This study aims to advance the understanding of sociolinguistic competence among near-

native speakers and to further knowledge about the acquisition of variable structures. We

conduct a quantitative analysis of variable future-time expression in informal conversations

between near-native and native speakers of French. In addition to examining linguistic

constraints that have been investigated in previous research, we build on prior work by

In the current study we aim to further knowledge about sociolinguistic competence

among additional language users (see The Douglas Fir Group, 2016, for use of the term

additional language). Sociolinguistic competence involves the ability to vary language

according to a range of linguistic and extra-linguistic (namely, social) factors. Variationist

approaches (Labov, 1972) have been used to examine this ability, with scholars in the field

of second language acquisition (SLA) concentrating on how additional language learners

acquire and use variable structures (i.e., linguistic phenomena that are not categorical for

native speakers [NSs]; cf. Geeslin and Long, 2014). Although this research has examined

in French. Our primary goals are to examine the linguistic and sociostylistic constraints that

condition NNSs’ use of future-time expression in French and to compare their variable use

to that of NSs with whom the NNSs have close relationships.

As a secondary goal we

briefly compare our results on future-time expression to findings from previous

investigations that have examined how the same group of NNSs uses other variable

structures (Donaldson, 2016, 2017). In so doing, we argue for the importance of multiple,

complementary investigations of a single group of participants for advancing knowledge of

sociolinguistic competence.

Sociolinguistic variation occurs when two or more forms or variants are used to

convey the same function or meaning and the use of these variants is conditioned by a

range of linguistic and extra-linguistic factors.

Such instances of variation have been the

object of study in variationist sociolinguistics, the approach we adopt. Typically, a

quantitative paradigm, variationist sociolinguistics not only documents the frequency with

which each variant occurs, but also offers probabilistic models that identify the linguistic

and extra-linguistic factors that predict the use of a given variant. These statistical models

suggests that each (sub)conscious choice among variants – such as elle va (she’s going)

probabilistic rankings at three different levels. Level 1 refers to extra-linguistic factors,

including, among others, gender of the learner (e.g., Mougeon, Nadasdi, & Rehner, 2010)

and interactional norms (e.g., Tarone, 2007), such as style and formality. Level 2 concerns

the linguistic factors that impact variation (e.g., adverbial specification for future-time

expression in French, Nadasdi, Mougeon, & Rehner, 2003), and Level 3 addresses time and

illustrates how the linguistic and social factors that govern variation change over time as

learners move along the developmental trajectory (e.g., Tarone & Liu, 1995). As pointed

out by Tarone (2007), the probabilistic nature of Preston’s (2000) model is consistent with

other usage-based models in SLA (see Ellis, 2012) and allows the researcher to conceive of

extra-linguistic and linguistic factors and time in a single, psycholinguistic model.

refers to “differences in the speech or writing of a person or group of people according to

the situation, the topic, the addressee(s), and the location. Stylistic variation can be

observed in the use of different speech sounds, different words or expressions, or different

sentence structures” (p. 567). Mougeon et al. (2010) describe a continuum of sociostylistic

markedness for variants with five main categories: marked informal variants, mildly

marked informal variants, neutral variants, formal variants, and hyper-formal variants (p. 9-

10). In general, some of the distinguishing characteristics are that formal variants

correspond to prescriptive language rules and are common in written or careful speech,

whereas informal variants diverge from standard language rules and are typical of casual

immersion learners overused formal variants and underused informal ones. The learners

produced some but not all neutral variants as well (p. 109). The conclusion that instructed

learners tend to overuse formal variants when compared to NSs is supported by other

studies (Regan, Howard, & Lemée, 2009; van Compernolle, 2015), and van Compernolle

has called this aspect of sociolinguistic competence “non-native pragmatic conservatism”

(p. 60).

Less research, however, has examined the role that the formality of variants plays in

the use of variable structures by non-native speakers who are not in an instructional setting.

Thus, we aim to continue this line of inquiry by studying a near-native population living in

whether the NNSs’ use is targetlike. This research draws on informal conversation data

of interrogative forms that NNSs and NSs used and compared their communicative

function and how they were used in sociostylistic terms. The results showed that the NNSs

converged toward NS use, both in terms of repertoire and use of formal and informal

variants. Donaldson (2017) also provided evidence of near-nativeness with variable

negation. The preverbal negative particle ne is frequently omitted in informal spoken

French. The results revealed no statistical difference between the NNSs' and NSs' rates of

ne deletion, and the NNSs were sensitive to all of the sociostylistic factors (e.g., topic

seriousness) and most of the linguistic factors (e.g., clause type) that conditioned NSs’ use.

It bears mentioning that for topic seriousness, a factor included in the present investigation

(see Data coding and analysis for further details), both participant groups increased their

at a higher rate than NSs (e.g., Mougeon et al., 2010; Regan et al., 2009), Donaldson

(2016) argued, on the basis of these results, that “this type of stylistic infelicity can be

overcome at the near-native level” (p. 496). We seek to ascertain whether this participant

group exhibits near-nativeness with another variable structure – future-time expression.

Future-time expression refers to verb forms that express a temporal reference

posterior to the moment of speaking. The inflectional future (IF), periphrastic future (PF),

‘you don’t know what time you are going to finish everything?’

Futurate present: je termine à dix heures et demie (NS 5)

‘I finish at 10:30’

Future-time expression in French constitutes an example of morphosyntactic

variation conditioned by various linguistic and extra-linguistic factors (Poplack & Turpin,

1999). In this section we offer a brief overview of sociolinguistic research on future-time

expression in French among NSs, followed by a discussion of studies on non-native

speakers.

independent variables that have been studied in previous research and then focus on the

with a detailed presentation of the research examining Hexagonal French, the variety

represented in our data.

Numerous factors have been examined in variationist studies on future-time

expression in different varieties of French. Extra-linguistic factors include education level,

age, and gender, and well-studied linguistic factors include temporal distance,

(un)certainty, adverbial specification, sentential polarity, and grammatical person. These

various linguistic factors have been taken both from descriptions of future-time expression

in grammars and from the literature on future-time expression (see Poplack & Dion, 2009).

Temporal distance refers to the distance between the time of speaking and future-time

event. (Un)certainty deals with how certain the speaker is that the future-event will occur.

Concerning the construct of sociostylistic variation and formality, two empirical

observations have provided evidence that IF is the formal variant in variable future-time

expression. First, by investigating the linguistic factor of grammatical person of the subject,

research has shown a connection between the IF and the formal second-person pronoun

vous (e.g., Poplack & Turpin, 1999, for Canadian French, and Roberts, 2012, for

Hexagonal French). Second, Blondeau and Labeau (2016) analyzed formal, prepared

language used in oral televised weather forecasts and found that both French and

Québécois weathercasters used the IF more often than the PF, a finding that contrasts with

results from examinations of interview data for these varieties, in which the PF was the

examined oral interviews collected in the 1980s in the north and south of France. He found

that, as a group, these NSs used the PF more often than the IF and that sentential polarity

was the sole predictive factor. These NSs favoured the PF in affirmative contexts and the

IF in negative contexts. Villeneuve and Comeau (2016) investigated NSs from Vimeu, in

northern France. Their analysis of interview data indicated that, like in Roberts (2012),

participants used the PF more frequently than the IF. The factors predicting use, however,

differed from Roberts’ study. The linguistic factor that conditioned future-time expression

was temporal distance, where proximal contexts favoured the PF and distal contexts

favoured the IF. Education level was the only social factor that impacted use. Participants

French come from several types of data (e.g., interviews, written contextualized tasks) and

participant groups, though previous studies have generally focused on instructed learners in

various learning contexts (e.g., Ayoun, 2014; Howard, 2012a; Moses, 2002). Four insights

emerge from this body of work.

future-time contexts, classroom learners use the IF at higher rates than the PF (e.g.,

Howard, 2012a, 2012b; Moses, 2002), possibly because of the tendency to overuse formal

variants. Immersion experiences, however, lead to lower rates of the formal variant and

higher rates of the neutral variant PF (e.g., Howard, 2012b; Mougeon et al., 2010, see

Regan et al., 2009, for an exception). Second, several previous investigations have

the presence of a temporal adverbial favoured the occurrence of the futurate present among

Canadian immersion students (Mougeon et al., 2010; Nadasdi et al., 2003), Irish study-

abroad learners (Regan et al., 2009), adult Anglo-Montrealers (Blondeau et al., 2014),

Level 3 study-abroad learners (Edmonds & Gudmestad, 2015), and study-abroad learners

with high proficiency (Gudmestad & Edmonds, 2016). However, this effect was not found

for all study-abroad and foreign-language classroom learners reported on by Edmonds and

Gudmestad (2015) and Gudmestad and Edmonds (2016). Third, with the exception of

Anglo-Montrealers (Blondeau et al., 2014), no study has shown evidence of learners

becoming fully targetlike with future-time expression. Finally, two investigations have

topics and the PF and futurate present with informal topics. This observation suggests that

non-native speakers can develop sensitivity to sociostylistic constraints of variable future-

time expression in French. We aim to build on this existing research by investigating how

another participant population – NNSs – uses variable future-time expression.

Our two research questions are formulated with the objectives of contributing new

knowledge on variable future-time expression among NNSs:

This dataset consists of 10 unguided conversations between a NNS and a NS of

French. The conversations, which lasted between 45 and 58 minutes, were recorded in an

informal setting without the presence of a researcher. The participants spoke about any

topic(s) of their choosing. The conversation partners knew each other well (e.g., spouses,

friends), which aided in eliciting informal speech (cf. Donaldson, 2017). The data were

collected mostly in southwest France, though one conversation was collected in Paris. We

argue that this NS group is particularly well-suited as a comparison group because the

group is accommodating to the other.

The ten NNSs, whose first language was English, ranged in age from 26 to 70 years

(M = 44.2). Eight were women and two were men. All were university educated. They

began studying French between the age of 10 and 21 years (M = 13) and had been living in

France for an average of 18 years and seven months (range in years;months: 4;3–47;3).

All

NNSs interacted daily with NSs. The ten NSs of Hexagonal French ranged in age from 31

to 65 years (M = 49.5). Seven were women and three were men.

All had earned the French

baccalauréat (roughly equivalent to a secondary school diploma), and nine of the ten were

university educated. They were dominant in French but had varying degrees of experience

range of linguistic phenomena (Donaldson, 2016, 2017, inter alia).

All datasets present strengths and limitations. One advantage of this dataset is that it

allows us to contribute knowledge about near-native sociolinguistic competence (cf.

Geeslin & Long, 2014). It also enables us to extend additional language variationist

research on future-time expression to another type of data – informal conversations.

Finally, we feel confident that the sample is representative of the speakers' informal spoken

French, because their interlocutor is someone they know well. However, given the

restricted number of total speakers and the design of the corpus, certain extralinguistic

characteristics, including speaker age, gender, and regional provenance,

!cannot be

extensive work by Armstrong and Pooley (2010) shows evidence of leveling of regional

use for the NNSs. We leave these issues to future research.

After the third author and a NS of French had transcribed the conversations, we

coded the transcripts for future-time contexts. We operationalized a future-time context as

any conjugated verb with a temporal reference subsequent to the moment of speaking (cf.

Blondeau et al., 2014). We used contextual information, such as shared knowledge, subject

matter, and temporal expressions to establish futurity. This definition means that the

presence of the PF or IF did not necessarily constitute a future-time context because these

After identifying future-time contexts, we coded each case for the dependent

variable and five independent variables. The verb form used in a future-time context was

the dependent variable. We focused on three of the most frequent forms identified in

Edmonds, Gudmestad, and Donaldson (2017): PF, PI, and IF. The IF warranted special

coding considerations because of homophony in the verb system in Hexagonal French.

First, the first-person singular forms of the conditional (je verrais [I would see]) and the IF

(je verrai [I will see]) tend to be homophonous in informal Hexagonal speech. These forms

maintain a spelling difference in the final morpheme, which reflects the fact that in the past

there was a phonetic difference. Although the phonetic distinction can still occur in

morphology that marks them as an indicative or subjunctive form (e.g., tu viens

versus

[you come]), most present forms are homophonous in the indicative and

subjunctive (e.g., j’étudie [I study] in both moods). In addition to this homophony, there is

also evidence of variation in the use of verbal moods in subordinate clauses (e.g.,

Gudmestad & Edmonds, 2015; Poplack, Lealess, & Dion, 2013). Because of these two

characteristics of present forms, which result in some ambiguity in the mood of many

present forms, we distinguished among three forms in dependent clauses: PI, present

subjunctive, and present ambiguous. Given that there is no evidence of mood variation in

independent clauses, we differentiated between two forms: PI and present ambiguous.

at one point in time, we do not consider Level 3 (time) of the model. The independent

temporal indicator (LTI).

