the learning of spoken french variation by immersion students from toronto, canada - mougeon - 2004...

7/22/2019 The Learning of Spoken French Variation by Immersion Students From Toronto, Canada - Mougeon - 2004 - Journal of Sociolinguistics - Wiley Online Library

1/25

The learning of spoken French variation by

immersion students from Toronto, Canada

Raymond Mougeon Katherine Rehner

York University, Canada York University, Canada

Terry Nadasdi

University of Alberta, Canada

This study on the learning of sociolinguistic variants by 41 adolescents from a

French immersion program in Toronto, Canada, synthesizes the ndings of our

research on this topic. This article provides answers to the following questions.

First, do the immersion students use the same range of sociolinguistic variants

as do speakers of Quebec French, who are used in our research as a rst

language (L1) benchmark? Second, do they use variants with the same dis-

cursive frequency as do L1 speakers? Third, is their use of variants correlated

with the same linguistic constraints observable in L1 speech? Finally, what are

the independent variables inuencing their learning of variants, for example:

treatment of variants by immersion teachers and authors of French language

arts materials used in immersion programs; interactions with L1 speakers;

inuence of the students L1(s); inuence of intra-systemic factors ^ marked-

ness of variants; and inuence of the students social characteristics ^ social

standing, sex?

KEYWORDS: Sociolinguistic competence, second language acquisition,

French immersion, sociolinguistic variation, educational input

INTRODUCTION

In this study we report the ndings of a research project investigating the learning

of sociolinguistic variation by adolescent students enrolled in a French immersion

program in Toronto, Canada. Our study is part of a relatively recent strand of

second language acquisition (SLA) research that focuses on the learning of

sociolinguistic variation by advanced second language (L2) learners in a variety

of settings. This strand of research, started in the 1990s (Adamson and Regan

1991), builds on prior studies (e.g., more recently, Ellis 1987; Huebner1985; Tarone

1988) that have investigated the variable nature of the interlanguage of L2

learners ^ what we refer to as Type 1 variation. Studies of Type 1 variation focus

on L2 learners alternation between native and non-native forms or between

Journal of Sociolinguistics 8/3, 2004: 408^432

# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 20049600 Gars ington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Stre et, Malden MA 02148, USA.


2/25

more than one non-native form to express a given notion that is conveyed in the

target language by only one form. Note that in these studies, such alternations

are a sign that the learners are on their way to acquiring an invariant target form

and that success in mastering it is indicated by the cessation of variation.The strand of research of which our project is a part investigates what we refer

to as Type 2 variation. In contrast to research focused on Type 1 variation, stud-

ies of Type 2 variation examine aspects of the target language where native

speakers display sociolinguistic variation, that is they alternate between vari-

ants as a function of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors. In such research,

successful acquisition by L2 learners is indicated by the speakers knowledge of

the full range of native variants, their use of such variants at frequencies com-

parable to that of rst language (L1) speakers of the target language, and their

observance of linguistic and extra-linguistic constraints on variation.Interestingly, although studies of Type 1 and Type 2 variation have clearly

dierent foci, they are not entirely independent of each other, since researchers

investigating Type 1 variation pay attention to the inuence of both linguistic

and extra-linguistic factors and since researchers investigating Type 2 variation

may have to account for, in the speech of L2 learners, the presence of non-native

forms alternating with target-language variants used to express a given notion.

Despite the recency of research on Type 2 variation, there is now a substantial

body of studies of this type, particularly in relation to the learning of English

and French as second languages. Interestingly, there are more studies of Type 2variation in L2 French than in L2 English (for a synthesis of Type 2 studies

focused on L2 French, the reader can consult Mougeon, Nadasdi and Rehner

2002 and Rehner, Mougeon and Nadasdi 2003).1 Among the L2 French studies

there are more that, like our research, have focused on learners in educational

settings (e.g. Dewaele and Regan 2001; Mougeon and Rehner 2001; Regan

1996; Thomas 2002b) than in naturalistic ones (Blondeau, Nagy, Sanko and

Thibault 2002; Sanko, Thibault, Nagy, Blondeau, Fonollosa and Gagnon

1997), whereas the L2 English studies are chiey focused on learners in natura-

listic settings (e.g. Adamson and Regan1991; Major in press).Studies investigating Type 2 variation use L1 speech data as a benchmark to

