test
Search publications, data, projects and authors

Free full text available

Thesis

French

ID: <

10670/1.v2fkdm

>

Where these data come from
Creole and French of Reunionese schoolchildren, prolegomena at assessment of close languages

Abstract

.The subject of my thesis has as its starting point a didactic aim: that of the qualitative improvement of the teaching/learning of French to/from an audience of Reunionese children. In pursuit of this goal, I have set myself the goal of developing a benchmark for assessing the morphosyntactic skills of children in Reunion Island's large kindergarten section. Enriched in particular by recent research related to the theme of the contact of languages in Creolo-French-speaking lands, my work as a didactician has tried to reconcile, or at least to confront, a sociolinguistic variationist posture with that, classically more structuralist, of a grammarian "standard-setter" in a school setting. I thus deal, from a theoretical and pragmatic point of view, with the problem of a binarized grammatical evaluation, in a diglostic context of close language contacts, where interlectal practices are legion. By considering, from a holistic perspective, questions relating to the development of reference standards and the collection of oral data from small non-reading schoolchildren, my research is actually at the crossroads of sociolinguistics, language didactics, educational sciences but also psycholinguistics and descriptive linguistics. The report of my work is divided into four parts. PART 1: Following a general introduction, the first part of my typed text shows the need for an assessment of the linguistic skills of Réunionese pupils at the end of nursery school. It also describes the general objectives, postures and intentions underlying this evaluation. The gap between the language of the school and the language of the home is considered on Reunion Island as an aggravating factor in the educational difficulties encountered by many Reunionese pupils from the very beginning of their schooling. It would seem that to become good readers, many of them do not have sufficient skills as speakers of the French language. Among the remediation proposals proposed so far by researchers who have dealt with the subject, it is often recommended that the skills acquired by students in Creole, considered their L1, be used as a basis from kindergarten onwards to compose a strategy for teaching French as a second language. Recently, the educational policies officially posted for the Academy also suggest, in a more or less vague way, the need to take into account Creole. In this perspective, which is certainly commendable if one refers to the work of didacticians and psycholinguists on strong forms of teaching in a bilingual context (e.g. Baker, Hamers and Blanc, Cummins), two central questions nevertheless appear which should therefore be raised, but which until now have hardly been asked: -What is the quality of Creole spoken by "Creole" children today? Do the little schoolchildren from Reunion, and especially those who encounter difficulties in French, really master Creole? The analysis of recent sociolinguistic works relating to language contacts and the expansion of the use of interlecte in the Reunionese community (Prudent, Ledegen, Watin, Souprayen-Cavery, Rapanoël...).), taking into account the remarks of local primary school teachers on the shortcomings of young pupils not only in French but also in Creole, and the results of surveys declaring an increase in the "transmission" of French by Reunionese mothers, led me to think that doubt on this subject is permitted or at least that the assumption "Creole L1" is to be qualified. In order to better situate the purpose and goal of my work, I therefore began by demonstrating that the situation in terms of language practices is complex and, consequently, that the didactic orientations would become more sensitive and anchored in the local situation if they were based on concrete points of reference concerning the actual degree of mastery of the two codes in question by the students. How, in fact, can we claim to be able to exploit the knowledge acquired in one language (a priori L1-créole) in order to better appropriate the other (a priori L2-français), without having taken full measure of the degree of mastery of the two languages involved? While work has begun on the communicative skills of kindergarten students (Fioux and Marimoutou), my research on local "assessments" conducted so far reveals that researchers have no relatively detailed assessment of the current language skills of Reunionese children, on the one hand in French, before the transition to written French, after three years of schooling explicitly focused on acquiring the basics of oral French, and on the other hand in Creole. Equally disconcerting, given the educational challenges, it appears that there are also no assessment tools designed for the local situation, and therefore adapted for the collection and analysis of these oral language skills among young children, whereas we are in a former French colony with a sociolinguistic situation rooted in diglossia. On what basis can we then rely to affirm that the