Comparison of French and English terms in language teaching research

1. AILA World Congress Groenigen, NL: 19 August 2021
The dirty dozen: bridging gaps between
la didactique des langues and second
language studies in 12 key terms
Shona WHYTE
Université Côte d’Azur (Nice, France)

2. Association Internationale de
Linguistique Appliquée
Association
Française de Linguistique Appliquée
second language
acquisition (SLA)
L2 research
didactique
des langues
(DDL)
acquisition
des langues
secondes
(RAL2)

3. France
Linguistique appliquée: innovation
in language learning/teaching
research in France (1955-85)
Shona Whyte
Smith, R., & Giesler, T. (in press).
(Eds). Innovations in language
learning and teaching: historical
perspectives. AILA Applied
Linguistics Series: Benjamins.
History of la linguistique
appliquée

4. It seems that connections between French DDL
and both AL and SLA are both possible and desirable (Berthet,
2011; Véronique, 2009, 2010) and it is somewhat reassuring to
be reminded that our forerunners in the field on both sides of
the Atlantic have included linguists and practitioners,
theoreticians and pragmatists of all types.
In this chapter, I have sought to unravel
some of the historical tensions involved in the development of
research on language teaching from the 1960s in France, with
the aim of perhaps facilitating communication among those
who are united in their concern to understand the task of
second language learning in instructed contexts - what our
learners know, how they come to know it, and how teachers
may best accompany their progress.
Whyte
(in press)

5. France
Moving with the times: new
developments in languages in
French higher education contexts
Shona Whyte
2020: volume 12(2)
Language education research
community

6. Key terms, key texts over 50+ years
1967-2021
1. Bailly, D. (1998). Les mots de la didactique
des langues: le cas de l'anglais. Paris: Ophrys.
2. Cuq, J. P., & Gruca, I. (2005). Cours de
didactique du français langue étrangère et
seconde. Grenoble, France: Presses
universitaires de Grenoble.
3. Galisson, R., & Coste, D. (1976). Dictionnaire
de didactique des langues. Paris: Hachette.
4. Leclerq, P., Edmonds, A., & Sneed German, E.
(Eds). (in press). Introduction à l’acquisition
des langues étrangères. Leuven, BE:
DeBoeck.
5. Quivy, M., & Tardieu, C. (2002). Glossaire de
didactique de l'anglais. Ellipses.
1. Cook, V., & Singleton, D. (2014). Key topics in second
language acquisition. Bristol, UK: Multilingual matters.
2. Corder, S.P. (1967). The significance of learners’ errors.
IRAL.
3. Krashen, SK (1982). Principles and practice in
SLA. Pergammon.
4. Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. (1991). An introduction
to second language acquisition. Routledge.
5. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are
learned. Oxford.
6. Loewen, S., & Reinders, H. (2011). Key concepts in
second language acquisition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave
Macmillan.
7. Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage. IRAL.

7. Key terms
6 pairs
acquisition learning acquisition apprentissage
first language
(L1)
second language
(L2)
langue maternelle
(LM)
langue seconde
(L2)
target language
(TL)
foreign language
(FL)
langue cible
(LC)
langue étrangère
(LE)
input culture input culture
grammar interlanguage grammaire interlangue
competence proficiency compétence niveau

8. How are key terms
in French and
English defined in
key texts over 50
years?
1. Early period (1967-82)
2. Turn of century (1990s-2000s)
3. Recent period (2011-2021)

9. Early period
1967-1982
•Corder (1967), Selinker (1972), Galisson & Coste (1976), Krashen (1982)
•acquisition/learning: Krashen’s famous distinction between subconscious acquisition
and conscious learning; other authors use learning
•English sources contrast first and second languages (L1/L2); French focus on native/
foreign, and consider foreign/second distinction “pedagogically unjustified”
•Corder and Krashen focus on input as a key variable; Galisson & Coste have a long
entry on culture
•Corder and Selinker set out Chomskyan perspective of learner-internal grammar
(built-in syllabus, interlanguage);
•English sources focus on (native-like) competence, Krashen distinguishes acquired and
learned competence; French source devotes much more attention to proficiency
(Threshold Level)
EN learner, FR teacher

10. Turn of the century
1990s-2000s
•Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991), Lightbown & Spada (1993), Bailly (1998), Quivy & Tardieu (2002),
Cuq & Gruca (2005)
•acquisition/learning: English prefers acquisition or uses terms interchangeably, mentioning but
not accepting Krashen’s distinction. French sources follow Krashen and prefer learning
(apprentissage); appropriation used as an umbrella term
•Agreement on first and second languages (L1/L2); French use foreign as superordinate while
English use second
•Complementary distribution input/culture /English sources focus on first, French on second
•All authors except Bailly define interlanguage Cuq & Gruca consider the term theoretically
outdated but pedagogically useful; the English sources take a learner-internal perspective on
grammar; Cuq & Gruca consider both learner and teacher perspectives
•North American take a Chomskyan view of competence, and focus on difficulties in defining and
measuring proficiency. The French books use institutional definitions (CEFR) for both.
FR: Krashen, interlanguage;
strong focus on culture (Galisson)
and methodology (history of methods)

11. Recent period
2011-2021
•Loewen & Reinders (2011), Cook & Singleton (2014), Leclerq, Edmonds & Sneed German (in
press)
•acquisition/learning: Krashen’s distinction is collapsed (mentioned only by Loewen & Reinders)
•underlining of commonalities between first and second language acquisition (Loewen &
Reinders note resistance to acquisition as implying an end-state, Watorek endorses (in Leclerq
et al)
•preference for second over foreign language (Hilton in Leclerq et al and Loewen & Reinders
both maintain distinction)
•Leclerq et al use source/target language; Cook & Singleton differentiate L2 learner and user
•All authors take a learner-internal perspective on grammar; it is never viewed as a teaching
objective (unlike e.g. vocabulary, speaking)
•much more reference to competence(s) than proficiency
Clear divergence between
acquisition-oriented and didactic
reference works from previous period

12. Some conclusions
•few differences in status or definitions of key terms: French
and English sources agree on importance and meanings
•different views on relative significance for language teaching/
learning (research): French sources favour
• learning in Krashen’s restrictive sense
• foreign language (second => francophone Africa)
• inclusion of grammar and culture as curricular staples
• institutional perspectives on competence and proficiency
•English SLA sources continue to take a
learner perspective
second language
acquisition (SLA)
L2 research
acquisition
des langues
secondes
(RAL2)
didactique
des langues
(DDL)

13. The dirty dozen:
bridging gaps between
la didactique des
langues and second
language studies in 12
key terms
Shona WHYTE
Université Côte d’Azur
Nice, France
shona.whyte@univ-cotedazur.fr
shonawhyte.wordpress.com