Construire un discours oral, oui ... mais comment ? L’impact de la pragmatique de l’oral sur la didactique des langues étrangères
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le présent article nous montrerons comment les recherches linguistiques sur le parlé et l’interaction verbale influencent la didactique de l’interaction orale en classe de langue. Ainsi sera caractérisé l’oral en tant que canal indépendant de la communication, de même que l’interaction verbale qui possède ses propres modalités de fonctionnement. Tout cela pour prouver que l’interaction verbale à l’oral est une compétence à plein titre autonome dans l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues étrangères. C’est à cette compétence que nous consacrerons la deuxième partie de l’article en tant qu’une compétence récemment mise en relief par le CECR. Nous définirons la compétence pragmatique et interactionnelle, puis nous caractériserons les stratégies d’interaction orale qui devraient être présentes en classe de langue. Enfin, nous donnerons quelques pistes pour le travail sur l’interaction orale dans l’enseignement/apprentissage des langues. This article focuses on the influences of linguistic theories of spoken language and verbal interaction on the pedagogy of oral interaction in the language classroom. I will therefore describe spoken language and verbal interaction as two independent means of communication. This will cumulate to prove that verbal interaction represents an entirely independent competence in foreign language learning/teaching. The second part of the article will concentrate on this particular competence, considered especially important by the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR). I will define pragmatic and interactive competence as well as strategies for verbal interaction which should be present in the foreign language classroom. The article will also include a few tips on how to practice oral interactions when learning/teaching a foreign language. Article reçu le 2011-12-28; accepté le 2012-08-01
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".