Reunionese students of today, who are referred to en masse as "Creolophones", possess solid language skills in Creole and gaps in French when they engage in the systematic process of learning to read? It is on the basis of these questions and observations that I draft a first constituency of the objective of my work. It is a question of asking the prolegomena of an assessment assessment, linguistic, comparative, in Creole and French, whose methodological foundations would be explained, argued, but also contextualized and updated for a public of learners at the end of a large nursery section in Reunion. The aim is to provide teachers of languages working for and with small schoolchildren in Reunion with a tool that is sufficiently detailed to enrich reflection on French teaching/learning strategies, "possibly" based on the knowledge of these pupils in Creole. Although the delimitations I am proposing to establish are an integral part of the evaluation process, they are upstream of the act of evaluation. More specifically, it is a question of building an operational evaluation frame of reference presenting evaluation criteria, reference standards and pre-tested tests with a sample of children of large section, in French and Creole. Once this purpose has been clarified, I set the initial parameters of this evaluation process. Understanding it above all as "a reflection on relationships to values", I then position myself, after an epistemological approach to this not insignificant act, in favour of an evaluation that makes sense. Following in particular Hadji, Lecointe, Bonniol and Vial or Ardoino and Berger on their questioning of the technicality of docimology in search of an illusory objectivity, I undertake, like them, to shift the priority of the correctness of the results towards the logic and transparency of an objectivized process, leading to a relevant result that can be understood, located, relativized according to a transparent reading grid and the intentions underlying it. To do this, I then borrow from the educational sciences, and in particular G. Figari, the concept of referentialization, with its triple status, operational, methodological and scientific. If they were originally designed to carry out evaluations of systems (schools, training systems, curricula, etc.), I show that the general principles of referentialisation are in fact entirely transposable to the study I am conducting. Having this common thread, my referentialization begins, in a first step, with a work of reflexivity, to try to explain and situate my own posture as an evaluation designer, which engages me in an ethical responsibility. It is above all a question of taking a step back from the power held and to which I am subjected in this work of gathering and using information of social value. I therefore strive to pose and understand the social and individual issues related to this act, but also, in reference to the subjectivity inherent in any research in the humanities (de Robillard), to self-position myself in relation to my own representations and inclinations regarding the choice of a referentialization activity. A second step arising from the first also allows me to clarify my intentions in this evaluation. After a review of the pathways available to me, I conclude that in relation to the objectives, they are closer to evaluation-appraisal than evaluation-measurement and lead me to favour a qualitative approach. PART 2: The second part of my thesis, which relates the exploratory phase of my referentialization, is entirely dedicated to the modelling stage of my evaluation object. First, I report on the theoretical investigations I conducted in order to define the object to be evaluated, namely the object language. The first step is to position myself in the debate on the (im)possibility(s) of delimiting boundaries between Creole and French, which opposes structuralists and variationists, and even variationists between them. To do this, I approach the history of the contact of the languages of Reunion, from the plantation society to the departmentalized society, and compare the concepts that served as filters to describe the contact of Creole/French languages (diglossia, continuum, interlecte, macrosystem). Finally, I come to find in de Robillard's arguments, in his broader reflection on the definition of a language, the bases that push me to adopt, for the precise needs of the evaluation I am aiming for, a solid conception of the language, leading me to see Creole and French from a binarized angle. For all that, I do not abandon the study of the phenomena of mixtures noted by the Reunionese teachers among their pupils and that some (didacticians and pedagogues) praise as an asset or, on the contrary, criticize as a handicap, or even associate with the manifestation of a "semi-linguism", compared to the speeches of monolinguals. If my inclination for sociolinguistics leads me to see mixtures as some kind of discursive mode in their linguistic repertoire and to refute a treatment of mixtures from the point of view of parasitages, the question I ask myself as a didactician seeking to improve the teaching/learning process of French is the following: in the end, how