Tendances en enseignement des expressions idiomatiques en langue seconde : de la théorie à la pédagogie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Les expressions idiomatiques reflètent les modes de pensée et de vie d’un peuple. Quoique leur enseignement-apprentissage en laisse plus d’un perplexe, plusieurs s’avouent pourtant soucieux d’en disposer pour conférer de l’authenticité à leurs échanges. Toute langue possède des expressions qui évoquent sur-le-champ une image pour parler de situations courantes. En contrepartie, une expression peut revêtir du sens dans une langue et non dans une autre. Lesquelles préconiser et pourquoi? Comment s’y prendre pour les enseigner en langue seconde? À quel niveau de compétence linguistique en langue seconde devrait-on leur accorder de l’importance et à partir de quel âge? À la lumière d’études dans le domaine, nous proposons des liens entre la théorie et la pratique afin d’illustrer en quoi le plaisir d’apprendre la langue seconde peut s’incarner, entre autres, dans les expressions idiomatiques. Abstract Idiomatic expressions reflect the thought processes and ways of life of a people. Although the teaching-learning process of such expressions leaves more than one perplexed, many are concerned that the usage of these expressions confirms the authenticity of one’s verbal exchanges. Consequently, it is worthwhile to make them one’s own. An expression can, in turn, take on a certain meaning in one language but not in another. Which expressions should be recommended and why? How does one go about teaching them? At what level of linguistic competence in one’s second language should these expressions take on importance and starting at what age? Using previous studies on this subject as reference, we shed light on how to teach and learn idiomatic expressions in a second language; it is here that knowledge and expertise come together. By making connections between theory and practice, we show how the pleasure of learning a second language can develop, among other things, through idiomatic expressions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".