verbal negator (negative and positive sentences, respectively). (Un)certainty reflected

whether the future-time context was accompanied by an overt expression of (un)certainty

in the same clause as the verb or the immediately previous clause. The categories were: the

presence of a certainty marker (e.g., certainement [certainly]), the presence of an

uncertainty marker (e.g., je sais pas [I don’t know]), and the absence of a marker.

temporal distance we identified the distance between the future event and the moment of

speaking. The five categories were: greater than one month, less than one month, less than

one week, today, and ambiguous. The final linguistic factor, LTI, investigated temporal

markers signifying futurity that occurred in the same clause as its corresponding verb

in French, we examined it because we felt that it was the most appropriate way to explore

formality in the current dataset. This issue has most often been investigated in future-time-

reference research with respect to the verb form favoured with the formal vous, but this

pronoun is rare in our dataset. We considered the concept of style, as operationalized by

Regan et al. (2009) but chose instead the concept of topic seriousness, which was explored

in Donaldson’s (2017) study of negation in these data. This decision has the important

advantage of allowing us to compare findings for the same factor across studies involving

the same participant group. More specifically, serious topics (within an otherwise informal

register) have been linked with greater use of the formal variant of variable negation in

education, the discipline of children, meetings, one’s profession, and the legal system. All

other topics were coded as non-serious. A final extra-linguistic factor was participant

group; we conducted separate analyses for the NNSs and NSs.

We began the analysis with a cross-tabulation to determine the frequency of use of

the PF, PI, and IF in future-time contexts. Next, using the statistical software R, we

generated a multinomial logistic regression to identify the independent linguistic variables

that conditioned the use of the verb forms under investigation.

the PF, PI, and IF in a single model, and, to our knowledge, the current study is the first to

apply this type of statistical analysis to production data for variable future-time expression

Then a model comparison was completed through an ANOVA, resulting in the final model

formality of the variants. As mentioned in the Background section, sociolinguistic research

has classified different variants on the basis of their level of formality (e.g., Mougeon et al.,

2010) and variationist research has suggested that this feature plays a role in additional

language development. In particular, instructed learners tend to use formal variants at

higher rates than informal or neutral variants (e.g., Howard, 2012a; Kanwit, Geeslin, &

Fafulas, 2015; Mougeon et al., 2010), showing evidence of non-native pragmatic

conservatism (van Compernolle, 2015). Moreover, Kanwit et al. (2015), in their study of

three variable morphosyntactic structures among study-abroad learners in Mexico and

Spain, hypothesized that the level of consciousness with regard to whether variants carry

stigma or prestige among NSs likely impacts the input learners receive, which in turn could

of perceived formality of different variable features in Hexagonal French).

Concerning the variable structures at hand, each has a formal variant: ne retention

(negation), interrogative inversion (interrogative forms), and the IF (future-time

expression) (Armstrong, 2001; Mougeon et al., 2010). Despite this similarity, research on

the NNSs under investigation reveals differing outcomes with regard to targetlike use for

these forms and the variable structures as a whole. It will be recalled that these NNSs

appeared to be more targetlike with negation and interrogative forms than the future-time

expression. One possible hypothesis for the varying outcomes with these three variable

structures may have to do with the relative degree of formality of the variants. For instance,

structure whose variants diverge notably in terms of formality (such as negation and

interrogatives) than for a variable structure whose variants show less divergence (i.e.,

future-time expression). In other words, consequences associated with non-nativelike use

of variable structures may vary from one structure to the next. This may be because the use

of a less formal variant (such as the PF or PI) in formal contexts may be less stigmatized

than the use of informal variants for the other two variable structures (cf. Kanwit et al.,

2015). Another possibility is that these three formal variants may be similar in their level of

formality, but that IF is a less salient indicator of formality than ne retention and

interrogative inversion, so NNSs could be less aware of this sociostylistic feature (see

on negation and interrogatives, we were able to make a new observation about this group of

sociostylistic constraints, they appeared to be less nativelike with future-time expression

than the other variable structures under investigation. We believe that this observation is

valuable, and we also hope to have shown that multiple, complementary analyses of the

same dataset offer great potential for furthering knowledge about near-native

sociolinguistic competence. While our preliminary reflection on the level of formality of

variants is not a generalizable conclusion, it is a hypothesis that emerged from multifaceted

analyses of a single dataset. Finally, we wish to stress that, although we have focused on

formality, complementary analyses have the potential to be beneficial for furthering

knowledge of other explanatory factors at play in the development of sociolinguistic

competence.

additional language French by conducting a variationist analysis of the use of the IF, PF,

and PI to express futurity in informal conversations between NNSs and NSs. The findings

for the NNSs revealed both nativelike and non-native like patterns of use in terms of the

frequency of occurrence of the forms and the constraints that condition their use. We also

investigated a new sociostylistic factor in the investigation of future-time reference in

French – topic seriousness – and found that it conditioned use for NNSs and NSs.

Moreover, by comparing the current study’s findings to those of other examinations of

variation from the same dataset (Donaldson, 2016, 2017), we have offered important

contributions to SLA. The present investigation, in conjunction with Donaldson (2016,

Correspondence should be addressed to Aarnes Gudmestad.

near-native in a way which is consistent with how other scholars have used this term (e.g.,

1987).

target language since birth and who have had varying degrees of exposure to additional

languages.

examine in the current study. Since the focus of this previous investigation was on the role

of the present indicative in future-time contexts, we do not discuss it here.

Moses, 2002, for exceptions). Although there is work on different data types, the results do

not show a clear divergence by task type.

reflect women’s speech. Whether there are gender differences for future-time reference and

this population is left to future research.

fact that vous was very infrequent in the dataset, we did not include grammatical person in

the analysis.

LTI that goes beyond the clause level.

Although some researchers have called this factor adverbial specification, we use the

term LTI in order to make the distinction between morphological marking of futurity on

verbs and other (mostly lexical) marking of futurity. LTI includes the latter only. Our use

of LTI is also consistent with our previous work on this dataset (Edmonds et al., 2017 and

Gudmestad et al., 2018).

including participant as a random effect. These models revealed similar results to those found

with the two multinomial models.

The NNSs used 34 certainty markers, 19 uncertainty markers, and 292 cases without an

(un)certainty marker. The NSs produced 24 certainty markers, 11 uncertainty markers, and

See Mougeon et al. (2010), Howard (2012a), and Kanwit et al. (2015) for other research

that has investigated multiple variable structures with the same participant pool.

French. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230281714_1

Ayoun, D. (2014). The acquisition of future temporality by L2 French learners. Journal of

French Language Studies, 24, 181-202. doi: 10.1017/s0959269513000185

Bartning, I., Forsberg, F., & Hancock, V. (2009). Resources and obstacles in very advanced

L2 French: Formulaic language, information structure and morphosyntax. Eurosla

Yearbook, 9, 185-211. doi: doi.org/10.1075/eurosla.9.10bar

Billiez, J., & Buson, L. (2013). Perspectives diglossique et variationnelle –

Complémentarité ou incompatibilité? Quelques éclairages sociolinguistiques.

Journal of French Language Studies, 23(1), 135-149. doi:10.1017/

S0959269512000397

Birdsong, D. (1992). Ultimate attainment in second language acquisition. Language, 68,

Birdsong, D., & Molis, M. (2001). On the evidence for maturational constraints in second

Blondeau, H., Dion, N., & Ziliak Michel, Z. (2014). Future temporal reference in the

météo en France et au Québec : regard variationniste sur l’oral préparé. Canadian

formal perspectives on variation in Acadian French. Doctoral dissertation, York

Coppieters, R. (1987). Competence differences between native and near-native speakers.

Language, 63, 544-573. doi: 10.2307/415005

Donaldson, B. (2016). Aspects of interrogative use in near-native French: Form, function,

10.1075/lab.14024.don

competence. Language Learning, 67, 141-170. doi: 10.1111/lang.12201 !!

The Douglas Fir Group. (2016). A transdisciplinary framework for SLA in a multilingual

word. The Modern Language Journal, 100(Supplement 2016), 19-47. doi:

10.1111/modl.12301

Edmonds, A., & Gudmestad, A. (2015). What the present can tell us about the future: A

variationist analysis of future-time expression in native and non-native French.

Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 6(1), 15-41. doi:10.1075/lia.6.1.01edm

Edmonds, A., Gudmestad, A., & Donaldson, B. (2017). A concept-oriented analysis of

future-time reference in native and near-native Hexagonal French. Journal of

French Language Studies, 27(3), 381-404. doi:10.1017/s0959269516000259

French. Journal of French Language Studies, 17, 249–275. doi:

10.1017/s0959269507002992

Gass, S. M., Spinner, P., & Behney, J. (Eds.) (2018). Salience in second language

acquisition. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781315399027

Geeslin, K., & Long, A. Y. (2014). Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition:

Learning to use language in context. London: Routledge. doi:

10.4324/9780203117835

Granger, S. (2009). The contribution of learner corpora to second language acquisition and

foreign language teaching: A critical evaluation. In K. Aijmer (Ed.), Corpora and

comparison of learners in a study-abroad and a foreign-language context. Canadian

Journal of Linguistics, 61, 259-285. doi: 10.1353/cjl.2016.0024

Gudmestad, A., Edmonds, A., Donaldson, B., & Carmichael, K. (2018). On the role of the

present indicative in variable future-time reference in Hexagonal French. Canadian

Journal of Linguistics, 63, 42-69. doi: 10.1017/cnj.2017.41

Hansen, A. B. (2016). French in Paris (Ile-de-France): A speaker from the 14th

arrondissement. In S. Detey, J. Durand, B. Lake, & C. Lyche (Eds.), Varieties of

spoken French (pp. 123-136). New York: Oxford University Press. doi:

10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199573714.003.0009

Cahiers Chronos, 24, 201-223. doi: 10.1163/9789401207188_011

structures: A look at the present perfect, the copula contrast, and the present

progressive in Mexico and Spain. Probus, 27(2), 307-348. doi: 10.1515/probus-

2015-0004

Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third Edition.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mitchell, R., Tracy-Ventura, N., & McManus, K. (2017). Anglophone students abroad:

Identity, social relationships, and language learning. London: Routledge. doi:

10.4324/9781315194851

Moses, J. (2002). The development of future expression in English-speaking learners of

Mougeon, F., & Rehner, K. (2015). Engagement portraits and (socio)linguistic

Nadasdi, T., Mougeon, R., & Rehner, K. (2003). Emploi du ‘futur’ dans le français parlé

des élèves d’immersion française. Journal of French Language Studies, 13, 195-

219. doi: 10.1017/s0959269503001108

Poplack, S., & Dion, N. (2009). Prescription vs. praxis: The evolution of future temporal

reference in French. Language, 85, 557-587. doi: 10.1353/lan.0.0149

Poplack, S., & St-Amand, A. (2007). A real-time window on 19th-century vernacular

French: The Récits du français québécois d’autrefois. Language in Society, 36,

707–734. doi: 10.1017/s0047404507070662

Poplack, S., Lealess, A. and Dion, N. (2013). The evolving grammar of the French

subjunctive. Probus, 25, 139-195. doi: 10.1515/probus-2013-000

Poplack, S., & Turpin, D. (1999). Does the futur have a future in (Canadian) French?

Regan, V., Howard, M., & Lemée, I. (2009). The acquisition of sociolinguistic competence

in a study abroad context. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. doi:

10.1111/j.1467-9841.2010.00447_7.x

Richards, J. C., & Schmidt, R. (2010). Longman dictionary of language teaching and

applied linguistics. 4

ed. Harlow, England: Longman. doi:

10.4324/9781315833835

Roberts, N. S. (2012). Future temporal reference in Hexagonal French. University of

Roberts, N. S. (2016). The future of Martinique French: The role of random effects on the

variable expression of futurity. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 61(3), 286-313.

doi: 10.1017/cnj.2016.29

Montréal. Le français moderne, 45, 243–254.

Sax, K. J. (2003). Acquisition of stylistic variation in American learners of French.

Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Tagliamonte, S. A. (2012). Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation,

interpretation. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.006

Tarone, E. (2007). Sociolinguistic approaches to second language acquisition research –

1997-2007. Modern Language Journal, 91, 837-848. doi: 10.1111/j.0026-

7902.2007.00672.x

Tarone, E., & Liu, G. Q. (1995). Situational context, variation and second-language

acquisition theory. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in

25, 45–64. doi:10.1017/s0959269513000471

Villeneuve, A., & Comeau, P. (2016). Breaking down temporal distance in a Continental

French variety: Future temporal reference in Vimeu. Canadian Journal of

Linguistics, 61(3), 314-336. doi: 10.1017/cnj.2016.30

Wagner, S. E., & Sankoff, G. (2011). Age-grading in the Montreal French inflected future.

Language Variation and Change, 23, 275-131. doi: 10.1017/s0954394511000111