PTLC2005 Gladys Saunders On the teaching and learning of French semivowels: principles, practices and
unpredictable problems: 1
On the Teaching and Learning of French Semivowels:
Principles, Practices and unpredictable problems
Gladys E. Saunders
University of Virginia
Introducing the problem
The three French semivowels [j w ɥ], distinctive in the words miette (crumb), mouette
(sea gull), muette (mute), respectively, present interesting problems and challenges to
American learners of French. Of especial concern is a problem not predicted by
contrastive analysis studies, and hence not mentioned in French phonetics textbooks,
namely, the reasons behind the systematic replacement of [u] by [w] in words such as
mouille [muj] ‘wet’. A misunderstanding and/or misapplication of orthographic rules and
incorrect guessing are likely causes of the problem. Additionally, faulty prior input (e.g.
previous language training, badly written textbooks and instructional materials), and
imperfect learning may be contributing factors. Interference from the students’ first
language does not appear to be an issue.
Phonetic properties of French semivowels
The articulator properties of French semivowels are rather straight forward: [w] and [Ч]
are both bilabial – the former has added constriction in the dorso-velar area, while the
latter has added constriction in the palatal area; [j] alone is non-labial, but anterior, like
[ɥ], and with constriction also in the palatal region. Aperture is not a relevant parameter
for the three semivowels. Strake's research [1977:146-149] has shown that the degree
of aperture is variable, and can be greater or lesser than that of the high vowels. Though
some textbooks argue the contrary (cf. Dancewear 1990:155, Dominic 2002:73),
aperture cannot be viewed as a pertinent criterion for distinguishing semivowels and
high vowels.
If there is general agreement on the parameters used to characterize the place of
articulation of these three sounds, there is less agreement on how best to categorize the
manner in which they are articulated (configuration of the air passage, amount of
constriction, articulator energy involved in their production, etc.), and thus how
“consonantal” in nature they are (very close to voiced fricatives, for example, or far more
removed from this class of sounds?). Regardless, semivowels can never appear as the
nucleus of a syllable; they can only occur on the periphery, and must always be
accompanied by a vowel. Hence, like consonants, semivowels are non-syllabic in
French (another reason to classify them as consonants), whereas vowels are, of course,
syllabic.
It is unwise to link French semivowels to diphthongs when teaching French
pronunciation to American students. Of course, diachronically, on may speak of
diphthongs in French-- many of the occurrences of [j w ɥ] today do indeed reflect a
development that began as a diphthong---but one can no more analyze the [j] in [pje]
pieds (feet) as the non-syllabic part of a diphthong than one can analyze the [ʀ] in [pʀe]
PTLC2005 Gladys Saunders On the teaching and learning of French semivowels: principles, practices and
unpredictable problems: 2
pré (meadow) as the non-syllabic element of a diphthong. Synchronically, the [j] and the
[ʀ] play an identical role in the syllable structure—that of the second element of a
prevocalic consonant onset Also, because Americans tend to diphthongize all tense
vowels when they speak French, it is especially important to steer clear of the notion of
diphthongs when teaching the semivowels.
Other characteristics of [j w ɥ], such as their orthographic representation and distribution
are less straightforward. Not only are the facts themselves complicated, but equally
complicated are the pedagogical descriptions found in French phonetics textbooks,
written by authors whose very purpose it is to simplify the material and make it more
accessible to students. Paradoxically, the semivowel that has the least complicated
orthographic representation, namely [ɥ]), is the one that American students find the most
difficult to pronounce and “hear”; while the easiest for them to pronounce, [j] and [w],
have very complicated sound/symbol relations (reflecting the elaborate phonological
history of the two sounds -- see Saunders (forthcoming) for a more in-depth analysis of
French semivowels, including their diachronic manifestations). One must not assume
that [ɥ] is an infrequently occurring sound. This is certainly not the case (see Malecot
1974). Indeed, [ɥ] is found in many frequently occurring words, eg. juin (June), huit
(eight) suivant (following), lui (him), muette (mute), Suédoise (Swedish), sueur (sweat).
Identifying the problem area
Students enrolled in a French phonetics course during the spring semester of 2005 were
asked to pronounce and transcribe a list of twenty-five words, some of which contained
semivowels. The exercise was given twice: the first time, as a sort of diagnostic tool (and
to determine whether the errors were consistent with those of past groups); the second
time, as a measure of progress. A two-week interval lapsed between sessions, during
which students read the section on semivowels in their textbook and received formal
instruction in class. They also worked on oral pronunciation exercises in the language
laboratory. For neither session were students asked to prepare or study anything in
advance. A total of forty-three students (two classes) were thus tested. The answer
sheets were corrected after the first session and returned to the students (photocopies of
the papers were placed on file). An analysis was made of errors involving semivowels.
Tables 1-3 show some of the results. Only errors appearing during the second trial
appear in the inventory—when semivowels were assumed to have been mastered by
the students.
General comments
While the systematic replacement of [ɥ] by [w] (cf. “Suédoise” [sɥedwaz] *[swedwaz], in
Table 4) and the frequent replacement of [j w ɥ by a corresponding high vowel (e.g.
premier *[pʀɵmje] *[pʀɵmi-e] ~ *[pʀəmije]; Rouen [ʀwã], *[ʀu-ã]; fluide [flɥid] *[flyid] ) by some students were to be expected, the complete restructuring of syllables in
words of the type CVSV (where c= consonant; v= vowel and s=semivowel), with a shift
in vowel nucleus and a concomitant gain or loss in number of member elements), e.g.
[mu jyʀ] [mwi jyʀ] (table 1), was completely unexpected—unexpected in the sense that
nowhere in the literature (French phonetic textbooks or applied linguistics articles written
with students in mind) has this particular error been mentioned. Nor has the problem
PTLC2005 Gladys Saunders On the teaching and learning of French semivowels: principles, practices and
unpredictable problems: 3
been identified by contrastive analysis studies of French and English as an area of
possible interference, an area where the French instructor can expect problems. Such
studies, or the principles on which they are based, typically serve as the foundation for
most textbook-treatments of French pronunciation. Hagiwara (1982) is the most
thorough in this regard (each sound presented is accompanied by potential problems for
American learners) and even he does not include the problem in his list.
The tables
The errors shown in Table 1 are all the more interesting in that they occur to some
degree every time the phonetics course is taught. The number of students making the
error may vary, and the frequency with which it appears may vary, but the error-type
itself seems to remain constant. And sadly, for many students, the mistake is already
fossilized by the time they reach the phonetics course. Even after much oral drilling,
many transcription exercises and extensive explanations, some students will lapse back
into their old (pre-phonetics) habits. For other students, however, intensive drilling and
transcription exercises work well; their corrections will be more permanent and they will
have no further problems in selecting the correct semivowel.
Words are grouped according to their orthographic representation in the tables (and in
almost every instance, it is precisely the phonetic/orthographic correspondence that is
the ultimate source of the problem). All words in Table 1 (1) end in <-ille(s)>,
pronounced [j]. Immediately preceding this ending is the grapheme <ou>, pronounced
[u]. Hence [u] + [j] = [uj]. Were students to proceed in this manner they would avoid the
pronunciation pitfall shown to the right of the table. But they do not. It is somehow
counter-intuitive for them to relate the orthographic ending <-ille> to the semivowel [j]
(even when they have been told how this equation came to be, and when they how to
segment French words into syllables). When confronted with the written text, especially
with words they may not be very familiar with, students seem to forget the newly
acquired information and rely completely on information stored in the brain for a longer
period of time. For these students : “ fouille”, “citrouille, “nouille”, and other words like
them, are segmented in this manner: *f oui lle, *ci-troui lle, *noui lle, etc. that is to say,
the dominant graphemic representation for them is <-oui> , which they pronounce and
transcribe [wi], a form which they know well, because “ oui” (yes) is one of the first
French words they learn. They know its form so well that they see it even in places
where the combination of the three letters is purely arbitrarily.
In the second table, it is the grapheme <-y-> in the middle of the word (“tuyau”,
“ennuyeuse”, etc.) which confuses the students. Or I should say <-y-> preceded by <-u>. This combination generally represents [ɥij], cf. bruyant [bʀɥi jã]. Although students are
reminded that the grapheme <-y-> between vowels is to be interpreted as <-i i->, the first
one combining with the preceding vowel to form the syllable [ɥi], the second combining
with the following vowel to form the syllable [jo], this rule does not seem to stay with
them. When confronted with words of this type they immediately focus on the grapheme
<-y->, pronounce it as [j] and forget about the orthographic representation of [ɥ] (= u + i).
One might say that they reconfigure the word, perceptually, phonetically and graphically:
they eliminate the first semivowel [ɥ] but assign the labial quality of the sound, which
PTLC2005 Gladys Saunders On the teaching and learning of French semivowels: principles, practices and
unpredictable problems: 4
they obviously perceive, to the [i], thereby converting the latter to [y]. As the table shows,
we still have two syllables though the unaccented one has been restructured.
__________________________________________________________
V + S => S + V + S
(1) (final position): [-u j]
[-w i j]
French word
des nouilles
gloss
‘pasta’
pronunciation
[d e n u j]
dominant error
*[d e n w i j]
une grenouille ‘frog’
[g ʀ ə n u j]
*[g ʀ ə n w i j]
une fouille
'search'
[f u j]
* [f w i j]
une citrouille
‘pumpkin’
[s i t ʀ u j]
* [s i t ʀ w i j]
(2) (non-final position) : [-u # j-] [-w i # j- ]
bredouillé
‘mumbled’
[bʀ
[bʀəduje]
rouillé
‘rusty’
[ʀ u j e]
* [bʀ
[bʀədwije]
*[ʀ
*[ʀ w i j e]
une mouillure ‘wet mark
[m u j y R]
* [m w i j y R]
bouilloire
[b u j w a R]
* [ b w i j w a R]
‘kettle’
Table 1. Syllable restructuring (nucleus shifts)
_______________________________________________________________
C+S+V # j+V => C+V # j + V
tuyau
ennuyeuse
bruyante
‘ pipe’
‘boring’
‘noisy’
[t Ч i j o]
[ã n Ч i j ø z]
[b R Ч i j ã t]
* [t y j o]
*[ã n y jø z]
*[b r y j ã t]
Table 2. Restructuring of syllable (loss of medial [Ч] )
__________________________________________________________
Suédoise
linguiste
‘ Swedish’
‘linguist’
[sЧedwaz]
[l ẽ gЧist]
*[swedwaz])
*[lẽgwist]
Table 3. semivowel substitution in postconsonantal position. [Ч] [w]
_____________________________________________________________
Conclusions
The mispronunciation and incorrect transcription of words such as those shown in table
1, containing a final or intervocalic <-ille> need to be given special attention in the
phonetics class. It is not sufficient to assume that if students are given rules they will
apply them correctly. A special rubric calling attention to the sounds is in order, rather
than tucking it in with all other rules. Lists showing the proper syllabic division could be
included in the textbook (students often have more credence in their textbook than they
PTLC2005 Gladys Saunders On the teaching and learning of French semivowels: principles, practices and
unpredictable problems: 5
do in their professor’s notes on the blackboard or on handouts. Many more transcription
drills, with pronunciation backups should also be organized.
References
Carduner , Sylvia and Peter Hagiwara (1982) D’ Accord : La Prononciation du
français internationale : acquisition et perfectionnement. Wiley.
Dansereau, Diane (1990) Savoir Dire : Cours de phonetique et de prononciation.
Toronto: D.C.Heath and Company.
Delattre, Pierre (1951) Principes de phonetique francaise. Middlebury College.
Dumenil, Annie ( 2003) Facile à dire : les sons du français. Prentice Hall.
Leon, Pierre (1966) Prononciation du français standard. Paris. Didier.
Malécot, André (1974) Frequency and occurrence of French phonemes and
consonant clusters. Phonetica 29.2:158-70.
Price, Glanville. 1991. An Introduction to French Pronunciation. Blackwell.
Saunders, G (forthcoming). Semivowels in French.
Straka, Georges. 1979. Les sons et les mots. Strasbourg.Klincksieck.
Tranel, Bernard. 1987. The Sounds of French. Cambridge.