Darcie Blainey

           This study examines the behaviour of the weak vowel (schwa) in Louisiana Regional French (LRF) as spoken by four speakers from Ville Platte, Evangeline Parish in a formal situation. These speakers form part of the Louisiana contribution (Klingler & Lafleur 2007) to the international corpus of Contemporary French Phonology, le projet PFC (Durand & Lyche 2003). It is important to document and examine LRF, since there is a limited amount of both time and linguistic literature available for this dying language variety.
LRF schwa exhibits the following patterns. First, the phonetic realisation of schwa is variable in LRF: any of [ø], [œ], [i], [ɛ] (Lyche 1996: 41), [I] or [a] can be reduced to schwa (“peu” few [pø], but “petit” little [pə.tsi]).
Second, syllable position plays a strong role in the retention or deletion of schwa. Schwa most often disappears in non-final syllables of a word or accentual phrase:

pelotte ball /pə.lɔt/ [plɔt]
un petit brin a little bit /œ̃.pə.ti.brẽ/ [ẽ.tsi˳.brẽ]
Third, schwa insertion frequently occurs before word-initial [r] and in [plosive + r] sequences, favouring bisyllabic and CV forms over economy and fidelity:
rond round /rõ/ [ə.rõ], [rõ]
mercredi Wednesday /mɛr.krə.di/ [mɛr.kə.rə.dzi], [mɛ.kə.rə.dzi]
gros big /gro/ [gə.ro], [gro]

           This investigation indicates that the variable character of schwa derives from factors such as contact with the dominant language, natural development, and attrition. These factors play a role in language change (Rottet 2005: 245-246), as do sociolinguistic factors like age, sex, education, and French literacy. From a phonological standpoint, based on the principles of Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993), the study posits that a) without a written representation to adhere to, LRF speakers are free to favour more optimal forms, and b) constraints such as binarity, CV structure, economy and fidelity exist in a fluctuating hierarchy.

Work Cited

Durand, J., Lyche, C. (2003). Le projet Phonologie du français contemporain (PFC) et sa méthodologie. Méthodes et analyses. In É. Delais-Roussarie & J. Durand (Dir.), Corpus et variation en phonologie du français. Toulouse : Presses Universitaires du Mirail.
Klingler, T., Lafleur, A. (2007). L’enquête PFC en Louisiane. In S. Detey & D. Nouveau (Coords.), Bulletin PFC N. 7 : PFC: enjeux descriptifs, théoriques et didactiques 2007, 331-40. http://www.projet-pfc.net/?pfc-rc:bibiliopfc:pfc7.
Lyche, C. (1996). Genèse et traits caractéristiques du français cadien : un aperçu phonologique. Revue romane 31 :1, 29-49.
Prince, A. & Smolensky, P. (1993). Optimality Theory : Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Ms., Rutgers University, New Brunswick, and University of Colorado, Boulder.
Rottet, K. (2005). Variation et étoilement en français cadien. In Valdman, A., Auger, J., Piston-Hatlen, D. (Eds), Le français en Amérique du Nord: état présent. Québec : Les Presses de l'Université Laval.