it is proposed to justify a transfer of a concept from the field of acquisitionist language to that of sociolinguistic language contacts. This is the endolingual/exolingual opposition intended to characterise exolingual communication in a language that is L1 only of one of the interlocutors. In the context of a multilingual society dominated by a prestigious vehicular language, groups of ‘exolingual speakers’ could thus be identified against the group of ‘endolingual speakers’ who are guardians of endogenous norms but do not require exolingual speakers to comply with them. For example, in Mauritius, where the canonic repertoire tends to be characterised by English/French/creole trilingualism, groups of endolingual and exolingual French-speaking speakers can be identified. It is more difficult to isolate varieties of French ‘exolingual’, whereas endolingual varieties can more easily be identified, so we will use French standardising ‘neofrancophones’ exolingual to the continuum of the interrelanging of French spoken by other exolingual French speakers. One concludes on the relevance of conceptual transfer and its possible application to other multilingual communities.