can evaluators be allowed to determine, independently of recognition of the linguistic and pragmatic ability of these young pupils to "juggle" with two codes to arrive at communicating, whether the mixtures made are indicative of a) tactics of "compensating" for gaps in one language and/or the other (the skills then being better in one language than the other or insufficient in both languages), or b) relatively good "mastery" of the two codes (the skills being good in one language as well as the other), which calls for different remediation and/or teaching methods? With this in mind, I have decided to draw up an inventory of research focused on the language and linguistic evaluation of "bilingual" people. I am particularly interested in the treatment of the problem of mixtures, from the most "closed" (cf. the works of Titone, Fioux, Genelot et al...), to the most "open" (cf. the works of Moore, Cavalli, Stubbe and Peña...). By weighing them against my objectives, it seems to me that, for my type of comparative assessment, requiring quite distinct target languages, the binarized approach that can answer my initial questions proves to be relevant. Continuing my theoretical investigations, I refine my research framework by determining what a good speaker of a language implies. By approaching the notions of competence vs performance, by reviewing the points of view of language didacticians (Canale and Swain, De Pietro, Cuq, Beacco, Springer, Castellotti,...), interactionists (Hymes, Vasseur), psycholinguists (Lentin, Florin, Gombert...), pedagogues (Boisseau), researchers specializing in language evaluation (Rondal, Comblain, Piérart, Muller...).), but also by taking into consideration the directives concerning the mastery of language (Ministry of National Education) and the recommendations concerning the appropriation of foreign languages (Council of Europe), I decide to focus my reference frame on the evaluation of morphosyntactic skills, and to privilege as well the collection of samples of induced language as of spontaneous language. My exploratory phase also includes field investigations. I begin by describing the places of investigation (located mainly among Benedictine pupils of large nursery section but also at Tampon and Pau), the sampling (choice of schools, classes, children) and the means I used (ethnological approach, filmed interactions, activities carried out, protocols followed). In addition to providing me with a better knowledge of the characteristics of these young witnesses, thanks in particular to a participant observation, and to testing the relevance of different supports, tasks, evaluation approaches and inter-electoral speech transcription systems, I show that this field work allows me to make several observations that corroborate the hypothesis I had formulated during my theoretical investigations. By crossing various salient factors that I was able to identify, such as language practices (which I label without hierarchy "bi-linguisme", "mix-linguisme", "dominance in Creole" and "dominance in French"), linguistic representations, attitudes towards the school norm and the ability to discriminate between the two linguistic codes, both by the witnesses and by myself in the role of evaluator, I was indeed able to measure, in parallel with promising results, the complexity and the limits of a binarized evaluation in terms of data collection and analysis, particularly when the evaluator is faced with certain language profiles of children in this context of close language contact. Indeed, if a binary apprehension, deliberately and "classically" smoothed for teaching purposes seems appropriate for assessing and comparing the quality of children's skills in Creole and French, the local context of contact of close languages, marked by diglossic representations and far from being limited to well delimited and delimitable binary practices, leads me to think that a reference of this type is likely to have a limited scope. It is a hypothesis that it will then be up to me to verify in the continuation of my work. PART 3: Informed by a better knowledge of the potential, limits and concrete constraints of a binarised approach, the next stage of my referentialisation begins with the choice of criteria and indicators that will make it possible to evaluate young children who are not readers, orally, in French and Creole. This is the subject of the third part of my typewriting. Before getting to the heart of the matter, I begin with an indispensable preamble, it seems to me, on the balance of power at stake in normative activity (between prescription and description, priorities, relativity and arbitrariness, legitimacy(ies)...). On this sensitive subject, subject to strong polemics, as well in the scientific community in general as among speakers evolving in the Reunionese community, I present in a double posture of sociolinguist and didactician, my own positioning in relation to the notion of "norm(s)". In order for my approach to be better understood and because I consider it essential to step back from a concept that often marginalizes those who use it (outside practitioners), I explicitly state the relative, constructed and yet necessary character, in my case, of the standard for this frame of reference. I also explain my legitimacy as a designer of normative references from a variationist point of view, within the theoretical framework chosen for this evaluation work. To construct the normative references of my tool, the methodological protocol that I decide to borrow is the following: 1. from already recorded descriptions of uses, - in Creole (then exist only scientific articles, grammars, dictionaries that describe only the norms of adult use (Staudacher, Watbled, Chaudenson, Ramassamy, Cellier...)), - and in French (including work on standard French (Riegel et al., Arrivé et al...)), Wagner and Pinchon...), spoken French (Gadet, Blanche-Benvéniste, Sauvageot...), regional French (Carayol, Ledegen, Béniamino and Baggioni), French spoken by children (Florin, Boisseau, Comblain...), 2. synthesize and compare these works, not only with each other but also with my own research and native speaker skills on the morphosyntactic items in question, 3.in order to be able to then proceed to a choice of criteria, whose relevance will be justified each time, for the language provoked and the spontaneous language, 4. to propose reference standards (indicators) making it possible to evaluate these criteria. For Creole, at this stage it is a question of provisional standards, 5. adjusting and updating the latter for an audience of young children, by analysing the spontaneous speech in Creole of Reunionese kindergarten children ("reference informants"), dominant in Creole or in two languages. A little more than three hundred pages of my typewriting report on the development and choice of these criteria and indicators. They quickly reveal a clear qualitative and quantitative imbalance between the state of knowledge in Creole and French. In a grammatical work, descriptive but also prescriptive, which must sort and complete, for Creole, existing descriptions certainly interesting but often contradictory, relieved of emerging varieties and completely incomplete as regards child forms, I approach the updating of the verbal theme (flexional system, analytical system, index i, truncation rules), personal pronouns, the valence of verbal themes, interrogative modality and negative modality. PART 4: The fourth and last part of my referentialization is first devoted to measuring the general parameters of designing assessment tasks and collecting data for and from children. Following a review of the literature on the subject (notably the work of Rondal, Moreau and Richelle, Khomsi, Florin, Brédart, Gombert, Marquillo...), I then put forward two considerations relating to relevance and validity criteria in an evaluation, when collecting data. They concern the types of activities generally proposed in language assessments (comprehension, production, detection and correction of statements), and the tasks making it possible to collect observable behaviours (with a focus on their scope, bias, supports and instructions). I close this review with my own remarks, criticisms and impressions on the experience of developing data collection tools that I was able to develop on the ground in Réunion. In a second step, I present and comment on the pilot tests I pre-tested with a hundred children of large section, during individual evaluation sessions, filmed and analyzed. This test bank is composed of 39 sheets classified according to whether it is a question of assessing competencies in Creole, competencies in French or "bilingual" competencies (translation, codic discrimination). These sheets present the evaluation tasks I have developed and pre-tested for feasibility, relevance and sensitivity. They detail, for each syntactic item evaluated, the criteria taken into consideration, the type of activity chosen, the expected performances, the supports of the test, the indications on its organisation, the instructions, but also the primer statements possibly provided for the evaluator, an analysis of examples of "correct" and "incorrect" answers collected from the pre-tested witnesses, and finally general comments on the test in question (difficulties, variants, precautions...). CONCLUSION: my typewriting ends with a general conclusion. First of all, it summarizes the different steps of my referencing as well as their results, and comes back on the improvements that could be made. It then presents the contributions of this research work, which also raises questions and allows proposals to be made. The contributions include in particular : -Theoretical but also field research with a hundred Reunionese children which allows the provision of an operational assessment tool, adapted to the characteristics of small Reunionese schoolchildren of large nursery section and proposing detailed tasks, tested and concrete normative benchmarks. These cards can be used as they stand, in the end as much by researchers in language didactics as by practitioners, who assess the oral grammatical skills of young children in Reunion Island. - In general, a methodological perspective concerning the collection and analysis of oral data from young non-reading schoolchildren in a diglostic context, and in a situation of contact with nearby languages. - An