The Role/o/f Colloquial French in. Communication 'and

r

, -Implications for Language Instruction

\,

I

4rbse M. Bonin

The Ohio State University

A

CAL.ERIC/CLL Series on Languages and Linguistics

NUMioer 56

. .

ERIC Clearinghouse on Laripuagesand Linguistics.Center for Applied Lirorguistics*

1611 North KentStreet /Arlington,yirginia"22269 I

March .1.478'

US DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH.EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO

THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORATING IT, POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRE

- SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

INO 4,,

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY.

TO THE gDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) At40,_USERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM.'

7

r

,

The Rple/of Collpquial French-in.Communication:and

'IppLications for Language InktrUction

4rbse M. Bonin% ///.

/The Ohio State University

A

7

CAIRIC/CLL Series on Languages and Linguistics

Number 56

v.)

ERIC Clearinghouse on Lad$uages'.and Linguistics.Center for Applied Linguistics*

1611 North Kent-StreetArlington,yirginia"22209

U S DEPARTMENTOF HEALTH.EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO.DUCE° EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATIONATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED 00 N6T NECESSARILY REPRE.SENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

March 1978-

iv

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) ANDUSERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM,"

. -.

4,,e

ft

,A

The bale "of collp4i#al.Fretiqzin communication *cetiOnitiOtlion.i

for Language- In:sencetio'nJ

TxERESE M. BONIN, The Ohio State University

This publication is the fifty sixth in the CAL*ERIt/CLL Series on Languages and Linguistics.The material in this publication .was prepared pursuant to a contract with' the National Institute ofEducation. U.S. Department of Health, Education,and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projectsunder government spontorshitio.are encouraged to express freely their judgment in professional andtechnical matters. Prior to publication, the manu-scnpt was submitted to the Center for AppliedLinguistics. and to the National 'Federation ofModern Language Teachers Associations for criticalreview and determination of professional cornpotence. This publication hit met such standards.Points of view or opinions, however. do not necessarilyrepresent the official view or opinions of the Centerfor Applied Linguistiq. the National Federation ofModern Language Teachers Associations, or the National Institute of education

AMERICAN STUDENTS and teachers whogo to France often experiencemrious corn

prehension problems when they are confrontedwith the informal, everyday use of the language.The problem can be illustrated by the followingexamples of,comfersationatspeech.

f(e) (ne) pas c(e) qu'i(ls) font. / Sepaskifo/Et nous, on fait quoi, c(e) soir? 4

/ enuofekwasswar/C'est pas c(eOuila qu'i(l) m(e)faut.sepasgilaktmfo/j(e) (n)ai pas asset d(e)fric. / 3epaasedfrik/Tfu)aurair pas cent balles d m(e)priter. /trepasabalamprete/.

In short, the language they hear is yery dif-ferent -from the one thty learned in the class-room. It is colloquial; everyday, conversationalFrench. Even the best students, if they have nothad any prior exposure to it; find themselves

(*I

.

baffled by it. Yet, little in their training has everprep.ared them_to understand colloquial trenchor even to be aware of its existence and functionin the.total sociolinguistic spectrum.

Comprehensidn of Colloquial Frenchverse! Standard French

Cbuntless, are the testimonies of such frustrating experiences, both frotn,ftlicients andfrom language educators, and they provide astrong indication that a problerri does indeed ex,ist. Butfhow serious is it? To what extent is listen-

, ing comprehension impaired when students' areconfronted with ite'colloquial use ofFrench asopposed Co its formal use? In order to investigatethis problem,' the writer condticted a study involving 128 prospective French teachers i.e.,French majors. usualily in their senior year andwho were attending methods classesfrom sevenmajor universities.' Criterion Measnres included1) a questionnaire, 2) a listening comprehensiontescof colloquial French and 35 a.listTning corn .

prehension test of standard, formal Fluch. Thetwo tests contained the same .numbe of itemsand the same semantic or inform n I contentin each item. The only wa that inTest 1 the message was expressed rs colloquialFrench and Test 2 used standard` or ratherformal French.

The content of the test reflected t e tines ofsignificant phonological, syntactic, an Anticfeatures of colloquial French that h ve eenidentified' by various researchers. A fatrnalassessinerrt of 'the validity of each it m Wasestablished by consultation with 16 native

IThe universities involved were .Columbia, FlopdPurdue, Ohio State. Utab State, and the UnivMassachusetti.

ty

90

9speakers ho were asked to indicate how t$picalof 'every ay. irifor.mal French they consideredeach utt ranee Only items that obtained a rating of 4 r above on a 1 to 5 scale were retained,_..

and the mean validity for the resulting test wasAll tionally, the test was administered to

a group f native speakers who all obtained aperfeCt, score, thereby confirming its validity.

A statement and rejoinder or question and answer multiple choice format was selected. Tirestudents.were provided with a test copy on whichthe choices were written. To further insure thatthe difficulty resided in the stem rather than inthe choices,.the rejoinders were all written withinthe franyais fondamental. An item analysis ofthe Est yieldeda reliability of 0.909 Using theKuder Richardson 20. The reliability for thecontrol test ofstandard French was 0.926. Thetwo tests were administered a week apart.

Results show that the scores obtained on the

a

,R612 OF COLLOQ AL FRENCH IN LANGUAA INSTRUCTION

colloquial test (z 31.59. s.d. 12.82. median 30.out ok, a pOssible total score of $A) were muchlower than those obtained oh the test of standardformal French (R 62.13; sid. 11.28, median 67).

,The mean difference of 30.54 is significant at.001 level, ffle iesults, therefore, reveal a verylow, comprehension 'level of colloquial Frenchand a huge discrepancy between students' cornprehension of colloquial French and of formalFrench. ,

A separate computation of test sail-es forstudents who had spent 3 months or more in aFrench speaking country yielded a mean score of44.58 on the colloquial test as 'opposed to 26.44for those who had not. On the test of formalFrench the mean scores were respectively 69.19fbr, those who had stayed in France and 60.14 forthose who had not. The substantial difference onthe, est of colloquial French as well as the muchsmaller difference on the test, of formal Frenchsuggests that there is a ilkk of exposure to colloquint,French in regular college language train

,ing,and that practi it Ily the only way studentsever get teat expos re is by living in Francewhere Colloquial French is naturally used ineveryday social interaction. Residence abroad,,therefore, seems to be especially valuable in provid;,ng, a unique opportunity for exposure to the

;,., ..,

infoirnal language. This is further corroboratedby A correfition of r = 0.608 (significant.at the. ,.0,001 level) between scores on the colloquial test

r .,

.. 4

91

and amount of time spent in Fr' ance, the onlyother significant correlation being with thenumber of courses taken from native speakers

= 0.475). Th-7e same correlations witheoresobtained oft the test of standard-, French wereonly r --7.0.2b4 and r = 0.216 ietpectively.) Therewas no significant correlation between test scoresand number of years of college French.

In order to find out which aspects of colloquialFrench presented greater comprehension prob-lems to American students, the 80 items of thetest were subdivided into subtests, each focusingon a particular linguistic aspect, and the scoresop the different subtests were compared. Subtest.R, which focused .only on phonological aspects,yielded the* highest percentage mean scare (x51.62). The next highest mean score (X, 49.07)was obtained on Subtest E,which, combined allaspects but presented them inthrcontekt of twoshort conversations. Subtest B, which focused onsyntactic aspects, yielded a mean score,of 42.70..Subtest C, containing only lexical and semanticaspects, yielded a still lower score (x 32.60). Thelowest score was obtained on Subtest .13, whichcombined all linguistic aspects of colloquialFrench (k,32:52)-. A similar comparison of therelative difficulty of the su.btests of the controltest (standard Frehch) showed very little difference from.one subtest to the next, therebyconfirming that the difficulty differential in thecolloquial test resided in the. content off' thesubtests rather Ehap in their format. These restiles show that comprehension was most seriouslyimpaired when all linguistic aspects of,c011oquialFrench were combined, as normally haPpens.inspontaneous speech. They also reveal that thesingle most difficult aspect of colloquial Frenchis its lexicon.

Another incidental finding wat a general lackof awareness of the relationship between speechstyles and social situations. One of the conversations used in the colloquial test took place between two bus drivers. That conversattion wasalso transposed into standard formal French forthe control test. The juxtaposition of a formalspeech style and The type of characters and Situation involved was immediately perceived as

highly comical by the native speakers who heard

These native speakers were all college educated andseveral were c2I1ege professors.

52 . THE.R k.SE M. BONIN

it, wffereas most American stuants failed tonotice this incprigruity.

it is evident from these data that Americanstudents and future -teachers have only a veryminimal undvstanding of colloquial French andawareness of the nature,-function, and range ofappropriateness of the various speech registers.It is equally evident that their college language

1 training fails to prepare them to, understandFrench as it is spoken by French people in thevery type of informal, spbntaneous interactionwhich students most want to share, which cultura] anthropologists identify as the most genuine expression or a culture and which most linguists equate with the "real," live language of thepeople.

,r

'., Resources and Strategies for Improving. Listening Comprehension of

Colloquial French

What can be done to remedy this situation?The solution" will involve several interrelitedsteps: 1) placing greater emphasis on listeningcomprehension; 2) including in the materialsused for listening comprehension practice a gen-erous amount of authentic colloquial French; 3)developing students' awareness of the role andsocio-cultural parameters of the various speechstyles; 4) helping,students to identify and in)terpret the significant features of colloquial FrenchAnd their relationship to traclitionarsyntax, andphonology; and 5) integrating these adttvitiesinto all levels and types of Krench language andculture study. -

The processes and the different steps involvedin listening comprehension /L based on the available _psycholinguistic info ation have beenanalyzed excellently by,. , ilga Rivers (1975).Most ,of her analysis appli4s to the cotpprehen-sion of colloquial French as well as of standardFrench. Quinn (1975).alSo addressed' the subjectand cautiously remind d us that we know verylittle about the actuaintental processes of speechperception, except that iit is an active process ofdecision, making which operates at the phonological, lexical, syntactic, and semantic levels.

' Such decisions. however, do pot proceed in alinear fashion from sounds to words to sentences,but are interrelated, ow( expectations, perceptions and decisions on any of these levels influencing the decisions we make en the other levels.

:-.--t./

It stould beuadded that pur decisions are basedon our prior knowledge and expectatVns con-"cerning not only the language itself bue also thesocio cultural context, the topic discussed, thepersorlities of the speakers, and the meaning ofparalinguistic cues (Rivers, 1975). This is of par-ticular relevance to, the comprehension of collo I.quial French, where sound sequences, word'order, and meaning often differ significantly fromstandard French, which forms the basis for stu ,dents' expectations and where their familiaritywith the socio- cultural context is limited.'In addition to stressing the active decision

making aspect .of listening comprehension,Rivers and. Quinn have emphasized.

1) the necessity of giving students ample,-f;practice in listening comprehension and o 4

providing them with what Quinn terms al.rich linguistic environment; . 3+,

-2) the importance of structuring the listening -

activity so 25.t0,' a), provide students withthe' prior knowledge, expectations, 'amotivation that will maximize comprehen-,sion, b) relate it to specific language or`non-language tasks which provide a goalfor the activkty as well as feedback to thestudent, and e) give studenis practice in,the identification and interpretation ofspecificlingt istie and non-linguistic cues; .

3) the importance of presenting them withauthentic spee\eh as soon as possible. Thisis important, n tonly because authenticspeech is the rea natural language whichwe ultimately wa our students to under-stand, bUt also he ause it differs Signifi-cantly from the con rived speech of peda-gogical materials. If students are familiaronly with formal or contrived speech, theirlinguistic expectations.. will be based ontheir knowledge of formal French and willbe of limited help when they are in the '

presence of authentic informal speeCh.

Authentic speech need not be exclusively informal or colloquial speech. It can indeed coverthe whole gamut of speech style's, 4s the examples presented by Rivers and Quinn sugyst,

from radio broadcasts to informal street ,Interviews. But authentic, speech implies irfformaland even colloquial sPeec.11; a one Jefers to thecasual interaction betwgen people lich prob

, .

,-4

f

ROLE OF COLLOQUIAL FRENCH IN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 93

ably constitutes the largest amount of verbal ex 1schange taking place in a given culture. There-fore, whether it is explicitly stated as in Rivers,or Implicitly as in Quinn, it must be inferred thatboth authors think that while it is important tocdver the whole range ofspeech.style4 a large_share oflistening comprehension practice shouldbe devoted to informal, colloquial French.

What kind of authentic infprm3l speech docu-ments can the average American teacher haveaccess to? Many of ,the fopnwing suggestionshave already been made b Rivers, Quinn, andother authors:

1) Record conversations with or betweenFrench visitors to your school or to yourcity.

2) Ask French schools or French correspon-dents to prepare tapes of free, unediteddisc ions on topics of common interest. ,

e recordings from short wive radios ofR nel discussions, interviews, and liveeporting in France and in Canada. If you

do not have the facilities available ydu mayrequest such materials from the 'FrenchCultural. Services or you may try writingdirectly to the, radio stations (see Nelsonand Wood's Radio in Foreign LanguageClais for more specific information).

4) The journal Le Francais dans- le mondehas several soft records of street interviewswhich cap easily be copied on tape.

5) Ask French teachers with whom you correspond to record radio pr television prograins for you and offers to.do the same forthem.

6) When you visit France, take a portabletape, recorder and record conversationsunobtrusively in the kind of setting or onthe type of subjects that are usually pre-sented in textbooks (shopping, reactions tocurrent events, discussing weekend proj-ects, eating out in a,restaurant, etc.).

7). Encourage your students to see Frenchfilms, especially Those where the languageisnot stilted and formal, and to record segmelts of the conversations for further in-depth work.

8) Invite several native speakers who knewone another well and ask their permissionto discreetly tape their conversation. They

3)

May' be, slightly intimidated at 'first andconsequently more formal but they willsoon relax and be natural.. You may alsoIntervene to direct the conversation towardthe topics that you know your studentswould be interested in.

9) Some commercially prepared materialsalready exist. Pimsleur's Le Pont sonoreacknowledges the differen* between themajor speech styles. familier (colloquial),

'standard, and soigne (formal), and it pro-vides listening activities that exemplifyt4pse differences. The section on collo-

. quial French is composed of short sen-tences that reflect the main phonetic,.,changes that occur in fast informal speech. .`However, it. does not take, atay account ofPalseItarts, hesitation pauses, and fill -inwords. It also limits itself to the-phoneticaspect of colloquial French, on the premisethat comprehension 'problems due to phonetic variations are most evident in collo,quial French. Phonetic difficulties, how-ever, are by no means the only type of dif-ficulty presented by colloquial French, norprobably the most important one, as thewriter's own research indicaeos.

There are also several detective storiesprepared and recorded by the British Broad-casting Corporation which -are available frontthe E.M.C. Corporation (Suivez 'la Piste,,Aerodra-me, Vient de paraitre, etc.). The record.ings are technically excellent and they use simple"French, especially in rerrs of syntax._ At the

"same time, they retain' the simplicity, colorful-ness, and authenticity of informal speech. Theyare also fun and interesting to listen to and theyillustrate many situations of everyday life, suchas helping someone use a public telephone, or-dering drinks in a' café, inquiring about a hotelroom, or discussing topics of current interest Theaccompanying textbooks provide complete tape'scripts, some vocabulary help, some 'patterndrills, and right or wrong comprehensipn checksIf teachers wish to stress listening cdrnprehen-sion, however, they may preief not to let studentsuse the books and to develop supplementary ma-terials of their own instead. For instance, at TheOhio State UniVersity we have prepared a 'self 'paced student manual Suitiez /a Piste (Bonin,

*1/4

3

:THERESE M:BONIN.

1974) which inc'udes, a) some information aboutthe setting and the protagonists for each episode,b) a more extensive vocabulary list than the oneprovided in the textbook, c) some doze pro-cedure listening activities: d) a self-check for theright or wrong questions recorded on tape, ande) a set of questions about each episode. In thisway, teachers may let students work completelyon their own, check their work periodically intheir workbooks, or use each episode and set ofquestions as a departure point for class discus-sion, skits, story completion, etc.

Materials such as those described above Can beused with equal success in different -types of.classes. In contersation cl.jsses they can provide apoint of departure for discussion by presenting

`as and attitudes that students can react to.Ideally, both to facilitate comprehension and tosensitize students to speech styles, the same topic.could be dealt with on several levels. For in-stance, one 'Could start with a formal editorial onthe death penalty, then listen to a radio paneldiscussion on the same topic, then to a recordingof street 'interviews or an informal 'discussionamong friends. In a culture and civilizationclass, they can serve as illustrations of the dif-ferences and similarities in cultural patterns.Students may also be asked what socto-culturalinfelehces they can make about the relationshipof the speakers. their mode of interaction, theircultural assumptions, their yalue system, andtheir reactions. In a pronunciation class, constant comparison should betma de between care-

" ful, formal dictioR and informal speech, and theresulting sound changes. so that students will,;become aware of .speech styles and. be able tdunderstand natural informal speech. fre.grarty.,mar classes, likewise, students should -be shownwhat happens to tractional syntax,'in ,casual:speech. Finally, these documents can even beused in a literature class, in the form of interviews with literary figures or actors, b'ut also inthe form of recordings of plays of Passages fromnovels,wh,gre the colloquial style is used.

irhe strategies that can be used to developlistenirig comprehension oGcolloquial French aremuch the same as those suggested for compre-hension of standard French. Many of the follow

. ing ha already been kaggested by various au-thors 'They can be subdivided into preparationto liste'ning and into post listening activities, all

---% 3

e ,,

of which tend to give students a efrpose fort"listening, help in processing the soond stream'and help in, focusing their attention on thy'rele-vant elements.

