the learning of sociolinguistic variation by french immersion students at the high school and...
TRANSCRIPT
The learning of sociolinguistic variation by French immersion students at the high
school and university levels
Katherine Rehner
Language Studies, UTM
Two lexical variables
Words referring to remunerated work:
travail versus emploi
Verbs indicating one’s place of residence:
habiter versus vivre
Previous Immersion Research
French immersion students:– over-use (hyper-)formal variants– under-use mildly-marked informal variants– dramatically under-use marked informal variants– the use of neutral variants depended on:
the availability of an English equivalent the structural complexity of the variants the frequency of the variants in the educational input
Lexical Variation: Montreal L1
Work Variable:
– travail 35%– job 29%– ouvrage 14%– emploi 14% – poste 8%
Ouvrage/job = working class Emploi/poste = upper class Travail = socially neutral
To Dwell Variable:
– rester 64% – demeurer 20% – vivre 10%– habiter 6%
Habiter = professional class Demeurer = high-style form Rester = working class Vivre = neutral
Lexical Variation: Ontario L1
To Dwell Variable:
– rester 42% – demeurer 32% – vivre 26% – habiter 1%
important role of lexical priming, especially for vivre
Lexical Variation: Immersion Students
Work Variable:
– travail 56%– emploi 38%– job 6%– ouvrage 0%– poste 0%
Importance of lexical priming
To Dwell Variable:
– habiter 60%– vivre 40%– rester 0%– demeurer 0%
Highly important role for lexical priming
Lexical Variation: Montreal L2
Work Variable:
– travail 40%– emploi 34%– job 14%– poste 12%– ouvrage 0%
To Dwell Variable:
– habiter 45%– rester 27% – vivre 25%– demeurer 1%
Research Questions
How do the Ontario university learners from former immersion programs compare to the patterns of use of the ‘work’ and ‘to dwell’ variables documented in the speech of the Ontario high school French immersion students, the Montreal Anglophones, and the native speakers of Canadian French from Montreal?
How do they compare to the patterns displayed for these variables by their former core French counterparts enrolled in FSL studies at the same university?
Do the results of these comparisons change depending on whether we are dealing with variants that are socially stratified or neutral?
Table 1 Characteristics of the Student Sample
Extra-Linguistic Factors
1st Year Core (n) %
1st Year Immersion
(n) %
4th Year Core (n) %
4th Year Immersion
(n) %TOTAL(n) %
Sex-female-male
(19) 91(2) 9
(16) 84(3) 16
(8) 100(0) 0
(12) 92(1) 8
(55) 90(6) 10
L1-English-Romance-Other
(15) 71(0) 0
(6) 29
(14) 74(1) 5(4) 21
(4) 50(3) 38(1) 22
(12) 92(0) 0(1) 8
(45) 73(4) 7
(12) 20
Elementary school†
-English-French-Mixed
(21) 100(0) 0(0) 0
(16) 88(1) 6(1) 6
(8) 100(0) 0(0) 0
(11) 85(2) 15(0) 0
(56) 91(3) 7(1) 2
High school-English-French-Mixed
(21) 100(0) 0(0) 0
(19) 100(0) 0(0) 0
(8) 100(0) 0(0) 0
(12) 92(1) 8(0) 0
(60) 98(1) 2(0) 0
Fr.environ.-no time-2 weeks-semester +
(13) 62(7) 33(1) 5
(16) 84(2) 10(1) 6
(3) 38(5) 62(0) 0
(9) 69(1) 8
(3) 23
(41) 67(15) 25
(5) 8
TOTAL (21) 35 (19) 31 (8) 13 (13) 21 (61) 100
†One 1st year former immersion student did not indicate an elementary school language
CORPUS INTERVIEW LENGTH
1st year Core
2300 words
4th year Core
3200 words
High school Immersion
3400 words
1st year Immersion
3500 words
4th year Immersion
4700 words
Table 2 Interview Length by Corpus
Methodology
Data Collection:– 61 students– Labovian-style interview – language background questionnaire
Data Analysis:– tokens identified using concordancer– coded for lexical priming– chi square test of independence
Hypotheses
Neutral variants:
– relatively stable levels of use across cohorts
Figure 1 Use of ‘Less Formal’ Variants
0102030405060708090
100
L1 Speakers
University Immersion
High School Immersion
University Core
Hypotheses
Former immersion students making greatest use of less-formal variants
Former core students on par with or lower than immersion students when social stratification between variants is marked
4th year university students making greater use of less-formal variants than 1st year counterparts
Figure 2 Results for work variable
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
travail
emploi
job
poste
ouvrage
Figure 3 Results for travail
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Travail (vs emploi)
Montreal L1
Montreal L2
University Immersion
High School Immersion
University Core
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
habiter
vivre
rester
demeurer
Figure 4 Results for to dwell variable
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vivre (vs habiter)
L1 Speakers
University Immersion
High School Immersion
University Core
Figure 5 Results for vivre
Figure 6 Results for vivre by year of study
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Vivre (vs habiter)
L1 Speakers
4th UniversityImmersion
1st UniversityImmersion
High School Immersion
4th University Core
1st University Core
Figure 7 Results for habiter vs vivre vs rester by cohort
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Habiter Vivre Rester
L1 Speakers
4th UniversityImmersion
1st UniversityImmersion
High School Immersion
4th University Core
1st University Core
Figure 8 Use of vivre as a result of lexical priming
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Primed by Vivre Primed by Habiter
4th Immersion
1st Immersion
4th Core
1st Core
Conclusions
The type of learning undertaken in the early years of L2 studies sets learners up on differential footing when they arrive at the university level and that these differential footings are maintained throughout the learners’ university studies.
Any advantage afforded by the type of naturalistic learning offered in immersion programs does not transfer into a beneficial effect for the learning socio-stylistically neutral variants.
Implications
Former immersion students are at an advantage over their former core French counterparts.
The type of naturalistic learning undertaken in an immersion program provides students with a better grasp of ‘natural’ language.
This conclusion is supported by the advantages over their 1st year counterparts displayed by the 4th year former core French students who have had the opportunity to study in French as a medium of communication.
References
Mougeon, F., & Rehner, K. (2008). Identity and nativelikeness in bilingual FSL learners. In P. Collier (Ed.) Modern French Identities. Cambridge: Peter Lang.
Mougeon, F., & Rehner, K. (in press). From grade school to university: The variable use of on/nous by university FSL students. Canadian Modern Language Review.
Mougeon, R. & Beniak, E. (1991). Linguistic Consequences of Language Contact and Restriction: The Case of French in Ontario. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère 17, 7-50.
Mougeon, R., Rehner, K., & Nadasdi, T. (2004). The learning of spoken French variation by Immersion students from Toronto, Canada. In R. Bayley and V. Regan (Eds.) Journal of Sociolinguistics: Special Issue, 8, (3), 408-432.
Nadasdi, T. & McKinnie, M. (2003). Living and working in immersion French. Journal of French Language Studies 13, (1), 47-61.
Rehner, K., (in press). The use/non-use of ne in the spoken French of university-level FSL learners in the Canadian context. Journal of French Language Studies.
Rehner, K., & Beaulieu, N. (2008). The use of expressions of consequence by core and immersion French graduates in a bilingual university setting. Mosaic: The Journal for Language Teachers, 10 (2), 13-19.
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, (3), 259-281.