research on reading awareness in french l2 learners

This article was downloaded by: [The University Of Melbourne Libraries]On: 16 September 2013, At: 20:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Language AwarenessPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

Research on reading awareness inFrench L2 learnersMonique L'Huillier a & Raynalle Udris ba Royal Holloway College, University of London, Eghant,Surrey, TW20 0EXb Middlesex University, Tottenham, White Hart Lane,London, N17 8HRPublished online: 26 Apr 2010.

To cite this article: Monique L'Huillier & Raynalle Udris (1994) Research on readingawareness in French L2 learners, Language Awareness, 3:3-4, 175-192, DOI:10.1080/09658416.1994.9959855

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959855

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purposeof the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are theopinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francisshall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arisingdirectly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmla20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09658416.1994.9959855

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09658416.1994.9959855

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

RESEARCH ON READING AWARENESS INFRENCH L2 LEARNERS

Monique L'Huillier

Royal Holloway College, University of London, Eghant, Surrey TW20 0EX

Raynalle Udris

Middlesex University, Tottenham, White Hart Lane, London N17 8HR

Abstract The study compares the way in which French L2 learners and EnglishL1 learners establish the coherence of a specific text. The aim of the investigationis to explore the extent of LA awareness in French L2 learners and to examinethe factors which enter into their recognition of meaning and their under-standing of a written communication. Questionnaires were designed in order toestablish the contextual factors which contribute to the learners' choice of textsand the strategies adopted to solve their linguistic difficulties, as well as thelearners' degree of reading interest and the way in which they conduct suchreading. The results indicate that when L2 learners approach a text, criteria offamiliarity, expectation of meaning, and the teaching context are importantfactors. The results also confirm that the more awareness of the codes andstructures of the L2 language the learners have, the more able they are to makeenlightened choices to read efficiently. At a more practical level, the results ofthe investigation provide evidence that a critical reading strategy in L2 teachingcan help learners to enhance their understanding of the coherence of a text.

From Communicative Grammar to an Investigation of ReadingAwareness in French L2 learners

In 1992 a group of colleagues from different institutions, prompted by theAssociation for French Language Studies (AFLS), met in order to work ongrammatical approaches to texts. After a year, two brochures aimed at second-and final-year University students were produced and printed by the AFLS1.

The theoretical basis for the concept of Communicative Grammar wasexplained and applied to the analysis of four texts. The practical approachdesigned was aimed at discovering how a specific oral or written utterancefunctions. The intention was to help the students become aware of the way theorganisation of grammatical tools in a given written or oral French context bringsout a specific message. In a second stage it was hoped that students would beencouraged to use this awareness to produce new utterances.

This approach was called 'communicative grammar' after the expression usedin the French coursebook Lyon a la une, which seemed particularly suitable sincethe emphasis of the analysis is on the message and since the relationship betweenthe linguistic tools was seen as more important than the tools themselves.

A grid was proposed inspired by elements of Communicative Grammar asdefined in two French coursebooks: Lyon a la une (as already mentioned) and En0965-8416/94/03 0175-18 $10.00/0 ©1994 M. L'Huillier & R. UdrisLANGUAGE AWARENESS Vol. 3, Nos 3&4,1994

175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

176 LANGUAGE AWARENESS

fin de compte. In this grid (see Appendix 1) the categories of Coherence andCohesion were particularly important since they could be used to deconstructutterances or to construct new ones:

• Coherence referred to the way the ideas are organised and to the linguisticprocesses which contribute to this organisation.

• Cohesion dealt with the choice and the relationship between the linguistictools used to express these ideas.

The four texts studied in order to show their specific cohesion and coherencewere two articles, a publicity piece and a literary extract. Some exercises aimedat reconstructing the texts in a different way were suggested for the benefit ofboth tutors and learners.

In October 1993 the group reconvened (with some new members)2 with theaim of developing the concept of coherence used in Communicative Grammar,and questionnaires in Reading Awareness were designed in order to investigatethe way in which learners establish the coherence of a specific text. In thisinvestigation we sought to explore the extent of LA in French L2 learners, forinstance which factors enter into their recognition of meaning and theirunderstanding of a communication. Particular attention was given to thecognitive parameter of LA and more specifically to linguistic awareness.