Prior to listening to the recording the teachermay want to do one on more of the Moping:

1) give an introduction 0 its theme;2) give a summary of its content;3) extract basic sentences to befilead and

analyzed before listening, to the Wholerass a ge

4) provide students with a list of colloquialvocabulary words and their -standardFrench equiv4lents;give students some wards in standardFrench and ask them if.hey can figure outfrom the context what their colloquialcounterparts are;

6) give students a standard French version ofthe 'conversation and ask them to indicate1) which words were used in place of 'cert.rain standard words, 2).which differericesthey noticed in the syntactic structure, and3) which differences they noticed in thesound sequences;

7) ask them to identify the cultural' diflferences that the conversation illustrates;

8) ask them to listen for specific information. focusing on the "who, where, when, and

how," on the relationship of the speakersor on,their feelings toward one another;

9)._give them, before listening, the list of ques-tions that they will be asked to answer'after-listening to the passage;

'10) give students all the necessary informationabout what is to be said in each repartie ofthe exchange, have them compose the dia-logue in standard French, then have themcompare it to the real, colloquial conVersa-tion.

5)

While they are listening, students may be, askedto;

1) fill in missing words in a written script;2) take dictation;3) ,give an approximate transcription of what

was said;4) rephrase each response in standvarcetrench

with the help of systematic questioningfrom the teacher and then analyze the dif--ferences.

ROLE OF COLLOQUIAL FRENCH kV LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION 95

After listening to the audio document, studentsmay be asked to:

1) write a suminarrin, standard French of themain points of the conversation;

2) answer right or wrong, multiple- choice orcontent questions relating-to the content ofthe passage;

3). identify the main ideas that were expressedand discuss their own feelings and reac-tionsto the points of view;

4) identify and discuss the cultural differences that they noticed;

5) analyze the dynamics of interaction beiweeD the speakers and discuss their ownreactions to the situation.

An important -outcome of such exposureshould not only be a better comprehension of informal spoken French but also an awareness ofthe nature, range of applicability, and significant,features of the various speech styles. The nexttwo sections will, therefore, attempt to define thesocio cultuYal parameters of colloquial. French.and to present its most salient linguistic features.

Definition and Socio-linguistic Functionof ColloqUial French ,

Colloquial French should not be confused withslang, although it may derive alarge-part of itslexicon from slang. Nor is it the language of thelower or uneducated classes. -Webster's dictionary defines colloquial as "pertaining to, or u,'Idin, conversation, especially familiar conversation, acceptable and correct in ordinary conver.sation," and Le Petit Robeit adds "qu'onemfloie naturellement, en tow milieux, dans laconversation courante "Thus, collojvial Frenchor le francais familier is simply,an informal useof the language,Which implies the .parity-.of the.social status of the speakers and the spontaneityof their speech. S.

The progress ive, disappearance of, any clearlyclassassociated type of French is largely due tothe generalized access, to education, the om-nipresence of the spoken language in the media,

.and.the breaking downtf social barriers betweenclasses. According to Guiraud (1969), ,C011oquialFrench is the result of the merging of two his-rorically distinct types of speech: tie info al."speech of the bourgeois classes and po ular

French as spoken by -the peuple (p. 24). Becauseof the numerical superiority of the working,classes, and Because the social recognition theygained also extended to their language, their ac-cess to the mainstream of French life had a

,greater impact on the , language. ColloquialFrench may, therefore, be viewed also as a sort ofpopular language which has been filtered andpurified by the linguistic habits acquiredthrough education.

The study of the evolution of the languageshows that most new forms have a poyular ori-gin. In the course of their ascent, many arediscarded but many alsohgain progressive accep-tance and finally become established as thenorm. What still appears somewhat colloquialtoday may well become seqndard tomorrow;thus, collocpal French is often referred to as lefrancais attanc( by linguists. In fact, accordingto Guiraud, not only is colloquial French widelyused by all social groups, but it may be lin-guistically more authentic and, therefore, moreenduring than formal French. Rather than con-forming to artificial rules imposed by gram-marians who tried to freeze the evolution of thelanguage three centuries ago, Colloquial Frenchbehaves according to the organic and historiCallaws of the evolution of Freneh and, therefore;represents a more advanced stage of its naturaldevelopment (p. 25).

Current spoken language encompasses threebasic niveaux de langue or speech registers. col-loquial f rench (francats famdler ou reld.che),standard French (frapcau standard ou courant)

, and foimal 'French (francats 'soigné ourecherche). Those .three levels constitute whatColette Stourdze (1969) terms le bon usage. Theway she views their function is illustrated by thefigure below.

Langue ciintemporaine

4

Languepopulaire

insti

.Langue

- Bon usage

Languecourante

Langite,soignee

pa rite

ctivc

tcrite

ebb

Langue .

litteraire

ore[

I

e.1

e.

. -

96 THARESE M. BONIN

This figurefigure also shOws that the spoken form, ingeneral, is .rnore influenced by popular and colloquial French, whereas thewritten-form is moreinfluenced by formal andliterary French. Theelision or maiiltenance of. the. ne part of thenegative is a,good illustrationpf thii dichotomy.In conversation, the elision of /Leis so commonthat one hardly notices it (e.g., J(e) crois pas),whereas,it is improper to,drop it when writing a

letter. Thus, the dictates of the boriusage aredifferent depending on the medium.

What is considered proper or acceptable notonly varies .according to the medium (Writingversus speaking), but also according to,the circumsittnces of the ac[ of communication. A native speaker of given language actually controlsseveral varieties of that language and intuitivelyknows when to use therh, depending on whatCrystal and Davy (1,969) have termed "situa.,tional variables" or "dimensions of situationalconstraints." Some of the situational, variablesthat determine the kind of speech style to be usedin a given act of oral communication are "dia-lect," "discourse," "province" apd "Status."'Dialect" refers to the kind of linguistic featuresthat reveal the geographical origin of the speaker(regional dialect) or his position on the socialscale (social dialect). "Discourse" refers to twokinds of variability. a) the difference betweenspeech and writing, and b) the difference between monologue and dialogue which resultsfrom the.nature of the participation in the Ianguage event. "Province "refers to he featuresthat can be correlated with the kind of occupa-tional or professional activity in whicli thespeakers are engaged. "Status" refers to thesystematic variations which, correspond to therelative social standing of the speakers. Factorsassociated with status are formality versus informality, respect or deference versus familiarityor rudeness, intimacy, kinship and hierarchicalrelations in general. Although there is no one toone correlation between a set of linguistic formsand a given situation, certain features tend to bemore frequent in one speech style than inanother and can, therefore, be regarded as "significa, nt features." -

Main Linguistic Aspects of Colloquial Frenchand Their Effect on -Listening Comprehension

Rather than presenting a thorough and systematic overview of the significant features of

(

colloquial Frenth, this section will identify themajor sources of interference with listening cornprehension. Some examples of the most, salientphenomena will be included as illustrations.

