Abstracts
Abstract
This article reports on the use of an experimental material to enable discrimination between the periphrastic future (PF) and simple future (SF) intended for initial level university students in Japan studying French as a Foreign Language. A dyad was filmed using the material in a task on tense choice in short dialogues modelled on Galperin’s procedure. A discourse and interaction analysis were then performed on excerpts of the videoed session where the participants interacted with the material. It was found that the material enabled the dyad to complete the task. Moreover, if the pragmatic effect of the SF was not fully grasped, the analysis nonetheless showed that the participants transformed the linguistic knowledge from the material into metalinguistic resources of their own, and that internalization of the targeted concepts occurred to some extent.
Résumé
Cet article rend compte de l’utilisation d’un matériel expérimental pour la discrimination entre le futur périphrastique (FP) et le futur simple (FS) destiné à des étudiants de niveau initial en Français Langue Étrangère à l’université au Japon. Un binôme d’apprenants a été filmé utilisant le matériel au cours d’une tâche sur le choix du temps dans de courts dialogues inspirée de la procédure de Galperin. Ensuite, pour les séquences de la session durant lesquelles les participants ont interagi avec le matériel, une analyse du discours et des interactions a été réalisée. On a constaté que le matériel a permis au binôme de terminer la tâche. En outre, si l’effet pragmatique du FS n’a pas été pleinement intégré, l’analyse a cependant montré que les participants transformaient les connaissances linguistiques du matériel en ressources métalinguistiques qui leur étaient propres, et que l’intériorisation des concepts cibles se produisait dans une certaine mesure.
Appendices
Bibliography
- Abouda, L. & Skrovec, M. (2015). Du rapport entre formes synthétique et analytique du futur. Étude de la variable modale dans un corpus oral micro-diachronique. Revue de sémantique et pragmatique, 38, 35-57. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsp.512
- Arievitch, I. & Haenen, J. (2005). Connecting sociocultural theory and educational practice: Galperin's approach. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 155-165.
- Atkinson, D. (2011). A sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. How mind, body, and world work together in learning additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 143-166). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
- Atkinson, D. (2013). Social and sociocultural approaches to second language acquisition. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of second language acquisition (pp. 585–593). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
- Atkinson, D. (2019). Beyond the Brain: Intercorporeality and Co-Operative Action for SLA Studies. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 724-738. http://doi:10.1111/modl.12595
- Atkinson, D., Churchill, E., Nishino, T., & Okada, H. (2007). Alignment and interaction in a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 91, 169–188.
- Bartning, I. & Schlyter, S. (2004). Itinéraires acquisitionnels et stades de développement en français L2. French Language Studies, 14(3), 281–299. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269504001802
- Bottineau, D. (2014). Grammaire énactive et didactique du FLE. In C. Martinot & A. Pegaz Paquet (Eds.). Innovations didactiques en français langue étrangère (pp. 185-200). Paris: CRL.
- Butterworth G. (2003). Pointing is the royal road to language for babies. In Kita, S. (Ed.). Pointing: Where language, culture, and cognition meet (pp. 9-34). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Calbris, G. (1990). The Semiotics of French gesture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
- Camussi-Ni, M.-A. (2018). Divergence et convergence d’emploi du futur simple et du futur périphrastique. Linx, 77. https://doi.org/10.4000/linx.2702
- Clark, A. & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58, 7-19.
- Celle Agnès. (1997). Étude contrastive du futur français et de ses réalisations en anglais. Paris: Ophrys.
- Churchill, E., Nishino, T., Okada, H., & Atkinson, D. (2010). Symbiotic gesture and the sociocognitive visibility of grammar. Modern Language Journal, 94, 234–253.
- Delbarre, F. (2014). Pratiques et concepts grammaticaux du JLE/M et de l'ALE en rapport avec le FLE au Japon: propositions pour une grammaire contextualisée du FLE. Revue Japonaise de Didactique du Français, 14, 60-75.
- Galperin, P. Ia. (1967). On the notion of internalization. Soviet Psychology, 5(3), 28–33.
- Galperin, P. Ia. (1989). Organization of mental activity and effectiveness of learning. Soviet Psychology, 27(3), 65–82.
- Galperin, P. Ia. (1992). Stage-by-stage formation as a method of psychological investigation. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 60–80.
- Gánem-Gutiérrez, G. A. & Harun, H. (2011). Verbalisation as a mediational tool for understanding tense-aspect marking in English: an application of Concept-Based Instruction. Language Awareness, 20(2), 99-119.
- Goodwin, C. (2003). The body in action. In Coupland, J. & Gwyn, R. (Eds.), Discourse, the Body, and Identity (pp. 19-42). Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Gosselin, L. (2005). Temporalité et modalité. Bruxelles: Éditions Duculot.
- Haenen, J. (2001). Outlining the learning-teaching process: Piotr Gal’perin’s contribution. Learning and Instruction, 11, 157–170.
- Jacobsen, W. M. (2018). Tense and aspect. In Y. Hasegawa (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Japanese linguistics (pp. 332-356). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture. Visible action as utterance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Kim, J. (2013). Developing Conceptual Understanding of Sarcasm in a Second Language through Concept-Based Instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
- Lantolf, J. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.
- Lantolf, J. P. (2010). Minding your hands: the function of gesture in L2 learning. In Batstone, R. (Ed.). Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 131-147). Oxford: Oxford Press University.
- Lantolf, J. P. (2011). The sociocultural approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.). Alternatives approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 143-166). Abingdon / New York: Routledge.
- Lantolf, J. P. & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford, UK: Oxford Press University.
- Lee, H. (2016). Concept-based instruction: Imagistic and metaphorical understanding of phrasal verbs. English Teaching, 71(4), 167-191.
- McCafferty, S. G. & Stam, Gale (Eds.). (2008). Gesture, second language acquisition and classroom research. New York / Abingdon : Routledge.
- McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and mind. Chicago / London : University of Chicago Press.
- McNeill, D. (2005). Gesture and thought. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.
- Negueruela, E. & Lantolf, J.P. (2006). Concept based Instruction and the acquisition of L2 Spanish. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford (Eds.), The art of teaching Spanish: Second language acquisition from research to praxis (pp. 79-102). Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
- Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heineman, T. & Rauniomaa, M. (2014). On the interactional ecology of objects. In Nevile, M., Haddington, P., Heineman, T. & Rauniomaa, M. (Eds.). Interacting with objects. Language, materiality, and social activity (pp. 3-30). Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
- Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education.
- Pavlenko, A. (2014). The bilingual mind and what it tells us about langage and thought. Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press.
- Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J.P. Lantolf (Ed.). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Swain, M. (2010). Talking it through: Languaging as a source of second language learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.). Sociocognitive perspectives on second language learning and use (pp. 112–129). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
- Swain, M., Brooks, L. & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185.
- Swain, M. & Lapkin S. (2013). A Vygotskian sociocultural perspective on immersion education: The L1/L2 debate. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education 1(1), 101–129.
- Tomlinson, B. & Masuhara, H. (2018). The complete guide to the theory and practice of materials development for language learning. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
- van Compernolle, R. A. (2011). Developing second language sociopragmatic knowledge through concept-based instruction: A microgenetic case study. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3267-3283.
- Vygotsky, L. (2012). Thought and language. Revised and expanded by Alex Kozulin. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)