Abstracts
Résumé
La compétence pragmatique est essentielle au développement de la compétence langagière des apprenants de langue additionnelle (Lx) (Bachman et Palmer, 1996). Cette compétence se manifeste par la maitrise des actes de parole (c.-à.-d. des intentions de communication), comme l’expression du désaccord. Pour réaliser cet acte de parole, les locuteurs emploient des normes pragmatiques ritualisées au sein de leur communauté linguistique. Bien que la reconnaissance de ces normes constitue un défi pour les apprenants de Lx, il est possible d’en favoriser le développement grâce à l’enseignement, par le biais de diverses méthodes et approches pédagogiques. Dans cet article, nous proposons le modèle PACE – Présentation, Attention, Co-construction et Extension (Adair-Hauck et Donato, 2002), développé en enseignement de la grammaire en anglais Lx, pour enseigner les normes pragmatiques mobilisées dans l’expression du désaccord nuancé. Nous présenterons les caractéristiques de cet acte de parole, le modèle PACE et les choix pédagogiques ayant guidé la conception de la leçon. Enfin, sous la forme d’une micro-évaluation rétrospective (Ellis, 1997), nous présenterons les retombées positives et les défis rencontrés lors de la démarche, mise à l’essai auprès de 34 apprenants de français Lx de niveau débutant ayant pris part à un programme d’apprentissage intensif du français.
Mots-clés :
- Pragmatique,
- acte de parole du désaccord nuancé,
- modèle PACE,
- approche dialogique
Abstract
Pragmatic competence is essential to the development of language proficiency among additional-language (Lx) learners (Bachman & Palmer, 1996). This competence is reflected in the ability to use speech acts (i.e., communicative intentions), such as expressing disagreement. To perform this speech act, speakers draw on ritualized pragmatic norms that are commonly used within their linguistic community. Although recognizing these norms poses a challenge for Lx learners, their development can be supported through instruction using a variety of pedagogical methods and approaches. In this article, we propose the PACE model, Presentation, Attention, Co-construction, and Extension (Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002), originally developed for grammar instruction in English as an additional language, as a framework for teaching the pragmatic norms involved in expressing nuanced disagreement. We describe the characteristics of this speech act, the PACE model, and the pedagogical choices that informed the design of the lesson. Finally, drawing on a retrospective reflective evaluation (Ellis, 1997), we discuss both the positive outcomes and the challenges observed during the implementation of this approach with 34 beginner learners of French (Lx) enrolled in an intensive French learning program.
Keywords:
- Pragmatics,
- speech act of nuanced disagreement,
- PACE model,
- communicative approach
Appendices
Bibliographie
- Adair-Hauck, B. (1993). A descriptive analysis of whole language/guided participatory versus explicit teaching strategies in foreign language instruction [thèse de doctorat, Université de Pittsburg]. University of Pittsburgh ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.
- Adair-Hauck, B. et Donato, R. (2002). The PACE model: A story-based approach to meaning and form for standards-based language learning. The French Review, 76(2) 265-276.
- Adair-Hauck, B. et Donato, R. (2016). PACE: A story-based approach for dialogic inquiry about form and meaning. Dans J. L. Shrum et E. W. Glisan (dir.), Teacher’s handbook : contextualized language instruction (5e éd., p. 206-230). Cengage learning.
- Alcón Soler, A. et Sánchez-Hernández, A. (2017). Learning pragmatic routines during study abroad: A focus on proficiency and type of routine. Atlantis: Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 39(2), 191-210. doi: 10.28914/Atlantis-2017-39.2.10
- Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
- Bachman, L. F. et Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language testing in practice: Designing and developing useful language tests. Oxford University Press.
- Bardovi-Harlig, K., Mossman, S. et Vellenga, H.E. (2015). The effect of instruction on pragmatic routines in academic discussion. Language teaching research, 19(3), 324-350.
- Beaulieu, S. et Reid, F. (2024). Répertoire d’expressions conventionnelles du français québécois [ensemble de données inédit]. Université Laval.
- Blum-Kulka, S., House, J. et Kasper, G. (1989). Cross-cultural pragmatics : Requests and apologies. Ablex.
- Brown, P. et Levinson, S.C. (1987). Politeness: some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
- Côté, M.-H. (dir.). (2009–). Phonologie du français contemporain : corpus Québec (PFC-Québec). Fonds de données linguistiques du Québec. https://fdlq.recherche.usherbrooke.ca/corpus/phonologie-du-francais-contemporain-corpus-quebec-pfc-quebec.html
- Côté, M-H. et Villeneuve, A-J. (2017). La norme orale en français laurentien : Introduction. Arborescences, (7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.7202/1050965ar
- Culpeper, J., Mackey, A. et Taguchi, N. (2018). Second language pragmatics: from theory to research. Routledge.