One of the reasons stated by Rivers (1975) andQuinn (1975) for using unedited spokenlanguage was its built in redundancy whichmakes comprehension easier, and the frequentpauses and fill in words which give the listenertime foi processing the -speech stream. Neitherauthor offers research 'data to support theirclaims, however, and the writer's oWn researchdid not provide information on that aspect of thecompr nsion of colloquial French, since theitems ve not broken up by hesitation pausesand rephrasing. The abundance of cues and thehelp they provide in understanding has been very ;convincingly demonstrated by Rivers, but it ipthe writer's conviction that the advantage gainedby such redundancy may well be lost unless th-elistener is also familiar with other aspects of colloquial French, such as those described below.

1) Ai a result of the relative degree of fa-miliarity: shared knowledge-and freedom to ex-press one's emotions in a spontaneous, uneditedform which .ate, implied by t(kie use of thi7-collbquial style,' there is a deterioration of the syntax and, correspondingly heavy reliance onsupra seginental feattires. In fact, it can be saidthat the importance of rhythm, speed and in.tonation are inversely proportional to the grammatic.*foliefence of the sentence, and directlyproportional to the emotional state of thespeaker` (Leon, 1968):,In,,colloquial speech, utterances will be de

liver&I in a staccato rhythm rather' than in aneven one. They will follow A highly inflected intonation contour. They ,wilf be broken up ty ex,clamations, laughter, and hesitation pauses aswell as by interruptions and non ,verbal cuesfrom the interlocutors. In this rapid crossfire ofverbal and non verbal exchange, where each utterance is often suspended in,midstream eitherbecause of an interOtion or because the background of shared knowledge makes it unneces

,to complete the thought, or because thespec er is groping for his 'ideas or venting hisemotions, the foreIgNistener may get lost veryeasily. He does not share the II:makers' pool ofcommon life experience, cultural allusions and'non verbal cues. Hardly has he started processing the elements of a sentence _when it is in,.)

ROLE,OF COLLOQUIAL FRENCH IN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

the syntax, intonation and rhythm assume functions that are normally performed by the syntax.For instance, in colloquial French, intonation,rather than word order, is commonly used to differentiate, questions from statements (e.g., Tuviens? Vous etes d'accord? C'est fait avec quoi?).Confirmation ,questions are asked by means of an'appended formula (e.g., C'est JA, hem?) or byuse of the negative (e.g., Vow trouvez pas quec'est une bonne idee?). Questions can also bereinforced by the use of expletive elements (e.g.,OU est-ce qu'il est?-0U est-ce qu'il estdonc?-0U diable est-ce est none ?).

IntonatiOn also assume a key role in the ar-ticulation of the discours . The relationship be-tween clauses is no lenger expressed by syntacticmeans (e.g., 11 n'esr pas venu parce (RAI etaitmalade, or Etant donne gull etait malade,a ete impossible de vent?), but by the juxtaposi-tion of ideas linked by the appropriate intona-tion-te.g., 11 n'est pas venu. Il etazt malade.).Occasianally, however, the speaker ma;r wish toemphasite the relationship between the differentelements, in this cast, emphatic firms will beused in place ofthe usual conjunctions (e.g., IIaugzilbien voulu venit, seulenjent vozla, it esttombe malade.).

Intonation, paired with an idiomatic use ofcertain constructions, can also convey a meaningwhich is substantially different from the stan-dard one For instance, "Qu'est-ce qu't(I) vatomber!" is not a question about what is going'to

I but an emphatic exclamation about theount of fain the speaker expects to See pour-

ing down any minute,. Likewise; ""Qu'est-cequ'on s(e)faire passer"is said in anticipationof the 'scolding the speakers expect to be sub-

. jetted to; ayd,"Qu:est-ce qu'i(11 fait beazi!".issiffiply the colloquial equivalent of the formalexpression "Comme it fait beau!"

As a result of th se syntactic features of col-..loquial French, the on-native has to pay closeattention to intOnatio as well as to word order.He has to mentally supply the missing functionwords or recognize their emphatic replacements,he has to` distingUish between words that carryfunctional meaning and those that simply conveythe mood of the speaker4 and he has to be awareof possible idiomatic, meanings.

3) Sentences do not always follow the wardorder that students have learned to expect fromtheir exposure to standard French. In colloquial

terrtipted.in the middle and he has to mentallyformulate its completion, based on his expectations, while trying to listen to the next utterance.At the same time,, the listener must retain temporan y its essential meaning in case the speakercomes back to it after a shore diversion,. as is

't often the case in colloquial speech which proiseed.444arts and rushes in different directionsrather than a steady flight to the gohl. He alsohas to fill in what he could not hear'becauseseveral people were speaking at the same time orbecause of surrounding noise. And, finally hehas to cdntend with an often faster tempo. In astudy condutted by Jacqueline Lindenfeld(1969). one of hertsubjec ad a rate,of speechof 1 minute arid 20 secondper 100 words in formalspeechfversus 1 minute per 400 words in col

'Ioquial speech, for sanother subject it was. 45seconds and 35 ,setonds.respectively. The dif-ference.. tiowever, is not so much in an overallgreater speed but:in tiltfact that groups of wordsare rushed together while others are allowed to

. trail off or t e_separated by lorigliesitation pausesor RI in words (often considerably contracted,for instance. bien.-. ben, mais alors malors,mail enfin-,-menfin, c'est a dire stadtre).

The ungrammaticality, brevity and choppiness of the sentence and-the high percentage ofmisfires or false starts as well as the reliance onshaiged'knowledge and on ihtonation td,00nveythe meaning can be illustrated by the followingutterance:

Tu sais euh . . oui, j(e) tai dit . . . euh . . .

(hesitation, caution) Ben oui. j(e) to . .

1Aenfinik t(e) souviens pas! (impatience) Eh hentes copains . iris) . i(Is) : . . oui, quels plaudsquand meme! hem! (disgust). 1(1s) sons pas venus.tes copains! Et les aut(res), [(I)s &went pas con.tents. j(e) fassure (annoyance, sarcasm).

Unless the student has been trained to discrithinate between meaningful and irrelevantcues or fill in words, he may well be confUsedand overwhelmed by the amount of data to piacess. One advantage of colloquial speech for theforeign listener, however, should be in'the abundance of affective cues. It may be hard tounderstand what was actually said, but it is

relatively easy to perceive excitement, anger,pleasure or even sarcasm in the intonation,gestures acid facial expressions of the speakers.

2) Due to the deficiency and deterioration of

A

97

10

k

98 THE.REIsE M. BONIN

French, the word order frequently reflects the offective priorities of the speaker. Depending onwhich concepts come first to his mind, emphasiscan be placed on the subject (e.g., Les copains,ils vont ire 'alder, Lui, it s'en fiche). on the directobject (e.g., Ce here, to l'as 1:4?):. on the verb(e.g.. Battus, on les a battus a plate couture!),on the attribilte of the subject (e.g. , Pas fin, lemec!), or on the adverb (e.g., Trop . . . , itmange trop), Any element of the message canalso be emphasized by the use of c'est (e.g.,C'est .moi qui volts le dit) or other emphaticdevices (e.g., Pour ce qui est de la -bagnole,j(e) m'en occuperal).

Another striking difference between colloquialand standard French is the deletion of the nepart of the negatiCe (e.g., je sail pas which isoften pronounced chepa).

4) Because of the elision of sounds and even ofcertain grammatical elemefitt, or because ofrushed or mumbled words and interferingnoises. the student is ofter; unable to'recognizewords or constructions that sheknOws.

Governed by a need for speed and facility, thephonology of informal Freripi iktharacterized

/ by acareless articulation of many sounds and theelision of some. This is particularly the case withthe mute "e," which is dropped whenever the resuiting articulatory difficulty is not too great(e.g. de n(e) to 1(e) dirai pas.).

The eliiion of the mute "e" also results in a) areduction of the number of syllables (e.g., j(0vous 1(e) dis 3vuldi , c(eka,(ne) s(e) volt passasvwapal,"b) an accumulation of consonantclusters (e.g.; 1(1) s'est r(e)pris / iserprif j(e) t(e)

dit Stledi.'), c) a greater frequency of consonnes gemindes (e.g., ca(e) sent ,' sassa,', Os)Joni d(e)dans , isodda."), and d) the assimilationOf the consonants ,thus brought together (e.g..3/ becomes /S,' in j(e) pense /Spas; .

Other sounds can also be dropped, such as the"u" of the pronoun to (e.g., t 'es pas venu?), the"I" of the pronoun it (e.g., i(1) s'est trompe, i(l)siraient ;"' i(I) y a ./ja./), and the "I" and the"r" especially when they kre at the end of a word(e.g., c'est un pauz(re) type, elle (n)a p(1)usrien et se mett(re) su(r) l(e) dos, 1(1) y a que(1)que chose su(r) la tab(le)).

' . As 4 result of these phonetic changes the wordboundaries become blurred and students havemore difficulty in segmenting the speech stream

o 4

into recognizable. eleinenti. Sincehas only rarely a phonetic value, Iresults 4 ,heavier concentratio

'tionaring sounds. Studenti' dsthorough knowledge of the phoand lexicon of the language thatthem to have the fight set of expefill in what they -did not hear orc

5) Semantic processing is alsopresence .of many unknown toturn, 'reduces the accuracy of

e mute "e"s elision alsoof informa

ally lack theology, syntaxwould enabletations and tod not perceive

paired by-thes and this, ine listener's ex-

pectations about phonology and yntax.. Whereas the morphology, syntax and phonol' .,

ogy of colloquial French can be derived from, ortrelated to, known forms, its exicon includes

many words that An natives hai 'e never encoun-tered before or which are used` with totally dif-ferent meanings. It is like hAving to learn awhole new set of terms, and orb this reason it

76ftemproves to be the single `mcIst difficult aspectof French for the foreign. stusietn!r (e.g., I/ (n)ypike .rien versus it ne compiend pas, on va seballader versus nou*S allons nous promener, c'estkif kif versus c'est la meme chose, passe mo: tondico xersus passe-mot ton clictionizaire).

To make matters worse, there is usually morethan one colloquial word.or expression that canbe used in place of one standard ward, and eachmay carry a different connotation or a differentdegree of intensity (e.g., je suis fauche, je suisfauche comme les bles, j'ai pas le ron.cl, fai .pasun radis, je suis a sat, etc., in place of je n'ai pasd'argent). Conversely, the same word can carry

, different meanings. For instance, the expletivedonc can indicatefriendly exhortation (e.g., t'en

fais done past . . ..). a pressing request (e.g., Netravaille donc pas lard!), irriialion (e.g., Taisezvow done), surprise or reprobation (e.g., Ehben dites doitc!): or it may simply serve-as an at- ,

tention catcher (e.g., Dis donc . . . , t(u) pourrais pas m(e) refiler une.seche?).

Taken separ'attly, each of those aspects of col-loquia) FrenCh would be enough to cOnstitute.aserious barrier to comprehension, but the problem is all the greater when they Occur together,as is freqUendY the case in unedited speech. Furtherniore, interference with acOtatteperceptionand successful processing on my level, be itphonological, syntactic or semantic, is li,liely toreduce the student's ability to,have accurate ex

9

ROLE OF COLLOQUIAL FRENCH IN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION

pectations and to make the fight decisimis- onany other level, if the hypothesis formulated byFodor, Bever and Garrett is true.

The speakerhearer's decisions about the.phonetic analysis of the input are sensitive, to hishypotheses about its lexical, syntactic and semanticanalyses. In fact. It ikplausible to suppose that deo-

: sons at ever) level of analysis are subject ,to feed-,back from decisions at higher levels as well as feedforward from decisions at lower levels '

Implications for SecondLanguage Instruction,

communicative competence is truly a goalof language teaching, serious attention should begiven to what such competence, implies. Truecommunicative competence, beyond the liasiclevel. includes awareness of the significantlingtilstic features of the main_ speech styles andof the social conditions that determine their appropriateness Although the rules are less -clear

cut and less binding than those of grammar,speech styles and their various components mustbe congruent with the situational variables, inthe same way that different elements of the syntax have to agree with one another. Failure toknow or to abide.by these rules is just as much ofa flaw in the subject's communicative cornpEtence as failure to observe grammatical rules.As Crystal and D4vy (1969) said, "A test of successful education is whether we can communicate, on a range of subjects. with people invarious walks of life, and gain their understand--ing as well as understand them, But to be in suchposition requires a sharpened consciousness ofthe form and functions of language. its place insociety, its power" (p- 4).

Before concluding that -colloquial French-should be.staught in language programs, however, one should looic again at the act of communication from' the perspective of the student.Given the generally accepted objective of acquiring true communicative competence, which typeof knowledge will'achieve the maximum output(i.e., being able to understand and to makeoneself understood) for the minimum input (i.e..number of words and structures to be learned)?Is it familiarity with colloqtiial French or withstandard formal French?

Oral communication inVolOes 'in active com-bination of listening and speaking. AS "lis.

99

teners," American studynts have littlecontrolover the kind of speech style used by natives.They have to understand French people as theydo speak, if they wish to understand them at all.

"It is true that they have the option of asking theirinterlocutor to speak more slOwly, to explainterm or even to rephrase what other people havesaid, but this implies an interference with thenatural act of communication-which is neitherpractical nor very desirable, since the purpose ofgoing abroad is precisely to hear the language,asnatives ?peak it spontaneously. Furthermore,even a-selfimposed linguistic censorship or thepart of thq natives so that the foreigner will notfeel left out, is going to distort the nature andauthenticity of what, is said, how it is-said and thevery dynamics of social interaction. Thus, as faras listening comprehension is concerned, thevisitor who wishes: to understand the kind ofFrench that is spoken in informal conversationwould greatly profit from considerable famili-arity with colloquial French.

As "speakers," however, the American stu-dents visiting France need to know the kind ofFrench that will enabje therrr to express them-selves most effectively, in the greatest number ofsituations, without unduly shocking or amusingtheir listeners, and without calling upon them-selves sonic undesirable labeling. It seems evi-

-dent that a student who has devoted much timeand energy acquiring an education would notespecially want to be "branded" as uneducated,.uncouth, or even rude.

A study conducted by Jacqueline Lindenfeld(1969) shows that there is a significant correla-tion between social class and syntactic variationin French and that it is posgible. to identify the,social class of an individual based on .his or herspeech. Lindenfeld limited her study tosyn tactitvariations as exemplified in the relative complex-ity of sentence structure used by educated upper-middle class individuals versus little-educatedworking class individuals. She found that whilethere was almost no difference between the twoclasses of subjects when they used informalspeech, the difference became very evident whenthb situational context called for a formal speechstyle. The colloquial speech style tends to level

- 1 r' The Psychology of Language, New Yolk: _McGraw1111,

1974. p 280.

12

100 THERE.SE M. BONIN ,

off socio economic differences, and in :that re

ofkcan be viewed as a more democratic form

of language. But it is through their difficultyspeaking in a more form al and careful way whenthe situation clid,require it, that the lower classspeakers Tevealed their socio economic and educational bacItground- In contrast, the more edu .

Gated speakers showed a much higher degree offlexibility, they could use a formal,.elaborate orelegant language when asked to address a largeaudience on a serious topic as well as a carefreeand colloquial language when the interchangewas casual in style and content. Their ability tocontrol and adapt their speech ,to the situationalexpectations made them better communicators.This is precisely what Crysta) and Davy have

_identified as the mark of a truly educatedspeaker. Thus the goal is more to become adiscriminate user of a whole range of speechstyles rather than having complete and exclusivefluency in one especially in one which may carrya social stigrna)f it is the only one the user has athis disposal pr if it is used in an incorrect context. 4..

The effective and proper use of colloquialFrench requires not only the khowledge of itsspecific linguistic features but also a sensitivity to

the socio cultural context and to the affectiveovertones of linguistic forms. Such awareness isdefinitely one of the goals language ,instyuctionshould strive for., and much can be done toachieve it in the classroom, but it will rerniin imperfectas long, as the student has not beensteeped ,in the foreign culture itself. It alsO implies a considerable mastery of the "standard"language, since colloquial language as well aspoetry at the other end of the spectrum arearestylistic valiations from the norm and can befully appreciated only in relation to that norm,theoretical though it may be, In terms of priori,ties, then, the norm or standard language shouldbe learned first,e;especially in the the develop-ment of speaking skills..Frnm this perspective,then, a ''middle of the road" languageetyle willcertainly be more acceptable in a greater varietyof circumstances than a highly stylized one, be itformal or colloquial. Por instance, it is muchsafer. to saylai ites biers mange than on a vache.ihent blot bpuffe, and it will he acceptable bothat a family-dinner'or a banquet and'in a student

0.a.

C

0

4 ,

,restaurnt. It may lack colorfulness, but it is,neither ostentatiously formal nor 'offensivelyfamiliar.

Students are always, eager to, learn slang expressions but they must be used with considerable discrimination in order to avoid cultutalfaux pas. Inoaddition, these expressions are ofteas ephemeral as they are colorful. AsLoriot points out in her review of Lekiskose by Robert Beauvais (1975), "notbecomes more quickly outdated than marginal .languages."' Not only do Oey differ according 70social and occupational groupings therebymaking the learning task much greater hgt aconstant interaction with the clIture is requiredin order to know what terms are "in." Whowould know, for instance, that the term for apretty girl was un cobs, for someone who isdepressed un superfhp parasio and for a bisexual

.un jazz tango unless tbey had just spent sometime among French studIts? Even native speakers quickly becothe out of touch with the latestslang inventions. Teaching French slang to ourstudents may be fun, but it is a, luxury thatshould be engaged in only sparingly and withgreat caution. It is simple common sense thatthey should learn frequently used terms beforehighly specialized ones, this is true of slang aswell as pf technical language. It is also dishonestand ultimately unkind to teach students evenrelatively innocuous words like bouffer, withoutspecifying the social contexts in which they canand cannot be used.

Another, argument in favor of teaching students to speak standard French first is that it hasa greater linguistic output, at least as far asphonology and syntax are concerned. For instance. given the standard formie ne.siiis pas, it,is,possible to derive the colloquial form chepasby applying' the proper set of transformationalmorpho syntactic rules, but the reverse is nottrue. .

Communication, however, involves listeningcomprehension just as much as speaking ability.In 'that respect, familiarity with, colloquial.Ftench will be essential if

justwish to .

tinderstand more than just formal lextures,

Le fiancofolle et le neocelintert, L'Express Juilret1975, pp, 14-20..;

9

I

9 ROLE OF C=OLLOQUIAL FRENCH IN LANGUAGE INSTRUCTION ,101

speeches. hro casts anythey forms of publicaddress which quire de ru d reful diction. Thus boat speech s be taught..Emphasis should be o french forbuilding up the speakin , a, feast at thebeginning and intermediate levels, and' n collaquial French as well as standard French forlistening comprehension. Materials for listeningcomprehension practice should reflect the variety_ of oral styles commonly found in contem-porary usage with priority given to thoseused inordinary social interaction.' 1; is not within ,theji'irisdiction of the language teacher to pass judg-ment on what is "good" or "bacr native Frenchusage, the question should be rather "I-low rep:resentative is it of the kind of language used inthose very situations that are most typical of theforeign. culture?" In order lo .make such judg-ments, teachers themselves need to have hadcoNiglerable exposure to the interplay of Ian-

age and culture in its native: setting. There.ore, it seems most important that teacher train-

ing should include residence.in the foreign coun-try where, they can observe and practice thelanguage in action.

It is therefore recommended that advancedlanguage studies include substantial training insociolinguistics and in the stylistic% of inter-personal communication as .they apply to thetarget language. Suchtra,ining should cover thecomplete range of contemporary usage, includingfntmal as well as colloqUial French,' and itshould, be clearly related to the study of theculture, ,because the cultural and situationalcontext govern their use. To provide this kind ofcontrastive analysis. the instruct-of could draw onany form of oral or written communicationfromliterature to impromptu streetinterviewsthat exemplifies the language styles commonly in

, use. Such study would be a useful tool not only tounderstand and participate in everyday convertsations, but it would :enable the students tounderstand better literarj, works where' thedynamics of interaction of the characters areoften conveyed by a clever and deliberate use ofthe whole range of speech styles. Familiarity withcolloquial French 'is almost a prerequisite tounderstanding modein novels, plays, and filmswhere colloquial French. is used to reflect the

social identity of the characters as well as the

author's intention not to -stand on ceremony.Familiarizing students with the significantphonological syntactic and lexical features of

'each speed!. register and their socio 'culturalparameters would give them, an oppoartunity tobecome truly educated speakeis, i.e., speakerswho are fluent and discriminating in theirknowledge and use of French.

REFERENCES

Beauvais. Robert, Le Francon -ktskose Paris: Fayard,' 1975

Blanc. Michel And Biggs. Patricia. "L'enquete soculinguntique sur le francais parte a Orleans Le Francaisdans le Monde LXXXV (Dec., 1971), pp 16 25.

Bonin, Therese M A Rationale for Including Colloquial`French as an Integral Part 'of French Language StuflresDoCtoral Dissertation. The Ohio State Univety. 1972.

Coste. D "Quel francais enseigner?" LeFretncats dans leMonde LXV (Juin-1969). pp. 12-18.

Creusot, Andre Un cours avance de francais Le Francaistel,qu'on le park Revue de phonetrque applrquee 17

j1971), pp 3 30Crystal. David and Daly, Derek. Investigatrng English Styles

London: Longmans. Green. and Co.. Ltd.. 1969.Dealt, Etienne and Deak, Simone. A Dictionary of Colarful

French Slanguage and Celloquialunts New York: E. P.Dutton and Co.. Inc., 1961

Doppagne, Albert Trois aspects du francais contemporain'Par,is: Larousse. 1966.

Frei, Henri La grammarre des fautes Paris: Geu(hner.1929,

Giraud. J . ll'a,itart, P.. and Riverain. J Les mots, dans le

Giiiraucl. Pier e.'""Francais populaire ou francais relache."vent Paris 1971.

Li'Francatifclans le Monde LXIX (Dec.. 1969). pp.23-27.

- s Le francais populaire Collection "Que Sais-je?"Paris Presses Universitaires de France. 1965.

Harmer, L C. "The Present State of French." FrenchStudres XXI (1967). pp. 90-91.

Lagane. Rene. "Elements expletifs dans,les phrases interrogatives et Imperatives Le Francais dans le Monde XX-,XV (Sept., 1965), pp. 27-28,

"Le francais commun, mythc ou realite?" LeFrancais dans le Monde LXIX (Dec , 1969). pp 6 11.

Ikon, Pierre "Apparition. maintien et chute du E caducLa tnguutrque (No. 2,1966). pp.it1-122.

Essats,de phonostylestrque, Paris. Didier, 1971."Aspects phonostylistiques des niveaux de

langue:' Le Francais ((am le Monde MI (Juin. 1968),pp. 08-72:

Lindenfeld. Jacqueline. "The Social Conditioning of Syn.tactic Vanations'in French."A menet:in Anthropologist,. 71(1969). pp. 890-898.

Martinet, A. Le francais sans lard Paris. Presses tinniersitaires defrance. 1969;

GUADALU1'E VALDES FALLIS

Quinn, T and Wheeler J ''Listening CoMprehension in theForeign Language Classroom CAL ERIC 'CLL Series

, on Language and Linguistics. No. 16 ED 104176.Ravers. Wilga A Practrcal-Guido to the Teaching of French,

New York: Oxford Universitq Presi, 1975.Sauvageot, Aurtlien' Frncars ecrit francars parle Parip

Librairie Lirousie, 1962N

r

'I

. Analyse du francan parte. Paris: Hachette. 1972.. Les Procedes Expre,,ssrfrqu Francars Contem-

lxrarn Paris: C. Klincksieck. 1957."Les divelsffancais parles." -Le Francars dans le'

Monde LX1X (Dec.. 1969). pp. 17 -22.Stourdze. Colette. "Les niyeaux de langue." Le Franca:5 darts

le Monde LXV(Juin. 1969). pp. 18-21.

J