Acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by Northwestern learners of French L2: The case of discourse markers

Acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by Northwestern learners of French L2: The case of

discourse markersIsabelle Lemée, Lakehead University

AFLS Caen June 17-19th, 2015

Acquisition of sociolinguistic variation by Northwestern learners of

French L2: The case of discourse markers

Isabelle Lemée, Lakehead University

AFLS Caen, June 17-19, 2015

1

Introduction• The objective:

– to determine how the discourse markers ‘comme’, ‘donc’ are acquired and used in the construction of oral speech by Canadian learners of L2 French in north-western Ontario.

• Our study wants to – establish to what extent French L2 speakers achieve almost native command of multifunctional and polysemous words that play a key role in the expression of semantic basics (eg. Comparison, consequence, location) and fundamental functions discursive (punctuation, change topic of discussion, turn to speak).

– analyse the influence of independent, social and linguistic factors on the development of speech of advanced level L2 speakers.

• This study is quantitative and cross-sectional. It comes from a large project on the acquisition and use of socio-stylistic variation by speakers of French L2 in northwestern Ontario.

2

Theoretical background• Discourse markers (DM): Relatively new field of research.

• Lewis (2006: 44) defines DM as “a label for an expression that combines the semantics of discourse-relational predications with syntactic dependency on a clausal host and low informational salience”

• DM: important role in building cohesion and coherence in discourse.

• Schiffrin (1987 : 31): coordinate conversation. DMs’ primary function is to spot the syntactic - semantic level in the discourse.

3

Theoretical background• DMs are what Gumperz (1982: 131) calls "contextualization cues, verbal and nonverbal signals interlocutors rely on in processes of conversational inference”.

• Studies seem to agree on some properties:– a) DM are not within the syntactic structure with other elements of the sentence

– b) propositional meaning of the sentence is not dependent on their presence

– c) subject to a semantic bleaching compared to their original forms

– d) they undergo phonological reduction (ex. non-discursive puis [pyi] vs. discursive puis [pi])

– e) articulated as part of a fluid language production. 4

Research questions• Does Ontario French L2 speakers use the expressions under consideration to meet the same discursive and non-discursive functions as do native speakers of the region?

• Is the frequency rate of these DMs similar to that of native speakers of the region?

• To what extent is the use of DM in the study affected by the series of factors (sex, education, use of French outside the formal learning context)?

5

Hypotheses• L2 learners should use DMs in a similar way as native speakers. They should use DMs with English equivalents the same way.

• L2 speakers have not yet reached a sufficient level of competence that might allow them to use DMs with the same nuanced functions as L1 speakers.

• Insofar as DMs are not formally taught in the classroom, L2 speakers with a lower level of language competence will use less French DMs.

• L2 speakers close to L2 culture/want to be more like a native speaker, will adopt these expressions used by native speakers in the community.

6

Methodology and corpus • 21 second language speakers • 3 native speakers of the region• 18 and 21 years of age (4 men and 20 women). • Different skill levels (Advanced learners, Bartning and Schlyter, 2004).

• All volunteers.• Ethnolinguistic questionnaire and individual sociolinguistic interview. Semi-guided interview (Labovian tradition, 1966, 1994).

• Transcription following a protocol similar to that used in other sociolinguistic studies (Blanche-Benveniste and Jeanjean, 1987).

7

Factor groups• Social factors

– Sex– Schooling (French immersion or Core French)

– Language spoken at home (French or English)

– Use of French outside the classroom

8

Factor groups for the DMs• Non-discursive

– Equivalence– Simultaneity– Causation– Consequence – Modal adverb

• Discursive– Exemplification– Clarification/Recap– Punctor– Quotative– Turn taking– Intensifier– Conceptual structuring– Transition 9

Results• 2,264 occurrences (L1 and L2 speakers included)

• A total of 14 DMs• These markers are both French and English, and some have a similar use in both languages.

10

Results

# %

Comme 968 42Donc 369 16.5Like 365 16Puis 344 15.5Alors 145 6.5So 73 3.5Total 2264 100

11

Here are the results of the most frequently used DMs in our corpus

Results

#fait que 38t’sais/you know 11ben 1I mean 4yeah 9well 35ok 52right 3

for sure 1

Total 15412

Here are the other DMs found in the corpus

DMs and language spoken at home

L1 L2

Comme 171(36%) 797 (44%)

Donc 99 (21%) 270 (15%)

Like 7 (1%) 358 (19%)

Puis 189 (40%) 155 (8%)

Alors 4 (1%) 140 (7%)

So 0 (0%) 73 (4%)

Total 471 (20%) 1793 (79%)

13

Comme and donc and Sex Comme Donc

Locuteurs 132 99

Locutrices 836 270

Total 968 369

14

Cross-tabulations: Sex and L1/L2

Locuteurs Locutrices

L1 comme 50 (57%) 121 (32%)donc 22 (25%) 77 (20%)like 0 (0%) 7 (2%)puis 11 (13%) 178 (46%)alors 4 (5%) 1 (0%)so 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 

L2 comme 82 (39%) 715 (45%)donc 14 (17) 256 (16%)like 81 (38%) 277 (18%)puis 0 (0%) 155 (10%)alors 23 (11%) 117 (7%)so 11 (5%) 62 (4%)Total 211 (13%) 1582 (86%) 15

DMs and Schooling  comme donc like puis alors so Total

Core French

338 (34%)

142 (14%)

277 (27%)

106 (10%)

68 (6%)

61 (6%)

992 (43%)

French Immersion

499 (57%)

149 (17%)

81 (9%)

59 (6%)

12 (1%)

72 (8%)

872 (38%)

English school

10 (62%)

1 (6%)

0 (0%)

1 (6%)

0 (0%)

4 (25%)

16 (0%)

French school

121 (31%)

77 (20%)

7 (1%)

178 (46%)

0 (0%)

1 (0%)

384 (16%)

Total 968 (42%)

369 (16%)

365 (16%)

344 (15%)

73 (3%)

145 (6%)

2264

16

Interpersonal variation• Results also show an important interpersonal variation in the choice of comme and donc.

• L2 speakers who spent time in Quebec or in a francophone country tended to use non-discursive donc. – This could confirm the positive impact of extracurricular contact with speakers of the target language (Regan et al, 2009).

17

Use of commeCategory Function Occurrences Percentage

Non-discursive

Equivalence 130 14Simultaneity 1 0Causation 14 1Modal adverb 53 6

Discursive Exemplification 230 24Clarification 59 6Punctor 280 29Quotative 44 5Speech turn 93 10Amplifier 14 1Transition marker

51 6

18

Use of doncCategory Function Occurrences Percentage

Non-discursive

Consequence 169 45

Discursive Recap 18 4

Reformulation 36 9

Participative transition

136 37

Conceptual structuration

10 2

19

Participative transition : Mais je partais en France donc euh.Conceptual structuration : Ch’suis pas mal stable à vouloir rester ici donc ma famille est ici.

Discussion • Wide range of discourse markers were used by our cohort.

• Interesting phenomenon– non-discursive markers are often found in the classroom and explained.

– non-discourse markers have less formal place in this context.

– Discursive markers are not taught.20

Discussion • The language of the participants remains an interlanguage that includes forms that are a sign of their own creative often a less perfect use of the most complex aspects of French.

• Sprott (1992): Use of DMs significantly increases during conflicts and moments of tension or increased arousal– when our participants told an important event in their lives, they used more DMs.

21

L2 learners should use DMs in a similar way as native speakers

• Our study confirms that Ontario English speakers of French L2 use DMs for discursive and non discursive functions as do native speakers of the region, but at different rates.

• L2 speakers made similar use of DMs with English equivalents. Our hypothesis was favored. Like was used with comme alternatively as a punctor and quotative.– Main use of quotative comme. Recent phenomenon mostly seen in Montreal, mostly circulated recently in the speech of young speakers.

22

L2 frequency of the DMs is similar to those of native speakers of the region

• Overuse is especially noticeable when the marker has an equivalent in English.

• Lack of proficiency showed less finesse in their use of DMs.

• Concerning donc– insufficient level of proficiency : less nuanced used of the DM.

23

L2 frequency of the DMs is similar to those of native speakers of the region

• Presence of so (donc’s equivalent) – Process to fill a gap in the participant directory.

• The absence of this marker in the discourse of L1 speakers is a clear indication that even if they operate in an English-dominated environment where the use of this marker remains a Franco-Ontarian feature, they have at their disposal a wide range of more traditional French discourse markers such as ben, alors, fait que. 24

DMs and the other factors

• Females favored discursive donc– A more formal marker (Rehner, 2003)

• Schooling was significant in the use of DMs.– Immersion participants used comme extensively.

– Comme is a very frequent DM used in class by Franco-Ontarian teachers. Our immersion participants followed that trend. 25

DMs and the other factors

• L2 speakers with less proficiency used less French MDs

• L2 speakers motivated by francophone culture, who wish to be identified as French speakers used a lot of French DMs.

• DM were generally preceded or followed by pauses, what Schiffrin (1987: 328) calls a specific pitch contour where DM is triggered by surrounding units.

26

Conclusion• Wide range of discourse markers were used by our cohort.

• Interpersonal variation. • Women tend to stick to formal DMs.

• Clear transfer from L1 to L2 in the use of DM. Use of English rather French for DMs.

• Comme might gradually replace “euh” 27