- Dai, D.W. (2023). What do second language speakers really need for real-world interaction? A needs analysis of L2 Chinese interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221144836
- Donato, R. et Adair-Hauck, B. (1994). PACE: a model to focus on form [communication orale]. Annual meeting of the American council on the teaching of foreign languages, San Antonio, Texas, É-U.
- Dostie, G. (2002). L’exemplarité de ‘par exemple’. Un cas de pragmaticalisation en français québécois. Journal of French Language Studies, 12(2), 149‑167. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959269502000224
- Dutil, R., et Payant, C. (2025). Intégrer l’enseignement des langues basé sur les tâches en salle de classe: une proposition de tâche pour des apprenants du français langue additionnelle au primaire. McGill Journal of Education, 59(2), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.26443/mje/rsem.v59i2.10154
- Ellis, R. (1997). The empirical evaluation of language teaching materials. ELT Journal, 51(1), 36-42.
- Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: essays in face-to-face behavior. Transaction Publishers.
- Gonzalez-Lloret, M. (2019). Task-based language teaching and L2 pragmatics. Dans N. Taguchi (dir.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (1re éd., p. 338-352). Routledge.
- Ishihara, N. et Cohen, A. D. (2022). Terms and concepts in pragmatics for language educators. Dans N. Ishihara et A. D. Cohen (dir.), Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where language and culture meet (2e éd., p. 1-18). Routledge.
- Kasper, G. et Rose, K.R. (2002). Pragmatic development in a second language. Blackwell Publishing.
- LoCastro, V. (1986, 22-24 novembre). Yes, I agree with you, but...: Agreement and disagreement in Japanese and American English [communication orale]. Japan association of language teachers’ international conference on language teaching and learning, Hamamatsu, Japon.
- Olshtain, E. et Cohen, A. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. Sociolinguistics and language acquisition, 18, 18-36.
- Payant, C. et Michaud, G. (2020). La conceptualisation de la tâche en didactique des langues secondes : l’enseignement des langues basé sur la tâche et l’approche actionnelle. La Revue de l’AQEFLS, 33(1), 4-11.
- Plonsky, L. et Zhuang, J. (2019). A meta-analysis of L2 pragmatics instruction. Dans N. Taguchi (dir.), The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics (1re éd., p. 287-307). Routledge.
- Rees-Miller, J. (1999). Power, severity and context in disagreement. Journal of Pragmatics, 32(1000), 1087-1111.
- Reid, F. (2023). Conception d’un répertoire d’expressions conventionnelles du français québécois destiné à l’enseignement du français Lx d’apprenant(e)s adultes [mémoire de maitrise, Université Laval]. Corpus UL. https://corpus.ulaval.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/05d35bc1-af21-48f1-ac13-99bcbbcefce5/content
- Schmidt, R. (1993). Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. Dans G. Kasper et S. Blum-Kulka (dir.), Interlanguage pragmatics (p. 21-42). Oxford University Press.
- Song, P. (2020). Disagreement: A speech act analysis and classroom implications. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Culture, 6(6), 24-35.
- Taguchi, N. (2015). Instructed pragmatics at a glance: Where instructional studies were, are, and should be going. Language Teaching, 48(1), 1-50. doi:10.1017/S0261444814000263
- Taguchi, N. (2019). Second language acquisition and pragmatics. An overview. Dans N. Taguchi. The Routledge handbook of second language acquisition and pragmatics. (p. 1-14). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351164085
- Taguchi, N. et Kim, Y. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in learning pragmatics: Pragmatic-Related Episodes as an opportunity for learning request-making. Applied Linguistics, 37(3), 416‑437. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu039
- Taguchi, N. et Kim, Y. (2018). Task-based approaches to teaching and assessing pragmatics. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
- Tharp, R. G. et Gallimore, R. (1989). Rousing minds to life: teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.
- Toth, P. (2022). Introduction: Investigating explicit L2 grammar instruction through multiple theoretical and methodological lenses. Language Learning, 72(S1), 5-40. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12490
- van Compernolle, R. (2014). Sociocultural theory and instructed L2 pragmatics. Multilingual Matters.
- Vandergrift, L. (2004). Listening to learn or learning to listen? Annual review of applied linguistics, 24, 3-25. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190504000017
- Wolfson, N. (1983). Rules of speaking. Dans J. Richards et R. Schmidt (dir.), Language and communication (p. 61‑87). Longman.
- Zavialova, A. (2017). An emerging pedagogical approach to teaching pragmatic formulas. TESL Canada Journal, 34(3), 192-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v34i3.1279

