Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:58:13.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors driving lexical variation in L2 French: A variationist study of automobile, auto, voiture, char and machine1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2008

TERRY NADASDI ,
RAYMOND MOUGEON  and
KATHERINE REHNER
TERRY NADASDI*
Affiliation:
University of Alberta
RAYMOND MOUGEON
Affiliation:
York University, Toronto
KATHERINE REHNER
Affiliation:
University of Toronto at Mississauga
*
Address for correspondence: Terry Nasdasi, Department of Linguistics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta Canada, T6G 2E6 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our paper examines lexical variation in the spoken French of second language learners and focuses on words referring to the notion of ‘automobile’ (i.e., automobile, auto, voiture, char and machine). Results reveal that while students do follow the native speaker pattern of using the neutral variant auto in most instances, they diverge from native speakers by making no use of the vernacular form char and relatively high use of the prestige variant voiture. The principal external factors that influence variant choice are students' home language and the representation of variants in the input to which students are exposed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 18 , Special Issue 3: Knowledge and use of the lexicon in French as a second language , November 2008 , pp. 365 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

Footnotes

1

The research reported upon in the present article was made possible in part through a research grant awarded to Raymond Mougeon and Terry Nadasdi by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada from 1996 to 2002.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, P., Cummins, J., Harley, B. and Swain, M. (1987). Development of Bilingual Proficiency Project. Toronto: OISE, University of Toronto.Google Scholar
Armstrong, N. (2001). Social and Stylistic Variation in Spoken French. A Comparative Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (1999). Converging features in the Englishes of North America. Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa, 8: 117–127.Google Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2000). Region and language variation. English World-Wide, 21: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2002). Dialect Topography of Canada. Macro-sociolinguistic regional surveys of Golden Horseshoe 1991, Golden Horseshoe 2001, Ottawa Valley, Quebec City, Montreal, New Brunswick, Eastern Townships and Greater Vancouver, as well as adjacent U.S. regions (upstate NY, Maine, Vermont and Washington): http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~chambers/dialect_topographyGoogle Scholar
Chambers, J. K. (2004). ‘Canadian Dainty’: the rise and decline of Briticisms in Canada. In: Hickey, R. (ed.), The Legacy of Colonial English: A Study of Transported Dialects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 224–241.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, L. and Gagnon, N. (1995). Capsules. Manuels 5A, 5B. Montreal: Modulo.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, L. and Gagnon, N. (1997). Capsules. Manuels 6A, 6B. Montreal: Modulo.Google Scholar
Lavandera, B. (1978). Where does the sociolinguistic variable stop? Language and Society, 7: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lealess, A. (2005). En français, il faut qu'on parle bien: Assessing native-like proficiency in L2 French. MA thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Le Dorze, P. and Morin, N. (1994). Portes ouvertes sur notre pays. Manuel 3A, 3B. Montreal: Guérin.Google Scholar
Lodge, R. A. (2004). A Sociolinguistic History of Parisian French. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martel, P. (1984). Les variantes lexicales sont-elles sociolinguistiquement intéressantes? Sociolinguistique des langues romanes. Actes du XVIIème Congrès International de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes. Aix-en-Provence: Université de Provence, pp. 181–193.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R. and Beniak, É. (1991). Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario, Canada. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Rehner, K. and Nadasdi, T. (2004). The Learning of Spoken French Variation by Immersion Students from Toronto, Canada. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 8.3: 408–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. and Rehner, K. (2002). État de la recherche sur l'appropriation de la variation par les apprenants avancés du FL2 ou FLE. In: Dewaele, J.-M. and Mougeon, R. (eds.), L'acquisition de la variation par les apprenants du français langue seconde, Special issue of Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère, 17: 7–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mougeon, R., Nadasdi, T. and Rehner, K. (to appear). The sociolinguistic competence of French immersion students. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nadasdi, T.Mougeon, R. and Rehner, K. (2005). Learning to speak everyday (Canadian) French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 61.4: 543–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R. and Rehner, K. (2004). Expression de la notion de «véhicule automobile» dans le parler des adolescents francophones de l'Ontario. Francophonies d'Amérique, 17: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R. and Rehner, K. (2003). Emploi du futur dans le français parlé des élèves d'immersion française. Journal of French Language Studies, 13.2: 195–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadasdi, T. and McKinnie, M. (2003). Living and working in Immersion French. Journal of French Language Studies, 13.1: 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poirier, C. (1998) (ed.). Dictionnaire historique du français québécois. Les Presses de l'Université Laval.Google Scholar
Rehner, K. and 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, 56.1: 124–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rehner, K. and 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, 37.3: 259–281.Google Scholar
Rehner, K., Mougeon, R. and 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
Roy Nicolet, L. and Jean-Côté, M. (1994). Portes ouvertes sur notre pays. Manuel 1A, 1B. Montreal: Guérin.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D. (1988). Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. In: Newmeyer, F. (ed.), Language: The Socio-cultural Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 140–161.Google Scholar