Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T23:07:04.251Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Attention et production d'autoreformulations autoamorcées en français langue seconde, quelle relation?1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2011

DAPHNEE SIMARD ,
VERONIQUE FORTIER  and
MICHAEL ZUNIGA
DAPHNEE SIMARD*
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
VERONIQUE FORTIER
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
MICHAEL ZUNIGA
Affiliation:
Université du Québec à Montréal
*
Adresse pour correspondance: Daphnée Simard, Département de linguistique, Université du Québec à Montréal, C.P. 8888, Succursale Centre Ville, Montréal, Qc, Canada, H3C 3P8 e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Resume

Cette étude avait comme objectif de tenter d'établir un lien entre la capacité attentionnelle et les autoreformulations autoamorcées d'apprenants adultes de français langue seconde produites lors d'une tâche de narration. L'analyse des données n'a pas permis d'établir une association significative entre ces deux variables. Les résultats appuient donc ceux obtenus d'une étude antérieure (c.-à-d., Fincher, 2006) ayant examiné, de manière différente, la même question de recherche. Les résultats doivent être interprétés en fonction de la mesure de l'attention utilisée, à savoir une mesure capacitaire. Les conclusions de l'étude permettent de faire ressortir le manque de précision concernant la nature du processus attentionnel en jeu lors de production d'autoreformulations autoamorcées.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of French Language Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , November 2011 , pp. 417 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Footnotes

1

Nous tenons, d'abord, à remercier tous les étudiants ayant participé à notre étude. Sans eux, ce projet n'aurait pas été possible. Nous remercions également les lecteurs anonymes dont les suggestions nous ont aidés à améliorer notre article.

References

REFERENCES

Arroyo, E. (2003). La reformulation en communication exolingue chez des locuteurs hispanophones parlant français. Marges linguistiques, septembre-octobre. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com. Visité en mai 2009.Google Scholar
Bange, P. et Kern, S. (1996). La régulation du discours en L1 et en L2. Études Romanes, 35: 69–103.Google Scholar
Brédart, S. (1991). Word interruption in self-repairing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 20: 123–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brickenkamp, R. et Zillmer, E. (1998). The d2 Test of Attention. Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber.Google Scholar
Cammarota, M.-A. et Giacobbe, J. (1986). L'acquisition du lexique en français par des adultes hispanophones. Langages, 84: 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camps, J. (2003). The analysis of oral self-correction as a window into the development of past time reference in Spanish. Foreign Language Annals, 36: 233–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camus, J. F. (1996). La psychologie cognitive de l'attention. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
de Bot, K. (1996). The psycholinguistics of the output hypothesis. Language Learning, 46: 529–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bot, K. (1992). A bilingual production model: Levelt's “speaking” model adapted. Applied Linguistics, 13: 1–24.Google Scholar
Fincher, A. (2006). Functions of self-initiated self-repairs in an advanced Japanese language classroom. Thèse inédite. Griffith University, Australie.Google Scholar
Foster, P. et Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning and task type on second language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18: 299–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geva, E. (2006). Second language oral proficiency and second language literacy. Developing literacy in second language learners. Dans: August, D., et Shanahan, T. (dir.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 123–139.Google Scholar
Gilabert, R. (2007). Effects of manipulating task complexity on self-repairs during L2 oral production. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 45: 215–240.Google Scholar
Griggs, P. (2007). Perspective sociocognitive sur l'apprentissage des langues étrangères: situation naturelle ou guidée. Paris: l'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Griggs, P. (2002). À propos de l'effet de l'activité métalinguistique sur les processus de production en L2. Dans: Véronique, D. et Cicurel, F. (dir.), Discours, action et appropriation des langues. Paris: Presses de la Sorbonne Nouvelle, pp. 53–66.Google Scholar
Griggs, P. (1997). Metalinguistic work and the development of language use in communicative pairwork activities involving second language learners. Dans: Diaz, L. et Pérez, C. (dir.), Views on the Acquisition and the Use of Second Languages. Barcelona: Universitat Pompei Fabrat, pp. 403–415.Google Scholar
Hatch, E. et Lazaraton, A. (1991). The Research Manual. Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.Google Scholar
Izumi, S. (2003). Comprehension and production processes in second language learning: In search of the psycholinguistic rationale for the output hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 24: 168–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech Production and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2000). The role of attention in monitoring second language speech production. Language Learning, 50: 343–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999a). Monitoring and self-repair in L2. Language Learning, 49: 303–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kormos, J. (1999b). The effect of speaker variables on the self-correction behaviour of L2 learners. System, 27: 207–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lennon, P. (1984). Retelling a story in English as a second language, Dans: Dechert, H. W., Möhle, D., & Raupach, M. (Dir.), Second language productions (pp. 50–68). Tübingen, Germany: Narr.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14: 41–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mackey, A., Philp, J., Egi, T., Fujii, A. et Tatsumi, T. (2002). Individual differences in working memory, noticing of interactional feedback and L2 development. Dans: Robinson, P. (dir.), Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 181–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, M. (1967). A Boy, a Dog and a Frog. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
Mehnert, U. (1998). The effect of different length of time for planning in second-language performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20: 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Connor, N. (1988). Repairs as an indicative of interlanguage variation and change. Dans: Walsh, T. J. (dir.), Georgetown University Round Table in Languages and Linguistics 1988: Synchronic and Diachronic Approaches to Linguistic Variation and Change. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 251–259.Google Scholar
Ortega, L. 1999). Planning and focus on form in L2 oral performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21:109–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. et Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communicative tasks for language instruction. Dans: Crooks, G. et Gass, S., (dir.), Tasks and Language Learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, pp. 9–34.Google Scholar
Poulisse, N. (1997). Language production in bilinguals. Dans: de Grot, A. et Kroll, J. (dir.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 201–224.Google Scholar
Reitan, R. (1958). Validity of the Trail Making: Test as an indication of organic brain damage. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 8: 271–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rossiter, J. M., Derwing, T. M. et Jones, V. L. M. O. (2008). Is a picture worth a thousand words? TESOL Quarterly, 42: 325–329.Google Scholar
Royer, C. (2002). L'appropriation de la négation du français eu milieu guidé: une approche interactionniste. Marges Linguistiques, novembre. http://www.marges-linguistiques.com. Visité en mai 2009.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. et Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53: 361–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied linguistics. AILA Review, 11: 11–26.Google Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13: 206–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11: 129–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self-and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, 35: 433–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavakoli, P. et Foster, P. (2008). Task design and second language performance: The effect of narrative type on learner output. Language Learning, 58: 439–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tognoli, E. et Toniolo, A. M. (2003). L'attention chez l'enfant: mesures capacitaires ou mesures processuelles. Psychologie et psychométrie, 24: 11–40.Google Scholar
Upshur, J. A. et Turner, C. E. (1999). Systematic effects in the rating of second-language speaking ability: test method and learner discourse. Language Testing, 16: 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production, Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
Verhoeven, L. T. (1989). Monitoring in children's second language speech. Second Language Research, 5: 141–155.Google Scholar
Vasseur, M.-T. et Arditty, J. (1996). Les activités réflexives en situation de communication exolingue: réflexions sur quinze ans de recherche. Acquisition et interaction en langue étrangère, 8: 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, J. et Turner, C. E. (2005). Comparing children's oral ability in two ESL programs. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 61: 491–517.Google Scholar
Yuan, F. et Ellis, R. (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and on-line planning on fluency, complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24: 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar