of figures about the influence of languages on English, amongst which, three provide interesting information regarding our study. Firstly, concerning the "totals of loanwords from the 25 most prolific inputs in OED3", it can be observed that more than 6,000 words have a French origin, and almost 2,000 have a French and/or Latin origin. Secondly, according to the figure displaying "the most frequent donor languages in OED3", we note that, after Latin, French is the second "most frequent donor language". Thirdly, in the figure entitled "loanwords from French, Latin, and French and/or Latin as a proportion of all new words, as reflected by parts of OED3 so far completed", the highest proportion of French loanwords only borrowed by English (almost 40%) was during the 1300-1349 period. The other noteworthy element noticed in this figure is that, over time, the percentage of French loanwords adopted in English from 1750-1799 (approximately 9%) kept decreasing to present: 1800-1849 approximately 6%; 1850-1899 4%; 1900-1949 3%; and 1950 to present approximately 2%. Furthermore, according to Athabasca University32 , "approximately 45% of the English vocabulary comes from French words; over 50,000 English words have their origin in French". Regarding the influence of English on French, the Académie française states that:

Il est excessif de parler d'une invasion de la langue française par les mots anglais. Les emprunts à l'anglais sont un phénomène ancien. […] Cette extension des emprunts à l'anglais, qui a connu une accélération depuis une cinquantaine d'années, tient au fait que l'anglais est aussi la langue de la première puissance économique, politique et militaire, et l'instrument de communication de larges domaines spécialisés des sciences et des techniques, de l'économie et des finances, du sport, etc. À cela s'ajoute que l'on concède généralement à l'anglais une concision expressive et imagée qui, si elle peut nuire parfois à la précision […], s'accorde au rythme précipité de la vie moderne. La langue mondiale d'usage pratique, l'anglais (principalement l'anglo-américain) exerce une forte pression sur toutes les autres langues.

Finally, concerning the influence of English on French, the Académie française, provides some figures:

Un Dictionnaire des anglicismes de 1990 en enregistre moins de 3 000, dont près de la moitié sont d'ores et déjà vieillis. Les anglicismes d'usage, donc, représenteraient environ 2,5 % du vocabulaire courant qui comprend 60 000 mots. Un Dictionnaire des mots anglais du français de 1998, plus vaste, évalue les emprunts de l'anglais à 4 ou 5 % du lexique français courant. Si l'on considère les fréquences d'emploi de ces anglicismes, on constate que beaucoup appartiennent à des domaines spécialisés ou semi-spécialisés et sont donc assez peu fréquents dans la langue courante. Quant aux termes purement techniques d'origine anglaise en usage en France, leur pourcentage est du même ordre. Dans l'édition en cours du Dictionnaire de l'Académie française, sur un total actuel de 38 897 mots répertoriés, 686 sont d'origine anglaise (soit 1,76 %), dont 51 anglo-américains seulement. […] Sur l'ensemble des mots d'origine étrangère répertoriés dans le Dictionnaire de l'Académie, l'anglais ne représente donc que 25,18 % des importations, et est devancé par l'italien, qui vient en tête avec 27,42%.

To conclude, the French influence on English is not what it used to be since nowadays, English borrows fewer French words. Regarding French, less than 2% of the French lexicon originates from English, which means that English is in no way a threat to French. However, due to politics, business, economics, science, and new technologies, amongst others, English has a considerable influence on all languages, not only on French.

The English language

English has its origins in the invasion of three Germanic tribes in Britain in the 5 th century: the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes who crossed the North Sea from Denmark 33 and Northern Germany. Before their arrival, the inhabitants of Britain spoke Celt. Different from Gaelic, the language of the Irish Celts that spread to Scotland (Scots Gaelic), "the language of the Celtic peoples living in Britain prior to the Roman invasions […] survives today in Welsh and Breton" [Dawson 2004: 1]. The invaders repelled the speakers of this Celtic language -i.e. the Scots and the Picts -to North and West, that is to say, to what are today Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.

The Angles came from Englaland and spoke Englisc, which gave the words "England" and "English". The Saxons came from the North-Western areas of modern Germany, and the Jutes came from the Jutland Peninsula and the North Frisian coast.

The Angles settled in East Anglia, the Saxons in the areas of Essex, Sussex, Middlesex, and Wessex, and the Jutes in Kent.

These tribes spoke similar languages that became, in Britain, what is called Old English (450-1100 AD). 34 Even though nowadays, English speakers could not understand Old English, about half of the most commonly used lexemes in English are derived from Old English. 33 More precisely from what is called Denmark nowadays. 34 West-Saxon was actually the main dialect and it was then referred to as Old English but it was not unified.

In 1066, William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy, part of France, conquered

Britain. These new invaders, called the Normans, spoke French. When they invaded England, they imposed the French language that became the official language of the Royal Court, and of the ruling and business classes. At that period, England was linguistically divided as the upper class spoke French, and the lower class spoke English (Old English). Nonetheless, in the 14 th century English gained ground and was thus, once again, the dominant language of Britain, although many French words were borrowed.

This language was then called Middle English (1100-1500), the language of the famous poet Geoffrey Chaucer (1340-1400).

Modern English is divided into two periods: Early Modern English (1500-1800), the language of Shakespeare, and Late Modern English (1800-Present). The period of Early Modern English is characterised by a significant change in pronunciation called the Great Vowel Shift, between 1350 and 1700, when vowels started to be shortened. For the purpose of standardising English in the 15 th and 16 th centuries, the two highest long vowels became diphthongs, and the other five started to be pronounced higher up in the mouth. The Great Vowel Shift has had repercussions on spelling as well, engendered by these changes in pronunciation.

The invention of printing by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15 th century also favoured the standardisation of English, with a fixed orthography and grammar. The first English dictionary was then published in 1604.

The major distinction between Early Modern English and Late Modern English is vocabulary. Many more words entered the lexicon in Late Modern English due to the Industrial Revolution along with the development of technology that created a need for words, and the insertion of numerous words borrowed from foreign languages.

The English colonisation of North America, around 1600, gave birth to a variety of English: American English. Due to other conquests, various families of English appeared all around the world such as Canadian English, South African English, Indian English, Caribbean English, Australian English, and New Zealand English.

Now that a briefly description of the history of both French and English has been provided, the study of their grammatical system needs to be developed to deepen our knowledge of the gender system for both languages.

Grammar

The modifications that occurred regarding grammatical gender in French and English throughout history are important enough to be studied.

History of grammatical gender in French

The history of grammatical gender in French is quite an interesting notion to analyse. As Härmä, quoted in Unterbeck [2000: 609], explains:

Diachronically speaking, there is of course the question of the outcome of the Latin neuter gender, that is, what happens to Latin neuter nouns, since (Old) French only preserved the masculine and the feminine.

Nouns have also changed gender from Latin to French or from Old French to Modern French; masculine could become feminine, or the reverse. E.g. poudre 'powder' became feminine; Lat. pulvis 'dust' was masculine; amour 'love' used to be feminine, but is nowadays normally masculine (e.g., Brunot -Bruneau 1961: 195-198).

The last example given has to be developed since the French word « amour » is masculine in the singular, but feminine in the plural. Thus, « un amour » is masculine, but « nos premières amours » ("our first loves") is feminine. It is exactly the same for the word « délice » ("delight"), masculine in the singular, and feminine when used in the plural. To put it differently, some French nouns can have both genders and can thus be masculine and feminine.

Another peculiarity of the French language is the problem of feminine forms for some masculine nouns. Härmä [in Unterbeck 2004: 610] explains that:

A very hot topic since at least the 80s is the problem of the feminine forms of certain masculine nouns. Auteur 'author' is traditionally only masculine, with no feminine, though in Canada, the form une auteure is currently used. Also the form autrice has been suggested, not to speak of auteuse. The same problem arises with other professional nouns like docteur, écrivain or ministre, with different possible morphological solutions [Bierbach-Ellrich 1990: 254].

An interesting change to study when dealing with the history of gender in French is the fact that the French language used to resort to the neuter gender, just like Contemporary English still does. Härmä [in Unterbeck 2004: 610] states that:

From a diachronic point of view, the major changes in the French gender system took place with the birth of Romance languages from Latin.

[…] The formal changes include, as far as French is concerned, the practically total loss of the Latin declension and case system, and […] the loss of the neuter gender. The masculine and the feminine were preserved and shared between themselves the neuter nouns, whereas no changes worth mentioning took place as far as number is concerned. Gender and number are indeed closely connected in French and are often impossible to dissociate. However, it is clearly easier to break gender agreement and gender assignment rules than those concerned with number, and this is indeed what has been done throughout the history of French.

With the emergence of Romance languages from Latin, French lost "the Latin declension and case system", as well as the neuter gender. Neuter nouns were thus attributed the masculine grammatical gender or the feminine grammatical gender.

In addition to the syntactic, grammatical, morphological, and lexical influence of Latin on French, Dawson [2004: 3-4] deals with grammatical gender attribution in French, and the fact that Latin is the origin of it:

As far as gender is concerned, modern French masculine and feminine words generally derive their gender from Latin, although in certain cases gender has changed. Nouns in Latin, in common with Germanic and other ancient languages, had three genders, masculine, feminine and neuter. This gender is said to be "grammatical", because it is ascribed regardless of any notion of biological gender.

[…] Grammatical gender stems from the language of the Indo-European peoples, who considered certain inanimates such as earth, moon and fire to have dynamic force. Such inanimates were made masculine or feminine according to their cultural beliefs on natural gender qualities, while inanimates not considered to possess such dynamism were made neuter. Three genders existed for a time in Old French, but the smaller number of neuter words generally became assimilated into masculine or feminine framework. The usual tendency was for neuter words to become masculine (a trend that existed in French even before the development of Old French).

[…] Occasionally however words were taken from plural neuter words ending -a, which by analogy with existing feminine words ending -a became feminine. Thus the plural neuter word bràcchia meaning stroke became brasse which is feminine in modern French.

Regarding French as we know it nowadays, Meillet [1921], quoted by Violi [1987: 20] After having tried to find functional reasons for grammatical gender attribution, Violi [1987: 21] reconsiders the link between grammatical gender and natural gender:

L'hypothèse fonctionnaliste étant insuffisante, la question de la « base naturelle » est de nouveau considérée. La catégorie du genre est-elle sémantiquement motivée par l'expérience ou est-elle une forme linguistique arbitraire dénuée de signification ? Sur ce point encore, les linguistes sont généralement d'accord. « Comme première observation générale, il faut dire que reconnaître le genre comme une catégorie grammaticale est logiquement indépendant de toute association sémantique particulière qui pourrait être établie entre le genre d'un nom et les propriétés, physiques ou autres, des personnes ou des objets désignés par ce nom » (Lyons, 1968). [START_REF] Edwards | Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[END_REF] considers grammatical gender as the legacy of archaic concepts that escape modern speakers but that remain in language structure. Violi [1987: 21] [START_REF] Edwards | Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[END_REF].

Finally, she adds that although this possibility can be taken into consideration, it does not bring any linguistic explanation: [START_REF] Edwards | Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech[END_REF].

Although various specialists tried to find reasons for the attribution of grammatical gender, it is still nowadays impossible to logically explain the allocation of grammatical gender for French substantives. As a conclusion, consider the following quotation by Curzan [2009: 11-12]:

Despite their descriptive labels, noun classes in a grammatical gender system, unlike those in a semantic gender system, do not correspond to conceptual categories, no matter how creative the grammarian. In other words, there is no way (or at least no linguistically justifiable way) to explain why in French a table is feminine and a necklace masculine based on the features of the referents (e.g., the appearance of the table or the shape of the necklace).

The study of the history of grammatical gender in English will be the following subject matter, now that the analysis of the history of grammatical gender in French has been conducted.

History of grammatical gender in English

Dealing with the history of grammatical gender in English is unavoidable considering the topic of the research, and the important shift that occurred.

Protagoras, a Greek philosopher, was the first one to introduce the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders for Greek nouns. Curzan [2009: 11] explains:

In the fifth century BC, according to Aristotle's account, Protagoras first created the labels masculine, feminine and neuter for Greek nouns, and language scholars have been trying to explain the relationship of grammatical gender categories to the world around them ever since. Protagoras himself, apparently anxious that the grammatical gender of nouns and the sex of their referents did not always correspond in Greek, is said to have wanted to change the gender of Greek menis 'anger' and peleks 'helmet,' both of which are feminine nouns, to masculine because he felt the masculine was more appropriate given the words' referents (Robins 1971(Robins [1951]]: 15-16). Despite Aristotle's subsequent proposal of grammatical reasons for nominal gender classes, the original labels persisted in the descriptions of gender in classical grammars -and, therefore, in all the later Western grammars modeled on them -and these labels have created the pervasive misperception that grammatical gender categories in a language reflect a connection between male and female human beings and masculine and feminine inanimate objects. The terms deceptively imply a link between the categories in the natural gender system of Modern English -in which there is a clear correlation between masculine and feminine nouns and biological traits in the referent -and the categories in the grammatical gender systems of other Indo-European languages; in fact, these two types of systems are distinct. The shift of English from a grammatical to a natural gender system is highly unusual and involves a complex set of related grammatical transformations in the language.

Nowadays, in Modern English, nouns referring to males or females have a gendered pronoun, and inanimate objects are neuter. However, Old English used to have a grammatical gender like Modern French or Modern German still do, as Curzan [2009: 12-13] states:

The natural gender system of Modern English -in which only nouns referring to males and females generally take gendered pronouns and inanimate objects are neuter -stands as the exception, not the rule among the world's languages. In this way, the descriptive term natural for Modern English implies a pervasiveness that is, in this case, inappropriate: the English gender system is unusual in the family of Indo-Germanic languages, as well as among Indo-European languages more generally. Indeed, one does not have to turn back too many pages in the history of English to find a grammatical gender system: Old English (750-1100 or 1150 AD) had grammatical gender categories very similar to those of Modern German, its "sister" language. ("Sister" is a gendered reference that may have an etymological motivation, for although Old English sproec 'language' is a masculine noun, the Old French word langue, from which language is derived, is a feminine noun.) Old English had three grammatical genders -masculine, feminine, and neuter -and all inanimate nouns belonged to one of the three classes, sometimes for morphological reasons but often for no obvious reason.

Thus, it is interesting to note that, concerning Old English grammatical gender -i.e. masculine, feminine, and neuter -, in some cases, the attribution can be explained morphologically; however, grammatical gender attribution cannot be given obvious reasons in many cases. Therefore, as in French, English grammatical gender remains hard to explain.

Then she gives several examples:

For example, Englaland 'land of the Angles' is a neuter Old English noun (its root land is a neuter noun), but moegð 'tribe, race, country' is feminine, and cynedom 'kingdom' is masculine (the suffix -dom is masculine); synonyms often have different genders (ecg 'sword' is feminine, while sweord 'sword' is neuter), which underscores the fact that this gender system is not principally meaning-driven. (There also exists a subset of Old English nouns that appear with inflectional morphology associated with two or three different gender classes -e.g., the masculine-feminine noun soe 'sea.') By the time of "Chaucer's English" or most dialects of Middle English, however, the "early English" with which Modern English speakers are most familiar, the English grammatical system is all but gone.

As Curzan [2009: 12] points out, nowadays, native English speakers are not aware that English used to have a grammatical gender, and having to deal with it in other languages can be quite confusing for them:

The mysteries of how European languages such as German, French, Spanish, or Italian categorize nouns as masculine, feminine and neuter are at best a source of amusement and more often a source of bafflement and frustration for Modern English speakers, who are often unaware that their own language used to have these same kinds of noun categories. To English speakers, having been brought up in a linguistic universe where sexless objects are almost always it, it can seem arbitrary and absurd to talk about such objects with language normally reserved for male and female human beings and perhaps for animals. And the idea that grammatical gender is not supposed to "make sense," that it is semantically arbitrary, often makes even less sense. Grammatical gender categories serve to divide the nouns in a language into formal classes, which serve as the basis for agreement with other elements in the sentence (e.g., adjectives, pronouns, verbs). They seem as natural and functional to native speakers of these languages as any other grammatical feature.

The author refers to grammatical gender attribution in German, French, Spanish, and Italian as "mysteries", proof, once again, that it is an ill-defined concept. She also attracts attention to the fact that the notion of grammatical gender for sexless objects, as well as the fact that it is most of the time arbitrary, makes absolutely no sense for native English speakers, who refer to sexless objects with the pronoun "it", with some exceptions.

However, some scholars like Ross [1936: 321] deplore this gender shift as it still poses a problem in recent studies: "the loss of grammatical gender in later English is one of the most difficult problems of English philology". Indeed, this shift remains hard to explain due to a lack of information regarding its nature. It cannot clearly be explained why this shift occurred.

Therefore, what has been emphasised through the study of grammatical gender, in both French and English, is that it remains difficult to explain. Indeed, grammatical gender attribution for French substantives cannot be logically explained. Similarly, explaining how Old English grammatical gender attribution functioned in many cases remains complicated, just like explaining why it disappeared.

Synthesis

This part dealt with diachrony. It was divided into two sub-parts: history -i.e. the history of both French and English languages -and grammar, more precisely the study of both languages grammatical genders.

In the first sub-part, the history of French as well as the history of English were both chronologically developed, starting from the very beginning, with the various influences and invasions, to eventually come to the French and English spoken nowadays. The aim was, amongst others, to highlight their differences and similarities, for instance the fact that they come from two different branches -French from Romance languages, and English from the Germanic branch -but belong anyway to the same family of languages:

Indo-European.
Then, in the second sub-part relating to grammar, the history of both French and English grammatical genders was developed. The main piece of information is that grammatical gender, either for French or English, remains hard to explain. Indeed, French grammatical gender attribution cannot be given any satisfactory explanation.

Similarly, regarding English, Old English grammatical gender attribution cannot be logically explained, just like the fact that it disappeared.

Conclusion

This chapter was divided into three parts. The first part was divided into three sections, aiming to respectively provide definitions for "codeswitching", "borrowing", and "neologism", and to exemplify them. Definitions for "codeswitching", "Franglais", "codemixing", and "language alternation" were given. "Diglossia", "convergence" and "divergence", as well as the effects of codeswitching, and its possible consequences were developed. In the second section, the provided definitions concerned some lexicalised linguistic devices such as "borrowing", "loanword", "loanshift", "loan-blend", and "loantranslation", also known as "calque". "Gallicism", "Anglicism", and "false Anglicism" were then detailed and analysed as linguistic phenomena linked with borrowing. Finally, the last sub-part was devoted to neologism. It was examined as an element being at the beginning of the "codeswitching -successful codeswitching -borrowing" chain.

Neologisms were defined, exemplified; the study of their formation, lifetime, and adoption or rejection constituted the main objectives. The second part of this chapter was about grammar. Substantives were defined, their singular and plural forms were analysed and exemplified in order to determine which grammar rules prevail -i.

Chapter II -Distinguishing codeswitching from borrowing

Although the objective of this thesis is to bring the continuum between codeswitching and borrowing to light when dealing with grammatical gender attribution for substantives, in this chapter, the way codeswitching and borrowing are opposed will be studied through key linguistic notions. Even though they have a few common points, they do not require the same linguistic skills to be used. However, it will be demonstrated that, to a certain extent, a connection between the two can be made.

Thus, this chapter will be divided into four parts. Firstly, the key notions distinguishing "codeswitching" from "borrowing" will be provided and exemplified.

Linguistic creation and lexicalisation will be studied as elements characterising borrowing. Bilingualism, which is a requirement for codeswitching, will then be analysed. The question of choice, either word choice -i.e. English terms vs. French terms -, and language choice -i.e. English vs. French -will also be dealt with regarding both codeswitching and borrowing; the latter will be divided into three types, namely "compulsory borrowing", "optional borrowing", and "optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings". Finally, the way codeswitching and borrowing are perceived by ordinary people as well as by scholars and other specialists will be analysed. In the second part, the issue of the "usefulness" of codeswitching and borrowing will be studied through various reasons such as those linked with affect, those related to trend, and the lexical, social, and contextual reasons. The spoken language will be opposed to the written language via globalisation and progress; and the principle of the least-effort will be developed and exemplified. Thirdly, Étiemble's work entitled Parlez-vous franglais ? will be analysed by studying the structure of the book, the dysphemistic vocabulary the author uses, and what Franglais means to him. Finally, the aim of the fourth and last part of this chapter will be to highlight the codeswitching -borrowing continuum by detailing grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings, not forgetting to deal with special cases for the three categories.

Although codeswitching and borrowing will be distinguished from each other at the beginning of this chapter, it has to be kept in mind that the two main objectives of this thesis are to hypothesise grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French, and to demonstrate that a codeswitching -borrowing continuum does exist.

Key notions to differentiate codeswitching from borrowing

In the first part of this second chapter, the main notions differentiating codeswitching from borrowing will be studied. To do so, they will be classified and divided into four classes. Morphological adoption will be the starting point to distinguish these two notions. Secondly, the main condition for codeswitching -i.e. bilingualism -, and the major condition for labelling words "borrowings" -i.e. lexicalisation -will be analysed. Then, it will be demonstrated that (lexical) choice -i.e. equivalents in both languages -is a key factor when dealing with codeswitching and a category of borrowings. Finally, the way both codeswitching and borrowing are perceived will be detailed.

Linguistic creation (lexical word-formation process)

In this sub-part, codeswitching and borrowing will be used in the same example in order to highlight one of their major differences: morphological adoption. Hoffman [1991: 110-111] uses the example given by Grosjean [1982: 308] so that the difference between codeswitching and borrowing is clearer and well-understood in terms of linguistic creation:

« Ça m'étonnerait qu'on ait code-switched autant que ça. » vs.

« Ça m'étonnerait qu'on ait code-switché autant que ça. »

Both sentences have the same meaning but Hoffman [1991: 110-111] explains that "borrowing, for Grosjean, involves morphological adoption" whereas codeswitching does not. "This distinction expressed the underlying belief that code-switching is part of the bilingual's 'parole', while borrowing belongs to his 'langue'" [Hoffman 1991: 110-111]. According to her, codeswitching is therefore linked with speech and borrowing is linked with language. Thus, regarding the two examples, the first sentence is considered as codeswitching and the second sentence, as borrowing, although « codeswitcher » is not an actual French verb. Nevertheless, the distinction between codeswitching and borrowing is not always clear-cut, as shown in the above example, even if it illustrates the difference between the two notions. As I already mentioned, the verb « codeswitcher » does not exist in French. Consequently, it is not lexicalised and remains a codeswitched verb when used in French, even though the French ending -é has been added for the past participle to make the difference between borrowing and codeswitching, where the -ed English ending is used. Therefore, whatever the ending is, if it is a verb, as in the example sentence by Grosjean [1982: 308], it could be considered incorrect to exemplify these two phenomena with the same word since if a word is codeswitched -i.e. not lexicalised -it cannot be used in the same sentence to illustrate borrowing, which would imply that it is lexicalised.

Borrowing seems to be a more complex linguistic device than codeswitching.

Indeed, codeswitching is a random phenomenon, which seems to be less constraining than borrowing since any substantive, verb, adjective, or adverb can be codeswitched for a temporary use, contrary to words whose use has spread so much through speakers that they became lexicalised, and are thus labelled "borrowings". Therefore, codeswitching is unlimited and less restrictive than the use of borrowed words, which require to be used by a majority of speakers, the process taking obviously more or less time for a word to enter a language, to be implanted in it, and to spread, before being lexicalised. There are thus use and time constraints that do not exist with codeswitching.

Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to indicate that borrowing is a lexical word-formation process whereas codeswitching does not involve any process of lexical creation. Indeed,

as it has been explained in the previous example, codeswitching does not require any morphological adoption as the codeswitched word or phrase will be used as such in the utterance. For instance, the English verb "hang" would be used as follows in a French sentence: e.g., « Je hang pas vraiment avec mes parents » [Young 2002: 208]. In this example, the verb used is codeswitched. If it were a borrowed verb, a French verb ending as -er for verbs of the first group would have been added, for instance. Words borrowed from a foreign language are sometimes subjected to modifications once lexicalised in the target language. For instance, a hyphen has been added to the French substantive « milk-shake », borrowed from English "milkshake". Furthermore, as shown in the previous example by Grosjean [1982: 308] 119], respecting the form of the verb "piss off" for the past participle.

The following part will be dedicated to two other distinguishing features when dealing with codeswitching and borrowing: bilingualism and lexicalisation.

(Optional) requirements

When dealing with codeswitching and borrowing, some elements have to be defined and distinguished from each other. Indeed, defining these two linguistic phenomena means pointing out their similarities, and their differences as well. That is why in this part, the way codeswitching and borrowing are opposed will be analysed so that their respective definitions are clearer. This part is entitled "(optional) requirements" since, as it will be demonstrated, some of the requirements that will be studied, namely "bilingualism" and "lexicalisation", are needed for codeswitching but not for borrowing, and vice versa.

Bilingualism

From the Latin "two" and "tongue", this conversational skill can be defined as "the ability to use two languages effectively.

[…] The ability to use multiple languages is known as multilingualism" [Nordquist: undated]. In order to go further into detail regarding the definition of bilingualism, consider the following quotation by Auer [1984: 7] in which he gives his own view of bilingualism:

[...] bilingualism is no longer regarded as 'something inside the speakers' heads', i.e., a mental ability, but as a displayed feature of participants' everyday linguistic behaviour. You cannot be bilingual in your head, you have to use two or more languages 'on stage', in interaction, to show others that and how you can use them.

Therefore, as explained by Auer [1984: 7], bilingualism is "a displayed feature". Kleemann [2012: 57] summarises Auer's definition of bilingualism by asserting that "bilingual is, in Auer's understanding, not something you "are", but something you "do"".

As bilingualism is not "a mental ability", and is thus only useful when shown, the ability to master two languages can sometimes be demonstrated through codeswitching. Both bilingualism and multilingualism often generate codeswitching.

As Heredia and Brown [2005] mention in their definition, bilingualism is fundamental when dealing with codeswitching. It goes without saying that for people to be able to codeswitch, they have to be bilingual, whatever their age. Indeed, Hoffman [1991: 113] specifies that:

Code-switching has been observed to occur in the speech of children as well as adults, for instance by Cornejo (1973); Padilla and Leibman (1975); and Lindholm and Padilla (1978), who point out that it begins to happen after the bilingual has become aware of speaking different languages, i.e. it is not seen as part of early language mixing.

Thus, bilingualism has to be assimilated in order to be efficient, that is to say, to become codeswitching material.

However, borrowing does not involve bilingualism. Indeed, as a borrowed word is considered as a part of a language's lexicon, speakers do not need to be bilingual to use loanwords. Nonetheless, Campbell [1998: 62] affirms that:

Borrowing normally implies a certain degree of bilingualism for at least some people in both the language which borrows (sometimes called the recipient language) and the language which is borrowed from (often called the donor language).

I beg to differ with Campbell since, as previously mentioned, borrowings are fully integrated in a language's vocabulary. Bilingualism is therefore not a requirement to use borrowed words. For instance, French speakers do not need to be bilingual to use loanwords such as « kidnapping », « loser », or « speech ». Similarly, in his article entitled "The analysis of linguistic borrowing", Haugen [1950: 210] explains that:

As early as 1886, Hermann Paul pointed out that all borrowing by one language from another is predicated on some minimum of bilingual mastery of the two languages. For any large-scale borrowing a considerable group of bilinguals has to be assumed. The analysis of borrowing must therefore begin with the analysis of the behavior of bilingual speakers. A vast literature has come into being on the subject of borrowing, particularly in the historical studies of individual languages; but there is still room for discussion of the relationship between the observed behavior of bilingual speakers and the results of borrowing as detected by linguists.

Besides codeswitching, the only other linguistic phenomenon that requires bilingualism to be identified is the notion of "false Anglicisms". Indeed, in order to notice that the French word « parking » has not the same meaning in English -that is to say, that « parking » is a pseudo-Anglicism -a speaker has to be bilingual. This means that native French speakers who are not bilingual in English, do not know that « peeling » and « clip » are false Anglicisms.

In the following sub-part, degrees of bilingualism will be analysed in order to try to determine the extent of a bilingual's knowledge of the two languages he or she masters.

Degrees of bilingualism

A distinction between degrees of bilingualism and bilingual competences has to be made. The extent of the knowledge of two languages a bilingual has refers to the degree of bilingualism. A bilingual competence corresponds to what a bilingual speaker is able to do with a language that is not his or her mother tongue -e.g., only speaking, only writing, both of them, etc. 35 The notion of "bilingualism" seems quite simple as shown by Hamers & Blanc [2000: 6]:

According to Webster's dictionary (1961) bilingual is defined as 'having or using two languages especially as spoken with the fluency characteristic of a native speaker; a person using two languages especially habitually and with control like that of a native speaker' and bilingualism as 'the constant oral use of two languages'.

However, it becomes problematic when considering the definitions provided by different scholars who actually do not seem to agree on the bilingual speaker's competences. Hamers & Blanc [2000: 6-7] write:

In the popular view, being bilingual equals being able to speak two languages perfectly; this is also the approach of Bloomfield (1935: 56), who defines bilingualism as 'the native-like control of two languages'. In contradistinction to this definition which includes only 'perfect bilinguals ' Macnamara (1967a) proposes that a bilingual is anyone who possesses a minimal competence in only one of the four language skills, listening comprehension, speaking, reading and writing, in a language other than his mother tongue. Between these two extremes one encounters a whole array of definitions as, for example, the one proposed by Titone (1972), for whom bilingualism is the individual's capacity to speak a second language while following the concepts and structures of that language rather than paraphrasing his or her mother tongue.

Hamers and Blanc thus compare three different definitions given by Bloomfield, Macnamara, and Titone. These definitions seem to make the notion of bilingualism more complex. Indeed, they report that Bloomfield's definition only encompasses "perfect bilinguals" who speak two languages as if they were their mother tongues. In opposition to Bloomfied's definition, for Macnamara, someone is bilingual as long as he or she is able to only orally understand a language that is not his or her mother tongue, speak it, read it, or write it. Thus, as long as someone has minimal skills in only one of these four language skills, he can be considered bilingual, according to Macnamara. Finally, for Titone, anyone who is able to master the structure, which encompasses grammar, and some subtleties of a language that is different from their mother tongue, can be considered bilingual. In other words, according to Titone, a speaker is bilingual if he or she is able to produce correct utterances without "paraphrasing his or her mother tongue", that is to say by using the structure of a second language without calquing his or her first language.

Hamers & Blanc [2000: 7] detail what is controversial in the definitions provided by Bloomfield, Macnamara, and Titone:

All these definitions, which range from native-like competence in two languages to a minimal proficiency in a second language, raise a number of theoretical and methodological difficulties. On the one hand, they lack precision and operationalism: they do not specify what is meant by native-like competence, which varies considerably within a unilingual population, nor by minimal proficiency in a second language, nor by obeying the concepts and structures of that second language. Can we exclude from the definitions of bilingual someone who possesses a very high competence in a second language without necessarily being perceived as a native speaker on account of a foreign accent? Can a person who has followed one or two courses in a foreign language without being able to use it in communication situations, or again someone who has studied Latin for six years, legitimately be called bilingual? Unless we are dealing with two structurally different languages, how do we know whether or not a speaker is paraphrasing the structures of his mother tongue when speaking the other language? On the other hand, these definitions refer to a single dimension of bilinguality, namely the level of proficiency in both languages, thus ignoring non-linguistic dimensions. For example, Paradis (1986: xi), while suggesting that bilinguality should be defined on a multidimensional continuum, reduces the latter to linguistic structure and language skill. When definitions taking into account dimensions other than the linguistic ones have been proposed, they too have been more often than not limited to a single dimension. For example, Mohanty (1994a: 13) limits the definition of bilingualism to its social-communicative dimension, when he says that 'bilingual persons or communities are those with an ability to meet the communicative demands of the self and the society in their normal functioning in two or more languages in their interaction with the other speakers of any or all of these languages'.

In this quotation, Hamers and Blanc highlight the fact that the previous definitions are not accurate enough since they do not provide any explanations for the terms "nativelike control", "minimal competence", or "concepts and structures". They also wonder about the link between someone's bilingualism and their accent, and seem sceptical regarding Macnamara's definition of bilingualism in communicative situations, as well as Titone's definition when dealing with the fact of avoiding paraphrasing one's mother tongue. Hamers and Blanc also note that the given definitions solely take into consideration the level of proficiency in both languages, forgetting the non-linguistic dimensions bilingualism suggests. They finally demonstrate that other authors, such as Paradis and Mohanty, often limit their definitions to too few aspects of bilingualism. For instance, they quote Mohanty's definition, which is reduced "to a single dimension" -i.e.

the "social-communicative dimension".

Despite the problems that some scholars' definitions pose, trying to determine how bilingual speakers should be and what they should be able to do with the two languages they master to eventually codeswitch will be at the heart of this sub-part. Weinreich [1953: 31] provides a definition for bilingualism, specifying that two main factors are at stake:

In general terms, bilingualism exists when one speaker follows more than one language norm in his speech or writing alternately, depending on the circumstances of his utterance. A more precise definition involves at least two controversial factors: the proficiency with which the speaker follows the two norms, i.e. the relative degree of knowledge of each language, and the amount of difference between the two languages.

[…] To avoid a pseudo-problem it seems best, however, to start out with the view that bilingualism occurs in varying degrees, and in the course of study to develop ways of measuring the degree of a person's bilingualism.

Therefore, the two debatable factors Weinreich points out are proficiency, that is to say the extent of knowledge a bilingual has of each language he or she masters, and the similarities or dissimilarities between these two languages. In other words, even though it is impossible to determine a speaker's degree of bilingualism clearly, as it will be exemplified thanks to Crystal's quotation [2003: 123], the differences between two languages are more obvious. Indeed, it is, for instance, harder to become bilingual in English and Hebrew considering the two very distinct alphabets, than in English and

French sharing a common alphabet, some similar sounds, and some common roots.

Before Weinreich [1953: 31], who evokes the relative dimension of bilingualism in his quotation, Bloomfield [1933: 55-56] already revealed the non-absolute aspect of the knowledge of two languages by writing:

In the extreme case of foreign language learning, the speaker becomes so proficient as to be indistinguishable from the native speakers round him.

[…] In the cases where this perfect foreign-language learning is not accompanied by loss of the native language, it results in bilingualism, native-like control of two languages. After early childhood few people have enough muscular and nervous freedom or enough opportunity and leisure to reach perfection in a foreign language; yet bilingualism of this kind is commoner than one might suppose, both in cases like those of our immigrants and as a result of travel, foreign study, or similar association. Of course, one cannot define a degree of perfection at which a good foreign speaker becomes a bilingual: the distinction is relative.

Dealing with bilingualism led Mackey [1968: 554-584] to wonder about four different themes. Firstly, according to him, the question of degree has to be considered:

"How well does the individual know the language he uses? In other words, how bilingual is he?" There are no rules in bilingualism. It can be asserted that each and every bilingual does not have the same degree of bilingualism and does not share a common lexicon. In his article "How large is your lexicon?", Crystal [2003: 123] explains the following:

There seems to be no more agreement about the size of an English speaker's vocabulary than there is about the total number of lexemes in the language. Much depends on a person's hobbies and educational background. Someone who reads several novels a week is obviously going to pick up a rather larger vocabulary than someone whose daily reading is restricted to the telephone directory.

[…] Apart from anything else, there must always be two totals given when presenting the size of a person's vocabulary: one reflecting active vocabulary (lexemes actively used in speech or writing) and the other reflecting passive vocabulary (lexemes known but not used).

This quotation can apply to bilinguals as well. Indeed, determining the size of a bilingual's lexicon is impossible. So many things have to be taken into account -such as a bilingual's hobbies, educational and social backgrounds, job, habits, etc. -that managing to find a "norm", regarding the size of bilinguals' vocabulary, is extremely hard. Moreover, as all these factors vary from one person to the other, establishing a standard is unrealisable. The last part of Crystal's quote can apply to bilinguals as well, since there is a difference between "active vocabulary" and "passive vocabulary". In other words, estimating the size of a bilingual's lexicon should be done by distinguishing the "lexemes actively used in speech or writing" -i.e. "active vocabulary" -from those "known but not used" -i.e. "passive vocabulary".

The second theme Mackey [1968: 554-584] tackles is "function": what do bilingual use their second language for? This will probably remain an unanswered question because, just like it has been explained in the analysis of Crystal's quotation [2003: 123],

which I applied to bilinguals, the reasons explaining the use of bilinguals' second language vary too much from one person to the other to be able to find a "norm". As a consequence, the only thing that can be done is to draw a list of the potential and most obvious reasons making bilinguals use their second language. Thus, a bilingual may use their second language for their hobbies -e.g., any leisure activity, such as sports; at work -e.g., any job necessitating to use their second language to communicate with colleagues, clients, pupils, or students speaking the second language at stake, or any job involving the use of a jargon, whose vocabulary words are in the bilingual's second language; at home -e.g., a child, whose mother tongue would be French and second language English, and who would use his or her second language at home with one of his or her parents, whose mother tongue would be English; at school -e.g., pupils and students who are in international schools; with friends -e.g., bilingual friends mastering the same languages as the bilingual in question, and who would interact by using their second language when speaking together, or with monolingual friends, whose mother tongue would be the bilingual's second language; for daily life -e.g., when living abroad;

or finally, when travelling in a foreign country whose official language is the bilingual traveller' s second language. This is obviously a non-exhaustive list.

After having taken an interest in the reasons motivating the use of the second language, Mackey wonders about the fact of mixing the two languages bilinguals master -i.e. alternation of their mother tongue and their second language. Indeed, alternation also has an importance in bilingualism: to what extent do bilinguals alternate between their languages? This begs the question of frequency. In other words, how often do bilinguals switch languages? Answering this question is no easy task since switching from one language to the other is a spontaneous phenomenon. Therefore, determining how often bilinguals switch is impossible because each speaker's linguistic behaviour is different: some bilinguals never switch, others alternate languages parsimoniously, others control alternation and make good use of it, and some others switch to excess.

Secondly, how do they switch from "one language to the other, and under what conditions?" [Mackey 1968: 554-584]. The fact of wondering how bilinguals switch languages means to try to determine if they codeswitch and/or codemix, that is to say if they insert only one codeswitched word or group of codeswitched words into utterances, and/or if they alternate the two languages through whole sentences. It seems that bilinguals both codeswitch and codemix; however, assuring that bilinguals tend to codeswitch more than they codemix, or vice versa, is impossible, except if one conducts a survey regarding the switching habits of bilinguals. Furthermore, the last part of Mackey's quotation deals with conditions for switching, in other words, the required elements for switching to take place. The two main conditions that can be listed are informality and politeness. Firstly, when formality is required, switching is not de rigueur. This is due to the fact that switching, either codeswitching or codemixing, is said to be a quite informal linguistic phenomenon. Thus, for example, when somebody is writing a covering letter or doing an interview with a potential boss, switching has to be avoided. Secondly, politeness has to be taken into consideration so that switching takes place under satisfactory conditions. Indeed, in order not to offend monolingual speakers, and not to cut the conversation short, switching should only take place in a conversation between bilinguals. The "satisfactory conditions" I allude to can be exemplified by Grice's Maxims [1975]. With the intention of making the exchange possible, a bilingual should not codeswitch when conversing with a monolingual, otherwise the four Conversational Maxims Grice lists will not be respected. Indeed, Grice's Cooperative Principle, which refers to the norms expected in a conversation, encompasses the following Maxims: Maxims of Quantity, Maxims of Quality, Maxims of Relation, and Maxims of Manner. Maxims of Quantity imply to "be informative", not less or more informative than required; Maxims of Quality represent the fact of telling the truth and not saying something for which one lacks adequate evidence; Maxims of Relation suggest that the speaker is relevant; and Maxims of Manner encompass four submaxims that are "avoid obscurity", "avoid ambiguity", "be brief", and "be orderly". Thus, when a bilingual codeswitches while having a conversation with a monolingual who obviously cannot understand one of the two languages used, the exchange may be cut short and none of Grice's Maxims are respected. These maxims are therefore infringed since the speaker is not informative (Maxims of Quantity); the hearer is not able to determine whether the speaker tells the truth or not, for instance, (Maxims of Quality); the speaker is not being relevant at all (Maxims of Relation); and the speaker does not avoid obscurity or ambiguity, for example, (Maxims of Manner).

Finally, interference has to be taken into account as well. Weinreich [1953: 1] defines this phenomenon as follows:

Those instances of deviation from the norms of either language which occur in the speech of bilinguals as a result of their familiarity with more than one language, i.e. as a result of language contact, will be referred to as interference phenomena.

Interference represents therefore language contact, and more precisely, the fact that bilinguals use the languages they master by mixing them in their speech. /ʃeɪkə/ with the diphthong /eɪ/ and the schwa (BE vs. AE /ə r /) -, and not the way monolingual speakers generally pronounce it in French -i.e. /ʃɛkoeʀ/ with a /ɛ/ sound as in « bec » and the /oeʀ/ sound as in « coeur ». On a semantic level, an English word, in a language different from the main language of the utterance, can be more accurate than its French equivalent. For instance, the English term "food truck" seems semantically more accurate than its French equivalent « camion restaurant ». Indeed, when talking about a restaurant in French, one makes reference to a place where we can stay during the meal. However, depending on the food truck spot, one can either eat in or take away.

Finally, because the word does not exist in the main language of the utterance -i.e. to mix the two languages they master, as well as the degree to which they switch from their mother tongue to their second language, and vice versa, depending on which is the main language of the utterance. Moreover, he also wonders about how a language impacts on the other language. Given that each bilingual speaker has different motivations for switching languages or not, it remains hard to answer Mackey's questions. One could answer them if a survey on bilinguals' communicative habits were conducted in order to have statistical samples.

Regarding language competence, consider the following two degrees defined by Bloomfield and Haugen:

• Maximal proficiency: "native-like control of two languages" [Bloomfield 1933: 56] • Minimal proficiency: "when the speaker of one language can produce complete meaningful utterances in another language" [Haugen 1953: 7] The degree relating to maximal proficiency can be exemplified thanks to the following situation: a child who would have always been in contact with two languages from childhood, and who would speak these languages fluently because, for instance, one of his or her parents is a native English speaker, and the other parent is a native French speaker, would be considered a complete bilingual. Indeed, he or she would be equally competent in both French and English, and would therefore have a "native-like control of two languages". Regarding "minimal proficiency", the definition given by Haugen -i.e.

"when the speaker of one language can produce complete meaningful utterances in another language" -does not make mention of any skills for listening comprehension, writing, or reading. It only refers to one of the four language skills, namely, speaking.

Therefore, this degree could be exemplified by a speaker who would utter coherent sentences in terms of syntax, grammar, and vocabulary, in a language different from his or her mother tongue. Furthermore, in his definition, Haugen does not mention either if the minimal proficiency implies that the speaker has a native-like pronunciation or not.

Thus, this speaker could totally "produce complete meaningful utterances" in French, for instance, whereas he or she is a native English speaker, with a very bad French pronunciation, that is to say, without mastering the French sound system.

For Mackey [1968: 554-584], language competence is linked to the functions of the two languages:

The degree of proficiency in each language depends on its function, that is, on the uses to which the bilingual puts the language and the conditions under which he has used it.

Bilingualism can be divided into two categories: the first category is called "receptive bilingualism" and the second category "productive bilingualism". According

to Niemiec [2010: 20], they respectively refer to "a person who can understand a second language, but who is not able to speak it or write in it", as opposed to someone who "can speak as well as understand the languages". As a consequence, a productive bilingual will be more inclined to codeswitch than a receptive bilingual.

These differences of degrees in bilingualism and functions of the two languages can pose some problems. The main issue to be developed in the following sub-part, entitled "code-confusing", deals with semantics, and more precisely, false friends.

Code-confusing

Codeswitching appears to be a much-debated topic. On the one hand, it can be considered a real advantage whereas on the other hand, a large majority of people, whether they are specialised in linguistics or not, generally perceive codeswitching as proof of defective language skills. Even though the size of a bilingual's lexicon has already been tackled, codeswitching cannot only be restricted to a lack of vocabulary.

The fact that bilingual people do not share a common lexicon is not necessarily a synonym for lexical gaps. Moreover, trying to absolutely avoid codeswitching can engender a worse perception of the speaker's abilities.

Risks engendered by codeswitching could agree with the most sceptical ones. On a semantic level, false friends convey a more or less good mastery of the two languages, or at least, of one of them. As explained by Vinay and Darbelnet [1958: 71]:

Sont de faux amis du traducteur, ces mots qui se correspondent d'une langue à l'autre par l'étymologie et par la forme, mais qui ayant évolué au sein de deux langues et, partant, de deux civilisations différentes, ont pris des sens différents.

To illustrate the notion of false friends, consider the following examples:

o « Actuellement » vs. "actually"

û "I'm actually working" cannot be translated by « Je travaille actuellement ».

ü "I'm currently working".

o « Eventuellement » vs. "eventually"

û "I eventually decided to meet them" cannot be translated by « J'ai eventuellement décidé de les rencontrer ».

ü « J'ai finalement décidé de les rencontrer ».

o « Argument » vs. "argument"

û The French word does not refer to a quarrel.

ü « On a eu un argument » is correct since "argument" is codeswitched from English.

To sum up, mixing up the two languages can sometimes be a consequence of bilingualism. This is called "code-confusing". It represents the mixture of two languages in a same sentence or utterance but, contrary to codeswitching, "code-confusing" suggests that the speaker's speech does not make sense, is incoherent, or unidiomatic.

However, how could a speaker using false friends be considered bilingual? Indeed, bilingualism means to have a good command of two languages, in all the linguistic systems -i.e. morphology, syntax, phonology, semantics, and lexicon. Using false friends when mixing two languages is therefore proof of a lack of knowledge in terms of both semantics and vocabulary. The degree of bilingualism of a speaker using false friends cannot even be determined thanks to one of the two definitions by Bloomfield and

Haugen analysed previously when dealing with language competence: maximal proficiency: "native-like control of two languages" [START_REF] Bloomfield | Language[END_REF]: 56], and minimal proficiency: "when the speaker of one language can produce complete meaningful utterances in another language" [Haugen 1953: 7]. A speaker who would code-confuse would therefore be representative of none of these two categories, since he or she would not have a "native-like control of two languages", and not even the ability of producing "complete meaningful utterances" in a foreign language. As a consequence, here again the issue is rather on determining degrees of bilingualism when dealing with codeconfusing than on semantic mistakes engendered by a relative mastery of two languages.

The notions of "degrees of bilingualism" and "code-confusing" have thence been dealt with; in the last section to be developed regarding bilingualism, I will try to determine whether codeswitching can be considered a third language or not.

Codeswitching as a third language

The act of choosing one code rather than another must be distinguished from the act of mixing the two codes together to produce something which might be called itself a third code.

This quotation by Bentahila and Davies [1983], quoted by [START_REF] Redouane Rabia | Linguistic Constraints on Codeswitching and Codemixing of Bilingual Moroccan Arabic-French Speakers in Canada[END_REF]Redouane [ : 1921]], could remind us about the existence of a "third code", that is to say, a third language, when dealing with codeswitching from English to French, and conversely. This assumption leads us to wonder about bilingualism since, if codeswitching could be considered as a language on its own, it would mean that each and every English or French word could be subjected to codeswitching. In other words, speakers of this "third code" would be perfectly bilingual. However, is total and complete bilingualism possible? What does "complete bilingualism" actually mean and refer to? No one knows each and every word forming their mother tongue, and it is therefore the same regarding their second language. Thus, where is the limit? Is bilingualism about the number of words one knows or the way he or she uses them? If codeswitching is considered to be a language on its own, or "a third language", one could be tempted to simply deduce that there are no limits, and that every word could be codeswitched. Nevertheless, it is more complex than meets the eye, and this will be demonstrated later in this thesis. Moreover, as demonstrated in this part dealing with bilingualism, it is extremely hard to establish degrees in bilingualism, considering the fact that each bilingual uses his or her bilingualism differently, and has therefore different reasons motivating -or not -the use of codeswitching.

To sum up, thanks to codeswitching, bilinguals ended up creating a "new" language or at least, a third language, mixing two languages. This phenomenon thus begs the question of limits, either in degrees of bilingualism or in the frequency and diversity of codeswitched terms. However, codeswitching cannot be considered a real language, strictly speaking, for the simple and good reason that it is not a language working on its own, having its own morphology, grammar, syntax, phonology, and lexicon.

The second major (optional) feature to be studied is "lexicalisation", now that bilingualism, the first main (optional) feature, has been analysed and exemplified.

Lexicalisation

As already mentioned, contrary to bilingualism, which is the main condition for speakers to codeswitch, lexicalisation is essential when dealing with borrowing. Thus, in this part, the first section will aim to define and exemplify lexicalisation. Then, considering that one of the objectives of this thesis is to demonstrate a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing, it will be observed that the process of lexicalisation can change codeswitched words into borrowings.

Overview

In linguistics, when a newly-created word, or phrase, starts being gradually used by a majority of people in a given language, this term gains recognition, is adopted as a unique, independent, and autonomous lemma, having a proper meaning, and belonging to the language of the speakers. It is thus "lexicalised". "Lexicalisation" is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as "the treatment of a formerly freely composed, grammatically regular, and semantically transparent phrase or inflected form as a formally or semantically idiomatic expression". Lipka [1992: 1] French that will officially enter the French lexicon. Amongst these newly created words, « e-cigarette », « hashtag », « préquel.le », « comics », and « troll » can be found.

Furthermore, the verbs, as well as the substantive « bomber » (from English "bomber jacket"), can be found in the French dictionary Le Robert in the 2018 edition. They have been borrowed from English and are therefore lexicalised in French. Regarding « retweeter » and « liker », it should be noted that they have been added the French verb ending -er so that they may become verbs of the first group in French.

When dealing with language, and mostly with borrowing and codeswitching, the problem of lexicalisation is unavoidable. Is lexicalisation a means of putting limits to language -i.e. a means of regulating the influx of words by lexicalising some of them and not others -, or is the issue of lexicalisation due to the fact that there is no limit in language -i.e. any word can be lexicalised? There is a difference between newly emerging words that are not in dictionaries (yet), and words borrowed from English like « meeting » or « shopping ». These words have been in dictionaries for years and have been part of the French language since at least the 20 th century. Therefore, there is a difference between trends having an influence on language and its ever-evolving aspect, and English words -i.e. loanwords, loanshifts, loan-blends, or calques -that are part of the French language and culture, and that sometimes do not even have a French equivalent; in that case, lexicalisation is ineluctable. Thus, because each and every codeswitched word is not automatically lexicalised, that is to say, in dictionaries, codeswitching is sometimes considered to be a random phenomenon, as it seems easy and simple to codeswitch. Nonetheless, the Anglo-Saxon terms that became an integral part of the French lexicon are still badly perceived by some French conservatives who stick to the Académie Française, the Toubon Law,37 or the Ordinance of Villers-Cotterêts,38 all aiming to respect and ensure the supremacy of francophone terms over Anglicisms, as mentioned by Thiesse [2001: 70]:

La monarchie française, certes, avait imposé précocement le français dans les actes administratifs -par l'édit de Villers-Cotterêts -, puis soutenu la création littéraire et scientifique dans cette langue, et créé une Académie chargée de veiller à sa pureté et à sa gloire.

To sum up, lexicalisation is an important process that enables to differentiate codeswitching from borrowing since codeswitched words are not lexicalised, whereas borrowed terms can be labelled "borrowings" because they are lexicalised -i.e. they officially became part of the lexicon of a borrower language by entering dictionaries.

Moreover, it appears important to mention that lexicalisation could turn any codeswitched word into a borrowing, and this is what will be demonstrated in the following sub-part.

From codeswitching to successful codeswitching, to borrowing

Even though borrowing is a key element linked to codeswitching, a clear distinction has to be made between these two notions. There is indeed a major difference between English codeswitched words like "duck face", meaning « bouche en cul de poule », or "love story" meaning in French « histoire d'amour », and French words borrowed from English such as « chewing-gum » or « shopping ». These words have entered the French language a long time ago and have been used for years. They actually are in French dictionaries as there are no French translations or equivalents for them -in French, there is no substantive equivalent for the noun « shopping » -, or simply because equivalents do exist but are never used -e.g., « gomme à mâcher » instead of « chewinggum ».

This phenomenon called "lexicalisation," which has just been defined in the above section, is thus one of the main features of borrowing, and represents a major distinction in the differentiation between codeswitching and borrowing.

However, it is not an ineluctable consequence regarding codeswitching: a word can become a borrowed word, and therefore be lexicalised, if it is more and more frequently used by a majority of speakers. This can be called "successful codeswitching": a change of code -i.e. a change of language in a same utterance -that is so "successful" that is has been adopted in the target language. "Successful", in that case, does not only mean used by a majority of speakers but also, intrinsically, needed and useful -i.e. filling a lexical gap -as it starts being used by a majority of speakers. The cases in which codeswitched words become borrowings reveal the existence of an obvious continuum between codeswitching and borrowing. The substantive « outing » can serve as an example of this continuum. Indeed, the English noun "outing" was first considered a codeswitched term when it started being used in French as a neologism. 39 Then, its use spread and it started being used by a majority, entering thus the "successful codeswitching" category. Before the use of "outing", it was only possible to refer to such a revelation by using several words in French -e.g., « (Fait de) révéler l'homosexualité de quelqu'un contre son gré ».

Therefore, as it filled a lexical gap and started being used by a majority of French speakers, "outing" has been officially adopted in French -i.e. it has been lexicalised and entered the French dictionary Larousse, in which it is defined as « Révélation par un tiers de l'homosexualité d'une personne, sans l'accord préalable de celle-ci ».

The particularity of codeswitching is to be a random phenomenon, almost hazardous, as for the choice of the word in the source language, even though like borrowing, the most productive grammatical categories are substantives, adjectives, verbs and adverbs -prepositions, pronouns, determiners, or coordinating and subordinating conjunctions being not really productive when dealing with codeswitching or borrowing. This might be due to the fact that substantives, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs act like key words, that is to say, the key elements needed to compose an understandable and meaningful sentence. Indeed, substantives are one of the most important elements in a sentence since they give an indication on the number and gender, and are therefore essential regarding the agreement of determiners, adjectives (at least in French, as adjectives agree in number and gender, but not in English: e.g., « La chemise qu'il porte est très laide »), and verbs -e.g., "The friends you saw me with last week now live in New York". Moreover, when a substantive is the subject of the sentence, it represents what the whole sentence is about. Adjectives are also key elements because they qualify substantives -e.g., "I have a huge problem! Please help me!" -, noun phrases -e.g. "All alcoholic drinks are cheaper during happy hour" -, or verbal phrases -e.g., "Dancing is the most important for her". A sentence cannot be formed if there is no verb. Thus, verbs are essential -e.g., "It is so cold outside! I am going to have a hot chocolate". Finally, adverbs are also very important because they can change the meaning of verbs and adjectives -e.g., "He almost laughed", without "almost", the sentence means that "he" laughed -; and "This exercise is too easy for them", meaning that it is more than easy, they should do a harder exercise.

Finally, adverbs can be adverbial phrases of time and place, amongst others -e.g., "I was travelling to the USA two months ago" and "You shouldn't go by the sea on your own".

Substantives, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs are lexical words, whereas prepositions, pronouns, determiners, and coordinating conjunctions as well as subordinating conjunctions are grammatical words. Lexical terms convey more meaning than grammatical terms and can therefore be more easily integrated in a sentence since they do not change its meaning. However, as already mentioned, this thesis will mostly focus on substantives codeswitched and borrowed from English in order to study the gender they take once used in French.

As a result, the process of lexicalisation differentiates codeswitching from borrowing, but, at the same time, it also creates a link between them if one considers that any codeswitched term, whose use would spread amongst a majority of speakers, would finally become a borrowing -i.e. it would thus be lexicalised since its use would have spread enough for this word to be officially adopted in a target language.

Another important feature distinguishing codeswitching from borrowing is the question of choice. This notion will be studied from two angles: language choice and lexical choice.

The question of choice

The issue of choice will be at the heart of this sub-part. Choice actually constitutes a major distinguishing feature concerning codeswitching. However, things are more complex when dealing with borrowing, and this is what will be analysed below.

Codeswitching

As already reported, the basic definition of codeswitching only suggests a change of code -i.e. a shift in language. Yet, it would be too restrictive to simply deal with a shift from one language to another as it could possibly lead to mistake codeswitching with borrowing. Thus, in order to fine-tune the definition, a closer look at language choice, being an essential element when dealing with codeswitching, is inevitable. As mentioned by Hoffman [1991: 175], studying languages in general means dealing with the question of choice:

One way of looking at language use in society is to see it in terms of making choices.

Human communication entails selecting from the linguistic and stylistic items available, i.e. favouring some and rejecting others.

Thus, although this quotation applies to speakers in general, and not necessarily to bilinguals, it seems clear that if monolingual speakers make choices when communicating -i.e. favour some items over some others -, bilingual speakers also do but on a different level. The only difference between these two categories of speakers is that bilinguals, unlike monolinguals, have the choice between many more items since they can use two languages. Both linguistically and lexically speaking, bilingualism offers therefore a larger choice to speakers who can favour some elements of one language to the detriment of some components of the other language they master. To sum up, codeswitching implies that the speaker has the choice between two languages. Indeed, he or she can either decide to utter a sentence by using only one code or to switch codes by inserting some words coming from a language that is not the main language of the utterance. According to Hoffman [1991: 175], this "choice can be made consciously or unconsciously". For a word to be codeswitched, it has to exist in the two different languages at stake -vs. neologisms. Thus, contrary to some English borrowings that have no equivalent in French -i.e. compulsory borrowings -, codeswitching insinuates that the codeswitched word has its equivalent in the main language of the utterance. For example, in the following sentence extracted from the French TV show Sept à huit The question of choice also has to be studied in discourse. When a bilingual interacts with a monolingual, the choice seems to be obvious: the bilingual speaker has to use the only language he or she has in common with his or her monolingual interlocutor, otherwise the communication will be extremely limited, if not impossible. Anyhow, when a French-English bilingual exchanges with another French-English bilingual, [START_REF] Buda Janusz | Language choice[END_REF] explains in his article that:

A decision has to be made about which of these languages is to be used.

[…] Anyone who can speak two or more languages well enough to communicate his or her thoughts and emotions is free (if circumstances allow) to exercise choice.

To illustrate the notion of language choice, consider the diagram entitled "Appendix #1, language choice" [Hoffman 1991: 88].

If we assume that language A is French and Language B is English, a bilingual will have the choice between two languages (A and/or B), depending on whether he or she is talking to a monolingual or a bilingual. It seems logical that the speaker will choose language A if he or she is communicating with a monolingual in language A, and language B if the hearer is monolingual in language B. The opposite would lead the two different monolinguals in language A and language B to incomprehension and 40 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNSe32-HbbY communication would not be possible. In other words, the speaker has no choice: the only conscious decision that has to be made does not take place during the conversation but before it starts. Additionally, the fact of consciously or unconsciously inserting codeswitched words in a sentence, knowing perfectly well that the interlocutor will not be able to understand them, would be perceived as rude. Nevertheless, when two bilinguals talk to each other, they tend to codeswitch. It is not necessarily bound to happen, but it is generally the case. This is partly due to the fact that codeswitching is a spontaneous phenomenon. Thus, when having a conversation with another bilingual, a

French -English bilingual will punctuate his or her speech with English words, if the main language of the exchange is French for instance, because he or she knows that the interlocutor will be able to understand. His or her speech will therefore be more spontaneous and freer, compared to a conversation with a monolingual, where the bilingual speaker would have to be careful not to insert foreign words the interlocutor would not be able to understand, which would cut the conversation short.

Thus, bilinguals have two options: they can either use language A or language B, or a mixture of both, called "codeswitching", or even "codemixing" when two different syntaxes can be identified. The following quotation by Bloomfield [1933: 476] illustrates the concept of language choice: "every speaker is constantly adapting his speech-habits to those of his interlocutors". This quotation echoes the notion of "convergence" analysed in Chapter I.

As noticed, language choice is thus subjected to two categories of factors that Buda

[1991] calls "preferences and constraints". Preferences could be likened to the fact of choosing French over English for instance, the purpose being to reach a sort of linguistic congruity between a bilingual and a monolingual. The "constraints" factor could represent the choice between two languages, and the repercussions a wrong choice could have on the interlocutor(s) and a conversation. For instance, if a bilingual codeswitches while conversing with a monolingual, there will obviously be a misunderstanding since the monolingual will not be able to understand the foreign words inserted into the sentences. As a result, the conversation will be cut short.

To conclude, the notion of choice has to be understood in two different ways when dealing with codeswitching. Indeed, choice means that the codeswitched word necessarily has an equivalent in the target language so the speaker always has the choice -i.e. lexical choice. Secondly, choice is a synonym for language choice when studying interactions -i.e. depending on who bilinguals are having a conversation with, they will have the choice of codeswitching the two languages they master when conversing with other bilinguals, but they will have to use only one language when talking to a monolingual. This kind of choice represents therefore language choice, or code choice.

The issue of word choice for borrowing will now be analysed on three different levels.

Borrowing

Borrowings are divided into two distinct categories: those having no equivalent in the target language, and those having one or more equivalents. Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 45, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] explains:

Some lexical borrowings are due to L1 attrition (Ben-Raphael, 2004;Dorian, 1981Dorian, , 1989;;Schmid, 2002Schmid, , 2004)). They may also increase the array of linguistic choices at the speaker's disposal, where they are not due to a lack of appropriate terms in L1. It is in this perspective that [START_REF] Haugen Einer | The Norwegian Language in America: A Study in Bilingual Behaviour[END_REF] contends that borrowings can be classified as those which fulfil a lexical gap and those which are gratuitous and carry specific semantic features.

Thus, the author divides borrowings into two distinct categories: words borrowed because they fill a lexical gap -i.e. compulsory borrowings -, and words borrowed because they "carry specific semantic features" although an equivalent in the borrower language already exists -i.e. optional borrowings. Nevertheless, as it will be demonstrated in this sub-part, some borrowings can be classified in an in-between section. As a consequence, the issue of choice will be discussed by classifying borrowings into three different categories -i.e. compulsory borrowing, optional borrowing, and optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings.

Compulsory borrowing

Compulsory borrowing, also called "grammatical borrowing", refers to borrowings that are used to fill a lexical gap -i.e. those having no equivalent in the target language.

They therefore imply that the speaker has no other choice but to use a borrowed word to express what he or she wants to say. For instance, in French, there are no equivalents for the following short list of English borrowings:

o Whether the abbreviation "DJ" or the full word "disk jockey" is used, French does not offer any equivalent to refer to someone who plays music in nightclubs. o « play-boy » Regarding this word, the only difference from English to French is that there is no hyphen in the English version: "playboy".

o « sex-shop » ("sex shop", in English) English grammatical borrowings do not leave any choice to French speakers: they have to use borrowings as there is no other French term for these words. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy to mention that the term « casting », listed in "compulsory borrowings", could be confusing since its French equivalent is « audition », in some contexts.

Therefore, as compulsory borrowings are supposed to be the only choices for the speaker to name, for instance, some things or concepts, it seems incorrect to categorise « casting » in this section. However, in some cases, « casting » is more appropriate than « audition », and vice versa. Indeed, French speakers would more spontaneously use « casting » when referring to people hoping to be chosen for a film or a TV talent show (cf. Corpus #2). On the contrary, in French, « audition » seems to be more appropriate when referring to theatre actors or to candidates for a university position. As a result, using « casting » in the example sentence « On aura l'occasion d'en reparler de ce casting » [Corpus #2] appears to be the only speaker's choice, hence the fact that it is listed in the "compulsory borrowing" category. Moreover, when two terms have the same meaning, each of them has to specialise in order not to disappear.

Regarding MAT and PAT denote the two basic ways in which elements can be borrowed from one language into another. We speak of MAT-borrowing when morphological material and its phonological shape from one language is replicated in another language. PAT describes the case where only the patterns of the other language are replicated, i.e. the organisation, distribution and mapping of grammatical or semantic meaning, while the form itself is not borrowed.

Thus, in accordance with Sakel's definition of MAT and PAT, the false Anglicism « pressing », just like « planning », can be identified as MAT since the suffix -ing is borrowed from English to create French words -i.e. false Anglicisms in both cases.

Therefore, "morphological material and its phonological shape" are borrowed from English to French. Regarding the pattern (PAT), the French substantive « souris » can serve as an example. Indeed, when referring to the computer mouse, and not to the rodent, the meaning of this word is borrowed from English, while the form is not. The notions of "matter" and "pattern" are displayed in this sub-part because they mark a transition from the example « pressing » to the type of borrowings, although MAT and PAT refer to any type of borrowings -either compulsory borrowings or optional borrowings -as shown in the instances.

Let us have a look at the way word choice works for optional borrowings.

Optional borrowing

Zgusta [1971: 537] gives the following definition to explain what optional borrowing is: "We call "lexical equivalent" a lexical unit of the target language which has the same lexical meaning as the respective lexical unit of the source language". As an An important element has to be taken into account when dealing with English borrowings that have an equivalent in French: frequency. Indeed, even if a word exists in both languages, it appears difficult to determine whether the term originating from English is preferred over its French equivalent. For instance, ascertaining that the words « break » or « dealer » are more frequently -and thus more spontaneously -used than the respective French equivalents « pause » and « trafiquant » is no easy task. The speaker's choice to use a term rather than the other is probably, amongst others, a question of context and formality vs. informality. Nonetheless, it seems clear that the terms « entreprise/affaire », and especially « garden-party », are definitely preferred over « business » and « réception en plein air ». Firstly, the more frequent use of the term « garden-party » in French, compared to the use of « réception en plein air », can be explained by the fact that it is shorter to use the borrowed compound instead of its French equivalent composed of four words. Both the phrase and the compound mean the same, but, as the latter enables the speaker to use half as many words, the preference for « garden-party » seems logical. This phenomenon is called the "language economy principle", or the "least-effort principle". Secondly, it seems that the substantive « business », when used in French, can have a negative connotation that the equivalent terms « entreprise » and « affaire » do not have. For instance, the sentence « Il a démarré son business » can mean « Il a lancé son affaire/entreprise », but it can also suggest that the person in question sells things illegally -i.e. he traffics drugs, for example. Therefore, as « business » in French can be negatively connoted in some cases, this substantive might be less frequently used than its French equivalents « entreprise » or « affaire », which seem devoid of any negative or positive connotation.

Nevertheless, when the speaker has the choice between the English loanword and the French equivalent, it remains hard, in some cases, to determine for sure which term will be favoured.

After compulsory borrowings and optional borrowings, in the following sub-part, another category of borrowings will be analysed. Indeed, we will try to determine how word choice works for optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings.

Optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings

Following on from the different examples of optional borrowings in the previous sub-part, I found it important to mention that the notion of frequency could be problematic as it cannot be clearly determined whether the English term will be favoured over the French equivalent, or vice versa. the English terms. Finally, the fact that the term « jingle » is preferred over « sonal » can be linked with the fact that in French, many English words are used to refer to the jargon terms related to the media, as will be demonstrated in Chapter III (especially through the analysis of Corpus #2).

To sum up, the notion of choice needs to be understood on two levels: language choice and lexical choice. When dealing with codeswitching and optional borrowing, the speaker has the choice between French and English. However, regarding compulsory borrowing, since the terms belonging to this category have no equivalent in the borrower language, there is no linguistic or lexical choice for the speaker. Finally, the question of choice was particularly interesting when dealing with optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings because the words belonging to this category offer both a linguistic and lexical choice to speakers who, generally speaking, favour English terms over French terms.

The last distinguishing feature to be developed is perception -i.e. the perception monolinguals and bilinguals have of codeswitching, whether they are specialists or not, and the way ordinary people and specialists perceive borrowing.

Perception

Perception is at the heart of this section divided into two main categories: the (popular) perception of codeswitching, and the (popular) perception of borrowing. The term "popular" is put in brackets, in both cases, because the perceptions of codeswitching and borrowing will be examined from ordinary people's viewpoint, as well as from the point of view of scholars and specialists of linguistics. Coarseness will also be studied. The way codeswitching is perceived by ordinary people as well as specialists will be developed, and a distinction will be made between the perception from a monolingual viewpoint and from a bilingual viewpoint. The same analysis will be carried out for borrowing. The different opinions that will be expounded for both codeswitching and borrowing will concern ordinary people, as well as scholars such as linguists, amongst others.

The (popular) perception of codeswitching

As previously mentioned, bilingualism is a key notion when studying codeswitching.

It seemed thus logical to take an interest in the monolinguals' view as well as in the bilinguals' view. Both bilinguals and monolinguals have their own viewpoints. As will be shown, it will be quite surprising to learn that their opinions are rather similar. The analysis will start with monolinguals' point of view, regarding codeswitching; secondly, the perception of codeswitching and codeswitchers will be detailed from a bilingual viewpoint, to finish with the impoliteness codeswitching can engender.

Monolinguals

Codeswitching is "not only associated by monolinguals with lack of competence, it is also ascribed to ill-will of bilinguals" [Niemiec 2010: 29]. Monolinguals take a dim view of codeswitching because they tend to believe that codeswitchers are "less concerned with the correctness and purity of language" [Niemiec 2010: 29] than other speakers.

Moreover, they may think that bilinguals codeswitch in order to boast. Indeed, monolinguals may see bilinguals as people boasting about their linguistic skills, when hearing them mixing the two languages they master by codeswitching. Furthermore, for monolinguals, codeswitching is the "evidence that bilinguals are not capable of acquiring two languages properly or keeping them apart" [Hoffman 1991: 109]. In other words, monolinguals perceive the fact of codeswitching as an inability to acquire two languages correctly since bilinguals are unable to keep them apart. In addition, bilinguals were almost perceived as abnormal people because of the immoral and asocial aspect of codeswitching, and the lack of intelligence monolinguals thought it conveyed:

They hold that such infringements on the rhetorical norm, as they conceive it to be, are due either to laziness, a moral defect, or to ignorance, an intellectual defect, or to snobbery, a social defect.

In the above quotation, Haugen [1977: 94] thus lists three different "defects" leading bilinguals to codeswitch. The first is the "moral defect": due to laziness people do not try to keep the two languages they master apart, and therefore switch between them. The second defect listed is the "intellectual defect", assimilated to ignorance. Monolinguals may think that bilinguals switch from one language to the other because they are not completely bilingual, and therefore have no other choice but to codeswitch. The term "ignorance", when linked with codeswitching, can be exemplified by a situation in which, for instance, a French-English bilingual would utter the following sentence:

« […] la confortable tree house […] », extracted from Corpus #1 [NZ3].
The main language of the utterance is French, and the codeswitched term inserted is English. The fact that the speaker uses the English substantive "tree house", instead of going on with the main language of the sentence, is rather due to spontaneity, and the fact that, at that moment, "tree house" came more spontaneously than « maison dans les arbres », than proof of the bilingual's ignorance to know the common term « maison dans les arbres ». Finally, snobbery, as well as the show off aspect suggested above, are referred to as "social defects". This suggests that the bilingual speaker who codeswitches is socially unfit. He or she could be considered rude because codeswitching is not appropriate for all social and communicative interactions. It would be the case if bilingual speakers were codeswitching whereas monolinguals were part of the conversation. However, if speakers codeswitch during a conversation, in which only bilinguals are interacting, codeswitching cannot be assimilated to a "social defect". On the contrary, it is assimilated to in-groupness, and the notion of in-group identity, which refers to the fact of belonging to a same group due to common characteristics.

These clichés clearly are the result of incomprehension, which causes a rift between monolinguals and bilinguals. When entering bilingual communities, monolinguals may feel threatened, ill-at-ease, perhaps stupid because they cannot understand everything, and the best defence is simply to attack bilinguals, to reappraise their capacities, and to see codeswitching as a want, and even as a sign of linguistic decay. Moreover, as explained by Haugen [1977: 94], the perception monolinguals have of codeswitching and codeswitchers can be summed up by classifying the presumed defects into three categories: "moral defect", "intellectual defect", and "social defect". These are the results of laziness in keeping the two languages mastered apart; ignorance and a limited vocabulary, and finally snobbery or showing off.

In the following sub-part, the perception of codeswitching from a bilingual viewpoint will be detailed.

Bilinguals

Bilinguals differ amongst themselves regarding their own attitudes towards codeswitching, and the other bilinguals' attitude as well. Some codeswitch quite freely,

without necessarily thinking about it; others, as Hoffman [1991: 113] explains, "consider that to code-switch is a linguistic impurity or a sign of laziness and therefore try to avoid it or correct themselves when they realize that they have code-switched". Needless to say that they are not tolerant with their bilingual interlocutors' codeswitching either.

They "condemn it and generally indicate disapproval of mixing languages" [Holmes 2001: 45]. Moreover, "very often, they have suffered from the biased attitudes of monolinguals and estimated their own speech behavior as inferior to that of monolinguals, simply because it was different" [Niemiec 2010: 5].

It is reported that many bilinguals used to see codeswitching as a negative phenomenon as well. The following quotation by Grosjean [1982: 148], citing a French-English bilingual, will serve as an example:

This whole process of codeswitching is done mostly out of laziness, for if I searched long enough for the correct word, I would eventually find it… I try to avoid code-switching… One would quickly end up speaking a language of its own. This negative attitude to codeswitching leads bilinguals to apologise when they do it unconsciously, or to avoid it when they can possibly be criticised for doing so. For instance, when talking with teachers, superiors, or anyone with whom rigorous norms regarding language use have to be respected, some bilinguals avoid codeswitching. As a consequence, people might be tempted to think that this linguistic device should be avoided because of the informality it suggests.

Fortunately, society progressively evolved and henceforth, most people see bilingualism as an asset or, at least, not as a disadvantage. Monolinguals' point of view has changed but most of them still consider codeswitching as a linguistic phenomenon to avoid, contrary to bilinguals who seem to be much less embarrassed about their speech behaviour. Bilingualism is well and truly an advantage, as Niemiec [2010: 5] demonstrates:

Linguistic competence as understood by monolinguals lacked two aspects essential to bilingual competence, i.e. language separation and language integration. The fundamental misconceptions about these two aspects have become the ground on which the general attitudes to code-switching were based.

Following on from the perception monolinguals and bilinguals have of codeswitching, it appears necessary to devote a sub-part to the notion of "impoliteness" regarding codeswitching.

Impoliteness

Culpeper [2011: 254] defines impoliteness as follows:

Impoliteness is a negative attitude towards specific behaviours occurring in specific contexts. It is sustained by expectations, desires and/or beliefs about social organisation, including, in particular, how one person's or a group's identities are mediated by others in interaction. Situated behaviours are viewed negativelyconsidered "impolite"-when they conflict with how one expects them to be, how one wants them to be and/or how one thinks they ought to be. Such behaviours always have or are presumed to have emotional consequences for at least one participant, that is, they cause or are presumed to cause offence.

Codeswitching is generally seen as a rude paradigmatic phenomenon. Firstly, in some contexts, formality is actually de rigueur (see above). By way of example, we will have a closer look at the word « message », when referring to an email. « Message » appears to be formal and appropriate as opposed to the codeswitched equivalent terms « mailer » or « emailer », or to the Anglicisms "mail" and "email" considered familiar or even rude, in some situations. One cannot use these terms when emailing an employer for instance. In other words, when formality is required in an email, the French words « message » should be used -e.g., « Je réponds à votre message… » -, the Toubon law proscribing the use of the term « courriel ». Therefore, using English terms instead of « message » could be badly perceived, and even show disrespect because they are often perceived informal. Secondly, it would be considered rude not to switch when conversing with other bilinguals who do -either to avoid codeswitching, or to correct oneself when doing so -because it would suggest that codeswitching is a negative phenomenon, something that has to be avoided. Thirdly, it would be impolite to switch while monolinguals are part of a conversation. For instance, if bilinguals codeswitch whereas some interlocutors are monolinguals, the conversation will be cut short.

Excluding monolingual speakers from the conversation would obviously be impolite.

These three situations could be theorised thanks to the following quotation by Culpeper [2005: 38] in which he explains how impoliteness is triggered: "(1) the speaker communicates face-attack intentionally, or (2) the hearer perceives and/or constructs behaviour as intentionally face-attacking, or a combination of (1) and ( 2)".

When Culpeper alludes to "face-attack", it reminds us of Brown and Levinson's Face

Threatening Acts [1987: 311], who use a notion of "face" that "is derived from that of Goffman (1967) […] and from the English folk term, which ties face up with notions of being embarrassed or humiliated, or 'loosing face'. Thus face is something that is emotionally invested, and that can be lost, maintained, or enhanced, and must be constantly attended to in interaction". In order to explain what FTAs are, consider the following quotation in which Brown and Levinson make the following assumptions:

[…] all competent adult members of a society have (and know each other to have): 1 'Face', the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself, consisting in two related aspects: (a)

negative face: the basic claim to territories, personal preserves, rights to non-distraction -i.e., to freedom of action and freedom from imposition (b) positive face: the positive consistent self-image or 'personality' (crucially including the desire that this self-image be appreciated and approved of) claimed by interactants. 2

Certain rational capacities, in particular consistent modes of reasoning from ends to the means that will achieve those ends.

Thus, thanks to the previous examples, it has been shown that codeswitching can be perceived as rude and can represent "face-attack" when formality is required, when it is avoided whereas one's interlocutors codeswitch, or when participants of a conversation are excluded because they cannot understand the language inserted -i.e. monolinguals.

To conclude, in terms of perception, borrowing seems to worry and bother scholars much more than codeswitching because they see it as a threat to French, the main reason being lexicalisation. Indeed, for a word to be considered borrowing and not codeswitching, it has to officially enter the lexicon, that is to say, to be lexicalised.

According to many of them, this phenomenon appears too often and could endanger French. Conversely, codeswitching seems to disturb and embarrass some of those who codeswitch, as well as a great majority of monolinguals, much more than borrowing, to the extent that it can be seen as impolite.

In the following sub-part, the (popular) perception of borrowing will be analysed.

The (popular) perception of borrowing

English borrowings melt into the French vocabulary so easily and have been present

for several decades to such an extent that ordinary people do not really seem to care about them. Bogaards [2008: 183] asserts that:

[…] Une grande partie de la population ne se soucie pas outre mesure des questions de langue. On peut encore invoquer le témoignage d 'A. Sauvageot (1964 : 225) qui s'exclame : « En dehors de quelques lettrés qui font plus ou moins figure d'obsédés, personne ne semble s'intéresser à ce phénomène », à savoir l'anglomanie. […] Toujours est-il que, vu le nombre de rubriques consacrées à la langue qui paraissent dans les journaux et le grand nombre d'organismes de défense du français, un nombre appréciable de Français s'intéressent au sujet. Et c'est cette partie de la nation qui justifie le raisonnement suivi par Martinet. Pour cette partie qui, selon le mot de Martinet (1974 : 25), a « toujours accepté sans regimber […] la dictature de beaux esprits qui, sans avoir reçu de mandat sinon de quelque directeur de journal, tranchent sans appel sur ce qui doit se dire et surtout s'écrire en français ». Bogaards [2008: 179-180] gives the results of two surveys to demonstrate that ordinary people do not seem to perceive the adoption of English words in French as a menace, and do not seem to worry about this phenomenon either. Concerning the first survey, Bogaards [2008: 179-180] reports the following: D'abord il convient de mentionner quelques résultats du sondage effectué par la SOFRES en 1994 […]. Qu'il suffise ici de rappeler que : 38% des 1000 personnes interrogées sur ce qui menace le plus la langue mettent en avant le mauvais niveau de l'enseignement du français à l'école, 35% pensent que c'est surtout le manque de vigilance des Français, contre 21% qui l'attribuent à l'influence de la culture américaine, 17% à la langue utilisée par les médias et 12% à la mondialisation de l'économie. Interrogées sur la confiance qu'elles avaient dans les organismes qui pourraient intervenir, 59% des personnes mentionnent l'école, 29% les Français eux-mêmes, 28% l'Académie française, 15% les médias, 10% le gouvernement et 3% les entreprises françaises. De plus, 52% ne rejettent pas l'apport de mots étrangers, 41% jugent cet apport moderne, 30% utile, 19% amusant, tandis que 16% seulement considèrent l'emploi de ces mots comme snob, 14% comme gênant, 6% comme abêtissant et 3% comme choquant (cf. Chansou 2003 : 160-161). En d'autres termes, une majorité des électeurs sont plutôt partisans de l'évolution de la langue et ne voient pas les pouvoirs publics comme l'instance qui doit intervenir dans ce domaine.

Thus, these results explain why people are not so much bothered by English borrowings by demonstrating, thanks to the first part of the findings, that the influence of the American culture is not the most threatening factor endangering the French language according to them. Furthermore, in the third part of the opinion poll, figures demonstrate that amongst a hundred people, more than half of them (52%) are in favour of the integration of foreign words in French. By contrast, by and large, only a few of them do not look on it with a favourable eye (39% in total: « 16% seulement considèrent l'emploi de ces mots comme snob, 14% comme gênant, 6% comme abêtissant et 3% comme choquant (cf. Chansou 2003 : 160-161) » [Bogaards 2008: 179-180]).

In the second survey, results clearly show the moderate attitude of French people towards English, compared to the evident opinions of French authorities, or specialists, for instance.

Dans une enquête sur l'attitude des Français à l'égard de l'anglais, J. Flaitz (1988 : 191) a également discerné un écart notable entre l'état d'esprit des Français « moyens » tenant des positions plutôt modérées, et les points de vue bien fermes que ce chercheur avait glanés dans les discours officiels, dans les écrits universitaires et dans la presse, surtout en ce qui concerne l'attitude à l'égard de l'idéologie américaine. Cet auteur attire aussi l'attention sur un paradoxe : plus on se trouve en haut de l'échelle sociale, par ses études et par sa profession, plus on a des opinions libérales à l'égard de la langue et de l'idéologie anglo-saxonnes ; mais c'est l'élite politique, qui appartient en général aux classes supérieures, qui a défendu des points de vue conservateurs représentatifs des idées tenues par les sujets appartenant à des catégories socioprofessionnelles moins élevées. En fin de compte, J. Flaitz (1988 : 197) a découvert une opposition assez marquée entre le point de vue des autorités françaises et le sentiment des Français eux-mêmes. Ceux-ci ne craignaient pas l'influence de la culture américaine sur la culture française, ni ne croyaient que la maîtrise de l'anglais amène nécessairement à l'adoption de valeurs américaines.

Although there is a clear difference between the viewpoint of ordinary people, and specialists' point of view, the divergence of opinion becomes even more apparent in the battle given by scholars. Contrary to the great majority of people that may not necessarily care about an extreme purity of their language, specialists such as linguists, sociolinguists, or grammarians have a keen interest in languages, which may lead some of them to care about the purity of their language.

Some of them perceive the influence of English on the French vocabulary as necessary, unavoidable, and beneficial, as shown by Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 66, in

Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008]:

As for us, we see rather the penetration of English in French as innovativeness and dynamism, indicating that French speakers today live at the same time in a global world and in their own culture. Bogaards [2008: 11] also perceives borrowing as an enrichment of the lexicon:

On peut ajouter que si les emprunts sont intégrés dans la langue, définitivement ou pour un certain temps seulement, ils sont considérés, en règle générale, comme des enrichissements du vocabulaire. Pourtant, entend-on dire, trop c'est trop, et le nombre de termes empruntés à l'anglais ou à l'américain depuis la seconde moitié du XX e siècle prend des proportions inadmissibles. Le « franglais » doit être combattu.

As mentioned by Bogaards [2008: 11] alluding to the viewpoint of some people in the previous quotation, other scholars are so attached to the purity of French that they fear the integration of English terms in the French lexicon, and regard it as a real threat. Yet, purists are still fighting against the Franglais phenomenon, lamenting that people use English terms such as hard, challenge or gay for dur, défi or homosexuel, and also complaining that borrowings continue to invade the domains of music, sport, communication, press and advertisements (Cholewka, 2000;Yaguello, 2000). They try to save endangered words and time and time again come back with new arguments, hoping to safeguard French against the 'English danger' (Laroche- Claire, 2004;Pivot, 2004).

As for Voirol [1990: 7], the influence of English on French, and vice versa, cannot be denied; however, he does not really see the point of using English terms over French terms, especially if it engenders inaccurate meanings. According to him, the Anglicisation of the French vocabulary should be limited. Even though Voirol remains rather measured in this quotation, the term "Anglomania" is somewhat pejorative as it seems to be a synonym for bad habit. Besides, the word Anglomania is not appropriate: this term suggests a certain excess, craze, or obsession regarding the incorporation of English words in French at any cost.

As a rule, specialists who are not in favour of English borrowings in French are often For Etiemble and many others after him, the influence of English on French was and remains an existential threat to French. […] French, he proclaimed, was disintegrating under the influence of English, and both its vocabulary and grammar were heading for catastrophe and anarchism.

The way Étiemble perceives the integration of English words in French will be detailed in another section of this chapter.

As a consequence, throughout history, several institutions and laws saw the day in order to provide against the influx of linguistic units of English origin. Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 63, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] names them and gives their aim:

Institutions -the Académie Française, the Délégation Générale à la Langue Française and the Commissions Ministérielles de Terminologie -[…] are in charge of what they view as the 'desirable' development of French. Laws, such as 'la loi Toubon' and others were suggested in order to limit the English penetration of French. Such decisions are in fact of little effect. English borrowings remain numerous and have undoubtedly become a part of the French language. Anglicisation is today more vivid than ever. The linguists' and committed activists' campaign of the 1960s against the influence of English has drastically declined even though a certain anxiety subsists.

Other institutions aspire to Frenchify and neologise borrowings, as well as to suggest official equivalents. In his article, Renner [2013] explains:

[…] La défense de la langue française se matérialise au niveau institutionnel par la création d'organismes ayant pour mission de réfléchir à une politique de francisation des emprunts et de néologisation, ainsi que d'émettre des recommandations officielles. En France, le Ministère de la culture et de la communication a mis en place une Commission générale de terminologie et de néologie qui diffuse des recommandations officielles réunies dans une base de données librement accessible en ligne, sur le site FranceTerme.

Ces recommandations ne peuvent pas être imposées par la force et ont souvent du mal à se faire adopter, ce qui conduit les diverses autorités linguistiques à faire preuve de pragmatisme et de réalisme. L'OQLF 42 a récemment révisé les consignes officielles détaillant les conditions d'acceptation des emprunts et prend en compte les critères suivants : -l'ancienneté d'usage ; -le degré de généralisation de l'usage ; -la difficulté à traduire en français le contenu sémantique de l'emprunt ; -le degré d'implantation dans l'usage de l'équivalent français proposé. Est ainsi officiellement licite au Québec l'emploi d'emprunts tels que lockout ou web, alors que de l'autre côté de l'Atlantique, le PR 43 , qui est un bon thermomètre gallofrançais du degré d'acceptation des emprunts à l'anglais, signale toujours ces deux substantifs comme des anglicismes.

To sum up, specialists take a dim view of borrowing for two main reasons: the first reason is that they tend to think that English words will be preferred over French words when equivalents exist. Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 65, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] refutes this argument thanks to the findings of her study. 42 L'Office québécois de la langue française. 43 Le Petit Robert.

[…] Data definitely show that borrowings do not prevent the speakers from sticking to French as their 'matrix language' (Myers-Scotton, 1993), in the written and oral discourse with respect to all areas and subjects considered in our research.

Thus, it would be false to assert that, for instance, the borrowed word « speech » is preferred over its French equivalent « discours ». In the following example « son speech/discours a duré au moins trente minutes », nothing proves that the English term will be favoured over the French term. Actually, word choice seems to depend on the context. Indeed, in that case, using « speech » in French to talk about an address that lasted at least thirty minutes is, first of all, informal compared to using the substantive « discours », and « speech » would therefore not be used in a formal context or conversation. Secondly, it appears to be negatively connoted. Indeed, using « speech » in such context gives the impression that the address was boring. On the contrary, using the term « discours » seems neuter: it does not give any indication about the dullness or the interest of the speech. The second reason that wrongly worries scholars is the potential imperilment of French grammar when it comes to English borrowings. Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 65, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] proves this hypothesis false in the following quotation:

[…] The second fact is that, in our data, despite the important lexical penetration of English, grammar remains essentially French. This relates to the assessment by many scholars that grammar generally constitutes the heart of the language and is relatively resistant to linguistic influences (Hagège, 1987(Hagège, , 2000)). Grammatical changes are slow (Leeman-Bouix, 1994;[START_REF] Walter Henriette | Le français dans tous les sens[END_REF], and it is only when grammar is affected in its hard core that we can speak of the beginning of a genuine language shift (Hagège, 2000). It has been shown, moreover, that secondary grammatical changes -like in Québécois (Chantefort, 1976;Martineau, 1985), Acadian and Ontario French (King, 1989;Mougeon & Beniak, 1989, 1991) or Franbreu (Ben-Rafael, 2002, 2004a) -are not enough to cause the transformation or attrition of a living language. As far as English borrowings are concerned, our data confirm that they are integrated in the French of France according to French grammatical rules. The same implies to neologisms also drawn from English and mostly built à la française. We then may conclude that French is not in danger as long as French grammar is not endangered, and agree with Yaguello (2000) when she says: Franglais… one should not make a big fuss about it because what is important for the resistance of a language, is its grammatical structure, and its own syntax and morphology; as long as French conjugates English verbs 'à la française' like; se crasher, surfer, cocooner, sponsoriser… everything is ok. Therefore, borrowings do not seem to cause a problem to Yaguello [2000] as long as French grammar remains the same. Far from perceiving any threat in borrowing, Bogaards states in his book On ne parle pas franglais : la langue française face à l'anglais [2008: 13]:

Comme le suggère déjà le titre de cet ouvrage, je ne crois pas qu'il y ait vraiment péril en la demeure. Le français en tant que langue vivante se porte bien et n'est pas réellement menacé par le franglais, qui reste, tout compte fait, un phénomène assez marginal.

According to him, this linguistic phenomenon does not occur often enough to be a threat. Bogaards [2008: 18-19] also explains that borrowing is actually a means of keeping languages alive:

Ce système de maraudage linguistique connaît tout de même des côtés tout à fait avantageux. C'est que la langue à laquelle on emprunte ne s'appauvrit nullement ; ses richesses sont telles qu'elle n'a aucun mal à laisser en profiter tous ceux qui le veulent (cf. Haugen 1950 : 211). En plus, toutes les langues puisent dans les fonds propres des autres langues et participent ainsi à cet échange qui semble faire partie des traits caractéristiques d'un parler vivant. On peut même penser qu'une langue qui cesse d'adopter des éléments étrangers risque plus de s'éteindre que celle qui profite de ses contacts avec des locuteurs d'autres langues. This is confirmed in the following quotation by Hagège [1987: 113] who states that the imperilment of French by English borrowings is only a pretext conjured up by specialists: « Ainsi, la condamnation des emprunts américains, loin d'être fondée sur la réalité d'une menace, n'est que l'expression détournée d'un anti-américanisme nourri par la nostalgie du prestige d'autrefois ». As for March [1991], quoted by Ball [1997: 206], what threatens French does not reside in the assimilation of English terms. He draws attention to other problems such as stylistic, grammar, and spelling mistakes. Thus, to conclude, consider the following quotation: « Notre langue est de plus en plus

Synthesis

The aim of the first part of Chapter II was to study and exemplify the main notions that have enabled us to distinguish between codeswitching and borrowing, while keeping in mind that one of the objectives of this thesis is to demonstrate that a codeswitching -borrowing continuum does exist.

To do so, the fact that borrowing implies morphological adoption, whereas codeswitching does not, was developed. Secondly, it was demonstrated that bilingualism is a fundamental prerequisite to be able to codeswitch, lexicalisation characterising borrowing. When dealing with bilingualism, establishing degrees of bilingualism was far from being easy. Determining if codeswitching could be considered as a third code -i.e. a third language -has been discussed. Regarding lexicalisation, an indispensible condition for labelling "borrowings" the words that officially became part of a language by entering dictionaries, it was deduced that any codeswitched word could become a borrowing, as long as it reaches the intermediate step called "successful codeswitching". This process suggests therefore a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing.

Then, the question of linguistic and lexical choice was developed for codeswitching, compulsory borrowing, optional borrowing, and optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings, compulsory borrowing being the only category that does not leave any choice to speakers in terms of code or lexicon. Finally, generally speaking, it appeared that codeswitching and codeswitchers are badly perceived by monolinguals. Bilinguals' opinion was divided into two categories: some bilinguals codeswitch quite freely, as they do not see anything bad in this linguistic phenomenon, but some others try to avoid it because of the informality it suggests. Rudeness also had to be taken into consideration since it is considered impolite to switch when formality is required, or not to switch when conversing with other bilinguals who do, or even to switch while monolinguals are participants of the conversation because they will be excluded from it.

Regarding borrowing, what emerges from the study of perception is that ordinary people do not take a dim view of the official adoption of English words in French. On the contrary, some scholars and specialists see it as a threat to French, although, as stated by the Académie française, less than 2% of the French vocabulary is of English origin, which does not make English a threat to French. 44The second part of this chapter, divided into three sections, will revolve around usefulness in order to analyse the reasons motivating the use of both codeswitching and borrowing, the influence of English on French through globalisation and progress, and the principle of the least effort.

Usefulness

In this part, the analysis will aim to go through the various purposes pertaining to codeswitching and/or borrowing. As a result, this section will be divided into three subparts to demonstrate the utility of both of them. In the first sub-part, reasons motivating the use of codeswitching and/or borrowing will be developed. Then, in the second subpart, spoken language will be opposed to written language. Finally, language economy principle will be analysed in relation to codeswitching and borrowing.

Motivation

Reasons for codeswitching and borrowing are manifold. Explaining why bilinguals codeswitch and why languages borrow words from foreign languages by presenting as many causes and purposes as possible and by providing examples will be the main objectives of this part.

The various reasons will be divided into four main categories. They can be personal -i.e. linked to linguistic habits or assimilated to spontaneity -, situational -i.e. referring to the extralinguistic environment -, or contextual -i.e. referring to both the linguistic and the extralinguistic environments. Needless to say that this is a non-exhaustive list.

Firstly, reasons for codeswitching will be analysed in relation to affect, borrowing being not linked to affect, as defined further down in the analysis, since it has nothing to do with reflex or spontaneity. Then, trend, and finally other reasons that cannot be classified into one of the first two classes, will be detailed for codeswitching and, when possible, for borrowing. Subsequently, reasons only pertaining to borrowing will be given. Lastly, considering the topic of the research, reasons for grammatical gender assignation, and the use speakers make of it, will be studied in the fifth sub-part.

Reasons linked with affect

One of the reasons motivating the use of codeswitching is related to affect, characterised by words involving someone's sensibility. Codeswitching can be a way of reinforcing the degree of emotion felt and an attempt at reproducing this degree, thanks to words. Codeswitching is thus connoted when used that way. An explanation of what "connoted" means needs to be given. "Connoted" or "connotative words" represent verbs, substantives, or adjectives that can have an added, connotative meaning in discourse in addition to their basic, denotative meaning in language. For instance, let us consider the following examples in French: « La pièce s'illumina quand elle entra » and « Je l'ai écouté déblatérer durant deux heures. Je n'en pouvais plus ! ». The verb « illuminer », used in the first example sentence, is a connoted verb. When referring to someone, the verb suggests that the person is radiant, and that everybody notices it. This verb is therefore positively connoted, whereas « déblatérer », used in the second example sentence, is negatively connoted. Indeed, this verb means to talk with virulence about something or someone. Moreover, the pejorative connotation of this verb is reinforced by the second sentence of the example, in which the irritation of the speaker is apparent: « Je n'en pouvais plus ! », meaning "I was fed up!". In the sentence « C'est une particularité de son caractère à prendre en compte », « particularité » is a connoted substantive since, depending on the context of the sentence, it can either refer to a quality or a flaw. Finally, the French adjective « éblouissant » is connoted. Depending on the context, this adjective can either have a laudatory meaning or a pejorative meaning.

As a result, when saying « Elle n'aime pas conduire de nuit car les phares des voitures sont éblouissants », the adjective « éblouissant » is negatively connoted, whereas in the example sentence « Après des jours de pluie, nous avons enfin un soleil éblouissant », it is positively connoted. Indeed, in the first sentence, the adjective means "blinding", while in the second sentence, it means "magnificent", or "splendid". Consequently, when dealing with connoted or connotative words, subjectivity is obvious. In opposition to connoted vocabulary, there is neuter vocabulary. Neuter vocabulary represents words whose meaning does not have any laudatory or pejorative connotation. For instance, the verb « nager », the substantive « sable », and the adjective « carré » are deprived of any positive or negative connotation. They are therefore neuter. As codeswitched words can be connoted in certain contexts, some bilinguals will tend to switch because they believe that the codeswitched word is more expressive. This is the case when swearing in English, when the speaker's mother tongue is French, for instance. Thus, saying "fuck" or "shit", in some contexts, gives the impression of emphasising the emotion felt by the speaker, for example. However, this is not a general truth considering what Nancy Hudson [France Inter: 2006], whose mother tongue is English, explains (quoted in Dewaele [2010: 189]):

If I really need to express a strong emotion, like anxiety, if a bad driver almost runs me over in the street or if I drop a hammer on my foot, I swear in English.

Codeswitching is also connoted when bilinguals codeswitch because they simply do not want people around -i.e. monolinguals -to understand. This can be exemplified by Corpus #3 related to the codeswitched vocabulary used by the rapper Booba. As it will be detailed in the study of this corpus, the codeswitched vocabulary he uses is targeted, and therefore used for an informed public. The rapper addresses only those who will be able to understand, that is to say young people mastering slang terms with English origin that are used in French -e.g., « Pour être un thug y'a pas d'appli ». « Thug » is not only codeswitched but it is also a buzzword in French, which means that it is "a word or phrase, often sounding authoritative or technical, that is a vogue term in a particular profession, field of study, popular culture, etc.", according to Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary.

The following short list encompasses the major reasons for codeswitching that I link with affect.

o Reflex action: switching from one language to the other is not always a conscious strategy. Speakers can codeswitch only because it is an automatism, which means, without thinking about it, and sometimes, without even noticing they have just done it. This is for instance the case in Corpus #2, since speakers -i.e. the host and his columnists -codeswitch when using jargon terms related to media language: e.g., « On dirait un after school »; « […] c'est la faiblesse du cast »; or « Mettez un liner tout de suite ! » when the host is speaking on air to the people working in the control room, which is proof of a reflex action for the speaker who addresses his colleagues knowing the meaning of this jargon term, contrary to the audience.

o Spontaneity: closely related to reflex actions, they actually are both the mix of mechanical automation and unthinking behaviour. Spontaneity could be defined as the result of an unpremeditated inner impulse. In some cases, codeswitching can almost be considered as instinctive. Swearing can exemplify the idea of an unpredictable inner impulse. Either in a dialogue or in a monologue, in certain situations, swearing is something unconscious, even instinctive. It can give the impression of reinforcing a feeling, an emotion, an opinion, or a thought. The fact of codeswitching when pronouncing curse words is a means of emphasising. For instance, consider the following excerpt from Nancy Hudson's radio interview [France Inter: 2006] quoted in Dewaele [2010: 189], in which she is asked which language she prefers when swearing: Sometimes, the word a speaker is looking for does not come straightaway. Bilingualism has the advantage of allowing the speaker to codeswitch instead of looking for the missing word, hesitating, or rephrasing a sentence. Codeswitching is thus an instantaneous alternative that guarantees the fluency and the efficiency of the conversation. For instance, let us consider the neologism "manspreading", translated in French by « étalement masculin ». It might be easier and faster for a French speaker to use the term "manspreading" because it is quite often heard since it is new, compared to its French equivalent « étalement masculin » [Le Monde: 2017]. Moreover, in terms of syllables, it is shorter, and thus faster, to use "manspreading" (three syllables) than the French equivalent « étalement masculin » (seven syllables). This is called the "language economy principle", which will be developed in the last sub-part of this section. o Habit: for example, after having spent some time abroad, some foreign terms come more spontaneously. This might be due to the fact some activities have been experienced in a language different from the speaker's mother tongue, who therefore refers to them by using the foreign language he or she masters. For instance, in Corpus #1, it will be demonstrated that although we cannot determine how bilingual the French bloggers are, they have experienced different things in Australia or New Zealand, and thus refer to them in English -e.g.

, « […] les panneaux de renseignements du campground étaient très confus […] » [NZ3]; « […] le fruitpicking (sic) (cueillette de fruits) est une bonne option » [NZ5]; « […] avec les tours de la city à droite » [Aus6].

Now that four of the main reasons linked with affect leading speakers to codeswitch, namely reflex actions, spontaneity, ease and rapidity, as well as habits, have been developed and exemplified, the reasons linked with trend will be detailed and provided examples in the next sub-part.

Reasons linked with trend

Fashion, well-known for its ever-changing aspect, has a strong influence on both borrowing and codeswitching.

o Prestige: most of the time, inserting some French words into a conversation in English -i.e. Gallicisms -conveys the notion of prestige. This is the case for French words such as « voilà » and « déjà vu », or the French adverbial phrase « au contraire », all adopted in English. Similarly, in English, the French word « plage » is used to define a fashionable seaside resort. On the contrary, most of the pseudo-Anglicisms such as « parking », or borrowings like « week-end », do not convey any fashionable connotation.

Nonetheless, some English neologisms used in French carry the notion of prestige -e.g., "fake news" or "infotainment". It sounds prestigious to know the meaning of such English words and to insert them into French utterances. Moreover, it also suggests a certain trendiness. Indeed, since these words are neologisms, they are somewhat new, so any speaker using them can sound fashionable.

o Fashion: to sound cool, to be "one of the gang" [Crystal 2003: 182-183]. This can be exemplified by the English verb "chill" used in French, to which the French -er verbal ending has been added. Thus, in French, one could say: e.g., « L'été sera rétro et vintage, préparez-vous à chiller » [Konbini: 2016].

Furthermore, in some cases, just as in the example above, some borrowings or codeswitched words can be compared to vogue words due to the fashionable aspect they convey. Also called "voguisms", vogue words are defined as follows by Nordquist [2016], quoting Wilson [1993], in his article: "perfectly good Standard English words that suddenly become modish, so that for a time we hear them being used everywhere, by everyone, until we are utterly sick of them".

o To boast: a few bilinguals switch to prove their ability to speak two languages, to mix them, and thus to formulate an utterance that makes sense. They aim to impress others, especially monolinguals. Owing to the necessity of being bilingual to codeswitch, showing off applies much more to codeswitching than to borrowing. The notion of show off and prestige is exemplified in Corpus #3. Moreover, inkhorn terms, referring to any affected, showy, or excessively pretentious foreign loan, are proof that borrowing can also be a means of showing off.

After the analysis of the notions of prestige, fashion, and show off, which are linked with trend and lead speakers to codeswitch and/or to use borrowings, other reasons will be studied in the following sub-part. They are social, lexical, or contextual.

Other reasons

The third category encompasses other various reasons for codeswitching and/or borrowing that could not fit in the two previous sections. The first two reasons are linked with social interactions, the third reason is lexical, and the others are contextdependent.

o In-groupness: "A speaker may similarly switch to another language as a signal of group membership and shared ethnicity with an addressee" [Holmes 2001: 35]. This can be exemplified by a situation in which bilinguals, who are having a conversation, will codeswitch. The notion of in-groupness was already developed in Chapter I, and in Chapter III, other instances will be provided.

o Secrecy (vs. in-groupness): to exclude someone from a discussion or to dissuade him or her to take part in it. For example, bilinguals codeswitch for secrecy when there are children around who are not supposed to understand the topic of the conversation.

o No equivalent: there are no equivalents in English for the words « pain au chocolat » or « croissant », just like there are no equivalents in French for words like "muffin" or "milkshake". These are thus compulsory borrowings. They have not been translated as they respectively are French and American products, part of the French culture or the American culture. However, as already explained, one of the main characteristics of codeswitching is to give the choice to the bilingual speaker between the two languages he or she masters. This means that, for instance, English codeswitched words inserted into French utterances necessarily have an equivalent in the target language. As a result, the codeswitched term "phone", in the example sentence o To change the tone of the conversation: hence a phatic function. This is called "metaphorical switching" [Gumperz & Hernández-Chavez, 1975]. For instance, "think of the stand-up comedian who tells the whole joke in a standard variety, but brings the punch line in a vernacular type of speech, e.g., an urban dialect" [Appel & Muysken 2005: 119].

o To quote someone: both codeswitching and borrowing, depending on what has been said. For example, in "I went to wash it and the woman said: Il fait moins vingttrois là, tu peux pas le laver…" [Konidaris 2004: 26] the language used by the speaker is English and the quotation he or she inserts is in French. In this situation, the speaker mixes the two languages in order to quote the words of the person he or she is talking about, and therefore uses the exact same words and language. Conversely, in the following example, the dominant language is French and an English expression is inserted in order to quote Trump's team: « Inversement, l'équipe de M. Trump aurait demandé, la veille de l'entretien, qu'il soit "off the record", c'est-à-dire « confidentiel » [Le Monde: 2016].

o Euphemism: the use of some foreign words can be a euphemistic technique.

Generally speaking, a euphemism is a substitute word or phrase used when talking about a sensitive subject such as death, sex, religion, politics, etc. Euphemisms are commonly used to attenuate a harsh reality. For example, when speaking French, codeswitching by calling somebody -a friend for instance -a bitch, is a way of attenuating the vulgar and dysphemistic aspect conveyed in the French equivalent « salope ». In that case, "bitch" becomes a euphemistic dysphemism.

To illustrate the notion of euphemism, consider the following quotation by Burridge [2012: 66]:

Very broadly, euphemisms are sweet-sounding, or at least inoffensive, alternatives for expressions that speakers or writers prefer not to use in executing a particular communicative intention on a given occasion. Within this all-embracing job description, we can identify at least six different (though frequently overlapping) tasks that euphemisms perform. As will become clear, these have a bearing both on the types of euphemism used (the linguistic strategies drawn on to create expressions) and on their career span (their semantic stability and durability). Euphemisms fulfilling the first two functions maintain a low profile; it is all about obscuring and disguising disagreeable reality.

o Emphasis: contrary to the euphemistic technique, codeswitching can be a way of highlighting one's words in order to convey joy, annoyance, anger, sadness, etc. To exemplify, consider the following sentence extracted from Corpus #3: « J'ai une bad bitch sur ma bite-zer » In that case, using the codeswitched word "bitch" is not a euphemistic strategy at all. It actually even gives the impression of carrying a stronger meaning than the French equivalent « salope ». Moreover, this impression is reinforced by the codeswitched adjective "bad" preceding "bitch".

The given list of reasons leading to codeswitching and/or borrowing -in-groupness and secrecy being social reasons, the fact that there is no equivalent being a lexical reason, and changing the tone of the conversation, quoting somebody, using euphemisms, as well as putting the emphasis on one's words being context-dependentbeing analysed and exemplified, in the following section, needs for borrowing will be developed.

Needs for borrowing

As a general rule, languages borrow from one another essentially because there is a lexical gap. Campbell [1998: 64] explains that:

When speakers of a language acquire some new item or concept from abroad, they need a new term to go along with the new acquisition; often a foreign name is borrowed along with the new concept.

As already stated, there are two types of borrowings: those having an equivalenti.e. optional borrowings -, and those having no equivalent in the borrower language -i.e. compulsory borrowing. This distinction is essential as the reasons for borrowing will not be the same whether an equivalent exists in the target language or not.

Need is still a reason for borrowing English terms even when an equivalent already exists in French. In such cases, the borrowed term has sometimes been modified so that it perfectly fits into the French lexicon -i.e. orthographically and phonetically -for example the English term "listing" has for French recommended equivalent « listage », where the English suffix -ing is changed into the suffix -age, quite common in French.

Nonetheless, when there is such a choice in the vocabulary, especially when it comes to terms defining new concepts or new technologies, it appears that the English word is often preferred over the French term. Indeed, in terms of meaning, the English word sometimes remains more appropriate, more straight to the point since English enables to create words more easily than French, which sometimes uses groups of words to define a notion, an idea, or a concept. In such cases, English terms are therefore more often used. Another reason why English terms prevail over French terms at times is simply a question of spreading: French speakers more spontaneously use an English word in some cases because it has spread, and thus became commonly used. Some English terms have spread so much that their French equivalents are never employed, even unknown. This is the case for « marketage », one of the French translations for "marketing". French has also translated "marketing" into « mercatique », a quite common term.

The need for borrowing seems obvious when dealing with English terms having no equivalent in French. Indeed, no suitable French equivalent could have been provided, and the English word thus appears to be the best term to define a new concept, notion, or technology. It will therefore enter the French lexicon and will be commonly used.

According to Campbell [1998: 64], prestige is the second major reason for borrowing:

The other main reason why words are taken over from another language is for prestige, because the foreign term for some reason is highly esteemed. Borrowings for prestige are sometimes called 'luxury' loans. For example, English could have done perfectly well with only native terms for 'pig flesh/pig meat' and 'cow flesh/cow meat', but for reasons of prestige, pork (from French porc) and beef (from French boeuf) were borrowed, as well as many other terms of 'cuisine' from Frenchcuisine itself is from French cuisine 'kitchen' -because French had more social status and was considered more prestigious than English during the period of Norman-French dominance in England (1066-1300).

For [START_REF] Pergnier | Les anglicismes : danger ou enrichissement pour la langue française[END_REF], quoted by Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 45, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008], loanwords have three main purposes:

Regarding English loan words in French, more specifically, [START_REF] Pergnier | Les anglicismes : danger ou enrichissement pour la langue française[END_REF] suggests they fulfil three essential functions: (1) designing a new reality which can hardly be named by French terms; (2) indicating a virtual reservoir for neologisms to invigorate the vocabulary with new denotative and connotative values; and (3) adding a 'quasi magic' touch to the discourse.

The first function [START_REF] Pergnier | Les anglicismes : danger ou enrichissement pour la langue française[END_REF] provides could be assimilated to English terms that have no equivalent in French -i.e. compulsory borrowings -such as « stand-up », used in the French phrase « faire du stand-up », which comes from English; the second function could be linked with English terms renewing the French lexicon, even though French equivalents already exist -i.e. optional borrowings -as « dress code » that can be found in the French dictionary Larousse, and that has for French equivalent « code vestimentaire »; and finally, the third function refers to the notion of "local colour" mentioned by Vinay and Darbelnet [1958: 47], 45 which can be exemplified thanks to the English borrowed substantive « bush » lexicalised in French, which is an optional borrowing since its French equivalent is « brousse ». This term can be found in different instances in Corpus #1: e.g., « […] des ingrédients typiques du bush australien » [Aus4];

« […] dans le bush » [Aus4]; « Perdue au milieu du bush […] » [NZ3]

. This word carries the notion of "local colour" since it refers to tropical regions. Thus, when used in French, « bush » makes reference to the tropical vegetation of foreign areas that does not exist in France.

One might be tempted to think that there is no real need for codeswitching and that it is only a dispensable linguistic device, but it does exist and therefore has some importance. 45 For a definition of "local colour", see Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.1.

Grammatical gender as a requirement

In French, substantives are arbitrarily categorised according to two grammatical genders: the masculine or the feminine. For example, « matin » -"morning" -is a masculine substantive, and « pluie » -"rain" -is a feminine substantive. English is not gender-sensitive for substantives, which means that grammatical gender generally applies only to human beings, with some exceptions -e.g., a car, a spider, or a boat can be referred to as "she"; and humans or animates, such as an unborn baby, can be attributed the personal pronoun "it". As a consequence, inanimate objects have to be attributed a gender when codeswitched or borrowed from English to French, in accordance with French grammatical rules, so that the sentence may make sense.

Thus, one of the main issues of this thesis is to explain and hypothesise grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French, whereas French grammatical gender is randomly allocated. As a consequence, since codeswitched and borrowed nouns are automatically attributed the masculine or the feminine (sometimes both, as it will be shown with some special cases) when used in French, determining why some words are feminine and why some others are masculine can be done by taking into account the grammatical gender of the French equivalente.g., the codeswitched term "check-in" is attributed the masculine in French, as shown in the following example « Le check-in avec Air France » [Go Voyages: 2015], because its French equivalent is « enregistrement ». Similarly, the borrowed noun « pacemaker » is masculine because its French equivalent « stimulateur cardiaque » is masculine.

Nonetheless, when grammatical genders do not match, having a look at suffixes or vowels ending substantives can be an alternative. Indeed, as it will be developed in Part 4 "Codeswitching and borrowing as a continuum", as well as in Chapter III with the study of four different corpora, French suffixes like -ence ending English borrowings,e.g., « séquence » -, or English suffixes like -ing ending English borrowings like « rafting », or false Anglicisms like « parking », carry the notion of grammatical gender. This means that when these suffixes end codeswitched or borrowed substantives, they therefore determine the grammatical gender of these nouns -i.e. feminine for -ence, and masculine for -ing. Regarding the grammatical gender carried by some vowels ending foreign substantives, it will be demonstrated that, for instance, [e] can be considered masculine when ending French substantives borrowed from English -e.g., « programme » or « prime time » -, and [a] can be considered feminine -e.g., « caméra ». These hypotheses will be detailed throughout this chapter and the next chapter. In the following sub-part, spoken language will be opposed to written language through globalisation and progress, and particularly the influence of English on French.

Spoken vs. written language

As already mentioned, codeswitching is said to be a spoken linguistic phenomenon rather than a written linguistic phenomenon, contrary to borrowing that is said to be spoken as well as written. In this sub-part, it will be demonstrated that, due to globalisation, progress, and therefore the frequency of use of some words that entered the "successful codeswitching" category, English codeswitched terms used in French and related to new technologies, the Internet, social networks, and connected devices, do not seem to be restricted to speech, and can therefore be spoken as well as written. This might be due to the fact that their use in French has spread so much that they entered the category "successful codeswitching", and are therefore likely to be lexicalised.

Globalisation

According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, "globalisation" is defined as "a situation in which available goods and services, or social and cultural influences, gradually become similar in all parts of the world". Thus, these "available goods and services, or social and cultural influences" spread all around the world and are shared by a majority of people. Regarding the theme of this thesis, the aspects of globalisation I am interested in are the "social and cultural influences" of English on French. Indeed, with globalisation, English terms have considerably spread and are more and more numerous in French, as well as in many other languages. In her article, [START_REF] Nicholls | Borrower Beware! False Friends and English Loan Words[END_REF] gives the obvious reasons for the worldwide influence of English.

In the 20 th century and at the beginning of the 21 st century, globalization and the level of contact between countries has meant that English words have spread more widely and in greater number than ever before. This is largely due to the cultural and political predominance of the USA, in particular. These days, English words enter the languages of countries worldwide through pop and youth culture, technology (in particular, computers and the Internet), the media and advertising, among other channels.

Thus, Nicholls explains the influence of English on the world by stating that, first of all, due to its cultural and political dominance, the United States is the root of the linguistic spread of English, and secondly, this influence comes with the constant renewal of "pop and youth culture, technology […], the media and advertising […]".

Globalisation, when centred on languages, and particularly on the influence of English on French, can be found in codeswitching and borrowing. Most of the time, codeswitching is said to be spoken rather than written because of the spontaneity and the informality it suggests. This is not always true since, as it will be demonstrated in the analysis of Corpus #1 and Corpus #4 in Chapter III, codeswitching is written and not spoken. Moreover, some people, especially young people, tend to write more and more just as they speak. New technologies encourage them to do so. These new technologies are referred to with codeswitched words -i.e. terms that are not (yet) lexicalised -that became commonly used. Their use has spread so much over time that some of them actually became borrowings. For instance, the verbs « liker » and « retweeter » are in the 2018 edition of the French dictionary Le Robert. More instances will be provided in the next sub-part. In order to theorise the adoption of foreign words such as the two verbs

given as examples, consider the following quotation by Thiesse [2001: 73], in which she deals with the emergence of modern terms pertaining to new technologies:

Le matériau linguistique vivant est normalisé par la mise au point d'une grammaire, d'une transcription graphique et d'un dictionnaire, constitués par référence aux descriptions des langues déjà existantes. La formation de termes abstraits ou modernes est assurée par des emprunts directs à l'étranger ou des processus de création sur « racines » nationales.

In such cases where codeswitched terms appear to designate new technologies, bilingualism is not required: people simply have to adapt to progress and therefore to express themselves with words they are provided with. This is what Crystal [2003: 393] explains:

Every new communicative technology generates a new linguistic variety; and as the medium evolves, other technologically meditated varieties proliferate. […] In each case, we have to learn new conventions of communication -new techniques of accessing or asking, new techniques of reading and assimilating.

Borrowing, contrary to what is generally stated regarding codeswitching, can be spoken as well as written. Indeed, foreign words become officially part of a language once lexicalised, they are therefore used like any other word forming the borrower language -i.e. they are spoken as well as written.

In the following sub-part, examples of more or less newly emerging codeswitched or borrowed terms, linked with new technologies, will be provided.

Progress

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "progress" as follows: "the process of improving or developing something over a period of time". Progress is therefore supposed to represent an improvement.

The following listed examples are all related to new technologies, the Internet and its social networks, as well as connected devices. Codeswitched terms will be distinguished from borrowings, and the grammatical gender they are attributed will be analysed.

o Computer jargon

This category encompasses some borrowed substantives such as « spam », « pop up », « webcam », « geek », or « hacker ». These words can be found in the French dictionary Larousse. They are therefore lexicalised. Their lexicalisation might be due to the fact that these terms entered unofficially the French lexicon some years ago, and over time, their use has spread so much that they became officially part of the French vocabulary -i.e. they have been lexicalised. Regarding the grammatical gender they are attributed, it can be explained by the grammatical gender of their French equivalent. Indeed, « spam » has for French equivalent « courrier indésirable », the French equivalent of « pop-up » is « message d'alerte », and « une webcam » is « une caméra ». Concerning « hacker », whose French recommended equivalent is « fouineur », the term refers to a person who hacks IT systems. It can also be spelt « hackeur », in French. Its masculine grammatical gender may thus be due to the fact that the English suffix -er sounds like the French suffix -eur, attributed to masculine substantives such as « fraudeur » or « menteur ». Finally, the grammatical gender attributed to « geek » is based on the gender of the person -i.e. sexed gender. It can either refer to a male of a female but it is spelt the same. The grammatical gender is determined by the determiner and/or the adjective. These substantives are therefore optional borrowings. The gender of the English term matches the gender of the French equivalent, for some of them. The analysis of suffixes or the notion of sexed-gender can also explain grammatical gender attribution. In any case, since the French equivalents of all these words are rarely used, as they imply to use more than a single word, the English terms are thus favoured, and they therefore represent optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings.

o Social networking (Facebook, Tweeter, and Snapchat)

Codeswitched substantives such as "follower" and "snap" are English vocabulary words used in French when referring to social networks. Their recentness may explain the fact that they are not (yet) lexicalised. Regarding "follower", referred to in French as « un.e abonné.e », the English suffix -er may explain the attribution of the masculine since it sounds like the French suffix -eur, ending masculine substantives such as « coureur ».

"Snap", as in the example sentence « Snapchat ajoute enfin l'intégration de lien à un snap ! » [Siècle Digital: 2017], referring to a photo that has a limited lifespan since it can only be seen once, comes from the English verb "snap", which means « flasher » or « prendre en photo avec un flash ». Although monolingual French speakers are probably not aware of the origin of this term, "snap" might be masculine in French because its equivalent « flash » is masculine. It is the most plausible explanation that can be given concerning the grammatical gender of this substantive since taking an interest in the French definition of "snap" to determine why it is attributed the masculine does not work, as « photo » is feminine in French. Some other terms related to social networks have become borrowings. This might be due to the spread of their use over time. The substantives « tag », « post », « tweet », and « selfie » can be found in the French dictionary Larousse. Being referred to as « identification » or « étiquette » in French, the masculine grammatical gender attributed to the compulsory borrowing "tag", as in « Lorsque vous êtes tagué, vous recevez une notification du tag » [Emarketinglicious: 2011], cannot be explained by the gender of its French equivalents since they are feminine. Thus, considering that "tag" was lexicalised to refer to the masculine substantive « graffiti » in French, although it has a different meaning when dealing with social networks, its grammatical gender remains the same.

The masculine substantive « message » in French, can be considered a synonym for the optional borrowing « post », hence the fact that they are both masculine when used in French. Similarly, « tweet » is masculine because the French equivalents « message » and « post » are masculine. To illustrate this, consider the following example sentence: « Un tweet ou un post Facebook sur votre candidat peut vous coûter 3.750 euros ce week-end » [BFM TV: 2017]. However, « tweet » can still be considered a compulsory borrowing since « message » or « post » can be posted on Facebook, contrary to a tweet that is necessarily posted on Tweeter. Therefore, as the case of « tweet » seems ambiguous since it has equivalent terms that are not used as synonyms, this substantive can be considered an optional borrowing acting like a compulsory borrowing. Finally, as shown in the example sentence « Poster un selfie sur les réseaux sociaux est nocif pour votre couple » [Virgin Tonic: 2017], « selfie » is masculine in French because it has for French equivalent « un autoportrait », a French masculine noun. Although a French equivalent does exist, it is rarely used compared to the English term « selfie », which can therefore be considered an optional borrowing acting like a compulsory borrowing. Furthermore, concerning its grammatical gender, as it will be developed when dealing with the substantive « programme » for instance, in Corpus #2, if [e] is considered to be a masculine vowel, it therefore has an effect on the grammatical gender attributed to borrowed substantives ending with an [e], hence the fact that « selfie » is masculine.

o Connected devices Amongst the various connected devices that exist nowadays, the only one that has become a borrowing in French is « smartphone ». Indeed, referred to as « téléphone intelligent », which is a rarely used term, the use of the substantive « smartphone » has spread so much, since a majority of people possesses one, that the English term is now lexicalised -i.e. in French dictionaries. Its grammatical gender matches the grammatical gender of the French equivalent. On the contrary, other connected products such as "smartwatch", "smart shoes", or "smart pole", having respectively for French equivalents To sum up, in this sub-part relating to globalisation and progress, in which different terms linked with new technologies, the Internet, social networks, and connected devices were analysed, some codeswitched substantives can be assimilated to "successful codeswitching". Indeed, their use is widely spread in French but they are not lexicalised yet -e.g., "snap". Some other words became loanwords because, contrary to codeswitched terms, their use has spread enough for them to be lexicalised -e.g., « spam », « selfie », and « smartphone ». The verbs « liker » and « retweeter » are also good examples of this process of lexicalisation. An English codeswitched term becomes so popular that it progressively enters the category "successful codeswitching", to eventually become a borrowing. All the listed terms can be spoken as well as written since their use in French has spread. Finally, the grammatical genders attributed to the instances listed in the above categories referring to progress were explained by taking an interest in the grammatical gender of their French equivalents, in the suffixes that phonologically resemble French suffixes carrying the notion of grammatical gender, in the ending vowels that can also carry the notion of grammatical gender, or in the gender-based attribution.

In the following part, the "least-effort principle" will be studied as a motivation for codeswitching and borrowing.

Language economy principle

Codeswitching and borrowing can both be ways of economically conveying an idea. This is called the "language economy principle", or the "least-effort principle". There are many other terms to refer to this principle, and Kul [2007: 15]

lists them:

A (sic) far as terminology is concerned, there exists a whole array of terms in the literature, used to refer to the same phenomenon or in an approximate sense. This array appears to result from the fact that different scholars from various fields of science have developed and employed their own terminology rather than from different interpretations of the least effort. […] The most conventional and general term, i.e. least effort, seems to be the most adequate, or, the least vague and narrow. Other names of the principle include least action (Maupertuis 1750), law of economy (Whitney 1878(Whitney [1971]]), language economy (Martinet 1960), economy of effort (Whitney 1878(Whitney [1971]]), tendency to ease (Whitney 1878 [1971]) and tendency towards convenience (de Courtenay 1974). Boersma (1998) used the name minimal effort, whereas Bussmann (1996) called it law of least effort. Maxima and Minima are the names employed by Gengerelli (1930).

The principle of least effort (PLE) is developed in Zipf's work entitled Human

Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort [1949]. It is also known as Zipf's Law, although Saussure had already mentioned this principle at the beginning of the 20 th century in the Course in General Linguistics. Kul [2007: 15] explains Zipf's Law:

It states that if one lists all the words of a language by how often they are used, the second most frequent word is about half as frequent as the most frequent one, the third most frequent is about a third as frequent as the most frequent one, the fourth is a fourth as frequent and so on. Vicentini [2003: 38] gives her own definition for the concept of "language economy" in the following quotation:

The concept of economy -a tenet or tendency shared by all living organisms -may be referred to as 'the principle of least effort', which consists in tending towards the minimum amount of effort that is necessary to achieve the maximum result, so that nothing is wasted. Besides being a biological principle, this principle operates in linguistic behaviour as well, at the very core of linguistic evolution. In modern times it was given a first consistent definition by André Martinet, who studied and analysed the principle of economy in linguistics, testing its manifold applications in both phonology and syntax.

Even though languages constantly evolve, language economy endures and adapts to linguistic change, as Vicentini [2003: 40] explains thanks to Zipf's findings: George Kingsley Zipf tried to investigate speech as a natural phenomenon and discovered that an inclination to economy is a criterion regulating any aspect of human behaviour, which is governed by this Principle of Least Effort, operating within linguistic evolution as well. In such a dynamic process as linguistic change, words are constantly being shortened, permuted, eliminated, borrowed and altered in meaning, but, thanks to the Principle of Least Effort, an equilibrium with a maximum of economy is always preserved.

The English language is shorter than the French language. In a blogpost entitled "Why are English translations shorter than foreign language texts?", Richardson [2013] explains why English translations are shorter than French and Spanish translations by dealing with four major factors, which are juxtaposition, coordination, punctuation, and wordiness. Regarding juxtaposition, he states that:

In translation circles, translators characterize subordination as hypotaxisgrammatical arrangement of "unequal constructs -because sentences in foreign languages contain a string of subordinate clauses; hence, they are extremely long. In contrast, English deconstructs long sentences to create shorter ones. Tin Pan Alley, ou la « rue des bruits de casserole », fait référence au courant musical né sur la 28 e rue à New York au début du siècle dernier, qui a donné le jour à un grand nombre de standards du jazz encore appréciés aujourd'hui.

Tin Pan Alley refers to an early twentieth-century musical trend that had its roots on

New York City's 28 th Street. This gave rise to a number of American jazz standards people enjoy to this day.

Concerning coordination, he explains that:

While Spanish and French articulate -or show connection of -ideas, English does something that the aforementioned languages don't: it coordinates ideas. Simply put, English uses coordinating conjunctions to link ideas […].

Lean el texto antes de traducirlo.

Lire le texte avant de le traduire.

Read the text and translate it.

In the above examples, Spanish and French articulate the sentences by using antes de and avant de, respectively. English, on the other hand, contends itself with coordinating the two ideas with and.

As for punctuation, Richardson [2013] mentions the fact that "when Spanish and French use colons or semi-colons, for instance, English prefers periods and uses commas frequently" to explain the length of Spanish and French texts compared with English texts. Finally, he gives the following example sentence in French to illustrate wordiness « La durée d'évaluation s'étend sur une période de 14 jours », and explains that:

As English translators (myself included), we may, by reflex, be compelled to translate the above sentence like this: "The evaluation period extends over a period of 14 days." Whether or not we are conscious about what we just translated, we may not realize that our translation reflects the same sentence structure as the original text. What is more, we may not have noticed that the English sentence was indeed wordy. Because English is showing a greater tendency toward conciseness, the above translation needs streamlining to "The evaluation period is 14 days." It is important to check texts for wordiness whenever you undertake editing tasks. With any luck, you'll be able to take shortcuts and express a wordy sentence in a few words -just like the translator of this short text.

Linked with codeswitching, sometimes, the use of some English codeswitched words aims to reduce the number of French lexical units to a minimum, whilst conveying the same idea and meaning. The following examples will illustrate how useful the language economy principle can be regarding both borrowing and codeswitching.

Concerning borrowing, in French, one would rather talk about « warnings » 46 instead of « feux de détresse », or « airbag », in preference to « coussin (gonflable) de sécurité ». Similarly, speakers more easily and more naturally talk about « un mascara/une montre waterproof » compared to « un mascara/une montre qui résiste à l'eau ». Likewise, French speakers more readily use the compound « fast-food » rather than the phrase « restauration rapide ». This is linked with the articulation cost and the memorisation cost. To introduce these notions, consider the following quotation by Martinet [1980: 176-177], in which he defines the language economy principle:

L'évolution linguistique peut être conçue comme régie par l'antinomie permanente entre les besoins communicatifs de l'homme et sa tendance à réduire au minimum son activité mentale et physique. Ici, comme ailleurs, le comportement humain est soumis à la loi du moindre effort selon laquelle l'homme ne se dépense que dans la mesure où il peut ainsi atteindre aux buts qu'il s'est fixés.

This means that communication through language economy is related to the memorisation cost -i.e. the fact of knowing a word as part of a lexicon -, and the articulation cost -i.e. the muscular effort required for articulation. Thus, when speakers use « warnings » instead of « feux de détresse », « airbag » in preference to « coussin (gonflable) de sécurité », « waterproof » instead of « qui résiste à l'eau », and « fast-food » rather than « restauration rapide », it implies that, firstly, speakers know that amongst the different terms that exist in French, the English borrowings are shorter than the French equivalents (memorisation cost), and that secondly, they are able to utter these words with fewer syllables (articulation cost).

Finally, when codeswitching, the search engine "Google", used as a verb in English, is more and more used as a verb in French as well. For instance, French expressions such 46 False Anglicism.

Although Zipf appears to be the pioneer regarding the language economy principle, before him, many scholars such as Saussure, dealt with linguistic economy in different fields. For instance, Vendryes [1939: 49] took an interest in phonetic changes:

On a parfois invoqué, pour expliquer les changements phonétiques, l'hypothèse du moindre effort. Les altérations que subissent les sons seraient dues à la paresse naturelle de l'homme, enclin même quand il parle à ménager ses forces et exposé par suite à rester en deçà du but à atteindre.

[…] L'économie consisterait en un relâchement momentané ou accidentel de l'effort à accomplir, et ainsi quels qu'en soient les effets ultérieurs, elle serait à l'origine de nombreux changements phonétiques.

The principle of least effort can be observed in the lexicon and in grammar as well,

as Vicentini [2003: 41] explains:

Economy was traditionally considered a factor functioning at sound level; according to Vendryes, it also works in the lexicon and in grammar and it is in contrast with clarity; besides, it is conceived as « le véritable principe qui commande l'usage de la parole jusque dans le moindre détail » (Vendryes 1939: 57). The basic aspect of the parole (in the Saussurian sense) consists in sentences requiring some effort, which seems to be regulated by economy:

Pour la majorité des êtres pensants, chaque phrase doit être combiné par un effort personnel sans cesse renouvelé. Et certains s'y adonnent avec une virtuosité qui confère au résultat tous les prestiges de l'oeuvre d'art. Quelle qu'en soit la valeur artistique, cet effort est essentiellement un effort d'économie. (Vendryes 1939: 57) The principle of least effort can also be used for the sake of "precise linguisticgrammatical forms in order to amend defects and imperfections of the language; in this sense the positive aspect of the principle is underlined" [Vicentini 2003: 41].

Synthesis

The main objective of this part was to give reasons accounting for the use of both codeswitching and borrowing. To do so, the analysis was divided into three sections, and examples were provided for each of them.

In the first section, reasons for codeswitching and/or borrowing were classified into different parts, whether they were linked with affect -e.g., spontaneity -, trend -e.g., fashion or prestige -, or other reasons such as social interactions -e.g., in-groupness -, lexical need -e.g., no equivalent -, or contextual motivations -e.g., to quote someone or to highlight one's words. Needs for borrowing were taken into account in another subpart since, contrary to codeswitching that does not fill a lexical gap, borrowing does.

Finally, as grammatical gender is at the heart of this thesis, its importance when dealing with codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French was developed.

In the second section, spoken language was opposed to written language through globalisation, progress, and essentially the influence of modern English terms, related to new technologies, the Internet, social networking, and connected devices, on the French lexicon. It appeared that when linked with these topics, codeswitched and borrowed nouns could either be used when speaking as well as when writing.

Thirdly, the language economy principle was mentioned as another reason for codeswitching and borrowing. Indeed, regarding some English codeswitched and borrowed substantives, it can be asserted that they are preferred over their respective

French equivalents because they enable speakers to use fewer lexical units or fewer syllables, to convey the same idea as the French equivalent would have conveyed -e.g., « fast-food » instead of « restauration rapide ». In other words, some English terms are

Refuting Étiemble's theory

René Étiemble was born in 1909 and died in 2002. He was a French author, linguist, literary critic, and University Professor, and was known for being, amongst others, a polemicist and a defender of the French language.

Reading Parlez-vous franglais ?, published in 1973, seemed indispensable considering the topic of this thesis. From the very beginning of his book, the tone is set:

Une langue ne peut être dominante sans que les idées qu'elle transmet ne prennent un grand ascendant sur les esprits, et une nation qui parle une autre langue que la sienne perd insensiblement son caractère.

Gabriel Sénac de Meilhan, l'Émigré, 1797.

Thanks to this quotation, one can easily deduce that Étiemble's viewpoint on mixing

French and English, and more precisely, on the intrusion of English words in French, will differ from the general positive perception of both the codeswitching and borrowing phenomena put forward through this thesis.

For that reason, studying Parlez-vous franglais ? and comparing his opinion to mine appeared to be an interesting exercise. Regarding the theoretical elements provided in Chapter I, and the distinction made between borrowing and codeswitching in this chapter, it has been decided to write up this part on Étiemble's work in the second chapter so as to confirm, reinforce, and summarise what has been previously stated. The analysis of Étiemble's book will be divided into three sections. Firstly, the structure of the content will be detailed. Then, the vocabulary he uses to refer to Franglais will be studied. And finally, attempting to explain what Franglais is for Étiemble will constitute the third section.

Structure of the book

Parlez-vous franglais ? is divided into five chapters. The aim of this section will be to detail what can be found in each chapter.

The first chapter entitled « Histoire de moins en moins drôle », page 23, is divided into three parts. In the first part, « Histoire pas drôle », starting page 25, Étiemble tells the story of a friend of his by using many Franglais words. The following example of the abundant use of Franglais words is extracted from the opening of the short story « Histoire pas drôle ». all square, bunker, caddy, club, driver, fairway, grip, handicap, hazard, link, medal play, one down, one up, puller, putter, putting green, scratch, slicer, stance, stimmy, swing, tee, teeing The second part of this chapter is entitled "Men's department", page 113. We therefore move from childhood to adolescence, and then to adulthood, still related to the French way of life. Étiemble deals with men in different life situations that he describes by using a lot of Franglais words. planning, rewriting, scratch, shunter, spot, staff, stock-shots, script, script-girl, travelling, zoom (prononcez zoum).

To finish, the fifth chapter, entitled « Que faire ? », and starting page 331, is divided into three parts. The following section will be devoted to the content of Étiemble's book, and in particular, to the dysphemistic vocabulary he employs to describe Franglais.

Dysphemistic vocabulary

Before anything else, providing a definition of "dysphemism" is primordial. Allan and Burridge [2006: 31] offer the following definition:

Like euphemism, it is sometimes motivated by fear and distaste, but also by hatred and contempt. People resort to dysphemism to talk about people and things that frustrate and annoy them, that they disapprove of and they wish to disparage, humiliate and degrade.

[…] Dysphemistic expressions include curses, name-calling, and any sort of derogatory comment directed towards others in order to insult or to wound them. Dysphemism is also a way of let off steam; for example when exclamatory swear words alleviate frustration or anger. To be more technical: a dysphemism is a word or phrase with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum and/or to people addressed or overhearing the utterance. Gray [1992: 33] defines dysphemism as the opposite of euphemism: "If euphemism is the practice of ameliorating the asperities of perceived reality, then its converse, dysphemism, is the practice of representing reality as worse than it is". This is undoubtedly what Étiemble does in his book by using a hyperbolic dysphemistic vocabulary to depict Franglais as a disease, a trend, and as a nonsensical, vulgar, and barbaric language that harms French.

To conclude, Étiemble manifestly wants readers to understand that Franglais irritates him. He tries to convince them that it is a useless and dangerous phenomenon, aside from that, he does not do anything constructive, and the dysphemistic vocabulary he uses does not make his theory clearer, linguistically speaking. This is what will be explained in greater detail in the following subpart.

Franglais according to Étiemble

What is Franglais for Étiemble? It is actually hard to answer this question, even after having read his book more than once. Two major problems will be pointed at in order to explain to what extent grasping the goal of Étiemble's approach is no easy task.

First of all, the author makes an abundant use of Franglais terms, especially in the He deliberately inserts a maximum of English words -either borrowed or codeswitched 48 Bold characters are mine.

from English to French. It makes reading complicated, difficult, and even annoying.

Furthermore, this irritating need to constantly introduce as many Franglais terms as possible does not bring anything new. It is therefore irrelevant, at the limit of nonsense.

Nevertheless, the immoderate use he makes of Franglais is intentional. He tries to convince his readership that Franglais is unpleasant, even detestable. The way he employs Franglais is actually irritating but no one speaks like that, no speaker puts so many English words in their utterances. Even though the definition of Franglais stipulates that it represents the abundant use of Franglais words, amongst others, Étiemble's approach is not honest since it is far too exaggerated, disproportionate, and unrealistic.

Secondly, Parlez-vous franglais ? gives the impression of linguistic confusion:

Étiemble obviously shows his aversion to Franglais, apart from that, there is no clear problematic issue. Moreover, the fact that he does not give a single definition or, at least, an explanation for Franglais, or « sabir », could be confusing for the reader. Thus,

Franglais is a blend of French and English and either refers to a French speaker using too many English words or phrases, or to unidiomatic French spoken by a native English speaker. 49 « Sabir » is a dysphemistic term meaning "gibberish". It is also referred to as a language spoken by people mixing their mother tongues in order to communicate. 50 As a consequence, when Étiemble talks about « sabir atlantique », he makes reference to

Franglais, a mix between French and English.

Furthermore, he seems to make no distinction between borrowing and codeswitching. He uses Franglais terms that either correspond to borrowing or codeswitching, but this differentiation is never made -e.g., « snack » page 35 is a borrowed substantive, whereas "column" page 149 is a codeswitched noun. Indeed, 49 Definition initially given in Chapter I, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.1.1. 50 The most famous "sabir" is lingua franca.

Étiemble does not take into account the fact that codeswitching implies to be bilingual, while it is not a requirement concerning borrowing. This major linguistic notion is therefore missed, just like the notion of lexicalisation -i.e. some Franglais words are lexicalised if they are borrowed -e.g., « rocking-chair », page 171 -, contrary to nonlexicalised Franglais words when codeswitched -e.g, "party", page 171. He also uses a false Anglicism, which is lost amongst borrowings and codeswitched words -e.g., page 64, « tennis-woman » -but still does not make any difference between borrowing, codeswitching, or false Anglicism. He therefore mixes everything up.

The author makes strange translations -e.g., page 52, he translates "surprise-party" by « partie surprise », although French people would more spontaneously call it « fête surprise ». He even makes spelling mistakes -e.g., page 256, he translates « prendre un virage » by "negotiate a curve" but writes "negociate" (sic). Such oddity and mistake do not make the best impression, and the reader may even wonder if Étiemble masters what he is talking about. To conclude, criticising his book and pointing out its lack of intelligibility is beneficial since it enables to clarify what Franglais, codeswitching, and borrowing are.

Although Franglais is defined, amongst others, as an abundant use of English terms in French, the use Étiemble makes of it is excessive, and not truthful. Finally, as the reader is not necessarily a linguist, the fact that the author does not make any difference between Franglais, codeswitching, and borrowing, and does not provide any definition does not seem to really matter. Nonetheless, due to the disproportionate insertion of

Synthesis

Parlez-vous Franglais ? is divided into five different chapters. These chapters were detailed since the first section of this part was devoted to the structure of the book.

Secondly, we went through the dysphemistic vocabulary Étiemble uses to describe

Franglais. Finally, trying to determine what Franglais is for the author was difficult since he actually does not give any definition.

Therefore, it seems that Étiemble misses out on what Franglais is. It is not only limited to the insertion of English terms into French, and certainly not the way he does it, that is to say excessively, disproportionately, and unrealistically. Dealing with

Franglais means to study why speakers use Franglais, how they use it, the effects this phenomenon has, etc. His work has little point, except for putting the reader off English to rally him or her behind his cause.

Finally, Étiemble presents English as a threat to French due to the adoption of some English terms in French, but he barely mentions the fact that English is also a borrower language that adopted numerous French words.

To conclude this part and to reinforce my arguments, consider the following quotation by Renner, extracted from his 2012 article:

Le nombre important d'emprunts à l'anglais au cours des dix-neuvième et vingtième siècles a suscité de multiples réactions défensives, dont on retrouve une certaine permanence à travers les époques. Les linguistes usent volontiers de métaphores guerrières et submersives (sic). In the fourth and last part of this chapter, grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing will be analysed in order to put the emphasis on the codeswitching -borrowing continuum.

Codeswitching and borrowing as a continuum

Explaining grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched and borrowed substantives, or at least theorising it, will be at the heart of this section to eventually demonstrate the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum.

As already mentioned, analysing and giving reasons to gender attribution for such words could be done by understanding codeswitching and borrowing as a continuum.

As a result, this section will be divided into three sub-parts, starting with codeswitching, at the beginning of the chain. Then, borrowings -considered codeswitched words that became lexicalised, i.e. successful codeswitching -will be categorised, studied, and exemplified depending on the fact that they are optional borrowings or compulsory borrowings.

Grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives

Codeswitching is at the beginning of the process of lexicalisation "codeswitchingsuccessful codeswitching -borrowing". It appears tricky to give reasons to the attribution of grammatical gender to codeswitched substantives, that is to say, to foreign words that are not used by a majority of speakers, and therefore not officially part of the French lexicon -i.e. of non-lexicalised words. Due to the lack of frequency of use of the codeswitched terms, bilingual speakers have to decide, while speaking, which grammatical gender they are going to attribute to the codeswitched word. Thus, how are bilingual speakers able to decide the grammatical gender of the English noun they are using in French as such, that is to say without any phonetic or orthographic adoption?

Will gender be chosen in accordance with the connotation of the noun -i.e. sexed gender -, or in accordance with its French equivalent, depending on whether the word is feminine or masculine in the Matrix Language (ML) [Myers-Scotton 1993: 20] -i.e. the dominant language of the utterance? Is this choice conscious or not? Spontaneous or considered? Are there some rules?

First of all, grammatical gender attribution for French substantives is random. Thus, most of the time, any logical explanation can be given concerning the allocation of the masculine gender to some substantives, or the allocation of the feminine to some others.

It therefore poses a problem when French-English codeswitchers insert a foreign substantive in their speech, and make the choice of inserting the English equivalent of a word they decided not to utter in French. Grammatical gender attribution, in that case, cannot be done randomly.

The importance of the French equivalent

In most cases, the codeswitched substantive carries the gender of its French equivalent, as illustrated in the following instances -e.g., « 7 jours dans la rainforest », « Nos circuits dans l'outback australien », and « Découvrez tous les parcs nationaux du top end en 5 jours ». These sentences are extracted from the website of Adventure Tours, a tour operator in Australia. In the example sentence « 7 jours dans la rainforest », the substantive "rainforest" is codeswitched from English and used in the feminine -i.e.

preceded by the feminine definite article « la » -as the French equivalent for this word is « forêt tropicale », a feminine noun. In the second utterance « Nos circuits dans l'outback australien », "outback" is codeswitched. It is a masculine substantive since it is followed by the adjective « australien » used in the masculine, « australienne » being the feminine form. The use of the masculine for this term is justified by the fact that its French equivalent is « intérieur du pays », « intérieur » being a masculine substantive in French. Finally, in the sentence « Découvrez tous les parcs nationaux du top end en 5 jours », "top end" is an English codeswitched term used in the masculine in French -i.e.

preceded by the masculine determiner « le (de + le à du) ». Once again, this is due to the fact that its French equivalent is « endroit le plus au nord », the substantive « endroit » being masculine in French.

Thus, one of the most curious phenomena regarding codeswitching is that grammatical gender attribution, which is completely arbitrary in French, can be systematised for many codeswitched substantives, whether their French equivalent is masculine or feminine.

Nevertheless, a few codeswitched substantives have a floating grammatical gender when used in French, and some others have synonymous masculine and feminine French equivalents. In both cases, grammatical gender attribution is hard to explain.

Such substantives represent special cases for which two examples will be provided in the following sub-part.

Special cases

Now that English codeswitched substantives whose grammatical genders match the grammatical gender of the French equivalent have been dealt with, in this sub-part, it will be demonstrated that contrary to "rainforest", "outback", and "top end", the grammatical genders attributed to "cover" and "wilderness" have to be explained differently.

Firstly, in the various examples taken out from the TV programme TPMP in Corpus #2, both the feminine and the masculine are used for the codeswitched substantive "cover" -e.g., « Vous avez fait une belle cover pendant le magnéto »; « Ouais, c'est vrai, j'ai fait une cover »; « Elle a fait une cover »; « J'ai fait mon cover, voilà, c'est ça »; « La cover improbable »; « Est-ce qu'on a vu un cover indien […] ? »; and « Ben j'ai fait un cover ». Grammatical gender attribution for this term is not quite clear since, as illustrated with the example sentences, it has a floating grammatical gender when used in French. Having for French equivalents « reprise » or « version », both feminine nouns, it could explain why « cover » is sometimes used in the feminine. However, regarding the use of "cover" in the masculine, having a look at its suffix may be useful to explain its grammatical gender. Indeed, this substantive ends with the English suffix -er. This suffix sounding like the French suffix -eur, used to form many masculine substantives such as « menteur » or « acteur », the attribution of the masculine to "cover" is therefore not surprising.

Secondly, "wilderness", a codeswitched substantive analysed in Chapter III (Corpus Although used in the masculine in the example sentence, amongst the four French equivalents, three of them are feminine, and only one is masculine. The use of "wilderness" in the masculine is therefore justified, and employing this term in the feminine would be acceptable as well -e.g., « […] la beauté de la wilderness […] ».

Nevertheless, the reason why "wilderness" is used in the masculine is the example sentence could be explained by having a look at the suffix of this word. Ending with the English suffix -ness, like « fitness » or « business », masculine substantives borrowed from English to French, attributing the masculine to "wilderness" makes sense.

To sum up, analysing suffixes to give reasons to grammatical gender attribution is important when codeswitched terms have a floating grammatical gender, or have

French equivalents with different grammatical genders.

Let us now see how grammatical gender attribution works for optional borrowings, as well as compulsory borrowings.

Grammatical gender attributed to optional borrowings

As already developed, optional borrowings refer to borrowings that have at least one equivalent in the target language. In the following sub-part, just like it has been done with codeswitching, the grammatical gender attributed to the French equivalent(s)

of optional borrowings will be analysed.

The importance of the French equivalent(s)

The gender attributed to optional borrowings can correspond to the grammatical gender of their equivalents, or can be determined according to the concept, notion, or idea this word connotes, or when it directly refers to natural gender. For instance, « barman » and « barmaid » are borrowed from English and used in French. Their respective French synonyms are « un serveur au bar » and « une serveuse au bar ». Both

French and English have a different spelling for these nouns, whether they refer to a man or a woman. Therefore, when borrowed in French, both « barman » and « barmaid » are attributed the grammatical gender corresponding to their natural gender. Another instance exemplifying grammatical gender attribution based on natural gender is « challenger », found in Corpus #2 -e.g., « […] et D8 un challenger qui monte ». Also written « challengeur » in French, this substantive is originally used to describe a sports competitor. In the example sentence, it is used to refer to the progression of the channel compared to others. Although a channel is always referred to as a feminine noun in French, « challenger » is here used in the masculine -« challengeuse » being the feminine form. This might be due to the fact that the channel is seen as a competitor -« compétiteur » in French, the French masculine equivalent for « challenger ». This term thus exemplifies the notion of natural gender since two distinct forms can be used whether one wants to refer to a male of a female -i.e. « challenge(u)r » vs.

« challengeuse ».

Concerning the importance of the French equivalent, consider the substantive « brainstorming ». Used in French, and borrowed from English, its French equivalent is « remue-méninges ». « Brainstorming » being considered as a borrowed substantive since it can for instance be found in the French dictionary Larousse, it can be hypothesised that it used to be a codeswitched noun before being lexicalised, as codeswitched substantives have at least one equivalent in the target language. When « brainstorming » became a borrowing, it retained its French equivalent « remue-méninges » -i.e. both words are used in French -and it is thus now an "optional borrowing". As a result, optional borrowings function like codeswitched words, even when they evolve towards borrowings, because they keep their French equivalent(s). In addition, the fact that the grammatical gender they are attributed coincides with the gender of their equivalent(s), just like codeswitched substantives in many cases, reinforces the idea of a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing. Thus, « brainstorming » is used in the masculine because « remue-méninges » is masculine.

Similarly, « star » is exclusively used in the feminine, whether it refers to a man or a

woman. An explanation to this phenomenon could be easily provided as « star », in French, refers to a celebrity, translated by two feminine terms « une célébrité » -or even « une vedette », a dated equivalent. Moreover, another French equivalent for the word "star" is « étoile », which is a feminine noun as well. This word is also used to refer to a celebrity. For instance, to talk about a rising star, French speakers can either say « une star montante » or « une étoile montante ». These words are feminine when used in French. As a consequence, « star » is considered an optional borrowing because, when it became lexicalised -i.e. when it stopped being a codeswitched substantive -, it retained its French equivalents called "synonyms". Thus, regarding « star » we can, once again, talk about a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing. This hypothesis can actually work for the majority of optional borrowings since their particularity is to have

French synonyms that can be used in a similar manner in both English and French -i.e.

without being context-dependent, and by conveying the exact same meaning. To exemplify this point, consider the following definitions provided by the French dictionary Larousse for « spray »: « Jet de liquide en fines gouttelettes lancé par un pulvérisateur » and « Le pulvérisateur lui-même ». The second definition clearly demonstrates a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing since, when « spray » stopped being an English codeswitched substantive -which necessarily implies that a

French equivalent already existed, « pulvérisateur » in that case -, it was officially adopted in French, thus became a borrowing, and more precisely, an optional borrowing, as its French equivalent remains used in French.

In the following sub-part, the role of sexed gender will be developed regarding optional borrowings.

The role of sexed gender

Dealing with sexed gender to explain grammatical gender means to attribute a grammatical gender to a substantive in compliance with the gender of the person it refers to -i.e. feminine or masculine.

Both « leader » and « boss » are optional borrowings since they have French equivalents, which are « chef » for « leader », and « patron.ne », « supérieur.e », or « chef »

for « boss ». The grammatical gender attributed to these words is not linked with natural gender, as there is one single form for the masculine or the feminine in English.

However, sexed gender plays a major role. Indeed, in French, whether the speaker wants to refer to a man or a woman, the determiner will not be the same. He or she will therefore talk about « un.e leader » or « un.e chef », depending on whom he or she is referring to.

Similarly, « wedding planner », translated by « organisateur.trice de mariages » is a sexed-gendered substantive when used in French since it can either refer to a man or a woman, just like in English. However, what will make the difference in French is the determiner that will be used before the noun. Indeed, depending on the context, the speaker will either refer to « un wedding planner » when talking about a man whose job is to organise weddings, or to « une wedding planner » for a woman's occupation. That way, the attributed grammatical gender is sex-based whether the person in question is a male or a female.

Finally, the role of sexed gender can also be explained through the example of the term « fashion victim ». Used in French, this term is exclusively employed in the feminine, whether it refers to a man or a woman. Is this due to the fact that the French translation is « une victime de la mode », « victime » being a feminine substantive? Indeed, « victime » is feminine in French, regardless the gender of the victim. In that case, the grammatical gender attributed to the optional borrowing would therefore match the one attributed to the French equivalent. Another means of explaining the grammatical gender attributed to « fashion victim » could be based on the preconceived idea that women are more interested in shopping and fashion than men. In such a case, the choice of the grammatical gender would therefore rely on a sexist preconception.

Nonetheless, the grammatical gender attributed to optional borrowings cannot always be logically explained, or even, deduced. Indeed, some optional borrowings have multiple French equivalents, whose grammatical genders are different. These are special cases. They will constitute the following sub-part, in which examples will be provided.

Special cases

As demonstrated with codeswitching in the previous sub-part, the grammatical gender attributed to an optional borrowing does not always match the grammatical gender attributed to the French equivalents. That situation occurs when the French equivalents are attributed different grammatical genders. This is the case for « break », Yet in that context, when referring to "rest", the French equivalent is « pause », a feminine substantive. It can nevertheless be hypothesised that, in such context, « break » refers to « encas » or « goûter », both masculine substantives. However, if we consider that, in some other cases, « break » means « arrêt », a French masculine noun, referring to « break » with the masculine grammatical gender makes sense. This can be the case when one stops off after having driven for too long, for instance. Nonetheless, this hypothesis does not work when « break » refers to a relationship rupture because it has for French synonyms « séparation » or « rupture », both French feminine substantives.

used
Thus, the attribution of the masculine for « break » is only justified when this term can be translated by « arrêt » or « encas » and « goûter » into French.

As for the substantive « showroom », it is used in the masculine in French. This can be demonstrated thanks to the following article title: « Visite guidée du showroom Made.com à Paris » [LSA: 2016]. However, one of the French equivalents for this calque is « salle d'exposition », a feminine noun. The fact that the term « showroom » is defined as « Local où un industriel, un commerçant, un couturier, etc., montre au public ses nouveaux produits » in the French dictionary Larousse, can explain why it is attributed the masculine gender. Moreover, other substantives used in French containing the English word "room" -e.g., "living-room", "dining-room", and "room service" -are masculine. Therefore, the grammatical gender attributed to such words can be explained by the fact that, morphologically speaking, identical forms are allocated the same grammatical gender. « Speech » is employed in the masculine in French. Nevertheless, its two equivalents « discours » and « allocution » are respectively masculine and feminine.

Thus, the fact that « speech » has been attributed the masculine gender, and not the feminine, could be explained by the frequency of use. Indeed, in French, « discours » is more frequently use than « allocution ». Thus, « speech » has taken the masculine grammatical gender of the French equivalent « discours », because it is more frequently used than « allocution », a feminine substantive. Furthermore, the fact that « speech » ends in -ch, like other masculine nouns borrowed from English to French such as « brunch », « coach », « sandwich », or « stretch », could explain why it is also used in the masculine.

A more recent term constituting a special case, defined as « diffusion en continu » in the French dictionary Larousse, is the optional borrowing « streaming ». « streaming » should be feminine. However, as grammatical genders do not match, the reason for the attribution of the masculine has to be found elsewhere. Thus, following the example of Anglicisms such as « listing », or false Anglicisms such as « planning », « streaming » is masculine because it ends with the suffix -ing, which can be considered a masculine suffix in French.

Finally, the borrowed substantive « battle » is a special case as well. This term comes from the hip-hop culture to refer to a contest between rappers whose performances are judged by applause meter. Nowadays, the meaning of this term has evolved and « battle » can be used in any circumstances. For instance, it can refer to singers or dancers performing in front of a jury. Whatever the context is, in French this word can either be used in the masculine or in the feminine, as illustrated by looking up the word « battle » in the French dictionary Larousse:

Nom féminin ou nom masculin (mot anglo-américain) Joute de chanteurs ou de danseurs devant un jury composé de professionnels ou d'anonymes. (À l'origine improvisée, elle est issue du milieu du rap et du hip-hop.)

It is therefore quite surprising to notice that, even once lexicalised, the grammatical gender allocated to this optional borrowing is not fixed.

Regarding this substantive, another important element to develop is the fact that the feminine tends to prevail over the masculine, as heard in three TV programmes that are

The Voice (TF1), La Grande Battle (France 2), and Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! (C8), Corpus #2 -e.g., « J'aimerais juste qu'on voit une petite battle » and « Une battle de danse ». As 51 The British equivalent is the Performing Rights Society for Music (PRS).

« battle » has several equivalents in French, it seems hard to attribute a fixed grammatical gender. This word therefore has a fluctuating grammatical gender.

Amongst the French equivalents for this term, there are « concours », a masculine substantive, and « compétition », « bataille », or « lutte », which are feminine nouns.

Although « battle » remains a special case since both grammatical genders are used in French, a possible explanation for the increasing common use of the feminine could be found in spelling and phonology: « battle » actually resembles the French feminine substantive « bataille », hence the attribution of the feminine.

Similarly, the optional borrowing « interview », recorded in the French dictionary

Larousse as a « nom féminin ou masculin », has for French equivalent « entrevue », amongst others. Given that in terms of spelling and pronunciation « interview » resembles « entrevue », the feminine gender attributed to it can be explained by the fact that its French equivalent is a feminine substantive. Regarding the use of « interview » in the masculine, it can be hypothesised that, since its other French equivalents « entretien » or even « article » are masculine, « interview » can be attributed the masculine depending on the context. Although both grammatical genders can be used for this term, it is noteworthy that « interview » is more frequently used in the feminine than in the masculine, as evidenced by a Google search on French websites only:

24,000,000 hits for « une interview » and 2,520,000 for « un interview ». Moreover, when looking up « interview » on the Internet, there are more article titles in which this substantive is used in the feminine -e.g., « Une interview du ministre de l'Éducation Despite some special cases, optional borrowings act like codeswitched substantives inasmuch as they have French equivalents, whose grammatical gender coincides with the grammatical gender they are attributed. As a consequence, assuming that there is a continuum from codeswitching to borrowing can be relevant. This hypothesis makes even more sense when looking at English optional borrowings as being, before lexicalisation, codeswitched terms that retained their French equivalent once lexicalised.

This theory could work for compulsory borrowings as well, however, due to the fact that they have no equivalent in French, as it is the case for « barbecue », « cocktail », or « prompteur », the continuum seems less obvious.

Grammatical gender attributed to compulsory borrowings

To sum up what has been previously demonstrated, English codeswitched substantives, as well as optional borrowings, have at least one equivalent in French.

Therefore, grammatical gender is generally consistent with the gender of the French equivalent, even though this rule does not work all the time. Compulsory borrowings, also called "grammatical borrowings", are used to fill a lexical gap since they have, by definition, no equivalent in the target language. For example, there is no French equivalent for the borrowed substantives « cocktail » or « strip-tease », both used in the masculine. Then how can the attributed grammatical gender be explained for compulsory borrowings, as it is impossible to base an explanation on French equivalents? We can only venture a guess. For that reason, this analysis will rely on two main hypotheses: a grammatical hypothesis, and a spelling -and therefore graphematic -hypothesis.

Grammatical hypothesis

It seems important to note that, most of the time, French speakers spontaneously use borrowed substantives in the masculine, without even thinking about their foreign origin. A possible explanation concerning the recurrent use of the masculine gender could be found in the fact that in French, the masculine gender prevails over the feminine, grammatically speaking. Therefore, compulsory borrowed substantives have (automatically) been employed in the masculine in French to facilitate their use and their lexicalisation. It thus seemed easier and logical to opt for the masculine. This rule would therefore explain why « cocktail », « black-out », « duty free », « flash-back », or « fair-play » are employed in the masculine in French. As these words have no equivalent in French, contrary to the analyses that have been carried out for codeswitching and optional borrowing, the grammatical gender they have been attributed cannot be deduced from French equivalent terms, hence the alternative analysis based on the predominance of the masculine over the feminine.

Besides, amongst the English compulsory borrowings whose grammatical gender cannot be deduced by having a look at their suffix or ending vowel, « box », referring to the object allowing people to watch TV and to phone at home, via the Internet, is used in the feminine in French. The terms « boîte » or « boitier » cannot be considered equivalent substantives in such cases. Indeed, brands selling this kind of products in France never use these French terms. For instance, Free, Orange, and Bouygues respectively sell

Freebox, Livebox, and Bbox. Finally, explaining the grammatical gender attributed to « box » remains difficult since the two words that could be considered equivalents have different grammatical genders: « boîte » is feminine, and « boîtier » is masculine.

Furthermore, a box looks rather like a « boîtier » than a « boîte », so grammatical genders do not coincide. In such case, « box » would therefore constitute a special case, in terms of grammatical gender attribution. Additionally, the term « box » was already lexicalised in French and used in the masculine to refer to the dock in a court, the box for horses, or a lock-up garage. Therefore, the fact that the grammatical gender changes highlights the fact that the meaning changes -e.g. La France (the country) vs. Le France (the transatlantic liner).

There is however another means to determine why some borrowed substantives are attributed the masculine or feminine gender: spelling, and therefore graphematics.

Suffix hypothesis

The attribution of the masculine or feminine grammatical genders of some compulsory borrowings used in French can be explained by taking an interest in spelling, and more precisely, in substantive suffixes. Indeed, in French, suffixes are gender-sensitive. This means that some French suffixes systematically attribute the masculine or the feminine gender to nouns. For instance, French substantives ending in -tion are necessarily feminine -e.g., « gradation », « promotion », or « rédaction ». On the contrary, words ending in -ment are masculine -e.g., « commencement », « désistement », or « tourment ». Considering that, it could be possible to come to the same conclusion with the English suffix -ing. Substantives borrowed from English and used in French are masculine when ending in -ing. This is the case, for instance, for some compulsory borrowings such as « leasing », « shopping », and « dumping ». This also the case for false Anglicisms like « lifting », « pressing », or « parking ». Thus, the suffix -ing can be labelled a masculine suffix in French, just like -ment. Similarly, compulsory borrowings like « télévision » are feminine because they end in -sion, a feminine suffix in French giving feminine substantives like « conclusion » or « évasion ».

Additionally, we could go further by asserting that some vowels could be considered masculine or feminine. For instance, both vowels [a] and [o], when ending some borrowed substantives, give feminine nouns as in « caméra », « fashionista », « photo », « vidéo », and « radio ». On the contrary, the vowel [e] could be considered a masculine vowel, as it will be demonstrated in Corpus #2 with substantives borrowed from English to French such as « programme », « jingle », « live », « prime », or « selfie ».

To sum up, if the grammatical gender attribution of compulsory borrowings cannot be explained grammatically, there is still the possibility to have a closer look at spelling.

Finally, the idea of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum, when dealing with compulsory borrowing, is not that obvious. Indeed, since compulsory borrowings have no equivalent in the target language compared with optional borrowings and codeswitching, it cannot be asserted that they were codeswitched, before being lexicalised. It might be hypothesised that since they fill a lexical gap, compulsory borrowings might have been borrowed from English and directly lexicalised. On the contrary, due to the fact that French equivalents already exist, the process of lexicalisation for optional borrowings might take long.

Synthesis

The major objective of this part was to demonstrate that there is a clear link between codeswitching and borrowing, and that these two linguistic phenomena could not be studied separately, even if they have to be distinguished in a linguistic analysis.

Indeed, there is a codeswitching -borrowing continuum on both word evolution and grammar.

First of all, considering that codeswitching is at the beginning of the chain, it means that any borrowed substantive, at least any optional borrowing, used to be a codeswitched word, whatever the length of the lexicalisation process is. Indeed, as this type of English borrowings already had an equivalent in French, there was probably a waiting time before their adoption in the borrower language.

Second of all, on a grammatical level, it has been demonstrated that gender attribution can be explained similarly for both codeswitching and optional borrowing.

Although there are some special cases when multiple equivalents exist and/or when genders do not match, codeswitched substantives and optional borrowings are attributed the grammatical gender of their French equivalent, since they obviously have at least one.

Finally, as compulsory borrowings have no equivalent in French, two explanations could be provided. The first hypothesis is grammatical and consists in concluding that since the majority of borrowed substantives are masculine in French, they have been attributed this gender to stay true to the grammatical rule stating that the masculine prevails over the feminine. The second hypothesis is to have a closer look at spellingand thus graphematics since pronunciation may vary from English to French -, and particularly at suffixes or vowels ending nouns, by asserting that, firstly, some suffixes could be considered feminine -e.g., -sion -, and some others masculine -e.g., -ing -; and secondly, that some vowels can be considered feminine -e.g., [a] and [o] -, or masculine -e.g., [e] -, giving therefore feminine or masculine borrowed substantives.

These are only hypotheses and we will therefore see if they can be verified, or contested, in the next and last chapter devoted to case studies.

Conclusion

The main objective of this chapter was to distinguish between the features characterising codeswitching and those characterising borrowing, in a linguistic study, in order to eventually demonstrate the codeswitching -borrowing continuum, which is the common thread of this thesis.

To do so, key notions differentiating codeswitching from borrowing were detailed.

The notion of "linguistic creation", pertaining to borrowing and not to codeswitching, just like "lexicalisation", contrary to bilingualism, which is a prerequisite for speakers to be able to codeswitch, was developed. Via lexicalisation, it was possible to demonstrate the link between codeswitching and borrowing since this process changes codeswitched substantives into borrowings. Then, codeswitching was distinguished from borrowing to analyse the question of choice. In this section, borrowing has been divided into three categories: compulsory borrowings, which have no French equivalents, optional borrowings -those having an equivalent term in French, just like codeswitching -, and optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings. They represent words that have a French equivalent, but as this equivalent is rarely used, the borrowed terms act like compulsory borrowings. Finally, the perception specialists and ordinary people have of both codeswitching and borrowing was detailed. Secondly, the usefulness of codeswitching and borrowing was developed through different reasons. Globalisation and progress were examined in order to determine whether both codeswitching and borrowing could be used when speaking as well as when writing. The principle of leasteffort was devoted a sub-part, as it is also an element that should be considered when dealing with codeswitching and borrowing usefulness. Étiemble's book Parlez-vous franglais ? constituted the third part of this chapter. Analysing the structure of his book, the content, and what Franglais represents for him were the three main objectives.

Finally, the last part of Chapter II aimed to demonstrate, once again, the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum by hypothesising on grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings, although for the latter, the continuum does not seem to be that evident.

Concerning codeswitching and optional borrowing, grammatical gender study was based on the grammatical gender of the French equivalents, or, when there were special cases, on the analysis of the suffixes. As for compulsory borrowing, two hypotheses were provided: a grammatical hypothesis, resting on the fact that masculine prevails over feminine in French, and a spelling and graphematic hypothesis, which consists in studying suffixes and vowels ending substantives to deduce the grammatical gender attributed to nouns.

The third and last chapter of this thesis will revolve around case studies. Four corpora, related to four different domains, and thus providing a plurality of occurrences, will be analysed in order to explain the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings.

Chapter III -Case studies

Case studies will be at the heart of the third and last chapter of this thesis. In order to back up, redefine, fine-tune or add more content to what has been previously stated in the theoretical first chapter and in the second chapter, the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives, as well as to borrowed substantives, will be analysed through various corpora. The main language of these corpora is French and the substantives that will be analysed are either codeswitched from English or borrowed from English.

After much vain research to work on only one corpus, it appeared that having several short corpora was the most appropriate manner of dealing with this topic.

Indeed, the plurality of occurrences 52 noted in each of them, thanks to the different subjects they relate to and the diverse ways of conducting their study, offer a diversified, multifaceted, and digestible analysis.

As a result, four corpora have been created via written or spoken sources. The first corpus has been developed thanks to blogs written by French expatriates living in Australia and New Zealand. It is therefore a written source. The second corpus, which is a spoken source named after the TV show Touche Pas à Mon Poste !, encompasses several substantives referring to media language. Concerning the third corpus, which is a spoken and written source, codeswitching and borrowing in rap songs' lyrics will be analysed. The analysis of the fourth corpus, a written and spoken source, is based on the codeswitched and borrowed substantives listed in the booklet of So Shape, a French brand selling diet products, and noticed on the radio interview of the So Shape cofounder. As already mentioned, these corpora will be analysed differently. Such variety 52 These occurrences will be arranged in alphabetical order.

is therefore beneficial for the relevance of the study: it adds various sources to what has been stated in the previous chapters and to what will be demonstrated.

Each corpus is characterised by at least one or more domains. For instance, occurrences noted in blogs pertain to the vocabulary of leisure (i.e. sports or escapades), daily life formalities (i.e. accommodation or job), and local particularities such as places to visit or animals, amongst others. In the second corpus, TPMP, the substantives relate to entertainment and technical language -i.e. jargon or technolect. The third corpus deals with rap songs and concerns therefore the artistic domain -i.e. (modern) poetry.

Finally, in the fourth corpus, the domain of study is mainly related to food.

As it is impossible to know French bloggers' mastery of English, their use of English terms can pose a problem at some point. It is the same issue for TPMP participants since they are not particularly bilingual. The same issue can be problematic in the analysis of rap songs, as well as in the study of the So Shape booklet and the online interview of the co-founder of the brand. However, it will be interesting to analyse the way the people speaking or writing use codeswitching and borrowing, if they make mistakes or not, the reasons motivating the use of both codeswitching and borrowing, and the grammatical gender attributed to the listed occurrences.

The fact of starting with blogs first, secondly TPMP, then rap music, to finish with So Shape is a deliberate choice. The decisive criterion to classify the analyses in such order was bilingualism. Indeed, throughout the analyses, a gradation in bilingualism -a prerequisite for codeswitching but not for borrowing -will be observed: the English mastery of bloggers is unknown but the fact that they live abroad is to be taken into account when studying their codeswitching habits. TPMP speakers are not necessarily bilingual but it will be demonstrated that bilingualism is not required in the way they use codeswitching, as many of the occurrences listed seem to be codeswitched but are actually jargon terms. Booba's mastery of English is unknown as well, but as he lives in the United States, he is inclined to codeswitching. Finally, in the last corpus, codeswitching and borrowing will be assimilated to a commercial strategy. We can therefore suppose that people in charge of marketing and communication for the brand have a certain mastery of English to be able to create the occurrences that will be studied.

Thus, reasons for codeswitching and borrowing, as well as the attribution of grammatical gender to codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings will be studied through various criteria and hypotheses. We will try to show that codeswitching and borrowing are not opposite linguistic phenomena since they can actually be studied as a continuum, and even, as a never-ending lexical process, enabling an unlimited creation of new codeswitched terms thanks to the reuse of borrowings.

Additionally, statistics and graphs will be provided for each corpus so that the analyses of the four different case studies may be more scientific and more objective.

The difference will be made between codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing, whether they are used in the masculine or in the feminine. Then, reasons explaining why the masculine or the feminine are used will also be displayed in graphs, distinguishing again codeswitching from optional borrowing, from compulsory borrowing.

Corpus #1 -Blogs

The first corpus to be studied in this thesis has been developed thanks to the occurrences noticed in eleven blogs53 written by French expatriates: six of them are updated by expatriate people living in Australia, and the five others by expatriates living in New Zealand.

Working on both Australia and New Zealand appeared logical since bloggers were liable to codeswitch and borrow some words exclusively belonging to these new environments and countries, and having, for the great majority, no European equivalents, or at least having some that are never used in French. Therefore, studying the posts of French bloggers who moved to Australia and New Zealand seemed to be a relevant way of collecting a large number of interesting occurrences.

The occurrences are substantives codeswitched or borrowed from English and employed with French determiners and/or adjectives. These determiners and adjectives are essential to the study of grammatical gender attribution since, in French, they agree in number and gender with the substantives they are attached to. Taking them into account is therefore unavoidable as they determine the grammatical gender attributed to substantives. The aim of this study will be to determine why some codeswitched or borrowed nouns are used in the feminine, and not in the masculine, and vice versa.

To do so, these occurrences have been classified into nine categories. They all pertain to the travel theme and the experience of living abroad. For each category, no distinction has been made between codeswitching and borrowing. The analysed occurrences have only been classified according to the theme they belong to. Finally, results will be given in the form of statistics and graphs.

Escapade and trip

The first category revolves around the wordage of escapade and trip (three

[…] » [NZ3]; « […] notre roadtrip (sic) pluvieux […] » [NZ4]
Two of the three substantives listed in this category are codeswitched, and one is borrowed. The study of the grammatical gender they have been attributed will be based on the gender of their French equivalents.

"Jetlag", being translated by « décalage horaire », is used in the masculine -with the determiner « le (de + le à du) » -in the example sentences as it is in French. Similarly, the codeswitched word "stop" is used in the masculine -i.e. preceded by the indefinite article « un » and the definite article « le », followed by the adjective « premier » also in the masculine. This can be explained by the fact that « arrêt », the French equivalent, is a masculine noun.

The substantive "trip", a borrowed word, is also used in the masculine. Being translated « voyage », a masculine word in French, "trip" is preceded by the masculine article « un » in both examples, and is also preceded by the adjective « dernier », employed in the masculine. Finally, the expression "road trip" occurs five times. It is used in the masculine as well -i.e. preceded by the masculine determiners « le (de + le à du) », « un », « mon », « ce », and followed in the last example sentence by the adjective « pluvieux », employed in the masculine -probably because the French translation could be « un voyage par la route », « voyage » being masculine.

Accommodation

In the second category, the lexicon referring to accommodation will be analysed through four substantives:

o Backpacker, e.g., « Le backpacker où on logeait était un ancien couvent » [NZ4];

« […] nous avons logé dans un backpacker sur une colline […] » [NZ4]

o Campground, e.g., « […] les panneaux de renseignements du campground étaient

très confus […] » [NZ3] o Couchsurfer, e.g., « […] d'autres couchsurfeurs […] » [NZ4]
o Tree house, e.g., « Depuis la tree house, adorable cottage très à l'anglaise, nichée

dans les arbres […] » [NZ3]; « […] la confortable tree house […] » [NZ3]; « […] la

tree-house (sic) (maison privée des invités et des woofeurs) […] » [NZ3]

Both uses of the term "backpacker" are odd. Indeed, in English, the substantive "backpacker" refers to a person travelling with a backpack, whereas in the examples provided, the term clearly refers to the place where backpackers live -i.e. a backpacker's (hostel), in English. The term "backpacker" is therefore neither codeswitched nor borrowed in this case; and determining the reasons why it is employed in the masculine appears difficult. However, if we consider "backpacker" as being codeswitched, the first possible explanation is that "backpack", being a type of accommodation, would therefore be referred to as the masculine generic term « hébergement » in French. Another explanation could be given thanks to the analysis of the -er suffix added to "backpack". This suffix sounds like the French suffix -eur forming masculine substantives such as « danseur » or « voyageur », for instance. As a result, the fact that "backpacker" is attributed the masculine gender might be explained by the sound similarity its -er suffix has with the French suffix -eur, added to form masculine substantives.

The terms "campground" and "tree house" are codeswitched in the above example sentences. "Campground" is probably employed in the masculine in the example sentence for its French equivalents are « camping » or « terrain de camping », both masculine substantives. "Tree house", meaning « cabane/maison dans les arbres », is used in the feminine in the three instances. The reason is simple: « cabane » and « maison » are feminine substantives in French. Therefore, the codeswitched word "house" is attributed the feminine gender, hence "la tree house".

Finally, « couchsurfeurs » is used in the masculine plural form. From the English "couchsurfer", this compulsory borrowing has been Frenchified -i.e. the English suffix -er becomes -eur in French. The usage of the masculine plural form in that case study is due to the fact that the person writing refers to couchsurfers in general, be they men or women. Thus, in accordance with the French grammatical rule, the masculine prevails over the feminine, hence the use of the masculine plural form for « couchsurfeurs ». If the couchsurfers in question had exclusively been women, the substantive would have taken the following form: « couchsurfeuses ».

Cuisine and beverage

The third category deals with the vocabulary of cuisine and beverage. Fourteen The case of cuisine and beverage is quite special since it is directly linked with the cultural aspect of a country, its customs and traditions. Thus, most of the time, words are borrowed without translation or adaptation in the target language -i.e. no spelling modification. It is demonstrated thanks to the given examples from English to French.

Nevertheless, words related to French cuisine and beverage are also borrowed in English as they are -e.g., « crème brûlée », « mille-feuille », « vinaigrette », « crème fraîche », « pot-au-feu », « éclair », « demi-sec », « eau de vie ». The French spelling is respected when these instances are used in English: accents and hyphens are retained.

Regarding « barbecue » and « sundae », which can be found in the above example sentences, it can be hypothesised that they are masculine because they end with the vowel [e], which can be considered masculine, as in « programme », for instance.

Concerning the other occurrences, the grammatical hypothesis stating that masculine prevails over feminine can explain why these terms are used in the masculine in French.

Job

The fourth category refers to the lexical field of jobs. Eight substantives have been The substantives of this category are codeswitched, except « boss » and « job » which are optional borrowings, as French equivalents exist. In any case, the grammatical gender these words have been attributed should therefore match the gender of their equivalent(s).

"Boss", meaning « chef » or « patron.ne » in French, is used in the masculine in the example sentence as the person writing is talking about George, a man. However, « boss » can either be used in the feminine or in the masculine, depending on who the boss is -i.e. a male of a female. For instance, one can either say « le boss » or « la boss ».

In any case, « boss » is used the same way, no matter if it refers to a male or a female. The grammatical gender attributed is thus based on "sexed gender", as it is the case for numerous optional borrowings. The word "job", occurring three times in the example sentences, is probably employed in the masculine -« un job, le job » -as the French equivalents are « emploi », « travail », or « boulot », all masculine substantives. Thence, it would explain why some other jobs mentioned in the example sentences are used in the masculine. "Picking" and "thinning" refer to « la cueillette » or « la récolte » in French, both feminine nouns. Being codeswitched substantives and having therefore French equivalents employed in the feminine, the fact of using them in the feminine as well would not be surprising. Therefore, explaining their masculine gender, as well as the masculine gender attributed to "woofing" and "stripping", can be possible thanks to the analysis of the suffix -ing. Indeed, English words ending in -ing are masculine in Frenche.g., "carjacking" (Fr. « car-jacking ») or « shopping » -as evidenced by the TLFi, which states that -ing is a « Suff. de mots anglais généralement noms d'action de genre masc., empruntés en français ». Except « holding », which is referred to as « nom masculin ou nom féminin » in the French dictionary Larousse, substantives ending in -ing are masculine in French. "Thinner" is used in the masculine: it is preceded by the masculine determiner « un », and the adjective « bon » in the masculine form. Thanks to the context of the sentence, it is implicit that the person writing talks about the main quality of a good thinner, generally speaking. Thus, as in French the masculine prevails over the feminine, it can be deduced that either the job is done by a male or a female, "thinner" is masculine. Moreover, considering that it is a job, masculine in French, this type of job is attributed the masculine. The word "woofeurs" is here Frenchified -i.e. the suffix -eur. In English, it is spelt "woofer", either a male or a female is woofing; nonetheless, in this example sentence, the distinction seems to be made between male woofers (« woofeurs », in French) and female woofers (« woofeuses »). Grammatical gender is therefore determined by natural gender, it that case. Moreover, just like in the previous example, as the person talks about woofers in general, the masculine prevails over the feminine. Considering the two given factors, even though there is no article before "woofeurs" here, it can be hypothesised that it is masculine.

Sports

In the fifth category, nine words referring to sports will be analysed: Substantives related to names of sports are generally used in the masculine. Indeed, there are some examples in the above listed instances: "hacky sack" (French equivalent:

o
balle aki), "stand up paddle", « surf », "trek" (French equivalent: longue randonnée), "racing", and "square juggling" are all preceded by masculine definite or indefinite articles, or demonstrative determiners. Other sports such as « football », « rugby », « bobsleigh », or « base-ball » for instance, are also used in the masculine, in French. This might be due to the fact that these sports used to be practised by men rather than women, although nowadays, all sports are mixed. There might therefore be some sexism in the attribution of grammatical gender for names of sports. In that case, this attribution is based on sexed gender, hence the fact that many names of sports are masculine when referring to sports originally practised by men. Similarly, some substantives related to feminine sports -i.e. sports originally practised by girls or women -are attributed the feminine gender in French. This is the case for « danse » or « gymnastique », for example, even though, once again, nowadays women as well as men practise these sports. Nevertheless, the sexism evoked in the explanation of masculine gender for many names of sports supposedly practised by men can be illustrated by the names given to some "men's sports" when practised by women. Indeed, in French, we talk about « football féminin », « rugby féminin », « basketball féminin », or « tennis féminin », but the adjective « masculin » is never added when talking about these sports when practised by men. There are nonetheless some special cases such as « boxe », a feminine substantive in French, even though this sport would more spontaneously be called a men's sport due to the violence it suggests.

"Rugby League" is the only substantive used in the feminine -i.e. preceded by the feminine definite article « la ». The reason is simple: "league" has for French equivalents « ligue » and « division », which are both feminine substantives. The English borrowing "league" is frequently used in French and, therefore, always employed in the feminine.

Regarding « surfer », a compulsory borrowing, "trekker", "racing", and "square juggling", codeswitched terms, the explanation of the masculine gender they are attributed might be found in the analysis of their suffix. Indeed, both substantives end with the suffix -er. The sound similarity this suffix has with the French suffix -eur, being a masculine sounding ending since it is added to form masculine substantives such as « randonneur » (the French masculine equivalent for "trekker"), « transporteur » or « coiffeur », can explain why « surfer » and « trekker » are employed in the masculine.

Regarding "racing" and "square juggling", they are masculine since French substantives ending in -ing are, in most cases, masculine -e.g., « karting » or « planning ».

Animals

In the sixth category, the lexical field of words referring to (names of) animals will be analysed. The names of animals listed above seem to be codeswitched and function like codeswitched nouns because they have equivalents in French -i.e. an "Australian bush turkey" is called « Talégalle de Latham »; a "water dragon" is « un dragon d'eau », and a "noisy miner" is in French « un Méliphage bruyant ». However, as their names are not likely to be known in French, since these kinds of animals cannot be found in France, their English names are kept. Some explanations can nevertheless be given so that the reader can picture the animal.

Regarding "noisy miner" and "Australian bushturkey", both used in the masculine, their attributed gender in French probably comes from the fact that they both are birds, « oiseaux », which is a masculine noun in French. Concerning "Australian bushturkey", the feminine would have been acceptable as well since "turkey" has for French equivalent « dinde », which is a feminine substantive. "Water dragon" is used as it is and is preceded by the masculine indefinite article « un ». This is probably due to the fact that it is referred to as « un gros lézard », which is masculine in French. Moreover, the term « dragon » being masculine in French as well, reinforces the fact that the masculine is attributed. The term "kiwi bird" is also masculine in the example. This is due to the fact that "bird", translated « oiseau » in French, is masculine. Similarly, "kiwi" is employed in the masculine because the given explanation defines it as « un animal », a masculine substantive in French.

For this category, the grammatical gender attributed can be easily explained.

However, these substantives cannot be analysed like any others since these names of animals refer to such rare animals unknown to French people that even the bloggers may not know their French equivalents. Therefore, employing them as codeswitched nouns is unavoidable. In other words, the bloggers are, in that case, compelled to codeswitch and to attribute a gender in accordance with the French generic term the animal belongs to -i.e. « oiseau » or « lézard », for instance.

Places

In the seventh category, the lexicon relating to (names of) places will be analysed These words, being considered codeswitching, except « bush », all have at least one equivalent in French. Therefore, the gender they are attributed can be explained quite simply.

If the substantives "Bay", "beach", "city", "Coast", "rainforest", and "skyline" are first considered, it can be hypothesised that they are used in the feminine -i.e. preceded by the article « la » -because their French equivalents are feminine nouns. Indeed, "Bay" is « une Baie »; "beach" is « une plage »; "city" is « une ville »; "Coast" is « une côte »;

"rainforest" is « une forêt tropicale »; and "skyline" is « une ligne d'horizon ».

If we now consider some other substantives of this category, we can deduce that they are used in the masculine because their French equivalent is masculine. For example, « un endroit » is the French translation for "spot"; "art center" could be translated « centre artistique »; "Bridge" is « un pont »; "Park" is « un parc »; "North" is « le Nord » -"Far North" is therefore « le Grand Nord »; "Northland" represents a region 55 In this sentence, the compound "surf spot" is codeswitched, not only "spot", since the type of spot that is being considered is determined by "surf" (N2-N1).

in the North « le Nord »; and "sanctuary" is « un sanctuaire ». Although "Regent" is the name of « une salle de cinéma », which is feminine in French, it can be hypothesised that this name becomes masculine in French if it is only referred to as « un cinéma ».

The case of "wilderness" is a bit more complex. It is used in the masculine in the example sentence « […] la beauté du wilderness […] ». Nevertheless, it is referred to as « une région sauvage », « une contrée sauvage », « une étendue sauvage », or « un désert » in French. Amongst the four French equivalents for this codeswitched term, three of them are feminine, and only one is masculine. The use of "wilderness" in the masculine is therefore justified, and using this substantive in the feminine would also be correcte.g., « […] la beauté de la wilderness […] ». However, the reason why the blogger attributes the masculine to "wilderness" could be explained by having a look at the suffix of this word. Ending with the English suffix -ness like « fitness » or « business », which are masculine substantives borrowed from English to French, attributing the masculine to "wilderness" makes sense. Speakers therefore have the choice between the attribution of the masculine or the feminine gender to some words such as "wilderness" because there is also the choice amongst the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution -i.e. the grammatical gender of the French equivalent and the suffix.

Finally, the substantive for which the grammatical gender attributed is hard to explain is « bush ». As it is lexicalised in French, and has a French feminine synonym « brousse », « bush » is an optional borrowing. It should therefore be attributed the grammatical gender of its synonym, like codeswitched nouns. However, for that case, the rule does not work since grammatical genders do not match. As a consequence, having a closer look at the suffix -sh can be a means of explaining the masculine gender attributed to « bush ». English words ending in -sh are masculine when used in French. For instance, « trash», « clash », « flash », or « cash » are French masculine substantives borrowed from English. Their common point is that they all end with the suffix -sh. Thus, considering that « bush » is masculine because it ends with the masculine suffix -sh can be hypothesised.

Acronyms

The "REGO" means "registration". "Registration" ends with the suffix -ation, which is a feminine suffix in French since it is attributed to feminine substantives such as « natation », « élongation », or « machination ». Therefore, the attribution of the feminine grammatical gender to REGO can also be explained by the fact that its equivalent "registration" ends with the suffix -ation, which is a feminine suffix in French. Lastly, the Warranty of Fitness, commonly known under the acronym WOF, is also employed in the masculine when speaking or writing in French. The given explanation, indicating that the equivalent in French is « le contrôle technique », which is masculine, might be the reason why people say "le WOF". It is noteworthy that the entire equivalent « contrôle technique » is taken into account to explain the masculine gender attributed to "WOF", otherwise the explanation would not be coherent. Indeed, if we only consider the term "warranty", having for French equivalent « garantie », "WOF" should be used in the feminine.

Unclassifiable substantives

Finally, in the ninth category, sixteen substantives that did not fit any of the previous categories will be studied -i.e. the occurrences used to name New Zealanders, those related to lore and traditions, and some other unclassifiable substantives.

o The analysis of the above substantives will first start with codeswitched nouns, then optional borrowings, to finish with compulsory borrowings.

Regarding "lagoon", "lifestyle", "post", and "trick", having for respective French equivalents « lagon », « mode/style de vie », « article/billet », and « tour » in the example sentences, the grammatical gender attributed to each codeswitched substantive corresponds to the gender of the French equivalent. In the example sentence « On pouvait entendre cette kiwi (sic) […] », the word is used in the feminine. It is therefore sexed gender, which means that the grammatical gender attributed corresponds to the natural gender of the person it refers to. When "kiwi", in the second example sentence, refers to New Zealanders in general, it is used in the plural. Thus, its gender cannot be determined, but we can guess that its grammatical gender attribution is gender-based.

"Working holiday visa" also acts as a codeswitched noun. Its French equivalent is « visa vacances-travail ». In any case, the substantive « visa » remains masculine. The substantive « finish » is a borrowing when referring to sports. It is also translated as « dernier effort » in French, hence the use of the masculine gender. However, in the example « Et le finish […] », the blogger is talking about a firework. The term "finish" would therefore be translated by the masculine substantive « final », in French. Thus, concerning this example, the term "finish" is codeswitched and carries the grammatical gender of its French equivalent « final ». In addition, having a look at the suffix of this substantive can lead to a hypothesis. Indeed, as already mentioned when analysing the grammatical gender attributed to « bush », considering that the suffix -sh might be masculine could be a solution to explain why "finish" is masculine in French, just like other substantives such as « flash », « crash », or « cash ». Finally, « splash » is a codeswitched onomatopoeia. Indeed, it both refers to the act of splashing and to the sound. The French equivalent « plouf » is masculine, hence the use of the masculine for the codeswitched term « splash ». Furthermore, here again, the hypothesis of the suffix -sh being masculine can explain why this onomatopoeia is masculine in French.

« Blog » is an optional borrowing. The attribution of the masculine gender is not hard to explain because the French synonym is « journal en ligne ». « Journal » being masculine, « blog » has therefore been attributed the masculine grammatical gender.

Similarly, « show » is an optional borrowing having for French equivalent « spectacle », a masculine noun. Both substantives have the same grammatical gender, which can be explained by the fact that the grammatical gender of the English term has been attributed in accordance with the grammatical gender of the French equivalent.

« Building », meaning « bâtiment » or « grand immeuble », is masculine because its French equivalents are masculine. Moreover, it ends with the suffix -ing and, just like other borrowed substantives ending in -ing, it is masculine in French. « Look » can also be listed amongst optional borrowings. Indeed, its French synonyms are « apparence » or « style », respectively feminine and masculine substantives. The fact that « look » has synonyms whose genders do not match makes of it a special case. It may be hypothesised that its grammatical gender attribution is in accordance with the French grammar rule stating that masculine prevails over feminine. Similarly, « break » could be considered a special case as it is used in the masculine whereas its French synonym « pause » is a feminine substantive. However, if in that case we consider that its French equivalent can be « arrêt », a masculine substantive, the use of « break » in the masculine seems logical.

Both « week-end » and « haka » are masculine compulsory borrowings. They have no synonym in French and were therefore lexicalised to fill a lexical gap -i.e. « week-end »and also because what it refers to does not exist in the French culture (lexical gap as well) -i.e. « haka ». Explaining why they are masculine could be hypothesised thanks to the grammatical rule stating that the masculine prevails over the feminine. Thus, in order to ease their use in French, these words have been attributed the masculine To conclude, as already mentioned in the introduction of this chapter, the main problem for this corpus is that the English mastery of these French bloggers is unknown.

Since being able to codeswitch means being bilingual, according to the given definitions in the introductory chapter (Chapter I), if some of these bloggers are bilingual, their use of codeswitching is justified. However, if some of them are not, the fact that they codeswitch could be assimilated to mimetism or imitation, and therefore, bilingualism is not required. They simply reuse in French the terms they are used to hearing in English but would not necessarily codeswitch "spontaneously" with any other English word when speaking French. Thus, they are not proficient in English since linguistic mimetism is no proof of linguistic skills. In his 2003 article « Mimétisme et Linguistique », Halbronn deals with the fact that being able to correctly utter a sentence in a language does not mean that the speaker actually speaks this language.

Si l'on vous dit « je parle français », qu'est-ce à dire ? Quand peut-on dire que l'on parle bien le français ? Suffit-il pour cela que l'on ne commette pas de fautes en s'exprimant ? Peut-on comprendre une langue sans la parler ? […] Le fait de prononcer correctement une phrase dans une langue ne prouve pas, pour autant, que l'on « parle » cette langue mais tout au plus, de façon très factuelle, que l'on parle en cette langue. En formant une phrase simple, on peut fort bien ne pas faire de fautes mais qu'est-ce que cela prouvera ? Peut-être a-t-on contourné les difficultés et ne s'est-on servi que d'une portion relativement modeste de la langue, évitant les mots jugés trop difficiles à prononcer ou les tournures trop délicates à manier.

[…] On peut d'ailleurs, par dessus le marché, affirmer que l'on comprend telle langue alors qu'il nous est impossible de traduire un propos étranger, tenu en une langue donnée, dans une langue qui nous est familière.

This quotation applies as well to the bloggers in question and their presumed linguistic mimetism. The spelling mistakes noted in the examples -e.g., "roadtrip, tree-house, cheese cake, fruitpicking, treck" -are evidence of a partial mastery of English, or at least of a partial proficiency. It is linked with their habits and their daily life, which explains why these bloggers are familiar with this kind of vocabulary. Finally, they might not be so at ease with codeswitching other words that are not linked with the targeted vocabulary they hear and use -i.e. any other words that are not part of their "comfort zone".

Results and statistics

For the eighty occurrences that have just been analysed in this corpus, statistics will be provided. Firstly, these statistics will give a clearer idea of how many feminine and masculine substantives are listed in this corpus. The occurrences will be categorised whether they represent codeswitching, optional borrowing, or compulsory borrowing.

Secondly, in order to provide a more scientific and more objective study, statistics will deal with the reasons engendering the masculine or the feminine gender, for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing. According to what has been demonstrated throughout the first case study, the reasons will be classified as follows: the referential (or extralinguistic) reason -i.e. related to the referent's gender -, the interlinguistic reason -i.e. when the French equivalent is considered to determine grammatical gender attribution -, metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when suffixes and vowels ending substantives determine grammatical gender attribution -, both interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when both the French equivalent and the suffix or ending vowels are taken into account to explain grammatical gender attribution -, and the grammatical reason -i.e. when grammatical gender attribution rests on the fact that, in French, masculine prevails over feminine. To exemplify this, consider the following graphs displaying data through percentages: In the following graphs, reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution will be displayed. The first two graphs highlight the fact that the major reason explaining the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives and optional borrowings is the interlinguistic reason -i.e. when the grammatical gender of the codeswitched term or the optional borrowing matches the grammatical gender of their respective French equivalent. Then follows, for codeswitching, the referential reason (17%) related to the gender of the referent, the metalinguistic reason (11%) referring to the analysis of suffixes to explain grammatical gender attribution, and both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons (8%) -i.e. when the French equivalents as well as the suffixes can explain grammatical gender attribution. Concerning optional borrowing, the referential (or extralinguistic) reason, the grammatical reason, both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons, as well as the metalinguistic reason (with suffixes) are equally used: 10% for each of them. Finally, regarding compulsory borrowing, the main reason explaining grammatical gender attribution is grammatical -i.e. the fact that, in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine. The referential reason comes in second position (18%), and then the metalinguistic reason -i.e. the fact of considering some ending vowels as being masculine or feminine (12%).

To sum up, for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing, the masculine is predominant compared with the feminine, in this corpus. As for the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution, the role of the French equivalent and its grammatical gender is essential when dealing with codeswitching and optional borrowing. For compulsory borrowing, the grammatical hypothesis is the most often used to determine why the masculine or the feminine are allocated, although the referent's gender and the hypothesis of masculine or feminine ending vowels matter as well.

therefore a counterexample since all the occurrences are extracted from blogs, which are online diaries.

Statistics were provided to display the data resulting from the analysis of this corpus in a clearer and more scientific way. They showed that masculine gender was predominant in the codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings. Secondly, regarding the reasons enabling to explain grammatical gender attribution, the interlinguistic reason is essential when dealing with codeswitching and optional borrowing, the grammatical reason being the most recurrent for compulsory borrowing. As for the codeswitching -borrowing continuum, the analysis of this corpus confirms what has been asserted at the end of Chapter II. Indeed, this continuum appears to be obvious when dealing with codeswitching and optional borrowing since they both have equivalents in French and can, therefore, have their grammatical gender attribution explained by the same reason -i.e. the interlinguistic reason. Nonetheless, compulsory borrowing seems to be an isolated category since, due to the fact that this type of borrowing has no equivalent in French, reasons explaining grammatical gender are not the same as the reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching or optional borrowing. Therefore, the link between codeswitching and compulsory borrowing is less obvious than the one connecting codeswitching and optional borrowing.

Now that grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched substantives and borrowings found in the expats' blogs has been studied, let us analyse how grammatical gender attribution works with media language.

Corpus #2 -Touche Pas à Mon Poste !

The second corpus to be analysed in this chapter devoted to case study is entitled Touche Pas à Mon Poste !, as the study of the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched and borrowed substantives will also be conducted through this TV show. The analysis of this corpus will be divided into three parts. The codeswitched and borrowed nouns noted will be classified according to three categories: fossilised 58 Formerly broadcast on France 4, and only on Thursdays in 2010 -seasons 1 to 3 -, in 2013, the TV show has been transferred on D8 (C8 now) -seasons 4 to 7 currently. 59 Here are the names of the participants who uttered the occurrences to be studied borrowings, recent substantives, and jargon terms, the last category including codeswitched substantives. These three categories emerged after having noted all the occurrences found in the TV show. Finally, a fourth part will be devoted to results through statistics and graphs.

Fossilised borrowings

Some of the occurrences noticed in Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! belong to a class that can be labelled "fossilised borrowings". This category encompasses all the English borrowings that entered the French lexicon so long ago that they are deeply settled in the language. These borrowings generally have no equivalent in the target language -French, here -and are the only way of naming a specific thing, idea, or concept. They are therefore, compulsory borrowings. Furthermore, they are generally so rooted in the language that they adapted to the spelling and pronunciation of the borrower language.

However, some other "fossilised borrowings" kept both their English spelling and pronunciation, and have no equivalent either since they are just as much settled in the French vocabulary as other borrowings that they adopted the French spelling and pronunciation.

Therefore, these borrowings, called fossilised borrowings, will be classified into two distinct categories: loanshifts and calques.

Loanshifts

As a loanshift 60 shows "morphemic substitution without importation" [Haugen 1950: 214], the French word « caméra » is, for instance, a loanshift. Indeed, it has been borrowed from English "camera" to which an accent has been added in French. This Moreover, in French dictionaries, it is referred to as a feminine substantive.

Considering grammatical gender attribution being a random phenomenon in French, the fact that « caméra » is attributed the feminine gender could be explained through spelling. If the letter [a] is considered to be a "feminine vowel", the attributed grammatical gender would therefore be feminine, just like the preposed determiner(s).

Here All loanshifts previously listed are employed in the masculine or in the feminine.

They are deeply anchored in the French lexicon -i.e. their spelling and pronunciation are completely Frenchified -, since they have been part of it for so long that their English origin is almost forgotten or undetectable. As a consequence, regarding the analysis of the grammatical gender they have been attributed, it appears that not much can be asserted, French having an arbitrary gender attribution. We can still consider that the grammatical gender of both « programme » and « prompteur » can be explained thanks to the study of their ending vowel and suffix. Firstly, the vowel [e] can be considered a masculine vowel when ending French substantives borrowed from English, and particularly fossilised borrowings, although [e] is generally associated with the feminine grammatical gender. Therefore, « programme » is masculine since it ends with an [e], a masculine vowel, just like « jingle », « live », or « prime » being masculine substantives that will be analysed in the following sub-part. Similarly, the -eur suffix is masculine in French since it is added to masculine substantives naming professions such as « chauffeur », and mechanical devices such as « ordinateur ». Thus, « prompteur » being a mechanical device ending with the suffix -eur, it is used in the masculine. If we go into the hypothesis put forth regarding the borrowed substantive « caméra » in depth -i.e.

[a] is a "feminine vowel" and substantive ending in [a] are thus attributed the feminine gender -, and we take this same explanation with substantives ending in [o], « radio » and « vidéo » could be therefore said to be feminine substantives because they end in [o],

this letter being a feminine vowel. Moreover, according to the Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales, « radio » is the shortened form -i.e. the apocope -of different feminine substantives such as « radiographie » and « radiodiffusion », to which « radiocommunication », another feminine noun, can be added. The fact that these full forms are feminine explains why the apocope « radio » is feminine as well. As for « vidéo », it has directly been borrowed from English "video". In order to explain the grammatical gender attributed to « télévision », analysing its suffix can be a solution. This substantive ends with the suffix -sion, being attributed to French feminine nouns such as « éclosion », « allusion », or « version ». Therefore, « télévision » is a feminine substantive because its suffix is feminine. Naturally, the grammatical gender attributed to its shortening « télé » is feminine. In linguistics, a shortening represents the morphological and phonological reduction of a word. Words can be shortened by "fore-clipping" or "aphaeresis" -i.e. the suppression of one or more syllables from the beginning of a word -, or "back-clipping", also called "apocope" -i.e. the suppression of one or more syllables from the end of a word. « Télé » is a case of apocope since the last two syllables « vi » and « sion » have been removed. Generally speaking, apocopated words do not have any effect on grammatical gender. Therefore, « télé » is feminine because its full form « télévision » is feminine. Likewise, the shortened forms of « appartement » and « cinéma », both masculine substantives, are « appart » and « ciné », masculine as well.

The masculine attributed to « appartement » can be explained by the fact that it ends with the suffix -ment, ending French masculine substantives such as « fragment » or « département ». Concerning « cinéma », the Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et

Lexicales states that it is the apocope of the word « cinématographe », a masculine substantive. Thus « cinéma », remains masculine since its full form « cinématographe » is masculine. As « télé » is feminine, when it is the headword of a French compound, this compound is feminine. This is the case for « télé réalité ». Moreover, the substantive « réalité » is feminine as well. Therefore, « télé réalité », borrowed from the English "reality TV", is feminine. It can also be added that, like other French feminine nouns ending in [é], such as « clarté » or « vitalité », « réalité » is feminine because it ends with the vowel [é]. The analysis of the grammatical gender attributed to the substantive « séquence », borrowed from the English "sequence", can be conducted by focusing on its suffix. French words ending in -ence are feminine -e.g., « coïncidence », « expérience », and « pertinence ». As a result, as « séquence » ends with the suffix -ence, it is feminine.

Finally, « voix off » is probably feminine because « voix » is a feminine substantive.

Nonetheless, it seems important to mention that the French term, « voix off » resembles a false-Anglicism. Indeed, the actual English word is "voice off". Like other false-Anglicisms such as « parking », « pin's », or « string », « voix off » shares a spelling similarity with English, which is "off" in that case. « Voix off » can nevertheless be considered a loanshift since it comes from the English "voice off", "voice-over", or "off screen voice", from which "voice" has been translated « voix » in French. However, it is an optional borrowing since the use of the French term « voix hors champ » is recommended in France, according to the Commission d'enrichissement de la langue française [FranceTerme 2000].

Now that the grammatical gender attributed to loanshifts -the substantives listed being mainly compulsory borrowings -have been studied, the analysis will be based on grammatical gender attributed to calques.

Calques

In the first chapter of this thesis61 , the following definition was given to define a calque: "when the native language uses an item-for-item native version of the original" [Hockett: 1958in Hoffer 2005: 53]. In this sub-part, fourteen substantives relating to media language, which are calques from English and which have been found in TPMP, will be listed and exemplified. Their attributed gender will also be analysed. Regarding « star », an optional substantive always used in the feminine whether it refers to a male or a female, the only explanation that can be given is that, since this calque from English has for French equivalents « une vedette », « une célébrité », or « une personne/personnalité célèbre », it is attributed the same grammatical gender as its

French equivalents -i.e. the feminine. The masculine attributed to « one-man-show » can be explained by the fact that « show » is « spectacle » in French, a masculine substantive.

Similarly, the optional borrowing « live » is masculine because its French equivalent « direct » is masculine. « Prime » and « prime time », meaning « programme de première partie de soirée », may be used in the masculine because « programme » is masculine. It should be noted that « prime » cannot be used as a shortening to mean "prime time" in English. Furthermore, as already hypothesised for the substantive « programme », the Now that the grammatical gender attributed to fossilised borrowings, which are divided into loanshifts and calques, have been conducted, the study will be based on the grammatical gender attributed to recent substantives.

Recent substantives

The adjective "recent" mentioned in the title refers to all the English substantivesfound in the TV show Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! -that were adopted in French during the last ten years. These nouns have recently emerged in the French lexicon, and their creation is linked with progress and the Internet. No precise date could be given to determine when exactly these substantives became part of the French vocabulary; however, it is common knowledge that they are recent terms created to name recent concepts and/or technologies. The terms that will be analysed are related to codeswitching and borrowing.

For each of the eleven substantives, examples taken from the corpus will be provided, as well as a study of the grammatical gender they are allocated. The first important thing to note is that these words are calques from English. Some of them are codeswitched, and some others borrowed. The English spelling is retained in French for all these substantives. The analysis of the substantives listed in this category will therefore be conducted depending on the class they belong to: codeswitching -i.e.

words having a French equivalent -, optional borrowing -i.e. words having a French equivalent -, or compulsory borrowing -i.e. words having no French equivalents, or words for which the equivalents are rarely used, never used, or do not exist.

« Faux », being the translation for "fake", is a masculine substantive in French. Thus, "fake" is masculine as well when used in French. This term is not lexicalised and is therefore a codeswitched substantive. Similarly, "photobomb" is codeswitched in the example sentence « Je vais vous faire découvrir ce qu'est un photobomb ». According to the Cambridge Dictionaries Online, "photobombing" is defined as the fact of appearing "behind or in front of someone when their photograph is being taken, usually doing something silly as a joke". In English, "photobomb" is the verb while "photobombing" is the substantive. However, in French, "photobomb" is used as a masculine noun, as shown in the example sentence. This codeswitched substantive has been directly calqued from English and has no equivalent in French, at least not yet. It therefore has to be explained with several words to be defined, which is called "circumlocution" in English. Regarding the grammatical gender it has been attributed, it can be hypothesised that, since "photobombing" refers to an intruder in a picture, "intruder" being translated « un intrus » in French, a masculine noun, "photobomb" is a masculine substantive when used in French because its potential equivalent « intrus » is masculine.

The first optional borrowing to be analysed is « clash ». Regarding compulsory borrowings, the case of the Anglicism « replay » seems to be a bit complex. A translation exists in French, but it implies to use several words. « Replay » is therefore another example of circumlocution, which is defined as the fact of using several words to refer to a concept, a notion, or an idea. As a noun, it is used in French as it is in English, or it can also be translated by a verb -e.g., « revoir/repasser une émission ». Nonetheless, these expressions are rarely used, especially « repasser une émission », and do not really have the same meaning as « replay ». Furthermore, replacing the word « replay » with the equivalent verbs in the example sentences would not make any sense. Using the borrowed substantive is therefore easier, more spontaneous, and is probably related to the linguistic economy principle. Finally, it is important to note that « rediffusion », a feminine French synonym for « replay », does exist but implies that, for instance, a series is broadcast again on TV, but not on the Internet. Moreover, in that case, since « rediffusion » is feminine, it does not make sense to use a grammatical gender that does not match, proof that this synonym is not relevant in the gender attribution for « replay », and is additionally too restrictive. Isolating the root word of this term may be useful to explain its grammatical gender. Indeed, just like « fair-play » or « display », used in the masculine in French, it can be hypothesised that English words ending in -play are masculine in French. Moreover, the word "play" is translated by « jeu » in French, which is a masculine substantive. Similarly, the case of « trash » is difficult to explain. There is no equivalent or translation for « le trash » in French. This noun has to be explained with several words to be defined -i.e.

circumlocution. The online dictionary Larousse offers the following definition for « trash »: « Se dit d'une tendance contemporaine à utiliser une forme de mauvais goût agressif, dans le but de provoquer, de choquer ». In French, for instance, when talking about the content of a TV show, the noun « trash » refers to a contemporary trend which purpose is to broach a tricky subject in the aim of provoking or shocking the viewers.

Concerning the grammatical gender it has been attributed, as already stated for « clash », « trash » ends with the suffix -sh, which can be considered a masculine suffix. The reason why « trash » or « clash », just like « cash » or « flash » for instance, are masculine can therefore be explained by the fact that all English borrowings ending in -sh are used in the masculine in French. « Tweet » is a masculine substantive borrowed from English as it is. Although they are never used, two possible French translations for this word are Since the distinction between codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings has been made, there is one last thing that seems important to signal. In order to analyse the words listed as recent borrowings, some have been classified as codeswitched or optional substantives because they have equivalents in French, and others as compulsory borrowings having no equivalent in French, or an equivalent that is never used. In such case, the term is thus an optional borrowing acting like a compulsory borrowing. Therefore, as already stated in Chapter II when dealing with the grammatical gender attributed to compulsory borrowings, the role of this type of borrowing is to fill a lexical gap, even when a French equivalent or translation exists.

«
The most relevant examples are « replay », « tweet », and « hashtag ».

The grammatical gender of the recent substantives found in TPMP having been analysed, the third section of this corpus will focus on jargon terms noted in the TV show. These terms will be divided into two categories: "metaphorical use", referring to substantives that are known by French viewers and that are employed to make a comparison, and "contextual understanding", encompassing words that need to be contextualised to be understood.

Jargon

According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, "jargon" is defined as "special words and phrases that are used by particular groups of people, especially in their work: military/legal/computer jargon". Allan and Burridge [2006: 56] define "jargon" as follows:

Jargon is the language peculiar to a trade, profession or other group; it is the language used in a body of spoken or written texts, dealing with a circumscribed domain in which speakers share a common specialized vocabulary, habits of word usage, and forms of expressions. 63Concerning the ongoing case study, the jargon terms that will be analysed are obviously related to media language. The specific terminology often used in Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! is a technical vocabulary that can be assimilated to codeswitching. Indeed, most of the jargon substantives that will be listed hereunder are codeswitched from English; although some of them are borrowings, used in such contexts, they take a new meaning, and can thus be considered codeswitching. Therefore, their equivalents or a definition will be given, and their attributed grammatical gender then studied.

Here is the list of the twenty-nine jargon words noted in In order to be analysed, these words will be classified into two categories.

Substantives that are known by French viewers and that are employed to compare a TV channel to a person, and a person to an animal will constitute the first category entitled "metaphorical use". Then, the jargon words that need a context to be understood will be studied in the second sub-part entitled "contextual understanding".

Metaphorical use

A metaphor is an analogical process thanks to which a comparison between two notions, concepts, things, people, or animals, amongst others, can be drawn to emphasise their resemblance or their difference. In a metaphorical context, the signified -i.e. the meaning -is different; however, the signifier -i.e. the content word -remains the same. Tournier [2004: 137] states that « le phénomène de changement de sens par métaphore est fondé sur la perception d'une ressemblance ». In cognitive linguistics, another approach to metaphor was adopted. This approach, which was first introduced by Lakoff and Johnson [1980], is summed up in the following quotation by Kövecses [2002: 4]:

[I]n the cognitive linguistics view, metaphor is defined as understanding one conceptual domain in terms of another conceptual domain.

[…] A convenient short-hand way of capturing this view of metaphor is the following: CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (A) IS CONCEPTUAL DOMAIN (B), which is what is called a conceptual metaphor. A conceptual metaphor consists of two conceptual domains, in which one domain is understood in terms of another. A conceptual domain is a coherent organization of experience.

[…]

We thus need to distinguish conceptual metaphor from metaphorical linguistic expressions. That latter are words or other linguistic expressions that come from the language or terminology of a more concrete conceptual domain (i.e., domain B).

Amongst the different types of metaphors that exist, there are lexicalised metaphors and non-lexicalised metaphors. An example of a lexicalised metaphor could be calling somebody a rat, which means that the person is underhand. The metaphors that will be evoked in this part are non-lexicalised.

Only two of the substantives mentioned hereinabove can be listed in this category:

« challenger » and « pitbull ». Also written « challengeur » in French, in the example sentence, channel D8 is compared to a challenger -e.g., « […] et D8 un challenger qui monte ». Since the word « challenger » is originally employed to describe a sports competitor, it is, in the example, used metaphorically to talk about the progression of the channel compared to others. It is noteworthy to mention that in this case, we consider « challenger » as a term borrowed from the vocabulary of sports, and not as a derivation of the English term "challenge" since in English, it does not only refer to sports.

« Challenger » can actually be considered as a personification, which is a type of metaphor. To illustrate this, consider the following quotation by Knowles and Moon [2006: 7], who define "personification": "A subtype of metaphor is personification, where something inanimate is treated as if it has human qualities or is capable or human actions". The channel is therefore conceptualised as a person. The characteristics linked with the field of sports are also applied to the field of media. This term is a borrowing in French. Although a channel is always referred to as a feminine noun in French, « challenger » is here used in the masculine -« challengeuse » being the feminine form.

This might be due to the fact that the channel is seen as a competitor -« compétiteur » in French, another masculine noun.

The second substantive to be analysed is « pitbull », as in the example sentence « Il s'est forgé la réputation d'être un pitbull de l'information […] c'est le pitbull qui se transforme en caniche qui a peur ». When someone is referred to as a pitbull it means that the person has the major characteristic of a pitbull originally used in dogfights -i.e.

aggressiveness. The metaphor is extended in the second part of the sentence since the person in question is then compared to a totally different breed, a poodle, known for being quite easy-going and inoffensive. Whether the person referred to is a male or a female, the word « pitbull » is always employed in the masculine, as any other dog breed in French. Regarding the grammatical gender this term is attributed, it can be asserted that since all breeds of dogs are masculine in French, in accordance with French grammar, the masculine prevails over the feminine. Moreover, the aggressiveness and violence the idea of a pitbull suggests generally refers to a masculine attribute.

« Challenger » and « pitbull » are therefore used as metaphors in the examples studied. The other jargon words to be analysed in the following part are understandable thanks to the context in which they are used -i.e. through images or explanations.

Contextual understanding

All the substantives that will be listed in this category are context-dependent since they can be understood by the audience with some explanations or images, even though the viewers are not bilingual, or not well informed about the technical jargon relating to media language.

The noun "after school" is a TV programme broadcast when school ends for French pupils, that is to say around 4:30 pm and 5 pm. It is referred to as the generic term « programme » in French, a masculine noun, hence the use of the masculine for "after school" in the provided example: « On dirait un after school », meaning « On dirait un programme d'after school ». The same explanation regarding the attributed grammatical gender can be given for the other substantives like "pré-access" -a TV programme broadcast before 6 pm -, "access" -between 6 pm and 8 pm -, and "late show" (English, "late night show") -from 11 pm or more, and meaning « programme de deuxième partie de soirée ». As shown in the example sentences, these words are masculine because they refer to programmes, a masculine term in French. The masculine generic term « programme » is used, and not « émissions », which is a French feminine substantive, since the "after-school", "pré-access", and "access" programmes can be any type of programmes: a talk show, a game show, a reality TV, a TV talent show, or a series, for instance. Thus, using the term « émission » to refer to these programmes would be too restrictive because this word does not include series, films, or TV films.

The substantives that have just been analysed definitely belong to the category "contextual understanding", as the French programmes they refer to are known by French viewers, and if not, thanks to the explanations given as well as the analyses made by the host and his team, the audience can easily understand what an access is for instance, and when it is broadcast on TV during the day.

"Psy-show", a TV programme dealing with emotion, intimacy, and psychology, "talk", as well as « talk show », are referred to as the masculine generic word « programme » in « talk show », for it is a shortening. Nevertheless, it seems important to mention that in English, the substantive "talk" does not exist on its own as a synonym for "talk show".

Similarly, shortening "scripted-réalité" by "scripted" makes the latter sound even more technical. Both terms "scripted-réalité" and "scripted" -e.g. générique », as in the example sentence « […] si vous avez vu le pré-générique ». Thus, « pré-générique » being a masculine substantive in French, its technical equivalent is logically masculine. Moreover, "coming" ends with the suffix -ing. As already stated, English words ending in -ing are masculine when used in French -e.g., « piercing » or « jogging ». Similarly, the substantive "liner" is used in the masculine -e.g., « Remettez le liner, les chéris ! » and « Mettez un liner tout de suite ! ». This can be explained by the fact that it is a jargon word to refer to « un bandeau » or « un synthé », both French masculine substantives. Furthermore, the suffix -er also plays a role in grammatical gender attribution. Indeed, the sound similarity this English suffix has with the French suffix -eur, forming many masculine substantives such as « marqueur » or « débardeur », can be the reason why "liner" is used in the masculine in French. Additionally, "liner" is a quite interesting term to study for two main reasons. The first reason is that this noun does not exist in English in such a context, the appropriate word being "banner". On TV, the banner is a rectangle, generally situated at the bottom of the screen on which, concerning TPMP for instance, the theme of the debate taking place is written. Secondly, it is even more surprising to observe that, in terms of pronunciation, the word "liner" sounds English -i.e. the grapheme [i] is pronounced with the English diphthong /aɪ/, which does not exist in French, although the sound produced can be found in French words such as « paille » or « bâiller ». Thence, even though "liner" seems to be a direct borrowing from English, it is not. Finally, as viewers are not supposed to know the meaning of this word, when the banner eventually appears, they are able to understand what a "liner" refers to. "Split screen" is another term that could be, at first glance, incomprehensible for the audience until the image enables them to understand the meaning of this word. Literally translated « écran divisé » in French, the fact that the host asks the producer for a split screen -e.g., « Est-ce que le réalisateur peut faire un split has been stated for substantives ending with the vowel [e], this vowel can be considered masculine, explaining why « pilote » is masculine.

Amongst the example sentences extracted from TPMP, it appears that the host and his team make no distinction between the nouns « teaser » and "teasing": e.g., « Le teaser est exceptionnel »; « On regarde le teaser »; « […] et du teasing de début »; « Vous aimez faire des petits teasings »; « On va déjà commencer par regarder le teasing du programme ». In any case, if the viewers do not know what « un teaser » or "un teasing" are, thanks to the images, they can understand. In English, a teaser has for equivalent terms "trailer" or "preview", translated « bande-annonce » in French, which makes it an optional borrowing; "teasing" actually represents the fact of catching the viewers' attention, thanks to a teaser, for instance. The masculine word « aguiche », translated from the English "teaser", justifies the use of the masculine definite article « le » before « teaser ». In the same way, « aguichage », being a marketing technique, is the official translation for "teasing". This word is used in the masculine; it thus explains why its English translation "teasing" is also masculine in French. Moreover, both « teaser » and "teasing" end with suffixes that have already been identified as masculine suffixes.

Indeed, the English suffix -er, found in « teaser », sounds like the French suffix -eur, added to form many masculine French substantives like « marcheur » or « videur ». As a result, « teaser » is used in the masculine in French. Similarly, "teasing" ends with the -ing suffix. As already explained, English words ending in -ing are masculine in French.

Although the expression "one-to-one", as in the example sentence « C'est un one-toone », is not necessarily comprehensible for the audience, a French equivalent could be « un tête-à-tête », a masculine substantive. As a consequence, when the jargon word is used in French, it automatically takes the masculine gender attributed to its equivalent, and becomes "un one-to-one". In the context of a TV show, this phrase would mean that there would be only two people -i.e. the host and a guest, for instance.

A "community manager" represents, in Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! for instance, the person who is in charge of the development and animation of the social networks of TPMP. This word could be translated as « le directeur ou la directrice de la communication web ». Nevertheless, in the following example, it is used in the masculine:

« Il y a donc le community manager qui me dit […] ». « Manager », referring either to men or women, it can be deduced that the person speaking -i.e. the host -refers to a man; otherwise, he would have said « Il y a donc la community manager qui me dit

[…] ». The grammatical gender attributed is thus based on sexed gender -i.e. determined by the sex of the person it refers to. Additionally, the reason why the speaker chooses the jargon term "community manager", over the French translation, can be explained by the "language economy principle", also called the "principle of least effort" -i.e. reducing the number of lexical units to a minimum whilst conveying the same idea and meaning. Furthermore, companies favour this term over its French equivalent.

Grammatical gender attribution for the codeswitched substantive "cover" is not obvious. Indeed, in the various examples taken out from the TV programme, both the feminine and the masculine are used, e.g., « Vous avez fait une belle cover pendant le magnéto »; « Ouais, c'est vrai, j'ai fait une cover »; « Elle a fait une cover »; « J'ai fait mon cover, voilà, c'est ça »; « La cover improbable »; « Est-ce qu'on a vu un cover indien […] ? »; « Ben j'ai fait un cover ». Having for French equivalents « reprise » or « version », both feminine nouns, it could explain why « cover » is sometimes used in the feminine.

Regarding the use of "cover" in the masculine, having a look at its suffix may be useful to explain its grammatical gender. Indeed, this substantive ends with the English suffix -er. This suffix sounding like the French suffix -eur, used to form many masculine substantives, the attribution of the masculine to "cover" is not surprising. Moreover, as already explained for the substantive « battle » lexicalised in French and being either used in the feminine or in the masculine, some nouns have a fluctuating grammatical gender. The fact that "cover" is not (yet) lexicalised in French makes grammatical gender attribution harder to explain. Additionally, as two different motivations are consideredi.e. the feminine for the French equivalent and the masculine with the suffix -er -, the grammatical gender attributed to this term is fluctuating all the more as the substantive is not lexicalised. If it officially enters the French lexicon, its grammatical gender might still be fluctuating, just as « battle », or it can possibly stabilise once the term is lexicalised. Finally, here again, thanks to the images, the audience can understand what a cover is, if they did not know.

"Off", meaning in English "off the record", is used in French as a substantive to describe something said or did unofficially, and that was not supposed to be public.

According to the technical jargon of TPMP, this word can be used as a masculine substantive in French, as in the example « […] c'était le off […] ». Let us consider the two final consonants to explain the attribution of the masculine to "off". In English, when doubled, the letter [f] is pronounced in the same way as the French [f] that can be found at the end of masculine adjectives such as « cognitif », « effectif », or « vif » -the feminine form ending in -ve: « cognitive », « effective », and « vive ». Therefore, the sound similarity shared by both languages, and the fact that French words ending with the letter [f] are masculine, can explain the attribution of the masculine to "off". « Spin-off », as in the example « Elle méritait autre chose qu'un spin-off », is used as a masculine substantive to describe a TV programme derived from another TV programme that was better. In French, we could translate « spin-off » by « un dérivé », a masculine substantive, hence the use of the masculine for the optional borrowing « spin-off ». Moreover, as put forward in the analysis of "off", the English [ff] sounds like the French [f], masculinising French adjectives and substantives when placed at their end. Thus, « spin-off » ending with [ff] might be masculine because in French, adjectives and substantives ending with an [f] are masculine. Additionally, it should be noted that this word entered the French dictionary Le Petit Larousse, in 2016.

Finally, "one-shot" is an English adjective used as a substantive in French to refer to something that happens only once -e.g., « C'eut été une bonne idée de faire une émission prime, un one-shot ». It should be noted that « one shot » is lexicalised in French but it only refers to comics. In this case, "one-shot" is not lexicalised, and therefore acts like a codeswitched substantive. As shown in the example sentence, this noun is used in the masculine in French although its equivalents, in this context, are « émission spéciale » or « émission unique », both feminine. The reason for the attribution of the masculine grammatical gender to "one-shot" might be explained by the fact that « shot », borrowed from English, is a lexicalised substantive in French. Indeed, as in English, it refers to a small glass of alcohol, a gunshot, a photograph, a quantity or a measure. It is a masculine substantive. Thus, just like « shot », "one-shot" is masculine when used in French.

To conclude, at first sight, the substantives listed in this category could be assimilated to codeswitching. Nevertheless, the vocabulary employed in TPMP is sometimes so specific that it is actually assimilated to jargon, either the terms are metaphorical (only two of them) or context-dependent to be understood. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the term "liner", which looks and sounds English, is neither a loanword nor a codeswitched word since it has been created in French and is actually translated "banner" in English. It could therefore be classified amongst false Anglicisms.

The main information that results from the analysis is that these jargon words act like codeswitched words: their gender can be, in most cases, deduced from the gender of their French equivalent(s), or translation(s). Moreover, the attribution of the grammatical gender can also be explained by focusing on suffixes, and ending vowels or consonants. Furthermore, thanks to the images or the explanations provided by the host and his team, the viewers do not necessarily need to be bilingual to understand these codeswitched terms. For that reason, depending on the context, being bilingual is not a sine qua none condition to understand codeswitching when explanations or images are provided, hence the usefulness of a multimodal analysis. The fact remains that there are generally few instances for each substantive studied, probably not to confuse the audience. Therefore, the viewers will be able to understand what a split-screen is, for instance, without being bilingual, if a split-screen is actually displayed. This is the role of multimodality. 67 Nevertheless, another option has to be considered. The first option that has just been developed consists in understanding a term thanks to an image; however, the fact that some other monolingual viewers simply do not pay attention to the jargon term "split-screen", and do not necessarily make the link with the image, is also a possibility.

In addition, using jargon words borrowed from English can be assimilated to codeswitching since some of the terms employed are not lexicalised in French, but it does not necessarily imply that the speaker is bilingual since the host and his team are not. This is simply a special type of vocabulary linked with their occupation, which does not necessitate having a good command of English.

Finally, depending on the viewpoint, these jargon words act like codeswitching for the monolingual French audience who is not familiar with this type of vocabulary, and who simply hear that some English terms are inserted into French utterances; however, for the speakers -i.e. the host and his team, in this context -, the jargon words they utter 67 See Chapter I, 1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.3.3 for a definition. can be considered borrowings since they are familiar with this terminology they use daily. It is therefore a question of perception. The notion of perception, which varies depending on the hearer's point of view -i.e. assimilated to codeswitching -or the speaker's point of view -i.e. assimilated to borrowing -, can actually be applicable to any situation in which monolingual French speakers use English terms as jargon terms, which are heard by French monolinguals. For instance, English words, likened to jargon, are used in the media, as in the given situation, but also in communication, advertising, business, finance, etc.

Results and statistics

In this last section, the data of the sixty-two occurrences that have just been analysed in this corpus will be provided in the form of statistics and graphs. These statistics will give the number of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives, masculine and feminine optional borrowings, and masculine and feminine compulsory borrowings. Secondly, the percentages of reasons leading to use the feminine or the masculine gender for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing will be given. In accordance with the analysis conducted to explain grammatical gender attribution for the occurrences listed in the corpus, the reasons will be categorised as follows: the referential (or extralinguistic) reason -i.e. related to the referent's gender -, the interlinguistic reason -i.e. when the French equivalent is considered to determine grammatical gender attribution -, metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when suffixes, vowels or consonants ending substantives determine grammatical gender attribution -, both interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when both the French equivalent and the suffix, or ending vowels and consonants, are taken into account to explain grammatical gender attribution -, and the grammatical reason -i.e. when grammatical gender attribution is based on the fact that, in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine.

To exemplify this, consider the following graphs displaying data via percentages: Therefore, for this corpus, in which there are 23 codeswitched substantives, 20 optional borrowings, and 19 compulsory borrowings, the masculine dominates in 92% of the cases for codeswitching, 80% for optional borrowing, and 70% for compulsory borrowing.

The following graphs will display the various reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution. To sum up, for this corpus, as well of for the previous corpus, the masculine is predominant for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing; the grammatical gender of the French equivalent(s), for both codeswitching and optional borrowing is essential to explain grammatical gender attribution. Generally speaking, the important element to mention for this corpus is that the analysis of suffixes and ending vowels appears relevant for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing.

Synthesis

In order to analyse the occurrences found in TPMP, the substantives have been studied differently, whether they are assimilated to codeswitching, optional borrowings, or compulsory borrowings.

Despite some variations for which it remains hard to explain why the masculine is attributed or why the feminine is attributed, the rules and hypotheses stated previously actually work. As a consequence, codeswitched substantives as well as optional substantives are attributed the gender of their French equivalents. In some cases, the gender of the referent also has to be taken into account. Regarding compulsory borrowings, their attributed genders have been explained thanks to the grammatical rule stating that the masculine prevails over the feminine, or by having a closer look at endings and suffixes. Indeed, it appeared that suffixes played an important role in the explanation of grammatical gender attribution. In French, suffixes determine the grammatical gender of adjectives and substantives. As a result, the study of some French endings and sound similarities between French and English suffixes enabled to demonstrate that grammatical gender attribution and endings were linked, when dealing with English codeswitched or borrowed substantives.

Finally, contrary to regular jargon terms that are generally lexicalised in specialised languages, the jargon words analysed in TPMP actually act like codeswitched substantives, as many other jargon terms used in the media, communication, finance, etc.

Graphs were displayed in order to give an idea of, firstly, the dominant grammatical gender, and secondly, the predominant reasons used to explain grammatical gender attribution. Thus, as in the previous corpus, the masculine gender dominates for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing. Concerning the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution, the interlinguistic reason is essential for both codeswitching and optional borrowing. Globally, the metalinguistic reason plays a more important role in this corpus for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing, compared with the previous corpus. This might be due to the fact that, for instance, some suffixes such as -er and -ing end numerous substantivese.g., "cover", "community manager", "happening", "liner", « teaser », and "teasing" -that are assimilated to media jargon, which is mainly an English lexicon.

Finally, regarding the codeswitching -borrowing continuum previously hypothesised, this corpus confirms that the codeswitching -optional borrowing continuum is more obvious than the codeswitching -compulsory borrowing continuum, considering the analyses conducted and the results. Indeed, due to the fact that they both have French equivalents, codeswitching and optional borrowing can be studied similarly to explain grammatical gender assignation.

Now that the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives and borrowings listed in the TV show TPMP -i.e. vocabulary related to media languagehave been analysed, the study of grammatical gender attribution will be based on the English substantives found in Booba's rap songs.

Corpus #3 -Booba's rap songs

The third part of this chapter will be devoted to rap music, and more precisely, to the analysis of some of Booba's rap songs. Even though codeswitching is said to be a discursive phenomenon as already mentioned,70 throughout this thesis, I tried to demonstrate that this linguistic device could be used when speaking as well as when writing, thus, choosing to work on a corpus based on songs that are written and refined, and therefore not as spontaneous as speech appeared relevant.

Considering the different occurrences noted in Booba's rap songs, the analysis of the lyrics will be organised according to the linguistic reasons that possibly motivate their use and the grammatical gender they are attributed. Thence, the occurrences will be divided into four categories depending on whether they are used for the purposes of rhyme, language economy principle, jargon, or prestige. The different criteria chosen to classify the occurrences in these different categories are the following: regarding rhyme, we will see that the rapper uses some English substantives in his songs because they rhyme with other words, which would not have been the case if he had used the French equivalents; concerning the principle of language economy, some substantives are employed because they are shorter than their French equivalent; then, it will be demonstrated that, although some other English substantives simply seem to be codeswitched, they actually represent a technical lexicon -i.e. jargon; finally, we will explain why the use of some words is a way of showing off. Moreover, for this category, slang and trend will also be taken into account. Finally, in the last part, results will be analysed thanks to statistics and graphs.

Rhyme

The choice of starting with the study of rhymes as a linguistic motivation for codeswitching in Booba's rap songs can be easily explained: at the very beginning of the creation of this corpus, I noticed that many occurrences, mostly codeswitched, were used for the purposes of rhyme. As a consequence, both the verse in which the occurrence is noted and the preceding or following lines are written down, so that the analysis of the rhymes is justified. A rhyme is the repetition of a sound at the end of lines in a poem or a song. Here is the list of the seven codeswitched occurrences and one optional borrowing employed for the sake of rhyme This is why the rapper decided to use this term instead of the French equivalent. The gender attributed to "beat" is masculine because « battement » is a French masculine substantive. Similarly, "beatmaker", used in the masculine since the French translation « fabricant de beat », referring to a man -i.e. gender-based attribution: the grammatical gender is determined by the sex of the person it refers to -is employed in the masculine.

In the example sentence, "beatmaker" is a rhyme for « m'écoeurent », and has therefore probably been chosen for that reason since the French equivalent would not have rhymed. Additionally, it seems important to note that "beatmaker" ends with the -er suffix, which sounds like the French suffix -eur, used to form masculine substantives.

Thus, it can also explain why "beatmaker" is masculine in French. "Bulletproof" is a rhyme for « ouf ». Meaning "bulletproof vest", « gilet pare-balles », which would not have rhymed, the codeswitched substantive is used in the masculine, just like its French equivalent « gilet ». Moreover, "bulletproof vest" clearly is codeswitched and not calqued since "vest" has no influence on grammatical gender assignation because its French equivalent « veste » is a feminine substantive. The rhyme for « ring » is "featuring".

Although "featuring" is not lexicalised in French, when dealing with the French music industry, it is the only way of referring to the participation of an artist in another artist's song with a single word: this substantive has no French equivalent. The French substantive « duo » cannot even be considered as an equivalent for "featuring" since it suggests that two artists sing or rap whereas a featuring represents the collaboration of two artists in a song in which one sings, and the other one is in charge of the music -e.g., the song "It ain't me", for which the singer Selena Gomez does a featuring/feat. with the musician Kygo. Explaining why "featuring" is masculine in French can be done by having a look at its suffix. It actually ends with the suffix -ing. As already demonstrated, English substantives ending in -ing are masculine when used in French. Thus, "featuring" is masculine in French. Naturally, the grammatical gender attributed to its shortening "feat" is masculine. As already explained, in linguistics, a shortening represents the morphological and phonological reduction of a word. Words can be shortened by "foreclipping", also known as "aphaeresis" -i.e. the suppression of one or more syllables from the beginning of a word -, or "back-clipping", also known as "apocope" -i.e. the suppression of one or more syllables from the end of a word. "Feat" is a case of apocope since the last two syllables "tur" and "ing" have been removed. Generally speaking, apocopated words do not have any effect on grammatical gender. Therefore, "feat" is masculine because its full form "featuring" is masculine. Moreover, it seems important to mention that, in French, « sweat » can either be pronounced /swit/ or /swɛt/, whereas English speakers pronounce it /swet/. In the rap song, « sweat » has to be pronounced /swit/ to rhyme with "feat", which is pronounced /iː/ in English, but /i/ in French.

« Jeu », being the French translation for "game", would not have been a rhyme for « même », unlike "game". This explains the linguistic choice made by Booba.

Furthermore, the masculine gender attributed to "game" is consistent with the masculine gender of « jeu ». However, as [e] has already been considered a masculine vowel -e.g., « programme », « prime time », or "prime", analysed in the previous corpuswe can hypothesise that "game" is masculine in French because it ends with the masculine vowel [e]. The French equivalent for "hardtop", which is used in the masculine, is « cabriolet », a masculine noun as well. In the example sentence, the codeswitched substantive "hardtop" is a rhyme for « salope », which would not have been the case if the rapper had used the French translation « cabriolet ». Finally, « sportswear » is a rhyme for « mortuaire ». The French equivalent « vêtements de sport »

would not have rhymed. The borrowed noun « sportswear » 72 is moreover used in the masculine -i.e. preceded by the French masculine definite article « le », the contracted form « l' » being used -because the French equivalent « vêtements de sport » is a masculine phrase.

To conclude, the use of the codeswitched and borrowed substantives previously listed are a deliberate choice of the rapper to make them rhyme with other words, which would not have been the case if he had used the French equivalents. Moreover, using English words in French being somewhat prestigious, showing off might also be a reason for codeswitching. Regarding the gender attributed to these nouns, it is in line with the grammatical gender of their corresponding French equivalents, or it can be explained by analysing the suffixes.

In the following sub-part, the least-effort principle will be analysed as a linguistic motivation for codeswitching.

Language economy principle

As already explained in Chapters I and II, the least-effort principle consists in using a minimum of words to economically convey an idea. When applying to codeswitching, it implies that the speaker switches codes and uses an equivalent foreign term that is shorter than the term he or she would have used in the dominant language of the utterance. The aim of the language economy principle in rap songs is to have a regular pattern of meter. 72 It is lexicalised since it can be found in the French dictionary Larousse. Regarding the gender they are attributed, it is consistent with the gender of their respective French equivalent -i.e. the feminine gender is retained for "bitch" (genderbased attribution), as well as for "team", and the masculine gender is retained for "gun", "phone", « show », and "thug"74 (gender-based attribution).

The following list of six occurrences, along with example sentences extracted from his songs, encompasses some rap codes that are commonly heard in other rappers' songs.

o As a consequence, when used in French, "flow" is masculine because « groove » is masculine.

Both "game" and "rap game" are often heard in rap songs. They refer to:

[…] la compétition fictive et interminable menant au titre de boss du Rap Game. Le but d'un rappeur dans le game est de vendre un max et d'être le maître de l'égotrip.

"Game" being, in both cases, translated by the masculine substantive « jeu » in French, it is quite naturally used in the masculine as well. Furthermore, as already mentioned in the previous corpora, [e] can be considered a masculine vowel. Thus, it can be hypothesised that "game" is masculine in French because it ends with the masculine vowel [e]. Regarding "MC", coming from the English phrase "Master of Ceremonies", « le maître de cérémonie » in French, the use of the masculine gender can be explained by the fact that the French equivalent « maître » is a masculine substantive, but also by the fact that it is a gender-based attribution -i.e. the grammatical gender is determined by the sex of the person it refers to. As rap artists are generally men, talking about a MC presupposes that one refers to a man, hence the fact that, in French, this abbreviation is employed in the masculine.

Finally, « swag », having for French equivalent « style », is used in the masculine because its French equivalent is a masculine substantive. It is noteworthy to mention that this word, contrary to the other occurrences listed in this category, is lexicalised since it entered the French dictionary Larousse in 2016.

As a result, as demonstrated by the analysis of the above instances, these substantives are used in the masculine -i.e. preceded by French masculine determiners -because their French equivalents are masculine.

Contrary to the occurrences studied in the other sub-parts of this corpus, there are several examples for each occurrence (at least two for a couple of them) related to rap codes. These substantives are often repeated, even hammered, with the aim of proving that the rapper knows the appropriate rap codes, is credible and legitimate, and definitely has his place amongst the other rap artists. The notion of in-groupness is, as a consequence, crucial: thanks to the use of the appropriate vocabulary, he places himself in the "rap world" and therefore, excludes people who do not understand this specific lexicon, or do not belong to the same environment. The concept of in-group identity always implies that some other people are excluded. Therefore, the listed occurrences are related to rap codes, which can be considered technical words -i.e. jargon.

Regarding the ongoing case study, the specific terminology used by the rapper is a technical vocabulary that can be assimilated to codeswitching. Indeed, the jargon substantives that were listed are codeswitched -or borrowed, cf. « show » -from English.

Now that the technical lexicon of French rap music has been dealt with, the occurrences to be studied in the following sub-part will be linked to the notion of prestige.

Prestige

As already mentioned in Chapter II, showing off can be one of the linguistic motivations for codeswitching. Indeed, it demonstrates the speaker's ability to switch from French to English and, therefore, shows a certain mastery of both languages.

Showing off is also a key element when dealing with rap game: a rapper can show off through material goods -i.e. clothing, jewellery, expensive cars, money (notes exposed in music videos), amongst others -, but also through specific linguistic behaviours -i.e.

slang, backward-slang, or codeswitching such as French-Arabic or French-English.

The following substantives will be analysed to illustrate that the rapper uses them in order to show off. Slang and trend will also be taken into account. Three of them have already been noted in the "language economy principle" category but are also essential in the analysis of codeswitching as a means of showing off. Using the term "bitch" is a very dysphemistic way to refer to women. That way, the rapper wants to give the impression that he does not respect women. He wants everyone to think he is a tough man by using this kind of sexist term, and by being misogynistic. Moreover, the fact of using the codeswitched term, instead of the French equivalent « salope », reinforces the effect he wants to create and therefore, is a way of showing off. Additionally, "bitch" is part of the slang used by young people in French. It can therefore be assimilated to codeswitched slang. Referring to a girl of easy virtue, it is also written and pronounced « biatch » in French. In any case, the fact of using this substantive is a means for the rapper to show that he is trendy, as he uses the slang French young people use. Regarding its grammatical gender, "bitch" has a gender-based attribution, also called "sexed gender". This means that the grammatical gender attributed to this term is determined by the sex of the person it refers to. Therefore, "bitch" is used in the feminine for it generally refers to women. In order to command respect, to act as a tough and dangerous man, and even to create fear, Booba uses the codeswitched terms "gun" and "thug". The substantive "gun" is attributed the masculine gender since its French translations, « pistolet », or even « flingue », are both masculine nouns, the latter being informal unlike « pistolet ». Just like "bitch", "thug" has a genderbased attribution, also called "sexed gender". Referring to the rapper here, or to men generally speaking, "thug" is naturally used in the masculine. Moreover, this substantive can be considered "codeswitched slang" since this English term has become popularised amongst French young people to refer to somebody, especially a man, as a bad boy or as a tough guy. Using this term is therefore a means a showing off as well as a means of proving that the rapper is trendy since he uses the same vocabulary as young people.

The eight other instances also pertain to the showing off aspect since thanks to them, the rapper wants to establish his authority. For example, employing the codeswitched term "black card" and the borrowing « cash » is a way of showing off by proving that he is rich and by implying that he has a lot of cash. Indeed, in the United States, the Black Card is a prestigious credit card offered to multimillionaires. In this term, "black" is the adjective characterising the substantive "card", which has for French equivalent « carte », a feminine noun. Thus, "card" is used in the feminine because its French equivalent « carte » is feminine. Regarding « cash », it is used by (young) people in French as a slang term to refer to money. By using it, Booba wants to show, once again, that he is trendy. « Argent » or « liquide » being two possible masculine French equivalents for this optional borrowing, they explain why « cash » is used in the masculine. Furthermore, as demonstrated in the previous corpora thanks to substantives such as « bush », « trash », or « clash », English words ending in -sh are generally masculine in French. Therefore, as « cash » ends in -sh, it is used in the masculine. In order to reinforce the impression that he is a tough man, he talks about a « gang » to refer to « groupe », « gang » being used in the masculine just like its French equivalent. Moreover, employing this optional borrowing is also a means of creating fear, and therefore showing off, since it alludes to the aggressive and dangerous gangs in the United-States.

The fact of preferring the codeswitched masculine term "killer" to the French masculine equivalent « tueur » is another way of showing off. Indeed, in the example sentence, « tueur » would have been a rhyme for « humeur » and is not longer than "killer" -i.e. two syllables for both words. Choosing the English codeswitched term is therefore not a question of rhyme, language economy, or rap code since it is not a technical word referring to French rap music. It is thus a means of showing off.

Moreover, in French, it has become a popularised expression to use the codeswitched substantive "killer" to mean that somebody is an expert in his or her field. Using such expression encompasses therefore much more than only codeswitching. Indeed, it is proof that the rapper is trendy since he talks like young people by using a phrase in the spirit of the times, this phrase being also considered slang. Therefore, using "killer" instead of « tueur » can be called "codeswitched slang". Concerning the codeswitched masculine word "player", having for French equivalent « joueur », a masculine substantive as well, it is neither a question of rhyme since both terms are rhymes for « leur », nor a question of language economy for both words have two syllables, and not a question of rap code either. Here again, there is no need for codeswitching. Therefore, using "player" instead of « joueur » is a matter of showing off. Regarding the grammatical gender attributed to both "killer" and "player", it is based on the fact that their French equivalents end with the French suffix -eur attributed to masculine substantives -e.g., « amateur » or « classeur ». Therefore, "killer" and "player" both referring to a man, they are attributed the masculine gender when used in French. "Life", or « vie » in French, are both one-syllable words. Choosing the codeswitched term is thus a way of showing off.

Additionally, the term "life" in French is used by young people as a means of rebellinge.g., « C'est ma life ! » -, meaning "it is my life, I do what I want". "Life" can therefore be considered slang, and as it is codeswitched, it can be called "codeswitched slang". Thus, by using it, the rapper wants to show, once again, that he is trendy. The use of the feminine gender for this codeswitched substantive can be simply explained by the fact that the French translation « vie » is a feminine word. "Street" is found several times in Booba's songs. Initially, the term "street" refers to the origins of rap music: "Block Party"

with DJs and MCs started to be organised at the end of the 70s in New York ghettos, in the middle of the street. 78 Thus, the term "street", either in English or French, became popular. It is a means of showing off since using it shows that the rapper comes from "the street", and is therefore a tough man. The grammatical gender attributed to this codeswitched substantive is easily interpretable: its French equivalent « rue » is a feminine noun, hence the use of the feminine when codeswitching "street". The use of the substantive "time" is a special case. It has become a popularised expression amongst

French young people to use this codeswitched word to mean that one has no time to do something, as in the example sentence « Pas l'time pour […] ». By using this term, Booba

shows that he is in the spirit of the times. This phrase encompasses therefore much more than only codeswitching. It is both codeswitching and slang. As a result, it can be called "codeswitched slang". Furthermore, the notion of in-groupness also has to be taken into account. Indeed, the fact of employing this phrase makes the rapper belong to a certain group of people -in this case, young people -who listen to his music, excluding people who do not understand the meaning of the sentence. The aim is not only linguistic but commercial as well, since the artist needs to be popular to live off his 78 History of Hip Hop Music, http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/music-hip-hop.htm.

music. Thus, Booba's popularity comes with the use of expressions that are popular amongst the audience he wants to reach so that this audience can identify with him. This is therefore exactly what the notion of in-groupness implies. Concerning the use of the masculine gender, the reason is simple. The French equivalent « temps » is masculine, and consequently, "time" is used in the masculine, preceded by the French masculine definite article « le », the contracted form « l' » being used.

To conclude, the examples provided in this sub-part pertain to the notion of prestige, present in various ways in this corpus. First of all, being able to codeswitch can be a means of showing off. Secondly, depending on the domains the words refer to -i.e.

women, money, thuggery, etc. -, codeswitching can be used as a means of reinforcing the showing off aspect suggested by these domains in the rap world. Besides the notion of prestige, there are other factors to consider, especially the fact that the terms analysed belong to the history of rap and are the reason of being of rap as well as the reason of being of the specific jargon and slang used by rappers. The notion of in-groupness was also taken into account, as well as the fact that the majority of these English words are

French slang terms, which can be referred to as "codeswitched slang". Using them has therefore something to do with prestige, but also with slang, and trend. Regarding grammatical gender attribution, each of the occurrences studied has been attributed the same grammatical gender as the one attributed to the French equivalent, suffixes and ending vowels having also been analysed in some cases. Finally, there is one last element to mention regarding the use of the codeswitched words noted in this section: "killer", "life", "player", "street", and "time" are not lexicalised in French and are assimilated to codeswitching; however, it is noteworthy to mention that these English terms are known by many French native speakers who are not bilingual and do not necessarily have a good command of English.

Results and statistics

Amongst the twenty-eight occurrences listed in this corpus, some are codeswitched substantives, and others are optional borrowings. As they are no compulsory borrowings in this case study, they will obviously not be taken into account in the results and statistics. Statistics will therefore be provided regarding the number of masculine and feminine codeswitched terms, as well as the number of masculine and feminine optional borrowings. Then, the different reasons enabling the masculine and the feminine attribution for codeswitching and optional borrowing will be displayed in other graphs. These reasons are the following: the referential (or extralinguistic) reason -i.e. related to the referent's gender -, the interlinguistic reason -i.e. when the French equivalent is considered to determine grammatical gender attribution -, the metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when suffixes ending substantives determine grammatical gender attribution -, and both interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons -i.e. when both the French equivalent and the suffix or ending vowels are taken into account to explain grammatical gender attribution. To exemplify this, consider the following graphs displaying data through percentages: As already mentioned, there are no compulsory borrowings in this corpus. Amongst the 28 occurrences analysed, 5 are optional borrowings used in the masculine, hence the absence of graph for this category (100% of masculine optional borrowings).

Nonetheless, as the above graph shows, 78% of the 23 codeswitched substantives are masculine, and only 22% are feminine. This means that either for codeswitching or optional borrowing, the masculine gender is dominant in this corpus, as well as in the two previous corpora.

The percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution for the codeswitched occurrences of this corpus, and the optional borrowings, will be displayed in the following graphs. As already demonstrated in the two previous corpora, the role of the French equivalent(s) and its or their grammatical gender are essential to explain the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives (56%), and optional borrowings (80%) -i.e. the interlinguistic reason. Additionally, the reason mixing both interlinguistics and metalinguistics is significant -i.e. the grammatical gender of the French equivalent and the study of suffixes and ending vowels -with a total of 18% for codeswitching, and 20% for optional borrowing. The referential reason represents 17% of the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching. Finally, the analysis of suffixes enabled to explain 9% of the cases for codeswitching.

Referent's gender 17%

French equivalent 56% Suffix 9%

Both French equivalent and suffix 9%

Both French equivalent and vowel 9% French equivalent 80%

Both French equivalent and suffix 20%

To sum up, here again, the masculine gender dominates the feminine. Moreover, the grammatical gender allocated to French equivalents is predominant in determining why the masculine or the feminine are attributed to codeswitched substantives, as well as to optional borrowings. Finally, the metalinguistic hypothesis, and both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic hypotheses appear relevant to explain grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching and optional borrowing.

dictionary Le Robert, in 2014. Thus, if these codeswitched slang occurrences continue to be used in French, they may be lexicalised.

The statistics revealing the percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives and optional borrowings showed that the masculine prevailed. As for the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching and optional borrowing, the interlinguistic reason appears to dominate, the metalinguistic reason, and both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons being important as well.

Grammatical gender attributed to English substantives having been analysed in Booba's rap songs, the study will henceforth focus on the way So Shape, a French brand selling diet products, attributes a grammatical gender to codeswitched and borrowed substantives.

Corpus #4 -So Shape

So Shape is a French brand created in 2014. It sells diet products to keep fit or lose weight, depending on the kind of programme consumers choose. This healthy food, in powder form, is exclusively sold online. While reading the booklet, in which a description of the brand's products and how to use them is given, I noticed that there were many English words in it, mostly substantives, either codeswitched or borrowed.

The number of codeswitched nouns is large enough to devote a study to it, which is quite surprising since the brand is French. In this corpus, the main reason for codeswitching clearly seems to be a commercial strategy. As will be shown in the analysis, the codeswitched vocabulary is targeted and based on food as well as diet. Using an English lexis is probably a marketing strategy to highlight the modernity of the brand, and to attract as many consumers as possible. Besides, this seems to be confirmed thanks to the name of the brand itself, which is in English.

The use the company makes of the codeswitched vocabulary is different from what was presented in the previous corpora. Thus, in the first section, it will be demonstrated that some substantives, although they seem to be neologisms, as they refer to new concepts, are actually codeswitched. Then, in the second section, a couple of codeswitched compounds, created thanks to borrowings, will be studied. In each of these two sections, the grammatical gender of the substantives will be analysed. Finally, in the third section, I will explain in what way the codeswitching -borrowing continuum takes on its full meaning since many of the codeswitched substantives are likely to be lexicalised in the future. It seems important to note that the borrowed vocabulary found in So Shape booklet is not developed enough to be studied. Indeed, the very few optional and compulsory borrowings that are « challenge », « jogging », « shaker », « milk shake », and « pancake » will not constitute a relevant analysis. Besides, some of these words already appear in the previous corpora. Finally, as for the three previous corpora, the results of this analysis will be provided through statistics and graphs.

Codeswitching vs. neologism

The boundary between codeswitching and neologism is sometimes thin, and this is particularly true with such a corpus. Indeed, considering the vocabulary noted in the booklet, some substantives could be assimilated to neologisms. We will first deal with the substantives that unambiguously belong to codeswitching, to finish with a couple of terms that could be confusing when it comes to determining if they are codeswitched or neologised.

Codeswitching

Two substantives employed in the booklet are standard codeswitched nouns:

o Shot, e.g., « Un véritable shot de nutrition » o Team, e.g., « Notre team de nutritionnistes n'attend que vous ! »; « La Team So Shape »

The grammatical gender attributed to "team" is easy to explain. Its French equivalent being « équipe », a feminine noun, the gender of the codeswitched term is therefore feminine, in accordance with the French equivalent. However, the grammatical gender attributed to "shot" appears harder to explain. It is employed in the masculine as if it referred to a small glass of alcohol, which is therefore a borrowing in French when used in such case. Nevertheless, in this context, the French translation for "shot" is « dose », a feminine substantive. The fact that it is still used in the masculine could only be explained by the fact that it refers to a small amount, that is to say a quantity equivalent to a small glass -i.e. a shot.

The following four occurrences "detox water", "open food", "shapers", and "smart food" could be assimilated to neologisms.

Neologism

As already developed in Chapter I,79 neologisms are newly created words or phrases, or already existing words having a new sense. Bonnard [1997: 99] defines "neology" as: Generally referred to as « un aliment au choix/libre » in the booklet, "open food" is in the masculine because « aliment » is a masculine word in French. "Shapers" is used as a generic term to refer to So Shape consumers. The word is made up of the name of the brand to which the suffix -er is added, to refer to people. Although always employed in the plural, it is used in the masculine -e.g., « clients, consommateurs, habitués » -as a way to refer to both men and women, since, in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine, grammatically speaking. Grammatical gender attribution is thus based on sexed gender. Employed to refer to healthy food, "smart food" is used in the feminine in the booklet. This is probably due to the fact that "food" is translated « nourriture » in French, a feminine substantive. Finally, the fact of using "detox water" in the masculine does not make sense since "water" is translated « eau », a feminine French substantive.

However, in the example sentence « […] on vous a facilité la tâche avec le Detox

Water ! », "detox water" is presented as a new product. "Product" has for French equivalent « produit », a masculine substantive. Thus, attributing the masculine to the substantive "detox water" might be due to the fact that it is referred to as « un produit », masculine in French.

These words clearly fill a lexical gap in French, a sine qua non condition for neologising. Filling a gap can be a reason for codeswitching but, generally speaking, codeswitched words have one or more equivalents in the target language. Thus, at first glance, these words resemble neologisms. However, there are at least three main arguments, which are essential for neologising, that tend to demonstrate that these terms are rather codeswitched. The first reason is the frequency of use. Indeed, for a neologism to be lexicalised, it has to be used by a large number of speakers. This is not the case here since these words are not spread enough in French to be called "neologisms". As evidenced by a Google search on French websites only, "detox water",

and especially "open food", "shaper(s)", and "smart food" cannot be considered as "neologisms". The most relevant results concern the term "detox water". Although "detox" is considered a neologism, "detox water" cannot be found in dictionaries. The first ten results appearing when looking up this term are detox water recipes. On the contrary, the first ten results found for "open food" concern the brand Open Food Facts that created an application and a database about food products developed by volunteer consumers from around the world. Similarly, when searching "smart food", the first seven results concern a brand, Smart Food Paris, the eighth result is the website of another brand, Feed; and the last two results concern the French bank BNP Paribas, looking for investment partners in the food industry. Finally, the results found for "shaper" have nothing to do with the French brand So Shape or even food, since they all concern surfing, a shaper being a person who makes surfboards. To sum up, the term that corresponds the most with what was looked up is "detox water". "Open food" and "smart food", referring exclusively to brands, are not really relevant, though they are obviously linked with food. As for "shaper", the results have nothing to do with food.

Secondly, codeswitching means to have a certain degree of bilingualism, not a prerequisite for neologising. In order to use "smart food", "open food", and "detox water" well -i.e. put the adjective before the substantive -a certain mastery of English is needed. Finally, as stated by Bogaards [2008: 27], French neologisms are often created thanks to root words borrowed from English, to which affixes based on French processes are added -e.g., « YouTubeur.euse » or « blogueur.euse ». This is not the case with the given instances since they are employed in French as they are in English, without any spelling modification or adaptation.

To sum up, these substantives cannot be considered neologisms because some prerequisites, which are fundamental when neologising, are missing. As demonstrated, they are thus codeswitched and may become neologisms if they spread enough to start being used by more and more French speakers, although according to Sablayrolles [2000: 166], in a quotation given in Chapter I when dealing with the lifetime of neologisms, neologisms cannot be considered new anymore if they spread amongst speakers. If this happens, then they could potentially be lexicalised and become borrowings. Borrowing is actually not an end per se since, as it will be demonstrated in the following sub-part, some borrowings can be reused to create codeswitched substantives.

Recycling borrowing to create codeswitching

In this sub-part, the way three compulsory borrowings have been reused to create codeswitching will be observed. This process gave birth to three compounds, as follows: « Muesli »,80 « muffin », and « pancake » are three compulsory borrowings used in French. They have no French equivalents. As already seen, food is a special case when dealing with borrowing since, as a general rule, English terms related to food are borrowed as they are in French, without any orthographic modification, and this is the exact same thing with French food-related terms borrowed in English. Thus, these three words are compulsory borrowings used in the masculine in French. The fact that they become compounds, once the codeswitched adjective "smart" is preposed, does not change anything to their grammatical gender. They remain masculine since the determined -i.e. the most important word -is masculine, and especially because it is the basis of the syntactic and semantic unit.

o
To sum up, « muesli », « muffin », and « pancake » are compulsory borrowings that were recycled into codeswitched substantives, once "smart" precedes them. These substantives are assimilated to codeswitching because "smart" is codeswitched, one of the French equivalents being « intelligent ». Even though the second word is a borrowing, adding a codeswitched adjective before it necessitates a certain mastery of English to use and understand it, as codeswitching suggests. Moreover, as the meaning of the compulsory borrowings changes once the adjective "smart" is placed before them, they cannot be considered borrowings anymore, and become therefore codeswitching.

To conclude, the idea of a continuum is not that obvious since, as already explained in the previous corpora, codeswitching and compulsory borrowing are quite different.

Nevertheless, now that the analysis of the three given compounds has been conducted, it can be asserted that the link between codeswitching and borrowing can be seen as an unlimited lexical process, thanks to the reuse of borrowings, enabling an infinite creation of new codeswitched terms that can potentially become borrowings. This is therefore a never-ending process.

The objective of the following section will be to try to determine if the nine substantives that have just been analysed are likely to become borrowings or not.

On the way to lexicalisation?

The different codeswitched substantives found in the So Shape booklet are either "pure" codeswitching or codeswitching made up of at least one borrowed element. Now that they have been analysed, this study will focus on the potential lexicalisation of these words. To do so, we will try to determine why the nine substantives previously studied may be lexicalised in the future, or why they may not. Thus, they will be divided into two categories, as follows: unlikely lexicalisation and likely lexicalisation.

Unlikely lexicalisation

The main reason to have three of the codeswitched substantives appear in this category is "linguistic need". Indeed, "team", "shot", as well as "shapers" do not fill a linguistic gap in French which would be significant enough for these words to be lexicalised. One of the reasons for borrowing is need. This means that for a foreign word to be borrowed, no equivalents can be found in the borrower language, or if some equivalents already exist in the target language, they are not adapted to some situations. This is not the case with "team" and "shot". They do have French equivalents that are « équipe » for "team", and « dose » for "shot", in this context. Although "shot" is lexicalised in French to refer to a small glass of alcohol, adding a definition to dictionaries to officially enable the use of "shot" for « dose » is not necessary since, in French, « dose » already refers to a quantity, and "shot" would not add any nuance or connotation to the definition. As for "shapers", it is the generic term naming So Shape customers. It is therefore too restrictive to be lexicalised since in French, using the substantive « client » is appropriate when referring to customers. Moreover, French does not create nouns from brands to name clients. For instance, in French, Danone customers are not referred to as « Danoneurs ». Thus, lexicalising these English substantives does not seem to be necessary because they are not needed in French.

In French, "team" can sometimes be heard in sports, or even when talking about people working in groups -e.g., marketing or advertisement. Although it is not lexicalised, even if it is often used in such contexts, it probably will not be since lexicalisation would not change anything in terms of meaning -i.e. "team" would not add any nuance or connotation to the French equivalent « équipe » -; and in terms of frequency of use -i.e. the substantive "team" would still be used in some specific contexts, and its lexicalisation would not necessarily make more people use it in other contexts.

When referring to a small glass containing alcohol, « shot » is already considered a loanword. However, when referring to the French substantive « dose », the linguistic need to have it lexicalised is not really relevant because its French equivalent is selfsufficient. In this context, they both refer to a quantity. Therefore, since French already has « dose », a French word to refer to "shot", borrowing "shot" would not make sense as it would not add any meaning or subtle difference to the original French word « dose ».

"Shapers" refers to such a restrictive number of people that its lexicalisation is improbable. This is the name given to So Shape consumers and, since the brand is quite recent, and rather little-known, this substantive is not spread enough and used enough to be lexicalised. Moreover, the creation of the word "shapers" is a commercial strategy.

This term seems to be created as a pun: it sounds like "shoppers", and therefore refers to So Shape customers. It is a means of creating customer loyalty, by giving them the sense of belonging to a group. It this case, the commercial strategy comes with in-group identity -i.e. the fact of belonging to a certain group of people. Therefore, the creation of this term is rather linked with strategic stakes than linguistic stakes, and lexicalising it does not seem to be necessary.

Finally, "open food" is not widespread enough (yet) to be lexicalised. It is only used in the booklet to refer to the free food consumers can eat while on a diet.

Nevertheless, the probability for some other codeswitched substantives to become borrowings is higher, as will be demonstrated in the following sub-part.

Likely lexicalisation

In French, the term "smart food" needs to be explained to be understood. It represents the fact of having a healthy diet. As this concept is spreading -when Googling "smart food", the main results are brand names -, the term might start being used by more and more people. This way, it will not be a codeswitched substantive anymore and will become what has been previously called "successful codeswitching" -i.e. a neologism. Then, either the term will die or be lexicalised. If it reaches the second option, it will therefore become a loanword. Contrary to the previous terms studied in "unlikely lexicalisation", there is a real linguistic need in French for the "smart food" concept. Moreover, if no French equivalent is created as a substitute for the English term, the latter will definitely be needed in French. In that case, "smart food" will become a compulsory borrowing in French. In the same manner, all the variations in "smart food", for example "smart muesli", "smart pancakes", "smart muffins", or any other kind of healthy food, enabling an infinite process of lexical creation, are likely to be lexicalised.

The term "detox water" is not commonly used in French. However, as "detox" is already a French neologism, just like any other variants for "smart food", "detox water" can become a borrowing as a variation for "detox". Nevertheless, "detox" will first have to be lexicalised for its variation to be as well. Finally, as "detox water" can be translated « eau detox », a shorter synonym compared to "smart food" that necessitates using more words to be understood, if "detox water" enters French dictionaries, it is likely to retain its French equivalent, and will therefore become an optional borrowing.

To sum up, the notion of trend is common to all these substantives. This notion playing a major role in the emergence of neologisms, the use of the above instances is likely to become widespread amongst French speakers. Then, if their usage does not become obsolete over time, they will therefore become borrowings. Furthermore, neologism, also called "successful codeswitching" in some cases, is a required step on the way to lexicalisation.

This section attests the idea of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum, with the essential neologism stage, since some codeswitched words will probably remain codeswitching, whereas some others may become borrowings. In other words, prognoses can be made on the linguistic future of any codeswitched term as long as codeswitching and borrowing are seen as interconnected linguistic features, and not as two distinct linguistic features.

In the following section, we will focus on one specific example for which the grammatical gender is not clearly established, whether in its written or spoken form.

Fluctuating grammatical gender

The previously studied occurrences being extracted from the written version of So Shape booklet, this section will be based on the radio interview of Steven Tordjeman, the co-founder of So Shape. He gave a thirty-minute interview on a radio show called "Pitch my Startup", on RJC, a French radio. This interview was uploaded on YouTube, on 29 July

81

As previously noticed, "smart food" is used in the feminine in the booklet -e.g., « La Smart Food ». However, when listening to Tordjeman's radio interview, one observes that he employs this term in the masculine as well as in the feminine: At first glance, using this codeswitched substantive in the masculine does not make sense since the French equivalent for "food" is the feminine substantive « nourriture ».

Nevertheless, it can be hypothesised that, for the first occurrence, the speaker refers to the concept of "smart food". « Concept » being a masculine substantive in French, it can explain why he says "le smart food". Moreover, the fact that Tordjeman uses the masculine as well as the feminine can be explained by the fluctuating aspect of the grammatical gender of some codeswitched words. Indeed, when understanding codeswitching and borrowing as two linguistic features linked together, it can be asserted that the grammatical gender attributed to some codeswitched substantives is variable. However, regarding grammatical gender, a choice will have to be made when these substantives will be lexicalised: either they will be feminine or masculine. And, if 81 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87JpArRatY they retain two grammatical genders, the context will determine whether the masculine is required or the feminine. Alternatively, speakers may play a part in this choice. They will perhaps help stabilise the gender: if a majority of speakers uses a term having a fluctuating grammatical gender in the masculine, and not in the feminine for instance, this word might be lexicalised and attributed the masculine as it matches the common usage. As a consequence, the grammatical gender attributed to a codeswitched substantive can be variable in discourse, but as soon as this word is lexicalised in the language, its grammatical gender gets fixed, generally speaking. Nonetheless, there are still variations, as already developed in Chapter II, with the substantive « battle » that can either be used in the feminine or in the masculine, according to the French dictionary Larousse.

Moreover, beyond the idiolectal variations -i.e. the language variations proper to each person -as noticed with "smart food" either used in the masculine or in the feminine by the speaker, it should be noted that when the grammatical gender changes, the meaning of the term changes as well, no matter how significant or not this change is.

For instance, as it has been hypothesised, the speaker uses the masculine for the codeswitched term "smart food" to refer to the concept, whereas he uses this word in the feminine to refer to healthy food. Similarly, when the borrowed term « battle » is used in the masculine in French, its meaning (i.e. « concours ») is different from the meaning it has when used in the feminine (i.e. « bataille », « compétition », or « lutte »).

Therefore, the fluctuating grammatical gender of some substantives, whether they are codeswitched or borrowed, implies that their meaning changes as well, depending on which grammatical gender is attributed. This demonstrates that codeswitching is not really different from borrowing and reinforces the idea of a continuum between these two notions.

To sum up, although the variable grammatical gender aspect is considered to be proper to codeswitched substantives, it would be logical to attribute the feminine since "food" means « nourriture » in French, a feminine substantive. Additionally, if the term in question ever becomes lexicalised, its attributed gender will probably be fixed. If no French equivalent is found, "smart food" will be a compulsory borrowing. Otherwise, if « nourriture saine » (already existing), or even « nourriture intelligente » (to echo « téléphone intelligent »), officially become "smart food" equivalents, the latter will therefore be an optional borrowing. Nonetheless, if a French translation including a verb is given as an equivalent to "smart food" -e.g., « manger sainement » -, "smart food", once lexicalised, will be an optional borrowing. Indeed, the equivalent will exist, but, as using it will require the use of a group of words -e.g., « Le fait de manger sainement est appelé en anglais "smart food" » -, which might be too long to be frequently used, "smart food" might be preferred over the French equivalent, and will thus become an optional borrowing acting like a compulsory borrowing.

In the last section, results concerning the percentages of masculine and feminine occurrences studied, as well as the percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution, will be displayed through graphs.

Results and statistics

Just as it has been done for the three previous corpora, statistics will be provided for the nine occurrences analysed in this corpus. The number and percentage of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives will be given. However, as there are no optional borrowings or compulsory borrowings, they will not be taken into account. Nonetheless, as the compounds listed in the section "recycling borrowing to create codeswitching" are special cases, a new category has been created: "codeswitching including a compulsory borrowed substantive". The number and percentage of masculine and feminine nouns will thus be provided for this category. Secondly, statistics will concern the reasons engendering the masculine or the feminine gender for codeswitching and codeswitching including a compulsory borrowing. These reasons will be less numerous than the reasons listed in the previous corpora. Indeed, the reasons enabling to explain grammatical gender attribution for the occurrences of this corpus will be classified as follows: the referential (or extralinguistic) reason -i.e. related to the referent's gender -, the interlinguistic reason -i.e. when the French equivalent is considered to determine grammatical gender attribution -, and the grammatical reason -i.e. when grammatical gender attribution rests on the fact that, in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine. To exemplify this, consider the following graphs displaying data through percentages: encompasses 3 compounds, which are all masculine. Regarding codeswitching, as the graphs shows, 67% of the occurrences are masculine, and 33% are feminine. Therefore, in both cases, once again, the masculine dominates.

As for the reasons explaining grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching, as well as for codeswitching including a compulsory borrowing, results will be displayed in the following graph. Considering that the only reason explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching including a compulsory borrowed substantive is the grammatical reason stating that, in

French, the masculine prevails over the feminine, no graph needed to be displayed (100%). Considering codeswitching, the grammatical gender attributed to the French equivalent enabled to explain grammatical gender attribution in 67% of the 6 cases, the referential -or extralinguistic -reason representing 33% of the cases.

To sum up, the masculine is predominant in this corpus, just like it was in the three previous corpora. Secondly, both the interlinguistic and referential reasons were useful to explain grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching. Finally, it can be stated that for codeswitched compounds including a compulsory borrowing, the grammatical reason, used to explain grammatical gender attribution for compulsory borrowings, and Referent's gender 33% French equivalent 67%

being the predominant reason in Corpus #1, and one of the dominant reasons in Corpus #2, is essential in this corpus (100%).

Synthesis

The borrowed vocabulary noted in So Shape booklet was not developed enough or relevant enough to be studied. Therefore, the analysis focused on codeswitched substantives. The aim was to explain the grammatical gender attributed to the codeswitched occurrences, and to eventually demonstrate that a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing exists.

Regarding the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives, it was demonstrated that it is the same as the grammatical gender attributed to the French equivalents. The same conclusion was drawn from the occurrences that seemed to be neologisms. Moreover, it was demonstrated that these occurrences were actually codeswitched substantives -and not neologisms, although they refer to new conceptssince the main features characterising neologisms were not present. In the second section, three compounds were studied as recycled borrowings creating codeswitched substantives. The grammatical gender attributed to these words was consistent with the grammatical gender of the already existing compulsory borrowings. The third section was devoted to lexicalisation. The occurrences that had previously been analysed were divided into two categories: "unlikely lexicalisation" and "likely lexicalisation". The analysis, aiming to determine which terms were likely to be lexicalised and which ones were not, was mainly based on the question of need. Finally, in the last section of this corpus, the fluctuating grammatical gender of "smart food" was analysed via a radio interview of Steven Tordjeman, the So Shape co-founder.

It was also demonstrated that, for this corpus, using codeswitched substantives and creating new words could be seen as a commercial strategy.

Finally, venturing a guess on a potential continuum between codeswitching and borrowing seems appropriate in this corpus as well. Indeed, it appears essential to link these two linguistic phenomena, especially when dealing with fluctuating grammatical gender, since grammatical gender generally stabilises when a codeswitched substantive becomes a borrowing, except for « battle » being attributed the masculine as well as the feminine in French, as developed in Chapter II. However, the link between codeswitching and borrowing can actually be seen as a never-ending lexical process, thanks to the reuse of borrowings, enabling an infinite creation of new codeswitched terms that can perhaps become borrowings.

The results displayed through statistics and graphs showed that, for this corpus, as well as for the previous ones, the masculine gender is predominant. Regarding the reasons enabling to explain grammatical gender attribution, the interlinguistic and referential reasons both matter. Concerning the "codeswitching including a compulsory borrowing" category created for this corpus, it was demonstrated that, although the compounds listed in this section are considered cases of codeswitching, the compulsory borrowed elements they contain play a major role since only the grammatical reasonused in the other corpora for compulsory borrowing and not codeswitching -was used to explain grammatical gender attribution. The analyses of these four corpora therefore tended to demonstrate that the motivations for resorting to codeswitching and borrowing were different depending on the situation of speaking or writing, the medium used, the targeted audience, the effects the speaker wants to create, etc. Thus, the codeswitched and borrowed terms used in Corpus #1 were related to the types of activities experienced by French bloggers who describe their daily life in Australia and New Zealand. The specific lexicon used in Corpus #2 is related to media language and is therefore assimilated to jargon as it is linked with the speakers' occupation. In Corpus #3, the rapper resorts to codeswitching and borrowing for various reasons such as rhyme, language economy principle, jargon linked with the rap world, and prestige to boast and to sound trendy. Finally, the codeswitched and borrowed vocabulary used in the last corpus appears to be mostly a commercial strategy.

Conclusion

Considering the topic of this thesis, grammatical gender allocated to codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings was analysed. To do so, the study was based on different reasons enabling the explanation of grammatical gender. These reasons were referential, also called extralinguistic -i.e. gender-based attribution -, interlinguistic -i.e. when the grammatical gender of the English term matches the grammatical gender of the French equivalent -, metalinguistic -i.e. the analysis of suffixes or ending vowels (ending consonants as well for one occurrence) carrying the notion of grammatical gender -, both interlinguistic and metalinguistic -i.e.

taking into account the grammatical gender of the French equivalent and analysing the suffix or ending vowel of the English term (or the ending consonant in one of the cases case) -, and grammatical -i.e. in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine.

Statistics on the number of masculine and feminine substantives belonging to codeswitching, optional borrowings, or compulsory borrowings were displayed through graphs, per corpus. These graphs revealed that the masculine gender was predominant in all the corpora. To illustrate this assertion, consider the following graphs representing the total of masculine and feminine occurrences for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing, in corpora #1, #2, #3, and #4. above to explain grammatical gender attribution. To illustrate these statistics, consider the following graphs.

These graphs show that, in corpora #1, #2, #3, and #4, the predominant reason explaining the grammatical gender attributed to codeswitched substantives and optional borrowings is the interlinguistic reason (61% for codeswitching, and 57% for optional borrowing). Then, for codeswitching, the most recurrent reason is the referential (or extralinguistic) reason (15%), representing only 3% for optional borrowing. Both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons represent a total of 11% for codeswitching, 22% for optional borrowing, which makes them the second most recurrent reasons. The metalinguistic reasons are also quite present in optional borrowing (12%), and 10% for codeswitching. 6% of the reasons explaining grammatical gender for optional borrowings were grammatical. This reason is also found in codeswitching (3%), but it represents the three special cases analysed in Corpus #4, where the codeswitched compounds "smart muesli", "smart muffins", and "smart pancakes", composed of a codeswitched term and a compulsory borrowing, can have their grammatical gender explained thanks to the most recurrent reason given for compulsory borrowings, that is to say the grammatical reason, which states that, in French, the masculine prevails over the feminine (47%). The metalinguistic reasons dealing with suffixes (17%), and ending vowels (22%), enabled to explain a total of 39% of the cases listed in compulsory borrowing. The referential reason explained grammatical gender attribution for compulsory borrowing in 8% of the cases. Finally, it can be surprising to see the category "French equivalent" (6%) in the compulsory borrowing graph, as compulsory borrowings do not have equivalents. However, this category actually refers to two special cases of optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings -i.e. « tweet » and « hashtag ».

To sum up, due to the high percentages of metalinguistic reasons, and both interlinguistic and metalinguistic reasons, the hypotheses suggesting that suffixes, ending vowels, and ending consonants carried the notion of grammatical gender appear to be relevant, the role of the French equivalent and its grammatical gender, as well as the grammatical hypothesis being also of prime importance.

Finally, one of the objectives of this thesis was also to demonstrate the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum. Considering that any borrowed term from English inserted into the French vocabulary was, in a first phase, some sort of codeswitching before being lexicalised in French, the link between codeswitching and borrowing is obvious, especially for optional borrowings since, just like codeswitched terms, they have an equivalent in French, contrary to compulsory borrowings. Thus, thanks to the analyses of the four case studies, we tried to show that codeswitching and borrowing were not opposite linguistic phenomena as they can actually be studied as interconnected linguistic features, since some of the occurrences listed are likely to be lexicalised in the future. Corpus #4 enabled to show that the fluctuating grammatical gender of some codeswitched or borrowed substantives implied a change in meaning, depending on which grammatical gender was attributed. This reinforces the idea of a continuum between codeswitching and borrowing. Finally, Corpus #4 enabled also to demonstrate that codeswitching and borrowing were more than a continuum, but even a never-ending lexical process, which enables an unlimited creation of new codeswitched words. Indeed, using a codeswitched adjective before some compulsory borrowings creates new codeswitched compounds.

General conclusion

Comparing the French and Anglo-Saxon cultures by analysing some linguistic phenomena that imply changes, from one language to the other, was the issue of this thesis. This study has tended to establish rules about grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched substantives, as well as borrowings, from English to French.

In the first phase, regarding English borrowing, a differentiation had to be made between optional borrowings -i.e. words having a French equivalent -, and compulsory borrowings -i.e. words having lost their French equivalent once lexicalised, or having none. Then, considering that the two main obstacles were the fact that English is deprived of such grammatical aspect since, in English, gender attribution is based on natural gender, and the fact that, in French, grammatical gender assignation cannot be explained logically in most cases, alternatives had to be found to theorise it when codeswitching or borrowing from English to French. Thus, reasons enabling the explanation of grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing, were eventually classified whether they were extralinguistic -i.e. based on the referent's gender -, interlinguistic -i.e. when the grammatical gender of the English term is consistent with the grammatical gender of the French equivalent(s) -, metalinguistic -i.e. the fact of demonstrating that some suffixes, ending vowels, and ending consonants carry the notion of grammatical gender -, both interlinguistic and metalinguistic, which consists in dealing with both the French equivalent and the suffix, or the ending vowel or consonant, or grammatical -i.e. in French grammar, the masculine prevails over the feminine, and this hypothesis were applied to substantives that have no particular distinguishing feature or suffix that could carry the notion of grammatical gender. What emerged from this analysis is that the grammatical gender allocated to codeswitched substantives and optional borrowings could mostly be explained by the referential reason, the grammatical reason enabling to explain the majority of cases belonging to the category of compulsory borrowings.

Additionally, it appeared that the metalinguistic hypothesis was quite relevant when dealing with codeswitching, optional borrowing, as well as compulsory borrowing.

Statistics on these results were provided in the form of graphs. It should also be noted that although codeswitching is a discursive phenomenon coming from another language, there are nevertheless linguistic constraints due to the receiving language. This means that, in most cases, the grammatical gender of codeswitched substantives is not randomly attributed.

Despite the notions which allow to distinguish codeswitching from borrowing -i.e.

bilingualism and lexicalisation, amongst others -, one of the essential elements of this thesis was to consider these two linguistic phenomena as a continuum. Indeed, seeing each optional borrowing as a substantive initially codeswitched gives the following lexicalisation process: codeswitching -successful codeswitching -borrowing. This means that English optional borrowings, before being lexicalised in French, act as codeswitched terms, due to the fact that both of them have French equivalents, according to what their respective definitions suggest. Although regarding optional borrowings, the English term is sometimes favoured over the French equivalent, English optional borrowings have the particularity to retain their French equivalents. Then, they spread amongst speakers who use them more and more frequently, this frequency of use being assimilated to "successful codeswitching". Finally, they are eventually adopted in the borrower language, and thus become lexicalised. Furthermore, the fact that grammatical gender attribution for codeswitching and optional borrowing can be, in most cases, explained similarly, is proof that, even though they are different, they can be analysed on some similar levels. Concerning compulsory borrowings, it appears harder to establish a connection between them and codeswitching. As evidenced by the fact that, unlike codeswitching and optional borrowing, compulsory borrowing means to fill a lexical gap, this type of borrowing does not have equivalents in the target language, or at least not a suitable one, and cannot therefore have grammatical gender attribution explained with the same reasons used for codeswitching or optional borrowing. It cannot be determined if they used to have a French equivalent, which, over time, disappeared, or if they never had one. Nevertheless, another hypothesis that can reinforce the idea of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum, by including compulsory borrowing, consists in establishing a link between codeswitching, optional borrowing, and compulsory borrowing for some borrowing cases. Indeed, when a foreign term used in a target language is codeswitched, it necessarily has an equivalent in the target language. Then, due to the frequency of use, it is lexicalised, and thus becomes an optional borrowing. However, when over time, some optional borrowings eventually act as compulsory borrowings -i.e. when the equivalent of the borrower language is infrequently used, the use of the foreign term being favoured -, a codeswitchingoptional borrowing -compulsory borrowing continuum can be observed.

The conclusions drawn from the analyses of the four corpora are actually limited due to the fact that these corpora are short. These hypotheses should be verified by analysing other types of bigger corpora.

Since the analysis of grammatical gender attribution from English to French, concerning both codeswitching and borrowing, and the analysis of the linguistic behaviour of native French speakers have been conducted, this subject could be studied the other way round. It could actually be interesting to take a closer look at the way native English speakers use codeswitching and borrowing from French to English -i.e.

when the main language of the exchange is English, and the language inserted into this exchange is French. The major objective would be to determine if English-French bilinguals insert French substantives -be they codeswitched or borrowed -into English utterances, by using the French grammatical gender corresponding to these French words, or by using English determiners -i.e. not gender-sensitive. Regarding borrowings, it can be guessed that, since these terms have officially been adopted in English -e.g., "fiancé", "genre", and "lingerie" are lexicalised -, they are logically used as any other English term, and therefore not preceded by a French determiner. This would anyway have to be proved. Nevertheless, the study would rather focus on French Both sentences are instances of codeswitching. In the second utterance, the grammatical gender of the French codeswitched term « comptine » is present due to the use of the French indefinite article « une », whereas, in the first utterance, only the substantive is codeswitched, and not the determiner. It would thus appear relevant to determine which sentence would be the most spontaneous for an English bilingual switching the two languages he or she masters. The motivation(s) behind the fact of codeswitching determiners -or not -would have to be detailed. If English codeswitchers insert French substantives and the appropriate determiners, do they do it to show off since they consider the fact of mastering French, and its subtleties such as grammatical gender, prestigious? Considering that French has a more complex gender system than English, do these codeswitchers sometimes make mistakes when attributing grammatical gender? Bilingualism implying to have a good command of two languages, although degrees of bilingualism are hard to determine, it would also be interesting to determine what it means in terms of second language mastery, if these English bilinguals actually make mistakes when attributing a grammatical gender to French codeswitched substantives. Lastly, regarding the topic of this future research, false Anglicisms would merit careful thought. Indeed, it would seem pertinent to observe if English-French bilinguals use pseudo-Anglicisms such as « shooting (photo) », « stripteaseur.euse », or « smoking », or if they try to avoid codeswitching this category of words, and tend to use

French terms that only look and sound French, and whose spelling and sound do not suggest any English origin. If it appears that English-French bilinguals do use false-Anglicisms, it will therefore be necessary to determine if they are preceded or not by

French determiners in order to highlight their grammatical gender and to clearly show that they are French words, and not English words. The best way of answering all these questions would be to conduct a survey in order to have a statistical sample of English-French bilinguals' linguistic and grammatical habits when codeswitching French substantives.

List of figures

Figure

  Figure 1 -French tabloids

  following sentences considered codeswitching 2 : « C'est un recap de l'été » [Touche Pas à Mon Poste: 2014] and « […] a enflammé le dancefloor » [Touche Pas à Mon Poste: 2014].

  draws up a list of both social and linguistic meanings codeswitching conveys: • To appeal to the literate • To appeal to the illiterate • To convey precise meaning • To ease communication • To negotiate with greater authority • To capture attention, i.e. stylistic, emphatic, emotional • To emphasise a point • To communicate more effectively • To identify with a particular group • To close the status gap • To establish goodwill and support

[

  2009: 3], are pretty much the same as Kow Yip Cheng's: • Lack of facility • Lack of register • Mood of the speaker • To emphasise a point • Habitual experience • Semantic significance • To show identity with a group • To address a different audience • Pragmatic reasons • To attract attentionSimilarly to the analysis made with Kow Yip Cheng's list, the reasons motivating the use of codeswitching listed by Malik will be classified into three different levels -i.e. the lexical level, the contextual level, and the social level. Examples will be provided for each statement.

  might be partly due to the fact that the use of the French equivalent « se désabonner » implies to use more words, as in the following example: « Comment se désabonner du profil d'une personne sur Instagram ? » [Page d'aide Instagram] compared with « Qui vous unfollow sur Twitter ? » [Unfollow.fr]. Therefore, using fewer words while conveying

  [ɲ] qui forment un système phonologique relativement peu structuré. Ce qui peut faire douter du statut de phonème, cependant, c'est que ce son nouveau n'a d'aucune façon bousculé le jeu des oppositions, qui est pourtant essentiel dans tout système phonologique. Dans le parler de certaines personnes, il est prononcé comme [n] ou comme [ɲ], et cela ne pose pas de problème étant donné que dans aucun mot la prononciation d'un [n] ou d'un [ɲ] au lieu du [ŋ] ne se confond avec la prononciation d'un autre mot. La compréhension n'est donc pas affectée par l'absence, dans la langue d'un locuteur français, de ce son.

  Consider the following sentences to exemplify the five newly-lexicalised terms that are now officially part of the French lexicon: « Likez et commentez les photos des autres utilisateurs » [Public: 2016], « Ils retweetent tout et souvent n'importe quoi » [Le Vrai Horoscope on Tweeter: 2016], « Découvrez notre sélection de bombers » [Zalando: https://www.zalando.fr/bomber/], « Ligue des champions : la lose andalouse, la Juve pépouze… Revivez Leicester-Séville et Juventus-Porto » [20 Minutes: 2017], « Le burn-out, comment le diagnostiquer et le prendre en charge ? » [Libération: 2017].

  buses. Words ending in -f or -fe change into -ves for the plural form -e.g., thief ð thieves; wife ð wives. Finally, words ending in -ch, -tch or -sh have an -es ending in the plural -e.g., church ð churches; crutch ð crutches; or ash ð ashes. When codeswitching or borrowing, the French speaker respects the English rules for the plural, as shown in the following examples where the first sentence is codeswitching and the second sentence is borrowing: « […] avec les tours de la city à droite » (Corpus #1 [Aus6]) would become « […] avec les tours des cities » since English substantives ending in -y have a plural form in -ies; and « Perdue au milieu du bush […] » (Corpus #1 [NZ3])

Figure 3 -

 3 Figure 3 -Les dix points de repère de la langue française

  lexical gap -, or because this foreign word comes more spontaneously when the bilingual is speaking, or whatever the reason is, he or she can, for example, use an English term while speaking French, as in « C'est pourquoi j'ai décidé de faire un stop de 3 semaines à Bali […] » [Corpus #1] instead of « C'est pourquoi j'ai décidé de faire une halte de 3 semaines à Bali […] », which results in interference on a lexical level. Mackey raises three questions concerning interference: how well do bilinguals keep their languages apart? To what extent do they fuse them together? How does one of their languages influence their use of the other? Mackey wonders about bilinguals' ability not

[

  2009] 40 « […] Joy, elle aussi un ladyboy », the substantive "ladyboy" is codeswitched. Its French equivalent is « transsexuel ». Similarly, in the utterance « Notre team de nutritionnistes n'attend que vous ! » [Corpus #4], the term "team" is codeswitched from English to French, its French equivalent being « équipe ».

o

  « On aura l'occasion d'en reparler de ce casting » [Corpus #2] o « squat » o « Je me réchauffe autour d'un thé et d'un cupcake » [Corpus #1]

  Ben-Rafael[Chapter 3: 44, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] states that: Anglicisation became striking in the 1960s and was then vehemently criticised by linguists as a threat to the very survival of French. Etiemble voiced this criticism in his famous book Parlez-vous franglais(1964), which has been reprinted many times over the years. Up to now, about 40 years after the first publication, and a few years after the author's death(2002), the question of the long-term effect of Anglicisation of French has remained open.Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 63, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] also explains in greater detail why scholars perceive borrowings as a threat to French:

  excessive. They tend to see the integration of a single English term in the French lexicon as a real menace. The following quoted words by Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 65-66, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] citing Étiemble, perfectly exemplify the disproportionate reaction scholars can have facing English borrowings:

N:

  Je dis Christ fucking shit merde ! N: Ah je peux ajouter merde ! J: Hahaha, vous êtes bilingue mais vous xxx ?! N: Le merde a dû faire le voyage ! o Easier and faster: it allows the person talking to speak the way it comes to mind.

  extracted from Corpus #3 « T'es sur écoute tu veux mon phone […] », has « téléphone » for French equivalent.

«

  montre connectée », « chaussures connectées », and « barre de pole dance connectée », are not (yet) lexicalised -i.e. they are codeswitched. In any case, when used in French, these words are attributed the same grammatical gender as their French equivalentse.g., « Comment configurer une smartwatch ? » [Le Parisien FAQ: undated], « Le prototype de la « smart shoes 01 » à laçage automatique qui a fait le buzz en janvier à Las Vegas » [Traces Ecrites: 2016], and « CES 2017 : la smart pole n'existe pas, désolé ! » [objetconnecte.net: 2017].

  first two chapters. Here are three examples taken randomly pages 35, 128, and 149: On s'attabla dans un snack. Profitant de l'éclipse du reporter descendu aux waterclosets, la stewardess demanda qui était ce joli garçon. Outre les reportages, ce journaliste français pratiquait le rewriting. A la vérité, comme le courage lui avait manqué de vivre dans la pauvreté sa vocation d'écrivain, il se contentait de faire le rewriter ; mais son rêve, son obsession : devenir columnist dans le tabloïd auquel il collaborait. Il connaissait Fleet Street aussi bien que la rue du Croissant et le marketing U.S. des features mieux encore que le tarif des whiskies et du gin-fizz dans la plupart des boîtes parisiennes.En sortant du Toilet Club, il s'aperçoit qu'il a oublié sa boîte à cigarettes mémocase, et qu'un papillon bleu orne le pare-brise de son roadster hard-top four wheel drive. Bah ! puisque time is money, mieux vaut gagner du temps et perdre quelque argent. Au reste, il la fera sauter, cette contredanse, car en jouant l'autre mois dans un mixed foursome sur les links de…, il a connu un haut fonctionnaire de la police municipale.LA PEELING : […] Mais comme, malgré les apparences, je suis une brave petite teenette et que je sais un peu d'anglais, moi, qui passai trois ans dans une école du Sussex, je vais vous donner une idée-Elle, une idée formid', une idée chic-choc, et pas du tout shocking : quand vous l'aurez enfin rédigée, votre petite column, il faudra bien trouver une signature commune. […] Alors, mes ladies, vous signerez : O apostrophe-esse-hache-e-trait d'union (ne pas oublier le trait d'union ! très important dans un club), trait d'union cé-elle-u-bé : O'She-Club.48

  […] Certains intellectuels se montrent particulièrement virulents, et poussent très loin les analogies -Étiemble par exemple parle de « kystes hideux », de « cancer yanqui » -, le paroxysme étant atteint quand sont faites des comparaisons avec l'Occupation de la France par les nazis durant la période1940-1944 : [...] force m'est de constater que s'ils torturaient et massacraient les résistants, les nazis se donnaient la peine de rédiger en vrai français leurs atroces tableaux d'honneur.(Étiemble, pages 283-284)

# 1 [

 1 Aus5]) -e.g., « […] la beauté du wilderness […] » -has several French equivalents with different grammatical genders, which makes the deduction of grammatical gender attribution based on equivalents impossible. Indeed, it is referred to as « une région sauvage », « une contrée sauvage », « une étendue sauvage », or « un désert » in French.

  in the masculine in French, as in the advertisements of the brand KitKat: « Croquez, fondez pour un break gourmand », « Le break classique en format mini-bouchées », « Le break original en toute simplicité », « Le break croustillant à partager » [KitKat: 2017].

  nationale disparaît mystérieusement » [20 Minutes: 2017], « Comment la gazette d'un lycée américain a obtenu une interview du chef du Pentagone » [Le Monde: 2017], « Donald Trump démolit son ministre de la Justice dans une interview » [RFI: 2017]than article titles in which it is used in the masculine -e.g., « Un lycéen obtient un interview avec le chef du Pentagone » [Le Figaro: 2017].

o

  Jetlag, e.g., « […] je n'ai vraiment pas dormi à cause du « jetlag » […] » [Aus1]; « Etonnamment (sic), je n'ai pas eu l'impression de souffrir du jetlag […] » [Aus1] o Stop, e.g., « C'est pourquoi j'ai décidé de faire un stop de 3 semaines à Bali […] » [Aus2]; « […] le premier stop à une ferme de chameaux […] » [Aus2] o Trip, road trip, e.g., « […] avant de partir pour un dernier trip de plusieurs jours […] » [Aus2]; « […] en route pour un trip en Australie de 12 mois ! » [Aus3]; « […] la fin de la rando rime aussi avec la fin du road trip […] » [Aus2]; « Absolument conquise par mon road trip de 8 jours […] » [Aus5]; « […] découvrez ce road trip estival sur les routes de Nouvelle-Zélande » [NZ2]; « Ce fut l'occasion d'un road trip

  occurrences have been noted:o Barbecue, e.g., « Je me suis acheter (sic) un barbecue…» [NZ1] o Brunch, e.g., « On n'a (sic) été prendre un succulent et copieux brunch[…] » [Aus2]; « Moi qui avait (sic) prévu un brunch (très alcoolisé) […] » [Aus2]; « […] un brunch chinois […] » [Aus4] o Cheesecake, e.g., « […] le cheese cake (sic) […] » [NZ3] o Cocktail, e.g., « Petit cocktail » [Aus4]o Cupcake, e.g., « […] je me réchauffe autour d'un thé et d'un cupcake […] » [Aus2] o Fish and chips, e.g., « […] premier fish'n'chips au bord de la mer […] » [Aus1]; « Manger un fish & chips […] » [Aus5] o Hamburger 54 , e.g., « Mon hamburger s'appelait Hot Hombre » [Aus4] o Hangi, e.g., « Goûter le Hangi (viande ou poisson cuits sur des pierres chaudes dans un trou creusé dans le sol) » [NZ5] o Pavlova, e.g., « Essayer le Pavlova (dessert à la meringue qui provoque un conflit depuis des siècles entre l'Australie et la NZ) » [NZ5] o Sandwich, e.g., « Tous simplement un sandwich […] » [Aus4] o Steak, e.g., « Un petit steack (sic) […] » [Aus4] o Sundae, e.g., « Sundae fait au choix avec les ingrédients que l'on veut » [Aus4]; « Un sundae géant avec des brownies dedans » [Aus4] o Toast, e.g., « Un French toast en Australie » [Aus6] o Wrap, e.g., « […] un petit wrap […] » [Aus4] Except « cheesecake », an optional borrowing used in the masculine because the French equivalent « gâteau au fromage » is masculine, all other occurrences are compulsory borrowings used in the masculine. This peculiarity might be due to the fact that they have no translation or equivalent in French, and are therefore attributed the masculine gender, which prevails in French. Explaining gender attribution for compulsory borrowings remains difficult since explaining gender attribution for regular French substantives logically is impossible, due to the randomness of French grammatical gender attribution. This can, for instance, be observed in the use of « Pavlova »: e.g., « Essayer le Pavlova (dessert à la meringue qui provoque un conflit depuis des siècles entre l'Australie et la NZ) ». Although this substantive has a feminine ending, [a], it is employed in the masculine.

o

  Boss, e.g., « George, notre contractor (ou « le boss ») […] » [NZ2] o Fruit picking, e.g., « Après le fruit picking, l'apple thinning » [NZ2]; « Le fruit picking n'est pas le seul job à envisager lorsque vous souhaitez travailler [...] » [NZ2]; « […] le fruitpicking (sic) (cueillette de fruits) est une bonne option » [NZ5] o Job, e.g., « […] c'est un job qui n'est pas franchement rémunéré à la hauteur de sa difficulté » [NZ2]; « […] faire du stripping dans les vignes : un job payé au rendement […] » [NZ4] o Stripping, e.g., « […] faire du stripping dans les vignes : un job payé au rendement […] » [NZ4] o Thinning, thinner, e.g., « l'apple thinning n'est pas vraiment le boulot le plus facile […] » [NZ2]; « […] la qualité première d'un bon thinner c'est la rapidité » [NZ2] o Woofing, woofeur, e.g., « […] la possibilité de faire un woofing […] » [NZ3]; « […] pour y faire du woofing » [NZ4]; « […] la tree-house (sic) (maison privée des invités et woofeurs) [...] » [NZ3]

Figure 4 -

 4 Figure 4 -Corpus #1 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives

  Also known under the acronym TPMP, Touche Pas à Mon Poste ! is a French live talk show broadcast from Monday to Friday on the channel C8 58 , and produced by H2O Production. Each evening, during approximately two hours, Cyril Hanouna, the host, decrypts, with his commentators, what happens in the different media -that is to say, on TV, on the radio, and on the Internet (online videos from YouTube or Dailymotion, and social networks such as Facebook or Tweeter). TPMP appeared to be a relevant choice for the case study since several occurrences, which can be assimilated to codeswitching and/or borrowing and which are always given a specific grammatical gender, can be heard in this TV show when using a vocabulary pertaining to media language. The analysed occurrences were found in season 6, which was broadcast in 2014 -from Monday 1 st September 2014 to Friday 21 st November 2014 -as well as in the 2015 season 7 -from Thursday 12 th November 2015 to Friday 18 th December 2015. During these two periods, I watched TPMP daily in order to note the codeswitched and borrowed occurrences that have been uttered either by the host or by the different commentators.59

  substantive, which is employed in the feminine in French, appears in two example sentences of the corpus: « […] je n'arrivais plus à regarder la caméra »; « Ce sont de toutes petites caméras très discrètes »; and « Dès qu'il voit une caméra[…] ». In the first instance, the feminine definite article « la », as well as the use of the adjectives « toutes petites » and « discrètes » in the second sentence, and the feminine indefinite article « une » in the last example are proof that « caméra » is a feminine substantive.

  ending vowel [e] can be considered a masculine vowel. Therefore, « prime time » is masculine because it ends with the vowel [e]. Likewise, « prime », being the shortened form of « prime time », is naturally attributed the masculine gender. « Duplex » is a words has been explained by analysing their French equivalents and/or their ending vowels or suffixes.

French

  , or « débat télévisé » for « talk show » (an optional borrowing then), « débat » being a masculine noun, hence the fact that they are used in the masculine in the example sentences: « C'est en fait un psy-show peopolisé »; « Et dans ce talk […] »; « […] tant qu'elle aura pas son talk également »; « […] alors que là on est dans un talk show »; « Qu'arrive-t-il au talk show […] ? »; « Ça va pas être un talk show comme on a l'habitude de le voir faire […] »; « Un talk show comme celui-là au bout de 7 ans, c'est normal qu'il s'use ». Furthermore, "talk" sounds even more like a jargon word in French, compared to

Figure

  Figure 8 -Corpus #2 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives

Figure 14 -

 14 Figure 14 -Corpus #3 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives

Figure 15 -

 15 Figure 15 -Corpus #3 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching

L

  'apparition d'un signifié nouveau qui se fait par deux voies principales. Soit par création ou emprunt d'un signifiant nouveau, soit par changement de sens ou de valeur morphologique d'un mot existant. The following four examples could make us wonder about the label that could be given to these substantives referring to new concepts: codeswitching or neologism? o Detox water, e.g., « […] on vous a facilité la tâche avec le Detox Water ! » o Open food, e.g., « […] ou un open food » o Shapers, e.g., « Pour les fidèles Shapers, […] »; « Pour les shapers habitués […] »; « […] pour partager vos expériences avec les autres shapers » o Smart food, e.g., « La Smart Food »

  Smart muesli, e.g., « Il s'agit des Smart Muesli […] enrichis en fibres et protéines »; « Vous renonciez aux muesli car ils étaient trop sucrés »; « Le Smart Muesli Fruits rouges ou chocolat est 90% moins sucré […] » o Smart muffins, e.g., « […] les Smart Muffins : enrichis en protéines […] » o Smart pancakes, e.g., « Les Smart Pancakes […] enrichis en protéines […] » These three substantives are compounds as there are two autonomous lexical bases linked by a typographical blank, the determined being the compulsory borrowing placed on the right, and the determiner being the adjective "smart" on the left. Although "smart" is an adjective and not a substantive, because of the use of capital letters for "Smart", « Muesli », « Muffin », and « Pancake », « Smart Muesli », « Smart Muffins », and « Smart Pancakes » can be considered compounds.

o

  « Je pense que c'est vraiment l'avenir pour nous le smart food »; « […] là c'est de la smart food […] »; « Vu qu'on fait de la smart food […] »

Figure 17 -

 17 Figure 17 -Corpus #4 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives

Figure 18 -

 18 Figure 18 -Corpus #4 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching

  This chapter was divided into four corpora. The first case study concerned French expatriates living in Australia and New Zealand, and writing blogs. The occurrences noted in this corpus were classified into nine different categories, whether they refer to escapade and trip, accommodation, cuisine and beverage, job, sports, animals, places, acronyms, or other categories different from the previous classes listed. The second case study revolved around media language, through the French TV show Touche Pas à Mon Poste !. The occurrences were divided into three main sections being fossilised borrowings, recent substantives, and jargon terms. The occurrences noted in the third case study were extracted from Booba's rap songs. They were categorised according to the reasons motivating their use -i.e. rhyme, language economy principle, jargon, and prestige. Then, the occurrences found in the booklet of the French brand So Shape, selling diet products, were analysed in the fourth case study. They were classified whether they pertained to codeswitching, neologism, or recycled borrowing to create codeswitching. Their potential lexicalisation was also studied. Finally, the fluctuating grammatical gender of one of these occurrences was examined.

Figure 19 -

 19 Figure 19 -Total percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives

  codeswitched substantives used in English, and determining if bilingual speakers use the French grammatical gender -i.e. if these substantives are preceded by a French determiner -, or if English determiners are used, would constitute an interesting analysis. To illustrate this issue, consider the following example sentences: e.g., "Frites would remain French fries" [The Washington Post: 2017] and "Papa, sing me une comptine" [Fédération des parents francophones de Colombie-Britannique: undated].

Figure 1 -

 1 Figure 1 -French tabloids ......................................................................................................................................................

Figure 2 -

 2 Figure 2 -Main features characterising some discursive and linguistic phenomena ...............................

Figure 3 -

 3 Figure 3 -Les dix points de repère de la langue française ....................................................................................

Figure 4 -

 4 Figure 4 -Corpus #1 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives ...................

Figure 5 -

 5 Figure 5 -Corpus #1 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching .....

Figure 6 -

 6 Figure 6 -Corpus #1 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for OB .............................

Figure 7 -

 7 Figure 7 -Corpus #1 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for CB .............................

Figure 8 -

 8 Figure 8 -Corpus #2 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives ...................

Figure 9 -

 9 Figure 9 -Corpus #2 Percentages of masculine and feminine OB ....................................................................

Figure 10 -

 10 Figure 10 -Corpus #2 Percentages of masculine and feminine CB ..................................................................

Figure 11 -

 11 Figure 11 -Corpus #2 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching ..

Figure 12 -

 12 Figure 12 -Corpus #2 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for OB ..........................

Figure 13 -

 13 Figure 13 -Corpus #2 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for CB ..........................

Figure 14 -

 14 Figure 14 -Corpus #3 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives ................

Figure 15 -

 15 Figure 15 -Corpus #3 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching ..

Figure 16 -

 16 Figure 16 -Corpus #3 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for OB ..........................

Figure 17 -

 17 Figure 17 -Corpus #4 Percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives ................

Figure 18 -

 18 Figure 18 -Corpus #4 Percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching ..

Figure 19 -

 19 Figure 19 -Total percentages of masculine and feminine codeswitched substantives ...........................

Figure 20 -

 20 Figure 20 -Total percentages of masculine and feminine OB ............................................................................

Figure 21 -

 21 Figure 21 -Total percentages of masculine and feminine CB .............................................................................

Figure 22 -

 22 Figure 22 -Total percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for codeswitching .............

Figure 23 -

 23 Figure 23 -Total percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for OB .....................................

Figure 24 -

 24 Figure 24 -Total percentages of reasons explaining grammatical gender for CB .....................................

Figure 25 -

 25 Figure 25 -Language choice ..............................................................................................................................................

Table of contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I -INTRODUCING KEY NOTIONS

  defines them and provides examples:

	complements or prepositions are added. These complements or prepositions are
	different from the ones that used to be added to verbs such as « coder » or « initier », for
	instance. To do so, French has been inspired by English. Moreover, as demonstrated by
	Bogaards with the verb « initier », which used to have a noun naming a person as a direct
	object complement and that can now be followed by a word naming a thing just like
	English does, grammatical extensions can change the meaning of a word. Indeed, in
	French, « initier quelqu'un à quelque chose » means "initiate somebody into something"
	or "introduce somebody to something", whereas the French expression « initier quelque
	chose » means "start something".
	Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 53, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008] finally analyses
	loanwords by dealing with semantic alteration and specialisation:
	Parallèlement aux extensions de sens, on peut relever des extensions
	grammaticales, des cas où des mots prennent, selon le modèle de constructions
	anglaises, d'autres compléments de ceux qui étaient employés jusque-là. Un bon
	exemple de cette catégorie est le verbe coder qui, en génétique, est employé avec la
	préposition pour, d'après l'expression anglaise to code for. Le verbe initier qui, il n'y
	a pas longtemps, n'admettait comme objet direct que des noms désignant des
	personnes, peut désormais, à l'image de l'anglais to initiate, être suivi d'un objet
	nom de chose. De ce fait, ce verbe change de sens, comme on peut le constater dans
	un exemple comme initier une enquête.
	In addition to enlargements of meaning, Bogaards explains that there are also
	grammatical extensions. They represent already existing French words to which

emprunt de locutions et de phrases proverbiales du

  type Last by not least, fifty-fifty, on the rocks ou Time is money.

	6. emprunt graphologique comme on le rencontre dans Modern Hôtel, Rapid
	Service ou pin's ;
	7. emprunt phonologique, c'est-à-dire l'emprunt de phonèmes comme [ŋ] qu'on
	rencontre surtout dans le suffixe -ing ou de suites de phonèmes comme [s] +
	[consonne sonore] comme dans slip, slogan, smart, smash, smoking, snack-bar, snob
	etc. on pourrait y ajouter la suite [dʒ] qui s'emploie dans jazz, jogging ou gentleman.
	In 1980, Rey-Debove already mentioned other elements borrowed from English and
	used in French. These elements are given by Bogaards [2008: 23-24] quoting Rey-
	Debove [1980]:
	8. emprunt morphologique : elle cite le cas de -ing, comme dans pressing, parking,
	footing ou shampooing ; on peut relever aussi l'emploi de -man, comme jazzman,
	tennisman ou caméraman, de -woman comme dans recordwoman et superwoman,
	et, plus récemment de -land qu'on rencontre dans euroland, Disneyland ou
	badlands. Il est à noter que le pluriel de certaines de ces nouvelles formations se
	forme selon les règles de l'anglais, ce qui donne policemen ou businesswomen. 19
	9. emprunt de sigles et d'acronymes : O.K., K.O., G.I., G.M.T., laser (Light
	Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation). À ce cas on peut associer
	l'emploi de Mr au lieu de M. pour « Monsieur » et de Prof au lieu de P r sur lequel M.
	Pergnier (1989 : 103) attire l'attention.
	10.
	, classifies Anglicisms in a different
	way:
	1. emprunt intégral, c'est-à-dire la reprise de la forme et du sens d'un mot ou d'une
	expression de l'anglais. Comme exemple, il donne ; scanner (n.) et week-end ;
	2. emprunt (calque) sémantique, où ce n'est que le sens qui est repris, comme
	dans réaliser au sens de « se rendre compte » ou adopter un profil bas ;
	3. emprunt (calque) structural, qu'on retrouve dans des mots comme tour-
	opérateur ;
	4. pseudo-anglicismes du type new look (créé par Christian Dior en 1947) ou
	tennisman, en d'autres termes des mots qui semblent être empruntés à l'anglais
	mais qui ont bel et bien été forgés en français ;
	5. formes hybrides comme top niveau, où un élément d'origine anglaise est
	combiné avec une forme française et qui peut être considéré comme une sous-classe
	des pseudo-anglicismes ;

  The borrowed substantive « people » is uncountable in English. It is therefore already used in the plural in the example sentence and cannot be added an -s, which would be proof of a lack of mastery of the English grammar. In the French utterance, « people » remains written as in English, however, contrary to what English grammar requires, it is preceded by « aux » since its French equivalent « célébrités » is countable. Thus, in this case, both grammars are somehow respected.Regarding countable nouns borrowed or codeswitched from English to French, English rules to form the plural are respected -e.g., « Cela permet à vos followers de s'identifier

To sum up, in English as well as in French, there are broadly two categories of nouns: countable and uncountable. When borrowing, English and French grammars are respected as far as possible -e.g., « On va s'intéresser aux people dans l'émission d'aujourd'hui » [Il en pense quoi Camille ?: 2017] vs. *« On va s'intéresser aux peoples dans l'émission d'aujourd'hui ». à vous et à votre vie surtout si vous avez une influence sur une zone précise » [Public: 2016] (codeswitching), or « Utilisez les hashtags qui attirent » [Public: 2016]

(borrowing) -because they are similar to French rules. Nevertheless, when man-and woman-are used in French to create false Anglicisms, they are subjected to the English grammar rules -e.g., the singular substantive « businessman » becomes « businessmen » in the plural, in English as well as in French.

  table is for you" vs. "Milk is healthy"; "What do you do for a living?" vs. "Which ring are you going to choose?". A plural noun without determiner can also be used to speak in general: e.g., "Drinks are cheaper in this club".

	Dealing with determiners is important since, in most example sentences provided in
	this thesis, French determiners precede English codeswitched substantives -e.g.,
	« Qu'est-ce que le kiwi lifestyle ? »; « Ça sent le fake »; « T'es sur écoute tu veux mon
	phone […] »; « La Team So Shape » (extracted from Corpus #1, #2, #3, and #4).

It seems logical to prepose a French determiner before English borrowings as they are officially integrated into French, and thus act like any other French substantive.

  langue une science dans laquelle ces derniers ne croyaient plus et qu'ils n'avaient pas la force d'abattre. C'est ainsi que le dogme, rigidement imposé dans la tradition, se cristallise en formalisme. Les catégories linguistiques constituent un système d'épaves dogmatiques et il s'agit de dogmes de l'inconscient »

	explains
	that:
	Si aujourd'hui le genre n'est que la survivance d'une forme irrationnelle à laquelle
	ne correspond plus aucun sémantisme, à l'origine, celle-ci doit cependant avoir été
	motivée par un concept, par une connexion, d'exigence classificatoire. Pour Sapir,

cette connexion a été instaurée dans un passé mythique où l'inconscient de la race humaine a réalisé le premier inventaire de l'expérience. Nous lisons : « Il semblerait presque que, à un moment donné du passé, l'inconscient de la race humaine ait accompli un inventaire hâtif de l'expérience, s'en soit remis à des classifications prématurées qui n'admettaient pas de corrections et ait donc fait peser sur les héritiers de sa

  Par rapport à ses classifications, la langue est « déraisonnable et têtue », et d'autre part, selon Sapir, il est impensable que la différence sexuelle soit un critère fondé capable de constituer la base d'une catégorisation. « Il semblerait même plutôt forcé de penser que deux concepts grossièrement matériels et accidentels du point de vue philosophique, comme le masculin et le féminin, constituent un moyen de connexion entre qualité et personne, entre personne et action […] »

  e. the French rules or the English rules. It appeared that French grammar prevails, except for false Anglicisms, subjected to the English grammar rules when plural, although they are not actual English words. Considering the topic of this thesis, it seemed essential to deal with determiners since they carry the notion of grammatical gender when dealing with grammatical gender attribution for codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French. Then, natural gender and grammatical gender were defined and analysed, English having a natural gender, and French a grammatical gender. The third and last part of Chapter I dealt with diachrony. It was divided into two sub-parts. Firstly, history -i.e. the history of both French and English languages chronologically detailed -, and secondly, grammar -i.e. the analysis of French and English grammatical genders, which both remain difficult to explain.As all the foundations are laid for codeswitching and borrowing, what differentiates them and what connects them will be analysed on a more practical level in Chapter II, with the aim of explaining grammatical gender attribution and demonstrating that a continuum exists between codeswitching and borrowing.

  Interferencecan thus be observed morphologically, syntactically, phonologically, semantically, or lexically. For instance, in terms of linguistic morphology a French-English bilingual speaker could say: « Les procédures du Penelope Gate 36 sont-elles les mêmes pour les infractions financières de Monsieur Tout-le-Monde ? »[Le Huffington Post: 2017], where the compound "Penelope Gate" is created from English -i.e. in English compounds, the determined (the head word, "gate" here) is on the right, and the determiner ("Penelope") is on the left. Regarding syntax, language interference means to arrange words in such a way that at least two languages can be identified, through two different syntaxes, and create a meaningful sentence, as in « Tu crois que cet(te) story est pretty fucked up »[Young 2002: 142]. Thirdly, while speaking French, a bilingual's speech can result in interference if he or she pronounces the loanword "shaker" in English -i.e.

  An article entitled « Nouveaux mots du dictionnaire 2015 : Le Petit Robert et Le Petit Larousse dévoilent leurs sélections », published in 2014 by Le Huffington Post, reveals the words borrowed from English and used in

defines lexicalised words as "[…] words […] registered by lexicographers in dictionaries or at least […] recorded somewhere in print".

  to the place, it cannot be classified amongst grammatical borrowings. Indeed, as this word does not have the same meaning in English and French, it is not a loanword from English. It just looks and sounds English, like any other false Anglicism, but is not an actual English word. Moreover, although « jeune pousse » is a possible translation for "start up", it is actually scarcely used. French speakers would more spontaneously talk about « une nouvelle entreprise », or rather « une start-up », to refer to a new business.

	The case of « pressing », extracted from the above quotation, and the substantive
	« souris », can exemplify what Matras and Sakel [2007: 15] call "matter" MAT and

English borrowings without French equivalents,

Ben-Rafael [Chapter 3: 51, in Rosenhouse & Kowner: 2008]

explains: Among the borrowings without French equivalents, some are adopted en bloc, phonetically and semantically: black out, box, brunch, clip, leadership, attachment; others only semantically: superman, wagon, management. These borrowings are explained essentially by the need to name new technological activities, such as in computer science; the want of appropriate French terms to describe given cultural values; or the reference to new concepts appearing under new names (pressing, email, start up, web), which, however, may eventually be re-baptised in French (Courriel for email; jeune pousse for start up; or toile for web).

Amongst the last examples the author provides, she lists the substantive « pressing » as one of the references "to new concepts appearing under new names". Being a false Anglicism since, in English, this term is translated "dry cleaning", or "dry-cleaner's" if one refers "pattern" PAT, when dealing with borrowings. Sakel defines MAT and PAT as follows:

  -or never used -as it is the case for « jouet sexuel » and « sonal ». Some reasons can anyway explain such phenomenon. « Baby-sitting » and « garde d'enfants » have a different meaning. The latter sounds more professional since it seems to be related to childcare, whereas « baby-sitting » is usually a job students do to earn pocket money. As for « blind test » and « sex toy », their respective French equivalents « test à l'aveugle » and « jouet sexuel » are calqued on English, just as « smartphone » and « téléphone intelligent », but the French translations are not successful compared with

	equivalent:
	o « baby-sitting/ garde d'enfants »
	o « blind test/test à l'aveugle »
	o « sex toy/jouet sexuel »
	o « jingle/sonal »
	These instances illustrate the notion of "optional borrowing" since, for each of the
	English terms, a French equivalent exists. Nevertheless, these English borrowings act

However, in this sub-part, I will only deal with examples of optional borrowings -i.e. words borrowed from English and having a French equivalent -for which the English term is preferred over the French term. In the following examples, there is the English borrowing first, and then its French like compulsory borrowings -i.e. borrowings having no equivalent in the target language. Indeed, although « baby-sitting », « blind test », « sex toy », and « jingle » have French equivalents, which are respectively « garde d'enfants », « test à l'aveugle », « jouet sexuel », and « sonal », these equivalents are rarely used -« garde d'enfants » and « test à l'aveugle »

  Toutes les langues doivent quelque chose aux autres : le français a nourri l'anglais, l'anglais a enrichi le français. Mais depuis un demi-siècle, la « balance linguistique » est devenue lourdement déficitaire au détriment du français. Or les mots ne servent pas seulement à désigner des choses, ils véhiculent aussi des manières de penser. Il n'est pas indifférent de parler de styliste ou de designer, de palmarès ou de hit parade, de staff ou d'équipe.

	Il y a encore moins de raisons d'accepter des distorsions de sens provoquées par des
	mots anglais de forme proche des nôtres, mais de sens différent : supporter ne
	signifie pas « soutenir », digital n'a rien à voir avec « numérique » et une opportunité
	n'est pas une « occasion », ni une « possibilité ».
	Résister à l'anglomanie, ce n'est pas se laisser aller à l'anglophobie (ou à
	l'américanophobie). C'est défendre le droit de nous exprimer dans notre langue,
	avec des mots à nous, et d'être compris de tous ceux dont le français est la langue
	maternelle ou d'usage.

  Histoire la moins drôle in the world », page 71, Étiemble lists the vocabulary related to sports, which has been largely borrowed from English. Here is an extract from this chapter, pages 72-73, in which he talks about golf:

	[…] j'allais peut-être songer à me mettre au golf lorsque j'en fus découragé par un
	article de Carrefour, le 23 septembre 1959. « Faut-il parler anglais pour jouer au
	golf ? » demandait Jeanine Merlin. Péremptoire, la réponse : « Tous les termes
	techniques du golf sont en effet anglais. Il est de bon ton de les prononcer avec un

Je vais d'abord vous conter une manière de short story. Elle advint à l'un de mes pals, un de mes potes, quoi, tantôt chargé d'enquêtes full-time, tantôt chargé de recherches part-time dans une institution mondialement connue, le C.N.R.S. Comme ce n'est ni un businessman, ni le fils naturel d'un boss de la City et de la plus glamorous ballet-dancer in the world, il n'a point pâti du krach qui naguère inquiétait Wall Street ; mais il n'a non plus aucune chance de bénéficier du boom dont le Stock Exchange espère qu'il fera bientôt monter en flèche la cote des valeurs.

In « Histoire encore moins drôle », page 47, he deals with the several Franglais terms that can be found in different medias such as the press [47-48]:

Les 29-30 août 1959, un éditorial du Figaro, signé Michel de Saint-Pierre, s'intitulait Parlez Français : « Tu étais au Jumping ? -Oui. J'ai suivi les dernières épreuves : celles du week-end. La participation européenne était excellente, avec un joli background américain et russe… Et j'ai bien aimé le show ! » Finally, in « bon accent […] mais le glossaire suivant est suffisant, même si l'on ignore la langue :

  The second chapter of Parlez-vous franglais ? is entitled « La manière française de vivre », starting page 91. It is divided into three parts: in the first part "Baby-corner et coin des teens", page 93, Étiemble refers to all the vocabulary relating to babies as well as the compounds created in French with the word "baby", page 94:Grâce au baby-boom consécutif à des lois ad hoc, nous avons peu de nurses, mais beaucoup de babies. Du coup, chaque petit Français se sent revalorisé ; valable : « Je suis un baby, moi. Daddy me promène en baby-cab. […] -Oui, mais moi, on me pèse sur une babybalance, tandis que toi, j'ai vu que ta nurse te met dans un pèse-bébé ; t'as pas honte ? -Oui, mais moi je suis fier de ce qu'on me frotte les fesses au babyvéa, et de manger mes eggs and bacon à la baby-cuiller. » Ainsi de suite : pourvus de baby bottes, de baby bowls, chaudement vêtus pour l'hiver de baby coats et de babyshoes, nos babys, échappant aux baby-sitters, se révèlent dignes en tous points des babies de Chicago.

ground. » Suffisant ? A la rigueur. Il faut ajouter au moins matchplay. » Then he uses the vocabulary pertaining to teens, as page 106:

En attendant, il n'y en a chez nous que pour les teens. Le teen âge, comme on dit, a tous les droits. Les teenagers ont imposé leurs idoles, Vartan, Hallyday et leurs lois : ils dansent le twist, le rock n'roll, le hully-gully, le madison, ils tolèrent les negrospirituals, mais s'avouent peu fans de blues, de swing, de middle jazz. Ils portent l'uniforme : blue-jeans et T. shirt. […] Après le blue-jean et le Tee shirt, ou T. shirt, ou T' shirt, les marchands ont lancé le bas teenager « réservé aux moins de 20 ans » et le soutien-gorge teenform : « littlest angel » pour les filles de thirteen ans ; « Dawn » pour celles de fifteen ou sixteen ; enfin, par quelle aberration ? le teenform Pirouette pour les teenettes de nineteen ans.

  shave lotions, électriques ou non, d'after-shaves, de talcs after-shave et de cold cream frais pour les peaux délicates.Finally, in the third part entitled "O'She-Club", starting page 131, he deals with the French way of life of women in quite a sexist description, as revealed from the very beginning of the part:La scène se passe dans un salon de coiffure-institut de beauté. Personnages en scène : une blonde, une platinée qui attendent leur tour en lisant des magazines ; une future mère de famille (ça se voit) ; une dame en proie au modeling. Soumise au Régécolor, une auburn fixe le plafond. Trois autres dames subissent la mise en plis. Derrière une cloison, une teenager se fait faire un peeling. Négocier un virage. Moreover, after each section, the author invites the reader to do some exercises. English borrowings since the 18 th century.In the second part called « Publicité et sabir atlantique », starting page 287, he deals with Franglais words relating to advertisement. The following quotation is an extract from page 290:Au quick de l'américain répondent les Rapid' Lavage et ces placards qui vantent la rapidité avec laquelle on fabrique du faux café, du faux thé, du faux lait, de faux potages. Cette religion de la vitesse nous vaut la vogue du mot flash (plus rapide, faut-il croire, qu'un éclair), et notamment le flash-secrétariat recommandé par Immédiat-bureau.Finally, page 307, there starts the third part of the fourth chapter entitled « Presse, radio et télé atlantiques », in which the author notes, firstly, the Franglais terms pertaining to the press, as for instance page 307:

		Du coup, je demandai aux gens de la télé de vouloir bien me signaler, en vue de cet
		ouvrage (auquel je travaillais), […] des mots étrangers qu'ils emploient le plus The following example is extracted from page 126 to souvent. Voici, par ordre alphabétique, les premiers de ceux qui leur vinrent à
	127:	l'esprit : ampex, cameflex, cameblimp, camera, cameraman, charging-bag, clapman, dolly (prononcé doli), flash, flash-back, feature, flood (prononcé floude, et masculin
		quant au genre), groupman, interview, matcher (des plans), mixage, perchman,
		A quelque carrière, et même, hélas, à quelque métier qu'il se destine aujourd'hui,
	l'ex-teenager est bon pour l'anglomanie de ceux qui mènent la France au statut The penultimate chapter is supposed to answer the question « Pourquoi sabirons-
		colonial dont elle vient d'affranchir l'Afrique. Il ne peut ni tousser, ni se raser, ni se
	vêtir, ni manger, ni faire l'amour, ni s'en distraire sans que se fondent sur lui, de nous atlantique ? », page 265. As the previous three chapters, it is divided into three

toutes parts, les mots américains et les yanquismes les plus bêtes. Il se lève, notre citoyen français. Vite une première cigarette. Parliament, Players ou Pall-Mall ? Camel ou Winston ? des filter-cigarettes king size, ce n'est pas ça qui manque chez nous […] Grâce à Dieu, de savants pogonotomistes nous ont pourvus de précieuses eaux de toilette avant rasage, de shaving-soaps irréprochables, de pre-The third chapter of Étiemble's book is about grammar, page 151. It is divided into three sections. Page 153, he enumerates all the divergences between French, English, and Franglais, regarding the alphabet, the spelling, the pronunciation, and the stress in the part entitled « Alphabet, orthographe, prononciation, accentuation ».

In the second section, « Morphologie et syntaxe », page 171, he compares French, English, and Franglais though substantives -including gender, number, derivation, and formation -, personal pronouns, articles, adjectives, adverbs, verbs, prepositions, interjections and onomatopoeias, abbreviations, and punctuation. Finally, in the third section dealing with « Stylistique », page 251, he also draws a parallel between French, English, and Franglais by providing lists of Franglais words with their French and English origins -e.g., p. 256 (Fr.) Prendre un virage; (Eng.) To negociate (sic) a curve; (Sabir) parts, the first being entitled « Impérialisme yanqui et pacte atlantique », page 267. In this part, Étiemble reviews the Anglicisation of French by giving many examples of D'abord, les rubriques, ça n'existe plus ; nous avons enfin des columns à l'américaine, et le rubricard se promeut columnist. […] Il y a le coin des teens, les flashes, le jumping, les jazz-records, les features, il y a même une rubrique du baby-sitting.

Secondly, he notices the Franglais words that can be heard on the radio, as in page 316:

Le 29 février 1960, au cours d'une chronique sportive, j'entendis « le plus grand évent », comme s'il s'agissait du mot anglais event (ivennte, accentué sur -vent) que nos ignares, je l'ai vingt fois noté, préfèrent de parti pris au mot français événement.

Thirdly, concerning the vocabulary borrowed from English and used by people working in television, page 321 Étiemble notes:

  some historical context to show the link between Europe and the United States, and talks about his experience in the USA, but he still gives his opinion concerning English words inserted into French, as shown by the following quotation, Cinq mots au moins, dont deux assez familiers, pour exprimer ce que nos sabiraux nomment un speech et que Gourmont a la faiblesse de vouloir naturaliser en spiche. Il francise insuffisamment, du reste, puisqu'il conserve l'initiale sifflante + explosive, si agréable en anglais, si déplaisante au français. qui donc conférer le droit de « régenter » ? Voilà plus de trois siècles, on créa une compagnie à qui le gouvernement d'alors confia ce soin glorieux : l'Académie française. Est-ce ma faute si, indigne de son rôle, une majorité ignorante ou gâteuse paralyse le petit nombre de ceux qui pourraient et voudraient bien faire ? Devant cette carence, Gourmont rêva d'une autre Académie, celle de la beauté verbale, qui se chargerait de naturaliser les emprunts nécessaires et de proscrire les pilleries. 47 Que son idée fût opportune, j'en veux pour garantie la naissance, depuis lors, de l'Office du Vocabulaire français […]. Il faut les encourager, en créer d'autres, en coordonner les activités, et leur associer quelques écrivains, linguistes, humanistes, grammairiens qui, à partir de ces travaux préliminaires, trancheront en dernier ressort et dont les décisions orienteront l'usage. The conclusion of his book, starting page 399, is divided into two parts « Le franglais, dix ans après », page 401, and « Le franglais en 1980 », page 417. In the first part, he lists different personalities' opinions about his work, and in the second part, he deals with globalisation, and the fact that countries influence one another. To conclude,

	page 340:
	C'est alors que les Etats-Unis pourront nous rire au nez et nous renvoyer à nos
	chères études sabirales : « Pourquoi diable exiger que nous respections une langue
	que vous bafouez chaque jour dans vos journaux, vos enseignes, vos placards
	publicitaires ? Votre radio, votre télé sont d'État ou non ? […] Ecoutez-les ! Et
	demandez-vous qui ruine le plus efficacement la langue française. […] C'en est fini
	du mythe de la clarté française.
	Finally, in the third part beginning page 377, entitled « Libéralisme ou dirigisme ? »,
	he eventually proposes to create other French institutions such as the Académie
	française or the Office du Vocabulaire français, ensuring that French is "protected
	against" English. He states, pages 396-397:

The first part, « Sensibiliser l'opinion ? », begins page 333. In this part, he starts with

In the second part entitled « Comment traiter les mots étrangers ? », starting page 355, he lashes out against French dictionaries, such as Le Petit Larousse, that list borrowed words from English. Page 359, he writes: Qu'on ne prétende pas qu'un dictionnaire se doit de consigner l'usage courant. Quand l'usage est imposé au peuple français par des généraux yanquis, par des spécialistes yanquis du marketing, par des public-relations nés à Chicago, ou encore des illettrés français, l'usage est nul, non avenu. Jusqu'à nouvel ordre sabiral, le rôle d'un dictionnaire me paraît de normaliser le vocabulaire et l'orthographe, bref, de contribuer à faire, et non pas à défaire, une langue.

In this part, he also evokes the problem of Gallicisation of some terms such as « speech », page 361: Faut-il pourtant accepter speech ? Sous le substantif speech, le dictionnaire Harrap's propose allocution, discours, harangue, et même laïus (à quoi je pourrais ajouter topo).

A consider the following quotation page 420: « Pour que vive le franglais, sachons-le, il faut que crève la France : ce peu qui nous en reste ».

  When having a closer look at the substantives, verbs, and adjectives punctuating Étiemble's book to make reference to Franglais, one is forced to notice that the above definition for "dysphemism", provided by Allan and Burridge, perfectly tallies with Étiemble's attitude towards Franglais. Indeed, he is scared and concerned about Franglais and the endangerment of French by English, as demonstrated by the terms he uses. He describes Franglais as a disease, and more precisely as an epidemic, on the back cover of his book: « Pouvons-nous guérir de cette épidémie ? » as well as on page 61 « […] l'épidémie ne fait que gagner en étendue, en profondeur », and page 77 « […] He employs the term « charabia » (which can be translated as "gibberish" in English), at least three times in his book, pages 68, 74, and 285. His disregard can also be felt page 78 when he calls Franglais users « snobs ».Franglais speakers, by employing the word « vulgarité », he gives the impression of considering Franglais users as inferior to him since they use a language he deems popular. Page 267, Étiemble lists many Franglais words he considers "useless", another derogatory term: « Le grave, déjà, c'est qu'on emprunte toutes sortes de mots inutiles […] ». Lastly, he employs a few virulent and extreme terms, as evidenced page 68, where he uses the adjective « mutilée » to refer to the consequences of Franglais on French: « […] un lecteur s'y plaignait de voir sa langue mutilée […] ». Concerned with the future of French, he even refers to Franglais as a barbaric language, page 69: « Sachons-le : si nous ne faisons pas, tous tant que nous sommes, le serment de parler français désormais, voilà le langage barbare que vagiront nos enfants ». And finally, for him,

	Franglais
	Pages 93 and 94, Franglais is, according to him, ridiculous and vulgar: « Qui ne sent
	désormais le ridicule de ces mots-là, et leur vulgarité ? ». Therefore, thanks to the term

l'épidémie ne fait qu'empirer depuis trois quarts de siècle ». Page 251, he continues with the disease metaphor by talking about contamination: « Chaque fois que faire se peut, le sabir contaminera un mot français du sens que porte le mot anglais qui lui ressemble ».

Finally, page 292, he evokes the seriousness of this phenomenon he considers evil: « On croirait parfois qu'il reconnaît la gravité du mal […] ». Moreover, according to Allan and Burridge's definition, contempt is also a factor of dysphemism. For instance, page 47, Étiemble talks about a craze: « L'anglomanie (ou l'« anglofolie » […]), l'anglofolie donc, dont nous payons l'anglophilie de nos snobs et snobinettes, se voit déplacée par une américanolâterie dont s'inquiètent les plus sages Yanquis […] ». He also uses the term « anglomanie » page 305. Other scornful terms are used page 66, for example, where he uses the word « ridicule » to refer to Franglais.

"vulgarity", one clearly understands that, once more, he refers to Franglais speakers. This is dysphemistic for one main reason: as he does not include himself in this group of martyrs French. This is illustrated page 285, where he refers to businessmen resorting to Franglais:

« […] ils martyrisent notre langue […] ».

Therefore, by using such a dysphemistic vocabulary, Étiemble clearly shows his annoyance, and wants to disparage both Franglais and Franglais speakers. Moreover, the term Franglais being itself a quite derogatory term since it expresses the uselessness of talking Franglais and the abundant use of Franglais words, readers notice that the author has pre-conceived ideas on the fact of mixing French and English, as Franglais is used in the title of the book.

  Société des Auteurs, Compositeurs, et Éditeurs de Musique) 51 writes « Le streaming, un mode d'écoute incontournable » and « Si le streaming fait désormais partie de notre vie […] ». Considering that its French equivalent term « diffusion (en continu) » is feminine,

In a 2016 article entitled « Droit d'auteur et streaming -créer de la valeur, inspirer le futur », La Sacem

(

  Hacky sack, e.g., « […] des gens qui jouais (sic) au hacky sack […] » [NZ1]

	o Surf, surfer, e.g., « […] m'essayer au surf […] » [Aus1]; « Hâte d'essayer le surf ! »
	[Aus1]; « […] si vous préférez le surf ou le stand up paddle » [Aus6]; « […] de beaux
	surfers blonds […] » [Aus2]
	o Trek, trekker, e.g., « Un trek qui peut présenter des difficultés […] » [NZ3]; « Après
	ce treck (sic) […] » [NZ4]; « Ce trekker invétéré […] » [NZ3]
	o Racing, e.g., « […] faire du « racing » […] » [NZ3]
	o Rugby League, e.g., « […] la finale de la super Rugby League » [NZ1]
	o Square juggling, e.g., « […] le square juggling, le jonglage à 4 balles […] » [NZ4]
	o Stand up paddle, e.g., « […] si vous préférez le surf ou le stand up paddle » [Aus6]

  Five substantives are provided: Water dragon, e.g., « Un « water dragon », un gros lézard d'environ 70cm de long tout de même » [Aus4]; « Sur la pierre derrière, un water dragon […] » [Aus4]

	o Bushturkey, e.g., « Un Australian Bushturkey (sic) […] » [Aus4]
	o Kiwi, kiwi bird, e.g., « Petit rappel sur le kiwi : c'est un animal […] » [NZ4]; « […] le
	cri du kiwi bird […] » [NZ3]

o Noisy miner, e.g., « Un petit « Noisy miner » » [Aus4]

o

  eighth category encompasses four occurrences that are acronyms: Details of Campsites", is probably used in the masculine in French since it refers to « un terrain de camping » or « un camping », both masculine in French. "REGO", the acronym for "Renewal Energy Guarantee of Origin", is preceded by the feminine article « la » because, as it is explained in the rest of the example sentence, it is equivalent to « la carte grise » or to « la vignette », which is no longer used in France. As these two words are feminine in French, the English equivalent is thus used in the feminine as well. Additionally, as shown in the example sentence « La REGO (Registration) c'est un mélange entre la carte grise et la vignette (qui existait en France) »,

	o CBD, e.g., « […] nos ballades (sic) au coeur du CBD […] » [Aus3]; « Coucher de soleil
	sur le CBD de Brisbane » [Aus3]
	o DOC, e.g., « Nous avons opté pour le DOC campsite […] » [NZ3]; « […] vous devez
	aller dans un camping ou dans un DOC » [NZ5]
	o REGO, e.g., « La REGO (Registration) c'est un mélange entre la carte grise et la
	vignette (qui existait en France) » [NZ5]
	o WOF, e.g., « Le WOF (Warranty of Fitness) c'est l'équivalent du contrôle
	technique » [NZ5]; « Le WOF est valide pour 6 mois seulement » [NZ5]
	These acronyms can be considered codeswitching because they clearly belong to
	Australian and New Zealand norms, and therefore all have a French equivalent, which
	makes the hypotheses about the attributed grammatical gender simpler. Regarding the
	gender attributed to "CBD", it can be suggested that, since "CBD" means "Central
	Business District", it is employed in the masculine in French because « district » is
	masculine. Although one cannot be sure that every person using this acronym knows
	what the letters refer to, it can yet be asserted that "CBD" is masculine because
	« district » is a French masculine substantive. "DOC campsite", also shortened "DOC",
	meaning "

  grammatical gender once lexicalised. Nevertheless, this rule does not systematically work, in particular with the borrowed compound « bossa-nova », referring to a Brazilian music genre, and to a Brazilian dance. This word is a compulsory borrowing since French does not translate it from Portuguese, and does not have an equivalent term.« Bossa-nova » is employed in the feminine in French. The feminine gender attributed to this substantive can be explained by the fact that « bossa-nova » is a feminine word in Portuguese. Indeed, as in Spanish or Italian, Portuguese substantives ending in [a] are generally feminine, whereas those ending in [o] are generally masculine. Therefore, as « bossa-nova » ends with an [a], it is feminine. Moreover, as it has been borrowed from Portuguese without orthographic modifications, except the hyphen added in French, and without being translated, changing its grammatical gender to lexicalise it in French would not have been coherent. Thus, « bossa-nova » is feminine in French because it is feminine in Portuguese, the language it is borrowed from. Regarding « haka », it can also be hypothesised that it is used in the masculine, like other activities or sports previously listed, because it is supposedly practised by men. In such case, « haka » is masculine because it is linked to men -i.e. gender-based attribution. Thus, in such case, the hypothesis stating that substantives ending in [a] are feminine does not work. Nevertheless, in the example sentences, « week-end » is sometimes spelt « week-end» or "weekend". What can be deduced is that either "weekend" spelt this way is codeswitched since it is the English spelling, or it is simply a spelling mistake, this reason being more likely.

  These bloggers are able to put some English words they are familiar with in French sentences, but they may not do it with any other English word. They employ words they are used to hearing from natives because they refer to specific Australian and/or New Zealand things, objects, animals, customs, etc. -e.g., "REGO, Haka, Kiwi". They might not be able to translate some of them in French, or to give their equivalent, if any. They know what they mean because these words refer to what they do, where they live, what they see, eat, or drink, for instance. The vocabulary is therefore targeted.

  : Julien Courbet, Bertrand Chameroy, Enora Malagré, Jean-Luc Lemoine, Valérie Bénaïm, Thierry Moreau, Jean-Michel Maire, Camille Combal, Isabelle Morini-Bosc, Gilles Verdez, Emmanuel Maubert, Christophe Carrière, Matthieu Delormeau, François Viot, Bruno Roger-Petit, and Justine Fraioli.

  is a list of nine other fossilised loanshifts, with examples, noted in the TV show TPMP. They adopted a French spelling and/or pronunciation:

	o Prompteur (Eng. prompter, teleprompter), e.g., « On fait plus de plateau face
	caméra avec le prompteur »; « Certains soirs elle lit tellement son prompteur
	qu'on a l'impression qu'elle va en donner la marque »
	o Radio, e.g., « Je vous ai reçu à la radio »
	o Séquence (Eng. sequence), e.g., « On va faire une nouvelle séquence dans cette
	émission »; « Toutes les séquences qu'on n'aurait pas dû voir dans les médias »;
	« J'ai racheté les droits de cette séquence »; « C'est quand même la dernière
	séquence »
	o Télé réalité (Eng. reality TV), e.g., « […] il fallait sortir de la télé réalité […] »
	o Télévision, télé (Eng. television, telly), e.g., « C'est en prime time à la télévision »;
	« C'est un peu de la télé des années 2000 […] »; « Elle représente une télé que je
	déteste »
	o Vidéo (Eng. video), e.g., « On va voir la deuxième vidéo qui nous a fait marrer »;
	« On passe à cette vidéo »; « Je voulais vous montrer une petite vidéo »; « C'est une
	vidéo du net »
	o Voix off (Eng. voice-off, voice-over, off screen voice), e.g., « J'ai jamais entendu un
	journaliste aussi fatigué […] pendant une voix off »; « Très bonne voix off »; « […]
	qui a fait la voix off de ce reportage »
	o Programme (BE programme; AE program), e.g., « Ils retrouvent pas les essentiels
	du programme […] mais du coup, on n'a pas ceux qui ont fait la force du
	programme »; « […] dans un nouveau programme »; « Je pense que c'est le
	programme qui va faire le succès ou non du jury »; « C'était un bon programme »
	60 Reminder: a loanshift is "a word borrowed from another language in which native morphemes have
	replaced some of the original morphemes in the borrowed word […]" [Webster's New World College
	Dictionary]. Go back to Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.1.2 for further details.

  The first important thing to note is that these words are calques because they kept, in the majority of cases, the spelling and pronunciation of the original noun borrowed from English. For instance, the substantive « casting » is spelt and pronounced as in English, the suffix -ing being typically English but retained in French. The nouns62 Live show on Gulli, a French TV channel.« duplex », « flop », « jury », « star », « top », and the compound « one-man-show » have all been calqued from English without any orthographic modification but with phonetic changes for most of them -i.e. in French, there is yod dropping for the substantive « duplex », which is pronounced /djuːplɛks/ in English whereas it is pronounced /dyplɛks/ in French; in English, "jury" is pronounced /dʒʊərɪ/ but there is no /d/ in the French transcription: /ʒyʀi/; /r/ is pronounced in French in the noun « star », just as in American English, whereas in British English it is not pronounced. « Jingle » remains pronounced and spelt in French exactly as it is in English. The substantives « live » and « remake » both retained the original English diphthongs in French, which are respectively /aɪ/ and /eɪ/. Finally, « scoop » is also spelt in French as it is in English since the [oo] spelling has been borrowed from English.

	o Jingle, e.g., « Est-ce qu'il y a un jingle sur cette séquence […] ? »; « […] vous lancez le
	jingle »; « Jingle américain ! »; « Petit jingle ! »
	o Jury, e.g., « Le nouveau jury sera composé de […] »; « C'est un jury professionnel »;
	« Combien touche un membre du jury ? »; « Le jury, globalement, était absent »
	o Live, e.g., « On est aussi allé prendre des nouvelles du Gu'Live 62 »; « On a eu droit à
	un superbe live »; « Je sais pas si vous avez vu le live »
	o One-man-show, e.g., « Et dans ce one-man-show […] »; « […] en pleine préparation
	de son one-man-show »
	o Prime, e.g., « Tenir des gros primes, c'est pas à la portée de tout le monde »; « Peut-
	être que ça n'aurait pas mérité un prime »; « Elle a montré qu'elle avait les épaules
	pour animer un gros prime »; « Elle va être sur un prime très important sur la
	première chaîne d'Europe »; « C'était le 6 ème prime »
	o Prime time, e.g., « TF1 prépare un jeu interactif pour son prime time »
	o Remake, e.g., « On a l'impression que c'était un remake de […] »
	o Scoop, e.g., « Et ce gros scoop signé […] »; « Il a râté son scoop »
	o Star, e.g., « Il a interviewé une des plus grandes stars »; « Il s'est mis dans la peau
	d'une star de la chanson »; « […] la nouvelle star du foot »
	o Top, e.g., « […] pourtant il est toujours classé dans le top 10 des […] »; « Le top 5
	o Casting, e.g., « On a le casting »; « Est-ce que vous trouvez que c'est un bon casting des audiences du prime »
	ou pas ? »; « On aura l'occasion d'en reparler de ce casting »; « Y'a un très très bon
	casting de candidats »
	o Duplex, e.g., « […] je vous avais montré les images du duplex de […] »; « […] le
	duplex de trop »; « […] surtout si un journal est en train de tourner un duplex […] »
	o Flop, e.g., « […] c'est un gros flop aux Etats-Unis, un flop au Brésil »

  Hashtag, e.g., « Et je vais vous lancer un hashtag […] »; « On lance tout de suite le hashtag « tee-shirt dégueulasse » » o Photobomb, e.g., « Je vais vous faire découvrir ce qu'est un photobomb »

	o Replay, e.g., « Le replay ! »; « Vous pouvez repasser le replay »; « J'avais le choix
	entre mater un replay de The Cover et […] »
	o Selfie, e.g., « Les gens, ils veulent faire un selfie […] »; « […] qui a fait péter le
	selfie »
	o Smartphone, e.g., « J'avais l'impression que c'était une gigantesque pub […] pour un
	smartphone […] »; « Quelles personnalités prêtent leurs voix pour la publicité du
	nouveau smartphone […] ? »
	o Application, e.g., « […] c'est un mur qui doit se lever avec une application »
	o Buzz, e.g., « Pour faire du buzz »; « […] c'est plutôt […] le buzz »; « Il commence à
	faire le buzz grâce à ses vidéos »
	o Clash, e.g., « […] gros clash […] »; « On va revenir sur un gros clash »; « Le public
	veut du clash »; « On va revenir sur un clash qu'il y a eu »

o Fake, e.g., « Ça sent le fake » o o Trash, e.g., « Tellement Vrai : fini le trash ? »; « Le trash est en train de nous tuer » o Tweet, e.g., « On lit le tweet ou le message […] »; « Le tweet le plus drôle repartira avec cette valise »; « Premier tweet, on regarde ! »; « Tweet suivant lu par […] »

  This recent term has been lexicalised. In French dictionaries such as Larousse, LePetit Robert and Linternaute.com, Although this equivalent is rarely used compared with the Anglicism, the fact that the French translation is masculine explains why the English term is masculine as well -i.e. preceded by the indefinite article « un », and the masculine form of the adjective « nouveau », in the example sentences. Similarly, « créer l'événement » is a synonym for the word « buzz », or rather the expression « faire le buzz ». This substantive used in French is always masculine and this is probably due to the fact that « événement » is masculine in French. Finally, the term « application » has been borrowed from English as it is, and has for French equivalent « programme ». Its attributed grammatical gender cannot be explained by the grammatical gender of the French equivalent since they do not match: « application » is feminine whereas « programme » is a masculine substantive. Nonetheless, dealing with the -ation suffix can be a way of explaining the fact that « application » is feminine. Indeed, in French, words ending in -ation are feminine substantives -e.g., « attraction », « fascination », or « détermination ». There is no French translation for the substantive « selfie ». It is thus borrowed from English as it is and employed in the masculine in French. This can be explained by the fact that a selfie represents what is called in French « un autoportrait », a masculine noun. Furthermore, as already explained when dealing with the substantive

	it is defined as « Conflit, désaccord, rupture brutaux et violents » [Larousse]; « Désaccord violent, conflit, rupture » [Le Petit Robert 2017: 448]; and « rupture, désaccord violent » [Linternaute.com]. Although « rupture » is a feminine substantive, the other quasi-synonyms for « clash » are masculine, hence the fact that this borrowed term is used in the masculine. Additionally, taking the suffix -sh into account can be a means of explaining the grammatical gender attributed to this substantive. Indeed, « clash » is used in the masculine because, generally speaking, words ending in -sh are masculine in French -e.g., « trash » or « flash ». The French equivalent for « smartphone » is the grammatical gender allocated to borrowed substantives ending with an [e], hence « téléphone intelligent ». « programme », if [e] is considered to be a masculine vowel, it therefore has an effect on the fact that « selfie » is masculine.

  gazouillement » or « gazouilli », both masculine nouns. However, as a tweet is a message, masculine in French, attributing the masculine to « tweet » makes sense. The only problem is that the term « message » cannot really be considered an equivalent since « tweet » is not any old message but a particular type of message only posted on Tweeter. The given equivalent term is not specific enough and represents therefore what is called "hypernym", in linguistics. The Oxford Dictionaries define hypernym as "a word with a broad meaning constituting a category into which words with more specific meanings fall; a superordinate. For example, colour is a hypernym of red". Likewise, « message » is a hypernym of « tweet ». An English borrowed substantive might thus tend to be attributed the same grammatical gender of the French hypernymous term. As for the term « hashtag », it is always preferred over the French translation « mot-dièse », which is never used. Both of them are masculine. « Hashtag » acts like a compulsory borrowing since the French equivalent is never used. It can thus be asserted that both « tweet » and « hashtag » are optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings since they each have a French equivalent that is not appropriate, or never used.

  Meaning « réalité scénarisée » or « série télévisée réaliste », « réalité » and « série » being both feminine substantives, this explains the fact that "scripted-réalité" and "scripted" are used in the feminine as well. Moreover, sequences of scripted reality dramas being broadcast in TPMP when mentioned, thanks to the image, the audience can easily understand what a "scripted-réalité" is.The word « show », an optional borrowing, is also masculine -e.g., « Et certains English, "guest-star"), either it is a male or a female. Therefore, as required by the French grammatical rule, the masculine prevails over the feminine. If the referent were feminine, the substantive "guest" would be used with a feminine determinant -e.g., « On aurait aimé […] qu'il y ait une guest ». In that case, the speaker means that they do not want any guest, they want a female guest.In TPMP, both « casting » and "cast" are used.64 The term « casting » has been classified in the first category entitled "fossilised borrowings", and listed amongst the various calques as a compulsory borrowing. Since it is always used in the masculine, it seems logical that the shortening -"cast" -is employed in the masculine as well, as it is

	« Lettre » being a feminine word in French, the feminine gender is therefore attributed
	to the term « newsletter », as evidenced by the following examples: « On reçoit toujours The codeswitched phrase "coming next" 65 is used in the masculine in Touche Pas à
	une newsletter » and « La newsletter de TF1 […] ». Mon Poste ! -e.g., « […] au moment du coming next »; « On démarre par la séquence du
	The codeswitched term "guest" is used as a masculine substantive -e.g., « On aurait coming next ». It is nonetheless also replaced with the French equivalent « pré-

, « J'ai commencé par la scripted-réalité »; « […] immense pour une scripted-réalité »; « Vous en produisez toujours de la scripted-réalité ? »; « C'est la ringardise du jour dans une scripted » -are feminine. shows sont déjà complets »; « Est-ce que du coup, à force de vouloir être incisif, on en fait pas un show ? »; « On a déjà vu le programme du show qu'elle annonce à la Tour Eiffel »; « En même temps, c'est un vrai show […] ». As it means « spectacle », a French masculine substantive, it is therefore masculine. Moreover, although this word is lexicalised, since it can be found in the French dictionary Larousse, it can be assimilated to jargon, due to the fact that it forms other examples listed in this category such as « talk show », "psyshow", "talent show". Regarding the expression "talent show", as in the instance « Êtesvous prêt pour ce nouveau talent show dont tout le monde parle ? », it can be added that it is employed in the masculine because its French equivalents are « concours de talents » or « télé-crochet », « concours » and « télé-crochet » being masculine substantives. The equivalent for « newsletter », another optional borrowing, is « lettre d'information ». aimé […] qu'il y ait un guest » and « Avec un guest » -for its French equivalent « un invité » is a masculine noun. In these two examples, the speakers are talking about a guest in general (demonstrated in the following example: « […] c'est la faiblesse du cast ». Likewise, given

that « casting » is a masculine substantive, just like any other English word ending in -ing and used in French, using the codeswitched phrase "missed casting" in the masculine, to talk about « un casting raté », is obvious. Moreover, explaining in what way the casting is not a good one enables the audience to understand what the expression "missed casting" really means. It is noteworthy to mention that « casting » and "cast" have different meanings. As already explained, in French, « casting » refers to actors hoping to be chosen for a film or actors already chosen for a film, whereas "cast" refers only to the actors chosen -i.e. « distribution » in French. Finally, just like "talk" for « talk show », "prime" for « prime time », and "scripted" for "scripted-réalité", shortening « casting » by "cast" makes the latter sound even more technical.

64

Contrary to « prime » and "talk", used to respectively mean « prime time » and « talk show » in French, but not in English, both "cast" and « casting » can be employed in English.

65

"Coming (up) next" is an adverb in English, not a substantive.

  Thanks to these graphs, it can be demonstrated that for codeswitching, as well as for optional borrowing, the role of the French equivalent(s), and the grammatical gender it is allocated, are essential to explain grammatical gender attribution -i.e. the

	interlinguistic reason. Secondly, taking an interest in both the French equivalent and the
	suffix and/or the ending vowel or consonant is also very helpful in explaining
	grammatical gender attribution. Indeed, both the interlinguistic and metalinguistic
	reasons come in second position: 17% for codeswitching, and a total of 30% for optional
	borrowing. Then, for codeswitching, 4% of the cases have been explained through the
	referential reason, 8% via suffixes, and vowels or consonants represent 4%. Concerning
	optional borrowing, the metalinguistic reasons -i.e. the analyses of suffixes (10%) and
	vowels (5%) -come in third and fourth position. The grammatical hypothesis stating
	that, in French, masculine prevails over feminine represents 5%. Regarding compulsory
	borrowing, this hypothesis represents only 30%, the study of suffixes and vowels being
	predominant in determining why the masculine and the feminine are used: 60% in total,
	30% each. Finally, 10% of the cases (2 out of 20) were explained by the grammatical

gender of the French equivalent. It is quite surprising since compulsory borrowings are not supposed to have French equivalents. However, as already explained in the analysis, « tweet » and « hashtag » are special cases. They actually are optional borrowings acting like compulsory borrowings since they have French equivalents -i.e. « message publié sur Tweeter » and « mot-dièse » -, but these are never -or rarely -used in French.

  Booba, born Élie Yaffa in 1976, is a French rapper, as explained in his biography on Universal Music France. He is now very famous since some of his songs are studied in French high schools and universities as contemporary literature. He has even been invited in Harvard, in 2016, to hold a conference, as explained by the French news magazine Paris Match, in an article entitled « Le rappeur Booba maître de conférence à Harvard ». Although it is not rare to find English words or groups of words in French rap songs, the study of the codeswitched and borrowed substantives found in Booba's songs seems pertinent for he lives in Miami, in the United-States. Therefore, even though determining how bilingual he is seems complicated, it can easily be deduced that he is, at least, prone to codeswitching.

	The aim of this corpus will be to propose a relevant analysis of the grammatical
	gender attributed to English codeswitched substantives based on a controversial topic -
	i.e. rap music. To do so, thirty-one rap songs by Booba, from 2002 to 2016, have been
	analysed.

Due to the enthusiasm of some French teachers for Booba's rap songs since his lyrics and quotations extracted from his interviews were given as examination questions to students, as explained in the French news magazine Le Figaro Etudiant, in an article entitled « Une citation du rappeur Booba sujet d'un partiel à l'université Paris-Sud », I decided to listen to a couple of his songs and realised the lyrics could constitute a relevant study in terms of codeswitching, borrowing, and grammatical gender attribution.

68

They are extracted from seven albums, two mixtapes, and two singles. 69 68 See appendix #4 for song titles.

69

See appendix #4 for album, mixtape, and single titles.

  Sportswear, e.g., « […] le paysage est mortuaire En banlieue, […] on fait dans la came et l'sportswear » "Beat", meaning « battement », is a rhyme for « satellite » in the example sentence.

71 : o Beat, e.g., « Le monde est nôtre, un satellite pour défourailler le beat » o Beatmaker, e.g., « J'bois J.A.C.K, le champagne, Grey Goose m'écoeurent Juste besoin d'un contrat, d'un flow, d'un beatmaker » o Bulletproof, e.g., « J'ai bien mangé de ouf #Mafé Chérie, amène-moi mon flingue, mon bulletproof, viens débarrasser » o Feat, e.g., « U tréma sur le sweat 56 000 euros le feat » o Featuring, e.g., « Tu veux monter sur l'ring […] Tu veux faire un featuring » o Game, e.g., « […] refais le game Ta mère a bien compris que son fils serait plus le même » o Hardtop, e.g., « J'ai pas prêté mon style aux salopes Mon crew au top, équipé arch' et je baise les garces avec un hardtop » 71 Satellite/beat; écoeurent/beatmaker; ouf/bulletproof; sweat/feat; ring/featuring; game/même; and

salopes/hardtop are "macaronic rhymes", which represent rhymes "of two words with different languages"

[Hess]

since the lines are in French and the term that rhymes is English -i.e. codeswitching. Mortuaire/sportswear are a "perfect rhyme": "begins with different sounds and ends with the same"

[Hess]

. They cannot be considered as a "macaronic rhyme" since « sportswear » is lexicalised.

o

  The principle of least effort is justified in the following list of seven occurrences: o Bitch, e.g., « J'ai une bad bitch sur ma bite-zer »; 73 « 99 galères, mais une bitch

	n'en est pas une »
	o Gun, e.g., « J'ai mon gun dans mon fute »
	o Number, e.g., « Tu lâches ton number ou quoi ? »
	o Phone, e.g., « T'es sur écoute tu veux mon phone […] »
	o Show, e.g., « Après le show, les plus canons finissent dans le camion »
	o Team, e.g., « Que des n°10 dans ma team négro »; « Que des n°10 dans ma team »

o Thug, e.g., « Thug de la tête au pied, elle n'pensera jamais le contraire »; « Pour être un thug y'a pas d'appli »; « Fuck la misère, thug depuis mineur »

The only substantive that reduces the number of syllables by two, instead of three for the French equivalent « numéro », is "number". The masculine attributed gender is explained by the fact that the French equivalent is a masculine substantive. The other five codeswitched substantives (« show » is lexicalised in French and is an optional borrowing), are all reduced to a single syllable -e.g., bitch < salope (2 syllables); gun < pistolet (3 syllables); phone < téléphone (3 syllables); show < spectacle (2 syllables); team < équipe (2 syllables); thug < voyou (2 syllables).

  Crew, e.g., « Mon crew au top […] »; « Le nom d'mon crew Medi Med c'est mon dj »The first occurrence to be analysed is "crew". According to the online reference « Lexique du rap français », 76 this substantive represents a « groupe d'artistes de rue réunissant rappeurs, graffeurs, DJs, breakdancers… tout ce qui touche à la culture Hip Hop ». The word is thus used in the masculine since it refers to a group, « groupe » being a masculine noun in French. "Flow" is also called « groove » in French, which is a loanword. It is defined as follows by Rap Genius France:77 Le flow est le terme servant à définir la façon dont un rappeur pose les syllabes par rapport au rythme. A ne pas confondre avec le débit, souvent, les gens confondent la rapidité et le flow. Bien que ce flow ne soit pas quantifiable, […] on utilise tout de même ce mot comme si on pouvait le compter « J'ai trop de flow ». On appréciera un MC à son flow, ce qui correspond au groove en musique.

	o Flow, e.g., « Le rap français a trouvé son flow par terre »; « Juste besoin d'un
	contrat, d'un flow […] »; « […] l'flow à K-Maro »; « J'ai le meilleur flow de
	l'univers »; « J'peux reprendre ton flow, c'est moi qui te l'ai donné »; « Mon flow
	prend le large, le tien prend de l'âge »; « On rendra ni les armes, ni l'flow à Migos »

o Game, rap game, e.g., « Le game est sur ma bite-zer à califourchon »; « Triste est le game […] »; « Dans le game je suis comme à Walt Disney »; « Le game a eu que parloir fantôme »; « Bombe nucléaire sur le game […] »; « Dans ce rap game trop de […] »; « Le rap game n'a plus de kérozène pour le décollage » o MC, e.g., « Les MCs sont fauchés, prisonniers dans leur rôle »; « Laquelle de ces rappeurs veut test un MC […] » o Swag, e.g., « J'veux l'swag à Mamadou […] »; « T'as l'swag à Laurent Voulzy […] »; « Je dis qu'ton swag est merdique »; « T'as l'swag à Sacha Distel »

  Killer, e.g., « Mon coeur, souvent de mauvaise humeur. Si tu es la bonne je ne serai plus un killer » o Life, e.g., « J'te nique ta life gratuit, y'a pas d'quoi »; « Ma life est de mauvaise

	humeur »
	o Player, e.g., « Homme d'affaires, player, rappeur, voleur, dealer. Dis-leur qui je suis,
	dis-leur, dis-leur »
	The eight other occurrences noted in the rap songs, and pertaining to the showing off
	aspect, are listed hereunder:
	o Black card, e.g., « J'sors jamais sans mon fusil, jamais sans ma black card »
	o Cash, e.g., « Si t'es une michto viens me voir, du cash j'en ai »

o Bitch, e.g., « J'ai une bad bitch sur ma bite-zer »; « 99 galères, mais une bitch n'en est pas une » o Gun, e.g., « J'ai mon gun dans mon fute » o Thug, e.g., « Thug de la tête au pied, elle n'pensera jamais le contraire »; « Pour être un thug y'a pas d'appli »; « Fuck la misère, thug depuis mineur » o Gang, e.g., « Je n'ai qu'un seul gang »; « Je n'ai qu'un seul gang 92i » o o Street, e.g., « La street mon baromètre »; « Périlleuse est la street »; « Je rentre de la street […] »; « Dans la street tout se monnaye »; « Tout la journée dans la street »; « Numéro 1 dans la street […] » o Time, e.g., « Pas l'time pour […] »

Only substantives have been codeswitched in these two example sentences in order to be consistent with the theme of this thesis; however, it would have been acceptable to use utterances with codeswitched verbs as well, for instance.

The missed information is qualified as "capital" as the words codeswitched are usually nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs, that is to say, the key words composing a sentence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgWQoZz6nEk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-G1ygh6bwE

[START_REF] Tournier | Précis de Lexicologie Anglaise[END_REF] translated by Denis Jamet.

See chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.3.

BE stands for British English.

AE stands for American English.

Spoken by Portuguese/English bilinguals in the United States.

See Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.3.

See Chapter I, 3.1.

It should be noted that « pressing », « parking », « footing », « shampooing », « tennisman », and « recordwoman » are considered false Anglicisms.

See Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.2, 1.2.2.2.

In lexicology, the "determined" refers to the headword of a compound -i.e. the most important word, whereas the "determiner" of a compound is the word placed on the left -i.e. the least important word.

[START_REF] Tournier | Précis de Lexicologie Anglaise[END_REF] translated by Denis Jamet.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Inversion can also be the cause of a false Anglicism as in « talkie-walkie » instead of "walkie-talkie" in English.

For a definition of "blend", see Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.1.3.

This table is mine.

We will only deal with uncountable substantives that are codeswitched from English to French since uncountable are, generally speaking, not borrowed in French, except « people ».

For the Académie française, the terms "masculine" and "feminine" are inaccurate. They should be replaced with "unmarked" and "marked" genders, "unmarked" referring to masculine, and "marked" to feminine.

The Ojibwa language is spoken by the Anishinaabe people living, for the most part, in Canada and in the United States.

http://fren.athabascau.ca/why_study.php

See Macnamara's definition [1967].

In 2017, the French newspaper Le Canard Enchaîné revealed that Penelope Fillion, the wife of François Fillon (French presidential candidate), hold a position that did not exist and was paid for that. The -gate suffix came to refer to political or non-political scandals, after the Watergate scandal leading to Nixon's resignation.

A 1994 law imposing the use of the French language in official government notifications, advertisements, etc.

A 1539 law mandating, amongst others, the exclusive use of French in documents referring to the public life of the French kingdom in order to facilitate the comprehension of administrative and legal acts.

For a definition of neologism, see Chapter I, 1.3, 1.3.1.

See Chapter I, 3.1, 3.1.1.

i.e. compulsory borrowings vs. optional borrowings.

The blogs have been renamed Aus1, Aus2, Aus3, Aus4, Aus5, Aus6, NZ1, NZ2, NZ3, NZ4 and NZ5. See appendix #2 to know which blog is Aus1, which one is Aus2, and so on.

This word comes from German and makes reference to Hamburg, in Germany. English borrowed it, then French.

See Chapter I, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.1.4.

This definition employs the term jargon to include what some scholars call 'specialist' or 'technical' language, 'restricted' language (Firth 1968: 98), 'sub-language' (Kittredge and Lehrberger 1982), and others 'register' (e.g.Zwicky and Zwicky 1982;[START_REF] Ronald | An Introduction to Sociolinguistics[END_REF]).

See Chapter I, 1.1, 1.1.1.

This sentence is an example of alliteration -i.e. the consonant [b] is repeated three times.

The term "thug" has already been referred to as a buzzword -i.e. a vogue word -in Chapter II. See Chapter II, 2.1., 2.1.1. for a definition of buzzword.

« Lexique du rap français », Rap Genius France, http://genius.com/Rap-genius-france-lexique-du-rapfrancais-lyrics.

« Lexique du rap français », Rap Genius France, http://genius.com/Rap-genius-france-lexique-du-rapfrancais-lyrics.

See Chapter I, 1.3, 1.3.1.

Although « muesli » is German, it has been borrowed by English, and then, French borrowed the term from English.

In Appendix #2 -Corpus #1, Appendix #3 -Corpus #2, Appendix #4 -Corpus #3, as well as in the body of the text, the French sentences are in italics to distinguish them from English, the main language of this thesis. The substantives analysed are in bold (the borrowed terms are in bold and in italics whereas the codeswitched substantives are only in bold). The French determiners and/or adjectives that are useful to explain the grammatical gender attributed to these substantives are in bold as well.

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to those who, directly or indirectly, contributed to the production of this thesis, which was fascinating and thrilling.

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisor, Professor Denis Jamet, for his trust, support, and valuable advice. Through his teaching, I discovered some years ago how enthralling linguistics was, and I will always be grateful for this. I am honoured that Professor Jean Albrespit, Professor Catherine Collin, Professor Laure Gardelle, Reader Leigh Oakes, and Professor Nigel Quayle accepted to be part of my board of examiners. Thank you very much for evaluating my work.

I would also like to thank Léa Boichard, Christopher Mole, and Adeline Terry for spending time proofreading my thesis, and for their pertinent and judicious suggestions.

Finally, I would like to thank my family and friends. Thank you to my parents who taught me, amongst others, perseverance and determination. Thank you to my friends who showed a real interest in my work; and to Clément as well who was very patient, especially when helping me with statistics and graphs.

as « (re)chercher sur Google » or « taper dans Google » are often replaced with the verb « googler » for the sake of language economy. It works the same for the expression "feelgood" used in French when saying for instance « Les 15 meilleurs films "feel-good" » [Cosmopolitan: undated]. Officially translated « qui réchauffe le coeur » or « antidépresseur », it obviously looks shorter in terms of word count and syllable count to use the codeswitched phrase "feel-good" rather than saying « Les 15 meilleurs films qui réchauffent le coeur » or « Les 15 meilleurs films antidépresseurs ».

In all the previous examples (considering both borrowing and codeswitching), English terms are preferred over longer French terms, or, according to Zipf's theory [1949], longer French terms are "automatically removed or avoided" [Vicentini 2003: 39]:

[…] Linguistic behaviour seems to be regulated by what Zipf -who inspired much of Martinet's works -called "the principle of least effort" (Zipf 1949). In such a theory, the principle of economy plays an important balancing role: any non-economical change, which would bring about an excessive cost in terms of efforts and constitute an obstacle to comprehension, will be automatically removed or avoided.

Thence, borrowing and codeswitching are very often linked to the least-effort principle when it involves English words in French sentences. Contrary to what the title of this principle might suggest, language economy is not an idle strategy and actually has the advantage of getting straight to the point, on condition that when codeswitching, the speaker addresses bilingual hearers so that communication is possible.

Zipf influenced many other scholars such as Martinet, as Vicentini [2003: 40] states:

Martinet certainly got inspiration from Zipf's works, since there is evidence that the complete formulation of the term 'economy' appears in Martinet's writings only after 1949: he speaks of a tendency towards economy as a composition of two contrary forces -effort limitation on the one hand and needs satisfaction (a new element which seems clearly inferred from Zipf) on the other -whereas, in his previous works, he had only spoken of a tendency towards economy of means or good economy of system. shorter than their French equivalents, which explains why codeswitching and borrowing are used in certain contexts.

The third part of this chapter will revolve around Étiemble's book entitled Parlezvous franglais ?, in which he clearly shows his irritation and annoyance towards English, Franglais, and the insertion of English terms in French.

English terms, reading his book remains difficult and annoying. 56 OB stands for "optional borrowing". 57 CB stands for "compulsory borrowing".

Referent's gender 17%

French equivalent 64% Suffix 11%

Both French equivalent and suffix 8%

Referent's gender 10% French equivalent 60%

Suffix 10%

Both French equivalent and suffix 10%

Grammar (masculine prevails over feminine) 10%

Referent's gender 18%

Vowel 12%

Grammar (masculine prevails over feminine) 70%

Synthesis

Concerning codeswitched substantives, it has been demonstrated, in most cases, that the attributed gender is the same as the grammatical gender of their French equivalent(s) -e.g., "tree house" used in the feminine because the equivalent is a feminine substantive in French, and "stop" used in the masculine because the French equivalent « arrêt » is a masculine substantive. The same explanation can be provided for optional borrowings, although there are some special cases. Moreover, in some cases, the referent's gender has to be taken into account to explain the grammatical gender attributed to some substantives -i.e. gender-based attribution, e.g., « boss ».

Furthermore, the grammatical gender attributed to the compulsory borrowings listed is often the masculine. This particularity can be explained grammatically: the masculine prevails over the feminine. Analysing the grammatical gender attributed to the occurrences listed was also done by focusing on their French equivalents, when they exist, and/or on suffixes and vowels, since it has been demonstrated that some English suffixes and ending vowels carry the notion of grammatical gender in French.

Bloggers' bilingualism, or at least, bloggers' level of mastery of English is hard to determine and even questionable due to mistakes related to the meaning of some words -e.g. "backpacker" is used, in the instances, to refer to the accommodation whereas it refers to the person travelling -, spelling mistakes -e.g., "trek" once spelt "treck" -, or even "forced codeswitching" -e.g., names of animals -, which can be therefore assimilated to some mimetism.

Finally, in Chapter I and Chapter II, the fact that codeswitching was said to occur more often in conversations than in written samples was mentioned. This corpus is special case since its French equivalent is « transmission simultanée », feminine in French. For this term, we can thus conclude that it is masculine, in accordance with the French grammar rule stating that the masculine prevails over the feminine.

The other substantives listed are compulsory borrowings used in the masculine.

« Casting » is a compulsory borrowing because, although it has a French equivalent that is « audition », it has been demonstrated in Chapter II that, in some cases, « casting » was preferred over « audition », and vice versa. Indeed, French speakers would more spontaneously use « casting » when referring to people hoping to be chosen for a film or a TV talent show (cf. Corpus #2). On the contrary, in French, « audition » seems to be more appropriate when referring to theatre actors. Regarding the masculine gender « casting » is attributed, the analysis cannot be based on the grammatical gender of « audition » because, firstly, it is a feminine substantive, and secondly, as it has just been mentioned, they are not equivalents and are therefore not used in the same contextsi.e. they are not commutable. As a result, the study of the suffix -ing seems relevant to explain the masculine gender of « casting ». Indeed, all English words ending in -ing are masculine in French, as mentioned previously. For instance, « coaching » or « hacking » are masculine. Therefore, « casting » is masculine because it ends with the suffix -ing. As for « flop », « jury », « top », and « scoop », the grammatical gender they are attributed might be in accordance with the French grammar rule stating that the masculine prevails over the feminine. Finally, « jingle » and « remake » ending with the vowel [e],

this vowel being considered masculine when ending English borrowings, these words are therefore logically attributed the masculine.

Amongst all the substantives listed, only « star » is used in the feminine in French, the others being masculine. The grammatical gender attributed to all these English screen ? » -clearly demonstrates that this term is the jargon word for « écran divisé ».

The attribution of the masculine gender seems evident: « écran » is a masculine substantive; as a result, "screen" becomes masculine when codeswitched in French.

Similarly, the word "happening", referring to a spontaneous event, is not necessarily easy for the French audience to understand until the sequence is broadcast. The seven substantives that have just been analysed have been codeswitched

(except « show ») with the aim of shortening the number of syllables and having a regular pattern of meter. The language economy principle is therefore justified for these occurrences, and the gender attributed to each of them is in line with the gender of their French equivalents. Thus, the language economy principle, linked with codeswitching in Booba's rap songs, appeared to be a key element.

The occurrences to be analysed in the following sub-part represent a technical lexicon -i.e. rap jargon. Moreover, the notion of in-groupness will be linked with the fact of using a linguistic rap code.

Jargon

In this section, the substantives to be analysed are related to the technical lexicon of French rap music -i.e. jargon. 75 The fact that Booba uses this kind of vocabulary is proof of his legitimacy and credibility as a rapper. Indeed, if he uses the right codes, he is therefore part of the "rap world", recognised by other rappers who employ the same lexis, and has his place amongst them. The notion of in-group identity is thus a key element. "In-group identity", also called "in-groupness" [START_REF] Brown Penelope | Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage[END_REF], can be defined as the fact and feeling of belonging to a certain group of people. This objective can be achieved through physical appearance -i.e. a specific way of being dressed, for instance, young people wearing Gothic clothing -, or through language as well -e.g., young people using backward-slang when talking together. The definition of "ingroupness" applies therefore to Booba who uses a specific type of vocabulary that will speak to other rappers since they use the same.

75 See Chapter III, 2.3 for a definition of "jargon".

Synthesis

The different English occurrences noted in Booba's rap songs were divided into four categories according to what motivates their use -i.e. rhyme: the English term, contrary to its French equivalent, rhymes with another term; language economy: the codeswitched term is shorter than the French equivalent; jargon: some vocabulary words referring to rap codes are English and can therefore be considered jargon; and prestige: the ability to codeswitch can be a way of showing off, as well as the fact of using slang, which is proof of trendiness.

Regarding the grammatical gender attributed to the studied occurrences, it has been determined by focusing on the referent's gender, the grammatical gender of the French equivalent, the suffixes, or the ending vowels, some of them having been labelled masculine or feminine. Generally speaking, what results from the analysis of the English substantives used by the rapper is that grammatical gender attribution is consistent with the referent's gender, the grammatical gender of the French equivalent, or the fact that some suffixes and vowels are considered masculine or feminine.

In this corpus, the idea of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum has to be understood in two different ways. Firstly, as illustrated in the other corpora, since codeswitching and optional borrowing can have the grammatical gender they are attributed explained similarly, the connection between these two linguistic notions is obvious. Furthermore, as some of the English substantives listed are French slang words -e.g., "thug" or "killer" -, we can hypothesise that, someday, they may be lexicalised and therefore become borrowings, just like « chelou », a French backward-slang term meaning "weird", which became lexicalised since it has been added to the French 132,133,139,140,142,143,144,150,162,164,168,273,276,300,310,411 Need,15,23,52,67,69,120,121,128,142,159,177,203,228,235,236,237,252,264,336,339,351,375,391,392,393,401 Negative face,215 Neologism,5,8,15,16,99,100,106,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,131,168,195,198,220,221,230,231,236,384,385,386,387,388,393,394,401,403,432 Neosemy,113 Neuter,140,141,142,143,144,152,160,161,164,165,221,291,402,409 New technologies,157,235,239,241,242,245,252 New Zealand,32,134,160,230,289,292,296,297,307,309,310,314,403,446,447 Nonce blend,125,126 Nonce borrowing,111,125,127,128,129,130,131, 171,202,204,205,207,208,224,235,237,243,244,260,268,269,273,274,275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282,284,285,287,288,291,297,299,306,310,311,314,315,316,317,318,319,326,328,331,332,335,342,343,347,349,352,355,357,359,360,363,367,374,378,379,380,381,382,383,394,397,398,404,405,408,409,411,412, 478 Overt category, 143 P Passive vocabulary, 182 Pattern (PAT), 204 Perception,6,12,44,57,118,121,189,208,209,211,212,213,215,225,254,287,339,352 Perfect rhyme,363 Personification,141,340 Phoneme,96 Phonemic substitution,81 Phonetics,75,83,84,101,122,203,235,251,269,328 Phonology,71,77,85,96,106,128,190,192,204,247,280,325,365 Plural form,6,75,76,96,105,133,134,135,136,137,139,143,150,160,162,168,295,310,387 Politeness,42,43,184 Positive face,43,215 Positive politeness,42 Preferences,200,435 Prefixation,112,116 Prestige,33,35,52,67,100,222,231,232,236,252,362,371,377,382,403,404 Productive bilingualism,188 Proficiency,100,180,181,188,314 Progress,12,69,118,121,155,171,225,239,241,242,245,252,287,330 Pronunciation,30,49,72,75,86,91,92,93,95,99,106,107,159,186,188,257,280,285,321,322,323,327,345,349,365,95,98,99,100,103,104,106,107,108,178,231,415 Q Quebec,24,65,92,93,95,102,103,435 U Unidiomatic,20,32,190,264 V Verb,20,27,41,51,57,68,70,75,80,85,86,87,93,95,106,115,116,117,123,133,143,153,165,174,193,196,221,227,231,241,243,245,249,257,261,332,333,397,433 Vogue word,25,231,367 Vowel,91,159,175,238,245,246,282,284,285,288,298,315,317,318,322,324,328,329,330,333,347,351,352,357,358,365,370,377,378,380,382,404,408,409

! » » « […] le premier stop à une ferme de chameaux […] » « […] la fin de la rando rime aussi avec la fin du road trip […] » « […] ce week-end nous partons entre filles à Melbourne ! » « […] ils sont fermés le week-end […] » « Je peux facilement y passer un agréable week-end […] » « […] je me réchauffe autour d'un thé et d'un cupcake […] » « On n'a (sic) été prendre un succulent et copieux brunch […] » « […] c'est déjà la fin du week-end » « […] avant de partir pour un dernier trip de plusieurs jours au milieu de nulle part » « Moi qui avait (sic) prévu un brunch (très alcoolisé) avec des amis […] » « […] de beaux surfers blonds […] » « […] un intense week-end […] » « […] il est super facile de venir à n'importe quel moment mater les beaux surfers » « […] le « Performing art center » (salle de spectacle immense où se jouent des opéras […] » « […] le goodwill (sic) Bridge » « […] avec les tours de

« […] découvrez ce road trip estival sur les routes de Nouvelle-Zélande » « […] nos cinq mois passés dans la Bay of Plenty » « […] une grande partie de la vie quotidienne du backpacker […] » « Après le fruit picking, l'apple thinning » « Le fruit picking n'est pas le seul job à envisager lorsque vous souhaitez travailler […] » « George, notre contractor (ou « le boss ») […] » « […] la qualité première d'un bon thinner c'est la rapidité » « […] c'est un job qui n'est pas franchement rémunéré à la hauteur de sa difficulté » « […] l'apple thinning n'est pas vraiment le boulot le plus facile […] »

NZ3: http://the-oar-wheel.blogspot.co.nz

« Ce trekker invétéré […] » « Un trek qui peut présenter des difficultés […] » « […] ce week-end » « On pouvait entendre cette kiwi […] » « Depuis la tree house, adorable cottage très à l'anglaise, nichée dans les arbres […] » « La Bay of Islands ou Baie des Iles […] » « […] le cri du kiwi bird […] » « Perdue au milieu du bush […] » « […] la confortable tree house […] » « […] la possibilité de faire un woofing […] » « […] la tree-house (sic) (maison privée des invités et des woofeurs) […] » « Qu'est-ce que le kiwi lifestyle ? » « […] faire du « racing » […] » « […] sur la Ninety miles beach […] » « la Ninety miles beach […] » « […] le cheese cake […] » « […] à l'intérieur des terres du Far North » « […] direction le

« […] sur ce blog […] » « […] un petit détour au blacksheep sanctuary… » « Le backpacker où on logeait était un ancien couvent » « Ca sonne bien de dire qu'on a fait un road trip sur la West Coast » « On a oublié notre boite (sic) à épice (sic) dans un backpacker […] » « […] faire du stripping dans les vignes : un job payé au rendement […] » « […] nous avons logé dans un backpacker sur une colline […] » « […] le square juggling, le jonglage à 4 balles […] » « Après ce treck (sic) […] » « […] qui m'auront permis d'apprendre pas mal de nouveau (sic) tricks » « […] pour y faire du woofing » « […] dans un backpacker, une sorte d'auberge de jeunesse » « Petit rappel sur le kiwi : c'est un animal […] » « […] on pourra dire qu'on apprend beaucoup de choses sur ce blog » « […] d'autres couchsurfeurs […] » « […] nous avons dormi dans un backpacker » « […] notre roadtrip (sic) pluvieux […] »

NZ5: http://manouvellezelande.com

« Voir un Haka » « Goûter le Hangi (viande ou poisson cuits sur des pierres chaudes dans un trou creusé dans le sol) » « Essayer le Pavlova (dessert à la meringue qui provoque un conflit depuis des siècles entre l'Australie et la NZ) » « […] vous devez aller dans un camping ou dans un DOC » « Le WOF (Warranty of Fitness) c'est l'équivalent du contrôle technique » « Le WOF est valide pour 6 mois seulement » « La REGO (Registration) c'est un mélange entre la carte grise et la vignette (qui existait en France) » « […] le fruitpicking (sic) (cueillette de fruits) est une bonne option »

a d'autres moyens que de poster la vidéo » « Tu montres cette vidéo dans un entretien d'embauche […] » « Ils retrouvent pas les essentiels du programme […] mais du coup on n'a pas ceux qui ont fait la force du programme » « On va vous donner le casting de DALS » « Est-ce qu'il y a un jingle sur cette séquence, les chéris ? » « Putain, on a un jingle ! » « On va parler du casting complet de DALS » « On a le casting » « Est-ce que vous trouvez que c'est un bon casting ou pas ? » « On a la star, c'est Kavanagh […] » « Ophélie Winter c'est plutôt […] le buzz » « Il est un peu en dessous le casting » « Le casting est tellement bien […] » « On aura l'occasion d'en reparler de ce casting » « Je vous ai reçu à la radio » « On va faire une nouvelle séquence dans cette émission » « Vous regardez quoi à la télé ? » « Toutes les séquences qu'on n'aurait pas dû voir dans les médias » « […] gros clash […] » « Ce qu'il fallait louper à la télé c'est la promo de Patrick Bruel » « C'est quand même la dernière séquence » « […] très proche de la caméra » « C'est un peu de la télé des années 2000 […] il fallait sortir de la télé réalité […] c'est plus de la télé de 2014 c'est de la télé de 2000 » « […] dans un nouveau programme » « Le programme est plus fort » « Le programme est conçu comme étant […] » « Il y aura un énorme happening dehors » « Il a interviewé une des plus grandes stars » « On lit le tweet ou le message […] » « Nouvelle séquence […] c'est le remix télé »

« On va parler du jury d'Incroyable Talent » « Le nouveau jury sera composé de […] » « C'est un jury professionnel » « Sur le jury, je pense que vous faîtes une erreur » « On va revenir sur un gros clash » « Je pense que c'est le programme qui va faire le succès ou non du jury » « […] et D8 un challenger qui monte » « […] j'ai jamais entendu un journaliste aussi fatigué […] pendant une voix off » 4 th September 2014:

« La meilleure audience […] entre 5 et 6% de part d'audience » « On a voulu comprendre ce qui pouvait expliquer les mauvaises audiences de cette émission » « On a lancé le hashtag « dégueulasse » » « Très bonne voix off » « On n'a vraiment pas envie d'être membre du jury » « Lundi, dans l'émission, je vous avais montré les images du duplex de […] » « […] le duplex de trop » « […] se sont incrusté dans un duplex » « Je vais vous faire découvrir ce qu'est

« C'est une vidéo du net […] » « On aurait aimé […] qu'il y ait un guest » « J'avais l'impression que c'était une gigantesque pub […] pour un smartphone […] » « Et en même temps, c'est un vrai show […] » « Ça a été un carton en Israël […] c'est un gros flop aux Etats-Unis, un flop au Brésil » « […] c'est un mur qui doit se lever avec une application

Abstract

Grammatical gender attribution is quite a difficult notion to logically explain in French, due to the fact that it is, most of the time, arbitrary. This PhD thesis aims to theorise the grammatical gender allocated to codeswitched and borrowed substantives from English to French. Codeswitching and borrowing being generally considered as two distinct linguistic phenomena, since the former is an individual phenomenon, while the latter is a collective phenomenon, the second objective of this thesis is to demonstrate the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum.

Throughout three chapters, key concepts are firstly presented to lay the foundation of the thesis. Then, the main notions characterising codeswitching and borrowing are detailed -which naturally opposes these two linguistic devices -in order to eventually analyse them as a continuum, when hypothesising grammatical gender attribution. The last chapter devoted to case studies, and more precisely to the analysis of four different corpora, confirms the hypotheses exposed in the two previous chapters, and enables to classify them into five categories to explain grammatical gender attribution. These categories represent extralinguistic, interlinguistic, metalinguistic, both interlinguistic and metalinguistic, and grammatical reasons. Results on the percentages of feminine and masculine substantives, as well as the reasons explaining the grammatical gender allocated to codeswitched substantives, optional borrowings, and compulsory borrowings are displayed through graphs so that their interpretation is clearer, more objective, and more scientific. Additionally, the existence of a codeswitching -borrowing continuum is therefore demonstrated through the explanation of grammatical gender attribution, linking codeswitching with optional borrowing, as well as through the process of lexicalisation, in which codeswitching is the starting point of the chain, leading to optional borrowing. As for compulsory borrowing, connecting it with codeswitching is not that obvious considering that they do not share common features compared with optional borrowing. Keywords: bilingualism, borrowing, codeswitching, compulsory borrowing, context, continuum, equivalent, feminine, grammatical gender, lexicalisation, lexicon, masculine, optional borrowing, substantive, successful codeswitching, suffix.