Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-45l2p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:44:40.260Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Eh? and Hein?: Discourse Particles or National Icons?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Elaine Gold
Affiliation:
University of Toronto/Queen’s University
Mireille Tremblay
Affiliation:
Queen’s University

Abstract

We compare the use and function of two discourse particles that show many similarities: Canadian English eh and Canadian French hein. Surveys of anglophone students at the University of Toronto and francophone students at Université Laval reveal that these particles have similar discourse functions and that there are many parallels in their patterns of use. However, francophone students report a higher use of hein than do anglophone students of eh. Moreover, francophones have more positive attitudes towards constructions with hein than do their anglophone counterparts with respect to eh. In addition, eh—used both less often and valued less positively—has taken on additional functions as an identity marker: it is used to identify speakers of Canadian English and, in print, to evoke Canadian solidarity. In contrast, hein does not have an identity marking function. We propose that the development of an identity marking function for eh—and the lack of such a function for hein—reflects differences in how linguistic identities are constructed in English and French Canada.

Résumé

Résumé

Nous comparons l’usage et la fonction de deux particules de discours qui présentent plusieurs similarités: le eh de l’anglais canadien et le hein du français canadien. Des sondages auprès d’étudiants anglophones à l’Université de Toronto et d’étudiants francophones à l’Université Laval révèlent que les fonctions discursives de ces particules sont similaires et qu’il y a plusieurs parallèles par rapport à leur usage. Cependant, les résultats indiquent que l’usage de hein par les étudiants francophones est plus élevé que ne l’est l’usage de eh par les étudiants anglophones. De plus, les francophones ont une perception plus positive envers les constructions avec hein que leur compères anglophones vis-à-vis eh. Enfin, eh—à la fois moins utilisé et moins valorisé—a acquis des fonctions additionnelles en tant que marque identitaire: eh est souvent utilisé pour identifier les locuteurs de l’anglais canadien, et dans les textes écrits, pour évoquer la solidarité canadienne. Par contre, hein ne fonctionne pas comme marqueur identitaire. Nous proposons que le développement d’une fonction identitaire pour eh—et l’absence d’une telle fonction pour hein—reflète des différences dans la construction de l’identité linguistique au Canada anglais et français.

Type
Linguistic Identity
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Harold B. 1959. Canadian American speech differences along the middle border. Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association 5:1724.Google Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1957. Canadian English merits a dictionary. Culture XVIII:245256.Google Scholar
Avis, Walter S. 1972. So eh? is Canadian, eh?. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique 17:89104.Google Scholar
Barbaud, Philippe. 1984. Le choc des patois en Nouvelle-France: Essai sur la francisation du Canada. Sillery, QC: Presses de l’Université du Québec.Google Scholar
Chambers, J.K. 2001. English in Canada. Ms., University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Delomier, Dominique. 1999. Hein particule désémantisée ou indice de consensuante? Faits de langue 13:137149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dodds de Wolf, Gaelen, ed. 2004. The survey of Vancouver English 1976-1984: A sociolinguistic study of urban Canadian English. Kingston, ON: Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University.Google Scholar
Gibson, Deborah J. 1977. Eight types of ‘eh’. Sociolinguistics Newsletter 8:3031.Google Scholar
Gold, Elaine. 2005. Canadian Eh?: A survey of contemporary use. In Proceedings of the 2004 Canadian Linguistic Association Annual Conference, ed. Junker, Marie-Odile, McGinnis, Martha, and Roberge, Yves, 12 pages. http://www.carleton.ca/~mojunker/ACL-CLA/pdf/Bliss-CLA-2004.pdf.Google Scholar
Heller, Monica, and Labrie, Normand. 2004. Discours et identités: la francité canadienne entre modernité et mondialisation. Bruxelles: Éditions Modulaires Européennes.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1960. Essais de linguistique générale. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Johnson, Marion. 1976. Canadian eh. Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 21:153160.Google Scholar
Lodge, Raymond Anthony. 1993. French: From dialect to standard. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Raymond Anthony. 2005. Parisian French: A sociolinguistic history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McConnell, R.E. 1979. Our own voice. Toronto: Gage.Google Scholar
Orkin, Mark M. 1970. Speaking Canadian English: An informal account of the English language in Canada. Toronto: General Publishing.Google Scholar
Richardson, George. 2004. Between narrated text and performative narration: High school students’ constructions of Canadian identity. Paper read at the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies annual conference, University of Manitoba.Google Scholar
Scargill, M.H., and Warkentyne, H.. 1972. The survey of Canadian English: A report. English Quarterly 5(3):47104.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, Sali A. This volume.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., and Turner, J.. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In The social psychology of intergroup relations, ed. Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S., 3348. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Woods, Howard B. 1980. The Ottawa survey of Canadian English. Kingston, ON: Strathy Language Unit, Queen’s University.Google Scholar