In this article, we address the issue of targeted instruction on interpretive contrasts between native and second-language grammatical meanings. Such mismatches are predicted to create challenges for learners. We illustrate this with French and English pronouns. In French, clitic pronouns (le, la) point to human as well as inanimate referents, while English pronouns distinguish between human (him, her) and inanimate (it) referents. While other grammatical differences between English and French pronouns are taught, this interpretive mismatch attracts less attention in instructional materials. We review the pedagogical literature and report the results of a study investigating this knowledge in Anglophone learners of French as a second language (L2). We document that the mismatch is indeed challenging, particularly to beginning learners, and propose ways to overcome this difficulty.
Bruhn de GaravitoJ. (2013). What research can tell us about teaching: The case of pronouns and clitics. In WhongM.GilK.H.MarsdenH. (Eds.), Universal grammar and the second language classroom (pp. 17–34). Berlin: Springer.
3.
CorbettG. (1991). Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
CrystalD. (2008). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. 6th edition.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
5.
DeKeyserR.M. (2005). What makes learning second language grammar difficult? A review of issues. Language Learning, 55, 1–25.
6.
DomínguezL.ArcheM.J.MylesF. (2011). Testing the predictions of the Feature-Assembly Hypothesis: Evidence from the L2 acquisition of Spanish aspect morphology. In DanisN.MeshK.SungH. (Eds.) BUCLD 35: Proceedings of the 35th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Boston University Conference on Language Development Proceedings35 (pp. 183–196). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
7.
EllisN.C. (1994). Implicit and explicit language learning. In RebuschatP. (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 79–114). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
8.
EllisR. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 83–107.
9.
ErlamR. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87, 242–260.
10.
GassS.M. (2013). Second language acquisition: An introductory course. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GonzálezP. (2008). Towards effective instruction on aspect in L2 Spanish. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 46, 91–112.
12.
GranfeldtJ.SchlyterS. (2004). Cliticisation in the acquisition of French as L1 and L2. In PrévostP.ParadisJ. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 333–370). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13.
GrüterT. (2006). Object clitics and null objects in the acquisition of French (Doctoral dissertation). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
14.
HawkinsR. (2001). Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
15.
HerschensohnJ. (2004). Functional categories and the acquisition of object clitics in L2 French. In PrévostP.ParadisJ. (Eds.), The acquisition of French in different contexts: Focus on functional categories (pp. 207–242). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
HorstM.WhiteJ.BellP. (2010). First and second language knowledge in the language classroom. International Journal of Bilingualism, 14, 331–349.
17.
KellyN.BruenJ. (2015). Translation as a pedagogical tool in the foreign language classroom: A qualitative study of attitudes and behaviours. Language Teaching Research, 19, 150–168.
18.
LadoR. (1957). Linguistics across cultures: Applied linguistics for language teachers. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
19.
LamiroyB. (1991). Coréférence et référence disjointe: Les deux pronoms en. Travaux de linguistique, 22, 41–67.
20.
LardiereD. (2009). Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 25, 173–227.
21.
LongM.H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In BotK.D.GinsbergR.KramschC. (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39–52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22.
McManusK.MarsdenE. (2017) L1 explicit information can improve L2 online and offline performance. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 39, 459–492.
23.
MitschkeC. (2016). Imaginez: Le Français sans Frontières. Boston, MA: Vista Higher Learning.
24.
NassajiH. (2012). The relationship between SLA research and language pedagogy: Teachers’ perspectives. Language Teaching Research, 16, 337–365.
25.
OrtegaL. (2008). Understanding second language acquisition. New York: Routledge.
26.
PicaP. (1994). On the disjoint agreement principle. Montreal: Université du Québec à Montréal.
27.
PoirierJ. (2012). Pronoms clitiques objets: Fréquence et expression du genre grammatical dans le discours oral des enseignants en classes d’immersion. Unpublished Master’s thesis, University of Quebec in Montreal, Montreal, Canada.
28.
PrévostP. (2009). The acquisition of French: The development of inflectional morphology and syntax in L1 acquisition, bilingualism, and L2 acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
29.
RenaudC. (2010). On the nature of agreement in English–French acquisition: A processing investigation in the verbal and nominal domains. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, IN, USA.
30.
RochatD. (2013). Contrastes: Grammaire du francais courant. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31.
RuwetN. (1990). En et y: Deux clitiques pronominaux anti-logophoriques. Langages, 97, 51–81.
32.
SchlyterS. (1997). Formes verbales et pronoms objets chez des apprenants adultes de français en milieu naturel. In MartinotC. (Ed.), Actes du colloque international sur l’acquisition de la syntaxe en langue maternelle et en langue étrangère (pp. 273–293). Paris: Annales Littéraires de l’Université de Franche-Comté.
33.
SchlyterS. (2003). Development of verb morphology and finiteness in children and adults acquiring French. In DimorthC.StarrenM. (Eds.), Information structure and dynamics of language acquisition (pp. 15–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
ShimanskayaE. (2015). Feature reassembly of semantic and morphosyntactic pronominal features in L2 acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA.
35.
SlabakovaR. (2008). Meaning in the second language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
36.
SpadaN.LightbownP.M.WhiteJ. (2005). The importance of form/meaning mappings in explicit form-focused instruction. In HousenA.PierrardM. (Eds.), Investigations in instructed second language acquisition (pp. 199–234). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
37.
TowellR.HawkinsR.D. (1994). Approaches to second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
38.
TremblayA. (2011). Proficiency assessment standards in second language acquisition research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 33, 339–372.
39.
VanPattenB. (2004). Input processing in second language acquisition. In VanPattenB. (Ed.), Processing instruction: Theory, research, and commentary, pp. 5–31. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40.
VanPattenB. (2012). Input processing. In GassS.MackeyA. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of second language (pp. 268–281). London: Routledge.
41.
WongW.Weber-FèveS.OusselinE.VanPattenB. (2013). Liaisons: An introduction to French. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
42.
WustV.A. (2010a). L2 French learners’ processing of object clitics: Data from the classroom. L2 Journal, 2, 45–72.
43.
WustV.A. (2010b). Pronominalization in French: Bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 1, 75–110.
44.
Zribi-HertzA. (2000). Les pronoms forts du français sont-ils [+animés]? Spécification morphologique et spécification sémantique. In CoeneM.De MulderW.DendaleP.d’HulstY. (Eds.), Traiani Augusti vestigia pressa sequamur: Studia linguistica in honorem Lilianae Tasmowski (pp. 663–680). Milan: Unipress.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