Contextualisation of the LA Questionnaires Given to Students

This investigation was a three-university venture (Middlesex University,Royal Holloway and Birkbeck College London). One member of the groupteaches English to native speakers, so she chose English texts for her 32 students,all members of three adult education English literature classes, and of mixededucational background (graduates and non-graduates). This group is referredto as LI students. The rest of the group chose French texts for their students, forwhom French is a foreign language. These students were all preparing a degreein or with French, and were divided as follows:

• one group (M/N), comprising 52 finalists on the one hand, and 11 finalistson the other. The point to note here is that finalists have had their yearabroad.

• one group (P/R), comprising two classes of 9 and 11 students respectively,in their second year of majoring in French.

These groups are referred to as L2 students.The results for LI and L2 students on the one hand, and L2 finalists and

second-year groups on the other were examined. The same questionnaire wasused throughout. We should also note that all groups had a majority of women.

The analysis of the questionnaires in percentages (see Appendix 3) follows thedivisions already mentioned: the results from the LI students are on the left, thoseof L2 students are on the right and show the four groups. Although theimportance of sociological (e.g. age, sex), physical (e.g. environment, time whenquestionnaires were given) and educational factors (levels of attainment in thelanguage) were recognised, the analysis focuses on expectations, preconceptions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

READING AWARENESS IN FRENCH L2 LEARNERS 177

and responses of subjects confronted with a text for a very short period of time:the whole exercise was timed to last twenty minutes.

Another point to note is that for LI students, the texts did not include titleand/or author. For L2 students, these were given to all except the 52 finalists, forwhom they were blanked out (see Appendix 2).

Main Results of the LA Questionnaires

(1) Choose one of the following three texts for your own reading. You have 30 secondsin which to decide.

(2) Why did you choose this particular text?

With the first two questions, the aim was to know what dictates choicebetween texts: what strikes a student glancing at a text, before reading itattentively, and what may determine his/her choice. Of interest were remarksindicating awareness of means of communication such as signs surrounding atext (e.g. paragraphs, punctuation, typeface), linguistic signs (e.g. words whichattract one's attention at the beginning or end of a passage), length of the text,familiarity of the student with the subject matter, etc.

In both sets of texts, a newspaper article, a passage from a novel, and a letterwere included. A small minority of LI students chose the newspaper article, andthe rest chose, in almost equal numbers, the novel or the letter, whereas a majorityof L2 students, particularly the second-year students, chose the newspaperarticle; this was followed by the letter and, far behind, the novel (see Appendix3).

Two possible explanations appear possible for this:

(a) LI choice:• the LI group was specifically a literature class so this may have influenced

their choice of the novel or letter;• also, the newspaper article for LI was about a political meeting, generally

judged by them as 'boring' (rather than a more obviously dramatic eventsuch as an accident, as was the case in the French article).

(b) L2 choice:• The presentation of the novel extract was particularly unattractive: small

typeface and also no particularly eye- or attention-catching word, unlike'avalanche' in the case of the newspaper article, or 'je vous ai ecrit' for thoseinterested in letters.

It was felt that in the future,the number of variables should be limited and similartexts chosen for everybody.

Amongst the answers guiding choices, six main categories were identified:

(a) easy to read (syntax, vocabulary);(b) easy to read (typography);(c) brevity;(d/e)knowledge of genre;(f) interest in subject;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


(g) lack of interest or random.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of LI students chose their text because theyfound it interesting and, to a much smaller extent, at random or through lack ofinterest. The majority of finalists also chose the text through interest in the subject,although 'easy to read' and 'knowledge of genre' were also important factors.

(3) Did you do anything before you started reading?Though the question could have been better worded and to some extent

repeated Question 2, the logic behind it was to establish, in case Question 2 didnot elicit the answer, whether students looked or did not look at the non-linguis-tic aspects of a text. The answers obtained were divided into five broad categories:

(a) looked at paratext;(b) looked at typography;(c) looked at linguistic level;(d) did nothing;(e) did something else.

