No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the Learning of Auxiliary Use in the Referential Variety bySpeakers of New Brunswick Acadian French
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Abstract
This study investigates the learning of Referential French by speakers of AcadianFrench at the university level. One difference between the two varieties lies intheir use of auxiliaries in compound tenses. In Acadian French,avoir is used categorically in compound tenses with verbsof inherently directed motion and pronominal verbs, while Referential Frenchuses être. A controlled-production task and anacceptability judgment task were administered to 80 speakers of New BrunswickAcadian French who were students at a francophone university in New Brunswick,40 first-year students and 40 fourth-year students. Results show that, whilethere is still variability in the fourth-year students’ auxiliary use,their performance is significantly closer to Referential French than that of thefirst-year students.
Résumé
Cet étude examine l’apprentissage du français deréférence pas les locuteurs du français acadien au niveauuniversitaire. Les deux variétés se distinguent par leurutilisation des auxilairires dans les temps composés. En françaisacadien, on utilise avoir catégoriquement dans les tempscomposés avec les verbes de motion intrinsèquement dirigéset les verbes pronominaux, tandis que le français deréférence utilise être. On aadministré un test lacunaire et des jugements del’acceptabilité à 80 locuteurs de français acadiendu Nouveau-Brunswick qui étaient des étudiants à uneuniversité francophone dans la province, 40 étudiants dans leurpremière année d’études et 40 dans leurquatrième année. Les résultats indiquent que, bienqu’il y a toujours de la variabilité dans l’emploi desauxiliaires chez les étudiants en quatrième année, leurperformance est plus proche au français de référence quecelle des étudiants en première année.
Information
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 53 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 7 - 34
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association/Association canadienne de linguistique 2008
References
Abeillé, Anne, and Godard, Daniele. 2002. The syntactic structure of French
auxiliaries. Language
78:404–452.Google Scholar
Auger, Julie, and Valdman, Albert. 1999. Letting French students hear the
diverse voices of Francophony. Modern Language
Journal
83:403–412.Google Scholar
Balcom, Patricia. 2005. Le paramètre de
l’inaccusativité chez les Acadiennes et les Acadiens du
Nouveau-Brunswick. In Français
d’Amérique : approches morphosyntaxiques, ed. Brasseur, Patrice and Falkert, Anika, 83–94. Paris:
L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Ball, Arnetha, and Lardner, Ted. 1997. Dispositions toward language: Teacher
constructs of knowledge and the Ann Arbor Black English
case. College Composition and Communication
48:469–485.Google Scholar
Barbaud, Philippe. 1997. La diglossie
québécoise. In Canada et
bilinguisme, ed. Dvorak, Marta, 65–82. Rennes,
France: Presses universitaires de
Rennes.Google Scholar
Bescherelle: La grammaire
pour tous. 1998b. Ed. Dubé, Cécile, Guérard, Hélène, and Teasdale, Suzanne. Montreal:
Éditions Hurtubise.Google Scholar
Bouchard, Denis. 1992. Accord du participe passé et
choix d’auxiliaire. In Hommages à
Nicolas Ruwet, ed. Tasmowski, Lillian and Zribi-Hertz, Anne, 191–204. Ghent,
Belgium: Communication et
Cognition.Google Scholar
Boudreau, Annette, and LeBlanc, Mathieu. 2000. Le français standard et le
français populaire : comparaison du débat et des enjeux au
Québec et en Acadie depuis 1960. In Les
relations entre le Québec et l’Acadie : de la tradition
à la modernité, ed. Harvey, Fernand and Beaulieu, Gerald, 211–235. Quebec:
Presses de l’Université
Laval.Google Scholar
Boudreau, Annette, and Perrot, Marie-Eve. 2005. Quel français enseigner en
milieu minoritaire? Minorités et contacts de langues: le cas
d’Acadie. Glottopol
6:7–21. www.univ-rouen.fr/dyalang/glottopol/numero.6.htm/#sommaire (accessed
18 July 2006).Google Scholar
Burzio, Luigi. 1986. Italian syntax: A government-binding
approach. Dordrecht:
Reidel.Google Scholar
Canale, Michael, Mougeon, Raymond, and Bélanger, Monique. 1978. Analogical levelling of the auxiliary
ÊTREin Ontarian French. In Contemporary
studies in Romance Linguistics, ed. Suñer, Margarita, 41–61. Washington,
DC: Georgetown University
Press.Google Scholar
Chartrand, Suzanne-G., Aubin, Denis, Blain, Raymond, and Simard, Claude. 1999. Grammaire pédagogique du
français d’aujourd’hui.
Boucherville, QC:
Graficor.Google Scholar
Cheshire, Jenny, Edwards, Viv, Münstermann, Henk, and Weltens, Bert, eds. 1989. Dialect and education: Some European
perspectives. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The
framework. In Step by step: Essays on minimalist
syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, ed. Martin, Robert, Michaels, D., and Uriagereka, Juan, 89–151. Cambridge,
MA: MIT
Press.Google Scholar
Choquet, Isabelle. 2000. Standardisation du français
acadien : analyse d’un corpus de Moncton. In
Cahiers de linguistique du CRLA, Vol. 1,
Numéro 1, ed. Boudreau, Annette and Dubois, Lise, 43–59. Moncton:
CRLA, Université de
Moncton.Google Scholar
Coleman, Charles F.
1997. Our students write with accents: Oral
paradigms for ESD students. College Composition and
Communication
48:486–500.Google Scholar
Collins-Robert
French-English English-French Dictionary. 1982. Ed.
Atkins, Beryl T., Duval, Alain, Milne, Rosemary C., Cousin, Pierre-Henri, Lewis, , Sinclair, Lorna A., Birks, Renée O., and Lamy, Marie-Noëlle. London:
Collins.Google Scholar
Cummins, Sarah. 2000. The Unaccusative Hypothesis and the
impersonal constructions in French. Canadian Journal
of Linguistics
45:225–251.Google Scholar
Desprès-Péronnet, Louise. 1977. Le parler acadien.
Mémoires de la Société Royale du
Canada
15:215–228.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument
selection. Language
67:547–619.Google Scholar
Dulong, Gaston. 1959. Chéticamp, ilôt
linguistique du Cap-Breton. In Contributions to
anthropology II, 1959, National Museum of Canada Bulletin no. 173,
12–14. Ottawa:
Government of Canada.Google Scholar
Durand, Martin. 2004. Evolution et consolidation de
l’espace francophone du Grand-Moncton au Nouveau-Brunswick:
1960-2002. Master’s thesis, Université Laval.
www.theses.ulaval.ca/2004/21595/21595.pdf (accessed 2 April
2007).Google Scholar
Fasold, Ralph W., and Shuy, Robert W., eds. 1970. Teaching Standard English in the inner
city. Washington, DC:
Center for Applied
Linguistics.Google Scholar
Flikeid, Karin, and Péronnet, Louise. 1989. N’est ce pas vrai qu’il
faut dire
j’avons été?Divergences régionales en
acadien. Français moderne
57:219–242.Google Scholar
Gesner, Edward. 1978. L’emploi des auxiliaires
avoiret êtredans le parler de la Baie Sainte-Marie,
Nouvelle-Ecosse. In Papers from the Second Annual
Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, ed. Patterson, George W., 16–22. Halifax:
Mount Saint Vincent
University.Google Scholar
Grévisse :
Précis de la grammaire française. 2003.
Ed. Grévisse, Maurice. Brussels: De Boeck and
Laricier.Google Scholar
Haider, Hubert, and Rindler-Schjerve, Rositta. 1987. The parameter of auxiliary selection:
Italian-German contrasts. Linguistics
25:1029–1055.Google Scholar
Harvey, Moses. 1981. Great Fire of 1892.
In Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, Vol.
1, ed. Smallwood, Joseph R., 108–111. St. John’s:
Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of
Newfoundland.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard S.
1993. Toward a modular theory of auxiliary
selection. Studia Linguistica
47:3–31.Google Scholar
Keller, Frank, and Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Gradient auxiliary selection and
impersonal passivization in German: An experimental
investigation. Journal of Linguistics
39:57–108.Google Scholar
King, Ruth, and Nadasdi, Terry. 2001. How auxiliaries be/have in Acadian
French. In Papers from the Twenty-fourth Annual
Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, ed. Balcom, Patricia, Beaulieu, Louise, and Chevalier, Gisèle, 61–72. Moncton:
Université de
Moncton.Google Scholar
King, Ruth, and Nadasdi, Terry. 2005. Deux auxiliaires qui voulaient
mouriren français acadien. In Français
d’Amérique : approches morphosyntaxiques, ed. Brasseur, Patrice and Falkert, Anika, 103–111. Paris:
L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1990. Unaccusatives and
pseudo-unaccusatives in French. Proceedings of
NELS20, 303–317. University of
Massachusetts: Graduate Linguistics Student
Association.Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1978. Le parler ordinaire : la langue dans le
ghettos noirs des États-Unis. Translated by Kihm, Alain. Paris: Les
éditions de minuit.
[1972.]Google Scholar
Lefrançois, Pascale, Laurier, Michel D., Lazure, Roger, and Claing, Robert. 2005a. Les mesures d’aide en
français et leurs effects: entre perception et
réalité. Correspondance
11(1):2–5.Google Scholar
Lefrançois, Pascale, Laurier, Michel D., Lazure, Roger, and Claing, Robert. 2005b. Les mesures d’aide en
français et leurs effects : y a-t-il une recette
gagnante. Correspondance
11(2):2–5.Google Scholar
Lefrançois, Pascale, Laurier, Michel D., Lazure, Roger, and Claing, Robert. 2005c. Évaluation de
l’efficacité des mesures visant l’amélioration
du français écrit du primaire à
l’université. Tiré à part pour le
postsecondaire. Ms., Université de
Montréal and Collège
Ahuntsic.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine. 1990. French impersonal
constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic
Theory
8:81–128.Google Scholar
Legendre, Géraldine, and Sorace, Antonella. 2003. Split intransitivity in French: An
optimality theoretic perspective. Ms., Johns
Hopkins University/University of Edinburgh. www.cog.jhu.edu/faculty/legendre/papers/Leg-Sor.final.pdf (accessed
19 December 2005).Google Scholar
Levin, Beth, and Rappaport-Hovav, Malka. 1995. Unaccusativity: At the syntax semantics
interface. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marback, Richard. 2001. Ebonics: Theorizing in public our
attitudes toward literacy. College Composition and
Communication
53:11–33.Google Scholar
Multidictionnaire de la
langue française. 3rd ed.
1997. Ed. Villers, Marie-Éva de. Montreal: Québec
Amérique.Google Scholar
Nero, Shondel J.
2000. The changing faces of English: A Caribbean
perspective. TESOL Quarterly
34:483–499.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1978. Impersonal passives and the
unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Fourth
Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, ed. Woodbury, Anthony C., Ackerman, Farrel, Chiarello, Christine, Oensler, Orin D., Jaeger, Jeri J., Kingston, John, Sweetser, Eve, Thompson, Henry, and Whistler, Kennet, 157–189. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics
Society.Google Scholar
Péronnet, Louise. 1991. Système des modalités
verbales dans le parler acadien du sudest du
Nouveau-Brunswick. Journal of the Atlantic Provinces
Linguistic Association
13:85–98.Google Scholar
Péronnet, Louise, and Sylvia, Kasparian. 1998. Vers une description du
«français standard acadien » : analyse des traits
morphosyntaxiques. In Français
d’Amérique: variation, créolisation,
normalisation, ed. Patrice Brasseur, 249–260.
Avignon: Centre
d’études canadiennes (CECAV), Université
d’Avignon.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1985. On Case and the syntax of infinitives
in French. In Grammatical representation,
ed. Guéron, Jacqueline, Obenauer, Hans-Georg, and Pollock, Jean-Yves, 293–326.
Dordrecht:
Foris.Google Scholar
Preacher, Kristopher J.
