About this paper

Appears in:
Pages: 4835-4838
Publication year: 2017
ISBN: 978-84-697-3777-4
ISSN: 2340-1117
doi: 10.21125/edulearn.2017.2077

Conference name: 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies
Dates: 3-5 July, 2017
Location: Barcelona, Spain

FRENCH L2 OBJECT CLITIC ELICITATION TASKS

A. Jebali

Concordia University (CANADA)
Several researchers have shown that there is a high amount of object clitic omission and avoidance in French, a language where this phenomenon is very significant like it is the case of Catalan and Italian as well (but different from Spanish and Romanian). In this context, object clitic elicitation tasks may be unsuccessful for both teachers and researchers. To remedy this fact, non-spontaneous tasks forced by written tests, for example, are widely used. However, while this leads to more production and less omission, this kind of elicitation “generally compels the learner to commit to a response type, often prematurely.” (Helms-Park, 2001: p. 93).

Parallel to these tasks, researchers also used more spontaneous methods that we can classify into two kinds according to (Pirvulescu and Hill, 2012): traditional and action-based. While the first type uses “static pictures, third-person subjects and object NPs introduced prior to the prompt”, the second one is based on an activity that involves the first person (the researcher or the experiencer) and physical objects. Pirvulescu & Hill (2012) demonstrated that “omission of object clitics is minimal” when elicitation is action-based.

In my study, I submitted to 34 French Second Language learners four elicitation tasks over two communication channels: face to face and synchronous computer-mediated communication (SCMC) via Skype. The results show that the action-based tasks result in a much lower rate of omission. However, this is significant only when the communication is mediated by a computer. The elicitation conducted through this communication channel and based on concrete actions resulted in the highest rate of production. I found no significant difference between traditional and action-based tasks in the face to face channel.
@InProceedings{JEBALI2017FRE,
author = {Jebali, A.},
title = {FRENCH L2 OBJECT CLITIC ELICITATION TASKS},
series = {9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies},
booktitle = {EDULEARN17 Proceedings},
isbn = {978-84-697-3777-4},
issn = {2340-1117},
doi = {10.21125/edulearn.2017.2077},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.21125/edulearn.2017.2077},
publisher = {IATED},
location = {Barcelona, Spain},
month = {3-5 July, 2017},
year = {2017},
pages = {4835-4838}}
TY - CONF
AU - A. Jebali
TI - FRENCH L2 OBJECT CLITIC ELICITATION TASKS
SN - 978-84-697-3777-4/2340-1117
DO - 10.21125/edulearn.2017.2077
PY - 2017
Y1 - 3-5 July, 2017
CI - Barcelona, Spain
JO - 9th International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies
JA - EDULEARN17 Proceedings
SP - 4835
EP - 4838
ER -
A. Jebali (2017) FRENCH L2 OBJECT CLITIC ELICITATION TASKS, EDULEARN17 Proceedings, pp. 4835-4838.
User:
Pass: