<i>Les Normes de prononciation du français: une étude perceptive panfrancophone</i> . Par Marc Chalier <i>Les Normes de prononciation du français: une étude perceptive panfrancophone</i> . Par ChalierMarc. (Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie, 454.) Berlin: De Gruyter, 2021. xxix + 513 pp., ill.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Uniquely among the global languages, French is assumed to have a monocentric pronunciation norm, based on the usage of Paris. In the opening chapter of this volume, Marc Chalier challenges this perception and asks whether endogenous norms have emerged outside France. After setting out the normative background in Chapter 2 and presenting his methodology in Chapter 3, the author addresses this question by comparing Paris with two peripheral francophone zones (French-speaking Switzerland and Quebec) from three perspectives, examined in Chapters 4 to 6. The first of these (‘Représentations et attitudes’) reports questionnaire responses, from a representative non-specialist panel in each geographical area, to questions relating to perceptions of ‘correct’ French pronunciation. For Parisian informants, the norm is viewed in centre–periphery terms within France, with Paris, then Tours, and finally a general ‘Nord de la France’ seen as a model. Away from Paris, Canadian respondents showed greater acceptance of an endocentric norm than their Swiss counterparts. All three panels identified broadcast news presenters as representatives of the spoken norm, and it is to these that the author turns in Chapter 5 (‘Productions’). Twenty radio or television journalists in each site were asked to read aloud the stimulus text from the Phonologie du français contemporain project and a separate word list, their production then being subjected to phonetic analysis with respect to a number of locally variable vowel oppositions. Results from Paris presented rather a mixed picture. Here, traditional normative oppositions such as /a/–/α/, or /ε/–/e/ in open syllables were found to be better maintained in word-list style than in the reading passage, and in some cases appeared to be lexically conditioned, with /ε/–/e/ for example being more consistently realized for the pair épais–épée than for étaient–été. While the Swiss informants showed some adherence to local norms, there was considerable internal variability and evidence of a more general shift towards an exocentric français de référence. Much stronger support for an overt endocentric norm was evident in Quebec, where no fewer than eight of the nine identified local phonological features were found to be regularly produced by Radio Canada news reporters. In Chapter 6 (‘Perceptions’), non-specialist panels were asked to evaluate these recordings, focusing on the ‘correctness’ or otherwise of these same local features, and their suitability for news broadcasting or teaching of French to non-natives. For Paris, something of a disjunction emerged between representation of the norm and actual production: informants — particularly those with high levels of education — positively evaluated maintenance of traditional prescriptive oppositions which were not, in fact, consistently realized. Of the two peripheral francophone communities, Quebec again proved far more ready to embrace the local norm as ‘correct’. The author concludes that French is subject to a ‘tendance bicentrique’ (p. 445), favouring separate European and Canadian pronunciation norms. This volume is an impressive piece of research, and is written with admirable clarity. My one reservation is that its presentation mirrors rather too closely the doctoral thesis on which it is based. A more economical structure might have reduced the length of the volume by about a third, and lent sharper focus to its interesting and important findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».