enrichment of the work of synchronic description of the peripheral French morphosyntax, but especially of the Creole of Reunion Island, in particular, a) by taking into account the intrasystemic and intersystemic variations (the current emerging forms due to the internal dynamics of Creole and to the contact with French, the childlike forms, the language of the young people), b) by the synthetic approach adopted (comparative analysis of work, elaboration of summary tables). But this work of referentialization also raises questions for research, on several points: On the didactic level : - This study showing the essential consideration of linguistic representations, language practices, pragmatic skills of students during the process of collecting oral data, what validity, what relevance can have smoothed evaluations, hermetic to the situation of contact of close languages and the specificities of children in Reunion, such as academic evaluations in French, duplications of a-contextualized metropolitan evaluations, designed for an already French-speaking monolingual public? What relevance do the proposals of didactic and explicit use, "as is", of Creole "L1" as a springboard to reach French L2, whereas the pre-tests carried out during my research already show a majority of witnesses presenting basic grammatical skills in French deficiencies, but also schoolchildren (even dominant Creolophones), encountering difficulties of expression, even comprehension, in Creole? Wouldn't most of the grammatical descriptions currently available hardly take into account the intra- and intersystemic variations of Creole, have repercussions on the scope of the didactic proposals for teaching French in partnership with Creole?In terms of research on language assessment: -The binary perspective chosen in this work, considered relevant for comparing language skills in Creole and French, has limitations and cannot, in particular, take into consideration, as it stands, all children's language profiles (for example, non-discriminatory mix-linguals). Beyond a Creole/French assessment, what alternative do we have to assess the language skills, especially morpho-syntactic, of these children whose (a)meshed speech and without a target "language" cannot be analysed in this framework? Should these "bilingual" skills be measured for themselves, without reference to Creole and French, as some researchers try to do relatively marginally in other linguistic contexts (e.g. Stubbe and Peña for American-Hispanic bilinguals in the United States)? But is what seems possible for "non collateral" languages possible for genetically and structurally related languages? Indeed, is a bilingual evaluation taking as a normative reference the morphosyntax of the entire Reunion macrosystem, thus a "fluid" language, where the evaluator does not have explicit/explicable reference standards a priori and therefore justified/justifiable, conceivable? Although it allows its pedagogical relevance to be seen, and meets the search for meaning criterion, how would it justify its objectivization when the evaluator only"feels" that it is being said and thus holds within himself "moving" rules, elusive as a native speaker of the interlecte? How can this unavoidable involvement, which derogates from the basis of any evaluation, be managed when normative references are internalized and a priori not externalisable?This research work finally makes it possible to make recommendations and proposals for areas of work concerning the teaching of French in partnership with Creole: - To endeavour to identify the conditions of awareness of codes by currently discriminating children (without school guidance), for the study of ways allowing schoolchildren, from the small section, to discriminate prototypical traits of Creole and French. - To take greater account of the heterogeneity of the language profiles of Réunionese children, who should not be considered as a linguistically homogeneous mass (even in schools in so-called disadvantaged neighbourhoods), and to continue the reflection on taking into account the Reunionese language macrosystem. – To complete the research on Creole currently spoken by the Reunionese population (children, youth, adults) and open these descriptions to all variations. - To make current the grammatical description books and to encourage the publication of scientific works (not purist), "accessible" to the public of students (future teachers) in training but also to that of teachers already in post. – To take more into account and change the negative representations of the local population (especially the parents of pupils) concerning the partnership (direct or indirect) with Creole. This subject being the object of strong tensions on the school ground, to study possibilities of alternative approaches (exploitation of the television medium, creation/exploitation of parallel educational structures as associations of the "ti lékol maron" type or leisure centres), privileging the mastery of language with a playful aspect, in a "calmed" context.

Your Feedback

Please give us your feedback and help us make GoTriple better.
Fill in our satisfaction questionnaire and tell us what you like about GoTriple!