For LI students, the paratext category did not apply since no authors weregiven. The majority of them either looked at the linguistic level or did nothing,and a remarkable 13% 'did something else', amongst which: 'talked', 'blinked','glanced at my watch'...

(4) If we gave you longer to decide, would you choose the same text? (you now have fiveminutes to decide). Give reasons whether yes or no.

With Question 4, the object was to find out whether more time devoted tochoosing the 'right' text raised the threshold of linguistic awareness.

YES answers

Four main categories of reasons were established:

(a) easiness (simplicity, clarity, brevity etc.);(b) knowledge and preference of genre;(c) interest;(d) others.

The majority of the LI students answered YES and, amongst them, the majoritysaid yes because of interest. The majority of L2 students also said yes. Hence amajority of students all round would keep the first text chosen: between 62% and70%, as against between 30% and 38% who would change (hence the team feltthat it was essential that students should choose the 'right' text!).

NO answers

Four main categories of reasons were identified:

(a) discovered an easier text;(b) discovered a more interesting text;(c) discovered a more useful text;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


(d) others.

Altogether 25% of LI students said NO. Most of them did so because they hadeither found a more interesting text or for 'other reasons' (meaning 'don't care','don't know', 'offers no choice') or no answer.

Amongst the 30% of finalists who said NO, most of them did so because theyeither found a more interesting text or an easier one. The research teamwondered, however, if learners do really know what is the easiest text for them.

(5) Now read your chosen text.

(6) Did you understand everything? If not, give an example of something you did notunderstand and state how you propose to deal with the situation.

The object this time was to find out where the linguistic difficulties lay:vocabulary, syntax, etc., and what strategies were adopted to solve them:guessing in context, help sought through dictionaries, etc. A first category ofanswers was established:

(A) Judgement about comprehension:(a) those who admitted they did not understand everything;(b) those who claimed they understood everything.

One would expect that educated LI students who read texts in their mothertongue would have much less difficulty, if any at all, with their chosen text, thanL2 students whose understanding not only depends on their level of knowledgebut also on vocabulary and syntax in the second language.

When LI and L2 students were compared, a contrast between them wasnoticed, as could be expected, with only a minority of LI students notunderstanding everything as against 80% on average for L2 students. Howeverthe percentage of students not understanding everything still remained high forLI students, and this may have been linked to their lack of familiarity with thegenre of the text. When L2 finalists and second-year students were compared,again, as could be expected, second-year students understood noticeably lesswell compared with finalists (or at least were aware of their difficulty). However,a fairly large proportion of finalists (20.6%) claimed they had understoodeverything, and the question of course would be to test whether this is really thecase, i.e. oppose students' and teachers' criteria!

Amongst the reasons for not understanding everything, three broad categoriesof reasons and corresponding strategies were established from the answers:

(B) Difficulty with vocabulary: strategies for solution:(bl) re-read and guess in context;(b2)use dictionary.

(C) Difficulty with syntax: strategies for solution:(cl) re-read and guess in context;(c2) ignore problematic passage;(c3) translation word-for-word with dictionary;(c4) apply grammatical rules.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


(Dl) No strategy

(D2) No answer to the question

B & C: Difficulty with vocabulary and syntaxAs stated in the previous hypothesis, one would expect LI students to have

less difficulty with syntax and vocabulary than L2 students. These difficulties,for L2 students, are in turn likely to depend on their degree of expertise in thesecond language.

If one compares LI and L2 students, again one notices the expected differencebetween them: only a few LI students stated having difficulties with syntax orvocabulary, compared with L2 students who experienced relatively moreproblems with these two areas. Interestingly, a majority of L2 students stated thatthey had more difficulty with vocabulary than with syntax (57% on averageagainst 26%), which suggests that the role of syntax in the comprehension of atext may be underrated by some students.

If one compares second-year students and finalists, one notices that second-year students did not mention having more problems with syntax than finaliststudents, as could have been expected. This could suggest that they are not asaware as more advanced students of the importance of syntax in the under-standing of the text, relying more on vocabulary to give them the key.

Strategies for vocabulary problemsOne would expect that the strategy of reading and guessing in context would

be the most commonly used by both LI and L2 students, and we would alsoexpect both groups to rely on the use of a dictionary in the event of lexicalproblems.

