Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:57:57.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dynamics of Linguistic Systems and the Acquisition of French as a Second Language1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Robert Chaudenson ,
André Valli  and
Daniel Véronique
Robert Chaudenson
Affiliation:
Université de Provence
André Valli
Affiliation:
Université de Provence
Daniel Véronique
Affiliation:
Université de Provence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been observed that learners of French as a second language at different stages of the acquisition process tend to use forms and rules that are comparable to those of French-based creoles or pid-ginized French. The more advanced learners employ rules and forms akin to dialectal variants of French or to French as spoken in isolated areas such as Old Mines, Missouri. The learners produce non-standard forms considered unacceptable by the purist tradition of French grammarians. It has been noted that the observed similarities between interlanguage, regional dialects, etc., occur in given “sensitive” zones of French morphology and syntax such as the use of verbs and auxiliaries, morphology and placement of clitic pronouns, over-generalization of given prepositions, those very areas which are problematic in the acquisition of French as L1. Since the 17th century, these have been the object of a strict codification by purist grammarians who disregard actual usage in various dialects. It is hypothesized that such similarities between the interlanguage forms at various stages of development, French regional dialects, and areas of conflict over the elaboration of norms in standard French can be partly accounted for if one considers the dynamics of the target language. To explain the functioning of this process, we posit a “system” comprising the learner-speaker, the specific linguistic system itself (including pressure to conform to the norm), and the interactions with native speakers. Through self-regulation, this system devises solutions which perforce pertain to that common area which in any language is at the crossroads of variation, language change, and acquisition. This hypothetical zone (called français zéro by Chaudenson, 1984) is the point of convergence of the self-regulating processes which are responsible for the formal and functional similarities between French-based interlanguages, language change, norm conflicts in the standardization of French, and the creolization process.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 277 - 292
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

Andersen, R.W. 1980. Creolization as the acquisition of a second language as a first language. In Valdman, A. & Highfield, A. (eds.). Theoretical orientations in creole studies, pp. 273–95. New York, London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, R.W. (ed.). 1983. Pidginization and creolization as language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Andersen, R.W. 1984a. The one principle of interlanguage construction. Language Learning 34:77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Archives Départementales de la Réunion. 1941. Quel fut le sort des esclaves de Bourbon embarqués en 1746 sur l'escadre de La Bourdonnais. Recueil Trimestriel de Documents pour Servir à l'Histoire des Mascareignes VI; 162–91.Google Scholar
Baron, N. 1977. Language acquisition and historical change. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Bateson, G. 1977. Vers une écologie de l'esprit. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Bauche, H. 1920. Le langage populaire. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Bengtsson, S. 1968. La défense organisée de la langue française. Etude sur l'activité de quelques organismes qui depuis 1937 ont pris pour tâche de veiller à la correction et à la pureté de la langue française. Uppsala: Almquist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Beniak, E. & Mougeon, R.. 1982. Possessive à and de in informal Ontarian French: A long-standing case of linguistic variation. In Baldi, P. (ed.), Papers from the XIIth linguistic symposium on Romance languages, pp. 15–36. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.Google Scholar
Beniak, E. & Mougeon, R.. 1983. Le français en situation minoritaire et la Variation linguistique: Le français en Ontario. Paper given at XVII' Congrès de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a creole system. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bickerton, D. & Mougeon, R.. 1977. Pidginization and Creolization: Language acquisition and language universals. In Valdman, A. (ed.), Pidgin and creole linguistics, pp. 49–69. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Beniak, E. & Mougeon, R.. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma Press.Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, C. 1978. Variations morphologiques du verbe français. In De Cornulier, B. & Dell, F. (eds.). Etudes de phonologie française, pp. 19–27. Paris: Editions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Brunot, F. 1905. Histoire de la langue française des origines à nos jours. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Brunot, F. & Bruneau, C.. 1949. Précis de grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Masson et Cie.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, R. 1974. Le lexique du parler créole de la Réunion. Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, R. 1979. Les créoles français. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, R. 1981. Continuum intralinguistique et interlinguistique. Etudes Créoles 1:19–46.Google Scholar
