Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-v2bm5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T08:26:14.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Native and non-native perceptions of appropriateness in the French second-person pronoun system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2014

RÉMI A. VAN COMPERNOLLE
RÉMI A. VAN COMPERNOLLE*
Affiliation:
Carnegie Mellon University
*
Address for correspondence: Rémi A. van Compernolle, Department of Modern LanguagesCarnegie Mellon University160 Baker Hall Pittsburgh, PA 15213USA e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores perceptions of appropriateness in the French second-person pronoun system in relation to various sociopragmatic factors among native and nonnative speakers of French between the ages of 18 and 29. Participants completed an online survey in which a series of five social-interactive situations were presented. Analysis focused on the similarities and differences among native, near-native, advanced and intermediate speakers in their perceptions of formality, social distance, power/equality and appropriate tu/vous use, as well as correlations between the sociopragmatic factors and selection of tu or vous. Results indicate a high degree of variation within and across participant groups, with nonnatives tending to be more conservative (e.g., more formality, higher frequencies of vous) in their choices than their native-speaker counterparts. In concluding, the findings are discussed in relation to pedagogical implications.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 45 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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

Belz, J. and Kinginger, C. (2002). The cross-linguistic development of address form use in telecollaborative language learning: Two case studies. Canadian Modern Language Review, 59: 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In: Sebeok, T. (ed.), Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
Calvet, L-J. (1976). À tu et à vous. Le Français dans le Monde, 118: 14–18.Google Scholar
Coveney, A. (2010). Vouvoiement and tutoiement: Sociolinguistic reflections. Journal of French Language Studies, 20.2: 127–150.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2002) Variation, chaos et système en interlangue française. Acquisition et Interaction en Langue Étrangère: 143–167.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2004). Vous or tu? Native and non-native speakers of French on a sociolinguistic tightrope. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 42: 383–402.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. (2008). Appropriateness in foreign language acquisition and use: Some theoretical, methodological and ethical considerations. In Manchón, R. and Cenoz, J. (eds.), Doing SLA research: Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Issues. Special issue of the International Review of Applied Linguistics, 46: 235–255.Google Scholar
Dewaele, J.-M. and Planchenault, G. (2006). « Dites-moi tu?! » La perception de la difficulté du système des pronoms d'adresse en français. In: Faraco, M. (ed.), La classe de langue: Théories, méthodes, pratiques. Aix-en-Provence: Publications de l'Université de Provence, pp. 153–171.Google Scholar
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2008). Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12: 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (1991). Ni tu ni vous: Principes et paradoxes dans l'emploi des pronoms d'allocution en français contemporain. Journal of French Language Studies, 1: 139–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner-Chloros, P. (2007). Tu/vous choices: an ‘Act of Identity’? In: Jones, M. and Ayres-Bennett, W. (eds), The French Language and Questions of Identity. London: Legenda, pp. 106–115.Google Scholar
Golato, A. (2003). Studying compliment responses: A comparison of DCTs and recordings of naturally occurring talk. Applied Linguistics, 24: 90–121.Google Scholar
Kinginger, C. (2008). Language learning in study abroad: Case studies of Americans in France. Modern Language Journal, 92 (supplement 1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lambert, W. and Tucker, G. R. (1976). Tu, Vous, Usted: A Social-psychological Study of Address Patterns. Newbury House: Rowley.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A. (2006). Learning the culture of interpersonal relationships: Students’ understandings of personal address forms in French. Intercultural Pragmatics, 3: 55–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyster, R. (1994). The effect of functional-analytic teaching on aspects of French immersion students’ sociolinguistic competence. Applied Linguistics, 15: 263–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martiny, T. (1996). Forms of address in French and Dutch: A sociopragmatic approach. Language Sciences, 18: 765–775.Google Scholar
Morford, J. (1997). Social indexicality in French pronominal address. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 7: 3–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mühlhäusler, P. and Harré, R. (1990). Pronouns and People: The Linguistic Construction of Social and Personal Identity. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2003). Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language and Communication, 23: 193–229.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2010). Towards a sociolinguistically responsive pedagogy: Teaching second-person address forms in French. Canadian Modern Language Review, 66: 445–463.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing a sociocultural orientation to variation in language. Language & Communication, 31: 86–94.Google Scholar
van Compernolle, R. A. (forthcoming). Sociocultural Theory and L2 Instructional Pragmatics. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. and van Compernolle, R. A. (2007). Second-person pronoun use in on-line French-language chat environments. The French Review, 80: 804–820.Google Scholar
Williams, L. and van Compernolle, R. A.. (2009). Second-person pronoun use in French language discussion fora. Journal of French Language Studies, 19: 361–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, R. and Dewaele, J.-M. (2010) The use of web questionnaires in second language acquisition and bilingualism research. Second Language Research, 26: 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wivagg, J. (2008). Forced choice. In: Lavrakas, P. J. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 289–290.Google Scholar