Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T00:47:30.969Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

LEARNER VERSUS NONLEARNER PATTERNS OF STYLISTIC VARIATION IN SYNCHRONOUS COMPUTER-MEDIATED FRENCH

Yes/No Questions and Nous Versus On

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2009

Rémi A. van Compernolle  and
Lawrence Williams
Rémi A. van Compernolle*
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
Lawrence Williams
Affiliation:
University of North Texas
*
*Address correspondence to: Rémi A. van Compernolle, The Department of Applied Linguistics, The Pennsylvania State University, 305 Sparks Building, University Park, PA 16802; e-mail: compernolle@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study analyzes stylistic variation among first-, second-, and third-year instructed learners of French engaged in synchronous French-language computer-mediated communication (CMC) and compares the results with data from nonlearner discourse in a public, noneducational synchronous CMC environment. We focus specifically on variability in yes/no question (YNQ) structures and the use of the pronouns nous “we” and on “one” or “we” for first-person plural reference. The results suggest that whereas first- and second-year learners rarely use informal variants, third-year students approximate—but do not actually reach—native-speaker norms. Contrary to expectations, however, no positive correlation was found between the increased use of the informal pronoun and the informal YNQ structure. Finally, we argue for more in-depth case studies that combine analyses of performance data, competence data, and individual learner histories to determine when, why, and how second language users begin to recognize and emulate native speakers’ sociolinguistic norms and variation.

Type
Research Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , September 2009 , pp. 471 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