2001. Calculation for the chi-square test: An
interactive calculation tool for chi-square tests of goodness of fit and
independence. [Computer software] www.psych.ku.edu/preacher/chisq/chisq.htm (accessed
2005).Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tal. 2004. Against an unaccusative analysis of
reflexives. In The unaccusativity puzzle:
Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 159–180. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya, and Siloni, Tal. 2005. The lexicon-syntax parameter:
Reflexivization and other arity operations.
Linguistic Inquiry
36:389–436.Google Scholar
Rickford, John R., and Rickford, A.E.. 1995. Dialect readers
revisited. Linguistics and Education
7:107–128.Google Scholar
Le nouveau petit
Robert. 2000. Ed. Debove, Josette Rey and Rey, Alain. Paris: Dictionnaires le
Robert.Google Scholar
Russo, Marijke, and Roberts, Julie. 1999. Linguistic change in endangered
dialects: The case of alternation between avoirand êtrein Vermont
French. Language Variation and Change
11:67–85.Google Scholar
Ruwet, Nicolas. 1972. Les constructions pronominales
neutres et moyennes. In Théorie syntaxique et
syntaxe du français, ed. Ruwet, Nicolas, 87–125. Paris:
Seuil.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Thibault, Pierrette. 1977. L’alternance entre les
auxiliaries
avoir et être en français parlé à
Montréal. Langue française
34:81–108.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, and Thibault, Pierrette. 1980. The alternation between the
auxiliaries
avoir and être in Montréal French.
In The social life of language, ed. Sankoff, Gillian, 311–345.
Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, Gillian, Thibault, Pierrette, and Wagner, Suzanne. 2004. An apparent time paradox: Change in
Montreal French auxiliary selection, 1971-1995. Paper read
at New Ways of Analyzing Variation 33, Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
Seutin, Emile. 1975. Description grammaticale du parler de
l’EÎle-awc-Coudres Québec.
Montreal: Presses de
l’Université de
Montréal.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 1999. Stigmatized and standardized
varieties in the classroom: Interference or separation?
TESOL Quarterly
33:701–728.Google Scholar
Siegel, Jeff. 2003. Social context. In
The handbook of second language acquisiton, ed. Doughty, Catherine and Long, Michael, 178–223. London:
Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sohn, K.K.
2003. Whistlin’ and crowin’ women of
Appalachia: Literacy practices since college.
College Composition and Communication
54:423–452.Google Scholar
Sorace, Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with
intransitive verbs. Language
76: 859–890.Google Scholar
Tellier, Christine. 1995. Éléments de syntaxe du
français: méthode d’analyse en grammaire
generative. Montreal:
Presses de l’Université de
Montréal.Google Scholar
Université de
Moncton. 2005. Répertoire 1er cycle
2005–2006. www.2.umoncton.ca/cfdocs/repertoire_2005_2006/ler_cycle/règlements_6.htm\#6
(accessed 11 July 2006).Google Scholar
van Hout, Angeliek. 2004. Unaccusativity as telicity
checking. In The unaccusativity puzzle: Explorations
of the syntax-lexicon interface, ed. Alexiadou, Artemis, Anagnostopoulou, Elena, and Everaert, Martin, 60–83. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert D. Jr. 1990. Semantic parameters of split
intransitivity. Language
66: 221–260.Google Scholar
Wehrli, Eric. 1986. On some properties of French clitic
se. In The syntax of pronominal clitics (Syntax and
semantics)
19. ed. Borer, Hagit, 263–283. Orlando:
Academic Press.Google Scholar
Willis, Lauren. 2000. Être ou ne plus être:Auxiliary
alternation in Ottawa-Hull French. Master’s
thesis, University of
Ottawa.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1970. Sociolinguistic alternatives for
teaching reading to speakers of non-Standard English.
Reading Research Quarterly
6:9–33.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt. 1998. Language ideology and dialect:
Understanding the Oakland Ebonics controversy.
Journal of English Linguistics
26:108–121.Google Scholar
Wolfram, Walt, Adger, Carolyn Temple, and Christian, Donna. 1999. Dialects in schools and
communities. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Zubizarreta, Maria-Luisa, and Oh, Eunjeong. 2007. On the syntactic composition of manner and
motion. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.Google Scholar