assess the learning of sociolinguistic variation by L2 learners. Typically, they

look for evidence that the L2 learners have learned the same variants that are

used by the L1 speakers and that they have internalized the linguistic and extra-

linguistic constraints on variation that are observed by the L1 speakers, and they

also measure the inuence of a variety of independent variables (e.g. contacts

with L1 speakers, learners L1s) on the learning of sociolinguistic variation.

METHODOLOGY

Our research on the learning of sociolinguistic variation (Type 2 variation) by

advanced L2 learners of French in an educational setting focuses on 41 grade

LEARNING OF VARIATION BY IMMERSION STUDENTS 409

# Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2004


3/25

9 and12 French immersion students inToronto, Canada. The immersion programs

in which these students were enrolled are characterized by 50 percent French-

medium instruction in grades 5 through 8, followed by 20 percent in high school.

Two sampling criteria were used to select the 41 students. The students weredrawn in equal proportions from three levels of French-language competence

(high, mid, and low) as judged by their teachers and from homes where French

was not used as a means of communication.2 The data from these 41 students

consist of answers to a questionnaire survey on their social backgrounds, their

patterns of language use at home, at school, and in the community, their language

attitudes, etc. (cf. Tables 1 and 2). All in all, these questionnaire data reveal that

Table 1: Social characteristics, French language exposure, and home language

of the student sample

Characteristics Grade 9 Grade 12 Total

Sex

Female 13 17 30

Male 8 3 11

Social Class{

Middle 10 14 24

Upper working 9 6 15

Amount of French-medium schooling

0^25% 2 6 8

26^37% 14 13 27

38% 5 1 6

Exposure toTV and radio in French

Never 16 9 25

Occasionally 5 11 16

Time in a Francophone environment

0 hours^1 day 8 4 122^6 days 6 3 9

7^20 days 6 9 15

3 weeks 1 4 5

Length of stay in a Francophone family

0 hours 15 12 27

1 13 days 5 1 6

2 weeks 1 7 8

Languages spoken at home

English 10 10 20Romance 4 4 8

Other 7 6 13

{ Two students did not provide sucient information for their social class to be determined

410 MOUGEON, REHNER AND NADASDI



4/25

these students have only marginal exposure to French outside the classroom set-

ting, a situation that is not unusual in Anglophone Canada and that underscores

the fact that most French immersion students are highly dependent on their edu-

cational input for exposure to, and opportunities to use, French.

The data also consist of the speech produced by the 41 students during

individual, face-to-face, semi-directed, taped interviews. The interviews, allconducted by the same native Francophone, followed a set of non-challenging,

non-invasive questions about the students daily activities. The interview design

was inspired by that employed in Mougeon and Beniaks (1991) sociolinguistic

research on the spoken French of Franco-Ontarian adolescents, which in turn

also reected that used by previous sociolinguistic research on L1 French in

Quebec (e.g. Sanko and Cedergrens program of research on Montreal spoken

French ^ for a description of the initial corpus and data-gathering method-

ology used by Sanko and Cedergren, see D. Sanko, G. Sanko, Laberge and

Topham 1976) and follows the general principles of the Labovian sociolinguisticinterview.

In relation to the learning of sociolinguistic variation by the 41 French

immersion students, our research aims at providing answers to the following

questions:

Table 2: Students reports of their curricular and extracurricular patterns of

French language use

Media usageAlwaysEnglish

OftenEnglish

Half English/Half French

OftenFrench

AlwaysFrench

Television 26 15 0 0 0

Radio 39 2 0 0 0

Music 31 10 0 0 0

Books 10 21 9 1 0

Magazines 29 10 2 0 0

(Never

use French)

(Usually

use French)

Usage of French 0 1 2 3 4

In class with teachers{ 0 2 3 7 27

In class with other students{ 4 13 10 8 4

At school with friends{ 23 12 3 2 0

Outside school with friends 28 9 1 3 0

At home with family members 29 8 2 2 0

In stores and restaurants 22 12 0 7 0

On the street with strangers 32 4 0 5 0

{ One or more of the students did not indicate their French usage in these situations




5/25

1. Do these students use the same range of sociolinguistic variants as do

native speakers of Quebec French, the L1 speakers with whom they have

had, and are most likely to continue to have, contacts?

2. Do they use variants with the same discursive frequency as do L1 speakers?3. Is their use of variants correlated with the same linguistic constraints

observable in L1 French?3

4. What are the independent variables that inuence their learning of

variants, for example: treatment of variants by French immersion teachers

and authors of French language arts materials used in immersion

programs; interactions with L1 speakers; inuence of the students rst

language (L1); inuence of intra-systemic factors ^ markedness of the

variants; and inuence of the students social characteristics ^ social

standing, sex ?

To answer the above questions, the present article reviews the ndings of our

previous research that has examined a total of 13 sociolinguistic variables in

the spoken French of the 41 immersion students. These 13 variables have been

analyzed using the statistical program GoldVarb (Rand and Sanko 1990),

which determines the signicance of the inuence of the various independent

variables that, we have hypothesized, would impact on the frequency of variant

use by the immersion students.

Many of these 13 variables we have examined are grammatical:

1. rst person plural subject pronouns on versus nous (both meaning we) ^

see Rehner, Mougeon and Nadasdi (2003);

2. retention versus deletion of the negative particle ne ^ see Rehner and

Mougeon (1999);

3. alternation between auxiliaries avoir (to have) and etre (to be) in the

past tenses ^ see Knaus and Nadasdi (2001);

4. future verb forms (periphrastic, inected, present) ^ see Nadasdi, Mougeon

and Rehner (2003);

5. rst person singular periphrastic future verb forms (je vais, je vas, mas allmeaning I am going to) ^ see Nadasdi, Mougeon and Rehner (2003);

6. alternation among the restrictive expressions juste, seulement, rien que,

and ne . . . que (all meaning only) ^ see Mougeon and Rehner (2001);

7. use of singular versus plural verb forms to express the third person plural

see Nadasdi (2001);

8. alternation among the expressions of consequence donc, alors, c a fait que,

and so (all meaning therefore) ^ see Rehner and Mougeon (2003); and

9. alternation between prepositions chez and su and prepositional locution a'

la maison (all meaning at/to ones home) ^ see DiCesare (in progress).

Others of these13 variables we have examined are lexical:

10. nouns indicating remunerated work (travail, emploi, job, ouvrage) ^ see

Nadasdi and McKinnie (2003); and




6/25

11. verbs indicating residence (habiter, vivre, rester, demeurer) ^ see Nadasdi

and McKinnie (2003).

Finally, the remaining variables we have examined are phonetic:

12. deletion versus retention of schwa ^ see Uritescu, Mougeon and Handouleh

(2002); and

13. deletion versus retention of /l / ^ see Mougeon, Nadasdi, Uritescu and

Rehner (2001).

All the variables mentioned above have been attested in corpora of spoken

Quebec or Ontario French and have been the object of variationist studies

that looked at the inuence of linguistic and extra-linguistic parameters on

variant choice. We use primarily the ndings of studies on Quebec French asbaseline data to assess the learning of sociolinguistic variation by the French

immersion students. The Ontario French research is used only when the

variable has not been studied in Quebec French. It can be pointed out that

Ontarios French-speaking communities are, to a large extent, the result of

migratory currents from Quebec and, thus, it is no surprise that studies

comparing both Quebec and Ontario French have found these varieties to be

largely convergent (see, for instance, Mougeon and Beniak 1991). Hence, in

using Ontario French data when Quebec French data is unavailable we are

not departing too far from our chosen L1 norm.The variants that correspond to the 13 variables mentioned above fall into

three basic categories that roughly correspond to three points on a sociosty-

listic continuum, namely vernacular, mildly marked, and formal variants.

Vernacular variants do not conform to the rules of Standard French, are typi-

cal of informal speech, are inappropriate in formal settings, are associated

with speakers from the lower social strata, and are usually stigmatized.

Mildly marked variants, like vernacular variants, do not conform to Standard

French and are typical of the informal register, but may also be used in formal

situations. However, compared with vernacular variants, mildly markedvariants demonstrate considerably less social or gender stratication and are

not stigmatized. Formal variants conform to the rules of Standard French,

are typical of careful speech and written French, and are strongly associated

with members of the upper social strata.

Finally, in order to assess the eect of the French immersion students

educational input on their learning of sociolinguistic variation, we exam-

ined two kinds of educational corpora: (1) a sample of spoken French pro-

duced in the classroom by seven French immersion teachers from the

Greater Toronto and Ottawa areas (collected by Allen, Cummins, Harleyand Swain 1987);4 and (2) three series of French language arts teaching

materials (Basque and McLaughlin 1996a, 1996b; Deslauriers and Gagnon

1995, 1997; Le Dorze and Morin 1994; McLaughlin and Niedre 1998a,

1998b; Roy Nicolet and Jean-Cote 1994) used in grade 5 and 6 immersion




7/25

programs in Ontario, including the school district where we gathered the

French immersion student corpus. The reason for selecting these grade

levels for the pedagogical materials is that the formal teaching of French

stops at this level, a point after which French is taught primarily via litera-ture and other such means.

RESULTS

The results of our previous research on13 variables are synthesized in Table 4.

Table 3 provides information on the sociostylistic status of the variants

associated with these variables in L1 Canadian French.

Our research on these 13 variables has brought to light a number of interest-

ing trends:

The immersion students never use vernacular variants or use them only

marginally

Table 4 shows that the vernacular variants mas, (c a) fait que, ouvrage, and rester

are entirely absent in the students speech and that rien que and nous-autres on

are practically non-existent. Among those factors that explain these ndings,

are the following:

1. the relatively limited contacts that the immersion students have had with

L1speakers outside school;

2. the high likelihood that the students have not, or have rarely, been exposed

to these variants in the school context, as suggested by the immersion

teachersclassroom speech;

3. the absence of these vernacular features in the French language arts materials;

and

4. the vernacular status of these variants that may have caused the Franco-

phones with whom the immersion students have interacted to avoid theseforms in the students presence.

Only one other previous study has investigated the use of vernacular variants

by L2 learners of French in an educational setting, namely Dewaele and Regan

(2001). These authors found that their learners used vernacular content

words such as sympa swell, mec guy, and moche uglyquite sparingly.

The immersion students use mildly marked variants at levels of frequency

considerably below those of native speakers of Quebec French

Table 4 shows that this trend holds true for ve of the six mildly marked

variants: deletion of / l/, schwa, and ne and use ofje vas, and on. For each of the

variants the students frequency of use is considerably below that of the L1

speakers. However, the degree of this discrepancy is a function of the variable




8/25

Table 3: Sociostylistic status of the variants in L1 Quebec French

Sociostylistic status of variants

Linguistic variables Vernacular Mildly marked Formal

Ne use ne

Ne non-use

Juste rien qu e juste seulem ent

Rien que ne . . . que

Seulement

Ne . . . que

C a fait que c a fait que alors

Alors doncDonc

Je vas inf. mas je vas je vais

Mas inf.

Je va is inf.

Periphrastic inected

Inected

Present

On nous- on nous

Nous-autres on autres on

NousPlural forms

Sing. forms

Etre avoir etre

Avoir

Chez 1

A' la maison

Other

Chez 2 su chez

Su

Other

Travail job emploi

Job ouvrage travail

Ouvrage poste

Emploi

Poste

Rester rester habiter

Demeurer demeurer

Vivre

Habiter

Schwa use /e/ non-use /

e/ use

Schwa non-use

/l/ use /l/ non-use /l/ use

/l/ non-use




9/25

Table4:Frequencyofvariants(%)forL1speakersofQuebecFrench,Frenchlanguage

artsmaterials,Frenchim

mersion

teachers,Frenchimmersionstudents

Materials

Frenchimmersion

students

Linguistic

variables

L1Quebec

French

Text

s

Dialogues

Frenchimmersion

teachers

Native

variants

Non-native

usages

Neuse

1

99.9

9

97

71

70

3

deletionofpas

Nenon-use

99

0.0

1

3

29

27

Juste

41

1

0

15

53.9

justeusedtothe

Rienque

33

0

0

1

0.1

leftoftheverb

Seulement

25

14

0

79

46

Ne.

.

.

que

1

85

100

5

0

Cafaitque

55

0

0

1

0

7

so

Alors

43

77

33

76

78

Donc{

2

23

67

23

15

Jevas

inf.

60

0

0

1

10

Mas

inf.*

28

0

0

0

0

Jevais

inf.

12

100

100

99

90




10/25

Periphrastic

73

12

32

79

67

13

innitive,non-nativeinected

Inected

20

87.9

67

18

10

future,conditional

Present

7

0.1

1

3

10

On

95

14

22

83

55

Nous-autreson

4

0

0

0

0

Nous

1

86

78

17

45

Pluralforms

98

100

100

100

81

Sing.forms*

2

0

0

0

19

Etre

67

100

100

95

78

useofavoirwithaller

Avoir

33

0

0

5

22

Chez1{

62

18

100

32

20

15

chezlamaison,

A'lamaison

31

82

0

56

42

dans

poss.

maison,

Other

7

0

0

12

23

a'

strongpronoun,etc.

Chez2{

58

80

100

100

23

20

danslamaisonde,

Su

28

0

0

0

0

aulamaisonde,etc.

Other

14

20

0

0

57

Travail

35

60

0

ins

ucient

56

Job

29

0

0

data

6

Ouvrage

14

0

0

0

Emploi

14

40

100

38

Poste

8

0

0

0




11/25

Table3:(continued)

Materials

Fr

enchimmersion

students

Linguistic

variables

L1Quebec

French

Texts

Dialogues

Frenchimmersion

teachers

Native

variants

Non-native

usages

Rester

64

0

0

0

0

Demeurer

20

3

0

0

0

Vivre

10

57

0

0

40

Habiter

6

40

100

100

60

Schwause

35

100

97

**

85

Schwanon-use

65

0

3

15

/l/use

7

100

99

**

98

/l/non-use

93

0

1

2

*%sarefromM

ougeonandBeniakscorpusofOntarioFrench

**Norecording

softheteachersspeechareavailable

{

Chez1referstocontextsinwhichthesubjecta

ndthedwellerarethesameper

sonandchez2referstocontextswheretheyarenot.Forthisca

seofLV,we

examinedtextb

ooks1A,1B,and2andworkbo

oks1A,1B,and2oftheseriesPontverslefutur(BasqueandM

cLaughlin1996a,1996b;McLa

ughlinand

Niedre1998a,1

998b)andnottheteachingmaterialsdescribedearlier.Finally,duetosparsenessofoccurrencesofthevariants,wedidnotcalculatesep-

arateratesforthetwotypesoftextsunderstud

y

{

Intheteachin

gmaterialsexamined,conjunctiondoncisrarelyusedbetween

twoclauses.Itis,however,freq

uentlyusedinapost-verbalpos

itioninthe

secondclause(e.g.

ilsefaisaittard,i

lestdoncpa

rtiitwasgettinglate,soheleft).Insuchasyntacticconstruction,itisnotpossibletousevaria

ntsalorsor

(ca)faitque.For

thisreason,theseusesofdoncw

ereexcludedfromtheanalysis

ofLV




12/25

under consideration. Specically, the students rate of /l/ deletion falls 91

percent below that of the L1 speakers, ne deletion 72 percent below, je vas 52

percent, schwa deletion 50 percent, and on use 40 percent. These dierences

likely reect the complex inuence of several factors and it would be interest-ing to identify them through further research. For instance, why is it that the

immersion students almost never delete /l/ in subject pronouns il(s), whereas

they delete schwa more often? This question is even more intriguing when one

bears in mind the fact that, as Table 4 shows, the L1 speakers (and probably

the immersion teachers as well5) do the reverse: they delete /l/ almost categori-

cally in pronouns il(s) and delete schwa frequently, but less often than / l/. One

possible answer to this question may lie in the inuence of English phonology.

To our knowledge there are no dialects of English where /l/ can be deleted in

word nal position, while the deletion of mid vowels is a frequent phenomenon(e.g. for instance [f.ainst ens/ fO.ainst ens< f.ainst ens]). In other words, the

phonological rule of schwa deletion would appear to be easier to learn than

the morphophonological rule of /l/ deletion. Furthermore, certain English

cognates of French words do not feature a schwa where the French words have

one (e.g. exactly ^exactement; government ^gouvernement) and, hence, it is pos-

sible that these English cognates might reinforce schwa deletion in the pronun-

ciation of their French counterparts. A further question would be,Why is the

mildly marked variant on more easily acquired than ne deletion? One possible

answer to this question may lie in the fact that the immersion teachers andthe French language arts materials use on considerably more often than they

delete ne (see Table 4). The fact that L2 learners of French use mildly

marked variants at rates of frequency below those of L1speakers has also been

documented by Dewaele (1992), Regan (1996), Sax (1999), and Thomas

(2002a).

The immersion students overuse formal variants in comparison to native

speakers of Quebec French

As Table 4 shows, the high frequencies found for the immersion students

use of the formal variants ne, seulement, alors, donc, je vais, nous, etre, emploi,

travail, habiter, schwa, and /l/ contrast, in many cases quite sharply, with

the much lower frequencies of these variants in L1 speech. Two principal

explanations can be oered to account for this nding: (1) the immersion

students have mostly been exposed to French in the classroom context and

Table 4 shows that the immersion teachers and the educational materials,

to an even greater extent, favor formal variants; and (2) the immersion

students have lacked opportunities to be exposed to the spoken French of L1speakers outside this context, which might otherwise have reduced the

standardization of their speech. The overuse of formal variants by L2 learners

of French in an educational setting has been also documented by Dewaele

(1992), Regan (1996), Sax (1999), and Thomas (2002a).




13/25

There are exceptions to the above three trends, namely the immersion students

unexpected use of vernacular variants, their higher-than-expected use of

mildly marked variants, and their under-use of certain formal variants

As Table 4 shows, there are three variables where, contrary to expectations, the

immersion students use vernacular variants (job and avoir), and display

higher levels of use of mildly marked variants than L1 speakers (use of singular

verb forms in the third-person plural). One likely explanation for these ndings

is that the students have not completely mastered the formal counterparts of

these vernacular or mildly marked variants, due to the diculty of these formal

variants (e.g. the distinctive third person plural markings of French verbs are a

well-known stumbling block for L2 learners due to their irregularity and unpre-

dictability). In other words, it may be more appropriate to view these non-

standard forms as developmental features than as evidence that the students

have learned vernacular or mildly marked variants, although this possibility

cannot be completely ruled out since some of the immersion students have had

some degree of contact with speakers of vernacular French. Kenemer (1982)

also documented in the speech of her L2 learners of French, in an educational

setting, instances in which the learners used variants that coincided with

L1 vernacular variants, but that were, in fact, reections of the problems the

learners faced in mastering dicult formal variants.

The problems the immersion students face in mastering dicult formal

variants in certain cases has led them, as Table 4 shows, to produce non-

native forms and usages that alternate in the students L2 discourse w ith the

native variants (pas deletion, juste used to the left of a verb, so for alors or

donc, non-native future verb forms, use of auxiliary avoir with aller in the

past compound tenses, and non-native forms to express the notion of move-

ment to, or locations at, ones dwelling). This is especially true when a given

variant is not mirrored in English. For instance, the students use of non-

native prepositional locutions to convey the notion of motion to, or location

at, ones dwelling, likely reects the fact that chez is a semantically non-

transparent and specializ ed preposition that English lacks.

Table 4 also reveals that there are three formal variants that are absent from the

immersion studentsspeech (ne . . . que, poste, and demeurer), and two formal var-

iants that the immersion students use at rates below native norms (inected

future, and chez 2). The former pattern may be ascribed to the fact that the three

variants in question are not, as Table 4 shows, frequent in L1 French nor, overall,

in the educational input. The latter pattern may be accounted for by the greater

level of diculty of the variants in question and the lack of English equivalent

forms. Under-use of formal variants has also been documented in research

by Harley and King (1989), Lyster (1994a), Lyster and Rebuot (2002), and Swain

and Lapkin (1990). These researchers also ascribe their ndings to the fact that

the formal variants under study are dicult, they go against the structure of

English, and theyare insuciently reinforced by the teachers in the classroom.




14/25

The immersion students display only partial mastery of the linguistic

constraints on variation observed in native Quebec French

As Table 5 shows, we found that:

1. for ve variables (seulement/juste, nous/on, use versus non-use of schwa and

of /l/, and chez1/a' la maison), the immersion students observe the same con-

straints as do the L1 speakers;

2. for two variables (future verb forms and avoir/etre) they observe only one of

the constraints documented in L1 French;

3. for two variables (use versus non-use of ne and use versus non-use of third

person plural verb forms) they do not observe any of the linguistic con-

straints documented in L1 French; and

4. for two variables (seulement/juste and use versus non-use of third personplural verb forms) they observe constraints that are particular to them.

In sum, our investigation of the learning of linguistic constraints on variation

by the immersion students has revealed that overall the students have a partial

mastery of the linguistic constraints of variation. Other researchers (Regan

1996; Sax 2000; Thomas 2002a), each investigating only one particular vari-

able, have found that, by and large, the learners master the linguistic con-

straints associated with the variable in question. The divergence between

these studies and our research may reect the fact that we have looked at a

wider set of variables. Since each set of linguistic constraints is specic to the

particular variable in question, it is not easy to generalize the ndings of

specic studies. In other words, because learners have been found to master

the linguistic constraints of a specic variable, it does not necessarily follow

that they will be as successful in mastering the constraints associated with

another variable. This, therefore, suggests that further research on this topic

is needed.

For a number of the variables under study, the immersion students displaycorrelations with social class and sex that are reminiscent of the associations

found in Quebec French

As Table 6 shows, the female immersion students and the students from the

middle class use some formal variants more often than do male students and

students from the upper-working class in ve of the variables we examined (ne

use versus non-use, seulement/juste, avoir/etre, the future tenses, and nous/on).

For the rst three variables, the origin of these correlations may lie in the

immersion teachers pedagogical treatment of variation, or in the course

materials that they use for the teaching of French language arts. For instance,

Table 4 shows that the immersion teachers display a marked preference for par-

ticle ne in negative sentences, and that ne deletion is almost entirely absent in

the French language arts materials. This could lead the students to infer that




15/25


16/25

Table6:EectofindependentvariablesinthespeechoftheFrenchimmersionstudents

Lingu

isticvariables

Ne

Seulement

Donc

Aller

inf.

(1sg.)

Future

(allpers.)

Nous

3rd

pl.

verb

forms

Auxiliary

compound

tenses

C

hez1*

Emploi

Habiter

Schwa

/l/

Eectofsex

and/or

socialclass

m

iddle

class>

neuse

female>

seulement

male,

middle

class>

donc

no

female>

inected

future

femaleand

middle

class

>no

us

no

middle

class

>

etre

no

no

no

?

?

Eectof

increased

exposureto

French

outside

school

>

non-use

ofne

>juste

>donc

aller

innitive;

on

>3rd

plural

verb

forms

no

>chez;

non-

useof

schwa

?

Eectof

home

language

Romance

la

nguage

>

neuse

Romance

language>

seulement;

English>

juste

Romanc

e

language

>

alors

?

no

Rom

ance

lang

uage>

nous

?

no

no

Romance

language>

travail

no

?

?

>

favorableto

the learning of spoken french variation by immersion students from toronto, canada - mougeon - 2004...

Documents