REFERENCES

Adamson, H. D., & Regan, V. (1991). The acquisition of community speech norms by Asian immigrants learning English as a second language: A preliminary study. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bayley, R., & Preston, D. R. (Eds.). (1996). Second language acquisition and linguistic variation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., & Regan, V. (2004). Introduction: The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59, 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. (1997). La notion de la variation syntaxique dans la langue parlée [The notion of syntactic variation in the spoken language]. Langue Française, 115, 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondeau, H. (2003). The old nous and the new nous: A comparison of 19th and 20th century spoken Quebec French. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 9, 1–15.Google Scholar
Bragger, J., & Rice, D. (2005). Quant à moi... [As for me...] (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. In Richards, J. & Schmidt, R. W. (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celce-Murcia, M. A., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated model with content specification. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 5–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (1995). The use of the QU-final interrogative structure in spoken French. Journal of French Language Studies, 8, 143–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coveney, A. (1996). Variability in spoken French: A sociolinguistic study of interrogation and negation. Exeter, UK: Elm Bank Publications.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2000). Vestiges of nous and the 1st person plural verb in informal spoken French. Language Sciences, 22, 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, A. (2003). The native speaker: Myth and reality. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Deshaies, D. (1991). Contribution à l’analyse du français québécois: Etudes des pronoms personnels [Contribution to the analysis of Quebec French: Studies on personal pronouns]. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique Théorique et Appliquée, 10, 11–40.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (1999). Word order variation in French interrogative structures. I. T. L. Review of Applied Linguistics, 125–126, 161–180.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2002). Using sociostylistic variants in advanced French interlanguage: The case of nous/on. EUROSLA Yearbook, 2, 205–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004a). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence in French as a foreign language: An overview. Journal of French Language Studies, 14, 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004b). Retention or omission of the ne in advanced French interlanguage: The variable effect of extralinguistic factors. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 433–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. Modern Language Journal, 89, 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elsig, M., & Poplack, S. (2006). Transplanted dialects and language change: Question formation in Québec. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 12, 77–90.Google Scholar
Faerch, K., Haastrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learner language and language learning. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. (1958). Social influence on the choice of linguistic variant. Word, 14, 47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca-Greber, B., & Waugh, L. (2003). On the radical difference between the subject personal pronouns in written and spoken European French. In Leistyna, P. & Meyer, C. F. (Eds.), Corpus analysis: Language structure and language use (pp. 225–240). Amsterdam: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grevisse, M., & Goosse, A. (1993). Le bon usage: Grammaire française [The right usage: French grammar] (13th ed.). Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Harley, B. (1992). Aspects of the oral second language proficiency of early immersion, late immersion, and extended French students at grade 10. In Courchêne, R. J., Glidden, J. I., St. John, J., & Thérien, C. (Eds.), Comprehension-based second language teaching (pp. 371–388). Ottawa, Canada: Ottawa University Press.Google Scholar
Hymes, D. (1971). Competence and performance in linguistic theory. In Huxely, R. & Ingram, E. (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 3–28). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kinginger, C., & Belz, J. (2005). Sociocultural perspectives on pragmatic development in foreign language learning: Microgenetic and ontogenetic case studies from telecollaboration and study abroad. Intercultural Pragmatics, 2, 369–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinginger, C., & Farrell, K. (2004). Assessing development of meta-pragmatic awareness in study abroad. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, X, 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laberge, S. (1977). Étude de la variation des pronoms sujets définis et indéfinis dans le français parlé à Montréal [Study of the variation of definite and indefinite subject pronouns in the spoken French of Montreal]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montreal.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1994). Principles of linguistic change: Vol. 1. Internal factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manley, J., Smith, S., McMinn, J. T., & Prévost, M. A. (2006). Horizons [Horizons] (3rd ed.). Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T., & Rehner, K. (2002). État de la recherche sur l’appropriation de la variation par les apprenants avancés du FL2 ou FLE [State of the research on the appropriation of variation by advanced learners of French as a second or foreign language]. Acquisition et Intéraction en Langue Étrangère, 17, 17–50.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2001). Variation in the spoken French of Ontario French immersion students: The case of juste vs seulement vs rien que. Modern Language Journal, 85, 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Rehner, K., & Nadasdi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by immersion students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8, 408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T. (2001). Agreeing to disagree: Variable subject-verb agreement in immersion French. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4, 78–101.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2003). Emploi du futur dans le français parlé des élèves d’immersion française [The use of the future in the spoken French of French immersion students]. Journal of French Language Studies, 13, 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paolillo, J. C. (2002). Analyzing linguistic variation: Statistical models and methods. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Regan, V. (2004). The relationship between the group and the individual and the acquisition of native speaker variation patterns: A preliminary study. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 335–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehner, K., & Mougeon, R. (1999). Variation in the spoken French of immersion students: To ne or not to ne, that is the sociolinguistic question. Canadian Modern Language Review, 56, 124–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehner, K., & Mougeon, R. (2003). The effect of educational input on the development of sociolinguistic competence by French immersion students: The case of expressions of consequence in spoken French. Journal of Educational Thought, 37, 259–281.Google Scholar
Rehner, K., Mougeon, R., & Nadasdi, T. (2003). The learning of sociolinguistic variation by advanced FSL learners: The case of nous versus on in immersion French. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D., Tagliamonte, S. A., & Smith, E. (2005). Goldvarb X: A variable rule application for Macintosh and Windows. Department of Linguistics, University of Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1983). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice—Texts and contexts in second language learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Savignon, S. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice—Texts and contexts in second language learning (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sax, K. (2003). The acquisition of stylistic variation by American learners of French. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1990). Aspects of the sociolinguistic performance of early and later French immersion students. In Scarcella, R. C., Andersen, E. S., & Krashen, S. D. (Eds.), Developing communicative competence in a second language (pp. 41–54). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2006). Analysing sociolinguistic variation [Computer software]. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1974). The social differentiation of English in Norwich. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (1999). New-dialect formation and dedialectalization: Embryonic and vestigial variants. Journal of English Linguistics, 27, 319–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2007). From “y as plus personne qui parle” to “plus personne ne dit rien”: The variable use of the negative particle ne in synchronous French chat. Masters Abstracts International, 46(02). (UMI No. 1446621)Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2008a). Morphosyntactic and phonological constraints on negative particle variation in French-language chat discourse. Language Variation and Change, 20, 317–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2008b). Nous versus on: Pronouns with first-person plural reference in synchronous French chat. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 11, 85–110.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2008c, April). Sociolinguistic norms and variation in French-language chat communities and implications for foreign language pedagogy. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association of Applied Linguistics, Washington, DC. Retrieved August 1, 2008, from http://www.personal.psu.edu/rav137/abstracts.htm.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2007). De l’oral à l’électronique: La variation orthographique comme ressource sociostylistique et pragmatique dans le français électronique [From the spoken to the electronic: Orthographic variation as a sociostylistic and pragmatic resource in electronic French]. Glottopol, 10, 56–69.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A., & Williams, L. (2009). Variable omission of ne in real-time French chat: A corpus-driven comparison of educational and non-educational contexts. Canadian Modern Language Review, 65, 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ek, J. A. (1986). Objectives for foreign language learning: Vol. 1. Scope. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe.Google Scholar
Williams, L., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2007). Second-person pronoun use in on-line French-language chat environments. The French Review, 80, 804–820.Google Scholar
Williams, L., & van Compernolle, R. A. (2009). On versus tu and vous: Pronouns with indefinite reference in synchronous electronic French discourse. Language Sciences, 31, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar