Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T20:47:33.218Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Analysis of the Foreign Language Classroom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2008

Bernadette Grandcolas  and
Nicole Soulé-Susbielles
Bernadette Grandcolas
Affiliation:
Université de Paris VIII – Vincennes
Nicole Soulé-Susbielles
Affiliation:
Université de Paris VIII – Vincennes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article the foreign language classroom is argued to be a legitimate and important arena for educational and linguistic research. First, a survey of the research which has been conducted in France on the analysis of the foreign language classroom is presented. Secondly, two research projects currently underway at the University of Paris VIII are discussed. The first looks at the foreign language classroom through diary studies, and the second, through classroom analysis by teachers and pupils.

Type
Articles
Information
Studies in Second Language Acquisition , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , October 1986 , pp. 293 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abe, D. & Regent, O.. 1981. Quand les apprenants prennent la parole. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 41;64–85.Google Scholar
Allwright, R. 1983. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics 5;156–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auchlin, C. 1981. Réflexion sur les marqueurs de structuration de la conversation. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 44;88–103.Google Scholar
Bailey, K. & Ochsner, R.. 1983. A methodological review of the diary studies: Windmill tilting or social science? In Bailey, K., Long, M., & Peck, S. (eds.), Second language acquisition studies, pp. 188–98. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Bailly, D. 1983. Eléments de didactique des langues. L'activité conceptuelle en classe d'anglais. Paris: APLV.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1970. L'appareil formel de l'énonciation. Langages 17;12–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berthoud, A. 1982. Activité métalinguistique et acquisition d'une langue seconde. Berne:Lang.Google Scholar
Besse, H. 1980. Le discours métalinguistique. In Arditty, J. & Mittner, M. (eds.), Encrages, acquisition d'une langue étrangère, pp. 102–8. Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Besse, H. & Porquier, R.. 1984. Grammaire et didactique des langues. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. 1982. On the relationship between knowing and using linguistic forms. Applied Linguistics 3;181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouchard, R. 1984. Pour une méthodologie générale d'analyse des échanges verbaux en classe. In Bouchard, R. (ed.), Interactions, les échanges langagiers en classe de langue, pp. 73–110. Grenoble: Centre de Didactique du Français, Université de Grenoble III.Google Scholar
Breen, M. 1985. The social context in foreign language learning – a neglected situation. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7;135–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, A. 1982. Interaction entre l'activité langagière de l'apprenant en milieu institutionnel et la réflexion métalinguistique. In Trévise, A. (ed.), Encrages, pp. 100–10. Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Carton, F. 1983. Pour une didactique des stratégies conversationnelles. Mélanges CRAPEL; 53–102.Google Scholar
Chevallier, J. & Delesalle, S.. 1977. L'oral au CES. Discussions menées entre élèves de CES agés de 14 ans. Enregistrement et interprétation. Le français aujourd'hui, pp. 51–56.Google Scholar
Cicurel, F. 1984. La construction de l'interaction didactique. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 55;47–56.Google Scholar
Cicurel, F. 1985. Parole sur parole, le métalangage en classe de langue. Paris: CLE International.Google Scholar
Clavères, M. 1982. L'enseignement de l'anglais dans les classes de 6ème el 5èmc. Quelques problèmes de didactique. Paris: APLV.Google Scholar
Cohen, A. 1984. Studying second language learning strategies: How do we get the information? Applied Linguistics 6;101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, A., & Hosenfeld, C.. 1981. Some uses of mentalistic data in second language research. Language Learning 31;285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppalle, X. 1976. La prise de parole en classe, l'acte de parole et la situation de communication. Langue Française 32;75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coste, D. 1985. Métalangage, activité métalinguistique et enseignement/apprentissage d'une langue étrangère. DRLAV (Université de Paris VIII) 32;63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culioli, A. 1979. Why teach how to learn what is best learnt untaught? Cahiers Charles V, Linguistique. Paris: Université de Paris VII.Google Scholar
Dabène, L. 1984. Pour une taxinomie des opérations métacommunicatives en classe de langue étrangére. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 55;39–46.Google Scholar
Dabène, L. & Bourguignon, C. (eds.). 1979. La grammaire en langue maternelle et en langue étrangère. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 34.Google Scholar
Dalgalian, G. 1974. Micro-enseignement et non-directivité dans la formation des professeurs. Orientations 5; 305–17.Google Scholar
Dalgalian, S. Lieutaud, & Weiss, F., 1981. Pour un nouvel enseignement des langues et une nouvelle formation des enseignants. Paris: CLE International.Google Scholar
Edmonson, W. 1985. Worlds within worlds. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7;2.Google Scholar
Ericsson, K. & Simon, H.. 1984. Protocol analysis; verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Faerch, C. & Kasper, G.. 1985. Foreign language learning under classroom conditions: Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 7;131–3.Google Scholar
Gaskill, W. 1980. Correction in native speaker-nonnative speaker conversation. In Larsen-Freeman, D., Discourse analysis in second language learning, pp. 125–38. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Gauthier, A. 1981. Opérations énonciatives et apprentissage d'une langue étrangère en milieu scolaire. L'anglais à des francophones. Paris: APLV.Google Scholar
Giacobbe, J. & Lucas, M.. 1982. Métalangue des apprenants et discours spontané: Connaissances explicite et implicite dans l'acquisition des verbes espagnols ser et estar. In Trévise, A. (ed.), Encrages, pp. 111–27. Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, B. 1981. Correction et communication. Revue de Phonétique Appliquée 59–60; 305–20.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, B. 1984. Voulez-vous converser avec moi? Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 55; 68–75.Google Scholar
Grandcolas, B. 1986. Un journal d'apprentissage pour préparer à l'enseignement. Paper presented at the TESOL France conference to be published in the conference proceedings.Google Scholar
Gremmo, M.J., Holec, H., & Riley, P.. 1978. Taking the initiative: Some pedagogical applications of discourse analysis. Mélanges CRAPEL; 53–68.Google Scholar
Henner-Stanchina, C. & Holec, H.. 1977. Evaluation in an autonomous scheme. Mélanges CRAPEL; 73–84.Google Scholar
Holec, H. 1980. Autonomy and foreign language learning. London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Kasper, C. 1979. Communication strategies: Modality reduction. Interlanguage Study Bulletin, Utrecht 4; 266–83.Google Scholar
Kasper, C. 1982. Teaching-induced aspects of interlanguage discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 4;99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasper, C. 1986. Repair in foreign language teaching. In Kasper, G. (ed.). Language, teaching and communication in the foreign language classroom. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Kohn, R. 1982. Les enjeux de l'observation. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1981. Discourse analysis, and second language teaching. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Kramsch, C. 1985. Interaction et discours dans la classe de langue. Paris: Hatier.Google Scholar
Long, M. 1983. Inside the “black box”: Methodological issues in classroom research on language learning. In Seliger, H. & Long, M. (eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, pp. 3–36. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Politzer, R. & Roarty, M. Mac. 1985. An exploratory study of learning behaviors and their relationship to gains in linguistic and communicative competence. TESOL Quarterly 19; 103–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porquier, R. & Wagner, E.. 1984. Etudier les apprentissages pour apprendre à enseigner. Le Français dans le Monde 185; 84–92.Google Scholar
Postic, M. 1977. Observation et formation des enseignants. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N., Bongaerts, T., & Kellerman, E.. 1985. The use of retrospective verbal reports in the analysis of compensatory strategies. Paper presented during the symposium “Introspective Methods in Second Language Research,” at the International Congress of Applied Psycholinguistics, Barcelona.Google Scholar
Py, B. 1984. Interlangue, métalangue. In Boulouffe, J. & Huot, D., Processus cognitifs dans l'enseignement/apprentissage des langues. Québec: Centre International sur le Bilinguisme.Google Scholar
Rey-Debove, J. 1978. Le métalangage. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Riley, P. 1977. Discourse networks in classroom interaction: Some problems in communicative language teaching. Mélanges CRAPEL; 53–68.Google Scholar
Riley, P. 1980. Muds and stars, personal constructs, sensitization and learning. Mélanges CRAPEL; 137–56.Google Scholar
Riley, P. 1981. The communicative approach and the French CAPES examination. Mélanges CRAPEL, 149–67.Google Scholar
Riley, P. (ed.). 1985. Discourse and learning. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. 1980. Langue maternelle et langue seconde, vers une pédagogie intégrée. Pans: Hatier.Google Scholar
Roulet, E. 1981. Echanges,. intervention et actes du langage dans la structure de la conversation. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 44; 7–39.Google Scholar
Saville-Troike, M. 1982. The ethnography of communication-an introduction. Baltimore, MD: Park Press.Google Scholar
Scarcella, R. 1983. Discourse accent in second language performance. In Gass, S. & Selinker, L. (eds.), Language transfer in language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Schlegloff, M., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H.. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53; 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, J. 1980. The negotiation for meaning: Repair in conversations between second language learners of English. In Larsen-Freeman, D. (ed.), Discourse analysis in second language research, pp. 138–53. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M.. 1976. Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Soulé-Susbielles, N. 1984a. La question, un outil pédagogique dépassé?. Le Français dans le Monde 183;26–34.Google Scholar
Soulé-Susbielles, N. 1984b. L'observation/analyse au service de l'enseignant. Etudes de Linguistique Appliquée 55;28–34.Google Scholar
Soulé-Susbielles, N. & Weiss, F.. 1981. Un outil d'observation: La grille linéaire. Les Langues Modernes 75;197–207Google Scholar
Trévise, A. 1979. Spécificité de l'énonciation didactique dans l'apprentissage de l'anglais par des étudiants francophones. In Perdue, C. & Porquier, R. (eds.), Encrages, pp. 44–52. Paris: Université de Paris VIII.Google Scholar
Weiss, F. 1972. Micro-enseignement et formation des professeurs de langues vivantes. Paris:BELC.Google Scholar
Wildner-Basset, M. 1984. Improving pragmatic aspects of learners' interlanguage. Tubingen: Narr.Google Scholar