As expected, LI students who admitted to having problems would reread andguess in context. This was also the preferred strategy for L2 students. Of course,none of the LI students mentioned the use of a dictionary as a strategy forvocabulary problems, while both second-year and finalist L2 students referredalmost equally to this strategy. The use of a dictionary for L2 students is still onlythe second strategy (after re-reading/guessing in context). This perhaps suggeststhat L2 students tend to be conditioned by the teaching context and examinationsstrategies and therefore rely more on themselves to solve lexical problems. If thisis the case, it is quite encouraging.

Strategies for syntax problemsAs for vocabulary, one would expect that re-reading and guessing in context

would the most commonly used strategy by both LI and L2 students. Asexpected, it was, and in fact was the only one used by LI students.

Only the second-year students used the whole range of strategies, withpreference given to re-reading and guessing in context and equal weight givento the other strategies. This appears to confirm earlier findings suggesting thatthe less experienced second-year students are more open to a wide range ofstrategies while the finalists are more aware of time-saving approaches to text.(However, it was felt that the small percentage favouring the use of the dictionaryto solve syntax problems is somewhat worrying.)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


(7) Did you read the text to the end? Say why whether yes or no.The answers were first divided between YES and NO answers. In view of the

logical inbuilt expectation of most readers, one would expect students to readany given text to the end. As could be expected, the majority of both LI and L2students read the text to the end (94% on average). One noticed that both LI andL2 finalist students had identical results, which suggests that by the time thestudents are finalists, they read as much out of interest as the LI students, theirlesser syntactic and lexical difficulties allowing them to do so.

As far as the NO answer were concerned, again one could find similar resultsfor LI and L2 students, and in fact identical results for LI and L2 finalists. Thereason for all the 'NO's was lack of interest.

As far as the possible reasons for reading a text to the end are concerned, apartfrom the logical inbuilt expectation mentioned earlier, one would expect LIstudents to do so because of interest, rather than because of easiness. However,in view of the fact that French is their second language, L2 students would bemore likely to read the text to the end in order to understand it.

Within the YES answers, i.e. the reasons for reading the text to the end, sixmain categories were established:

(a) to understand the text;(b) because it was easy/simple;(c) because of interest;(d) because it was expected by the teacher;(e) because it is logical for a reader;(f) no reason given.

As could be expected, very few LI students read the text to the end because itwas easy. Most of them did so out of interest, or simply 'for no reason', thusconfirming our hypothesis that to do so is a logical inbuilt expectation in mostreaders.

Interestingly, very few L2 students read the text to the end to respond to theteacher's expectation, compared with LI students, which suggests that L2students saw the exercise as more integrated or logical within the context of theircourse.

(8) Did you read every sentence at the same speed? If not, which one(s) did you readmore slowly and why? Which one(s) did you read more quickly and why?

With this part, the question was designed to try to find out the importance ofthe role played by linguistic knowledge of the language in the skill of readingand in the understanding of the text. The aim with the last three questions wasto learn which part of language (vocabulary, syntax, etc.) ought to be taught morein order to develop students' reading skills and writing skills.

First the answers were divided into four categories: (1) no variation of speed;(2) more slowly; (3) more quickly; (4) no answer.

No variation of speedIt was assumed that educated LI students have a good knowledge of the

language and would have no problems reading the text. However, it was realised

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


that there are reasons other than difficulty with the text which could makesomeone read a text at different speeds. As only 40.6% of LI students answeredyes to this question, the reasons for the variations of speed in reading are ofinterest. Variations in speed for L2 students may depend on their level ofknowledge, but are to be expected, being due to difficulty with vocabulary,syntax or concepts.

There was indeed a higher percentage of LI than L2 students who read at thesame speed: the figure is double that of the finalist group. No second-yearstudents read the text chosen at the same speed.

More slowlyWithin the 'more slowly' answers, six categories of reasons were found:

(1) difficulty in understanding vocabulary;(2) difficulty with syntax;(3) difficulty or complexity of concept;(4) the end because it is important;(5) the beginning because it is important;(6) for aesthetic pleasure.