Chaudenson, R. 1984. Français avancé, français zéro, créoles. In Sociolinguislique des langues romanes. Actes du XVIIėme congrès international de linguistique et philologie romanes, Aix-en-Provence, pp. 165–80. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence.Google Scholar
Clark, E. (1986). Acquisition of Romance with special reference to French. In Slobin, D. (ed.), A cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clyne, M. 1968. Zum Pidgin-Deutsch der Gastarbeiter. Zeitschrift fur Mundartforschunge 35:130–9.Google Scholar
Corder, S.P. 1977. Language continua and the interlanguage hypothesis. In Corder, S.P. & Roulet, E. (eds.), Actes du 5ėme colloque de linguistique appliquée de Neuchâtel 20–22 Mai 1976. The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy, pp. 11–7. Geneva: Librairie Droz.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, J. 1981. Perspective linguistique et sociolinguistique dans l'étude des relatives en français. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 3:135–93.Google Scholar
Dickerson, L. 1975. The learner's interlanguage as a system of variable rules. TESOL Quarterly 9:401–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, N. 1979. lch fertig arbeite, nich mehr spreche Deutsch. (Semantic features of pidginized learner varieties of German). Paper presented at the Romanistentag, Saarbrücken.Google Scholar
Eckman, F. 1977. Markedness and the contrastive analysis hypothesis. Language Learning 27:315–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frei, H. 1929. La grammaire des fautes. Paris: Geuthner.Google Scholar
Gass, S. 1979. Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning 29:327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giacomi, A. 1979. Variation du clitique et neutralisation du genre et du nombre dans le français parlé de Marseille. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 2:111–20.Google Scholar
Giacomi, A. 1983. Approche de la relative dans un corpus de français parlé. Langage et Société 25:41–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. 1929. Etude sur les périphrases verbales de la langue française. Paris: Nizet.Google Scholar
Groupe Aixois de Recherches en Syntaxe. 1977 et seq. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 1–6.Google Scholar
Groupe de Recherche sur l'Acquisition des Langues (GRAL). 1983. Acquisition du français par des travailleurs marocains. Papiers de travail 1.Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G. 1985. Acquisition du français par des travailleurs marocains. Papiers de travail 2.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P. 1978. Le français populaire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Houdaïfa, T. 1983. La référence personnelle et temporelle dans le récit d'un apprenant en milieu naturel. In GRAL, Acquisition du français par des travailleurs marocains. Papiers de travail 1:141–54.Google Scholar
Kay, P. & Sankoff, G.. 1974. A language-universals approach to pidgins and creoles. In Decamp, D. & Hancock, I. (eds.), Pidgins and creoles: Current trends and prospects, pp. 73–84. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kenemer, V. 1982. “Le français populaire” and French as a second language: A comparative study of language simplification. Quebec: Laval University.Google Scholar
Lentin, L. 1975. Apprendre à parler à l'enfant de moins de six ans. Où ? Quand ? Comment ?. Paris: Les Editions E.S.F.Google Scholar
Manessy, G. & Wald, P.. 1984. Le français en Afrique Noire tel qu'on le parle tel qu'on le dit. Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1926. Linguistique historique et linguistique générale. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Meyer-Luebke, W. 1913. Historische Grammatik der Französischen Sprache. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Moignet, G. 1973. Grammaire de l'ancien français. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. 1983. Tracing the roots of Pidgin German. Paper presented at the York Creole Conference, Urban Pidgins and Creoles, York University.Google Scholar
Muysken, P. 1984. The Spanish that Quechua speakers learn: L2 learning as norm-governed behavior. In Andersen, R.W. (ed.). Second languages: A cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 101–19. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Nyrop, K. 1930. Grammaire historique de la langue française. Paris: Picard.Google Scholar
Oudin, A. 1632. Grammaire françoise rapportée au langage du temps. Paris (quoted from Winkler, 1912).Google Scholar
Perdue, C. (ed.). 1984. Second language acquisition by adult immigrants: A field manual. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Porquier, R. 1974. Analyse d'erreurs en français, langue étrangère. Etude sur les erreurs grammaticales dans la production orale libre chez des adultes anglophones. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Rutherford, W. 1982. Markedness in second language acquisition. Language Learning 32:85–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D. (ed.). 1978. Linguistic variation. Models and methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, G. & Thibault, P.. 1977. L'alternance entre les auxiliaires avoir et être en français parlé à Montréal. Langue Française 34:81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumann, J. 1978. The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schumann, J. 1981. Simplification, transfer and retexification as aspects of pidginization and early second language acquisition. Paper presented at the TESOL Convention, Détroit.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds.), Studies of child language development, pp. 175–208. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Sneyders de Vögel, K. 1919. Syntaxe historique du français. Groningen, The Hague: J.B. Waeters.Google Scholar
Steinmeyer, G. 1979. Historische aspekte des Français Avancé. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Tarone, E. 1979. Interlanguage as chameleon. Language Learning 29:181–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, R.H. 1982. It's good to tell you. French folktales from Missouri. University Press of Missouri.Google Scholar
Väänänen, V. 1956. La préposition latine de et le génitif: Une mise au point. Revue de Linguistique Romane 20:1–20.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1977a. L'effet de modèles culturels sur l'élaboration du langage simplifié (Foreigner Talk). In Corder, S.P. & Roulet, E. (eds.), Actes du 5ėme colloque de linguistique appliquée de Neuchâtel 20–22 Mai 1976. The notions of simplification, interlanguages and pidgins and their relation to second language pedagogy, pp. 114–31. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1977b. Créolisation sans pidgin: Le système des déterminants du nom dans les parlers francocréoles. In Meisel, J. (ed.), Langues en contact — Pidgins — Creoles — Languages in contact, pp. 105–36. Tübingen: TBL Verlag Günter Narr.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1978a. La créolisation dans les parlers franco-créoles. Langue Française 37:40–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valdman, A. 1978b. Le Créole: Structure, statut et origine. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1979. Créolisation, français populaire et le parler des isolais francophones d'Amérique du Nord. In Valdman, A. (ed.), Le français hors de France, pp. 181–97. Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. 1980. Creolization and second language acquisition. In Valdman, A. & Highfield, A. (eds.), Theoretical orientations in creole studies, pp. 297–311. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Valdman, A. & Philips, J.. 1977. Pidginization, creolization and the elaboration of learner systems. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 1:20–40.Google Scholar
Valli, A. 1983. Variantes syntaxiques en linguistique diachronique. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 5:125–46.Google Scholar
Valli, A. 1984. Le traitement de la variation linguistique dans l'étude de l'acquisition des langues secondes. Paper presented at Cinquième Colloque International sur l'Acquisition d'une Langue Étrangère: Perspectives et Recherches, Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Valli, A. 1985. Changements de norme, décalages grammaticaux et représentation du français parlé: L'exemple du Télémaque Travesti de Marivaux. Recherches sur le Français Parlé 6:7–21.Google Scholar
Vaugelas, Cl. F. de. 1647 (1934). Remarques sur la langue française. Paris:Droz.Google Scholar
Véronique, D. 1983. Observations préliminaires sur li dans l'interlangue d'Abdelmalek. In GRAL, Acquisition du français par des travailleurs marocains, Papiers de travail 1:155–80.Google Scholar
Véronique, D. 1984a. The Acquisition and use of aspects of French morphosyntax by native speakers of Arabic dialects (North Africa). In Andersen, R.W. (ed.). Second languages a cross-linguistic perspective, pp. 191–213. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Véronique, D. 1984b. L'apprentissage du français par des travailleurs marocains et les processus de pidginisation et de Créolisation. Paper presented at the 5ėme Colloque International sur l'Acquisition d'une Langue Étrangère: Perspectives et Recherches, Aix-en-Provence.Google Scholar
Wagner, R.L. 1974. L'ancien français. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Walker, D.C. 1981. An introduction to Old French morphophonology. Ottawa: Didier.Google Scholar
Winkler, E. 1912. La doctrine grammaticale française d'après Maupas et Oudin. Beiheft zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie 38.Google Scholar
Zobl, H. 1983. Markedness and the projection problem. Language Learning 33:293–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar