How about when (French) people put the word "quoi" at the end of every other sentence?

At the end of the day, when all is said and done, every language has examples of clichéd irritating expressions, innit, do you know what I mean?

The pervasive "quoi" at the end of sentences always amuses me, since when I was a kid putting "what" or "what what" at the end of sentences was a tactic I heard in French people parodying the English. But is it a cliché; it's a "tag question", no? Maybe it's both. I notice that the origin of cliché is in the the French for "printer's stereotype" which I fathom to be some form of impression making kit!

And now William Safire's advice on, cliché and other sins:

Do not put statements in the negative form.
And don't start sentences with a conjunction.
If you reread your work, you will find on rereading that a great deal of repetition can be avoided by rereading and editing.
Never use a long word when a diminutive one will do.
Unqualified superlatives are the worst of all.
If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.
Avoid trendy locutions that sound flaky.
Never, ever use repetitive redundancies.
Also, avoid awkward or affected alliteration.
Last, but not least, avoid cliche's like the plague.

That French "quoi" at the end of half the statements uttered, is more like "like" in America or "hey" in Ontario. Tu voit ce que je veux dire, quoi. Like, see what I mean, hey?

It's annoying, sometimes, and ridiculous at others. But it remains harmless, I tend to think. Woody Allen's "you know" is the same phenomenon.

Taking the cue from Jim's comment, here's a fuller list that I've tweaked and added to: http://anglais.blogspot.com/2004/03/rools-of-riting.html

It took me ages to master the French colloquial use of "quoi" at the end of the sentence. But then again, I had trouble with using 'Si' correctly.

I also become wound up by language issues. One thing that I despise is the inappropriate use of a questioning tone , eg when making a statement. Apparently this linguistic device originated in Australia, and while I was in London it seemed to be gaining ground . Very depressing.

Andréas: I promise I'll reply to the interesting points you also made in your other comment when things aren't quite as manic around here. And I really REALLY detest the irritating questioning tone that seeems to be contaminating more and more people's speech.

I've heard the rising tone speech called "uptalk". Wouldn't it be cool if there were blogs and personal, informal conversation chronicling the prevalence, progress and reaction to the Great Vowel Shift in English.

Now gentlefolk, really! The sentence-final rising tone *is* approporiate just because what native speakers do is the most general standard of what is appropriate (at least in English: the British never had the good sense to elect any immortals). Why it irritates more than any other dialect or accent feature I really don't know. I suspect - though I haven't even googled to see if this is right - that it actually originates in a pragmatic politeness strategy. Bald affirmation is sometimes seen as less polite and so speakers moderate by adopting a tone with suggestions of the interrogative. Certainly most British English speakers associate this with Australians.

Jim: You're right to say that the rising tone is appropriate, there's no right or wrong in language, and it can be very useful. However I do dislike it (intensely) when people use (abuse) it constantly.

Example ([?] denotes a rising questioning tone):
"I went to Brighton [?] and I saw this bloke [?] who I used to go to school with [?]. He hadn't changed one bit [?], it was amazing [?]."

AAAAAAAARGH

I am convinced that ‘uptalk’ is a faddish way of speaking. If this is a normal way of speaking, how would the users differentiate between making a statement and asking a question?

I take the point about use of uptalk to convey lack of confidence or tentativess – this is normal. However I have had conversations with people who would use uptalk as in the example that Céline gives. It’s grating because it simply dismisses a fundamental aspect of the English language. If the users were simply ‘wet’ and had absolutely no confidence in anything they said, I would find it easier to accept ‘uptalk’ but this is simply not the case.

I don’t think we should accept change for change’s sake. I hope that uptalk becomes extinct because it has no useful purpose.

Céline! Having thought about it, I think the source of the irritation maybe two things interacting: first, we are predisposed to process the rising intonation as interrogative - so this usage misleads us; second, it seems that it's often produced without much variety - sentence after sentence all with identical tone. The second point is interesting - to me - because as a student I remember some co-students complaining one day about the speech habits of a Brazilian postgraduate. On investigation it seemed that what really irritated them was her default falling sentence intonation which they found "monotonous". Maybe it's the lack of variation in this case too. But...how do you handle it when you interpret? Usually you *would* interpret a rising intonation as indicating a question I presume. For example:

the *policeman* told you ^that?
(*...* constrastive stress, ^rising intonation, ?interrogative)

How would you handle this when interpreting?

Jim! You've got it! That's what it's so irritating! It's the monotony and predictability of it.

It's never been a problem while interpreting, but I think if I wasn't sure a question was asked, I would ask the speaker to confirm one way or another. Then it's a matter of getting used to someone's speech patterns and converting them into appropriate French patterns. I don't think any interpreter would try and mimick the rising tone in French, as it simply doesn't occur in French. Besides, although it can be indicative of someone's personality, the content of what they say is often the most important thing and the use of the rising tone in French might confuse a French speaker.

I'm at a loss! The fact is that the sentence final rising intonation is established in a number of varieties of English without default interrogative interpretation: even if I wished I could no more change that than Knud could hold back the tides. But there's no sense in which anything useful is lost - speakers who use this intonation pattern typically use a different patter (in Australia for example there's a sentence final falling pattern for interrogatives) or they use some other device to mark interrogatives. Complain, chers amis, but don't imagine that you can complain on the grounds that the language is losing any "fundamental aspects": be bold and admit that your plaint is aesthetic.

I'm sticking to my guns ! To me 'uptalk' is a fad, at least in the speakers I met.

If it is well established as part of a dialect somewhere, I would like some real evidence. Surely, in the annals of linguistics, this topic/phenomenon has been investigated.

Returning to the original subject matter...

I think perhaps I find the 'oui' blunt because in my mind I think of the English 'yes' and the context in which it would be used (think Basil Fawlty).

Similarly, I think I do the same with another commonly used phrase in French 'merci de bien vouloir' which seems to DEMAND that you do something or accept something even if it 's not in your favour. The literal transaltion is 'thank you for really wanting to...'. (to me anyway).
.
For example, 'We have some repairs to carry out on your building and we need to have access to your flat. Merci de bien vouloir être présent pendant toute la journée de 15 juin 2004'. AAAARGH!

I wonder how native French speakers interpret this phrase?

Andréas: I would translate "merci de bien vouloir" as "thank you for...". Literally, it would be "thank you for being willing to...". Are you saying you're finding it rude? I find it perfectly pleasant and polite. There is a similar expression that is slightly more authoritative: "Prière de..." which could be translated as "Please..." or "You are requested to..." (which is the use I find slightly more pushy).

HiCeline
The meaning "thank you for being willing to..." is presumptious and annoying if it's accompanied by somethings not in your favour. I would prefer 'Thank you for...'

But as you indicate it seems to be used as a stock phrase without much thought given to its original meaning

Yes, "Thank you for being willing to..." is horrid, literal translations often are.