1. The learning of sociolinguistic variation by French immersion students at the high school and university levels Katherine Rehner Language Studies, UTM

2. Two lexical variables Words referring to remunerated work: travail versus emploi Verbs indicating one’s place of residence: habiter versus vivre

3. 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

4. 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

5. Lexical Variation: Ontario L1 To Dwell Variable: – rester 42% – demeurer 32% – vivre 26% – habiter 1% important role of lexical priming, especially for vivre

6. 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

7. 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%

8. 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?

9. Table 1Characteristics of the Student Sample Extra- Linguistic Factors 1 st 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 (16) 88 (1) 6 (8) 100 (0) 0 (11) 85 (2) 15 (0) 0 (56) 91 (3) 7 (1) 2 High school -English -French -Mixed (21) 100 (0) 0 (19) 100 (0) 0 (8) 100 (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 1 st year former immersion student did not indicate an elementary school language

10. CORPUSINTERVIEW 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 2Interview Length by Corpus

11. 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

12. Hypotheses Neutral variants: – relatively stable levels of use across cohorts

13. Figure 1 Use of ‘Less Formal’ Variants

14. 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

15. Figure 2 Results for work variable

16. Figure 3 Results for travail

17. Figure 4 Results for to dwell variable

18. Figure 5 Results for vivre

19. Figure 6 Results for vivre by year of study

20. Figure 7 Results for habiter vs vivre vs rester by cohort

21. Figure 8 Use of vivre as a result of lexical priming

22. 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.

23. 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 1 st year counterparts displayed by the 4 th year former core French students who have had the opportunity to study in French as a medium of communication.

24. 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.