Cover not available

Article published In: Studies in Language
Vol. 42:2 (2018) ► pp.369–388

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

From #[Je]F suis Charlie to #JeSuisCharlie

On the semantics and information structure of a French empathic copular sentence

 | University of Toronto
 | Université Paris 8 | SFL, CNRS
Published online: 6 June 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.17008.ham
Abstract
Je suis Charlie was used over 619.000 times in the two days that have followed the attack of Charlie Hebdo and has regularly been taken up in both written and spoken forms since. A number of variants of this meme (i.e. Nous sommes tous (des) Charlie) have also emerged among French speakers. We argue that this is primarily related to the fact that the structure of Je suis Charlie actually clashes with its meaning. Whereas its word order and default rightmost sentence stress are compatible either with an all-focus reading or a narrow focusing of Charlie, the solidarity/empathy message it communicates suggests that its subject is narrowly focused. We propose that two strategies have emerged to solve this conflict: (i) various alternative forms have appeared that allow proper subject focusing and (ii) speakers have reinterpreted the original structure so as to pragmatically retrieve the (additive) focused nature of the subject.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantic structure
    • 2.1Charlie, from name to property
    • 2.2The predicative Charlie
    • 2.3Être Charlie vs être un Charlie
  • 3.Information structure
    • 3.1Focus/Background
    • 3.2Focus and prosodic prominence
  • 4.Form/meaning-clash resolution
    • 4.1 Je suis Charlie – understanding variation
    • 4.2Towards an additive reading
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
References (42)
References
Beyssade, Claire & Carmen Dobrovie-Sorin. 2005. A syntax-based analysis of predication. In Efthymia Georgala & Jonathan Howell (eds.), Proceedings of the 15th Semantics and Linguistic Theory Conference (SALT), 44–61, Ithaca: Cornell University. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Büring, Daniel. 2006. Focus projection and default prominence. In Valéria Molnár & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, 321–346. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1985. Formal semantics and the grammar of predication. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3). 417–443.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Côté, Marie-Hélène. 2001. On the status of subject clitics in Child French. In Margareta Almgren, Andoni Barrena, Maria-José Ezeizabarrena, Itziar Idiazabal & Brian MacWhinney (eds.), Research on Child Language Acquisition, 1314–1330. Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culbertson, J. 2010. Convergent evidence for categorical change in French: from subject clitic to agreement marker. Language 86(1). 85–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dawkins, R. 1976. The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deng, J. 2015. Language memes in Chinese blessing texted messages. Linguistica Atlantica 34(2). 79–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Destruel, Emilie. 2013. The French C’est-cleft: Empirical studies of its meaning and use. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Engdahl, Elisabet. 2006. Information packaging in questions. In Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo-Hofherr (eds.), Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics, vol. 61, 93–111.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Féry, Caroline. 2001. The Phonology of Focus in French. In Audiatur Vox Sapientiae. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 153–181. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima. 2007. French cleft sentences and the syntax-phonology interface. In Proceedings of the 2007 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. La focalisation à l’interface de la syntaxe et de la phonologie: le cas du français dans une perspective typologique. Paris: Université Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamlaoui, Fatima & Laurent Roussarie. 2015. #Je suis Charlie. Semantic and prosodic anatomy of an empathic copular sentence. ZAS Working Papers in Linguistics (ZASPiL) 581. 1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Horn, Laurence. R. 1981. Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. In Victoria Burke & James Pustejovsky (eds.), Papers from the 11th Annual Meeting of NELS, 124–142. Amherst, GLSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
vander Klok, Jozina, Heather Goad & Michael Wagner. 2014. Prosodic Focus in English vs. French: A Scope Account. Ms. McGill University (LingBuzz).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 1991. The Meaning of Focus Particles: A Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2001. For a structured meaning account of questions and answers. In Caroline Féry & Werner Sternefeld (eds.), Audiatur Vox Sapientia. A Festschrift for Arnim von Stechow, 287–319. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Association with focus phrases. In Varléria Molnar & Susanne Winkler (eds.), The Architecture of Focus, 105–136. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kupferman, Lucien. 1979. Les constructions il est médecin / c’est un médecin: Essai de solution. Cahier de Linguistique 91. 131–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ladd, Robert D. 2007. Intonational Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matushansky, Ora. 2015. The Other Francis Bacon: On Non-BARE Proper Names. Erkenntnis 80(2). 335–362. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques. 2009. Pragmatics, propositional and non-propositional effects. Can a theory of utterance interpretation account for emotions in verbal communication? Social Science Information 48(3). 447–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Partee, Barbara. 1987. Noun phrase interpretation and type-shifting principle. In Jeroen Groenendijk, Dick de Jongh & Martin Stokhof (eds.), Studies in Discourse Representation Theory and the Theory of Generalized Quantifiers, 115–144. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pešková, Andrea. 2015. Sujetos pronominales en el español porteño: Implicaciones pragmáticas en la interfaz sintáctico-fonológica (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 394). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1982. Pragmatics and linguistics – an analysis of sentence topics. Tech. Rep., IULC, Bloomington.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Interface strategies. In OTS Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics, 55–109. Utrecht: OTS, Utrecht University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Interface strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rooth, Mats. 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 11. 75–116. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Samek-Lodovici, Vieri. 2005. Prosody-syntax interaction in the expression of focus. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 231. 687–755. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selkirk, Elisabeth. 2011. The Syntax-Phonology interface. In John Goldsmith, Jason Riggle & Alan Yu (eds.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 485–532. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Sentence Prosody: Intonation, stress, and phrasing. In John Goldsmith (ed.), The Handbook of Phonological Theory, 550–569. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984. Phonology and Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siemund, Peter. 2000. Intensifiers in English and German: A Comparison. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sportiche, Dominique. 1988. A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19(2). 425–451.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 1974. Pragmatic Presuppositions. In Milton M. Kunitz & Peter Unger (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy, 197–213. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
von Stechow, Arnim. 1982. Structured propositions. Tech. Rep., Konstanz SFB. [URL].
Szendrői, Kriszta. 2001. Focus and the syntax-phonology interface. London: University College of London dissertation.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2003. A stress-based approach to the syntax of Hungarian focus. The Linguistic Review 201. 37–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truckenbrodt, Hubert. 1995. Phonological Phrases: Their Relation to Syntax, Focus, and Prominence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vallduví, Enric & Elisabet Engdahl. 1996. The linguistic realization of information packaging. Linguistics 341. 459–519. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zribi-Hertz, Anne. 1994. The syntax of nominative clitics in Standard and Advanced French. In Guglielmo Cinque, Jan Koster, Jean-Yves Pollock, Luigi Rizzi & Raffaella Zanuttini (eds.), Paths towards Universal Grammar: Studies in Honor of Richard S. Kayne, 453–472. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa. 1998. Prosody, Focus and Word Order. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue