Art des langues et art du rythme : Pour un enseignement physique et musical des langues vivantes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parfois, l’enseignement des langues semble oublier que les langues sont vivantes et qu’elles obéissent à des rythmes précis. Avant que d’être écrites, les langues sont parlées et impliquent plusieurs éléments physiques : cordes vocales, appareil phonatoire, muscles, mais également le corps entier pour les dimensions paraverbales et non verbales (Cosnier & Brossard, 1984). La question qui se pose dès lors est « comment favoriser l’articulation des dimensions verbale, paraverbale et non-verbale chez l’apprenant d’une langue seconde ou étrangère ? » Pour ce, il convient d’apporter une attention particulière au contexte systémique d’émergence des langues et de leurs rapports écologique et social au monde (Mühlhäusler, 2003). Nous inspirant des pratiques théâtrales (Tabensky, 1997), nous proposons ici une vision intégrative de l’enseignement des langues vivantes basée sur la musicalité de la parole, les gestes, la posture et les actions langagières afin de porter l’accent sur la dimension communicative (Meunier, 2003) et émotionnelle (Frijda, 2003) inhérente aux langues vivantes. Language, Rhythm and Art: Towards a Physical and Musical Approach to Language Teaching Language teaching sometimes sets aside the fact that languages are living entities, submitted to precise rhythms. Since languages are alive, they are spoken before being written and rely on physical elements: vocal cords, sound production apparatus, muscles and also the entire body, in the case of paraverbal and nonverbal dimensions (Cosnier & Brossard, 1984). The question that now arises is that of the articulation of the verbal, paraverbal and non-verbal dimensions for the second or foreign language learner. In order to do so, it is necessary to take the systemic context of emergence of languages and their ecological and social relations to the world (Mühlhäusler, 2003) into consideration. Drawing on theatre practices (Tabensky, 1997), we thus wish to submit a comprehensive perspective of language teaching based on the musicality of speech, gestures, postures and speech acts in order to underline the communicative (Meunier, 2003) and emotional (Frijda, 2003) dimensions of languages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".