Surprisingly, L2 finalists admitted to having had more difficulty with vocabularyand concepts than second-year students suggesting that finalists are perhapsmore demanding about understanding the text?

It is interesting to note that difficulty with concepts for LI students (25%) doesnot seem to relate closely to difficulty with syntax (5.6%) or vocabulary (0%). Onecan presume that LI students are aware that understanding concepts is differentfrom understanding syntax or vocabulary, and that it includes other factors suchas context. This is in fact what teachers are aiming for with L2 students.

The beginning of a text seemed to be slightly more important than the end forLI students, whilst there was not much difference for L2 students. In any case,percentages for all were fairly low.

More quicklyWithin the 'more quickly' answers, six categories of reasons were identified:

(1) known vocabulary;(2) familiar syntax;(3) expectation of meaning;(4) the end;(5) because of interest;(6) because of lack of interest.

The results are the mirror image of 'more slowly': known vocabulary, familiarsyntax, or expectation of meaning, all lead to students reading more quickly.

Conclusions

A point had been made of not asking students to choose their text as if theywere going to be examined on it, but 'for their own pleasure'. As had beensuspected, interest in a subject, or indeed familiarity with a subject, the fact that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


it 'looks easy', is no guarantee of understanding the concepts expressed in theparticular text. Furthermore checking vocabulary is important and students areaware of this, but it was felt that the role of syntax may be underrated by somestudents.

General Conclusions

Though it was felt that an awareness of the lexical and syntactic structure wasimportant in the process of understanding a given text, the research team did notwant to impose their own preconceptions on the students. This is why thequestionnaires were left as open as possible, the prime objective being to find outhow the students read a text and from there maybe to discover which practicalteaching strategies should be developed later.

However, it was realised afterwards that the questionnaires given to studentshad a few drawbacks and, as mentioned earlier, that if the investigation had tobe repeated the number of variables should be reduced:

• Greater attention would be paid, for instance, to the number of students ineach of the LI and L2 groups. While LI and L2 groups would still be keptseparate, since it provided a wider view of the situation, the discrepancy ofnumbers between groups would be avoided as the numerical differencebetween them is likely to have influenced the results.

• The presentation of the texts given to the students would also bestandardised. This did not happen because of practical communicationproblems between the different institutions. As a result the choice of textby students may have been affected since certain criteria did not apply forsome students.

• More attention would no doubt be paid to a greater comparability ofcontent between the texts for LI and L2; the subject matter of the Englisharticle was probably rather off-putting for L2 students while the Frencharticle matched fairly well familiar material used with L2 students. Thisagain must have influenced the students' choice of text.

• Finally more care would be taken to make sure that the questions are clearlyworded and do not duplicate one another.

Criteria which appear important when students approach a text

In spite of the above drawbacks in the conception of the questionnaires, it wasfelt that the results obtained were still relevant. Through the students' answerssome criteria appeared particularly important when learners approach a text.

The criterion of familiarity when choosing and reading a text is particularlyobvious: a majority of L2 students, for instance, chose the article (61%) as againstthe novel text or the letter. There was a very high number of second-year studentsespecially (71%) who chose the article since they are very used to beingconfronted with newspaper items in the language classes.

The role of expectation was also noticeable in several parts of the results: realor imagined expectation from someone else such as the teacher. A substantialnumber of LI students read the text to the end because they felt that it was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


expected of them, which suggests that this exercise was seen as unintegrated andnot very logical in the context of their teaching context. At another level asubstantial number of finalists mentioned that their reading speed increased withtheir expectation of meaning.

The influence of the teaching context is also important: this has already beenseen in the above point where quite a few learners performed according to whatwas expected of mem. It was also noticed that none of the L2 students statedreading the text for aesthetic reasons, which indicates that in a class situation, thetext is not perceived as an object from which one can get pleasure. It is a studyobject rather than a fun object.

The results also confirmed that the more awareness of the codes and structuresof the L2 language the learners have, the more able they are not only to performan enlightened choice of text that they will both enjoy and understand, but alsothe more focused and efficient they are in their reading strategy. Expert learnersof L2 take into account a greater number of factors (such as typography, paratext,linguistic level, conception of genre) and indeed use a reading strategy verysimilar to LI learners.

Consequently according to their degree of expertise L2 learners select a textdifferently. The more experience and knowledge they have in L2, the more theyregard the text as a source of interest rather than simply an object of study.

These last two conclusions may appear obvious enough but they confirm therole and validity of 'explicit knowledge' or learned competence in the learningof a foreign language. The 'explicit knowledge' is a reference to Bialystock'sunderstanding of this notion mentioned by Sharwood Smith in his article'Consciousness raising and the second language learner': 'Explicit knowledge,broadly speaking, denotes a conscious analytic awareness of the formalproperties of the target language.. .'3.

As the difference in knowledge between L2 second-year students and finalistsshows in several parts of the results, and contrary to Krashen, who is likely toconsider that consciousness-raising of rules and patterns is, to borrow SharwoodSmith's expression ,'a luxury of highly dubious value'4, it appears obvious thatencouragement of awareness of the codes and structures of the language has arole to play in giving learners more emancipation in front of texts, in makingthem able to identify their difficulties and deal with them more efficiently.

At a more pragmatic level, the results of this investigation have confirmed thatthe development of critical reading strategies in the teaching of a foreignlanguage can greatly help learners to become aware of the various linguistic andcontextual factors which can enhance their understanding of the coherence of atext. This type of strategy can also contribute to making L2 learners in particularappreciate that a text is a coded written production which can be imitated forother written productions but which can also become a 'pleasurable object' aswell as, and perhaps even as much as, an object of study.

Notes

1. Thatcher, N. et al. (1992) AFLS Grammar Initiatives. AFLS Productions.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


2. For the results presented in this article, the authors are therefore grateful for the activeparticipation of B. Martin (Birkbeck College) and N. Thatcher (Middlesex University).

3. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) Applied Linguistics 2, 159. Sharwood Smith is referring toBialystock E. (1978) A theoretical model of second language learning. Language Learning28, 69-84.

4. Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) Applied Linguistics 2, 163.

Appendix 1: Communicative Grammar Grid

Definition of discourse

Discourse register and circumstances of discourse production.

Coherence

(1) Title(2) Order

logicaltemporalnormativethematicchronological

(3) Verbs — modes and tenses: their importance in the order of discourse.(4) Phatic communication: examination of the relationship between the pro-

ducer and the receiver of the text.(5) Generality and subjectivity: relationship between the two aspects.

Cohesion

(1) Co-references of the lexical tools = articles, nouns, adjectives, verbs, pro-nouns, adverbs (deities etc.)

appositionsrepetitionssynonyms and antonymsconnotationsimages: simile, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy, onomatopea, irony etc.

(2) Relationships between clauses, sentences and paragraphs established bysyntactic tools: typography, punctuation, linking words of co-ordination andsubordination.

appositionsco-ordinations, additionsparallelismscomparisonsdisjunctions or choices (either...or, neither...nor)oppositions, negationsrestrictionscausalityconsequence

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Conclusion

Text evaluation in relation to its coherence and cohesion.

Appendix 2: L2 Text

Quatre skieurs sont morts il y a une semaine (le 12 fevrier) dans l'avalanchequi a emporte a la Plagne (Savoie) un groupe de dix personnes conduit par unmoniteur de ski (Le Monde du 15 fevrier).

Cet accident relance la polemique qui, jusqu'a present, concemait la pratique de1'alpirusme en ete et qui amene le public a se poser un certain nombre de questionsa propos d'un sport devenu meurtrier: pourquoi se tue-t-on pour le plaisir? Peut-oneviter le renouvellement de ces accidents stupides: Et la responsabiUte?

Pour dedouaner leur camarade, responsable du groupe victime de 1'accident,le Syndicat national des moniteurs de ski, par la voix notamment de sonpresident, M. Bernard Chevallier, a repris une antienne connue et unacceptable:'II y a une part de risque et d'imponderable en montagne. II faut obligatoirementque le skieur en tienne (...) Nous pretendons que la notion de risque acceptedoit exister obligatoirement chez les personnes qui partent en montgne avec desprofessionnels.'

Le Monde, 19.2.83

II fait effort pour garder les yeux fixes sur les lignes agitees par le mouvementdu wagon, pour aller vite dans sa lecture, mais sans rien laisser echapperd'important, un crayon dans sa main droite, marquant de temps en temps unecroix dans la marge, parce que ce texte doit lui servir a preparer quelque chose,un cours sans doute qui n'est pas pret et qu'il doit dormer cet apres-midi, un coursde droit probablement puisque, si le titre courant danse trop pour que vouspuissiez le dechiffrer a l'envers, vous etes pourtant capable d'identifier les troispremieres lettres L, E, G, du premier mot qui doit etre 'legislation', vraisemblable-ment a Dijon puisqu'il n'y a pas d'autre universite sur la ligne avant la frontiere.

M Butor, La Modification, Ed. de Minuit

Je ne vous ai pas ecrit hier et quand aurez-vous cette lettre? Mais j'ai reluplusieurs fois la votre et chaque f ois elle me faisait aussi neuf qu'au debut. Surtoutle passage ou vous me dites comment vous etes liee a moi. Figurez-vous quequand vous m'ecrivez, qu'en cas de coup dur vous ne me survivriez pas, 9a m'adonne a moi aussi une paix prodonde: je n'aimerais pas vous laisser derriere moi,non pas parce que vous seriez une petite conscience libre a vous promener dansle monde et dont je serais jaloux mais parce que vous m'avez persuade que vousseriez dans un monde absurde. Et puis 9a ferait le nettoyage definitif. C'estcomme si les deux trongons du ver coupe etaient aneantis. Mais rassurerz-vous,j'ai pense tout c.a dans l'abstrait, attendu que je suis dans un charmant petit villagealsacien, fort en securite et tres a l'aise.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Lettres au Castor, Gallimard (p. 290)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Mr Palomar is walking along a lonely beach. He encounters few bathers. Oneyoung woman is lying on the sand taking the sun, her bosom bared. Palomar,discreet by nature, looks away at the horizon of the sea. He knows that in suchcircumstances, at the approach of a strange man, women often cover themselveshastily, and this does not seem right to him: because it is a nuisance for the womanpeacefully sun-bathing, and because the passing man feels he is an intruder, andbecause the taboo against nudity is implicitly confirmed; because half-respectedconventions spread insecurity and incoherence of behaviour rather than freedomand frankness.

And so, as soon as he sees in the distance the outline of the bronze-pink cloudof a naked female torso, he quickly turns his head in such a way that the trajectoryof his gaze remains suspended in the voice and guarantees his civil respect forthe invisible frontier that surrounds people.

It is with a certain reluctance that I write to you, not having done so for solong, for many reasons.

To a certain degree you have become a stranger to me, and I have become thesame to you, more than you may think; perhaps it would be better for us not tocontinue this way. It is likely I would not have written to you even now, if I werenot under the obligation and the necessity of doing so, if you yourself had notgiven me cause. I learned at Etten that you had sent 50 francs for me; well, I haveaccepted them. Certainly with reluctance, certainly with a rather melancholyfeeling, but I am up against a stone wall, and in a sort of mess. How can I dootherwise? So it is to thank you that I write to you.

The powerful Treasury select committee of MPs is poised to embarrass JohnMajor's cabinet by endorsing the concept of an independent Bank, if England atthe very time when the Bank's new governor, Eddie George, is flexing his musclesagainst Whitehall.

The Chancellor, Kenneth Clarke, was yesterday obliged to follow thegovernor's lead in confirming, during a Breakfast with Frost interview on BBC1,that he is wary about announcing a further cut in interest rates — now 6% — onhis November 30 Budget.

In a significant pointer to the Budget Mr Clarke conceded that the economicrecovery was 'not very strong...and it needs to be stronger if it's to have a realimpact on the difficult situation of our businesses and in creating new jobs'.

Noting that commentators were complaining that the recovery had 'gone offa little bit' in recent months he warned against using routine statistics: 'firstoptimism, then pessimism'.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Appendix 3

60

20

10

Q1: Choice of text

ML2Fin NL2Fin R L2 Yr2 PL2Yr2! • news EH novel E3 letter

Q2: Reason for choice

BL1

M L2 Fin N L2 Fin R L2 Yr2 ' P L2 Yr2 ' B L1^ 1 a) easy syntax/voc SB b) easy typography E22 c) brevityB d/e) knowl of genre CD f) interest in subj • g) lack of interest

Q3: Before starting to read

ML2Fin NL2Fin RL2 Yr2 PL2 Yr2 BL1I a) look at paratext EB b) look at typog. S2^ c) look at level E 3 d) nothing U3 e) others

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

20

10

10

READING AWARENESS IN FRENCH L2 LEARNERS

Q4: Given longer, would you choose same?

189

ML2Fin NL2Fin RL2Yr2U YES E3 NO

Q4: Reasons for YES

PL2Yr2 BL1

ML2Fin NL2Fin R L2 Yr2 P L2 Yr2I a) easiness HH b) knowl & pref. ^ 3 c) interest ^ 3 d) others

Q4: Reasons for NO

BL1

ML2Fin ' NL2Fin ' R L2 Yr2 ' P L2 Yr2I a) discovered easier EB b) more interesting E ^ c) more useful

BL13 d) others

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

190

120

40

20

LANGUAGE AWARENESS

Judgement about comprehension

ML2Fin N L2 Fin R L2 Yr2a1: didn't understand Hffl a2: understood

: re-read & guess OH b2: use dictionary

P L2 Yr2b: vocab difficulty

BL1

10

M L2 Fin ' N L2 Fin R L2 Yr2 P L2 Yr2 ' B L1^ 1 c: syntax difficulty HB c1: re-read & guess ^ ^ c2: ignore passageI—I c3: word for word QU c4: apply grammar

40 -1

30-

20-

10

ML2Fin NL2Fin ' RL2Yr2 ' P L2 Yr2• I d1: no strategy EB d2: no answer

BL1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

READING AWARENESS IN FRENCH L2 LEARNERS

Q7: Reason for reading to end

191

M L2 Fin N L2 Fin R L2 Yr2 P L2 Yr2^ B a) to understand fEB b) because easy E23 c) interestE 3 d) teacher expects O e) logical • () no reason

B L1

Q8B: Why did you read more slowly

10

ML2Fin NL2Fin RL2Yr2 P L2 Yr2I B b 1 : understand voc. [HI b2: with syntax E222 b3: complexityP ^ b4: ending important QU b5: begin important \^\ b6: pleasure

Q8C: Why more quickly

ML2Fin NL2Fin^ 1 d : known voc.F=l c4: the end

R L2 Yr2EH3 c2: familiar syntaxO c5: interest

BL1

P L2 Yr2: expect meaning

• c6: lack of interest

BL1

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13


Bibliography

Adamson,R. et al. (1988) Enfin de compte. SUFLRA. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Garner, R. (1987) Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publish-

ing Corporation.James,C. and Garrett, P. (1991) Language Awareness in the Classroom. London and New

York: Applied Linguistics and Language Study Series.Gass, S. (1983) The development of L2 intuitions. TESOL Quarterly 17, 272-93.Hawkins, E. (1984) Awareness of Language: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Ivanic, R. (1988) Critical language awareness in action. Language Issues 2 (2), 2-7.Maingueneau, D. (1990) Elements de linguistique pour le texte littéraire. Paris: Bordas (1st

edn, 1986).Peytard, J. and Moirand, S. (1992) Discours et enseignement du français. Paris: Hachette.Selinger, H. and Shohamy, E. (1989) Second Language Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.Sharwood Smith, M. (1981) Consciousness-raising and the second language learner.

Applied Linguistics 11 (2), 159-68.Thomas, J. (1988) The role played by language awareness in second and third language

learning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 9, 235-46.Walker, A.L. et al. (1986) Lyon à la une. SUFLRA. Edinburgh Regional Computer Centre.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

The

Uni

vers

ity O

f M

elbo

urne

Lib

rari

es]

at 2

0:49

16

Sept

embe

r 20

13

research on reading awareness in french l2 learners

Documents